Sunday, December 15, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Texas Ruling Still Good Law: No Oath, Decision Void
False or no oath equals no authority
994 S. W. 2d 316
(Tx. App. - El Paso)
PRIETO BAIL BONDS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 08-00342-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas,
El Paso.
May 27, 1999
Rehearing Overruled July 14, 1999
After criminal defendant failed to appear in court, the 34th District Court, El Paso County, Jack
Ferguson, J., entered judgment forfeiting $40,000 bail bond. Bail bond surety appealed. The Court of
Appeals initially affirmed, 948 S.W.2d 69. The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded for
reconsideration. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals, Larsen, J., held that: (1) senior judge who signed
judgment nisi was required, as appointed official, to take constitutional oath, and (2) because judgment nisi
was invalid, application for bail forfeiture was unsupported.
Reversed and rendered.
1. Criminal Law 1031(1)
Bail bond surety preserved for direct appeal its challenge to authority of senior judge who signed
judgment nisi, as prerequisite to forfeiture of bond, where surety raised objection after the judgment nisi
issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing.
2. Judges 16(1)
Retired judge who exercised statutory election to become judicial officer was nevertheless
“appointed” to position of availability by presiding judge, who determined retired judge’s eligibility for
service, and thus, retired judge, who as senior judge signed judgment nisi, was not excused from taking oath
required of “appointed officers.” Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1; V.T.C.A., Government Code §§
74.055, 75.001.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
3. Judges 16(1)
Senior judge, who held no true permanent office and was merely assigned to various courts from
time to time, nevertheless qualified as public “officer” by virtue of his being trusted with independent and
sovereign powers, and thus, senior judge, who signed judgment nisi, was not excused from taking oath
required of “appointed officers.” Vernon’s Ann.Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
4. Officers and Public Employees 1
An individual is a public “officer,” within meaning of constitutional provision requiring oaths of
appointed officers, if any sovereign function of the government is conferred upon that individual to be exercised for the benefit of the public largely independent of the control of others; public officer is one who
is authorized by law to independently exercise functions of either an executive, legislative, or judicial
character. Vernon’s Ann.Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1.
5. Judges 16(1)
Senior judges must take the oaths of officer required of appointed officers under the Texas
Constitution. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1.
6. Judges 16(1)
Oaths of office that senior judge, who signed judgment nisi as prerequisite to bail forfeiture,
previously took while serving as district judge and justice of the court of appeals did not survive expired
terms of office and satisfy his current constitutional obligation to take oaths. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const.
Art. 16 § 1.
7. Judges 16(1)
Oaths of office that senior judge, who signed judgment nisi as prerequisite to bail forfeiture,
previously took while serving as district judge and justice of the court of appeals were incomplete as a matter
of law, and thus, even if such oaths somehow survived his expired terms of office, they did not satisfy senior
judge’s current constitutional obligation, where earlier oaths did not include the “anti-bribery” oath presently
required. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1.
8. Judges 26
Because senior judge was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial
actions taken by him, including signing of judgment nisi, were without authority, and state’s application for
bail bond forfeiture, which depended on judgment nisi, was unsupported. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art.
16 § 1.
9. Bail 75.2(1)
To be entitled to forfeiture of bail bond, state need only show: (1) a valid bond; (2) that the
defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door; and (3) the defendant failed to appear within a
reasonable time of that call.
10. Bail 75.2(1)
State’s burden to show that defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door and
defendant filed to appear within a reasonable time of that call, as elements of bail bond forfeiture, is satisfied
by the judgment nisi.
____________________
Mark T. Davis, El Paso, for appellant. Jose R. Rodriguez, County Atty., El Paso, for appellee.
Before Panel No. 3 BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and CHEW, JJ.
OPINION ON REMAND
LARSEN, Justice.
Prieto Bail Bonds appeals a judgment nisi and subsequent judgment forfeiting a $40,000 bail bond
upon which Prieto was surety. We reverse and render.
Oath of Senior Judge Jerry Woodard
[1] In its first point of error, Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture is invalid because the
judgment nisi, a procedural prerequisite to the forfeiture, was defective as the judge who signed it failed to
take an oath of office. We initially affirmed the trial court’s judgment by holding that the presiding judge
was a de facto judge acting under color of title and the only means to challenge his authority was by quo
warranto proceeding.1
The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed our ruling and remanded the case
for analysis in light of its recent holding in Wilson v. State.2
Wilson overruled the previous dictate that a
procedural irregularity in the assignment of a former judge who is otherwise qualified may be challenged
only through a quo warranto proceeding.3
Under Wilson, a party may challenge the authority of a trial judge
by regular appeal provided the party objects pretrial.4
In this case, Prieto raised its challenge to Judge
Woodard after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. Since the judgment nisi is
the first notice of forfeiture given to a surety such a Prieto, 5
we find that Prieto objected timely.
Accordingly, we will address Prieto’s challenge to Judge Woodard’s authority pursuant to Wilson.
Facts
The Honorable Jerry Woodard was District Judge of the 34th District Court of El Paso County for
seventeen years, from 1969 to 1986. He was Justice on the Eight Court of Appeals from 1986 until April
1992. In 1992, he retired and requested assignment as a senior judge pursuant to the Texas Government
Code.6
1
Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 948 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997), rev’d, 978 S.W.2d 574 (tex.Crim.App.1998).
2
Wilson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).
3
Id. At 380.
4
Id.
5
Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.Ann. arts. 22.02, 22.03 (Vernon 1989).
