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

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 How to Write Your Name
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 03 Feb 2005 :  19:00:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A few years ago I was taught to write my name punctuated as follows:

Gordon-Caleb: Smith

Discussion has arisen under the following topic that now calls this into question:

"BERTH" Certificates
www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=428

I am very open to learning why this is wrong, or a better way of writing my name, so I started this as a new topic to explore this critical issue.

Here are the reasons why I believe it is correct to punctuate your name the way I have above.

Christian name.

The hypen between your given names creates a single Christian name, and Bouvier's 1856 says you can technically only have one Christian name. Your Christian name identifies you uniquely.

Family name.

The family name is actually not your name, but is associated with you. Thus the colon separates it from "your" name. This is such an important distinction that I have now added further punctuation to write the name as:

Gordon-Caleb: (Smith)

This makes it clear that "Smith" is not really "my" name at all.

The reason this is so important is that when they get you into court, the judge has got to have you stand surety for GORDON CALEB SMITH. Once you answer to this name, he will then call you MR. SMITH for the rest of the hearing. But Smith is not your name. Mr. Smith could be your father, your brother, your son, your grandfather, or even someone you have no relation to at all. Go to your great-grandfather's tombstone and you will find that he is MR. SMITH, as only the names of the dead are written in ALL CAPS.

The judge does this because he has no authority over you, and thus he must proceed against you under a different name. If you want to upset his apple cart, do not answer to "MR. SMITH". Instead ask him if he is addressing you. When he says he is, tell him, "Your honor, please call me Gordon." He will sputter and mumble something about not knowing you well enough to be on a first-name basis. He cannot address you by "your" name, as he has no authority over you. This is why he can only use the family name.

That said, I have never witnessed a case where how the name was written has made a difference. The courts in New Zealand have no trouble with colons or other punctuation. So while I want to write my name in such a way that rebuts their presumptions as to my identity, I do not think the punctuation I use is some magic formula that stops them in any way. It does not.

David, you stated, "The true name is the expression of nativity and peaceful asylum state. Keep that identity." This is all I am trying to achieve. I am open to any suggestions you or anyone else have as to how best to achieve that.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

Edited by - Caleb on 05 Feb 2005 17:24:49

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

382 Posts

Posted - 03 Feb 2005 :  21:50:21  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Caleb, while I absolutely agree with what you have said, U.S. Admiralty Courts (all the U.S. State and Federal Courts) will say to your face in their court room "Gordon" or whatever, yet the Court Record will show your Surname without any colon or hyphen separating it from your nativity name proclaimed in Godly Truth by your mother and father.

Yes, I agree fully with what you say above and I also agree that you are completely correct with what you have stated. The problem us that these Admiralty Courts do not recognize what we all know is the truth... at least in North America. In fact, they can NOT recognize such truths by their "Rule of Law" in Admiralty. All should understand and know that the "Rule of Law" is not the law of the land... at least in North America.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 03 Feb 2005 :  22:37:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Your parents named you Gordon Caleb when they welcomed you into the Smith family.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
Abatement for misnomer link
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
Judgment Image link
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg
Abatement for misnomer

Graphics from Black's Law Dictionary; Name and Legal Name soon with a detailed explanation ....

Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 22:49:32
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  00:19:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Bondservant,

I did not start learning the Law seriously (and therefore getting into trouble) until we moved to New Zealand. So I have never asked a judge in a U.S. court to call me "Gordon". When I used this line on the Chief District Court Judge for New Zealand he replied, "Oh, that's easy, Gordon." He then held the rest of the case without ever calling me by any name, neither "Gordon" or "MR. SMITH". So they take this very seriously here.

On the other hand, I have found that if you argue with them about THE NAME, you will lose every time. I know some who are experts at "winning" arguments with judges, yet they still lose this one. One friend even has a Birth Certificate that clearly has his name spelled differently from the court documents (not just a difference in capitalization), but entering that into evidence still fails to get them to change THE NAME on their paperwork.

What I have found is that you have won half the battle if you can effectively stop them from calling you "MR. SMITH". You have effectively separated you, the living soul, from the fiction on their paperwork. Don't answer to MR. ANYTHING and tell them they can call you by your given name. Then, if they do proceed against the fiction, you have not stood surety for it and therefore they cannot apply any of the results to you.

Your use of the term "Surname" has prompted me to share another insight which may be of help. No doubt you are aware that FIRST MIDDLE and LAST names are all names of the Corporation Sole. Your first two names are your "Given" names. They may also be your "Christian" name. Some speculate that the "Christian" name is actually intellectual property of the system as well. However, I have stuffed up judges on more than one occassion by stating, "Your Honor, if I give you my lawful Christian name, will you agree to prosecute me in that name?" So my experience is that judges cannot deal with the Christian name either.

But what about this term "Surname". We know it is not our "LAST" name, but is it our "Family" name? In New Zealand the cops always ask for your "Surname", and I have become suspicious of any word that those from within the system use freely. Take a look at Acts 4:36, and then look up Strong's word 1941 "epikaleomai", which is the Greek word translated "surnamed". Also note that in this verse, the surname Barnabas was clearly not his "Family" name, but was a name given him "by the apostles". Here are some of the definitions from Strong's of the Greek word "epikaleomai":

1) to put a name upon, to surname
1a) to permit one’s self to be surnamed
2) to be named after someone
3) to call something to one
3a) to cry out upon or against one
3b) to charge something to one as a crime or reproach
3c) to summon one on any charge, prosecute one for a crime
3d) to blame one for, accuse one of

None of these can possibly mean a "Family" name, but the part I find most interesting is definitions 3a to 3d. Is this not what the police and courts are doing? When they capitalize your Family name and call you "MR. SMITH", are they not giving you another name for the purpose of charging, prosecuting or accusing you of a crime? So I am very certain that my Family name is NOT my SURNAME.



"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  03:58:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Your Honor, if I give you my lawful Christian name, will you agree to PERSECUTE me in that name?

You may not have my name, "First name", "Last name", "Surname", "Legal name", "Christian name", "given name", or any other "title" you may wish to put on it; it is mine and you may not "know" it! You may "discover" it, but I cannot give it and do not consent to you, or anyone else, using it without my express permission; and you do not have my express permission! I do not know you, I do not recognize your voice, I am a stranger in this place.

HON'OR, n. on'or. [L. honor, honos.] 4. Reverence; veneration; or any act by which reverence and submission are expressed, as worship paid to the Supreme Being.

I do not call him "Your Honor"...

I am Yahuwah; that is My name; and I will not give My glory [#H3519] to another, nor My praise to engraved images.

#H3519 - BDB Definition:
1) glory, honour, glorious, abundance
1a) abundance, riches
1b) honour, splendour, glory
1c) honour, dignity
1d) honour, reputation
1e) honour, reverence, glory
1f) glory


...and why on earth would I ask him to prosecute [or persecute] me?

My only question to that "creature" in the black robe is this:

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for Yahuwah is able to make him stand!

He can [ability] certainly persecute me, but he may not prosecute me, for he is not my Judge and I will not consent, I do not consent, nay, I can not consent...

