History proves The majority peacelovers allow the minority dictators to slaughter them

A different perspective on this topic that comes around frequently ~~ Well worth reading A German's View on Islam – This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.' We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live inpeace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims are becoming our enemy when they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because thepeaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late. Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public schools in Ontario,and yes, in Ottawa too , while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in. And we are silent.......Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat" Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States Muslim 0.6% Australia Muslim 1.5% Canada Muslim 1.9% China Muslim 1.8% Italy Muslim 1.5% Norway Muslim 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark Muslim 2% Germany Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom Muslim 2.7% Spain Muslim 4% Thailand Muslim 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France Muslim 8% Philippines Muslim 5% Sweden Muslim 5% Switzerland Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana Muslim 10% India Muslim 13.4% Israel Muslim 16% Kenya Muslim 10% Russia Muslim 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia Muslim 32.8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia Muslim 40% Chad Muslim 53.1% Lebanon Muslim 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania Muslim 70% Malaysia Muslim 60.4% Qatar Muslim 77.5% Sudan Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh Muslim 83% Egypt Muslim 90% Gaza Muslim 98.7% Indonesia Muslim 86.1% Iran Muslim 98% Iraq Muslim 97% Jordan Muslim 92% Morocco Muslim 98.7% Pakistan Muslim 97% Palestine Muslim 99% Syria Muslim 90% Tajikistan Muslim 90% Turkey Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia Muslim 100% Somalia Muslim 100% Yemen Muslim 100% Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons. "Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj' It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate. Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. Well guess what boys and girls, today we are letting the fox -- guard the hen house. And soon the wolves, will be herding the sheep! Obama appointed two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant? Just wondering. Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?! Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?! Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities?! Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply: Theologically? no! Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia . Religiously? no! Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran) Scripturally? no! Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran. Geographically no! Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Socially no! Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Politically no! Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan. Domestically no! Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34) Intellectually no! Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. Philosophically no! Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Spiritually no! Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the our Judeo/Christian God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names. Therefore, after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country -- because obviously, they cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans!!! Call it what you wish, it's still the truth, and we'd better start believing it, and waking up to that fact! The more we understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. This religious war is bigger than we know or understand. Can a Muslim be a good soldier in our armed forces? Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 -- because he was a good Muslim! And the Muslims have always said they will destroy us from within. FOOTNOTE: FREEDOM IS NOT FREE -- AND THE MARINES WANT THIS INFORMATION TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.

