Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Glimpse Tomorrow's Technology - Garnishment in Admiralty

  1. #11
    A Synchronicity to share with you... re: the recent "glimpses" posted here.

    Mt 12:29 has been on my mind the last couple of days... now I know WHY!! The "strong man" is the "Principal"... MNUCHIN !

    Mt 12:29 "Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/12-29.html

    I believe you are onto something David!


  2. #12
    I love such coherent imagery. Thank you.

    One interesting mystery cropped up today. Look at the difference between these Affidavits attached. Somebody scrubbed the oath paragraph from one of the images.



    Name:  affidavit.gif
Views: 135
Size:  127.9 KB
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I love such coherent imagery. Thank you.

    One interesting mystery cropped up today. Look at the difference between these Affidavits attached. Somebody scrubbed the oath paragraph from one of the images.
    Interesting, and in the light of Mt 12:29, perhaps they are "voiding" the oath in order to "avoid" a trespass upon the "property" of the Creator... because they indeed FEAR HIM, and know He will intervene, just as He did in Egypt, to redeem HIS People!

  4. #14
    Yes. Levi as Custodian of the Record bows a nod to the superior Melchizedek:


    Name:  star of david CFR.jpg
Views: 123
Size:  72.2 KB


    Name:  Secret Mathematical Knowledge.jpg
Views: 125
Size:  314.7 KB



    Name:  temple stones mogan david.jpg
Views: 123
Size:  176.4 KB



    Puppeteer.


    Puppeteer in dynamic with the Wisdom of Solomon - No Kings.



    Name:  Puppeteer Dynamic.JPG
Views: 123
Size:  72.0 KB
    Last edited by David Merrill; 06-28-17 at 12:32 PM.

  5. #15
    For discussion...

    http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.h...=104&page=5124
    Name:  Oath Change.JPG
Views: 99
Size:  72.1 KB

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

    Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, §?404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)

    Above links are to research/verify the below excerpt [bolding added] from Anna Reitz article at:
    https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/...ral-judiciary/

    The new Oath of Office they imposed on the judicial officers may be seen at Volume 104 United States Statutes-at-Large Page 5124, otherwise shown as 104 Stat. 5124.

    The new Oath of Office is very sly in that it appears to be a simple clean-up deletion of unnecessary verbiage in the old Oath of Office, but on closer examination it is clear that there are no “duties” assigned to member of the judiciary by the Constitution and as a result, this change in the Oath of Office releases the judicial officers from the obligation to “act agreeably” –that is, in conformance to the Constitution and leaves them subject only to the legislative acts of the Congress. This, in turn, removed the judicial officers from the judicial branch of government and placed them squarely and only under the auspices of the legislative branch.

    Read that— since 1991, there has been no three-branched federal government. The judicial and legislative branches have been merged and the judicial has been made subservient to the legislative. Moreover, the municipal government of the United States has been acting in open treason against the actual Constitution since 1991, and absolutely no decisions undertaken by these federal judicial officers since then have been in compliance with the actual Constitution. They are all null and void for cause.

    I am wondering if this information will be helpful to the new technology in this thread, as another support for the "Refusal for Cause" and the Admiralty Garnishment of the Principal?

    Notice the "So help me God." is NOT "SO HELP ME GOD.".

    Actually, I believe the Executive took over all branches on April 15, 1861, when the "exigent circumstances" ("extraordinary occasion") began and invested all power to the President.

    Name:  Extraordinary Occasion, April 15, 1861.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  187.1 KB
    Last edited by doug555; 07-03-17 at 10:20 PM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    For discussion...

    http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.h...=104&page=5124
    Name:  Oath Change.JPG
Views: 99
Size:  72.1 KB

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453




    Above links are to research/verify the below excerpt [bolding added] from Anna Reitz article at:
    https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/...ral-judiciary/




    I am wondering if this information will be helpful to the new technology in this thread, as another support for the "Refusal for Cause" and the Admiralty Garnishment of the Principal?

    Notice the "So help me God." is NOT "SO HELP ME GOD.".

    Actually, I believe the Executive took over all branches on April 15, 1861, when the "exigent circumstances" ("extraordinary occasion") began and invested all power to the President.

    Name:  Extraordinary Occasion, April 15, 1861.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  187.1 KB

    Thank you Doug.

    I recall seeing something about this change and noting that the "So help me God." was unaffected. If somebody might know the history of the actual oaths I would like to know how far back the all upper case lettering goes? When did it change from proper English to the capitonym?

  7. #17
    The Appointment Affidavit appears to be properly formed. Are you saying Circuit Judge Carl E. STEWART is a rare find - a properly bonded judge?

    Watching a movie the other night and saw that Steven MNUCHIN was Executive Producer. Turns out he's produced many movies. http://deadline.com/2017/05/steve-mn...ee-1202090199/

  8. #18
    Most of the federal "judge" oaths have no bond because they have no OMB# registration. Congress has not budgeted a bond. Office of Management and Budgeting.

    Name:  affidavit.refused.jpg
Views: 67
Size:  562.6 KB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •