The Book of the Hundreds, Part Two

This section was formerly called "The Christian Jural Society Handbook" and is presented here in its place as a supplemental update for the "Prolegomena" (Part One) and the "Non-statutory Abatement" process until the completion and release of a Fifth Edtion, according to our Father's will, takes place. It presents:

Various writings by the several bondmen and unprofitable servants of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, who are, by our Father's Grace, currently sojourning in Him.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so should be corrupted your thoughts from the simplicity which is as to the Christ.

For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus whom we did not proclaim, or ye receive a different spirit which ye did not receive, or different glad tidings, which ye did not accept, well were ye bearing with it." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 [Interlinear Greek/ English, Stephanus Text, George Ricker Berry]

As we continue our exodus out of the house of bondage with the confusion and fascination that reigns therein, and reach His promised land of simplicity in and of Him, we continue to leave behind all of the dead ways of the world, thereby fulfilling His command to "come out of her My people." Consistent with this exodus and joyful fellowship with all called and assembled by Him in and to His Lawful assemblies, through His revealed knowledge and understanding we will continue to shed the dead errors of the past by the road, and by His Grace, never to return to those ways again; that we may, by His Grace, walk in newness of Life in faithfulness to Him. To enter in to this simplicity and to continue the separation of the bone from the marrow, a change of the name of the work (Christian Jural Society Handbook/Christian Jural Society News) many may have, or have had, in their possession is warranted.

To show where we have been led, we will break down the journey into two separate parts. This part will explain the change of the name of the 16 page letter available each month, and the elimination of the term "Christian Jural Society"; and, by the Grace of God through Christ Jesus, in the second part [which will appear on the following pages], we will share the recent research information relating to the "general post-office" and what this means to the executing bondman of Christ Jesus.

Note: The Christian Jural Societies throughout the land have been formed and assembled for His purposes. It is time to consider the shedding of the "legal personality" of the term "Christian Jural Society" and look to the Simplicity in Christ and the continual building up by Him of His ekklesia--His called-out ones--His remnant--His Lawful assembly.

Beginning with the former name of this work, "The Christian Jural Society Handbook," we see three key words. We ask that you take special note of the first word, "Christian." In all of the many epistles of Brothers Peter, Paul, John, Jude, James, and in all the historical research on the early Lawful assemblies, we have never come across any of them referring to themselves by this dead moniker, but to that of substance:

"Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the glad tidings of God..." Rom. 1:1

"Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him, to shew to His bondmen..." Revelation 1:1

[The above verses are from the Interlinear Greek/English, Stephanus Text, George Ricker Berry].

The heathen at Antioch were the first users of the moniker, "Christians," to put a label on those who did not follow the ways of the world of Antioch. Labels are images, as was the superscription on the coin shown to Christ by the disciples of the Pharisees. It is one of those euphonious words to bring a bondman in and of the Christ into the house of bondage to the world. Just as Peter gave credence to the temple-tax and thereby was bound to pay it, those who give credence to the label "Christian" are bound to the service of those who use or make such labels of the world. This is why it is so important when remaining faithful to Christ Jesus, that you be able to know what words and what evidence must be presently shown to sanctify the Christ's bondman from the world's "christian." This is part of "running the race" set before us. For further information on the label "Christian," see "The Unincorporated Church so-called" article in this section of The Book of the Hundreds.

The second to take into consideration is the word "jural." "Jural" refers to natural "rights" or positive right, or to man's "doctrines" of rights and obligations. The bondmen in and of the Christ have no rights and obligations from or to the world, but only duties to Him who bought them for a price to do His Will and not their own self-aggrandizing will. In Him do they find their abode [their rest], their salvation, their Life, and their being. With the Law being an Image of Him, outside of Him there is only lawlessness, and "jural" has no Law, but has only "moral" rights and obligations (which are evolutionary) that describe the "moral persons" of that society. In short, all things relating to "jural" are the creations of the heathen world and are for the heathen only.

The third to take note of is "society." "Society" is just another word for "the world." It is not a word found anywhere to describe God's children, for it denotes "persons" gathered together according to their own will for their own purposes:

"Society. A number of persons associated for any temporary or permanent object; an association for mutual or joint usefulness, pleasure or profit." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1987.

The humanist James Ward best described the depravity of and anti-Christ purpose of "society" when he wrote:

"Without this intersubjective intercourse mankind would remain a herd; with it they become a society."

We, according to the Grace and Will of God our Father, will remain as sheep in His flock (not herd) under the Guidance of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, our only Shepherd.

The point was made in the previous article concerning our leaving the Egyptian house of bondage and the Babylonian confusion that reigns therein, to diligently seek the simplicity in Christ. This instant work is to show that we continue to run that race set before us from the chains of servitude binding us to the prince of this world to the arms of our loving Master, to rest in Him and partake of His Peace and Victory over the prince of this world.

We have left the "general delivery" section in The Non-Statutory Abatement Handbook, not for anyone to look to, but for your edification of understanding how we can all be misled. We admit to all our Brothers and Sisters our errors concerning "general delivery," "General Delivery," "GENERAL DELIVERY SERVICE," and any other derivations of the same. We were deceived about its true nature, and learned, through talking to a postmaster to whom we were led, that it is a creation over which, originally, the Post Office Department and, by contract, the U.S. Postal Service has jurisdiction. It is their facsimile of the original station of the "general post-office." You can now replace the "general delivery" information with the "general post-office" information.

In the past, we were denied "general delivery" at Canoga Park. Now this would appear to be the end of the work we do for our Lord concerning postal matters. But, such is not the case. We now know that general delivery has been nothing more than a "stepping-stone" on the path back to where we all belong in fellowshiping through His post.

"Study^¹ to shew^² [*evidence-- John 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; James 2:22] thyself approved^³ [*see Psalm 12:6 & 33:4; Romans 2:29; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Galatians 2:8] unto God, a workman^⁴ that needeth not to be ashamed^⁵ , rightly dividing^⁶ the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

The Greek word for "study" (philotimeomai) actually reads "be diligent" (spoudazo, spoudason) in the Greek text. The error by the King James "divines" in mistranslating it "study" limits the Word to systematized academics (see footnote {1} below). So we are instructed to "be diligent" to show ourselves a workman of God. How to do this? Exercise diligence in finding the old paths and returning to them. And this is what led us, by His Grace, to the "general post-office."

As many are aware, it was always our "impression" that the Post Office Department was the original earthly foundation of the current postal system. This impression was formed according to the many writings that have been published over the past 150 years, or so, concerning postal matters in the U.S. and abroad. What was not realized until recently was the fact that the true earthly foundation of the postal system known as 'the general post-office" began to be referred to as "the post-office department" in the early 1800's, not long after the "statutory" general post-office was instituted February 20, 1792, to wit:

Chap. VIII.--An Act to establish the Post-Office and Post Roads within the United States.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be established, at the seat of the government of the United States, a general post-office. And there shall be one Postmaster General......"

Note that this 1 page statutory creation by Congress was for the government of the United States, not the United States of America. The general post-office, which already existed, was never designated as being repealed in this Act. Therefore, it still remained in existence, separate from the "governmental business" set up by this Act.

As we stated above, in the early 1800's the general post-office began to be referred to as 'the post-office department,' but was not officially created by a 46 page statute until June 8, 1872, to wit:

Chap. CCCXXXV. -- An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be established, at the seat of government of the United States of America, a department to be known as the Post-office Department.

The important part to note in the above statute is that it was established for "the government of the United States of America." At first glance, this would appear to have substance, until you realize that the governments before and after the Civil War were not of the same nature. The one after the Civil War was a commercially "Reconstructed" government through incorporation. This 46 page statute clearly shows that it was established as "a business" of that new government. And again, the original general post-office was not repealed in this statute. It is for this cause that the re-organized service and its employees have no authority over the general post-office--it precedes their creation and has its Source and Origin in God through His Lawful assembly, long before the legal memory of man (1189 A.D.):

"…by Him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things by Him and for Him have been created: And He is before all, and all things in Him subsist. And He is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead; that He might be in all things holding the first place." Colossians 1:16-18 (Berry).

"Prior tempore, potior jure--First in time is stronger in right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2154.

For the natural man, there must be evidence forthcoming that he can witness the change and repentance from the ways of the world, and to remind the natural man that he can do nothing in and of himself, for it is written:

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:14-16 (KJV)

This can be shown in the new wording that should be on the "address label" or written in above he or she to whom it is directed," as follows:

First-Class Matter posted and moved by the Grace of God in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for the calling forth by:

We have to show that the matter originated with God in Christ Jesus and not with ourselves. This is covered in the first phrases of the above. The matter is a matter posted and moved by His Grace alone, not by the "power" of men.

Since it is a fact that all mail matter today is moved through The U.S. Postal Service under statutory license and contract, it would appear to be most difficult to revive the station of the general post-office without a bit of resistance from those within the Postal Service who like things just the way they presently are. But we must keep in mind that our Father never leaves us destitute. He always supplies our needs. It is us who through the working of our flesh rebel into the situation of wants, believing that our needs being met are not sufficient--apostasy.

To relate the trial that was set before us concerning the reception of mail matter following denial of general delivery at Canoga Park, we first went to the Word of God and after reading the aforementioned passage of Scripture (Colossians 1:16-18) we began to realize, by the Grace of God, that somewhere under the layers and layers of deceit masking the Truth the old paths for His Lawful assembly would be found. We both looked at some old Civil War envelopes photographed by the Post Office Department in some of their philatelic literature.

On all of the envelopes were just the name to whom the matter was directed with the city and state. No other lines appeared. Mind you, this is before the creation of the layers of deceit by the lawyers and other such ministers of Satan. Further "digging" through the layers, we found the original general post-office. What we needed to find out was: what is the relation in Law between the general post-office and His Lawful assembly? From Scripture we learn that those who were called out from the world and apostled for the Christ sent their matters with others in and of the Lawful assembly to others in His Body. This is because His assembly is in Law and not of the world. The relation then is that the general post-office is in His Body and is one of several organs of His Body for His Glory. That is why the original general post-office is still found and exists under all of the layers "created" by the natural man.

Of course, having access to the above information does not automatically revive the general post-office. The workmen must still attend to the work set before them. And by the Power and Will of God, it will be accomplished, because His Word does not return to Him void.

To recount the initial steps that we have been led to take, we will begin by telling you that it was a walk of faith in and with Him, for He has told us:

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Matthew 11:29-30

For all of those Lawful assemblies that will be sending their Brothers out two by two to the general post-office through letter of appointment to call forth the First-Class Matter for the Lawful assembly, it is not pertinent to know every step that we took and every word that we spoke, for the Spirit of God will direct them in all things, for it is written:

"Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:14-15

Send or have others send a First-Class letter (do not send a "signature required" class) to the main post office within the area of the Lawful assembly, directed to that Lawful assembly, such as:

After three or four days, send two or three Brothers with a Letter of Appointment (see next page) to call forth the mail matter that was sent. The initial verbal introduction can be: "Greetings, we were sent by the Christ's assembly at San Diego to call forth their First-Class matter. Here is their Letter of Appointment."

Once the mail matter is handed to them, the general post-office is revived. Your Brothers may be told that they can only receive "general delivery," etc., but once the mail matter is handed to them, the question is moot; the clerk has born witness otherwise. For further fellowship, call 818-347-7080.

From the Christ's assembly at North Carolina, to all whom this matter does concern, Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and ourselves in Lawful assembly in and through His Name.

On this ____________ day of the _____________ month in the ________________ Year of Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, solely by the Grace of God, in His Blessed Name, by His Authority, and under Lawful Warrant in, of, and through Him, the Christ's assembly at North Carolina calls, appoints, and directs, our Brothers and Sisters in possession of this appointment, having shown and evidenced to us by the word of their Testimony, and the Witness of God our Father, to be of one Mind, Body, and Spirit with us in the Christ, to:

One; call forth our First-Class mail Matter from the general post-office located at Enka, North Carolina and return the same to us and each of us; and,

Two; to exercise due diligence, sound Wisdom and Judgment with which God our Father in the Christ has blessed them, in carrying out the duties appertaining to this appointment; and to continue to exercise the duties in and of this appointment until:

One; his or her recall by, and return to, our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; or,

Two; this appointment is withdrawn by us in Lawful assembly in His Name for Cause.

[place signature (black or blue ink) and right thumb print (red ink) here] , a bondservant of Jesus, the Christ

In recent times we have written and spoken about many of the misconceived and deceptive "Church World" modes of operation, doctrines, heathen terminology, and other tools of the spiritually dead, i.e., theology, hermeneutics, emotionalism, denominationalism, creeds and confessions, the so-called sacred name of God, mistranslations of the available sacred texts, and other Matters concerning His Lawful assembly. In these matters, we are mindful that the light of truthful evidence must always be shown.

Those writings and radio interviews have been well received by most, and not so well received by a few who have preferred to determine matters by way of opinion, speculation, feelings or tradition --and not according to evidence and truth. The following should be considered by all, especially by the few referred to above.

The natural man, in imitation of God's Word, has stated the following in regard to written documents, but read in the Light of The Word we are shown keys to producing what is pleasing to our Lord, to wit:

"A writing [*engrafted on the heart and inward parts by the finger of God--Jeremiah 31:33; James 1:21] is the best evidence of its own contents, and must be introduced [*through the working of the Spirit in fullness of faith to Him (epilusis) before God our Father and those of the kosmos] unless it has been lost or destroyed [*by philosophy, theology, seminary morphosis], or its absence is otherwise satisfactorily accounted for [*which is impossible before God--see Romans 1:20], except in the case of public documents and records, of which exemplified copies will be admitted." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing McKelvey, §§301, 302.

This completely vindicates the bondman in Christ when he brings forth the writing of God's Expression received by being engrafted on his inward parts, in execution of what is written and is corroborated by the Spirit of God [*see Romans 8:16], the attesting witness of such engrafting or writing of His Law on the hearts of His remnant. It is vitally important that this evidence be brought forth first, to wit:

"There is no presumption [*in Law] as to the defendant's character. People v. Lingley, 207 N.Y. 396, 101 N.E. 170, 46 L.R.A.N.S. 342. If the defendant elects to have his character weighed in determining his innocence, he must produce evidence of his character [*bondman in Christ]. This he does by calling a qualified witness [*"calling upon the name of the Lord"--Isaiah 54:16-17; Luke 11:20] or witnesses to testify to his good reputation in the [*Lawful assembly] for the particular trait involved in the crime charged." Richardson on Evidence (1964), §155, p. 141.

But natural men presume everything to be evil. From this it is plain to see that those who cling to the rudiments of the kosmos (world/kosmos, see Etymologicum Anglicanum, Pages nine and ten ) always fail and will continue to fail to state a claim upon which God through Christ Jesus can give relief or deliverance [see Matthew 12:37; 1 John 4:5-6], for we have been told by Him, to wit:

"Offspring of vipers [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, speculators, ad nauseam], how are ye able good things to speak, being wicked? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12:34 (Berry).

"O generation of vipers [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, speculators, ad nauseam], how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

....having not brought forth the best evidence--the first-fruits meet for Him, or what is also called primary evidence, to wit:

"Primary evidence is that which does not pre-suppose a higher or better evidence, or that which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in question.

"Secondary evidence is that which indicates on its face that there exists a higher or better evidence, and it is only admissible when primary evidence cannot be produced." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing 1 Greenleaf, §84. See also 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.

