UnderStanding

[Bear Eagle]

Greetings, I come in Peace and Honor.

(This thread will cover many subjects pertaining to words and definitions and what understanding them means, and where such perceptions came from to begin with. All verbiage herein is my own beliefs and opinions on said subjects using my own Reason and Logic)

What is Known? I cannot define that for you, but only for me.

(1). (2).
There is a physical construct that is forming matter, and allowing matter to be formed, that my Conscious Entity can use and interact with. The only inhibition to this interaction and use thereof is limited only to the imaginations, thoughts, and proceedings emanating forth from my Conscious Entity. I can empirically observe there are other Conscious Entities doing same. The variables of use are limitless.

(3).STANDAuthority and Standing:My Belief as a Conscious Entity:The Contract:

Genesis 1:28-31
28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

[Bear Eagle]

UnderStanding

List of Invalid entities:

1. Trust-Trustee-Estate-Beneficiaries-Inheritance-

[David Merrill]

It is wonderful to have such ponderings here. I am in a couse called A Course in Miracles that meditates on these things every page.

My thoughts on studying what might seem frivolous to some is that we have a public trust around elastic currency.

IN GOD WE TRUST

A big part of that trust is that the officials exercising authority upon our understanding shall always, upon any indictment grant us the right to understand the nature and cause of the accusation against us. This is an authority we grant by being in social compact.

These days it is difficult to acquire this kind of bonding necessary for the officials to actually be holding this authority in trust. After nearly twenty years of my extensive efforts, and suitors' operating in the brain trust we find John William SUTHERS actually looking like a bank note expressing his trust operation in Denver:

However, his underling is feigning to be bonded by having a Traveler's Insurance policy. We all know how insurance companies are though; when Dan MAY tries to collect they will suddenly discover that his oath of office (bond) is faulty and of course that is not what they cover. At least I feel justified in understanding law that way, since I have seen a police officer render that legal opinion for the Insurance Industry.

I think it is likely that a minor traffic charge will be dropped if you continually persist that, I do not understand. My own experience however tells me that for felony charges one gets shredded through psychological evaluation to find out if you are fit for trial.

But I love developing common mental models through discussion. I just wish I had a bit more time to pick through your posts and give them the reply they deserve.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Bear Eagle]

Hello David,

I dont know if it is language itself that presents the problem or something else. But the use of the word "we" in that phrase "in god we trust" presents a problem for me. It is all inclusive, and is still attached to a instrument of Man that is the instrument of Trust. An idol if you will. Im still looking for Authority from the Creator to issue such an instrument in dealing with the Creators Trust, as there is no need for a intermediary for access to inheritance as Beneficiary. Some type of instrument is always used as access to the Inheritance, whether it be fiat, sea shells, or anything else "from" the inheritance itself. That is illogical to me to use the inheritance as the means of access to the inheritance, when we already have access to the inheritance by the very fact our Conscious Entities are residing inside of it, the clay and mud body of Men and Women. Paper Money of no inherit value makes little sense to me, if it provides me with nothing directly in exchange for my sweat and labor. I still need to drive to the store instead of eating it. I still need to buy a water pump with it, instead of drinking it. I still need to purchase a bed, instead of lying down in it, though I suppose with glue or tape, or string, dollars could be made into a blanket.

As it is all inclusive, it does not allow anyone to disengage from it either if that is their will. Man and Woman are bound to it by necessity of circumstances beyond their control mostly, and thus it is unfair as Trespass upon the Beneficiary, the Estate, and True Trust.

Dont know, still playing around with some of these ideas. Thanks for your interest thus far.

[David Merrill]

You are welcome. My point is that the bail bond, should one be arrested and charged is not in seashells. It is in fiat instruments that bear earmarkings of the same trust.

IN GOD WE TRUST

In addition though, I was making the point that I hope to have more time for strictly philosophical discussion soon. For now though, I just feel that I must apply more practical use of each keystroke.

[Bear Eagle]

It is wonderful to have such ponderings here. I am in a couse called A Course in Miracles that meditates on these things every page.