Courts, Names and the Cestui Que Vie Trust

Courts, Names and the Cestui Que Vie Trust My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honourably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust. Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability. We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about the administration of a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect the judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this. If you consider court as entertainment and if you can stand the evil emanating from its officers, the fear and angst oozing from the walls, and the treacherous atmosphere, then go, knowing that under trust law we cannot be the trustee or the executor of a trust, whilst being beneficiary, as that would be a conflict. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions hold liability. Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust. So, trusteeship and executorship, i.e.: suretyship, becomes a hot potato and everyone wants to toss it so s/he can be beneficiary of the credit from the trust. When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust. This means that a trust can be established anywhere, anytime, and the parties of the trust are quickly, albeit temporarily, put into place. But, since a beneficiary cannot charge a trust––only a trustee can do so––it is the state that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours (albeit occasionally we do reap some benefit from that charge but nowhere near the value which they reap. Think bank loan….. we reap a minute percentage of what they gain from our authorization). So, the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this? Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But, if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen. The court clerk is the hot shot, even though it appears as if the judge is. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV owned by the state/province and it is s/he who is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for a constructive trust––that particular court case. So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat. When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee (“JAT”), we can stand and ask, “Are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?” This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man. What’s the JAT’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”. We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest” and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane. They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, the best thing to say, in that case, is “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court!” Point to the JAT. “It is YOU! As trustee, YOU are JOHN DOE, today, aren’t you?!” During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. “Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are.” Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, “Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?” Then point to the JAT: “So you are the trustee”, then point to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor? And I’m the beneficiary, so, now we know who’s who and, as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it. You have committed fraud against all laws!” Likely, we will not get that far before the JAT will order “Case dismissed” or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”. We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! The alleged property is we men and women whom they have deemed to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors, but that is an illusion so, if we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value. They are operating in fraud––something we’ve always known, but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options: 1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust. 2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run. 3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt. What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh? Knowledge––not procedure––is power. The means by which we have attempted to assuage our problems, inflicted upon us by the PTW (powers that were) have all been superficial, compared to the origins of all the black magic, superstition, satanic ritualism, trickery, mind-control, and clandestine practices. Under commercial law, dating back to the Code of Ur-Nammu––around 2100 BCE––the use of another’s property without permission puts one into dishonor and makes him liable for any debts. So, our using UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV, or bonds, and altering documents of the Roman System can create penalties, as this is trading and/or using the property of a corporation we do not own …. the birth certificate proves that the “name” is, in fact, the property of the corporation which issued it. We can do all the paper perfectly but, in the end, they say, “Sorry; you’re not one of us.” But, now, we get to inflict fear onto them. When we are forced to court, knowing that the Judge acts as the Trustee and the prosecutor acts as Executor of the CQV Trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices: 1. If we wish to expose the fraud of presumptions, by which the CQV trusts still exist, then the court is the perfect opportunity to have them dissolved or to prove the fraud because the Trustee is sitting on the bench. Dissolving the first CQV, dissolves them all; or, 2. If we are not inclined to use something like the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to expose the fraud of the CQV Trusts, then, at least, we ought to know that everything the judge says––even if it sounds like a command, order, or sentence––is actually an offer which we can choose to decline (“I do not consent; I do not accept your offer”). This is a fundamental principle of testamentary trusts…… the beneficiary can accept or decline what the trustee offers. For 15 years, I have watched the alleged solutions in commerce come and go and nothing has worked for enough people on enough occasions to call anything a consistent win. Paying for information is insanity because those who sell information clearly have not prevailed or they wouldn’t need to sell anything, would they? Buying express, private-contract trusts, e.g.: NACRS, is a huge waste of time and money because the entire process is too complicated for anyone with an IQ below 400 and …. “no refunds”. I have found no solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause––the fraudulent CQV trust. If we send an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll (see: http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_1330.htm ), as response to a summons or arrest warrant, then the judge who issues them has to think long and hard: “Am I willing to gamble that the man who walks into my court might call me on my role of trustee and expose the fraud that the CQV Trusts are still in place? Canons of Positive Law: http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_0000.htm This knowledge is your power. –– Frank O’Collins History of Trusts http://one-heaven.org/home.asp The 1st Trust of the world Unam Sanctam is one of the most frightening documents of history and the one most quoted as the primary document of the popes claiming their global power. It is an express trust deed. The last line reads: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” It is not only the first trust deed in history but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in trust. Triple Crown of Ba’al, aka the Papal Tiara and Triregnum In 1302 Pope Boniface issued his infamous Papal Bull Unam Sanctam––the first Express Trust. He claimed control over the whole planet which made him “King of the world”. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base. The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba’al as well as the Cult of Cybele. It also represents the pineal gland in the centre of our brains––crystalline in nature–– which allows us access to Source, hence, the 13-foot tall pinecone in Vatican Square. Think about why the Pontiffs would idolize a pinecone.See: Pharmacratic Inquisition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvEHObMMH4 The 1st Crown of Crown Land Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, but the first Testamentary Trust, through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate, was created by Pope Nicholas V in 1455, through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit “For a perpetual remembrance.” This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property, from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam, to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as “crown land”. This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born. It deprives us of all beneficial entitlements and rights on the land. The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis, meaning “Eternal Crown”, by Sixtus IV, being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts. This Papal Bull created the “Crown of Aragon”, later known as the Crown of Spain, and is the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the “Union of Crowns”, or Commonwealth, in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot. The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975, when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day. This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born and, by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving us of ownership of our flesh and condemning us to perpetual servitude, as a Roman person, or slave. The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III, through the papal bull Convocation, also meant to open the Council of Trent. It is the third and final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, set up for the claiming of all “lost souls”, lost to the See. The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540, to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII. This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and “reaping” of lost souls. The Crown was lost in 1816, due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England, and granted to the Temple Bar which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown. The Bar Associations have since been responsible for administering the “reaping” of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults. This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is baptized. It is the parents’ grant of the Baptismal certificate––title to the soul––to the church or Registrar. Thus, without legal title over one’s own soul, we will be denied legal standing and will be treated as things––cargo without souls––upon which the BAR is now legally able to enforce Maritime law. The Cestui Que Vie Trust A Cestui Que Vie Trust is a fictional concept. It is a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II, through the CQV Act of 1666, wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of a Person presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions, by which such a Trust may be formed, were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages, and private companies. The original purpose of a CQV Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs, or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent, and present, before a competent authority. Therefore, any claims, history, statutes, or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a CQV Trust, as pronounced by these canons, is false and automatically null and void. A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a CQV Trust. When a Beneficiary loses direct benefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in a CQV Trust on his behalf, he do not “own” the CQV Trust; he is only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the CQV Trust choose to provide. As all CQV Trusts are created on presumption, based upon original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if these presumptions can be proven not to exist. Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State (Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions specifically designed to deny, forever, the child any rights of Real Property, any Rights to be free, and any Rights to be known as man or woman, rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit. The Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly: 1. convey the beneficial entitlements of the child, as Beneficiary, into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights to Real Property; and, 2. claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the baby’s feet onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood, as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record which is a promissory note, converted into a slave bond, sold to the private reserve bank of the estate, and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate CQV Trust, per child, owned by the bank. When the promissory note reaches maturity and the bank is unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and is monetized as currency issued in series against the CQV Trust. 3. claim the child’s soul via the Baptismal Certificate. Since 1540 and the creation of the 1st CQV Act, deriving its power from the Papal Bull of Roman Cult leader Pope Paul III, 1540, when a child is baptized and a Baptismal Certificate is issued, the parents have gifted, granted, and conveyed the soul of the baby to a “3rd” CQV Trust owned by Roman Cult, which has held this valuable property in its vaults ever since. Since 1815, this 3rd Crown of the Roman Cult and 3rd CQV Trust representing Ecclesiastical Property has been managed by the BAR as the reconstituted “Galla” responsible, as Grim Reapers, for reaping the souls. Each Cestui Que Vie Trust, created since 1933, represents one of the 3 Crowns representing the three claims of property of the Roman Cult: Real Property (on Earth), Personal Property (body), and Ecclesiastical Property (soul). Each corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the BAR Courts: corporate commercial law (judge is the ‘landlord’), maritime and canon law (judge is the banker), and Talmudic law (judge is the priest). What is the real power of a court ‘judge’? Given what has been revealed about the foundations of Roman Law, what is the real hidden power of a judge when we face court? Is it their superior knowledge of process and procedure or of magic? Or is it something simpler and far more obvious? It is unfortunate that much of the excitement about Estates and Executors has deliberately not revealed that an Estate, by definition, has to belong to a Trust––to be specific, a Testamentary Trust or CQV Trust. When we receive legal paper or have to appear in court, it is these same CQV Trusts which have our rights converted into the property contained within them. Instead of being the Trustee, or the Executor, or Administrator, we are merely the Beneficiary of each CQV Trust, granted only beneficial and equitable use of certain property, never legal title. So if the Roman Legal System assumes we are merely the beneficiary of these CQV Trusts, when we go to court, who represents the Trustee and Office of Executor? We all know that all cases are based upon the judge’s discretion which often defies procedures, statutes, and maxims of law. Well, they are doing what any Trustee or Executor, administering a trust in the presence of the beneficiary, can do under Roman Law and all the statutes, maxims, and procedures are really for show because under the principles of Trust Law, as first formed by the Roman Cult, a Trustee has a wide latitude, including the ability to correct any procedural mistakes, by obtaining the implied or tacit consent of the beneficiary, to obviate any mistakes. The judge is the real and legal Name. The judge is the trust, itself. We are the mirror image to them––the ghost––the dead. It is high sorcery, trickery, and subterfuge that has remained “legal” for far too long. Spread the word. Conference call about the ‘name’ with Vic: http://ia600306.us.archive.org/11/items/PayItForwardConferenceCall07122010/Pay-it-forward-ConfCall07-12-2010.mp3 Frank O’Collins: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-422034.mp3 Money & Justice (p.s. You are already dead!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh4fWI1WMS4

