It's SCIENCE!!! The Creator, Heaven and Hell proven by chem student!!!

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell,then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has
already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Do you thinks US taxes are Legitimate? Watch and learn that they are not!

Former IRS agent holds conferance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8&NR=1

Fenomenal IRS defet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aroN2uRbIMc&feature=related

Sheldon Cohen, Former Commissioner prove that he is a Israeli traitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related

Rothschild history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc

Enjoy!

Stefan Molyneux on the illusion of freedom

Probably one of the most dangerous films on the net!

This film blends well with other posts on this blog as it explains the collectively deceptive web that has ensnared us as a species for millenia

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2008/11/most-dangerous-video-on-internet.html

and while were on the topic..
Former IRS agent holds conferance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8&NR=1

Fenomenal IRS defet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aroN2uRbIMc&feature=related

Sheldon Cohen, Former Commissioner prove that he is a Israeli traitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related

Rothschild history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc

Enjoy!

Does the World Bank Help the world? Who owns it and whats their motive?

IMF / WORLD BANK DESTROYING COUNTRIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yL-e60klAU&NR=1
Connie Fogal on those guys and the NAU

The World Bank - IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30
to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world.. For over 150 years they
have planned to take the world over through money. The former chief
economist of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz, was fired recently. He
pointed out to top executives that every country the IMF/World Bank
got involved in ended up with a crashed economy, a destroyed
government, and sometimes in flames with riots. Jim Wolfensen, the
president of the World Bank would not comment on his dismissal.

Before Joe Stiglitz was fired he took a large stack of secret

documents out of the World Bank. These secret documents from the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveal that the IMF required
nations:

1. to sign secret agreements of 111 items

2. in which they agreed to sell off their key assets - water,
electric, gas, etc.

3. in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really
devastating to the nations involved

4. in which they pay off the politicians billions of dollars to Swiss
bank accounts to do this transfer of a countries fixed assets

If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all
international borrowing. Today if can't borrow money in the
international marketplace, no one can survive, whether you are people
or corporations or countries. If that does not work they overthrow the
government and plant lies about the former government and/or even
rewrite history.

The Argentina Plan

Inside documents from Argentina show the secret Argentine plan. This
is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. Argentina
has had six presidents in five weeks because their economy is
completely destroyed. This happened because they started out in the
end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all
their assets, public assets, like their water system. Then they taxed
the people. They created big government and big government handed it
off to the private IMF/World Bank. They pay off the politicians
billions in Swiss bank accounts.

The Enron Connection

The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company
called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and
Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron. Then the globalists
blow out Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy
corporation..

They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the
railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas
stations - the politicians then hand it over to the IMF for nothing.
The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss
bank accounts. The plan is total slavery for the entire population.
Enron is a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, etc.

IMF Planed Riots

The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart, whether
it's Ecuador or Argentina. It's not privatization. They steal it from
the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank. They hand it over,
generally to the cronies, like Citibank grabbed half the Argentine
banks. British Petroleum grabbed pipelines in Ecuador. Enron grabbed
water systems all over the place. The problem is that they are
destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in
Buenos Aires. It is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn
on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at the public
expense. And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the
sole control over the water supply now. The IMF and the World Bank is
51% owned by the United States Treasury. Indonesia is in flames.

Every country IMF/World Bank meddling in they destroyed their economy
and they ended up in flames. They even plan in the riots. They know
that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you get
riots in the streets. And they admit that it an IMF riot. Because you
have riot, all the capital runs away from your country and that gives
the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.

California Utilities & Enron

It is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they
are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are
preparing it for America. The chief investigators of Enron for the
State of California said that that it's not just the stockholders that
got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the
public pocket in Texas and California in particular. Where are the
assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a
dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred
all those assets to other corporations and banks. You did pay
California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are
telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12-billion
dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now.
Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt
and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and
over and over again.

Enron's Auditor - Lord Wakeham


The men who designed the system in California for deregulation then
went to work for Enron right after. Lord Wakeham, who was on the audit
committee of Enron, is the head of NM Rothschild. There isn't anything
that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty
Boards. And he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching
how Enron kept the books. In fact, they were paying him consulting
fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's
the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power
plants in Britain. Enron owned a water system in the middle of
England. This is what Lord Wakeham approved and then they gave him a
job on the board. On top of being on the board, they gave him a huge
consulting contract. Lord Wakeham is supposed to be in charge of the
audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts, but he
is also the head of the board to regulate the media. Lord Wakeham is
trying to pass laws in England where you can't own your own water. He
can't be touched because he regulates the media.

Rothschild and the Illuminati

Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. The IMF/World
Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy
the resources of the people. First you open up the capital markets.
That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks.. Then you go
to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in
California where everything is free market and you end up with water
bills no one can pay. Then open up your borders to trade - complete
free marketeering. Its like the opium wars. This isn't free trade;
this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies
through this. China has a 40% tariff on the USA, but the USA has a 2%
on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry
into a country that the globalists fully control, and they control
China.

Wal-Mart

The Illuminati owns Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart has 700 plants in China.
There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United
States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall. They have big
flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything from America
in their stores. What's even worst is they will hire a factory and
right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison.
You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely
stuff for Walmart.

Briberization

Sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say
about 5 billion dollars, ten percent of that is 500 million. A Senator
from Argentina said that he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988
saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron. Enron was going to
pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can
you make such an offer? The answer was that if they only pay one-fifth
that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank
account. This is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to
know Ken Lay of Enron until 1994. Now they are having these white-wash
hearings. Bill Clinton, to get even with Bush's big donor, cut Enron
out of the California power market. He put a cap on the prices they
could charge. They couldn't charge more than one-hundred times the
normal price for electricity. That upset Enron. So Ken Lay personally
wrote a note to Dick Cheney saying get rid of Clinton's cap on prices.
Within 48 hours of George W. Bush taking office, his energy department
reversed the clamps on Enron.

Step Two

Argentina is an example of step two of the IMF. A fifth of the
population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the
unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the
education budgets. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a
recession (created by the IMF), you absolutely demolish the nation.

You don't start cutting the budget in a recession, you start spending
money to stimulate the economy. You don't raise taxes, you cut them.
But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And
why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments
to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70%
interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they
required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking
because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.

Part 3 and Part 4.

Then they open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars.
They destroy an economy so that it can not produce anything, and then
open the borders to sell their own goods. They force nations to pay
horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. That's how you
end up with an illegal drug trade. What's there left to survive on
except sell us smack and crack. And so, drive the whole world down,
blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on
the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?

In Part 4, they take apart of the government by the coup d'etat and
they install their own corporate government. In Venezuela where they
have an elected president of the government, the IMF has announced
that they would support a transition government if the president were
removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in
politics - they would just support a transition government. What that
effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the
military overthrows the current president, because the current
president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to
go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this
and that. And he said, I don't have to do anything. He said what I'm
going to do is double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a
whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on
oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social
programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well,
as soon as he did that, they started fomenting trouble with the
military and watch this because the President of Venezuela will be out
of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow
him to raise taxes on the oil companies.

Philipps tranceformation@trance-formation.org or http://www.GregPalast.com
or http://www.gregpalast.com


Bush Administration Signals End to Open Government

1) The Bush administration invoked executive privilege to keep Clinton-
era documents secret. The move shocked Republican lawmakers. Why would
Bush want to cover up for Bill Clinton? Representative Dan Burton, who
is the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, even
threatened to hold Bush in contempt of Congress unless he releases
several sets of subpoenaed Justice Department documents that he has
hidden. It does not matter. Bush promises to never comply with
congressional investigators. Bush is determined to keep Clinton's
crimes concealed.