When we fulfill our obedience to Him we are offering the best evidence to those of the kosmos of our bond of faith in and to Him. This is being the salt of the earth by offering our self-will on His Altar of Righteousness, being the firstfruit of repentance from it.

In other words, those who look to the vain imaginations of men fail to overcome evil with good; but, have already been overcome by evil because there is no good in the inventions of men, i.e. philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, seminary morphosis, mechanical religious repetitions, codes, rules, regulations, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, statutes, edicts, proclamations, executive orders, resolutions, referendums, opinions, speculations, traditions, ad nauseam--for those who harken to the vain imaginations and inventions of men have been overcome by the spirit of the aion (aion/age, see Etymologicum Anglicanum, Pages nine and ten) before they ever engaged the evil one in battle. See Judges 2:17; Proverbs 21:16; Isaiah 28:7; Malachi 2:8; Romans 12:21; 2 Peter 2:19.

In the matter thus far presented we must distinguish between evidence and proof. The natural man, has admitted the following in his distinctions, to wit:

"Proof is the belief or conclusion arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. As was said in People v. Beckwith, 108 N.Y. 67, 73, 15 N.E. 53, 55: 'Evidence [*the word of Testimony in Christ--see Revelation 12:11; or, word of testimony in the aion to those of the kosmos] is the medium of proof; proof is the effect of the evidence [*see Matthew 12:37; 1 John 4:5-6].'" Richardson on Evidence (1964), §1,

In the cases before God's Throne, evidence known by the natural man as secondary, tertiary, quaternary, ad nauseam, is never admissible, for His Evidence is always bearing witness, to wit:

"...that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God to them manifested; for the invisible things of Him from creation of world by the things made being understood are perceived, both His eternal power and divinity; for them to be without excuse." Romans 1:19-20. (Berry)

"…that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19-20. See also 1 John 5:7-9.

The natural man's secondary evidence has a limiting qualification attaching to it, to wit:

"Secondary evidence is admissible in case the original is proven to have been lost or destroyed, or is out of the jurisdiction of the court, or is in the hands of the adverse party, who has failed to produce it on demand duly made." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing McKelvey, §303.

So, God will not bring forth deliverance when obedience of bringing forth firstfruits of sacrifice meet for Him is not fulfilled by one who makes claims solely by outward pretence. See Genesis 4:4-5; 1 Kings 18; 2Corinthians 10:3-6. When, where, and how was God's Word ever destroyed, lost, or handed over to the adverse party, Satan, outside the jurisdiction of our Father's Court?; and how does one evade the jurisdiction of His Court? for it is written:

"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I should go up to heaven, Thou art there: If I should go down to hell, Thou art present." Psalm 138:7-8 (LXX).

"Whither shall I go from Thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: If I make by bed in hell, behold, Thou art there." Psalm 139:7-8.

This short dissertation on evidence and its effects of proof will be disputed further by those bearing the spirit of the aion evidenced by self-serving verbal claim, feminization, and outward pretence; but being of, and possessing, a sound mind in Christ, Who has not given His remnant the spirit of fear, we can all be assured through The Way, The Truth and The Life that all self-servers bear witness of themselves, to wit:

"But to the sinner God has said, Why dost thou declare My ordinances, and take up My covenant in thy mouth? Whereas thou hast hated instruction, and hast cast My words behind thee.…thy mouth has multiplied wickedness [*through your philosophy, theology, opinions, speculations, traditions, ad nauseam], and thy tongue has framed deceit." Psalm 49:16-17, 19 (LXX).

"But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare My statutes, or that thou shouldest take My covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest My words behind thee.… Thou givest thy mouth to evil [*through philosophy, theology, opinion, speculation, tradition, ad nauseam], and thy tongue frameth deceit." Psalm 50:16-17, 19.

"He that is not wise will not be taught: but …If a skilful man hear a wise word, he will commend it, and add unto it: but as soon as one of no understanding heareth it, it displeaseth him, and he casteth it behind his back.." Ecclesiasticus 21:12 & 15.

"Death befalls uninstructed men. The fool [*the philosophers, the theologians, and the other "benevolent lawgivers"] also dies in sins; and uncleanness attaches to a pestilent man." Proverbs 24:9 (LXX).

"The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men." Proverbs 24:9.

"The inner parts of a fool are like a broken vessel, and he will hold no knowledge as long as he liveth." Ecclesiasticus 21:14.

....and the natural man recognizes in his own imitations of the Word of God that,

"Non est disputandum contra principia negantem--There is no disputing against a man denying principles." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2149; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1202.

In Lawful execution of the foregoing, by and in the Will of God in and through Christ Jesus, we can...

"Talk not much with a fool, and go not to him that hath no understanding: beware of him, lest thou have trouble, and thou shalt never be defiled with his fooleries: depart from him and thou shalt find rest, and never be disquieted with madness." Ecclesiasticus 22:13.

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

The irony of this statement is that not only have the judges, lawyers, news media, school teachers, etc., convinced everyone that they are a human being and have 'a human spirit,' but that the Christian clergy as well have bought into these fictions of the humanist world.

You will not find anywhere in The Word of God the terms human or human being used, or that God's people are animals. It has become a 'traditional' vehicle by which everyone, servants of the Christ and pagan alike, are lumped into the same category--that category being the 'animal' world of the unregenerate, wicked, sinful, earthy, and dissolute natural man, and his 'rat race.'

"What has been found true about rats may be applied to humans." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting E. E. Slosson.

It was not always this way. At an earlier time, before the current degeneration and feminization of the church, a few 'purist' clergy were quite aware that a bondman in and of the Christ, being 'a new man,' is no longer a human being, to wit:

"The Sabbath, as an institute given to men for all ages and dispensations, even including that of Paradise, was and is God's means for maintaining in the human family His knowledge and fear as our Maker, Ruler and future Judge. But on that fear all moral institutions repose--the family and the state, as truly as the church. Therefore, men are naturally bound to keep the Sabbath simply as men, and not only as Christians.

After man fell, and came to need redemption, the Sabbath was also continued by God as a means of grace and a gospel institute. But this did not repeal or exclude its original use. The professed Christian has two reasons for observing the Sabbath; every human being has one." The Christian Sabbath (1854), by Robert L. Dabney.

Robert Dabney is a highly respected and recognized biblical scholar of the nineteenth century, and in addition, was the Chaplain for the troops under Stonewall Jackson during Lincoln's War. The pointedly clear distinction between Christians and human beings by this 'purist,' is a jewel not to be ignored.

From the other side of the coin we have one of the secular definitions 'in law' of what a human being is, explained to us in 1926 by Roscoe Pound, who was a 33rd degree Mason and the Dean of Harvard Law School (masquerading under a "moral" guise through a former Christian college):

"In England in the rise of the court of chancery and development of equity, ethical ideas from the casuist literature of the sixteenth century, and the general notions of right and wrong held by chancellors who were not common-law lawyers, were made liberalizing agencies. In Continental Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the philosophical ideas of juristic writers upon the law of nature were used in the same way. Thus, moral duty was turned into legal duty and put in the foreground in place of legal remedy. Reason was relied upon rather than strict rules. The individual human being, as the moral unit, became the legal unit. It was conceived that the moral principle, simply as such and for that reason, was to be also a legal rule." Law and Morals (1926) by Roscoe Pound, page 30.

From one side we have the earlier clergy disclosing to us that one who "truly" takes on the yoke of Christ, is no longer a human being; and, what a human being really is from the ungodly of Harvard. In spite of it all, we are constantly taught by both the 'godly' and ungodly of today that everyone is a human being and a member of the highest animal species. How can this be? What are the consequences of partaking of such heresy?; the heresy of accepting that which is contrary to how our Father has described us and being brought down to the level of the pagan natural man:

"Therefore shall the land mourn, and shall be diminished with all that dwell in it, with the wild beasts of the field, and the reptiles of the earth, and with the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea shall fail: that neither anyone may plead, nor anyone reprove another: but My people are as a priest spoken against. Therefore they shall fall by day, and the prophet with thee shall fall: I have compared thy mother unto night.

My people are like as if they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not minister as priest to Me: and as thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. According to their multitude, so they sinned against Me: I will turn their glory into shame." Hosea 4:3-7

"The ruin of those who have helped to ruin others will, in a special manner, be intolerable. And did the children think that when they were in danger of falling, their mother would help them? 'It shall be in vain to expect it, for I will destroy thy mother, Samaria, the mother-city, the whole state, or kingdom, which is as a mother to every part. It shall all be made silent.' Note, When all are involved in guilt nothing less can be expected than that all should be involved in ruin.

Both priests and people rejected knowledge; and justly therefore will God reject them. The reason why the people did not learn, and the priests did not teach, was not because they had not the light, but because they hated it--not because they had not ways of coming to the knowledge of God and of communicating it, but because they had no heart to it; they rejected it. They desired not the knowledge of God's ways, but put it from them, and shut their eyes against the light; and therefore 'I will also reject thee; I will refuse to take cognizance of thee and to own thee; you will not know Me, but bid Me depart; I will therefore say, Depart from Me, I know you not. Thou shalt be no priest to Me.'"

The clergy of today are taught at seminary that Christ was both a 'human being' and God, and in turn teach this heresy, though the Word of God does not teach this.

In addition, these Neoplatonic teachers of today tell us that we live under Grace, not under Law. This "doctrine" has created the separation faith and works, but we are told that:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, having offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Thou seest that faith was working with his works, and by works faith was perfected?

And was fulfilled the scripture which says, Now Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and Friend of God he was called.

Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:20-24

The recognition of 'the new man' under Christ seems to elude them. The aspect of the 'new birth' is ignored in favor of the sinful human being only; their mentality is, "Saying you have repented and you love Jesus is sufficient. You can still go into the world and partake of its lawless activities," --i.e., commerce, State worship, worship of "the founding fathers," pagan holidays, etc., which in turn leaves these 'teachers' free to be utterly lawless, i.e., being a 501(c)3 corporation or "unincorporated Church" doing business for "profit sake." This 'new religion' says, "We've have no choice but to live in this corrupt old world."

Like the humanist, the 'new religion' sees only the world, itself, and its fellow 'human beings'--but it has added Jesus in the midst of all of it as a buffer:

"There are no absolutes and man must content himself with being." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting H. E. Clurman.

Until the body of believers are freed of these heresies, the Bride is not capable of making herself ready for the Bridegroom.

"He that overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to Me son." Revelation 21:7

The following article is based on the maxim of law, 'optimus interpres rerum usus' or 'usage is the best interpreter of things.'

From the commentary in Broom's Legal Maxims, (1845) page 262, on this maxim of law, we find the following:

"The law merchant, it has been observed, forms a branch of the law of England, and those customs which have been universally and notoriously prevalent amongst merchants, and have been found by experience to be of public use, have been adopted as a part of it, upon a principal of convenience, and for the benefit of trade and commerce; and, when so adopted, it is unnecessary to plead and prove them....where the words used by parties have, by the known usages of trade, by any local custom, or amongst particular classes, acquired a peculiar sense, distinct from the popular sense of the same words, their meaning may be ascertained by reference to that usage or custom."

There are two very important observations to be made on this commentary. First, it states that the law merchant or lex mercatoria, is part of the common law of England, as will be further evidenced in this article. Second, the choice of words one uses when dealing with the current courts or Imperial powers, can either, (1) by a poor choice of words, bring you under the law merchant, and thereby, you become regulated by that law, or, (2) by a wise choice of words, you retain your Liberty in Christ under God.

The important phrase to analyze is, "their meaning may be ascertained by reference to that usage or custom." In other words, when a de facto commercial court or agency which exist only to regulate commerce and maintain "peace," hears or sees words from you that have a specific meaning in commerce and a different meaning in every day life, they will use the commercial meaning and automatically see you as one of their commercial, regulateable entities.

Some typical words within this fold are: travel, purchase, sale and bill of sale, insurance, customer, value, weights and measures, merchandise, receipt, account, advertise, credit, bank and bankrupt, checks, gain, barter, exchange, interest, income, transportation, resident, district, franchise, employment, carrier, delivery - just to name a few.

Under the Law of War, all commercial activity becomes regulated. When one makes use of these words and other such words in a court or court process, which have a specific meaning in the lex mercatoria, or engage in such activities, one becomes taxable and regulateable. To not engage in these activities and to study the meaning and implication of such words is obvious.

When one signs, U.C.C. 1-207, to reserve their rights under the common law, they are reserving their rights (actually privileges) in the lex mercatoria, thereby admitting to be in commercial activity.

The following from 'A New Law Dictionary' by Henry James Holthouse (1847), page 264, makes this quite clear:

"One of the branches of the unwritten or common law, consists of particular customs, or laws which affect only the inhabitants of particular districts, under which head may be referred the law or custom of merchants (lex mercatoria), which is a particular system of customs used only among one set of the king's subjects, which, however different from the general rules of the common law, is yet engrafted into it, and made a part of it; being allowed for the benefit of trade to be of the utmost validity in all commercial transactions; for it a maxim of law, that "cuilibet in sua arte credebdum est." This law of merchants comprehends the laws relating to bills of exchange, mercantile contracts, sale, purchase, and barter of goods, freight, insurance, & c. -- 1 Chitty's Bl. 76, n. 9.

When one uses the term 'common law,' it refers to all the variety of law created by man, i.e., English common law, admiralty common law, commercial common law, as the following from the above dictionary, page 112, shows:

"Common Law. These words are used in various senses. The following are amongst the most important; 1st. As designating that branch of the municipal law of England which does not owe its origin to parliamentary enactment, and which, as opposed to the latter, is termed the lex non scripta or unwritten law. 2nd. As designating a particular section or division of the lex non scripta or common law. 3rd. The phrase at common law. These it will now be attempted to explain in the above order. 1st. As designating the lex non scripta or common law. The law of England is composed of acts of parliament or statutes, and the custom of the realm. The custom of the realm consists of those rules and maxims concerning the persons and property of men that have obtained by the tacit assent and usage of the inhabitants of this country, being of the same force with acts of the legislature, the difference between the two being, that with regard to the one, the consent and approbation of the people is signified by their immemorial use and practice, whilst, with regard to the other, their approbation and consent are declared by parliament, to whose acts the people are generally deemed to be virtually parties. The custom of the realm, as above described, from the circumstance of its being the common or ordinary law of the land, as formerly administered between man and man, is denominated the common law of the realm, and under which denomination is comprised all the law of this country, excepting the statute law. The custom of the realm, or common law, as it is termed, includes not only general customs, or such as are common to the whole kingdom, but also the particular customs which prevail in certain parts of the kingdom, as well as those particular customs or peculiar laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and jurisdictions. So the civil and canon laws, as administered in our ecclesiastical and admiralty courts, having obligation to this kingdom, not upon their own intrinsic authority, but simply by custom, are also regarded as part of the customs of the realm or common law. ---- see 1 Reeve's Eng. Law, 1, 2; Hale's Hist. C. L. 1, et seq.; 1 Bl. 64.......... 3rd. The phrase at common law signifies by the common law of the land, independently of the statute law, or without the statute law -- according to the rules or principals of the common law, or custom of the realm, apart altogether from statute or act of parliament."

'Qualitas quae inesse debit, facile praesumitur', or 'A quality which ought to form a part is easily presumed.'

When alluding to the 'common law,' you must signify what branch or graft you claim, or it will be presumed that you mean the only branch that the court has jurisdiction to hear, which in the current system, is the lex mercatoria.

