allcreatorsgifts

EXCLUSIVE NEW BIBLE YANKS 'FATHER,' JESUS AS 'SON OF GOD'

2012-02-13T01:36:00.000-07:00

WND EXCLUSIVE
NEW BIBLE YANKS 'FATHER,' JESUS AS 'SON OF GOD'
Islam-sensitive project ignites controversy, online petition
Published: 01/30/2012 at 8:54 PM

By Joel Richardson

In the world of questionable and sometimes downright silly Bible translations, one would think that it couldn’t get any worse.

After all, we’ve seen the “In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth” Ebonics Bible, as well as the “Apostle’s Log” Star Trek English paraphrase Bible. In a more serious effort, the New Oxford Annotated Bible was created in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars in order to set forth a more “gay” revisionist interpretation of Scripture.

But now there is a major controversy developing as the latest altered Bibles are being created by organizations that most would think of as being more conservative and reasonable. At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

That’s right: Muslim-friendly Bibles.

Included in the controversial development is the removal of any references to God as “Father,” to Jesus as the “Son” or “the Son of God.” One example of such a change can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL. It changes Matthew 28:19 from this:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

to this:

“cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

A large number of such Muslim-sensitive translations already are published and well-circulated in several Muslim-majority nations such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

According to Joshua Lingel of i2 Ministries, “Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating ‘Father’ as ‘Lord.’ ‘Guardian.’ ‘Most High’ and ‘God.” In Bangla, ‘Son of God’ is mistranslated ‘Messiah of God’ consistent with the Quran’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus.”

In response to these translations, many within the evangelical missions movement as well as many former Muslim converts and indigenous Christians from countries where these translations are being used, are indignant. After numerous appeals have been rejected, a petition has been launched to call for the end to the translations.

More than 3,000 already have signed up.

While the organizations that are promoting these translations are adamant that replacing such terms as Father with Lord or Master best conveys the inspired meaning of the text, many of the indigenous Christian leaders from the countries where these translations are being promoted are broadly rejecting the translations.

The indigenous believers see the introduction of these American-made translations with which they so strongly disagree as a form of American cultural imperialism or colonialism.

According to Turkish pastor Fikret Böcek, such new translations are, “an all-American idea with absolutely no respect for the sacredness of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church.”

According to the testimony of one leader from a church in Bangladesh, one of the most problematic aspects of this development is that it gives fuel to the often-heard Muslim claim that Christians are liars who change their Bibles to deceive Muslims. Once a Bible translation is well established within any country, the introduction of such radically different translations reinforces the Muslim charge and undermines trust in the Christian community.

According to Lingel, who can be contacted at info@i2ministries.org, the crisis in translation methodology is largely due to “a postmodern literary bias” that has crept into some translation circles in recent decades. Such translations would seem to demand that the divine author of the Bible change rather than the Muslim reader.

“But Jesus demanded that many of his listeners change,” says Lingel, explaining that instead of demanding that Muslim readers change their understanding of God, these translations seem to convey that God must accommodate the religious prejudices of Muslims.

“Lingel is also the co-editor of a new book, “Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel,” which represents the first major response against Muslim-sensitive translations as well as the larger movement often referred to as the “Insider Movement” or “Chrislam.”

According to reports, of the roughly 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 remove the terms father and son with reference to God and Jesus.

Lingel’s response is quite direct, “These projects need to be defunded.”

Yet according to a recent Forbes “200 Largest U.S. Charities” report, the Orlando-based Wycliffe Bible Translators USA is the third most well-funded religious charity in the states.

Proponents of the Insider Movement claim that this method of reaching Muslims is bearing great fruit. Opponents, however, point out that the so-called converts within the Insider Movement remain “hidden” within their Muslim culture, continue to attend mosque, pray like a Muslim, acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet, the Quran as inspired, and make the Muslim credal confession, known as the “shahada.”

Some now claim that there are as many as 300,000-1.2 million new “Insider believers” in Bangladesh. But one former Insider who left the movement and speaks out in Lingel’s Chrislam book reports that the number of insiders couldn’t be more than 10,000. According to this source, many of the claims are greatly exaggerated so as to bring in more funding from wealthy American missionary organizations.

“Other former Insiders have reported publicly that many Insiders are really Muslims who will do whatever it takes for the jobs and money they are offered by pro-IM ministries to feed their families,” Lingel says.

Further questioning the funding and support of well-known Christian organizations of this movement, Lingel recounts, “I have consulted with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention on missions and evangelism among Muslims at various times… [Who] stated that there are tens of thousands of Isa al-masih jamaats, or ‘Jesus congregations,’ in northern Africa. But the members of these jamaats call themselves Muslims, do not believe in the Trinity and believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. Are they Christians or Muslims? Why talk about them in terms of missionary success?”

In response to what many Christians see as a heretical movement based on deception, Lingel’s i2 Ministries is in the process of completing a video-based university called Mission Muslims World University, with 40 of the most experienced professors from around the world teaching courses in Muslim ministries, Islamic Studies, apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

How a Stimulus Bill works....or how to float a loan with the bank not catching on...

2012-02-10T17:54:00.002-07:00

THE $100 BILL, A NOT-FUNNY STORY
2012 Feb 6

It's a slow day in the small town of Pumphandle and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit. A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op. The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute. The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel Owner. The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.

Finally, the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves. No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town now thinks they are out of debt and there is a false atmosphere of optimism and glee. And that, my friends, is how a "stimulus package" works!

False oathed Judges exposed in Oregon...Texas got exposed in 1999!

2012-02-01T11:28:00.000-07:00

OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES

Posted By: X
Date: Friday, 12-Oct-2001 02:03:43
This is from RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/messages/19646

...with additional earlier information at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/messages/18039

AGENTS: If you have further info on this, involving any State, please add it here.

==========

From: avoiceforchildren@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 8:56 pm
Subject: OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES

OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES
Oregonian Newspaper, Thursday, October 11, 2001

(Ed Note: Oregon Chief Justice Wallace Carson has now openly
acknowledged that Oregon judges and attorneys have taken false oaths
.......the truth is the great leveler, now is the time for
accountability and recompense for those who have been injured by
actors without authority who have stolen their children and destroyed
their lives without a Constitutional Contract - people in every state
need to investigate their own Constitutions and look at the judges
proper oaths, as well as what was going on around 1910 ..........
this is when the global agenda was entrenched right before WWI , and
the foundations were laid for the corporate socialist system not based
on the Constitution or the authority of the People - we lost our
sovereignty, our allodial titles, our real money backed by gold, and
now the corporate state operates under the false "implied consent"
that it OWNS EVERYTHING........ This is about the REAL PEOPLE and your
REAL RIGHTS and your REAL LAND and REAL MONEY and your CHILDREN and
POSTERITY.

Now when they take a Constitutional Oath, NOW they UPHOLD
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS. The People are the authority,
and it is our DUTY, OBLIGATION and RIGHT to enforce this Lawful
jurisdiction now. These are NOT just words, THIS IS THEIR BOND AND
CONTRACT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE/STATE OF OREGON. WITHOUT IT
THERE IS NO BOND OR CONTRACT AT ALL TO THE PEOPLE.)

Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: Chief justice suggests judges complete oaths
(http://www.oregonlive.com/news/or

Chief justice suggests judges complete oaths
10/11/01

ASHBEL S. GREEN

Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson Jr. is suggesting that state judges retake their oaths of office because most of them took an incomplete one.

The Oregon Constitution requires judges to swear to uphold the federal and state constitutions and to discharge their duties faithfully and impartially.

At least 10 years ago, the secretary of state's office started sending out to newly elected judges a version of the oath that did not include the words "and impartially."

"I have absolutely no understanding how that could happen," Carson said.

Carson said Wednesday that he planned to e-mail all 163 circuit
judges, suggesting that they retake the oaths if they previously took the incomplete one. He said he intends to attach the complete version of the oath to the message.

"I'm recommending that they do sign the oath, but it's up to them," he said.

Last week, a litigant raised the oath issue during a hearing before Multnomah Circuit Judge Ellen Rosenblum. She responded by retaking the oath on the spot.

"That's one way to address it," Carson said.

Carson said he also expects to suggest that Court of Appeals judges, Supreme Court justices and circuit judges pro tem retake the oath if they took an incomplete one.

A group of activists has been raising the oath issue since at least the beginning of the year, contending that judges who took incomplete ones are invalid and their rulings void.

Carson became aware of the issue from some of these activists.

Legal experts say the failure to take a complete oath does not make a judge invalid, nor would it be a reason to overturn any decisions. No court has made a ruling on the issue.

Carson said Wednesday that the Supreme Court would take up the
effects, if any, of the incomplete oaths only if the issue is raised during the normal appeals process.

The following articles are the background for this unprecedented
acknowledgement that the courts have been for years under a fraudulent
authority...... WE THE PEOPLE HAVE MOVED THE STATE TOWARDS
ACCOUNTABILITY - NOW WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE - VOID THEIR
UNLAWFUL DECISIONS, AND FORCE A RESTORED CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION
AND JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS - THE OATH IS ONLY A FACADE UNLESS THEY
ACTUALLY RESTORE OUR ABILITY TO EXCERCISE OUR INHERENT RIGHTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN A COURT.

**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************

IT IS OPENED NOW, AND THEY ARE GOING TO ANSWER.... NOTICE THERE IS NO
REBUTTAL AT ALL - NO FACTUAL DISPUTE - JUST LIIKE IN COURT - THEY LOSE
!!! UNDISPUTED FACTS BECOME LEGAL FACT AND NOW IT IS FACT THAT THE
JUDGES ARE UNDER FALSE OATHS IN OREGON - THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IS
LIKE NIGHT AND DAY - THE WORDS ARE MEAN JURISDICTIONS....ONE WHERE YOU
HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ONE WHERE YOU ARE A CORPORATE COMMODITY
FOR THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING STREAMS.......READ ON.... and by the
way, there are more words missing from the oath than "impartially" -
also "said state" which is WHO the judge is supposed to contract to,
impartially..... notice that there is NO REBUTTAL and you better
believe that this nullifies every thing these imposters have signed.

They have NO defense to this, as seen in the article, the Bars
response is "we can ignore it", just like there is NO ANSWER for the
people being destroyed by these unjust attorneys pretending to be
"judges" having no contract with the People...... read on..... this
breaks open the whole LIE that has been perpetrated on us for many
years, and it is up to SOVEREIGNS TO MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT GO
IGNORED... IT IS TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILIITY........

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy H.
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@molalla.net

Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: $$ HEADS UP OREGON! JUDICIAL OATHS! AP NEWS! $$

CONGRATULATIONS OREGON!!!!!! FROM THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS NEWSWIRE!!

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.c
gi?o00
04_BC_OR--TroublesomeOath&&news&ornews

Missing phrase in judicial oath could prove troublesome
The Associated Press
10/6/01 3:04 AM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- decade-old error in the wording of the state's
judicial oath could render thousands of rulings by Oregon's 163 judges
null and void, some legal activists contend.

The Oregon Constitution requires that before judges assume their
duties, they must swear to support the federal and state constitutions
and to "faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of a judge
...."

At least 10 years ago, the words "and impartially" vanished from the
copy of the oath judges get from the secretary of state's office after
they are elected.

The apparent oversight went unnoticed until earlier this year, when it
came to the attention of some activists who challenge the legitimacy of
a range of judicial decisions.

This week, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Ellen F. Rosenblum took an
updated oath during a Portland hearing after a lawyer challenged her
ability to preside over the case because she had taken the shorter
oath.

The attorney who challenged Rosenblum, Roger G. Weidner, was the
Reform Party's 1998 candidate for governor. During his campaign, he
said he would battle judicial corruption.

Milton E. Mitchek of Durkee, near Baker City, has distributed a
pamphlet saying his research revealed the discrepancy in the oaths.

"A rebel Oregon Judge who does not take and uphold Oregon's required
oath is committing treason against the Oregon Constitution, the Law of
the Land and the People," his pamphlet says.

Legal experts disagree with the activists about the implications of
the missing phrase.

"Nothing in the constitutional provision ... indicates that a failure
to include one of the words would have that effect," said Roy Pulvers,
a former staff attorney for the Oregon Supreme Court.

John Lindback, director of the Oregon Elections Division, said he did
not know how the incomplete oath got sent out. He said it was up to
court officials to decide what to do.

Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson Jr. of the Oregon Supreme Court said
he is aware of the issue but had not decided Friday what -- if anything
-- should be done.

Pulvers and other experts say the discrepancy is not legally
significant and would not be grounds to overturn any of the thousands
of rulings made by judges who had not taken the complete oath.

(Ed. note: PLEEEEEEASE !!! a typographical error???? Court and Law
are courts of EVIDENCE and an I is an I and a t is a t...... that is
the standard held against Sovereigns, but note the responses when it is
bar members who have been caught, "We can ignore it" and "it is not
important", "not legally signifaicant", . the comments of the legal
staff of the Supreme Court",

Please KNOW that the false oath, and the fact that Rosenblum took her
llawfull oath proves it is fraud . .....she was in court, under oath,
on the Record, and could have said aanything else "you are mistaken"
or "this is the real case" or, as one judge in Josephine County told
Chris Youngblood, "I'm sure there is another one you just didn't find
it".........THIS IS OVER NOW IN OREGON......CHECK IN YOUR OWN STATES -
EVERY STATE NOW IS UNDER THIS CORPORATE SYSTEM - IT IS CALLED JUSTICE
2020...... iIT IS UP TO ALL OF US TO BRING FORTH REMEDY IN THIS AND
FORCE ACCOUNTABILITY - DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS.....

AT THIS TIME THE BAR AND RON WYDEN ARE PASSING "RULES" TO LET BAR
MEMBERS "LIE, CHEAT, STEAL AND MISREPRESENT" AND NOT CALL IT
CRIMINAL........ IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO SAY ENOUGH OF THIS......
SIGN MEASURE #1 AND STOP THIS STATUTORY FRAUD NOW....... OUR CHILDREN
AND RIGHTS ARE ON THE LINE TODAY, AND OUR FUTURE IS IN DANGER IF THIS
IS NOT CORRECTED NOW....... INSIST CARSON FORCES ALL OREGON JUDGES TO
TAKE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

THE MAIN POINT THE ARTICLE LEAVES OUT INTENTIONALLY IS THAT THE
ORIGINAL OATH IS A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION THAN THE ONE THEY ARE UNDER
NOW, AND THEY KNOW IT.....THEY CAN NO LONGER UPHOLD THEIR STATUTORY
FRAUD AND CORPORATE NON CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IN A COURT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION. DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR LIES, AND THEY HAVE
TO SHOW CAUSE TO SUPPORT THEIR NONSENSE...... THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME
IN COURT AND NO ONE STOPS THE BULLIES ......

THE OATH IS FRAUD, UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IF IT IS NOT THE SAME
IT IS NOT THE SAME, AND THE PARTICULAR WORDS LEFT OUT ARE NOT AT ALL BY
CHANCE WHEN YOU LEARN ABOUT THE WAY THIS CAME IN THROUGH THE AMENDED
VII FRAUD IN 1910 THAT OPENED THE WAY FOR THE CORPORATE COURTS TO COME
IN. IT IS ALL DECEPTION. IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WORDS ON A PAGE -
EVERY WORD MEANS LAW AND YOUR RIGHTS.... JUST TRY TO GO INTO COURT AND
PLEAD FOR YOURSELF THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS ON THE COURT
PAPERS - YOU ARE INGORED OR DISMISSED..

THE WHOLE BAR DECEPTION IS LIKE HUMPTY DUMPTY - EGGHEADS WHO SAY
'THE WORDS MEAN WHAT I SAY THEY MEAN' AGAINST PEOPLE, FOR THE STATE, IN
EVERY COURT RIGHT NOW..... HUMPTY DUMPTY IS NOW ON THE GROUND A PUTRID
PUDDLE OF SLIME IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRUTH AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.....

ALL THE KINGS HORSES AND ALL THE KINGS MEN WILL NOT PUT HIM BACK
TOGETHER THIS TIME.

JUDGE ROSENBLUM TAKES CONSTITUTIONAL OATH IN KETTLEBERG CASE IN
PORTLAND

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WITH "VULTURES" EXPOSE' OF FALSE OATH OF JUDGES
ENTERED INTO RECORD OF JUDGE COON IN CHRISTINES CASE IN JOSEPHINE
COUNTY

Judge Coon enters Amicus Curiae Brief into Record with exhibits of
judicial fraud; UNDISPUTED..... Judge Rosenblum allows Racketeering
case brought by Roger Weidner to proceed, affirmation of criminal
charges against judges, attorneys for theft and conversion of hundred
million dollar estate of Janette Kent.

Judges in Oregon are under false oaths since l998; and a changed oath
since l910. (go to www.avoiceforchildren.com to download the expose'
(long download!) with exhibits written by researcher and court
advocate Milt Mitcheck, or write to the addresses at the end for the
articles on this that went out on September 5, 2001)

Multnomah County - October 2, 2001 - State attorneys met in the
Multnomah County Courthouse of Judge Ellen F Rosenblum on October 2,
2001, on a motion to dismiss a Racketeering Complaint brought against
numerous judges and attorneys for criminal acts in the theft and
conversion of the Estate of Don Kettleberg, that was willed to Janette
Kent thirteen years ago. Weidner, a former prosecuting attorney, has
for more than ten years filed into the courts to force the state to
turn over the estate to Kent, as the courts ordered the state to do
ten years ago.

The state attorneys brought a motion to dismiss on a "Rule 21", the
arbitrary, biased and routinely used method to dismiss the Complaints
from abused Citizens when they charge public officials or bar members
criminally. As the hearing began, Weidner told Rosenblum that there
were some problems with the oath she was acting under. Weidner
showed Rosenblum a certified copy of her oath, and the exhibits that
show that the current oath leaves out words from the constitutionally
mandated oath, in particular the words "said" state, and faithfully
and "impartially". (The differences are like night and day in a
court - the word "said" refers to the REAL land, water, air, Sui Juris
Inherent Rights, that only belong to SOVEREIGNS - NOT corporations or
states or groups of any kind - and NOT adherent or bound or bonded or
contracted in any way to administrative rules. This is about HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FAMILY RIGHTS; and to leave out the word "impartially" is
obvious that the judges only swear to "faithfully" uphold THEIR
Amended VII Statutory system, the OVERLAY of codes, ordinances,
statutes and "offences", NOT the Organic Constitution.)

Agreeing that her oath was faulty, exactly as Weidner had charged,
Judge Rosenblum said "sometimes things are inadvertently left out, but
I will take that oath right now !" Rosenblum stood at the Bench,
raised her right hand, and said "normally this would be in front of a
judge, but I am under oath and this is on the Record", and Rosenblum
took the ORIGINAL oath in front of the audience of attorneys and
courtwatchers. By taking an oath to the "said" state of Oregon, this
is the first time since around 1910 that a court has excercised
Original Jurisdiction in the state of Oregon, and the first judge
since that time to swear to IMPARTIALLY uphold the SAID state, the
REAL land, your REAL person and Human Rights. "Said", literally,
"aforementioned", in this case, the Constitutionally Lawful Republic
of Sovereigns in the State of Oregon. Article 1, Section 1, "All
authority inherent in People", Oregon Constitution. (only HUMANS can
excercise inherent rights, not a "corpse" - "corps" - corporations
that are NOT human, cannot sign anything, have no signature or voice,
cannot bear any CLAIM against any Sovereign, cannot bear children or
have parental righs, cannot own property - except in the counterfeit
overlay the bar and legislature has created and in which the bar spins
the people around for their own profit).

Rosenblum told the state attorneys that she was not going to allow
their motion to dismiss. Rosenblum said "No - there are allegations of
criminal conduct and racketeering and conspiracy in Mr. Weidners
Complaint." Rosenblum went on to say that elements of the Racketeering
and Conspiracy were both criminal and civil, and told Weidner to
amend his Complaint to seperate the criminal charges from the civil
charges to make it more clear and certain and bring it back in the
next hearing. Rosenblum has now acknowledged on the record the
evidence of a criminal enterprise of Racketeering involving numerous
attorneys, judges and corporate interests in the Kettleberg Estate
case, affirming the criminal evidence and facts as Janette Kent and
Roger Weidner have testified on the Record for many years.

Rosenblum, by taking an oath to the Original Jurisdiction, lawfully
threw out the state administrative, color of law, statutory,
unconstitutional paperwork that the attorney generals office
generates, always to dismiss without factual dispute or Law.
Rosenblum knew in a court of lawfull Judicial Due Process that it would
be misprison of felony for her to deny the evidence before her and
that the criminal charges could not be ignored. Under the LAWFUL OATH,
only credible evidence comes in and a criminal indictment cannot be
dismissed in an administrative quasi-judicial process, that is in
place at this time under color of Law and their false oaths.

On September 20, 2001, in Josephine County in the court of Judge Coon,
researcher and court advocate Chris Youngblood filed an Amicus Curiae
brief into the case of Brian and Ruth Christine, with the "vultures"
book and the evidence of the judges false oaths. Right now the court
is moving to terminate parental rights on the Christines five
daughters, rolling over the parents Inherent Rights like road kill,
yet have never allowed a trial or conviction against the parents.
The state also has NEVER supported or produced any evidence whatsoever
in a court to substantiate their kidnapping of the Christine children,
unsupported yet printed repeatedly in the newspapers, who work for the
state and money interests too, who have slandered and biased the case
with unsupported, unproven and uninvestigated lies.

The state, acting as though it can "sever" UN A LIEN ABLE parental
rights, is moving without Law in an unconstitutional process without
evidence or judicial due process in that case, as well as EVERY case
against families in Oregon. The Christine's "reposessed" their
children from the state, had them for a few days, and now the state
has again taken them, as well as the newborn in Montana. Ruth
Christine was forced to bear her baby in shackles imprisoned, having
commited no crime nor convicted of any crime, and Baby Abby Rose,
whom the state has already destroyed the maternal human bond of mother
and child, having NEVER convicted either parent of ANY crime! The
Christine's are now in jail in Montana for their brave and selfless
acts to excercise Inherent Rights to protect their family body. They
have put their lives on the line for their children and for every
family in America.

Youngbloods Amicus brief was filed ten minutes before the hearing,
and Judge Coon acknowledged the brief immediately. Coon told the
court to make copies for all adverse parties in the case, and that the
Amicus was now part of the case file in the Christine case. The state
attorneys present, as well as attorneys for the State Offices for
Services to Children and Families, had no rebuttal to the Amicus
brief, outlining the lack of jurisdiction of the adminstrative non
constitutional court, and that the actions against the Christines
have been committed by false judges with no worn oath/contract/bond to
the organic Constitutional State of Oregon. The Amicus and exhibits
prove that the orders and actions previously brought against the
Christines are null and void of Law, and cannot be lawful enforcement.
The brief made clear that the state cannot proceed in the manner it
has been any longer, having no Lawfull Constitutional jurisdiction.

By entering this evidence of false oaths into the Record, and the
facts undisputed by the state became legal fact. The facts in the
Record have to be disputed in every hearing, on both sides, or what
is claimed becomes undisputed fact in the Record. On September 20,
the evidence of the false oaths became fact in the Record. And on
October 2, when Ellen Rosenblum took a Lawful oath, she became the
first judge to do so in nearly a hundred years, restoring a court of
Constitutional Judicial Due Process under the Organic Constitution.

By swearing to uphold "said" state, the statutory overlay is now
burnt away, vaporized, and any judge swearing their lawful oath cannot
support the unconstitional statutory overlay anymore now in Oregon. It
is all in the process. It is difficult for many to understand the
manipulations of this information, without experience in a court.
These are deeply embedded manipulations, intentionally deceptive, and
how the bar has operated in the dark to deceive and control the common
people as they are being exploited and destroyed in administrative
process for profit 'INTEREST' for the corporate state.

Today, Oregon has at least one judge with a Lawful oath to excercise
an Original Jurisdiction, which reestablishes our Soveriegn, Republic
in Oregon, and sets the tone for the rest of the country. Now that
the evidence has been exposed, entered in to Record and affirmed by a
judge, the bridge has reached across between the People, Our Republic
and our Rights, and the door is opened for everyone to Claim their
birthrights and inheritance, Inherent Rights given to you by God and
protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitutions. We have to
CLAIM our rights to excercise them.

We have to realize now that every order, judgement, trial, fines or
assessments, that have been generated by these actors under false
oaths is NULL AND VOID, including previous judgements of Rosenblum
herself. Also, there is NO JUDGE at this time setting on the Supreme
Court, including Chief Justice Wallace Carson, who have a lawful oath,
as Rosenblum took yesterday. The People have to insist now that their
cases be dismissed as they were not allowed Judicial Due Process in
the courts. This has now been established as FACT now that Rosenblum
has confirmed that the previous oath was false and VOID.

We have to demand that EVERY judge in Oregon takes their Lawfull oath
now, and no longer tolerate statutory fraud or the counterfeit amended
VII statutory judicial system in Oregon. Measure #1 is gathering
signatures now across the state, to repeal the Amendment to the
Constitution in 1910 that "supplanted" the organic Constitution of the
SAID state of Oregon, the Law, the Bond, the Oath and the Contract
with the Sovereigns. TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO FIND THIS PETITION,
AND MAKE SURE THEY SIGN IT.....

Please contact Roger Weidner at 503-232-6691 for more information
about the Racketeering case. For information on Measure #1, and how to
help restore Constitutional Government in Oregon, please call
503-845-6734 , or 503-371-8742 , for more information, or contact the
Chief Petitioners through the website www.avoiceforchildren.com, also
e-mail at avoice@mtangel.net).

Also, please mail to: PO Box 132, Mt Angel, Oregon 97362

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING

2012-01-29T15:56:00.000-07:00

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." (Voltaire)

Suing the government is the second most popular indoor sport in America, and police are often the targets of lawsuits, with over 30,000 civil actions filed against them every year, between 4-8% of them resulting in an unfavorable verdict, where the average jury award is $2 million. This isn't even counting the hundreds of cases settled thru out-of-court settlements, which probably runs in the hundreds of millions and involves about half of all cases filed. It may take up to five years to settle a police liability case.

When police fail to perform their duties, perform them negligently, or abuse their authority, the possibility of civil liability exists. Unlike criminal cases, liability cases are tried in civil court. It's common to name everyone associated with the injury or damage as the defendant (officers, supervisors, agencies, even the government entity) in order to reach the "deep pockets". Chances are the higher-ups will have the ability to pay larger awards either personally or by raising taxes.

There are two (2) ways to sue the police. One, the lawsuit may be filed in state court as a tort law claim. This is the preferred method since torts can only be settled by money awards and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, a standard much lower to convict than in a criminal case. Two, the lawsuit may be filed in federal court as a violation of Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. This is referred to as a civil rights claim, and is essentially a charge that someone has had their constitutional rights violated. States cannot be sued in a civil rights claim, but municipalities and sheriffs can be sued if they are (a) acting under color of state law, and (b) violating a specific Amendment right in the Constitution. The standards under federal law are custom or policy, and deliberate indifference, a rather poorly defined concept which is similar to totality of circumstances. Although federal lawsuits can result in money awards, the amount is usually less since the main purpose is to win and get the agency to change the way it operates; i.e., obtain injunctive relief.

