No Miracle, Just Wonderful Chemistry
MMS De-Mystified
del.icio.us tags: alternative health, chlorine dioxide, detox, chelation, healing, heavy metals
For the past couple of weeks I've been learning about, and experiencing something wonderful; that has implications for every one of us. It is a procedure that involves precipitating a chemical solvent, chlorine dioxide, in quantities small enough to be safely ingested, and large enough to kill pathogens that are presently living in our body, robbing it of energy, and poisoning it with waste material, and making it more vulnerable to disease. If this is not your situation, it is certainly the situation of someone you know and love.
The product is called, "MMS," which stands for miracle mineral supplement. Caution flags rise immediately when the term "miracle" is used to describe anything that amazes us, or when we don't understand how it does what it does. In this case, it is indeed amazing. However, an explanation of why MMS is so effective as a pathogen destroyer is possible. It's not the MMS that destroys pathogens; the chlorine dioxide does that. But when you understand the chemistry, you'll see that it's not a miracle… it just seems like one.
Humble Origins
The MMS protocol was developed by Jim Humble, a gold miner and metallurgist, on an expedition into the jungles of Central America, looking for gold. It was a response to a need to help a member of his expedition who came down with malaria, more than two days away, through heavy jungle, from the next mine. After many years of experience, Humble always carried stabilized oxygen with him on such expeditions, to make local water potable. Facing the possibility of a quick loss of life, he gave it to the stricken man. To everyone's amazement, he was well within a few hours. That sure seemed like a miracle, but Humble wanted to better understand what had just happened.
Over the course of several years, Jim Humble figured out that what made stabilized oxygen so effective in some malaria cases, was not the oxygen at all, but the trace amounts of chlorine dioxide. Further research led him to come up with a way to produce hundreds, if not thousands more units of chlorine dioxide than what is found in stabilized oxygen. This is through using a higher concentrate of sodium chlorite (28% vs. 3% for stabilized oxygen), in conjunction with the activator. The proof of the efficacy of this simple protocol was in successfully helping over 75,000 people in several African nations – including Uganda and Malawi – rid themselves, primarily of malaria, but also hepatitis, cancer, and AIDS.
Jim Humble chronicled his experiences in two downloadable ebooks that are available at his web site: www.miraclemineral.org. The book is titled, Breakthrough: The Miracle Mineral Supplement of the 21st Century. Part one, which is a free download, tells how it began. Part two, which costs $9.95, continues the story, discusses the chemistry involved, and gives clear instructions on how to prepare MMS yourself. (A hard copy edition is also available.) This is important, because once you understand the chemistry, and the absolute absence of downside effects, outside of feeling nauseous and "expelling" when toxins and pathogens are dislodged, it becomes an option that anyone who may be on toxin overload must try out for one's self.
Anyone can be on toxin overload. Some are but won't admit it. Others would prefer to think they're not. If your health is not perfect… you're habitually low on energy, have trouble keeping your weight down, or blood pressure in the normal range, or constantly dealing with inflammation or pain, then there's likely a toxin, heavy metal, virus, bacteria, or parasite issue in play. Traditional medicine will typically respond by loading you up with additional pollutants, many of which indiscriminately kill healthy tissue while going after "the bad guys." Not so with chlorine dioxide. It only acts on harmful presences. Miracle or not, the effects are wonderful. I'd vote for Wonderful Mineral Supplement in a heartbeat!
Over the next few pages, I'm going to describe the MMS protocol. When followed, it will produce and distribute chlorine dioxide to your red blood cells, which is the most effective and intelligent pathogen killer known to Nature.
But first, a little background on the chemistry.
Chlorine dioxide and chlorine are not the same. Chlorine is a chemical element. In ion form, chlorine is part of common salt and other compounds, and necessary to most forms of life, including human. A powerful oxidizing agent, it is the most abundant dissolved ion in ocean water, and readily combines with nearly every other element, including sodium to form salt crystals, and magnesium, as magnesium chloride.
Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound that consists of one chlorine ion bound to two ions of oxygen.
Oxidizing agents are chemical compounds that readily accept electrons from "electron donors." They gain electrons via chemical reaction. This is important because relative to chlorine dioxide, all pathogens are electron donors.
Chlorine dioxide is extremely volatile. You might call it "hot tempered," but in a very beneficial way. This volatility is a key factor in chlorine dioxide's effectiveness as a pathogen destroyer.
The compound is literally explosive; so explosive, it's not safe to transport in any quantity. Therefore, it is common practice to generate chlorine dioxide "on site" at the point of use. Most chlorine dioxide production is done on a scale that would prove deadly for individuals, for example, in municipal water treatment systems, where it is beginning to replace chlorine because it produces no carcinogenic byproducts. Chlorine dioxide is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in safely removing pathogens and contaminates like anthrax. So you know it must be effective. However, the concentrations used in such applications can vary from 500 to over 6,000 parts per million (ppm), which would clearly be deadly to an individual. Using the MMS protocol you will produce chlorine dioxide in the range of 1 ppm.
You will use the MMS solution, which is safe to transport, to make nature's harmless pathogen remover.
The MMS solution is 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water. You can produce chlorine dioxide with a single drop, when an "activator" of vinegar, lemon juice, or a 10% solution of citric acid is added. The latter two activators are recommended for people with Lyme disease.
"Applications" of chlorine dioxide range from 1 drop to a maximum of 15, except in life critical situations, where the maximum may be doubled. A "maintenance application" is six drops, with ¼ teaspoon of activator added. After adding the activator, the chemical reaction that turns sodium chlorite into chlorine dioxide takes only about three minutes.
The activating ingredient in vinegar that makes the change possible is acetic acid. It also sets the stage for what happens when the chlorine dioxide ions enter the bloodstream. This weak acid acts like a blasting cap by lowering the pH of the chlorine dioxide, without setting it off.
The natural pH of sodium chlorite is 13. Adding vinegar, lemon juice, or citric acid) creates about 3 mg of unstable but still harmless chlorine dioxide.
The Process
Let's talk a bit more about how and why chlorine dioxide works for giving the immune system a new lease on life.
Volatility is what makes chlorine dioxide so effective when it contacts pathogens. As we've mentioned, chlorine dioxide is a safe and effective disinfectant in many municipal water delivery systems, hospitals, and even in bioterrorism response. It stands to reason that chlorine dioxide would be just as effective working in the waters of the human body.
Chlorine dioxide's extreme volatility prevents pathogens from developing a resistance. Mainly because when they "clash," the pathogens no longer exist. Yet, healthy cells and beneficial bacteria are unaffected.
While normal levels of oxygen in the blood cannot destroy all of the pathogens present under disease conditions, delivery of chlorine dioxide changes everything.
"Halt! Surrender Your Electrons, Now!"
When a chlorine dioxide ion contacts a harmful pathogen, it instantly rips up to five electrons from the pathogen, in what can be likened to a microscopic explosion… harmless to us, but terminal for pathogens.
The pathogen – an electron donor – is rendered harmless due to the involuntary surrendering of its electrons to the chlorine dioxide – an electron acceptor – and the resulting release of energy. Oxidized by the chlorine ion, the former pathogen becomes a harmless salt.
This process benefits a body that has become toxic.
Throughout the body, anywhere chlorine dioxide ions – transported via red blood cells – come in contact with pathogens, the pathogens give up their electrons and cease to exist. The chlorine dioxide armed cells only "detonate" on contact with pathogens, which include harmful bacteria, viruses, toxins, heavy metals, and parasites. All of these will have pH values that are out of the body's range of good health. They will also have a positive ionic charge. The chlorine dioxide equipped cells do not oxidize beneficial bacteria, or healthy cells, as their pH levels are 7 or above, and hold a negative ion charge.
Chlorine dioxide ions will oxidize – meaning vaporize – diseased cells… anything that is acidic, with a positive ion charge.
If the chlorine dioxide ions encounter no pathogens or other poisons, it deteriorates into table salt and in some instances, hypochlorous acid, which the body can also use.
A Pathogen Terminator
Research has proven chlorine dioxide to be much safer than chlorine, as it is selective for pathogens when used in water. Furthermore, it does not create harmful compounds from other constituents in the water as chlorine does.
Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated that chlorine – part of the halogen family of elements – creates as least three carcinogenic compounds when it enters the body, principally trihalomethanes (THMs). There has been no such evidence of harmful compounds being produced from chlorine dioxide.
This is why, in 1999, the American Society of Analytical Chemists proclaimed chlorine dioxide to be the most powerful pathogen killer known to man. It has even been used to clean up after anthrax attacks.
A Journey into Chemical Alchemy
Once it is introduced into the bloodstream, chlorine dioxide performs a highly energetic acceptance of four electrons when it comes across any cell that is below a pH value of 7. This means that diseased cells are essentially vaporized (i.e., "oxidized") while healthy cells are unaffected.
Here is how it happens.
Red blood cells that are normal carriers of oxygen throughout the body do not differentiate between chlorine dioxide and oxygen. Therefore, after ingesting the MMS/chlorine dioxide-rich solution, red blood cells pick up chlorine dioxide ions that are deposited on the stomach wall where it normally gathers nutrients of various kinds before journeying through the body.
Then, when the red blood cells armed with chlorine dioxide encounter parasites, fungi, or diseased cells that all have low pH and a positive ionic charge, the "aliens" are destroyed along with the chlorine dioxide ion. If no such encounters occur, the chlorine dioxide will be carried to a point in the body where oxygen normally oxidizes poisons and other harmful agents.
If the chlorine dioxide doesn't hit anything that can set it off, it will deteriorate, and thus lose an electron or two. This may allow it to combine with a very important substance that the immune system uses to make hypochlorous acid. This compound kills pathogens, killer cells, and even cancerous cells. Hypochlorous acid is so important, its diminished presence in the body is described medically by the term myeloperoxidase deficiency.
Many people are afflicted by this condition. The immune system needs a great deal more hypochlorous acid when disease is present. Facilitated by the MMS solution, chlorine dioxide delivers it in spades, as does magnesium chloride, but that's another part of the health discussion.
The most salient point to know, is that chlorine dioxide has 100 times more energy to do what oxygen normally does, and yet, will not harm healthy cells.
By the way, if you are totally healthy, and have nothing in your body that is at an acidic level below 7, there are no ill-effects from taking chlorine dioxide. However, your stores of hypochlorous acid will be increased.
MMS works best to destroy pathogens that may be present in the body, when 2 or 3 mg of free chlorine dioxide are in the solution at the time it is swallowed. However, the body is supplied with chlorine dioxide in a "timed release" manner lasting about 12 hours. Be aware, that before you feel better, it is likely you will feel ill.
"Why Must I Feel Sick?"
The nauseous feeling that you may experience would be the result of chlorine dioxide encountering, dislodging – hence the "sick" feeling – and then destroying pathogens encountered.
We are generally oblivious of the pathogens that are introduced to our body, especially after they have been stored in the tissue of various organs. Since they build up over time, they generally affect our health slowly, and cumulatively.
However, chlorine dioxide takes them out suddenly, which may result in a dramatic reaction. However, it passes in much less time than it took for the toxins and pathogens to accumulate.
When the chlorine dioxide "goes off," the electron stripped pathogens cease to exist.
As an example, one will almost always feel ill in hepatitis cases because the liver is induced to expel stored poisons, which are then destroyed by an army of red blood cells containing chlorine dioxide. It's really no contest. But it doesn't have to be something as acute as hepatitis.
Years of "leeching" of from dental amalgams can "innocently" deposit enough mercury to one's system to steal innocence, rob vitality, and erase precious memories. Dislodging and vaporizing it will feel uncomfortable for a very short time compared to the time it took to accumulate.
If you feel sick when you take this protocol, know that your health and vitality awaits to rejoin you on "the other side" of the ill feeling.
If it has no "close encounters" with pathogens, chlorine dioxide deteriorates into constituents that are totally non-toxic. Nothing poisonous is left behind to build up, as is the case with many medical protocols. Medical treatments currently provide you NO way of removing the poisons when said poisons don't work. You are left on your own in a strange land and diseased state, without a roadmap back to health.
Nature's chlorine dioxide, on the other hand, lasts long enough to do its job, then that which does not furnish the immune system with needed ions becomes nothing more than micro amounts of salt and water.
The chlorine dioxide has just a few minutes to do its thing, and then it no longer exists, leaving nothing behind that can build up, or do additional harm.
The Procedure
So the procedure is simple. All you need is your bottle of MMS, a clean, empty, dry glass, an eyedropper, and the activator (vinegar, lemon juice, or citric acid).
1. Add your drops of MMS – sodium chlorite – to a clean, empty dry glass. If this is not a critical, life threatening situation, start with one drop. If it is an acute disease situation, you should still limit your starting application to 15 drops of MMS. It has been brought to my attention that the current rule of thumb is 3 drops of sodium chlorite per 25 lbs. of body weight. This would put anyone who is 125 lbs at the 15 drop limit. A reader notes that Mr. Humble suggested that she (at 275 lbs) need to get up to 33 drops, and at 10 drop maintenance dose, rather than the "normal" 6-drops. (Thanks D.A.)
2. For 1-6 drops of sodium chlorite add ¼ teaspoon of activator. If you're using vinegar, any kind is okay, including apple cider vinegar or white vinegar, as long as it has roughly 5% acetic acid. For 7-15 drops, add ½ teaspoon of activator — if using vinegar or lemon juice.
1. CITRIC ACID ACTIVATOR: To make a 10% solution of citric acid: Put one level tablespoon full of crystals in a clean glass or jar. Then add 9 level tablespoons full of purified water into the same jar. When the crystals have dissolved, this is a 10% solution. In all cases when using the citric acid as an activator, use 5 drops for each 1 drop of MMS. Do everything else the same. Wait 3 minutes after mixing, add juice and drink.
2. When using the citric acid as an activator, be sure to keep in mind all of the other instructions concerning taking the MMS. Start with taking 1 drop of MMS and 5 drops of citric acid and then work up to greater amounts.
3. Since droppers come in various sizes, you may want to use the same size dropper for the MMS and the citric acid so you know you are getting enough for good activation.
4. If you're going into the rarefied territory beyond 15 drops, use the same ratios; i.e., another ¼ teaspoon (total of ¾ tsp.) for up to 21 drops, 1 tblsp. for up to 30, etc for vinegar and lemon juice activators, and 5 drops of 10% solution of citric acid for each drop of MMS.
3. WAIT THREE MINUTES, then add ½ glass of apple juice, grape juice, cranberry or pineapple juice, or water. This further stabilizes the compound, and brings the concentration of chloride dioxide that you will ingest to 1 part per million (ppm).
4. Drink IMMEDIATELY. The "chlorine-like" taste will be negligible.
Allowing the drink to sit for any significant time allows chlorine gas to build up above the drink, which lessens the amount of chlorine dioxide in the drink.
The 'Healtholution' Will Not Be Televised!
Start modestly with as little as 1 drop of MMS on your first day, and then increase the number on each following day, up to the maximum of 15. ONLY THE MOST ACUTE TOXIC OVERLOAD SITUATIONS WILL WARRANT THIS AMOUNT OF APPLICATION. Your body WILL tell you when you've reached the optimum dosage for you.
Clearing will not be comfortable, but it need not be intolerable. You may feel like you've been through a battle, and in a sense, you have. It's a battle for domain over your health, and hence, your life. Before you can be healthy again, you need to destroy toxins, pathogens, and parasites. In order to do so, they have to be uprooted and released from their "strongholds" in your body tissue. You will feel the effects, but is a good thing. You will also feel health, again.
The sick feeling will be TEMPORARY, a small price to pay for the longer term possibility of lasting restored health, no matter what stage of life you happen to be currently experiencing.
When the clearing is done, you won't need to take the maximum dosages. You can go on a maintenance application (six (6) drops of MMS) to keep your insides pathogen free and immune system strong.
A few more words about fruit juices. They can be substituted for water as long as they are freshly made. Do not buy them off the shelf and use them, and DO NOT use orange juice. Orange juice prevents the production of chlorine dioxide, as well as anything that has vitamin C added as a preservative.
I hope you have found this information helpful. The product known as MMS is not really chlorine dioxide, it's not even a miracle. However, it is a safe and effective way to create one, by introducing a sure fire way to bolster the immune system and eliminate a full range of harmful pathogens, by delivering Nature's pathogen destroyer, chlorine dioxide, into your body.
When combined with the rapid toxin removal power of chlorine dioxide, mineral replenishment with magnesium chloride and detoxified iodine for the thyroid, can point those with even the most acute conditions in the direction of some seriously wonderful well being.
Hear It
Jim Humble, developer of the MMS protocol, is my guest on Talk for Food. You can listen to the podcast by following this link. http://www.webtalkradio.net/content/view/32/33/
Monday, December 31, 2007
Manitoba Notary tromps law society
Reading this whole document will give most a good fix on why utilizing a notary in a non commercial form is essential to getting recognition for your agreements.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ( "In God's law" should be here)
: Mary-Janeth: Beehler Notary Public
201-661 Pembina Highway
Winnipeg, MB R3M 2L5
Te/Fax (204) 925-2024
* beehlerm@mts.net *
May 1, 2007
The Law Society of Manitoba
219 Kennedy Street
Winnipeg, MB . R3C 1S8
Attention: Ms Leah C. Kosokowsky
* lkosokowsky@lawsociety.mb.ca *
(Complete response e-mailed May 1, 2007 w/ original
following by mail)
Dear Ms Kosokowsky:
Your continued harassment, through repetitive, already asked and
answered questions; and, your failure to respond to the questions that I
raise in my response dated February 19, 2007, is taken notice of in your
letters of February 21 and April 2, 2007. This, to my mind, moves your
correspondence from the investigation of professional actions, through an
exchange of questions and answers, into the realm of a personal attack on
the writer; particularly in light of the unwarranted tone and content of
your accusatory e-mail of April 24, 2007.
As well, your correspondence began in December 2006 with the caption
"Concerns Re: Practice without Insurance" and, in the first line of your
letter, "conduct *purportedly* as a Notary Public". With each of your
following letters, the matter seems to include an attack not only on me as a
Notary Public, but also upon the rights of Manitobans, and Canadians, to
exercise their right of private contract and resolution through the
administrative remedies available to the Free People on the Land, herein
specifically through the use of the services of a Notary Public. These
rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, with its entrenched
Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, these charters are the Supreme Law of
the Land, with those rights also being articulated in the Canadian Bill of
Rights.