Private federal Law Suit

Federal Court Of Canada Plenary Statement Of claim Tort of Intimidation: to leave Her Majesties defense of the faith and our freedom of religion Between: Elizabeth Mary Alexandra Windsor "Defender of the Faith" Et al Department of Defense Special Exercise operation “SILENT DEFENDER” With: Judicial Examiner Delegate International as Ezekiel 33:6-10 proxy for the “Defender of the Faith” minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger with scheduled members of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International a non commercial non registered organism of living men and women in union of spirit as the body of Christ See Schedule “1” The private man Doug Horner, acting defacto as deputy premier, president of Treasury Board The private man Dave Hancock, acting as head over Human Services, government house leader The private man Ted Morton, Acting as minister for Energy The private man Verlyn Olson, acting as Justice and attorney general, deputy government house leader The private man Fred Horne, acting as minister for Health The private man Ron Liepert, acting as minister for Finance The private man Thomas Lukaszuk, acting as minister for Education The private woman Diana McQueen, acting as minister for Environment and Water The private man Jonathan Denis, acting as solicitor general and Public Security The private man Cal Dallas, acting as minister for International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations The private man Evan Berger, acting as minister for Agriculture and Rural Development The private man Frank Oberle,acting as minister for Sustainable Resource Development The private man George Vanderburg, acting as minister for Seniors The private man Ray Danyluk, Acting as minister for Transportation The private man Jeff Johnson, acting as minister for Infrastructure The private man Doug Griffiths, acting as minister for Municipal Affairs The private man Greg Weadick, acting as minister for Advanced Education and Technology The private man Jack Hayden, acting as minister for Tourism, Parks and Recreation The private woman Heather Klimchuk, acting as minister for Culture and Community Services The private man Manmeet Bhullar, acting as minister for Service Alberta The following men and women acting as various titled Judges for the Provincial de facto courts J.B. Veit Edmonton A.B. Sulatycky Calgary A.M. Lutz Calgary E.A. Marshall Edmonton B.L. Rawlins Calgary J.L. Foster Red Deer L.J. Smith Edmonton W.V. Hembroff Lethbridge T.F. McMahon Calgary S.M. Bensler Calgary L.D. Wilkins Calgary D. Lee Edmonton C.A. Kent Calgary J.H. Langston Lethbridge P.J. McIntyre Calgary C.S. Phillips Calgary M.T. Moreau Edmonton P.M. Clark Calgary S.J. LoVecchio Calgary W.P. Sullivan Calgary C.L. Kenny Calgary R.P. Marceau Edmonton R.P. Belzil Edmonton M.A. Binder Edmonton G.C. Hawco Calgary C.Scott Brooker Calgary S.M. Sanderman Edmonton B.E.C. Romaine Calgary D.A. Sulyma Edmonton R.E. Nation Calgary B.R. Burrows Edmonton A.G. Park Calgary G.A. Verville Edmonton L.D. Acton Edmonton T.D. Clackson Edmonton A.B. Moen Edmonton B.E. Mahoney Calgary S.J. Greckol Edmonton E.A. Hughes Calgary M.C. Erb Calgary E.F. Macklin Edmonton V.O. Ouellette Edmonton D.C. Read Edmonton K.M. Horner Calgary S.D. Hillier Edmonton J.E. Topolniski Edmonton A.W. Germain Edmonton J.M. Ross Edmonton J.J. Gill Edmonton D.R.G. Thomas Edmonton S.L. Martin Calgary A.D. Macleod Calgary K.L. Sisson Red Deer R.A. Graesser Edmonton D.L. Shelley Edmonton D.K. Miller Lethbridge K.M. Eidsvik Calgary Nielsen Edmonton M.G. Crighton Edmonton E.C. Wilson Calgary J. Strekaf Calgary D.J. Manderscheid Edmonton K.D. Yamauchi Edmonton R.G. Stevens Calgary P.R. Jeffrey Calgary M.R. Bast Red Deer S.L. Hunt McDonald Calgary B.A. Browne Edmonton J.T. McCarthy Calgary W.A. Tilleman Calgary J.H. Goss Edmonton R.J. Hall Calgary G.H. Poelman Calgary R.A. Jerke Lethbridge P.B. Michalyshyn Edmonton M.D. Gates Edmonton Those private men and or women acting as Masters of the Provincial Courts W. Breitkreuz, Edmonton K.R. Laycock Calgary R.P. Wacowich, Edmonton J.B. Hanebury, L.A. Smart, Q.C.Edmonton J.T. Prowse, Q.C. W.S. Schlosser, Q.C. J.L. Mason R.B. Waller, Q.C. (ad hoc) Calgary/Edmonton A.Gail Vickery Edmonton A.H. Lefever Edmonton J.K. Wheatley Edmonton M.G. Allen Edmonton L.G. Anderson Edmonton H.A. Bridges Edmonton M.M.Carminati Edmonton A.G. Chrumka* Edmonton S.R. Creagh Edmonton F.A. Day Edmonton D.M. Groves Edmonton J.T.Henderson Edmonton E.A Johnson Edmonton J.B. Kerby Edmonton F.E.LeReverend Edmonton L.E. Malin Edmonton Terry.J. Matchett Edmonton D.J. McNab Edmonton Philp Edmonton M.G. Stevens-Guille Edmonton P.G. Sully Edmonton D.R. Valgardson Edmonton Ernest.J.M. Walter Edmonton Leo.J. Wenden Edmonton D.R. Wong* Edmonton D.R. Pahl Edmonton P. Ayotte Stony Plain L.J. Burgess Edmonton S.A. Cleary Fort McMurray D.E. Demetrick St. Paul B.H. Fraser* St. Albert H.W.A. Fuller Edmonton C.D. Gardner Stony Plain B.R. Garriock St. Albert J.R. Jacques Fort McMurray P.T. Johnston Vermilion Norman Alexander Forgon Mackie St. Albert J. Maher* Sherwood Park Vaughn.H. Myers St. Albert L.E. Nemirsky Edmonton Donald.C. Norheim Hinton S.G. Peck Edmonton D.G. Rae Fort Saskatchewan K.E. Tjosvold Stony Plain M.M. White Leduc K.D. Williams St. Paul Northern Region Peace River E.J. Simpson M.B. Golden Grande Prairie T.R. Goodson High Prairie B.R. Hougestol Grande Prairie J.R. McIntosh* Peace River G.W. Paul Peace River J.A. Watson Grande Prairie C.K.W. Thietke Peace River Central Region Red Deer W.A. Skinner W.A. Andreassen Camrose G.E. Deck Red Deer J.D. Holmes Red Deer J.A. Hunter Red Deer J.B. Mitchell Red Deer D.J. Plosz Red Deer E.D. Riemer* Red Deer B.D. Rosborough Wetaskiwin K.L. Rostad* Camrose Calgary and Calgary Regional R.J. Wilkins J.D. Bascom Calgary P.B. Barley Calgary Regional A.J. Brown Calgary G.G. Cioni Calgary E.J. Creighton Calgary Regional W.J. Cummings Calgary C.L. Daniel Calgary M. Delong Calgary G.S. Dunnigan Calgary A.A. Fradsham Calgary B.R. Fraser Calgary G.J. Gaschler Calgary M.L. Graham Calgary L.R. Grieve Calgary Regional S.A. Hamilton Calgary H.A. Lamoureux Calgary F.L. Maloney Calgary P.J. Mason Calgary P.M. McIlhargey Calgary Regional G.M. Meagher Calgary B.A. Millar Calgary J.J. Ogle Calgary T.C. Semenuk Calgary J. Shriar Calgary Regional C.M. Skene Calgary M.T.C. Tyndale Calgary S.L. Van de Veen Calgary H.M. Van Harten Calgary B.L. Veldhuis Calgary Southern Region Lethbridge E.W. Peterson Assistant Chief Judge G.R. DeBow* Lethbridge F.C. Fisher Medicine Hat D.J. Greaves Medicine Hat T.G. Hironaka Lethbridge L.B. Hogan Lethbridge G.K. Krinke Medicine Hat J.N. LeGrandeur Lethbridge G.S. Maxwell Lethbridge S.L. Oishi Lethbridge P.G. Pharo Lethbridge D.G. Redman Lethbridge P.L. Adilman Edmonton e R.W. Bradley Edmonton D. Brand Medicine Hat P.M. Caffaro Edmonton H.R. Chisholm Edmonton F.W. Coward Lethbridge H.D. Gaede Camrose D.G. Ingram Edmonton R.A. Jacobson Lethbridge N.P. Lawrence Red Deer N.P. Leveque Calgary W.R. Pepler Calgary J.D. Reilly Calgary T.G. Schollie Red Deer J.C.M. Spence Edmonton B.C. Stevenson Calgary S.E.W.J. Wood Edmonton J.M. Filice D.J. Buchanan* Edmonton M.J. Burch Edmonton D. Dalton Edmonton J.G. Easton* Edmonton J.D. Franklin* Edmonton G.B.N. Ho Edmonton J.C. Koshman Edmonton P.E. Kvill* Edmonton S.C. Miller Edmonton M.J Savaryn Edmonton L.S. Witten* Edmonton V.T. Tousignant Calgary G.J. Burrell Calgary E.R.R. Carruthers* Calgary L.T.L. Cook-Stanhope Calgary K.J. Jordan Calgary T. LaRochelle Calgary S.E. Lipton Calgary L.K. McLellan Calgary R.J. O’Gorman Calgary S. Prowse O'Ferrall