| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 18:42:51
|
Foolish... David Merrill. To think that I was degrading a simple creature like a squirrel compared to your many "PARANOID" accusations for the truth. I know that Yashua knew very well that there where and are many "JUDAS ESCARIOT'S," let alone that He was safer ridding on a simple creature jack-ass. Of course, that is contrary to your beliefs, and call the truth a lie by using now "ranting" instead of "PARANOIA."
|
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 18:58:38
|
quote:
Of course, that is contrary to your beliefs,...
Yes, in order for the readers to understand why I point out paranoia when I hear it, I have made my beliefs about Yehoshuah H'Natzrith known. That is transparency.
Anyone reading your last few Posts here would agree that you are ranting and railing wildly against your perceived evils of world and including me. It seems so furious that you are unable to really articulate enough information for me to formulate any kind of coherent response in return.
Nobody has to believe any of it Manuel. There are a lot of people who wont give me the time of day to read my Posts, I am sure.
I too despise when people step on other people in the color of the law and authority - when bankers get greedy and do shady attorney tricks. My pet peave is the taped envelopes. Especially when the court clerks do it. Can you believe that a professional deputy clerk in the US Courthouse would actually put process in the mail without moistening the security seal on the envelope? That he or she would put a little piece of transparent tape on it? - after being paid a $150, now $250 filing fee? That just rags me!
But here is the reason it rags me Manuel - Rules of Evidence. If the process incriminates the sender, a federal judge for contempt of court or something like that. There is no place to take the cause. You threw away rules of evidence by even reading it! How do you know the process is what left the courthouse if the envelope was not properly sealed?
So the objective is to take people carefully through my claim - there are no conspiracies. Someone can find a lot of junk process and like your rants Manuel, a lot of kangaroo gibberish. [Kangaroo is Aborigine for "I do not know a word you are saying." said to an early English explorer when he inquired about the strange looking beasts.]
But that is not to say you are wasting the Readers' time Manuel. At least how I see it, you are demonstrating how paranoia incapacitates a man from effectively communicating. Marty and Mark may not be buying what I am selling about there being no conspiracies, but they are picking away at the thought with meticulous, well thought out questions that make sense in Post-by-Post building context. At least I am making that out of this as it builds Page by Page.
And I think they are becoming more functional by understanding why I despise paranoia so, conspiracies or not.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Mar 2005 19:18:08 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 19:22:48
|
| David Merrill... it is done. Is that simple enough... David Merrill? |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2005 : 02:28:51
|
quote:
Marty and Mark may not be buying what I am selling about there being no conspiracies,
No, I don't believe there are conspiracies per say, David, but I know there is a whole lot of greed and deception involved. I also know that His Kingdom is come. His will is done, as in heaven so also on earth. And all fits into His plan, and therefore it is good, though it may not always feel good.
Randy Lee and brothers, have done extensive research in the subject of government, and don’t believe there are any conspiracies, because every thing according to the evidence is a mater of public record and/or full disclosure, which you obviously know. Ya just gotta know where to look, or how to look, and be able to see the obvious or not so obvious, which many apparently cannot—including me… 
Peace,
Mark
|
Edited by - Mark on 27 Mar 2005 02:36:39 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2005 : 08:28:09
|
In a nutshell, you have captured my purpose here on ecclesia.org. [More specifically to gauge progress in your and Randy Lee's revelation through intelligence gathered from this and other echo chambers. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378&whichpage=1 ]
Aside from the greed and deception is conditioning. By law the right of arrest was conveyed from the State district court (courts of record) rules to the F.R.C.P. in 2000.
quote:
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims - Rule C(3)(a)(ii)
(B) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
preceeded by:
Except as otherwise provided by law a party who may proceed in rem may also, or in the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.
But in numerous Certificates of Exigent Circumstances the US clerks fail to execute the warrants. They cannot believe that anybody has the right to execute an arrest simply for taking responsibility. Simply for certifying that judicial review is impracticable.
Progress is however being made on this. Through intrepid courts of competent jurisdiction willing to keep at the rule of law prevailing - as you put it, the kingdom of heaven being implemented by God through his servants. Appropriation of Biblical promises.
So imagine bankers, brokers and employers having their attorneys insist they wait for a judicial decree instead of administrative Notice before diverting your funds and property. That could be soon.
Regards,
David Merrill.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FederalRepositoryBasement.wmv
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/IntelligenceID.jpg
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Mar 2005 11:58:38 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2005 : 19:46:14
|
There is a conspiracy
of her prophets in the midst of it,
like a roaring lion ravening the prey:
they have devoured souls;
they take treasure and precious things;
they have made her widows many in the midst of it.