6
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.001 (Vernon 1998). Judge Woodard took his last oath of office as a judge when he became justice of the appellate court in
1986; that term of office expired upon his retirement in 1992. He has not taken the oaths required by the
Texas Constitution 7
since that time.
8
Pursuant to the Texas Government Code,9
the presiding judge of the sixth administrative judicial
region appointed Judge Woodard to preside over the West Texas Impact Court NO. 1, Judge Woodard met
all statutory requirements for the appointment. No statute explicitly requires that judges appointed under
Section 74 take an oath of office before being assigned to cases as visiting judges.10 We must decide, then,
whether the two oaths constitutionally required of all “elected and appointed” officers apply to senior judges
assigned pursuant to Chapter 74, and if so, whether the judicial acts of a judge who has failed to take the
oaths are done without authority.
1. The Constitutional Requirement
Prieto contends that, when presiding over this case, Judge Woodard sat as a senior judge without
taking the two oaths of office required by the Texas Constitution. Thus, having failed to fulfill the
constitutional prerequisites to holding office, his judicial actions were void or voidable, including his signing
of the judgment nisi forfeiting the bond in question.11
Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution requires that ‘appointed officers’ take two oaths
before entering upon the duties of their offices.12 The statutory scheme for appointment of judges subject to
assignment does not require those officials to take an oath upon accepting an assignment.13 Nevertheless, the
Texas Code Construction Act provides that:
In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: (1) compliance with the constitutions of
this state and the United States is intended....14
The State makes several arguments as to why a senior judge need not take the constitutional oaths upon
electing that status. First, the State contends that Judge Woodard is not an officer subject to the oath
requirement because he was not ‘appointed’ to the position of senior judge, nor did he “hold office” as a
senior judge. He therefore is not an “appointed officer” required to take an oath under Article XVI, Section
1 of the Texas Constitution. In the alternative, the State argues that the oaths Judge Woodard took as a
Justice of the Eight Court of Appeals and as a District Judge satisfy the constitutional requirements.
2. “Appointment” vs. “Assignment”
7
Tex. Const. art XVI. § 1.
8
The Constitution requires that all elected and appointed officers of the State, before taking the oath of office, shall
swear or affirm that they have not paid or promised any money or thing of value or promised public office or
employment to secure votes or an appointment (the “anti-bribery oath”). This oath must be filed with the Secretary of
State before searing or affirming to the oath of office, in which the officer swears to faithfully execute his or her duties
and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas. Tex Const. art XVI, § 1.
9
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.054 (Vernon 1998).
10 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann § 74 (Vernon 1998).
11 See Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Ater, 845 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1992, orig. proceeding).
12 Tex.Const. art XVI, § 1(c), (d).
13 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Chs. 74 & 75 (Vernon 1998).
14 Tex. Gov’t Code. Ann. § 311.021 (Vernon 1998).
[2] The State focuses its argument on the transient nature of a senior judge’s assignments to various
courts in general, and Judge Woodard’s temporary assignment to the 34th District Impact Court in particular.
It argues that senior judges are merely randomly “assigned”15 to conduct the business of sundry courts when
needed and therefore do not fit the definition of an “appointed” officer required to take the oaths.16
Moreover, the State contends that the position of senior judge subject to assignment “materializes through a
voluntary election by the judicial retiree rather than through the process of election or appointment.” The
State refers us to Texas Government Code Section 75.001, which allows a retire to “elect to be a judicial
officer.”17
The retired judge’s election, however, does not automatically qualify the judge for assignments.
Retired judges are assigned by the presiding judge of an administrative region pursuant to Section 74.055 of
the Government Code. Under that section, the presiding judge maintains a list of retired and former judges
who meet certain requirements and therefore qualify for assignments.18
In order to be eligible for the presiding judge’s list, the retired judge must demonstrate that he or she: (1)
served as a judge for at least 48 months in a district, statutory probate, statutory county, or appellate court;
(2) developed substantial experience in an area of specialty (civil, criminal, or domestic relations); and (3)
was not removed from office. 19 The retired judge must also certify under oath that he or she did not resign
from office after receiving notice that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct instituted formal
proceedings against the judge. Finally, the retired judge must certify to the presiding judge that he or she will
not appear and plea as an attorney in any court in Texas for a period of two years.20 Thus, the retired judge’s
placement on the presiding judge’s list, and thereby his or her eligibility to receive assignments, is subject to
the presiding judge’s determination that the retired judge meets the statutory requirements. Under this
statutory scheme, the presiding judge is essentially a gate keeper, and as such, his or her placement of a
retired judge on the list is akin to an appointment of that retired judge to a position of availability for
assignment to various courts as needed.
3. Office Holder vs. Officer
[3, 4] The State further argues that an assigned judge cannot be an “officer” because the judge holds
no real office. We find, however, that the focus of our inquiry should be the nature of the judge’s function
as an “officer” rather than on the nature of the “office” held. An individual is a public officer if any
sovereign function of the government is conferred upon that individual to be exercised for the benefit of the
public largely independent of the control of others.21 A public officer is one who is authorized by law to
independently exercise functions of either an executive, legislative, or judicial character.
22 Specifically, the
authorization to pronounce judgment and to adjudicate the rights of parties appearing in court has been held
to be a sovereign function of the government and a mark of public office.23 Senior judges such as Judge 15 See Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055 (Vernon 1998) (judges subject to “assignment”).
16 There is no dispute that senior judges are no longer “elected officers” when they take senior status and make
themselves available for assignment.
17 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.001(a) (Vernon 1998).
