| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Mar 2005 : 05:46:33
|
Greetings once more brothers and sisters,
Peace be unto the house.
The subject of this topic is actually a question, it is questioning whether expatriation is The remedy, but the issue at hand is that we perceive that civil death may very well be that remedy. This means that we die to the Roman legal system, the very system that created "person". This explains that once one experiences civil death he or she is then classified as an unperson or nonperson.
New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition
non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government
un-per-son (un’per’sen) n. a person completely ignored, as if non-existent
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary & Thesaurus
Main Entry: non.per.son
Pronunciation: 'nän-'p&r-s[^&]n
Function: noun
Date: circa 1909 : a person who is regarded as nonexistent: as a : UNPERSON b : one having no social or legal status
Main Entry: un.per.son
Pronunciation: '&n-'p&r-s[^&]n, -"p&r-
Function: noun
Date: 1949 : an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration
Webster’s New World Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 411 & 296 respectively.
id’e·ol’o·gy 4. The intellectual pattern [images of the mind] of any widespread culture or movement; as, exposure to Anglo-Saxon ideology; specif., the integrated assertions, theories, and aims constituting a politico-social program, often with and implication of factitious propagandizing; as, Fascism was altered in Germany to fit the Nazi ideology.
fac·ti’tious 1. Artificial; sham. 2. Formed by, or adapted to, an artificial standard; not natural; as, a factitious value; hence, induced or produced artificially or by special effort…
If Yahuwah and his Anointed One are not respecters of "persons", as it is written, and we, through civil death, become "unpersons" or "nonpersons", guess what? Yahuwah and His Principal Officer (High Priest) can once again have regard for us.
So what is the "down-side" of this civil death? We become harmless in the world, that is to say, we lose the privilege/benefit of being sued or suing, among several others. If we are civilly dead to the world, we are for all intensive (legal) purposes non-existant to it (the world) because Heylel [Lucifer], as the mirror image (antithesis) of Yahuwah, is not a respecter of living beings.
Question, if one can sue, then does it not stand to reason that you may also be sued (prosecuted/persecuted)? Or, to put it another way, can one have their cake and eat it too? Logic tells us that if we eat our cake, we no longer have it.
The bottom line is this, if we are civilly dead to Yahuwah's government then we, by default, are citizens (subject) to kosmokrator's government.
(LITV) And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves. And Jehovah will not answer you in that day.
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 10 Mar 2005 09:14:38 |
 |
|
|
1234jagal
0
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2005 : 09:22:56
|
All men who are elected as rulers by the "dead" meaning those without the spirit are "dead men".
"Dead" meaning dead to God.
God turns his back on them and so should we.
Therefore why do we live by the rule of dead men?
Why do bow and worship (serve) dead men?
Why do we even acknowledge them as having any authority or rule?
God does not acknowledge them they are DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
"But Yashua Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Matthew 8:22
They are zombies!!!!!
Do we not all know that we have a King who is alive who governs this world and his Kingdom on earth.
Our King is supreme, jealous and forbids fornication with the dead.
PS: We are also dead. But dead to world, not dead to God.
There is huge differance.
We are alive because of the spirit that gives us life.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2005 : 07:56:11
|
Greetings 1234jagal, brothers and sisters,
Peace be unto the house.
One of the things we feel we should point out here is that religion was created, by man to control man, which is why we do not find any variation of that word in the Old Covenant [Testament]. The first religion, if you will, was the molten calf that Aaron made, but we shall save that for another time. If you doubt that religion was made by men to control [other] men, try practicing the freedom of religion you reportedly have in the jurisdiction of the corporation known as UNITED STATES by telling your “servants” that henceforth you will obey “God (Yahuwah) rather than men” and see where your freedom gets you [imprisonment if you persist]. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t a treatise about freedom of religion, it was a dissertation on liberty and freedom of government; read it for yourself.
This superstitious nature carries over into our perception of the word spirit as well; we have a tendency to put religious connotations on it. Shaul (Paul) perceived that the men of Athens were too superstitious; let us show what that meant.
G1174 deisidaimonesteros ...more religious...
SUPERSTI'TIOUS, a. [L. superstitiosus.] 1. Over scrupulous and rigid in religious observances; addicted to superstition; full of idle fancies and scruples in regard to religion; as superstitious people.
Superstitious use, in law, the use of land for a religious purpose, or by a religious corporation.
This misunderstanding proceeds from our lack of truth concerning the word ‘elohiym [god] in our humble opinion and from the false teachings of the Accuser and his ministers of righteousness in the temples built by men’s hands. It is very difficult, we know, to escape the grasp of our first teachings (rudiments/elements/principles of the world) but it is necessary in order to achieve a true comprehension of why the Adversary did not want The Book of the Law in the hands of the common people.
Colossians 2:8 (LITV) Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Messiah.
Galatians 4:3 (LITV) Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world…
A full understanding of the next verse may offend many religious people…
Hebrews 6:1 (KJV) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ (the Anointed One), let us go on unto perfection (completion); not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith (fidelity) toward God (Yahuwah)…
…but it is absolutely necessary in order that we complete (perfect) the work he started, both for us, and in us. An etymology of the word religion here, might help to clear away the debris of the first teachings of the world which we received.
RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]
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 10 Mar 2005 09:36:03 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2005 : 09:01:52
|
RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]
Two questions we have concerning the above etymology; (1) is the oath or vow to the gods also called the Pledge of Allegiance and (2) do the Romans also hold sacred our Oath of Allegiance (Shaba) to Yahweh?
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 12 Mar 2005 09:05:15 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2005 : 18:53:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]Two questions we have concerning the above etymology; (1) is the oath or vow to the gods also called the Pledge of Allegiance and (2) do the Romans also hold sacred our Oath of Allegiance (Shaba) to Yahweh?
Religion reminds me of re-legion.
I looked up the definition of hero and this is what came up:
Webster Dictionary, 1913
Searching for: "hero"
Found 1 hit(s).
-------------------------------
Hero (Page: 688)
He"ro (?), n.; pl. Heroes (#). [F. héros, L. heros, Gr. .]
1. (Myth.) An illustrious man, supposed to be exalted, after death, to a place among the gods; a demigod, as Hercules.
2. A man of distinguished valor or enterprise in danger, or fortitude in suffering; a prominent or central personage in any remarkable action or event; hence, a great or illustrious person.
Each man is a hero and oracle to somebody. Emerson.
3. The principal personage in a poem, story, and the like, or the person who has the principal share in the transactions related; as Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey, and æneas in the æneid.
The shining quality of an epic hero. Dryden.
Hero worship, extravagant admiration for great men, likened to the ancient worship of heroes.
Hero worship exists, has existed, and will forever exist, universally among mankind. Carlyle. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2005 : 08:07:44
|
Greetings brother Manuel:
Peace be unto the house.
We shall add to what you have said; Herodes (translated Herod) is a title and evidently means heroic (appear as heros), as in heroic Antipas, heroic Archelaus, heroic Philip I & Philip II, and heroic Agrippa I & Agrippa II, and etc.
Easton's Bible Dictionary tells us that the Herodians were "a Jewish political party", while Webster's 1828 Dictionary tells us that they were "a sect among the Jews", thus demonstrating, for the brothers and sisters here, that a sect is a political party.
Now, if we put that knowledge together with this verse of the Scripture we begin to see the light.
Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes... [Emphasis added]
Cornerstone Foundation (Marty) has pointed out, via PM and telephone, some possible error in what is stated next and we are delving into this, and if it is Yahuwâh's will, we will amend the remainder of this post as time permits.
And this is the meaning of the Greek word Nazoraios, translated Nazarenes in Act 24:5, according to Thayer's Greek Definitions,"Nazarite = “one separated”", the plural of which, of course, would be "ones separated".
And this word Nazarite leads us back to the Old Covenant [Testament]...
Numbers 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto Yahuwâh...
...and Nazarite here is from the Hebrew word naziyr, which means, "separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite)".
We see from this definition that "consecrated" and "separated" are synonymous, at least in this instance, and we perceive that it always means this.
The Greek form of this word Nazoraios is used fifteen times in the New Covenant [Testament] and in every instance, but the one we have shown above, it is in direct reference to Yahu'shua [JESUS], the Nazarene (Prince of Yahuwâh).
Endnote: The phrase "the Nazarene" was mistranslated in the King James Version, in all but one instance, as "of Nazareth", according to The Zondervan Parallel New Testament In Greek and English, Greek Interlinear.
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 15 Mar 2005 06:44:19 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2005 : 09:47:23
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
The reason brother Marty (Cornerstone Foundation), and presumably his helpmeet, were concerned about our post regarding Yahu’shua [JESUS] being a Naziyr [Nazarite] is because it would seem obvious, even to the casual observer, that Yahu’shua did not heed the rituals associated with being a Naziyr; the primary one we are concerned with here being the ban on wine.
92 A Nazarite must let his hair grow during the period of separation. Numbers 6:5
93 A Nazarite must shave his head and bring the sacrifice when the period of separation is over. Numbers 6:18
202 A Nazarite must not drink wine or any beverage made from grapes. Numbers 6:3
203 A Nazarite must not eat fresh grapes. Numbers 6:3
204 A Nazarite must not eat raisins. Numbers 6:3
205 A Nazarite must not eat grape seeds. Numbers 6:4
206 A Nazarite may not eat the skins of grapes. Numbers 6:4
207 A Nazarite must not become ritually unclean for the dead. Numbers 6:7
208 A Nazarite must not go near a dead body. Numbers 6:6
209 A Nazarite must not shave his hair during the time of his separation. Numbers 6:5
Yahu’shua evidently drank at least wine, for by his own words he certainly made it appear so.
The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
Thayer’s definition of winebibber (Gr. oinopotes); 1) a winebibber, given to wine, a wino
But what if? What if these ritualistic laws had been done away with? Or what if they were spurious to begin with?
Yirm’yahu [Jeremiah] 8:8 (LITV) How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of Jehovah [Yahuwâh] is with us? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has certainly worked deceit.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary tells us this for the word Nazareth…
Nazareth
Separated, generally supposed to be the Greek form of the Hebrew netser, a “shoot” or “sprout.” [Emphasis added]
What we find intriguing about this definition is that he evidently knows that it means, “separated”. This being the case why did he go along with the general supposition that it orignated from the word netser, why did he not connect the dots and go to an Hebrew word that means "separate"? That word being (H5144) nazar, as in Nazar-ene (?), which according to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon means, 1) to dedicate, consecrate, separate; 1a) (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself, 1b) (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate; 2) (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite
One thing we find interesting is the last part of the above definition, to be a Nazarite or live as a Nazarite, which we see from the definition of naziyr means to live separate, to live as a prince of Yahuwâh . Is it possible to live as a Naziyr without being a Naziyr?
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate [be ye [a] Nazar-ene], saith Yahuwâh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters (princes and princesses, i.e. Naziyr), saith Yahuwâh Almighty.
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 16 Mar 2005 09:53:05 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 09:09:57
|
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]
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Titus 2:14
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people 1Peter 2:9
Peculiar…
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English peculier, personal, from Latin peculiaris, from peculium, private property. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition 2000
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 08 Apr 2005 08:54:59 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2005 : 22:51:33
|
"Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment." Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.
Our thanks to brother Gregory at http://www.hisholychurch.net/ for this pearl.
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 09 Apr 2005 07:08:08 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 09:50:20
|
quote:
"Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment." Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.
Robert, this is more than a gem or a pearl! The case you quoted is, in my opinion, perhaps the most important case law example a native born American could ever quote. With all the court cases over the past 30 years that have failed to establish this, the case law was already there and established of record in 1884, yet no-one ever seemed to know it. Thank you, and my thanks to Gregory as well. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 18:31:22
|
I have the entire case. Got it from the vault at the federal repository.
There is of course context to be considered. I have not read it yet and likely will not bother. But Vern found the above related passages (on page 50?) while I was messing with the copier and read them out loud. The subject was a Native American (Indian).
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Elk_v_Wilkins.zip
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Elk_v_Wilkins.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FederalRepositoryBasement.wmv
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Zionist_milk.jpg
From a Masonic journal in 1933.
Look, do not take this all seriously. It is only Internet Yarn. If you are reading it from your computer screen it may have been tampered with before your reading and, I am just me anyway. So be careful with information. You are the supercomputer, right there between what you call your ears. Wake up! This is all smoke and mirrors.
Also, since 1938 - Erie Railroad Company v. Thompkins a silent prefix has been privatizing common law to "federal common law". Please consider the wisdom in a second-year law student correcting me, "All common law is is case law." In 1938 all prior common law or case law was determined faulty by Justice Brandeis (Zionist). But that is just an illusion. If you research it carefully all case law (common law) between 1842 (Swift v. Tyson which gave constitutionally unwarranted powers to the federal government) and 1938 is faulty. And my point is that this case falls into that timeframe. So be careful about asserting its truth.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 09 Apr 2005 18:58:17 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 06:42:55
|
These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also...
"It is vitally important to understand how those in government turned our lives upside down and made us believe that we are subject under them; when in reality they are subject to us. Approximately the same thing occurred in Canada, only later, which means that when the US falls, Canada will be not far behind.
1865 - 13th Amendment - people could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.
1868 - The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizen, the ‘person’ subject to the Federal Gov’t.
1871 - the Federal Gov’t formed itself into a corporation - USA. I don’t know CANADA’s date of incorporation.
1913 - the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.
1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens.
1933 - President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts.
March 9, 1933 - ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. (YIKES! Read that again.)
1933 - President Roosevelt passed HJR 192
June 5, 1933 - since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.
1938 - Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts. No other law prior to 1938 can be cited in cases.
1946 - government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.
1965 - silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/
Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.
1966 - The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code) [Emphasis added]
Our thanks to Mary Elizabeth:Croft for her compilation of these items.
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.
P.S. Thank you for the kind words, BONDSERVANT. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Apr 2005 09:49:24 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 08:10:37
|
quote:
1946 - government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.
I would like to amend this sentiment.
Amendment: 1946 - government and court system reverts to the shoulders of the people for judicial review of administrative procedures - Administrative Procedures Act.
More from American Jurisprudence after a trip to my repositories. I notice you are quoting Mary Elizabeth's new book:
http://www.rockmusicmp3s.com/mary_book2.pdf
quote:
I had given up writing this book because of people’s reactions when I mentioned the Commerce Game. Most wanted to ‘kill the messenger’ because their having been so conned by the alleged ‘authorities’ their entire lives was too painful to contemplate. Those with neither eyes to see nor ears to hear wanted to argue with me. Many suggested they were aware, yet upon further discussion they admitted to not really knowing.
So I take immediate exception to Mary Elizabeth's conning people into thinking government is conning people. But it looks like an interesting read just the same. When one is disabled by not having or knowing about the availability of a federal repository, I admit, it is very easy to fall into the illusion government is doing all this stuff as a deception and confidence game. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FederalRepositoryBasement.wmv I admonish you consider that carefully if you wish to read past such an introductory paragraph.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Oneisraelite highlighted my point above in red. The illusion here is that all case law (common law argument) prior to 1938 is faulty. Technically according to Brandeis who ruled on that case, that would be between the Swift v. Tyson case of 1842 and Erie in 1938. Which would bring us to my amendment herein this Post, since there are no attorneys-in-black-robes seriously considering case law prior to 1938 (the illusion), we people are behooved to remove the cause by absolute right. Remove the cause into a court of record and then be that court of record (court of competent jurisdicion) the moment the attorney in the "judge" emerges. Know how to execute orders and decrees and even to order contempt (for the court of record).
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv
www.1215.org
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv
clip about private attorney
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
court of record
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Apr 2005 08:48:22 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 09:05:14
|
Hi David and oneisraelite,
Hope all is well. One question for David:
Am I right in thinking that you might be saying the APA is actually a tool to combat the "attachment" the GOVT tries to put upon us?
I know this all boils down to the same bottom line. Either it is or is not a sin to enter into court or "situation" regulated by the GOVT. Both sides of the issue use the Bible to support their assertion while all parties are faced with the "COMMERCIAL take-over" of food, clothing and shelter. My question about the APA seems to touch at ground zero between the "two decisions".
Thanks,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Apr 2005 09:07:56 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 10:12:10
|
No. For one thing, the illusion is that government is doing anything but you want it to be doing.
The only allowance for administrative government ("government in miniature" where Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are merged, sometimes in one officer by the side of the road) is judicial review. There has to be immediate access to a judicial (Article III) watchdog upon any individual complaint. Without that, there cannot be any administrative expedition.
When I get to a repository I will grab some quotes from American Jurisprudence - Administrative Government about this. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Apr 2005 10:41:20 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 16:41:33
|
I'll keep my eye out for that info. I ran across this statement from a list of Christian politicians who are now enraged over the the COURT's handling of Terry Schivo.
* Michael Schwartz, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s chief of staff, talked openly about impeaching judges who failed to toe the far-right line. Schwartz recommended trashing the very idea of judicial review, saying that until we throw the principle out, “it is a sick and sad joke to claim we have a Constitution.”
He was part of a recent seminar put together by high ranking right wing politicians and "patriot pastors" called "Confronting The Judicial War On Faith".
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2195
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 09:18:21
|
The premise of the Holy Bible plainly expresses that Exodus 20-24:7 in its entirety was a body of law (Laws of Moses) given through Moses to protect the Israelites from idolatry. Through the Jewish origins of the Christian faith, it (mostly the Ten Commandments) has been adopted into Christian Common Law.
What many Christians fail to understand is obvious. The only reason for the existence of the Ten Commandments was that Moses did not wish to replace Abraham as the progenitor of "God's Chosen People". The only substantial cause of this private body of law for the Israelites was the Golden Calf idolatry, for which God wished to destroy them.
Several years ago I wrote out the Laws of Moses and translated them back into English.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
So the justices in the judiciary are wise not to let the Christians influence their decisions. That would be importing private law into the common law.
In Colorado a jury convicted a murderer and sentenced him to death. However the penalty was overturned and reduced because a woman brought her Bible into the deliberations and quoted Levitical law. She imported private law into the jury and it influenced a man who did not want to penalize by death.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I will not keep you waiting for those AmJur quotes.
Yes I did. And even afterward only took a moment to photograph a page. So please accept this as encouragement to find a local copy of American Jurisprudence for yourself and read about Administrative Law (not Administrative Government). The parameters seem to shift with each revision to more and more discretionary power to administrative agents. I attack people for being paranoid about that. Go read. Knowing the parameters for yourself is the only way. It is better for you to live the experience than for me to tell you about it.
I would clip a snippet from Electra about "Some lessons cannot be taught. They must be lived.", but I am avoiding copyright enfringements from recent "Blockbusters".
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Library.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AmJur_table.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AmJur_separation.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AmJur_encyclopedia.jpg
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 19 Apr 2005 17:01:49 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2005 : 17:53:26
|
David Merrill,
I could not clearly read the words you translated at:
"Several years ago I wrote out the Laws of Moses and translated them back into English.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif "
Even after printing it out (zoomed) and using a magnifying glass, is it possible for you to type them here?
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Expatriation: The remedy?
