| Author |
 Topic  |
|
halbertson
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Mar 2005 : 13:47:51
|
I am wondering ... David ... some curious connections ...
Do you know Dan Winter? Or Stan Tenen, Director of Research, for Meru Foundation?
Dan was associated with a Mr. Drunvalo Melchizedek and some copyright violations in the early 1990's. http://www.danwinter.com/
Dan Winter stated in a 1992 deposition, "Hummingbird is a name Drunvalo Melchizedek has used for a long time." http://www.danwinter.com/DM0492.html
Some weeks ago, you stated 'A decade ago the IMF published a Notice of Lien on “Hummingbird; a pure trust organization” correctly as my alter ego.' at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=381&whichpage=5
Might you be the mysterious Melchizedek? Since he was a fanatic about a Golden Spiral as the pattern of the universe, I am just wondering.
H.
Never let a Minimum-Wage Person upset your day!! |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2005 : 14:12:10
|
Nope. I had three trust organizations. All named after bird species.
Stan Tenen and I had a brief correspondence. I believe over the Fine Structure Constant having the same number equivalent as the word Qabbalah. He argued that there must be some significance to other words of the same letters like Libaqah. But that is not a Hebrew word far as I know. Then we lost touch. I enjoyed his website for quite a while. That Meru Foundation is really something. I might get back to his work. Interesting stuff.
Am I Drunlavo Melchizedek? Well if that turned out to be true then I certainly would deserve a lot of criticism for telling you all I am David Merrill. Albeit from my understanding of Old Covenant mathematics Melchizedek is the priesthood of direct election. That is to say, no mention of bloodline. I like that concept and sometimes think that would apply to someone like me. I am not religious (not Jewish or Christian) but feel that both king and priest must somehow be instilled, at least at moments into servants of the most high God.
Meloch Tzaddik - king of righteousness
Yeru Shalom - prince (teacher of) peace
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Clicked on the danwinter site which has been commandeered by Meru Foundation. Very interesting. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Mar 2005 18:41:14 |
|
|
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 10:40:02
|
>>>Quote: But with all due respect, you are missing many of the larger picture-puzzle pieces concerning the conspiracy of evil facing our american christian-patriot common-law community.
>>> To me it is useless paranoia. Crippling.
>> cbs#: I agree that “Paranoia” can (& frequently does) get out of control.
>> But the converse of “Over-Confidence” is also an equally or frequently even more important concern. And imho, & in this case, you yourself are making the frequently fatal error of “Over-Confidence”.
> Now that is refreshing! In all this time here I do not think anybody has faced that truth down calmly.
Thank you.
You may learn many more things if you listen more & talk less, sir.
> For one thing this is Internet yarn. I do not expect anyone reading to take it any more seriously than I take it all myself.
Than sounds like an admition that you are not taking the work of achieving justice for the people of america very seriously; yes?
> The 'saving to suitors' clause is law, that is all. It is written into both the First Judiciary Act and encoded into Title 28 of the USC. It must be applied, scarcely as anybody will support the truth that all revenue causes have always been treated in this nation in admiralty, as though we are in a perfect world. We suitors risk movement on lofty theory and high ideals. There is no place for paranoia. None.
Sounds to me as tho you are very serious about your babylonian-whore “revenue-causes”, but that you lack seriousness in addressing the dangers posed by the agents of evil.
You criticize us as being “paranoid”, when we balk at seeking remedy thru your babylonian-whore commercial/administrative process; but you spread that very same “paranoia” when we seek remedy thru Yhvh’s holy laws.
This forum for “psychoanalyzing david merrill” is inadequate, imho. I suggest that we need to call in an exorcist.
>>Quote: Presently such is lacking. And the epidemic focusing on remedy through the agents of the evil-empire provisionally-providing remedy for the followers of Yhvh (such as you seem to be doing, sir); makes the spiritual-battle even more burdensome & bleak.
>"If I may be so bold..." is of course an invitation for you to defeat my presumption.
Which I did.
> I have (and it seems very few do) have much experience with that practice.
I do.
> It is refreshing that you are not stuck in the Book of Revelation prophecies like I was preparing to assume.
Agreed. I have small interest or time for discussing esoteric “prophecies”. If this confrontational course is to continue, then you have a serious real-time dog-fight here, sir.
>>Quote:"...provisionally-providing remedy for the followers of Yhvh..."
>Exactly! Provisional.
Agreed.
>It has been in place since man-kings were allowed. Since Judah was appointed.
I am not highly-skilled on “Judah”; but I know the concept of your “man-kings”.
Since you object to “man-kings”, please tell me what you expect to replace them with, sir? I suggest you have nothing, & that you are just another anarchistic/whining-destroyer of all ideas of good government. Any fool can destroy. It take s a man with heart to build.
>>>Quote:Ge 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Well, ok. Now I see your concerns about “Judah”. And you are correct; imho; that there has been immense evil perpetrated by those claiming prophetically-validated title to the throne. But these problems have been perpetrated by the hi-priests of evil, who advanced the proposition that children of the tribe of Judah were the only ones who should be considered qualified to assume the helm of the ship of state.
Even if this scripture were to be considered divinely-inspired (a proposition which I do not automatically accept); even then it does not proclaim that the israelite people should only consider children of Judah as qualified for the nations leadership position. It only states that a child of Judah will regularly be the leader. It can be interpreted as prophetically predicting the out-come of democratic elections. Various scriptures contain indicators that such a direct-democratic electoral process was in place. Numbers chapters 1 makes repeated reference to “the polls”.
Deuteronomy 1 13 - 17: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
“Exodus 18:21: Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens”
These scriptures all make repeated reference to a process for selecting “wise men” from the general population of the people of Israel. As Numbers chapter 1 indicates, this was to be arranged in a hierarchy which culminated in “Heads” of each of the 12 tribes; obviously all very similar to the Apostles of Jesus/Yeshuah.
It is my proposition that only the best & the brightest were Elected to these 12 top leadership positions for the 12 tribes of Israel. I propose that during the more theocratic times, that these “12 princes” had routine “votes of confidence” on the leader of the nation, & that they selected any one of their own 12 princes as the nations leader; all under “immediate recall” veto-power by any one of them if he should stray from the Spiritual Fundamentals of “Torah/Law”. All similar to the “veto power” required by the “unanimous-decision rule” in 12-man jury-trials.