Calgary J.R. Shaw Calgary N.R. Hess L.L. Burt Calgary M.M. Donnelly* Edmonton K. Haymour Edmonton K.D. Hope* Edmonton M.A. McCorquodale Calgary J.L. Skitsko Edmonton L.D. Young Edmonton D.R. Ackroyd, Edmonton M.A. Brown W.S. Andrew, J.K. Conley I. Yaverbaum, Edmonton D.C. Elliott S.N. Douglas J.G. Szekeres T.H. Langeste P.B. Higgerty J.J. Moher L.G. Morris F.Y. Roy E.P. Newcombe A.R. Schlayer L.L. Plater J.L. Schwager S.J. Taylor Grande Prairie Lethbridge D.B. Logan R.D. Price Red Deer Grande Prairie Lethbridge D.B. Logan - PT R.D. Price Red Deer Medicine Hat D.C. Ellis C.B. Wheatley S.T. Gorsalitz Presiding Justices of the Peace Edmonton Calgary D.J. Blais- FT W.D. Milne Arthur E. Wilson, Q.C. W.J. Shiplett I.A. Zaharko - FT T.C. Brennan J.L. Booth J.L. Clark J.A. Bowron S. Wan W.M. Faulkner M.C. Dunkley E.E.P. Johnson, C.S. Macdonald Max A. King S.D. Morgan J.L. Lester A. Verenka R.M. Saccomani M.S.D. Smith R.S. Stelmaczonek all Crown Officers working in the Public Trust, and Private Trust of the people of the province of Alberta and for the Courts of the province of Alberta, Alison Redford in her private capacity acting as Premier for the defacto province of Alberta , Stephen Harper in his private capacity acting as a defacto prime minister of the corporation CANADA , Robert Nicholson in his private capacity acting as the defacto minister of Justice for CANADA the corporation, the man Robert Marr in his private capacity acting as a provincial prosecutor in right of her majesty for the Province of Alberta, the corporation, out of Stony Plain, Steven Bilodeau in his private capacity acting as a provincial prosecutor in right of her majesty for the Province of Alberta out of Edmonton ,Richard Marks in his private capacity acting as Freedom of Information Requests officer for the minister acting as the solicitor general in right of her majesty for the Province of Alberta out of Edmonton , Max King in his private capacity acting as a provincial justice of the peace in the Edmonton Law Courts in right of her majesty for the Province of Alberta Arthur Wilson in his private capacity acting as a defacto Provincial justice of the peace at the Edmonton Law courts, Helena Solin in her private capacity acting as a federal Crown prosecutor in right of her majesty for CANADA out of Edmonton and the man known as Adam Halliday in his private capacity acting as a federal Crown prosecutor in right of her majesty for CANADA out of Edmonton and the man known as Brian Saunders in his private Capacity acting as the director of federal prosecutions in his private capacity acting as senior federal Crown prosecutor in right of her majesty for CANADA and the woman Leona Aglukkaq in her private capacity acting as the minister of Health of Canada out of Ottawa , et al also including Lance Cranna in his private capacity acting as court security for the Edmonton law courts, Greg Medley in his private capacity acting as Superior security officer for the Edmonton Law Courts, Neil De Hass in his private capacity acting as an Edmonton City Police officer Wayne Redding acting as the director of the Edmonton Remand Centre a condemned and privately owned building Cathie Scott acting as former director of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional facility Rueben Eschevarra Working as a guard at the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Facility and other private men and women to be named acting as de facto officers et al, as well and expansively inclusive of all other named private men and women most irrefutably occupying the offices of the Provincial Court Judges and Prosecutors in fraud in direct violation of the Federal Oaths of Allegiance Act The British North American Act of 1867 Schedule V and section 11 of the Governor Generals Act of 1947, The Westminster confession of Faith from 1646 an Act of the British Parliament. They are all hereby Collectively and individually, in receipt of formal, written, private, Judicial and Ecclesiastic Notice that all of their public and private liability bonds and/or insurance policies, to cover damages of this nature, are being claimed by minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger speaking for private organism being the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International comprised of it’s body of Christ being the private members, specifically in their entirety for: See Schedule 1 . Plaintiffs And Respondants All herein named below are claimed upon their private capacity as we ministers of Christ cannot show respect to the persons of men, the titles are that which they choose to employ in an attempt to escape private liability for the Tort of Intimidation as such ignorance of the law is no excuse. Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, James 2:9 for reference as to why we cannot be associated or show respect to persons) Deuteronomy 4:2 12:32 is the law indicating it is not to be added to and as such all private men and women acting in the office of a corporate government can rebut the claim they altered our names for financial purpose without law to support that action or our informed consent and they did add to God Jehovah’s law as defended by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor without the lawful authority to do so and as such are with intent to defy God, his law and with the power of a dead in law corporation comprised of thinking minds are intent on intimidating men and women to submit to their collective will, in defiance of her majesty’s ability and sworn Oath to defend the laws of God, thereby causing damages in the amount of 1 million dollars for each and everyone of the so named herein men and women to effect restitution for those damages intent upon bringing about unlawful restrictions upon our Church member awake in Christ and washed from the laws of mammon and collective fraud. They can rebut that they by their de facto activity of adding to God’s law without sanction did harm by intimidation of that defacto regime to the Church founded upon Christ and added to and removed from Jehovah’s law with unavoidably deliberate and conspired intent to bring damage to those men and women taking sanctuary in the Church indeed in God Yahuwah’s (Jehovah’s) law by intimidating them with defacto commercial legislation offering the intimidation of jail and fines if they do not submit. Note there exists no law that allows the alteration of a man’s name into an all capital legal fiction “Capitus Diminutio Maxima” unless he consents with knowledge as to the reasons and result of such action. Contracts that impede or impair ones ability to practice their faith are void. Amselem v Syndicate Northwest 2004 SCR. Ezekiel 33:6-10 The provided extensive list of men and women in their private capacity who are accused of aiding and abetting the Tort of unlawful Intimidation by the adding to removing from the laws of God YHWH in violation of his commands and the Oath to bear faithful and true allegiance to Her majesty in aiding her in her duty to defend them, The private woman Alison Redford of Alberta sometimes located in the Provincial legislature who with knowledge and without sanction of her majesty or evidence of it . Notice all these fictional titles herein provided are only for evidence, the subsequent names in interlocking equity and conflict of interest are of the respondents, so named, being private men and women severally, collectively and privately liable for the tort of intimidation to violate the Christian faith and submit to the laws of a false god being involved with the fraud of altering my name to a fiction of law referred to as a “Person” which includes a corporation,( Canada Interpretation Act section 35 Ezekiel 33:6-10) which is dead in law, intimidating me to respond to it respect it and associate my flesh with it with threats I will be arrested if I do not . Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Again these names provided are for the convenience of the court as the full names are extremely hard to get and a motion for Subpoena Duces Takem in regard to the gaining of the full names may be of merit to advance such a emergent need for remedy cure and maintenance in full Standing and defense of the laws of God as is the Cause for these proceedings. This being necessitated as of no other competent process and as of the evident intent to intimidate myself and the Church body to submit to the codes rules and regulations of corporations acting as false gods and trading our values by assumptive Parens Patriae jurisdiction and utilizing such assumed right of proxy to trade such value based in flesh achieved by tacit consent pledge and surety on the NYSE. All this in defiance of her majesty's ability to defend the Christian faith and obstruction of our ministry. These enumerated and named as respondants herein did in the intent of enforcing a de facto authority in violation of the commands of God and her Majesty’s duty to defend them did severally and collectively with interlocking equity bring harm to man woman or property by the force of intimidation to myself as a Christian minister not bound by contractual obligations of a commercial and corporate nature, and they did with private knowledge using the force of a de facto unlawful government in defiance of the laws of God YHWH impede my ability to officially perform the functions of my calling as a minister washed in the blood of Christ engaged in ministerial non commercial travel and or functions, and they did severally and collectively with a planned will and intent,intimidate me via the use of commercial Provincial civil law codes regulations and impositions as unlawfully governed by her de facto Provincial assembly, to violate the commands of God that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor defends by her Coronation Oath. She is so herein named as dejure monarch operating in capacity as SILENT DEFENDER intervener to this suit as she most dutifully shall by proxy. This forced and intentional intimidation to submit to commercially titled Provincial and Federal ordinances of a corporate nature indicates, prima fascia, an intent on conspiring with and acting in interlocking equity with and to bill the created Cesti Que Vie trust formed by the registrar upon the registration of a birth event in a Provincial registry pledged as surety and bonded for value into a commercial instrument used as a security with a name in all capital letters and done in fraud as no law statute code or regulation permits it or authorizes it. These ex officio agents of a defacto nature have by fraud and intimidation been acting as billing agents with others so herein name upon that so named and registered Cesti Que Vi trust as in fraud to make use of the legal fiction creations, being commercially formed fictions to serve as corporate vehicles of Identity. These men and women so herein named as being privately liable for the Tort of intimidation will be expected to provide proof of their ability in law as supported by her Majesty to add to and remove from God’s law as is the basic cause of the claimed intimidation so their can be no excuse for missing or declaring that their is no definitive cause when Ecclesiastical Standing is clear on the face of the record. The cause is supplemented and aided by proof of the diligence of the plaintiffs so herein named, to ensure the private men and women so herein named as liable for the Tort of intimidation, were well aware of the principles of the Christian faith withstanding and defense of her majesty (176CCC) and indeed our ministerial duty to not walk in the ordinance of the heathen. Leviticus 18:3-4 These private men and women so herein named as respondents to the Statement of Claim for the Tort of Intimidation that are brought before this honorable court ,of oath sufficiency and subsequent competent jurisdiction, have insisted collectively on ignoring the diligent private notices and videos sent to them, notice to agent is notice to principle, and their associates so herein named in their private capacity as connected and associated in interlocking equity to the value of our birth bonds and as such are effecting the Tort of unlawful intimidation against our Church members collectively by imposing a defacto government’s manufacturing of laws in excess of God’s law upon the lives and freedom of those private non commercial servants of Christ under YHWH as supreme. They collectively so named in their private capacity have without lawful oaths and via defacto use of public office in a misfeasance manner exceeding statute code and regulation, have thereby reduced their capacity to that of a private man or woman effecting an abuse of the laws of a corporation upon a private men and women not being an officer citizen or person of that corporation, by utilizing the powers of assumption and alteration of my given name for a financial purpose without my consent in violation of my faith and statute in fraud . Notice frivolous assumptions not regarding the high merit and due cause of this matter as it is in emergent state of defeating her majesties ability to have this case heard, are without her sanction or her authority as this case has absolute historical parliamentary original jurisdiction and prime ecclesiastical Standing! Such schedule of names of the privately liable men and women are so herein attached in honor and the saving of grace of the provision of her Majesties Bible and her defense of same. Notice of Motion Take notice that minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger will make a motion to the court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules. The motion is for the granting of a stay of fee’s in the nature of “Informa Pauperis” on the grounds of Indigent Status. The grounds for the motion are I am under a medical disability and as a result of that misfortune in health cannot gain a livelihood at this juncture, and as such as of necessity and under threat duress and intimidation to be on Provincial income support derived from CANADA acting as de facto trustee over the Cesti Que Vie trust issuing shareholder annuities to the provinces via section 33 of the charter of Rights and Freedoms. At this juncture it is appropriate to also bring notice to her majesty’s court for consideration of her Absolute Standing in this precise matter of ultimate Ecclesiastical significance in defending the laws of God as a benefit that all Canadians would suffer for a lack thereof. This begs the courts lack of discretion in such a cause and would indicate the emergent need in duty to grant such demand in good merit with cause high in standing and by the Grace of God we aid her Majesty in true allegiance to the glorious defense of the Christian faith. The courts jurisdiction is with meritable cause in granting the motion for indigent status allowing the benevolent waiver of the clerks fee’s as was her discretion to grant and with her majesties Style in defense of the faith the declaration and granting of the status of Standing to proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada with absolute standing as defended by her majesty herself and doth bear witness and stand guard ever faithful and on guard in this matter