From 'A Commercial Dictionary of Merchantile Law' (1803) by Joshua Montefiore, the following:

"Law Merchant. A system of customs acknowledged and taken notice of by all commercial nations, and these customs constitute a part of the general law of the land; and being part of that law, their existence cannot be proved by witnesses, but the judges are bound to take notice of them ex officio. These customs are of the highest validity in all commercial transactions."

"Law Merchant..... In the Middle Ages "the custom of merchants" meant the actual usage of the European commercial world. When it came before the ordinary tribunals, it had to be proved; but in the 18th century the courts took judicial notice of it. The development of the law merchant as part of the common law has continued without ceasing. Evidence of living general usage is still admissible to add new incidents to its contents, provided they do not contradict any rule already received. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 282, citing, as to the last statement, L. R. 10 Ex. 337. This application is not confined to merchants, but extends to all persons concerned in any mercantile transaction."

And finally, from 'A Dictionary of Law' (1893) by William C. Anderson, the following:

"Law Merchant..... The law merchant was not made; it grew. Customs have sprung from the necessity and convenience of business and prevailed in duration and extent until they acquired the force of law. This mass of our jurisprudence has thus grown, and will continue to grow, by successive accretions. It is the outcome of time and experience, wiser-law makers, if slower than legislative bodies...The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and convenience,of the mercantile world, see Paper, 4."

When using their commercial paper, such as checks, notes, drafts, and bills, you become part of that 'mercantile world,' with all of the baggage attached thereto.

A bill includes: a credit card, a bill of sale, a bank-bill, a due-bill, a bill rendered, a bill of exchange, a bill of lading, a stock or bond, etc.

It is suggested that you study on your own with your young ones, the implications of these commercial instruments in your life.

Other commercial fictions that permeate many lives, due to the quest for 'convenience', 'luxury' and 'keeping up with the Jones', and rendering them regulateable and taxable by the current 'mercantile world' government are: craftsman, market, factory, business, commodity, debt, rebate, passport, accountant, affidavit, obligation, notary public, address, licence and; debtor, realtor, customer, trader, farmer, printer, employer, employee, addressee and other words with the suffix 'or', 'er' and 'ee'. These denote a fiction of law or a persona designata, in their venue.

'He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.' Hosea 12:7 (KJV)

'Ephraim is an evil spirit, he has chased the east wind all the day: he has multiplied empty and vain things, and made a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil has gone in the way of traffic into Egypt.'

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Fear ye not Me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at My presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.

Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in His season: He reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.

Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.

For among My people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.

They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.

Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: Shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

And prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (KJV)

The merchants of the earth, through their 'common law,' rule the 'day' with their governments and courts by means of the support of 'consumers' and 'customers,' but they do not rule eternity.

All bondmen of Christ Jesus can, through the avoidance Common Law, remain separate from the unclean thing, and not fall with it, to wit:

"In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters, thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall," Ezekiel 27:34 (KJV), and, "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:" Revelation 18:11. (KJV)

Commerce is not the way, is not the truth, is not the life, and is always accompanied with war. As in Greek and Roman mythology, Mercury (the god of merchants and thieves) and Mars (the god of war) walk side by side.

He who walks with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, (Who is The Way, The Truth, The Life, and The Prince of Peace), walks with no other.

Political law ceases upon military occupation. The U. S. Constitution and commercial law, along with all of its codes, rules and regulations, are political law and become arbitrary and capricious as 'necessity' and 'public policy' dictates, during occupation.

"My son, let not ungodly men lead thee astray, neither consent thou to them. Go not in the way with them, but turn aside thy foot from their paths: for nets are not without cause spread for birds." Proverbs 1:10, 15, 17.

"And fashion not yourselves to this age: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for to prove by you what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2

One of the major stumbling blocks in the pursuit of "coming out of her, separating yourself, and touching not the unclean thing" is a legal phenomenon known in man's law as "consent." It manifests itself in two forms--Implied and Express. Consent transforms itself into major minimum contacts that are not easily overcome according to man's law due to the doctrine of estoppel. Therefore, it is important to know what constitutes consent in whatever form, and how to avoid giving consent to those ministering for "the beast," whether they be a father or mother, a husband or wife, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a government agent or merchant of the earth, "friend" or foe; for we are told:

“If thy brother by thy father or mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife in thy bosom, or friend who is equal to thine own soul, entreat thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, of the gods of the nations that are round about you, who are near thee or at a distance from thee, from one end of the earth to the other; thou shalt not consent to him, neither shall thou harken to him; and thine eye shalt not spare him, thou shalt feel no regret for him, neither shalt thou at all protect him." Deuteronomy 13:6-8

It is my hope that all that read and study the following will take pause before they say "yes" to someone or something, or in doing a particular act, knowing then the implications of giving "consent."

The word consent is derived from the Latin words con, meaning with, together, and sentire, meaning to feel, think, judge, etc. We must always keep in mind with whom or whose law we are consenting to be under, our Father's, or man's, for:

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. Maxim, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859) Vol. II,

Consent: "An agreement to something proposed. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B. 1, c.2, s.1.

"The one who gives consent must be capable of doing so." 1 Whar. Cr. L. §146.

Are you capable of giving consent to the ungodly? Being a bondman of the Christ, did He give you the capacity to give such consent? The question you must ask yourself before giving consent to anyone is, "Has My Father given me permission to do so; is it approved of in His Word?"

All of the bondmen and fellow-servants of our Lord must be nonconformists to this world. We must not conform to the men of the world--of that world which lies in wickedness--nor walk according to the course of this world (see Eph. 2:2); If sinners entice us, we must not consent to them, but in our places witness against them.

Consent: "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence, permission or compliance therewith. State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 164 N. W. 759.

Consent: Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 Mont. 134, 212 P. 858, 860. 'Consent' is sometimes synonymous merely with 'waiver.' Dahlquist v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 52 Utah 438, 174 P. 833, 844

"While consent is said to be a concurrence of wills, it does not necessarily refer to or indicate a bilateral agreement; it may be unilateral." Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.Minn., 26 F.Supp. 366, 371.

"The term 'consent' generally implies a yielding of that which one has a right to withhold." Reynolds v. Baker, 191 S.W. 2d 959, 961, 209 Ark. 596.

Man's law acknowledges your duty under God to withhold consent from them. Therefore, always remember that when it appears "you must" comply to something, it actually means "you may."

Implied Consent: "That which is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, from which arises an inference or presumption that the consent has been given." Avery v. State 12 Ga.App. 562, 77 S.E. 892.

"Implied consent allows for consent to be implied from custom, usage or conduct. For example, a doorbell on the front of a residence is an invitation to enter another's property for purposes of calling the occupant to come to the door and speak to you. However, consent cannot be implied when the property owner or occupant has outwardly evidenced an intent that consent is not given, such as a "do not trespass" or "keep out" sign. [*the bondman of Christ Jesus would post a "Breaking the Close" notice on his gate and door posts]. Implied consent is limited to accomplishing the purpose for which consent was given." Opinion by the law firm of Bauckham, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen for The Michigan Township Association (1997).

Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Bouv.

Benefits, privileges, and opportunities. Yes, the BPO's of the beast, i. e., the bribes from the government temple, as the candy to the kid, and the apple to the teacher. Accepting the bribe is consenting to the evils of that temple.

Implied Consent: "Implied consent exists where a person by his line of conduct has shown a disposition to permit another person to do a certain thing without raising objection thereto." Vick v. Zumwalt, 273 P.2d 1010, 1013, 130 Colo. 148.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

The purpose of the Non-Statutory Abatement is to avoid that silence, with Law. But, if you've been accepting the bribes from the temple, you have already given consent. It may then be too late for an abatement, due to acquiescence.

You of course have the right of repentance, therefore you must cease that previous activity, repent, and thereafter exercise Your Duty of Avoidance.

Consensus tollit errorem. Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Maxim of Law, Co. Litt. 126.

Volunti non fit injuria. He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "They just rolled over me." The "reason" they rolled over you is because you had already given them consent to do so. According to the maxims of law, once you give consent there is no error, mistake or injury on their part. But:

Consentientes et agentes pari poenâ plectentur. Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment. 5 Co. 80.

"Be sober, watch; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about, seeking whom he may swallow up: Whom resist, firm in the faith, knowing the same sufferings are being accomplished in your brotherhood which is in the world. But the God of all grace, Who called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, a little while ye having suffered, may Himself perfect you, may He establish, may He strengthen, may He found you: To Him be the glory and the might, to thew ages of the ages. Amen." 1 Pet. 5:8-11

Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest. What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal. Bv.

Voluntarily appearing in court, joinder, and submitting to that court's judgment, or your silence, is the consent given:

Express Consent: "That which is directly given, either viva voce [*by voice] or in writing." Black's L.D. 3rd Ed., p. 402.

It is direct, positive, unequivocal consent, requiring no inference or implication." Pac. Nat. Agri. Credit Corp. v. Hagerman, 55 P.2d 667.

Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle. He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 8.

Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.

Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. It is better to recede than to proceed in evil. 4 Inst. 176.

"By their fruits ye shall know them. Do they gather from thorns a bunch of grapes, or from thistles figs? So every good tree produces good fruits; but the corrupt tree produces bad fruits. A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. Every tree not producing good fruits is cut down, and into fire is cast. Then surely by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16-20

Implied Consent: "Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Heine v. Wright, 76 Cal. App. 338, 244 P. 955, 956.

Before you agree to anything with anybody, always ask yourself who you are becoming yoked with; for we are warned:

"Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers: for what participation has righteousness with lawlessness? and what fellowship light with darkness? And what concord Christ with Beliar? or what part to a believeth with an unbeliever? and what agreement [*consent] a temple of God with idols? for ye a temple of the living God are; according as God said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be to Me a people.

Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, says the Lord, and the unclean thing touch not, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to Me for sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.

A bondman in and of Jesus the Christ has a name given to him by God. He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Those named by Caesar become novated into persons, human beings, individuals, residents and other "legal fictions" answering to his mark, those marks being for commercial purposes, to wit:

"Name. A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.

Designation. The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.” A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)

"Name. 1. The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.

Designation. 5. In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).

"Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.

Designation. A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two of man's maxims of law reveal that those who answer to Caesar's designations are nothing more than a "thing":

A bondman of Christ Jesus is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification" or asks if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be "rendered unto him.

The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating.

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court...Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).

When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' you should not deny or confirm, because that would cause "joinder," joining you to the controversy. You must answer as our Lord answered many questions, "I also will ask you one thing." In this way, you transfer the burden from yourself to the intruder. What that question is that you ask will be put in your mouth by the Holy Spirit; it is not for me to put the words in your mouth.

The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "it's okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when his soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the KJV with the original Greek text, He did not answer to the name, to wit:

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them.

As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way:" (KJV)

Note that in the KJV text the "He" in "I am He" is interpolated (added by the translators; it does not exist in the Greek text) in every verse.

And we see that the first time He said "I am" to the Roman soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at Exodus 3:14:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

And note that our Lord, in the Gospel of John, asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking.

We may also note that our Lord never answered to the fictitious "legal" personalities of, "carpenter" (Mark 6:3) and "the carpenter's son" (Matt 13:55). He was accused of being those fictions, but He never confirmed it. He did not "join" the question to allow "legal personality" to be attached to Him.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister to. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from "conformed to His image and likeness" to being conformed to Caesar's, and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through the natural man's codes, rules and regulations.

"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it [*and therefore, its "persons"] can have no possible existence until it [*and therefore, its "persons"] is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal [*form of the law] aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to The Law of Names, by Anthony Linell (1938).

For those who believe, or have been trained to believe, that you must open your door when someone knocks on it, consider the following:

"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Or, if you believe that the police need a warrant to enter your house, consider the following, which is from the book "Federal Searches and Seizures," by Rex D. Davis, 1964, available from the Christ's assembly at California.

Note: "Refused admittance," and "no permission being given," is when there is some kind of response from within.

"Officers may use force in breaking into a premises in order to arrest with or without a warrant provided they have been refused admittance after making the necessary notification.

18 U.S.C. 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit. The officer may break open any inner or outer door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

“At least one jurisdiction appears to distinguish an officer's authority to break in without a warrant from the same authority when he is armed with a warrant.

Unless the necessities of the moment require that the officer break down a door, he cannot do so without a warrant; and if in reasonable contemplation there is opportunity to get a warrant, or the arrest could as well be made by some other method, the outer door to a dwelling cannot be broken to make an arrest without a warrant. The right to break open a door to make an arrest requires something more than the mere right to arrest. (Accruing v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.DC 394, 179 F.2d. 456.)

We think that under the authorities, officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present. (Morrison v. United States, CA DC 1958, 262 F.2d 449.)

"In the absence of any allegation of coercion, the action of the officers who bore a valid warrant of arrest and did not force their way into her apartment but entered after the door had been opened by the defendant, in 'pushing' their way into the apartment was not of a character that it constituted such unreasonable force that would invalidate an otherwise valid search." United States v. Lord, DC NY 1960, 184 F. Supp. 923.

"There is considerable authority to the effect that use of subterfuge to gain entrance to arrest or search is not improper. Of course, if "breaking" is involved, it is necessary for the officers to announce their authority and purpose in demanding entrance. Where a Federal agent, armed with a valid arrest warrant, gained entrance to the defendant's apartment by stating he was an agent from the County Assessor's Office, the Court held the entrance lawful, stating:

There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of a deception in executing a valid arrest warrant. The case of Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, relied on by appellant, holds that a search warrant is invalid even though entry is procured by stealth rather than force. The instant case is different in that the search was incident to an arrest under a valid arrest warrant. "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 820, 2 L.Ed.2d 848.

A "mail watch" or "mail cover" occurs where postal employees scrutinize the mail addressed to an individual and note the information contained on the outside of the envelope. It is distinguishable from the opening and searching of first class mail which is unconstitutional unless legally authorized.

Defendant further suggests that the use of a "mail cover" tainted the Governments evidence. That is, a clerk was assigned in the Post Office to scrutinize all mail addressed to defendant at the Rittenhouse Hotel and to note the names and addresses of the senders. The motion to suppress cannot be granted for that reason, however, since it was not shown that the fruits of the mail watch were used (directly or indirectly) in the preparation of the Government's charges. Furthermore, it has been held in this district that even where results of a "mail watch" are communicated to the Justice Department in violation of Postal Regulations, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed. United States v. Schwartz, DC Pa. 1959, 176 F.Supp.613.

There was no "taking" of the Costello's mail with intent to deprive them of it. It was not prying into their business or secrets to note what the senders had made public on the face of the letters. And the mere fact of detention without proof that it was for unlawful purpose is insufficient to constitute a violation of the statute.

Any delay here was merely incidental to a lawful watch authorized by the Postal Regulations. United States v. Costello, DC N.Y. 1957 F.Supp. 461.

Over the past ten to twenty years, the so-called Patriot Movement has been inundating the "general public" with countless myths of law, which as a result of 'buying' into them, has cost many their Life, Liberty and Property on a large scale. This is a result, to a large degree, of not looking to The Word of God through Jesus the Christ for the answers to their problems, but putting their faith in the 'follies' of natural persons and human beings----known as constitutions, codes, rules and regulations.

'The Right to Travel,' 'common law courts,' 'getting un-taxed,' 'redeeming your strawman,' 'U.C.C. 1-207,' 'Constitutional Rights,' 'state Citizen,' 'sovereign Citizen,' 'Title 42 lawsuits,' 'commercial liens,' 'UBO Trusts,' 'Bill of Particulars,' etc., all of which are secular concepts attempting to be "godly." Their "concepts" place the users into a commercial jurisdiction controlled by infidels, pagans, secular humanists and others of like kind.

These various concepts, for the most part, are a result of what has come about since Lincoln's War, when the so-called Roman Civil Law was gradually put into place and implemented during the time of Reconstruction. The combination of many different changes in society in general, after this period, changed the spirit of law favoring the commercial aspects of things.

The purpose of this article is not to criticize or judge anyone, but to expose, with documentation, the erroneous concepts that have brought many down a painful path. It is my hope and intention to help correct these errors by sharing all information I have on these subjects with my fellow-servants. It is suggested, as always, that you do additional research in these areas in order to feel confident that the information herein is totally accurate. By doing so, with all writings and processes by whomever, the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.

"The Right to Travel: 'Within the meaning of 'a right to travel', means migration with intent to settle and abide.' Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp.1356,1360.

"Migrans jura amittat ac privilegia et immunitatates domicilii prioris, or, One who migrates or emigrates will lose the rights, privileges, and immunities of his former domicile. Maxim of Law, Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., page 992.

'Basic constitutional right exemplified in case of persons applying for welfare assistance in a state in which they have not resided for a prescribed period of time. It is said that to deny such a right to such persons is to inhibit their right to travel and hence to deny them equal protection of the law.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322.

"Nom de guerre--a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Co., 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.

"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier's Inst. of Law (1851), p. 38.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency…from, at least, the Civil War...in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Preamble from Senate Report 93-549, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate.

Note: When on the road, or anywhere else, you should be doing only one thing, which is, 'living, moving, and having your being in Christ Jesus.' This one action is for purely spiritual sustenance, which in turn, all things are provided. Those things provided by Him do not include worldly desires such as a night on the town, disturbing the peace by doing 90 miles an hour because you like 'the thrill of speed,' or you're late for an 'appointment,' etc. The bondman in and of Christ Jesus does not have a "right to travel." According to our Father's Word, we have only the "right to the Tree of Life."

"Love not the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because all that which is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the vaunting of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world; and the world is passing away, and the lust of it: but he that does the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17

Common Law Courts: There is not and never has been such a thing as a 'common law court.' There are courts of common pleas, courts at common law, courts Christian, but no 'common law court.' It will go down in history as a 'gimmick court,' operating out of necessity (Maxim of Law: Necessity knows no law, therefore these 'courts' are utterly lawless).

Getting un-taxed: First, there is not a word such as 'un-taxed,' that exists in the English language. This is one more 'gimmick' to sell a $1,000 - $2,000 package to desperate, uninformed victims. When a person engages in commercial activity in America, that person is liable for the tax on it, if there is a record of such activity.

Note: only 'persons' engage in commercial activity. This tax is nothing new, to wit:

'The power, in a State, is necessarily limited to subjects within its jurisdiction. These are persons, property, and business,--whatever the form of taxation, whether as duties, imports, excises, or licenses. The power may touch property in every shape: in its natural condition, in its manufactured form, in its transmutations. It may touch business in any of its infinite forms--in professions, commerce, manufactures, transportation. The amount is determined by the value, use, capacity, or productiveness. Unrestrained constitutionally, the power of the State as to the mode, form, and extent is unlimited, provided the subject be within her jurisdiction.' A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 1009, based on numerous court cases.

Note: 'provided the subject be within her jurisdiction,' is limiting, when it comes to the bondman not engaging in the benefits, privileges and immunities of the State, but instead, living in Him.

U.C.C. 1-207: This 'gimmick' was created by 'the codemakers' in order to appear legitimate. When reserving your 'common law' rights with a commercial code, and with commerce and the lex mercatoria being part of the common law of England, you are only reserving what that code has jurisdiction over; commerce. In essence, what you are saying when you sign U.C.C. 1-207 is that you reserve your rights to engage in commercial thievery in their system (see, The Dark Side of the Common Law). The current code system is designed from The Roman Codes of Justinian which were based on The Babylonian Codes of Hammurabi (Note: A plaque of Hammurabi hangs in the House of Representatives in D.C.). The U.C.C. is private law between merchants, codified from the Law Merchant. It is not something a anyone should attach himself to. It is:

"One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and The American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). The U.C.C. has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states [*and it is copyrighted]." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531.

Constitutional Rights: Constitutional Rights consist of natural, civil, and political rights. All of these rights are for natural persons, human beings, citizens and subjects of the secular state; not the bondman (see Issue the Sixth, To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being). When one clings to constitutional rights instead the protection of our Loving Father through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, the result is:

"Get behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence to Me: for thy thoughts are not the things of God, but things of men." Matthew 16:23

"the rights of persons considered in their natural capacity, are of two sorts, -- absolute and relative; absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other." 1 Bl. Comm. 123.

If you believe that 'humans' have constitutional rights under the current de facto government, re-read S. R. 93-549.

state Citizen and sovereign Citizen: Again, secular concepts, for persons, designed to subject the bondman of Christ Jesus to Roman secular law, to wit:

"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." 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

"Citizen: A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 77.

"Citizen: One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with 'the people'." Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404.

Note: Who are 'the people'? The U.S. Government, which is a corporation, claims to be sovereign. 'The people,' then, are those with power over their 'human subjects,' who wish to be God walking on earth. Their motto is, 'I can do all things in myself and be perfect' (humanism).

Title 42 Lawsuits: All U.S. Titles and Codes are for natural persons, corporations, etc. Natural persons are God-less entities presumed to be living in a state of nature (see Issue the Sixth, To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being).

When a anyone files a Title 42 lawsuit in the de facto secular courts, he is saying in essence, "I am one of your pagan followers, and you, as my Master have violated my 'Civil Rights (rights you gave me).' I want revenge, and I want to be judged by the un-Godly, as long as my greed and revenge produce some money for me." Those promoting and using such lawsuits walk arm in arm with Mercury and Mars to wit:

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of government than merely to forbid an 'established church,' ....We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." Justice Felix Frankfurter and Co. in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203.

Commercial Liens: Again, designed by the secular mercantile world for the promotion of revenge, greed and the furtherance of their jurisdiction. Many who have filed these in recent years have landed in jail. Those who are not in jail are still trying to 'monetize' these liens, but to no avail. Such money making 'promotional gimmicks' as, "you can sell them to brokers on the world market," have been found by many to be bogus and fraudulent. The recent Schweitzer/freeman activity in Montana, California and other States are typical examples of the danger and futility of getting involved with such anti-Christ behavior.

UBO Trusts: Better known as 'common law trusts,' never existed in common law. Just another money making 'gimmick' by commercial promoters. Trusts, like all other instruments that create a commercial fiction, are and have always been repugnant to the Truth. The information on trusts being so numerous, I'll try to keep it simple.

First, a trust carries with it an equitable duty, a benefit (commodity) and limited liability.

Second, a trust reduces your legal title in property to an equitable title, thereby entering that property into commercial activity. An equitable title cannot be defended in a court-at-law or with a Non-Statutory Abatement.

Third, when receiving the benefit as the beneficiary of the trust, from the trustee, the beneficiary surrenders a legal right, and joins the secular commercial world on record, to wit:

Trust beneficiary: "A person named in a trust account as one for whom a party to the account is named as trustee." Uniform Probate Code 6-101.

"Person for whose benefit property is held in trust." Restatement, Second, Trusts 3.

The Straw Man/Redemption Plan: This is the newest greed-based invention on the scene today. There are many "partakers of this unclean thing" that have either gone to jail or are currently being searched for by the Justice Department. Beware!!!

The so-called Patriot Movement and the religion it practices can be said to have a predictable monthly tithing call to its worshippers and worshippers-to-be. It is, "Come join The Silver Bullet of the Month Club." The echo of its bark seems to bounce off the walls of the carnival temple in which it preaches--those paid commercial ads within various 'patriot' magazines, books, literature, and talk radio.

"Come and get it! Yes, it's the all new, only-one-of-its-kind, step-by-step, you-can-beat-'em-at-their-own-game, 'Pro Se Litigation' package,"

"Get it here. Become a 'sovereign sentient human being' with our super special one-size-fits-all eight hundred dollar 'state citizenship' package,"

"Don't miss this one. Let us make you 'safe and secure' with our 'super-duper, guaranteed not to fail,' twelve hundred dollar 'Pure-Common Law-Offshore Trust' package,"

"Come one, come all! Get this just-released, new and improved, Hot! Hot! Hot!, world renowned, teach-'em-a-lesson, get rich weapon of revenge, 'Title 42 Lawsuit' package,'

"Extra, extra, read all about it. Get your land back with our newly released, 'Allodial Title' package,"

"New & Improved!! Get yourself out from underneath the thumb of the I.R.S with our special, time-tested (twenty year prison term) 'Un-Tax' package."

"Finally, you can buy back your strawman, and be free forever (to pursue your lawlessness).

And of course, we can't forget the Recision packages, Right to Travel packages, Comptroller Warrant packages, Commercial Lien packages, Common Law Court packages, Social Security packages, Flag of Peace packages, Civil Death packages, Statute Staple packages, Bill of Particulars packages, Bill of Annulment packages, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

"Come unto me, for I will get you out of your desperate situation, protect you and make you safe and secure (if you can afford it)," is their spiel. They become the gods and gurus of 'law.' The victims cry, "more, more, give us more; just one more Silver Bullet," and these 'law gods' reply, "more, more? yes, we have more, if you have more, more, more money!!!"

Surely, the snake oil salesmen of the 1800's would be proud, and today's T.V. ad exec's would excitedly quip, "it's the triumph of the human spirit at its finest."

The truth of the matter is, there are no Silver Bullets, except in the fictional world of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Ironically, the follies of the 'sovereign' human mind become quite clear when you find out what a 'patriot' really is:

"PATRIOT. Mistakenly (with possessive) as if = upholder, devotee: mid-C 17. Weever, 1631 'A Patriot of Truth.' O.E.D." A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 610.

Self-righteousness = self-destruction. The self-righteousness of man's legalism results in his own self-destruction.

The fact that humanist America has truly come to the chasm of self-destruction becomes more and more evident each day. The 'patriot gods' and their 'disciples' are part of that evidence. These 'sheep' exist because they prefer to look to the creations of man for their safekeeping, rather than their Loving Father. They either forgot or don't know (or don't want to know) that He said "I will never leave you nor forsake you," and that, "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

The hirelings that concoct the 'silver bullets' are simply the end result of fictions of fallen minds wandering in the dark without the Christ and His Word.

Those who know the Truth, know that only God Almighty is "Sovereign," that His protections and blessings bestowed upon the Executors of His Testament are protections and blessings that cannot be surpassed with anything that the 'gods of government' can offer, or the 'gods of the patriot movement' can claim to offer. They know that real Law comes from The One True God alone, to those who do His Will, not their own will.

The Myths and Heresies of The Patriot Movement are the same Myths and Heresies of the ancients--Egypt, Greece, Rome and their Mother of Whores, Babylon-- with a 'new and improved' face of confusion through their love for codes, rules and regulations of man-made 'law.'

How many have thrown their hands up in the air and said, "I give up. I've tried all of the packages and I'm more confused now than when I started." Why is this? When you put your faith for earthly salvation in the Babylonian creations of the secular commercial world, you reap what they sow -- a harvest of confusion, desolation, and damnation.

"Truly the hills and the strength of the mountains were a lying refuge: but by the Lord our God is the salvation of Israel. But shame has consumed the labours of our fathers from our youth; their sheep and their calves, and their sons and their daughters. We have lain down in our shame, and our disgrace has covered us: because we and our fathers have sinned before our God, from our youth until this day; and we have not harkened to the voice of the Lord our God." Jeremiah 3:23-25

Just as the corrupt traditions of the elders become the introduction of universal confusion, which makes man like the fishes of the sea, so too does the idea that every man can, outside of the Law of God, avenge himself through the hands of 'private persons.' These private persons; these hirelings; these sons of Adam, again say, "Come unto us, for we will be your gods, and you will be our sheep."

It may well be said that "The Patriot Movement" is a stepping-stone to bigger and better things. That may very well be true, but we must consider that that stepping-stone is nothing more than our Father's Rod of Correction driving you back to Him. We hope and pray that those that fail to acknowledge that truth, and refuse to take heed of it by disobediently remaining within that "Movement," will come to the Truth that there is no "movement" there, but simply a pit that binds; and that the Way and the Life will take them by their hand and show them that it is time to "come out of her."

"Jesus said therefore again to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, that I am the door of the sheep.

All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

I am the door: by Me if anyone enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture.

The thief comes not except that he may steal and may kill and may destroy: I came that life they might have, and abundantly might have.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep: but the hired servant, and who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees: and the wolf seizes them, and scatters the sheep.

Now the hireling flees, because a hired servant he is, and is not himself concerned about the sheep.

I am the good shepherd, and know those that are Mine, and am known of those that are Mine.

Editor's Note: The following is from a Sister in the Lord and should give all of us hope that we can do the same.

“My husband and I were married on the twenty-eighth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred eighty. By the eleventh month of the same year we had purchased (land sales mortgage) a twenty-eight acre farm in the Willamette Valley in Marion county, Oregon.

The farm was financed by the State VA Program and our parents. At the same time we borrowed money (parents again) to purchase sheep to raise on the farm.

Then the fights began. Either I was spending to much or he was, or he wasn't working enough or I wasn't. He got mad when I borrowed from my dad; I got mad when his mother offered unwanted advise.

Time went on and we were learning not to purchase on time, that is, the small things.

In the winter of eighty-one I attended classes on Tax Preparation, and then passed the test. In the spring of eight-two I started work at H & R Block as a Licensed Tax Preparer.

During the same era we started a greenhouse business on the farm that was quite successful.

I continued to prepare taxes for the next five tax seasons for various firms. In the fall of eighty-five I passed the exam to be a "Licensed Tax Consultant" and then opened my own office "Woodburn Tax Service & Bookkeeping". On Hwy 99E there was an office I rented, and then hired a gal to help me. The business was very successful. Because of the growth, I needed more space, so I made an offer to the adjacent land owner on the purchase (Land Sales Contract, i.e., mortgage) of his building, rental house and lot. I plopped the money down and it was a done deal.

Now the debt was larger and the fights were bigger. Let's not forget to mention by now we have a son and two daughters.

The tax and bookkeeping business continued to grow so I hired a couple more gals to help. At one time I had three full time employees besides myself. I had payroll taxes and huge overhead with computers and office equipment. I felt that my liability was great and I was sticking my neck out; and wa la!, I incorporated my business. Now I was a corporate officer.

The greenhouse business was going good and we had started into Christmas trees so we incorporated the farm business too. Now my husband was a corporate officer just like me!

Now, back in the spring of eighty-seven we accepted the Lord into our lives. He had been working on us in different ways and we are glad we heard the knock at the door. We knew things were not correct, but how do you get from Point A to Point B when the canyon looks so deep?

Trying to get on the correct path and follow it is hard, especially when you are learning so much at one time; Christianity, Parenting, Business, and Farming, not to forget to mention matrimony. Well the Lord had (has) a plan and I guess it is up to us to seek it out.

One day in the third month of ninety- three my husband was reading the Farm newspaper and saw a ranch for sale in Eastern Oregon; he jokingly said "let's go look at it." I said OK, and that weekend we did. It was fifty-four ranches later before we bought one.

In the mean time I sold my tax business, sold the office building, and sold the farms I inherited after my dad's death. At the time we started liquidating, we had four rental houses, four different pieces of property, and I rented out three office suites and a warehouse; I had the tax business; we had the nursery and Christmas trees, and oh yes, three children (we weren't able to liquidate them).

During the same time, on one evening in the spring of ninety-three a very close friend of ours, Ronald Lowell, mentioned in conversation that there was two kinds of citizens and did I know which I was? (We know now we are neither, but it was the start for us down the correct path). I confessed I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Curious about all his findings, I needed to know more.

Now, tax research was one of my all time favorite things to do; find the loop hole; find the truth; find the gray area...! So I went to Salem to the Marion county Law Library, literally sitting on the floor in the aisle way with books piled around me, reading for five hours straight about "Citizen" and "citizen," and I came out of there with the understanding that "it" was something that I didn't want to be.

Now the idea to move to Eastern Oregon made more sense. Get away from the commercialism, get back to the basics, and more importantly, back to God [*old paths].

In the winter of ninety-five we purchased Ranch number fifty-four; it was paid for with cash and gold; no mortgage, no borrowing and no fights.

We lived in an elk hunting tent (we still had our house in the valley) for six weeks while building a pole barn for shelter. It got down to 12 degrees in the tent. When the pole barn was completed we moved in, and the next night it got down to -5 degrees. We moved everything from our old place, and it finally sold in the summer of ninety- six.

This ranch does not have an address or a mailbox. We receive everything in general delivery. We owe no one any money, we pay as we go, and if we don't have the money we simply don't buy it. We do not have any charge cards, charge accounts, or bank accounts of any sort.

The only monthly bill we have is the telephone bill, but to keep from having easements across the property we would not allow the telephone company to put in the phone line. I do all my calling from along side the county road (don't call me, I'll call you). It really keeps the phone bill down. This has not been an overnight change; it has been a long learning process and we are still learning and we have made mistakes and we will make more. Our motive is correct and our hearts are in the correct spot too. We now think about everything we do and how it will affect us. My husband barters with the neighbors for some of our needs and I take eggs homemade bread to the neighbor lady, who in turn provides us with fresh milk. To keep from being involved as much as possible with commerce, we are working toward being completely God sufficient, learning how to grow all of our food needs and learning how to use what is Provided for us.

Discerning between wants and needs, comforts and conveniences. Learning to let Him lead and provide. Oh yes, the children I almost forgot; they are doing very well and they love our new place; they have six hundred and forty acres on which to ride their horses; they are home taught and they enjoy that too. We have lots of wildlife around us and everyday we all see or learn something new.

Editor's note: the Christ's assembly at California welcomes letters for reprint from fellow-bondmen on similar stories of successful disengagement from the Beast.

We have previously written that "being unincorporated or unregistered is not sufficient to avoid the Roman Imperial State's regulations and taxing authority, though it is a beginning." The unincorporation must take place, but this Blessed beginning must be continued until the particular area church is "unspotted from the world" by no longer operating according to the ways of the world. We hope that the information herein will be a partial guide toward discontinuing those ways.

We must first begin by pointing out that our Lord did not designate His church to be either incorporated or unincorporated. As a catalyst for the natural man's continual effort to mask the True church, these are the created designations of the Hegelian dialect, i.e., when you argue over two lies you still end up with a lie, but to the ignorant it looks like the truth.

Again, we must point out that our Lord did not found a Christian Church, the Christian religion, or Christianity. Those self-defining designations created by the natural man are not found in Scripture. As He said:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Note that there is no mention or allusion to the Christian Church, the Christian religion or Christianity. The "rock" spoken of, of course, is Christ Himself, for in the original Greek text, the word there is petra (petra) meaning "a mass of rock," or metaphorically, "a foundation that no man can lay," as distinct from petros (petros, [Peter]), "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved, as was Peter's character.

There are two religions mentioned in Scripture. The first is the religion of the Jews (Judaism, see Acts 26:5 and Galatians 1:13-14) and the second, literally:

"If anyone among you seems to be religious, not bridling [*restraining, holding in check] his tongue, but deceiving his heart, of this one vain is the religion.

Religion pure and undefiled before God and the Father is: to visit orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1:26-27 (Berry)

In the King James it is "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

The only religious activity His bondmen and servants are to adhere to or engage in is clear from the above. All else is of the religion of the Jews and the heathen, and as Brother Paul said, should be counted but dung (see Philippians ch. 3).

Concerning the meeting place of His Lawful assemblies, as contrasted with those of the Christian religion, we offer the following:

Over the past nineteen-plus centuries since the bondmen in and of Christ Jesus abandoned the synagogues, tabernacles and temples made with the hands of their earthly fathers and began to be gathered together in His Name, wherever that may of occurred (be it houses, caves, on a hillside, etc.), there has been a continual walking away from His mode of congregating His remnant together, toward an organized commercial system based on the ways the natural man. We have examples of where His assembled may have been found prior to making merchandise of His body:

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:38

"As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." Acts 8:3

"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house." 1 Corinthians 16:19

"Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house."

It was not until the fourth century, shortly after "The Church" joined the Roman State at the Council of Nicea, that the first Basilica was built for the Christian religion. All ancient and modern definitions of "basilica" show that it is a commercial building for commercial purposes.

From the heathen-based idea of the basilicas and cathedrals, the Protestant Church created a facsimile, known as "a Church," or "a Christian Church." Like the Roman Catholic Church, they designated their buildings made with men's hands to be "the House of God" and a place of sanctity and sanctuary. But the Word of God says otherwise:

"Thus saith the LORD, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what kind of a house will ye build Me? and of what kind the place of My rest?

For all these things are Mine, saith the LORD: and to whom will I have respect, but to the humble and meek, and the man that trembles at My words?" Isa. 66:1-2 (LXX).

"Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest?

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" Acts 17:24

"We have such an High Priest, Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Hebrews 8:1b-2

"For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20 (Berry)

In the King James version, it reads "in My name." But the word in the Greek is eis, which should be translated "unto," as is with the Berry literal rendering.

"eis, a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into. Metaphorically, I. retains the force of entering into anything. 1. where one thing is said to be changed into another [translated sometimes by unto], to mark the limit reached, or where one sets foot." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 183.

In the aftermath of following the Roman Catholic Church's way of establishing a commercial center of worship under the designation of "a Church," the so-called Protestant Church decided to continue to "do business" under the State in the same manner as the Popish Church, and went one step further. It developed the Humanistic concepts of "The Common Schools," "Secondary Schools," "Sunday Schools," and other methods of immersing God's children in the commercial world and the things of the world. The only school found in Scripture is that of one Tyrannus (tyrant) at Acts 19:9.

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.

Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4

Is it any wonder that the State, when pulling these self-defined "unincorporated churches" into court, usually designate them to be an "unincorporated association," not "a church" or a member of "the True church," because an unincorporated association is defined by the State to be:

"a body or collection of persons who have united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations, for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise, and who are called, for convenience, by a common name." Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 S. Ct. 289, 296 U.S. 344.

The marks of the world become obvious. "Persons united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations" describes those who have assembled together through self-will, not through Christ Jesus, for: (1), He is not a respecter of persons, and (2), it is not assembled according to His ways, but according to the methods and forms of a corporation, and (3), they are joined together "for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise," i.e. making merchandise of Him; and not for His purposes or for His glory, and (4). they "are called, for convenience, by a common name," meaning that they are not called by Him, but are self-defined "for convenience," i.e. commercial purposes.

And the signs leading up to the marks of the world become obvious, i.e., bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, receipts, employees, salaried pastors, etc., all instruments of the world, created by the world for those who are engaged in an enterprise for profit-sake.

"Where the association is organized for commercial purposes, and operated for pecuniary (monetary) profit, it is no more than a partnership, and the rights and liabilities incident to that relation attach to its members, as well between the members themselves." Chastain v. Baxter, 31 P.2d 21.

We are warned about those who purport to be "the church," but are engaged in the activities of the world:

"Give no heed to a worthless woman; for honey drops from the lips of a harlot, who for a season pleases thy palate; but afterwards thou wilt find her more bitter than gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword. For the feet of folly lead those who deal with her down to the grave with death; and her steps are not established. For she goes not upon the paths of life; but her ways are slippery, and not easily known." Proverbs 5:3-6 (LXX)

The harlot (in the Greek porne) spoken of above is the same harlot spoken of in Revelation 17.

"4204. Harlot. pornh. 1. prop. a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain, (Arstph., Dem., al.). 2. Hebraistically" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,

"Harlot. porne, (fem. of pornos, from pernaw, to sell) a harlot, (occ. Rev. xvii. 1, 15, 16; xix. 2)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 353.

"Harlot. 4204. porne (por'-nay); feminine of 4205; a strumpet; figuratively, an idolater: KJV-- harlot, whore." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Harlot. 2181. zanah (zaw-naw'); a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):" Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:15-16

"Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Proverbs 29:26 (LXX).

We must first point out that when our Lord was offered, by that old crafty serpent, the glory and powers of the kingdoms of the world, recorded for our edification at Luke 4:5-8, the word for world written down by the Spirit of God there, in the Greek, is oikoumenh, or oikoumene (oy-kou-men'-ay), meaning the Roman Empire, to wit:

"3. oikoumene=the world as inhabited. It is from the verb oikeo= to dwell. It is used of the inhabitable world, as distinct from the kosmos. Hence, it is used in a more limited and special sense of the Roman Empire, which was then predominant. See Luke 2:1; 4:5; 21:26." The Companion Bible, Appendix 129, page 162.

"Luke 4:5, the world (phn oikoumenh). Lit., the inhabited (land). The phrase was originally used by the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves, in contrast with barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, the entire Roman empire." Vincent's Word Studies on the New Testament, page 266.

And Satan revealed whose domain the glory and power of the Roman Empire belongs to and is dispensed by:

"And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." Luke 4:6

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind Me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Luke 4:8

Therefore, it is mandatory that we, just as He has shown to us by example, must refuse and avoid the things of the world; those self-designed and self-gratifying glories and powers of the Roman Empire.

In this portion on the subject of The Unincorporated Church (so-called), we will evidence the fact that if and when a particular "Church" or "individual" partakes of the commercial modes and instruments (sorceries, see Isaiah 47 and Revelation 18) "created" by the Babylonian and Roman merchants of the earth (their created purpose always being "for the sake of personal profit"), it gives that necessary "appearance of evil" which the State, (knowingly or unknowingly) being God's rod of correction, looks for in its regulating capacity.

The intrusion by the State into the affairs of the subject "Church," or in their language, "religious society," is justified under the world's lex mercatoria; for the esoteric modes and instruments (sorceries) of that system of man's law are private in nature, being an abomination unto the Lord and the partakers of them ultimately destroyed by Him (see Isaiah 23 & 47, Ezekiel 27, Hosea 12, Nahum 3, Zephaniah 1, and Revelation 18).

The lex mercatoria's sorceries are from the natural man (Satan's ministers), and are therefore foreign law to the Law of our Father:

"FOREIGN LAW. The laws of a foreign country, or of a sister state. People v. Martin, 38 Misc.Rep. 67, 76 N.Y.S. 953; Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 8 Barb.(N.Y.) 233. Foreign laws are often the suggesting occasions [*from the whisperer] of changes in, or additions to, our own laws, and in that respect are called 'jus receptum.' Brown." Black's Law Dictionary (4th. ed. 1957), pp. 775-776.

Being received and accepted modes and instruments (sorceries) of the world, they are already under the regulation of the State previous to being partaken of; for, as Luke 4:6 shows us, it is Satan's domain. When used, the user automatically becomes regulateable according to the ways of the world. Until it is understood that those modes and instruments (sorceries) belong to, and are regulated by, a private law, the partakers of them will continue to err in their ways.

The following short example of the history of the law merchant may give a helpful insight into its origins and the implications of using its dead tools. For a more detailed account of its history, see Issue the Thirty-ninth of The Christian Jural Society News:

"THE LAW MERCHANT. Although much of the present law of sales, partnerships, insurance and bankruptcy is derived from the customs and usages of the law merchant (lex mercatoria), the law of negotiable instruments was, undoubtedly, the most remarkable development of the law merchant. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law to this day provides that "In any case not provided for in this act the rules of the law merchant shall govern." (Section 196, N.I.L.)

"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.

"The merchants of the Italian city states and of the cities that were members of the Hanseatic League rejuvenated general European trade in the 12th and 13th centuries following its almost total abandonment after the Fall of Rome. These traders took precepts from the ancient law of the Roman Empire, adapted them to their times, and created customs of trade and ways of doing business, that became accepted among the merchants of all Europe, and hence this body of business or commercial law obtained the name Law Merchant.

"The law of agency, sales, negotiable instruments, insurance, carriage, debt, guaranty, stoppage in transit, liens, partnership, and bankruptcy was made by these traveling international private merchants." Stone, Smith, Frank, Romig, Fundamentals of Business Law (1950), p. 8.

"Evil ways are before a man, and he does not like to turn away from them; but it is needful to turn aside from a perverse and bad way." Proverbs 22:14

And again from Proverbs, and again conspicuously missing from the King James, we are warned:

"If thou sit to sup at the table of a prince [*Satan is the prince of this world], consider attentively the things set before thee: and apply thine hand, knowing that it behoves thee to prepare such: but if thou art very insatiable, desire not his provisions; for these belong to a false life." Proverbs 23: 1-3 (LXX)

As stated in last month's article on this subject, some of the insatiable desires, or major sorceries partaken of in that false life are:

Bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, receipts, employees, and salaried pastors.

These are just a few of the major engagements that are condemned by the Word of God. Why? Because they all represent "wants," not "needs." Only the discontented partake of the insatiable desires of their "wants":

"Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:11-13

And without the poetic license of the King James, we see, through the literal words in the Greek, a clear spirit:

And I know to be brought low, and I know to abound. In everything and in all things I am initiated both to be full and to hunger, both to abound and to be deficient.

The "wants" attempted to be satisfied by the ways of the Roman Empire's law merchant all represent allegiance to the ways of the world, and are not representative of "the old paths," which, at Jeremiah 6, we are admonished to walk in. And also at Proverbs we are warned:

For if those have not whence to give compensation, they will take the bed under thee.

It is fit that an observant man and diligent in his business should attend on kings, and not attend on slothful men." Proverbs 22: 26-29 (LXX).

[For a short example of how the old paths have been abandoned in modern times by the slothful, see Pages fifteen and sixteen in this Issue].

"(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:" Roman 11:8-9.

Table; at Romans 11:9. Put by Fig. Metaphor for material prosperity." The Companion Bible,

And we are instructed on the nature of one who reverences and attends on the slothful men of the lex mercatoria:

"He that shares with a thief, hates his own soul; and if any having heard an oath uttered tell not of it, fearing and reverencing men have been overthrown, but he that trusts in the Lord shall rejoice.

Ungodliness causes a man to stumble: but he that trusts in his Master shall be safe.

Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Proverbs 29: 24-26. (LXX)

We will now evidence the relationships that are created through partaking of the sorceries of the lex mercatoria, and the resulting repercussions:

Again, it is recorded for our edification in the books of Matthew, Mark, and John, our Lord revealing to us the true nature of those who engage in business for personal profit, one of them being banking, to wit:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12-13 (see also Mark 11:15-17 and John 2:13-16)

It must first be noted that those whom He engaged in this account were a "den of thieves (robbers)" before they entered the Temple; bringing their activities inside of the Temple only transferred the den from the outside, to the inside.