STATE (TORT) LIABILITY LAW

There are three types of torts under state law, each with different levels of proof and focusing upon different elements of the injury or damage. Evidence rules, precedent, and judicial discretion play a role in determining what type of tort law will be applied.

STRICT LIABILITY -- In this case, the injury or damage is so severe and it's reasonably certain that the harm could have been foreseen that the law dispenses with the need to prove intent or mental state. The only issue is whether the officer or department should pay the money award, and since officers don't usually have any money, the department almost always pays. (Examples: reckless operation of vehicle; excessive SWAT tactics)

INTENTIONAL TORT -- In this case, the officer's intent must be proven, using a foreseeability test involving whether or not the officer knowingly engaged in behavior that was substantially certain to bring about injury. (Examples: wrongful death; assault; false arrest; false imprisonment)

NEGLIGENCE -- In this case, intent or mental state do not matter. What matters is whether some inadvertent act or failure to act created an unreasonable risk to another member of society. (Examples: speeding resulting in traffic accident; not responding to 911 call) Most states have three levels of negligence: (1) slight or mere (absence of foresight); (2) gross (reckless disregard); and (3) criminal. To be prosecuted under tort law for negligence usually requires at least level 2 since to be prosecuted for mere negligence requires considering foreseeability which would support charging the person with an intentional tort or not.

There are additional details of state tort liability associated with specific types of lawsuits, such as:

Wrongful death -- These are typically cases when the officer thinks a suspect is reaching for a weapon, shoots the suspect, and then no weapon is found on the suspect. Courts have ruled that the totality of circumstances must be looked at, especially the reason why the suspect came into contact with the officer in the first place. Merely alleging that a suspect appeared to be reaching for a weapon is no defense.

Assault & Battery -- A police assault would be if an interrogator threatens to throw a suspect out a second-floor window; a police battery is (paradoxically) defined more loosely as any offensive contact without consent; e.g., a male officer performing an illegal search of a female over her protests.

False arrest -- The unlawful restraint of a person's liberty without their consent; e.g., using the caged area of a patrol car as a holding area, several officers surrounding somebody, or ordering someone to remain at the station could all be interpreted as false arrest.

False imprisonment -- This is different from false arrest in that an officer may have had probable cause to arrest, but later violates certain pretrial rights, such as access to a judge or bondsman.

HOT PURSUITS: This high-liability area typically involves reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It's also typically a strict liability area, and here are some of the acts used by the courts to infer intent or state of mind: not using flashers & sirens; not considering alternative to chase; using old, beat-up police cars; excessive disregard of traffic control devices; not securing the chase path; not warning the public; using cutoff maneuvers & roadblocks that create the possibility for overreaction; not stopping to assist any innocent injured bystanders. The duties are threefold: To warn & protect; To secure the scene; To render assistance.

FEDERAL LIABILITY LAW

Two elements have to be present simultaneously under federal liability law. If a person loses in federal court, they still have recourse under state law.

ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW -- This means that the behavior of officers not related to employment are not actionable. It does not mean that off-duty officers cannot be sued. An officer moonlighting in a security job can be held liable since they are acting under color of law in performing a police function. And, it sounds like a contradiction, but police behavior that is clearly illegal and violates departmental procedure, like beating up a citizen, is regarded by the court as acting under color of law.

VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT -- These involve whatever the court believes to be specifically prohibited conduct regarding freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly (1st Amendment), freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), freedom from double jeopardy and self-incrimination (5th Amendment), rights to a speedy, public, impartial jury trial, and to be informed of the charges, confront and compel witnesses, and to have assistance of counsel (6th Amendment); freedom from excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments (8th Amendment); and freedom from deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process (14th Amendment).

The leading case in police department liability under federal law is Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978). Under this ruling, it must be shown that the department adopted or promulgated (however informal) a "custom" or policy that was the driving force behind the officer's violation of constitutional rights. In essence, this is the doctrine of respondeat superior, since a policymaker (or "custommaker") has to be found to declare the department liable. A "pattern" of constitutional violations and an awareness of them by high-ranking officials must be demonstrated. However, there is precedent holding departments accountable for one single act as fulfilling "pattern" requirement.

Examples of gross negligence or accumulations of mere negligence constitute deliberate indifference. This standard is usually satisfied by looking at whether or not the agency administration engaged in supervisory negligence. Virtually every decision a police administrator makes subjects them to possible liability. The following are examples of supervisory negligence:

Negligent hiring -- hiring persons unfit for police work; not conducting psychological exams; not conducting full background checks

Negligent supervision -- inadequate monitoring of employee performance; failure to reprimand when appropriate; tolerating sloppy police work; hearing rumors & not acting; being new to supervisor job

Negligent retention -- keeping employees on the job or promoting them on the basis of favoritism or friendship when they clearly should have been severely disciplined, demoted, or dismissed

Failure to train -- inadequately preparing employees to perform their duties; minimal or too easy academy training; little or no in-service training; no educational tuition reimbursement

Negligent entrustment -- inadequately preparing employees prior to entrusting them with responsibilities; a synergistic combination of failure to train and negligent supervision

Negligent assignment -- assigning known problem employees to critical or inappropriate duties; reckless drivers to patrol; racist officers to ghetto areas; sexist officers with a female partner

Failure to direct -- not giving officers clear, articulated guidance in how to perform their duties; not having policies and procedures; having officers "sign off" on same without understanding them

Failure to discipline -- not having an effective discipline process; not following progressive discipline principles

Failure to investigate -- also a liability of officers; with supervisors, it's not having an effective Internal Affairs unit, inspections or integrity checks, a difficult (for citizens) complaint process, or a difficult (for employees) grievance process

Failure to protect -- also a liability of officers and jail managers; it's not inspecting safety conditions; allowing victims or witnesses to come in contact with suspects; (protection of public is an individual liability addressed with failure to direct for supervisors or writ of mandamus)

Failure to treat -- also a liability of officers and jail manager; not providing first aid, ambulance service, or counseling (given the foreseeability of suicide)

Negligent classification -- a jail manager liability; throwing adults in with children, or dangerous inmates in with non-dangerous ones

DEFENSES TO LIABILITY

Contributory negligence -- this is where the government shows that the plaintiff was also negligent, and contributed to their own injury or damage. No money award is granted if this defense is successful.

Comparative negligence -- this is when the court decides on a percentage split (say 60-40) in terms of who is negligent. This defense tends to mitigate, or reduce the size of the money award.

Assumption of risk -- this is when the court decides that the suspect engaged in behaviors (e.g., fleeing from police) that assumed the risk of damages or injuries, and cannot expect to sue the police to recover.

Absolute Immunity -- This is a Section 1983 lawsuit defense that is limited to participation in the judicial process; i.e., testifying in court. If a police officer commits perjury on the stand, they cannot be threatened with civil liability, only the criminal offense of perjury. The courts reason that it's difficult enough to get people to testify without the threat of civil liability.

Qualified Immunity -- This is a Section 1983 lawsuit defense covering duties of a discretionary nature, such as when a police administrator decides to increase or decrease the number of patrols for drunk drivers. A motorist hit by a drunk driver charging that the department did not have enough patrol cars out protecting her would not win her lawsuit.

Probable Cause -- This is the standard defense to false arrest charges.

Good Faith -- This covers a wide range of behaviors, even unconstitutional ones, if the officer is executing a warrant believing in good faith that the warrant was valid, but it later turns out the warrant was defective or invalid.

College Education -- When a department has a 4-year college degree standard for all its employees, this protects somewhat against various forms of supervisory negligence, such as charges relating to the failure to supervise, direct, train, or entrust, since it can reasonably be expected that college educated officers are better prepared to understand a broader range of motivation and control issues, more likely to read and understand policy manuals, temper police powers with good judgment or democratic values, and have a more professional orientation.

INTERNET RESOURCES
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc.
AELE: Case Law Library
The Liability Reporter
Police Liability Assessment Guide
Police Liability Concerning Human Rights

PRINTED RESOURCES
Carter, D. & A. Sapp (1990). Higher Education as a Policy Alternative to Reduce Police Liability. Police Liability Review 2: 1-2.
Del Carmen, R. (1991). Civil Liabilities in American Policing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kappeler, V. (1993). Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Last updated: 07/16/04
Syllabus for JUS 205
Instructor Home Page

Yahuwah has no respect for persons, natural or not!! Neither does the Taxman

2012-01-20T08:24:00.002-07:00

Opinion: Chilliwack proponent of 'natural person' theory convicted of counselling fraud
A+
By David Baines, Vancouver Sun? January 19, 2012

Chilliwack's Russell Porisky has been convicted of counselling people to evade taxes through his school, Paradigm Education Group.

B.C. Supreme Court judge Elliott Myers also convicted Porisky and his common-law wife of failing to report a total of $1,127,185 of income derived from the school during the five-year period ending December 2008, thereby evading $225,222 in income tax.

The judge further convicted Porisky of failing to remit $66,133 in goods and services taxes that he should have collected on the sale of Paradigm courses and materials.

The trial was held in November and December. The Crown was represented by Bruce Harper, while Porisky and Gould represented themselves.

Judge Myers handed down his 36-page decision on Wednesday morning. For the Minister of National Revenue, it represents a major victory.

For years, Porisky has been promoting his "natural person" theory, which holds that a per-son can arrange his or her business affairs to receive income as a "natural person" rather than as a taxpayer, thereby avoiding income taxes.

The only problem is, the courts have consistently rejected this argument. More than a dozen people, including some of Porisky's former students, have been convicted of tax evasion, and some have been sentenced to jail terms.

By getting Porisky convicted of counselling people to evade tax through the natural person theory, the federal government has effectively cut off the head of the snake.

In his decision, Judge Myers noted that Porisky worked in the construction industry, then in the early 1990s began to study the taxation system.

By 2001, he had dedicated him-self to studying and propagating his theories. He founded the Paradigm Education Group to "create a structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign parasite" - the international bankers who were supposedly responsible for the income tax system.

To promote his natural per-son theory, he wrote books and created instructional DVDs, and Paradigm sold them through its website, www.naturalperson. com.

He also conducted seminars, for which he charged a fee, and he qualified "educators" to teach Paradigm materials and assist people who wanted to set them-selves up as natural persons.

Gould, who has lived with Porisky since 1998, assisted in administrative matters and attended his seminars. Money generated by Paradigm was deposited into four bank accounts, two of which were in their joint names.

Paradigm proved to be a very popular and lucrative business. A Canada Revenue Agency investigator testified that a total of $1,843,298 was deposited into Porisky's and Gould's bank accounts during the relevant period. After deducting expenses, he estimated net business income to be $1,127,185, which he allocated evenly between the two accused.

While the profitability of the venture was clear, its underlying logic was not:

"Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity," Judge Myers wrote in his decision.

He said the "absurdity" of Porisky's distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person was illustrated during the trial when he was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence.

"If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?" he asked the judge.

"Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?"

"You're Mr. Porisky," the judge replied.

"That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me," Porisky responded.

At that point, the judge tried to reduce the question to its simplest form:

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

The judge also noted that, when Porisky was asked to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, he said it depended in what capacity the Crown was asking about.

The judge found that Porisky was well aware of previous court decisions rejecting the natural person theory, and was therefore "wilfully blind" in utilizing and promoting his views to others.

"It is clear to me that Mr. Porisky intended that Paradigm students follow his teachings by arranging their affairs as natural persons and avoid paying income tax."

The judge noted that Paradigm's books and DVDs contained a disclaimer that the information in them "should in no way be construed as either legal or financial advice," and that readers should consult a competent expert to determine its veracity before utilizing it.

But he said these caveats were "lost in a sea of material that [Paradigm] presented with 100-per-cent certainty," and it was clear he was "encouraging the fraud of income tax avoidance."

Judge Myers will consider an appropriate sentence at a later date. Based on his income tax evasion conviction alone, it is highly likely that Porisky, at least, will be handed a jail sentence. The counselling conviction can only lengthen that term.

dbaines@vancouversun.com

Blog: vancouversun.com/baines

TRUE US HISTORY

2012-01-16T19:46:00.002-07:00

From AbundantHope.net
TRUE US HISTORY
Man or Other Animals: US Laws Define Humans to be Animals - Livestock on the Global Plantation
By Al Adask with comments by Donna & Ron
Dec 31, 2011 - 2:28:25 AM

Man or Other Animals: US Laws Define Humans to be Animals - Livestock on the Global Plantation

On 27/12/11, in the third hour of 'The Power Hour' radio talk show program the host, Joyce Riley, interviewed Al Adask. See: http://archives2011.gcnlive.com/Arch...ur/1003113.mp3 the first few minutes of the program deal with a typically smooth talking Talmudic author who, I assume from what he says, has written a book demonising Muslims. Feel free to ignore that.

Mr. Adask has brilliantly exposed the truth about how any unlawful government legislated "laws" in the US have defined humans as mere animals so that they can treat them accordingly.

Donna visited Al Adask's blog at Adask.wordpress.com which is shared with you below. This information is so interesting and relevant that many may wish to research these articles and legal resources for themselves. At the end of the articles listed below Al Adask makes a personal statement. He is a man who stands in his own sovereignty.

Quoting Al Adask from his blog:

"The subject of the interview will be the “man or other animals” laws whereby the government expressly defines the American people to be “animals” rather than men and women made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by their Creator with God-given, unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”). This definition violates fundamental principles of the Bible and Declaration of Independence and constitutes an act of genocide against the American people.

I know these definitions exist in Texas and federal law, as well as five other States that I’ve investigated. I presume these “man or other animals” laws exist in all 50 States. I’ve had reports from England and Australia that their definitions of drugs also declared man to be an “animal”. It is likely that the presumption that mankind are nothing but “animals” is a cornerstone principle for big government and the New World Order.

The concept of “man or other animals” laws is hard to follow over the radio. Therefore, so, as a convenience for today’s radio audience, I am publishing several links on this blog entry to the fundamental laws and documents I’ll discuss during the interview.

If the listeners want to verify some of what I’ll be saying, they’ll be able to so with relative ease from this single blog entry and list of articles and legal resources.

1. This first link is to a copy of the original paperwork (a freedom of religion defense) that I used when the Texas Attorney General sued me and six others for the “manufacture and distribution of a a controlled substance” (colloidal silver). Each defendant was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). After investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in the pre-trial investigation and hearings in our case, the Texas simply ceased all prosecution efforts. I believe the reason is that the case was dropped is that the “man or other animals” insight is so politically explosive that the gov-co couldn’t risk taking it to court. I.e., the “war on drugs” started by President Nixon in A.D. 1971 is based on a definition of the word “drug” that presumes the people to be animals. The war on drugs laid the foundation for much of the modern police state. The police state gave us the prison-industrial complex. Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment , and the FDA’sregulation of raw milk and vitamins are all based in large measure on a definition of “drug” that presume the people to be “animals”. All of these institutions (and billions of dollars) are based on a definition of “drug” that can’t withstand a challenge based on freedom or religion. If the “man or other animals” definitions are overturned in court, these various institutions will be badly debilitated and perhaps destroyed. The Texas Attorney General wasn’t willing to take that risk, so he dropped the case. http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-1/

2. This second link explains why the “man or other animals” laws are acts of genocide perpetrated by the federal government against the American people. http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-3/

3. This third link is to an article published at GenocideWatch.org entitled the “8 Stages of Genocide”. Note that “Stage 3″ in this article is “dehumanization” and includes declaring other people to be insects, vermin or “animals“: http://genocidewatch.org/aboutgenoci...fgenocide.html

[Ron: Please note that Al Adask inappropriately and wrongly further publishes the Talmudic calumny that the German nation exterminated Jews during WWII. IT DIDN'T! And anyone concerned about human rights, as he is, should be scrupulously careful about Blood Libelling the German nation with throw-a- way lines. In fact, the US and its British and Soviet allies genocided some 13 million Germans at the end of WWII and in the five years thereafter. Moreover, NO Jews were holocausted by the German nation and the Red Cross reported that only 271 304 Jews died in German concentration WORK camps during WWII - most of them from disease, malnutrition and (at the end of the war) starvation due to Anglo-US bombing of Germany . See eg: OFFICIAL RECORDS FROM INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS PROVE "HOLOCAUST" WAS A FRAUD – Repost. See: http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/06/official-records-from-international-red.html ].

4. Here’s a link to the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. See Section 6 wherein the government defines the words “food” and “drugs” to apply to “man or other animals” and thus defines man to be an “animal”. This the earliest instance we’ve found of government declaring the American people to be “animals”. For over a century, your government has regarded you, your spouse, children, parents and friends to be “animals”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22116/

5. Here’s a link to Title 7 (Agriculture) of the United States Code, (7 U.S.C. Section 136(d)) which defines man to be an “animal”. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/7/6/II/136

6. 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) Federal definition of “drugs” defines man to be an animal: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/21/9/II/321

7. Texas Health & Safety Code definition of “drugs” at 431.002(14) defines man to be an animal at: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...31.htm#431.002 .

8. For an assortment of other articles I’ve published on this blog that touch on the “man or other animals” laws, see: http://adask.wordpress.com/category/...other-animals/
Share this:
End of Quoting.

About Al Adask
I am a man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym's image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights ("The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"; July 4th, A.D. 1776). I am one of the People of The State of Texas. My articles are written and published within the venue of The County of Dallas, located within The State of Texas--a member-State of the perpetual Union styled "The United States of America".
Posted by Al Adask on October 3, 2011 in "Man or Other Animals"

The Truth about Hair and why original men and women would keep their Hair Long

2011-12-13T21:36:00.000-07:00

United Truth Seekers
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:32 CDT

© Black Elk
This information about hair has been hidden from the public since the Viet Nam War .

Our culture leads people to believe that hair style is a matter of personal preference, that hair style is a matter of fashion and/or convenience, and that how people wear their hair is simply a cosmetic issue. Back in the Vietnam war however, an entirely different picture emerged, one that has been carefully covered up and hidden from public view.

In the early nineties, Sally [name changed to protect privacy] was married to a licensed psychologist who worked at a VA Medical hospital. He worked with combat veterans with PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder. Most of them had served in Vietnam.

Sally said, "I remember clearly an evening when my husband came back to our apartment on Doctor's Circle carrying a thick official looking folder in his hands. Inside were hundreds of pages of certain studies commissioned by the government. He was in shock from the contents. What he read in those documents completely changed his life. From that moment on my conservative middle of the road husband grew his hair and beard and never cut them again. What is more, the VA Medical center let him do it, and other very conservative men in the staff followed his example.

As I read the documents, I learned why. It seems that during the Vietnam War special forces in the war department had sent undercover experts to comb American Indian Reservations looking for talented scouts, for tough young men trained to move stealthily through rough terrain. They were especially looking for men with outstanding, almost supernatural, tracking abilities. Before being approached, these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in tracking and survival.

With the usual enticements, the well proven smooth phrases used to enroll new recruits, some of these Indian trackers were then enlisted. Once enlisted, an amazing thing happened. Whatever talents and skills they had possessed on the reservation seemed to mysteriously disappear, as recruit after recruit failed to perform as expected in the field.

Serious causalities and failures of performance led the government to contract expensive testing of these recruits, and this is what was found.

When questioned about their failure to perform as expected, the older recruits replied consistently that when they received their required military haircuts, they could no longer 'sense' the enemy, they could no longer access a 'sixth sense', their 'intuition' no longer was reliable, they couldn't 'read' subtle signs as well or access subtle extrasensory information.

So the testing institute recruited more Indian trackers, let them keep their long hair, and tested them in multiple areas. Then they would pair two men together who had received the same scores on all the tests. They would let one man in the pair keep his hair long, and gave the other man a military haircut. Then the two men retook the tests.

Time after time the man with long hair kept making high scores. Time after time, the man with the short hair failed the tests in which he had previously scored high scores.

Here is a Typical Test:

The recruit is sleeping out in the woods. An armed 'enemy' approaches the sleeping man. The long haired man is awakened out of his sleep by a strong sense of danger and gets away long before the enemy is close, long before any sounds from the approaching enemy are audible.

In another version of this test the long haired man senses an approach and somehow intuits that the enemy will perform a physical attack. He follows his 'sixth sense' and stays still, pretending to be sleeping, but quickly grabs the attacker and 'kills' him as the attacker reaches down to strangle him.

This same man, after having passed these and other tests, then received a military haircut and consistently failed these tests, and many other tests that he had previously passed.

So the document recommended that all Indian trackers be exempt from military haircuts. In fact, it required that trackers keep their hair long."

Comment:

The mammalian body has evolved over millions of years. Survival skills of human and animal at times seem almost supernatural. Science is constantly coming up with more discoveries about the amazing abilities of man and animal to survive. Each part of the body has highly sensitive work to perform for the survival and well being of the body as a whole.The body has a reason for every part of itself.

Hair is an extension of the nervous system, it can be correctly seen as exteriorized nerves, a type of highly evolved 'feelers' or 'antennae' that transmit vast amounts of important information to the brain stem, the limbic system, and the neocortex.

Not only does hair in people, including facial hair in men, provide an information highway reaching the brain, hair also emits energy, the electromagnetic energy emitted by the brain into the outer environment. This has been seen in Kirlian photography when a person is photographed with long hair and then rephotographed after the hair is cut.

When hair is cut, receiving and sending transmissions to and from the environment are greatly hampered. This results in numbing-out .

Cutting of hair is a contributing factor to unawareness of environmental distress in local ecosystems. It is also a contributing factor to insensitivity in relationships of all kinds. It contributes to sexual frustration.

Conclusion:

In searching for solutions for the distress in our world, it may be time for us to consider that many of our most basic assumptions about reality are in error. It may be that a major part of the solution is looking at us in the face each morning when we see ourselves in the mirror.

The story of Sampson and Delilah in the Bible has a lot of encoded truth to tell us. When Delilah cut Sampson's hair, the once undefeatable Sampson was defeated.

Reported by C. Young

The origin of the term Jew

2011-12-09T14:21:00.000-07:00

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)
Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios" in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or "Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

This is its "secondary meaning" that has been carefully nurtured among the English speaking peoples of the world by a secret power intent upon exploiting its ancient power of association. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" has been assiduously cultivated during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It has succeeded to such a degree, that now most people in the English-speaking world can not comprehend the true nature of the word "Jew," its literal sense, and do not regard a "Jew" as a "Judaean." That is, understand the correct and only meaning of the word known to the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. In short: the word "Jew" in modern usage is a misrepresentation. The etymology of the word "Jew," first used in the revised 18th century English language editions of the New Testament, is uncomplicated: the original Greek word "Ioudaios" was derived from the Aramaic "Jehudhai," which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by Babylonian conquerors for the enslaved Judaeans without any due regard to the race or religion of the captives. This indiscriminate use of the word "Jew" to refer to the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judaea is the application of an incorrect, modern colloquial idiom without regard or recognition of the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. 49:10)
The meaning of the word "Jew" in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, "Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until "Shiloh," came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the sceptre from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian's) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him."(John 7:1)
Here, the English word "Jewry" was translated from the Greek word "Ioudaia", which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation "Judaea." For example, in the New American Standard Bible:

"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."(John 7:1)
Thus, Christ was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry - because the Jews - the Judaeans - were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

A modern misconception is that "the Jews" are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh's Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea .... he is simply a Judaean ... with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew," which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God's Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are "Jews" in the proper sense as they are not "Judaeans" or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews -the Modern Tribe of Jews- are not "the Jews" of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not "returning" to their "Promised Land" because they were never there in the first place ...

When, in 1604, James VI, King of Scotland became King James I of England, the first ruler of Great Britain and Ireland, he ruled a nation in religious and political turmoil. And, when a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new king, James, saw this as an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. The redaction began in 1604 and was completed and published in 1611 and this the new English Bible became known as the "Authorised Version" because its making was authorised by King James. This "Authorised Version" became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the Anglican church. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 with the most substantive changes occurring in the eighteenth century. Then, Dr Thomas Paris (1762) published an extensive revision at Cambridge while Dr Benjamin Blayney did the same at Oxford (1769). Blayney's redactions included much modernisation of spelling, punctuation, and expression, but, in which the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition are used. It is this 1769 update by Blayney that is the basis of the modern King James Bible. Also, since 1885, 14 books representing the Apocrypha were "officially" removed from it. These Apocryphal books were included at the insistence of the king and, unlike the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles that scattered them throughout the Old Testament, were placed between the Testaments.

Consequently, any modern, so-called "1611 Authorised King James Version" available today is NOT a facsimile of the original 1611 "Authorised Version" but a copy of the 1769 revision. Even those editions that may even proclaim "1611" in the frontispiece to promote sales are deceptions, for, they too are simply modern print runs of the Blayney's 1769 edition. These are editions in which the original text and words of the "1611 Authorised King James Version" have been altered with spellings revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769 and, also, with fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features removed from almost every printing done since 1885. To get an original, un-redacted "1611 Authorised King James Version" is more problematic and far more expensive. Originals are rare and eminently collectible and fetch huge prices while facsimiles and exact photographic facsimile edition are less exorbitant but still expensive.

There are 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "J"; nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "J." Furthermore, there is there not a letter "J" in the Greek alphabet. In fact, although the letter "J" is firmly established as the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet it is a recent addition to the English script. It was inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed and credited to Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) who first distinguish "I" and "J" as representing separate sounds. John 19:19 refers to the inscription Pontius Pilate had posted over Jesus' cross that in the Greek is "Ieous Nazoraios Basilius Ioudaios," which in modern Bibles is rendered: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" In the fourth century, Jerome translated the Bible from the Greek into Latin and his treatment of this verse in the Latin Vulgate was: "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iudaeorum." The acronym of this verse used on Catholic statues, icons and imagery is "INRI" .... because there was no "J." The Wiclif, Wickliff or Wycliffe Edition published in 1380 is the earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of "J" as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter "J." For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word "Jew" never mind use the word it in any of his works. In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" Even the great lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, was unusually ambivalent in his use of the "J" letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines "To Judaize" as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both editions he finds no room to list the word "Jew." The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word "Jew." In 1653, by Greaves in his "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions." By Sheridan in 1775 in his play "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I: "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew".

The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible); The Geneva "1557" (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman Catholic English version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611. In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads: "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes." Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."; in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves"; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." That is, the word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so-called "Jew" (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word "Jew" first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 – 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai; the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his "New Testament with Explanatory Notes." Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernised version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 "New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" with notes as translated from the Greek.

The evolution of the Holy Bible – the story of how the Bible arrived to us in its present form – is testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.

"At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day" 2 Kings 16:6

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.

"And Jehovah said to her [Rebekah] Two nations are in your womb, and two kinds of people shall be separated from your bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people, the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]" (Gen. 25:23)
"They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews." Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279
They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation" Article entitled "EDOM, IDUMEA," The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41(1904)
"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] … the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." Article entitled "EDOM," Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6, p. 378 (1971)
"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants" Article entitled "EDOM (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)
The Edomites are descendants of Esau ("hairy, rough"), the eldest son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob, whose singular appearance at birth originated the name (Gen 25:25). Also, he was given the name of Edom ("red") from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Gen. 25:30, Gen. 25:31).

Esau was much loved by his father and was, because he was first-born, his heir but was tricked into selling his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, with the help of his mother, for a meal of red lentil pottage. Esau lost his father's birthright and his paternal blessing due to Jacob's subterfuge and thus raised the anger of Esau, who vows vengeance (Gen. 25:29-34; 27:1-41). Yahweh thereafter called Esau, "Edom" and the country subsequently settled by Esau/Edom and his brood was "the country of Edom" (Gen 32:3). Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and Sarah, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is the ancestor of the Israelites. Later, Yahweh told Jacob that his name was no longer Jacob, but henceforth, Israel (Gen. 32:22-32; Gen. 35:10). Jacob's twelve sons were the ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants are described as the Twelve Tribes of Israel originally identified by the names of the twelve sons of Jacob: the Patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Issachar, Benjamin, Levi, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Simeon, Dan, Zebulun, Reuben. Later, Joseph's two sons, his eldest, Manasseh and his second son, Ephraim, were adopted by Jacob as his own and so those two tribes replaced Joseph and Levi among the Twelve of Israel. The patriarch Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Gen 29:35).

The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau, whose name was Edom, so called from the red lentil pottage he sold his birthright for to his brother Jacob (later, at Yahweh's behest, called Israel). These Edomites were also separate from the Twelve Tribes of Israel and so were not true Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred born of a deep sense of injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened

Ezekiel 35:1-15 describes Yahweh's judgement on, and devastation of, Edom who exulted over Israel's humiliation, who was their most bitter foe, and who "had a perpetual hatred to them, to the very name of an Israelite." Esau/Edom in his hate and anger pursued "his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever." (Amos 1:11). Hence, the Edomites' "perpetual hatred" and "wrath forever" toward Israelites. That is, this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) .... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.

The Edomites lived and prospered in a land separate from Israel but were later attacked and defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and some forty years later, by David (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Later, in the reign of Jehosaphat, (c 914 BC), the Edomites attempted to invade Israel, but failed (2 Chron. 20:22). They later joined with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Chaldea, in his invasion of Judaea, the Judaean kingdom of the Two Tribes, and helped in his destruction of Jerusalem as well as the subsequent deportation of the Judaeans to Babylonia (c 630-562 BC). The terrible cruelty displayed by the Edomites at this time provoked fearful denunciations by the later prophets (Isa 34:5-8; Isa 63:1-4; Jer 49:17). Afterwards, the Edomites invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine but they eventually fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer 27:3, Jer 27:6). The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted by Yahweh to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the Maccabeans, they were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.

Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's Jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Khazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar Jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's Jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern "Jews" including the Torah-true and Zionist Jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.

Consequently, the majority of today's Jewish people are known as "Jews" not because they are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves "Jews" and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.

Thus, "Jews" are not Israelites and certainly they are not Judahites. Hence, modern Jews are not heir to the Bible Covenants nor to the ancient Nation of Israel given by Yahweh to the Israelites and the Judahites and so have no Divine Right or biblical mandate to the modern Land of Palestine.

Similarly, Jesus of Nazareth was not a "Jew" he was a Judahite, and Jesus Christ was not "King of the Jews."

Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana)

2011-11-20T18:05:00.002-07:00

Backgrounder | 2008 | Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
Let’s discuss...
Cannabis is one of the oldest psychoactive plants known to humans. Its therapeutic potential has been recognized since ancient times—at least 4,000 years. In the second millenia B.C.E., cannabis was cited in the Atharva Veda, a sacred Indian text, as a remedy for anxiety. In Egypt, there is evidence that cannabis has been used in medicine since the days of the pharaohs. In China, cannabis was used as a surgical anaesthetic in the second century C.E. All around the ancient world, from Babylonia to Israel to Rome, cannabis has been used as a medicine.
The medicinal properties of cannabis became part of Western medicine in the mid-19 century when cannabis strains from Egypt and India were imported by the French and British, respectively. Between 1840 and 1940, English, Irish, French and then North American physicians and pharmacists testified to the usefulness of various cannabis preparations for pain relief and other conditions including malaria, rheumatism, migraine headaches, gout and glaucoma. Cannabis was in the Canadian pharmacopeia until it was added to a list of restricted drugs in 1923 and its possession, cultivation and distribution became illegal.
Although the medicinal benefits of cannabis have been understood for thousands of years, its use in medicine today is controversial. Studies indicate that between 1.9 and 4 per cent of the Canadian population is currently using cannabis for therapeutic purposes. A third of cannabis users in BC report using cannabis for medicinal reasons.
How does cannabis work as medicine?
Cannabis leaves and flowers contain unique molecules called cannabinoids. There are more than 60 different cannabinoids, but the best known and the one with the most significant psychoactive effect, is called THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Medicinal effects have also been attributed to other cannabinoids, including CBD (cannabidiol), as well as other plant molecules (terpenoids and flavonoids). Together, these molecules contribute to the overall effect of cannabis.
The human body produces endocannabinoids, its own natural version of cannabinoids. They help to regulate the body’s systems. Cannabinoid The medicinal properties of cannabis became part of Western medicine in the
mid-19 century...
Primer 2007 | Post Partum Depression Factsheet | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
Backgrounder | 2008 | Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
“Indica” and “Sativa” are also the commonly used terms to categorize strains of cannabis that have different effects on the user. For example, people often say that “Indica” strains are sedating and good at reducing anxiety, pain, muscle spasms and tremors, among other symptoms. And people often say that “Sativa” strains are more energizing and good for appetite stimulation and relieving depression and migraines, among other symptoms. Other strains, commonly called “crosses” tend to be mood stabilizing and particularly good for the relief of nausea and appetite stimulation. While such categorizations are very helpful for selecting particular strains to match particular symptoms, these commonly used names do not correlate with the botanical species Indica and Sativa.
receptors are found throughout the body, especially in the nervous and immune systems. Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors naturally respond to biological events—for example, endocannabinoid levels will increase in response to brain injury and strokes, and receptors will increase in response to nerve injuries and associated pain. Both plant cannabinoids and endocannabinoids bind to the body’s cannabinoid receptors. When this binding occurs, effects such as pain relief and the suppression of stress result.
Studies indicate that there are two main species of the cannabis plant, Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa. Generally, the indica species (which has higher levels of THC) is used as a medicine, while the sativa species is used for hemp fibre and seeds (which contain nutritional essential fatty acids).
Plant breeders have developed hundreds of different strains of cannabis from these two species. The effects of cannabis vary depending on which strain is being used. Many people report experiencing different medicinal effects from different strains. Potency also varies with strain. Higher-potency cannabis and cannabis extracts mean that less cannabis need be used to deliver the desired effect.
Although there has not been much formal research done into the medicinal effects of different strains, it appears that the different effects of cannabis strains are related to the concentration and balance of various active ingredients in the plant. It is important that medicinal users have access to a variety of cannabis strains to meet their individual needs. Most people rely on word of mouth and trial and error to choose a strain that they feel works for them.
What conditions or symptoms is cannabis used to treat?
Cannabis can be used to treat a wide variety of medical conditions and symptoms, as well as the side-effects of pharmaceutical medications. In some cases, cannabis may be more effective than pharmaceutical options and have fewer negative side-effects. It is often recommended to improve quality of life for people who have critical and chronic illnesses.
Some of the symptoms cannabis is used to treat include:
• nausea
• loss of appetite
• chronic pain
• anxiety
• insomnia
• inflammation
• muscle spasms
There are many medical conditions that cannabis is used to treat. Some of the most common ones are:
• arthritis
• cancer
• HIV/AIDS
• hepatitis C
• glaucoma
• multiple sclerosis
• cerebral palsy
• spinal cord injuries
• epilepsy
Primer 2007 | Post Partum Depression Factsheet | www.heretohelp.bc.ca Backgrounder | 2008 | Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
• Crohn’s disease
• Fibromyalgia
• migraines
• Parkinson’s disease
• depression
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Cannabis has also been used for substance addiction and withdrawal as it can be effective for decreasing cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Some people have used it as a substitute for more harmful substances, including alcohol, and opiate-based drugs such as morphine and Oxycontin®.
Although cannabis can aggravate mental health conditions in certain circumstances, some people suffering from mental illness use it to relieve the symptoms of their disorder or the unpleasant side-effects of their medication. Cannabis is used by some people to treat depression—which may be their primary diagnosis, or related to another diagnosis. Some people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have also been able to use cannabis successfully to relieve their symptoms with no significant side-effects. The use of cannabis by people with these disorders should be monitored carefully, however, because negative side effects are possible.
How do people use cannabis for medical purposes?
There are several ways to use cannabis, each with a different time of onset, duration and effect quality. Some methods may be more effective than others for certain symptoms and conditions, and they may be preferable in certain circumstances.
Smoking is one of the fastest and most efficient ways for patients to experience the therapeutic effects of cannabis. This is because, when inhaled, the medicine moves quickly into the blood stream through capillaries in the lungs. The effects are usually felt within a few minutes, which makes it easy to find the right dosage. Because of its immediacy, this method may be ideal for symptoms such as nausea and muscle spasms. The effects from cannabis inhalation can last a few hours.
Vaporizing is another form of inhalation. When cannabis is vaporized, a vapour is produced rather than smoke, and the vapour can be inhaled. Vaporizing tends to be less irritating on the throat and lungs than smoking. Some people find the ‘high’ produced from vaporizing to be different than the ‘high’ from smoking. Since it does not produce smoke, vaporizing may be more suitable for indoor use such as hospitals or palliative care settings.
Cannabis can also be swallowed. Because it is fat soluble, the active ingredients can be extracted into butters, oils, or milk, which the patient can then eat or drink. For example, cannabis-infused butter can be used in baking, or cannabis can be blended into a milkshake. When cannabis is ingested, the effects are much stronger and last longer than when it is inhaled. This may be suitable for chronic pain or other persisting symptoms. However ingestion may not be suitable for everyone because it can take up to a few hours to feel the full effects and the effects depend on many factors. This makes the desired dosage more difficult to find. Too high a dosage can lead to vomiting and anxiety, while too low a dosage will be ineffective.
Although cannabinoids are minimally soluble in water, cannabis tea provides a less potent alternative with unique properties that may be suitable for some people. Oral-mucosal sprays (mouth sprays) are absorbed through the mouth’s membranes. The effects are usually felt within 10–20 minutes; however since some of the spray will also be swallowed, dosage can be difficult to assess and the effects may come at different stages. Other methods of use include topical ointments.
Primer 2007 | Post Partum Depression Factsheet | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
Backgrounder | 2008 | Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
BParicmkgerro 2u0n0d7e r| P2o0s0t8 P| aMretudmica Dl Uesper eosfs Cioann nFaabcists hMeaertij u| awnwa)w .whewrwet.hoehreeltpo.hbecl.pc.abc.What is pharmaceutical cannabis, and how does it compare to herbal cannabis?
Pharmaceutical companies have developed drugs which either contain cannabinoids or have synthetic chemicals similar to those found in the cannabis plant. Some patients who want to use cannabinoids use pharmaceutical products only. Others use pharmaceutical products to complement their herbal cannabis use, or instead of cannabis, for example, when travelling. Other patients report that they prefer herbal cannabis.
Two kinds of synthesized THC (dronabinol or Marinol® and nabilone or Cesamet®) have been approved for treatment of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. Marinol® has also been approved for appetite and weight loss associated with HIV/AIDS wasting syndrome. A recent pharmaceutical cannabis product called Sativex® has been approved in Canada for pain associated with advanced cancer and neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis.
Pharmaceutical products with only some of the plant molecules do not have the same potential benefits as herbal cannabis. In herbal cannabis, different cannabinoids—as well as the terpenoids and flavanoids—act to balance the psychoactive effects of THC and have other have medical properties. Marinol® and Cesamet® are based on only one component of cannabis (THC, or a related synthetic molecule). Some studies show that this can increase the risk of panic attacks and dysphoria; many patients have reported such negative side effects. Sativex® contains molecules taken directly from the cannabis plant, including THC and CBD, and does not seem to have the same negative side effects as the other pharmaceutical products. Patient responses to this product vary. While some find it effective, others do not. This may be because it is the equivalent of one strain of cannabis that is not effective for everyone.
With inhalation, herbal cannabis takes effect very quickly. Because Marinol® and Cesamet® are swallowed in pill form, their effects are slower to be felt and it is therefore harder for a patient to find the right dosage. It is also difficult for patients to swallow pills while experiencing nausea. Sativex® is delivered via a spray absorbed through the patient’s mouth, so its onset time is quicker.
The costs of herbal cannabis are currently only covered by health insurance in very limited circumstances, but the costs of some of the pharmaceutical products are covered. At this stage in its approval process (it currently has a Notice of Compliance with Conditions) the cost of Sativex® is not covered by all provincial and territorial health insurance plans, making this option more expensive than other pharmaceutical and herbal cannabis products.
What are the side-effects and risks of using cannabis to treat medical conditions or symptoms?
All drugs have side-effects and potential harms. The important question to consider when using any medicine is whether the benefits outweigh the potential harms. Many studies document the therapeutic effectiveness of cannabis. Beyond the scientific evidence, many people believe, based on personal experience, that cannabis has a direct impact in terms of improving their well-being with minimal adverse effects.
The side effects associated with cannabis are typically mild and are classified as “low risk”, particularly when compared to many of the pharmaceutical drugs used for the same conditions and symptoms. Serious complications are very rare and there is no
Primer 2007 | Post Partum Depression Factsheet | www.heretohelp.bc.ca Backgrounder | 2008 | Medical Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) | www.heretohelp.bc.ca
known case of a lethal overdose. The ratio of lethal to effective dose is estimated at more than 1,000 to one.
While over-consumption does not kill or seriously harm the user, it can be unpleasant. Someone who has consumed too much may become dizzy, agitated, nauseous, nervous, or paranoid. The most intense feelings will last about an hour and the effects should wear off in four to five hours. Some acute effects of too high a dose, particularly in new users, include tachycardia (accelerated heart rate) and hypotension (lowered blood pressure). Several studies have documented mild short-term impairments in motor-coordination, attention span and memory.
These short-term effects are dependent on factors such as the patient’s familiarity with cannabis, the strain and dosage used, as well as the context of use.
Euphoric mood changes are among the most frequent side effects of cannabis. While some people find the ‘high’ that can accompany cannabis use to be a therapeutic benefit, others do not like the feeling. Heavy cannabis use may make symptoms worse for mood and personality disorders and can exacerbate existing schizophrenic psychosis or increase the risk for developing psychosis in predisposed persons.
There is not a lot of data about the long-term effects of using cannabis, and the data that does exist is inconsistent. Generally, the effects are believed to be limited. Inhaling cannabis smoke can lead to some respiratory problems such as bronchitis and phlegm production; however a link between smoking cannabis and chronic lung diseases such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) has not been proven. Studies do show that smoking cannabis and tobacco together increases the risks of COPD and lung cancer. However, smoking cannabis alone, even regularly and heavily, does not appear to be associated with lung cancer. There is increasing evidence that endocannabinoids are able to inhibit the growth and spreading of cancer tumors.
Cannabis is generally perceived to have low risk for producing physical dependence; however long-term, frequent use of large amounts can lead to mild psychological dependence. Chronic, heavy use of cannabis may lead to the development of tolerance so that more cannabis must be used to achieve the desired effects. Using a different strain of cannabis, or stopping use for a short time can reduce tolerance levels. Some users (about 10 per cent) may find it difficult to stop. Some users experience minor withdrawal symptoms when they stop using cannabis, such as irritability, anxiety, upset stomach, loss of appetite, and disturbed sleep. These symptoms generally last for a few days at most.
Contraindications
There are certain conditions that increase the risk of using cannabis. Patients with a history of psychotic disorders, particularly schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, should be under careful psychiatric monitoring when using cannabis. Cannabinoids are contraindicated for patients with a history of active cardiac ischemias. Those receiving digitalis or other cardiac medications should use cannabis under careful supervision by a medical doctor. Cannabis use should be avoided where the immune system is needed to fight off infections, particularly intracellular pathogens, such as those that cause Legionnaire’s disease, Leishmania and tuberculosis.
BParicmkgerro 2u0n0d7e r| | P2o0s0t8 P| aMretudmica Dl Uesper eosfs Cioann nFaabcists (hMeaertij u| awnwa)w | .whewrwet.hoehreeltpo.hbecl.pc.abc.ca
Drug interactions
Because of the way cannabis is metabolized, it has been suggested that there is a potential for it to interact with other drugs. Clinically significant interactions have not been detected; however some study results and case reports indicate that there is the possibility that cannabis may increase or decrease the effectiveness of other medication. While inconclusive, these results suggest that patients should be monitored for a change in dosing requirements if they are taking other drugs.
Reports from patients indicate that negative drug interactions are not common. Patients report that they are able to reduce the doses of some of their pharmaceutical drugs (particularly opiate-based painkillers) when using cannabis. Cannabis has also been shown to mitigate the negative side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and other therapies. This helps patients stick to their treatment schedules.
Quality
Depending on how cannabis is cultivated and stored, some mould, bacteria and other contaminants may grow on it. Some of these are harmless, but others may be toxic. These contaminants can usually be detected through a visual, olfactory and tactile inspection.
Synthetic pesticides, fungicides and other harmful chemicals often used in horticulture can also be toxic. It is believed that all cannabis meant to be used by humans, and especially medicinal-grade cannabis should be grown without these products. Many medical cannabis users report that they prefer organically grown cannabis. Laboratories are able to test for biological and chemical contamination; however due to the legal status of cannabis, it can be difficult to obtain such tests.
Is using cannabis for medicinal purposes legal?
Cannabis is a controlled substance in Canada, which means that it is illegal to possess, grow, sell, import, and export it. However, Canada is one of a few countries in which cannabis is legal for medical use. It is also legal for medical use in the Netherlands, Spain, Israel and Finland and a growing number of US states.
A court ruling in 2000 found that Canadians have a constitutional right to use cannabis as a medicine, since they should not have to choose between their liberty and their health. As a result, Health Canada developed the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) in 2001. Under that program, an Authorization to Possess gives a patient the right to possess cannabis legally for medicinal purposes. A Personal Production License gives a patient the right to grow cannabis for his or herself, and a Designated Production License allows them to designate someone to grow cannabis for them. Health Canada also contracts the production of cannabis and sells it to those with an Authorization to Possess.
There are two categories of people who are eligible to obtain an Authorization to Possess cannabis, as described by Health Canada. The first category includes people suffering symptoms associated with terminal or other specific illnesses including MS, spinal cord injury, cancer, HIV/AIDS, arthritis and epilepsy. The second category includes people who have other debilitating symptoms due to medical conditions. It requires that a specialist confirms the diagnosis and agrees that conventional treatments have failed or are inappropriate for relieving symptoms.
Although it is possible for people to apply for the use of medical cannabis in Canada, the process is certainly not easy. Out of the estimated one million Canadians who
Primer 2007 | BPaocksgtr oPuandretru |m 20 0D8 e| Mperdeicsasl iUosne oFf aCcantsnahbeise (Mt |a rwijuwanwa) .| hwewrwe.thoerheetolhpe.lbp.cb.cc.caa
use cannabis for medicinal purposes, approximately 4,000 people currently hold an Authorization to Possess under the MMAR. There have been several court challenges by patients involving the barriers to accessing the program and the limited options for obtaining a legal supply of high-quality medicine. Only about 500 patients are currently accessing cannabis from Health Canada. Several courts have ruled that the MMAR are unconstitutional because of these problems and have ordered amendments to the program to allow other legal supply options. To date Health Canada has not made these court-ordered amendments.
What are compassion clubs?
Compassion clubs are community-based medical cannabis dispensaries. They exist to provide high-quality cannabis to people with officially documented medical conditions—such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, hepatitis C, chronic pain and multiple sclerosis. Currently, there are about a dozen of these unlicensed dispensaries across Canada, serving an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 patients. Clients must be 18 or older, or have the written consent of a parent or guardian.
By offering safe, secure, and consistent access to a variety of high-quality cannabis strains and products, compassion clubs seek to reduce the potential harms often associated with illegal distribution. Medical cannabis users who are not clients of compassion clubs, producing their own supply or receiving it from Health Canada must obtain cannabis from other sources. These sources may be unreliable, unsafe, and difficult to find. The cannabis may be of lower quality, less effective, and more costly.
The existence of compassion clubs in Canada pre-dates Health Canada’s medical cannabis program. Currently, Health Canada does not recognize compassion clubs, nor does the MMAR allow for such enterprises. Although compassion clubs are not currently licensed, many police departments tolerate those that are rigorous in restricting their sales to people with verified medical conditions. However, this is a tentative, unspoken agreement that could be revoked at any time, and there are several recorded incidents of compassion club owners or managers being arrested. In most cases, the courts have ruled in favour of the compassion clubs and have recognized the important service they are providing.
In the absence of licensing, these dispensaries self-regulate. Most of the well-established clubs operate according to guidelines that have been established to ensure transparency, accountability and a high standard of care.
What are some barriers to using cannabis for medical purposes?
Besides the potential for criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, or distribution of cannabis, the legal status of cannabis creates many barriers for those who could benefit from its medical use.
1. Healthcare practitioner support. It is important for patients to be able to tell their doctors about the different treatments and therapies they are using. A recent study shows that family physicians adopt a ‘don’t ask’ attitude toward their patients’ use of cannabis and that most patients ‘don’t tell’ their physicians whether they are using it.
Patients report that obtaining their physician’s support is one of the biggest barriers they face in obtaining a license for Health Canada’s program, or in becoming a client of a compassion club. Physicians report that they do not have adequate knowledge of the therapeutic benefits of cannabis and are reluctant to
BParicmkgerro 2u0n0d7e r| | P2o0s0t8 P| aMretudmica Dl Uesper eosfs Cioann nFaabcists (hMeaertij u| awnwa)w | .whewrwet.hoehreeltpo.hbecl.pc.abc.ca
associate themselves with this product because of its illegality and associated stigma. Professional associations across the country have cautioned physicians not to support the MMAR authorization process due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence supporting the medical benefits of cannabis. The Canadian Medical Association likewise expressed that it did not want physicians to act as gatekeepers to this therapy.
The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA—the insurer of the medical profession) warned of potential legal difficulties that could be faced by physicians who followed the MMAR. After some amendments to the MMAR, the CMPA now recommends that physicians who complete the MMAR ask their patient to sign a release-from-liability form which addresses potential concerns about medical liability. Health Canada’s application forms have been changed over the years to shift the responsibility from physician to patient. Compassion clubs typically require the diagnosis of a condition or symptom for which cannabis has potential therapeutic purposes, and a recommendation for use rather than a prescription. Some clubs permit authorization from licensed health care practitioners who are more experienced with herbal medicine (e.g. doctors of traditional Chinese medicine and naturopaths).
2. Discrimination. Despite considerable popular support in Canada for the medical use of cannabis, some patients experience a stigma around their use. In some cases this is because of its illicit status and the associated negative connotations from the “reefer madness” propaganda. Patients may experience negative reactions from family, friends, community members, colleagues, and even health-care practitioners. Negative messages may also be portrayed in the media. This can be difficult for some people to deal with.
Stigma can lead to acts of discrimination that can have a very negative effect on a patient’s life—for example in regards to housing, employment, and child custody. Some medical cannabis users have even experienced discrimination in receiving treatments such as organ transplants and treatment for addiction to other substances. In such situations, having a license from Health Canada can be very helpful. Recently, the Quebec Human Rights Commission ruled that medical cannabis users are protected from discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
3. Cost. Affordability is a problem for some people who use cannabis as a medicine. Some patients find they must sacrifice other necessities, such as food, or choose to use a medicine that is less effective and has worse side effects. The cost of cannabis is artificially elevated due to black market conditions. On the street, prices range from about $10 to $15 per gram. Health Canada sells their cannabis for $5 per gram, and compassion club prices range from $5 to $10 per gram. While doses vary per patient, the price of cannabis may be prohibitive, particularly for people living on low or fixed incomes.
Patient advocacy groups have expressed how important it is for this medicine to be covered, as prescription drugs are—either through provincial or private health insurance plans. Veterans Affairs Canada will cover the costs of cannabis for Canadian veterans who have MMAR licenses in certain circumstances. Canada Revenue Agency allows a person authorized under the MMAR to claim the
www.heretohelp.bc.ca
The BC Partners for Mental Health and Addictions Information are a group of seven leading provincial mental health and addictions nonprofit agencies. The seven partners are Anxiety BC, BC Schizophrenia Society, Centre for Addictions Research of BC, Canadian Mental Health Association’s BC Division, F.O.R.C.E. Society for Kids Mental Health, Jessie’s Hope Society, and Mood Disorder’s Association of BC. Since 2003, we’ve been working together to help individuals and families better prevent, recognize and manage mental health and substance use problems. BC Partners work is funded by BC Mental Health and Addiction Services, an agency of the Provincial Health Services Authority. We also receive some additional support from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The BC Partners are behind the acclaimed HeretoHelp website. Visit us at www.heretohelp.bc.ca.
Produced by the Centre for Addictions Research of BC
costs of cannabis paid to Health Canada or a designated producer as a medical expense. Costs can be minimized by educating patients to use the smallest quantity possible to achieve the desired effects.
What to do if you or someone you know needs more information about medicinal cannabis
To find out more about Health Canada’s medical cannabis program,
visit http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php
or call Marihuana Medical Access Division 1-866-337-7705
For links to compassion clubs and other information on the medical use of cannabis, visit:
Canadians for Safe Access at
http://safeaccess.ca.
Other helpful resources:
Senate Report—
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1part5-e.htm#Chapter%209
Canadian AIDS Society—
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/casmisc.nsf/pages/cas-gen-0112
Compassion Club Guidelines—
http://www.thecompassionclub.org/resources/guidelines%20for%20distribution.pdf
Clinical Studies and Case Reports
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/nav/home-science.htm
For more information about cannabis and other substances, visit www.heretohelp.bc.ca or www.carbc.ca.

Rick Simpson's Dosage Recommendations for using Hemp oil for Cancer

2011-11-20T14:05:00.002-07:00

Translation
It takes the average person about 90 days to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three doses per day, about the size of a half a grain of short grained rice. A dose such as this would equal about ¼ of a drop. After four days at this dosage, most people are able to increase their doses by doubling the amount of their dose every four days.
It takes the average person about 5 weeks to get to the point where they can ingest a gram per day. Once they reach this dosage they can continue at this rate until the cancer disappears.
 By using this method it allows the body to build up its tolerance slowly, in fact, I have many reports from people who took the oil treatment and said they never got high. We all have different tolerances for any medication. Your size and body weight have little to do with your tolerance for hemp oil. Be aware when commencing treatment with hemp oil that it will lower your blood pressure, so if you are currently taking blood pressure medication, it is very likely that you will no longer need it.
When people are taking the oil, I like to see them stay within their comfort zone, but the truth is, the faster you take the oil the better the chance of surviving. At the end of their treatment most people continue taking the oil but at a much reduced rate. About one gram a month would be a good maintenance dose. I do not like to see people overdosing on the oil, but an overdose does no harm. The main side effect of this medication is sleep and rest which plays an important role in the healing process. Usually, within an hour or so of taking a dose, the oil is telling you to lay down and relax. Don’t fight the sleepy feeling, just lay down and go with it. Usually within a month, the daytime tiredness associated with this treatment fades away but the patient continues to sleep very well at night.
The only time I would recommend that people start out with larger doses would be to get off addictive and dangerous pain medications. When people who are using such medications begin the oil treatment, they usually cut their pain medications in half. The object is to take enough oil to take care of the pain and to help the patient get off these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. Taking the oil makes it much easier for the patient to get off these addictive chemicals.
I simply tell people the oil will do one of two things; it will either cure your cancer or in cases where it is too late to affect a cure, the oil will ease their way out and they can at least die with dignity.
Hemp oil has a very high success rate in the treatment of cancer. Unfortunately, many people who come to me have been badly damaged by the medical system with their chemo and radiation etc. The damage such treatments cause have a lasting effect and people who have suffered the effects of such treatments are the hardest to cure.
It should also be mentioned that the oil rejuvenates vital organs like the pancreas. Many diabetics who have taken the oil find that after about six weeks on the oil that they no longer require insulin since their pancreas is again doing its job.
Properly made hemp medicine is the greatest healer on this planet bar none. Once you experience what this medication can do you will understand why history and I call hemp medicine a cure all.
Treating Skin Cancer
If you can get some properly made oil, it will definitely work to cure skin cancer and usually it only takes a few grams of oil to accomplish the task. Take about 30 grams of good Indica bud, this amount of starting material should produce 3 to 4 grams of high grade oil. Apply the oil to the skin cancer and cover it with a bandage, apply fresh oil and a new bandage every 3 or 4 days and the cancer should soon disappear. I always tell people to continue treatment until the cancer is gone, then they should continue to treat the area for about two more weeks just as if the cancer was still there.
Doing this will ensure that all the cancer cells are dead and I have never seen a cancer return if my instructions are followed. If you’ve had skin cancer for quite some time and the cancer is well established, it may take some time to cure. But usually even in quite severe cases the cancer will disappear in less than three weeks. In an extreme case it may take longer but if so ,then just keep up the treatment until it is gone. Many people can cure their skin cancer in no time, but it all depends on your own rate of healing and how deeply embedded the cancer has become.
Other Natural Things You Can Do That Could Help
When people came to me for oil to treat their cancer, the first thing I told them to do is change their diets. Try to stay away from animal protein as much as possible, since such protein promotes cancer growth. Get a juicing machine and start eating as many raw fruits and vegetables as possible, since plant protein fights the growth of cancer. Stop using sugar and replace its use with natural sweetener’s like raw honey. Get the patient’s PH up as quickly as possible, cancer likes an acidic environment and when you raise the body’s PH it makes it hard for cancer cells to survive. Also start eating the seeds from two apples everyday, this will give you a good daily dose of B17 also known as laetrile. B17 in its own right has a pretty good track record in the treatment of cancer and there are other natural things such as wheat grass, that you may find of benefit as well. Many people who have used the oil to treat their cancers did not change a thing, but the oil still worked its magic and they were healed.
But if you have a serious condition like cancer I think its a good idea to take other natural things that may help the oil eradicate the cancer and give you a better chance to survive. But the most important thing of all is, people have to realize that for the most part, what the medical system provides does much more harm than good. That is the reason I tell people who contact me, if they want to survive its best to stay as far away from the medical system as possible. That is the sad state, the medical system we have today is in and it will not change until people who work within this system finally realize that chemicals and poison do not heal. As far as I’m concerned what most doctors today practice is madness and not medicine.
Rick Simpson

The Real Reason Hemp Is Illegal

2011-11-02T09:04:00.000-06:00

Published on 100777.com (http://100777.com)
The Marijuana Conspiracy - THE REAL REASON HEMP IS ILLEGAL
by Doug Yurchey
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.-- Ezekiel 34/29
THE REAL REASON CANNABIS HAS BEEN OUTLAWED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS EFFECTS ON THE MIND AND BODY.
MARIJUANA is DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people.
The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
* All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974.
* It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981.
* REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.
* Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow's export to England; Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer.
* For thousands of years, 90% of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
* 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.
* The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.
* The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th Century; State Archives.
* Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
* Rembrants, Gainsboroughs, Van Goghs as well as most early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen.
* In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture
* Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
* Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.
* Hemp called 'Billion Dollar Crop.' It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars; Popular Mechanics, Feb., 1938.
* Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled 'The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.' It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture's 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing 'patriotic American farmers' to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort:
'...(When) Grecian temples were new, hemp was already old in the service of mankind. For thousands of years, even then, this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth in China and elsewhere in the East. For centuries prior to about 1850, all the ships that sailed the western seas were rigged with hempen rope and sails. For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable...
...Now with Philippine and East Indian sources of hemp in the hands of the Japanese...American hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as of our industries...
...the Navy's rapidly dwindling reserves. When that is gone, American hemp will go on duty again; hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory!'
Certified proof from the Library of Congress; found by the research of Jack Herer, refuting claims of other government agencies that the 1942 USDA film 'Hemp for Victory' did not exist.
Hemp cultivation and production do not harm the environment. The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces 4 times as much pulp with at least 4 to 7 times less pollution. From Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938:
'It has a short growing season...It can be grown in any state...The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year's crop. The dense shock of leaves, 8 to 12 feet above the ground, chokes out weeds.
...hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.'
In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs generating thousands of quality products. Hemp, if not made illegal, would have brought America out of the Great Depression.
William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.
In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.
THE CONSPIRACY
Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America.
MEDIA MANIPULATION
A media blitz of 'yellow journalism' raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst's newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marihuana. The menace of marihuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.
Films like 'Reefer Madness' (1936), 'Marihuana: Assassin of Youth' (1935) and 'Marihuana: The Devil's Weed' (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marihuana laws could be passed.
Examine the following quotes from 'The Burning Question' aka REEFER MADNESS:
• a violent narcotic.
• acts of shocking violence.
• incurable insanity.
• soul-destroying effects.
• under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax.
• more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!
Reefer Madness did not end with the usual 'the end.' The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN.
In the 1930s, people were very naive; even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children and their children grew up to be the parents of the baby-boomers.
On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marihuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. The Chairman of the Ways and Means, Robert Doughton, was a Dupont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress.
Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marihuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marihuana was hemp.
Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst's front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a MEDICINE found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years.
In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since.
Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marihuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger now said the exact opposite. Marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight.
Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet's energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices.

THE WONDER PLANT
Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.
ALL PLASTIC PRODUCTS SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP SEED OIL. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature; they do not break down and will do great harm in the future. The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as Dupont and other petrochemical companies have done. Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the Oil Industry and the political machine. Hemp products are safe and natural.
MEDICINES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures. 'Medical Marijuana' is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.
WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.
CLOTHES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time. You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp. Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television. Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it ILLEGAL TO WEAR hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?
The world is crazy...but that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word 'marijuana.' Realize the history that created it. Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the bullshit. Hemp must be utilized in the future. We need a clean energy source to save our planet. INDUSTRIALIZE HEMP!
The liquor, tobacco and oil companies fund more than a million dollars a day to Partnership for a Drug-Free America and other similar agencies. We have all seen their commercials. Now, their motto is: ‘It's more dangerous than we thought.’ Lies from the powerful corporations, that began with Hearst, are still alive and well today.
The brainwashing continues. Now, the commercials say: If you buy a joint, you contribute to murders and gang wars. The latest anti-pot commercials say: If you buy a joint...you are promoting TERRORISM! The new enemy (terrorism) has paved the road to brainwash you any way THEY see fit.
There is only one enemy; the friendly people you pay your taxes to; the war-makers and nature destroyers. With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY TOBACCO. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY ALCOHOL. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER DIED FROM SMOKING POT!! In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis. Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the KILLERS: TOBACCO and ALCOHOL. Hemp should be declassified and placed in DRUG stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad; but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries...which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that: Smoking is harmful. That is NOT the case for passive pot.
Ingesting THC, hemp's active agent, has a positive effect; relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.
{One personal note: During the pregnancy of my wife, she was having some difficulty gaining weight. We were in the hospital. A nurse called us to one side and said: ‘Off the record, if you smoke pot...you'd get something called the munchies and you’ll gain weight.' I swear that is a true story}.
The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain. Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive. You can more appreciate all arts; be closer to nature and generally FEEL more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.
The pot plant is an ALIEN plant. There is physical evidence that cannabis is not like any other plant on this planet. One could conclude that it was brought here for the benefit of humanity. Hemp is the ONLY plant where the males appear one way and the females appear very different, physically! No one ever speaks of males and females in regard to the plant kingdom because plants do not show their sexes; except for cannabis. To determine what sex a certain, normal, Earthly plant is: You have to look internally, at its DNA. A male blade of grass (physically) looks exactly like a female blade of grass. The hemp plant has an intense sexuallity. Growers know to kill the males before they fertilize the females. Yes, folks...the most potent pot comes from 'horny females.'
The reason this amazing, very sophisticated, ET plant from the future is illegal has nothing to do with how it physically affects us…..
…POT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE BILLIONAIRES WANT TO REMAIN BILLIONAIRES!
ps: I think the word ‘DRUGS’ should not be used as an umbrella-word that covers all chemical agents. Drugs have come to be known as something BAD. Are you aware there are LEGAL drugstores?! Yep, in every city. Unbelievable. Each so-called drug should be considered individually. Cannabis is a medicine and not a drug. We should DARE to speak the TRUTH no matter what the law is.

Published on 100777.com (http://100777.com)
Marijuana Conspiracy - the Sequel
By cybe
Created 31/05/2007 - 00:30

by Doug Yurchey [1]
[100777.com also recommends the article titled "The Truth about Drugs" [2]]
In 2005, this writer penned ‘The Real Reason Marijuana is Illegal [2]’ and it became (by far) my most popular article. Translated into Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, Swedish, Bulgarian and even Japanese, the responses were overwhelming. Its premise was ‘marijuana’ became illegal NOT because it was a danger to the mind and body. No, the real reason is that Big Business wants us to use petrochemicals and fossil fuels. They have little interest in NATURAL solutions. THEY have suppressed the truth concerning cannabis and purposely created the ‘menace of marijuana.’ Why? So they remain high profiteers while destroying our environment [3] in the process.
Once people read the news of what has been kept from them, the truth, the reactions were outrage and disbelief at our federal authorities. Hemp used properly for all of its INDUSTRIAL purposes, as it was always meant to be utilized, could…

SAVE THE WORLD! We need not cut down another tree. We need not have to rely on Oil Companies anymore.
So many people wrote to me and said the suppression of hemp is ‘insane.’ Surely, governments know the potential of pot. They understand how cannabis hemp could solve the energy crisis; they know biodegradable plastics could be produced from the hemp plant; they realize it would be a safer, cleaner world filled with (inexpensive) quality products…if only we were federally given the green light to INDUSTRIALIZE HEMP! Governments are well aware of the MEDICINAL value for ‘weed.’ New cloths, papers and plastics would be super durable. They could easily create nutritional FOOD products for a starving world. BUT…when did a better mousetrap ever see the light of day?
Now, with soaring gas prices bleeding us for every dollar inflating all prices, we need a cheap (renewable) fuel and energy source more than ever. Imagine hemp gas. The price of it would not be sky high since we have a limitless supply of hempen energy. Federal (guarded) hemp fields could be farmed and directed to produce a cheap/clean gasoline. Hemp fibers and oil were utilized during WWII [3] for rope-moorings, parachutes and lubrication. Why not use hemp gasoline NOW when we are at another critical point in time? Why does hemp technology remain clandestine?
Why is there a war in the Middle East over oil? Do you really think it’s a coincidence that George Bush is an oilman and remains steadfast against bringing our troops home? Hemp petroleum is the way to alleviate us from dependency on foreign oil. That is a wonderful dream, cannabis as the means to bring our troops home!
Email replies to the original article mainly asked WHY [4]? Why don’t the authorities appreciate the profits to be made from hemp products? Money rules the world, so why don’t the industrialists make it legal? Tax hemp, regulate it, make it legal not for altruistic purposes but for their own high profits! The planet and its people would be much healthier. Why [5] the HELL isn’t this done?
There are no easy answers. Generally, my reply to these readers scratching their befuddled heads was ‘secret societies. [5]’ We are not educated on how the world really functions. We grow up watching movies and television [5] where the good guys always win. We are trained to think that our government is good and out for the benefit of all. Films portray the heroes as CIA [5], FBI [5], NSA [5] agents or obedient soldiers and police. We are given the false hope that governments care. Please do not be so naïve as to think this is true.
Power was never in the hands of the people. It is almost foolish to think that we, the general masses, control anything. Do you really think petitions work or writing to your congressional representative?
The truth is governments only care about themselves; we are their enemy and they need to control us (because we have the numbers) any way they can…with [organized] religion, bogus science, television [5], news, propaganda [5], commercials or via the abolition of MARIJUANA.
Instead of THEM industrializing hemp to save the planet…they have banned it. They have created a monster out of the very thing that is a precious gift to the world. NO, it does not make sense at all. However, it is understandable in the insane, Bizarro, backwards world that we live in. Apparently, any good thing is always destroyed. (Ever hear of Nikola Tesla [6]?) Why? The answer must be POWER and CONTROL. The ‘haves’ do not want to give anything to the ‘have-nots.’ These are policies from the Dark Ages; they remain alive and well to this day. Research Secret Societies [6] and you might understand.
They invented the monster of MARIJUANA. (‘If we do not have an enemy, they will create one’). They had to change the word since the world would never have been turned against HEMP. For thousands of years going back to the wisdom of the Egyptians, hemp was employed for the betterment of the human race. Enter ‘marihuana’ in the 1930s; just when farm machinery improved that would have made hemp the first ‘billion dollar crop!’
Have we grown up enough to see that they have pulled the wool over our eyes? We can no longer afford to be silent lambs. We have to speak up loud and strong and do what we can to spread the truth. What can we do? Share the information, wake people up to the true facts and suppressed knowledge concerning hemp. Eventually, when the pro-hemp people become the large majority, then, the world will change for the better. In the end, we will win.
A very important aspect of those email responses to my original article came in the form of personal stories. These testimonials answer the question: Does hemp help or hurt? Now, this writer could not please everyone on such a controversial subject. Not all the emails contained high praise. There were those anti-hemp fanatics spouting rhetoric from every commercial from the ‘Partnership of a Drug-Free America.’ Some stated it causes ‘lung cancer’ as they tried to educate me on the ‘toxins’ in marijuana.
Well, there are no toxins in hemp. I would love to tell Judge Judy, who is always yelling for someone to take a hair follicle test, the reason why THC stays in your system for so long. (And it’s ‘hemp’ not ‘marijuana’). If it were a toxin, a poison or some foreign substance, the body would immediate reject it and expel it. The body does NOT. It knows THC, the active ingredient of hemp, is GOOD. As mentioned before, there are essential fatty acids in hemp seeds. There are other sources in nature for these essential acids, but eating hemp seeds is a great source of (important) proteins. Our own bodies tell us the truth. Shouldn’t we listen to the truth within ourselves rather than the garbage broadcasted over television?
Seriously, the pro emails compared to the con emails ran 100 to one. For every one who blasted me, calling me names (these were from mainly young people)…there were about a HUNDRED administrators, educators, some scientists, activists and average people who related their (positive) private stories to me. Many claimed that normal medical procedures and doctors failed them miserably. The ONLY relief from their illnesses was illegal hemp. Here is a peek into some of the best and positive emails over the last two years. They are anonymous and edited, but they are real with the date I received them:

6/20/05 I was diagnosed with an AVM (Arterio Venous Malformation), a neuro-illness that causes me to have fits. On my second appointment with my neuro surgeon we went through the list of narcotics I was using at the time (marijuana). With that she gave me a sly look and said ‘off the record Mr. ____, this will actually reduce your blood pressure and can only be beneficial for your epilepsy. But I didn't tell you that.’
6/23/05 I took a college class in drug use, it was about street drugs, not pharmaceutical drugs. I learned that, at one time, marijuana was legal and was prescribed by MDs and dispensed by pharmacists for a variety of health problems - you know: HTN, insomnia, glaucoma, asthma, etc. I was told that the government decided to impose a $25 tax on MDs who prescribed it and a $35 tax on pharmacists who dispensed it. In protest, both groups elected to stop dealing with it. In response, Pres. Harriman included marijuana in his Narcotics Act of 1914: It was called the Harriman Act. They lumped it in as a class 4 narcotic meaning that there was no medical use for it, even though it's not a narcotic and no one had any indication that it was harmful in any way. In the class, we were shown pictures, taken during the early part of the century, of children smoking a joint…which, we were told, they could purchase for 5 cents, OTC, at any pharmacy, perfectly LEGAL - they were called ‘muggles.’
6/18/05 You didn't mention the most important reason why there is a continuing battle against legalization of marijuana, that is because it actually is used to treat sick people with pain successfully and with no serious side effects, something the legal drug industry hasn't accomplished with all their patented expensive crap they call medication. They don't want to loose their chokehold on the billions of dollars they make with this phony medication that could be replaced with an herb anyone can grow in their backyard.
6/18/05 I have been smoking pot since 1962 and I am now 83. I wish I had started when I was a teenager. Good for you.
6/18/05 I have a lot of respect for cannabis as I have used it medically for a spinal injury for several years recently, when all else failed, as doctors gave me narcotic drugs to relieve pain, and these drugs never worked and I was in such severe pain even with their drugs. Cannabis was the only pain reliever that worked. I have done a bit of research myself and found that cannabis is listed under a narcotic and this must be taken off the list that the United States has placed it as narcotic as opium, heroin, cocaine is totally ridiculous and bogus. I feel that if it was taken off the list and proved to the DEA, FDA, or whoever else…that it isn't a narcotic then we can get some headway on this wonderful, helpful plant. If it wasn't for cannabis I wouldn't have healed...The AMA is the worst, the most horrendous of all, because they encourage the doctors to prescribe drugs that lead to the deterioration of the body. Yes, it is a conspiracy, from the beginning, that the corporations don't want hemp to be grown. If they did, the logging industry would be wiped out. I live in southern Oregon and it is the biggest industry here…
6/19/05 I'm a 41 year old victim of Cystic Fibrosis, a genetic disease that kills people usually around 32 years old. I have the worst type of genetic mutation but still alive at the amazement of my Doctor. The reason? Maybe HEMP! I use it in a moderate way, around 2-3 times a week, usually eating it, and the benefit of that medicine is very good for me. Cystic Fibrosis kills people by pneumonia. An effect of hemp is drying mucus secretion so it kills bacteria by starvation. Even better: an antioxidant property of hemp that prevents lung tissue degradation. Another characteristic of Cystic Fibrosis is destruction of the digestive system, especially pancreas, stomach, liver and intestine. That is appetite inhibiting. I'm often eating because of holy hemp. It avoids me from losing too much weight and helps my defense against the constant lung infection. If my doctor knew the truth, he'd surely start hemp harvesting for sure!
6/20/05 I am a Disabled Veteran who spent 17 years taking the VA's Medication. I moved to Arizona; and a Pima Indian Medicine Man gave me an 'herb' to use as a tea to lower my blood pressure. Within 3 weeks it had gone from 210/146 to 130/70. Obviously, I quit the Government Medication and I now participate in the interesting hobby of home gardening of herbal cures for the ills of mankind! By the way, just so you don't think I'm ‘a doper,’ I served 8 years in the USAF, 2 years as a Palm Beach County FL Police Officer and then 17 years as a Paramedic. I have a Masters of Theology degree from Indiana Wesleyan University. Thanks for having the guts to publish THE TRUTH.
6/23/05 Doug, I also referred Montel Williams to your article about hemp ‘marijuana’ because he has multiple sclerosis and wants to legalize marijuana for medicinal purpose since it seems to help ms folks with pain. Since he has a TV talk show, I thought maybe he would give your article some publicity.
6/30/05 I am bipolar and when I smoke I am calmer then I am on my pills. I also have fibromyalgia and when in pain I grab my trusty friend Pot; it helps me function and eat. If I didn't have it, I would be dead years ago. Some days I can hardly make it down the stairs because of the ache and pains in my joints. Also, I suffer from severe migraines where I can't even open my eyes because I am light sensitive then my head pounds. I have been on many narcotics from vicodin to oxycottin and they all make me feel worse than smoking a damn joint. Only in America would they make a plant so beneficial to humankind, the most dangerous ‘drug’ in all the land. If I didn't go score I would be in pain and would never be able to walk out to get my mail. My fiancé gets upset since I can't work but she knows I can't help it. I want to work. I want to be the breadwinner of the family, but physically I cannot maintain standing for more than a few moments before I feel like I am passing out because of the pain. I went to numerous doctors and told them that pot helps me…all of them said since I live in Ohio, they cannot do anything for me besides narcotics…but I cannot smoke a joint…that is rubbish in my book.
7/31/05 I don't know if you have thought about this before, but after all the research I have done, it is my opinion that JFK was assassinated over hemp. He was a known user for his back pain, he fired Anslinger as soon as he got into office and it was said he was going to legalize it in his 2nd term. He never made it to his 2nd term. Maybe you can dig a bit more on your end and see what you come up with to support this theory of mine. It makes sense, don't you think? Keep educating people one day at a time…it's our only shot.
11/18/05 The actual truth that the oil giants do not want anyone to know is that most ‘non producing’ oil fields (for example, Derrick Island off Louisiana) have been found to have mysteriously refilled themselves after closing them down. This is because the vast majority of oil is not biotic but abiotic. The planet’s crust produces billions of new gallons of crude annually and this is refilling the fields pumped out in almost every case. That is why Saudi Arabia just doubled the estimate of its known reserves over its predictions of 10 years ago. The wells keep refilling themselves due to planetary mechanics. Biotic oil is a discredited theory. There was never enough biomass in any prehistoric period to produce the amount of petroleum we have already consumed on this planet to date.
1/7/06 The most important health benefits come from smoking (or otherwise consuming) hemp/cannabis plant material which contains high levels of the active ingredients (THC, etc.) The higher the level of active ingredients, the more medicinal and beneficial it is. This is highly effective medicine, with no negative side effects, which is being denied to people in desperate need because of a pack of lies!
12/10/06 Weed is unprocessed and natural, as opposed to other processed drugs. I have eaten hemp seeds and have even had hemp oil and see the unspoken benefits from them even before I was planning to research the subject.

12/10/06 Maybe by the time I retire I can smoke a joint in peace, not fearing the Police and my government. But, other times it just seems hopeless, but I refuse to believe that money is the most powerful force in our Universe...there must be some room for truth.
12/16/06 I am a recreational therapist working for a state operated drug treatment center. If I were to speak in these terms, I doubt I would remain in favor of those above me.
2/2/07 As a medical marijuana user for many years, I would not be here without it. I was a vegetable on the prescribed medication and don’t remember 2 whole years of my life while I was on morphine. Now I live a full and active life, running a business and bringing up a family. Is it too late to change views? I do hope not because it has so much to offer.

Above are some of the best comments from hundreds of replies. My article was far from perfect. I thank those more informed on plants than myself that told me there are other plants that physically reveal their sex such as the holly plant. Many criticized my belief that cannabis had an extraterrestrial origin. That conclusion came out of decades of studying our ancestors of prehistory. My studies have shown a completely new genesis for the human race where we have lost great knowledge. (It may have been advanced HUMANS that created Earthly animals and plants). Cannabis Sativa and all of its infinite and vital uses may be evidence that some great intelligence (with a plan) manufactured it. ‘Chance’ cannot account for its abundant purposes. To some people, the existence of hemp might be proof of the existence of GOD! My website link explores multiple controversies and truths that will never be aired on television. Check it out:
http://www.yurchey.com [7]
Writing about hemp, answering the emails and the entire Internet experience has taught me that there are all kinds of people. You cannot please everyone. What was ‘brilliant’ to one person was contemptible to another. People ‘think’ they know the truth [8], but the truth [9] is they only know what they have been programmed to think. Very few people do independent research. That’s too much work; they prefer sitting back, watching TV [9] and letting others do their thinking for them. They do not QUESTION what has been handed them. But, if they did explore other possibilities outside of the norm...if they dreamed of a different world…and entertained the idea that we have been lied to by our leaders…maybe we would learn a little and come closer to the FREEDOM that we all rightfully deserve. A cleaner, safer planet will happen. It may not be soon, but it will happen in time…
Dedicated to V for Vendetta [10] and those with the courage to change the world for the better!
dugko@surfside.net [11]

________________________________________
Source URL:
http://100777.com/drugs/marijuanaconspiracy2

The right to Gods gifts seems clearer if your Rastafarian...USA and Italy and Guam

2011-10-07T16:59:00.004-06:00

It's not very widely known. But in a groundbreaking case, at least one American citizen, a licensed Rastafarian minister in Minnesota, has been openly smoking marijuana daily with a judge's approval for the past year and a half, despite the fact that he is on probation.

Jamison Arend
Jamison Arend of Minnesota won a groundbreaking religious exemption to being drug-tested for marijuana during his probation

Jamison Arend was sentenced to five years' probation on March 24, 2010 after an altercation at his home, reports WeedPress.

During sentencing, Judge Judith Tilsen handed down a trail-blazing

exemption to Minnesota's drug testing laws.

Minnesota Judicial Branch
Ramsey County Judge Judith Tilsen: "I'm specifically not ordering that Mr. Arend abstain from the use of marijuana and I'm specifically not authorizing UAs to defendant for marijuana"

"[T]he defense has proven a colorable claim of religious right to ceremonial use of cannibus [sic], otherwise known as marijuana," Judge Tilsen ruled. "Ceremonial use is intermittent use, but because of our chemistry and how we do UAs [urine analyses], it would seem to me that even with limited ceremonial use that a UA would come up dirty on a regular basis.

Minnesota Judicial Branch

Ramsey County Judge Judith Tilsen: "I'm specifically not ordering that Mr. Arend abstain from the use of marijuana and I'm specifically not authorizing UAs to defendant for marijuana"

"I'm specifically not ordering that Mr. Arend abstain from the use of marijuana and I'm specifically not authorizing UAs to defendant for marijuana," the judge said. "If probation is concerned about use of other illegal substances, probation may then perform UAs for other illegal substances."

"Let me tell you something else, Mr. Arend, I usually order remain law-abiding in all respects," the judge told the defendant at the sentencing. "What I'm ordering for you is that you have no threatening behavior to anyone."

"I'm not going to order you to remain law-abiding because in the State of Minnesota the colorable claim that you have of being a Rastafarian and using marijuana as part of your ceremonies is not actually legal and if I ordered that you remain law-abiding knowing that you do something that is not legal in the State of Minnesota, I think I would be setting you up," the judge said.

"Another nail in the Reefer Madness coffin!" WeedPress commented.

This is the first religious exemption to probation drug testing that I can remember seeing; it represents a crack in the wall, since religious exemptions to the marijuana laws have been historically ineffective. (There are a number of people serving prison sentences today who unsuccessfully claimed an exemption for religious or spiritual use of cannabis.)

You can read the judge's entire ruling by clicking here [http://weedpress.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/scan0001.pdf].
Jamison Arend

Rasta smoker wins Italian case on religious grounds
Source: Rasta smoker wins Italian case on religious grounds, AP, via USAToday.com, July 11, 2008

ROME (AP) — If you’re a Rastafarian in Italy, you might be able to possess more marijuana than the law allows everyone else.

Italy’s highest criminal court has ruled that the fact Rastafarians consider marijuana use a religious sacrament should be taken into account if they are tried on trafficking charges, lawyers in a recent case and news reports said Friday.

Smoking pot in Italy is not a crime, but being caught with amounts considered too large for personal use can bring charges of trafficking.

The Court of Cassation threw out the drug trafficking conviction of a 44-year-old Italian Rastafarian, ruling that the amount he possessed was in line with the heavy use that comes with his religious beliefs.

The court annulled a 16-month jail sentence the defendant was given in 2004, defense lawyer Caterina Calia said.
[...]

Calia said she had not seen the court’s official explanation, deposited in court offices Thursday, for its ruling, so she declined to give details.

But Italian news organizations quoted widely from the court document.

Rastafarians “use marijuana not only as a medicinal … but also as a possible way to obtain the psycho-physical state contemplation aims for during prayer,” Turin daily La Stampa quoted the document as saying. “Belonging to that religion … followers (must) use the sacred grass daily, up to 10 grams (0.35 ounces) a day for person.”

Rastafarians worship Ethiopia’s last emperor, Haile Selassie, who died in 1975, as a god. They preach unity with nature and smoke marijuana as a sacrament.

The Italian Health Ministry described the ruling as “disturbing.”

- Source: Rasta smoker wins Italian case on religious grounds, AP, via USAToday.com, July 11, 2008 — Summarized by Religion News Blog

Marijuana use in Rastafarian worship

Marijuana is regarded as a herb of religious significance. It is used in Rastafari reasoning sessions, which are communal meetings involving meditation.

According to Leonard Barrett, Rastafarians first began using Marijuana in reaction to the treatment of blacks in society. It became a reactionary device to enable freedom from the establishment. (Leonard Barrett, The Rastafarians, The Dreadlocks of Jamaica p. 129)

Marijuana is used by Rastafarians to heighten feelings of community and to produce visions of a religious and calming nature.

Rastafarians are unlikely to refer to the substance as marijuana; they usually describe it as the wisdom weed or the holy herb.

The latter name is used because Rastafarians believe that marijuana use is sacred, following biblical texts justifying its use:

He causeth the grass for the cattle, and herb for the services of man.Psalm 104:14

…thou shalt eat the herb of the field.Genesis 3.18

…eat every herb of the land.Exodus 10:12

Better is a dinner of herb where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.Proverbs 15:17

The use of marijuana is a highly ritualised act, and before it is used a prayer is uttered by all:

Glory be to the father and to the maker of creation. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end: Jah Rastafari: Eternal God Selassie I.

The marijuana is rolled into a cigarette or placed into a chillum pipe. When smoked it is inhaled deeply, then held, as the devotee enters into a trance-like state.
Federal Court Hears Rastafarian Case
(c) Honolulu Star Bulletin, Nov. 6, 2001
Rosemarie Bernardo, rbernardo@starbulletin.com
Please read the above article at the Honolulu Star Bulletin's web site. It is also archived below.

Rastafarians smoke marijuana in a rite as common as communion for Catholics, an attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union said after a first-of-its-kind hearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Marijuana is a common necessary sacrament to the Rastafarian religion," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project.

At a hearing in the 9th Circuit courtroom in Honolulu yesterday, ACLU attorneys argued a Guam resident's right to smoke marijuana. The territory of Guam is trying to overturn territorial court rulings dismissing criminal charges against Benny Toves Guerrero.

This is the first case of its kind to be heard by any federal court, Boyd said.

According to Boyd, Guerrero was returning to Guam from Hawaii on Jan. 2, 1991. Upon arrival at the A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport, custom officials became suspicious after observing Guerrero carrying a book on Rastafarianism and marijuana. Officials searched his bag and discovered a seven-ounce bag of marijuana. Guerrero, whose Rastafarian name is Ras Iyah Ben Makhana, was arrested and charged with importation of a controlled substance.

Guerrero moved to dismiss his indictment, stating prosecution violated his right to exercise his religion under the Constitution of Guam and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

A lower court agreed. On Sept. 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Guam ruled the use of marijuana by a Rastafarian for religious purposes is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution of Guam. The Guam government then appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit.

Guerrero, who is in his mid-40s, has been a follower of Rastafarianism for 19 years, Boyd said.

Rastafarianism originated in Jamaica. Followers of the Rastafarian religion smoke marijuana for spiritual purposes and as a sacrament of their faith.

Guam should be allowed to guarantee individuals the right to use marijuana for religious purposes without fear of federal interference, Boyd said.

"If he loses his case, it will really affect him from practicing his religion ... We're a religious, diverse nation and one of the cornerstones of democracy is tolerance," he said.

At the hearing, ACLU attorney Nelson Tebbe said federal courts have historically recognized the competence of territorial supreme courts to rule on matters of local tradition and culture.

"Rastafarianism is a legitimate religion," he added. "Our client Ras Makhana is a devout adherent to this religion, and the use of marijuana as a sacrament is necessary for the practice of his faith. Guam's high court is best suited to understand and appreciate the unique customs of its people."

"There is a question of whether federal court is going to interfere with the Guam court," Boyd said. "It's time to allow Guam courts to make their own decisions concerning Guam laws."

Boyd said Guam's argument is that its Bill of Rights does not protect Guerrero's religious freedom.

Tricia Ada, who is representing Guam, could not be reached for comment.

Three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are expected to issue a ruling on the case in three to six months.

May 29, 2002

Federal Court Rules in Rastafarian Case

In an opinion issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, some marijuana-using Rastafarians may be protected under a religious-freedom law passed by Congress in 1993.
The case began in 1991 when Benny Guerrero, returning from a trip to Hawaii, was stopped by officials at Guam's international airport. Mr. Guerrero evidently attracted the eyes of authority because he was carrying a book about Rastafarianism and marijuana. A search of Guerrero's luggage turned up five ounces of marijuana and some Cannabis seeds. He was arrested and charged with importation of a controlled substance.

In his defense, Guerrero argued that he was a practicing Rastafarian and that his use of marijuana was religious. His importation of the herb was, he argued, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that blocks the federal government from unjustifiably infringing on a person's practice of religion.

After litigating the case for more than ten years, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday that while the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect some Rastafarians who possess or smoke marijuana as part of their religious practices, it does not protect the importation of marijuana, even if that marijuana was intended for religious use. According to the Ninth Circuit, while the practice of Rastafarianism sanctions the smoking of marijuana, nowhere does the religion sanction the importation of marijuana.

As Guerrero's lawyer Graham Boyd pointed out in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, the court's ruling was "equivalent to saying wine is a necessary sacrament for some Christians but you have to grow your own grapes."

The ruling also has much in common with the current situation facing people, such as AIDS and Crohn's Disease patients, who find that marijuana alleviates some of their pain and provides other medical benefits such as increasing their appetite. Although eight states now permit citizens to use marijuana for medicinal purposes with the approval of their doctor, the federal government has loudly stated its intention to criminally prosecute anyone who dares to supply a sick person with medical marijuana. Thus, people whose health is already compromised are forced to shovel dirt and labor over a Cannabis garden, or make friends with a marijuana dealer.

According to the latest Household Survey on Drug Abuse, over 16 million Americans used an illegal drug in the last 30 days. The overwhelming majority of these people, just like the overwhelming majority of people who use legal drugs, did so responsibly and without problems. Some of those people may find that their use of an illegal drug occasioned a religious experience, and others may find that use of an illegal drug provided pain relief that they have been unable to achieve by any other means. To the extent that the vast majority of these 16 million Americans used an illegal drug without causing harm to others, our criminal justice system ought to leave them alone and instead focus on protecting us from dangerous criminals.

Instead, the government has just requested over 19 billion dollars of tax-payer money to fight yet another year of the "war on drugs" and it's not about to let religion, medicine, or basic human rights, for that matter, stand in its way.

Lost in the haze of its zero-tolerance prohibition policy, and drunk on its hyperbolic rhetoric about how marijuana leads you through the Devil's gateway, the government continues to flex its weary muscles in an antiquated effort to save as many souls from damnation as possible.

Enough is Enough.

Richard Glen Boire is legal counsel for the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics.

Resources:

Ninth Circuit's Opinion in Guam v. Guerrero

The ACLU's legal briefs and press releases in Guam v. Guerrero

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Thomas Jefferson a man above men.....or was he?

2011-10-07T16:48:00.000-06:00

Thomas Jefferson a man above men.....or was he?

This is amazing.
There are two parts.
Be sure to read the 2nd part (in RED).

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia , succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France , and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions, and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase , doubling the nation's size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello .

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia , and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Can Socialism of a one world government work?

2011-09-16T21:17:00.000-06:00

This is one of the best explanations on why Socialism just doesn't work!

-Very Profound

This man is truly a genius?

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had
never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire
class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that
no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class
on Obama's plan"..
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade
so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied
little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who
studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard
decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame
and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study
for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great,
the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the
reward
away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012
elections.

Top US Court Rules That Citizens Can Videotape Police

2011-09-14T20:50:00.000-06:00

There’s been a long rash of arrests over recording police officers on duty; recording that floods the internet with footage of police abuse. The First Circuit Court of Appeals made an important decision last week to reaffirm the right to videotape police on duty.

In a similar story, the ACLU recently won a $48,500 settlement of a lawsuit from a man who was arrested in 2009 for videotaping the police arresting his friend. The ACLU brought the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the charges against the man were dropped.

Gee, courts, thanks for the permission to use our first amendment rights!

~Health Freedoms

First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police

The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reached a crucial decision last Friday allowing the public to videotape police officers while they’re on the clock.

The decision comes after a string of incidents where individuals have videotaped police officers and were arrested. Police officers across the United States believed citizens didn’t have the right to videotape them as they conducted official duties, but issues like police brutality put the issue up for debate.

One instance where a citizen was arrested for videotaping an officer was when Khaliah Fitchette, a law-abiding teenager from New Jersey, boarded a bus in Newark. Two police officers boarded the bus as well to remove a drunken man. Fitchette began taping the police officers because of how they were handling the man, and a police officer instructed her to stop recording them. When Fitchette refused, she was arrested and placed in the back of a cop car for two hours while the officers took her phone to delete the video. Fitchette was then released, but she and her mother then filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Another example involves Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common. He used his cell phone to tape police officers when the Boston police were punching a man. Citizens surrounding the scene were saying, “You’re hurting him.” Glik never interfered with the police officers’ actions, but recorded the entire incident. The police officers ended up charging Glik with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording, even though the police officers admitted that they knew Glik was recording them. He was also charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner.

While all charges against Glik were dropped due to lack of merit, he still decided to join forces with the ACLU and file a civil rights suit to prevent a similar incident from occurring with others.

On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England’s highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties.

The city’s attorneys made the argument that police officers should have been exempt from a civil rights lawsuit in the first place in this case because the law is unclear as to whether there’s a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police” conducting their daily duties in public.

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

The Court added that the police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.

“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain “burdens” as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they’re conducting their duties responsibly.

Sources:

http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens+Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm

Government released update on cancer treatments using medical cannabis

2011-09-12T17:06:00.002-06:00

Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB:CBIS), a pioneering US biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis products, is pleased to report a government released update on cancer treatments using medical cannabis (marijuana)

The websites cancer.gov Page 1, updated March 17, 2011, summarizing how the treatment of cancer with cannabinoids goes beyond the simple treatment of symptoms and side effects by exhibiting possible direct antitumor activities.

“In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.”

This summary contains the following key information:
•Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years prior to its current status as an illegal substance.
•Chemical components of Cannabis, called cannabinoids, activate specific receptors found throughout the body to produce pharmacologic effects, particularly in the central nervous system and the immune system.
•Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects.
•The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep.
• Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
•Unlike other commonly used drugs, cannabinoids are stored in adipose tissue and excreted at a low rate (half-life 1–3 days).
•Even abrupt cessation of cannabinoid intake is not associated with rapid declines in plasma concentrations that would precipitate severe or abrupt withdrawal symptoms or drug cravings.

Robert Melamede, Ph.D., Cannabis Science’s CEO stated, “As we’ve previously reported, one of the most interesting findings that has emerged since the discovery of the endocannabinoid system (marijuana like compounds produced by humans, and all vertebrates) is that cannabinoids have profound cancer-killing and anti-metastatic properties. There is strong scientific support, demonstrated in tissue culture and animal studies, of the potent cancer killing properties of cannabinoids for such deadly cancers as glioma, lung cancer, breast and prostate cancer, leukemias and lymphomas, and as well as skin cancers.

Currently the federal government prohibitionist position on cannabis is hindering the medical community by delaying vitally important clinical cannabis research. I was quite elated when I recently saw that the NCI posted on their webpage “In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.” I foolishly thought that finally there would be official recognition of the modern peer reviewed science that shows the cancer killing properties of cannabinoids. Sadly, this statement was removed, without comment, within hours of its posting.”

Dr. Melamede goes on to say “Clinical trials are desperately needed. Cannabis Science is actively working on arrangements that will allow us to perform the necessary clinical trials to verify, or not, the numerous anecdotal reports demonstrating what appears to be cancer cures. These observations are occurring with greater frequency since numerous states have legalized the medical use of cannabis. Cannabis in various forms has been used by different cultures for thousands of years as a viable medicine for numerous ailments. In fact, some biblical translations even indicate that cannabis (keneh bosem) was a component of the “Holy Anointing Oil.” Current cannabis science simply provides evidence that supports the widespread historical use of oral, cannabis-based medicines that was driven by it’s success in treating illnesses.”

The cat finally got out of the bag!!!

2011-08-05T15:58:00.002-06:00

This article is a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year.

The story so far: The council have demanded council tax from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years - on the grounds that there is no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think they have the right to demand that I pay council tax... which they do not. I am happy to pay my council tax – but only when the Council has agreed to provide me with a lawful contract... this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.

The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger Hayes) - but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES... but that isn’t me. If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction – please refer to previous articles or the UK Column web site www.ukcolumn.org.

On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of witnesses, the court conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act as ‘third party representative’ for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court agreed that they they were two entirely separate entities. This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.

The court did not however concede without putting up a very vigorous fight... this is how events unfolded in the court room.

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?

Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?

Me: No sir, I am the third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may address me as Roger.

Judge: I will not address you as Roger, I will call you MR HAYES

Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the Judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to meas MR HAYES).

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.

Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court.

(NOTE. This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared)

Judge: I can see that that the council has representation in the court.

Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Judge: Let’s hear from the council.

Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.

Judge: Fine.

And the case continued.... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The Judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council.

Smart judge.

So what does this all mean? Well In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is now truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes... because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established - I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax. AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

Marijuana For Hard-To-Treat Brain Cancer

2011-07-29T22:12:00.002-06:00

Marijuana, commonly known as Gandia can be used to treat really advanced stage brain cancer according to a recent scientific study by scientists of the Complutense University, Spain. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is highly resistant to current anticancer treatments, which necessitates finding of new therapeutic strategies to improve the poor prognosis of patients suffering from this disease.

Medical Marijuana Plant
It was discovered that Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is an active ingredient of marijuana as well as other cannabinoid receptor agonists, inhibits tumor growth in animal models of cancer, including glioma. This particular effect relies partly on the stimulation of autophagy-mediated apoptosis in tumor cells. Thus the combined administration of THC and temozolomide (TMZ; the benchmark agent for the management of GBM) produces a strong anti-tumoral action in glioma xenografts. This effect is also observed in tumors that are resistant to TMZ treatment.

Administration of submaximal doses of THC and cannabidiol (CBD (a plant-derived cannabinoid that also induces glioma cell death through a mechanism of action different from that of THC) remarkably reduces the growth of glioma xenografts. Treatment with TMZ and submaximal doses of THC and CBD produces a strong antitumoral action in both TMZ-sensitive and TMZ-resistant tumors.

Abovementioned findings by investigators at Complutense University in Spain prove that the combined administration of TMZ and cannabinoids could be thus therapeutically exploited for the management of GBM. The combined administration of THC and the pharmaceutical agent temozolomide (TMZ) therefore establishes strong anti-cancer activity in brain tumors which become resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments.

The authors of these investigations have accordingly derived that the administration of THC in combination with TMZ “enhanced autophagy” (programmed cell death) in malignant tissue. According to them, “The combined administration of THC, CBD, and TMZ remarkably reduced the growth of glioma xenografts … [and] produced a strong antitumoral action in both TMZ-sensitive and TMZ-resistant tumors. Altogether, our findings support that the combined administration of TMZ and cannabinoids could be therapeutically exploited for the management of GBM (gliobastoma multiforme).”

Earlier in the year 2006 a study was published in the British Journal of Cancer. This study had reported that the intra-tumoural administration of THC is associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two out of nine human subjects with GBM (which is highly resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments).

Separate preclinical studies which assessed the anti-cancer activity of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids also show that these substances can inhibit the proliferation of various types of cancerous cells which includes breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, skin carcinoma, leukemia cells, neuroblastoma, lung carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, thyroid epithelioma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cervical carcinoma, oral cancerbiliary tract cancer and lymphoma.

These studies have proved beyond doubt that marijuana ingredient THC is set to play a major role in combating GBM that has already become resistant to conventional anti-cancer drugs. Indeed a ray of new hope for the cancer patients!

A few links to expose the bondage of your energy at birth so you can see a trail

2011-07-26T13:00:00.002-06:00

This Federal Reserve comment fits with the Surety your parents registered with your birth...You are the surety and once delivered to the registry it is considered a pledge...http://www.frbservices.org/serviceofferings/treasury/collateral_services.html

This alignes with the Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/
and it's regulations Schedule 2

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-84-431/page-19.html#h-44
and this one for making request for an audit of the strawman legal fiction entity with your name reversed and in all caps like on your drivers licence//

THe Provinces and the Country are coorporatiosn trading on the stock exchange. For profit Businesses! http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
Type in allcapital letters THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001463559&owner=exclude&count=40
Then CANADA
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=CANADA&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany
Then THE CITY OF EDMONTON or your city
here http://www.dnb.com/
Can corporate law bind flesh and blood women to it's business profits?
This one kind of explains a bit more so you will start to see what has happened...http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-whom-your-children-belongare-they.html
you can contact me at owlmon@gmail.com anytime you have questions or go to my youtube channel owlmon..Blessings

Repeal of Pot laws on hold till fall

2011-07-22T02:49:00.007-06:00

Medical marijuana law gets reprieve 59
First posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:03:05 EDT PM

Matthew Mernagh, left, and his lawyer Paul Lewin oustside the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.

TORONTO - The troubled federal medical marijuana program was granted a reprieve until this fall when a constitutional challenge will be heard at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Justice Donald Taliano ruled the marijuana program unconstitutional two months ago and gave Ottawa until mid-July to repair the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMRA) or pot would be effectively legalized in Ontario.

Doctors’ “overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program,” Taliano wrote in his ruling.

Federal government lawyer Kevin Wilson asked for and received an extension of that stay until Ontario’s highest court could hear the appeal, likely in November.

Justice Robert Blair of the Court of Appeal agreed to continue the stay beyond mid-July, saying “irreparable harm” could ensue if he didn’t grant it.

“The practical effect of the decision if the suspension were permitted to expire on July 14 would be to legalize marijuana production in Ontario, if not across Canada,” Blair said.

“And it will invalidate many ongoing prosecutions involving commercial marijuana productions and possession offences before the appeal,” Blair told a courtroom packed with supporters of Taliano’s judgment.

“While most people in the courtroom today would applaud such a result, there is much debate about this issue in this society, including about the pros and cons as to whether marijuana is a harmless but valuable therapeutic substance or whether its consumption has harmful effects that may outweigh those considerations in the absence of a controlled regime,” Blair said.

Taliano was ruling on the case of a St. Catharines man, Matthew Mernagh, 37, who was charged with growing his own pot to treat his fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures and depression.

Marijuana “works best” for his pain without the harmful side effects of other medications, he said Thursday.

Mernagh and 22 other people stricken with “serious, debilitating and painful” conditions couldn’t find doctors who were “prepared to participate” in the medical marijuana program, said Mernagh’s lawyer Paul Lewin. “These people are being forced into the arms of the black market.”

Cannabis and the Brain

2011-07-15T17:15:00.000-06:00

Cannabis and the Brain: A User's Guide
by Paul Armentano
by Paul Armentano

Preclinical data recently published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrating that cannabinoids may spur brain cell growth has reignited the international debate regarding the impact of marijuana on the brain. However, unlike previous pseudo-scientific campaigns that attempted to link pot smoking with a litany of cognitive abnormalities, modern research suggests what many cannabis enthusiasts have speculated all along: ganja may be good for you.

Cannabinoids & Neurogenesis

"Study turns pot wisdom on its head," pronounced the Globe and Mail in October. News wires throughout North America and the world touted similar headlines — all of which were met with a monumental silence from federal officials and law enforcement. Why all the fuss? Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon found that the administration of synthetic cannabinoids in rats stimulated the proliferation of newborn neurons (nerve cells) in the hippocampus region of the brain and significantly reduced measures of anxiety and depression-like behavior. The results shocked researchers — who noted that almost all other so-called "drugs of abuse," including alcohol and tobacco, decrease neurogenesis in adults — and left the "pot kills brain cells" crowd with a platter of long-overdue egg on their faces.

While it would be premature to extrapolate the study's findings to humans, at a minimum, the data reinforce the notion that cannabinoids are unusually non-toxic to the brain and that even long-term use of marijuana likely represents little risk to brain function. The findings also offer further evidence that cannabinoids can play a role in the alleviation of depression and anxiety, and that cannabis-based medicines may one day offer a safer alternative to conventional anti-depressant pharmaceuticals such as Paxil and Prozac.

(Reference: Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic and depressant-like effects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2005)

Cannabis & Neuroprotection

Not only has modern science refuted the notion that marijuana is neurotoxic, recent scientific discoveries have indicated that cannabinoids are, in fact, neuroprotective, particularly against alcohol-induced brain damage. In a recent preclinical study — the irony of which is obvious to anyone who reads it — researchers at the US National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced ethanol-induced cell death in the brain by up to 60 percent. "This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant ... in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury," the study's authors wrote in the May 2005 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. Alcohol poisoning is linked to hundreds of preventable deaths each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control, while cannabis cannot cause death by overdose.

Of course, many US neurologists have known about cannabis' neuroprotective prowess for years. NIMH scientists in 1998 first touted the ability of natural cannabinoids to stave off the brain-damaging effects of stroke and acute head trauma. Similar findings were then replicated by investigators in the Netherlands and Italy and, most recently, by a Japanese research in 2005. However, attempts to measure the potential neuroprotective effects of synthetic cannabinoid-derived medications in humans have so far been inconclusive.

(References: Comparison of cannabidiol, antioxidants and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2005 | Cannabidiol prevents cerebral infarction. Stroke. 2005 | Post-ischemic treatment with cannabidiol prevents electroencephalographic flattening, hyperlocomotion and neuronal injury in gerbils. Neuroscience Letters. 2003 | Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2001 | Cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998)

Cannabinoids and Glioma

Of all cancers, few are as aggressive and deadly as glioma. Glioma tumors quickly invade healthy brain tissue and are typically unresponsive to surgery and standard medical treatments. One agent they do respond to is cannabis.

Writing in the August 2005 issue of the Journal of Neurooncology, investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) more rapidly than did the administration of the synthetic cannabis receptor agonist, WIN-55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative. Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme typically die within three months without therapy.

Previous research conducted in Italy has also demonstrated the capacity of CBD to inhibit the growth of glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose dependent manner. As a result, a Spanish research team is currently investigating whether the intracranial administration of cannabinoids can prolong the lives of patients diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer.

Most recently, a scientific analysis in the October issue of the journal Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry noted that, in addition to THC and CBD's brain cancer-fighting ability, studies have also shown cannabinoids to halt the progression of lung carcinoma, leukemia, skin carcinoma, colectoral cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

(References: Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce cell death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology. 2005 | Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2005 | Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003)

Cannabinoids & Neurodegeneration

Emerging evidence also indicates that cannabinoids may play a role in slowing the progression of certain neurodegenerative diseases, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's Disease). Recent animal studies have shown cannabinoids to delay disease progression and inhibit neurodegeneration in mouse models of ALS, Parkinson's, and MS. As a result, the Journal of Neurological Sciences recently pronounced, "There is accumulating evidence ... to support the hypothesis that the cannabinoid system can limit the neurodegenerative processes that drive progressive disease," and patient trials investigating whether the use of oral THC and cannabis extracts may slow the progression of MS are now underway in the United Kingdom.

(References: Cannabinoids and neuroprotection in CNS inflammatory disease. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2005. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: delayed disease progression in mice by treatment with a cannabinoid. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Disorders. 2004 |Cannabinoids inhibit neurodegeneration in models of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2003)

Cannabis & Cognition

But what about claims of cannabis' damaging effect of cognition? A review of the scientific literature indicates that rumors regarding the "stoner stupid" stereotype are unfounded. According to clinical trial data published this past spring in the American Journal of Addictions, cannabis use — including heavy, long-term use of the drug — has, at most, only a negligible impact on cognition and memory. Researchers at Harvard Medical School performed magnetic resonance imaging on the brains of 22 long-term cannabis users (reporting a mean of 20,100 lifetime episodes of smoking) and 26 controls (subjects with no history of cannabis use). Imaging displayed "no significant differences" between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls, the study found.

Previous trials tell a similar tale. An October 2004 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported "an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society also "failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," and a 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, "Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence."

Finally, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Investigators further added, "Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days."

(References: Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users. American Journal of Addictions. 2005 | Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study. Psychological Medicine. 2004 | Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2003 | Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2002 | Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001)

Links to the abstracts or full text to the studies cited in this article are available here.