as such in ecclesiastic need to form a Statement of Claim “informa Pauperis” The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the motion is : an income support status card bearing a bifurcated form of a name I was given and was issued in fraud and in violation of my faith to not associate with the corporate dead in law. My sworn word! Letters from two Doctors confirming my medical condition Photographic Ecclesiastical Proof of Existence card autographed by three ecclesiastics engaged non commercially as notary witnesses Affidavit of Identification Dated 2003 Commissioned by Alberta Commissioner Dated International Magazine Article with photo and name. 2001 Dated private information court hearing notice. June 14th 2012 Dated recognizance entered into with the RCMP in jasper dated May 11th 2012 A.D. Dated Notice of hearing before an Alberta provincial court judge upon a private information sworn before a Justice of the Peace using only my ecclesiastical proof of existence card as already produced for proof of who I am and was accepted. It is hereby claimed that The PROVINCE OF ALBERTA is a registered corporation for profit Exhibit A and the private men and women so herein named have with intent, without the support of corporate statute code regulation or dejure law, intimidated myself as a Christian minister to violate the commands of God YaHuWaH by forcing myself in Christ using intimidation of punishment by loss of liberties sanction of pecuniary fines and civil defacto corporate legislation to submit to and serve them and their corporate rules in violation of the commands of God the Queen by law has sworn to defend. Exodus 20:3-5 Leviticus 18:3-4 It is a prima fascia fact that they, so herein named are with not with her majesty’s standing as of having no statute code regulation statute or bill to rely upon in their defense ; thereby prima fascia indicating on the face of the defacto record and their sworn oaths to a Christian Monarch so herein named as joint plaintiff ex officio operation SILENT DEFENDER , that they severally and as private men and women have invoked private liability upon themselves upon the cause that they have in private, and with knowledge of the law, exceeded their defacto statutory authority by forcing those defacto corporate code statutes and regulations written in excess of God’s law, upon me and my ministry. Deuteronomy 4:2,12:3, Such unlawful action is causing and effecting damages of hardship stress emotional physical and mental duress so as to endanger my life health and spiritual well being and of effecting a forced unlawful confinement and extortion of alteration of my Christian given name and by the theft and conversion did intend to defraud me of any value they act as Trustee's over that I may possess. It is their intent notwithstanding to obstruct my ministry and intimidate me to comply to corporate statute code and regulation upon threats of imprisonment removal of property forced eviction from lands by fraud and issuing fines and kidnapping my body all being undefended by the Christian monarch and unsanctioned by her authority with the Authorised 1611 King James Bible as the rule for the life and government of Christian princes . The cause herein enumerated and extensively detailed is as such an intentionally fabricated scheme to deploy distress upon the physical mental and spiritual well being of the plaintiffs as of the intentional and deliberate force upon the plaintiff’s ministry in defiance of their duty bound oaths to God to bear true allegiance to the Christian Monarch’s defense of the faith. That oath swearing to bear true Allegiance is indicative of their prime duty to her throne and power. It is also herein offered before a court of established competency bearing and offering in honor a valid oath in law that it is prima fascia evidence that the “Province of Alberta” is in fictional PLAYSCRIPT league association and business with “ CANADA”, both being established corporations, Exhibits B and C of an mutual relationship in interlocking equity, and of certainty neither being a geographical land mass as is a province, note the small ”p” as opposed to the large “P” in the former Province, are being orchestrated used and deployed by the aforementioned private men and women and are using the defacto corporation’s rules to superimpose some immoral and unlawful assumpsit social contract upon my freedom to officially perform the functions of my calling in Christ in violation of my freedom to practice my faith in following God and Christ over the ramblings and unlawful passage upon my sacred office of minister of Christ as defended by the anointed of God Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. Cause To be clear upon cause so no assumptions can be drawn upon. The laws of God as defended by the Monarch upon lawful oath are being threatened and her Majesties office of Royal Style and Title “Defender of the Faith”, that this court bears an oath of true Allegiance to, is being used immorally and is being tenaciously usurped by privately liable men and women with private knowledge who are imposing the fraud of a defacto corporation’s contractual assumption of submission via registration, as an excuse to intimidate men and women to submit to them and their manufactured law as god...Cause is the intentional violating the commands of God and intimidating men and women with fear of punishment to submit to those false god’s laws. Constructive treason is the cause… knowledge of the cause removes the potential for claiming there is no cause and upon any confusion I as plaintiff demand the court seek clarification if the court is not clear on the cause to remove potential time constraints imposed by the potential claim by her Majesties court there is no cause.. Breaking the commands of God the Queen swore to defend by intimdating men and women to break them as well by using the Queens name to do it, is the fraud invoking the intimidation. Without a meeting of the minds and knowledge of all the terms of the contract there can be no contract and if that assumpsit contract is in violation of the commands of God then it is void ab initio. Roncarelli v Duplessis 1959 SCR, Amselem 2004 SCR, Alberta Dairy Pool SC,R Saumer v City of Quebec 1953 SCR, Big Drug v Regina SCR, Definitions Heritage Canada Website under section 32 The RCMP case of Sergeant Dhillon in Quesnel British Columbia in 1988 or thereabouts wherein he was awarded 10 Million Dollars as of being told to remove his Turban to be a member. It has been removed from the supreme court website and replaced with R v Grant . John Anthony Hill V. Her Majesty..Great Britain Court Case May 20012 I Edward-Jay-Robin formerly of the Belanger Family do hereby swear to YaHuWaH my creator, Psalms 83:18, and before my peers that I am, a non secular man under Christ as my redeemer free from assumption of commercial law and now so proclaimed with absolute standing in the Kingdom of God as his humble servant and bondsman, 1 Corinthians 7 :22-23, and am without funds to pay the filing fee in the Edmonton Federal Court of Canada and humbly demand my case be heard in fairness by a competent tribunal not in conflict , as of my inability to pay the filing fee Magna Carta section 40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. May 09th, 2012 A.D. ____________________________________________ minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger as ecclesiastical proxy for Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor anointed of God. 10755-133rd Street Edmonton, Alberta No Code, Non Commercial Phone: (780) 633-7723

Interpretations Act definitions of Person..."Includes" meaning that which comes after the word includes, A dead in law corporation!!

DEFINITIONS Marginal note:General definitions 35. (1) In every enactment, “Act” « loi provinciale » “Act”, as meaning an Act of a legislature, includes an ordinance of the Northwest Territories and a law of the Legislature of Yukon or of the Legislature for Nunavut; “bank” « banque » “bank” means a bank listed in Schedule I or II to the Bank Act; “British Commonwealth” or “British Commonwealth of Nations” « Commonwealth », « Commonwealth britannique », « Commonwealth des nations » ou « Commonwealth des nations britanniques » “British Commonwealth” or “British Commonwealth of Nations” has the same meaning as “Commonwealth”; “broadcasting” « radiodiffusion » “broadcasting” means any radiocommunication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public; “Canada” « Canada » “Canada”, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; “Canadian waters” « eaux canadiennes » “Canadian waters” includes the territorial sea of Canada and the internal waters of Canada; “Clerk of the Privy Council” or “Clerk of the Queen’s Privy Council” « greffier du Conseil privé » ou « greffier du Conseil privé de la Reine » “Clerk of the Privy Council” or “Clerk of the Queen’s Privy Council” means the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; “commencement” Version anglaise seulement “commencement”, when used with reference to an enactment, means the time at which the enactment comes into force; “Commonwealth” or “Commonwealth of Nations” « Commonwealth », « Commonwealth britannique », « Commonwealth des nations » ou « Commonwealth des nations britanniques » “Commonwealth” or “Commonwealth of Nations” means the association of countries named in the schedule; “Commonwealth and Dependent Territories” « Commonwealth et dépendances » “Commonwealth and Dependent Territories” means the several Commonwealth countries and their colonies, possessions, dependencies, protectorates, protected states, condominiums and trust territories; “contiguous zone” « zone contiguë » “contiguous zone”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the contiguous zone of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the contiguous zone of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “continental shelf” « plateau continental » “continental shelf”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the continental shelf of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the continental shelf of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “contravene” « contravention » “contravene” includes fail to comply with; “corporation” « personne morale » “corporation” does not include a partnership that is considered to be a separate legal entity under provincial law; “county” « comté » “county” includes two or more counties united for purposes to which the enactment relates; “county court” “county court”[Repealed, 1990, c. 17, s. 26] “diplomatic or consular officer” « agent diplomatique ou consulaire » “diplomatic or consular officer” includes an ambassador, envoy, minister, chargé d’affaires, counsellor, secretary, attaché, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, pro-consul, consular agent, acting consul-general, acting consul, acting vice-consul, acting consular agent, high commissioner, permanent delegate, adviser, acting high commissioner, and acting permanent delegate; “exclusive economic zone” « zone économique exclusive » “exclusive economic zone”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the exclusive economic zone of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the seabed and subsoil below that zone, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the exclusive economic zone of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “Federal Court” “Federal Court”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Federal Court — Appeal Division” “Federal Court — Appeal Division” or “Federal Court of Appeal”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Federal Court — Trial Division” “Federal Court — Trial Division”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Governor”, “Governor General” or “Governor of Canada” « gouverneur », « gouverneur du Canada » ou « gouverneur général » “Governor”, “Governor General” or “Governor of Canada” means the Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title that officer is designated; “Governor General in Council” or “Governor in Council” « gouverneur en conseil » ou « gouverneur général en conseil » “Governor General in Council” or “Governor in Council” means the Governor General of Canada acting by and with the advice of, or by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; “Great Seal” « grand sceau » “Great Seal” means the Great Seal of Canada; “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” « Sa Majesté », « la Reine », « le Roi » ou « la Couronne » “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth; “Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories” « royaumes et territoires de Sa Majesté » “Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories” means all realms and territories under the sovereignty of Her Majesty; “herein” Version anglaise seulement “herein” used in any section shall be understood to relate to the whole enactment, and not to that section only; “holiday” « jour férié » “holiday” means any of the following days, namely, Sunday; New Year’s Day; Good Friday; Easter Monday; Christmas Day; the birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning Sovereign; Victoria Day; Canada Day; the first Monday in September, designated Labour Day; Remembrance Day; any day appointed by proclamation to be observed as a day of general prayer or mourning or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving; and any of the following additional days, namely, (a) in any province, any day appointed by proclamation of the lieutenant governor of the province to be observed as a public holiday or as a day of general prayer or mourning or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving within the province, and any day that is a non-juridical day by virtue of an Act of the legislature of the province, and (b) in any city, town, municipality or other organized district, any day appointed to be observed as a civic holiday by resolution of the council or other authority charged with the administration of the civic or municipal affairs of the city, town, municipality or district; “internal waters” « eaux intérieures » “internal waters”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the internal waters of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the airspace above and the bed and subsoil below those waters, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the waters on the landward side of the baselines of the territorial sea of the other state; “legislative assembly”, “legislative council” or “legislature” « législature », « assemblée législative » ou « conseil législatif » “legislative assembly”, “legislative council” or “legislature” includes the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, as constituted before September 1, 1905, the Legislature of Yukon, the Commissioner in Council of the Northwest Territories, and the Legislature for Nunavut; “lieutenant governor” « lieutenant-gouverneur » “lieutenant governor” means the lieutenant governor or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the government of the province indicated by the enactment, by whatever title that officer is designated, and in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut means the Commissioner; “lieutenant governor in council” « lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil » “lieutenant governor in council” means the lieutenant governor acting by and with the advice of, by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with, the executive council of the province indicated by the enactment, and in Yukon, means the Commissioner of Yukon acting with the consent of the Executive Council