* *
Ms. Kosokowsky, your letters continue to insinuate and imply that I am a
"solicitor acting without benefit of insurance". That might, *although
incorrect*, be the Law Society's eventual determination (or, is it in fact
already predetermined). However, I have stated before, and again reiterate,
that there was never any intent on my behalf to act in any capacity for the
man, : Roger-James: Gadsdon, other than that of a Notary Public in and for
the Province of Manitoba. In fact, my usual statement to anyone asking or
mentioning that I have an LL.B. is to advise them I do not practice law and
have not for several years, as I have no practicing certificate from the
LSM. I know that message was conveyed to : Roger-James: Gadsdon when we
met several years ago.
I have at all times acted strictly in the capacity of a notary public, *ex
officio*, in and for the Province of Manitoba, in regards to the third-party
witnessing, attesting, sending with a cover titled "Proof of Mailing and
Contents Mailed" witnessing the sending of : Roger-James: Gadsdon's
documents, sent registered mail via notary presentment, being the
third-party witness to the response or non-response and to, upon :
Roger-James: Gadsdon's request, send, as a courteous reminder, both a Notice
of Non-Response and an Instrument of Protest. For your information and
edification, I include, Chapter III, Functions and Duties of Canadian
Notaries in General: from *"Office and Practice of a Notary of Canada
(Exception Province of Quebec)"*by Bernard Wallace Russell, B.A., LL.B., K.C.
2 d, 1927. Specifically, and I quote:
"We call him a notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or
other writings, to render the same more credible and authentic in any
country whatever. He is principally made use of in courts and in business
relating to merchants. For a notary is a witness, and ought to give
evidence touching such things as fall under his corporeal senses, and not of
such matters as fall under the judgment or understanding." (Ayliffe,
Parergon 382)
I share the fairly common belief that a lawyer is a person who is licensed
to practice law in the Province, who is insured under the Law Society, and
who, when retained by a client to represent him, is mandated to:
A. Act as an advocate on his client's behalf as a barrister and
solicitor;
B. Make legal determinations on his client's behalf, and,
C. Protect his client's legal interests.
Likewise, a Notary Public is a public official, whose primary functions are,
among other things, to:
A. Administer oaths and affirmations to persons making affidavits,
and solemn declarations to persons making statutory declarations;
B. To attest and certify, by his hand and official seal, certain
classes of documents, in order to give them credit and authenticity in the
Province and in foreign jurisdictions;
C. To perform certain official acts (chiefly in commercial matters),
such as the protesting of notes and bills, the noting of foreign drafts, and
marine protests in cases of loss or damage; and,
D. In jurisdictions where permitted, to undertake the conveyance of
land and valuable securities.
One must always keep in mind, that the difference when acting in either of
these two official capacities consists of the actions undertaken, and the
authority under which these actions are undertaken. Notary services are
provided where no legal advice is sought or given and the Notary Public is
acting in the capacity of an impartial, third party witness, who is
recognized in the public as such, and not as a retained, mandated advocate
on behalf of a client.
Is your correspondence intended to be or, might it be construed as, an
attempt to persuade and deter me from providing Notary services with
impartiality to all members of the public who would approach me for such
services, as
: Roger-James: Gadsdon did in this instance?
Throughout our correspondence, it occurs to me that your letters
*may* have been originally predicated by your complainant, on the basis of
an inquiry by a member of the public, who is seeking to acquire an unequal
advantage in a civil matter by depriving an adversary of Notary services
through the misuse of the Law Society of Manitoba. I raise the question
only, and make no explicit accusation, as I have no evidence at this time to
support the possibility that this is in fact a vexatious and malicious
complaint. I believe that we should always be cognizant of the underlying
intentions of the Complainant and or client who seek our professional
services.
Would not, at a minimum, legal etiquette and decorum dictate
that especially you, as the Director of the Discipline Council, on behalf of
The Law Society of Manitoba, not name the complainant directly in these
letters, and in the quoted portions from : Roger-James: Gadsdon's documents?
I have been surprised throughout, that you have neither blacked-out nor
blanked-out the name of the complainant *and* : Roger-James: Gadsdon. This
would be courteous of their privacy and achieve your same objectives in
questioning the attestation of the documentation.**
I further suggest that it might appear to a reasonable man that,
since you mention Angie Rodrigues and : Roger-James: Gadsdon so openly and
freely in your correspondence, that perhaps you are vicariously implicating
The Law Society of Manitoba, by extension, as acting on a personal basis for
the complainant. You, individually and/or collectively as agent for the
LSM, without knowledge of the complainant's possible motivation, have placed
yourselves in the potential position of acting for Angie Rodrigues - quite a
different capacity than is purported in your continuing correspondence, sent
under the pen of The Law Society of Manitoba, specifically, since you, as a
lawyer, knew or ought to have known.
Since you have continued to draw the complainant personally into
these matters, in three separate letters, I believe that we should now
recognize that Ms. Rodrigues is a senior level Credit Union loans manager.
As such, I suggest that a reasonable man would infer that Ms. Rodrigues is
not an unsophisticated person respecting Notary attestations and commercial
transactions.
As an aside, the method of respectful, written address for "Mr.
Gadsdon" (as you continually refer to him, along with variants of name and
misspellings, in your correspondence), by all public servants and those in
public roles, is, as set out in the documentation attested to by me and, in
particular in the original "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed", is *:
Roger-James: Gadsdon*. I simply caution you, as I have now been cautioned
myself, of the correct means of address.
: Roger-James: Gadsdon is a particular man. You will note that if you are
not in alignment with the " *propria persona"* protocol of the punctuation
format required and stated explicitly, in the "Proof of Mailing and Contents
Mailed", you would be viewed as disrespecting this man. In your written
correspondence, I note that you, or your staff typist, appear not to have
checked the spelling and method of referral in the documents; or may, as he
would view it, intentionally choose to incorrectly and differently type this
man's name, with errors in his given name and his family clan name and,
confuse this Sovereign competent man upon the Land with someone volunteering
to act in the office of a "person". He has asked me to request that you
use the correct form of address for him in any further correspondence. I
also provide you with his common law Copyright Notice, inclusive of his fee
schedule for unauthorized use of his property, as evidenced on all his
documents, "WITH THE COPY-CLAIM ROGER GADSDON(c)" complete with his seal.
In addition, the tone of your letters, and because of your direct reference
to the parties, might suggest the question, to a reasonable man, just who or
whom are you acting for in your correspondence: the Public (Society),
Roger-James: Gadsdon, or Ms. Rodrigues? Your letters are increasingly more
accusing and adversarial; you persist in repeating the same questions,
although already asked and answered, as if trying to confuse and entrap me,
even when I have several times given the same truthful responses to those
repetitive queries. I do not believe that I have any lawful obligation to
answer your queries respecting my actions as a Notary Public. Will it take
an action on my part for quo warranto to have the Law Society of Manitoba,
and yourself, prove by what authority the Society and you continue to
persecute me, simply for my actions as a Notary Public?
I hold neither a practicing nor a non-practicing legal certificate from the
Law Society of Manitoba. I have, until this time, tolerated and
entertained, specifically without contract and with All Rights Reserved,
your specious and increasingly more hostile accusations and, your repetitive
and pernicious line of questioning, as I have (or at least have had) a level
of respect for the *stated* objectives and mandate of The Law Society of
Manitoba. If you disagree that your correspondence is "over the top", for a
small example, simply read your e-mail of April 24, 2007 which was entirely
un warranted, as I have been nothing but *voluntarily* co-operative in
responding to your correspondence.
So, once again, as a free woman upon the Land, and in response to your
repetitive, already asked and answered "shotgun approach" queries:
1. Not that I see it pertinent to this situation, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon was introduced to me several years ago by another friend. When he
required the services of a Notary he asked if I would oblige him in that
capacity. : Roger-James: Gadsdon presents as a competent, free man upon the
Land, a flesh and blood Sovereign Canadian citizen, under Claim of Right,
who reserves all Rights and freedoms under the Constitution, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. These rights include
the unlimited right to contract as stated in the Constitution and, I sign as
a third party witness in the public.
2. I would suggest that you have received copies of all documents
attested to by me, on behalf of : Roger-James: Gadsdon, from your
complainant Ms. Rodrigues. If not, you would have to provide me with the
signed consent of : Roger-James: Gadsdon to release any further
documentation (the particulars as to how to reach him by registered mail is
noted in the aforesaid "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed"). I respect
the confidentiality of all documents I attest to on behalf of "people" and
the "persons" who seek my services as a Notary Public. In that regard, I
respect and do my utmost to abide by the Constitution, Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights, and both the federal and provincial
privacy laws.
3. The documentation that I have attested to as Notary Public for
: Roger-James: Gadsdon was prepared and provided by : Roger-James: Gadsdon.
Any discussions I have had with : Roger-James: Gadsdon specific to the
documentation, would arguably be confidential. Actually, one comment of his
that I will share with you is that **he remains puzzled as to why you are in
possession of his private copy-written material and questioning the Notary
Public about its purpose and content.
4. All requests mentioned in the Notice of Non-Response and Instrument
of Protest were made by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. The purpose for sending
the Instrument of Protest was for : Roger-James: Gadsdon to exercise his
Constitutional right to, have a third-party witness to the execution of his
commercial documents and, to the sending and receiving of any response(s):
that is, an independent, third-party witness in the Public. As Notary, I
agreed to note, whether or not there was any response to his "Letter" dated
October 16, 2006 within ten days and he requested that since it was
initially forwarded via Notary presentment that, as a courtesy the Notice of
Non-Response and the Instrument of Protest were, in his view, second and
third reminders for the addressee, and to extend the time for the addressee
to provide a response to his original presentment.
5. To reiterate, all documentation was prepared and provided by :
Roger-James: Gadsdon and all requests were by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. I
did not discuss the content of the documentation with him, before or after
my attestation, save to "read and examine" the documentation to ensure the
statements with regard to me acknowledging whether or not, as the
third-party witness, I did receive any response to his documents.
I did not, as you appear to be attempting to establish, prepare or aid in
the drafting of the documentation. The content of the letter, specific to
: Roger-James Gadsdon and Ms. Rodrigues was not reviewed by me, as it was
their private correspondence and content, shared by one party to another. In
a similar regard, if you, Ms. Kosokowsky, are to at least give an appearance
of neutrality and impartiality in your investigation, would you not be
expected to focus your queries regarding the documents, to their attestation
by the Notary Public and the Notary's witnessing, sending and receiving
correspondence as being within the scope and capacity of a Notary? Your
generalized, "shotgun approach" questions are asking for : Roger-James:
Gadsdon's private, personal intent and, question his genuineness, as well as
asking me to disclose our conversations regarding his copy-written property,
without his written consent.
Your second last paragraph of the April 2, 2007 correspondence now accuses
me of 'circumventing the usual process of court proceedings with the *tone*of
*my* letters and documents'? Just how do you see this when I did not draft,
nor do I otherwise have any ownership of, the content of the
documents: "They"
are, in fact, not *my letter(s) and document(s). *For further
clarification, : Roger-James: Gadsdon was merely quoting what was in the
original presentment; in fact, have you not done the same in your question
#5 in regards to the last four paragraphs of the Instrument of Protest? Does
this mean you should be held accountable for the content and purport of
those words that you quoted? After all, you did sign (attest to) the letter
wherein the quotes appear.
*I now have some questions respecting your correspondence, for your response
*. Your letter of April 2, 2007 is now the third letter in regards to this
same issue. Out of respect for the Law Society of Manitoba, I have
voluntarily responded, repetitively to each of your bombastic queries, with
specificity, truthfulness and, particularity.
It now comes to mind that there have been several questions that I have
asked of you, in my previous correspondence, that have, to this date, not
been addressed, or even acknowledged by you. I will presume that this is
merely an oversight on your part and require your responses to those
questions and queries, as well as the additional ones listed throughout this
letter and the ones listed immediately below, for your attention and prompt
response.
Please respond with specificity and particularity, supported by fact,
evidence, and or law to my former and current questions and queries, which
have been raised from my reading and reflecting upon your letters:
1) In the opening paragraph of your letter of April 2, 2007, you state,
"I have considered further the captioned matter along with your
correspondence of February 19, 2007." Please clarify this statement. What
does "considered" mean to you and your disciplinary council, as used in this
statement made by you? What have you, and or your staff (please specify
whom), and fellow members of The Law Society of Manitoba researched,
discussed, and or ,"considered" with regard to the captioned matter? When
you state "I", does this mean that your "considerations" did not include the
input of your fellow members or staffers?
2) With regard to your complainant, Ms. Rodrigues;
a) How did she come to contact you with respect to this matter? I
believe I am entitled to a copy of any letter of complaint by her and here
and now formally request a copy of same.
b) Was this complaint verbally made in person; made orally or
telephonically, e-mailed or mailed to The Law Society of Manitoba, via
registered Canada Post mail, regular mail, delivered in person, or by
courier, or forwarded by another party on her behalf? How was it addressed
to the Law Society of Manitoba: please provide a copy of the envelope or
other covering.
c) If in written format, was the complaint signed and attested
to? By whom?
d) Specifically was Ms. Rodrigues referred to the Society
through or upon the recommendation of a lawyer and/or law firm?
3) Please provide copies of all documents exchanged between you and Ms.
Rodrigues, in this matter and advise as well if you have been forwarding
copies of my responses to her for her knowledge and or comment. If that is
the case, what was her input, response or other acknowledgement?
4) Please advise who prepared, approved or assisted in the preparation
of (in any degree of input), your various letters addressed to me in this
matter. Please inform me as to any direct or indirect discussions
(written, oral or electronic) you had with Ms. Rodrigues concerning these
letters.
5) Please advise as to any discussions and other correspondence
(written, oral, or electronic) that you have had with any third parties in
relation to this matter; and, please identify these persons and their reason
for input?
6) Please provide any correspondence provided to you by Ms. Rodrigues
and or those who may represent her in relation to this matter.
7) Is it your position that, it is the Law Society of Manitoba's
custom, policy, and usual business practice, to selectively choose to ignore
many of the long time-honored traditions, duties and obligations of a
Notary?
8) I have seen no evidence that any of the activities performed by
myself in regards to the documents of : Roger-James: Gadsdon are contrary to
the duties and obligations of a Notary Public, and believe no such evidence
exists. Do you have any evidence, and if so, state it with specificity and
particularity?
9) Did you consider the intent of the Complainant, at all?
10) I command you to provide full disclosure by providing
*all*documentation as per:
*R. v. Stinchcombe*, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. In the same regard, I reserve all
my rights under the Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and Canadian Bill of Rights and furthermore restate this demand that you
provide such *full disclosure*, via registered mail, with itemized cover
letter of such full and complete disclosure of all file contents and other
media formats, including but not limited to any and all documents, and or
written documents, e-mails, phone messages, memos, post-it notes, which are
held by the LSM under my file.
In summary, I have no monetary client(s) in this matter. No fees have been
charged by me and, or paid to me for my services as a Notary Public. The
Law Society should have no issue with a Notary fulfilling the role of
witness in the public, or as an acceptor of mail. Regarding the concerns
related in your letters, I believe that the documents are clear in
identifying that I am the third party witness and Notary Acceptor and mail
was to be addressed and sent by registered mail to the man, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon c/o myself, in my capacity as notary acceptor; once again, "see
original Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed".
Finally, as stated in my response to your e-mail of April 24, 2007 I do not
appreciate your threat of disciplinary action for an "overdue response". Your
threat is argumentative, hostile and not warranted in this matter. I have
been nothing but co-operative in this matter: if you want to refer this for
disciplinary action I cannot stop you ... however, I will fight any such
action with all the legal and other rights I can bring to the matter. It
seems incongruous that you have as much time as you want to reply to my
responses and yet, by your antagonistic actions, I am feeling continually
threatened and increasingly positioned into a "tortuous place" by your
repeated and escalating attempts and demands to apply the rules that govern
your members (both practicing and non-practicing) of The Law Society of
Manitoba (of which I am neither), and, most specifically, demanding that I
respond in 14 days. You might in your capacity and office as Director of
the Discipline Council have placed The Law Society of Manitoba in a position
of accountability for undue stress, which may well see a tort or other
action brought forward.
I anticipate a prompt response to my request for particulars and the
questions noted above. Should I now exact a reply by you within the 14
days required by Law Society Rule 5-64(4), which is applicable to you, a
practicing lawyer?
Of all these eventualities, please take due heed and notice and govern
yourselves accordingly.
Yours truly,
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
: Mary-Janeth: Beehler
Notary Public
In and for the Province of Manitoba
*OFFICE AND PRACTICE*
*OF A*
*NOTARY OF CANADA*
*(Excepting Province of Quebec)*
*By: BERNARD WALLACE RUSSELL*
*B.A. LL.B., K.C.*
*Of the Bar of Nova Scotia; Formerly Lecture on Office Practice in the
Faculty of Dalhousie University,*
*Halifax**, N.S.** *
* *
*SECOND EDITION, 1927*
CHAPTER III (p. 19)
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF CANADIAN NOTARIES IN GENERAL
Ayliffe defines a notary in the following manner: "We call him a
notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or other writings, to
render the same more credible and authentic in any country whatever. He is
principally made use of in courts and in business relating to merchants. For
a notary is a witness, and ought to give evidence touching such things as
fall under his corporeal senses, and not of such matters as fall under the
judgment or understanding." 1 (Ayliffe, Parergon 382)
While it is true that a notary public is really only a
ministerial officer whose main function is the authentication of documents,
the duties of notaries in England have widely extended since the time of
Ayliffe's writing. As is said in Brooke's Notary:2 (Ed. 8th p.18) "An
English notary with a foreign practice must not only be proficient in one or
two foreign languages, but he must be familiar with the principles and
practice of foreign law. He has to prepare important documents, such as
contracts, leases, powers of attorney, articles of partnership, wills and
other instruments, that are intended to be used in the colonies and abroad."
In most of the continental countries of Europe and in the
Province of Quebec, by reason of its retention of French law and customs,
notaries are even more important officers than they are in England and
elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Their practice more nearly corresponds with
that of an English solicitor carrying on a non-litigious business than with
the practice of the English notary. They make practically all conveyances
and keep in their custody all instruments which it is necessary to make
authentic. In France, protests of negotiable instruments are not made by
notaries but by officers called *hussiers *. This, however, is not true of
the Province of Quebec, where the whole subject of negotiable instruments is
governed by Dominion legislation.