Ezekiel 22:25
conspiracy
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000
Just so we understand the "no conspiracy" proponents correctly, is it your humble opinions that no AGENTS of kosmokrator have ever made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa? And for the record, it does not have to be in secret, to be a conspiracy. On the contrary, some conspiracies are blatant.
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 27 Mar 2005 20:35:41 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2005 : 22:41:03
|
quote:
Just so we understand the "no conspiracy" proponents correctly, is it your humble opinions that no AGENTS of kosmokrator have ever made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa?
That is so straight from the Book of Enoch.
quote:
From Genesis 6:1-8
Ge 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Ge 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Ge 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
quote:
From The Book of Enoch; Chapter 6:
And it came to pass when the children of men had multipied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Smejaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the day of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samiazaz, their leader, Arakiba, Mareel...
I will leave you with that. We all have our choices.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Mar 2005 23:59:56 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 06:24:48
|
Unfortunately, we have never read the Book of Enoch, so we can only guess that you are proving by this...
"And they all answered him and said: 'let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it."
...that conspiracies go back a very long time and that they do indeed exist. Obviously the Set-Apart Scripture agrees with your apparent conclusion on this matter since the word "conspiracy" appears 13 times equally, in both the LITV (Literal Translation of the Bible) and the HNV (Hebrew Names Version of the Bible), and 10 times in the KJV (King James Version). We thank you for that additional verification, which we did not have.
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 28 Mar 2005 06:56:26 |
|
|
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 07:58:09
|
The "Book of Enoch" can be found a number of places on-line, here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/enoch/
http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm
There are probably also other on-line sources.
There is also much on-line discussion of
the implications of this apocrypha-text.
Enoch is cited in the Bible.
It is one of the most powerful indictments of
those who selected the standard Biblical texts,
that the book of Enoch was not included there-in.
Ther can be no explanaction, in my mind,
othern than that they were serving their own private interests.
cbs ... |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 08:51:18
|
Oneisraelite;
I have said it several times. But never connected the Readers by link (thanks). The production of a Satan or what I presume you have replaced by a cosmokrator term, is a Jewish myth that arises from the Book of Enoch and Jubilees. I prefer to quote Enoch because in the West it is a little more popular of the two.
If you conjure conspiracies out of blatant banker policy, when you try to zero in on the "Masters" your investigation will dissolve in a fog. It falls apart because there is no substance.
In a lunch yesterday here is how I described it;
If there were enough substance to these conspiracies the 'goodness' in human nature would slowly prosecute commercially. The papers that spin the cover-up yarn would go by the wayside and those that revealed the conspiracy would prosper. Morelike if people cared, then a new style of newspaper would arise and these numbskull advertisements would diminish.
It is METRO policy to keep offices vacant. I surprised a district attorney years ago and he quit work that day, with no oath of office in place for nearly eight years. Now he is acting Attorney General John Suthers (Colorado). But he tends to leave me alone.
All in all, you can keep your conspiracy theories dear to your heart Oneisraelite. Go ahead. That paranoia will disable your court and keep you from being a nuisance to the corruption and greed that does arise in individuals and small cartels.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 09:09:01
|
Sorry, it would seem that I misunderstood your intent and conclusion. Thus this quote from us...
"Just so we understand the "no conspiracy" proponents correctly, is it your humble opinions that no AGENTS of kosmokrator have ever made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa?"
...could be re-worded into a statement something like this...
"So, we understand this "no conspiracy" proponent's humble opinion to be that AGENTS of kosmokrator have never made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa." Is that correct?
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 28 Mar 2005 10:34:46 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 09:16:05
|
You seem to be corralling me into some debate about kosmokrator. Forget it.
Repeatedly misquoting the Bible to us reveals your sophistry with definitions and words of art.
You believe in conspiracies if you want Oneisraelite. Go right ahead. I know better. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Mar 2005 09:17:43 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 10:00:58
|
No, the Greek word kosmokrator is not the issue here, this is:
"So, we understand this "no conspiracy" proponent's humble opinion to be that AGENTS of the GOVERNMENT have never made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa [the very definition of conspiracy]." Is that correct?
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 28 Mar 2005 10:33:49 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 10:26:09
|
Please, skip the character assassination and answer the question in a polite manner and I will do the same.
"So, we understand this "no conspiracy" proponent's humble opinion to be that AGENTS of the GOVERNMENT have never made "an agreement to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action" or vice versa [the very definition of conspiracy]."
Is that correct?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
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 28 Mar 2005 10:38:56 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 12:21:26
|
I will not. For the reason already pointed out.