Under a theocratic process such as this, your concern for over corruptible “man kings” would be a nullity, because of the quick & efficient mechanism in place for holding all leaders accountable to the fundamental/spiritual-principles of supreme-Torah/Law.
> When the trustee begins to express ownership of the assets instead of the beneficiary being the real owner, the trust is destroyed self-executing.
Ok.
> So then we will experience a conveyance of the assets off Schedule A.
I am not well-studied on commercial-law. There are many traps & pit-falls. I cannot be an expert in that convoluted forum, & in christian/common-law also. At least not yet.
> But the difference is possibly that you think we will convert the courthouses to what?
From municipal/summary/babylonian-whore/slave-trader/commercial/empire-building enterprises; to forums for common-law Juries to assemble and administer godly/conscionable justice. With lots of directly democratically-elected “qualified-elector” sheriffs, constables, deputies, & posse-comitatus members; hanging in the wings also, of course.
> Office buildings? I suppose that is more what they are now becoming anyway, not that the custodian is being supplanted by the true heirs apparent.
>You say that formations of societies such as Justus Township are not trusts.
True.
> All contracts are trusts.
“Contracts & Trusts” are Commercial/Equity Mechanisms from the realm of the empire of the slave-traders of the romanized/babylonian-whore. Those have nothing at all to do with socially-compacted common-law townships, precincts, or counties.
> A "Ten" for instance, Frank pledge is a bond formed between ten families.
The term “Bond” is much broader than its connotation in babylonian-whore “Commerce”. It is used in the science of “physics” to indicate the attraction of an electron to the core of the atom. It is used in common-law to indicate the allegiance that the members of a frank-pledge/township community feels for its fellow members. As used in “Commercial-Law”, it is lex-non-scripta in its essential nature; & it is based the so-called “laws” of the babylonian-whore slave-traders.
“Commercial-Law Bonds” have Nothing At ALL to do with the Township/Frank-Pledge “Common-Law Bonds”.
>>Quote: That is because they are on the run, due to the heroic work of men like Schweitzer; & because...
>Maybe you missed my point about the Freemen. When I truthfully signed a Comptroller Warrant properly named to the IMFIRS, well, that Comptroller Warrant probably arrived in Ogden on Friday, the day before Schweitzer and Petersen were taken into custody and the Montana Freeman Standoff began.
>You should read the bond in law placed on the USA in Ronald Dean's cause;
<snip>
>And also Werner Maximilian's similar case against METRO;
<snip>
Ill try to get around to those. Later. It would be nice tho first to know that I was not chasing rabbits for a man who failed his psychoanalyzation-test. In other words, my present concern it getting square with you, sir. And I believe that I have all that I need there from your words here in this post. I will try to remember to look at your links in my later convenience.
> Which as expected evacuated $11t (2x the private national debt) from the Stock Market on March 14, 2001. You can ignore that, believe that or verify it by looking at the newspaper articles down at your library. Your choice.
I do not comprehend it. If you have something of positive value to contribute to this forum, explain it in clear & concise language. I am not going to go chasing your wild fantasies. I am explaining christian/common-law here to you in simple 5th grade terms. I expect you to do the same with your babylonian-whore commerce; if you really have anything more than smoke & mirrors to show to me.
> When a group of Pueblo judges petitioned me to release a bunch of UCC liens I granted their petition marginally. The fellow in jail holding claim refused or failed to understand his method of maintaining that claim it would seem. The liens were released and legislation went into place against putting liens on public officials. I have Posted some clerical guidelines now in place in Oregon to prevent such mischief. >http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=381&whichpage=7
I will try to remember to review it later. After I am less angry at you for your blasphemy.
> The point may be hard to see through all that citing.
Now you tell me. Gee. I am glad I didnt go running of to spend a day or so trying to figure out the gobbildy-gook.
> But you not recognizing Home Rule cities and towns as positive law jural society blended in the uniformity of METRO globally
“Positive-Law” is “Malum-Prohibitum” based “Municipal-Law”. I have no use for it, or for any of the other terms in your above sentence; save “Jural-Societies”; which latter here have absolutely Nothing to do with the remainder of your babylonian-whore/slave-trader concepts. My “not recognizing” those remaining elements, is solely conditioned on your seeming insistence on mixing-in the noble common-law term of “Jural Societies”.
> will disable your ability to recognize jural society at all. I think this is what reduced you to such a cheap shot:
>>> Quote: But the more succinct point here is attempts to form these little congregations is futile.
>>The high-priest of the synagogue of satan could not have spoken more evilly, sir.
Your seeming continued Insistence on Linking the common-law “Jural Societies” with your other evil slave-trader enterprises; causes me to feel quite confident in taking a firm stand in defense of my previous choice of words.
> Well that is allowed here.
I was unaware that you spoke for “admin”.
> I welcome it because it really gets to the heart of the matter real fast.
It could have happened on the phone, if you had not insisted on dominating the conversation.
> Though you mitigate paranoia, on both of our parts you still speak strongly of Harlots and evil empires, things like that.
My words of caution are well measured & well calculated. I consider myself the most advanced student of LeRoy Michael who is not incarcerated. I am weak on commercial-law; but I believe I have surpassed him in understanding christian/common-law. And that gives me the authority to “speak strongly of harlots & evil-empires & things like that”.
> You have in my opinion bought into a doctrine of personalizing evil through satanic manifestations.
Yea. So?
> From here all I can say will only enforce your 'fallen angels' interpretations.
Sounds like you admit that you are not capable of rationally addressing the issues in controversy. Yes?
> I have explained through carefully tested commentary where those beliefs come from in the New Covenant.
I think Not. You whine & weasel when the issues get 3 inches away from your slave-traders babylonian-whore “Commerce” field of expertise.
> You will continue to say that I speak like a Pharisee.
Hmmmm. You are getting good at prophecy.
> Well, I have just described three Pharisaic actions against the Freemen, the UCC Redemption and merchants of the world, some of whom I have met; people who lost their jobs and fortunes due to that crash. See they were trying to approach things your way and of course that in your mind, makes you and I adversarial. You think I am being Pharisaic and satanic.
You are babbling senselessly. Except for your last sentence.
You need an exorcist. Psychoanalyzation is insufficient for the task at hand.
