Salsero;
You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:
Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?
Printable View
Salsero;
You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:
Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?
I believe you misunderstood me. The BC is evidence of the "usufruct compliant certified certificate indemnity receipt" for redemption FOR the person under Liebor Code 38. Yes, I agree it is presumed one is the executor de son tort. When I did "my release", I did not do a UCC form. Attached to the release is the BC and on the backside it is marked "pay to the United States of America, without recourse".
It is a difficult to separate man and the person. I do not know how to say it any other way. Man is the SOURCE [I did not use the word creditor, even though that is what man is in "normal terms"] for THEIR fictional credit. From the BERTH EVENT, the state was able to "monetize" and benefit from man being real. The state kept the original title or COLB, where the state should have returned that to the parents or baby once he turned a certain age. However, the state SEIZED, TOOK, STOLE, whatever word you want to use and left man with "naked authority" - meaning everything man does in that name automatically vests in the state trust. Since man has little option but to do commerce using that name otherwise he can not eat, house himself, etc AND the state receives all the benefits, the state MUST too be subject to the liabilities.
There is nothing contradictory that man separates himself from the fiction - which ain't easy.
And this is where we disagree. If that original title had been returned to the "RIGHTFUL OWNER", then we would agree. Since the state holds this in "trust" or whatever AND you can not obtain this, this more than suggests that something ain't right in Hooterville. This quote was stated during the bankruptcy. We have evidence today that this is supreme law of the land - the recent Colorado case proved this again. the fact that child protective services remove children from homes is yet another example.
ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.
Per Karl, if you want to define "my property" as MY exclusive use of a thing to the exclusion of others", mazel tov! If you want to state, it is my property because I worked for it. double mazel tov - however, MY question to you is: What evidence do you have to support that the "thing" is yours, as you are the owner? Did you pay for it? How? Prove that name you use is yours.
I do not understand what you are attempting to say: If you are attempting to say - I know nothing, I have no issue accepting your opinion. I teach nothing, all I did was offer my opinion. Actually I stopped bothering with this group for the reason of rudeness. The other day, someone from the PI group said Boris responded to this section, so I checked it out.
The PI process is NOT for everyone. I am in the middle of this myself. Will it work? I have no idea. And in a different sense, it almost does not MATTER. That is beyond the scope of this conversation. One does what one feels compelled to do, right or wrong.
It is also not necessary to "interpret" what I write. If you keep it simple, as to what I write and if not understood, just ask for clarification instead of defining what I write, this would be better for everyone.
Since you like the bible so much
James 2: 7-10
7 Do not they blaspheme the worthy Name after which ye be named?
8 But if ye fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, which saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.
9 But if ye regard the persons, ye commit sin, and are rebuked of the Law, as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all.
Job 32: 21-22
21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person: neither let me giue flattering titles vnto man.
22 For I know not to give flattering titles: in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
For those who believe they own private property:
Psalm 24:1: The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein
Haggai 2:8: The silver is mine, and the gold in mine, saith the Lord of hosts.
Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
But again, one can pick and choose what they like or do not like in the bible - so this may not be the best example
Or the BC is simply what it appears to be: a public recording of an event. Since it's public, and held by the State, then the State is the controlling legal authority of the instrument.
When people make use of the public record for private gain, isn't that a trespass?
My apologies I should have been clearer. I meant that Joseph was Jesus' father only by law [adoption]. Joseph did not lend his seed. I try not to get bogged down in the flesh but try to use the keys to get broader understanding. Christ is the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh. So we see Christ in Jesus [Flesh nature] and we see the resurrection of Jesus to Christ. Paul understood this wisdom and if you look carefully you might begin to get a peek at the encryption. Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ. This is a wisdom in writing that has been hid but will be revealed by John [Elect] to Peter [Church].
So the Word was beaten and then even put to death - the preachers only teach the flesh aspect in History and Lineage. If that is all the Bible one sees - well at least they have that. The Word contains the fullness of the Godhead. And the Word was made flesh so the encryption is Christ Jesus. But the Word has power from El Elyon - thru a Promise! - isn't that amazing - everyone talks about Abraham in terms of the promise- yet few understand the promise to the Word made flesh, Christ Jesus - Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedok.
So I meant to express that Joseph adopted Jesus and further now that Mary was a surrogate.
Now I shall take a small tangent. Consider there are three items in the Ark. And I believe these are three testaments. We see Aarons Rod [NT], we see twin tablets [OT] and we see a golden bowl with manna. It is the golden bowl with the manna that interests me. I find that Jude, Paul and James quoted books that are not part of the established canon.