I do not answer your leading questions. Also, I am satisfied the Readers can see you are trying me.
Have your conspiracies if they somehow serve you, Oneisraelite.
Do you still beat your wife? Please only answer that "yes" or "no".
I love Internet trials Oneisraelite. The are very edifying and quite entertaining.
I spent two or three pages recently hoping you would explain how using the names "Yahuway" and "Yahushuah" justified you to misquote the Holy Bible. You refused to answer and in my mind, lost credibility. [Well you answered in private but forbid that I share that on the Posts. But your answer failed to justify pioneering new regulations on quoting others.] So this is the result of that judgment against you Oneisraelite. I do not answer to you.
I would not go through the trouble to get up and find a dictionary to make sure you are not misquoting that too. But just the same, it is a leading question.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Mar 2005 13:04:29 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 19:03:16
|
This forum wasn't created for those who do or do not claim to be "members" of the ecclesiastic body of our Creator Lord and God to conduct "mind games" of cleverness and sharp tongues. The true ecclesia despises these worldly games of "whit". We're all sick and tired of every religious splintered group that claims to know more than the common Christ-centered Man knows. None of us care about purported "SPIRITUAL" religious debates as to the "true" name of our Creator. All that matters is that He is recognized... not what name anyone claims is correct.
All of you may find out that the worldly "NAME" you insist is the "true" name of God is far from correct... and then where will you be?
The fanatic Pharisee and Saducee debates on this entire forum are foolishness. Grow up and learn what Spirit Life is all about... and stop drinking the milk of infants.
Dios es el Senor. La Verdad es la Verdad. La Vida es solamente con el Senor, no con el mundo o con religion. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 19:39:30
|
Yes. Of course.
I think it is clear by my writing that I use "Jesus" as well as "Yehoshuah" or "Yehovah" and "God" depending on what I think will convey my thoughts most clearly to the Readers. It is well within the context of "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" to examine my compunction to correct misquoting others. And my puzzlement why I would be the only one who insists custom and usage of quoting others, especially the Holy Bible be followed. And especially when there is only one member here who insists on misquoting verses.
I also feel that the matter is resolved. I proferred the accusation and asked for explanation. I however made the mistake of allowing Oneisraelite to lead me into PMs where he answered my question and therefore felt nobody else deserved an answer. So in turn I should answer his question here in private and forbid him to share it with you? No.
I decided to allow things to rest. But he has loaded a question cut-and-dry, prefixing it with a personalized satanic being named kosmocrator. The question is gibberish and I have explained* that and now he is pressing for a yes or no to the suffix of the question only.
When he refused to explain on the open journal why he feels justified to misquote the Bible, I made a judgment that his credibility stinks. If he misquotes the Bible why should I bother checking that he has not misquoted the dictionary definition of conspiracy? So his pressing the matter of 'yes' or 'no' here to the loaded question brought that judgment up in his face. That is a consequence of his decisions before. That judgment stands.
In my mind at least, I am not fanatical about Sacred Name theology. This is about credibility and honoring a judgment made in my court. Oneisraelite needs not honor it but he should understand I am not answerable to him any more. Not like other members. I was before. Now I am not.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I will however point out what I feel is the fault in the question for the benefit of the Readers. What I call "paranoia" blinds many people to understand the function of people in government. And I do not mean 14th Amendment status citizens, although they are actually people with the potential of becoming people.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv
Take a look at this video clip and note when Leroy Michael, the man states plainly that Justus Township is running the government about five minutes into the clip. Was that paranoid delusions of grandeur or a sense of reality and simple overconfidence in the law? [More accurately interpreting Christian Common Law for common law, the Freemen thought the UCC a part of Christian (private) Common Law.] I say the latter. So above I walked Oneisraelite through the 'departure' of the comptroller of the currency or trying to implement the final rule. The purpose of the federal register is to give people (the People) thirty days to interact and I did so, as the people. Is the departure of John Hawke just a coincidence and I think I had something to do with it a delusion of grandeur? Maybe, but one thing about past tense timelines and dates is that they don't lie. And there is a fairly convincing paper trail that is easily confirmed with a trip down to the library newspaper archives.
So I found his driving that loaded question both cheap and childish payback for my misquote accusations. When he insisted on pressing it, I brought out my judgment against him.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Mar 2005 23:59:08 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 08:49:21
|
This forum wasn't created...to conduct "mind games" of cleverness and sharp tongues. The true ecclesia despises these worldly games of "whit". - Bondservant
Well said, brother Michael.
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 29 Mar 2005 20:09:04 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Psychoanalyzing David Merrill