March 2, 2006

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

International Court cases the Jehovahs Witnesses set precedent with

2011-07-13T00:13:00.000-06:00

Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses

About Jehovah's Witnesses
Demographics

History

Organizational Structure

Governing Body
Faithful and Discreet Slave
Legal Instruments

Government Interactions

Beliefs
Doctrines • Practices

Eschatology
Blood • Disfellowshipping

Persecution

Controversy

Related People
Formative Influences
William Miller • N.H. Barbour
Jonas Wendell

Presidents & Members
List of Jehovah's Witnesses
C.T. Russell • M.G. Henschel
J.F. Rutherford • F.W. Franz
D.A. Adams • N.H. Knorr

Ex-Members & Critics
R. Franz • E.C. Gruss

Internationally there have been numerous Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. The cases revolve around three main subjects: freedom to practice their religion, laws requiring nationistic practices and law regarding blood transfusions.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Canada
• 2 El Salvador
• 3 Germany
• 4 India
• 5 Japan
• 6 Philippines
• 7 Russia
• 8 United States
• 9 References
• 10 External links
Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada has made a number of important decisions concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. These include the striking down of Quebec's Padlock Law and other anti-Witness laws in the 1950s and more recent cases dealing with whether Witness parents had the right to decide what medical treatment was in the best interest of their children based on their faith.
[edit] El Salvador
In 1998, El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice recently struck down a Social Security Hospital rule that required patients to donate blood in order to receive medical treatment. Previously, hospital policy called for all patients to provide two units of blood prior to a surgical procedure. After this, those who wish to receive medical treatment in the Social Security Hospital have the legal right to choose not to give blood.
[edit] Germany
In December of 2000, Germany's Supreme court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to pass a test of "loyalty to the state", laying the foundation for greater freedoms of worship for German citizens.
[edit] India
In November 1985, Jehovah's Witnesses' children in the state of Kerala refused to sing the national anthem, and were dismissed from schools. V. J. Emmanuel, whose children Binu Mol and Bindu were expelled from school, appealed to the Supreme Court of India for legal remedy. In August 11, 1986, it overruled the Kerala High Court, and stated: "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy teaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it."
[edit] Japan
On March 8, 1996, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that Kobe Municipal Industrial Technical College violated the law by expelling Kunihito Kobayashi for his refusal to participate in Kendo lessons. He felt that these drills were not in harmony with such Bible principles as the one found at Isaiah 2:4, which says: "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." The Court's decision established a precedent for future cases.
Misae Takeda, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, was given a blood transfusion in 1992, while still under sedation following surgery to remove a malignant tumor of the liver. On February 29, 2000, the four judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that doctors were at fault because they failed to explain that they might give her a blood transfusion if deemed necessary during the operation, thus depriving her of the right to decide whether to accept the blood transfusion or not.
[edit] Philippines
In the case of Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (G.R. No. 95770; March 1, 1993)[1], the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs.
In two separate rulings in the case of Estrada vs. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651; August 4, 2003[2] and June 22, 2006[3]), the Supreme Court of the Philippines effectively granted an exception to laws regarding marriage to Soledad S. Escritor because enforcement of those laws would have inhibited the free exercise of her religious beliefs as a practicing Jehova's Witness. The Supreme Court ruling in this case is a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for the status of religious freedom in the Philippines.
[edit] Russia
After the fall of the communist block of nations in Eastern Europe and Asia, Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed to worship freely in those nations for the first time since WWII. However, recent years have seen a resurgence of political resistance to "minority" religions prompting several court cases in the Moscow courts which have led to the denial of registration for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Moscow district.
[edit] United States
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
In the United States numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.
The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.
In a more recent case, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to solicit door-to-door in Stratton, Ohio. In 2002, the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton). The Court ruled in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses, ensuring the freedom of all to go door-to-door without obtaining permits.
[edit] References
1. ^ http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_95770_1993.html
2. ^ http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm
3. ^ http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm
[edit] External links

When the prosecution Chickens out!

2011-07-13T00:12:00.000-06:00

March 18 2008 THE NEWS NEW GLASGOW NOVA SCOTIA

Judge plays ‘guess who?’ in 2006 Canadian Census court case javascript:window.print()javascript:window.print()
Accused reluctantly reveals himself after judge threatens to release arrest warrant to the police
The News

NEW GLASGOW – A Thorburn area man will be tried in July for failing to fill in a 2006 Canada Census form.
Brian Stewart, 379 Park Falls Rd., appeared in New Glasgow provincial court Monday morning but initially refused to identify himself.
When his name was read out, three men in business suits approached the front of the courtroom, one of them carrying a box of documents.
One of the men indicated they were there to "present" Stewart. None of them admitted to being Stewart.
When Judge Clyde Macdonald asked if one or more of them were representing Stewart, they declined to answer the question.
After repeatedly asking the men to take a seat in the courtroom, Macdonald suggested federal Crown prosecutor Ed Patterson speak to the trio in an attempt to understand their position.
Patterson later told the court he had some difficulty communicating with the men.
When Macdonald again called Stewart to appear before the court one of the men came forward but declined to identify himself.
"If the person required to come here to speak identified himself as Brian Stewart, would that be considered contracting with the court?" he asked.
He added he might sometimes be called Brian, Friend or Joseph or sometimes be called by derogatory names.
He asked to see the name on the court documents.
The judge ordered the court reporter to show the documents to the man in an adjacent room during a brief recess.
"This is under duress and intimidation," the man told the court as a sheriff escorted him into the adjacent room.
When court resumed the man continued to be reluctant to identify himself as Stewart. He pointed to one of the men with him and said he needed his interpreter.
"He's deaf – somewhat," the other man called out.
Judge Macdonald ignored the request and noted an arrest warrant had been drawn up last week when Stewart failed to appear in provincial court. He added if Stewart was not in the courtroom, the warrant would immediately be turned over to police.
The man then acknowledged Brian Stewart was "a name given to me at birth" and told the court his Charter of Rights was being violated.
He asked whether he could fight the charge under the British North America Act of 1867.
The judge told Stewart he was free to enter a not guilty plea to violating the federal Statistics Act but advised him to save his arguments for trial which was set for July 17 and 18.
One of Stewart's companions activated a large tape recorder as soon as Stewart began speaking but he was eventually ordered by a sheriff to turn off the recorder and escorted from the courtroom.

18/03/08 http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.phphttp://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php

Comments:
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
What does moderation mean?l l

tamika from New Glasgow, NS writes: This is one of the sketchiest things I have ever heard!! He wouldn't identify himself, and then spoke in riddles...and he wants to cite the North American Act??????? I hate the census too...but....I'll be interested to see what develops here

l l

Batman from Bat Cave, NS writes: I loved this story so much I sent it to everyone on my email list. Only in Pictou County you say. Obviously Judge Clyde kept his cool & this one will be the talk of legal circles. Too bad it didn't make the national news.

Leigh from Pictou County, Nova Scotia writes: Why is this man being prosecuted? Seems like a huge waste of tax dollars to me. We have no money to fix roads, hospitals and a lot more. Does the Crown not have more important cases to try. Failing to fill out a census....
Seriously, find something better to to.
Posted 18/03/2008 at 2:01 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment

July 18 2008 THE NEWS NEW GLASGOW NOVA SCOTIA

Case dismissed javascript:window.print()javascript:window.print()
The News

NEW GLASGOW – The case against a Thorburn man accused of failing to fill out a Census of Canada form was dismissed in New Glasgow provincial court Thursday.
Brian Stewart, 379 Park Falls Rd., called the dismissal a victory for the common man.
"If I could have presented my evidence I would have caused huge chaos in this country," he said outside the New Glasgow provincial court, not having had the opportunity to utter a single word in court.
When court opened, federal prosecutor Ronda Vanderleuk told Judge Robert Stroud she needed time to discuss new information with Stewart.
Stewart left the court room with Vanderleuk, followed by his seven associates. Two hours later, the prosecutor returned to say no evidence would be offered on the charge.
Following the dismissal, Vanderleuk refused to give any explanation.
Stewart insisted he had never received a census form. Asked if he would have filled it out, had he received it, he replied. "I don't do that stuff."
"Democracy is mob rule," he added, claiming the charge against him was persecution
Stewart said he was not surprised to have the case dismissed.
"I'm happy, I didn't get a fine or go to jail," he said, adding he has spent the last six years researching and studying law, although he had only ever been charged with two offences, speeding and going through a stop sign.
When Stewart first appeared in court with his male supporters last March he was reluctant to identify himself, claimed his rights were being violated and asked to fight the charge under the British North America Act of 1867.
Thursday he referred to his followers as researchers and "free men of the land." Outfitted primarily in black, all refused to give their names.
"We are part of the Blue Collar Movement, the other secret society," Stewart said, adding they live under "the supremacy of God and His rule of law."
Pressed for more information on the organization, the men said they hold no meetings and membership is offered only to those who ask questions.
"Start asking questions and we will come to you," said one of the seven who responded to the name Steve but refused to give his name.
Stewart acknowledged the movement has no female members.
"God created male and female but all are male," he said, pointing out male and man are part of the spelling of female and woman. "Read your Bible, it is all in there."

Contract.....with paper ink .....binding????

2011-07-12T10:05:00.000-06:00

CONTRACT AS A SHORTCUT TO PROGRESS

by Edward W.Younkins

Progress is difference and change. If individuals were not free to try new things, then there would never be any improvements. In order to have progress, there must be freedom to try new advances. Freedom to act in their own self-interest is the mainspring for a diversity of ideas, innovation and experiments that lead to the discovery of new products, services, and means of production. Freedom is a practical necessity for progress in an unpredictable, uncertain, and risky world. Progress is stifled when individuals cannot voluntarily make enforceable and binding contracts. The mechanism of contract furthers progress by sanctioning and stimulating specialization and permitting an extended order to evolve. People will voluntarily join together in common ventures that lead them to anticipate mutual gain. Traditional common law rules of contract foster forms of innovation that required cooperative efforts.

A contract is a binding agreement between two or more parties that usually results in some type of performance. Trade and commerce could not thrive if freely made agreements were not normally carried out. Contract can be viewed as a method in which men bargaining with one another can make sure that their promises will last longer than their changeable states of mind. The law of contract provides a mechanism through which private individuals can, to a certain degree, predict, control, and stabilize the future. Contracts allow people to incur reciprocal responsibilities and commitments, to make promises others can rely on, to remove some uncertainty from life, and to establish reasonable expectations for future actions.

The idea of contract makes capitalism possible. Although markets can exist without contracts, it is clear that if every trade or agreement had to be completed immediately there could not be much future planning of production and distribution and limited circuitedness in people's business relationship with one another. Freedom of contract is essential to a competitive and open exchange economy. The diversity embodied by this system maximizes individual choice and freedom.

Utilitarian or pragmatic conventions

Many view contracts as utilitarian or pragmatic conventions that act to secure people's expectations. Others consider contracts to be instruments by which rights to present and future alienable goods are ascribed, delineated, exchanged, or transferred.

A function of the state, operating mainly through the court system, is to enforce performance by requiring the promisor to fulfill his bargain on penalty of fine or imprisonment or by awarding judgment against him for money damages when, without legal reason, he fails to perform. State compulsion has replaced private force and customary and private law systems, which were common in earlier time periods. State enforcement in concerns of bargain and promise can be viewed as one of the state's most important functions behind only peacekeeping and property defense. In essence, a breach of contract is an indirect use of force.

With the advent of specialization of labor, human beings created an exchange mechanism through which a man, who can produce something more efficiently than another, can exchange it for another item that he would create less efficiently than the other person. A person gives in order to receive, and this giving and receiving arrangement is frequently protected by a formal contract.

Frequently, one or both sides to an agreement are carried out at a later date. In order for an exchange to be arranged at one point in time, with performance to take place later, the parties, rather than simply rely on one another's honor to secure performance, normally depend upon a legally enforceable obligation to comply with the agreement.

The contract is integral to a market economy. Think of the variety of commitments that must be honored for any firm to operate. Each of these arrangements is usually defined by contract. If most of these contracts were not carried out according to their terms, commercial transactions would be impossible. Any commercial organization consists of numerous separate activities bound into an effective whole through a collection of contracts.

In economic life the principle of contract requires the assent of all involved individuals. As embodiments of people's free will, contracts are the glue that holds a peaceful society together.

The idea that contracts are legally enforceable does not ensure performance, but does increase the probability of performance. When a party knows he may face legal action if he does not comply, he is more likely to complete his side of the bargain. In addition, if performance is not expected, the fact that a lawsuit may be brought may be sufficient to obtain an acceptable out-of-court settlement.

« Because of the idea of voluntary contract, patterns of social life are not dictated by a compelling central authority but rather by the independent decisions of individuals seeking their own happiness. »

Contract liability is promissory liability. In a business society, where wealth largely consists of promises, it is of paramount importance to protect the interests of the individual promisees. Promises, in the form of contracts, have become a convention whereby people are able to realize their aims by creating expectations about one another's conduct.

Key component of a free society

Contract law is a key component of a free society. Contracts involve a trade-off of flexibility for security and the voluntary assumption of mutual obligation and commitment. Through contract, a participant in civil society is differentiated from the atomistic individual.

Autonomous human beings have the rational ability and natural right to make their own life choices. A necessary condition of acting autonomously is the possibility of freely making mutually binding agreements. Autonomy thus requires freedom of contract. Better connections between persons can be made by contract, which works to mutual benefit, instead of through coercion, which does not.

Although a contract may appear to be the subordination of one man's will to another, the former gains more than he gives up, as does the latter. In a free society, the only transactions people engage in are positive-sum ones in which both parties believe they will benefit.

Historically, the rise of contract within Western civilization reflected the disintegration of a status-determined society. Contract became a tool of change and self-determination, an instrument of peace, and the only legitimate means of social integration in a free society. Progress depends on protected property rights and the confidence that contractual obligations will be honored.

Anglo-American contract law evolved as part of English common law. However, other legal systems such as the canon law of the Church and the customary law of merchants had influences on the common law.

The Greeks and Romans failed to develop any general law of contracts. However, Aristotle did emphasize that parties to a contract must have equal consideration under it and an equal wish to benefit from the exchange. The idea of reciprocal services underpinned the Aristotelian idea of fair contract.

The Church took a firm view of contracts due to its suspicions of the trader and concern for morality. For the medieval canonist, a man who does not keep his promise is guilty of falsehood. The Church therefore took steps to make sure that contracts were strictly enforced and properly constructed with due course for the rights of the parties. The Church taught that deceit is wrong and that a person should do what he says he will do, particularly when his word encourages another to take action or give a promise in reliance on that word. Ecclesiastical courts regarded the breaking of pledges as sins and enforced contract fulfillment with the penalty of excommunication.

Contract law has many similarities with the law of property and the law of torts (i.e., the law of private wrongs). The growth of trade and commerce and the associated lucrative court fees led the king's court system to begin handling matter that previously was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Through incremental and slow modifications and extensions the judges of these courts developed a whole system of contractual principles based on analogies to property law and tort law. Legal sanctions used to enforce a promise were developed and included initially money damages against the defaulter and later specific performance of the promise.

According to Lon Fuller, the term "contract law" originally referred to the law that a contract itself brings into existence rather than to the law of or about contracts. If we think of contract law as the law that the involved parties themselves bring into existence by their agreement, the transition from customary law to contract law becomes an easy one to envision and understand.

Business custom and the state

The tendency has been for courts to enforce business custom and practice as law. When business people develop a new practice, it is probable that it receives the forces of government-backed law. The private sector develops as ever-expanding base of customary law. For instance, enforceable rights and duties arise from a contract as well as from the provisions of various statutes. It follows that contracts voluntarily entered into by private persons provide a form of privately created law. When a contract becomes standardized reflecting long-term traditions, it reveals customary commercial law. When a contract incorporates a new business practice in response to dynamically changing business environments, it is likely to add to customary law just as common law is expanded through new court precedents.

Doctrines developed by merchant courts to deal with contracts and other business matters were absorbed into the common law and official courts began attracting business away from merchant courts. The financial self-interest of the English judges who were paid out of litigation fees was thus an influential factor regarding the absorption of the Law Merchant into the common law.

Sir Henry Sumner Maine, the nineteenth-century legal historian, wrote that progressive societies exhibit a development from status-bound roles to those founded more and more on contractual freedom. Whereas a status system establishes obligations, conditions, and interrelations by birth, contract regards individuals as free and equal moral agents developing their own bonds with others. In a free society, there is high degree of social mobility and freedom to associate in response to current and expected future needs. Social arrangements are a result of the independent decisions of separate individuals pursuing their own interests, rather than by a central powerful authority such as the state or the Church.

In Western society, with the steady dissolution of castes, social classes, guilds, ethnic cultures, and so on, human resources have become more available to organizers in business and other associations. Organizers compete for the best managerial and nonmanagerial employees, and with the freedom of association present in the era of contracts, it is possible to create successful organizations despite some interference by the state.

By treating individuals as free and equal generic units, contract permits people to create arrangements far beyond the plans of any grand designers. Only by treating individuals in this manner can overarching rules allow people to use their own knowledge, express their individuality, and take advantage of their own ideas by joining them and their property in various unanticipated ways. When people cannot make binding, enforceable commitments, dynamic progress is severely hampered. The idea of contract fosters progress by encouraging specialization and allowing an extended order to develop. It is especially important to have well-functioning legal systems when strangers interact in commercial and other situations. The goal of contract law is not to inspire legal suits but to settle or avoid them. Well-known rules that eliminate ambiguity make it more likely that promises will be kept.

The mechanism of contract is simple, universal, and powerful. It involves giving up something that you value in exchange for some other item that you value more. As a result, both parties gain. Furthermore, the basic idea of gaining via trade is suitable for repetition ad infinitum as what we received in one transaction can be reprocessed and resold in a subsequent transaction. Because of the idea of voluntary contract, patterns of social life are not dictated by a compelling central authority but rather by the independent decisions of individuals seeking their own happiness. Voluntary contracts involve positive-sum exchanges for the involved parties as human pleasures are increased by pairing resources with the individuals who value them highest. This benevolent system facilitates productive interactions which expand over time and exchanges until they include all people who possess the capacity to engage in exchanges that are seen as mutually beneficial.

Structure of Birth certificates in US

2011-07-12T10:03:00.003-06:00

FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

Real. Educational. News.

Advanced Civics Research Library

Structure of the Birth Certificate

Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

Right: Some birth and marriage certificates are now "warehouse receipts," printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as 'chattel' property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.
Home

Library

Citizen Reporter

Fort Fairfield Journal

By: David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005

A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts." The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)

-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")

-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)

Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:

warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

Additional Birth Certificate Research

Federal Children

by Joyce Rosenwald

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........

Crown of Baal

2011-07-06T02:59:00.004-06:00

Key Facts

Other names

Crown of Ba'al, Tiara, Triregnum

Year of origin

800 BCE (Ba'al) Baalbek

1st Crown

1302 Boniface VIII

2nd Crown

1481 Sixtus IV

3rd Crown

1537 Paul III

Background

The Crown of Ba'al, also known as the Papal Tiara and Triregnum is a three-tiered jewelled papal crown and symbol of claimed papal supremecy since the 16th Century. Since the 16th Century, it has featured prominently as part of the coat of arms of the Vatican, usually with the crossed keys of claims of authority from St Peter. Any text or other claim that alleges the three-tiered crown is older than the 16th Century is deliberately false.

Prior to Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) the antipopes of the Roman Cult wore fabric, not metallic headdress, similar to the Persian High Priests of Mithra. However in 1302 Boniface issued his infamous Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, being the first Express Trust claiming control over the whole planet and effectively "King of the world". In celebration, he commissioned a gold plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base.

The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba'al as well as the Cult of Cybele.

The 1st Crown of Crown Land

While Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, the first Testamentary Trust through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate was not until Pope Nicholas V in 1455 through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit "For a perpetual remembrance." This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as "crown land".

This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is born, depriving them of all their beneficial entitlements and rights on the land at birth.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth

The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis meaning "Eternal Crown" by Sixtus IV being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.

This Papal Bull created what is known as the "Crown of Aragon", later known as the Crown of Spain, being the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the "Union of Crowns" or Commonwealth in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975 when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day.

This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is born being the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving them of ownership of their flesh and condemning them to perpetual servitude as a Roman person, or slave.

The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See

The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III through the papal bull Convocation also meant to open the Council of Trent being the third an final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, being the trust set up for the claiming of all "lost souls", lost to the See.

The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII. This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and "reaping" of lost souls.

The Crown was lost in 1815 due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England and granted to the Temple Bar, which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown.

The Bar Associations have been responsible ever since in administering the "reaping" of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults.

This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is baptized being the grant of the Baptismal certificate by the parents to the church or Registrar being the gift of title of the soul. Thus, without legal title over one's own soul, a man or woman may be "legally" denied right to stand as a person, but may be treated as a creature and thing without legally possessing a soul. Hence, why the Bar Association is able to legally enforce Maritime law against men and women- because they can be treated as things, cargo that does not possess a soul.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © One-Evil.org 2010. All Rights Reserved

Home

Symbols

Marijuana's journey to legal health treatment: the Canadian experience

2011-06-29T15:58:00.002-06:00

CBC News Posted: Aug 17, 2009 3:20 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 20, 2011 2:10 PM
CBC ARCHIVES: The marijuana debate
IN DEPTH: Marijuana
Medical pot decision worries N.S. premier

For more than 70 years, possession of marijuana has been a crime in Canada aside from Regina v Hauser in 1979 confirming that the law was indeed civil and not criminal . For most of that time, there were no exceptions for anyone using it for medical reasons, but in recent years the restrictions have changed.

At first, enforcement of the prohibition on marijuana was sporadic. In the 1930s and 40s, the Canadian legal system averaged just one or two prosecutions a year. But as the underground distribution and use of the drug rose, so did the number of prosecutions.

By the late 1960s recreational marijuana use had grown to the point that hundreds, and eventually thousands, of young Canadians a year were being introduced to the criminal justice system thanks to their use of pot.

Medical marijuana is grown under contract for Health Canada by Prairie Plant Systems. (CBC)
The most recent stats show that more than 40,000 Canadians are charged with marijuana possession every year. Cannabis sativa has become by far the most popular illegal drug in the country, with some surveys suggesting that 10 million Canadians aged 15 or older have used marijuana at least once in their lives.

But not all marijuana use is recreational. The growing prevalence of pot use included many people who began experimenting with marijuana's medicinal properties — using the drug not primarily to get high, but to address a specific health complaint.

Prescription to proscription
That marked a return to marijuana's early history in North America, when it enjoyed such widespread use in the 19th century that it was routinely prescribed for such conditions as rheumatism and was even sold in drug stores.

'Smoking [medical marijuana] is not recommended. Some individuals use marijuana in foods, teas or with a vaporizer'
—Health Canada patient information leafletBut the adoption of strict drug laws in the 1930s put an abrupt end to the legal use of marijuana for any reason — including as a health product. Medicinal marijuana use was driven underground for decades to come.

By the 1990s, the pressure to revisit marijuana's health uses was building. Surveys found that 80 per cent of Canadians favoured legalizing marijuana use for medical reasons. Non-profit groups — often called compassion clubs — sprang up across Canada to facilitate the distribution of marijuana to members who said the drug provided them relief from a variety of health complaints that no other medication could match.

Challenges grow
Other users made no secret of their use of marijuana for their ills, and they openly challenged authorities to lay possession charges, which the authorities did. The case of one such user — Terrence Parker — was the one that changed everything.

The Toronto man had been charged with pot possession many times, as he made no secret of using it to control his epileptic seizures. But his lawyers used a different defence for his 1996 charges. This time, they said the charges violated Parker's charter rights.

The defence worked. On Dec. 10, 1997, a judge ruled that people must be able to access necessary medical treatment without fear of arrest. Parker became the first Canadian to be exempted from further prosecution for either possession or cultivation of marijuana. A subsequent appeal upheld the lower court ruling. Justice Mark Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote that "forcing Parker to choose between his health and imprisonment violates his right to liberty and security of the person."

Still, the legal evolution of medical marijuana had more distance to go. There were no guidelines on how the few Canadians who'd been given an exemption from Canada's marijuana possession laws were supposed to get their drug — which, after all, was still illegal to distribute.

A medical marijuana template is born
In 2001, Ottawa came up with a solution to the problem, becoming the first country to adopt a formal system to regulate the medicinal use of marijuana — the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations.

Who qualifies for medical marijuana authorization?
Condition Symptoms
Multiple sclerosis; spinal cord injury; spinal cord disease Severe pain, persistent muscle spasms
Cancer; AIDS; HIV infection Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, severe nausea
Severe arthritis Severe pain
Epilepsy Seizures
People with terminal illnesses
People suffering from symptoms of medical conditions other than those above (assessment by specialist required)
Source: Health Canada
The policy allowed people suffering from terminal illnesses or severe conditions such as epilepsy, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cancer to use the drug if it eased their symptoms.

Some people would be able to grow marijuana themselves under strict guidelines. Others would be allowed to buy it from companies licensed by the government. Ottawa awarded the first (and so far, the only) federal licence to supply marijuana to a Saskatoon-based company, Prairie Plant Systems. The pot is grown in an underground mine in Flin Flon, Man.

In early 2003, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that the medical access regulations were unconstitutional because they were failing to provide a legal supply of the drug. Ottawa responded later that year with a plan to provide dried marijuana or seeds to Canadians authorized to take marijuana for medical reasons. That plan — occasionally tweaked — remains largely intact to this day.

The specifics
So far, the exemption from criminal prosecution for marijuana possession applies to about 4,000 Canadians — patients who have satisfied the rigorous medical and legal conditions Ottawa has set to win the official all-clear.

By some estimates, hundreds of thousands of other Canadians may also be using marijuana for medical reasons, but have not formally applied for authorization to make their use legal.

Why so few? Well, there's a lot of paperwork, for one thing. People who want to use marijuana legitimately must submit a detailed application for authorization and include two photos. Their doctor must also fill out a medical form that spells out why the applicant's medical condition satisfies the conditions for an authorization. Depending on the nature and severity of the illness, the doctor will be asked to spell out that conventional therapies failed or were medically inappropriate.

Medical marijuana by the numbers (as of June 5, 2009)
Number authorized to possess medical marijuana 4,029
Number authorized to grow their own 2,360
Cost of 30 seeds from Prairie Plant Systems $20
Cost of 30 grams of dried marijuana from PPS $150
Average daily use of dried marijuana for medical use 1 to 3 grams
Source: Health Canada

If the person wants to grow their own, they must complete another application for a licence to produce marijuana. If they want to buy seeds … another application. If they can't grow their own, their "designated person" must apply for a licence. This representative must also pass a criminal records check.

And then there's the issue of the supply. Fewer than 20 per cent of the people approved for medical marijuana get it from Prairie Plant Systems (PPS) — the only government-approved supplier.

Some users complain about the quality of the federal cannabis or say they need a different strain of pot than the single standardized one produced by PPS. As a result, many choose to grow their own or head to the black market.

Activists have long wanted Ottawa to loosen the rules that prevent providers (other than PPS) from supplying more than one patient. New rules were implemented in 2009 to allow designated producers to grow marijuana for one additional approved user — to a maximum of two. But that fell far short of what many in the community had wanted.

In December 2009, Health Canada gave a B.C. man permission to grow up to 292 marijuana plants. But Sam Mellace is not planning to smoke his harvest. Mellace has a chronic pain condition and needs that many plants to produce enough cannabinoid compound for a cream he uses.

He would like to sell his cream to other medical marijuana users. But under current rules, that isn't allowed.

There are also patients arguing that the government should help them shoulder the financial burden of growing their own medicinal supply of marijuana. In June 2011, for example, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered the Nova Scotia government to sponsor the medical marijuana growing operation of a woman who says she's too poor to pay for the equipment herself. The Department of Community Services must pay a one-time setup cost of $2,500 and an additional $100 every three months for supplies, an appeal board ruled.

The Income Assistance Appeals Board concluded that the woman's need for marijuana was real, and since she has no other means, the department should assist her rather than pay for her pot. The board stated that her request seems reasonable in comparison to what the department pays for other medications.

Even so, eight years into the adoption of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, many activists remain frustrated with the bureaucracy and the limitations. Ottawa has shown little enthusiasm for further loosening the legal restrictions on a drug that it says still deserves a tight leash

No license needed

2011-06-16T09:33:00.000-06:00

How is a License against God’s Will?
Richard Anthony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man is constantly telling you that you must identify yourself. Well, please show me from scripture where it says that you must carry papers with you at all times and submit to man whatever he wants. God defines what is good and evil; please show me in the Word of God where it says it is evil to do an act without a license from the government (i.e. such as the act of marriage, fishing, or driving). God does not say this is evil.
Keep this Truth in mind...God ordained rulers with only two duties...to reward good and punish evil (John 18:23, Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:14). That's it! Anything they do beyond this is out of their ordained duties. Ask yourself this question, "Do licenses reward good or punish evil?" No, they do not. Courts are supposed to, but licenses have nothing to do with rewarding good or punishing evil.

When the powers that be say that you have to have a license to do something, we have to ask ourselves, "am I doing the will of God by taking a license?" When one gets a license, it is an agreement with the State to perform a particular duty. You are receiving a privilege, and whenever you receive a privilege from man there is a duty attached to it. And we must ask ourselves, "who are we binding ourselves with?" By receiving a privilege, we are gaining the favor of rulers; but scripture says, "Many wait on the favor of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the LORD" (Proverbs 29:26). We are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Papers give status, dignity and privilege to the issuing authority rather than to the bearer — although the opposite is generally assumed. This is equally true in the case of passports, driver’s licenses, honorary degrees, permits to practice law, licenses for marriage, or even certificates of good health. In all such cases the individual unwittingly surrenders his right to assume command, status, or direction of himself in God's terms by acknowledging and then accepting an outside authority’s right to grant these things to him. For example:

One who hangs a degree on the office wall unwittingly admits that he has forfeited his power of discernment to an institution.
One who uses a drivers license has forfeited his God ordained duty to movement in exchange for a government priviledge which can be revoked at any time by the State.
National governments use birth certificates to "prove" that the baby is national property. The birth certificate thus becomes a form of theft, the theft of the child’s true identity as a free child of God to a servant of the State. By affixing a national seal of approval to a child, the state denies the freedom, rights, and dignity that God has ordained in the scriptures.
A national passport legitimizes and represents the arbitrary frontier of a particular nation. As property of the government that issues it, this license can be denied for virtually any reason. In essence, it is a control device, used by government to limit the movement of its citizens, and to regulate the entry and exit of ‘foreigners. When you are issued a passport, you are actually giving something up — your inalienable right to ‘leave any country’ and return again. In order to travel, you are forced to accept a bureaucratic device designed deliberately to control your movement. In legal terms, such a deceptive inducement to surrender a God-given right is called fraud. Thus, if you have such a document, in a sense you have been robbed. To put it plainly, the national passport system is a swindle, the conscious theft of the individuals right to freedom of movement. In the world of nation-states, claims that citizens have freedom of travel are a hollow mockery. All states collude in perpetuating this fraud, beginning with their use of the word ‘passport’ itself. The name of the document implies that it recognizes the right to travel when, in reality, it does just the opposite.
The basis of this argument centers around two basic tenets dear to all servants of Christ. One: "What is required to fulfill the Law?" And, two: "By whose authority do the licensers do the things they do?" The answers can be summed up in two Scripture verses. To answer the first, turn to Romans 13:8, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." When you have fulfilled the law of God, what other duty is there? (Ecclesiastes 12:13). All other duties are an interposition between yourself and God. Thus, licensure is such an interposition, because it creates a new obligation to another outside of love and God. It becomes an addition to the Word of God. Licensure is not love; licensure is loveless and lawless. The term "license" is from the word "licentious", which means "morally unrestrained, disregarding rules, lascivious".

To answer the second, turn to John 3:17-18. Can the condemned create law? Can one who does not believe in Jesus Christ create law? Can one who only believes in the limited reason of man be fulfilling the Law of God? We shall see in this article.

The spirit of fear always drives you to self-will. The problems and the errors of our ways are from a spirit of fear. If you're going to allow somebody to drag you around with your fears, then you're no longer worshipping God, but you're worshipping the man who has control over you through fear.

When we succumb to intimidation from the godless rulers of our time to submit our private property, our household pets, and even our children to licensure from the State, we are acting as if Christ, the King, no longer owns and rules over all things, but has been Himself vanquished by His enemies. Simply put, we are violating the very First Commandment, which tells us, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).

What does God’s Law say about licenses?

Numbers: All licenses have numbers attached to them. These numbers are used as an identifier. God considers it an abomination for people to be numbered by the government. For example:
In the Old Testament era, King David gave a command to number the people (1 Chronicles 21:2). Joab warned King David that he would "be a cause of trespass to Israel" if he numbered the people (verse 3). But King David numbered the people anyway, knowing it was a trespass against them (verse 4). God was displeased with King David for numbering the people, so God smote Israel (verse 7). David admitted he sinned greatly (verse 8), and because the people themselves willfully took a number from their government, God sent a plague upon those people and 70,000 were killed (verse 14) [See also 2 Samuel 24 for a parallel account].

In the New Testament era, we are told that governments will, likewise, try to mark all people with a number, and that whoever refuses to take this number from the government will not be able to interact with society, such as being able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18). God says those who take this mark will be punished by Him (Revelation 14:9-11; 16:2; 19:20). [Note: the term "beast" is defined as the government of a people; specifically as kings (Daniel 7:17, Revelation 17:10-12), and kingdoms (Daniel 7:18,23, Revelation 16:10) that have power to make war and kill (Revelation 11:7; 17:14)]

Now, most people are taught that the "numbering" of the people, by King David, was simply him counting the people. Well, we have to look at the intention. It is no sin to count people. There are many examples in scripture of counting the number of people in the camps in Old Testament Israel (Numbers 10); scripture records 3,000 people being added to Christ's assembly (Acts 2:41); did the ones who count these people commit a sin? Of course not. Because their intention was for God's glory, and not for evil, selfish purposes.

What appears to us harmless, or at least but a small offence, may be a great sin in the eye of God, who sees men's principles, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But his judgment, we are sure, is according to truth.

The purpose for numbering people should be done for God's righteous purposes, and not for man's evil purposes. The law that David and the people violated can be found at Exodus 30:12-16. After being numbered, each man and woman was to give money to the sanctuary of God to attone for their souls (Exodus 38:25-26, Numbers 1:2-5; 26:2-4). Hereby they acknowledged that they received their lives from God, that they had forfeited their lives to him, and that they depended upon his power and patience for the continuance of them; and thus they did homage to the God of their lives, and deprecated those plagues which their sins had deserved. The redemption money given was used in the service of the sanctuary to further God's Will.

These people partook of David's sin, and did something to deserve death. Numbers are usually used for commercial and evil purposes by governments, and God knows this. When someone accepts being numbered for any purpose other than God's glory, these people sin. When the people allow themselves to be numbered and tracked by the government for their own purposes, that is when both the people and the government have sinned.

To accept a license from the government is to replace the name given by God with a number given by man.

Date of birth: The government will not give you a license unless you tell them when and where you were born. Now, there’s a problem with this. A bondservant of Christ is to always tell the Truth (Zechariah 8:16, Ephesians 4:25). But if a bondservant tells somebody when or where they were born, they would be lying. Simply because nobody remembers the day they were born! To venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based upon hearsay only. Hearsay is not the truth.
For example, in a court of law, before someone takes the stand, they swear, "To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Now, if a witness is asked a question about the date of a particular event that happened in the passed, and the witness on the stand says, "Well, I do not have any recollection of that event at all! But my mother says it occurred at…". Objection! This statement that "someone else" told him "when" it happened is not allowed in court because it is based upon hearsay, and the law says hearsay is not the truth. If a witness did not witness an event, they cannot claim to be a witness! Period.

Someone may object by saying, "Well, if you believe in scripture, that's hearsay." But the scripture itself is not hearsay, it is a testimony, recognized by Law as Truth. Someone may also object by saying, "Well, a birth certificate is a signed testimony. Therefore, one knows when one was born if they have a birth certificate." Again, this is hearsay.

For instance, if I got on the witness stand, and was asked my birthdate, and reply, "Well, according to this birth certificate, it says I was born on so and so," the court would not admit my testimony as evidence. What good will it do to enter as evidence someone saying, "This birth certificate says so and so." The jury can see for themselves what it says! My testimony would be meaningless. I did not witness that event. Likewise, 500 people can get on that stand and say, "According to this birth certificate, it says he was born on so and so." All 500 testimonies are meaningless. Now, the court can enter the birth certificate itself as evidence, what the certificate says may be evidence, but not what someone says the certificate says. That's hearsay. On the other hand, if a nurse went on the stand and said, "I witnessed his birth." Well, now her testimony can be entered into evidence because her testimony is evidence of an event. However, someone simply saying, "This birth certificate says..." is not a witness of the birth.

Some may say, "Well, you're not in court when a cop asks you when you were born." This is not true. We set a record of our walk on earth every day. Everything you say to a cop may be used against you in a court of law. Therefore, "court" does not begin when you swear an oath to tell the truth on the stand, "court" does not only begin when the blue lights start flashing in your rear-view mirror, "court" takes place every second of every day of your life. We are not to tell the truth just when we're on the witness stand, we are to speak the truth always.

In addition, if someone asked us when we were born, they are asking us to be a witness against ourselves! They are asking us to give them information to use against us. It is their duty to gather evidence, it is not our duty to do their job for them and give them evidence to persecute us with. It is against their own laws for them to do this, as verified by their Constitution!

When someone is asked when or where they were born, do they answer according to their own personal memory of that event, or by hearsay? They go by hearsay; by what someone else told them, or by what a piece of paper tells them. The disciples of Christ are witnesses (1 Thessalonians 2:10). Therefore, we cannot answer that question truthfully as to when or where we were born because we were not a witness to that event. Remember, when you sign a license, you are swearing that you are a witness to everything stated on that piece of paper. God’s Ninth Commandment tells us never to bear false witness (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20), but this is exactly what one does (though unintentional it may be) when they claim they are a witness to ones birth, or if they rely upon hearsay (which is not the truth, according to both man’s law and God’s Law).

"Testimony by a witness in court in response to a question as to his own status, for example age, legitimacy, nationality, is closely related to the subject of pedigree declaration (pedigree has to do with animals). A person cannot know these facts except from hearsay information, for he cannot even be informed of these facts until an appreciative time after his birth." People v. Rath, 115 Ca.132.
So, your birth date is hearsay information. This is a presumption, and they want you to confirm those presumptions. And you avoid confirming those presumptions and you rebut that with the Word of God. When someone wants to identify you, you tell them who you are according to the Word of God; how He has described you, and not how the world would like you to be described.

Name: Names, in general, are given by those in authority to those in subjection to that authority, to mark and note them.

God calls his servants by name (Isaiah 43:1; 45:3; John 10:3, Revelation 2:17). Everyone’s name is sacred, it demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it. Now, here’s a question for you, dear reader. Have you ever, in your entire life, "signed" your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? Of course not! Haven’t you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. At Law, this lets others know you are an entity created by God, and not an entity created by man.

Now, there are entities created by man. Corporations for example. Corporations are known as "persons" created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this entity does not have a body, soul, and spirit like man has, but that this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit.

Now, if you look at a license, you will notice the name that appears on it is spelled in all capital letters! What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this license is a creature of the government, and not a creature of God. It means that entity is a servant of Caesar, and not a servant of God. In order to get a license, one must substitute one’s lawfully spelled name for a fictitiously spelled name; you must deny the name given to you by God, and accept a name given to you by Caesar in its place. Since your name is not spelled in all capital letters, the name that appears on a license is not yours! That is not who you are. And you must lie and say that this name is yours to get a license.

James 2:6-7, "…Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"

Address: Again, an address uses numbers forced by the government, including the house number, street number, and zip code [See #1 above]. These are fictions and do not exist at law. For example, the Rule of Law governing the English Language states that all numbers must be spelled out! That's why in scripture, all numbers are spelled out completely (note: chapter and verse numbers were added by man for a reference and are no part of scripture). That's why on dollar bills, you see the amount of the dollar bill spelled out completely (FIVE DOLLARS). If the writer of a bank check does not spell the amount of the check completely, the bank will not cash that check, because it is not a lawful document until all numbers are spelled out according to the law.

State: A license has a two letter word in place of the State’s name. Many people assume this is an abbreviation for their State, but it is not. The Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar and Correct Punctuation states that all abbreviations must have a period after it, otherwise it is no abbreviation at all. For example, the abbreviation "No." with a period after it, is short for "number". But if "No" doesn’t have a period after it, its meaning is changed completely. The State name listed on a license is neither an abbreviation nor a name of a State. It is a fiction. It does not exist in Law.

Pictures: Most licenses display an image of the male or female that is being licensed. God's Second Commandment tells us not to make "any graven image or any likeness of anything...that is in the earth...Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5:8-9). Also:

Deuteronomy 4:16, "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,"
In Webster's Dictionary, a picture is defined as "an image or likeness of an object, person, or scene produced on a flat surface, esp. by painting, drawing, or photography". The term "pictures" is specifically used in the scripture to describe what is evil to the Lord (Numbers 33:52, Isaiah 2:16).

Now to clarify, the mere making of an image is no sin, because God commanded Moses to make and image of a brass serpent (Numbers 21:8); God commanded the priests to make images of pomegranates on their garments (Exodus 28:33-34; 39:24); God commanded to make images of cherubim's out of gold on the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18-22; 37:7); and the sanctuary, as a whole, was richly ornamented with images. Therefore, images, or pictures, are not evil in and of themselves.

However, it is the making with the intent to give idolatrous worship that is evil in the sight of the LORD, and provokes him to anger (Deuteronomy 4:25). When the Israelites made a molten calf, it was not the image of the calf itself which was a sin, it was what the people did with the image of the calf that made them sin. It was their act of idolatrous worship with that image, not that image itself, that was an abomination to God (Exodus 32:8). And looking to the soulless state for your authority to do things is idolatrous worship.

Why does God prohibit looking to images for authority? Because God prohibits all attachments to worldly things. As God is the fountain of happiness, whoever seeks happiness in the creature is necessarily an idolater; as he puts the creature in the place of the Creator (Romans 1:25). God's Law is divinely calculated to prevent man's misery and promote his happiness, by taking him off from all false dependence, and leading him to God himself, the fountain of all good.

For example, when someone asks you to show proof of your authority for going from one place to another, what do people usually show them? Answer: a piece of paper with an image on it, which is created by Caesar. What does this "drivers license" tell people? It says you look to Caesar for your authority to do the things you do. It says you "bow down and serve" those who created that "image" that you proudly display to others, by obeying everything they tell you to do. But, for those who believe their authority comes from God himself, the scripture is all the "proof" you need to go from place to place.

God will not give his praise to images (Isaiah 42:8). Those who trust in graven images will be "greatly ashamed" (Isaiah 42:17).

Signature: By signing this ungodly piece of paper, you are claiming you are a "citizen" of some man’s government, but the scriptures say we are "...fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). We are in this world, but not of this world. A license is a contract, and you are bound to abide by the terms of that contract. By signing a license, you agree to place man’s law above God’s Law. This is idolatry. This is placing something else higher than God. By signing a license you are signing away God's existence. Man says, "We ought to obey men rather than God." But God says, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Who will you follow? The will of man or the Will of God?

When you sign a license, you stand as surety for the fictitious entity created by the state. Similar to how a man stands as surety for a corporation (meaning if the corporation does something wrong, the man will go to court and answer to the charges against the corporation). This is what you do when you stand as surety for that fictitious name on that license. But the scripture is clear that we are not to stand as surety (Proverbs 6:1-2; 11:15), In 2 Kings 18:23,31, the people refused to stand as surety (pledges) for their king (government).

License: The lawful definition of a license is, "A permit to do that which, without the license, would be illegal to do". In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. Then they tell you that if you pay the government money (a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

All licenses issued by the government are ungodly. Here are a few examples:

Marriage license: Marriage was ordained by God (Genesis 2:23-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4). Speaking of marriage, Jesus himself said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). Yet, this is exactly what the men of government do today by saying marriage is illegal; they put asunder the institution of marriage! Remember, if anyone does anything today without a license from the government, it is an illegal act; and there's a strong possibility of getting penalized, fined and imprisoned. Marriage is no exception. Marriage is illegal!

If it is God’s Will to bring two souls together in Holy Matrimony, what right does mere man have to say two souls cannot get married, until they ask the government for permission?! Until they pay the government their hard earned money to get a license to exercise God’s Will? Does mere man have authority, at law, to interpose himself, or his purported law, between God’s Will, and to bring punishment on a servant of Christ for exercising God’s Law? Could it be evil to execute the Law of God? Could it?

Preaching license: Jesus commanded us to preach (Matthew 10:7, Mark 16:15, Luke 9:2,60, 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:14,16, 2 Timothy 4:2). What right has man to say we cannot preach anymore until we bribe the government with a fee to get a license to do what God has already commanded us to do? According to the scripture, man is forbidden to charge a fee to preach the gospel of Christ: "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:18).

Fishing license: God has already given us permission to fish freely (Genesis 1:26,28, Habakkuk 1:15, Matthew 17:27, John 21:10). What right has mere man to say it is now illegal to do what God has already told us is lawful to do? Who owns the fish and water anyway? (Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Corinthians 5:18).
The Lord has provided those fish for us. The natural man does not have dominion over those fish. The Lord uses him to make sure those things are not ravished, but if you're fishing for whatever you need at that time to eat, then there's no license that controls that; those are a gift from God. And if someone says to you that you must have a license to fish, you may reply, "My Father has provided these fish for me. And nowhere in His Word does it say that I have to have a license to eat those fish. I'm not here for my wants. I am not abusing the fish, I am only going to take what I need."

Now, if you're fishing for commercial gain, then you're engaged in commerce and you've come under the commercial laws, because you're trying to profit off of God's creation. And the natural man will have jurisdiction over that because you're engaged in evil. We're not to profit off of His creation; we don't need to because he provides for our needs through our labors. When one goes to commercial activity and gain, they're actually trying to grasp more than what we really need, and that goes to the wants.

If you have enough, then you're blessed. Why do you need to spend your life constantly trying to scrape up more? And when all of your needs are met, you have less than everyone else but that's actually a blessing because of the Peace in it. And that's the true Peace of the Lord, not the peace that the world thinks they know, because there's no peace in the world.

Pet license: God’s very first command to man was to take care of the creatures upon the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). What right has the government to say it is now illegal to take care of God’s creatures? Who owns the animals? (Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Cor.5:18). How can we register with Caesar (the State) those things (animals) that belong to God? (Mark 12:17).

Birth license: Also known as a birth certificate. Since it is almost impossible to get a license today without a birth certificate, and it is almost impossible to do anything today without a license, then one cannot interact in society without this permission slip issued by Caesar. How ridiculous that anyone would ask for "proof" that you were born! That is basically what a birth certificate is. But is not the fact that you are breathing proof enough that you were born?
God says he knows us and sanctifies us before we are formed in the belly and before we are physically born (Jeremiah 1:4-5). So, according to God, we come into existence before our physical birth. The government says we come into existence after our physical birth, thus denying the scriptures. To a bondservant of Christ, it is not the first birth from corruptible seed that’s important (1 Peter 1:23), but our second birth, when we’re "born again" (John 3:3,7), that’s important. The first birth is of the world, the second birth is of God (John 1:12-13). If we say we were "born" after we came out of the womb, then we are denying we were born of God. We are then of the world, and not of God.

Work license: God says, "...the labourer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7) and "six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work" (Exodus 20:9), but man says the labourer is not worthy to be hired, and shall work zero days per week, especially if he doesn’t have a number issued by the government. God says, "... The labourer is worthy of his reward.." (1 Timothy 5:18), but man says the labourer is only worthy of half his reward, the other half must be withheld from his pay. God says, "...the workman is worthy of his meat." (Matthew 10:10), but man says the workman is only worthy of half his meat, the other half must be withheld from his pay. But God condemns the withholding of wages (Jeremiah 22:13, Malachi 3:5, James 5:4, Deuteronomy 24:14).

Drivers license: Liberty is given to us by God (Galatians 5:1). Liberty is the freedom to go from one place to another without interference. Jesus Christ already set us at liberty (Luke 4:18, Romans 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:17), and there are already restrictions in the scripture for using our liberty (Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16).

As Paul says, "…why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" (1 Corinthians 10:29-30).Why does government, "…spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Galatians 2:4). "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Peter 2:19).

Summary

To summarize, a license requires us to

make an image, a picture,

accept a number (mark) from the government (beast),

lie about being a witness to our own birth,

deny our lawfully spelled Christian name and accept a fictitiously spelled name in its place, and,

commit idolatry by giving allegiance and preference to the laws of man above the Laws of our Creator.
All of which provokes God to anger.
Dear reader, who do you place as Lord over your life? Who do you look to for your authority for doing the things you do? What do you claim is your authority for marriage, preaching, fishing, having pets, working, or driving a car? If you have a license from the government to do these things, then you look to Caesar for your authority to do the things you do. If you rely solely upon the Scriptures to do these things, then you look to God for your authority to do the things you do. Either you believe, "I can do all things through the government which strengtheneth me", or you believe, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). You cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13).

The Purpose of Licenses

The only purposes of a license is to regulate commercial activity which is subject to the police power.

A license is "a permit granted by an appropriate governmental body generally for consideration to a person, firm, or a corporation to pursue some occupation, or to carry on some business, which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal. App. 2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
Are the godly works of God done as business? Are godly works under the police power? You decide. Also, if you get a drivers license, they require you to get insurance. But what does the scripture say about insurance?

Insurance

If the scripture could be summed up in one word, it would be "accountability". Every man is accountable and responsible for his own actions (Exodus 21:32-34). If you sin, you'll be punished. If you are righteous, you'll be rewarded. If you steal or damage someone's property, you must pay restitution to the victim. The scripture teaches us that only the one who commits a wrongful act must take the responsibility.

If I were to take insurance, I would be forsaking God's Law by taking accountability away from myself, and forcing it upon others. If I were in an accident, others would pay the cost of my negligence, and not I, as God commands. When responsibility is taken away from people, and accountability is not a deterrent, then people are free to commit wrongful acts without fear of punishment. How many times have you heard someone say the phrase, "I don't care what happens to that, it's insured!"?

Getting insurance is done out of the "fear of man", Out of the fear of having an accident, out of fear of having your car stolen by a thief, out of fear of being fined and thrown in jail for not having insurance, or out of fear of having your car impounded for not obeying man's insurance laws. But we are commanded to not fear man.

Hebrews 13:6, "...The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." (See also Psalm 56:4; 118:6, Isaiah 51:7, Matthew 10:28).
Insurance is saying God is not sufficient. We don't need insurance from man, because we have assurance from God:

Isaiah 32:17, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever."
Hebrews 10:22, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Another form of Taxation

In addition, licenses cost money. The government is giving us things at a cost. God himself said he would "freely give us all things" (Romans 8:32). What right has man to charge for something God already gave us for free?

A license is just another form of taxation. By requiring a license, the state is claiming complete control and ownership over a disciple's life, liberty, and property. In demanding licensure from the servants of Christ, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that scripture requires us to give to God alone (Matthew 4:10). Christ's assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts. Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper, we should not look to them for any authority for doing anything. Christ is our authority for doing the things we do (Philippians 4:13). Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

The most important Law to Know

We should indeed obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne (Hosea 8:4). It is necessary to draw the distinction between those who exercise Godly Power in Lawful Execution of God’s Will from those who exercise a "power" for their own private purposes and claim to be doing God’s service. The giving of a "name", "birth date", "address", and a "socialist security number" are all identifiers of crafty men that confirm one to be the property of the Babylonian system which created and uses those identifiers to mark its property. That's why it's so very important not to carry an I.D. because any kind of identification you carry describes you according to the State and not according to the Word of God. It's not you, it's an image of you, and it's an image described by men

The giving of a "name," "birth date," "address," all forming a "legal description" of a "legal personality" are all identifiers of crafty and deceitful men forming their seal made in their image and likeness that confirm one to be the property of the Babylonian system which created and uses those identifiers to mark its property.

A King rules by his law; likewise, God rules by his law, and His Law is the Word of God. We honor Christ by obeying him (John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments"), not by substituting man-made requirements in place of His. When there is a conflict between God’s law and man’s law, we must choose whom we will serve, because "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). All one must do to decide which law to follow is to search the scriptures:

Acts 5:29, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." .

Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (see also James 4:12).

Jeremiah 17:5, "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man."

Psalms 118:8-9, "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man…than to put confidence in princes."

Psalms 146:3, "Put not your trust in princes."

Ecclesiastes 12:13), "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God [*not man], and keep his commandments [*not man’s commandments]: for this is the whole duty of man."

The most important law to know is God's Law because it is our standard by which we measure and judge all other systems of law. Then, when we confront other laws and measure it by God's standard, we can judge whether such laws are godly or not.

Think about this. We are "to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29), which is Jesus, the Christ. When we look to a State ID and say, "Yea, that's me, that's who I am," then who are we being conformed to? When we receive identification from the State, then we're made in the image and likeness of Caesar.

True Accounts of Believers not needing Identification

Flying on an Airplane:
It is very hard to fly today without ID, unless one uses a private airline. However, the following is a true account of two brothers who flew on a commercial airline a week after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, without any identification.