To evidence that "the den of thieves" are, in fact, the bankers and their banks, we see the first word above that is highlighted is "table," the original word in the Greek being Trapeza, (trapeza) meaning:

"5132. Trapeza, (trapeza) a table, an eating table, Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Heb. 9:2; by impl. a meal, feast, Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 10:21; a table or counter of a money changer, Matt. 21:12, a bank, Luke 19:23; by impl. pl. money matters, Acts 6:2." The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 411.

"5132 trapeza (trap'-ed-zah); probably contracted from 5064 and 3979; a table or stool (as being four-legged), usually for food (figuratively, a meal); also a counter for money (figuratively, a broker's office for loans at interest): Strong's Concordance.

The second (set of) words highlighted above is "money changers," the original word in the Greek being kollubisthj, (kollubistes), meaning:

"2855 kollubisthj, -ou, o, (fr. kollubuoj (i.q. a. a small coin, cf. koloboj clipped; b. rate of exchange, premium), a money-changer, banker: Mt. xxi. 12; Mk. xi. 15; Jn.ii. 15." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 353.

"1. kollubistes (kollubisthj, 2855), from kollubus (lit., "clipped), "a small coin or rate of change" (koloboo signifies "to cut off, to clip, shorten," Matt. 24:22), denotes "a money-changer," lit., money-clipper, Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, page 96.

"In the court of the Gentiles, in the temple precincts, were the seats of those who sold selected and approved animals for sacrifice, and other things. The magnitude of this traffic had introduced the bankers' or brokers' business, <John 2:14>." Ibid.

"5133. Trapeziths (Trapez-it-hs) A money changer, broker, banker, who exchanges or loans money for a premium, Matt. 25:27." The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 412.

And the same connection of the "den of robbers" is recognized in the secular dictionaries:

"Bank. n. 1. Orig., the table, counter, or place of business of a money changer; now, the building or office used for banking purposes." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 178.

"Mat. 21:13, Thieves. Correctly, robbers. In classical usage mostly of cattle. The robber, conducting his operations on a large and systematic scale [*the Federal Reserve System], and the aid of bands [*member banks], is thus to be distinguished from the thief who purloins or pilfers whatever comes to hand. A den would be appropriate to a band of robbers, not to thieves." Vincent's Word Studies on the New Testament, Vol. 1, page 215.

Considering the above, we see that our Lord revealed to us for our instruction, edification, and comfort, that "the den of robbers," or more specifically, "the bankers," are an abomination unto the Father, and therefore are never to be allowed within the Temple--that new Temple being His body, His assembled:

"Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is Holy, which Temple ye are."

The defilement of His Temple by those who partake of the ways of "the den of robbers" becomes obvious when we see the relationship created thereby:

"The relation between a bank and a depositor therein is that of debtor and creditor." Bank of Marin v. England, Cal., 385 U.S. 99.

"It has been said that a certificate of deposit amounts to a loan by a depositor to the bank for an agreed period of time at a specific rate of interest." Spratt v. Security Bank of Buffalo, 654 P.2nd 130.

"A signature card constitutes a contract." Western Assur. Co., Inc. v. Star Financial Bank of Indianapolis, C.A(Ind.), 3 F.3d 1129

"Contract. A promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other..." Lamoureux v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 91 R.I 94.

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8-14

"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Proverbs 22:26

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

"The relation between a bank and a depositor therein is generally not that of agent and principal, although it has also been said that the bank discharges its obligation as a debtor subject to the rules obtaining between principal and agent, and that a bank's authority to receive money on behalf of a customer derives from its authority to act as the customer's agent." Department of Retirement Systems v. Kralman, 867 P.2d. 643

The condemnation of the above, and the hardness of the hearts of those who love in vain the things of that world and reject the Suretyship of the Sure Foundation, is clearly seen:

"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood [*that false life] have we hid ourselves:

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

And your covenant with death shall be disannuled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." Isaiah 28:15-18

We will now look at evidence showing the lawlessness of the lex mercatoria's employee/employer relationship disclosed to us by the natural man, and the implications created thereby when a bondman in and of Christ or an area church becomes either an employee or an employer. These disclosures also apply to a salaried pastor:

"The relation of employee and employer is that which arises out of a contract of employment, express or implied, between a master or employer, on the one hand, and a servant or employee, on the other." Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Capolino, 65 N.E. 2d.

When that express or implied contract is entered into, the State becomes the regulating master through their Imperial decrees:

"It is one of the functions of the State to decree the legal consequences that shall attach to a contract of employment made within the state, regardless of a stipulation of the parties" Miller v. National Chair Co., 22 A.2d 804.

"The relationship of employer and employee is substantially the same as that of master and servant." Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Elkins,70 F.Supp. 155.

"In its broadest sense the term "servant" includes any person over whom personal authority is exercised (Toronto v. Hattaway, 122 So. 816) or who exerts himself or labors for the benefit of a master or employer (In re Caldwell, 164 F. 515); and anyone who works for, and under the direction or control of, another for salary or wages." Kiser v. Suppe, 112 S.W. 1005.

"In a more restricted sense a servant has been defined to be a person employed to labor for the pleasure or interest of another; especially, in law, one employed to render service or assistance in some trade or vocation, but without authority to act as an agent in place of his employer (Rendleman v. Niagra Spray Co., 16 F.2d 122); one who is employed to render personal service to his employer otherwise than in the pursuit of an independent calling and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of the other, who is called his master." Brosius v. Orpheum Theater Co., 60 P.2d 156.

When entering into a contract of employment, both the employer and employee also enter into a contract with the police State, and are thereby militarily bound by the benefit/duty relationship between them and the State:

"Statutes that preclude a contract for personal service are for the benefit of the employee, and are in the nature of police regulations or expressions of public policy." Shaughnessy v. D'Antoni, 100 F.2d 422; Hill v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 8 F.Supp. 80.

In America, the prerequisite for a police regulation to apply to a given situation stems from "the permanent state of national emergency" instituted by F. D. R. in 1933, which made all "persons" within the U. S. government's territory "alien enemies" and therefore subject to the Trading with the Enemy Act. But the behavior of those "persons" must align with certain criteria for the Act to take effect in a given situation:

"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an 'alien enemy' within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder. Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b)." In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S.2d 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc 374.

From the above, we see that residency is a major factor in the State's police regulating capacity against persons. But what constitutes residency:

"There are three concepts of especial importance in connection with the presence of a person within a state: residence, domicile, and citizenship. Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation. It involves a more or less fixed abode but ignores the intent of continuance or political affiliation.

Every natural person has a domicile. A domicile of choice is acquired by the concurrence of physical presence (usually residence) and an intent to make the place his more or less permanent home."The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III p. 358 footnote.

From the above, we see that one who resides is deemed to be a natural person (natural man). The determination of residency is based on the prerequisite of a permanent home. What is a home?:

"Home: That place or country in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains either residence or the intention of residence." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1449.

"Home: That place in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains residence or to which he intends to return. Place where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social and civil life." Restatement of Conflicts, Second, § 12.

And in the State's taxing scheme, we find that business and residency are of utmost importance:

"Since travel expenses of an employee are deductible only if the taxpayer is away from home, the deductibility of such expenses rests upon the definition of 'tax home.' The IRS position is that 'tax home' is the business location, post or station (military terms) of the taxpayer." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1461.

"And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hated bird.

Because of the wine of the fury of her fornication all nations have drunk; and the kings of the earth with her did commit fornication, and the merchants of the earth through the power of her luxury were enriched..

And I heard another voice out of the heaven, saying, Come ye out of her, My people, that ye may not have fellowship in her sins, and that ye may not receive of her plagues.

For her sins followed as far as the heaven, and God hath remembered her unrighteousness."

Through the blessings of fellowship with our Brothers and Sisters in the Christ, the Spirit of our loving Father has shown unto us here a day by day increase of His working in the hearts and minds of His children to seek ways in which to come out of Babylon the great and no longer partake of her plagues.

As all of His children know, the ways in which to begin, to continue in, and to fulfil that exodus can never be accomplished in accordance with the wisdom of the world (philosophy); for, as it has always been, only through unwavering faith in Him and His Word and by His Grace and Direction alone can anyone walk in His ways and reap the Blessings therein:

"To whom dost thou attach thyself, or whom art thou going to assist? is it not He that has strength, and He who has a strong arm?

"To whom hast thou given counsel? is it not to Him who has all Wisdom? whom wilt thou follow? is it not the One who has the greatest power?

To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose breath is it that has come forth from thee?" Job 26:2-4

In this discourse, therefore, we will look only to His Word and the direction by His Spirit in seeking the alternatives to bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, employment, salaried pastors, etc., hereafter referred to as "unrighteous activities." In that way, we will all remain in the Truth together, and not err separately.

Firstly, we must always keep in mind the Instruction, Assurance and Wisdom given to us by the Way, the Truth, and the Life:

“Be not careful as to your life what ye should eat, nor as to the body what ye should put on. The life is more than the food, and the body than the raimant. Consider the ravens, for they sow not nor reap, to which there is not storehouse nor granary, and God feeds them. How much more are ye better than the birds? And who of you by being careful is able to add to his stature one cubit? If therefore not even the least ye are able to do, why about the rest are ye careful?" Luke 12:22-26

"For all these things the nations seek after. For your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Be careful not therefore for the morrow: for the morrow shall be careful about the things of itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil of it." Matthew 6:32-34

Within the above, which is from Above, all of the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" are found.

We see that the "unrighteous activities" are pursued in vain, and are all for naught. Firstly, they do nothing more than fuel the insatiable appetite and give power unto the beast, of which, otherwise, it would not have. Secondly, they all represent dependence on man. Thirdly, those engaged in such activities deny the Truth of His Word when we have been told from the beginning:

"To no one owe ye anything, unless to love one another: for he that loves the other, law is fulfilled." Romans 13:8.

"Without love of money, let your manner of life be, satisfied with present circumstances; for He has said, In no wise thee will I leave, nor in any wise thee will I forsake." Hebrews 13:5

In seeking alternatives to the "unrighteous activities," we must adhere to the following admonition by our Lord and Saviour, thereby avoiding all contractual relationships and the evil derived therefrom:

"I say unto you not to swear at all; neither by the heaven, because the throne it is of God; nor by the earth, the footstool it is of His feet: neither by Jerusalem, because the city it is of the great King. Neither by thy head shalt thou swear, because thou art not able one hair white or black to make. But let your word be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: but what is more than these, from evil is." Matthew 5:34-37

Therefore, the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" must be accompanied with resistance and avoidance of all temptations to do that which is contrary to His Will, i.e., making promises; the result of which when ignored brings you back under the control of the natural man and his "law," and gives the beast power that it would not otherwise receive:

"The relation of master and servant arises out of contract, and a contract of employment usually involves the agreement of one party to render services or labor for the benefit of another, who in turn becomes obligated to pay a consideration therefor." Rickenbaker v. Layton, 59 F.Supp. 156.

The result of falling into a commercial agreement with, or making a promise to any man, is seen in the connected death between the above and the following Word:

"No one is able serve two lords: for either the one he will hate, and the other he will love; or the one he will hold to, and other he will despise. Ye are not able to serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

But, when we are moved by Him to completely avoid these "unrighteous activities" through doing His Perfect Will, He knows that it is needful for us to work with Brothers and Sisters in the Lord in a non-commercial character, and therewith, all can be partakers of that which is needful; that which our Father approves of:

"As many bondmen as are under yoke, let them esteem their masters worthy of all honor, that not the name and teaching of God be blasphemed.

And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because brethren they are; but rather let them serve, because believing ones they are and beloved who are being helped by the good service. These things teach and exhort.

If anyone teach other doctrine, and draws not near to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and teaching according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and disputes of words, out of which come envy, strife, evil speakings, wicked suspicions, vain argumentations of men corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, holding gain to be godliness: withdraw from such."

We can now begin to understand that the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" of the Lex Mercatoria must be founded upon the non-commercial calling of, "freely ye have received, freely give," which, contrary to modern belief, applies not only to healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, and casting out devils, but to all callings and gifts that He has blessed us with. With the return back to that old path wherein "holding gain to be godliness" does not exist, His called-out ones will know that His promise is True: "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

Those today that have taken His promise to heart and have begun that walk of faith, in Spirit and in Truth, have found the blessings thereof, and must continually keep the following in mind:

"Hear, my beloved brethren: did not God chose the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those that love Him? But ye dishonoured the poor. Do not the rich oppress you, and do they not drag you before the tribunals? Do they not blaspheme the good Name by which ye are called?

If indeed ye keep the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect of persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors." James 2:5-9

"And this is love, that we walk after His commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it." II John 1:6

"Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." I John 2:24

Since it is of a truth that our Father is the Potter in Whose hands all of His remnant are the clay, it is not our intent to mold or shape anyone to accept what is presented here. Its purpose is simply to bring the information and sources to everyone's attention; and in shining the Light of the Word on the subject matter, all can follow the admonition given to us by the Spirit of God:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." I John 4:1

At all times we must look to Him for the Truth, for in and of Him is the only place you will find the Truth; for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, for all.

In the article on "The Unincorporated Church so-called," it was stated that "our Lord did not found a Christian Church, the Christian religion or Christianity." These designations are not found to be spoken by Him in His Word, therefore "from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:b

We hope and pray that the following information will illustrate the fact that He indeed did not found a Christian religion; wherein it may be seen that the natural man is the designer and inventor of that religion, through the philosophy and vain imaginations of his natural reason.

It has been well documented that it was in fact the heathen calling them Christians, as a term of derision.

We find no instance of any of the Gospel writers calling themselves "a Christian" or referring to "the Christian religion." It was not until the second century that these designations were accepted by the "Church fathers" of "the Christian religion," as titles of "honor." Therefore, "from the beginning it was not so."

In the following account by Tacitus (52-117 A.D.) of the first widespread persecution of Christ's elect (64 A.D.), it was still only the heathen that called them Christians.

The bondmen of Christ at Rome were falsely accused by Nero of burning Rome, in order to turn public suspicion from himself as responsible for the fire:

"Neither by works of benevolence nor the gifts of the prince nor means of appeasing the gods did the shameful suspicion cease, so that it was not believed that the fire had not been caused by his command. Therefore, to overcome this rumor, Nero put in his place as culprits, and punished with most ingenious cruelty, men whom the common people hated for their shameful crimes and called Christians. Christ, from whom the name was derived, had been put to death in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." Tacitus, Annales, XV, 44. Preuschen, Analecta, I, § 3:1. Mirbt, n. 3, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), page 6.

Note that Tacitus did not say that Christ called His elect Christians, but that it was derived from His name, by the common people (the heathen), showing again that "from the beginning it was not so."

In 95 A.D., we find that Clement of Rome in his First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians had many opportunities for the use of the designations Christian, Christianity, the Christian Church or the Christian religion in his account of the deaths of Peter and Paul, but they were not used, to wit:

"Ch. 5. But to leave the ancient examples, let us come to the champions who lived nearest our times; let us take the noble examples of our generation. On account of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who on account of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two, but many sufferings, and so, having borne his testimony, went to his deserved place of glory. On account of jealousy and strife Paul pointed out the prize of endurance. After he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had been a preacher in the East and in the West, he received the noble reward of his faith; having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having borne witness before rulers, he thus departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having become a notable pattern of patient endurance.

Ch. 6. Unto these men who lived lives of holiness was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who by many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set the finest examples among us." Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinthios, I, 5, 6. Funk, Patres Apostolici, 1901. (MSG, 1:218.) Preischen, Analecta, I, §3:5, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), pages 7-8.