> You confuse me with Satan because you have a perception the evil inclination can manifest in such a manner.
Yup.
> This originates in errant doctrine at Genesis 6. All mystery cults adopt the power of the pentagram. At least as a rule.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentahexsymbol1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentahexsymbol2.jpg
I looked at them. The book you scanned the text from is of interest to me. But I fail to see how it supports your proposition that the spirit of the evil-one cannot manifest in human form. I am not gong to go searching for all the rest of your links now. Maybe later; if I so feel motivated, which I well may not.
> The guy who led me to filing the first 'saving to suitors' case was a (former) Freemason.
Ahhhhhh. Confession is good for the soul.
Now tell the remaining members of the ecclesia, please; just how frequently do you associate with these “freemasons”, sir?
> He knew the power in the Fibonnaci Sequence and in the 1997 Crash sold all his portfolios of all his clients on the eve of the Crash.
Hmmmm. Perhaps you would suggest that we should all be taking more frequent counsel from these “freemasons”, yes? That way you & they could help us all to become nicely wealthy from the blood-money from the babylonian-whore revelation-17 slave-trader jurisdiction, yes?
My-my. Perhaps we should all have a quick election here, & elect you & your fellow freemasons to positions of leadership in the ecclesia; yes?
>Now you take these all as admissions.
You seem to confess willingly, yes?
> I am telling you the facts as I remember them and much of which is documented in the link library here.
No-one here is questioning your fraternal relations with your “freemason” friends; sir.
> But then you seem to think I was obligated to appear for you by phone.
No. You volunteered.
You could have remained in darkness; as do most pharisees, freemasons, & satanists.
> Well, that is just habit Charles Bruce.
It is one of your few redeeming virtues, young sir. You had the courage to step into the light, however momentarily. I imagine your fellow pharisees will be chastising you severely for your opening (your-self & them) up to such exposure as is transpiring here-in.
> When someone wants me to call them they are looking for advice.
You Speak “Falsely”; Again. Seems to be a nasty habit with you, young man.
More precisely; you chose your words very poorly; from the intellectually-void bowels of the power of bullies who are used to getting their way; as reflected in your habitual domination of phone conversations. This is why I am not scurrying around looking at your links. You speak from your commercial/capitalist/competitive bowels, not from intellectually-disciplined compassion for your fellow men.
> Since you defend coming back to this forum with my testimony from the conversation,
dam right.
> we are through with that.
Maybe.
>Now if you had apologized instead
Fat chance.
> (you may have because I will not read it past getting the gist)
Yes, I can see. You avoided most of my arguments; & came back from basically the same space which I had previously destroyed.
How convenient for you, to just ignore all previous arguments which you do not feel like answering. That is why I reply line-by-line, point-by-point. No one can accuse me of glossing over the main points in the debate. And especially not you; a person who just admitted not even reading the whole post; let alone responding to all arguments there-in. And you expect me to go chasing down all your links. Cheezzzzz.
> then we might be able to continue to converse outside these pages.
I am not the one who needs to apologize, pharisee.
> I think I can summarize why you dispute my every opinion so.
I doubt it.
> You have fallen for a blatant oxymoron!
Oh, please explain, oh guru on the hill-top.
> It is in the concept expressed in your domain subject, Christian Common Law.
Ok. Well, I admit I have fallen for that “concept”. Now please tell me what is wrong with it, guru.
> There can be no such thing. For there to be any such common law then everybody would need to be Christians.
Yea; so?
> So logically, the Christian Common Law may exist but you cannot call it common law anymore when you get past the church doors outside.
Ummm, Uhhhh; just “Why” is that?
> It is private law, not common law. Any prefix before "common law", like "federal common law" makes it private law.
Well, lets set aside your “federal common-law” example for the moment; as I feel it confuses the main issues here; & if we are to have a “meeting of the minds” (a remote possibility I admit, but ill go thru the motions here); then I need to focus on what I consider to be the reasonably recognizable “Fundamentals” of this controversy. (Focusing on a “single ultimate-issue” is a common-law skill; which I believe I have learned well).
You seem to be saying that All “Religious-Law” Is “Private-Law”; correct?
You seem to be proposing that the Majority-Rule “Civil-Legislature” is the “Highest Source” of “Public-Law” in this nation, Correct?
You seem to be saying that the non-jeffersonain doctrine of “Separation of Church & State” is firmly in place in American “Pubic Law”, & that “Religious-Organizations” are “Not Qualified” to declare what should be considered as “Public-Law”; Correct?
So tell me, what was considered to be the ultimate source of “Public-Law” under the King of England (“Defender of the Faith”), & his “Anglican Church?
Were the Laws of the Official “Church of England” also “Private-Law” in that England, which also Stopped at the “Door of the Church”? I think Not.
The first amendment says the congress shall make no law respecting any religion. It does not say that religion shall make no law respecting congress.
If an IRS Agent comes into a small-town dominated by as single fundamentalist-church, & that church assembles a common-law jury from the common church members of the community who are recognized as being of honorable reputation & character; & they all Try the IRS Agent by constitutionally-recognizable “Due Process of Law” for reaching beyond his constitutionally-authorized authority (what-ever that may be) to commit the public-law/common-law Crime of “Trespass”; & they find him Guilty; then do they have the “Public-Law” authority to arrest him and punish him? I propose the answer is “Yes”.
Again, young sir. You do not have all of the pieces to the larger picture-puzzle. You are talking way too loudly with way too strong a tone of authority. You need to sit down & shut up & listen more respectfully to those who comprehend the fundamentals of this entire larger picture.
>Regards,
>David Merrill.
> P.S. I wish someone articulate as you
I will take that veiled compliment. Perhaps if you apologize to me, I will allow you to speak to me on the phone again; & I will there-in teach you more about how to choose your words in a surgically-precise manner. Hint; it helps to have full knowledge of the entire problem before you, before you open your mouth to speak on it.
> who has been reading my Posts over the years(,) were commenting.
You seem to be admitting to inferior communication skills; yes?
You seem to be admitting an incapacity for competing in direct-debate here, correct?
> Also Charles Bruce, you may not be aware of the editing features in the buttons above your Posts. You can easily delineate quotations with one of the buttons.