For Yahuwah is our Judge, Yahuwah is our Lawgiver, Yahuwah is our King; he will save us.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 04 Feb 2005 07:32:54
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  11:49:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Readers;


It is good that Gordon Caleb has studied the Biblical consistency of surname. That prepares you all to see application in the forum of public policy, “law” and colorations thereof.

quote:
1) to put a name upon, to surname
1a) to permit one’s self to be surnamed
2) to be named after someone
3) to call something to one
3a) to cry out upon or against one
3b) to charge something to one as a crime or reproach
3c) to summon one on any charge, prosecute one for a crime
3d) to blame one for, accuse one of

None of these can possibly mean a "Family" name, but the part I find most interesting is definitions 3a to 3d. Is this not what the police and courts are doing? When they capitalize your Family name and call you "MR. SMITH", are they not giving you another name for the purpose of charging, prosecuting or accusing you of a crime? So I am very certain that my Family name is NOT my SURNAME.


I am not sure how you came to this deduction. The permutations are a little complex so let's discard the upper case stuff as superfluous. Your surname "Smith" is your family name. It even comes from a worker like a blacksmith. It is descriptive of what your family used to do; a surname.

Legal Identity, The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph Vining is an eloquent book on the subject. This book however is an apology for the onset of what Christians consider the One World Order. And as you are seeing on this Topic already, there are many different ways to make sense of the same symptoms; different perspectives upon different but similar experiences and thus people (including me) form our different conclusions and then seek confirmations that will back up or alter our conclusions. Science. There seems to be some kind of vast conspiracy afoot and nobody will tell us how they all learned about names and how to use names against the ignorant masses. Us and Them.

That’s not so.

I hope this will simplify matters to confirm all or most of our current perspectives about surname. Except of course the paranoid delusions. I chose to wait until some images from Black’s Law Dictionary were linked to elaborate on the simplicity of this redaction about name. That was good because it allowed a couple complicated perspectives and thus I will get back to the simplicity. [Since the images become available in the same filename I submit them, I figure I can just let readers wait until they are in the buffer to see them.] The key word to prosecute yourself is AND. That is the logic <and> to put your name with the prosecutorial term “surname” or “last name” to comprise the “name”* or “Legal name”:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal,jpg

* In the quoted maxim for Name, we find the word “name” is in quotes. That means it is not really talking about name in common usage. Looking at Legal Name we find that we are actually looking at the definition for Legal Name. under Name. spelled “name”. Being that we are looking for Name in a Law Dictionary, that makes perfect sense. Name in common usage is foreign to the forum Law (legal) Dictionary.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Bible_family.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_Bible_Dictionary.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_common_law.jpg

Getting into common law we find name in a Bible dictionary. Pay attention to the corollary between the maxim that a man can have only one Christian name and “The Hebrews gave but only one to a child, except...”

Gordon;

Your name is Gordon Caleb. Your parents were in control of naming a “first” and “middle” name. Gordon Caleb is one name, two words. “Smith” was out of their control. Thus they did not give "Smith" to you and it is not your property. At best it is community property of the (huge but smaller than Chang) entire family. You have proven above the last name persecutes you. It is not just the last name that persecutes you Gordon, it is by adding it to your true name, Gordon Caleb.

As you have discovered “Smith” is key to the prosecution that you bring against yourself. What?! Yes, you have filed the prosecution(s) against yourself with the legal identity. Just take a look at your last Post, Gordon. Take a look at the descriptions of ‘surname’ from Strong’s in that light. But apply this model from a typical tax obligation accusation/assessment:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
Admiralty process

It is of course logical to presume that if you are speaking to an attorney in a black robe (or in your case a white wig?) that it is too late to be arguing anyway. You have already appeared on the side of the road or whatever for the accusation to be struck. And for the district attorney to have a complaint to take into the court system then you appeared in the legal identity. By choosing to defend after you have already prosecuted yourself with a legal name (the surname) you are now filing in Tax Court (by any other name) and have relinquished usage of the admiralty rules in your prosecution. [Unless there is a flub on the ticket; then you appear restricted (Rule E(8)) and direct the black-robed attorney’s attention to the technical mistake for dismissal.] In the administrative procedures you have just adopted they will call you “defendant” but the main difference is that you have filed (as though prosecutor) and diverted the burden of proof about the original accusation back upon yourself. Now you have to prove the policeman was agent of the Bank and Fund operating as the Division of Enforcement for the Department of Revenue and all that to a jury full of rocks – plus prove that there is something terribly, terribly wrong with that infrastructure in light of the simple fact that you are guilty of the alleged violation of public policy. On top of all that you have to convince them you mistakenly left the admiralty with your surname and now you want desperately to get back to the admiralty in a room flying the gold fringed admiralty flag! All that instead of maintaining your cause of innocence in the original forum – an agent of a foreign principal appearing in your court – admiralty; (without a prior judgment in the district courts of the United States) international law and the Law of Nations. Maybe a better perspective is your surname has chosen to file in a lesser 'civil' jurisdiction under the penumbra of admiralty - emanations from the penumbra. A typical modern law dictionary definition of Admiralty or Admiralty jurisdiction will explain this same thing but like the admiralty is appended upon the Roman Civil jurisdiction in the United States.


I apologize. I was going to keep this simple.

We seem to have already considered that you are in control of what you have. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=428&whichpage=1 Do you have a DOB or birthday? That is up to you. Do you have a last name or surname? That is also up to you. You can easily obligate the constable to update your file with accurate information. Or better yet, get a renewed driver license and sign it, “Gordon Caleb dba GORDON CALEB SMITH”. Just wait for the voluntary presentment and if you do not like the benefit of being able to prosecute yourself for the world, Refusal for Cause within 72 hours. That way the policeman will not go “Postal” on you because he forgot his medication that morning.

So the words out of your mouth are “I do not have a surname.” Or “I do not have a last name.” Or “I do not have a legal name.” I have found it quite effective to tell only the first police officer my true name and then all the subsequent interrogators that I gave my true name to the arresting officer; get it from him. I am not obligated to restore their paperwork for them to prosecute me. No man can be compelled to incriminate himself (to have a last name). [Of course you have to be able to withstand cold concrete boxes and know how to handle belligerent drunks they throw into the box with you. Otherwise revise your driver license and keep the entire episode to a voluntary contract presentment between a man (you) and a foreign agent in admiralty. If they mow you over, you should have the equivalent recourse of Libel of Review. Since Congress has changed the wording here to exclude “common law” it may even be simpler access in New Zealand. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Suitors.gif
And compare to www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-.html ]

You should identify yourself properly; thereby avoiding further administrative proceedings. There is no surety against Gordon Caleb. Suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction have refused for cause the next proceeding [about misnomer], simply writing “Refusal for Cause” on the little pink notice and walking it to the bench and leaving.* They showed and fulfilled the current contract but terminated agreement for the next proposed contract. If you are before the quasi-court martial without knowledge of your own identity it is too late because you have already hired that attorney to legislate at the bench. He presumes correctly that you are there for the benefit of discussion and that is also why he presumes you are still who you identified yourself to be wherever you encountered the initial accusation.