My thoughts on studying what might seem frivolous to some is that we have a public trust around elastic currency.

IN GOD WE TRUST

A big part of that trust is that the officials exercising authority upon our understanding shall always, upon any indictment grant us the right to understand the nature and cause of the accusation against us. This is an authority we grant by being in social compact.

These days it is difficult to acquire this kind of bonding necessary for the officials to actually be holding this authority in trust. After nearly twenty years of my extensive efforts, and suitors' operating in the brain trust we find John William SUTHERS actually looking like a bank note expressing his trust operation in Denver:

However, his underling is feigning to be bonded by having a Traveler's Insurance policy. We all know how insurance companies are though; when Dan MAY tries to collect they will suddenly discover that his oath of office (bond) is faulty and of course that is not what they cover. At least I feel justified in understanding law that way, since I have seen a police officer render that legal opinion for the Insurance Industry.

I think it is likely that a minor traffic charge will be dropped if you continually persist that, I do not understand. My own experience however tells me that for felony charges one gets shredded through psychological evaluation to find out if you are fit for trial.

But I love developing common mental models through discussion. I just wish I had a bit more time to pick through your posts and give them the reply they deserve.



Regards,

David Merrill.

I have never reviewed the "Social Pact" as a formal contractual document, which I scratched the surface of when speaking of Mans Law arising from all over the Earth. The theories are far to subjective for me to agree to under Contract. And it appears to further divide the inheritance between brothers and sisters until there is nothing left of the inheritance. I am not party with it. I dont recognize paper, ink, verbiage, seals, and symbols as being any valid instrument of access to the True Trust, for my Consciousness already inhabits the inheritance. Why would I seek remedy for something I already posses?

The term understanding is not to do with the capacity to understand a concept, but for the possible applications of the Compound Word as it might be used in Law. I already have Standing at Law, because I acknowledge my Standing before the Creator, and need no other Judgment upon me. If I am under; as in "below" Standing, then I no longer have Standing. If I dont have Standing in the Court of Men how Can I have Standing in the Court of the Creator? As above so below. As below so above.

[Bear Eagle]

I agree, and yes, this is a purely Philosophical entry and thought form. But then again, is it?

Have Peace David, and I hope you will have more time in the future to delve further with me.

[shikamaru]

Standing also has to do with the status of an actor within a society or association.

Estate, within a given signification, can mean interest. Usage in this sense probably applies more so under Common Law.

[David Merrill]

I suppose my thought for you and prayer for the world is that as long as you are giving more than you receive by way of peaceful inhabitant, if you are going that extra 10% more than cleaning up your own mess and by example encouraging others to do the same then you might stay out of the purview of social compact. There are so many instances however when you get drawn into it as it does persist there even from the privacy of your own home. [Rethinking Boundaries in Cyberspace for example.]

You might summarize the essence of a religion called Patriot Mythology in that perception that we are not in social compact until we agree or consent to be.

Rather my approach is that the Constitution governs the terms and we find that the fiat (1863) has described the trust as IN GOD WE TRUST.

What I showed was that Attorney General SUTHERS has a valid bond, appealing for witness of the Almighty ever-living God. You might think, So what? Well, here in Colorado the General Assembly happens to agree with me.

On the national level, the same trust for oaths of office is found.

So strictly philosophically I think that is where I stand. Philosophy is amusing meanderings like A Course in Miracles if it cannot be applied. The facilitator and others were trying to convince me that Mind and Intellect are worthless, during class. That is all I remember about their point though. I told them, The Mind is a wonderful thing! and Intellect is the cat's pajamas! I remember that part.

I stopped short of saying, If there is no mind or intellect behind your words, I don't think them much worth remembering.

[Bear Eagle]

I think you are missing my point David. Certainly I argue not for a animationless Mind or intellect. Hardly. The Mind is the instrument of the Conscious Entity to tell the inheritance of the Earthen body how and what to perform. I also think Philosophy is not worthless, as Law, Medicine, Math, and Science has derived from it.

Your approach is fine, but you have accepted it for yourself through consent by your Conscious Self.