And still as late as 117 A.D., we find The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch to the churches in Asia glaringly devoid of any "Christian" designations in the following edifying example shortly before his martyrdom:

"I write to all the churches and impress on all, that I will willingly die for God unless ye hinder me. I beseech you not to show unseasonable good-will toward me. Permit me to be the food of wild beasts, through whom it will be granted me to attain unto God. I am the wheat of God and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb and leave nothing of my body, so that when I have fallen asleep I may be burdensome to no one. Then I shall truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world sees not my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. Not as Peter and Paul do I issue commandments unto you. They were Apostles, I a condemned man; they were free, I even until now a slave. But if I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise again free in Him. And now, being in bonds, I learn not to desire anything." Ignatius of Antioch, Ep. ad Romanos, 4, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), p. 23.

We find the designations of Christian, Christian Church, etc., were not used by any writers within the "church world" until approximately 150 A.D. when the "converted" Platonic/Stoic philosopher Justin Martyr in his first "Christian" Apologia used these designations. One of his own admirers fully disclosed what his true intentions were, to wit:

"His intention as a Christian teacher was to press philosophy into service of faith; he thus stood at the beginning of the line of those who developed philosophical theologies. Even the latter writers who criticized philosophy... made use of his method and of his works, for his theology was intended to be both biblical and rational." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 469.

So, beginning at approximately 150 A.D., we see that the accepted "Christian" designations were the "pressed" product of a "rational" philosopher and that those purporting to represent Christ's body went from walking and worshipping "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24), to biblical and rational theology, methodology, and philosophy. These "ologies" are not found in the Word of God, therefore "from the beginning it was not so."

A typical example of the admiration Justin Martyr held towards philosophers and other pagans of the time is seen in the following:

"Whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men." Justin Martyr, Apologia, I, 44, (MSG, 6:394) quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), page 135.

Compare what he said above with what our Lord has told us concerning the philosopher Pharisees:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:43-44

And again, we can see the change in spirit brought about through Justin Martyr as compared with the Apostles and the elect up to his time:

"I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of others, Stoics, poets, and historians. Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians." Justin Martyr, Apologia, II, 13. (MSG, 6:466) quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), pp 73-74.

With that, we will move on and search for the foundation of such "thinking." As pointed out last month, there are two religions mentioned in Scripture. The first is the religion of the Jews (Judaism, see Acts 26:5 and Galatians 1:13-14) and religion pure and undefiled before God described at James 1:26-27.

Taking into consideration the above, we will now look at whose child the Christian religion is, from one of that religion's own sources:

"Judaism. One of the oldest existing religions, and a strict form of monotheism, the religion of Jews and the parent religion of both Christianity and Islam.

Following the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70), the Pharisees, now called rabbis, emerged as the undisputed leaders of the covenant community. Although they canonized the Hebrew Bible (A.D. 90), the Pharisees' contribution to Judaism is enshrined in that vast Talmudic compendium of law (halakah) and lore (haggadah) containing the teachings of some two thousand rabbinic sages from the 3d century B.C. to the 6th century A.D." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 462.

Is it any wonder after seeing the above description of the Christian religion's foundation, that the adherents to the institution known as Christianity involve themselves with the concoctions known as Judaeo-Christian ethics, morals, science, philosophy, etc., since all of these sorceries that the natural man looks to come directly out of the Talmud. Taking note of the above dates of the development of Judaism, again we see "from the beginning it was not so."

"Religion. For 1,500 years and more, Christianity has been the chief religion of the Western World, which includes the countries of Europe and later of the Americas. Christianity grew out of the Jewish Religion, and together they are called the Judaeo-Christian religion." The Illustrated World Encyclopedia, (1966), p. 1303.

To further illustrate the origins and development of the Christian religion, we see from the same "Christian" source that:

"Christianity and Judaism in the Middle Ages. Though the first Christians retained their Jewish observances and regarded their faith as fundamentally Judaic, differing only in their concept of Messianic fulfillment, the rift with traditional Judaism developed early and spread widely.

Intellectually, however, the atmosphere of constant hostility was occasionally lightened, and Christian scholarship owed much to Jewish and Islamic thought. The writings of Philo (d. A.D. 40), who found some grounds for reconciling Jewish theology and Greek philosophy, were much studied by the church fathers. From the 8th century, Talmudic schools were established in several countries of western Europe, and many of their lines of inquiry penetrated into medieval Scholasticism. A 10th-century resurgence of Greek culture within the Moslem world affected Christian thought largely by way of Judaic philosophy, as reflected, for instance, in the Sefer ha-Kuzari, or "Book of Arguments," by Judah ha-levi, of Toledo (d. 1140); the 'Emunah Ramah ("Exalted Faith") of Abraham ibn Daud, of Toledo (c. 1180); and the Rabbinical commentaries of Solomn ben Isaac, of Troyes (d. 1105), or Rashi, as he is often known, who offered practical advice on the problems of Jewish-Christian relations. Perhaps greatest of all was Maimonides, of Cairo (b. 1135), and his seminal Guide for the perplexed, which in it's use of Aristotelian reasoning profoundly influenced scholars such as Thomas Aquinas. The more speculative and symbolic Kabbalistic philosophies, such as the Sefer Chassidim ("Book of the Pious") attributed to the German Judah ha-Chasid (d. 1217), and the Sefer ha-Zohar ("Book of Splendor") assigned to Moses de Leon, of Granada (d. 1305), proved fruitful sources for the esoteric Christian mysticism that reached a special popularity in the 14th century. Jewish Biblical commentaries were extensively drawn upon by Christian Hebraists of the later Middle Ages and the Reformation. In particular, Rashi's commentary, constantly quoted as early as the Commentaries of the Christian Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), and the lucid textual studies of David Kimchi, of Narbonne (d. 1235), were among the main sources for both Luther's and the King James translations." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 187.

Take note that the spirit spoken of above was not confined to the Roman Catholic Church, but was continued in the Protestant "religion." The best evidence of that fact is found in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (1535 & 1559) by John Calvin (Jean Chauvan). A "Christian" source reveals his true nature, to wit:

"Calvin's intellectual and religious development had taken him from nominalism through law and humanism to Protestantism. His "conversion" probably occurred in 1533, but he still thought of himself as--and was--a Christian humanist, not a reformer." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 148.

And we further see the Roman Catholic/Protestant connection from the same source:

"Calvin often read the biblical text through the eyes of Augustine, whom he sighted continually, especially in the doctrines of free will, grace, and predestination. He was also influenced by Erasmas and Budé." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 148.

In the earlier quote on Christianity and Judaism in the Middle Ages, also note that Jesus, the Christ, is not mentioned as the foundation of Christianity; but Philo is mentioned. And who was Philo?:

"Philo (25 B.C. - A.D. 45). Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of Alexandria. A voluminous writer, Philo tried to correlate the Old Testament revelation with philosophy (largely Platonic) and Greek piety by means of the allegorical method, thus opening the way (especially with his Logos doctrine) to the Christian school of Alexandria, which preserved his works." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 657.

"Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.). Roman Apologist. His philosophical approach was not unlike that of Philo and it was carried forward in the Christian school of Alexandria, especially by Clement." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 468.

"Greek theologian of the early Christian church. He was born about the middle of the 2d century A.D., probably in Athens, of pagan parents.

He believed that the Greeks expressed something of the true philosophy (Christianity) by chance, but that chance is subject to Divine Providence, and hence Greek philosophy must have something of the nature of prophecy. Clement also picked up the theory of the Jew, Aristobulus, to which he devoted an inordinate amount of space (in his writings), that the Greeks stole their wisdom from Moses, having plagiarized it from the New Testament. Thus he viewed Greek philosophy as really a dim reflection of the divine wisdom of the Jews.

Clement's great merit is that he saved Christianity from intellectual alienation from culture. With a sure grasp of the fundamental Christian realities, his comprehensive mind brought all the human learning of his day into the service of the Church. He made Christianity a religion that could stand on its own intellectually and compete with the rival claims of the other philosophical and religious positions of his time, and he was himself an able teacher of his fellow Christians and a guide to the Christian life." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), pp. 211-212.

And what has this philosophical product known as the Christian religion, conjured up by the natural reason of Justyn Martyr, Philo, Clement, and others, left as a legacy for its followers:

This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.

But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9

"Hypocrite. 5273 hupokrites (hoop-ok-ree-tace'); from 5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (figuratively) a dissembler ("hypocrite"): KJV-- hypocrite." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Considering all of the above, we see the Christian religion, or "Christianity," is based on the dissembling leaven of the Pharisees, that being the philosophies and traditions of men, and the hypocrisy thereof (see Luke 12:1) and the following:

Rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:6-10

But when the Head is no longer obeyed and the disobedient child looks elsewhere for truth, we see the results:

There are those who worship the image of the beast, humanity, but His obedient children have a Faithful promise:

"For He is not the God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33 (Berry)

"For all the words of God are tried in the fire, and He defends those that reverence Him. Add not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be made a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

"Trust not in yourselves with lying words, for they shall not profit you at all, saying, It is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord." Jeremiah 7:4

"...every idle word whatsoever men may speak, they shall render of it an account in the day of judgment, for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

...it is a certainty that one of the duties of all bondmen in and of Jesus, the Christ is to diligently look at the words used to describe His Body. In so doing, His bondmen can be assured in Him that they will not join with or be partakers of those that have attached idle and unclean words to His called-out ones, His ekklesia, His elect.

For those readers that have at one time or another diligently looked into the true meaning of the word "church," we can now say that we deeply sympathize with the confusion you have found there.

It has also become obvious to us through that same study in confusion, that the natural man certainly knows how to use his "theory of evolution" to take something unclean and make it to appear clean; in this case, being the word "church" to describe the Christ's ekklesia.

As a side note before we begin this study, we know that there may be those that say, "oh, your just mincing words; you know what I mean when I use the word 'church.' To that kind of comment, we can only say that if words and the diligent use of them were not of vital importance, we would not have the instruction and admonitions from the Proverbs, Jeremiah and Matthew quoted above, and dictionaries and etymologists and their volumes of word studies would not exist, and everyone concerned would be no better than the confounded of Babel.

To clarify the above statements and to evidence the fact "the church," the Church," or any other derivation thereof can never describe the Christ's ekklesia, we must first begin by looking into the etymology of each of these words.

We begin with the word "ekklesia," which it is recorded in the New Testament so-called that our Lord uttered this word three times only, all three times in the Glad Tidings according to Matthew. The first time, He said:

"ἐπἰ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν" Matthew 16:18.

"Assembly. ekklesia (ἐκκλησίαν, 1557), from ek, "out of," and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call")." Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p 42.

All of the modern word studies state, erroneously, that ekklesia denotes "the whole community of professed believers." This cannot be correct, for when we diligently look at the original "calling out" of "the called ones" (His ekklesia) by our Father, being written from the beginning and recorded in the book of Isaiah, we can through diligence, see the true meaning of His ekklesia, avoiding the contrived meaning by the commercial "Church world." The following is the KJV rendering from the 5th-8th century A.D. Masoretic/Babylonian Hebrew text:

"Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD." Isaiah 52:11 (KJV)

And our Brother Paul reiterated the "calling out" of "the called-out ones," quoting Isaiah, in his second letter to the Corinthians. Take note in the following that "be separated" is not in the Masoretic text above:

"Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, says the Lord, and the unclean touch not, and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:17 (Berry)

But from the Septuagint, we have the original and uncorrupted calling-out which Paul quoted from:

"Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord." Isaiah 52:11

Note that Paul's quote is translated "out of the midst of them," not "of her," as is recorded in Isaiah. In Isaiah, the Greek word translated of her is αυτῆς (autos, 846, meaning 'self' [feminine singular]), and the Greek word translated of them at 2 Corinthians is αὺτῶν (autos, 846, meaning 'selves' [feminine plural]). For an extensive study on the word autos, see Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pages 85-87, and Zodhiates New Testament Word Study Dictionary, p. 291-294.

And now we come to the substance of the issue. In the Greek, out from the midst means 'out from the centre,' and the word of her and of them in Isaiah and 2 Corinthians is autos, both meaning 'self.' Therefore, His called-out ones, His ekklesia, are those called by Him to "depart and separate themselves (sever and remain severed) from their 'selves' (the flesh, self-will, those 'wants' of the world), and touch not the unclean (impure)." It does not include those that 'hear' the call only, but do not shed the Old nature; those that "try" to come in another way without full obedience to our Father's will and without remaining in the Christ at all times. For it has been written from the beginning, "as the body apart from pnuema is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." Those who answer His call daily in full obedience to "deny himself and take up his cross, and follow Me,"--these are His, truly Lawful, assembly--His ekklesia.

The church??? Except for the first printed New Testament in English from the Greek, which was the Tyndale Bible (1526) and the Berry Interlinear Greek-English (1897)), we find that all other Bibles translate Matthew 16:18:

Now, where did this word 'church' come from; this word that was, and continues to be, made a substitute for the Christ's assembly, His ekklesia:

"The English word 'church' derives from the late Greek word kyriakon, 'the lord's house,' a church building. In the [*King James] NT the word translates the Greek word ekklesia. Throughout most of history the nature of the church has been defined by divided Christians trying to establish the validity of their own existence." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary, p. 231.

"Church. 1. The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kyriakon (kuriakÒn), 'the lord's house.' But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with (Scottish) kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos (kØkloj), because the congregations were gathered in circles [*pagan ritualism]." Smith's Bible Dictionary (1884), page 117.

"Church. 1. A house consecrated to the worship of God, among christians; the lord's house. 2. The collective body of christians, or of those who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Savior of mankind." Webster's Dictionary (1828).

"Church. 1. A building set apart for public Christian worship. 2. A place of worship of any religion, as a Jewish or heathen temple or a mosque. 3. The collective body of Christians. 4. A body of Christian believers holding the same creed, observing the same rites, and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority. 5. The organization of Christianity, as in a nation. 6. The clerical profession. 7. A formally organized body of Christians worshipping to gether. 8. Church service. 9. Any body of worshippers; a religious society or organization not Christian." Webster's New Int. Dict. (1931) p. 397.

The above definitions are just a cross-section of the thousands of definitions that say basically the same thing; that this modern (born yesterday) word means "the lord's house" or "circle gathering-circus," and that it can mean whatever you want it to mean; for a Christian, a Jew, or a pagan.

But here, we are looking at the word 'church' as it relates to "The Christian Church." So we need to look at what "lord" might that house belong to? We must also point out that the word kyriakon or kuklos is never found in the Greek texts of the New Testament to describe anything. But we must look at the possible reasons why the Christ's ekklesia has been transformed by the natural man into a lord's house, "a church."

Though we've not been able to find an exact time when the transformation was implemented, we do see from the following that it began with (and is therefore a conjuration of), the tradition of the elders (the so-called 'church fathers') and did not begin from the beginning with the Christ, or with the Apostles through Him:

"1 Corinthians 11:18. In the church (ἐν ή ἐκκλησία). Not the church edifice, a meaning which the word never has in the New Testament, and which appears first in patristic writings. The marginal rendering of the Revised is better: in congregation." Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. III, page 249.

We see from the above, concerning the the church edifice, that 'from the beginning it was not so,' therefore it has nothing in the Christ. And the edifice is the original meaning of church, before it was evolved by the natural man to purportedly include the Christ's ekklesia.

Firstly, we see that kyriakon may mean the lord's house. But can the Christ's ekklesia be construed to be the lord's house? Since the term lord's house is used only three times in the Old Testament so-called at Genesis and Isaiah to denote a secular lord's house, and is never used in the New Testament, we get another clue as to what kind of "lord" kyriakon denotes.