This perspective presumes the absence of any authority in “Christian Name”. That is just another word for true name. This is based on ‘the truth shall set you free’. Your name is Gordon Caleb. Tell that properly to the police officer and the subsequent presumptions fade away in face of the truth.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* With, "Let the record show this presentment has been returned timely to the presenter Refused for Cause." Years ago I was sitting in the gallery for somebody else's proceedings. The black-robed attorney got notice that I had abated another matter in another courtroom. He had the pink slip notice placed on the bar in front of my seat and pronounced me notified about the other court's hearing. A few minutes later he verbally noted that I leaned toward it and was reading it.


Oneisraelite;

I have seen it honored that the warden or Sheriff ceases to be paid after 48 hours without proper arraignment or setting of bail. But getting an unregistered car out of impound... well, I have yet to see that. [As it gets close to two days in a concrete box, the psychological warfare can get pretty fierce. The deputies will be open about collapsing you into becoming the surname/legal identity.] So until we have the right to arrest properly through Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) via the Provost Marshal or whatever, all that argued to the worldly police officer and attorneys is no more than horsewaffles. [This may be happening sooner than later in conjunction with the sunset of the Bretton Woods Agreements. It is pretty easy to prove this land is oppressed by War and Emergency Powers.] One best just tell the truth and R4C. Keep your car registered and insured if you have not the constitution to endure persecution. Sign all such revenue agreements "True Name dba LEGAL NAME" and now you can argue the immediate terms of the contract under Rule E(8) Restricted appearance.




P.S.


quote:
The Rosicrucian Manual; AMORC H. Spencer Lewis 1918 p. 133 - Numerology and the Real System

We advise, on excellent grounds, that you do not change your name, but make it serve you, and at the same time bring honor and esteem to it. If there is nothing more serious afflicting your rise and progress in life than the numerical value of the letters of your Christian, or given name, then thank God that you have an unusually free and clean Path to great success and happiness.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signet_and_seal.bmp

Aside from the mathematical breakdown in the original logarithmic curve of Sumarian Ostraca (Paleo-Hebrew of 1000 BC), "David Merrill" means "God is my beloved contender" with strong links to Mer; the sea and admiralty. Check into the Biblical meaning of Gordon Caleb. You will probably be amazed in the authority that unconsciously guided your parents at your naming - how accurately they described everything about you in the mother archetype - Hebrew. Request information from Joshua Ben about the origin of speech edenics@campus.ie My child was to be named Jennifer something but complications caused a crash C-Section. My wife looked lucid and I told her Jennifer was fine. She said, "Jennifer!? Her name is Amanda Kathleen!" So I told the nurses "Stop the Press!" To this day we do not know where that came from but it means "To crown or anoint suddenly (overnight)" in Biblical Hebrew.

Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Feb 2005 19:51:39
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  18:21:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Brother Robert,

The stance of the Diplomat is what carries the day in their courts. A Diplomat does not turn hostile, because he knows he has diplomatic immunity. They do follow rules. One is that all judges know they cannot prosecute you in your own name. As Diplomats, we must learn to answer their innocent sounding questions (which we know are a trap) with equally innocent sounding responses.

Judge: "What is your name?"
You: "Your Honor, if I give you my lawful Christian name (or True name), will you agree to prosecute me in that name?"

He has asked what to all appearances (to the ignorant) is the most ordinary question in the world. You have responded with an offer that also appears to the ignorant to be as reasonable as could possibly be. After all, isn't he simply trying to determine your actual name so he can prosecute you?

So you've stuffed him with this, as he cannot proceed against you in your true name AND he cannot admit that he is NOT after your true name. To validate David's point, I had one judge respond, "You know we also need a Surname in order to prosecute." As David is demonstrating, they can ONLY use a Surname.

If a judge were silly enough to agree to prosecute you in your true name, you wait until he has proven in writing or verbally that he is proceeding against the living soul, and then inform him, "Your Honor, I see that you are proceeding against me in my true name. For you to do so requires my consent. For the record, I do not consent."

This is the proper time to tell him you do not consent, for until then he is not actually proceeding against you. In reading your statements of "I do not consent", they come across as those of a desperate man who has no confidence in his diplomatic immunity. Judges discern hearts, and any judge hearing this will rightly assume authority over you, for your very words have betrayed the truth, not in what was stated but in how it was stated. You believed he had authority over you, so he did.

I once answered a question regarding my NAME with, "I am a stranger to you and I prefer it to remain this way as I have no wish to enter into contract with this Court." A little while later this judge was announcing in frustration to everyone in the room, "He's challenging the jurisdiction of this Court!" Funny he should say that when I never once used the word "jurisdiction". I was rather enjoying my dipolomatic immunity that time.

The above two responses, along with "You may call me Gordon", have all stopped judges in New Zealand because they:
1) Answer the question with Truth.
2) Are not in any way hostile/beligerent.
3) Do not "give" the judge a Surname to use against me.

David, I am eager to better understand what you are saying, but halfway through even you realized you had failed to keep it simple. I need to re-read your post before I respond to it. I too have much to share, and I have to keep resisting the urge to share everything that springs to mind as I am writing. Instead, I am limiting myself to NAME issues here and will start another topic when it is time to discuss another area.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  18:29:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Fair enough. I have been building it all day but will stop editing so that you do not miss anything.

I think the main point is that you need to withdraw consent (in your terms) with authority. That means to do it properly. Do not allow the "judge" to evaluate whether you are in a contract or have the right to refuse to contract. Just Refuse for Cause.

quote:
After all, isn't he simply trying to determine your actual name so he can prosecute you?


The first and foremost thing even a black-robed attorney must do is establish three facets of jurisdiction. 1) territorial (this includes only METRO enclaves like City owned parking for utility vehicles, power plants etc.). 2) subject matter (is there an enacting clause on the statute you allegedly violated?). And 3) in personam (is there a surety against the "person" before the bench?

Number 3 is what we are talking about.

If you understand my Post above, you will likely change your Handle here to Gordon Caleb.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. You said;

quote:
As David is demonstrating, they can ONLY use a Surname.


That does not jive with my logic. They use a legal identity which consists of your true name and the surname. You note the attorney * quickly starts calling you Mr. Smith and that is probably to maintain the surety in the court record.


* Attorn to turn:

quote:
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary 1827

In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from on lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals, or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. Blackstone. Encyc.

Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Feb 2005 19:59:01
Go to Top of Page

Walter
Advanced Member

USA
144 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  19:03:36  Show Profile  Visit Walter's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb

...
But what about this term "Surname". We know it is not our "LAST" name, but is it our "Family" name? In New Zealand the cops always ask for your "Surname", and I have become suspicious of any word that those from within the system use freely. Take a look at Acts 4:36, and then look up Strong's word 1941 "epikaleomai", which is the Greek word translated "surnamed". Also note that in this verse, the surname Barnabas was clearly not his "Family" name, but was a name given him "by the apostles". Here are some of the definitions from Strong's of the Greek word "epikaleomai":

1) to put a name upon, to surname
1a) to permit one’s self to be surnamed
2) to be named after someone
3) to call something to one
3a) to cry out upon or against one
3b) to charge something to one as a crime or reproach
3c) to summon one on any charge, prosecute one for a crime
3d) to blame one for, accuse one of


Funny, I had started some research into names/surnames a couple months ago.

