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

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Civil Governments
 The Unusual Way That Jesus Paid Taxes
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

loybost
Regular Member

USA
29 Posts

Posted - 10 May 2005 :  21:02:57  Show Profile  Visit loybost's Homepage  Send loybost an AOL message  Reply with Quote
The Unusual Way That Jesus Paid Taxes and
How It May Be a Message to Modern Christians

By: Loy Robert: Bost, III

Jesus and His disciples had traveled to Capernaum. The tax collectors asked Peter if his Master, Jesus, paid tribute to Caesar; Peter told the tax collector that Jesus did pay tribute to Caesar. When Peter returned to the house that they were staying in, Jesus was upset with what Peter had done, and He prevented him from entering the house. He asked Peter, what he was thinking when he gave his answer to tax collector (Bible, Matthew 17: 24 and 17:25). Jesus was of the Royal Bloodline of King David. Jesus was, and is, the King of kings. God’s only begotten Son surely owed no tax to any man; however, Jesus did not wish to offend anyone by not being true to the word of His disciple, so He instructed Peter to go to the sea, and cast a hook into the water. He further instructed Peter to take the first fish that he caught, and open its mouth and remove a piece of money therein, and use that piece of money to pay the tax for both of them (Bible, Matthew: 1:1 and 17:27).

What is the meaning of this strange ritual? Why didn’t Jesus tell Peter to take a coin from his pocket or money pouch? Why not ask Peter to take a coin from under a rock? Jesus performed miracles; this was an opportune time to perform the old coin behind the ear trick, but instead he had Peter perform this unusual ritual instead; why? What message was Jesus trying to tell Christians by his actions?

The Pharisees apparently saw an opportunity to discredit Jesus when He paid the tax to Caesar. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. Jesus asked the Pharisees to show Him a coin used to pay the tax, which they did. Jesus then asked them whose name and superscription was on the coin; they answered, Caesar’s. Then Jesus told them to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and give God the things that are God’s. They marveled at his words and went on their way (Bible, Matthew: 22: 15 through 22:22, Mark: 12:12 through 12:17, Luke: 20:19 through 20:25).

Why did the Pharisees marvel so? Was Caesar trying to take something that was God’s? If Caesar were not trying to take something that was God’s, there would have been no point to the Pharisees even bringing up the subject, would there? Was there some process in the Roman tax laws that required the taxpayer to worship Caesar or some pagan god? If so, how would the unusual manner in which Jesus paid the tax prevent such worship from taking place? Just as importantly, are there any similarities between the tax laws of today and those of Jesus’ time, which should cause modern day Christians to be careful of how they pay their taxes? Does pagan Roman law still exist in the modern world? These are the questions being addressed in this treatise.

It is difficult to know the exact procedure used to pay Roman taxes in Jesus’ time on earth. However, it is interesting to note that Joseph and Mary, full with child, had gone to Bethlehem, the City of David, to be counted for what may have been the very first world-wide tax. While they were there, Jesus was born (Bible, Luke: 2:1 through 2:6). It is noteworthy to understand that God never wanted His people to be numbered. This practice has always been the work of Satan (Bible, 1 Chronicles: 21:1). In this instance, God may have used an evil work of men to fulfill an earlier prophesy; Jesus was to be numbered with the transgressors (Bible, Isaiah: 53:12). So it seems that Jesus was numbered by men, and with men, from the very day of His birth, and so the prophesy was fulfilled in Him. Though we do not know the exact procedure of worldwide Roman taxation, we do know that it started at essentially the same time as Jesus’ birth. We also know that this taxation was based on pagan Roman laws, and thus it was not based upon Gods laws.

To understand why the Pharisees took offense to Jesus’ tax paying, one must have a basic understanding of the laws of pagan Rome. The Romans worshiped a multitude of false gods; the belief in the powers of these false gods influenced the laws of pagan Rome. The god, Mars, was the Roman god of war. It is common knowledge that Martial law and Maritime law, which are generally enforced in Admiralty courts, are modern legal descendants of Roman law (Concentes Dii. Page 1).

Martial law is implemented in times of war or national emergency, and Maritime law is used primarily on the high seas. It is a commonly known historical fact that the expansion of ancient Rome was advanced largely by military action; therefore, the Roman’s belief in the false god, Mars, was likely to have been influential in the ruling of the lands conquered by Rome. The false god, Mercury, was the messenger of the gods. He was also the god of commerce; law Merchant and Mercantile law are also modern day descendants of Roman law. The wealth and commerce of the lands conquered by ancient Rome was likely to have been a motivational factor for invading the lands to begin with, so the Roman’s belief in the false god, Mercury, may have been very influential in the laws governing the lands conquered by Rome as well (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. See: Admiralty, Law Merchant, Maritime, Martial law. Concentes Dii. page 1. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856, See: Admiralty, Maritime, Maritime Law, War).

The pagan god worship associated with Roman laws, combined with the fact that there were temples in some Roman cities that were erected for the worship of Caesar himself, makes it easy to see why the Pharisees may have thought that Jesus was honoring false gods by paying taxes to Rome. However, it is not quite clear how the ritualistic methodology used by Jesus clearly showed to the Pharisees that no such honor to false gods was being bestowed. Therefore, in order to understand Jesus’ instructions to Peter, one must first understand what the sea, the fish, and the coin symbolize under the Roman law. Only then can the full magnitude of Christ’s instructions be completely understood. Therefore, it is convenient for the sake of this treatise that Roman law is still in existence today, and can be studied in its present form quite carefully (8. Historical Setting. Page 1).

The following may seem off topic at first; however, it is relevant to the subject at hand, which will be obvious later in this treatise. The people of the United States are subject to the Civil law; Civil law is legally defined simply as “Roman Law” by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Thus, a look at our own laws might give some insight as to the function of the laws in Jesus’ time on earth. Contrary to popular belief, it is an established fact that the United States Federal Government was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719. It was declared by President Roosevelt to be bankrupt and insolvent. The “Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause” [H. J. R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933] dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Government Offices, Officers and Departments (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303).

If the United States Federal Government exists today, it is in name only. The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments now operate within a de facto status under Emergency War Powers. These International Bankers have become the “Caesars” of the modern world. Just as in Jesus’ time on earth, the government, the people, and the money are in the hands of a foreign power (Caesar) and the rules of Roman law (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303).

To understand how Roman law is enforced in the United States, one must understand that the Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. It operates exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The Maritime law compels specific performance in paying the interest (tax), or premiums on the National Debt. The Federal Government borrows as much of the credit based “money substitute” [debt based credit] that it wishes from the privately owned Federal Reserve System. In return, the Government has "hypothecated" all of the property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of an alleged trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizens, to the Federal Reserve System. The purported tax that is paid by US citizens is merely interest being paid on the government’s debt obligations to the Federal Reserve System. Thus, the Federal U.S. bankruptcy is serviced. This may seem irrelevant to the subject at hand; however, it illustrates the very essence of the basic mechanics of modern Roman law (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303)

The above described Maritime law is the law of the sea. The sea was where Jesus told Peter to cast his hook; perhaps the “sea,” that Jesus spoke of, may have been representative of the pagan Roman legal system, which still exists today. Spurning further similarities to His parable, the Certified Birth Certificates that are now issued to all children born in the United States are presently used as a commercial paper hypothecated to back the Federal Reserve Notes. A “certificate” by legal definition can be defined as: “a document that is proof of ownership or indebtedness.” The all capitalized name on the Certified Birth Certificates indicates that the individual named is a “legal person.” A “legal person” is legally defined as “a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.” Thus, the people of the United States have become a corporate entity, both individually and collectively as part of the Gross National Product (Gross National Product. Page 1). Further, a “corporation” is defined as: “an invisible, intangible, artificial creation of the law existing as a voluntary chartered association of individuals that has most of the rights and duties of natural persons but with perpetual existence and limited liability”. It is obvious that a fish owes its existence and charter powers to the sea, so perhaps the “first fish” that Jesus spoke of might be referring to the corporate “person” created at birth by the Roman civil law, which owes its existence and powers to the law of the sea (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996. See: corporation).

In present times people in the United States are legally considered corporate (legal) persons created by the State through the application of Roman law. This is evident by the fact that U.S. citizens are legally required to get permission from the State in the form of licenses and permits to engage in rights that were originally considered God given but are now legally considered to be civil rights granted by the State. To support this contention, consider the requirement to get driver’s licenses, building permits, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, passports, zoning permits, and marriage licenses just to name a few. All of these licenses and permits bear the all capitalized and/or initialed names of persons created by the State under Roman civil law.

A Christian name is not properly spelled with all capital letters or initials (Style Manual, Chapter 3 at § 3.2). It is interesting to note that the translators of the King James Version of the Holy Bible translated Jesus’ name in all capital letters six times in the New Testament: Matthew:1:21, Matthew:1:25, Matthew:27:37, Luke:1:31, Luke:2:21, and John:19:19. All of these verses refer to Jesus’ name given at His birth or His death. The modern day birth and death certificates bear similar all capitalized names.