2) Bush flatly refuses to hand over records of internal energy task
force meetings. These records could either incriminate or exonerate
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding allegations of conflict
of interest in the
Enron scandal. Even the General Accounting Office is suing the White
House (a first) to obtain the records. Again, Bush refuses to comply.
The president is even willing to ignore court orders demanding the
release of documents.

3) Just this week, the United States Government's top lawyer told the
U.S. Supreme Court that officials have the right to lie to American
citizens. No, he did not explain how that assertion jives with Bush's
Christian testimony.

4) Two days ago, the White House ordered all federal agencies to
delete their web sites of all "sensitive information." The White House
did not say what information it considered "sensitive."

5) Vice President Cheney is already the stealthiest Vice President in
U.S. history. Seldom does anyone know where he is or what he is doing.

6) President Bush admitted to forming a mysterious "shadow government"
comprised of unknown persons who are living in underground bunkers at
secret sites outside Washington, D.C. Not even top legislators know
who these
people are or what instructions have been given them. Furthermore, how
does a "shadow government" mesh with the U.S. Constitution? These
questions have never been (and never will be) answered..

When asked by a reporter about these and other matters, Bush said, "I
have a duty to protect the executive branch from legislative
encroachment." Congress, for the most part, only learns of Bush's
clandestine carryings-on as brief sketches leak out in the press.

However, none of this seems to bother the American people or members
of the press. Bush is a wartime president (even though no one
officially declared war) and, therefore, can do anything he pleases
with total impunity. In truth, the Bush administration signals the end
to both open government and constitutional government - and few people
seem to even notice.

Christians cannot comment on Government in USA

Congress has decided to silence you, me, and any other Christian who
dares express a moral view that may impact a political campaign! The
U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed a so-
called "campaign finance reform" bill ... and now President Bush has
said he will sign it into law! In spite of all the propaganda in the
media, this legislation actually silences Christian and conservative
organizations - banning them from commenting on key moral issues
during election campaigns ... while allowing the liberal media to
speak out freely.

This new law is a SLAP IN THE FACE to our right to free speech. It is
absolutely, blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

* This legislation effectively strips church and conservative leaders
and organizations of religious free speech during elections.

* For me or any other conservative spokesperson to comment and inform
you with a Christian perspective would be illegal ... and the threat
of jail a reality!

* Even your own pastor cannot inform you on key political and moral
issues when it comes time to vote!

So where will you get all your information about the political and
moral views of candidates? FROM THE BIASED, SECULAR MEDIA!

From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com, see a related
article on how scientists and academics are viewing the possibility of
reducing the world's population by more than four billion people and
doing so selectively with DNA biological weapons. See how hundreds of
microbiologists are being assassinated world-wide to keep this plan in
the hands of only a few people. www.rense.com www.narconews.com

Now to really sink the doubts

The Learned Protocols of the Brotherhood of Zion

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#Table%20of%20Contents

and learning what re...gistry means

GIST, pleading. (Begging,bowing)Gist of the action is the essential ground or object of it, in point of law, and without which there is no cause of action. Gould on Pl. c. 4, §12. But it is observable that the substance or gist of the action is not always the principal cause of the plaintiff Is complaint in point of fact, nor that on which he recovers all or the greatest part of his damages.

2. It frequently bappens that upon that part of his declaration which contains the substance or gist of the, action, he only recovers nominal damages, and he gets his principal satisfaction on account of matter altogether collateral thereto. A familiar instance of this is the case where a father sues the defendant for a trespass for the seduction of his daughter. The gist of the action is the trespass, and the loss of his daughter's services, but the collateral cause is the injury done to his feelings, for which the principal damages are given. In stating the substance or gist of the action, every thing must be averred which is necessary to be proved at the trial. Vide 1 Vin. Ab. 598; 2 Phil. Ev. 1, note. See Bac. Abr. Pleas, B; Doct. P. 85. See Damages, special, in pleading; 1 Vin. At. 598; 2 Phil. Ev. 1, n.

GIVER, contracts. He who makes a gift. (q. v.) By his gift, the giver always impliedly agrees with the donee that he will not revoke the gift.



Benjamin Freedman Speaks:

A Jewish Defector Warns America

by Benjamin H. Freedman (1961)



Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us - his warning to the West - is more urgent than ever before. - K.A.S.




Contents.

Zionists Rule the US

The First World War

Stalemate in 1916. Zionist Offer to get USA into the War

USA Railroaded into World War I after Balfour Declaration

Versailles

Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

German Camps in 1933

Germans fought Jewish Control

1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

Reichskristallnacht and Rearmament

1961: Nuclear War? For Israel?

Secrecy (e.g. 1916 Zionist deal with USA) can happen again

History of 'Jews'

Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

George Washington's Vision






Zionists Rule the US

Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




The First World War.

What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that - seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Stalemate in 1916. Zionists Offer to get USA into the War

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and (I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make) they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.* However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that (I don't know how many here remember it) the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.


* Benjamin Freedman obviously did not know that the British peoples are the true Israel whose land it is. Even so, they had no right to give it to the Zionists whose land it is not, even though it was prophesied by Ezekiel that the Zionists would do this and succeed - 11:15 Son of man, thy brethren, [even] thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the House of Israel wholly, [are] they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the "I AM": unto us is this land given in possession (Idumean zionists - 1948).


I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




USA Railroaded into World War I after Balfour Declaration

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into (if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into) that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Versailles

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine* and were determined to get it at any cost.


* Without Adolf Hitler, who was half Jewish and his Jewish generals, there would be no Zionist State in Israel. Why was Rudolf (Walter Richard) Hess (1894-1987), who was Adolf Hitler's second-in-command, kept incommunicado in Spandau Prison until his death in 1987, after parachuting into Scotland to seek peace in 1941? Even the prison guards were not allowed to speak to him. What did he know that had to be kept so secret and made him seem so dangerous? Was the formation of the Zionist State the REAL reason for WW2? Was that what Hess knew?- JAH.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, [Albert Ballin-RW] who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers - the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.* A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.! Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.


* Ironically, as is prophesied to happen both by George Washington's Vision (see end of article) and the Holy Scriptures.


Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine* as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."


* Ezekiel 11:15 Son of man, thy brethren, [even] thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the House of Israel wholly, [are] they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the "I AM": unto us is this land given in possession (Idumean zionists - 1948).


Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers (and the press was filled with their statements) that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat (and the reparations, which ruined and crippled Germany financially).


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




German Camps in 1933

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Germans fought Jewish Control

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them.

So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Reichskristallnacht and Rearmament

The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




1961: Nuclear War? For Israel?

For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Secrecy (e.g. 1916 Zionist deal with USA) can happen again

What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




History of 'Jews'

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews*, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe - so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

* Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan.
3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith - either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral home and, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them.* How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.


* Exodus - The Ten Commandments - 20:16 Thou shalt not tell lies [even to thyself].
Matthew 5:37 (Jesus said) But let your Yes, be yes; and your No, be no: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
15:1 Then came to Jesus lawyers and politicians, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the Tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Affidavit (As of 18/11/08) with amendments by dates
Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Affidavit DTH 181105 - NUI&CR

I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings., a living, sentient, flesh-and-blood Soul, having no corporate status, do hereby make oath and state the following is my Truth and my Law. (Each point of understanding and intention and each claim of right are numbered for easy reference.)