The office of notary public in Canada is neither so important
nor as profitable as the same office in England, except in the Province of
Quebec, where an entirely different system of law prevails from that of the
other Provinces of the Dominion. Elsewhere than Quebec, in Canada, there are
very few duties of a notary that cannot be performed by commissioners,
justices of the peace or other functionaries.
In England, notaries are trained men. As has been seen, they are
called upon frequently to draw difficult conveyances and other instruments.
Whether in Canada the requirements for admission are not so great because,
the bulk of the work of drafting documents, is done by solicitors, or
whether the case is reversed, is difficult to say. The fact, however, is
that here, notwithstanding that a notary by his commission is authorized and
empowered to draft documents, he seldom has the opportunity of exercising
this power, and the work he is called upon to do is largely that of
authentication under various Dominion and Provincial statutes.
Of the statutes which require acts of notaries, the most
important is the Bills of Exchange Act, which is legislation of the Dominion
Parliament and applicable to all parts of Canada. As in England, and almost
all other countries, the noting and protesting of bills of exchange and
other negotiable instruments is done almost entirely by notaries. Only in
the one exceptional case, when the services of a notary cannot be obtained
at the place where the instrument is dishonored, may any other functionary
act. In such a case, the protest may be made by a justice of the peace. 3 (
R.S.C. 1906 c. 119 s. 123)
Next to the noting and protesting of negotiable instruments, the
work which a notary is most frequently called upon to do, in Canada, is the
proving by his certificate and seal the execution of conveyances and powers
of attorney. This is a matter regulated by statutes of the Provinces or
States in which the lands affected by the conveyances are situated. In
Canada each Province has its own legislation concerning the execution of
conveyances. A notary residing in one of the eastern Provinces is frequently
called upon to authenticate the signatures of parties to a deed of land in
one of the western Provinces, according to the requirements of the
legislation of that Province and *vice versa*. It is therefore convenient
that notaries should be familiar wit the mode of execution of instruments in
all the Provinces of the Dominion, though this knowledge is seldom necessary
as in most cases when a conveyance is forwarded from one Province to another
for signature, it is accompanied by instruction in detail as to the
requirements upon execution. Canadian notaries are also frequently called
upon to authenticate conveyances and other documents for use in the United
States and occasionally those for use in England or in fact in any civilized
country of the world. A notary can scarcely be presumed to know the
requirements in the case of foreign documents and when they are not
accompanied by instructions he should procure them before attempting to act,
as an improperly executed document is more often the cause of loss to the
client than the delay in waiting until the proper mode is ascertained.
Conveyances for execution in Provinces in which the land
affected lies are not so frequently proved before notaries. The conveyancing
acts of all the Provinces of the Dominion provide for the execution of
conveyances by any one of several functionaries. Among the officers who may
act in Canada in addition to notaries are justices of the peace, barristers,
attorneys and commissioners of the courts. It is only when the document is
for use abroad that the services of a notary become really necessary, and
that of course is because the other officers named are not recognized beyond
the limits of the Province in which they have jurisdiction to act, whereas
the office of notary public has, practically speaking, an international
character and by the law of nations has credit in foreign countries. 4
(Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. Jr. 823.)
In all things a notary must act in the best interests of his
client consistently with the governing laws. If he prepares a document he
should be sure that the client fully understands the rights and liabilities
created by it. It is even said that it is the duty of a notary proving a
conveyance not prepared by him to explain to an illiterate grantor the legal
and equitable obligations imposed by the conveyance and consequent on its
execution. 5 (Ayotte v. Boucher, 9 s.c.r. 460 *per Ritchie, *C.J. And a
notary public may be made liable in damages for negligence in the exercise
of powers conferred on him by his commission.
A notary public who is one of the endorsers on a promissory note
is not entitles to act as notary to make the protest. 6 (Pelletier v.
Brosseau. 6 M.L.R.S.C. 231 Broadly stated it may be taken as a rule that a
notary who is a party to, or whose personal affairs are directly affected or
concerned by any transaction, is precluded from acting in that particular
matter. 7 (Ayliffe, 382. Relationship is not of itself a disqualification.
END OF CHAPTER III
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ( "In God's law" should be here)
: Mary-Janeth: Beehler Notary Public
201-661 Pembina Highway
Winnipeg, MB R3M 2L5
Te/Fax (204) 925-2024
* beehlerm@mts.net *
May 1, 2007
The Law Society of Manitoba
219 Kennedy Street
Winnipeg, MB . R3C 1S8
Attention: Ms Leah C. Kosokowsky
* lkosokowsky@lawsociety.mb.ca *
(Complete response e-mailed May 1, 2007 w/ original
following by mail)
Dear Ms Kosokowsky:
Your continued harassment, through repetitive, already asked and
answered questions; and, your failure to respond to the questions that I
raise in my response dated February 19, 2007, is taken notice of in your
letters of February 21 and April 2, 2007. This, to my mind, moves your
correspondence from the investigation of professional actions, through an
exchange of questions and answers, into the realm of a personal attack on
the writer; particularly in light of the unwarranted tone and content of
your accusatory e-mail of April 24, 2007.
As well, your correspondence began in December 2006 with the caption
"Concerns Re: Practice without Insurance" and, in the first line of your
letter, "conduct *purportedly* as a Notary Public". With each of your
following letters, the matter seems to include an attack not only on me as a
Notary Public, but also upon the rights of Manitobans, and Canadians, to
exercise their right of private contract and resolution through the
administrative remedies available to the Free People on the Land, herein
specifically through the use of the services of a Notary Public. These
rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, with its entrenched
Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, these charters are the Supreme Law of
the Land, with those rights also being articulated in the Canadian Bill of
Rights.
* *
Ms. Kosokowsky, your letters continue to insinuate and imply that I am a
"solicitor acting without benefit of insurance". That might, *although
incorrect*, be the Law Society's eventual determination (or, is it in fact
already predetermined). However, I have stated before, and again reiterate,
that there was never any intent on my behalf to act in any capacity for the
man, : Roger-James: Gadsdon, other than that of a Notary Public in and for
the Province of Manitoba. In fact, my usual statement to anyone asking or
mentioning that I have an LL.B. is to advise them I do not practice law and
have not for several years, as I have no practicing certificate from the
LSM. I know that message was conveyed to : Roger-James: Gadsdon when we
met several years ago.
I have at all times acted strictly in the capacity of a notary public, *ex
officio*, in and for the Province of Manitoba, in regards to the third-party
witnessing, attesting, sending with a cover titled "Proof of Mailing and
Contents Mailed" witnessing the sending of : Roger-James: Gadsdon's
documents, sent registered mail via notary presentment, being the
third-party witness to the response or non-response and to, upon :
Roger-James: Gadsdon's request, send, as a courteous reminder, both a Notice
of Non-Response and an Instrument of Protest. For your information and
edification, I include, Chapter III, Functions and Duties of Canadian
Notaries in General: from *"Office and Practice of a Notary of Canada
(Exception Province of Quebec)"*by Bernard Wallace Russell, B.A., LL.B., K.C.
2 d, 1927. Specifically, and I quote:
"We call him a notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or
other writings, to render the same more credible and authentic in any
country whatever. He is principally made use of in courts and in business
relating to merchants. For a notary is a witness, and ought to give
evidence touching such things as fall under his corporeal senses, and not of
such matters as fall under the judgment or understanding." (Ayliffe,
Parergon 382)
I share the fairly common belief that a lawyer is a person who is licensed
to practice law in the Province, who is insured under the Law Society, and
who, when retained by a client to represent him, is mandated to:
A. Act as an advocate on his client's behalf as a barrister and
solicitor;
B. Make legal determinations on his client's behalf, and,
C. Protect his client's legal interests.
Likewise, a Notary Public is a public official, whose primary functions are,
among other things, to:
A. Administer oaths and affirmations to persons making affidavits,
and solemn declarations to persons making statutory declarations;
B. To attest and certify, by his hand and official seal, certain
classes of documents, in order to give them credit and authenticity in the
Province and in foreign jurisdictions;
C. To perform certain official acts (chiefly in commercial matters),
such as the protesting of notes and bills, the noting of foreign drafts, and
marine protests in cases of loss or damage; and,
D. In jurisdictions where permitted, to undertake the conveyance of
land and valuable securities.
One must always keep in mind, that the difference when acting in either of
these two official capacities consists of the actions undertaken, and the
authority under which these actions are undertaken. Notary services are
provided where no legal advice is sought or given and the Notary Public is
acting in the capacity of an impartial, third party witness, who is
recognized in the public as such, and not as a retained, mandated advocate
on behalf of a client.
Is your correspondence intended to be or, might it be construed as, an
attempt to persuade and deter me from providing Notary services with
impartiality to all members of the public who would approach me for such
services, as
: Roger-James: Gadsdon did in this instance?
Throughout our correspondence, it occurs to me that your letters
*may* have been originally predicated by your complainant, on the basis of
an inquiry by a member of the public, who is seeking to acquire an unequal
advantage in a civil matter by depriving an adversary of Notary services
through the misuse of the Law Society of Manitoba. I raise the question
only, and make no explicit accusation, as I have no evidence at this time to
support the possibility that this is in fact a vexatious and malicious
complaint. I believe that we should always be cognizant of the underlying
intentions of the Complainant and or client who seek our professional
services.
Would not, at a minimum, legal etiquette and decorum dictate
that especially you, as the Director of the Discipline Council, on behalf of
The Law Society of Manitoba, not name the complainant directly in these
letters, and in the quoted portions from : Roger-James: Gadsdon's documents?
I have been surprised throughout, that you have neither blacked-out nor
blanked-out the name of the complainant *and* : Roger-James: Gadsdon. This
would be courteous of their privacy and achieve your same objectives in
questioning the attestation of the documentation.**
I further suggest that it might appear to a reasonable man that,
since you mention Angie Rodrigues and : Roger-James: Gadsdon so openly and
freely in your correspondence, that perhaps you are vicariously implicating
The Law Society of Manitoba, by extension, as acting on a personal basis for
the complainant. You, individually and/or collectively as agent for the
LSM, without knowledge of the complainant's possible motivation, have placed
yourselves in the potential position of acting for Angie Rodrigues - quite a
different capacity than is purported in your continuing correspondence, sent
under the pen of The Law Society of Manitoba, specifically, since you, as a
lawyer, knew or ought to have known.
Since you have continued to draw the complainant personally into
these matters, in three separate letters, I believe that we should now
recognize that Ms. Rodrigues is a senior level Credit Union loans manager.
As such, I suggest that a reasonable man would infer that Ms. Rodrigues is
not an unsophisticated person respecting Notary attestations and commercial
transactions.
As an aside, the method of respectful, written address for "Mr.
Gadsdon" (as you continually refer to him, along with variants of name and
misspellings, in your correspondence), by all public servants and those in
public roles, is, as set out in the documentation attested to by me and, in
particular in the original "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed", is *:
Roger-James: Gadsdon*. I simply caution you, as I have now been cautioned
myself, of the correct means of address.
: Roger-James: Gadsdon is a particular man. You will note that if you are
not in alignment with the " *propria persona"* protocol of the punctuation
format required and stated explicitly, in the "Proof of Mailing and Contents
Mailed", you would be viewed as disrespecting this man. In your written
correspondence, I note that you, or your staff typist, appear not to have
checked the spelling and method of referral in the documents; or may, as he
would view it, intentionally choose to incorrectly and differently type this
man's name, with errors in his given name and his family clan name and,
confuse this Sovereign competent man upon the Land with someone volunteering
to act in the office of a "person". He has asked me to request that you
use the correct form of address for him in any further correspondence. I
also provide you with his common law Copyright Notice, inclusive of his fee
schedule for unauthorized use of his property, as evidenced on all his
documents, "WITH THE COPY-CLAIM ROGER GADSDON(c)" complete with his seal.
In addition, the tone of your letters, and because of your direct reference
to the parties, might suggest the question, to a reasonable man, just who or
whom are you acting for in your correspondence: the Public (Society),
Roger-James: Gadsdon, or Ms. Rodrigues? Your letters are increasingly more
accusing and adversarial; you persist in repeating the same questions,
although already asked and answered, as if trying to confuse and entrap me,
even when I have several times given the same truthful responses to those
repetitive queries. I do not believe that I have any lawful obligation to
answer your queries respecting my actions as a Notary Public. Will it take
an action on my part for quo warranto to have the Law Society of Manitoba,
and yourself, prove by what authority the Society and you continue to
persecute me, simply for my actions as a Notary Public?
I hold neither a practicing nor a non-practicing legal certificate from the
Law Society of Manitoba. I have, until this time, tolerated and
entertained, specifically without contract and with All Rights Reserved,
your specious and increasingly more hostile accusations and, your repetitive
and pernicious line of questioning, as I have (or at least have had) a level
of respect for the *stated* objectives and mandate of The Law Society of
Manitoba. If you disagree that your correspondence is "over the top", for a
small example, simply read your e-mail of April 24, 2007 which was entirely
un warranted, as I have been nothing but *voluntarily* co-operative in
responding to your correspondence.
So, once again, as a free woman upon the Land, and in response to your
repetitive, already asked and answered "shotgun approach" queries:
1. Not that I see it pertinent to this situation, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon was introduced to me several years ago by another friend. When he
required the services of a Notary he asked if I would oblige him in that
capacity. : Roger-James: Gadsdon presents as a competent, free man upon the
Land, a flesh and blood Sovereign Canadian citizen, under Claim of Right,
who reserves all Rights and freedoms under the Constitution, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. These rights include
the unlimited right to contract as stated in the Constitution and, I sign as
a third party witness in the public.
2. I would suggest that you have received copies of all documents
attested to by me, on behalf of : Roger-James: Gadsdon, from your
complainant Ms. Rodrigues. If not, you would have to provide me with the
signed consent of : Roger-James: Gadsdon to release any further
documentation (the particulars as to how to reach him by registered mail is
noted in the aforesaid "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed"). I respect
the confidentiality of all documents I attest to on behalf of "people" and
the "persons" who seek my services as a Notary Public. In that regard, I
respect and do my utmost to abide by the Constitution, Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights, and both the federal and provincial
privacy laws.
3. The documentation that I have attested to as Notary Public for
: Roger-James: Gadsdon was prepared and provided by : Roger-James: Gadsdon.
Any discussions I have had with : Roger-James: Gadsdon specific to the
documentation, would arguably be confidential. Actually, one comment of his
that I will share with you is that **he remains puzzled as to why you are in
possession of his private copy-written material and questioning the Notary
Public about its purpose and content.
4. All requests mentioned in the Notice of Non-Response and Instrument
of Protest were made by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. The purpose for sending
the Instrument of Protest was for : Roger-James: Gadsdon to exercise his
Constitutional right to, have a third-party witness to the execution of his
commercial documents and, to the sending and receiving of any response(s):
that is, an independent, third-party witness in the Public. As Notary, I
agreed to note, whether or not there was any response to his "Letter" dated
October 16, 2006 within ten days and he requested that since it was
initially forwarded via Notary presentment that, as a courtesy the Notice of
Non-Response and the Instrument of Protest were, in his view, second and
third reminders for the addressee, and to extend the time for the addressee
to provide a response to his original presentment.
5. To reiterate, all documentation was prepared and provided by :
Roger-James: Gadsdon and all requests were by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. I
did not discuss the content of the documentation with him, before or after
my attestation, save to "read and examine" the documentation to ensure the
statements with regard to me acknowledging whether or not, as the
third-party witness, I did receive any response to his documents.
I did not, as you appear to be attempting to establish, prepare or aid in
the drafting of the documentation. The content of the letter, specific to
: Roger-James Gadsdon and Ms. Rodrigues was not reviewed by me, as it was
their private correspondence and content, shared by one party to another. In
a similar regard, if you, Ms. Kosokowsky, are to at least give an appearance
of neutrality and impartiality in your investigation, would you not be
expected to focus your queries regarding the documents, to their attestation
by the Notary Public and the Notary's witnessing, sending and receiving
correspondence as being within the scope and capacity of a Notary? Your
generalized, "shotgun approach" questions are asking for : Roger-James:
Gadsdon's private, personal intent and, question his genuineness, as well as
asking me to disclose our conversations regarding his copy-written property,
without his written consent.
Your second last paragraph of the April 2, 2007 correspondence now accuses
me of 'circumventing the usual process of court proceedings with the *tone*of
*my* letters and documents'? Just how do you see this when I did not draft,
nor do I otherwise have any ownership of, the content of the
documents: "They"
are, in fact, not *my letter(s) and document(s). *For further
clarification, : Roger-James: Gadsdon was merely quoting what was in the
original presentment; in fact, have you not done the same in your question
#5 in regards to the last four paragraphs of the Instrument of Protest? Does
this mean you should be held accountable for the content and purport of
those words that you quoted? After all, you did sign (attest to) the letter
wherein the quotes appear.
*I now have some questions respecting your correspondence, for your response
*. Your letter of April 2, 2007 is now the third letter in regards to this
same issue. Out of respect for the Law Society of Manitoba, I have
voluntarily responded, repetitively to each of your bombastic queries, with
specificity, truthfulness and, particularity.
It now comes to mind that there have been several questions that I have
asked of you, in my previous correspondence, that have, to this date, not
been addressed, or even acknowledged by you. I will presume that this is
merely an oversight on your part and require your responses to those
questions and queries, as well as the additional ones listed throughout this
letter and the ones listed immediately below, for your attention and prompt
response.
Please respond with specificity and particularity, supported by fact,
evidence, and or law to my former and current questions and queries, which
have been raised from my reading and reflecting upon your letters:
1) In the opening paragraph of your letter of April 2, 2007, you state,
"I have considered further the captioned matter along with your
correspondence of February 19, 2007." Please clarify this statement. What
does "considered" mean to you and your disciplinary council, as used in this
statement made by you? What have you, and or your staff (please specify
whom), and fellow members of The Law Society of Manitoba researched,
discussed, and or ,"considered" with regard to the captioned matter? When
you state "I", does this mean that your "considerations" did not include the
input of your fellow members or staffers?
2) With regard to your complainant, Ms. Rodrigues;
a) How did she come to contact you with respect to this matter? I
believe I am entitled to a copy of any letter of complaint by her and here
and now formally request a copy of same.
b) Was this complaint verbally made in person; made orally or
telephonically, e-mailed or mailed to The Law Society of Manitoba, via
registered Canada Post mail, regular mail, delivered in person, or by
courier, or forwarded by another party on her behalf? How was it addressed
to the Law Society of Manitoba: please provide a copy of the envelope or
other covering.
c) If in written format, was the complaint signed and attested
to? By whom?
d) Specifically was Ms. Rodrigues referred to the Society
through or upon the recommendation of a lawyer and/or law firm?