of Yukon and, in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, means the Commissioner; “local time” « heure locale » “local time”, in relation to any place, means the time observed in that place for the regulation of business hours; “military” « militaire » “military” shall be construed as relating to all or any part of the Canadian Forces; “month” « mois » “month” means a calendar month; “oath” and “sworn” « serment » “oath” includes a solemn affirmation or declaration when the context applies to any person by whom and to any case in which a solemn affirmation or declaration may be made instead of an oath, and in the same cases the expression “sworn” includes the expression “affirmed” or “declared”; “Parliament” « Parlement » “Parliament” means the Parliament of Canada; “person” « personne » “person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; “proclamation” « proclamation » “proclamation” means a proclamation under the Great Seal; “province” « province » “province” means a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; “radio” or “radiocommunication” « radiocommunication » ou « radio » “radio” or “radiocommunication” means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide; “regular force” « force régulière » “regular force” means the component of the Canadian Forces that is referred to in the National Defence Act as the regular force; “reserve force” « force de réserve » “reserve force” means the component of the Canadian Forces that is referred to in the National Defence Act as the reserve force; “security” and “sureties” « caution » ou « cautionnement » “security” means sufficient security, and “sureties” means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required; “standard time” « heure normale » “standard time”, except as otherwise provided by any proclamation of the Governor in Council that may be issued for the purposes of this definition in relation to any province or territory or any part thereof, means (a) in relation to the Province of Newfoundland, Newfoundland standard time, being three hours and thirty minutes behind Greenwich time, (b) in relation to the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, that part of the Province of Quebec lying east of the sixty-third meridian of west longitude, and that part of Nunavut lying east of the sixty-eighth meridian of west longitude, Atlantic standard time, being four hours behind Greenwich time, (c) in relation to that part of the Province of Quebec lying west of the sixty-third meridian of west longitude, that part of the Province of Ontario lying between the sixty-eighth and the ninetieth meridians of west longitude, Southampton Island and the islands adjacent to Southampton Island, and that part of Nunavut lying between the sixty-eighth and the eighty-fifth meridians of west longitude, eastern standard time, being five hours behind Greenwich time, (d) in relation to that part of the Province of Ontario lying west of the ninetieth meridian of west longitude, the Province of Manitoba, and that part of Nunavut, except Southampton Island and the islands adjacent to Southampton Island, lying between the eighty-fifth and the one hundred and second meridians of west longitude, central standard time, being six hours behind Greenwich time, (e) in relation to the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Northwest Territories and that part of Nunavut lying west of the one hundred and second meridian of west longitude, mountain standard time, being seven hours behind Greenwich time, (f) in relation to the Province of British Columbia, Pacific standard time, being eight hours behind Greenwich time, and (g) in relation to Yukon, Yukon standard time, being nine hours behind Greenwich time; “statutory declaration” « déclaration solennelle » “statutory declaration” means a solemn declaration made pursuant to section 41 of the Canada Evidence Act; “superior court” « juridiction supérieure » ou « cour supérieure » “superior court” means (a) in the Province of Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, the Supreme Court, (a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Superior Court of Justice, (b) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court in and for the Province, (c) in the Province of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, the Court of Appeal for the Province and the Court of Queen’s Bench for the Province, (d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the Province, and (e) the Supreme Court of Yukon, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Court of Justice, and includes the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada; “telecommunications” « télécommunication » “telecommunications” means the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system; “territorial sea” « mer territoriale » “territorial sea”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the territorial sea of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below that sea, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the territorial sea of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “territory” « territoires » “territory” means Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; “two justices” « deux juges de paix » “two justices” means two or more justices of the peace, assembled or acting together; “United Kingdom” « Royaume-Uni » “United Kingdom” means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; “United States” « États-Unis » “United States” means the United States of America; “writing” « écrit » “writing”, or any term of like import, includes words printed, typewritten, painted, engraved, lithographed, photographed or represented or reproduced by any mode of representing or reproducing words in visible form. Marginal note:Governor in Council may amend schedule (2) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule by adding thereto the name of any country recognized by the order to be a member of the Commonwealth or deleting therefrom the name of any country recognized by the order to be no longer a member of the Commonwealth. R.S., 1985, c. I-21, s. 35; R.S., 1985, c. 11 (1st Supp.), s. 2, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10; 1990, c. 17, s. 26; 1992, c. 1, s. 91, c. 47, s. 79, c. 51, s. 56; 1993, c. 28, s. 78, c. 38, s. 87; 1995, c. 39, s. 174; 1996, c. 31, s. 87; 1998, c. 15, s. 28, c. 30, ss. 13(F), 15(E); 1999, c. 3, s. 71, c. 28, s. 168; 2002, c. 7, s. 188, c. 8, s. 151. Previous Version

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

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

By Joel Richardson

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


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

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

That’s right: Muslim-friendly Bibles.

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

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

to this:

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

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

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

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

More than 3,000 already have signed up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES

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

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

...with additional earlier information at:

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

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

==========

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

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

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

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

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

Chief justice suggests judges complete oaths
10/11/01

ASHBEL S. GREEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGE ROSENBLUM TAKES CONSTITUTIONAL OATH IN KETTLEBERG CASE IN
PORTLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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