Just as Peter [the church] denied Christ Jesus three times so the Church has denied Christ three times now in regard to the established canon. Consider why do you require a canon at all if you understand the Wisdom of the language used to write the Scripture. Understanding that wisdom unlocks any book and therefore if those keys do not work, then the Book is not from God. Therefore what need of a canon. But I find the Church in dishonesty. For if you accept Jude, then you MUST accept Enoch. If you accept the OT, then what of Jasher, to name just one.
Book of Adam and Eve, Testament of Solomon, Testament of Moses, Wisdom, Maccabees, etc. Why does Peter [the Church] deny the Christ. Paul understood the mystery and was entrusted with the key. Paul would send Onisimus to Philemon, which is to say the Elect to the latter day Church. And while John and Peter ran to the tomb, John arrived first, but he stopped and let Peter enter in before him.
See that men rejected Wisdom so she left the sons of men and went back to Heaven and took her seat with the angels. Can't find that one in the canon, right? Well check out Enoch 42: 1-2. What will happen to pastor when he is shown everything he has taught is a lie. All of his TALENTS will be given to another man who knows how to work the field.
For while some Pearls are wonderful [understanding in the flesh] there is a GREATER PEARL [understanding in the Spirit].
================================================== =======================================
The word OF is a very important term. It denotes progeny. So I see a U.S. citizen and a Citizen of the United States as two separate classes. Just as a Resident is a totally separate class than Citizen. A Citizen takes an oath, pledging to a Constitution and that can only be done in a Common Law court. Now consider Joseph son of Jacob, when he was in the pit, he was found to be stateless. He was seized as a slave and sold into Egypt. Joseph kept his mouth shut and in his lack of Declaration of Status, he was delivered into Egype as property.
Multiple paths are set before men. The state setup in 1789 is under the Crown with its own separate government and for its own People. And I myself believe that it is impossible to become a Citizen of the United States UNLESS I am allowed. Which means I would have to take an oath and pledge myself to the Constitution of the United States. And that Oath would have to be in a Common Law court of competence. In my opinion residents lack the status and therefore the standing of a citizen. I wonder even today if it is possible to even be a State citizen. I might look into that to see if I can find a court that might administrate that oath.
No Oath or Pledge means no standing. That is the position of a Stateless man or woman. Thus a Stranger.
Now recall your Scripture. If a stranger desires to bind himself to the House of Israel [nation-state] then said stranger was to be made subject to the Torah; HOWEVER where did said stranger get standing in Israel? Shall we rise up out of the flesh to see with new eyes?
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
#1. I am unaware of having a "last name" or holding any "birth certificate".
#2. When they are using words such as "property" its in their context. "Owner" effectively in their sense means surety. "Possession" and "ownership" aren't the same. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity--it can be shared, joint or pertinent to divided title. [ Speaking of divided title: Long ago, I was told the primary thing the Russians or Germans were demanding "Papers please" was for determining whether one had full title or not.] Karl might be coming into deeper comprehension of the meanings of words outside of popular idiomatic speech, however in the Greek language the variations for ownership are very apparent. There were posts on the old SJ site about the word ownership and how the word does not necessarily connote absolute exclusivity. It might be that some have problems because of their way of thinking rather because of the State.
#3 Prior points were about Boris' doctrines not about your particular views (re: not taking it personally).
#4. Endorsing vs acceptance on the birth certificate is quite very similar if not the same. Acceptance of a draft, for example, can be on the backside too. He isn't talking anything new. He might be good at elaborating on certain aspects of trust law but its not new.
#5. That one can void or surrender a birth certificate or record has been gone over many times too even back in the 90s. There was an affidavit available via the Internet net that could get a birth certificate removed from the record.
#6. Regarding children taken from families, one thing that might not be readily apparent is that application for the birth certificate may have been taken as a willing, knowing act. There have been reports of children taken from households except the ones that weren't associated with birth certificates.
#7. The key point was if he is using the name on the birth certificate then he has a lot to do with them rather than little. The presumption that the State or "the Crown" isn't willing to handle liability is incorrect.
#8. 'Property' is the right or title to a thing not necessarily the thing itself. California Code however also defines "property" as "the thing of which there may be ownership."
There are many ways to "do commerce" without a birth certificate.
You raise many issues that vary wildly depending upon who, what, where.
Property relates to the word proprietorship. The word "property" is limited to the state's cognizance. "All {public} property is vested {could that mean that it came from without} in the State". Often words in statutes are silently prefixed with the word "public".Quote:
ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.
I truly believe the whole concern is remedied in Standing. Look at the Scriptures. Where did a subject to Israel have any Standing to trade or cause to be traded property in Israel? Only a citizen of Israel had standing. And notice again, could Jacob bless himself or was he anointed by a higher power?
Most are as Joseph ben Jacob in the pit - stateless. How then will any understanding of a foreign government help him. He must be elevated to a status within that foreign government. It was Pharaoh that anointed Joseph. Just as El Elyon annointed Yehoshuah with the oil of gladness above his fellows. Look at Daniel. Joseph and Daniel were strangers to Egypt and Babylon. I find God working in the heart [mind] of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. Joseph might have declared himself to be of Melchizedok in Israel [coat of many colours] Daniel was taken captive in war. Either way both were strangers.
Notice that a Warranty Deed today bears the words - Grantor agrees that he is "lawfully seized of said property in fee simple".
A resident may use but only according to the rules governing the use. Therefore the resident is not Owner but is merely a Registered User. Nevertheless, the resident does have titles to the little right he/she may possess.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
Well if the State actors could be punished for dealing with an enemy you might get why they want to see some kind off evidence that you aren't the enemy. The trustees might be more limited and restrained than you.
But lets frame this properly. The trustees are beholding to the Beneficiaries - of the United States. That being "Ourselves and our Posterity" The people of the States have their own governments and constitutions. So yes in deed those trustees are going to make darn sure they serve their beneficiaries as all trustees should. But CONSIDER have we been TAUGHT that this is the only game in town? Ah ha. At once the mind springs to life!
I believe the enemy are those who seek to take against the will. Meaning the Settlors placed a Will within the Trust. I believe the confusion arises in thinking that I am a member of the class of "We the People of the United States". With that understanding in place "I have no trust in the United States". For how could I unless I was a citizen of the United States. Which I believe is an impossibility for me unless I am invited into that status.
14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I was not born in the United States, I am not subject to its jurisdiction - so what is naturalized in the United States - I must look up the Naturalization Act. Upon viewing that I find an Oath and a Pledge is required in a common law court. See if you can get a judge to allow you to take that oath and pledge. I may be wrong, but I don't see it happening. For that is a privileged status!
CLICK HERE.
Has anyone here made application to a common law court for citizenry of the United States?
Outlaw
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
P.S. The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion appear to be correct - men are in deed being taught to abandon property interests into the hands of a few men - and they are willingly doing it. The order of Melchizedok escapes so many.
One of my Forebears who lived to be over 100 years old taught me a few things before she passed away. She told me that many would not listen or hear what she said: that one of the most important things to remember is who you are (true name) that the danger in the U.S. is forgetting who you are and losing touch with reality; that many had forgotten who they are even those around me at the time. "They will try to make you believe you are something or someone other than who you are."
Re: Pop Culture; Media; Mis-Education
I'm not sure why folks have this idea that the most sparkly presentation would necessarily be the most truthful one. "Oh look they put it upon this fancy screen it must be true." Seriously? Just because someone fancily gives a false impression of something being true doesn't mean 300 million people have to buy into it. Ah but yes...the poppies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG2keYgBiZc
The Pied Piper is out to get people to throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are State actors that want to help but they might be restrained from telling you what they want to tell you. However, for education systems to be aligned with utter deception strikes me as a heinous and great fraud.
Yes. One can hire the State to perform various estate management services (probate, escheats, succession to titles, inheritance, etc.).
Re: event recording
Perhaps the presumption is that the event recorded is public rather than private?
Karl also had a chat with the Sheriff's department and FBI about his status. They are aware of his common law court of record techniques and leave him alone.
He makes a point not to meddle in codes, ordinances, and statues and does not entertain callers who want to. He only talks common law and how to resolve defacto problems using common law language only.
What makes it in interstate commerce? If it is not a negotiable instrument then why would it be commercial? Interstate commerce refers to commerce among U.S. States--which to knowledge are 'public'. If there is a forum common to all the U.S. States, I would imagine that that forum would be inherently "interstate". However something between a state and a private organization wouldn't necessarily be interstate commerce. "Commerce among the States" seems to refer to commerce between U.S. States. It is possible for a state to issue a private charter (see the Dartmouth cases).
I believe it. Sheriffs and FBI agents have limitations on their authority and they are likely aware of it. Getting into the mud of codes is not always necessary. Staying out of those courts is best IMHO.
A4V already separates man from the fiction on the instrument.
Karl would say: get the trustee's first name and write him/her a letter. First-name basis makes it man-to-man/woman in common law. No titles allowed in common law.
Freddy Mac cannot come after someone's house, because Freddy Mac is a fiction. Fictions cannot take the witness stand in a common law court.
Find out the man or woman's first name who works for Freddy Mac, then write a letter. Only men can make claims, not fictions or those with titles:
"Dear Bob, greetings.
You've got an agency called Freddy Mac. They're making a claim I owe a debt to the United States. Is this true?"
And end it there. Don't add to it. Ask one question at a time.
Bob will respond quickly with "I wish to acknowledge your letter" because only a man can wish. Notice Bob didn't say, "we received your correspondence." Bob will sign, "very truly yours" which means he knows his place with you.
The goal is to get them to strip themselves of their immunity.
And that was an excellent catch by you, salsero!
The key words here are Nature and Character. Florida Statute 697.02 tells us the nature (not the character).
For example, Keanu Reeves is the man ie. Nature/substance. A part he plays would be the character/form.
Want to really fry your brain? Pull up HUTCHENS v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A 541 So. 2d 618
"Generally speaking, however, law courts have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin. All actions for more specific relief, such as, cases involving dissolutions of marriage, custody, guardianships, dissolutions of partnership, accounting, mortgage foreclosure, partition, subrogation, specific performance of contracts, the adjudication of equitable rights of beneficiaries under express trusts, the establishment of equitable liens, resulting trusts and constructive trusts, actions to reform, cancel or rescind instruments and agreements, actions for declaratory decrees, and actions for injunctions and to quiet title, are all causes of action which are peculiarly cognizable only in equity or chancery and are not within the jurisdiction of a court exercising only common law jurisdiction."
So, if the 'law courts' have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin, (I don't see foreclosure listed in there except under equity/chancery and how can fictions claim they gave equity when they didn't give equity) how can IT do a writ of ejectment when IT doesn't have the authority to hear a foreclosure, at law? Are these undocumented, unregistered judges, attorneys, employees actually using statutory equity? If so, how so? In other words, how does it go from point A to point C, where IT doesn't have the authority or power to even hear B, except under equity/chancery? These same numbered Circuit/District State courts deny there is any equity/chancery within these courts!
It was the above and the following that made my ears stand up in full attention to what Boris was saying:
Commissioner v. Estate of Field - 324 U.S. 113 (1945)
2. Since the corpus of the trust did not shed the possibility of reversion until the decedent's death, the value of the entire corpus on the date of death was taxable under § 302(c). P. 324 U. S. 116.
So what happens when the corpus of the trust sheds the possibility of reversion PRIOR TO the decedent's death? No taxation? No licensing? No federal withholding?
Yes, this was the point when I got very, very interested in what Boris was saying!
I am not bright enough to "catch anything" - I only can try and put the pieces together as best I can. And this includes being open to what others say. It was Boris who first brought this matter up of 697.02.
What is clear TO ME is this. Man must separate himself from the word YOU, in the plural form and stick only to the singular form of you. Under the bankruptcy, man has been left naked or spoliated.
A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust. Under 18 USC 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU IN STATUTE THEY CAN BE DISHONEST. Barry has a duty to deceive, lie, cheat, or whatever under executive privilege under the rules of war. He must do this to protect the public trust or bankruptcy - call it what you want.
In my simple logical thinking [right or wrong], it would be insane to use their private bankrupt statutes to apply to me, a man. The statutes only apply to those that take an oath to uphold them. If the State holds that original title Name or person in trust - AND I CAN NOT GET THAT ORIGINAL TITLE, it would be insanity to continue to state that name is mine. It is not mine, it can not be my property. However, under THEIR rules of war, an indemnity receipt has been issued for the purpose of settling matters for that Name or person. THEY must HONOR their rules of war. Since the state can only deal with "dead paper"
I have a choice to come to peace with "what is for now" or war against it. This PI process is not for everyone. And the best I can offer is after the paperwork on status is complete, it all may just be ignored by them. However, there is a higher reason FOR ME to do this.
When Hillary becomes the selected president by the PTB, then all this back and forth will be for naught, as all persons must be chipped and accounted for - for the purpose safety and security to protect the homeland from foreign terrorists, you the enemy of the state. Game over.
adirolfnitsol,
That sounds like probate to me. And probate is easy to avoid by placing a will within a trust and not naming the heirs. The estate is held for "ourselves and our posterity". Therefore there cannot be a life estate or an estate for years and therefore the estate is indefinite. I liken this to a will within a trust. Therefore at the death of the Testator there is no transfer and the board of trustees and board of directors continue to act without any disruption to trust business. The corpus does not change hands. Therefore since the estate is not TRANSFERRED no taxable event.
Equity acts IN PERSONAM. If the Trustor creates a trust binding himself to certain covenants which he/she agrees to perform wherein said Trustor appoints a Trustee, names a beneficiary and gives purposes/intent and life span of the trust [usually 30 years], then Trustor appoints himself as Borrower within the Covenants of said trust agreement - well then I would pretty much say that said Trustor created his/her own prison. How then will said Trustor argue in Equity when said Trustor created the Trust, created the terms of the Trust, and agreed to the Covenants which he/she created?
Consider now anything might have been used as a medium of exchange in the debtor/creditor relationship established in the Covenants. Perhaps certain rocks are the money - or perhaps and I am going out on a limb here, but just maybe - the value or equity is in the Promises that said Trustor/Borrower UNDERTOOK to perform. Having said that, I would maintain that if I made you a promise then you would have an equitable interest in me. And I would have a legal duty to you to perform my promise.
My promise does not require necessarily your consent. Sort of like a banking agreement it is signed by one party - therefore it is an undertaking - where in I become an Unsecured Creditor to one of the Trusts [banking agencies - ref 12USC90].
Names hold destiny and inheritance. If we are building on Scripture then that is a fact. A name is, well sort of a fiction, being that I am a living soul.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
Quote:
A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust.
That is the reflection you project. You will see what you are looking for. The True Name is like a mirror that reflects only the truth. Once you understand this, you will indict or acquit, forgive and bring peace accordingly.
I attended a Science of Mind church for several years that by chance or right of consciousness I latter worked for. This is basically the same nonsense they came up with to justify immoral, throat-cutting, self-centeredness, dishonest, money-demanding, temper tantrum behavior - not that I am judging them but as a matter of simple observation - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc - it must be a duck appearing. I will agree that what I may see in others MAY be some error within me; however, still being on planet earth, I would not discount entirely the fact we still live in density and duality. Translated, this means imperfections, free will and stroking one's EGO. Illusion or not, that just is what is appearing as the illusion that we all must "live under" while breathing and appearing in a body.
With this said, David did you bother to read the rest of what was written?
If it was not for my in depth study of those spiritual principles [well beyond what the church teaches], I would not have a better understanding of the PI process and how it relates to the collective consciousness of the people. TPTB are in place for OUR benefit. There are signs all around SHOUTING TO US TO US TO WAKE UP. And yet we still slumber and choose to actively participate in the matrix, mostly because of no real sense of Purpose or God, thus paying homage to false idols believing that they will cure what ails us. "the change we believed in and voted for" has only determined that the end result ain't good.
I am simply saying that you have constructed this illusion. Think about "them" and exactly who "they" are, and it might become clear to you what the truth is.
I trust you can see the woman in the following is every man and woman....She is supposed to be a Chaste Virgin - why does she chase after those who seek her life? Perhaps it is the colour of Purple [looking good], she is allured by the promise of an easy life, perhaps, but then again, maybe, just maybe she likes it rough. Consider, I write concerning every man[kind].
I see the bees busy at work. Yet they lack understanding that they are being "guided" by a hidden hand. Nestled under the eaves I find the honeycomb. Yes in deed I see signs all around of control and yet the more I study, the more I realize just how much I don't know. Funny how that works. Reminds me of Jacob's Ladder - specifically Seven Women taking hold of the garment of one man!
Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Funny how she wants to do it by herself in her name. She denies that man until she is brought into destitution - eating the slop of the hogs - she says even the servants [slaves] in the house of my father have it better than I. With choice, which is all she has, she chooses her lover. Will it be the created or the Creator?
What then does she want? For her former lovers have dealt harshly with her. Took her virginity and bruised her teets, and yet she returns willingly to those who abuse her as they have locked her in a high tower - she is a prisoner - and her lovers guard her house.
But all is not lost, if she would just realize she cannot overcome in her own strength! She is Moses at the reed sea! She must rely upon El Elyon by and thru Yehoshuah. Until then, she remains a prisoner in the house of those who abuse her. Is she Bilhah or Zilpah [bond servant] or perhaps she has an estate as Leah [obligation wife - Martha] or maybe Rachel [beloved - Mary] or maybe Rebecca, Sarah, or Eve? Which of the seven is she?
Why does she cling to her lovers in hope of a restoration vested in man's inventions? When will she learn? How much chastisement is required before she returns to the vineyard of her Creator? Yet she courts yet another Suitor in hopes that he will give her the key to escape. Yet he only removes her into another prison - locked by a closed boundary. Twice the daughter of hell she becomes - trapped under the table of the Exchequer.
She cries out "let me take your name" to her lover, yet, she turns her back on Salvation. She knows not how naked poor and destitute she has become as she lives on in luxury greater than 99 percent of the worlds population - she sits a Queen and is no Widow, yet she is married to a Dead Man. And she trusts her dead man paying homage and making gifts unto her Dead Man in the name he gave her. And she is fond to make such gifts but when will she recognize her maker? Trusting in those who hate her she is made to serve, for what will happen to her when her lovers sell her? What will she do? Where will she turn? When she is useless and is no longer beautiful?
She seeks to enjoin herself to Princes - yet they use her as she can never become wife - just a harlot. She says of her lover let me take shadow under your protection - be my Sponsor. Then she is so bold as to make a use of the Prince's property - enjoining herself to him - she is fit for the harem yet not the wife. She therefore is given to uses [Smith, Miller, Cook] her lovers take of her fruits and she cannot figure out why she is so hated.
Lam 1:2 She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies.
Lam 1:9 Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.
Lam 4:1 How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
Lam 5:1 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
Lam 5:2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
Lam 5:3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
Lam 5:4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
Lam 5:5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
Lam 5:6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.
When will she give up her lovers and seek the one who Created her? WHAT DOES SHE SEEK? Is it comfort? Has she considered her latter end? Why does she continue to look without when her peace is within? She waivers between two lovers - wondering how to make both happy. Why are both angry?
1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
With the Sword in my hand I sing the Halleluyah Psalms: Building upon BEDROCK I care not for the Sand [doctrines of man]. Therefore why should she rely upon the foundations of sand constructed by her lovers? When the rains come they will all be washed into the sea [place of Leviathan]. For these are mere BUSINESS VENTURES and why is she allured by the Dead Man? She who was once alive is made dead as they TWO become ONE.
Looking to be Quickened she remembers for FIRST LOVE - long ago. Long before she asked her Father for her inheritance to go into a far country.
I wonder about a system which denies Christ. Clearly it is erected on Sand. Faith is the deed. Again she asks what will be my latter end? For she willingly places herself in the hands of those who hate her.
Maybe she will win the lottery this time. A lifetime wasted - she never finds the Great Pearl. For even the Creator desires a Pledge - will she drink of His cup? But until she chooses to settle down and marry - she remains on the fence - bruised and battered by her lovers. Please she cries to her lover, why do you treat me so bad? In return, why do you keep coming back for more?
There is only ONE way - The Word of God. For when Satan tempted Jesus he said IF you will just bow to me I WILL GIVE YOU EVERYTHING. Now consider what is before you, the same choice. What was Jesus' response, and did Jesus bow? Starting at Matthew 4:4 I see the same drama playing out again. What is humorous to me is that people actually think the being that covered the Mercy Seat is so dumb as to be overt in his deception. Just give all to me and pay homage and ye shall have your hearts desire. BE CAREFUL MY FRIENDS.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
salsero,
I wonder if you will respond to this fictional entity you formed? This persona which you gave life to entitled "salsero" - said persona being entitled to have access to these forums thru a membership. Since you were the creator of this persona you submitted said persona to the membership rolls herein. I know not to whom I write for I find only an actor wearing a mask. Who are you and more importantly What are you? Rhetorical Question. I am not goading you personally, I am sort of making a point.
Equity acts IN PERSONAM.
Now then I cannot find one shred of evidence that the powers that be act for my benefit. Rather I find those who pledge themselves to each other act for their own behalf. My Scriptures instruct me not to place my trust in governments. As such, I cannot accept this declaration and I therefore refuse it for cause. For I find the terms "ourselves and our Posterity" to be a closed system. Thus a COPYRIGHT. Protecting the close.
Shalom,
MJ
Consider the roles of ISP user or forum member might be 'fictions' too.
The soul is encased in a body. The body is NOT who we are. We are created from Divine Love AND we are as created. The soul encased in a body has an "learning opportunity" to live in a setting called earth that appears very real but is only an illusion. Buy this or not - I really do not care.
My soul is here earth, appearing on earth. I have not learned how to transcend density, meaning pain and suffering. I have less of that negativity but "I ain't hit the mark". I do not fret about this because regardless if I hit the mark or not, NOTHING can ever remove the real me from MY Creator. My Creator only knows Infinite Love, Immutable Law and Abundant, Overflowing Good - ALWAYS.
If this body that I USE is not feeling well, I have choices. No choice is wrong; however, there are better choices. One thing that is definite, this body is going back to where it came from - the earth. The body stays here. My soul moves on. The soul takes with it experiences and karma. This is based on free will choices - either the soul was MORE in line with Divine Law OR LESS. More and less have consequences, call them better or worse but neither are wrong or right. Do you see?
TPTB are provided to the people by right of consciousness, not GOD [do not be confused entirely, there is a difference between observing something and asking how does this relate to Divine Law OR reacting to something INSIDE of that soul - only the individual can do a self-test to come to the conclusion] As the people's hearts become more corrupt OR flows AWAY from Divine Law, so does the government reflecting back to them becomes. We observe in each election cycle, the stakes and scandals get worse and worse. Is anyone learning anything or are they saying I can be just as corrupt as my brother? We can turn on the news today, with minor truth being told, the vets scandal, IRS, Benghazi, Barry-kare, etc - it appears TO ME, we are not far off for another false-flag operation in order for the people to consent to yet another nail in their coffins. When the people begin to get away from "I, me, mine and my" and turn that into "we, us, and ours" removing the appearance of separation, our dear "evil ones", Nancy, Harry, Barry, George, etc will evaporate, as their job will have been completed. If the people do not wake up, it is my opinion, the chipping must begin for their safety.
MJ whatever works for you, I wish you the very best. If doing equity, common law, making claims, my property is working - go for it. I do not negate my humanity. I see it as a tool. I often may joke - because at times you got to have a sense of humor otherwise, one would require a Prozac, double vodka and now legalizing pot - all combined.
Collectively we are at choice. Choice to follow the Royal Supreme Law - that always Was, Is, and Will be and go into sync with that or suffer the consequences. And suffer we will, as we are not designed to be anything but that Divine Love.
I fully agree with you on that fact that TPTB have pledged themselves to each other to act on their own behalf. This is 1/2 of the contract. The other half of the contract is you have their entity or their property or Name. In their dead paper world, when you make a claim to that trust, estate or property, under their rules, you are an enemy of the state. You unknowingly agree to be a surety in their dead world. There is evidence that supports this. Therefore once you remove their "legal presumption" and return their property back to them, THEY must provide remedy to you, the man since they have SEIZED everything you will do. THEY have no right to do this. Does their Creator grant man authority over another? No.
I accept their declaration as a man who has come to peace with them, basically saying, here is your property back. I MUST use it because I won't eat, etc without it. God Bless you, now honor your CONTRACT with the devil and take care of your property. I receive a minor indirect benefit, as a man. The Name I use is acquitted and discharged of all claims against it - AS LONG AS I do not intermeddle.
I view this at the end of the Colorado Constitution as a security agreement:
Here's my view on this. Glad you asked! lolol
It doesn't matter what cloak these agents are wearing or what their man-made laws say. They do not get a free pass to behave like this, because in the end, they will be accountable before Almighty God, and scripture says so.
Their fruits are not of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:13-14.
I know you're not a scripture guy, but I'm illustrating that even God's Word addresses what you brought up. :-)
We fully agree THEY do not get a free pass and will be held accountable. The question now arises when do the scales of Justice balance out? We do not always see Justice work, but we must KNOW that Justice is always Working.
I also never said they are to get a free pass. The devil does not get a free pass either. He is just permitted to deceive, trick and coerce us breathing self-aware souls THROUGH OUR FREE WILL to tempt bolster our EGOs as part of the duality planet Earth offers. It is our job to say to Satan: Go away, I ONLY do the will of my Father. The point of this "human exercise" is to remove the dross from the gold.
I like to explain the divine in profane terms. The security agreement coagulates the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust found on the money and swearing out oaths before the Ever-Living GOD. Now understand that the exact same numero-linguistics is applied to both the Sons of Cain and the Sons of God1. This much I feel is explicit enough (exoteric) to call fact, as you will find it on the currency as well as in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
The highly polished esoteric then would be to accept my current Bible interpretation that as we read about Cain and Abel something is not right according to our current justice system. God was punishing Cain for killing Abel, his brother! Cain is banished to a world where he must work to eek out a living? Cain is put into a crude civil death called caput lupinum, or outlawry - outside the law's protection. Cain complains that as he tries to abide in civilization men will be able to kill him on sight with immunity. What does the Father do? The Father puts a Mark, or Stigma on Cain called OATH and linguistically this is the exact same MARK or OATH put on us, Sons of God (Bride of Yehoshuah). [Many are called but few are chosen.]
Why would God do such a thing?
Because the Sons of Cain would effectively wipe out the Sons of God in the same manner that Cain killed Abel.
Now I would evolve into imagination, prophecy and intuition. I am pointing out some numerical consistencies about the OATH and also 153. We have entered the 153rd year since LINCOLN's proclamation that there is a domestic enemy "Combinations" to be dealt with by force. I also indicate that there is a powerful basis to believe in Redemption, whether you apply that notion to Federal Reserve notes or a much higher dimensional precept about spirituality:
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
The way to apply justice in your life NOW is to research the oaths, and do that where the state constitution says to go get a certified copy too. If there is no oath, get a Certificate of Fact that the office of the prosecutor, Attorney General or judge is vacant and publish that, or at least serve it on the case and watch how quickly the case is dismissed!