Perhaps Jesus was falsely considered to be a “legal person” by the Roman authorities of His day, just as we are today. New Testament Scripture states that God has no respect for persons at: Acts: 10:34, Romans: 2:11, Ephesians: 6:9, Colossians: 3:25, James: 2:9 and 1 Peter: 1:17. Simon Peter warned the Christians that “false teachers” through greed and lies would make merchandise of them (Bible, 2 Peter: 2:1 through 2:3). It seems quite plausible that the same situation might still exist today. When one looks at modern day 1040 tax forms, instructions, and Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, one will notice that the instructions apply to certain “persons” as distinguished from “people.” The word “people” refers to men and women. Men and women are the creation of God (Bible, Genesis: 1:26 through 1:27 and Genesis: 2:7 through 2:8). No matter which legal dictionary one chooses, “man” nor “woman” nor “people” will ever be used in the definition of a “person.” Further, no legal dictionary attempts to define “people” at all. Therefore, one must conclude that “persons” and “people” are not considered to be synonymous in the eyes of the law (A Dictionary of Law 1893, A Law Dictionary 1856, Websters Dictionary of Law 1996. See: person, “people” not listed in any source).

When one fills out a 1040 tax form, he/she is apparently admitting, by swearing an oath under the penalty of perjury, to being a legal person, which is a creation of Roman civil law. “Perjury” is legally defined as: “the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true.” “Oath” is legally defined as: a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words or the sincerity of one's intentions” specifically: “one accompanied by calling upon a deity as a witness” (A Dictionary of Law 1893, See: perjury, and oath). Jesus warned Christians that above all they should not to swear any oaths or they would fall into condemnation (Bible, James: 5:12). Jesus told Peter that He would give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but in the same verse He told Peter that whatever is bound on earth is also bound in Heaven; further, he stated that what is lost on earth is also lost in heaven (Bible, Matthew: 16:19).

Perhaps through ignorance of the mechanics of Roman civil law, many Christians are unwittingly swearing an oath to God, via 1040 tax forms, stating that they are “persons” created by the operation of pagan Roman law and are therefore not “people” created by God the Father; if so, this would be a direct breach of the First Commandment (Bible. Exodus: 20:3). In the opinion of this author, the unusual way that Jesus paid taxes was an example to all Christians as to how they should pay their taxes. Jesus knew full well that He was not a creation of pagan Roman law, the law of the “sea.” He had Peter remove a coin from the mouth of the “first fish” that he caught, and instructed Peter to use that coin to pay the tax. Therefore, by removing the money from the mouth of the fish, Jesus was refusing to speak as a creation of the law of the “sea.” Thus, one can conclude that Christians should speak as the man/women and living soul that God created and pay the tax that is requested without compromising the lawful stature granted to them by God (Bible. Genesis: 2:7). In this manner Jesus rendered unto Caesar the things that were Caesars, and rendered unto God the things that were Gods. If this hypothesis is correct then it is no wonder that the Pharisees marveled at Jesus’ words.



Works Cited

God. The Holy Bible. King James Version

The Speaker - Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House. United States Congressional Record. March 1, 1993 VOL. 33, page H-1303.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. 1996 ed.

United States Government Printing Office. Style Manual. March 1984 ed. [provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing].
William C. Anderson.

A Dictionary of Law: A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence. T. H. Flood and Company: Chicago, 1893.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary: Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the Union: With References to the Civil and other Systems of Foreign Law. 6th ed. Childs and Peterson, Philadelphia, 1856.

Concentes Dii. Internet Source. Available at: http://members.tripod.com/~onespiritx/gods35.htm#Mars Ares .

8. Historical Setting. Internet Source. Available at: http://www.apocalipsis.org/rev-hist.htm.

Gross National Product. Internet Source. Available at: http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/CORPORATEADMINISTRATION/GrossNatlProd.html.




Loy Robert: Bost, III

Edited by - loybost on 29 May 2005 09:56:55

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 11 May 2005 :  08:13:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Loy Robert;

That is a wonderful factual treatise but I cannot agree with the foundation. You are combining two distinct passages from the Bible. Distinct because they are referring to two different taxation processes then extant in my opinion. The first we find is the Temple Tax instated for Israel with the Laws of Moses (Levitical law) and the second we find is the insurgent tariff (by conquest) of Rome.

quote:
Mt 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mt 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mt 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Mt 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


quote:
Mt 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
Mt 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mt 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mt 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Mt 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Mt 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
Mt 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mt 22:22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.


Do not get me wrong, there are some great lessons and a wonderfully accurate portrait of modern life and taxation infrastructure in your treatise. I just beg to differ on your explanation of biblical parallels.

I do not agree with tying the scriptures about Peter's testimony for Jesus (hearsay) with "give unto Caesar". One taxation is not directly connected to the other. Albeit at the time it was being collected by the Caesar appointed sheriff, the Herodian Guard*, the Temple Tax had been around and was quite kosher. So the passage of 'sons' being exempt from the Temple Tax would apply to Jesus in the order of Melchizedek, not Judah. Judah was required to pay Temple Tax. Whereas the Melchizedek order of priests were 'elect' (no bloodline) and therefore exempt. [The true ecclesia of any historical moment are in Melchizedek. Otherwise we would still be tracking bloodlines and the Israelite bloodlines would not have been lost in time.]

Whereas in the Roman taxation, Jesus requested the Herodian guard inquiring whether or not he paid the foreign incursion tariffs (conquest tribute) testify. He simply requested they show a coin before Jesus and the Holy Spirit as witness. See the footnote below. The coin was foreign currency bearing a bust of Caesar (graven image/death). Of course Jesus convicted them with their own testimony with 'marvellous' judicial precision and paraphrasing said "Give death unto death." Unfortunately throughout history Christian [501(C)(3)] pastors have adopted a tradition that does not take history into account. The Book of Macabees has even been written out of the King James Version leaving such an important part of the Key unavailable to most Bible readers. The Illuminati of 1611 intended to have all parts of the Key in place at the proper timing, which I feel is today.

There may be a way to work admiralty into the fish symbolism but I do not see a direct way to correlate that into the Roman occupation, then or now. Delovio v. Boit is a good read but I will have to provide it from the federal repository (soon). I remember Story elaborating on the origins of admiralty and cannot find those passages in Internet copies available. I hope I recall that correctly. If I have the case incorrect I may never find that opinion. Admiralty formed around the Knights Templar justifying pilfering from the Holy Land. Eleanor of Aquitaine (water) bearing King Richard Lionheart. The law of the sea accomodated notice and grace of common law - only under the penumbra of jettison and forfeiture. Therefore the Bloodline (the origin of the Merovingians [Mer is sea]) Priory of Sion's militant arm Knights Templar could lawfully justify 'moving' the treasure (the truth about Jesus' surviving the Cross) to France. King Merovee I is said to be birthed after his pregnant mother was raped by a sea monster while swimming. Some kind of monster/hybrid between the land and sea. They adopted the records of an Island off Spain called Oleron and the Laws of Oleron were readily appropriated into the Black Book of the Admiralty. Later Great Britain became the king of the seas and of course the Bar working through constitutionally forbidden titles of nobility (esquire) and the law of the flag (2" gold admiralty~ fringes) representing the central banking structure collecting defaults in bankruptcy worldwide.

So you can probably construct a much better foundation about the fish if you interprete the two taxation scenarios in Jesus' time accurately. I certainly enjoy such a well written treatise here. It is so much more meat than found on about any other discussion on the entire Internet.


Regards,

David Merrill.




* The payment system for Temple Tax had been corrupted by 'contraction' of the money supply for over a hundred years. [See Macabees II, Chapter 3.] The kings of the area, admiring the Temple and Judaism had been paying tribute in foreign coin. And the priests had been accepting it and running the expenses on foreign currency instead of converting it into drachma and shekel coinage. Therefore they had been stockpiling the local Israelite currency and were selling it back to the pilgrims of Jesus' time at inflated exchange rates. That is what got Jesus so upset with the moneychangers.

~ I learned about Rule 804 on JAG, about the "law of the sea" - from the series' opening theme. Peter testifying hearsay instead of just telling the inquisition to go ask Jesus, is what got Peter into trouble.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf
Rules for Courts Martial – United States


Edited by - David Merrill on 11 May 2005 09:40:52
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 11 May 2005 :  20:11:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Grand juries can convene without the scope of the attorneys.
Go to Top of Page

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

381 Posts

Posted - 11 May 2005 :  20:36:34  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage  Reply with Quote
WOW. This is some real meat to chew on. I have personally researched some of what has been written above, but I never was able to fill in as many lines as what has been presented. If there has ever been a topic on this forum more important, I vote for this topic as topic #1. Thank you Loy Robert and David Merrill for both posting these excellent treatises.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 12 May 2005 :  00:41:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bondservant;

When I was reading the two passages a new revelation came over me. Linking the two taxations through the monetary contraction. It was the Herodians attempting to entrap Jesus in his own testimony but because the priests were using foreign currencies (even from Rome) they pulled out the Denarius penny.

The moneychanger event on the Temple courtyard is really a lot more significant in the historical events than most people think. At least that is what I think most people think - that it is just a simple teaching and lesson. Commerce is in the middle of the entire prosecution. And Jesus being properly coronated king of Israel. That amplified all the fear and anger that caused the persecution; not the peaceful and healing nature of Jesus' ministry.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Manuel; I think your proposals about prosecuting attorneys is better discussed at Oaths as Transceiver Utilities. http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=444

Edited by - David Merrill on 12 May 2005 07:52:22
Go to Top of Page

loybost
Regular Member

USA
29 Posts

Posted - 15 May 2005 :  11:27:58  Show Profile  Visit loybost's Homepage  Send loybost an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Greetings and Blessings David,

I must respectfully disagree with your contention that the Temple tax and the insurgent tariff are not directly connected. During Jesus’ time on the land the Temple was in the process of being rebuilt by the ruling class of Rome. This reconstruction began with (Roman) King Herod in about 6 BC, and its construction was not complete until nearly 30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Roman appointed sheriffs were used for Temple tax collection, and Roman approved clergy was common place in the Temple throughout that time period. Moneychangers and profiteers of all kinds corrupted the entrance to the Temple. I strongly suspect that the doctrinal teachings of the Temple had been adversely influenced through monetary leverage of the Roman wealth that was poured into the Temple in an attempt create stability in this volatile region. I feel certain that the Roman Empire did not hire officers to collect a Temple tax without taking a certain percentage for Rome. Further, creating a peaceful and stable environment in the Palestinian region certainly saved the Roman Empire the expense of militarily controlling the region. Rome had struggled with stabilizing this region for over 150 years prior to the Temple restoration project. What better way to turn the region into a revenue generating area than to restore the Temple and thus gain an influential bargaining chip with the Jewish people and their leaders? I doubt that the Roman Empire would have felt guilty gaining profit from Jewish people under the guise of Levitical Law anymore than they would from the imposition of a tax of conquest. If it were not for the rebuilding of the Temple by the Romans, they would not have been able to peaceably collect the insurgent tax; the two taxes were, therefore, directly connected as a matter of political necessity. The Temple gained profit from Rome and the Jewish people. Rome gained profit from the Temple and the Jewish people. Money changing profiteers gained profit from all. How is this not a parallel of today’s situation? I do not believe that Jesus would find either taxation process kosher then or now.

The Federal Reserve Act was enacted as a canon law trust. Canon law is usually the codified law governing a church, sort of a Catholic version of Levitical Law. In this case it was the Catholic Church through pseudo-pods of the Knights Templar and the greed of politicians and attorneys that set up the present multifaceted elements of mass control. The church profits from the government and the people. The government profits from the church and the people, and money changing profiteers gain profit from all. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The people of the US today are considered to be 14th Amendment second class citizens because our free republic was conquered through a Federal bankruptcy. We are legally (not lawfully) ruled by our enemies. We are strangers to our conquerors, and we are taxed as such. Many of us who realize that the taxation process of today is built on lies are trying to lawfully combat this error of assumption. I find our situation very similar to that of Biblical times, a bit more advanced but very similar. Perhaps Jesus was only angry with Peter because Peter spoke for his Master, or perhaps what Peter said angered Jesus as well. I believe the latter to be more accurate.

Today the 501(C)(3) corporate churches receive their existence and charter powers from the State, as all corporations do. The State approved seminaries train the pastors in a manner beneficial to the State. These churches, under the gold fringed flag of military rule, attain their tax exempt status through treasury regulations, not divine right. Donations to these corporate whores of the State are tax deductible for as long as the churches promote the State’s agenda. If one these corporate beast churches attempts to protest government involvement or condemn the government in any way, it will be snuffed out just as the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans and for the exact same reason. Now, as then, taxation and tithe have been intertwined through political necessity and Roman civil law. Control by faith is generally more profitable than control by force. Any line between the corporate churches and the State is strictly an illusion, and so is freedom of religion. The atheists can have religion thrown out of government, but if a corporate church throws out the gold fringed flags, there will be troubles a plenty. I doubt that there was much difference in Jesus’ time on Earth.


I could go on and on, but I think I have adequately shown a connection between the two taxes both then and now.


Peace and Grace,


Loy Robert: Bost, III

Edited by - loybost on 29 May 2005 09:55:45
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 15 May 2005 :  13:02:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So begs the question; did your parents insert a hyphen between Loy and Robert?

I will call you Loy Robert;

Dear Loy Robert;


You are considerate and thoughtful. Your pondering and meditation is quite valuable and edifying.

So I bring you to consider my premise; that the temple tax is the subject of the first cited passage and that the insurgent tax of Rome is the subject of the second passage? I like that revelation. That decryption. However related the two taxes may be. What do you think?

Then we will have established my premise. That the overturning of the moneychangers' tables was an act of rightousness and carried such authority that it threatened Rome.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

loybost
Regular Member

USA
29 Posts

Posted - 29 May 2005 :  10:58:12  Show Profile  Visit loybost's Homepage  Send loybost an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Greetings and Blessings David,

I apologize that I have not responded sooner. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time to dedicate to this wonderful and invigorating conversation. I enjoy conversing with people as intelligent as you. Whether I agree or disagree, I always feel richer for the encounter. In the instant case, it’s a little of both agreement and disagreement. I will try my very best to answer your questions satisfactorily; further, I will be looking forward to your response, and it will be welcome as always.

First, we’ll look at the first passage in question.

Quote:

Mt 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mt 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mt 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Mt 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


Matthew 17:24 does not mention to whom the tribute will be paid, so it’s not much help in concluding whether the tax was for the Temple or for Caesar. Mathew 17:25 and 17:26 are bit confusing. When Jesus speaks of the kings of the earth, is He speaking of the lineage of King David, or the Roman rulers of the time, or who? If He is speaking of Israelite Kings, then the strangers could be any Israelite that was not of the direct decent of David, in which case this would clearly be referring to the Temple tax. However, if this passage is referring to the Roman kings or rulers of the time then it is simply saying that the natural born Romans would not be subject to the insurgent tax of conquest. Therefore, this passage could easily be applied to both taxes of the region and time in question.

There is a possible hint in both 17:25 and Mathew 17:26 that this was a reference to the Temple tax. “And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon?” Clearly this phrase could show that Simon should have known that his Master, Jesus, was exempt from the tax. Certainly Simon knew Jesus’ lineage to King David, and he should have known better than to volunteer Jesus to pay a tax that He didn’t owe. On the other hand, perhaps Jesus thought that Simon should have realized that He, Jesus, owed no tax under man’s Roman law either; Jesus was not a colorable conquered entity under any man made law. Logically though, I must admit that the phrase: “Then are the children free” would make much more sense if it were used in the context of a Temple tax as related to Jesus. Unfortunately, this presumption makes Mathew 17:27 completely nonsensical; what would be the need to perform this unusual ritual to pay a Temple tax? Whether Jesus owed the Temple tax or not, who would have condemned Him for paying a Temple tax? Thus, I ask you to consider the distinct possibility that these verses refer to both taxes, which may have been collected at the same time by the same person. Please ponder the Roman’s advantage in blending the taxes during the collection process.

The Roman Empire was not rebuilding the Temple for the glory of God; they were rebuilding the Temple to stabilize and control this volatile area and to create a revenue generating area out of an area of violent revolt and perpetual monetary loss. It would stand to reason that Rome would saddle the Israelite people with much of the cost of Temple restoration; how better to do so than for Roman collectors to collect the Temple tax and take Rome’s cut off of the top? The Israelite people would have probably accepted the Roman collection of the Temple tax readily since Rome was rebuilding the Temple. Once the Israelite people accepted paying tax to Rome as a religious rite, what would prevent Rome from tacking on a tax of conquest as well? If this were the case then paying tax to Rome would become more of a religious duty than an admission of conquest to the proud and faithful Israelite people. It would be beneficial to Rome both in profit and in ease of collection. After all, it would now be a sin not to pay tax to Rome, wouldn’t it? This is all speculation of course; however, it would seem that this presumption would show an advantage to Rome and would be in complete agreement with scripture. No one living today truly knows how the taxes of the place and time in question were paid or collected, so I feel this hypotheses is as valid as any, perhaps more so than some.

Thus, the second passage in question deserves another look:

Quote:

Mt 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
Mt 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mt 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mt 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Mt 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Mt 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
Mt 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mt 22:22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.


The Pharisees were a working class religious group who avoided political associations as much as possible, yet they sent out their disciples with the Herodians? I find this rather strange. If the Pharisees were only interested in the doctrinal issues related to paying a tax of conquest, why would they have sent their disciples to Jesus along with Herod’s men? Perhaps the Herodians had in their possession a ledger entry proving that Jesus had paid tax to both the Temple and to Caesar. This presumption would explain the collaboration between the Pharisees and the Herodians. How else would the Pharisees have known that Jesus had paid tribute to Caesar unless He had paid it in unisons with the Temple tax, which the Pharisees would have had knowledge of? I will not repeat my original treatise in respect to the rest of this passage. Suffice to say that I believe scripture shows a direct correlation between the two taxations during this time period. Further, I believe that the above two passages, being the only two references to taxation in the New Testament, are clearly linked to each other even though they are not written in direct sequence with each other. In my opinion this is the only way that the two passages make complete sense. Thus, we have the foundation of my premise that both passages refer to both taxes simultaneously.

I do not disagree with your premise that the overturning of the moneychangers' tables was an act of righteousness and that it carried such authority that it threatened Rome. Jesus was clearly acting against those who were unlawfully profiting from those who had come to the Temple to worship. However, I believe that my premise that Jesus was condemning Rome’s infiltration into God’s Law through its taxation procedure was equally threatening to Rome’s authority. Jesus was sending similar messages to His people, Israel, in both instances. Both instances threatened the control mechanisms that Rome had shackled the Israelite people with. I have found that taxation is more about control than it is about money.

Perhaps my original treatise should have been more in depth. To be honest, it was not originally written for this forum, it was written as a research paper for a recent college course on the New Testament. I wrote it to be understood by those with a minimal amount of understanding of Roman law. My instructor’s hands were shaking when he returned the paper to me; he had apparently found the content somewhat enlightening. I posted it here in hopes that new comers to this site would gain some basic understanding as to the mechanics of Roman law and hopefully an understanding of how Jesus would have us deal with such unholy laws. Perhaps this has been accomplished. Hopefully, our ongoing discussion will also inspire further understanding and research from those who visit this forum. That is my hope.

Peace and Grace,


Loy Robert: Bost, III
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 29 May 2005 :  12:29:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I can think of no mention about the processes of tax collection. Two things come to mind. Joseph and Mary were paying tribute tax to Caesar when Jesus is born. Also, in the Apocrypha there is mention that an eagle sculpture was standing over the main entrance to the Temple. So it makes a lot of sense to presume the taxation was one process. Admitted, I jumped on the point that seemed important to me. The players indicate the subject taxation.

There is a detail you inquire about. Jesus speaking as tribe of Judah would be subject to the taxation. Jesus speaking as the sovereign king of Israel would be exempt but just the same I do not think he was speaking only of himself. He was explaining to Peter that Peter was also free from taxation. (That may be an incorrect presumption. But it is typical to interprete things Jesus said as broadly applicable lessons.) Mathematically that leaves one possibility - Melchizedek. This player, Melchizedek, is sovereign and free. Also there is no bloodline mentioned (though a rabbi professes to have traced the bloodline from Bible clues). The order seems to be formed by election.

quote:
Mt 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mt 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mt 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mt 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Mt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
Mt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Mt 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Mt 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
Mt 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Mt 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
Mt 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Mt 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mt 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mt 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Mt 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Mt 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mt 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


The height of Freemasonry, encrypting messages into the Bible would be around the King James Version. Today the magi still adorn the Masonic Museum. What would really get the instructor's hand shaking again would be the verses just prior to the 'tribute to Caesar' passage. A nation of 'sons'; all free from taxation via a transplant vinyard. Many Christian missions originated from America. So I fancy this a nation under the mantle of Melchizedek. That is why I have focused so keenly on one passage.

quote:
Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)


http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
Daniel's Calendar

Daniel was the Chieftain of the Babylonian sorcerers and astrologers. But I want you to note the timeline. 1776 is 2300 years from the Writing on the Wall. And the land grant from the Iriquois Federation was eight years later. That eight day period is significant in cleansing (sanctifying) a sanctuary. It is also the day to circumcise a baby boy (same thing; dedication). Events of 1997 and 2000 both indicate a half week (1260). Macroeconomics is certainly interrelated to taxation. And taxation is "voluntary compliance" to the sons.

So I got nitpicky about identity again. You are Loy Robert of the Bost family. The clerk of the US district court told me straight out, "We don't do colons." That the distinction between your property (Loy Robert) and your family's property (Bost) is simply ignored by the court. Therefore you have two names (Loy Robert and Loy Robert: Bost, III) and that classifies you foreigner and stranger (Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:20); nakar/nokriy - "...feign self to be another,". So the game is to undermine your sense of identity. To keep you from understanding the order of Melchizedek. To keep you from being the son free from taxation and the heir apparent. To keep you from making claim entitled by being among the elect. That is also the sort of thing that would get a professor's hands shaking.

You are further along with your identity than most. Loy Robert is the new name that acquits. That acquittal would also remove you from being the stranger and foreigner subject to the taxation.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 29 May 2005 13:24:24
Go to Top of Page

1234jagal
0

USA
45 Posts

Posted - 02 Jun 2005 :  09:24:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like your points Loy.

They are all well taken.
The question of tribute should really be addressed as who is our God? Who do we worship?
What authority do we serve? Thus the word "render" means obediance.
Who do we acknowledge as the giver of benefit?
Who's law do we obey?

When Peter spoke to quickly and answered yes to the question does your master pay tribute. Peter as agent accepted the offer of Caesar to pay tribute without all the facts being known. And although this acceptance was not binding on the Lord as a valid acceptance of offer the Lord used this as an opportunity to teach the disciples about mammon.

God is the creator of all benefit and even Caesar receives his benefit from our God.

Consider these thoughts:

What is Mammon is question long debated? So here are some of my thoughts on the subject. Mammon is another "fiction god" Mammon usually takes the shape of a golden calf, bull or surety bondage. The god mammon can be seen as a statue standing as a representation of gain at any cot in many world financial markets. For example the bull of Wall Street and the national debt bondage to the secular kingdoms of man.

Mammon is also a symptom of man-made government which stems from a Corvee or Vassalage system of government which places man in a state of bondage as a surety, a vassal or in peonage to government debt or forced government labor.

“Matthew 22:21Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

Why is this scripture so important? Simple Caesar declared himself to be god!
So the scripture could read serve your god.
If your god is Caesar serve Caesar but if your God is our Father in Heaven serve only him.

No man can serve two masters as this against the law. The law of God.

“Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

Surety and Usury “mammon” are lawful when levied against all mankind who are strangers to the one true God; but absolutely unlawful when forced upon the children of light which follow a higher authority and a higher law and serve only the one true God our God and he is a jealous God.

We are God’s peculiar people and we serve only him, the creator of the Universe “I Am” more properly translated “I will be what I will be” This is the appellation of God our Father. The God of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and Yehoshua translated from the anglicized Jesus, the Christ, the name of the Lord.

Study Exodus and the blood payment of the Christ. This payment was received and accepted by the world as a blood payment as an exchange of value for our freedom just as God freed the Hebrews from the Corvee government of Egypt God freed us with the blood payment of the Christ.

Therefore it is unlawful (unrighteous) for these lower gods to force the children of God joined by the blood with Yehoshua, the Christ to bow and worship them as our God.

But also consider that there are many gods and many lords consider for one the CORPUS fiction STATE’s and their “fiction of law” as a god, and the goddess JUSTICE "the beast" which have all declared themselves by conspiracy a legion of sovereign god's throughout the world over. Look up “fiction of law.”

“1Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)”

But we are the anointed and we have eyes to see and ears to hear; we hear the voice of the one and only true sovereign our Father in Heaven and his Son.

The STATE's as gods are a legion of gods who have established custom (law) which is against the law of God. The STATE's have entered into a conspiracy to force the worship of these manufactured customs as laws under the authority of the goddess JUSTICE formerly Dike, Themis, Justicia by forcing all men to worship the beasts customs as law with threats of fines, fees, charges, licenses, imprisonment, etc.

Consider this question which was put to Yehoshua in. “Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” Tradition means law. These ignorant men, these blind guides thought that washing of hands was a law from god.

Man has been against God’s will from the beginning of time. Manufacturing “fiction of law” and passing it off as the will of God. This is not the will of god it is the will of the people. A stiff necked rebellious people who serve the lusts of their own hearts not God.

But what god do they serve what is his name remember Adam and Eve they listened to the serpent and aspired to be as gods. From the very beginning man has been denying the will of God.

This one thought is so important. We hear the expression one nation under God. Again what is their gods name? I guarantee you it is not “I will be what I will be” the God who came to Moses for there are many gods. And I guarantee you that the Christ they serve is not Yehoshua = Jesus, the Christ for there are many Christ’s but only one can be true all others have set themselves up as copy an angel of light.

“2Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

Ask the question what is the name of your god? They may not answer or give you a generic answer like god. Well god is not his name! You must know the name of their god commanding you to do this or do that. If we do not do know for certain the name it is unwise to proceed forth for confusion is of the devil leading to fornication and adultery.

God our Father does nothing in secret he requires all the glory and would never ask us to do anything without first making his face known to us and his name. There is power in his name.

“James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

Man making their own rules and customs are against God when they force the citizens of heaven to observe them. Who gave these men authority, the goddess JUSTICE authority or the god STATE”S authority? Man as a god but not the One True God.

Righteous authority can never exceed the authority granted by the principal grantor which is God.