The problem I have with paper oaths is that I have no trust in the paper or the oath. How can I? I have no Personal knowledge of either. Today, many Men and Women who have taken oaths are not living up to them, they have vacated their offices, when in fact they do not even know they have, and still occupy them. They are in breach. The General assemblies I certainly do not trust. How can I? If no individual is imbued with with any Authority, then how can any group of individuals have any Authority? What individual living breathing Man or Woman has Authority over me? Would you please point them out so that I may address them. I have yet to find any that will take that liability.

As Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", I too am uniting experience and reason to move beyond what I perceive the failures are of so called Law, which include the use of Philosophy.

Until I can prove with Personal knowledge anything beyond the three proofs I have empirically found, how can I agree with anything else in truth and Honor as existing? If I lay claim upon, and agreement with, anything beyond that which I can prove by empirical observation, then I commit fraud against myself.

"There are so many instances however when you get drawn into it as it does persist there even from the privacy of your own home."

Agreed. And that is the temptation. In many cases it is a violation that is occurring. Trespass. Again, by the systems own reasoning, no individual in imbued with any Authority to force themselves or ideas, concepts, philosophies, upon any other. Speaking of mythology. How do these individuals with no Authority then get together and imbue themselves with Authority?

Hmmm. Here is a thought. Im going to start an movement. This movement will abide by all Man created protocols in forming a General Assembly. We will take Oaths. Be will be bonded. We will vote. Our goal is to rob People of what we dont have inherently, because we would rather form a movement, get bonded, and take Oaths and vote to get what we inherently dont have at the expense of the sweat and labor of others that have it.

This happens every day. By what Authority do they claim? Consent? I dont Consent. If they say they need something, then have a bake sale, and let People buy cakes showing their consent in what is being said they need. A road needs building in the community, and my money needs to be taken to fund it. Really? Says who? You? The guy down the road? If "I" think a road needs building I would be the first to lend my sweat, labor, time, and resources for such. Otherwise others need to get their hands out of my pockets before I cut them off with my sword.

This is the system will live under. These delegations and assemblies the same.

Nature works differently. All one needs to do is go out into Nature and observe. Maybe our thinking is the reason the animals run from most? We are not in harmony with Natural Law, or the Lawmaker of Natural Law?

You see my People, the People in which I come from, my ancestors and blood line, have seen paper before. We have seen oaths. We have seen all of these things for 500 years now. An oath means nothing to the ones taking them it appears. The paper they signed means nothing to them. We have empirically observed time and again throughout the length of the Earth that anytime Man and Woman get together with Authority they dont have, they violate others in some form with that false Authority.

Is this not the empirical evidence in which you can observe? This system of doing things does not function properly because of the assuming of Authority by Men and Women, that was not imbued to them as individuals, or any group of individuals that come together out of common interests. Which mostly is observed as theft, and subjugation. Where is the proof otherwise?

If through empirical observation this can be presumed as a established fact, then what use is the system other than to steal and subjugate Men and Women of Conscious that are using the land by the very fact they are inhabiting the land?

Dismiss this if you may, but the reasoning still stands. It has Standing. Why? Because it is coming from me, and I have Standing. As all should and do.

I only see the perpetuation of a system of subjugation, theft, murder, and trespass. Common Law? These Principles were around much longer than 1,000 some years. Much longer.

Maxim (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856): An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.

Even the system itself recognizes them, though it is becoming common place to discard them.

And yes, I am talking about the application of them. But all the rebut I receive is more paper is needed. I used to live in Japan, they LOVE paper, but paper does not solve the problem. It is much deeper than paper and oaths, and protocols. Much deeper.

Many talk today about returning the system to Honor. I through empirical observation have never known or seen ,or heard, or observed the system to be built upon Honor. If we take that further, and take hearsay from History book, and hearsay from the "History keepers" of the Tribes of old, then there is much evidence pointing to this fact further, that Honor has never been in this system.

Where is it? That which the reasons for such protocols and oaths, actions, etc.

It is supposed to be because of Honor. Thereby Authority is gained. With my eyes I see a scam. A fraud. A usurpation. I am not a minority in my believe is such a thing to be important. I dont believe in the majority/minority fallacy. I believe. I am. And that is sufficient for me. But that is not sufficient for many others. They feel the need to drive out into life and tell others how to "Be", and what they are. They seek to define others by their own subjective perceptions.

Self Government is my goal. I need not any other tell me what is wrong, for I inherently have it imbued upon me and my heart. I think most Men and Women do. Our Conscious tells us so. There are some without Conscious. Ironically many of them are in the halls of Government to begin with. Who else would seek a position as such? Isnt it those 'usually' without Conscious? If they do have Conscious, they loose it rather quickly when its time to perform the dictations upon other Consciousness.

That is what happens. That is what they do. That is the truth. They dictate through a majority. The majority gives them their Authority. A majority of individuals with no inherit Authority over others imbued to them. Its the "appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Who has expert knowledge as to how to handle my affairs other than me? No one. What Person of stable Mind is going to make such a Claim? What is the liability in such a Claim? What is the effects of such claims? Well, we can empirically observe the State of the Earth today, and what the continuation of Men and Women making such Claims upon others is upon our Species as a whole. Hell on Earth is what the effect is.

"Dominating Man to his injury".

We never were given Authority to dominate ourselves, only to fill the Earth and subdue it, and use everything upon it.

That was the Contract. Not from Mans Society; as in Social Contract, but from the Creator of the Universe.

Why are we still in breach?

[Bear Eagle]

Hello Shikamaru,

"Standing also has to do with the status of an actor within a society or association."

Indeed. That is the Standing I am touching on I suppose. Our Standing before Men and God.

I have always wanted to know the "true" meaning of such a question by the State. Much like when they ask if we are "full legal name", and the intent behind such a question.

Hmm, Estate meaning interest. Thats a very interesting slant there. In my premise the Estate is the Creation. And as beneficiaries the Interest we pay is the Estate. By use. Our payment to the Creator is the use of the Estate. Our payment for existence is the use of the Estate, the Estate itself is this interest. The culmination is the inheritance. Or maybe the inheritance is the fruition derived from paying the Interest. Which is what we form, through payment of the interest on Earth.

Thanks for that. Will much on it some more.

[Anthony Joseph]

Hello David,

I dont know if it is language itself that presents the problem or something else. But the use of the word "we" in that phrase "in god we trust" presents a problem for me. It is all inclusive, and is still attached to a instrument of Man that is the instrument of Trust. An idol if you will. Im still looking for Authority from the Creator to issue such an instrument in dealing with the Creators Trust, as there is no need for a intermediary for access to inheritance as Beneficiary. Some type of instrument is always used as access to the Inheritance, whether it be fiat, sea shells, or anything else "from" the inheritance itself. That is illogical to me to use the inheritance as the means of access to the inheritance, when we already have access to the inheritance by the very fact our Conscious Entities are residing inside of it, the clay and mud body of Men and Women. Paper Money of no inherit value makes little sense to me, if it provides me with nothing directly in exchange for my sweat and labor. I still need to drive to the store instead of eating it. I still need to buy a water pump with it, instead of drinking it. I still need to purchase a bed, instead of lying down in it, though I suppose with glue or tape, or string, dollars could be made into a blanket.

As it is all inclusive, it does not allow anyone to disengage from it either if that is their will. Man and Woman are bound to it by necessity of circumstances beyond their control mostly, and thus it is unfair as Trespass upon the Beneficiary, the Estate, and True Trust.

Dont know, still playing around with some of these ideas. Thanks for your interest thus far.

I think the IN GOD WE TRUST verbiage is meant to deceive the masses of people that it is all inclusive and the opportunity to join, be persuaded and "understand" is provided and nurtured. The fact is that the "we" refers to the men who created, and decided to continue on with, "debt-backed" fiat currency and the false balances inherent in it. This is because they either didn't have an answer/solution or they didn't want an answer/solution and prayed to God on their man-made paper instrument that He will someday restore proper balances and correct the evil that men do. They knew the abomination and repugnance of such a creation and saw an opportunity to "capitalize" on it at the expense of most others who are intentionally kept ignorant of the system.

It is true that there is only one true Trust and one Trustee regarding God's creation. However, due to the lack of trust and responsibility of most men and women, evidenced in all of history, a system of governance among men must be instituted to account for such. I believe that the governments of men are placed into that position by God Himself as "2nd level trustees" over His Estate on Earth here and now awaiting the true sons and daughters to claim their inheritance as such. I believe they have dual roles in that they will be a king over you or serve you as the king you are depending upon the manner and truth in which you conduct yourself. This appointed authority must be in congruence with His law, however, in order to maintain that ordainment. The corruption and evil of man however makes it a difficult challenge to be recognized in that regard and it is then, when all truthful declaration, honorable action and administrative avenues have been exhausted, that we rely upon the "1st Level" trust to manifest the truth to fruition.

This is all we can do.

[Bear Eagle]

I think the IN GOD WE TRUST verbiage is meant to deceive the masses of people that it is all inclusive and the opportunity to join, be persuaded and "understand" is provided and nurtured. The fact is that the "we" refers to the men who created, and decided to continue on with, "debt-backed" fiat currency and the false balances inherent in it. This is because they either didn't have an answer/solution or they didn't want an answer/solution and prayed to God on their man-made paper instrument that He will someday restore proper balances and correct the evil that men do. They knew the abomination and repugnance of such a creation and saw an opportunity to "capitalize" on it at the expense of most others who are intentionally kept ignorant of the system.


It is true that there is only one true Trust and one Trustee regarding God's creation. However, due to the lack of trust and responsibility of most men and women, evidenced in all of history, a system of governance among men must be instituted to account for such. I believe that the governments of men are placed into that position by God Himself as "2nd level trustees" over His Estate on Earth here and now awaiting the true sons and daughters to claim their inheritance as such. I believe they have dual roles in that they will be a king over you or serve you as the king you are depending upon the manner and truth in which you conduct yourself. This appointed authority must be in congruence with His law, however, in order to maintain that ordainment. The corruption and evil of man however makes it a difficult challenge to be recognized in that regard and it is then, when all truthful declaration, honorable action and administrative avenues have been exhausted, that we rely upon the "1st Level" trust to manifest the truth to fruition.

This is all we can do.

Indeed. That is another interesting Word. "In Deed". I remember when People used to Contract Private Business dealings with Word and Hand Shake. Your conclusion is much along the same lines of my premise of Forgiveness. Is it though then the responsibility of Men and Women to turn back their faces to the Creator? Again, why should anyone reclaim that which they never have disowned? How can a Conscious Truth and Honorable decision be made of disowning to begin with if through fraud and deception the entire issue was withheld and not disclosed?

Yes, the Creator did place Governments before Men and Women, but only at the request of Men and Women, and told them they would pay a heavy price and loose freedoms because of it. He did not want to do it, but did at the request of the Beneficiaries of the Inheritance. That Contract, Convenient of Law is no longer in operation it appears. Has not the Convenient been fulfilled? The price paid, by the True Trustee? The Law fulfilled. Was not he the "Law"? The Word? So what then the significance of his presence here on Earth? If he in fact died as a Living Man, what did he die for? The first Adam? Why was he called "Son of Man"? We see this same metaphor in the Writings and Deeds of most Spiritual Ideology. Including Indigenous Knowledge systems as well. There is a pattern of a source Metaphor.

"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Free from what? What did he teach? Was it not Love and Forgiveness?

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. [Matthew 22:37-40 NIV]

The Law and the Prophets "hangs" on these two commandments. That interesting. Old English it is "dependeth". "Lex pendant". Dependeth is Third-person singular simple present indicative form of depend.

“Ye have counsales, lawis, and men of reputatioun that have establisshed all thingis, as ye suppose: Bot none of all these can maik any religioun acceptable unto God, whiche onelie dependeth upon his awin will, revealled to man in his most sacred word.”