18 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055(a) Vernon 1998).
19 Id.
20 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055(c) (Vernon 1998).
21 Guerrero v. Refugio County, 946 S.W.2d 558, 570 (Tex. Ap.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (citing Aldine Indep. Sch.
Dist. V. Standley, 154 Tex. 547, 280 S.W.2d 578, 583 (1955)).
22 State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 21, 931 (Tex. Crim. App.1994)(orig. proceeding.). Woodard, though they hold no true permanent office and are merely assigned to various courts from time to
time, are nevertheless authorized to function as judges and as such are entrusted with independent and
sovereign powers.24 Accordingly, we hold senior judges are “public officers.”
4. Senior Judges Must Take the Oaths
[5] Having found that senior judges are ‘appointed’ and are ‘officers’, we conclude that they must
take the oaths required of appointed officers under Article 16, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution when
taking status as a senior judge subject to assignment. We recognize that the position of senior judge does not
fit neatly within the traditional notion of an ‘appointed officer’. We are hard pressed, however, to hold that
one with authority to preside over litigation and adjudicate the interests of the litigants in a courtroom in the
State of Texas should, or can, be exempt from taking an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Texas.25
5. Survival of the Oath
[5, 7] The State contends, in the alternative, that the oaths Judge Woodard took as District Judge and
Justice of the Eight Court of Appeals satisfy the constitutional requirements. The State offers no authority in
support of this contention and we do not find the argument persuasive. Elected judges must take a new
oath with each new term: we can see no logic whereby a senior judge’s oath would survive an expired term
of office, while that taken by a judge successfully seeking re-election would not. In any event, we find that
Judge Woodard’s prior oaths were incomplete as a matter of law. Judge Woodard’s earlier oaths of
office, which were taken in 1986 and before, did not include the ‘anti-bribery’ oath. This oath was added to
the Texas Constitution only in 1989.26 It was required in 1992 when Judge Woodard took senior status and
in 1993 when he entered the judgment nisi in question. Accordingly, even if Judge Woodard’s previous
oaths continued to bless his status as a senior judge, they did not meet the constitution’s requirements at the
time he presided over this case.
6. The Judgment Fails Because the Judgment Nisi was Entered Without Authority
[8] Because Judge Woodard was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all
judicial actions taken by him in the case below were without authority.27 The Judgment Nisi therefore is
without effect.
[9,10] Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture must fail since the judgment nisi, at least in this
case, was an essential element of the State’s case. To be entitled to forfeiture of a bond, the State need only
show: (1) a valid bond; (2) that the defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door; and (3) the
defendant failed to appear within a reasonable time of that call. The burden of proof on the second and third
prongs is satisfied by the judgment nisi.28 In this case, the judgment nisi was entered into evidence at the
forfeiture hearing as Exhibit 1. Since the judgment nisi is without effect, however, it cannot satisfy the
State’s burden of proof in this case. We find no other evidence in the record to support prongs two and three
23 Thompson v. City of Austin, 979 S.W.2d 676, 683(Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.h).
24 Id.
25 Tex. Const. art XVI § 1.
26 Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 1(d) (amended Tex. H.J. Res. 40, § 1, 71st Leg. R.S., 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 6428).
27 See Ater, 845 S.W.2d at 337(actions taken by judge who filed to meet all requisites for qualification as retired judge
subject to assignment held null and void).
28 Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). of the State’s forfeiture case. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of forfeiture
and we sustain Prieto’s first point of error.
7. Void or Voidable?
Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard’s qualifications at the trial
level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done
wholly without authority, and thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, and therefore merely
voidable. Under either analysis, we must reverse. But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal
Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had never taken the
oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one
cannot become either a de jure or de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29
CONCLUSION
Having sustained Prieto’s first point of error, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render
judgment in favor of Prieto. Our disposition of this point makes it unnecessary for us to reach Prieto’s
remaining points of error.
29French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (opin. On sec. reh’g): see also Davis v. State, 956
S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997): Fain v. State, 986 S.W.2d 666, 675-76 (Tex. App. --Austin 1998, no pet. h.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Definition of a Human Being
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you.
The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ.
Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
"Individuals [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351.” [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34]. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Letter to Chief Judge of Alberta
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Edmonton Ecclesia 10755-133rd Street Edmonton Alberta no code non commercial
To: Gail Vickery the private woman acting as the
Chief Judge for the Provincial Courts of Alberta
3rd Floor, Bowker Building
9833-109th Street
Edmonton, Alberta
No Code, Non Commercial
From: minister Edward Jay-Robin: Belanger
Church office , 10755-133rd Street
Edmonton, Alberta
No Code, Non Commercial
Dear Gail,
I have been intimidated to show up for court date settings as put in place by the conflicted and disqualified Vaughn Myers, one of the judges you disqualified for his part in intimidating me to violate the commands of God. I have since 2000 had him in a conflicted position to proceed against me as a Judge as of his prejudice. My publication in an international magazine in 2001 and naming him publically on an international publically viewed website as a suspected cocaine user put him in a position of extreme prejudice. I do not and did not consent to the dates he offered on October 13th in Stony Plain Alberta and on January 26th in Jasper Alberta. He is disqualified and in no position to be setting dates I did not consent to….His offer was and is invalid and affected with prejudice and fraud.
On October 5th in Court room # 3 the only judge in Stony Plain not disqualified and stating as such, set me before Vaughn Myers, who he knew to be disqualified, on October 13th 2012, to set a date for trial for a charge instituted in February of 2010 over 2 years ago. That intimidated me to again have my faith violated and breached. I want that unnamed man acting as a judge removed as he intentionally set me before a man who intimidated me to violate the commands of God and in effect committed the same act of intimidation. That is not sanctioned in law in any circumstance and I do not consent to it!