---

From: http://www.infokey.com/Surname.html

Soon after the Crusades in Europe, many people began to feel the need for family names which would identify them more distinctly than the names they then bore. The nobles who had joined the Crusades were aware of the value of surnames and were first to adopt them, usually from the name of the lands they owned. The people who remained behind soon did the same. These were not hereditary surnames as yet, but more of an identification by which one could be recorded and differentiated from his fellow workers and neighbors.

In addition, clerks and clergy the educated class among the people when registering deeds, payments of fines, or other transactions, might identify one vassal from another by recording some descriptive word, nickname, or personal characteristic. The vassal didn't know that the clerk had given him this name, nor did he much care. And if another occasion arose whereby the same vassal might be entered onto record by another clerk, he more than likely would receive an altogether different descriptive name. And he probably wouldn't know about that either, nor for that matter would any of his fellows.

A name in these formative years was generally a Christian name. This was sufficient to identify most of the people in a town or village because they existed in what was essentially a close-knit tribal relationship. A man either gave service by training and fighting for his lord, or performed the everyday function of his trade for the benefit of the master of the land.

In return for this, he was given a small dwelling and was sustained by the lord of the land. There was little knowledge or any world beyond the few acres the person worked upon. Travel to and from villages was unnecessary, and most people never left the manorial confines except to do battle. A single name was certainly sufficient to one who met few others and didn't have occasion to encounter strangers.

As the population increased, however, the need of some form of descriptive word became necessary to identify one John from another. In recording the inhabitants of a village, the clerk might add his interpretation of the individual, derogatory or otherwise. If for example, one John tended the task of preparing the flour into bread and cakes he might have been entered into records as John le Baker. Another John would be better recognized as living near the hunting grounds so he may have been entered as John Attewood, which later could have mutated to Atwood. Some had the names of the manor or village where they resided because they were lords of that place and owned it. Most however, would bear that name not because they owned the manor but because they descended from vassals or freemen who once lived in that village.

The Domesday Book that was compiled by William the Conqueror is a fascinating study of early 11th century life and family trees, as the Norman influence spread throughout Europe. One interesting tidbit is that the Warren family Coat of Arms recorded in Britain in the 13th century is the ancient arms of the Jarls of Norway from about 400.

---

Old Testament usage of surname, all from kanah <03655>, two usages rendered as “flattering titles,” and two as “surname”:

03655 kanah {kaw-naw'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 997; v
AV - flattering titles 2, surname 2; 4
1) to title, surname, be surnamed, give an epithet or cognomen, give a flattering title
1a) (Piel) to call by name, give a title, betitle

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles <03655> unto man.
Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles <03655>; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
Isa 44:5 One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname <03655> himself by the name of Israel.
Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed <03655> thee, though thou hast not known me.

---

I think we don't want a surname (at least of men).

Edited by - Walter on 04 Feb 2005 19:04:29
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  21:59:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear brother Gordon:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Judges discern hearts, and any judge hearing this will rightly assume authority over you, for your very words have betrayed the truth, not in what was stated but in how it was stated. You believed he had authority over you, so he did.

Poppycock! Perhaps you may have been using the word “God” too much lately, the earthly JUDGES are mere men, just like yourself, they are not "gods", they do not determine the hearts of men.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I Yahuwah search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
They may notrightly” assume authority over me, but they can unlawfully persecute me. And it is obvious that you cannot read hearts, for you bear false witness against me with your statement, “You believed he had authority over you, so he did”; I did not [and do not] believe that their JUDGE had Lawful authority over me, and so, he did not, in fact, to date, not one of them has; Praise be to Yahuwah.

David:
quote:
Oneisraelite; I have seen it honored that the warden or Sheriff ceases to be paid after 48 hours without proper arraignment or setting of bail. But getting an unregistered car out of impound... well, I have yet to see that.

Several times now it has been 72 hours (approx.) and the last two times I have gotten our unregistered truck back, once for towing and storage charges only, and the second time free of all charges, though I voluntarily paid the tow company the 45 babel-bux.
quote:
[As it gets close to two days in a concrete box, the psychological warfare can get pretty fierce. The deputies will be open about collapsing you into becoming the surname/legal identity.]

You are correct in this, though for me in two different places [STATES], each time it has been 72 hours (which you and I have previously discussed) and always in solitary confinement, they have been both very “open” and “psychologically fierce” as you state, but in all cases of abduction and imprisonment thus far, Yahuwah has given me the "constitution to endure their persecution" and contrary to what Gordon has apparently accused me of above, to the best of my knowledge, I have never given them authority over me, nor have they ever “rightly assumed” or “unjustly presumed” to have authority over me; their court charade has always ended with, "You are free to go", with one going so far as to tell me, "If you follow the Ten Commandments, I hope that I never see you in my court again".


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 04 Feb 2005 22:26:54
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2005 :  23:35:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I presume it is more allowing the presumption of a social compact.

Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Feb 2005 05:33:07
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2005 :  06:56:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Brother Robert,

Indeed, I had no intention to insult or accuse you. Perhaps this would be a better way of phrasing what I was trying to say:

By your words you showed that you did not believe that you had the power to stop the judge from acting against you.

This was reaffirmed when you stated, "they can unlawfully persecute me." I do hope you will allow your thinking to change on this one.

I have spent a lot of time in court this past year, and been persecuted as you well know. However, in every case where a judge acted against me, I later learned what I did wrong. Mistake #1 was to speak to the judge in the manner that I perceived your "I do not consent" post to be. In every case I have eventually had to concede that the judge was acting lawfully. I know this is hard to swallow, but he does have rules he follows and those rules are not contrary to Scripture.

I have always held the opinion that if you know the rules to a game, you can figure a way to make them work to your advantage. We want the judges to obey certain rules that make sense to us, but they don't obey those rules. Thus we conclude that they are "lawless". Yet once you learn the rules they do obey, you will find that they do not violate those rules. Best of all, those rules are designed to work to your advantage, and the only way they can use them against you is if you remain ignorant of them.

I know that we hand the judge all the rope he needs to hang us with. I have watched as time and again the judge extracted the confession he needed out of someone (including me) in order to continue acting against them. I have also had a judge try six times to gain an indirect confession from me that I was a "driver". And I have his written judgment that says that the policeman's notice was invalid because I was clearly not a "driver". Now he was very careful to avoid giving me a ruling that applied beyond that one case, but the point is that in the end he wrote only what I confessed to be true of myself. Obviously he was quite keen to get the "driver" confession from my own mouth or he would not have tried so many times to obtain it. And in the end he did uphold the Law.

It is when we see ourselves as the problem, and more specifically our own ignorance as our greatest enemy, that we start to turn the tables to our favor. What our Father is interested in happening is a change in us, not in the system. If you view the system's role rightly, the system's "persecution" will assist Him in changing you into the image of His Son, and as that happens the system will lose its grip on you. When I'm discussing driver's licenses or income taxes or some other law issue with people now, I have to stop myself in the middle and tell them, "This is not about changing the system, it is about changing you."