If the oaths are in order then you get your day in court, assured the protections in the bills of rights. Now you might get a glimpse of why I simply shrug off your conspiracy theories.
Regards,
David Merrill.
1 There are two different Enochs found in Genesis.
Here we disagree. God does not know time. I do not see God as judgmental or condemning. The Creator can not be that which he is not. God IS infinite Love, Divine Holiness, Immutable Law and much more than we can ever possibly comprehend.
When a "Soul plants a seed, he reaps what he has sown". God does not the balance the scales, the soul, consciously or unconsciously balances it out however it needs to be balanced out in accordance with immutable law. This is why we have the duality. When the soul is not aligned with its Creator, this is the error and there are consequences. Take note, I did not say good or bad consequences - as all consequences are just learning tools or journeys back to the Divine. Since we are God's property, we can NEVER be lost. It just appears that way.
The teachings of Christian Science, Hoponono and A course in miracles - to name a few have a different spin on Life. I suspect the bible has the same ideas when viewed from a different metaphysical observation.
You are on to something.Quote:
salsero
Here we disagree. God does not know time. I do not see God as judgmental or condemning. The Creator can not be that which he is not. God IS infinite Love, Divine Holiness, Immutable Law and much more than we can ever possibly comprehend.
When a "Soul plants a seed, he reaps what he has sown". God does not the balance the scales, the soul, consciously or unconsciously balances it out however it needs to be balanced out in accordance with immutable law. This is why we have the duality. When the soul is not aligned with its Creator, this is the error and there are consequences. Take note, I did not say good or bad consequences - as all consequences are just learning tools or journeys back to the Divine. Since we are God's property, we can NEVER be lost. It just appears that way.
The teachings of Christian Science, Hoponono and A course in miracles - to name a few have a different spin on Life. I suspect the bible has the same ideas when viewed from a different metaphysical observation.
Dualism gives foothold to deception, I believe. Of course im learning here, like everyone else and im glad about that. Perhaps this dualism is simply a misconception giving birth to further misconceptions like the fiction of a state and rulers with divine rights also Public or private. The truth is we are all the same and on the same creation /existence. Which is what interests me about this surrender concept or perhaps just stepping aside ? like just putting to record and demonstrating by actions that there is no trust without the use (trust) of state methodology. Since its our belief and use in such fictions that give jurisdiction what is the point of carrying on those beliefs ? I hope I am not being disparaging to anyone with a different concept and keeping them from exploring it, we are all learning, I think its best to share to draw us closer to a solution.
Shobogenzo - Page 5
Quote:
"That is, in each training ground of every Buddha as the embodiment of truth, the work of Buddhas find's expression and put into practice down to the smallest detail, as they create for others far and wide the circumstances that help them go beyond the notion of 'being a Buddha', through their vigorous promotion of the teaching that one goes on, always becoming a Buddha. At this very moment ,the lands of the earth with their tree's and grasses , as well as the walls and fences with their tiles and stones, are all seen to be performing the works of the Buddhas. As a consequence all who make profitable spiritual use of whatever storms and floods may arise will be receiving will guidance and assistance in unseen ways from the profound and inscrutable instructions of the Buddha's, and they will give expression to their innate understanding, which is every intimate with the Truth. Because persons who accept and make profitable spiritual use of such floods and firestorms all gladly receive from the Buddhas instruction and guidance on their innate understanding, those who reside with such persons are spiritually conversant with them, in turn, mutually provide for each other with unbounded ,endless virtues of Buddhas and cause the unceasing, wondrous immeasurable dharma of Buddhas to roll forth far and wide until it spreads throughout the whole universe ,both from within and without.
However these persons of whom I speak are not kept in the dark by being wedded to their senses, for they straight away realize the truth by not fabricating anything within the hush of their meditation. If as ordinary people believe spiritual practice and personal realization are two different sorts of things, then each could be seen and recognized separately from the other. Should someone become all involved with his sensory perceptions and intellectual understanding he will not be in the ' realm of enlightenment' because the realm of enlightenment is beyond the reach of delusory ,discriminatory thinking.
Furthermore, even though , amidst the stillness of meditation, someone experiences - not only subjectively within the heart and mind, but also objectively within outer conditions - an 'entering into realization' and a 'going beyond awakening to the truth', because he is in a realm of delight in the truth, he does not disturb a single dust mote or shatter the aspect of 'oneness of all things'.