3) Please provide copies of all documents exchanged between you and Ms.
Rodrigues, in this matter and advise as well if you have been forwarding
copies of my responses to her for her knowledge and or comment. If that is
the case, what was her input, response or other acknowledgement?
4) Please advise who prepared, approved or assisted in the preparation
of (in any degree of input), your various letters addressed to me in this
matter. Please inform me as to any direct or indirect discussions
(written, oral or electronic) you had with Ms. Rodrigues concerning these
letters.
5) Please advise as to any discussions and other correspondence
(written, oral, or electronic) that you have had with any third parties in
relation to this matter; and, please identify these persons and their reason
for input?
6) Please provide any correspondence provided to you by Ms. Rodrigues
and or those who may represent her in relation to this matter.
7) Is it your position that, it is the Law Society of Manitoba's
custom, policy, and usual business practice, to selectively choose to ignore
many of the long time-honored traditions, duties and obligations of a
Notary?
8) I have seen no evidence that any of the activities performed by
myself in regards to the documents of : Roger-James: Gadsdon are contrary to
the duties and obligations of a Notary Public, and believe no such evidence
exists. Do you have any evidence, and if so, state it with specificity and
particularity?
9) Did you consider the intent of the Complainant, at all?
10) I command you to provide full disclosure by providing
*all*documentation as per:
*R. v. Stinchcombe*, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. In the same regard, I reserve all
my rights under the Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and Canadian Bill of Rights and furthermore restate this demand that you
provide such *full disclosure*, via registered mail, with itemized cover
letter of such full and complete disclosure of all file contents and other
media formats, including but not limited to any and all documents, and or
written documents, e-mails, phone messages, memos, post-it notes, which are
held by the LSM under my file.
In summary, I have no monetary client(s) in this matter. No fees have been
charged by me and, or paid to me for my services as a Notary Public. The
Law Society should have no issue with a Notary fulfilling the role of
witness in the public, or as an acceptor of mail. Regarding the concerns
related in your letters, I believe that the documents are clear in
identifying that I am the third party witness and Notary Acceptor and mail
was to be addressed and sent by registered mail to the man, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon c/o myself, in my capacity as notary acceptor; once again, "see
original Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed".
Finally, as stated in my response to your e-mail of April 24, 2007 I do not
appreciate your threat of disciplinary action for an "overdue response". Your
threat is argumentative, hostile and not warranted in this matter. I have
been nothing but co-operative in this matter: if you want to refer this for
disciplinary action I cannot stop you ... however, I will fight any such
action with all the legal and other rights I can bring to the matter. It
seems incongruous that you have as much time as you want to reply to my
responses and yet, by your antagonistic actions, I am feeling continually
threatened and increasingly positioned into a "tortuous place" by your
repeated and escalating attempts and demands to apply the rules that govern
your members (both practicing and non-practicing) of The Law Society of
Manitoba (of which I am neither), and, most specifically, demanding that I
respond in 14 days. You might in your capacity and office as Director of
the Discipline Council have placed The Law Society of Manitoba in a position
of accountability for undue stress, which may well see a tort or other
action brought forward.
I anticipate a prompt response to my request for particulars and the
questions noted above. Should I now exact a reply by you within the 14
days required by Law Society Rule 5-64(4), which is applicable to you, a
practicing lawyer?
Of all these eventualities, please take due heed and notice and govern
yourselves accordingly.
Yours truly,
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
: Mary-Janeth: Beehler
Notary Public
In and for the Province of Manitoba
*OFFICE AND PRACTICE*
*OF A*
*NOTARY OF CANADA*
*(Excepting Province of Quebec)*
*By: BERNARD WALLACE RUSSELL*
*B.A. LL.B., K.C.*
*Of the Bar of Nova Scotia; Formerly Lecture on Office Practice in the
Faculty of Dalhousie University,*
*Halifax**, N.S.** *
* *
*SECOND EDITION, 1927*
CHAPTER III (p. 19)
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF CANADIAN NOTARIES IN GENERAL
Ayliffe defines a notary in the following manner: "We call him a
notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or other writings, to
render the same more credible and authentic in any country whatever. He is
principally made use of in courts and in business relating to merchants. For
a notary is a witness, and ought to give evidence touching such things as
fall under his corporeal senses, and not of such matters as fall under the
judgment or understanding." 1 (Ayliffe, Parergon 382)
While it is true that a notary public is really only a
ministerial officer whose main function is the authentication of documents,
the duties of notaries in England have widely extended since the time of
Ayliffe's writing. As is said in Brooke's Notary:2 (Ed. 8th p.18) "An
English notary with a foreign practice must not only be proficient in one or
two foreign languages, but he must be familiar with the principles and
practice of foreign law. He has to prepare important documents, such as
contracts, leases, powers of attorney, articles of partnership, wills and
other instruments, that are intended to be used in the colonies and abroad."
In most of the continental countries of Europe and in the
Province of Quebec, by reason of its retention of French law and customs,
notaries are even more important officers than they are in England and
elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Their practice more nearly corresponds with
that of an English solicitor carrying on a non-litigious business than with
the practice of the English notary. They make practically all conveyances
and keep in their custody all instruments which it is necessary to make
authentic. In France, protests of negotiable instruments are not made by
notaries but by officers called *hussiers *. This, however, is not true of
the Province of Quebec, where the whole subject of negotiable instruments is
governed by Dominion legislation.
The office of notary public in Canada is neither so important
nor as profitable as the same office in England, except in the Province of
Quebec, where an entirely different system of law prevails from that of the
other Provinces of the Dominion. Elsewhere than Quebec, in Canada, there are
very few duties of a notary that cannot be performed by commissioners,
justices of the peace or other functionaries.
In England, notaries are trained men. As has been seen, they are
called upon frequently to draw difficult conveyances and other instruments.
Whether in Canada the requirements for admission are not so great because,
the bulk of the work of drafting documents, is done by solicitors, or
whether the case is reversed, is difficult to say. The fact, however, is
that here, notwithstanding that a notary by his commission is authorized and
empowered to draft documents, he seldom has the opportunity of exercising
this power, and the work he is called upon to do is largely that of
authentication under various Dominion and Provincial statutes.
Of the statutes which require acts of notaries, the most
important is the Bills of Exchange Act, which is legislation of the Dominion
Parliament and applicable to all parts of Canada. As in England, and almost
all other countries, the noting and protesting of bills of exchange and
other negotiable instruments is done almost entirely by notaries. Only in
the one exceptional case, when the services of a notary cannot be obtained
at the place where the instrument is dishonored, may any other functionary
act. In such a case, the protest may be made by a justice of the peace. 3 (
R.S.C. 1906 c. 119 s. 123)
Next to the noting and protesting of negotiable instruments, the
work which a notary is most frequently called upon to do, in Canada, is the
proving by his certificate and seal the execution of conveyances and powers
of attorney. This is a matter regulated by statutes of the Provinces or
States in which the lands affected by the conveyances are situated. In
Canada each Province has its own legislation concerning the execution of
conveyances. A notary residing in one of the eastern Provinces is frequently
called upon to authenticate the signatures of parties to a deed of land in
one of the western Provinces, according to the requirements of the
legislation of that Province and *vice versa*. It is therefore convenient
that notaries should be familiar wit the mode of execution of instruments in
all the Provinces of the Dominion, though this knowledge is seldom necessary
as in most cases when a conveyance is forwarded from one Province to another
for signature, it is accompanied by instruction in detail as to the
requirements upon execution. Canadian notaries are also frequently called
upon to authenticate conveyances and other documents for use in the United
States and occasionally those for use in England or in fact in any civilized
country of the world. A notary can scarcely be presumed to know the
requirements in the case of foreign documents and when they are not
accompanied by instructions he should procure them before attempting to act,
as an improperly executed document is more often the cause of loss to the
client than the delay in waiting until the proper mode is ascertained.
Conveyances for execution in Provinces in which the land
affected lies are not so frequently proved before notaries. The conveyancing
acts of all the Provinces of the Dominion provide for the execution of
conveyances by any one of several functionaries. Among the officers who may
act in Canada in addition to notaries are justices of the peace, barristers,
attorneys and commissioners of the courts. It is only when the document is
for use abroad that the services of a notary become really necessary, and
that of course is because the other officers named are not recognized beyond
the limits of the Province in which they have jurisdiction to act, whereas
the office of notary public has, practically speaking, an international
character and by the law of nations has credit in foreign countries. 4
(Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. Jr. 823.)
In all things a notary must act in the best interests of his
client consistently with the governing laws. If he prepares a document he
should be sure that the client fully understands the rights and liabilities
created by it. It is even said that it is the duty of a notary proving a
conveyance not prepared by him to explain to an illiterate grantor the legal
and equitable obligations imposed by the conveyance and consequent on its
execution. 5 (Ayotte v. Boucher, 9 s.c.r. 460 *per Ritchie, *C.J. And a
notary public may be made liable in damages for negligence in the exercise
of powers conferred on him by his commission.
A notary public who is one of the endorsers on a promissory note
is not entitles to act as notary to make the protest. 6 (Pelletier v.
Brosseau. 6 M.L.R.S.C. 231 Broadly stated it may be taken as a rule that a
notary who is a party to, or whose personal affairs are directly affected or
concerned by any transaction, is precluded from acting in that particular
matter. 7 (Ayliffe, 382. Relationship is not of itself a disqualification.
END OF CHAPTER III
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The Human Rights Censors Are Targetting Christians
CHP Leader To Discuss ‘Human Rights’ Complaints On Television
Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray will be interviewed on Wednesday, Dec.12 on the Miracle Channel's "Insight" program. The main topic of the interview will be three "human rights" complaints filed by militant homosexual activists against the CHP, against one of its Riding Associations and against Ron Gray himself.
From the CHP news bulletin:
Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?
Does a Christian have a right to state publicly that he (or she) regards homosexuality as immoral, unnatural and unhealthy?
...
Mr. Gray and the CHP are merely the latest in a long line of defendants subjected to ‘human rights’ allegations by militant homosexual activists. Earlier victims of the purge of free speech rights have included Toronto printer Scott Brockie; Hugh Owens of Saskatchewan, in whose case a judge declared that citing Bible verses made his newspaper advertisements “hate”; an elderly couple in PEI who had to close their Bed & Breakfast establishment because they did not want two unrelated men sleeping together in their home; Craig Chandler of Calgary, who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the ‘gay agenda’; Dr. Chris Kempling, a BC teacher with a doctorate in counselling psychology, who was punished by his employer for advocating CHP policies about homosexuality, when he sought the nomination as a CHP candidate; Rev. Stephen Boissoin of Calgary, convicted by an Alberta ‘human rights’ tribunal for writing a letter to the editor expressing his concerns about homosexuality. Other victims of the ‘human rights’ campaign against free speech have included Mark Harding of Toronto, accused of fomenting hatred when he published a booklet complaining that Christian prayers were not allowed at his daughters’ school, but a room was set aside for Muslim prayers. And now, internationally renowned columnist Mark Steyn has been accused before the Canadian Human Rights Commission of ‘Islamophobia’.
“If an agency of the government can tell a registered political party what it can and cannot say in advancing its policies,” notes Mr. Gray, “Canada has gone a long, long way down the road to totalitarianism—to becoming a one-party (militant Secularist) state. What the human rights commissions and others forget is that Secularism is also a religion—perhaps the most intolerant in the world; it seeks to drive every other faith out of the public square.”
Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray will be interviewed on Wednesday, Dec.12 on the Miracle Channel's "Insight" program. The main topic of the interview will be three "human rights" complaints filed by militant homosexual activists against the CHP, against one of its Riding Associations and against Ron Gray himself.
From the CHP news bulletin:
Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?
Does a Christian have a right to state publicly that he (or she) regards homosexuality as immoral, unnatural and unhealthy?
...
Mr. Gray and the CHP are merely the latest in a long line of defendants subjected to ‘human rights’ allegations by militant homosexual activists. Earlier victims of the purge of free speech rights have included Toronto printer Scott Brockie; Hugh Owens of Saskatchewan, in whose case a judge declared that citing Bible verses made his newspaper advertisements “hate”; an elderly couple in PEI who had to close their Bed & Breakfast establishment because they did not want two unrelated men sleeping together in their home; Craig Chandler of Calgary, who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the ‘gay agenda’; Dr. Chris Kempling, a BC teacher with a doctorate in counselling psychology, who was punished by his employer for advocating CHP policies about homosexuality, when he sought the nomination as a CHP candidate; Rev. Stephen Boissoin of Calgary, convicted by an Alberta ‘human rights’ tribunal for writing a letter to the editor expressing his concerns about homosexuality. Other victims of the ‘human rights’ campaign against free speech have included Mark Harding of Toronto, accused of fomenting hatred when he published a booklet complaining that Christian prayers were not allowed at his daughters’ school, but a room was set aside for Muslim prayers. And now, internationally renowned columnist Mark Steyn has been accused before the Canadian Human Rights Commission of ‘Islamophobia’.
“If an agency of the government can tell a registered political party what it can and cannot say in advancing its policies,” notes Mr. Gray, “Canada has gone a long, long way down the road to totalitarianism—to becoming a one-party (militant Secularist) state. What the human rights commissions and others forget is that Secularism is also a religion—perhaps the most intolerant in the world; it seeks to drive every other faith out of the public square.”
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A right ,God gifted freedom, or a privilege
RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb
(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive.
In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions.
American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not.
This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.
That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state.
Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
(1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..."
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities.
However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution.
If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb
(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive.
In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions.
American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not.
This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.
That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state.
Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
(1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..."
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities.
However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution.
If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Money Mammon Commerce and God's law
We greet you in the wonderful Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Love of Money is the Root of ALL Evil
Jesus hated the money-lenders with an intensity uncharacteristic of a man of so mild a character. He must have foreknown what these people He called the "Synagogue of Satan" would do to Him and what they would accomplish in the end-time by Satan's power through the love of money. Jesus repeatedly condemned their practice of usury, denouncing them as worshipers of mammon, accusing them of turning the temple into a "den of thieves". It was these unbelievers who supplied the thirty pieces of silver to bribe Judas, for it was a priestly family who held the franchise for changing money into the Temple shekel and half-shekel. Hiding behind another name and under a different occupation, they caused Rome to execute Jesus.
When Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", He was not praying for the vengeful Edomite priests, but for deceived Israel who had blindly followed and been used by them. Today they use synagogues and churches, particularly the Roman Catholic church which they evidently control, to further their secret ambitions for ultimate world domination. They use our democracies which are elected dictatorships since the introduction of political parties controlled through their money-power, they also use Communism and terrorism.
"Those who crave to be rich soon begin to do all manner of wrong things to get money; things that hurt them, make them evil-minded, and plunge them into ruin and perdition. For the love of money is the first step towards all manner of evil: some have even turned away from God through this craving, and tortured their minds with regrets. But as for you, O man of God, run from all these things; and pursue right standing with God, faith, love, patience, and gentleness with others" (I Timothy 6:9-10).
The Bible tells of a conspiracy of Satan and his earthly followers against God and His saints. Edward Gibbons, said in his "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the major reason for the fall of the 1,200-year-old Roman Empire was a secret conspiracy within government itself. All the while the conspirators were wreaking their damage, they masterfully deceived the citizens of the Empire through lies, scoffing at the stupidity of anyone who would dare suggest conspiracy. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Jewish predominance was established and the nations of Europe entered into the Dark Ages. "There was an inevitable tendency for the Jewish merchants and money-lenders to specialize in commerce for which their acumen and ubiquity, gave them special qualifications. In the Dark Ages the commerce of Western Europe was largely in their hands, in particular, the Slave Trade" (Encyclopedia Britannica).
History is repeating itself. Presently, whole nations are being enslaved by their money-power.
In discussing debt-slavery we should consider the wide-sweeping political, social, economic and financial implications of "The Torah: A Modern Commentary" (p. 564 W.G. Plaut, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, NY), which argues the "Jewish" perspective that according to Moses God ordains slavery (including "meliorated slavery" - i.e. interest/debt/tax slavery) and that "Jews" treat slavery (especially "meliorated slavery") as "an established fact of civilization and looks to its amelioration rather than its abolition". This is opposite to the teachings of Jesus which look to the abolition of all forms of slavery including, and especially meliorated slavery, which is the basis of economic and financial exploitation of labor, rather than its amelioration.
Most people do not understand how their friendly bankers print the money they loan. This is the commencement of the misapplication of the Deuteronomy 15:6 global interest/debt/tax slavery money system (now consolidated as the IMF/World Bank interest/debt/tax slavery money system supported by both Sadducee Communism and Pharisee Capitalism).
God said, "You shall not steal". And later, "You shall not lend to a Hebrew upon usury". Usury is theft. Later still, "The LORD your God bless you, as He promised: and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you" (Deuteronomy 15:6). However God is no respecter of persons and this blessing was CONDITIONAL upon Israel "obeying all of God's Commandments". They were called to be a Light to draw the Gentiles to God that they may become partakers of the same blessings.
What happened, however, is that the Jews, and nowadays the self-styled Jews, have taken verse six out of context with verse five and used this blessing as a license to steal through usury.
It has taken the French Revolution, American Civil War, WWI, WWII, and all wars since to globalize the money-printing power. Nations have been hood-winked, blindfolded and brainwashed to "meliorated" slavery. To illustrate, the gross government debt of Singapore is 77% of GDP; Indonesia 74%; South Korea 70% (The Economist, August 14, 1999 p. 84). America's long-term net external debt is almost 30% of GNP (Stephen Dabkowski, Sydney Morning Herald, August 23, 1999, p. 34). Moody's says Australia's net foreign liability is close to 30% of GDP (Brian Hale & Tom Allard, Sydney Morning Herald, August 7, 1999, p. 61).
Referring to the self-styled Jew's Judeo-christianity conspiracy which supports "meliorated slavery" in defiance of the teachings of Jesus, Thomas Jefferson called Christianity "an engine for enslaving mankind". Jesus was murdered because He declared their misuse of the Law of Moses anti-God when He magnified the Law, forbidding the money-lenders to charge usury or misuse Deuteronomy 15:6 to make meliorated slaves of any man (Luke 6:35; Lee Cheney books@leaconet.com).