So view that judge as working for your Father, not for the other side. I have witnessed time and again as a judge rightly discerned the thoughts and intentions of a man's heart, again including my own. Another thing I tell people before they go before the judge is, "whatever needs to happen in there, will happen." And it does. It may be no fun while it is happening, but it has a purpose and it is your Father's purpose being worked out there if you allow it.

David, you mentioned finding out what one's name means in Paleo-Hebrew. How do I go about finding that out?

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2005 :  10:09:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear brother Gordon,
quote:
Indeed, I had no intention to insult or accuse you.

Apology accepted, and peace be unto the house.
quote:
This was reaffirmed when you stated, "they can unlawfully persecute me." I do hope you will allow your thinking to change on this one.

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
One of the points on which you and I may not be in agreement I perceive is this; you evidently believe that the AGENTS of kosmokrator are Honourable, I do not. I do not believe "they have kept his saying".
quote:
I have spent a lot of time in court this past year, and been persecuted as you well know. However, in every case where a judge acted against me, I later learned what I did wrong.

This reminds me of poisonous snake handlers, at least the ones who have survived their many bites, teaching us how careful we must be when handling venomous serpents, when the best advice would be not to handle them at all, but if you must, cut their heads off first, i.e. take away their jurisdiction over you IMMEDIATELY, which is what you perceive to be my “mistake”; “Mistake #1 was to speak to the judge in the manner that I perceived your "I do not consent" post to be”. [Emphasis added]
quote:
In every case I have eventually had to concede that the judge was acting lawfully. I know this is hard to swallow, but he does have rules he follows and those rules are not contrary to Scripture.

Yes, dear brother, this is hard to swallow; believing that one who spends every waking moment (in that COURTROOM) trying to deceive you and entrap you, is actually an honourable and moral “person”. I wouldn’t voluntarily buy groceries from a man such as this if I had any other choice, let alone volunteer to let him JUDGE my actions.
quote:
I have always held the opinion that if you know the rules to a game, you can figure a way to make them work to your advantage.

This of course, assumes that there is a discernible pattern to the mines in the mine field, which if true, then the mine field would be easy to walk through. But how about this, how about every so often they rearrange the mines, so that no pattern can be counted on; about the time you figure out the pattern (assuming there is one), a new pattern is developed. My approach is not to enter the mine field, stand on the perimeter and say no thank you, I do not consent to crossing a mine field, which kosmokrator controls.
quote:
We want the judges to obey certain rules that make sense to us, but they don't obey those rules. Thus we conclude that they are "lawless". Yet once you learn the rules they do obey, you will find that they do not violate those rules. Best of all, those rules are designed to work to your advantage, and the only way they can use them against you is if you remain ignorant of them.

And what is Rule #1? Are you ‘of” my jurisdiction? If you are not, then I cannot adjudicate (sit in judgment). Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Think on this dear brother, suppose that you were nomadic, the rules in each place you sojourn are going to be slightly different…all but one that is, and that one is, are you “of” my jurisdiction? And my answer is: My kingdom is not of this world
KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.] [Emphasis added]
World; #G2889 kosmos - Thayer Definition: 1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
quote:
I know that we hand the judge all the rope he needs to hang us with.

By playing “snake-handler”, because we perceive ourselves “wise”, wiser than the serpent, believing we can beat him at his own game, we get bit. Why not take away the game, why not refuse to participate in the game?
quote:
I have watched as time and again the judge extracted the confession he needed out of someone (including me) in order to continue acting against them.

What he “extracted”, dear brother, was permission from you to adjudicate, nothing more.
quote:
I have also had a judge try six times to gain an indirect confession from me that I was a "driver". And I have his written judgment that says that the policeman's notice was invalid because I was clearly not a "driver". Now he was very careful to avoid giving me a ruling that applied beyond that one case, but the point is that in the end he wrote only what I confessed to be true of myself. Obviously he was quite keen to get the "driver" confession from my own mouth or he would not have tried so many times to obtain it. And in the end he did uphold the Law.

Congratulations, you evidently wanted his judgment and you have it; you managed to handle the highly venomous serpent without getting bit…this time! And where, pray tell, is Yahuwah in all this?
quote:
What our Father is interested in happening is a change in us, not in the system.

No kidding.
quote:
If you view the system's role rightly, the system's "persecution" will assist Him in changing you into the image of His Son, and as that happens the system will lose its grip on you.

What the “persecution” does is drive you back to His Estate, His Jurisdiction, at which point the “system” has NO grip on you.
quote:
When I'm discussing driver's licenses or income taxes or some other law issue with people now, I have to stop myself in the middle and tell them, "This is not about changing the system, it is about changing you."

First and foremost, those are not "law" issues, those are "legal" issues!! Those are the "graven images" of men!! But that aside, let us ask you a question, which method do you think “Joe Lunchbucket” could most effectively use, one where he simply learns how not to consent to the jurisdiction of kosmokrator’s Dis-Honourable AGENT, or one where he must learn an endless stream of serpentine, ever-changing, subtle entrapments?
I can certainly see where the “lawyers” in our midst might like choice #2 best, for what profit is there in choice #1? It’s like teaching a man to fish vs. selling him fish!!
quote:
So view that judge as working for your Father, not for the other side.

No, dear brother! Though, through his immoral (legal) injustices, he does unwittingly drive people back to the de jure Kingdom, it can hardly be said that he works “for” my Father, the Founder of my nation, the commonwealth of Yisra'el.

All Glory and Honour to Yahuwah ‘Elohiym!! HalleluYah!!

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Feb 2005 03:37:28
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2005 :  10:50:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Gordon Caleb;

I implore you to continue seeking the logic. Find the parallel with a search engine on terms like "admiralty rules" "admiralty civil rules". You may look in a good dictionary at admiralty and find out how it is accessed from the land in New Zealand. Then read them and you will jump out of your seat shouting "Aha!". Find Rules of Courts Martial - New Zealand. Or its equivalent and you will see even more clearly the rules for the nisi pruis tribunals (traffic court). New Zealand has a national debt too? That is based on the same Tontine.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page1.jpg
Zionism Cancellation Algorithm Page 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page2.jpg
Zionism Cancellation Algorithm Page 2

I think we are kindred spirits looking for some kind of repitition. Maybe we draw incorrect conclusions on occasion because our hopes effect our science. But if it is as arbitrary and capricious as Oneisraelite thinks, then there is no reason to bother. Just pay up if you want to stay out of the struggle to understand because there is nothing there to understand.
quote:
David, you mentioned finding out what one's name means in Paleo-Hebrew. How do I go about finding that out?
Psalm 119 is a key to the Hebrew alphabet. You have mentioned Strong's; that is better. Start with Caleb; that is a Bible name anyway so the Hebrew is easy there. When the graphics become available on the links that definition from the Bible Dictionary of Name will tell you that Hebrew names almost always have a Hebrew meaning. So Gordon may be a little trickier. You may have to break down to "Gord" for the meaning "Gimel, Resh, Daleth" and then see what a suffix "'Nun" would augment that meaning with.

I have a Richardson's Lexicon handy so...

GRD - To scrape oneself - Job 2:8
quote:
Job 2:8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.
#1623 to abrade; to scrape

Now it gets fun. Since you are probably not into self-mutilation or even flagellation (punishing yourself) physically we might euphemize things to that you are a very repentant man. Maybe your search for the truth has you appearing to be punishing yourself and that may soon pay off with being in full control of contracts now you know the rules that will protect you against all these spurious libels.