Therefore consider all of these lower gods as demons of Satan, Baal or Abaddon, etc. if and when they attempt to force the sons and daughters of God to worship or observe their customs as authority; represented as if their authority is from our God. This is fraud, and blasphemy as these lower gods lie, cheat, steal and claim falsely the authority of God for the gain of their secular kingdoms. This is mammon, bondage or service to another god for debts or charges. (servitude = worship).

"Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."

This beast, the goddess JUSTICE stands as the angel of light. She is really the whore written of in Revelation. Her image is represented in most pagan temples (court houses) throughout the world. The religion of this goddess JUSTICE is currently the largest cult religion on the planet earth.

"Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

“Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do:
neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.”

“2Kings 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.”

The children of light serve the law we obey the law. The law and ordinances of God contained in the Holy Bible.

Therefore have faith, claim the truth, claim the blood payment which redeemed you and bought your flesh out of the bondage and servitude of the gods who serve Satan, mammon and sin. Do not continue to live in terror and fear of loosing your possessions or life at the hand of the oppressor the devil for failure to follow his cheating manufactured rules enforced by his prophet judges for this is mammon. Fear God.

Stand as free men and women. You are free from worldly domination and peacefully resist the devil and he will flee from you. Call out in the name of Yehoshua Jesus, the Christ who has been granted all power and authority over Heaven and earth by our Father. Therefore worship only God our Father. We are freed by the blood of the Christ, the Son. By our father who’s name was given to Moses: “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” anglicized “I Will Be What I Will Be” or “I am.”

Cry out in the name of Lord and he will free you from bondage to other gods. Do not be afraid of men, fear God.

Come out, come out into the light which is the truth from God. Partake of life.
Which is civil death crucified with Christ unto life. Born of the spirit of God our Father.

This is what is meant by faith we must trust only God to protect us and peacefully refuse to serve these fiction gods which aspire to make heaven their footstool.

“John 10:26 “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.”

I pray that this message will bless you with a more abundant life.

Free from the civil Law

GALATIANS 5:1-26 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.


John Allen Gill Junior
Go to Top of Page

loybost
Regular Member

USA
29 Posts

Posted - 16 Aug 2005 :  20:45:16  Show Profile  Visit loybost's Homepage  Send loybost an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Greetings and Blessings to All,

In 2002 I received a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. I responded in a manner consistent with the original post of this thread. I don’t propose that my response was a silver bullet. However, thus far the Feds have not attempted to take any of my possessions as of yet. Hopefully, with the help of you who are more knowledgeable than I in procedural law, the information below can be honed into something useful for me and for others. That is my hope.

There are many other threads in this forum dedicated to many other tactics that are being used to combat unjustness within our legal system. Therefore, I ask that constructive criticism be directed toward perfecting this process in harmony with the basis for this thread, which is outlined in the original post.

I thank you all in advance for any help and/or opinions that you will share.

Peace and Grace,

Loy Robert
_____________________________________________________________________



From:

John James: Doe, II
4430 23rd Avenue Place South West
Freeville, North Carolina state republic

Responding instead of and not as:

JOHN J DOE
4430 23RD PL SW
FREEVILLE, NC 21815-9791
[Social Security Number: 123-12-1234]

To:

Internal Revenue Service
Lien Unit, Room 112
320 Federal Place
Greensboro, NC 27401

On this Nineteenth Day of the Ninth Month of the Two Thousand and Third Year of Our Lord
Affidavit

I, John James: Doe, II, am a Christian man and living soul through an act of God. I am responding instead of, not as, the soulless and lifeless legal fiction referred to by the Internal Revenue Service as “JOHN J DOE” a dishonorable misnomer that the IRS continually attempts to refer to me as; I am not this legal fictitious person. Actus Doi nomini facit injuriam. De non apparentibus et non existntibus eadem est ratio. Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum. Jesus the Christ is my Advocate and Wonderful Counselor in all matters of Law. I am exercising my Ministerial Right of Visitation to address the colorable jurisdiction of the matter at hand. This response is being made to a Notice of Federal Tax Lien sent to: “JOHN J DOE” at the address: “4430 23RD PL SW FREEVILLE, NC 21815-9791” [note that Avenue is missing, among other errors (courtesy copy enclosed)]. Praesentia corporis tollit errorem nominis, et veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis. I received it, by shear chance, at: “4430 23rd Avenue Place South West, Freeville, North Carolina state republic,” which is the location of my dwelling home. Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium. Domus tutissimum cuique refugium atque receptaculum. I signed the receipt for this Notice of Federal Tax Lien without prejudice as to all of my God given Rights and under the duress of a perceived threat. Likewise, this response is being made without prejudice to any of my God given Rights and is done under threat, duress, and coercion. Further, this response is not to be construed as compliance with any statute.

I believe that the IRS filed this Notice of Federal Tax Lien in error for the following reasons:

1. The IRS mailed the notice of deficiency and the notice of federal tax lien to the wrong address. It is my understanding that a proper address includes the lawful name and residence of the drawee in a bill of exchange. I did not realize, at the time that I received the notice of deficiency, that the name on that notice of deficiency was incorrect in that it was spelled in all capital letters and included an initial; in addition, improper use of abbreviations and enumeration were used to identify my dwelling home; therefore, this notice of deficiency was received by mistake. Non videntur qui errant consentire. Immediately upon realizing my mistake, I informed the IRS of the improper name and address that they had apparently mistakenly used in reference to me, and I further informed them of the mistake that I had made in my alleged receipt of that alleged presentment; this resulted in the Lawful abatement of that notice of deficiency due to the colorable misnomer that they had used and the resulting conflict with the Common Law jurisdiction of my Lawful name theretofore. I informed the IRS, with particularity, of the essential changes that must be made to the notice of deficiency and any further correspondence from them to me, in order to be acceptable by me under the Law. I made this request in good faith and was prepared to settle this matter under my Lawful Christian name but no other, ad pios usus. The IRS has since received numerous requests from me to correct these fatal errors in any and all of their presentments; they have perpetually refused to do so. The IRS has willfully, without regard to prejudice of right, responded to these requests, which were made by me, in which I used my Christian and family name and the true location of my dwelling home. In doing so they have also accepted the truth that I am who I say I am; however, they continually dishonor my good name and dwelling home with misaddressed presentments as the enclosed, “Notice of Federal Tax Lien” is a testament to.

At the instant that I was saved by the shed Blood of the Lamb who is Jesus the Christ, my name, John James, was written in the Lambs book of life; my name, therefore, belongs to God the Father, the Almighty Creator. Jesus the Christ has instructed me to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, in the New Testament of the Holy Bible at, Mathew: 22:21, Mark: 12:17, and Luke: 20:25. I am, therefore, bound by the Laws of God not to surrender my good name, His Lawful property, for matters of alleged taxation. Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi possunt. I have been left in charge of my good name as a temporary steward of His property. Actus legis nomini faeit injuriam. I will not dishonor Him by being a poor steward. Manga negligentia culpa est, magna culpa dolus est. Magna culpa dolus est.

Any presumption that I have willingly surrendered my good name is false. I have virtually no choice but to give the false legal appearance of being a colorable legal fiction. I have even attempted to sell my labor without the use of the colorable persona portrayed by the Social Security Card; I was promptly released from the service of the people whom otherwise would have purchased my labor. After my hiring was terminated because of my Christian belief that I should not be marked with the colorable name and number on the Social Security card, I sought to take lawful action against them in order to reinstate my hire; I found that there is no legal recourse or remedy available to me against the people who had fired me. Therefore, any appearance of voluntary usage by me of the Social Security number or any other colorable persona is false. I must support my family and myself; therefore, I must present this false name and number in order to exchange my labor for sustenance of any kind. Revelation: 13:17, states: “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” I have the God given Right to Life and the Right to provide for my family. Thus, I deny that any privilege is granted to me through the use of this name and number. I am being forced against my will to give the appearance that I am a fictitious colorable entity; nothing could be further from the truth; I am the man and living soul that I claim to be. The IRS is continually attempting to disgrace the Law by misaddressing the presentments they have directed toward me; therefore, all of these misaddressed presentments are void ab initio. I cannot, with a good and clear conscience, accept any of these presentments as valid until the IRS properly addresses me and my dwelling home, for me to do so would be a lie in the face of God and to all concerned parties. Contr non volentem agere nulla currit praescriptio.

The U.S. Government defines the spelling and usage of a proper name officially. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing. Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names: "Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon." At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated: "17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed." After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization. At § 17.9, this same official US Government manual states: "In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee." This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style." Therefore, I see no Lawful, legal, or respectable reason why the IRS would refuse to refer to me in the Lawful manner as I have humbly and repeatedly requested.

I will accept as valid any properly addressed presentments sent to me from the IRS, I will consider any other presentment void under the Laws of God, the Common Law, and the united states Constitution there under. Due to their subsequent, blatant, and intentional misaddressing of the correspondences they have directed toward me, many of the IRS’s presentments have been returned to them unopened, countless others may have never reached my dwelling home, others still were received, but not accepted, and responded to under duress as the Christian man and living soul that I am. Thus far, it appears that the IRS has been acting in bad faith with respect to their willful use of improper addressing on the face of their presentments in direct conflict with my repeated requests, the Law, and the rules of English grammar.