I told Vaughn Myers I did not consent to the date of June 6th 2012 3 times as I have a criminal complaint against him. He told the clerk to write down that I did not consent to that date as he is disqualified.
He again on January 26th in Jasper Alberta appeared like magic and again I told him in front of witnesses I did not consent to any of his orders or the dates he offered by asking me if the date of May 11th would be acceptable. I asked him if his intent would be to intimidate me to violate the commands of God.
I told him I could not accept any of his orders or offers as it violated my faith in obeying the commands of God. He kept offering the date and finally I declined his offer for the third time in front of witnesses indicating I did not accept his offer as he is in conflict as he admitted on the record and he was intimidating me to violate the commands of God and submit to an earthly jurisdiction that has in fraud added to God’s laws.
I am a Christian minister not being a corporate entity and I form my name printed first middle last upper lower case as your law form stipulates in 4.2 of the Alberta Curriculum .
No law allows you or anyone else to alter my given Christian name for a financial purpose without my express fully informed consent! I have included proof the ALBERTA GOVERNMENT is a dead in law corporate entity for profit business that is a commercial entity subject to commercial law.
I am a living man and a minister of Christ who claims the commandments as my law and with to have any action decisions , orders or dates set or made by Vaughn Myers expunged from the record as they have been obtained in fraud in commission of intimidating this minister of Christ to submit to a false Gods codes rules and regulations which are only applicable to “persons” in law or legal fictions. Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 in the authorized King James Bible says we are not to show respect for persons like an organization of her majesty as section so simply defines as only being persons , as a person is a mask worn by a player on a stage. See section 2 definitions criminal code for person. Note the lawful definition of the word includes. What is included excludes all else. Ignorance of the letter of the law is no defense.
Our ministers have been intentionally intimidated from doing what they have a right to do by your Judges when they try to tell them they are not persons in law. They are accused of being crazy.
The Alberta Curriculum Act is the law regarding names in Alberta. Where did the court get the sanction to alter it?
I am being intimidated by all of your false oathed judges to consent to their jurisdiction by showing up with the threat that if I do not appear to be further intimidated upon the assumption I am a dead corporate debtor I will be hunted down and arrested so they can perpetrate the crime of treason upon her majesty’s ability to defend the laws of God.
I do not consent, waive all perceived and assumed benefits the de facto corporation thinks I accepted and await your decision to invoke an investigation upon Vaughn Myers who was the first judge to hear our case in March of 2010. He was in conflict then as of my publication of a letter to him and other de facto officials in December of 2000 regarding possession of marijuana. The whole case went fwd as of his initiation which jeopardizes the crowns position as of the error in law which speaks to fraud and private liability.
I accept a reply on this additional complaint to be in line and connected to my first and second complaint to you regarding the renegade actions of your judges intimidating men and women to violate their faith in obeying the commands of God that her Majesty most dutifully defends.
Blessings upon knowing my sincere intent and expressed will to not not be intimidated to submit to the codes rules and regulations of a false god defacto corporate government with a commercial motive and impetus for profit in mind. Matthew 6:24 applies.
minister of Christ in his service Edward-Jay-Robi
Pope lifts Immunity off of Judges..Holy Liability!
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
By Marcy OsterOctober 18, 2010 10:40pm
JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.
"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.
Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.
"With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.
An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10.
The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday.
"Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition."
Tags: Top Headlines
We've redesigned our website! Now is a critical time for you to support JTA. Please donate today.
Marcy Oster is a JTA correspondent in Israel. She worked at the Cleveland Jewish News for nearly 12 years and was senior staff reporter when she made aliyah in 2000. She has won several awards for her writing from organizations including The Press Club of Cleveland, Society for Professional Journalists, Women in Communications and the American Jewish Press Association.
Read more: http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews#ixzz2XFBLdbl4
Monday, June 17, 2013
California acts a front man for Monsanto
NaturalNews) Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide -- multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).
The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors." You can read the abstract here.
There's a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:
ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million
ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm
ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm
The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.
This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the 'net all weekend. Women were asking things like: "You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?" It doesn't exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don't have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk.
But it's not just eating glyphosate that's the problem. You're also DRINKING it.
California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water
In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdf
The document openly admits:
Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources.
It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto's quack science team: "Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats."
Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of "1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water."
Yes, that's 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation.
What's even more shocking is that California's allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level -- 700 ppb.
Yes, California -- the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else -- actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its "official" report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government!
Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier
Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier -- in 1995 -- in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:
Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. ...In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.
Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells... reduced sperm counts in male rats... an increase in fetal loss...
In other words, California knew -- or should have known -- that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its "Public Health Goal" documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation.
Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%
Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document.
You can view that document here:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdf
It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb -- still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week.
This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it's right out of Monsanto's P.R. department: "Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans," it says.
Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto's chemicals are killing women
Now it's 2013. We've seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We've also now seen the "parts per trillion" study showing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate.
We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this -- to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides).
Glyphosate is the new DDT
Based on what we're seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it's contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies.
Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth.
And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they've allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors?
"Run for the cure!" And don't label GMOs, either, because you don't have a right to know whether you're eating deadly poison in your food.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040808_glyphosate_breast_cancer_drinking_water.html#ixzz2WWRXOZqS
Understanding Jurisdiction
Anonymous
Theme:
*
Income Tax all based on signing an oath / affirmation...
*
Importance of Learning a Trade...
In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an
income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the
remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to
be /'anti-government.'/ They do not talk much about these roots. Few
even know them.
We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It
succeeded only because the term /'jurisdiction' /was still well
understood at that time as meaning /'oath spoken.' 'Juris'/, in the
original Latin meaning, is /'oath.' 'Diction',/ as everyone knows, means
/'spoken.'/ The protest obviously did not happen here in the USA. It
occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there,
most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this
nation. Here is what happened:
The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the
churches and nobility owned copies due to the extremely high cost of
paper. Contrary to what you have been taught, it was not the invention
of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept
had been around for a very long time. It just had no application.
Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to
write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The
handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those
with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of
the nobility was attributable to feudalism. /'Feud'/ is Old English for
/'oath.' / The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved
land, itself, save to hunter / gatherers, is rather useless. Land is
useful to farming. So that is how the nobility made their wealth. No,
they did not push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility would
not sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid
rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the
rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if
you could not have moved out? Then you would have a feel for what
feudalism was all about.
A tenant was not a freeman. He was a servant to the /(land)/lord, the
noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble
required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of
fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring /(extending that oath in that
last act to the heirs of his estate)./ That oath established a
servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a
variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell.
The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce
of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an
/'income tax.' / The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the
productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant
was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as
a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his
benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus,
the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to
a /'personal and dependent deductions.'/
The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and
unalleiged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they would
also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a
sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few
coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He would learn a trade.
He would never need to become a tenant farmer. He would keep what he
earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically
about seven. The tradesmen did not need adolescents; they needed someone
strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under
13. By age 21 he would have learned enough to practice the craft. That
is when the contract expired. He was then called a /'journeyman.' / Had
he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is
*/"Jur-nee-man."/* He was a /'man,'/formerly /("nee")/, bound by oath
/('jur')/. He would then go to work for a /'master' (craftsman)/. The
pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth
more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society
that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the
exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at
the trade, he would be recognized by the market as a /'master'/
/(craftsman)/ and people would be begging him to take their children as
apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep
what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran
for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of
years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen
at one point established guilds /(means 'gold')/ as a protection against
the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes
by compelled oaths.
When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in
the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally
swore to /'serve gold.' /Only gold. He swore he would only work for pay!
Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that
oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very
benevolent master: gold! /(Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted
Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They
would love to have you think that the 'G' in the middle of their logo
stands for 'God.' The obvious truth is that it stands for 'GOLD' - [some
say 'Generation.'])/
Then the Bible came to print. The market for this time wasn’t the
wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants.
They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the
tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined
life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that
the tradesmen were the market was that they would also be taught how to
read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know
how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich/(and the
priests)/ nobody else knew how to read.
These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing
oaths /(Matthew 5:33-37)/. This was news to them. For well over a
millennia they had been trusting that the church - originally just the
Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling
them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out
that Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/, */"Swear not at all..."/* /'oaths.'
/Talk about an eye-opener.
Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years.
Without oaths there would have been no tenants, laboring for the
nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society
was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet,
it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done
it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and
giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that
was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. /'Livid' /might be a better
term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the
book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia
long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up
with a better scheme. You call it the /'Reformation.'/
In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe
adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of
founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The
church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple
thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.
Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a
statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful
oaths. Jesus said, */"None."/* The churches all said /(and still say)/,
*/"None, except . . ."/* Who do you think was /(is)/ right?
The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of
England. But with every new /'reformed' /church still opposing the clear
words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They
exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them
preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of
speech. But they could not establish a church, which followed Jesus’
words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed
what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those
who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in
church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he
encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black
hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t
miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term
/'you'/ was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a
superior. /'Thee' /was the familiar pronoun, used among family and
friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun
/'thee' /or by their Christian names, /'George, Peter, Robert, etc.'/ We
call these folk /'Quakers.' /That was a nickname given to them by a
judge. One of them had told the judge that he would better */"Quake
before the Lord, God almighty."/* The judge, in a display of irreverent
disrespect replied, */"Thee are the quaker here."/* They found that
pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer /(as you shall soon see)/,
and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the
Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to
it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the
losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new
/'Reformed Churches.'/ Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed
sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church
had not.
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, cannot go bankrupt.
It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament
did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by
current standards a very low tax, a tithe /(10%)/. But it made a deadly
mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this
income tax as a tax /'without jurisdiction,'/ at least so far as they
went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they did not
have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing
this servitude, there was /'no jurisdiction.'/ And they were right.
Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and
pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who had
thought the Quakers were /'extremists' /suddenly began to listen to
them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned,
while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to
them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded
significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in
the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes
were not enough to offset these further losses. The tithe /(income)/ tax
was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The
members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this
movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next
generation would swear an oath. Who would then farm the lands of the
nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for
subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the
payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral
whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was
about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets
it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that
church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the
diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They
had always held a position of superiority in the society. What would
they do when all of society treated them only as equals?
They began to use the term /'anarchy.'/ But England was a monarchy, not
an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so
those in government thought. There is an aspect of a monarchy that
Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two
centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An
expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by
demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, */"jump."/* Everyone
jumps.
Why do they jump? Simple. Ir is a crime to NOT jump. To /'willfully fail
(hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command' /is
considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a
Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that was
not possible. There really was /'no jurisdiction.' /And that would have
done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It
ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown!
Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!