Whereas:
It is my understanding that:
1. The geographical area known, as Canada and The Government of Canada are both common-law jurisdictions.
2. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory.
3. The law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.
4. For something to exist legally it must have a name.
5. All governments are corporations, which provide services.
6. All governments and corporations are bound by the Criminal Code of Canada.
7. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law over members of that society and those who beg to have those rules applied to them.
8. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.
9. The Law Societies and Bar Associations of Canada are the ones who create the statutes and therefore the statutes are applicable only to those members and to those that both beg and consent.
10. The language/s created by the Law Societies is/are not English and are sometimes called and hereby known as “Legalese.”
11. Legalese closely resembles English but is in fact not English and cannot represent English.
12. Only members of the Law Societies can fully understand Legalese.
13. It is deceitful and fraudulent to use Legalese in place of English without thoroughly informing directly affected parties of such and properly communicating all information in English.
14. Legalese cannot be lawfully used to create liability over anyone who is not a member of a Law Society because of a lack of understanding of Legalese.
15. Any contracts, agreements, charges, bills and so on are null, void, discharged and by all other means re-quitted if one of the affected parties who is not a member of a Law Society, and was ill-informed due to a lack of Legalese comprehension, declares.
16. Constitutional Law has supremacy over and is separate from Statutory Law with the exception that Constitutional Law governs, limits, and often voids Statutory Law.
17. The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one.
18. Representation requires mutual consent.
19. In the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist.
20. All Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution Act.
21. Section 32 of the Constitution Act limits all acts to members and employees of government.
22. Those who both consent to representation and have a SIN (Social Insurance Number) are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government.
23. It is lawful to abandon a SIN.
24. It is lawful to reclaim a said abandoned SIN.
25. People in Canada have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed.
26. If anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints.
27. A claim of right establishes a lawful excuse and that this factual truth is expressed in Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
28. If one is in possession of property under a claim of right, they have the authority to appoint any one to protect that property with protection from criminal responsibility for defending that property, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it and that factual truth is expressed in section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
29. If one has lawful excuse one is not obliged to obey a court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and that this factual truth is expressed in Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
30. Section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada clearly establishes that it is lawful to disobey a de facto government or court.
31. All presently existing courts and governments are de facto only and not de jure.
32. Any court or government has a legal responsibility to identify itself as de facto or de jure and not doing so when asked is fraudulent and in fact a criminal offense of fraud.
33. Any and all binding agreements, contracts, claims, and so on, are accordingly requitted to null and void if they are in unfair or unreasonable violation of a human’s constitutional, natural or God-given rights if the said affected human declares so.
34. A Functional Sovereign has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations.
35. I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings am a Functional Sovereign.
36. Acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace.
37. To breach the peace one must, without others’ permission, greatly threaten the safety of others, impede on the rights of others, or act in a disturbing, riotous manner in the presence of others.
38. All transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties.
39. Any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action.
40. I am a Sovereign Freeman who operates with full responsibility and not a child of the government, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability.
41. A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation.
42. Corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties.
43. Legal fictions lack both a soul and sentience and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge.
44. The Government of Canada is actually a corporation with the name CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036, and,
45. “Geographical Canada” or “Canada” refers to the geographical area commonly referred to as Canada, and “CANADA” or “the Government of Canada” refers to the Corporation with the name CANADA; and CANADA, though operating throughout geographical Canada, is not geographical Canada, and has authority limited to employees, members, registered persons, and so on.
46. Notices served to Corporations, or persons acting as principals or agents for said Corporations, retain legal validity, effectiveness, and authority of any established Claims and/or Understandings and/or Intents, without prejudice, if positions or persons holding certain positions of the said Corporations are replaced, succeeded or changed in any way.
47. The Corporation of CANADA has the legal responsibility to provide any and all public services listed in any acts to human beings in geographical Canada when requested to do so by the party/s to receive the service.
48. A Sovereign Freeman does not have to register, apply, beg, pay or be governed to exercise their God-given, claimed, natural, common-law or Constitutional rights.
49. Being served by CANADA does not forfeit the rights of a Functional Sovereign.
50. All services provided by CANADA are to support human rights and should be free for all humans and are free for a Functional Sovereign or are paid for by CANADA.
51. I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it.
52. I have a right to claim 160 acres of uninhabited land anywhere in the geographic area commonly referred to as Canada.
53. I can freely claim the right to collect a pension if I have paid into it and claim that said right is not affected if I abandon my Social Insurance Number.
54. It is both a common-law and a God-given right are to travel freely by any peaceful means.
55. A Functional Sovereign and his or her guests can travel freely through the Common-wealth and Canada, unmolested.
56. It is a lawful to travel through the use of a non-commercial “Private Travel Conveyance,” which is an unregistered, private automobile held under a claim of right mentioned in the criminal code.
57. A Private Travel Conveyance can be lawfully unmarked and void of license plates.
58. It is lawful for a Functional Sovereign to mark and identify his Private Travel Conveyance as he or she wishes, such as through the use of identification plates, similar in appearance to license plates.
59. A Functional Sovereign may travel peacefully anywhere in the Common-wealth and Canada unmolested, including through the use of his or her Private Travel Conveyance of the day.
60. A Notary Public can and when requested will perform duties found under any Act, thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgments.
61. A summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the British Columbia Securities Commissions create no obligation or dishonor if ignored.
62. If the Notary fails in their Duty, then they have abandoned their post.
63. If a person in office, such as a Judge, fails in their duty or commits fraud, an affected Sovereign Freeman can claim and thus lawfully acquire any bonds or security funds that hold/held that person in office.
64. It is the duty of the Minister of Transport to ensure the safe traveling of the public.
65. The Minister of Transport must upon demand create and post insurance bonds to aid any Functional Sovereign in exercising their common-law rights to travel by any means whilst keeping the public safe, and that failure or refusal to do so is to accept and declare that insurance is not needed for a Functional Sovereign to lawfully travel.
66. Peace officers (Police Officers) have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and have two roles, first as a Peace Officer and secondly as Policy Enforcement Officers and Policy Enforcement Officers those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Functional Sovereign are in fact breaking the law.
67. I have the right to bind by appointment any and all Peace Officers under Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
68. The Government of Canada has the legal responsibility to thoroughly inform all humans in Canada of the Government of Canada’s legal, financial, political, and so on, plans, policies, actions and all other relevant information, with the exception of some covert military operations.
69. Peace officers are required to aid any humans who request aid within the geographical area of Canada with any distressing, potentially dangerous, or law-enforcement issues in order to keep the peace.
70. A Sovereign Freeman has the right to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers that have not observed them breach the peace.
71. Permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Sovereign Freeman under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time.