The legal fiction, “JOHN J DOE,” used by the IRS is filius nullius and thus is inherently dead in law. I aver that my true name is not written in a book of death; to any man having cause to believe that I am guilty of an offence worthy of a civil death, I ask that he come forward now, proclaim any such alleged offense against me, and present his evidence of my alleged crime or forever keep his peace. Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus. If no such charge of an offense is produced to show cause that I am a Lawfully convicted criminal who is civiliter mortuus then I retain my Right to be addressed at my dwelling home only by the Christian appellation of my Christian and family name on all presentments directed toward me of a legal and/or Lawful nature, at my discretion.

2. I had paid all tax, penalty, and interest before the lien was filed. This conclusion is drawn from my overall understanding of the Law as it pertains to lawful contracts. The sources that have I have studied to form this conclusion include, but are not limited to:
• The Holy Bible
• Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature From Jekyll Island. California: American Media, 1998.
• Maxwell, Newton. The Fed: Inside the Federal Reserve, the Secret Power Center that Controls the American Economy.
• McFadden, Louis. Congressman McFadden's Report to the House of Representatives 1934 Expose of the Fed. Reprinted by permission 1978 Arizona Caucus Club. Internet source. 8 Available at:
http://www.uhuh.com/worthy/mcfad.htm - McSpeechNew York: Times Books, 1983.
• Mullins, Eustace Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection. New York: Kasper and Horton., 1952.
• Traficant, James, Jr. addressing the House. United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Internet source. 9 Available at:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents/bankrupt.html
• U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section X.
• Common Law Maxims
• Numerous court rulings as stated below
• Fed publication, Modern Money Mechanics

The following may at first appear to be off topic; however, I will show relevance for including all of the information below. As the result of intense and thorough research on my part, I have concluded that the IRS is, in net effect, a collection agency for the privately owned Federal Reserve System (the “Fed” hereinafter). Accessorius sequit naturam sui principalis. The following is the basis for my conclusion. It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the Fed’s International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. Members of Congress are simply the official trustees whom are presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.” Since the Secretary of the Treasury receives no compensation from the U.S. Government, he/she is obviously an employee of the privately owned Fed. Therefore, the “Federal Tax Lien” that was found at my dwelling home is in fact a lien proposed by the Fed, not by any Lawful branch of the government of the United States. The Fed is a private corporation, which is neither wholly nor partly owned by the American People or the U.S. Government. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. I deny that I am inherently a 14th Amendment second-class U.S. citizen and I further deny that I have ever intentionally asked to be treated as one. In addition, I deny that anyone, other than myself, has ever had the Right to hypothecate the intrinsic value of my labor to anyone else. One cannot Lawfully bargain with that which one does not Lawfully own. As the result of this alleged hypothecation of all of the peoples’ property, present and future, due to the bankruptcy of the federal government, the Fed may allegedly create a debt-based credit currency to loan to the American people in order to allow the people a way of discharging debts, the physical form of this fiat currency is known as Federal Reserve Notes (“Notes” hereinafter). However, roughly ninety percent of this fiat currency never leaves the bankbooks. It has been openly admitted by the representatives of the Fed that no gold, silver, or any other Lawful Consideration backs these Notes; the Notes are only backed by public faith.

These Notes are not redeemable for anything; they are, in effect and in Law, worthless. The Fed can allegedly create this debt-based credit currency out of thin air with the stroke of a pen on a ledger and, when they choose, can allegedly write it out of existence with equal ease. The alleged debt based currency that was loaned to me in exchange for my labor was comprised of these debt-based credit Notes. I have, therefore, allegedly exchanged the intrinsic value of my labor for a credit debt owed to the Fed plus interest collected as an alleged income tax. I then allegedly used these debt-based credit Notes to discharge, but not pay, other supposed debts incurred by me. This allegedly leaves me with a limited liability to the national debt. Therefore, the essential elements of Life and Liberty such as my dwelling home, my automobiles, my clothes, and so on are purportedly standing as the surety for the loan of these Notes or, more appropriately, the loan of credit that I have allegedly accepted in the stead of tangible fruits for my labor; I deny that this was ever my intent. Animus moninis est anima scripti. Confirmatio est nulla, ubi donum praecedens est invalidum.

It is my belief that the Fed has intentionally overlooked my initial and unintentional deposit, which was supposedly the intrinsic value of my labor. To illustrate this fact I present the following example from the Fed publication, Modern Money Mechanics, it reflects a typical bank deposit transaction: “For every deposit entry on the asset side of the ledger, there must be a corresponding and matching liability entry. The liability is there because it is a Demand Deposit Account, which means you could withdraw it all at any time. The two ledgers, assets and Liabilities must always balance out to zero.” Therefore, I have allegedly, yet unknowingly, deposited the fruits of my labor as collateral for a loan that the Fed has secretly made to me in some sort of weird and alien exchange for my labor; thus, according to the Fed’s rules, I must have made a deposit of intrinsic value that was an equal opposite to the debt that the Fed loaned me in exchange for my labor, plus interest of course. Since my deposit of the intrinsic value of my labor allegedly stands as collateral for these Notes that they have supposedly created then I have the Right to make a complete and total withdrawal of the intrinsic value of the fruits of my labor at any time that I choose. However, I doubt that the Fed would honor such a request for withdrawal. Supposedly, the value of my labor has simply disappeared.

I submit that it is no accident on the part of the Fed that the intrinsic value of my labor mysteriously disappeared at the same time and in the same place as the alleged value of the Fed’s debt based Notes appeared. I believe that the Fed is attempting to use the value of my labor for their profit, to my detriment. The courts have consistently ruled that banks cannot lend their credit, but can only lend their money, and that all loans of credit are ultra vires. First National Bank of Tallapoose v. Monroe, 69 SE 1123; Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples National Bank 144 SE 501; Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. I. Herisson, 33 F 2nd 841; American Express Co, v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 427.

As the result of my initial unintentional deposit being intentionally misplaced and concealed by the Fed and the resulting fraudulent tax debt arising from their carelessness, I am hereby giving Notice to the Fed’s agent, the IRS, that I am making a request for the proper procedure to demand a complete and total withdrawal of my initial deposits of value to the Fed. I wish to make this withdrawal retroactive to the instant that any and all alleged loans were made to me by the Fed, that were presumably secured by my alleged deposits. As it stands now, the Fed is holding approximately four hundred eighty five thousand, six hundred twenty seven dollars worth of the intrinsic value of my labor, which I unintentionally deposited to the Fed during the years 1978 through 2002. Until I see evidence that I am allowed to withdraw all of this money on demand, I can only assume that the Fed intends to keep my money as if it were their money, which it is not. The amount on deposit far exceeds any alleged tax (interest) that they claim that I owe. Therefore, all of the alleged and un-Lawful tax (interest) was paid in full prior to the filing of the “Federal Tax Lien.”

I suspect that the Fed will not honor any demand for the above mentioned withdrawal; therefore, until my demand is honored, I claim allodial ownership and free and clear title of any and all alleged property that the IRS claims I owe to the Fed as an interest payment, purported tax, alleged fine, or supposed penalty. I hereby place a Common Law Lien on all of the property in my possession as partial payment for the intrinsic value of my labor currently on deposit with the Fed. I deny that I Lawfully owe the Fed any usury fees for their use of the intrinsic value of my labor to make their money, profit, or credit; if anyone deserves an interest payment in the instant case, it is I. I further deny that I intentionally made a deposit or gift to the Fed of the intrinsic value of my labor.

I submit that either these Notes are based on the value of a deposit of the intrinsic value of my labor, or these debt Notes were totally un-backed, valueless and counterfeit from their inception. If I am allowed to withdraw the value of my labor from the Fed then it will negate the existence of the purported backing for any alleged loan that the Fed has made to me, thus negating any interest, tax, or penalty on such a loan retroactive to the instant that such a loan was allegedly made. If I am denied such a withdrawal then obviously nothing of value ever backed the Notes and any such loan was illegal and unlawful from its inception and so is any tax, interest, or penalty on such a loan. Out of necessity, I may have used these Notes, but if I have, it was done without prejudice to my God given Rights; any such act was done strictly because there was no other reasonable medium of exchange available to me.

I do not believe that the Fed has the power to create something of value out of nothing. Further, I aver and avow that only God can create something of worth out of nothing, no international banker of any status has that true power, and the use of these Notes by me is not to be construed as acceptance for the value of my labor. I proclaim that anyone who believes he has the power or ability to create something of value out of nothing, other than God Himself, has delusions of godhood, and I can have no faith in anything that he purports to have created including, but not limited to, these debt based Notes. Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. Ultra posse non est esse, et vice versa.