A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a
simple matter of black and white. Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/: /*"swear
not at all."*/ They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly
brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official
would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the
defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to
testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self.
He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record,
the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That
expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred
defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against
the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But
they were not filled as you would envision them. The men who had refused
the oaths were not there. Their children were. There was a /'Stand-in'/
law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and
children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and
neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical
for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in
for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living,
keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on
charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually
find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve
his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see
him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The
family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation.
Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick
starvation unless one of the children stood in for the breadwinner.
Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time
was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family
earnings.
That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of
England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for
their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails.
They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man
might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on
earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the
unblemished lambs. /(And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually
every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and
church be duly embarrassed.)/ Despite the high mortality rate the jails
still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be
raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners,
the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was
premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest
crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been
set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There
were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city
streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in
cold, dark homes, wondering how they would exist when the food and water
ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address
the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the
crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition.
Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions,
and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should
note that chaos /(and nearly anarchy: 'no crown')/ came to be, not as
the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of
the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’
words did not bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ
brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall
and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real
felons, before the government was removed from office under force of
arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an /'affirmation in
lieu of oath.'/ The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they
had been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also
prohibited affirmations /(Matthew 5:36,37)/, calling the practice an
oath */"by thy head." /*Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of
an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!
When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in
droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves
and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation.
That put a lot of them here in the United States of America, enough that
they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked
the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their
demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in
balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the
Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in
that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a
crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an /(overt)/
ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government
is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the
Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try
a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been
COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act /'committed' /- it is the
opposite, an act /'omitted.'/ In this nation /'doing nothing' /cannot be
criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do
something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted
about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do
something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING
- save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.
Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn /(or affirmed) /to
support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to
enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these
people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official
/'fail'/ to perform his lawful duties, he would evidence in that
omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION.
Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of
perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of
office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that is still the
situation. It is just that the government has very cleverly obscured
that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income.
As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in
advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late
19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax was
not apportioned, and could not be apportioned; that because of the fact
that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an
up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to
the census. But the income tax was not absolutely abolished. The court
listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as
a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a /'kick
back'/ or even a /'return.' /Essentially, the court said that what
Congress gives, it can demand back. As that would not be income derived
within a State, the rule of apportionment did not apply. Make sense?
Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to
answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a
person needs /'standing.' /The petitioner has to show that an action has
occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the
Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers
demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question could
not have come up.
Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing
his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been
interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side
job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of
income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from
the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is
pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it
is far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves
paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming
back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of
office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was
dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court
ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That is a very
strange concept at law. Actually, it is an impossibility at law. The
only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the
Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior
conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling
nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the
Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th
Amendment.
The 16th Amendment allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever
source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it
doesn’t say /(nor do the statues enacted under it)/. The Supreme Court
has stated that this Amendment granted Congress /'no new powers.' /That
is absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but
only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a
benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to
tax officers’ incomes /(as benefits of office)/ to their incomes from
other sources /(from whatever source derived)./ The 16th Amendment and
the statutes enacted thereunder do not have to say whose incomes are
subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers.
That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to/'willfully fail'
/to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by
monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist
under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that
you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, */"Man, I’d
never be so foolish as to claim that."/* I will bet you $100 that I can
prove that you did it, and that you will be forced to agree. Did you
ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it!
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed.
You declared that it was /'true'/ that you were /'under penalties of
perjury.' /Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury
you have to FIRST be under oath /(or affirmation)/. You know that. It is
common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you would need to be
under oath, right? Right. There is no other way, unless you pretend to
be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically.
There would be no oath. Hence it is a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on
making a false oath. So, to claim to be /'under penalties of perjury'
/is to claim that you are under oath. That claim could be true, could be
false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false
claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
You have read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and
penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you
say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you cannot even be
placed in jeopardy of penalty /(trial)/ a second time.
The term /'penalties' /is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just
state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single
criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true.
There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be
twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a
conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for
life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That is why
you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction /(oath
spoken),/ allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury
/(especially for a perjury of official oath)/. You have been tricked
into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You are not under oath
enabling the commission of perjury. You cannot be twice penalized for a
single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that
the government would not try to deceive you, you signed an income tax
form, pretending that there was jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ where there
was none.
Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that
you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to
have income and you will be charged with /'willful failure to file,'/ a
crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!
Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN /(or affirmed)
/before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter
all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income
from criminal activities, that information would later be used against
him on a criminal charge. If he did not list it, then swore that the
form was '/true, correct and complete,' /he could be charged and
convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he did not.
The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse
to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to
each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide
testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income
tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers
on the /'gross' /and /'net income'/ lines, forcing a NO answer on the
/'tax due'/ line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the
use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of
/'testimony.'/
Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the
notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made
and signed /'Under penalties of perjury.' /The prior ruling of the
Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on
which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on
the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the
taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and
early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan
had no current relevance.
*_There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal
income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the
court_.*The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause
and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official,
a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single
criminal act of perjury /(to his official oath)/. The court has
jurisdiction to try such a person for a /'failure.' /That jurisdiction
arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.
However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should
take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and
then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a
federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed
statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of
oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under
federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully
makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.
The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he
truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then
duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his
ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements */"I am under
penalties of perjury"/* and */"I am not a federal official or
employee"/* would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury.
As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the
last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury
clause was a FALSE statement. We cannot have that proof on the record,
can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for
/'willful failure'/ where the defendant took the witness stand and
testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer
has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy
come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they were not
federal persons. Unfortunately, they did not tell the court that while
under oath.