Thank you for the concern, young sir. I am familiar with web-based html-editors. I find them cumbersome & inadequate for competitive-debate. They also waste much space on the resulting web-page. I prefer to keep my resulting response tight. I copy the entire document which I am responding to, into a word-perfect document; & compose my line-by-line & point-by-point response there-in. Then I copy & paste it back into the insert window, preview it (mostly for carriage-return errors), & then submit it.
I know my responses are long; but especially at beginning stages of what is obviously becoming an serious debate, I desire not to give any-one the opportunity to accuse me of trying to weasel-out of the issues. If this continues to grow; I will begin taking a meat-ax to it. I notice you are already doing that. There-under, I do not feel the pressure yet to resort to those such evasive tactics; sir.
cbs ...
charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://usa.christiancommonlaw-gov.org |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 16:05:20
|
I will read your lengthy comments and write. So I will touch briefly on some of your topics in the order you have presented them. The reader, who has just finished your letter may have to remember it while reading this Post. I will not be quoting you meticulously throughout like a question and answer format.
My approach to conspiracy is idealistic. You agree it is crippling. But you inquire as to the state of the conspiracy against the Christian patriot community in America. The main problem is the paranoid slant which keeps self-confirming the conspiracy even exists. Here is a great example. I have been talking with a leader much like you who has a webpage/domain very much like yours. We were discussing the proper way to get rid of your Social Security Number. I said quit using it - quit saying it and quit writing it down. He revealed belief in the Phoenix Project, a list of "patriots" who have written the SSA and demanded the SSN be destroyed. This Project will come after you when you try using it again, when you try to revive it from the ashes... Well, duh! But that is not a Project. That is the IRS which tags an identical number to "Taxpayer ID Number" looking for an accounting so they can assess if there are any back taxes from the time you dropped off the grid. They are only trying to get the information you deprived them of by not having the number. Can anyone hear me here? There is no Phoenix Project per se. Why would they have a Project when they don't need one? It is simply investigating for obligations to perform of the claimant party before honoring their own obligations to perform.
quote:
> For one thing this is Internet yarn. I do not expect anyone reading to take it any more seriously than I take it all myself.
Than sounds like an admition that you are not taking the work of achieving justice for the people of america very seriously; yes?
Absolutely the contrary. I am admonishing any reader of the Internet to take things at first glance as nothing more than a yarn. I have the advantage of having the federal repository handy only a few minutes away. Everything anybody says about what happened before they were born or while they were away from being a direct witness is a fabrication. Period. We can weave that fabrication from threads that have tensile strength or yarn, which pulls apart when you tug it. The result of selecting the fiber to weave the fabrication wisely is that the fabrication withstands trial.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_federal_repository.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/IntelligenceID.jpg
Intelligence ID Card
So reading on with your Post:
quote:
Sounds to me as tho you are very serious about your babylonian-whore “revenue-causes”, but that you lack seriousness in addressing the dangers posed by the agents of evil.
You criticize us as being “paranoid”, when we balk at seeking remedy thru your babylonian-whore commercial/administrative process; but you spread that very same “paranoia” when we seek remedy thru Yhvh’s holy laws.
This forum for “psychoanalyzing david merrill” is inadequate, imho. I suggest that we need to call in an exorcist.
I am aware you think me Satan. But understand that I am not Christian and am without the scope of your Christian Common Law. That is private law. I made that comment about any prefix like federal common law inherently defines private law.
In the days of Jesus Christ, mental and physical maladies were attributed to demons. At least in the verbiage we read today. There is a good book, Ritual Magic but I forget the author's name. The subtitle is History in Magic. It reveals the use of hypnosis to produce satanic manifestation. But you can get a person to act like a giraffe too. I've been to those exorcisms. I am ashamed of what we did to those victims in the name of Jesus. Really ashamed to put that kind of confusion and guilt into a trusting woman in particular. That was really evil. To hypnotize her and mess with her head like that.
Anyway I have covered it a few times in these ecclesia pages but since you are new I will say it one more time. In the book Ritual Magic she covers somewhat early and chronologically Qabbalah. She starts the subchapter by quoting Genesis 6:1-8 and before any explanatory text quotes the Book of Enoch. The Oath taken by the angels going into compact because of their desire for the human women - thay if one falls, gets caught and in trouble, they are all in the same boat. That is the origin of ideas about angelic beings and demons. The Book of Enoch. There are many wonderful commentaries that will attempt to guide you straight. The Sons of God are the descendants of Seth and the daughters of men are the daughters of Cain. The Giants are not Raphaim, but Nephalim - bullies. The common interpretation is this intermarriage was causing the pious sons of Seth to start adopting their pagan ways and might was becoming right and getting God pretty upset.
The Readers should take a look at Christian Cabala in Encyclopedia Judaica. I think the Jews pegged that real sweet. The Jewish Qabbalah has the same foundation in a misinterpretation of Genesis 6. The Book of Enoch even worked its way into the New Covenant by name. Lots of Jews believed in demons at the time. And many Christians believe in fallen angels.
quote:
> P.S. I wish someone articulate as you
I will take that veiled compliment. Perhaps if you apologize to me, I will allow you to speak to me on the phone again; & I will there-in teach you more about how to choose your words in a surgically-precise manner.
I gather you are saying that sarcastically to be amusing. I get it.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. In my estimation you are taking me way too seriously. So ask yourself, if I took myself so seriously, would I be the author of this Topic? It seems that it would have been started by an official or self-appointed moderator, not me.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Mar 2005 16:55:16 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 16:28:36
|
Greetings Charles and all,
Charles, I understand your point. Basically, getting away and not being seduced by whores and sluts, for the consequences are getting leprocy and/or other illnesses, both carnal and spiritual.
Manuel |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 16:56:41
|
| But you do not have to 'get away' Manuel. Just learn how to say "No. Thank you." properly. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 05:50:59
|
EX'ORCISM, n. [L. exorcismus.] The expulsion of evil spirits from persons or places by certain adjurations and ceremonies. Exorcism was common among the Jews... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
kabbalah [[...from the Hebrew qabbala]] 1. often Kabbalah A body of mystical teachings of rabbinical origin, often based on an esoteric interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. 2. A secret doctrine resembling these teachings. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition 2000
Not giving heed to Jewish fables,
and commandments of men,
that turn from the truth.