This alleged Notice of Federal Tax Lien amounts to nothing more than a foreclosure on my property by the privately owned Fed through their agent the IRS. I declare that the Fed has invested absolutely nothing of Lawful Consideration in the property in my possession, which they now intend to foreclose upon. Non oritur actio, ex turpi contractu. Contractus ex turpi caus, vel contr bonos mores nullus est. Ex malificio non oritur contractus. I, on the other hand, have invested in my property the intrinsic value of my labor, my blood, my sweat, and my tears. Inutilis labor, et sine fructu, non est effectus legis. In all truth it could only have been my labor that has paid for my property as if it were the very gold or silver backed currency that the People are guaranteed by Article I, Section X, of the united States Constitution and/or Executive Order 11110. If the alleged debt Notes created by the Fed are created from nothing then these Notes are likewise redeemable for nothing, they are not redeemable for gold or silver; they are similarly not redeemable for the intrinsic value of: my labor, my dwelling home, my automobiles, my good name, or any other thing. Conversely, my labor is redeemable for all things that I choose to own, within the limits of the intrinsic value thereof.

I profess that the Fed has reaped unimaginable wealth not only from me but also from the entire united states of the People; the Fed’s profit is a mathematically indefinable exponential gain to their investment of nothing. Ex nudo pacto non oritur action. It appears that the Fed falsely assumes that they have gained the fruits of my labor in exchange for a debt, which equates to less than nothing, they are mistaken; the Fed’s Notes are not backed by my labor nor my faith; I have given my faith to God and He has promised me the fruits of my labor. 2 Timothy: 2:6, states: “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits”. If I were to put my faith in the Fed’s Notes then I would effectively be worshiping the Fed as a false god by showing a false belief that the Fed can create something of value out of nothing, I have no such belief or faith in the Fed or anything that its bankers purport to create; I will not perform any such worship of those members of the Fed who falsely presume that they have such godlike powers as to create or destroy wealth with the stroke of a pen. In the Holy Bible I am told at Matthew: 6:24, and at Luke: 16:13, that “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” I choose to serve God. No man warring for God should be troubled with secular business.

Despite my conclusions as to the nature of this alleged debt, so as not to offend anyone, I have previously offered to Lawfully make payment in full of any and all alleged debt on my part in Lawful gold or silver money. The IRS has refused to make arrangements to accept this Lawful payment from me, as the man and living soul that I am, under the name that God left in my stewardship; they have further refused to provide me with the name, specie, or type of a preferred and Lawful money suitable for extinguishing this alleged debt. Lex non cogit impossibilia. Reprobata pecunia liberat solventum. Their refusal to make arrangements to accept Lawful payment of this alleged debt is further evidence that there is no Lawful consideration to the alleged debt in question. Reprobata pecunia liberat solventum. Any alleged debt that is not based on Lawful consideration is null and void from its inception and is thus paid in full ab initio. Contractus ex turpi caus, vel contr bonos mores nullus est.
In the case of the First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, State of Minnesota in Justice Court, County of Scott Township of Credit River, the Justice, Martin V. Mahoney, made the following rulings that support my belief in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Determination, and his Judgment and Decree, and his Memorandum:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Determination

1. That the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation is a United States Corporation with twelve (12) banks throughout the United States, including New York, Minneapolis and San Francisco. That the First National Bank of Montgomery is also a United States Corporation, incorporated and existing under the laws of the United States and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, and more specifically, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

2. That because of the interlocking control activities, transactions and practices, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are for all practical purposes, in the law, one and the same bank.

3. As is evidenced from the book "The Federal Reserve System: Its Purposes and functions, pages 74 to 78 and 177 and 180, put out by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D. C., 1963, and from other evidence adduced herein, the said Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate Prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the united states. The actual pages of the Federal Reserve Manual are reproduced herein on page 38 to 46,__ See especially page 75 of the Manual. This creation of money or credit upon the books of the Banks constitutes the creation of fiat money by bookkeeping entry.

4. Ninety percent or more of the credit never leaves the books of the banks so they need produce no specie as backing

5. When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existence is when they create it on their bankbooks by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it or any fund at all.

Judgment and Decree

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.

2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.

3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.

4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.

5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 – "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party."

Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.

BY THE COURT

December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Credit River Township

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

JEROME DALY'S OWN ENTRY
REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY'S MEMORANDUM

FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly.

It is my firm belief that the primary difference between the instant case and the Lawful conclusions set forth in the above cited case is that Jerome Daly was informed of the existence of a contract of the loan prior to entering into the above mentioned unlawful contract, whereas I have never been officially informed in clear and unequivocal language that I was engaged in the contract of a loan at all. Therefore, the same conclusions of fact and Law apply in the instant case as well as the one cited above. The unavoidable conclusion can only be that the Fed has collected all that is due from me, and more; the IRS is mistaken in all of their conclusions to the contrary. If any man has cause to believe that the bankers of the Fed have invested any Lawful consideration in my property, or that I have no Right to the fruits of my labor, or that I have not compensated the Fed in kind for one hundred percent or more of the intrinsic value, if any, of the loan(s) that I have allegedly received, or that anyone but God can create something of value out of nothing then let him speak now and present the evidence of his contention or may he forever keep his peace. At Matthew: 23:16, Jesus said: “Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!”

Summation of Truth:
• I am, John James: Doe, II, a Christian man and living soul.
• I am not, JOHN J DOE, a fictitious colorable character under the jurisdiction of a colorable court of Admiralty jurisdiction.
• To claim that I have willfully volunteered to be a second class Fourteenth Amendment US citizen is as absurd as saying that a man being robbed at gunpoint under threat of loss of life made a gift of his money to his assailant.
• Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than unsigned checks written on a closed account. Only the BTUs of heat these Notes would release if they were burned could measure their intrinsic value.
• Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
• The debt that has been forced upon me in exchange for my labor is the opposite of any purported income that is allegedly being taxed.
• Currency that has no Lawful consideration as backing can be neither Lawful money, nor Lawful income.
• If the Fed will not allow me withdraw the intrinsic value of my labor from the account in which it was placed then I can only assume that the Fed has stolen the value of my labor from me and deserves nothing else as payment for any alleged debt.
• The Fed has already received more compensation than they are due for any debt they allege is due to them.
• The IRS refuses to properly address me in this matter.

Proposed Solution:

My Advocate and Wonderful Counselor, Jesus the Christ, has advised me to offer Lawful payment of this alleged tax debt regardless of the validity of the allegation of this alleged debt. He has further advised me of the manner in which this offer must be presented. He has made it very clear to me, by His example, the actions that I must take at this point to make this offer acceptable to God the Father.

Jesus was angry when Peter told the tax collectors in Capernaum that his Master, Jesus, paid tribute to Caesar. However, so as not to offend the tax collectors, He instructed Peter the proper procedure for payment of the tax at Matthew: 17:27: “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” I understand that a fish is a creature bound by the laws of the sea; it must rely on the sea for its very survival. The fish in the instant case is the colorable fictitious entity referred to by the IRS as “JOHN J DOE”. The sea is the Admiralty law jurisdiction, the law of the sea, which this colorable entity owes its alleged existence to. I must, therefore, not speak as this colorable entity; I must speak as the Lawful Christian man and living soul that I am, with the Lawful name that God has left in my care. Further, I cannot offer payment in Federal Reserve Notes; I have no faith in these Federal Reserve Notes so they have no backing if I use them. I cannot pay a debt with another debt; it is simply impossible to do so. A l'impossible nul n'est tenu. I must offer Lawful money in gold and/or silver if I am to pay this alleged debt. Since payment of this alleged tax debt must be with Lawful money, payment is being offered under the Common Law jurisdiction.

The Federal Reserve System is a legal fiction and legal person. The IRS is also a legal fiction and a legal person. Neither the Fed nor their agent, the IRS, exist under the Common Law; therefore, I must ask that a natural person accept the consequence of the Common Law and voluntarily enter in to a contract with me in order to accept this Lawful payment for the good of their master; I will offer this Lawful payment under the Common Law for the good of my Master; thus, these acts will be equal under the Law. Aequum et bonum, est lex legum.

The IRS has repeatedly refused to offer a contract that will allow Lawful payment for this alleged debt in gold or silver. The IRS has similarly refused to address me by my Lawful name. Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. Therefore, I have devised the Common Law Contract for payment of this alleged debt as a willing servant of my Master, God the Father and I accept full Lawful responsibility for that payment. In turn the Fed/IRS may choose a natural person who is willing to be a servant of their master and accept the payment of the alleged debt and full Lawful responsibility for the Lawfulness of the allegation of that debt. My Common Law Offer of Payment is enclosed. If my offer is accepted in the prescribed manner then I will sell virtually everything that I own in order to acquire the Lawful money to pay this alleged debt. Further, I retain my Right to take Common Law action against the natural person accepting the enclosed Contract if it is determined that the allegation of this debt was unfounded in Law. I will render unto Caesar only that which is Caesar’s; I will render unto God that which is God’s.

If this Common Law Contract is not accepted within thirty days of its receipt, I will file a Common Law Notice of Default of Acceptance. I will surmise that no debt ever existed in fact or in Law and consider any further claim of tax debt null and void.

Respond only to:

“John James: Doe, II 4430 23rd Avenue Place South West Freeville, North Carolina state republic”
I, John James: Doe, II, aver and avow that all of the above is true to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief: Yea. Pursuant to the Holy Bible at James: 5:12.
Signed:_________________________, a Lawful man and living soul

Sealed:__________________________
Delivered on this_________ Day of the __________ Month of the ___________________Year of Our Lord, Jesus the Christ.

______________________________________________________________________
Common Law Contract for the Payment and Receipt of Any and All Federal Income Tax Debt Lawfully Owed By: John James: Doe, II

Debtor: John James: Doe, II

I, John James: Doe, II, a man and living soul, do hereby offer Lawful payment, under the Common Law, with the gold and/or silver Lawful United States coined currency specified below by the recipient named below for the alleged Federal Income Tax debt that the recipient alleges that I Lawfully owe.

Debtor’s Lawful Christian and family name and address of his dwelling home:

John James: Doe, II
4403 23rd Avenue Place South East
Freeville, North Carolina

Recipient:______________________:___________(complete proper spelling only, no initials)

I, _____________________:________________, a natural person, using my true and complete Lawful name in the instant case, do hereby swear under the penalty of perjury and under the punishment of the Common Law that:
1. I have personally determined that the debtor named above Lawfully owes the Federal Income Tax in the amount stated below.
2. Upon my receipt of Lawful payment of this debt no future action will be taken to collect said Federal Income Tax debt from the debtor.
3. The debtor named above owes _____________________________ dollars in Lawful money and must pay said amount to me in order to completely extinguish the Federal Income Tax debt, which I have determined that he Lawfully owes under the Common Law.
4. I am authorized by, ____________________________, to receive this debt from the debtor on, ___________________________, behalf.
5. I understand that I will be held personally liable under the Common Law for any damages to the debtor as the result any wrongful determination on my part of his Federal Income Tax debt.
6. The debtor must Lawfully pay this Federal Income Tax debt with (number and date of Lawful United States coined currency) __________________, __________________ twenty dollar gold pieces of Lawful United States coined currency and (number and date of Lawful United States coined currency) _____________, _____________ silver dollars of Lawful United States coined currency.
7. No Federal Reserve Notes or clad coinage is to be offered or accepted as payment for this or any alleged debt under the Common Law.
8. Failure to enter into this Common Law Contract or to make a counter Common Law offer of Contract within Thirty Days of the receipt of this Contract negates all present and future claims of a Federal Income Tax debt allegedly owed by the debtor.

Recipient’s complete Lawful Christian and family name and address of his/her dwelling home:

Name:
Address of dwelling home:




Debtor:
I, John James: Doe, II, a man and living soul, the alleged debtor in the instant case, aver and avow that upon completion and acceptance, by the recipient, of the Common Law Contract above that I will sign and accept this Common Law Contract and make immediate arrangements to pay the above stated amount in Lawful money to the recipient for the alleged Federal Income Tax debt that the recipient swears under penalty of perjury that I owe. I reserve my Right to seek restitution against the recipient under the Common Law for any damages that I may incur due to any un-Lawful determination by the recipient of this alleged Federal Income Tax debt.

The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief: yea. Pursuant to the Holy Bible at James: 5:12.

Signed, ____________________________, a man and living soul
On this _______________ Day of the __________________ Month of the ____________________ Year of our Lord

Recipient:
I, ___________________:____________, a natural person, the recipient in the instant case, aver and avow that upon completion and acceptance of the Common Law Contract above by myself and by the debtor that I will accept the Lawful money offered by the debtor, in the amount I have indicated above, as complete and total payment of any and all Federal Income Tax that I have personally determined that the debtor owes. I have been authorized by, _______________________, to accept payment for this debt under the Common Law. I personally accept all responsibility for any and all damages to the debtor that result from any false determination on my part as to the validity of the debt that I allege he owes.

I swear under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief.

Signed, _____________________________, a natural person
On this _______________ Day of the __________________ Month of the ____________________ Year of our Lord

______________________________________________________________________
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
John James: Doe, II
AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO
THE FOLLOWING MAIL
LOCATION:

John James: Doe, II
4430 23rd Avenue Place South West
Freeville, North Carolina state republic


(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE)

Signed and Sealed:
______________________________________________________________________

Common Law Notice of Default of Acceptance in Affidavit Form


On this Twenty Fifth Day of the Eleventh Month of the Two Thousand and Third Year of our Lord, Jesus the Christ

Registered Mail #_____________________

To Respondent:

Attention: Ray F. Howard, District Director
Internal Revenue Service
320 Federal Place
Greensboro, NC 27401

1. I, John James: Doe, II, a Christian man and a living soul, the undersigned Affiant ("Affiant"), now exercise my Ministerial Right of Visitation and hereby give notice to Ray F. Howard, District Director, Internal Revenue Service, the above named "Respondent," of this Common Law Notice of Default of Acceptance in Affidavit Form, hereinafter called "Notice of Default," and declare and testify:

That Affiant is a Christian man and a living soul, and is competent to testify, and further;

That Affiant has first hand knowledge of the facts related herein, and further;

That the facts related herein are true, correct and complete to the best of the knowledge and belief of the Affiant, and further;

That the law and conclusions of law related herein are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of the Affiant.

2. I, John James: Doe, II, declare and testify:

Respondent is hereby noticed that Respondent is in default of an opportunity to respond, within a reasonable time, to the “Common Law Contract for the Payment and Receipt of Any and All Federal Income Tax Debt Lawfully Owed By: John James: Doe, II” and the attached Affidavit made by John James: Doe, II, Affiant, dated the Nineteenth Day of the Ninth Month of the Two Thousand and Third Year of Our Lord and delivered to Respondent, individually and as agent for Respondent's principal, the Internal Revenue Service, by the United States Postal Service, Registered Mail number _RB 432 126 726 US_.

3. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

Respondent was given the opportunity to rebut the facts, statements, claims, laws and conclusions of law made in the Affidavit by delivering and recording a controverting affidavit; and by Respondent's failure to answer with said Controverting Affidavit, Respondent is therefore in default of said Affidavit. Further, the Respondent has refused to accept an offer of Lawful payment for any and all Federal Tax that the Affiant was accused of owing by the Respondent. Due to this refusal of Lawful payment, the respondent has forfeited all right of claim for receipt of payment of any and all Federal Income Tax by the Affiant; any presumed debt of the Affiant by the Respondent is thusly null and void ab initio.

4. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

The said default shall be hereafter effective against Respondent since Respondent has refused Lawful payment of the alleged income tax debt from the Affiant and has waived the right to answer within a reasonable time with said Controverting Affidavit and, by acquiescence, tacit admission and failure to contest under the doctrine of "Estoppel by Acquiescence," Respondent has forfeited Respondent's due process opportunity to contest the truth of the facts, statements, claims, laws and conclusions of law made in said Affidavit and has consequently affirmed said facts, statements, claims, laws and conclusions of law.

5. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

In absence of Respondent's response according to the foregoing, the undersigned Affiant, John James: Doe, II, hereby presents same by necessity under duress of force, hereby inserts and records this Notice of Default upon and against above named Respondent, Ray F. Howard, District Director, Internal Revenue Service; individually and as agent for the Internal Revenue Service.

6. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

Now, therefore, the undersigned Affiant shall rely upon said acquiescence, tacit admission and failure of Respondent to accept Lawful payment and failure to contest any and all actions by the undersigned Affiant shall now be taken in accordance to the uncontested facts, statements, claims, laws and conclusions of Law set forth in the said Affidavit defaulted. This Notice of Default is not being made and presented to Respondent voluntarily, but is being submitted by Affiant involuntarily and by necessity, under coercion and duress, as further set forth in said Affidavit, and this act is not to be construed as compliance with any statute or treasury regulation.

7. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

Notwithstanding any statement, reference or information set forth in this Notice, I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, have no intention of hereby offering or ratifying any contract and hereby make no further offer or ratification of any contract, expressed or implied. With respect to this Notice, it is a Common Law Maxim that: "Notice to the agent is notice to the principal; notice to the principal is notice to the agent."

8. I, John James: Doe, II, Affiant, declare and testify:

Any response to this Notice of Default must be sent to John James: Doe, II at the above mailing location as set forth on page 15 of said Affidavit Statement within 10 days of receipt hereof.

The undersigned Affiant, John James: Doe, II, has personal knowledge of the above facts, is a Christian man and a living soul, competent to testify to the above facts, and I aver and avow that all of the above is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief: Yea. Pursuant to the Holy Bible at James: 5:12.

Enclosures include Courtesy Copies of : “Affidavit”, “Common Law Contract for the Payment and Receipt of Any and All Federal Income Tax Debt Lawfully Owed By: John James: Doe, II” and Receipt for registered mail number – RB 432 126 716 US, accepted on September 22nd, 2003.

Signed, Sealed, and Delivered on this Twenty Fifth Day of the Eleventh Month of the Two Thousand and Third Year of Our Lord.


__________________________________, Sealed: ____________
John James: Doe, II, Affiant, through the Ministerial Right of Visitation


Loy Robert: Bost, III

Edited by - loybost on 17 Aug 2005 22:18:15
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 16 Aug 2005 :  22:48:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beautyfull Loy Robert, beautyful!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.28 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000