They have banned and censored Lee Cheney's books on debt free banking. And on the web, their America Online and Yahoo/Geocities have censored and removed sites carrying his books. Many Internet discussion groups they control have silenced debate. This is merely the tip of the Jew censorship iceberg). THE HISTORY OF LAWFUL GOLD AND SILVER LEGAL TENDER AND THE DEBT BROUGHT ON BY UNLAWFUL FIAT PAPER MONEY
www.go-oaktree.com
Rothschild presented a brilliant plan to the Illuminati to create a thesis and its opposite or antithesis, bringing them together in controlled conflict to produce a predetermined outcome or synthesis. The process would be repeated with different theses and antitheses until their final objective was accomplished. This is known as Hegelian dialectics or philosophy. Remember that word.
Robinson, in "Proofs of a Conspiracy," (1798, p. 209), said of this Asiatic racket for control of the world's wealth and its people, "Their first and immediate aim is to get possession of riches, power, and influence, without industry; and, to accomplish this, they want to abolish Christianity; and then dissolute manners and universal profligacy will procure them its adherence of all the wicked, and enable them to overturn the civil governments of Europe."
A hundred and twenty years after those words were written, Lenin made himself seventy million marks for supervising Russia's destruction. In a statement to the Kremlin on October, 1918, Lenin said: "I am often accused of making this revolution with German money. I never denied it and do not now. But, on the other hand, I will make the same revolution in Germany with Russian money" (Nesta Webster, "The Surrender of An Empire," p. 76-77).
The funding Lenin received was not straight forward German money, it came from Rothschild-dominated German-Jewish banking houses like Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Brothers Lazare, a Jewish bank in Paris, the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris; the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of London, New York and Franfort-on-Main and the Nya-Banken, Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm. Clearly the Bolshevik movement was the expression of a general Jewish movement with certain Jewish Banking-Houses interested in the organization of this movement ("The Mystical Body of Christ" by Denis Fahey, Pages 88-92).
Out of chaos would come a new totalitarian order as propounded in the Masonic motto, "Order out of Chaos." If the thesis were like a hammer and the antithesis like an anvil, what was caught in between would be broken or reshaped. Three world wars would enable the plan to work. The hammer would be constructed and then given a homeland or secure base in Russia. We call it Communism.
Communism is NOT dead. Communism is very much alive. Dimitri Manuilski, Russian delegate to the UN (who succeed Lenin as leader of the World Revolutionary Movement) said, "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record..."
"The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to join in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends." We are presently experiencing this "peace offensive". It was launched by Krushchev in 1956, the year Brother Branham said "America would receive her last call". Mikhail Gorbachev has accomplished Manuilski's boast with the aid of The Gorbachev Foundation and other tax-exempt US Foundations.
"As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist." After the earthquake that marks the close of the Gentile dispensation has sunk Los Angeles, Russia will attack and invade America.
Communism is not a military confrontation. It is an international conspiracy, organized in every country of the world. Jesus called it "Laodicea", its primary target is Christianity. The Rabbis say, "Communism is Judaism". Communism is a spirit. The present apparent demise of Communism was planned to take us off guard. Those who invaded Russia killed the Czar and his family in revenge for his military assistance to Abraham Lincoln, the bastard son of a Rothschild, who supported the American people against the Bankster's plan. These Banksters, hiding behind the mask of the nominally Christian democracies, are stealing Russia's infrastructure and capital assets while destroying their economy. They have been responsible for the death of 20 millions since the break-up of the old Soviet, thus ensuring hatred for Christianity and a return to militant totalitarian Communist dictatorship bent upon revenge to be sought in the final revolution which will be Armageddon.
The first anvil called National Socialism would be created out of economic chaos in Germany. As leader of the World Revolutionary Movement, Lenin knew the plan. The same people who had paid Karl Marx (1818-1883) to express Rothschild's plans in modern language called The Communist Manifesto, also hired Professor Karl von Ritter (1779-1859) to write its antithesis known today as Nazism.
There are two groups of Hegelians. The Right Hegelians and root of Prussian militarism from whom sprung the unification of Germany and the rise of Hitler. And Left Hegelians who promoted scientific socialism. Both share the same philosophic theory that the State is God.
The anvil of Nazism would be destroyed in a Second World War, but another anvil called democracy would replace it. The first two World Wars accomplished exactly what was intended.
Out of the World War One came:
A Satanic dictatorship in Russia, and a secure base from which to conduct further world subversion.
The Satanic family of Rothschilds gained partial control over Palestine, preparing the way for Satan to rule from Jerusalem, incarnate in a future Pope of Rome.
Weapons of mass destruction and terror.
The League of Nations.
Out of the World War Two came:
The expansion of Russia into a world power.
Complete control over Palestine by the Rothschilds.
Air power: long range missiles, jets, and nuclear submarines. All items individuals cannot make. Those in control of production can therefore control all air and sea ways.
The cold war and an era of terror with much worse yet to come, to convince all nations of the need for Satan's One World Order.
The United Nations.
Out of World War Three will come a new religious union under Roman Catholic domination.
"The Illuminati had... a Plan ... decided on a most ambitious line of conduct. It would form and control public opinion. It would amalgamate religions by dissolving all the differences of belief and ritual that had kept them apart; and it would take over the Papacy and place an agent of its own in the Chair of Peter." (Peirs Compton, "The Broken Cross", 1981 p. 7-8).
"These Plans were written in 1776."
"The Pope ... will never enter into a secret society. It therefore becomes the duty of the secret societies to make the first advance to the Church and the Pope, with the object of conquering both."
Compton explains: "He (Weishaupt) was backed financially, ...by a group of bankers under the House of Rothschild. It was under their direction that the long-range and worldwide plans of the Illuminati were drawn up..." (Peirs Compton, "The Broken Cross", 1981, p. 13).
The name Rothschild is always visible behind the scenes despite the family's practiced obscurity. It is they who are at the top of the pyramid directing the warfare in a different name and under a different occupation? Rothschild created the Illuminati, financed the first Zionist Conference, created and funded Communism and Nazism, the Royal Institute of International Affairs that mothered the US Council on Foreign Relations and affiliated groups. They created the Bank of England and other central banks like the Federal Reserve. Their Illuminati symbol was added to the US one dollar note in 1933 by President Roosevelt, an Illuminati Jew and 33rd Degree Mason, at the start of his New Deal which he believed would result in his being the initiator of the New World Order. It signifies Illuminati control of the entire power of the US Government such that it has become an instrument to further the secret plans of the Illuminati to impose a Luciferian One World Government.
The pyramid represents the conspiracy for the destruction of the Catholic Church and establishment of One World Government overseen by the "all-seeing eye" of Osiris/Lucifer.
1933 was also the year in which God manifested the Pillar of Fire in the form of a star over Brother Branham on the Ohio River where he was commissioned by an audible Voice. It was the year in which Billy Graham, Herbert W. Armstrong and several other false ministries commenced, and the year in which Hitler and his Nazi Party came to power in Germany, supported by Jewish bankers and Industrialists. 1933 was the year in which the United States declared bankrupcy. It has been under a state of declared emergency ever since. When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord raises up a standard against it. The same Spirit that anoints the just, falls also upon the unjust.
The (so-called) Star of David is the sign Rothschild hung outside his shop in red. It is the seal of Communism and the UN, and the Pentacle on Baphomet, the false god of Masonry. This magical Seal of Solomon became the State flag of Israel. When Lenin, financed by the International Bankers, overthrew the Russian government and established the first totalitarian dictatorship in 1917, the flag was red with a hammer and sickle over which was superimposed the Star of David.
Rothschild means "red shield", and the red shield of the Salvation Army (who believe almost nothing) was adopted at the suggestion of Rothschild. The color of International Communism is red, reflecting the House of Rothschild.
Esau/Edom also means "red". Esau hated and swore to kill Jacob who is Israel. The self-styled Edomite Jew is fulfilling their father's oath today, having slain a great many Israelites, stealing Jacob's birthright and his Promised Land. Hiding behind the euphemism of "Jew", Esau is impersonating Jacob, as Jacob once covered himself in kid skin to impersonate Esau and deceive their father Isaac for the blessing (Genesis 27). Whereas Jacob had legally purchased the birthright from Esau, who despised it, Esau is today stealing Jacob's purchased property.
Isaiah 14:21-23, Obadiah and Malachi 1:1-5 foretell how these "Jews" would rebuild the Land of Israel. But God hates, and will utterly destroy them because of the violence they have committed against the Hebrew people -- to say nothing of the violence they have committed and continue to plot against Christians. Please read those Scriptures, and do not forget them.
Some blind people who claim to be full of the Spirit and followers of God's prophet, William Branham, defy his oft-repeated warning of Amos 3:3 (II Corinthians 6:14-16), and sit under pantheistic self-styled Jewish rabbis who despise Jesus Christ and anything to do with the Law and the Prophets God sent to Israel. They despise the true Hebrew descendants of Israel and having stolen his identity and their Land, imagine they can fool God by usurping His Covenant with Abraham. Blind Branhamites! Repent!
Read the pagan articles they publish on their web sites. You would not permit a Roman priest or a Baptist minister into your pulpits, yet they believe in Jesus. What justification is there in inviting pagans whose boast is their unbelief? We are commanded not to suffer any man behind the pulpit who is not a born-again elder in the faith.
Here's what these men believe, who they are and whom they are NOT:
Talmud Exposed; Talmud Unmasked; Myth of A Judeo-Christian Tradition;
The Jews Are Not A Race;
After the Gentile dispensation is fulfilled God will turn to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, NOT to Esau who is accursed of God forever. Wake up, virgins! Come out of that SIN! And repent!
"It is a well-known fact that the Rothschilds were ardent Talmudists whose religion taught nothing but contempt for those stupid goy (human cattle) who were not part of the 'chosen people'" (Des Griffin, "Descent into Slavery", p. 30-31). They are also Satanists!
Satanism is the core of the planned One World Government. It hides behind fronts such as Jewish Finance, Socialism, Aryanism, British Israelism, Zionism and Freemasonry, which are tools to gain broad base support for the Plan. The "conspiracy" to establish One World Government has succeeded in enlisting support from such a spectrum of humanity because the religious systems at the top of the pyramid are controlled by Satanists. These adepts who are privy to the Plan are misdirecting their followers into Satan's trap.
Nazism was a Pagan Gnostic religious system. The Jews and Hebrews are being used; this Satanic hierarchy is not concerned with Moses, the prophets, or even with Judaism. The actions of the Rothschilds and other Satanic "Jewish" bloodlines during countless wars and revolutions prove their first allegiance is not to "Jews", Hebrews, Scripture, or even to the Talmud, but to Lucifer himself. The denominational Christians are also being used. Once they have served the purposes of the Synagogue of Satan, all "religious" people will be brought into conflict against the atheists in a bloody revolution. Then they propose to install the second and final stage of the New World Order, the "pure Luciferian doctrine".
In the days when Karl Rothschild was an initiate of the Full Secret, other Satanists had stirred-up so much anti-Vatican hatred that the governments of France and Italy were on the verge of destroying it. "Karl Rothschild stepped in to act as "Peacemaker" between the Vatican and her enemies. History relates how his intervention saved the Vatican and made Karl Rothschild the "friend" and "trusted adviser" of the Pope and he reorganized the affairs of the Vatican Treasury and State Department."
"But history has proved that Karl Rothschild was no true friend of the Vatican. Two World Wars, instigated by his family of moneylenders, and their international affiliates who direct the World Revolutionary Movement, have seen Christians of all denominations divided into opposing camps, been made to fight and kill each other off by the tens of millions. This has been done to bring Pike's plan for the final social cataclysm nearer to fruition. Communism grew stronger as Christianity was weakened, until today, as Pike's plan required, Communism has darkened the whole earth" (William Guy Carr, "Satan, Prince of This World", p. 48-49).
I pray this and other Newsletters will help you to recognize the hierarchy of the Synagogue of Satan and realize that Vatican City is but a "front", one of many. And that a deadly rivalry has existed between Rome and the self-styled Jews for over 2,000 years. Both front for and belong to the Synagogue of Satan.
Viewed from a Hegelian perspective Vatican Rome is Right Hegelian while self-styled Jews (who will ultimately forsake their mask of "religion" to support their baby, Communism, and destroy Rome and the United States), are Left Hegelian. One is largely natural Serpent's seed, both are spiritual Serpent's seed. These opposing forces developed by Satan, trace their roots to Nimrod's Babylon. He plans to bring them together in controlled conflict, in a third and final revolution, destroying all religion, and then introduce the pure Luciferian worship of himself.
However, Christians know this will result in Armageddon and destruction of all life on earth, thus binding Satan, prior to our Lord's physical return with the glorified saints of all ages for a thousand years of peace. Once his subjects are in the grave, Satan will be bound and helpless (Revelation 20:1-5).
"How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, who did weaken the nations! ...Yet you shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
"Everyone there will stare and ask, 'Are you the one who shook the heavens and earth? Who destroyed the world and made it a wilderness, and destroyed its greatest cities and had no mercy on his prisoners'?"
"The kings of the nations lie buried in stately glory, but your body, like a broken branch, lies in an open grave, covered with the corpses of the slain, as a carcass on the road, it is trodden under foot... Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the Land, nor fill the face of the world with cities (Exodus 20:5). For I will rise up against them, says the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, says the LORD."
Lucifer is cunning, he has the House of Rothschild controlling both the Vatican and the International "Jews" (including the Black Nobility). As we found last week, their strength is the ancient law and precedent, and the people's IGNORANCE of law. Likewise the weakness of most people who suppose themselves Christians and under grace is their IGNORANCE of God's Word and their rejection of Christ.
Almost all people are superstitious. Otherwise there would not be a billion Roman Catholics and others like the Protestants, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists all worshiping the Trinity myth to say nothing of the Pantheism of Judaism. Therefore, Satan's most direct path to one world power is through the office of the one man with a common link to all of these superstitions: the Pope of Rome. The mark of the beast, which is gnosis or intellectual reasoning against the faith as in Judaism, Freemasonry, Bah'ai, denominationalism and humanism, will FORCE that mark by making all peoples worship the beast either by submitting to the authority of Rome (the mark in the hand -- service), or by conversion to Catholicism or its Protestant image (the mark in the head -- agreement).
Man has estranged himself from Adam's Birthright in Christ, his Redeemer. His heart is void of understanding. His conscience that accuses or excuses his actions, having rejected the Headship of Christ the Word by wrongly choosing between the only two courses open to it -- faith or doubt -- has lost its ability to discern good from evil. As if seared with a hot iron, its only recourse to authority is man's law called God's Law through FALSE interpretations of the words of Moses, the Prophets and Jesus Christ, creating dogma and traditions, the Divine Right of Kings, national Constitutions, UN treaties, etc.
Those who have been behind the increasing chaos in the world over the past few hundred years, seem close to dissolving man's dearest resource and final resort, his money. And the Masonic motto, "Out of chaos, order" seems destined to return man under the ancient laws that have been maintained although hidden from the knowledge of most of mankind.
Members of the Elite such as Abraham Lincoln, the Czar of Russia and John F. Kennedy did not follow the long-term Plan of the Synagogue of Satan paid with their life and the lives of their families.
The Synagogue of Satan has immense power. Listen: "In his speech at the marriage of Lenora, daughter of Lionel Rothschild, to her cousin Alfonso, British Prime Minister Disraeli is reported to have said, "Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild, a name famous in every capital of Europe, and every division of the globe. If you like we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel. Napoleon will do exactly -- and all that I advise him to do; and to Bismarck will be suggested such an intoxicating program as to make him our abject slave."
History records that Judah P. Benjamin, a Rothschild relative, was appointed as their professional strategist in America. The American Civil War, which split the Union into two, became an accomplished fact (and remains so to this day -- Southern States have been continually under martial law since the Civil War).
Napoleon III was persuaded by the Bankers to extend his French Empire into Mexico. The British Government was persuaded that the Northern States could be made into a colony again. The Civil War in the United States was an economic war brought about by the International Bankers . . ." (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. 53).
The love of money is the root of all evil. If you trace that root back to Babylon you find Satan's hold on the people through false religion and fractional reserve banking. If you follow the trail back through the Bible and history and you will see who controls the Synagogue of Satan. nl090.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass it on . . . Send this article to someone you know
Brother Anthony Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister. He has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations in various countries. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to minister in your church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Love of Money is the Root of ALL Evil
Jesus hated the money-lenders with an intensity uncharacteristic of a man of so mild a character. He must have foreknown what these people He called the "Synagogue of Satan" would do to Him and what they would accomplish in the end-time by Satan's power through the love of money. Jesus repeatedly condemned their practice of usury, denouncing them as worshipers of mammon, accusing them of turning the temple into a "den of thieves". It was these unbelievers who supplied the thirty pieces of silver to bribe Judas, for it was a priestly family who held the franchise for changing money into the Temple shekel and half-shekel. Hiding behind another name and under a different occupation, they caused Rome to execute Jesus.
When Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", He was not praying for the vengeful Edomite priests, but for deceived Israel who had blindly followed and been used by them. Today they use synagogues and churches, particularly the Roman Catholic church which they evidently control, to further their secret ambitions for ultimate world domination. They use our democracies which are elected dictatorships since the introduction of political parties controlled through their money-power, they also use Communism and terrorism.
"Those who crave to be rich soon begin to do all manner of wrong things to get money; things that hurt them, make them evil-minded, and plunge them into ruin and perdition. For the love of money is the first step towards all manner of evil: some have even turned away from God through this craving, and tortured their minds with regrets. But as for you, O man of God, run from all these things; and pursue right standing with God, faith, love, patience, and gentleness with others" (I Timothy 6:9-10).
The Bible tells of a conspiracy of Satan and his earthly followers against God and His saints. Edward Gibbons, said in his "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the major reason for the fall of the 1,200-year-old Roman Empire was a secret conspiracy within government itself. All the while the conspirators were wreaking their damage, they masterfully deceived the citizens of the Empire through lies, scoffing at the stupidity of anyone who would dare suggest conspiracy. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Jewish predominance was established and the nations of Europe entered into the Dark Ages. "There was an inevitable tendency for the Jewish merchants and money-lenders to specialize in commerce for which their acumen and ubiquity, gave them special qualifications. In the Dark Ages the commerce of Western Europe was largely in their hands, in particular, the Slave Trade" (Encyclopedia Britannica).
History is repeating itself. Presently, whole nations are being enslaved by their money-power.