"Well, I was in the Hotel across from the Airport for my flight the next morning. I awoke at 3:32 AM who knows why? I turned on the TV and there was the burning building on TV. I phoned Mara in Hawaii, woke her, and said turn on the TV. Just then the second plane hit the second tower. One week delay.
"My friend William and I went to the Airport for our flight to Hawaii. Both under the name of: Sonne of man: house of Israel . After we waded through agents three deep in the terminal, with not one look at them, we waited for about 40 minutes in line. The lady agent was greeted in the name of our Lord and Saviour, and when she asked for our ID I told her, 'We are not permitted to have those things by our Father and it says that right here in the second commandment.' She asked if we had any luggage to check, we said no and she said, 'Fine. Here's your ticket.' Easy.

"We than proceeded to the tram ride to our gate but before we could get on the tram they had an ID check and ticket check. The guy asked for ID and I told him we weren't permitted to have those, and he said, 'Well, I'm not permitted to let you through because I have my orders.' So I told him that I would go and get a note from our teacher and that I'd be right back.

"I went to the lady and told her that some guy was downstairs scaring all the people with some ID thing. Then I asked her if she could she help. She called over a supervisor and asked him nicely if he would accompany us. He led us to the security check and told the guy that we were permitted to go without ID and everybody was happy. I gave the supervisor a hug and thanked him for being a brother and off we went. My Father and my brother were at my side every moment. I could feel them."

Riding on Trains and Buses:
In September of 2002, I (Richard Anthony) was to take a trip from Canoga Park to Anaheim, California, some 50 miles distance, to meet with my Dad who would be there for a week. Metrolink is the name of the county train system here. The same train track is also used by Amtrak. I called "Metrolink Information" by phone, and the "computer-assistant" said it would cost twelve "dollars" one-way. When Randy Lee and I went to the local Metrolink Station, the only way to acquire the tickets was through a vending machine. However, to go between the two cities, the machine only required $6.25 for the ticket. We wondered why it was almost half the price quoted, vended the ticket, and inquired no further.

Shortly thereafter, a double-deck train pulled up to the station (Metrolink has double-deck), and I waited outside for a while before boarding. From inside of the station, Randy Lee got a current train schedule for me. The train was supposed to depart at 11:13 A.M. I boarded the train shortly before this time. After I sat down, in front of me was a digital sign that displayed the next stop. I looked at the train schedule to verify that was the next stop. And sure enough, it was the same. The train departed at 11:13 A.M., and according to the schedule, it was supposed to depart at 11:13 AM. There was no other train in the station, so I was confident I was on the right train. I laid back in the chair and relaxed. There were a few people sleeping in their chairs next to mine.

Little did I know that God was going to tap me on the shoulder and remind me that things are not always as they appear, but that no matter what happens, all things work together for good to them who love Him.

Soon after departure, the train conductor approached me. The following is a paraphrase of what happened.

Conductor: Where ya headed?
Richard: Anaheim! (I said this with a smile. The conductor took out the Anaheim colored strip of paper and inserted it into the slot above my seat. Then I handed him my ticket).

Conductor: You're on the wrong train!
Richard: Pardon? (I thought he was jesting. A visual checklist ran through my head.

Train pulled into station on time.
This is a double-deck train. Metrolink is a double-deck train.
The next stop for this train was the same stop as stated on the Metrolink schedule.
Train departed on time, and was the same departure time as stated on the Metrolink schedule, and the same departure time as the previous phone call to Metrolink confirmed.
There was no other train in the station for me to board!
(I thought I heard that too familiar voice from the 1950's…"You have just entered the Twilight Zone…")
Conductor: Your ticket is for the Metrolink.
Richard: Yes.

Conductor: This is Amtrak.
Richard: (I was dumbfounded. But then I realized that there must be a purpose for this. So I put my faith in God and just went with the flow.) What do I do?

Conductor: (He took out an Amtrak book from his pocket and flipped through the pages. This train had the same stops as Metrolink, and ended up at the same destination). How much did you pay for your ticket?
Richard: (I looked at the ticket) It says six-twenty-five.

Conductor: Amtrak charges twelve dollars....
Richard: (My thoughts were—Well, this explains why the telephone call to Metrolink said it would cost twelve dollars. But there is no explanation why there is such a large difference in the price. Before I could answer, he said:).

Conductor: Let me see your I.D.
Richard: Oh. I don't have any.

Conductor: You don't?!?!? (As he raised his voice with this question, he woke up those on the train who were sleeping. Now all eyes were on us).
Richard: No. Why?

Conductor: You must have I.D.! You cannot be on this train unless you have I.D. You can't even buy an Amtrak ticket without I.D. (He was looking at seated passengers as he spoke, as if to warn others that there was "a possible criminal" in their midst).
Richard: Well, I'm a minister for Christ Jesus. I don't have any I.D. I go from place to place doing the Lord's Will. (I grabbed my bible cover, which had my bible in it).

Conductor: Well, let me see what you have there.
Richard: (He was expecting to see some kind of identification papers, but when I opened it up, there was only my bible).

Conductor: (He scoffed and turned his head away). The Bible! (Shaking his head, as if to say, "Poor fella. That won't do you any good.")
Richard: The scripture "identifies" me as a Minister for Christ. That is who I am.

Conductor: You must have I.D. It's the law!
Richard: Well, yes, it might be the law for residents, but I am not a resident. The government will only give I.D. to residents. If I were to try to get California I.D., and they asked me if I'm a resident, I would have to say, 'No, I'm just passing through,' they would then say, 'Oh, we can't give you I.D. unless you're a resident.' (I could have additionally pointed out to him that they also require a Social Security Number, which I don't have, in order to get an I.D. card).

Conductor: Well, things have changed since 9-11.
Richard: Hmmm. I'll have to look into that. Is there someone higher-up here that I can talk to?

Conductor: (He pointed to himself, implying that he is the one who will determine my "fate." Then he showed me his walkie-talkie). If I contact Amtrak, they'll tell me to kick you off the train.
Richard: So, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to get off at the next stop? (Which I was willing to do without any argument).

Conductor: (After a long pause, and with a squinty-eyed stare looking deep into my eyes, as if to see if my eyes will suddenly yell "I'm a terrorist!" he said…) Naaaa. I'll let you stay on.
Richard: Thank you. What do I owe you for the ticket?

Conductor: Don't worry about that (he didn't even charge me!).
Richard: Well, thank you.

Conductor: But look into getting some kind of I.D. (Then he walked off down the isle).
Richard: God Bless you! (He acted like he didn't hear me).

God has blessed me in similar situations previously, since the September 11th terrorist attacks. About a month after the "attacks," my mother and I took a train from North Carolina to New Jersey for a family reunion. We were told that we needed I.D. to buy the tickets and I.D. to get on the train. However, Mom bought two tickets through a travel agent, and the agent just warned my Mom that her son (me) needed to show I.D. when I boarded the train.

Well, when we got to the train station, we checked-in our luggage and showed them our train tickets. The clerk did not ask for I.D. I can only presume that he thought we must have showed I.D. when we bought the tickets. None asked for I.D. during boarding and the entire train ride, either. Not even when we picked up our baggage at the final destination.

And in November of 2001, I left North Carolina to sojourn with Randy Lee in California. I took a Greyhound bus. Since the bus ticket was half-price if purchased a week in advance, I bought the ticket in advance. I was told by Greyhound that I.D. would need to be presented when using this advanced ticket ("to avoid people buying tickets for somebody else"), and that I would also need to show I.D. to pick up my baggage at my final destination.

Well, I was never asked for I.D. at the bus station when I left North Carolina, during the bus ride, nor at my final destination to claim the baggage.

An interesting thing happened while I was changing buses in Houston, Texas. After exiting the bus, and going into the bus station to re-board another bus, there was a very, very long line for that bus. I was waiting towards the end of the line, when several local policemen went to the front of the line, and were physically searching everybody's "person" and "belongings," and asking for I.D., before boarding the bus. The police had a cart with them, which was full of people's confiscated items, such as Swiss army knives, files, tools, and anything else that they thought could be used as "a weapon."

However, somebody behind me noticed an unguarded door further past where the police were, with a bus parked in that space. He walked to the door, and onto the bus, and asked the driver something, and then walked back towards me (he left his luggage and friend behind me). I heard him say that that bus was heading to the same place we were going! It must have been a bus in reserve since the one we were boarding was so overcrowded. So, we all casually walked past the police, to the unguarded door, and walked onto the empty bus, and avoided the Gestapo search to get onto the other bus!

The Lord works in mysterious, but always wonderful, ways. And He always provides a way out.

Riding in Cars:
Randy Lee, from the Christ's assembly at California, has been exercising his duty of movement on the common ways for many, many years. He has been pulled over many times. Most of time, after Randy spoke the truth to them, and knowing that Randy had no license, tags, registration, title, insurance, and so forth, the police would let him go and continue on his way, and did not arrest him nor impound the car .

It is interesting to note that every time the police let Randy go, the car he was in did not have any marks of Caesar (i.e., no State issued license plates, title, registration, insurance, etc.). There were only two times when the police impounded the car, and both times were when Randy was in a car that had State issued license plates.

The first time the car was impounded was when he borrowed his friend's car (which was registered with the State). After the police pulled him over, the only thing Randy gave them was his "name." They arrested Randy Lee and impounded the car. However, Randy did not sign anything nor give them fingerprints or a mugshot while in their custody. He also went on a fast while in jail (which concerned the jailers greatly).

When they brought him before the judge, the judge told Randy that he could go home if he would pay a $400 fine and agree to 6 months of probabtion. Randy replied, "I cannot pay a fine because I have no money. And I cannot agree to probation because I cannot enter into any agreements with you." The judge did not even ask why, and sentenced Randy to a legthy jail term. (Keep in mind that the courtroom was filled with many people, and the judge had to act like he was in charge).

However, that same night, Randy received a note from the judge stating that he would be released in three days, and he was! Why? Because without an address, birth date, birth place, social security number, signature, etc., the COUNTY is not able to bill the STATE for the cost of keeping you in their facilities!

Anyway, in California, when the State impounds the car, they must hold it for 30 days. After the 30 days, the cost to get it back might be more than the car is worth. So Pat (the "registered owner" of the car) visited the police chief in person and begged for his car back. The police chief agreed to give him the car back and waive the 30 days law, but he warned him that if it happens again, they will hold it for the full 30 days.

The second time the car was impounded, Randy was in the same State registered car when he got pulled over again, but this time, when Randy gave them his name, the cop ran his name through his computer in his police car. Obviously, what transpired with Randy the previous time must have appeared on his terminal. When the poilicman approached Randy, he told him that he was free to go, but he had to impound the car.

One may ask "Why did they impound the car, but not arrest Randy?" Well, the car was registered with the State, and was under the jurisdiction of the State. They had full control over it, since it had the identification marks of the State. However, Randy Lee did not have identification from the State, and since he did not commit any evil acts against another, they had no jurisdiction over Randy, and they let him go.

Riding in Ships:
An alternative to flying in planes to go overseas is to sail on a freighter ship (the kind where they transport cargo on board, not a cruise liner). There are usually a few cabins set aside for passengers. These ships do not require a passport to take passage on their ships. And there is usually no border patrol where they dock. If there happens to be a border patrol, simply go to an area where there are no border guards and cross there! "Borders" are huge, and 99.999 percent of borders have no guards.

Identification Card and Residency Requirements
(from the California Motor Vehicle Code):
§ 516. "Resident' means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency. The following are evidence of residency within this state:

(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a non-resident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license (or identification card).
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.
§ 12505. (a) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home or principle residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

§ 13005. (a) The identification card shall resemble in appearance, so far as is practicable, a driver's license issued pursuant to this code.

§ 12800. Every application for an original or a renewal of, a driver's license (or identification card) shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The applicant's true full name, age, sex, mailing address, residence address, and social security number.

Conclusion
God does have patience with us, but His patience, as His Word shows, does run out. And we have to take those things into consideration. In other words, when you learn these things, you don't have to go out and get rid of all your licenses immediately, we're not promoting that idea. But consider these things and say, "Am I attached to these things through the Will of God or though the will of man?" That's what we're talking about. We need to proceed cautiously as the Spirit of God leads us, and don't make any rash decisions. You have to go to Him and pray, because He will show you the way out of these things. Everybody's situation is different.

We are not here to judge anybody and say, "Well, you're a heathen because you have all these licenses." Well, we used to have all these licenses, we don't have them anymore, but we understand your situation. We have all had this over-whelming feeling when this Truth was revealed to us. And it looks like an insurmountable thing to do away with them, but it isn't because we have eliminated them all out of our lives, but we've done it over a period of time. Sometimes it takes years. In most cases, especially when you have a family, we have to consider that the Lord says he who does not take care of his family is worse than an infidel. We have responsibilities before the Lord, and if we have to remain in servitude and slavery to fulfill those obligations, then we have to do that with patience, looking to the day when you can be free from debt, free from licensure, and free from all these obligations that you've gotten yourself into.

The important thing is to know that they are not of God, and once you do that, He knows your heart and He will give you the time to do those things, if you willingly submit to Him. By "willingly," I mean when that call comes to you, you don't resist it. Only God can set you free. Once you get rid of all the licenses and burdens of the world, your heart still has to be true

2011-06-13T09:36:00.002-06:00

U.K.: Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System - Queen not valid monarch
Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

Written by Debra Siddons
Friday, 27 May 2011 07:51

If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."

For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-

http://mtrial.org
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/

7/7/ Ripple effect http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/

There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned.

There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority. That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.

The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.

Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.

Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now.

For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR.

So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".

For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit: http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes

By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case.

While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is.

This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also found not guilty).

John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event.

As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record.

And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record.

This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

by Debra Siddons

Who owns the Bank of Canada?

2011-06-08T13:00:00.000-06:00

Most Canadians are aware of the existence of the Bank of Canada (BoC) but beyond that, very few know little more. It is assumed that the BoC is owned by the federal government, i.e. a public asset. Under Section 3(2) of The Bank of Canada Act, the BoC is described as a “body corporate”. Black’s Law dictionary, 6th edition (page 175) defines a body corporate as “a public or private corporation”. In a recent communication received from the BoC, a representative stated that the BoC “is not a public corporation.” The BoC is, therefore, a private corporation! But who owns it?

The Bank is made up of a Governor, Deputy Governor and twelve directors. The directors are chosen by the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Governor in Council and the twelve directors are responsible for the appointment of a Governor and Deputy Governor with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Deputy Minister of Finance is a member of the board but he has no vote!! There is no provision in the BoC Act for the appointment of elected representatives to the board of the Bank. (I think it is safe to assume from this set-up that the duly elected Parliament has no say in the policies and operations of the BoC). The capital of the bank is divided into one hundred thousand shares with a par value of $50.00 each. (Section 17.1 and 17.2) and the shares are held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada! (Section 17.3 of the BoC Act.) It would seem that the BoC is owned by the Queen, a foreign head of state and not owned by the Government of Canada. (This fact was also confirmed by an official of the BoC) It is certainly clear however, that the Federal Parliament and the people of Canada do not own it or benefit from its activities.

So what was the purpose behind the creation of the Bank of Canada? The answer to this can be found in the preamble to the BoC Act. It states “Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices, and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada.” Very noble, but has the BoC lived up to its principles? You decide.

Under Section 18(h), (i) and (j) of the BoC Act “Business and Powers of the Bank”, the Bank may make loans or advances to the Federal or Provincial levels of government. These loans can be for any amount, be secured or unsecured and the Bank is free to charge whatever rate of interest it chooses – presumably even a zero rate of interest. There are a number of restrictions, which apply to these loans, a very few of which have been made in the past. BoC correspondence indicates the Bank has made 19 loan advances to the Federal government and one loan to a Province in the past (3 million dollars to Saskatchewan in 1936). The last loan was made in 1961. BoC correspondence states “it is not the bank’s role to be a source of financing for governments nor a source of financing government deficits.” This would seem to contradict the Bank’s primary purpose as expressed in the preamble and renders Section 18 (h), (i) and (j) as redundant. So why does the BoC act this way? To better understand the actions of the BoC, people need to understand how the existing private debt money system works.

The Bank of Canada began as a privately owned institution and at the time of its inception (1934), Alberta was in the midst of a revolution of sorts. A small group of people came to understand the origin of recessions and depressions and the corruption of bankers and were moving with plans to control the vitriolic policies of these same bankers. Big finance moved to have itself established as a central bank in Canada through the passage of the BoC Act, giving it exclusive authority over the money supply of this country. (This was and still is in contempt of our so-called constitution, Section 91.14 and 91.15.) It didn’t take long for people everywhere, especially Alberta to recognize this same group of unscrupulous individuals (bankers) as the ones behind the passage of the BoC Act. The depression was to continue unabated through the twenties and early thirties, but Alberta was determined to get control of what it believed was the ultimate social responsibility of a government – to provide a mechanism of debt free money creation as a means for the people to live and prosper without having the private banks stealing our wealth through usury, the wealth of those who create it in the first place, YOU!. The Alberta Credit House Act – An Act to provide the people of Alberta with additional credit, was passed and led to the setting up of a number of Treasury Branches throughout the Province. (This law has never been disavowed by any government in Ottawa.) Alberta acted according to the terms of the laws of 1867 (our Constitution), which allowed the provincial legislatures to “borrow money on the sole credit of the Province”. That is to say, upon the real wealth of the province, which means that there is no doubt that there is actually a provincial credit. And the Province can certainly establish its own mechanism to use this credit directly, without mortgaging its wealth or going into debt to individuals or corporations like the private banks.

The BoC responded by changing its shares from class shares to completely benign shares and depositing them with the Minster of Finance in exchange for a sum of tax dollars ($5 million). This idea gave the illusion that the bank was now owned and controlled by the government. So how could a privately owned corporation, with the power to bring a government and a country to its knees within hours, be taken over without as much as a whimper? Could it be that the Bank of Canada preferred to appear that it had been taken over (nationalized) while it maintained its independence and powers? Unfortunately, with the start of the Second World War, the Province of Alberta suspended implementation of their credit plan and it was ultimately abandoned.

Well, those who knew and understood the bankers and how their monetary policies and system operated weren’t fooled. Hundreds of pages of evidence was brought before a Standing Committee in 1939 which showed clearly how deeply indebted the Provinces were to the private banks as a result of the depression and the monetary policies in effect at that time. (The first Governor, Graham Towers was also present at these hearings to answer questions as well.) Provinces had been seeking loans from the BoC but were being denied and forced to borrow from the private banks and abroad. The reason finally given for the BoC’s unwillingness to lend to the provinces was that the provinces were not willing to enter into an arrangement with the BoC similar to that of the arrangement the BoC had with the federal government. This arrangement gave the BoC the lofty position of being the government’s fiscal agent. Only the BoC sells government securities - bonds and T-bills. The BoC also "sells" notes at face value to financial institutions for circulation throughout the country. If the Bank of Canada wants a tight monetary policy, the Bank of Canada can limit the amount of money the government can borrow by decreasing the number of securities it sells. The BoC uses other measures to tighten the money supply as well, such as increasing the interest rates and making it more difficult for borrowers to borrow money. Through these actions, a recession is born. The effect is the government receives less in taxes at every level and, of course, the demand for government assistance rises. To compound the problem, the government has no ability to refuse the high interest rates the BoC imposes on it and the taxpayers. The government has no ability to circumvent the decisions of the BoC. All revenue to the government flows through the Receiver General, who happens to be a servant of the BoC and not the government.

The Bank of Canada appears to have other controls over government. While reading the evidence of the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance held in 1939 and Hansard, members of the committee raised the issue of the bank’s control over spending decisions of the government. There was reference to questions by low-profile backbenchers of the House of Commons about why this was so. Or, why any other policy was not being carried out even though it would greatly assist the economy. The response in the House of Commons would indicate that, although the government wished to proceed, the money was not available because of decisions made outside of government! This was confirmed many years later when the governor of the BoC told the government on more than one occasion that Canada was in no position to kick-start the economy. (As if the government could have done it without the blessing of the BoC.)

During the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance in 1939, Graham Towers admitted the only thing that would limit Canada’s involvement in the war was manpower. Money would not be a problem! Yet the Bank of Canada refused to put out money for any job creation, infrastructure expansion, or aid for the poor, the old, the sick, the unemployed, the farmers, small business or any other policy suggestions that had been put forth by the federal or provincial governments.

The reality is that the federal government can’t by pen and paper without the permission of the Bank of Canada, and all money the public considers “waste” is willingly and culpably paid out by the Bank of Canada. When Canada is in a recession (created by the BoC), the Bank of Canada will do nothing to help the country out of it until it considers the timing to be right and the solutions offered are usually a further detriment to the economy over the long run for most of us except those on the “inner circle” who really know what is going on and can profit from it.

Canadian banks and Credit Unions are now controlled by both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) as well. Located in Switzerland, the BIS holds deposits (i.e. they control) of about 120 central banks and other international financial institutions throughout the world, including the Bank of Canada. In other words, the BIS financially controls the globe. It has direct influence over the direction of the economy of every country and, indeed, the world through its banking and monetary policies.

The weapon that all banks have is the power to withhold loans, thus driving an economy into the ground in a hurry. Personal and corporate bankruptcies, lost jobs, disintegrating social programs and other unpleasant consequences are a direct result of these policies. There is no government that can afford to offend its central bank. The Bank of Canada will do what it wants to do, and what the BIS wants it to do. No amount of pressure from anyone will influence it in any way.

A quote from a 1924 edition of the American Banker's Association not intended for the public sums up what is currently happening all around us:

"Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished."

The bottom line is that our present situation will not improve, ever, until we have significant reform to our banking and monetary policies. What has happened in this country is a result of lack of knowledge as to how we are being shafted by the present system and it must be changed. We must all make the effort to educate ourselves and our family, friends and neighbours as to the truth behind the financial demise we face today. Again, this is the purpose of this website, to inform and educate. Please take time to read through and understand how we are being robbed under the present system and how we can change it for the benefit of all Canadians.

How Ontario folk beat radar...If they gets tired of whining to their buds and wanna effect a conclusion to the matter

2011-06-08T08:09:00.001-06:00

So I've been looking around here for a bit, and thanks to all the info on this site I managed to have two tickets dismissed this morning, so I figured I would post up the story in case it can help others.

First off, thanks to everyone here, and a BIG thank you to ticketcombat.com, seriously, that guy needs to put a paypal donation box on his site. So, my story (I'll keep it short):

I was driving in Caledon, ON, along one of the town lines, and I had a car in front of me that was at least 10 under the limit, so after making sure I had room, I went around him. Unfortunately for me, there was a speed trap sitting right there, the cop stepped out, and waved me over. Got me for 104 in a 60 using the Decateur VP. To this day, I still have no clue how my unmodified compact car managed to achieve that acceleration, but I digress.

I went looking around on-line, and came across this site, and through it ticketcombat.com. After looking everything over, I put together a request for disclosure form for the site, and sent it off. Now, I work in the Industrial Equipment sector, and deal with regulation, upon regulation, upon regulation, so I added a few points to the request form:
- Calibration Certificate for the Radar
- Calibration Certificate for any calibration equipment (may sound stupid, but in a proper calibration, you should be able to trace the equipment back to the standard)
- Certificate of Conformance (a written record indicating that the unit was manufactured to standard, and more importantly calibrated properly, available from all ISO9000 companies)
- Industry Canada certificate certifying that the unit has been approved for use in Canada

My first appearance was adjourned quickly, the officers notes had been hand written and illegible, when I had asked for typed. The prosecutor told me the officer could sit down with me and go through the notes, which I declined stating this wouldn't give me time to prepare. They had also only sent me over a few pages of the manual, where I had asked for the entire thing. The other more interesting parts of disclosure I had asked for hadn't been given, but the first two items were enough to postpone. The JP agreed with me and set a new date.

My second appearance was the interesting one. I had been e-mailing the prosecutor asking for my disclosure, and they kept saying that the Cert. of conformance, and the Industry Canada certs were not items that they would give to me, I disagreed. So in court, I made the following arguments:

1. The certificate of conformance is available from all ISO9000 companies, of which Decateur is one. In fact it is one of the core principles of the ISO9000 doctrine that documentation be available to prove that the device had been made according to spec and that the initial testing proved that the device was within limits. Without that certificate, there was no way to prove that the unit had been manufactured and tested in the appropriate manner.
2. I had not been able to find any listings for Decateur, or their distributors on the Industry Canada site, and there is no mention in the manual that the device has been tested to Industry Canada standards, however there is a notation that the device has been tested to FCC standards (which are not accepted as IC acceptance). If the Industry Canada Certificate cannot be produced, or a test certificate (using Certification Body recognized by the Standards Council of Canada) proving that the radar falls within the levels prescribed for an acceptance, then the unit is not legal for use in Canada.

So after helpfully educating the JP, and smacking down the prosecution a couple of times ("With all do respect to the prosecution, here is a list of the reasons he is wrong" <-- along those lines), and indicated that there was a possibility that the OPP was in contravention of the Radiocommunications act, the JP agreed with me again and ordered the prosecution to provide me with the documents I was looking for. However, he also told me I needed to provide them with some guidance on where to look.

After I left the court, I fired off a quick e-mail to the head prosecutor stating who they needed to contact, and where they needed to go to look for the documents. A week later I got the certificate of conformance, but since in my initial disclosure I had asked for traceability documents, I went back and told her that the cert. of conformance was incomplete. I also reminded her that she was missing the Industry Canada docs, to which I got an e-mail stating they didn't provide such documentation. I quickly reminded her that a JP had disagreed with that, and didn't hear from her again.

Fast forward to this morning, and I am standing in line to meet with the prosecution, and I hear my name being called. I look over and it is the head prosecutor. She motions me to follow her over to another room, and we have the following discussion:
Prosecutor: So, what are we doing today?
Me: Good question, I'm still waiting on a bunch of documentation from my initial disclosure.
P: I told you we don't supply that, and you are not getting it.
Me: The JP ordered you to get me that documentation.
P: Well, you're not getting it, so go have a seat and get ready for trial.
Me: Ok, works for me.

About six cases in, my name is called, which I figured was a little early, I get up, state my name and the prosecutor (different one) states that all charges are being withdrawn. Judge tells me I am free to go. I walk out of the courtroom, see the head prosecutor, flash her a little "f*** you" smile and off I go.

After all this, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. There is still no firm evidence that the Decateur Radars have ever been tested against IC standards, and if applicable, certified. If this is correct, they should't be being used in Canada, plain and simple.
2. While there is (surprisingly) a massive amount of case law that goes against proper calibration procedures, the Certificate of Conformance is an item that validates the radar unit, and even if it is available, it appears to be an absolute pain in the ass to get.
3. Somehow the police manage to get away with no calibrations, in any industrial sector they would be fined out of existence. How they get away with that I do not know.
4. Do not be intimidated by the prosecution, they seem to be full of nothing but bluster and b.s. The ones I dealt with didn't seem to be able to follow up on any of their threats. In fact most of what they said seemed to be nothing but a bluff.
5. Read this forum, and ticketcombat.com, both are absolute essentials.

Anyways that's my story, sorry its a little long, but hopefully someone will be able to be able to pick something up that will help them.