Titus 1:14
Perhaps some definitions (emphasis added throughout) would help clarify?
satan BDB Definition:
1) adversary, one who withstands
1a) adversary (in general - personal or national)
1) (Qal) to be or act as an adversary, resist, oppose
Santanas Thayer Definition: 1) adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act)... 1b) a Satan-like man
Adversary
(Heb. satan), an opponent or foe ; one that speaks against another, a complainant; an enemy , and specially the devil. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Devil
(Gr. diabolos), a slanderer, the arch-enemy of man's spiritual interest. He is called also “the accuser of the brethren”. ...
In the narratives of the Gospels regarding the “casting out of devils” a different Greek word (daimon) is used. (Ibid.)
Accuser
Satan is styled the “accuser of the brethren”...as seeking to uphold his influence among men by bringing false charges against Christians, with the view of weakening their influence and injuring the cause with which they are identified. (Ibid.)
I wrote unto the ekklesia: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence (to be fond of being first, that is, ambitious of distinction) among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against (G5396) us with malicious (G4190) words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the ekklesia. [One such as this might even be prone to indirectly brag about having members booted.]
G5396 phluareo Thayer Definition: 2) to bring forward idle accusations, make empty charges 3) to accuse one falsely with malicious words
G4190 poneros pon-ay-ros; From a derivative of G4192; hurtful, that is, evil (properly in effect or influence, and thus differing from G2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from G4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively calamitous; also (passively) ill, that is, diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, that is, derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
MALI'CIOUS, a. Harboring ill will or enmity without provocation; malevolent in the extreme; malignant in heart. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Mar 2005 09:30:06 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 08:20:14
|
Very sharp, Oneisraelite.
quote:
[One such as this might even be prone to indirectly brag about having members booted.]
From my opening paragraph on this Topic:
quote:
I have had two or three of the most articulate Internet writers booted from this forum (which in some ways I deeply regret) for simply knowing how to keep my cool.
I was not boasting, directly or indirectly. I was pointing it out. If you insist it bragging then consider why I might open this Topic by inviting the repurcussions of boasting so. It was these locked out members who not only lost their temper with me on the forum but likely got into it with Admin as well. They were booted out for the very reasons (being disruptive to the ecclesia) you seem to be directing my way.
Please do not forget that I started this Topic. I am not saying that because you should curb your tongue. Just consider my motivation in doing this to myself. Open a forum for criticism like your Post.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. When you change the text of what others have authored, that is misquoting them. From yesterday on the "Expatriation" Topic:
quote:
And Yahuwâh hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandments Deuteronomy 26:18 [Personal name of the Supreme Suveran restored as per Mosheh, Deuteronomy 32:3]
Maybe I'm crazy for saying so again, but that's not right Oneisraelite. I wish you would quit misquoting the Bible to us. The Readers never got involved with Legalbear misquoting Hopeofisrael's intellectual property, but you should know there are legal repurcussions that can arise. The Maru Foundation just siezed danwinter's domain over theft of intellectual property. http://www.danwinter.com also see http://bahai-library.com/documents/bahaiwomen.html Andrew Brown's decision for WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization.
I know you are not afraid of the Bible Police coming to your door but just the same, it escapes me why you undermine your credibility here so.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Mar 2005 08:46:08 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 08:27:08
|
Did I mention you, David? [Not Intended for Amusement]
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Mar 2005 08:39:12 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 08:30:15
|
quote:
Posted - Mar 24 2005 : 08:27:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention you, David?
That's amusing. [What is amusing is that you were obviously mentioning me.] |
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Mar 2005 08:47:54 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 08:54:13
|
For he beholdeth himself,
and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth
what manner of man he was.
Not so with some, evidently.
quote:
[What is amusing is that you were obviously mentioning me.]
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Mar 2005 09:16:07 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 09:32:01
|
Yes of course Oneisraelite. James 1:25-29 is one of my favorites too. Not just in the "work" as contextually defined but as a general human trait. One has to have experience along with being able to hear for the blessing of truly understanding.
You missed my compliment; "Very sharp Oneisraelite;" That is one of the most articulate insults I have read yet. It was the kind of comment that is welcome not only on this Topic but the forum in general. It causes the reader to carefully analyze David Merrill and his position if any here, and maybe even what "here" is. Being it is Internet cyberspace.
Is there a genuine ecclesia possible in this medium? That is a good question. And if it is so what sort of regulation is required to keep the intruders, the wolves in sheep's clothing from invading the flock. This is like taking Rethinking Boundaries in Cyberspace (Aspen Foundation) a level deeper in consideration.
But back to your insults. I have been informed by Admin if this Topic turns into a "slander mill" it will be deleted. But I doubt he meant when the insults come from the scriptures and are well thought-out like your's was. So I doubt you are going to get any repurcussions out of admitting the obvious and directing the eloquent insult toward me. It seems so cheap when you try to make it out like you were just generically throwing it out there.
Who knows? If you keep up being so convincing maybe large portions of this Internet journal might get locked away or deleted.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Mar 2005 14:08:34 |
|
|
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 17:08:04
|
> I will read your lengthy comments and write. So I will touch briefly on some of your topics in the order you have presented them. The reader, who has just finished your letter may have to remember it while reading this Post. I will not be quoting you meticulously throughout like a question and answer format.
> My approach to conspiracy is idealistic.
So is mine.
> You agree it is crippling.
No.
> But you inquire as to the state of the conspiracy against the Christian patriot community in America.
No. I inquire into your integrity in honorably addressing that conspiracy.
> The main problem is the paranoid slant which keeps self-confirming the conspiracy even exists.
You speak falsely, again.
> Here is a great example. I have been talking with a leader much like you who has a webpage/domain very much like yours. We were discussing the proper way to get rid of your Social Security Number.
I do not believe the Laws of Yhvh require that social security numbers be abandoned.
You must be paranoid.
> I said quit using it - quit saying it and quit writing it down. He revealed belief in the Phoenix Project, a list of "patriots" who have written the SSA and demanded the SSN be destroyed. This Project will come after you when you try using it again, when you try to revive it from the ashes... Well, duh!
These so-called “patriots” are very mis-guided, agreed. My beliefs are much different than theirs. Your comparison of them with me is erroneous.
> But that is not a Project. That is the IRS which tags an identical number to "Taxpayer ID Number" looking for an accounting so they can assess if there are any back taxes from the time you dropped off the grid. They are only trying to get the information you deprived them of by not having the number.