A most curious phenomenon occurs at /'willful failure' /trials where the
defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he is
not a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least
that is surely what he would try to claim if the issue were ever raised.
He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand.
The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so
without an oath. As he is not under oath, nothing he says can constitute
a technical perjury as a contradiction to the /'perjury clause' /on the
tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him
guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a
person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income
tax form, FALSELY claiming that he is under an oath which if perjured
may bring him a duality of penalties. It is still a matter of
jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/. That has not changed in over 400 years.
The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to
command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to
VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject
to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is
/'voluntary,' /in the beginning, but /'compulsory' /once you volunteer.
You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a
Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false
statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to
jurisdiction. Gotcha!
Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms
into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell
the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to
make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man
owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it.
But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that
government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of
those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other
forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they
may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real,
sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the
pretended federal officers /(including you)/ would vanish to zero. It is
still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate
modifications, so you do not immediately realize it. Yes, it is a
jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a
student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You
have wondered who are persons /'subject to the jurisdiction' /of the
United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily
explained, again in the proper historical perspective.
The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former
slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil
beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from
occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more
than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act,
subjecting themselves to the /'jurisdiction'/ of the United States. You
should now realize that an oath is the way that was / is accomplished.
After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves
were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they could
not vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over
what had occurred in the prior several years, and they were not about to
extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government
found a way to force that.
It ordered that voters had to be /'registered.' /And it ordered that to
become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution. The white folks, by and large, were not about to do that.
They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an
unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a /'State had no right
to secede.' /The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the
Constitution. The vast majority of them did not have the slightest idea
of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!
Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist,
these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their
assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by
Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an
OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively
among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously
refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of
the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the
former slaves. The former slaves became de jure /(by oath)/ federal
officials, /'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' /by that
oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of
their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment.
There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40
acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.
Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will.
For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or
petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded
under the oaths of the grand jurors /(indictment)/ or under the oath of
office of a federal officer /(information)/. Even before a warrant may
be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later
be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be
charged with a perjury. It is all about oaths. And the one crime for
which immunity, even /'sovereign immunity,' /cannot be extended is ...
perjury.
You must understand /'jurisdiction.'/ That term is only understandable
when one understands the history behind it. Know what /'jurisdiction'/
means. You did not WILLFULLY claim that you were /'Under penalties of
perjury' /on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it
voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You did not realize the
import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a
MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness
rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath
of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just
did not give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover
you have made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have
been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise
to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like
all of us, learn by your mistakes.
You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all
income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be /'under oath'/ a
perjury of which might be /'twice'/ penalized. Explain that you have
never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never
will. You made this mistake on every tax form you had ever signed. But
now that you understand the words, you will most certainly not make that
mistake again! That will be the end of any possibility that you will
ever be charged with /'willful failure to file.' /Too simple? No, it is
only as simple as it is supposed to be. Jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ is
a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction by having
really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you are not under oath and
abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided on which the
government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails
and you become a freeman. A freeman cannot be compelled to perform any
act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should
he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of
the definition abolished here.
It is a matter of history. European history, American history and
finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you,
making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you
know. If you know that you have never sworn an oath of office, and now
understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free.
Truth does that. Funny how that works.
Jesus Christ was that Truth. His command that His followers: /*"But I
say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's
throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34). /That was the method by which He set men
free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords;
they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly.
Who would farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the
people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government
do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a
witness, charging Him with /'sedition'/ for the out-of-context,
allegorical statement that He would /'tear down the temple' //(a
government building)/. At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the
administered oath. /(Matthew 27:14). /That was unheard of!
The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question and
attempted to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus by accusing Him of sedition;
Pilate said: /*"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many
things they witness against thee?"*/ /(Matthew 27:13/). Pilate failed to
obtain a compelled oath / jurisdiction over Jesus Christ, as He
responded thusly: /*"And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that
the governor marvelled greatly."*/ /(Matthew 27:14)/
He did not /'take' /the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the
judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said
that Jesus was the man /(guilty of sedition)/? No, not out loud, not
yet. But in his heart he had said so. That is what this trial was all
about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the
oath. In those few words, /*"And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of
the Jews? And he answering said unto him, _Thou sayest it._" *//(Mark
15:2). /Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge,
where it belonged. The court could not get jurisdiction.
Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus
off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power
might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel
with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of
any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the /'protection of
Rome.' /Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need
do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise,
Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of /'person or
persons unknown'/ which would really be at the hands of the civil
government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that
oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate
/*"..marvelled greatly."*/ He had never before met a man who preferred
to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be
unclean - the /'great unwashed masses.' /The elite were sworn to Caesar.
When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that
/'failure of jurisdiction' /required that the official perform a
symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would /'wash his
hands.' /Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn,
he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could
obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law could not kill Him, nor could it
prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His
death. How was that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused
to be sworn. But the law could not do that. Only a mob could do so,
setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one
failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no
ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is
chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or
fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is
chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as
the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend
the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they
owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason,
because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the
law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades.
Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the
people, some of the time. That /'some of the time'/ regarded oaths and
jurisdiction. We were/(and still are)/ a Christian nation, at least the
vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by
churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still
profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a
/'lawful oath.'/ We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but
more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
Jesus said: /*"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven;
for it is God's throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34)/, i.e. /'swear no oaths,'
/extending that even to oaths which do not name God. If His followers
obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day
would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against
Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer /(under oath)/. Thus,
Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all
they had, making themselves what today we call /'judgement proof.'/ They
owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt,
they were to offer to settle out-of-court /(without oath)/ by giving the
plaintiff their coat. That was not a metaphor. Jesus meant those words
in the literal sense!