I usually do not do a full decryption of other people's names because unless expressly requested, it feels manipulative to have such insight into people.

One can expect the Hebrew scrape might be found in The Word; The Dictionary that Reveals the Hebrew Source of English by Yitzchak Elchanan MOZESON mozeson@yahoo.com maybe even related to Gored - like by a bull. Replacing Gimel with Kof:
quote:
CARD QayRahD Koof-Resh-Dalet
kay-RUDD____________________[KRD]
ROOTS: To CARD is to smooth out by scraping with a metal comb or wire brush. Late Latin caritare (to card) is pared down to Latin carere (to comb) and the IE root kars (to card).
Similarly, QayRaD (to scrape, curry) and GaRaD (to scrape, scratch - Job 2:8) have a shorter form in GaRaR (to scrape, plane-I Kings 7:9). This GRR etymon is a fine source for CURRY. QaRTSaiF is also to curry.

BRANCHES: To CURRY a horse's back with a hard CURRYCOMB is so similar to CARDING cloth that it is surprising to see CURRY missing from the listed derivatives of IE kars (to card). Included are obscure terms like CARDOON, CARMINATIVE and CHARD. Even these plant words suggest the flat, stiff layers of papyrus that went into making a CARD, CARTON or CHART. It is common to name a product by the act of production, thus we add CARTOON, CARTIRIDGE, CARTOGRAM or CARTO-GRAPH to words like GRADE, CARTE-BLANCHE, and CARTEL.
GHaDaR (to hoe) has reshuffled KRD to [G]KDR. (my emphasis and correction in brackets)
See GRADE, RAKE (K-R backwards), (S)CRATCH and more at "CHARACTER."
Animal skins were CARDED until they were suitable for use as parchment, the former “paper.” This why words for “paper” are forms of Koof-Resh-Dalet, such as Italian carta, Rumanian hirtie, Serbo-Croat. hartija, Indonesian kertas, Modern Greek charti’ and Swahili karatasi.
Ahh... Here it is!
quote:
GRADE GayRaiD
gay-RADE____________________[GRD]
ROOTS: The given etymology does not take up that sense of GRADE which means "to make level" or to GRATE (from Old French grater, to scrape). This sense derives from (...) GARADT or GARAD (to scrape - Job 2:8).
See "CHARACTER."

BRANCHES: Reversing GRD recalls DRAG, another forceful pulling term. (...) GARAR is to scrape or plane. Not GRADE but GRATE is a cognate of SCRATCH at IE grat (to scratch). The related IE root red (to scrape, scratch, gnaw) lists ABRADE, ABRASION, ABRASIVE, CORRODE, CORROSION, CORROSIVE, ERASE, ERODE, RADULA, RASH, RODENT and ROSTRUM. A good match for Latin corrodare (to gnaw, corrode) is (...) KH-L-D, an R >L cousin of (...) GRD. (...) KHALOODA is rust, and (...) KHOOLDA is a rat. Hebrew thereby links the animal and chemical forces that eat away at our goods - see "HALT". Now RODENT and ERODE make more sense as cognates, and now it is clear that RAT and RUST belong here beside RODENT and ROSTRUM.
Other GR chewing terms include (...) GARA (cud - Leviticus 11:7).
And now to the GRADE (step, rank) that appears in DEGREE and DEGRADE. Latin gradus is a step or rank; the IE root is ghredh (to walk, go). Reverse GRD to DRK to hear (...) DORAKH (to walk, step, tread).
The IE root's "to walk, go" is far too weak a connection to "rank," "degree," "grade," or "step." Dutch rang, Turkish derece and Arabic daraga are all words for "degree." These, along with RANK and RUNG suggest a (D)-R-G/K etymon. (RANK and RUNG have dropped the initial D and taken on an N via nasalization.) The true etymon ought to be versatile enough to reverse to GRADE, and to scramble to form the Swahili word for "degree"- kadiri.
Hebrew offers (...) DARGA (step, grade, rank) and (...) (MA)DRAGA (rung, scale, step, grade, or "steep place" in Ezekiel 38:20.
See "GRAVE."
My guess about gored was probably wrong because the Daleth is actually a past tense of Gore. You may get the same revelation of how close computer technology is to the Universal Translator on Star Trek.


Dear Oneisraelite;

That summarizes why I am a bit severe with my application and usage of "paranoid". You have your own success stories but may be putting too much on Divine Intervention. That is to say you are looking for the Rules in the Holy Bible and when you have a failure you attribute that to God teaching you a lesson. Therefore I would suggest you take time to read the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) US Code 28 Notes Link and US Code 28a Link and substitute your body, car and your property as vessels dedicated unto God. Fly Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:26-7 for your flag with your testimony. Capture those gold fringes! Then you will almost certainly understand that the successes you have experienced, not to rob any glory from God, were also in alignment with standing law expressed in rules. This presumes an orderly and consistent, caring Father.
quote:
8. "According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag, under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors are not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of it." Prize Law During the World War, James Wilford Garner, MacMillian Co., (1927) § 284 pgs. 378, 379, quote of Sir Samuel in the "Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee," British Prize Court 1918. See 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689 Admiralty Rules of Practice - Claim-How Verified-Rule 25.
In the instances where we appear and hand that jurisdiction to the lesser traffic courts, a reading of Rules of Courts Martial - United States will explain the rules of the court, albeit these will be duplicated in slightly more civilian terms in the State Revised Statutes. You will start to see that in lack of our competence it is proper for whatever de facto authority is there, by necessity, to take over.

And maybe you will see things a little more from my perspective. The frustrations at not being able to just remove license plates without any confrontation are carefully regulated release valve systems. We are being released from the bankers' presumptions.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 4
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 5
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif
Verified Statement of Right - Affidavit of Service
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
Miscellaneous ReceiptWarrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
Warrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 4
Ronald Dean’s prosecution

[Sometimes I wonder why nobody gets interested enough to ask about how this Verified Statement of Right (Rule C) worked for Ronald Dean.]

If we were to severely undermine the risk management algorithms at the Bank and Fund, that would lead to an economic collapse. Our Father in heaven promises our inheritance will come into our hands intact. So understand better and then you can be at peace with it and wonder while you see it happening. There are no conspiracies.

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Sometimes it takes a few days for the links to become available. Take another look above at Post Posted - Feb 04 2005 : 11:49:53 AM. Maybe it is a little easier to understand with the graphics.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal,jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Bible_family.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_Bible_Dictionary.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_common_law.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signet_and_seal.bmp

Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Feb 2005 19:50:49
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 06 Feb 2005 :  05:00:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear David:
quote:
There are no conspiracies.

With all due respect, we perceive, that is a silly statement.

conspire [transitive verb] To plan or plot secretly – The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition 2000

Psalm 2:2 (LITV) The kings of the earth set themselves; yea, the rulers have plotted together against Jehovah [pronounced yaw-oo-aw’] and His Anointed…

It would seem, from the above verse and the following quotes, that some greater than we may be "paranoid" too.