The IRS are entitled to nothing. The IRS have been “deprived” of nothing. “Law” comes from Yhvh. In His eyes, the IRS is a Legal Nullity.
> Can anyone hear me here?
They are probably trying to ignore you.
> There is no Phoenix Project per se. Why would they have a Project when they don't need one? It is simply investigating for obligations to perform of the claimant party before honoring their own obligations to perform.
Your choice of words is confusing.
>>>Quote: For one thing this is Internet yarn. I do not expect anyone reading to take it any more seriously than I take it all myself.
>> Than sounds like an admition that you are not taking the work of achieving justice for the people of america very seriously; yes?
> Absolutely the contrary. I am admonishing any reader of the Internet to take things at first glance as nothing more than a yarn. I have the advantage of having the federal repository handy only a few minutes away. Everything anybody says about what happened before they were born or while they were away from being a direct witness is a fabrication. Period. We can weave that fabrication from threads that have tensile strength or yarn, which pulls apart when you tug it. The result of selecting the fiber to weave the fabrication wisely is that the fabrication withstands trial.
You really are a poor communicator.
You may have some good ideas; but your ability to express them coherently is trash.
<snip>
So reading on with your Post:
>>>Quote: Sounds to me as tho you are very serious about your babylonian-whore “revenue-causes”, but that you lack seriousness in addressing the dangers posed by the agents of evil.
>>>You criticize us as being “paranoid”, when we balk at seeking remedy thru your babylonian-whore commercial/administrative process; but you spread that very same “paranoia” when we seek remedy thru Yhvh’s holy laws.
>>> This forum for “psychoanalyzing david merrill” is inadequate, imho. I suggest that we need to call in an exorcist.
> I am aware you think me Satan.
No. Satan is capable of expressing his thought s more clearly. You are not as articulate as the evil one. But you may well be his obedient servant.
> But understand that I am not Christian and am without the scope of your Christian Common Law.
You speak the words of your own doom.
> That is private law.
You are too stupid to define “private law”. On October 25th , 2001; in this Eklesia forum, under Roman World/Common-Law/The Cause of the Church; “Admin” correctly posted the following:
"The cause of the Church is a public cause". That means the (true) Law of the (true) Church are “Public Laws”. That means you speak Falsely when you label the Laws of the Church to be “Private Laws”.
I note you failed to respond to my illustration about the “Church of England” being the a source of “Public Law” in that nation. And the rest of my illustrations. You just continue ranting mindlessly, repeating your mantra like a broken record, all like an insane &/or demon-possessed woman. This is getting old, sir. I may soon quit giving you the courtesy of my considered responses.
> I made that comment about any prefix like federal common law inherently defines private law.
What about “anglo-saxon” or “general” as a prefix? And federal is based on the term “federalism”, which connotates a consensus-based & de-centralized system of governing; which is also the precise definition of “public” form of governing; all as opposed to “private”, which is centralized in the hands of private interests groups, such as the present defacto federal government, which in reality is about as truly “federal” as the “federal reserve banking” system (zero). Again; you speak in ignorance.
> In the days of Jesus Christ, mental and physical maladies were attributed to demons. At least in the verbiage we read today. There is a good book, Ritual Magic but I forget the author's name. The subtitle is History in Magic. It reveals the use of hypnosis to produce satanic manifestation. But you can get a person to act like a giraffe too.
True. But that does not mean demonic-possession does not also exist.
> I've been to those exorcisms. I am ashamed of what we did to those victims in the name of Jesus.
You use the term “We” way to broadly; pharisee.
> Really ashamed to put that kind of confusion and guilt into a trusting woman in particular. That was really evil. To hypnotize her and mess with her head like that.
It was mostly the roman catholic church; & perhaps a few severely-misguided protestant-sects.
But you speak accurately about it being evil; yes.
> Anyway I have covered it a few times in these ecclesia pages but since you are new I will say it one more time. In the book Ritual Magic she covers somewhat early and chronologically Qabbalah. She starts the subchapter by quoting Genesis 6:1-8 and before any explanatory text quotes the Book of Enoch. The Oath taken by the angels going into compact because of their desire for the human women - thay if one falls, gets caught and in trouble, they are all in the same boat.
I am familiar with the legend.
>That is the origin of ideas about angelic beings and demons.
There are others.
> The Book of Enoch. There are many wonderful commentaries that will attempt to guide you straight. The Sons of God are the descendants of Seth and the daughters of men are the daughters of Cain. The Giants are not Raphaim, but Nephalim - bullies. The common interpretation is this intermarriage was causing the pious sons of Seth to start adopting their pagan ways and might was becoming right and getting God pretty upset.
Close enuff.
> The Readers should take a look at Christian Cabala in Encyclopedia Judaica. I think the Jews pegged that real sweet. The Jewish Qabbalah has the same foundation in a misinterpretation of Genesis 6. The Book of Enoch even worked its way into the New Covenant by name. Lots of Jews believed in demons at the time. And many Christians believe in fallen angels.
So what is your point?
>>>Quote: P.S. I wish someone articulate as you
>> I will take that veiled compliment. Perhaps if you apologize to me, I will allow you to speak to me on the phone again; & I will there-in teach you more about how to choose your words in a surgically-precise manner.
> I gather you are saying that sarcastically to be amusing. I get it.
No you don’t.
<snip>
>P.S. In my estimation you are taking me way too seriously.
Probably. Godless/lawless people do not deserve to be taken seriously.
But you are the most frequent poster in this forum which is devoted to the salvation of mankind, & loyalty to Yhvh; both very serious subjects.
If I were admin; I would have gotten in your face seriously by now, & you would either be curtailing your blasphemous-barf severely; or you would be booted from the forum,.
> So ask yourself, if I took myself so seriously, would I be the author of this Topic?
It seems that it would have been started by an official or self-appointed moderator, not me.
Pharisees are very skilled at psychological crowd-control. “Hide in plain sight” is a common tactic. Place your most vulnerable weakness on the table first; then in all future debates, the presumption will be that the issue has already been exhaustively addressed; & for anyone to dare to raise it again is a sign of ignorance. I do not care who presumes me to be ignorant. You are the top poster in this forum devoted to Yhvh’s assembly. I am probably going to try to ignore you for a while now; but if you arrogantly cross my path again, pharisee; then I will not be nearly so kind to you.