Furthermore:
72. I claim that my actions, especially points 110., 111., and 112., are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.
73. I claim the right to demand from the Government of Canada updated and proper paper copies of the entire constitution of Canada, any and all Bills, receipts and other publicly accessable documents.
74. I claim the right to engage in the actions stated in points 110., 111. and 112., and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right as mentioned in the Criminal Code of Canada.
75. I claim the common-law right to travel through the use of a “Private Travel Conveyance,” which is an unregistered, private transport device held under a claim of right mentioned in the criminal code.
76. I claim the right to use a different Private Travel Conveyance of the day, meaning that I will sometimes be using others’ Private Travel Conveyances, or more of my own.
77. I claim the right to demand that the Minister of Transport create and post an insurance bond of unlimited value [for example, $10 000 000 or “TEN MILLION DOLLARS”] in Canadian dollars of and in surety to be released accordingly in the case that any members of the public or property of the public be damaged, injured, disabled or otherwise hindered in an incident which I and/or my Private Transport Conveyance/s, or ones I am using, are involved and that perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
78. I claim the right to appoint the Minister of Transport the Fiduciary over the said insurance bond and that perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
79. I claim that the use of a Private Transport Conveyance does not endanger the public because of a lack of a classical corporate insurance policy in agreement with an insurance company and is in fact as safe as “persons” driving with a corporate insurance policy.
80. I claim that Guests under the care and traveling with a Freeman-on-the-Land in or on his or her Private Travel Conveyance of the day enjoy the same freedom from statutory compliance as a Freeman-on-the-Land and thus cannot be subject to Policy Enforcement Officers.
81. I claim that my Private Travel Conveyance of the day is reasonably safe and mechanically approved for use through safety certification.
82. I claim the right to identify and mark my Private Travel Conveyances as I see fit, such as through the use of identification plate/s, and to inform the Minister of Transport of how I will be identifying my Private Travel Conveyance and to have the Ministry of Transport identify my Private Travel Conveyance thusly and that perfection of this claim is such: I :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings, Sovereign Freeman, will be identifying my first Private Travel Conveyance with the identification plate labeled “Functional Sovereign… SOVEREIGN CA.”
83. I claim the right to generate Lawful Excuse, which is a general term, which includes all of the defenses, which the common law considers sufficient reason to excuse a human being from criminal liability.
84. I claim the right to unconditionally claim 160 acres of uninhabited land anywhere in the geographic area commonly referred to as Canada.
85. I claim the right to de-register anything that has been registered by me or any of my belongings.
86. I claim the right to demand all dividends and transfer payments be directed to.
87. I claim the right to demand all the moneys I paid into the Canada Pension Plan.
88. I claim the right to demand the return of all property, shares, land and monies held in trust for me by Her Majesty in right of Canada and/or the Government of Canada and perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
89. I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or color of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.
90. I claim the right to demand at any time that peace officers identify themselves thoroughly using THREE (3) required and matching documents: a badge number, business identification number, and Government-issued identification indicating that they are a policing agent of the Government, or some variation thereof.
91. I claim that an out-of-uniform peace officer or one who refuses to identify themselves cannot claim authority as such over anyone for any purposes, especially a Sovereign Freeman, and that attempting to do so is fraudulent and a criminal offense of fraud, and furthurmore that I claim the right to refuse intercourse with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace.
92. I claim that, the Crown’s claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim, and,
Whereas Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction.
93. I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings acting as persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporations and corporate persons such as “The Courts of British Columbia” and/or “Government of British Columbia” and/or “Government of Canada” and so on.
94. I claim that all “persons” acting as Governments, corporations, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals’ actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof.
95. I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, Governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretense of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir.
96. I claim the universal maxim of law, to wit; “the partner (Government) of my partner (agent: DAVID THOMAS HUTCHINGS) is not my partner (Sovereign Freeman)” applies herein and is in full force and effect.
97. I claim that the present courts in Canada are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.
98. The right to establish for me or anyone under my care a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression(s) against me, my family or anyone under my care that is or are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents or justice system participants, those fees being ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1 000.00) PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, and TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10 000.00) PER HOUR if handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent, and a minimum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS($1 000 000.00) for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care, and TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10 000.00) PER DAY if any personal property is being taken away from me without my express written and notarized consent, and that perfection of this claim are those establishments.
99. I claim the right to choose a lawful method of payment upon demand.
100. I claim the right to use a Notary Public, Commissioner or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or anyone under my care or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.
101. I claim the right to engage the services of a Notary Public, Commissioner for taking affidavits and/or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to attest to my signature for verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner.
102. I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, Government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.
103. I claim the right to provide for myself or anyone who wanted it any service provided by the Government of Canada.
104. I claim the right to use any service provided by the Government of Canada that I deem necessary without such affecting my status as a Sovereign Freeman.
105. I claim the right to keep and use as I see fit any and all inheritances given to me.
106. I claim the right to determine what is best for me, my family and anyone under my care.
107. I claim the right to govern myself accordingly and to refuse any service or intervention by any level of government.
108. I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on videotape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
109. I claim the right to have, in the event of my death, all of my property and inheritances that I pass on, protected by this Claim and that my Will is my final word.

Addendum
1. I claim the right to play golf, shoot, boat, garden and kayak by my own rules. (Added 29/11/08)
2. I claim the right to learn. read, interpret and formulate conclusions at my own pace. (Added 22/12/08)
3. I claim the right be referred to as a Sovereign Freeman in place of Freeman-on-the-Land (Added 26/12/08)
4. I claim the right to be called Dave-Thomas of the Hutchings family, to be written :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings (Added 29/12/08)
5. I claim the right to us 'By:' to mean to be a agent for ____________________ . (Added 09/01/09)

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings. a Sovereign Freeman do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent:

110. To peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter.

111. To travel peacefully and lawfully within the geographical area commonly referred as Canada by whatever means I deem necessary.

112. To be a Steward of the land and waters of the geographic area of Canada and the Commonwealth including the land, which I claim.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Reponses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.
Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, by-law or Act against My Self Sovereign Freeman
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings

Directions for response

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or to make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the notary's office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service, and;

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence forevermore barring the bringing of charges under any statute, Code or Act against myself a Sovereign Freeman known as Dave-Thomas of the Hutchings family, and;
Use of a notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

The place of claim of right, geographical area known as Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Autographed and verified this _____ day of the month of ________________ in the year two thousand and eight.

:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings __________________________________
(Claimant) (Autograph of claimant)
Without prejudice, reserving all unalienable God given rights,
powers and privileges waiving none ever. In my correct
capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction.

In verification to the above signature:

_________________________________
(Verifier - print) (Autograph of Verifier)




_________________________________
(Verifier - print) (Autograph of Verifier)



Send counterclaims and/or disputes to:
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings
c/o __________________ , Victoria city, British Columbia province
Sovereign Freeman, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.

ATTENTION
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings

God's Law on Restitution

God's Law on Restitution

By Dr. Stephen E. Jones

Table of Contents

History of Modern Prisons
The Injustice of the Prison System
The Bible's Solution
The Law of Hammurabi
Destruction of Property: Exodus 22:5 and 6
Stolen Property Held in Trust
Unsolved Loss of Property
Borrowed Property Damaged
Kidnapping
Lost and Found-and Retained
The Advantage of Repentance
It's About Forgiveness
Conclusion