In discussing debt-slavery we should consider the wide-sweeping political, social, economic and financial implications of "The Torah: A Modern Commentary" (p. 564 W.G. Plaut, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, NY), which argues the "Jewish" perspective that according to Moses God ordains slavery (including "meliorated slavery" - i.e. interest/debt/tax slavery) and that "Jews" treat slavery (especially "meliorated slavery") as "an established fact of civilization and looks to its amelioration rather than its abolition". This is opposite to the teachings of Jesus which look to the abolition of all forms of slavery including, and especially meliorated slavery, which is the basis of economic and financial exploitation of labor, rather than its amelioration.
Most people do not understand how their friendly bankers print the money they loan. This is the commencement of the misapplication of the Deuteronomy 15:6 global interest/debt/tax slavery money system (now consolidated as the IMF/World Bank interest/debt/tax slavery money system supported by both Sadducee Communism and Pharisee Capitalism).
God said, "You shall not steal". And later, "You shall not lend to a Hebrew upon usury". Usury is theft. Later still, "The LORD your God bless you, as He promised: and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you" (Deuteronomy 15:6). However God is no respecter of persons and this blessing was CONDITIONAL upon Israel "obeying all of God's Commandments". They were called to be a Light to draw the Gentiles to God that they may become partakers of the same blessings.
What happened, however, is that the Jews, and nowadays the self-styled Jews, have taken verse six out of context with verse five and used this blessing as a license to steal through usury.
It has taken the French Revolution, American Civil War, WWI, WWII, and all wars since to globalize the money-printing power. Nations have been hood-winked, blindfolded and brainwashed to "meliorated" slavery. To illustrate, the gross government debt of Singapore is 77% of GDP; Indonesia 74%; South Korea 70% (The Economist, August 14, 1999 p. 84). America's long-term net external debt is almost 30% of GNP (Stephen Dabkowski, Sydney Morning Herald, August 23, 1999, p. 34). Moody's says Australia's net foreign liability is close to 30% of GDP (Brian Hale & Tom Allard, Sydney Morning Herald, August 7, 1999, p. 61).
Referring to the self-styled Jew's Judeo-christianity conspiracy which supports "meliorated slavery" in defiance of the teachings of Jesus, Thomas Jefferson called Christianity "an engine for enslaving mankind". Jesus was murdered because He declared their misuse of the Law of Moses anti-God when He magnified the Law, forbidding the money-lenders to charge usury or misuse Deuteronomy 15:6 to make meliorated slaves of any man (Luke 6:35; Lee Cheney books@leaconet.com).
They have banned and censored Lee Cheney's books on debt free banking. And on the web, their America Online and Yahoo/Geocities have censored and removed sites carrying his books. Many Internet discussion groups they control have silenced debate. This is merely the tip of the Jew censorship iceberg). THE HISTORY OF LAWFUL GOLD AND SILVER LEGAL TENDER AND THE DEBT BROUGHT ON BY UNLAWFUL FIAT PAPER MONEY
www.go-oaktree.com
Rothschild presented a brilliant plan to the Illuminati to create a thesis and its opposite or antithesis, bringing them together in controlled conflict to produce a predetermined outcome or synthesis. The process would be repeated with different theses and antitheses until their final objective was accomplished. This is known as Hegelian dialectics or philosophy. Remember that word.
Robinson, in "Proofs of a Conspiracy," (1798, p. 209), said of this Asiatic racket for control of the world's wealth and its people, "Their first and immediate aim is to get possession of riches, power, and influence, without industry; and, to accomplish this, they want to abolish Christianity; and then dissolute manners and universal profligacy will procure them its adherence of all the wicked, and enable them to overturn the civil governments of Europe."
A hundred and twenty years after those words were written, Lenin made himself seventy million marks for supervising Russia's destruction. In a statement to the Kremlin on October, 1918, Lenin said: "I am often accused of making this revolution with German money. I never denied it and do not now. But, on the other hand, I will make the same revolution in Germany with Russian money" (Nesta Webster, "The Surrender of An Empire," p. 76-77).
The funding Lenin received was not straight forward German money, it came from Rothschild-dominated German-Jewish banking houses like Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Brothers Lazare, a Jewish bank in Paris, the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris; the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of London, New York and Franfort-on-Main and the Nya-Banken, Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm. Clearly the Bolshevik movement was the expression of a general Jewish movement with certain Jewish Banking-Houses interested in the organization of this movement ("The Mystical Body of Christ" by Denis Fahey, Pages 88-92).
Out of chaos would come a new totalitarian order as propounded in the Masonic motto, "Order out of Chaos." If the thesis were like a hammer and the antithesis like an anvil, what was caught in between would be broken or reshaped. Three world wars would enable the plan to work. The hammer would be constructed and then given a homeland or secure base in Russia. We call it Communism.
Communism is NOT dead. Communism is very much alive. Dimitri Manuilski, Russian delegate to the UN (who succeed Lenin as leader of the World Revolutionary Movement) said, "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record..."
"The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to join in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends." We are presently experiencing this "peace offensive". It was launched by Krushchev in 1956, the year Brother Branham said "America would receive her last call". Mikhail Gorbachev has accomplished Manuilski's boast with the aid of The Gorbachev Foundation and other tax-exempt US Foundations.
"As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist." After the earthquake that marks the close of the Gentile dispensation has sunk Los Angeles, Russia will attack and invade America.
Communism is not a military confrontation. It is an international conspiracy, organized in every country of the world. Jesus called it "Laodicea", its primary target is Christianity. The Rabbis say, "Communism is Judaism". Communism is a spirit. The present apparent demise of Communism was planned to take us off guard. Those who invaded Russia killed the Czar and his family in revenge for his military assistance to Abraham Lincoln, the bastard son of a Rothschild, who supported the American people against the Bankster's plan. These Banksters, hiding behind the mask of the nominally Christian democracies, are stealing Russia's infrastructure and capital assets while destroying their economy. They have been responsible for the death of 20 millions since the break-up of the old Soviet, thus ensuring hatred for Christianity and a return to militant totalitarian Communist dictatorship bent upon revenge to be sought in the final revolution which will be Armageddon.
The first anvil called National Socialism would be created out of economic chaos in Germany. As leader of the World Revolutionary Movement, Lenin knew the plan. The same people who had paid Karl Marx (1818-1883) to express Rothschild's plans in modern language called The Communist Manifesto, also hired Professor Karl von Ritter (1779-1859) to write its antithesis known today as Nazism.
There are two groups of Hegelians. The Right Hegelians and root of Prussian militarism from whom sprung the unification of Germany and the rise of Hitler. And Left Hegelians who promoted scientific socialism. Both share the same philosophic theory that the State is God.
The anvil of Nazism would be destroyed in a Second World War, but another anvil called democracy would replace it. The first two World Wars accomplished exactly what was intended.
Out of the World War One came:
A Satanic dictatorship in Russia, and a secure base from which to conduct further world subversion.
The Satanic family of Rothschilds gained partial control over Palestine, preparing the way for Satan to rule from Jerusalem, incarnate in a future Pope of Rome.
Weapons of mass destruction and terror.
The League of Nations.
Out of the World War Two came:
The expansion of Russia into a world power.
Complete control over Palestine by the Rothschilds.
Air power: long range missiles, jets, and nuclear submarines. All items individuals cannot make. Those in control of production can therefore control all air and sea ways.
The cold war and an era of terror with much worse yet to come, to convince all nations of the need for Satan's One World Order.
The United Nations.
Out of World War Three will come a new religious union under Roman Catholic domination.
"The Illuminati had... a Plan ... decided on a most ambitious line of conduct. It would form and control public opinion. It would amalgamate religions by dissolving all the differences of belief and ritual that had kept them apart; and it would take over the Papacy and place an agent of its own in the Chair of Peter." (Peirs Compton, "The Broken Cross", 1981 p. 7-8).
"These Plans were written in 1776."
"The Pope ... will never enter into a secret society. It therefore becomes the duty of the secret societies to make the first advance to the Church and the Pope, with the object of conquering both."
Compton explains: "He (Weishaupt) was backed financially, ...by a group of bankers under the House of Rothschild. It was under their direction that the long-range and worldwide plans of the Illuminati were drawn up..." (Peirs Compton, "The Broken Cross", 1981, p. 13).
The name Rothschild is always visible behind the scenes despite the family's practiced obscurity. It is they who are at the top of the pyramid directing the warfare in a different name and under a different occupation? Rothschild created the Illuminati, financed the first Zionist Conference, created and funded Communism and Nazism, the Royal Institute of International Affairs that mothered the US Council on Foreign Relations and affiliated groups. They created the Bank of England and other central banks like the Federal Reserve. Their Illuminati symbol was added to the US one dollar note in 1933 by President Roosevelt, an Illuminati Jew and 33rd Degree Mason, at the start of his New Deal which he believed would result in his being the initiator of the New World Order. It signifies Illuminati control of the entire power of the US Government such that it has become an instrument to further the secret plans of the Illuminati to impose a Luciferian One World Government.
The pyramid represents the conspiracy for the destruction of the Catholic Church and establishment of One World Government overseen by the "all-seeing eye" of Osiris/Lucifer.
1933 was also the year in which God manifested the Pillar of Fire in the form of a star over Brother Branham on the Ohio River where he was commissioned by an audible Voice. It was the year in which Billy Graham, Herbert W. Armstrong and several other false ministries commenced, and the year in which Hitler and his Nazi Party came to power in Germany, supported by Jewish bankers and Industrialists. 1933 was the year in which the United States declared bankrupcy. It has been under a state of declared emergency ever since. When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord raises up a standard against it. The same Spirit that anoints the just, falls also upon the unjust.
The (so-called) Star of David is the sign Rothschild hung outside his shop in red. It is the seal of Communism and the UN, and the Pentacle on Baphomet, the false god of Masonry. This magical Seal of Solomon became the State flag of Israel. When Lenin, financed by the International Bankers, overthrew the Russian government and established the first totalitarian dictatorship in 1917, the flag was red with a hammer and sickle over which was superimposed the Star of David.
Rothschild means "red shield", and the red shield of the Salvation Army (who believe almost nothing) was adopted at the suggestion of Rothschild. The color of International Communism is red, reflecting the House of Rothschild.
Esau/Edom also means "red". Esau hated and swore to kill Jacob who is Israel. The self-styled Edomite Jew is fulfilling their father's oath today, having slain a great many Israelites, stealing Jacob's birthright and his Promised Land. Hiding behind the euphemism of "Jew", Esau is impersonating Jacob, as Jacob once covered himself in kid skin to impersonate Esau and deceive their father Isaac for the blessing (Genesis 27). Whereas Jacob had legally purchased the birthright from Esau, who despised it, Esau is today stealing Jacob's purchased property.
Isaiah 14:21-23, Obadiah and Malachi 1:1-5 foretell how these "Jews" would rebuild the Land of Israel. But God hates, and will utterly destroy them because of the violence they have committed against the Hebrew people -- to say nothing of the violence they have committed and continue to plot against Christians. Please read those Scriptures, and do not forget them.
Some blind people who claim to be full of the Spirit and followers of God's prophet, William Branham, defy his oft-repeated warning of Amos 3:3 (II Corinthians 6:14-16), and sit under pantheistic self-styled Jewish rabbis who despise Jesus Christ and anything to do with the Law and the Prophets God sent to Israel. They despise the true Hebrew descendants of Israel and having stolen his identity and their Land, imagine they can fool God by usurping His Covenant with Abraham. Blind Branhamites! Repent!
Read the pagan articles they publish on their web sites. You would not permit a Roman priest or a Baptist minister into your pulpits, yet they believe in Jesus. What justification is there in inviting pagans whose boast is their unbelief? We are commanded not to suffer any man behind the pulpit who is not a born-again elder in the faith.
Here's what these men believe, who they are and whom they are NOT:
Talmud Exposed; Talmud Unmasked; Myth of A Judeo-Christian Tradition;
The Jews Are Not A Race;
After the Gentile dispensation is fulfilled God will turn to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, NOT to Esau who is accursed of God forever. Wake up, virgins! Come out of that SIN! And repent!
"It is a well-known fact that the Rothschilds were ardent Talmudists whose religion taught nothing but contempt for those stupid goy (human cattle) who were not part of the 'chosen people'" (Des Griffin, "Descent into Slavery", p. 30-31). They are also Satanists!
Satanism is the core of the planned One World Government. It hides behind fronts such as Jewish Finance, Socialism, Aryanism, British Israelism, Zionism and Freemasonry, which are tools to gain broad base support for the Plan. The "conspiracy" to establish One World Government has succeeded in enlisting support from such a spectrum of humanity because the religious systems at the top of the pyramid are controlled by Satanists. These adepts who are privy to the Plan are misdirecting their followers into Satan's trap.
Nazism was a Pagan Gnostic religious system. The Jews and Hebrews are being used; this Satanic hierarchy is not concerned with Moses, the prophets, or even with Judaism. The actions of the Rothschilds and other Satanic "Jewish" bloodlines during countless wars and revolutions prove their first allegiance is not to "Jews", Hebrews, Scripture, or even to the Talmud, but to Lucifer himself. The denominational Christians are also being used. Once they have served the purposes of the Synagogue of Satan, all "religious" people will be brought into conflict against the atheists in a bloody revolution. Then they propose to install the second and final stage of the New World Order, the "pure Luciferian doctrine".
In the days when Karl Rothschild was an initiate of the Full Secret, other Satanists had stirred-up so much anti-Vatican hatred that the governments of France and Italy were on the verge of destroying it. "Karl Rothschild stepped in to act as "Peacemaker" between the Vatican and her enemies. History relates how his intervention saved the Vatican and made Karl Rothschild the "friend" and "trusted adviser" of the Pope and he reorganized the affairs of the Vatican Treasury and State Department."
"But history has proved that Karl Rothschild was no true friend of the Vatican. Two World Wars, instigated by his family of moneylenders, and their international affiliates who direct the World Revolutionary Movement, have seen Christians of all denominations divided into opposing camps, been made to fight and kill each other off by the tens of millions. This has been done to bring Pike's plan for the final social cataclysm nearer to fruition. Communism grew stronger as Christianity was weakened, until today, as Pike's plan required, Communism has darkened the whole earth" (William Guy Carr, "Satan, Prince of This World", p. 48-49).
I pray this and other Newsletters will help you to recognize the hierarchy of the Synagogue of Satan and realize that Vatican City is but a "front", one of many. And that a deadly rivalry has existed between Rome and the self-styled Jews for over 2,000 years. Both front for and belong to the Synagogue of Satan.
Viewed from a Hegelian perspective Vatican Rome is Right Hegelian while self-styled Jews (who will ultimately forsake their mask of "religion" to support their baby, Communism, and destroy Rome and the United States), are Left Hegelian. One is largely natural Serpent's seed, both are spiritual Serpent's seed. These opposing forces developed by Satan, trace their roots to Nimrod's Babylon. He plans to bring them together in controlled conflict, in a third and final revolution, destroying all religion, and then introduce the pure Luciferian worship of himself.
However, Christians know this will result in Armageddon and destruction of all life on earth, thus binding Satan, prior to our Lord's physical return with the glorified saints of all ages for a thousand years of peace. Once his subjects are in the grave, Satan will be bound and helpless (Revelation 20:1-5).
"How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, who did weaken the nations! ...Yet you shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
"Everyone there will stare and ask, 'Are you the one who shook the heavens and earth? Who destroyed the world and made it a wilderness, and destroyed its greatest cities and had no mercy on his prisoners'?"
"The kings of the nations lie buried in stately glory, but your body, like a broken branch, lies in an open grave, covered with the corpses of the slain, as a carcass on the road, it is trodden under foot... Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the Land, nor fill the face of the world with cities (Exodus 20:5). For I will rise up against them, says the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, says the LORD."
Lucifer is cunning, he has the House of Rothschild controlling both the Vatican and the International "Jews" (including the Black Nobility). As we found last week, their strength is the ancient law and precedent, and the people's IGNORANCE of law. Likewise the weakness of most people who suppose themselves Christians and under grace is their IGNORANCE of God's Word and their rejection of Christ.
Almost all people are superstitious. Otherwise there would not be a billion Roman Catholics and others like the Protestants, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists all worshiping the Trinity myth to say nothing of the Pantheism of Judaism. Therefore, Satan's most direct path to one world power is through the office of the one man with a common link to all of these superstitions: the Pope of Rome. The mark of the beast, which is gnosis or intellectual reasoning against the faith as in Judaism, Freemasonry, Bah'ai, denominationalism and humanism, will FORCE that mark by making all peoples worship the beast either by submitting to the authority of Rome (the mark in the hand -- service), or by conversion to Catholicism or its Protestant image (the mark in the head -- agreement).
Man has estranged himself from Adam's Birthright in Christ, his Redeemer. His heart is void of understanding. His conscience that accuses or excuses his actions, having rejected the Headship of Christ the Word by wrongly choosing between the only two courses open to it -- faith or doubt -- has lost its ability to discern good from evil. As if seared with a hot iron, its only recourse to authority is man's law called God's Law through FALSE interpretations of the words of Moses, the Prophets and Jesus Christ, creating dogma and traditions, the Divine Right of Kings, national Constitutions, UN treaties, etc.
Those who have been behind the increasing chaos in the world over the past few hundred years, seem close to dissolving man's dearest resource and final resort, his money. And the Masonic motto, "Out of chaos, order" seems destined to return man under the ancient laws that have been maintained although hidden from the knowledge of most of mankind.
Members of the Elite such as Abraham Lincoln, the Czar of Russia and John F. Kennedy did not follow the long-term Plan of the Synagogue of Satan paid with their life and the lives of their families.
The Synagogue of Satan has immense power. Listen: "In his speech at the marriage of Lenora, daughter of Lionel Rothschild, to her cousin Alfonso, British Prime Minister Disraeli is reported to have said, "Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild, a name famous in every capital of Europe, and every division of the globe. If you like we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel. Napoleon will do exactly -- and all that I advise him to do; and to Bismarck will be suggested such an intoxicating program as to make him our abject slave."
History records that Judah P. Benjamin, a Rothschild relative, was appointed as their professional strategist in America. The American Civil War, which split the Union into two, became an accomplished fact (and remains so to this day -- Southern States have been continually under martial law since the Civil War).
Napoleon III was persuaded by the Bankers to extend his French Empire into Mexico. The British Government was persuaded that the Northern States could be made into a colony again. The Civil War in the United States was an economic war brought about by the International Bankers . . ." (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. 53).