Truly;
charles bruce, stewart
charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://usa.christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/GeneralAssembly |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 17:37:45
|
About the Patriot conspiracy in America:quote:
No. I inquire into your integrity in honorably addressing that conspiracy.
You would have me comment on something I do not think exists? I know you may be in a rural area but I have the IMF, Federal Reserve Bulletins, United Nations Bulletins, State Department Bulletins etc. however you can inform yourself by getting the scoop from primary sources like the Club de Paris, testimony and speeches of the Federal Reserve Governors, IMF news, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Bank for International Settlements etc. over the Internet. Then you might at least have a chance of believing me when I tell you there are no conspiracies. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FederalRepositoryBasement.wmv quote:
I do not believe the Laws of Yhvh require that social security numbers be abandoned.
You must be paranoid.
I have not abandoned it. The SSA only requires one contribute 40 quarters before being entitled to benefits. Readers you better check that out for yourself and be sure before you follow it as policy. But combined with articles like "The system is broken" I have little faith in the SSA anyway. So I stopped contributing into a broken system that will likely bear no fruit. quote:
No. Satan is capable of expressing his thought s more clearly. You are not as articulate as the evil one. But you may well be his obedient servant.
Thank you for clarifying your beliefs about me and confirming my theory about your belief in Satan correct. quote:
> I made that comment about any prefix like federal common law inherently defines private law.
What about “anglo-saxon” or “general” as a prefix?
Well I admit you got me there with "general" as a prefix. But even "public" if you look at it as a prefix would mean "governmental" common law by substitution. "Anglo-saxon" common law is private to anglo-saxons. quote:
But you are the most frequent poster in this forum which is devoted to the salvation of mankind, & loyalty to Yhvh; both very serious subjects.
If I were admin; I would have gotten in your face seriously by now, & you would either be curtailing your blasphemous-barf severely; or you would be booted from the forum,.
Let that be evidence you have misconstrued both me, my intent and the devotions of this forum.
You have a very clear admission to the beliefs I have explained clearly about demons and Satan. So I agree we will not see eye-to-eye on about anything. I will not go out of my way to agitate you.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Mar 2005 23:04:49 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 20:52:22
|
| charles8854, good post. |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 00:15:53
|
Just an observation:
quote:
I do not believe the Laws of Yhvh require that social security numbers be abandoned.
You must be paranoid.
Interesting…
You don’t think Yhvh has a problem with His people looking to the State for their security?
Have you ever read the scriptures, sir?
It’s pretty obvious to me that about 90% of what Yhvh is trying to communicate to those who would be His, is the fact that you are not to look to idols, the State (the beast in Yhvh terminology), or anything else for your security—only Him.
Also…
What did He do to the Israelites for accepting a number under King David? Duh!
You ever notice how it’s getting harder and harder to buy or sell (survive) in the market place without that number? I would argue, that the social security number is one of the ways the State/beast marks its territory/property (mark of the beast maybe?).
I would be paranoid… very paranoid.
After reading your all posts Charles, all that comes to mind is… “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”
David Merrill, although I don’t agree with you on all points, and you are a bit confusing at times, I have to commend you for this thread and your ability to keep your cool despite all the bashing, warranted or not. I believe not, by the way. Yes, you have stepped on some toes and bruised some EGOS , but hey, it’s all good!
Thank God, we’re no longer in the dark ages (or are we?)David. Because, me thinks, you would be one crispy critter by now. ;-)
Peace,
Mark
|
Edited by - Mark on 25 Mar 2005 00:19:51 |
|
|
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 03:06:24
|
>Just an observation:
>>Quote: I do not believe the Laws of Yhvh require that social security numbers be abandoned.
You must be paranoid.
>Interesting…
>You don’t think Yhvh has a problem with His people looking to the State for their security?
Error. You did not meticulously form the basis for your ultimate conclusion; sir.
Just because I do not believe that using a coercively-imposed social-security-number, causes Yhvh to consider us to be dis-loyal to him; it does not automatically follow that I also believe that the municipal/defacto “State” is my source of “security”; as you so erroneously conclude.
Further, I normally like to open conversation with a new person on a plesant level.
But since you are coming at me with in a manner supporting my opponent, & in an antagonistic-tone, I am going to be a bit short with you.
> Have you ever read the scriptures, sir?
I will wager I have spent more time in scripture than have you.
How old are you? What is your denomination? Who the heck are you?
> It’s pretty obvious to me that about 90% of what Yhvh is trying to communicate to those who would be His, is the fact that you are not to look to idols,
Agreed.
> the State
Disagreed. You Definition of “State”, is lacking.
“We Are the Church, & We Are the State”. (Schweitzer-101)
The mission of the ekklesia is to fill the present vacuum at the helm of the ship of state.
>(the beast in Yhvh terminology),
You are referring to the municipal/romanized/defacto/godless/babylonian-whore “state”; as opposed to the anglo-saxon/celtic/christian/israelite “state”. This nation/state was founded on christain/israelite principles. The “puritans” believed america to be “new-jerusalem”. If you had done your theocratic/biblical home-work, you would be aware of these fundamentals.
> or anything else for your security—only Him.
“He” / “Yhvh” Provides for His People. We are in a spiritual war-zone. We are out-gunned & reduced to gorilla/hit-&-run warfare. We take what we can get from the treasury of the enemy, & we there-after use it to advance Yhvh’s spiritual-battle. We are a “5th-column”, inside the gates of the Our christian/israelite “state”, which has been subjected to “hostile take-over” by a godless, lawless, & murderous enemy. That godless “enemy” postures as a benevolent dictator, who maliciously coerces the conquered people of israel in-to using their evil ssi-papers; & there-after takes “silent judicial notice” that we have “consented to be governed” by their babylonian-whore jurisdiction. They take “silent judicial notice” of this “presumption of law”, because they know it cannot with-stand open debate. There are a hundred reasons under “contract-law 101" as to why such “presumed-contracts” are not valid. They know this, & may of us now know this; sir ...
> Also…
What did He do to the Israelites for accepting a number under King David? Duh!
If you want a debate here where we are using abusive-wording on each other; I can do that.
Just keep it up; boy.
> You ever notice how it’s getting harder and harder to buy or sell (survive) in the market place without that number?