Page 1 of 12
God's Law on Restitution
It is a well-known principle of natural law that labor is our most basic property right and is the source of all lawful
wealth. We are born with a certain amount of inherited wealth (which represents the labor of our forebears) and
a capacity to labor, representing potential property, or wealth.
Theft is taking property that belongs to another, or using it without the consent of the rightful owner. Theft is the
opposite of labor, and thus, in Scripture, labor is the antidote to theft.
History of Modern Prisons
It occurs to few people that there might be an alternative to the modern practice of handing out prison
sentences for property crimes. And yet, strange as it may seem, this practice is only about 200 years old. Our
modern penal system is the most expensive and perhaps the least effective method of handling crime in the
history of the world. It is also far from humane by biblical standards, though we admit that it was certainly more
humane than the way it was usually handled in Europe prior to this time. Putting a man in prison for stealing a
loaf of bread in America was far better than hanging him in Europe. Even so, the Bible has a far better solution.
Prisons have existed for thousands of years, but rather than using them to warehouse criminals as we do today,
they were used almost exclusively to detain political prisoners.
In 1776 Massachusetts had a law that thieves be whipped or fined for their first offenses. On second offenses
the thieves had to pay three times the value of the stolen property to their victims as restitution and forced to sit
on the gallows for an hour with the rope around their necks. On their third offenses they were hanged.
William Penn, the founder of the state of Pennsylvania, is the father of the modern penal system, although
Queen Anne prevented him from implementing his ideas in Pennsylvania. A century later, however, after the
Revolutionary War, there was a reaction against the excessive and cruel penalties being meted out in the name
of "justice." (This was also a reaction against what was considered to be "British thinking.") Unfortunately, the
most influential reformers were more schooled in the philosophy of the Humanist Enlightenment than in Bible
Law. Thus, they began to advocate prison sentences as punishment for most crimes, rather than restitution to
the victims, as the Bible demands.
In 1796 Philadelphia established the first "penitentiary" in history, its purpose being to give criminals opportunity
to be penitent. The criminal was put into solitary confinement with nothing to do but read the Bible and pray.
After he had been given ample time for soul searching, he was given small work projects, under the theory that
the prisoner (now bored to death) would appreciate anything to do. Thus, he was in a position to learn
industriousness before being returned to society.
The lawmakers in New York had some different ideas. They allowed the inmates to work and eat together,
though they were not allowed to converse or even to glance at each other. In their utopian desire to create a
perfect environment to rehabilitate the criminal, they felt that Pennsylvania's system of solitary confinement was
too damaging psychologically to the offenders.
And so the great debate raged over the proper method of producing a crimeless society. At the time there were
few who questioned the value of prisons themselves. But within a century the utopian dreams of a crimeless
society had long been forgotten. Few prisoners had become penitent or rehabilitated when released, and the
problem seemed only to have been aggravated.
But in spite of the failure of the Great American Prison Experiment, the system goes on for lack of a better idea
(or for ignoring the better idea set forth in Scripture). So long as the majority of the people manage to stay out of
prison, they care little for those who are sent there. In our self-righteousness we curl our lips and point our
fingers at the "criminals," having little sympathy for them. The only ones who seem to care at all are the liberalsthe
philosophical children of the Enlightenment that had launched the experiment in the first place. The
conservative Christians generally advocate locking them up and throwing the keys to the crocodiles.
Page 2 of 12
Meanwhile, God judges us with an ever-increasing crime rate that costs more and more money to build more
and more prisons. Taxes can only go higher, which in turn spawns a tax revolt among the people who must pay
for a system that does not work. The system is destined to fail eventually, and Christians had better have a
good system to replace it. The purpose of this book is to give Christians the solution that God set forth in His
Word many years ago. Hopefully, this will inspire many to work with government officials and representatives to
make the necessary changes that will stop victimizing the taxpayers and inmates alike.
The Injustice of the Prison System
Suppose a thief steals $100 worth of merchandise from a department store, but that he is caught some time
after he has "fenced" the goods. He has by this time spent the money and is flat broke when brought to justice.
The owner of the store knows that he will never be repaid for his losses, but the only way to discourage such
thieves is to press charges and put him in prison. So the store must pay an attorney to handle the case, which
may cost him more than the stolen goods were worth in the first place.
The thief is then assigned a court-appointed attorney, since he cannot afford to hire one himself. Thus, the
taxpayers (including the department store owner) are made liable for the crime, as though somehow "society" is
at fault for providing a poor environment, forcing the thief to steal for a living.
The thief is finally convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, where the innocent taxpayers (or "society") must
house him, feed him, clothe him, and guard him at the cost of about $60,000 per year. During this time spent in
the cage, he is given a number, dehumanized, and treated like the scum of the earth in order to ensure "law
and order." Instead of praying penitently, he is embittered and taught to hate those responsible for putting him
there. But all is not lost, for he has also been given an unprecedented opportunity to learn how not to get caught
next time. Prisons are well known as Crime Colleges.
Meanwhile, the family of the thief has lost its means of support and must go on welfare and food stamps,
provided to them by the innocent taxpayers, who have been made liable once again for someone else's crime.
Is that family grateful? How could it be grateful to a society who has taken a husband from his wife and a father
from his children? The divorce rate among inmates is horrendous. Family units are a huge casualty of the
prison system.
Let us suppose, however, that the thief manages to overcome the bitterness of prison life and come to know
Jesus Christ. Let us suppose he becomes truly "reformed" and sincerely desires to follow Christ and the laws of
God. When he is released from prison, he must then find work in a lawful occupation. Now he finds that no one
wants to hire him because of his past "criminal record." He must now go through the rest of his life
handicapped. The prison sentence continues for the rest of his life, and society continues to punish him long
after he has supposedly "paid his debt to society."
He finds that the people seldom forgive the thief, because they have all been victimized without receiving
restitution. The taxpayers have had to pay huge sums of money to imprison him, and they also know that few
inmates are able to overcome the huge odds against them and emerge from prison truly reformed. Most
emerge full of bitterness and anger and must also adjust to the freedom itself. It is difficult, after being told to do
nearly everything for so long, to make even basic personal decisions. They are largely unprepared for normal
life in society.
Little wonder, then, that the odds of an inmate being rehabilitated and turned into a productive citizen are so
slim. According to Judge Albert Kramer of Quincy, Massachusetts, "the failure-rate of jails is about 90%." He
was not talking about a failure to house them without their escaping. He was talking about the failure of jails to
rehabilitate them. It is often said, even on television, that the system is flawed, but it is the only system we have.
While this is true, this does not mean we cannot change the system. In fact, we must do so as quickly as
possible, not only for the sake of the general public, but also for the sake of the inmates.
Page 3 of 12
Legislators appear to have no answers. The conservatives in America-many of whom claim to be Christiansusually
advocate stiffer sentences and want to make prisons as close to sheer hell as possible as a deterrent to
crime. The liberals, knowing that criminals are not rehabilitated by harsher sentences, can only advocate
spending more money on prison programs and educational opportunities. This is quite unpopular to the
taxpayers who must fund everything.
Both sides have lost their early idealistic vision of a crimeless society. The problem seems insurmountable. No
matter how we build the prison cells, we have not solved the most crucial problem-Justice. Instead of a single
victim of the crime, we now have three: the original victim, the taxpayer, and the criminal himself. Is there any
answer to this horrible situation?
William Penn did not have the answer, because (as a Quaker) he relied only on "inner light" and put away the
divine Law. Thus, in his zeal to follow the voice of the Holy Spirit, he mistakenly ignored the words which the
Holy Spirit had written in the past to guide our way. In so doing he preached Christianity, but then often
practiced the principles of Humanism in real life. And we are paying the price for that error today.
It may be hard to believe, but the Bible has the answer. God's justice restores all losses to the victim of the
crime without making the taxpayers liable, and the thief is restored to a productive position of full citizenship
with justice and forgiveness to all.
The Bible's Solution
In a nutshell, it is a principle of Bible Law that justice has not been done until full restitution has been made to
all the victims of injustice. In other words, the original lawful order must be restored, rather than creating new
injustices to try to balance or patch up the old ones. Whenever the nature of the crime is such that restitution is
impossible, or when the thief refuses to make restitution to restore the lawful order, the penalty is death. And
finally, the thief must take full responsibility for his actions and is the only one liable for his crime.
The basic guideline for handling property crime is defined in Exodus 22:1-4.
1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox
and four sheep for the sheep.” 2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he
dies, there will be no blood-guiltiness on his account.” 3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will
be blood-guiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he
shall be sold for his theft.” 4 “If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox
or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.”
The Scripture mandates double restitution be paid to the victim, provided the thief is able to restore the
original item that he stole. If he has already damaged the item or sold it, and it is not possible to recover the
stolen item, then the thief must repay four or five times the value of the stolen item. Normally, this would be
four times the value of the stolen item, such as a sheep or a car. However, if has stolen the tools of a man's
trade-such as an ox in ancient times-the thief must repay five times the value of such tools.
Thus, the Bible did not sentence thieves to prison, but mandated that they repay their victims a precise amount
calculated upon the value of the merchandize that was stolen. The judge had no right to increase or decrease
that amount. To decrease that amount would defraud the victim; to increase that amount would defraud the
thief. Only the victim had the right to forgive the debt in whole or in part, even as the repentant thief would have
the right to give the victim more than what the law required.
Page 4 of 12
The Law of Hammurabi
Let us compare God's Law with the law code of Hammurabi-the common law of Canaan during the days of
Moses. Paragraph 8 reads:
"If a man has stolen ox or sheep or ass or pig or ship, whether from the temple or the palace, he
shall pay 30-fold. If from a poor man, he shall render 10-fold. If the thief has not wherewith to
pay, he shall be put to death."
It appears from this paragraph that the average common thief who stole from a neighbor had to pay ten-fold
restitution. However, since the majority of thieves could not repay such an amount, it is probable that many of
them were executed, rather than rehabilitated through labor. Thus, the Bible shows much more mercy toward
the thief than does the law of Hammurabi.
The Code of Hammurabi also discriminates between the rich and the poor in a great many of its laws. It
demands thirty-fold restitution for theft of a rich man's property, an amount so unreasonable that it surely
amounted to a death sentence in almost all cases. The death penalty was mandated in cases of theft of
property from a temple or palace, as we read in Paragraph 6:
"If a man has stolen the goods of temple or palace, that man shall be put to death. Further, he
who has received the stolen thing from his hand shall be put to death."
Perhaps the most prominent feature of the Code of Hammurabi is its class distinctions. In these two paragraphs
we see at least four classes of people: the poor, the rich, the temple priests, and the political rulers of the
palaces. This is in sharp contrast with the divine Law, where all men are guaranteed equal justice before the
Law. There are tribal distinctions, of course, along with the distinctions between Israelites and non-Israelites
(citizens and aliens), but in the matter of justice, all are equal.
In Exodus 22:2 and 3 we read that if a man is killed while burglarizing a home at night, it is considered
justifiable homicide (self-defense). This is because at night it is difficult to see if the burglar is armed or not.
Thus, burglars enter at their own risk.
On the other hand, if the burglary occurs during daylight hours, when he can be recognized and more easily
apprehended, he is not to be killed unless it is clear that he is threatening someone's life. God rules that
burglary is not to be penalized by death, nor can a man shoot the burglar in order to prevent him from escaping.
This was quite different from the law of Hammurabi, where the burglar was to be executed on the spot and
buried next to the place where he committed the crime (Par. 21). No distinction was made between night or day
burglaries.
The Bible also makes a merciful provision for rehabilitating a thief who cannot repay his victim. Whereas the
Code of Hammurabi prescribes the death penalty, God's Law demands that he be "sold for his theft" (Ex.
22:3). In other words, the court would determine the total debt owed, and then his labor would be sold to the
highest bidder. Whoever would be willing to pay him the highest wages for his labor hired him until his debt was
paid.
For example, if the thief owed $5,000 in restitution, the price of his sale would be fixed at $5,000. The bid may
begin at six months' labor, then five, until the least amount of labor time had been bid. The winner of the auction
would then take the debt note from the judge and pay the victim the $5,000 owed. The thief would then have to
work for his new master (employer) for the amount of time that he had bidden. The thief's family would go with
him, live with him, and be supported by the one who had bought his labor, so the bidder would have to take
those expenses into consideration while bidding for the man's labor. Thus, the thief labors to redeem himself
without wasting time in prison like a caged animal.
Page 5 of 12
This was not slavery in the sense that we think of it today, because those working off a debt fell under the
protection of the labor laws in the Bible, which protect servants (employees) from being mistreated. The only
real inconvenience was that the thief who had been "sold" could not change jobs or escape that job until his
time had been completed. If he should try to escape, or if for any other reason he should refuse to restore the
lawful order by paying restitution, the penalty was death (Deut. 17:12).
This penalty was not imposed for the theft itself, but for contempt of court, which is the refusal to repent and be
obedient to God. Society has the right to be protected from those who refuse to restore the lawful order (i.e.,
hardened criminals).
On the other hand, the thief likewise has the right to be treated like a human being, rather than as an animal.
Many have maligned God's Law as being cruel and merciless, when, in fact, it is man's laws that are cruel. God
is very merciful and has revealed His loving character in His Law. Anyone who has spent time in a modern
prison for theft will see this immediately. Given a choice, most of them would be happy to work off a debt, rather
than sit in a cage. Prison sentences are a sin.
The benefits of God's judicial system are obvious. The victims of crime are recompensed quickly and cheaply;
the innocent are not made liable for the sins of the guilty; the thief is treated as a debtor working to repay a
debt, rather than being caged like an animal and fed at the expense of the taxpayers.
Under this system, all the victims are recompensed at least double as soon as the auction is concluded. The
convicted thieves are taught to work in the real world, as opposed to being given work projects at eleven cents
an hour behind bars like true slaves. His family does not need to go on welfare, which makes the taxpayers
happy. So justice is done without creating more victims and without creating an embittered, hardened criminal.
Is it any wonder that King David wrote in amazement in Psalm 119: 97 and 98, “O how I love Thy Law! It
is my meditation all the day.” 98 “Thy commandments make me wiser than my enemies; for they are
ever mine.”
Is it any wonder that the Apostle Paul, lost for words, wrote in Romans 11:33, “O the depth of the riches,
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His JUDGMENTS, and
unfathomable His ways!”
Destruction of Property: Exodus 22:5 and 6
There are a number of other situations in which restitution must be paid to victims. Not all can be classified as
theft, but in each case there is a question of liability for destruction of property, whether accidental or deliberate.
Before we go to our first example in Exodus 22:5, we must take note that this verse is incomplete in the King
James Version. The KJV was based upon a Hebrew text which had a copyist's error of omission. However,
thanks to the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts, we may now reinstate the lost words of the Law. These lost
words are written below:
5 “If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare, and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in
another man's field, he shall surely make restitution out of his whole field according to its yield;
and if the whole field is eaten, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and the
best of his own vineyard.”
This is simply another way of saying, Thou shalt not harvest another man's crop for your own purposes. The
judge was to assess the damage and assign an equal portion of the offender's field or vineyard to the victim as
restitution. This law is similar to that of Hammurabi, where the offender had to harvest and purchase at a set
rate per acre the entire crop which his cattle had partially eaten. Many stores today have adopted the basic
principle of this law by demanding that "if you break it, consider it sold."
Page 6 of 12
It is a basic Law of God that all restitution be paid in kind to replace (as closely as possible) the property that
had been destroyed or damaged. The two parties could, of course, agree upon a monetary sum on their own,
but if not, the question would be settled by payment in kind. For instance, if a man broke your wrench, he would