"In politics nothing happens by chance. If something happens, then you can bet that it was planned that way." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

And if the people are not made privy to those plans, then by definition it is a conspiracy!

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

"History records that the money-changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent plans possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance." -James Madison

intrigue [intransitive verb] To engage in secret or underhand schemes; plot.
[transitive verb] 1. To effect by secret scheming or plotting.
[Ibid.]


quote:
...when you have a failure you attribute that to God teaching you a lesson.

Why do you insist on drawing false conclusions? When I fail, I do not blame Yahuwah [attribute it to God teaching me a lesson], I blame my own lack of understanding.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Feb 2005 06:36:57
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 06 Feb 2005 :  06:07:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You said;
quote:
And where, pray tell, is Yahuwah in all this? (emphasis mine)
It keeps coming down to the same old issue. The reason I keep pointing out your paranoia is only that you keep protecting it.
quote:
Dictionary of Psychology; J.P. Chaplin; Revised Edition 1982 p. 369

paranoia: A psychotic disorder characterized by highly systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur with little deterioration. In either case, they are persistent, defended strongly by the patient, and incapacitating. See also PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA. (emphasis mine)
You have not been to the federal repository. You would likely shun that approach, to simply see there is no conspiracy, because it is the 'conspirators' who put the 'conspiracy' on open public display. [I hear the college chancellery hosting the repository have always been for well over a hundred years now, high level Freemasons.] What is funny is that the only others to be found inside are college students migrating there because it is quiet as a tomb. They like to study there, but rarely the subject matter of Government Documents. Someone once lectured that if I ever read the "Secret Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord" I would be killed. I figured that this document must be very rare indeed. Then I discovered it at the repository in the State Department Bulletin sitting there since it was published in '76.

Try saying that "Yahuway" in court and the black-robed attorney will probably respond "God bless you."

It certainly convinces me Gordon Caleb is getting close to competency in decrypting the kingdom of heaven - your appearance and testimony Oneisraelite. Capital integration is the psychological term, plain English and also the mathematical term in calculus for becoming whole (healed). Integration is the opposite process of derivative or parabola (to encrypt):
quote:
Mr 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/key.jpg
Cracking the Code graphic

So according to the Messiah of God, your paranoia has and probably still is fulfilling a very important function in the safety release valve system. For now, it stands between you and owning property outside of mere fealty to the world. The highly compressed information infrastructure caused by fractional reserve banking (stellionation) would fly apart like a tightly packed box of springs if allowed to just come apart overnight. [You have to admit; I begged the question of you about Ronald Dean's VSR (Verified Statement of Right). Instead you chose to espouse your paranoid delusions.] People like Gordon Caleb grasping the importance of proper spelling, one or two at a time are enough variable in the risk management algorithms. [And the very mention of it is risky at that.]

www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050204/default.htm

Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Feb 2005 07:05:01
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 06 Feb 2005 :  07:42:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And we presuppose that all the learned people in this forum know that Marty (Cornerstone Foundation) is correct; “prosecute” and “persecute” are two forms of the same word; that is to say, pro- and per- are interchangeable in this and many other words.

pro- ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin pro-, pr -, from pr , for. See per in Appendix I.

ENTRY: sek [w-1]
DEFINITION: To follow.
Derivatives include sequel, execute, pursue, and society.
1. sect, segue, seguidilla, sequacious, sequel, sequence, sue, suit, suite, suitor; consequent, ensue, execute, obsequious, persecute, prosecute, pursue, subsequent, from Latin sequ , to follow. – The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition 2000


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Feb 2005 07:48:06
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 06 Feb 2005 :  10:16:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Again you are symptomatic:
quote:
But I thank you for the diagnosis, doctor, since Yahushua himself apparently was posthumously diagnosed similarly. (emphasis mine)
You perfectly* describe Folie a Deux on a social level. Group psychotic disorder. Thank you.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Folie-a-Deux.jpg

Gordon Caleb says things like:
quote:
What I have found is that you have won half the battle if you can effectively stop them from calling you "MR. SMITH". You have effectively separated you, the living soul, from the fiction on their paperwork. Don't answer to MR. ANYTHING and tell them they can call you by your given name. Then, if they do proceed against the fiction, you have not stood surety for it and therefore they cannot apply any of the results to you.
So I strongly suspect the man is seeking definite patterns and of course a solution to the legal pledge he has seemingly made for the legal identity as chattel. What he is looking for are the Rules.

I check myself for delusions of grandeur in the faces of courts of competent jurisdiction, some of whom are professional mental health care doctors. The little I have troubled any of them for what it is worth, agree your misspelling of the Names is misdirection and to one extent or another insidious. Your denial by following even famous orators renders you dysfunctional. You should step back and see that you have been discarding truth even here, just to defend your paranoia. [Meaning you have focused solely on one four word sentence I said, "There are no conspiracies."]

I am coming from a place of pure theory and lofty idealism. You know that. So you should carefully consider why it is so important to you to make my point for me. It really is beneficial for the readers to each reconsider their own paranoia, so thank you again.

You are welcome for the diagnosis and I hope it does you some good eventually, albeit your gratitute sounds sarcastic for now.


Regards,

David Merrill (I am not a real doctor).


* A lecturer (I forget his name) tries to convince the world there was no real Jewish Holocaust by in part citing two independent chemical tests on the interior walls of the gas chambers revealing no cyanide. This is misdirection. Dichloroethyl sulfide (mustard gas) has no cyanide. One symbol is substituted into a group of symbols "lethal gasses used to kill people". Oneisraelite said:
quote:
"In politics nothing happens by chance. If something happens, then you can bet that it was planned that way." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt
And by grouping that quote with other quotes more to his point, put that into FDR's mouth twisted to support the other quotes. Maybe Roosevelt's statement does support conspiracy theory in proper context but that context was not provided.


P.S. The way the psychotherapist (not mine for hire. Just some pro bono advice over lunch) said it to me was, "Once you start down that road (paranoia), there is no turning back." Dr. Corydon Hammond agrees albeit in acute cases:
quote:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FMS_FoundationCompilationCorydonHammond.html
False Memory Syndrome Foundation Compilation: Corydon Hammond
Greentree Lecture - emotionally disturbing to read


...That's one question. A second one is are you aware of anybody that you've treated -- or others -- with this level of dissociation and trauma that have recovered? Integrated? Whole and happy?

Answer by Dr. Hammond. "I have one non-bloodline multiple, complex multiple who had this kind of programming where they have a lot of access to the patient as neighbors and where the doctor,... (emphasis mine)
So until your integration, until you become whole and healed, I own everything you see; cured properly thirty days waiver of tort on September 11, 2001:

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2

Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Feb 2005 15:36:00
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 07 Feb 2005 :  03:44:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Gordon:
Peace be unto the house.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856)
5. No man can have more than one Christian name; 1 Ld. Raym. 562; Bac. Ab. Misnomer, A; though two or more names usually kept separate, as John and Peter, may undoubtedly be compounded, so as to form, in contemplation of law, but one. 5 T. R. 195. A letter put between the Christian and surname, as an abbreviation of a part of the Christian name, as, John B. Peterson, is no part of either. 4 Watts' R. 329; 5 John. R. 84; 14 Pet. R. 322; 3 Pet. R. 7; 2 Cowen. 463; Co. Litt. 3 a; 1 Ld. Raym. 562; , Vin. Ab. Misnomer, C 6, pl. 5 and 6: Com. Dig. Indictment, G 1, note u; Willes, R. 654; Bac. Abr. Misnomer and Addition; 3 Chit. Pr. 164 to 173; 1 Young, R. 602. But see 7 Watts & Serg. 406.