It is also getting harder to survive with the number.
Becoming a martyr over a non-valid & presumed contract is a very poor battle-field strategy.
Do you use “federal reserve notes”? Do you buy gasoline which has federal taxes imposed on it? Do you ride in cars of friends who by gasoline with federal taxes on it? Do you use zip-codes on your mail? I wager you admit to at least one of these; & all of them are similarly falsely construed by the corrupted judiciary (which merrill supports) as forming a legal-nexus/minimal-contacts with the babylonian-whore jurisdiction. So your singling-out of the ssi-issue, is prejudicial to equally-concerning issues in other areas. At least some of which you & most honorable patriots are similarly partaking in.
John Quade (Williams) used to say that receiving mail at anything other than a general delivery postoffice formed a legal-nexus/minimal-contact with the babylonian-whore jurisdiction. Many patriots used to go though these extreme lengths in strained efforts to maintain their free-man status. Most now do not bother. Schweitzer & the remainder of the montana-freemen went thru these burdensome lengths. It did not save them. If the agents of the evil-empire want you, they will nab you. It is that simple. They do not respect “Law” in any of it’s constitutional or defacto forms. They are governed by “the rule of men”. They are “anarchists”. It’s that simple.
> I would argue, that the social security number is one of the ways the State/beast marks its territory/property (mark of the beast maybe?).
In the corrupted eyes of the morally-compromised defacto-judiciary; yes. In the eyes of Yhvh; “No”. Under modern/constitutional principles of “Contract Law”, “No”.
>I would be paranoid… very paranoid.
You do what you think best, young man.
> After reading your all posts Charles, all that comes to mind is…
> “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”
Keep it up, boy. Just keep it up.
charles bruce, stewart
charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://usa.christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/GeneralAssembly
<snip> |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 08:09:26
|
quote:
Charels said: Do you use “federal reserve notes”? Do you buy gasoline which has federal taxes imposed on it?
Hi Charles. Steve here. I'd like to say to you: Bingo! It is very hard to buy or sell with out FRNs or some type of fiat currency. For most everybody I know FRNs are in our 'right hand' and when we go to the STORE to buy CONSUMER ITEMS. They are "in our forehead" when we figure our wages by the hour, or when we give a bid on a job, set our food budgets, etc. I still scratch my head how THEY were able to pull off such a scheme with the SCRIP. Sorcery of the merchants! If anybody doubts the seriousness of the FRN consider what happens to countries in the Middle East who speak about NOT measuring oil in FRNs anymore. I salute anybody who is doing anything they can to disconnect from the "SYSTEM" but it goes much deeper than no DL, etc.
We would have to "just say no" to THIER whole program, in toto. Very hard to do but if anyone has any ideas then I'd be very interested in hearing them. Getting past the theological arguments/disagreements would maybe be just as hard as giving up the FRNs... just some thoughts.
S
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 08:16:40
|
Greetings and salutations brother Charles:
Peace be unto the house.
You state: “coercively-imposed social-security-number”
(1) …the synonym for coerce is force, do you believe we are “forced” to use this number, or do we "choose" to use it for convenience sake, i.e. benefits, privileges and advantages?
(2) Do you perceive it to be High Treason to knowingly take the chattel number, i.e. become the chattel property, of another ruler?
(3) Has it ever, in the history of the earth, been considered High Treason against one's government to use the medium of exchange of another country/nation, or to pay sales tax, gas tax, and etc., while sojourning in it?
We thank you in advance for your thoughtful answers on these points of interest.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 25 Mar 2005 10:11:50 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 08:44:00
|
Mark said;
quote:
"What did He do to the Israelites for accepting a number under King David? Duh!
You ever notice how it’s getting harder and harder to buy or sell (survive) in the market place without that number? I would argue, that the social security number is one of the ways the State/beast marks its territory/property (mark of the beast maybe?."
That point is really cool! I remember that being more a census than individual number but I think you are applying it in a reasonable manner.
Biblically I focus more on the institution of man-kings. Also I do not believe in the existence of de jure government. Morelike commercial corporations providing government-like services.
So when I turn 65 if I want the fruits of the 40+ quarters I paid in, I will apply and assert claim. A simple contract.
The concept of things getting more and more difficult to buy and sell is symptom of self-confirming paranoid delusions. Albeit generated by a completely regulated contraction of the Dollar and devaluation against the Euro. The central bankers thus implement stricter risk management algorithms executed through various "controls". Get on the Federal Reserve Board's subscription to all the speeches and testimony of the governors. I see it all the time. There are obstacles, sure. And you may be more realistic than me about thinking it is a Book of Revelation occurance, and I do not think so. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/default.htm
One thing is the Patriot Act. That is a great example and if you understand venue, only focus in on the Section 377 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Then you will find the Patriot Act a completely lawful construct that only effects you when you do very limited and suspicious laundering activities. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Mark; Thank you for your kind support. Crazy or not, being convinced I am correct is what keeps me calm. I came across a "cure" for skin cancer in Hienerman's Encyclopedia of Fruits, Vegetables and Herbs based in St. John's Wort cured for about a month in terpentine and wine and most importantly direct sunlight. I am in good health but started adding it to my skin lotion. Later to find out that was a natural slow-release treatment - mood stabilization. Maybe that has something to do with it.
My theory about Charles being so bitter formed when I clicked over to his site yesterday to discover he and I bickering there. He has actually imported cut-and-paste our conversations here. That is a little disturbing because he can there, make me say whatever he wishes.
But the bickering I am mentioning makes up two thirds of the Posts anyway. The only other thing there on the General Assembly of his world government under Christian (private) Common Law is something very paranoid he wrote himself a month ago. I checked into forming a website and albeit with a top-quality firm found with complete electronic funds transactions we were talking about $4K just to get started.
Ergo my theory is that with his investment flopping so terribly, we are bearing the brunt of his frustration here. If it is any consolation Charles, thank you for the lesson. Some Purple Cows just do not attract attention. http://www.mysearch.com/jsp/GGmain.jsp?searchfor=purple+cow I am sorry you spent so much time and effort to make that go and sympathize with that kind of disappointment. I am considering the same kind of venture (but of course differently) and appreciate that the Lord has shown me through you, the risks.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Mar 2005 16:35:29 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Psychoanalyzing David Merrill