be required to buy you another one of equal value, or reimburse you with money.
Continuing in Exodus 22:6 we read: “If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that
stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed; he who started the fire shall
surely make restitution.”
The one who lights the fire is considered to be the owner of the fire (by the law of creation). He is therefore
responsible for it and liable for it if he allows it to get out of control. Thus, the same law which gives us the right
to own that which we create, build, or grow with our labor is also the law which makes us responsible to
oversee our possessions and govern them properly. Rights and respon-sibilities always go together in equal
amounts.
Stolen Property Held in Trust
In ancient times when a man had to make a trip and could not take all of his household goods with him, he
would leave them in the care of the chief steward or a trusted neighbor. The neighbor usually did not mind
doing this favor, because the day might come when the favor would be returned. Thus, laws were needed to
define or limit liability in case some goods were stolen while the neighbor held them in trust. No doubt cases
came up occasionally when a neighbor might not be as trustworthy as previously thought and had secretly
stolen and sold the property he was guarding. The basic law on this matter is found in Exodus 22:7-13, which
we will quote and comment upon as we proceed.
7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him, and it is stolen from the man's
house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double”. 8 “If the thief is not caught, then the owner of
the house shall appear before the judges [elohim] to determine whether he laid his hands on his
neighbor's property.” 9 “For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for
clothing, or for any lost thing, about which one says, 'This is it,' the case of both parties shall
come before the judges [elohim]; he whom the judges [elohim] condemn shall pay double to his
neighbor.”
God's Law, of course, simply follows the principle of restitution that was established in Verses 1-4, quoted
earlier. It is evident that if the goods were damaged before recovery, the thief would have to pay four or five
times the value, rather than merely double.
If the thief is not found immediately after the goods are missed, the owner and the neighbor are to go before the
judges in court, and the neighbor is to take an oath that he has not stolen the goods. This procedure is simply
the Biblical manner of appealing to the Supreme Court of God. One may do this in any judicial case and allow
God to adjudicate the matter directly in His own way and time. If the neighbor truly were guilty but denied it
under oath, God requites the guilty party after giving him a certain amount of time to repent and confess his sin.
Note also that the judges are called elohim (usually translated God or gods). This is because they represent the
Creator and His government in the administration of His Law. Elohim literally means a subjector, or one who is
in a position of power or authority over others. The Creator has this title, but it is also applied to those under
Him in positions of government.
In the law of Hammurabi (Par. 122 and 123), whenever someone deposited money or goods with another, he
had to have a receipt of deposits and witnesses, without which he could not claim his property. This law seems
to be in the context of a commercial bank or storage business done for profit. Under Bible Law, if a person were
to utilize such a bank or storage business, he must be sure to be able to prove in some manner that the goods
are his, to guard against possible theft by the businessman.
Page 7 of 12
However, if identification could be made positively, a person would not need a receipt of deposit and witnesses.
It would appear from the law of Hammurabi that if a man should lose his receipt of deposit, he would lose his
goods no matter how many witnesses could confirm that the goods were his. The law of Hammurabi (Par. 124
and 125) also says that the one holding property in trust is totally liable if it is stolen while in his
possession. It is his responsibility to track down the thief, and if he cannot find him or the property, he must
pay the owner in full, providing the owner has his receipt. This is different from God's Law, of course, in that if
there is no evidence that the trustee stole the goods, he is only required to swear in court that he did not
steal it or help the thief to steal it.
Unsolved Loss of Property
Exodus 22:10 and 11 legislates on the question of unsolved loss of property that has been held in trust.
10 “If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him; and it
dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking,” 11 “an oath before the Lord shall be made
by the two of them, that he has not laid hands on his neighbor's property; and its owner shall
accept it, and he [the trustee] shall not make restitution.”
So if the property is damaged or lost while in the care of a trustee, and no witness can testify in the matter, an
oath of innocence is all that shall be required of the trustee. The matter is placed in the hands of the Supreme
Court for God's direct adjudication.
The Law here does not specify what to do if the loss were caused by the carelessness of the trustee. It only
rules on accidental loss, where the trustee is not liable. This is a gap in the Biblical legislation that may yet be
resolved by the Holy Spirit through prayer, appealing to God for such a ruling.
However, in other situations, when carelessness results in injury or loss, the careless person is fully liable. (See
also Exodus 21:33 and 34.) Applying the principle of liability to the apparent gap in Exodus 22:10 and 11, we
could reasonably assume that loss of property through the trustee's carelessness is his responsibility, and that
he must replace the lost or damaged goods.
Perhaps the reason the Bible does not clearly specify the problem here is because the custom already dictated
correctly what to do. That is, the law of Hammurabi needed no altering on this point. It says in Par. 263 and
267: “If he has caused an ox or sheep which was given him to be lost, ox for ox, sheep for sheep,
he shall render to their owner.” 267 “If a shepherd has been careless and in a sheepfold caused a
loss to take place, the shepherd shall make good.”
We may conclude, then, that the principle of law regarding carelessness in the divine legislation was the same
as was found in the Hammurabi Code. This principle of liability was already a well-established custom in the
minds of the people, and so God felt it unnecessary to repeat it in the Mosaic Code.
Borrowed Property Damaged
Exodus 22:13 simply establishes that a trustee does not have to make good an animal that has been killed by
a wild beast. Again, this is assuming that the trustee was not negligent. We read then in verses 14 and 15:
“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while the owner is not
with it, he shall make full restitution.” 15 “If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if
it is hired, it came for his hire.”
In other words, when a man borrows something from his neighbor, and he damages it while using it, or-in the
case of an animal such as an ox-it dies, he is only liable if the owner was not present to supervise its use.
Page 8 of 12
The Bible uses examples of such things as oxen, but today we would think more in terms of a tractor to pull a
plow. If a man borrows a tractor and breaks it while using it, he must fix it or pay to have it fixed. But if he hires
his neighbor to come with his plow and work the field, and the tractor breaks, then the owner of the tractor is
liable to fix his own machine.
The law of Hammurabi does not specify clearly whether the owner was hired with the animal or not, but the
terminology implies the same as the Biblical law. The Bible makes the point clear, whereas the law of
Hammurabi is unclear.
In Par. 244-249 of Hammurabi's Code, it is clear that the borrower is liable for any injury to the animal, except
where a lion kills it in the open field (Par. 244), or where the beast dies by itself (i.e., "God has struck it, and
it has died" - Par. 249). This would fall under the category of accidental destruction of property, which did not
involve carelessness.
God's Law does not word it like this, but it would certainly agree with Hammurabi in this case.
It is interesting that the two law systems treat different aspects of the same question without any real overlap.
This may be taken as further evidence that God's Law was not intended to be an exhaustive Law Code, but
rather was often intended to correct certain injustices or to clarify certain portions of the Hammurabi Code.
Kidnapping
The law of Hammurabi called for the death penalty if a man kidnapped the son of a freeman (Par. 14). God's
Law makes no distinction between classes of people, saying in Exodus 21:16, “And he who kidnaps a man,
whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”
Kidnapping calls for the death penalty, because there is no way one can pay double restitution without making
some innocent party pay for the crime of the guilty party.
Lost and Found-and Retained
Our final example of theft that we shall examine in our study of property laws is finding lost property without
returning it to its rightful owner. This sin is mentioned in Deut. 22:1-3:
1 “You shall not see your countryman's ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to
them; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman.” 2 “And if your countryman is not
near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain
with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him.” 3 “And thus you shall
do with . . . anything lost by your countryman . . . .”
Almost every child in America has been exposed at one time or another to the Humanist principle of "finders,
keepers; losers, weepers." God disagrees absolutely. All lost property is to be restored to its owner. If not, it is
theft.
No penalty is mentioned in this passage, but we may assume that the penalty is the same as any other theft. If
the property is returned intact, double restitution is due; if the property is damaged or sold, the restitution is four
or five times the value of the retained property.
Page 9 of 12
The law of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for those who laid claim to someone else's lost property. It
also mandated death to anyone who should purchase lost or stolen property, if he could not produce a written
receipt and witnesses to the transaction. Thus, buyers and sellers without a receipt and witnesses ran the risk
of being executed (Par. 9 and 10). Once again, the divine law is shown to be far more merciful than the
Babylonian law of Hammurabi.
How could anyone despise God's Law or claim that it is cruel and unreasonable?
The Advantage of Repentance
God's Law was not given to make punishment an end in itself. The law is rehabilitative and corrective in nature.
Yet at the same time there are many crimes committed where there are no witnesses and no conviction before
a judge. The question arises, what shall a man do if he gets away with a crime, but later repents? The answer is
found in Leviticus 6:2-5:
2 “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his companion in regard
to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his
companion,” 3 “or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in
regard to any one of the things a man may do;” 4 “then it shall be, when he sins and becomes
guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit
which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found,” 5 “or anything about which he swore
falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full [i.e., return all stolen property], and add to it onefifth
more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt
offering.”
This law, along with its penalty, presumes that the guilty party had no witnesses who could testify against him in
court, for if there were, he would have to restore at least double to the victim. It is the judgment of God that
sinners should be rewarded for repentance and confession of sin without having to be dragged into court with
witnesses to force the issue to a judicial resolution.
The Scripture says that if a man were given property in trust and lied about its whereabouts (in order to steal it),
and if he later repents of it when he seemingly could have gotten away with it, he is required to pay only onefifth
restitution while restoring the item that was stolen.
The same is true if a man finds a lost item and decides to lie about it and keep it instead of returning it to the
owner. If he later repents and confesses his sin, he is required to pay only one-fifth restitution while restoring
the property to the rightful owner.
In Numbers 5 we are told of this principle in very clear terms.
6 “Speak unto the sons of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind,
acting unfaithfully against the Lord, and that person is guilty;” 7 “then he shall confess his sins
which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong, and add to it onefifth
of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged.”
Verse 6 tells us that this is applicable to ANY SIN that men do as a trespass against the Lord. Some may think
this refers only to sins against God and not against our fellow men. However, the seventh verse tells the sinner
to give the fifth part "to him whom he has wronged." Further, the next verses tell us that if the person is
deceased already, he is to give the one-fifth restitution to his nearest of kin, and if he has none, he is to give it
to the temple. It is plain that this is referring to sins against one's neighbor.
Page 10 of 12
Normally, such sins would be judged with at least double restitution. It is plain, however, that if the thief
confesses his sin before being charged with it, he is to pay one-fifth of the value of the item stolen in addition to
returning the item itself. This encourages sinners to repent and shows us the mind of God in that the purpose of
God's Law is to correct and restore the lawful order, rather than merely to punish.
Another case where a mere one-fifth restitution is required is found in Leviticus 5:16. If a man commits a sin
through ignorance in regard to the holy things of the Lord, he was to bring a sacrifice for sin, return the stolen
property "and add to it one-fifth of it." This is a case where a man mistakenly took for his own use that
which had been given to God in the temple. It is also implied that no one caught him taking it, and that the man
repented when he discovered his error.
Leviticus 22:14 bears witness to this: “But if a man eats a holy gift unintentionally, then he shall add
to it a fifth of it and shall give the holy gift to the priest.”
It is clear that this cannot be a simple matter of theft, where restitution would be at least double the value of the
item stolen.
One-fifth is also the number of redemption, because it is twenty percent. According to Vallowe's Biblical
Mathematics and Don Kistler's The Arithmetic of God, twenty is the number of Redemption.
For example, in Leviticus 27:13 we read, “But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add
one-fifth of it to your valuation.”
This was in terms of redeeming an unclean animal that was normally to be given to God. But God also required
a one-fifth redemption price on the tithes. Leviticus 27:31 reads: “If, therefore, a man wishes to redeem
part of his tithe, he shall add to it one-fifth of it.”
One-fifth, therefore, appears to be the price of redemption. Applied to the thief, it gives him opportunity to
redeem himself and to obtain forgiveness without being discouraged by the greater cost of double restitution.
It's About Forgiveness
The ultimate purpose of God's system of restitution for theft is to obtain forgiveness for the criminal. There is no
forgiveness for the thief in our modern system of "justice." Why should the victim forgive the thief, when he has
lost so much stolen property and then had to spend more money on attorney fees to prosecute him? Why
should society forgive the thief, when they have been made liable to defend him, pay for his prison sentence,
and support his family while he is in prison? Why should either of them forgive the thief, when they live in fear of
the day he is released, often embittered and unrehabilitated, free now to take vengeance upon them?
And for that matter, why should the thief forgive the victim and society in general after they have caged him up
like an animal and subjected him to dehumanizing treatment by the modern prison system? Why should the
thief forgive society for sinning against God's judgments, instead of giving him meaningful work by which he
may redeem himself? Sending anyone to prison is simply a legalized form of kidnapping done by an entire
society. It is a crime worse than mere theft. Thus, the thief has been victimized more than all of us. And then,
when he is finally released, his ability to find lawful work is seriously hampered by the label: ex-convict.
Americans often look with disdain at other countries, where they chop off a thief's hand for stealing. In fact,
many people mistakenly believe that the law of God advocates chopping off a hand for theft, and this is one of
their reasons for despising God's Law. Because they have been grossly misinformed about both God and His
Law, they have allowed the modern prison system to continue victimizing everyone and rehabilitating no one.
Then when the thief is released, we create for him the "ex-con" label and severely handicap him from finding
work for the rest of his life. We have little right to criticize the Saudis for giving thieves a physical handicap
(chopping off a hand), when we ourselves handicap them in a different way.
Page 11 of 12
Under God's Law, forgiveness is mandatory (Matt. 18:21 and 22), because there is every reason to forgive
the offender once he has paid full restitution to the victims. The victim has been repaid at least doubly for his
losses, and society has not been made liable in any way for the sins of others. The thief has had to redeem
himself from the bondage of sin, and once the debt has been paid, he is restored to full citizenship, and his past
sins are no longer remembered (Isaiah 43:25).
Psalm 130:4 confirms this, saying, “But there is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared
[respected].”
Obtaining forgiveness is the key to rehabilitation. In any system of justice, whether at home or in society, there
must be forgiveness if we hope to restore sinners. Without forgiveness, there is only punishment, and such
systems encourage rebellion and anger. Only God's judicial system knows the true value of forgiveness in its
treatment of crime. Because there is forgiveness with God, we have respect for Him as a Divine Parent.
Conclusion
The Great American Experiment has long been a Great American Failure. There will never be enough money to
build enough prisons to house all the inmates that the unjust prison system perpetuates. The only alternative
seems to be to give them shorter sentences, or to put them on parole to make room for others. The public does
not like this, but they know of no alternative to the problem. They need to read the Bible, or at least to read this
short booklet.
Thus, we are caught on the horns of the proverbial bull. We can choose overcrowded, wretched conditions for
the inmates, which even the court system knows is cruel and unusual punishment-or we can reduce their prison
sentences and put unrehabilitated thieves back on the streets, where they have great difficulty finding work and
often end up stealing again.
There is only one true solution. As a nation we must repent of our own way and turn to God's perfect Law. We
must stop teaching that God's Law is somehow authored by a cruel or unjust God (or Satan). We must search
the Scriptures to see what God really has to say about property crime and how to resolve it as a nation. As
Bible believers, let us work toward that end.
God's Kingdom Ministries
6201 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
USA
© copyright 1983 First Revision 1999 Second Revision 2002 All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A
Page 12 of 12