The love of money is the root of all evil. If you trace that root back to Babylon you find Satan's hold on the people through false religion and fractional reserve banking. If you follow the trail back through the Bible and history and you will see who controls the Synagogue of Satan. nl090.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass it on . . . Send this article to someone you know
Brother Anthony Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister. He has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations in various countries. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to minister in your church.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Is God's law really common???
Is the Common Law really based upon God's Law?
Richard Anthony
________________________________________
Many people assume that the "common law" is based upon God's Law, or that it was based upon God's Law at one time. However, the facts show otherwise.
Remember how we were taught that the U.S. Constitution was based upon God's Law, and how it was a godly system of law? Until we researched it ourselves and found just the opposite to be true? (See our article called The Deception of the U.S. Constitution for further study). Well, the same is true for the "common law." When one researches this system of law, one finds just the opposite to be true. And similarly how if one claims "Constitutional rights" it places them under the jurisdiction of man's law, the same is true when one claims the "common law," it brings them under the jurisdiction of man's law also.
Now, I was once a firm believer in the common law, too. We were taught that the "common law" was based upon God's Law. We were also taught that the common law was in full force in the 1800's, and that it is in the 1900's when things changed. Okay. Here is a law dictionary from the 1800's. and let's see how it defines "common law," and what "law" it really represents. Remember, this is the meaning of "common law" from the 1800's! The following definition are taken from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893, which is one of the best law dictionaries around. And as a side note, this definition is the same as when used in the US Constitution.
What System of Law is the Common Law based upon?
Custom of merchants: A system of customs, originating among merchants, and allowed for the benefit of trade as part of the common law. Page 303.
Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world. Pages 670-671.
Roman Law: The common law of England has been largely influenced by the Roman law, in several respects:…Through the development of commercial law. Page 910.
I read this entire law dictionary from cover to cover, and not once did it ever mention that the common law was, or had ever been, based upon God's Law. As we can see, it is based upon Roman Law, commercial law, and the law of merchants.
Let us continue with what this common law entailed, in court:
Common Law Courts
Plaintiff: In common law proceedings we speak of the actor (the party bringing suit) as “plaintiff,”…In the equity rules of the Supreme Court, the actor is always called plaintiff. Page 776.
Now, think about this. In common law proceedings, the plaintiff is the actor. We all know what an actor is; someone who is playing, someone who is acting, someone who is pretending, someone who is not speaking the truth. What does pretending have to do with God's Truth? Nothing. If the common law court was based upon God's Truth, and discovering Truth, they would not be involved in play acting.
Let us see another definition of how "common law" was used in a court of law:
Side of the court: The law side and the equity side of a court designate a court administering justice, in the former case under the forms of strict law or common law, in the latter case according to the more liberal principles of equity. The equity side of the courts is deemed always open for pleadings and proceedings preparatory to the hearing of causes upon their merits. Page 952.
Now, notice this definition does not specify which "forms of strict law" are administered under the common law. However, by reading the other definitions in this law dictionary, it becomes obvious it is based upon Roman Law, commercial law, and the law of merchants.
Now, let's examine a form of punishment under the common law, and see if it's based upon scripture:
Common Law Punishment
Scold: A troublesome and angry woman, who, by brawling and wrangling among her neighbors, breaks the public peace, increases discord, and becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood. At common law, a common scold is a public nuisance. The sentence was that she be placed in a tre-bucket, castigatory, or cucking-stool, that is, in Anglo-Saxon, the scolding stool. The offence is now punishable, if at all, by fine, or by fine and imprisonment.
In 1824 a woman was convicted of this offense in the city of Philadelphia, and the sentence was, as at common law, that she “be placed in a ducking or cucking-stool, and be plunged three times in the water.” This sentence was reversed by the supreme court, which decided that the old common law punishment had not been adopted in Pennsylvania. The court also said that the punishment was introduced at a time when women were subjected to degradation as slaves; that authorities differ as to what the original punishment was, and how, therefore, it was to be executed upon offenders, if executed at all.
In 1866 the same court, in reviewing the record in another case, said that the law has been considered settled since the decision in the James Case; that the penal code of 1860 did not abolish the offense; and that, as to the unreasonableness of punishing women alone for a too free use of the tongue, it is enough to say that the common law, which is the expressed wisdom of ages, adjudges that it is not unreasonable. Page 923.
There are many interesting points to consider in this definition. Firstly, in 1824, at common law, this woman was punished by being dunked in water three times. Okay, if the common law is based upon scripture, where is this punishment listed in scripture? It is not. God tells us many punishments in scripture, for it is His Law. But nowhere do you find this punishment in scripture. Why? Because the common law is created by man, not God. It is a different law, under a different jurisdiction.
Secondly, notice the date "1824." This was called the "old common law" in 1824. In other words, this common law punishment had been around for a long time by 1824, most likely from the 1700's or earlier, at a time when this "common law" was supposedly more Christ-like. I do not see any evidence that the common law was ever based upon God's Law.
Thirdly, notice the last sentence of this definition. It says "the common law is the expressed wisdom of ages." It does not say the common law is the expressed wisdom of God. No. It is the wisdom of men, throughout the ages. And the common law changes from time to time, as the above definitions verify, as society changes. God's Law does not change. The common law is arbitrary and capricious, and changes with the times. God's Law does not. The "common law" and God's Law are not the same law!
Common Law based upon God's Law?
But, aren't there parts of the common law that are based upon God's Law? Yes, of course there are! Hitler had some laws that were based on God's Law too. So did Stalin, and Communist China. Many of man's laws contain parts of God's Law within them, but it does not mean it is a godly system of law, just because some of their law lines up with scripture. For example, almost all of man's laws punish people for murder. This is based upon God's Law, right? But just because the laws in Nazi Germany might have punished some people for murder, it does not mean that Nazi law was a godly system of law.
Now, here is a "common law" which most people would say is based upon scripture, but look at how the words are used:
Husband: At common law, husband and wife are one person in law, and he is that person; that is, the legal existence of the woman is suspended or at least incorporated into that of the husband, under whose protection she performs everything. They cannot give evidence for or against each other. He may chastise her moderately. For any crime committed in his presence, except treason and murder, she is presumed to act by his coercion. Page 518.
Yes, on its face, it does seem to be based upon God's. Scripture says man and women become "one flesh," whereas the common law says man and women become "one person." But let's take a closer look:
First of all, a servant of Christ is not a person, but a slave. Slaves are not persons, under both God's Law and mans law. Therefore, at common law, the husband is a "person," which is a fiction of the State, a creation of the State, and not a man created under God.
Secondly, they have a "legal existence." It is not a lawful existence under God's Law, but a legal existence under man's law.
And thirdly, notice the common law "presumes" that she acts according to her husband's coercion. Now wait a minute, under God's Law, one is innocent until proven guilty! Under the common law, the husband is presumed guilty, and is presumed to have coerced his wife, until proven innocent! God's Law never presumes one is guilty, only man's law presumes guilt.
Another Law Dictionary
Scripture says to verify everything by two or three witnesses. Therefore, here are some other definition from Bouvier's Dictionary, 1856 which confirms that the common law is not based upon God's Law.
The Common Law Contradicts God's Law
ACCESSARY:, criminal law. He who is not the chief actor in the perpetration of the offence, nor present at its performance, but is some way concerned therein, either before or after the fact committed.
7. By the rules of the common law, accessaries cannot be tried without their consent, before the principals. Foster, 360. The evils resulting from this rule, are stated at length in the 8th vol. of Todd's Spencer, pp. 329, 330.
Under God's Law, an accessory to a crime is just as guilty as the one perpetuating the crime (Psalms 50:18, 1 Timothy 5:22). Scripture also shows that those who participate in evil through somebody else are guilty of the act themselves. For example, David gave orders to Joab and instructed him to have Uriah killed. Even though David did not kill him himself, but had another do it for him, God placed the sin of murder on David himself (II Samual 11:14 - 12:9). In addition, if a man has seen a crime, or has heard of a crime, and does not bear witness of this crime as a witness, then this man shall bear the criminals iniquity (Leviticus 5:1).
But under the common law, the accessary cannot be brought to court unless he consents to go to court. This is admittedly called an evil rule in this same definition!
COLLATERAL WARRANTY: contracts, descent. Where the heir's title to the land neither was, nor could have been, derived from the warranting ancestor; and yet barred the heir from ever claiming the land, and also imposed upon him the same obligation of giving the warrantee other lands, in case of eviction, as if the warranty were lineal, provided the heir had assets. 4 Cruise, Real Prop. 436.
2. The doctrine of collateral warranty, is, according to Justice Story, one of the most unjust, oppressive and indefensible, in the whole range of the common law. 1 Sumn. R. 262.
Question. Is the Law of God unjust, oppressive and indefensible? Well, how can the "common law", which is "unjust, oppressive and indefensible", according to the above lawful definition, be based upon God's Law, which is Just, Righteous, and Good?
MAXIM: Many things have been introduced into the common law, with a view to the public good, which are inconsistent with sound reason. Co. Litt. 70; Broom's Max. 67; 2 Co. R. 75. See 3 T. R. 146; 7 T. R. 252.
Question. Is the Law of God inconsistent with "sound reason." No. So how can the "common law", which is "inconsistent with sound reason," according to the above lawful definition, be based upon God's Law?
ABORTION: 3. When abortion is produced with a malicious design, it becomes a misdemeanor, at common law, 1 Russell, 553; and the party causing it may be indicted and punished.
Under God's Law, murder is a felony (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13). Under the common law, you get a slap on the wrist. Is the "common law" really based upon God's Law?
ARSON: criminal law. At common law an offence of the degree of felony; and is defined by Lord Coke to be the malicious and voluntary burning of the house of another, by night or day. 3 Inst. 66.
3. The offence of arson at common law, does not extend further than the burning of the house of another. By statute this crime is greatly enlarged in some of the states, as in Pennsylvania, where it is extended to the burning of any barn or outhouse having bay or grain therein; any barrack, rick or stack of hay, grain, or bark; any public buildings, church or meeting-house, college, school or library. Act 23d April, 1829; 2 Russell on Crimes, 486; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 39 4 Bl. Com. 220; 2 East, P. C. c. 21, s. 1, p. 1015; 16 John. R. 203; 16 Mass. 105. As to the extension of the offence by the laws of the United States, see Stat. 1825, c. 276, 3 Story's L. U. S. 1999.
So, under the common law, arson does not extend further than the burning of a house. Therefore, I can burn your carriage, car, warehouse, barn, barracks, outhouse, and not be charged with arson! However, under God's Law, he that burns a fire must pay restitution for everything that was burned by the fire he started, and is not limited to just the house (Exodus 22:6).
ATTORNEY: One who acts for another by virtue of an appointment by the latter.
9. The name of attorney is given to those officers who practice in courts of common law.
Hmmm. Where does the term "attorney" appear in scripture? It does not. However, scripture uses the term "lawyer," which is always used in a negative sense, and explains why many lawyers are evil (Luke 7:30; 11:46-52).
DEAD-BORN: descent, persons. Children dead-born are considered, in law, as if they had never been conceived, so that no one can claim a title, by descent, through such dead-born child. This is the doctrine of the civil law. The rule in the common law is, probably, the same, that a dead-born child is to be considered as if he had never been conceived or born in other words, it is presumed he never had life. it being a maxim of the common law, that mortuus exitus non est exitus. Co. Litt. 29 b. See 2 Paige, R. 35; Domat, liv. prel. t. 2, s. 1, n. 4, 6; 4 Ves. 334.
Under God's Law, a man or woman is born at the moment of conception. But the common law says one is born at the moment one comes out of the womb.
FALCIDIAN LAW: 4. By the common law, the power of the father to give his property is unlimited. He may bequeath it to his children equally, to, one in preference to another, or to a stranger, in exclusion of the whole of them.
Under God's Law, the father must give his inheritance to his first-born (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
The Common Law is a Man-Made Law
AUTHORITY: contracts. The delegation of power by one person to another.
4. This rule of the common law has been adopted and followed from the civil law. Story, Ag. 47; Dig. 3, 3, 1, 1 Poth. Pand. 3, 3, 3; Domat, liv. 1, tit. 15, 1, art. 5; see also 3 Chit. Com. Law, 5, 195 7 T. R. 350.
ISLAND: A piece of land surrounded by water.
5. The doctrine of the common law on this subject, founded on reason, seems to have been borrowed from the civil law. Vide Inst. 2, 1, 22; Dig. 41, 1, 7; Code, 7; 41, 1.
Hmm. So much for the common law being adopted, followed, and borrowed from God's Law; in truth it is founded on "man's reason" (not God's Truth), and is borrowed from the "civil law" (not God's Law).
FIDEI-COMMISSUM: 3. The uses of the common law, it is said, were borrowed from the Roman fidei-commissum. 1 Cru. Dig. 388; Bac. Read. 19; 1 Madd. Ch. 446-7.
Another confirmation that the common law is borrowed from Roman law (not God's Law).
CUSTOM: A usage which had acquired the force of law.
2. A custom derives its force from the tacit consent of the legislature and the people, and supposes an original, actual deed or agreement.
3. Customs are general or, particular customs. 1. By general customs is meant the common law itself, by which proceedings and determinations in courts are guided.
Notice the common law is guided by general customs of man (not by the principles of God).
JEOPARDY: 3. The constitution declares that no person shall "for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." The meaning of this is, that the party shall, not be tried a second time for the same offence after he has once been convicted or acquitted of the offence charged, by the verdict of a jury, and judgment has passed thereon for or against him; but it does not mean that he shall not be tried for the offence, if the jury have been discharged from necessity or by consent, without giving any verdict; or, if having given a verdict, judgement has been arrested upon it, or a new trial has been granted in his favor; for, in such a case, his life and limb cannot judicially be said to have been put in jeopardy. 4 Wash. C. C. R. 410; 9 Wheat. R. 579; 6 Serg. & Rawle, 577; 3. Rawle, R. 498; 3 Story on the Const. 1781. Vide 2 Sumn. R. 19. This great privilege is secured by the common law. Hawk. P. C., B. 2, 35; 4 Bl. Com. 335.
4. This was the Roman law, from which it has been probably engrafted upon the common law. Vide Merl. Rep. art. Non bis in idem. Qui de crimine publico accusationem deductus est, says the Code, 9, 2, 9, ab alio super eodem crimine deferri non potest. Vide article Non bis in idem.
Again, confirmation that the common law is influenced by Roman Law, and not God's Law.
JOURNAL: common law. A book used among merchants, in which the contents of the waste-book are separated every month, and entered on the debtor and creditor side, for more convenient posting in the ledger.
The above definition shows that the "common law" is commonly used by merchants, because it is commercial law.
COMMON LAW: That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.
Notice the common law derives its force and authority from the people (not from God).
LAW, COMMON: The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.
3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554.
4. The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson's Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362. SOURCES OF THE LAW. By this expression is understood the authority from which the laws derive their force.
10. The tacit laws, which derive their authority from the consent of the people, without any legislative enactment, may be subdivided into 1st. The common law, which is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decisions of our own courts. It is very difficult, in many cases, to ascertain what is this common law, and it is always embarrassing to the courts. Kirl. Rep. Pref. In some states, it has been enacted that the common law of England shall be the law, except where the same is inconsistent with our constitutions and laws. Customs which have been generally adopted by the people, have the force of law. The principles of the Roman law, being generally founded in superior wisdom, have insinuated themselves into every part of the law. Many of the refined rules which now adorn the common law appear there without any acknowledgment of their paternity, and it is at this source that some judges dipt to get the wisdom which adorns their judgments. The proceedings of the courts of equity and many of the admirable distinctions which manifest their wisdom are derived from this source. To this fountain of wisdom the courts of admiralty owe most of the law which governs in admiralty cases.
This definition also states that Roman Law is superior law (I thought God's Law was the superior law!), and that the Roman law has insinuated itself into every part of the common law.
MARRIAGE: 12. The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law.
Natural and Public law are opposed to God's Law. Natural law is made by and for the natural man, which receiveth not the things of the spirit of God. Why is not God's Law mentioned in this definition, since God ordained marriage? Because common law is not based upon God's Law, but man's law.
STATUTE: 9. Among the civilians, the term statute is generally applied to all sorts of laws and regulations; every provision of law which ordains, permits, or prohibits anything is a statute without considering from what source it arises. Sometimes the word is used in contradistinction to the imperial Roman law, which, by way of eminence, civilians call the common law.
Again, the "common law" is another term for Roman Law (not God's Law).
Miscellaneous
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: A term used in the civil law, nearly synonymous with fortuitous. event. (q. v.) 2 Sm. & Marsh. 572. In the common law commonly called the act of God. (q. v.) 2 Smed. & Marsh. Err. & App. 572.
VIS MAJOR: a superior force. In law it signifies inevitable accident.
2. This term is used in the civil law in nearly the same way that the words act of God, (q. v.) are used in the common law.
Interesting how the common law attributes natural disasters to God, as if He deliberately sets out to destroy property and people with hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning, etc.
INFANT: 5. Considerable changes of the common law have probably taken place in many of the states.
MEMORY, TIME OF: According to the English common law, which has been altered by 2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 71, the time of memory commenced from the reign of Richard the First, A. D. 1189. 2 Bl. Com. 31.
Evidence that the common law has been revised, changed, and altered with time. In addition, the common law, at any one time, differs from State to State, country to country, and from one period of time to another. Allowing people to pick and choose which parts of the common law to obey, and which ones to ignore. God's Law does not change; what God defines as good and evil at one time, will still be good and evil at a later time.
CHRISTIANITY: The religion established by Jesus Christ.
2. Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.
It is important to note that only the "common law of Pennsylvania" has declared Christianity to be a part of it (emphasis on the word "part"). In other words, only "part" of the common law is based on Christianity. The other parts of the common law, as have been proved, is taken from merchant law, commercial law, civil law, Roman law, and human reason. This goes directly contrary to scripture, for God's Law is being yoked (merged together) with man's laws; believers are being yoked with unbelievers, righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, and Christ with Belial.
2 Corinthians 6:14-16, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"
Besides, man's laws always have parts of it that can be found in God's Laws, such as laws punishing murder, stealing, etc., It does not mean it is a godly system of law.
It is also important to notice from the above definition that only the common law of Pennsylvania declared this. Not the "common law" of any other place, state, country, or people. This shows how the common law changes, and it very different, from place to place. When someone says they follow the "common law", what "common law" are they referring to? Can they just pick and choose which common law at will to follow, and disregard other common laws? Thus becoming their own god, determining for themselves what is good and evil?