The Works of John Knox, Vol. 1 (of 6)

John is getting close here. He is getting close to the Religion of Law that the Pharisees established, that Satan established by Claiming Knowledge of Good and Bad, thereby putting himself in a position to Judge Good and Bad. The Creator revealed to Man his Will by his most Sacred Word. The True Trustee. The Creator values the Word, as he does words spoken. For a Word is an Oath. It is the only Oath individual Men and Women can give. Anything else is not an Oath.

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” Mark 11:25 (NIV) “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.” Luke 6:27-29 (NIV) “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Luke 6:36 (NIV) “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Luke 6:37 (NIV)

Elsewhere, it is said, "Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Matthew 18:21-22 (NKJV)

Jesus asked for God's forgiveness of those who crucified him. "And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'" Luke 23: 34 (ESV)

If we love and forgive even our Enemies what Claim can any Man bring before and to us?

We cannot, for we are the Beneficiaries of Inheritance.

Can a Beneficiary of Inheritance make a Judgment or Claim on another Beneficiary of Inheritance?

There is a solution for remedy, but only by insuring that the instruments used by Men and Women, and their Oaths are True and Honorable. Which is impossible, for the Nature of Men and Women are not Honorable and True because of the turning away from the Creator and his Living Will as Trust. The events all can observe in the World are proof of this. Are they Honorable? Truthful? Just?

Therefore the only remedy is a turning of face again to the Creator and his True Living Will. What is his True Living Will?

It was the original Contract with Man and Woman. Which does not include Knowledge of Good and Bad to be accessible to Men and Women to use. For when Men and Women use this Knowledge they then dominate each other to their injury. By forcing their own ideals, subjective perceptions, morals, dogma, and ways of being onto someone else thus dominating them.

We as Couscous Entities are able to access the Creator True Trust through the Trustee, and need no other party to Know Good from Bad. I presume that Love, and Forgiveness is a concept comprehendable to most every Man and Woman alive. It is an individual choice and decision of them, thought they have comprehension of the meanings of said concepts. It is not my responsibility for anyone else choosing NOT to follow their own Conscious decision to do Good.

What is Good? Nothing that brings harm to any other Couscous Entity is Good. There is no need to argue the finer points of such. Its very simple actually. If one causes harm to another both in Spirit or Body, then I have caused harm. Who can decide what constitutes "harm done"? Only the Couscous Entity performing. If one listens to their Conscious, it will Testify against itself.

Laws are made for those who choose not to follow their Conscious. Those who not care what their Conscious Testify against them. For these, the Laws of Robbery, Murder, Theft, and Trespass apply. Anything beyond these "Common Laws" applied to Men and Women without Conscious is Unjust, and not Honorable. For even the Creator makes the Sun shine upon the Wicked and the Righteous.

[Bear Eagle]

Romans 2:

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

I think this is all relevant since all Law in existence 'today' comes from the Bible, specifically Ecclesiastics. What was the "Law" being talked about by Jesus, and Paul(the Lawyer) in Romans? It was the Mosaic Law, as well as Ecclesiastical Law. The True Trustee fulfilled the Law, and covered the breach in and of the Trust.

Love and Forgiveness IS THE LAW.

[Bear Eagle]

So does our Conscious Entity possess a tool for use, such as a "conscience"? It is talked about from the Book of Law. It is in every Law, and Ideology. Could it be that the Conscience is the Law of Self? The tool provided within Conscious Entities to Judge oneself by and for?

I think so. I think it is the only valid Authority of Judgment of Self that the Beneficiary has. And it can only be applied to self. We are not imbued with any Authority other than the Conscience. And this Authority of our Consciousness can only be used and applied directly to our own Entity as Conscious Entities inhabiting the inheritance as Beneficiaries upon and in Earthen vessels, as we fulfill the Contract that was Willed to us by the Creator True Trust.

Any other Conscious Entity using either their Consciousness or Conscience to demand our performance to such is a "Trespass on Inheritance". Its null and void. An Idol. Dressed up to look like something, but having no inherit Power or Authority in the realm of the Creators Estate.