It is rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian
and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps
inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation
instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step.
You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in
self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It is all
a matter of /'jurisdiction'/ /(oath spoken)/, which a Christian cannot
abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can
go to no one on earth. We cannot serve two masters. No one can. As
Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and
allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his
father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and
to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.
As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even
affirmations, this writer honestly cannot envision. Certainly it would
have been anarchy /(no crown)/. Would it have also been chaos? My
initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the
Quakers in 1786, I cannot envision a functional government without the
use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a
device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that.
The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to
advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes,
unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted
to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own
death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a
compelled oath and an offered oath.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos
as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical
premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that
chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use
oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We
ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely
that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned,
without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves,
rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a
complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury /(a panel of sworn men)/, to
punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that
society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind.
Even if you cannot, you still have to obey His command. That will set
you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never
been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without
oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives.
Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE
claims of being under oath /(of office)/ on those income tax forms. You
claimed /'jurisdiction.' /Only you can reverse that by stating the
Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It will still work. It is the only thing
that will work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of
treason extended to you /(or your daughters)/. You can cause it. Know
and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the
government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them
will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they
see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to
realize that you are not the extremist they originally thought!
If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here,
income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the
knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no
one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there would be no
servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could
ever happen. That is only money. Power comes by having an ignorant
people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two
or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure /'between the
lines'/ of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on
to your Christian friends. But save a copy. *Will it to your
grandchildren*. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge.
Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you
free - and it will scare the government silly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Food for thought:*
*/"The world runs on the initiative of about 5% of the people; the rest
need orders. /*
/*The consensus of the other 95% on the subject of one’s relationship
with: government – banks – tax agencies – courts and corporations (all
separate realms) is defective in that such inert abstractions have been
accorded superiority over living beings.*/
/*Governments are transitory mental contrivances set up by the clever
few for the purpose of living off the efforts of the trusting many – a
generalization, yes, but also the truth."*/
Top <#>
Home
Fun
Family
Education / Facts
Religion / Philosophy
Famous Quotes
NWO
Law, Tax, Guns, Money
Sovereignty
Health
So you want to know what a licence is
From Bouviers law dictionary;
LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade.
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.
“License” is derived from and rooted in the word; “Licentious” (mine); LICENTIOUSNESS. The doing what one pleases without regard to the rights of others; it differs from liberty in this, that the latter is restrained by natural or positive law, and consists in doing whatever we please, not inconsistent, with the rights of others, whereas the former does not respect those rights. Wolff, Inst. §84
Now, you may notice only one of two belligerent parties claim authority, to give the other party authority, to carry on a specified trade. Who and what is a belligerent party? You would think the word “licentious” would be in here, (Bouviers) not? But it isn’t. Now, who in their right mind would even consider asking for permission to apply (carry on) his trade? You may notice that this definition is pertaining to international law and as such, who then, holds Canada’s license? The Bank of England? Who issued the corporation known as “Canada” a license to carry on a specified trade or any trade? Someone’s gotta have it. Who’s got it…….? Who is the authority?
Now, the second one is a contract, a right given by some competent authority. Okay let’s stop right there, we really don’t need to go any further than that!
In order to be able to claim competent authority, you, of course, would have to have a license. Right? ALL LEGAL FICTIONS are under license, to someone. If someone, can show me a competent legal fiction, with authorized claim in commerce, to enter common law jurisdiction, contrary to section 39, original Latin version of the Magna Carta 1215, I tell you what: “I will chew on someone’s dirty shorts and air it on UTube.”
The third one is self explanatory, the act of “LICENTIOUSNESS”, simply means, “the obtaining and usage of ones license, at one’s pleasure, with total disregard to another’s rights.” Pretty simple isn’t it? Especially when the word “LICENCIOUS” simply means, “unlawfully evil.” Add it up, slice it or dice it any way you can, to go out and apply, make application (beg, plead, implore) to receive a license, then turn around and demand, I do the same as you, is also “unlawfully evil.” Slaves making unlawful claims on freemen, for the simple reason of; “I’m a grateful slave and you should be too” is ignorance at its highest level. A moron, a.k.a. sheep, comes to mind (a person of arrested intelligence whose mentality is judged incapable of developing beyond that of a normal child 8-12 years old). Who’s following the piper???
Taken from my perfected claim of right;
I claim that, the Crowns claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim and whereas, Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction. Furthermore, I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings, acting as, persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporate persons such as “The Courts of Saskatchewan” and/or “Government of Saskatchewan” etc. Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines with smoke and mirrors, deception, outright lie’s and too numerous to mention false claims as to the well settled division, between the Crown created legal entity known as the “PERSON” and the flesh and blood creation of the Creator known as a “man”, is nothing short of theft, fraud, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form. Furthermore, I claim that “all persons”, acting as, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof. Furthermore,
I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretence of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir.
Now, there exists, in this world, only two types of entities; the living kind and the dead. Any assumptions, erroneous beliefs or preconceived notions as to the former statement being untrue had better be backed up by undisputable, irrefutable proof. There are not, any “competent persons” anywhere! Hence, the dead cannot claim authority over the living, PERIOD!! No ifs, no ands no buts!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)