Conclusion
Every law dictionary I have looked at verifies that the common law and God's Law are opposed to each other. I have not been able to verify that the common law is or was based upon God's Law. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it with me.
Richard Anthony
________________________________________
Many people assume that the "common law" is based upon God's Law, or that it was based upon God's Law at one time. However, the facts show otherwise.
Remember how we were taught that the U.S. Constitution was based upon God's Law, and how it was a godly system of law? Until we researched it ourselves and found just the opposite to be true? (See our article called The Deception of the U.S. Constitution for further study). Well, the same is true for the "common law." When one researches this system of law, one finds just the opposite to be true. And similarly how if one claims "Constitutional rights" it places them under the jurisdiction of man's law, the same is true when one claims the "common law," it brings them under the jurisdiction of man's law also.
Now, I was once a firm believer in the common law, too. We were taught that the "common law" was based upon God's Law. We were also taught that the common law was in full force in the 1800's, and that it is in the 1900's when things changed. Okay. Here is a law dictionary from the 1800's. and let's see how it defines "common law," and what "law" it really represents. Remember, this is the meaning of "common law" from the 1800's! The following definition are taken from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893, which is one of the best law dictionaries around. And as a side note, this definition is the same as when used in the US Constitution.
What System of Law is the Common Law based upon?
Custom of merchants: A system of customs, originating among merchants, and allowed for the benefit of trade as part of the common law. Page 303.
Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world. Pages 670-671.
Roman Law: The common law of England has been largely influenced by the Roman law, in several respects:…Through the development of commercial law. Page 910.
I read this entire law dictionary from cover to cover, and not once did it ever mention that the common law was, or had ever been, based upon God's Law. As we can see, it is based upon Roman Law, commercial law, and the law of merchants.
Let us continue with what this common law entailed, in court:
Common Law Courts
Plaintiff: In common law proceedings we speak of the actor (the party bringing suit) as “plaintiff,”…In the equity rules of the Supreme Court, the actor is always called plaintiff. Page 776.
Now, think about this. In common law proceedings, the plaintiff is the actor. We all know what an actor is; someone who is playing, someone who is acting, someone who is pretending, someone who is not speaking the truth. What does pretending have to do with God's Truth? Nothing. If the common law court was based upon God's Truth, and discovering Truth, they would not be involved in play acting.
Let us see another definition of how "common law" was used in a court of law:
Side of the court: The law side and the equity side of a court designate a court administering justice, in the former case under the forms of strict law or common law, in the latter case according to the more liberal principles of equity. The equity side of the courts is deemed always open for pleadings and proceedings preparatory to the hearing of causes upon their merits. Page 952.
Now, notice this definition does not specify which "forms of strict law" are administered under the common law. However, by reading the other definitions in this law dictionary, it becomes obvious it is based upon Roman Law, commercial law, and the law of merchants.
Now, let's examine a form of punishment under the common law, and see if it's based upon scripture:
Common Law Punishment
Scold: A troublesome and angry woman, who, by brawling and wrangling among her neighbors, breaks the public peace, increases discord, and becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood. At common law, a common scold is a public nuisance. The sentence was that she be placed in a tre-bucket, castigatory, or cucking-stool, that is, in Anglo-Saxon, the scolding stool. The offence is now punishable, if at all, by fine, or by fine and imprisonment.
In 1824 a woman was convicted of this offense in the city of Philadelphia, and the sentence was, as at common law, that she “be placed in a ducking or cucking-stool, and be plunged three times in the water.” This sentence was reversed by the supreme court, which decided that the old common law punishment had not been adopted in Pennsylvania. The court also said that the punishment was introduced at a time when women were subjected to degradation as slaves; that authorities differ as to what the original punishment was, and how, therefore, it was to be executed upon offenders, if executed at all.
In 1866 the same court, in reviewing the record in another case, said that the law has been considered settled since the decision in the James Case; that the penal code of 1860 did not abolish the offense; and that, as to the unreasonableness of punishing women alone for a too free use of the tongue, it is enough to say that the common law, which is the expressed wisdom of ages, adjudges that it is not unreasonable. Page 923.
There are many interesting points to consider in this definition. Firstly, in 1824, at common law, this woman was punished by being dunked in water three times. Okay, if the common law is based upon scripture, where is this punishment listed in scripture? It is not. God tells us many punishments in scripture, for it is His Law. But nowhere do you find this punishment in scripture. Why? Because the common law is created by man, not God. It is a different law, under a different jurisdiction.
Secondly, notice the date "1824." This was called the "old common law" in 1824. In other words, this common law punishment had been around for a long time by 1824, most likely from the 1700's or earlier, at a time when this "common law" was supposedly more Christ-like. I do not see any evidence that the common law was ever based upon God's Law.
Thirdly, notice the last sentence of this definition. It says "the common law is the expressed wisdom of ages." It does not say the common law is the expressed wisdom of God. No. It is the wisdom of men, throughout the ages. And the common law changes from time to time, as the above definitions verify, as society changes. God's Law does not change. The common law is arbitrary and capricious, and changes with the times. God's Law does not. The "common law" and God's Law are not the same law!
Common Law based upon God's Law?
But, aren't there parts of the common law that are based upon God's Law? Yes, of course there are! Hitler had some laws that were based on God's Law too. So did Stalin, and Communist China. Many of man's laws contain parts of God's Law within them, but it does not mean it is a godly system of law, just because some of their law lines up with scripture. For example, almost all of man's laws punish people for murder. This is based upon God's Law, right? But just because the laws in Nazi Germany might have punished some people for murder, it does not mean that Nazi law was a godly system of law.
Now, here is a "common law" which most people would say is based upon scripture, but look at how the words are used:
Husband: At common law, husband and wife are one person in law, and he is that person; that is, the legal existence of the woman is suspended or at least incorporated into that of the husband, under whose protection she performs everything. They cannot give evidence for or against each other. He may chastise her moderately. For any crime committed in his presence, except treason and murder, she is presumed to act by his coercion. Page 518.
Yes, on its face, it does seem to be based upon God's. Scripture says man and women become "one flesh," whereas the common law says man and women become "one person." But let's take a closer look:
First of all, a servant of Christ is not a person, but a slave. Slaves are not persons, under both God's Law and mans law. Therefore, at common law, the husband is a "person," which is a fiction of the State, a creation of the State, and not a man created under God.
Secondly, they have a "legal existence." It is not a lawful existence under God's Law, but a legal existence under man's law.
And thirdly, notice the common law "presumes" that she acts according to her husband's coercion. Now wait a minute, under God's Law, one is innocent until proven guilty! Under the common law, the husband is presumed guilty, and is presumed to have coerced his wife, until proven innocent! God's Law never presumes one is guilty, only man's law presumes guilt.
Another Law Dictionary
Scripture says to verify everything by two or three witnesses. Therefore, here are some other definition from Bouvier's Dictionary, 1856 which confirms that the common law is not based upon God's Law.
The Common Law Contradicts God's Law
ACCESSARY:, criminal law. He who is not the chief actor in the perpetration of the offence, nor present at its performance, but is some way concerned therein, either before or after the fact committed.
7. By the rules of the common law, accessaries cannot be tried without their consent, before the principals. Foster, 360. The evils resulting from this rule, are stated at length in the 8th vol. of Todd's Spencer, pp. 329, 330.
Under God's Law, an accessory to a crime is just as guilty as the one perpetuating the crime (Psalms 50:18, 1 Timothy 5:22). Scripture also shows that those who participate in evil through somebody else are guilty of the act themselves. For example, David gave orders to Joab and instructed him to have Uriah killed. Even though David did not kill him himself, but had another do it for him, God placed the sin of murder on David himself (II Samual 11:14 - 12:9). In addition, if a man has seen a crime, or has heard of a crime, and does not bear witness of this crime as a witness, then this man shall bear the criminals iniquity (Leviticus 5:1).
But under the common law, the accessary cannot be brought to court unless he consents to go to court. This is admittedly called an evil rule in this same definition!
COLLATERAL WARRANTY: contracts, descent. Where the heir's title to the land neither was, nor could have been, derived from the warranting ancestor; and yet barred the heir from ever claiming the land, and also imposed upon him the same obligation of giving the warrantee other lands, in case of eviction, as if the warranty were lineal, provided the heir had assets. 4 Cruise, Real Prop. 436.
2. The doctrine of collateral warranty, is, according to Justice Story, one of the most unjust, oppressive and indefensible, in the whole range of the common law. 1 Sumn. R. 262.
Question. Is the Law of God unjust, oppressive and indefensible? Well, how can the "common law", which is "unjust, oppressive and indefensible", according to the above lawful definition, be based upon God's Law, which is Just, Righteous, and Good?
MAXIM: Many things have been introduced into the common law, with a view to the public good, which are inconsistent with sound reason. Co. Litt. 70; Broom's Max. 67; 2 Co. R. 75. See 3 T. R. 146; 7 T. R. 252.
Question. Is the Law of God inconsistent with "sound reason." No. So how can the "common law", which is "inconsistent with sound reason," according to the above lawful definition, be based upon God's Law?
ABORTION: 3. When abortion is produced with a malicious design, it becomes a misdemeanor, at common law, 1 Russell, 553; and the party causing it may be indicted and punished.
Under God's Law, murder is a felony (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13). Under the common law, you get a slap on the wrist. Is the "common law" really based upon God's Law?
ARSON: criminal law. At common law an offence of the degree of felony; and is defined by Lord Coke to be the malicious and voluntary burning of the house of another, by night or day. 3 Inst. 66.
3. The offence of arson at common law, does not extend further than the burning of the house of another. By statute this crime is greatly enlarged in some of the states, as in Pennsylvania, where it is extended to the burning of any barn or outhouse having bay or grain therein; any barrack, rick or stack of hay, grain, or bark; any public buildings, church or meeting-house, college, school or library. Act 23d April, 1829; 2 Russell on Crimes, 486; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 39 4 Bl. Com. 220; 2 East, P. C. c. 21, s. 1, p. 1015; 16 John. R. 203; 16 Mass. 105. As to the extension of the offence by the laws of the United States, see Stat. 1825, c. 276, 3 Story's L. U. S. 1999.
So, under the common law, arson does not extend further than the burning of a house. Therefore, I can burn your carriage, car, warehouse, barn, barracks, outhouse, and not be charged with arson! However, under God's Law, he that burns a fire must pay restitution for everything that was burned by the fire he started, and is not limited to just the house (Exodus 22:6).
ATTORNEY: One who acts for another by virtue of an appointment by the latter.
9. The name of attorney is given to those officers who practice in courts of common law.
Hmmm. Where does the term "attorney" appear in scripture? It does not. However, scripture uses the term "lawyer," which is always used in a negative sense, and explains why many lawyers are evil (Luke 7:30; 11:46-52).
DEAD-BORN: descent, persons. Children dead-born are considered, in law, as if they had never been conceived, so that no one can claim a title, by descent, through such dead-born child. This is the doctrine of the civil law. The rule in the common law is, probably, the same, that a dead-born child is to be considered as if he had never been conceived or born in other words, it is presumed he never had life. it being a maxim of the common law, that mortuus exitus non est exitus. Co. Litt. 29 b. See 2 Paige, R. 35; Domat, liv. prel. t. 2, s. 1, n. 4, 6; 4 Ves. 334.
Under God's Law, a man or woman is born at the moment of conception. But the common law says one is born at the moment one comes out of the womb.
FALCIDIAN LAW: 4. By the common law, the power of the father to give his property is unlimited. He may bequeath it to his children equally, to, one in preference to another, or to a stranger, in exclusion of the whole of them.
Under God's Law, the father must give his inheritance to his first-born (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
The Common Law is a Man-Made Law
AUTHORITY: contracts. The delegation of power by one person to another.
4. This rule of the common law has been adopted and followed from the civil law. Story, Ag. 47; Dig. 3, 3, 1, 1 Poth. Pand. 3, 3, 3; Domat, liv. 1, tit. 15, 1, art. 5; see also 3 Chit. Com. Law, 5, 195 7 T. R. 350.
ISLAND: A piece of land surrounded by water.
5. The doctrine of the common law on this subject, founded on reason, seems to have been borrowed from the civil law. Vide Inst. 2, 1, 22; Dig. 41, 1, 7; Code, 7; 41, 1.
Hmm. So much for the common law being adopted, followed, and borrowed from God's Law; in truth it is founded on "man's reason" (not God's Truth), and is borrowed from the "civil law" (not God's Law).
FIDEI-COMMISSUM: 3. The uses of the common law, it is said, were borrowed from the Roman fidei-commissum. 1 Cru. Dig. 388; Bac. Read. 19; 1 Madd. Ch. 446-7.
Another confirmation that the common law is borrowed from Roman law (not God's Law).
CUSTOM: A usage which had acquired the force of law.
2. A custom derives its force from the tacit consent of the legislature and the people, and supposes an original, actual deed or agreement.
3. Customs are general or, particular customs. 1. By general customs is meant the common law itself, by which proceedings and determinations in courts are guided.
Notice the common law is guided by general customs of man (not by the principles of God).
JEOPARDY: 3. The constitution declares that no person shall "for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." The meaning of this is, that the party shall, not be tried a second time for the same offence after he has once been convicted or acquitted of the offence charged, by the verdict of a jury, and judgment has passed thereon for or against him; but it does not mean that he shall not be tried for the offence, if the jury have been discharged from necessity or by consent, without giving any verdict; or, if having given a verdict, judgement has been arrested upon it, or a new trial has been granted in his favor; for, in such a case, his life and limb cannot judicially be said to have been put in jeopardy. 4 Wash. C. C. R. 410; 9 Wheat. R. 579; 6 Serg. & Rawle, 577; 3. Rawle, R. 498; 3 Story on the Const. 1781. Vide 2 Sumn. R. 19. This great privilege is secured by the common law. Hawk. P. C., B. 2, 35; 4 Bl. Com. 335.
4. This was the Roman law, from which it has been probably engrafted upon the common law. Vide Merl. Rep. art. Non bis in idem. Qui de crimine publico accusationem deductus est, says the Code, 9, 2, 9, ab alio super eodem crimine deferri non potest. Vide article Non bis in idem.
Again, confirmation that the common law is influenced by Roman Law, and not God's Law.
JOURNAL: common law. A book used among merchants, in which the contents of the waste-book are separated every month, and entered on the debtor and creditor side, for more convenient posting in the ledger.
The above definition shows that the "common law" is commonly used by merchants, because it is commercial law.
COMMON LAW: That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.
Notice the common law derives its force and authority from the people (not from God).
LAW, COMMON: The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.
3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554.
4. The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson's Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362. SOURCES OF THE LAW. By this expression is understood the authority from which the laws derive their force.
10. The tacit laws, which derive their authority from the consent of the people, without any legislative enactment, may be subdivided into 1st. The common law, which is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decisions of our own courts. It is very difficult, in many cases, to ascertain what is this common law, and it is always embarrassing to the courts. Kirl. Rep. Pref. In some states, it has been enacted that the common law of England shall be the law, except where the same is inconsistent with our constitutions and laws. Customs which have been generally adopted by the people, have the force of law. The principles of the Roman law, being generally founded in superior wisdom, have insinuated themselves into every part of the law. Many of the refined rules which now adorn the common law appear there without any acknowledgment of their paternity, and it is at this source that some judges dipt to get the wisdom which adorns their judgments. The proceedings of the courts of equity and many of the admirable distinctions which manifest their wisdom are derived from this source. To this fountain of wisdom the courts of admiralty owe most of the law which governs in admiralty cases.
This definition also states that Roman Law is superior law (I thought God's Law was the superior law!), and that the Roman law has insinuated itself into every part of the common law.
MARRIAGE: 12. The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law.
Natural and Public law are opposed to God's Law. Natural law is made by and for the natural man, which receiveth not the things of the spirit of God. Why is not God's Law mentioned in this definition, since God ordained marriage? Because common law is not based upon God's Law, but man's law.
STATUTE: 9. Among the civilians, the term statute is generally applied to all sorts of laws and regulations; every provision of law which ordains, permits, or prohibits anything is a statute without considering from what source it arises. Sometimes the word is used in contradistinction to the imperial Roman law, which, by way of eminence, civilians call the common law.
Again, the "common law" is another term for Roman Law (not God's Law).
Miscellaneous
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: A term used in the civil law, nearly synonymous with fortuitous. event. (q. v.) 2 Sm. & Marsh. 572. In the common law commonly called the act of God. (q. v.) 2 Smed. & Marsh. Err. & App. 572.
VIS MAJOR: a superior force. In law it signifies inevitable accident.
2. This term is used in the civil law in nearly the same way that the words act of God, (q. v.) are used in the common law.
Interesting how the common law attributes natural disasters to God, as if He deliberately sets out to destroy property and people with hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning, etc.
INFANT: 5. Considerable changes of the common law have probably taken place in many of the states.
MEMORY, TIME OF: According to the English common law, which has been altered by 2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 71, the time of memory commenced from the reign of Richard the First, A. D. 1189. 2 Bl. Com. 31.
Evidence that the common law has been revised, changed, and altered with time. In addition, the common law, at any one time, differs from State to State, country to country, and from one period of time to another. Allowing people to pick and choose which parts of the common law to obey, and which ones to ignore. God's Law does not change; what God defines as good and evil at one time, will still be good and evil at a later time.
CHRISTIANITY: The religion established by Jesus Christ.
2. Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.
It is important to note that only the "common law of Pennsylvania" has declared Christianity to be a part of it (emphasis on the word "part"). In other words, only "part" of the common law is based on Christianity. The other parts of the common law, as have been proved, is taken from merchant law, commercial law, civil law, Roman law, and human reason. This goes directly contrary to scripture, for God's Law is being yoked (merged together) with man's laws; believers are being yoked with unbelievers, righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, and Christ with Belial.
2 Corinthians 6:14-16, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"
Besides, man's laws always have parts of it that can be found in God's Laws, such as laws punishing murder, stealing, etc., It does not mean it is a godly system of law.
It is also important to notice from the above definition that only the common law of Pennsylvania declared this. Not the "common law" of any other place, state, country, or people. This shows how the common law changes, and it very different, from place to place. When someone says they follow the "common law", what "common law" are they referring to? Can they just pick and choose which common law at will to follow, and disregard other common laws? Thus becoming their own god, determining for themselves what is good and evil?
Conclusion
Every law dictionary I have looked at verifies that the common law and God's Law are opposed to each other. I have not been able to verify that the common law is or was based upon God's Law. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)