It would appear that with or without an hyphen, the use of which makes a compound word, i.e. makes one of what was two or more ingredients, that a Christian name which consists of two or more names will be “contemplated (considered) in law” as one.

Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
COLON, n. 2. In grammar, a point or character formed thus [:], used to mark a pause, greater than that of a semicolon, but less than that of a period; or rather it is used when the sense of the division of a period is complete, so as to admit a full point; but something is added by way of illustration, or the description is continued by an additional remark, without a necessary dependence on the foregoing members of the sentence.[/b]


If I understand Noah correctly here, he is saying that a colon is comparable to a period, in that the information before it is complete, Gordon Caleb: without any dependence on what follows it: (smith).

In legalese, if not in Law, it is our understanding that bracketed information, such as [zip code], is not to be contemplated as part of what is written, but is "for information purposes only". Are parenthesis held in this same regard? If not, perhaps the brackets would be a safer means of displaying, without attaching, additional information, such as a family name. Just a thought.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Feb 2005 03:47:37
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 07 Feb 2005 :  04:01:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Very good research. I have the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary 1827/1901 handy. Good plain English.

So to finish my original point, unless your parents gave you a hyphen, do not add one.

Relating to the colon. The clerk at the district court in Denver went through a gyration about demanding "last name" before doing a Certificate of Search on anybody's name. Now that is rediculous considering the admiralty nature and function of the district court*. One may just as easily be doing a search on the vessel by VIN number or a name like The Catherine, or The Huntress. Being biased at creating a pro se litigant in the civil "side" (false branding into Roman Law) out of any petitioner with a Libel of Review in admiralty it should be no surprise to find Steve Ehrlich, the 'business manager' (Chief Deputy Clerk) telling me a few years back, "We don't do colons."

He was informing me that if we filed a case, "First Middle: Surname" that it would be redacted to the standard legal name anyway. "First Middle (and) Surname". The colon is comprable to a period the way I use it; such as a semi-colon I will not capitalize the first letter like a new sentence. Whenever I use a colon: The sentence is considered complete albeit an incomplete clause.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* I notified Steve that his appearance would be considered petition for this matter to be heard before Congress - falsification of information at the counter of the district court clerk. Sure enough Steve phoned me about the matter (appeared). I recall him spelling his name in a mocking way, the way he had heard the "patriots" do it in court, you know, "Upper case... and lower case..." - "Steve Ehrlich". He was just making fun of me. Infuriating!

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg

So I petitioned a hearing before Congress sending $250 in filing and copying fees. Complete with my argument that this demand for 'last name' was falsifying information on the Certificate of Search. James Manspeaker, the current clerk had thirty days to enter his argument for falsifying the Certificates. I never heard anything but that James R. Manspeaker was quickly replaced by Gregory Langham, the current clerk and they no longer require last name on the Certificates of Search. [However I got spoiled and dropped the step of acquiring the Certificate on the Libel of Review. Providing the respondent and judge with the means of getting certification instead. This step was requiring a trip to Denver, $20 and usually went quite unpleasant anyway.]

I use brackets around the suitors' zip codes and any time I am not addressing a physical enclave of the District of Columbia. [Fictional federal overlay defined by 10 regions, the first digit of the ZIP CODE - "Buck Act" - Title 5 U.S.C. §§ 105-113.] See P. 3 of "'saving to suitors' clause of 1789". That is a template and I simply substitute (Ctrl-H) "zip" with the numbers. I use brackets because of the convention. I would not replace the brackets with parenthesis for the reason of War Powers and principles of capture (of the gold fringe). Bracketing is the action of shooting over, then short of the enemy vessel to demonstrate the vessel is in range. That might open the potentially enemy captain into accepting benefit of discussion before the third shot is fired.

Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Feb 2005 05:23:31
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 07 Feb 2005 :  04:11:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Gordon:
Perhaps an interesting aside here, is that when I have been dragged into their courts I never answer to, nor give a "family name", and as a result, on my last involuntary visit, even when the JUDGE had "discovered" it [via involuntary fingerprints], he did not "call" me by it. He also did not "call" me brother Robert, nor did he "call" me Robert, but rather he simply pointed to me and said, "You, Sir, please stand up' [I was not inside the bar] and when I had, he continued, 'no fine, no court costs, time served [saving face, I perceive, since three days would not cover what he would have fined one of his own], you're free to go". (Then the children are free [#G1658]. - Mattith'yahu 17:26b)
Thayer Definition: #G1658 eleutheros; 1) freeborn; 1a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave; 1b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted; 2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation; 3) in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

The word "sir" has an interesting history: [Fr. sire, and sieur, in monsieur; Norm. sire, lord; Corn. sira, father; Heb.[shiyn, waw, reysh] shur, to sing, to look, observe, watch, also to rule. The primary sense is to stretch, strain, hold, &c. whence the sense of a ruler or chief.] ...and according to Noah Webster, c. 1828, it was "Formerly the title of a priest". With the above understandings, I will allow him (or her) to "call" me sir.

Other forms include:
H8269 [shiyn, reysh]
sar
BDB Definition:
1) prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain
1a) chieftain, leader
1b) vassal, noble, official (under king)
1c) captain, general, commander (military)
1d) chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)
1e) heads, princes (of religious office)
1f) elders (of representative leaders of people)
1g) merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)
1h) patron-angel
1i) Ruler of rulers (of God)
1j) warden
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H8323

H8323
[shiyn, reysh, reysh]
sarar
BDB Definition:
1) to be or act as prince, rule, contend, have power, prevail over, reign, govern
1a) (Qal) to rule over, govern
1b) (Hithpael) to lord it over


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Postscript: When his AGENTS, who had kidnapped me, in their attempts to get a "LEGAL NAME", asked what they might "call" me, I responded, "you may call me brother Robert". In previous cases where my body-temple has been brought, in chains, before their JUDGE, when he called on the STRAWMAN NAME, I simply stated [every time he did so], "that is not me". And again, after three days in the belly of the whale, I was spewed out upon the beach.
Re: Involuntary fingerprints
So that no one here, hopefully gets their fingers broken [some have], simply tell them: "I do not have any graven images to give you (Exodus 20:4), but if you should choose to force me against my will, or are ordered by your master to 'create' some against my will, my Master has instructed me not to resist Evil." (Mattith'yahu 5:39)
Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. [Inadmissable evidence]
Caveat: After they have taken them involuntarily, do not sign the card, or it becomes voluntary. If their JUDGE (he is not your Judge) in his COURT (that is not the Court of your King), indicates in any way that those prints are yours [implies, states, or asks], tell him or her courteously, "those graven images are not mine, they were created by your AGENTS, against my will".

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Feb 2005 07:12:59
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000