But to eliminate all speculation, we simply need to go to the historical evidence of what kind of lord's house "the Christian Church" is, and therein find out who has jurisdiction over that house.

We would normally start with the year 325 A.D. when 'the Church" engaged in a corporate merger with the Roman State under Constantine at the Council of Nicea. With this corporate merger, Caesar Constantine became the overseer and protector of his church.

But four years before the corporate merger of 325, we see from the following that Caesar Constantine was already preparing his lordship over the church, by establishing "Sunday services" for the slaves on his commercial plantation:

"All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields." Codex Justinianus, III, 12, 3. 321 A.D.

It should be noted here that Constantine's father, Constantius, was attached to the monotheistic pagan cult of The Unconquered Sun.

Following the division of the Roman Empire in 395 A.D., a long succession of pontifex maximus', or imperial Pontiffs (Popes), reigned over their church and state in the East. The word Pope is derived from the colloquial Greek word pappa, an endearing term for "father," "overseer," or "lord."

In this final Part on the modern lord of the Church, we will allow Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary (one of "the Church's own) to fully reveal who the lord's of the Church have been since its inception during the second century A.D.

Also keep in mind that the Hegelian dialectic used by the Masonic sciences of, "Separation of Church and State," creates two separate secular institutions, and the institution with the most guns and lawyers becomes the master of all:

"The phrase refers to an ancient differentiation between two kinds of institutions that have structured and defined the lives of human beings. In this arrangement one of these authority structures, the State, has been primarily concerned with temporal life as an end in itself, while the other, the Church, has been concerned with temporal life as a means to spiritual ends. Moreover, "church and state" designates a certain kind of tension implicit in any society that contains these two institutions, even in those in which there is no attempt to separate them.

The issue of the most desirable relationship between church and state is older than the Christian faith, and has been a persistent theme in its history. Jesus clearly taught the principle of separating the two realms. His dictum to "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21) marked the beginning of a new epoch in the history of relations between religion and the state. For the first time, a formal distinction was made between the obligations owed to both.

Unfortunately, Jesus did not indicate where the exact line of demarcation lay; consequently, since at least the fourth century Christian theologians and other scholars have argued over where it should be drawn. The resulting discussions stretching over the centuries since that time constitute an almost impenetrable historical-theological swamp. The debate continues in the Christian world today and is especially intense in highly pluralistic societies like the United States.

Historical Background. Christian thinkers made no attempt to formulate a theory of church-state relations until Christianity became a state religion in the fourth century. Before that time, even though they had no legal right to exist, believers generally followed Paul's admonition to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1) except when that subjection conflicted with explicitly understood commands of God or the preaching of the gospel (Acts 5:29). Moreover, the duty of obedience to civil rulers was always qualified by the condition that these authorities were doing their work of restraining evil and seeking peace and safety (cf. Rom. 13:1-7 and Rev. 13).

Widespread persecution of the early Christians was frequent, beginning at least as early as the reign of Nero in the mid first century. The final effort to eradicate Christians from the Roman world took place under Diocletian in 303. It failed, and with the Edict of Milan in 313 Christianity became an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire. Moreover, by the end of the century the Roman rulers had decreed that Christianity was the sole official religion of the empire.

This new arrangement created a need for closer definition of the relationships between church and state, but such theory developed only gradually. For one thing, it was during this period that the church became an institution in the modern sense. For another, the Emperor Constantine I, in keeping with previous custom, regarded himself as the religious leader of the realm (pontifex maximus) and assumed the right to intervene in church affairs. Later rulers gave up this title but continued to consider themselves responsible for directing church activities.

The removal of the capital from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium) in 330, among other factors, led to a different conception of church-state relations in the East than that in the West. In the Eastern Roman Empire (later the Byzantine Empire) and consequently in Eastern Orthodoxy the prevailing theory and practice came to be caesaropapism-that is, supreme authority over the church exercised by the secular ruler, even in doctrinal matters. In the West, the church had more freedom from direct control by the civil authorities.

Partly because of the ineffective political leadership in the Western Empire and partly because of the inherent authority accorded the church in Rome, the Roman bishops had to take responsibility for judicial affairs, military defense, and other secular matters. It was in this context that Bishop Gelasius I initially stated the doctrine of the two swords in 494: "There are two powers by which this world is chiefly ruled; the sacred authority of the popes and the royal power. Of these the priestly power is much more important because it has to render account for the kings of men themselves at the divine tribunal....You know that it behooves you, in matters concerning the reception and reverent administration of the sacraments, to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authority rather than to control it."

During the Middle Ages (ca. 500-1500) the theory of the two spheres, the spiritual and the temporal, was generally accepted, but the question of supremacy remained undefined. To be sure, the state was universally considered a Christian institution in this period, obligated to nourish, protect, and further the faith. Church law held that the state was obligated to punish heretics, and this obligation was accepted by the state. But there was also endless debate among theologians and canon lawyers over the real meaning of Gelasius's two swords theory. The text of his statement was analyzed and the etymological significance studied in order to deduce the implications of spiritual supremacy for temporal affairs. Eventually the concept of a single society with two aspects, each with its own responsibilities, was worked out. However, it was a painful and slow process.

During the early Middle Ages the church struggled to free itself from intrusion by secular rulers. For example, after the sixth century, emancipated from direct control from Byzantium, the popes increased in prestige and power, in both the spiritual and temporal realms. But an important event in church-state relations took place in 800 when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor. Charlemagne had tried to revive the empire in the West and held views close to caesaropapism. He would have liked to limit the role of the pope to purely spiritual affairs, but he had no competent heirs to continue his policies. For their part, later popes used the precedent of Charlemagne's coronation to show that emperors received their crowns from the papacy. On the other hand, later emperors claimed the right to approve those elected to papal office. Thus, by the eleventh century the elements of a major confrontation between pope and emperor, church and state, were present.

When Pope Gregory VII, an advocate of reform, challenged the right of Emperor Henry IV to appoint the Archbishop of Milan, the investiture controversy ensued. In 1075 Gregory issued a decree forbidding lay investiture and asserted that popes had the power to depose emperors. After considerable maneuvering by both parties, including Gregory's dramatic but temporary triumph at Canossa in 1077, a compromise was worked out by the Concordat of Worms in 1122. Bishops in the empire were to be chosen according to canon law but invested with their insignia by an ecclesiastical officer. The practice was copied elsewhere and tensions eased somewhat.

However, the issues of the right of the popes to depose kings and the role of the secular rulers in selecting appointees to high church offices were worked out only gradually over the decades, the papacy eventually becoming dominant. This trend culminated in the reign of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), the most powerful pontiff in Christian history. Under Innocent, and for about a century thereafter, it was clear that royal power was subordinate to pontifical authority. The thirteenth century was the zenith of papal power in terms of church-state relations. However, the aspirations of kings to consolidate their national strength and the discrediting of the papacy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1309-77) and the Great Papal Schism (1378-1417) which followed led to the curtailment of papal influence and prestige.

These factors and the growth of the Renaissance papacy in the fifteenth century further weakened the papal office and helped set the stage for the coming of the Protestant Reformation.

The Reformation and Its Aftermath. The Protestant Reformers challenged the authority of the church in general and the papacy in particular, in both the spiritual and political realms. This further diminished the ability of the church to control and/or intervene in political affairs. Moreover, in place of the late medieval theory of ultimate pontifical authority in church-state matters, the Reformers posited a variety of different approaches. Martin Luther sharply distinguished the temporal from the spiritual but considered many ecclesiastical functions, such as administration, as nonessentials. Therefore, most of the Lutheran states developed an Erastian territorial system in which the princes supervised church affairs. John Calvin tried to make a clear distinction between the spheres of church and state, believing that it was the duty of the latter to maintain peace, protect the church, and follow biblical guidelines in civil affairs. In general, Geneva and the Reformed churches of Europe attempted to follow his views and avoid civil domination. The Church of England adopted an Erastian position by substituting the king for the pope as the head of the church and by designating king and Parliament to regulate ecclesiastical government, worship, and discipline.

However, the Anabaptists and other Radical Reformers insisted that the correct biblical emphasis was to separate completely the spheres of church and state. Their position seemed so anarchical at the time that they were severely persecuted by all other parties, Protestant and Catholic alike. In turn, the Anabaptists passed on their views on church and state to related movements in seventeenth century England, Baptists, Quakers, and Independents.

More than any other religious group in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, those of Baptist views, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Leonard Busher, John Murton, John Bunyan, John Clarke, Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and John Leland, among others, championed the concept that the logical corollary to the doctrine of religious liberty was the principle of the separation of church and state. On the basis of such Scriptures as Matt. 22, Rom. 13, and James 4:12 they argued that this was the only way to safeguard religious freedom and the priesthood of the believer. By this they meant that the state had no right to interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of individuals or congregations, and that the church for its part had no claim upon the state for financial support. To receive public money was to invite government control and the loss of religious identity.

Also in the eighteenth century Enlightenment natural rights theorists such as John Locke and Hugo Grotius popularized the view that civil government was rooted in a social contract rather than in God's appointment. Armed with this concept the emerging national states tended to make the church subservient to the common good of society and came to expect institutional religion to steer clear of political issues. However, the development of this concept in Europe and the remainder of the world was uneven, and attempts at state control of the church recurred. Only in the newly created United States of America did the government clearly agree to a new system that sought to guarantee religious freedom through separation of church and state.

The American Experiment. Conditions in the American colonies prior to 1776 were not favorable to the establishment of a single church. To be sure, during most of the period many of the individual colonies had an established church, Congregationalism in New England and the Church of England in most other places. However, there was no state church in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Delaware, while in many other places large numbers of Baptists and Quakers opposed those that existed. Numerous dissenters and the need to attract settlers regardless of religious persuasion made it difficult to enforce establishment. By the time of the revolution, when the new states wrote their constitutions, most of them disestablished their churches. Gradually all would abandon the concept. Vestiges of an establishment lingered in Massachusetts until 1833.

The U.S. Constitution forbade religious tests for public office and its First Amendment provided that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A new experiment in church-state relations had been inaugurated with the strong backing of Baptists, Mennonites, Quakers, and most Methodists and Presbyterians, all of whom were Bible-believing Christians who wanted to protect the freedom of the churches and individual consciences from the state, and the support of the founding fathers, most of whom were rationalist deists who wanted to protect the state from clerical domination. Moreover, there was the practical matter of the prevailing denominational pluralism in the new nation that made it impossible to agree upon which church to establish.

Although the original intentions of the founding fathers and their supporters are now debated, it appears that Thomas Jefferson and his party and the vast majority of evangelical Protestants, the dominant religious group of the early national period, assumed that there was a "wall of separation" between the two institutions which should be maintained at all costs, for the good of the republic and the health of true religion. They considered that government best which governed least, regarded religion as primarily a private affair between an individual and God, and saw no reason for conflict between politics and religion. Although they wanted a strict separation of the institutions of church and state, they did not try to segregate religion from national life. General references to the majority religion were acceptable in what was then a largely homogeneous nation. This common view dominated church-state relations in America throughout the nineteenth century.

However, there was also a minority view, expressed by John Adams and others, that the main concern of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from interfering with religious matters so that each state could handle such questions. Some eventually extended this to a claim that the goal was to make the United States a Christian nation, but neutral in respect to particular denominations.

As America became more religiously and culturally heterogeneous in the twentieth century, the dominant nineteenth century view of a rather rigorous separation of church and state was increasingly challenged. Many now argue that there was actually no unanimity among those who voted for the First Amendment and that it is impossible to determine their original intent. This has resulted in a sharp division in interpretation, with some arguing for a veritable "Berlin Wall" of separation that would clearly secularize society by excluding anything religious from national life and others arguing for a more porous wall that would allow for the flow of a virile civil religion into the stream of national affairs.

Historically speaking, this new period of church-state relations began in the 1920s when the old Protestant establishment committed cultural suicide in the internecine fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Theologically speaking, it dates from the wave of theological liberalism that engulfed Protestantism in the first quarter of the twentieth century, thus diminishing the ability of American society to resist the encroachments of secular humanism and to assimilate the great waves of new immigrants which came to America in this period. Legally and politically speaking, it stems from 1940, when a landmark decision by the Supreme Court (Cantwell et al. vs. State of Conn.) resulted in a dramatic shift in church-state cases from state to federal jurisdiction. Since that time the court has dealt with a number of critical religious issues related in some way to the First Amendment: laws governing business on Sundays, taxation of church property, religion and prayers in the public schools, public support for parochial education, church lobbying, conscientious objection, abortion, pornography and censorship, and resistance to war taxes. Currently in the offering are other questions concerning church and state, such as the status of military chaplains and legislation to limit the activities of so-called cults.

In the period since 1940 several principles have been established by the Supreme Court in dealing with church-state matters. For example, it invoked the "child benefit theory" in 1947 (Everson vs. Bd. of Ed., N.J.). In 1971 (Earle vs. DiCenso and Lemon vs. Kurtzman) it established the principle of "evidence of excessive entanglement" of church and state. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not equivalent to "an establishment of religion" in twentieth century America and to determine where the freedom of an individual or group conflicts with the freedom of others or with obligations to the larger good of the community. Moreover, the competing forces of diverse religious and ethnic groups along with a lack of a clear national consensus on moral values have made it difficult to reach decisions on church and state acceptable to a clear majority of Americans.

Theologians, historians, and other scholars have not contributed a great deal to the discussion of church-state issues since World War II. The monumental work of Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer is an exception and provides the beginning point for any analysis of current church-state relations in America. James E. Wood, Jr., and the Journal of Church and State have also provided vigorous leadership in this area, and such organizations as Americans United for Separation of Church and State remain in the forefront of such discussion and analysis. But even AUSCS, long an advocate of the "wall of separation," appears to be less "united" on the issues than it once was. Finally, there is considerable evidence that the increasing number of adherents of authoritarian religious cults and denominations and the presence of the new religious right in America will have a profound role in altering the meaning of "separation of church and state" in the years to come, probably in the direction of more government involvement in religion.

Conclusions. Islam, Hinduism, and most of the other major religions of the world have not produced a doctrine of separation of church and state comparable to that championed by evangelical Protestants and Enlightenment rationalists and eventually implemented in the United States. For example, in many Muslim countries there is no separation of church and state in the Western sense. In others there is formal separation of the institutions but a close link between them in terms of favored treatment and anticonversion laws.

On the other hand, the validity of the principle of church-state separation has been increasingly recognized all over the world in the twentieth century. Nearly every European country has disestablished former state churches, and in some nations, such as France, a radical separation has been effected. Even in most Marxist states, such as the Soviet Union and China, church and state are constitutionally separated, not in order to ensure religious freedom but in order to make certain that religious groups stay out of government affairs and to keep them under supervision.

In one sense the concept of separation of church and state has come almost universally to have normative value. Most secular governments prefer to have some kind of line demarcation between the sacred and the profane, at least in terms of institutional expression. On the other hand, the principle has not yet been definitively articulated, not even in its American homeland. Moreover, there are emerging movements, such as Islamic republicanism in Iran, which renounce any attempt to separate the institutions. In America growing numbers of people appear to have abandoned the more traditional emphasis on a "wall of separation" in favor of some kind of bland civil religion that will allow for more open-ended cooperation between the two institutions. It remains to be seen if people today can distinguish between the impossibility of separating religion from politics, on the one hand, and the desirability of keeping church and state on their respective sides of the religious-political wall, on the other."

"But new heavens and a new earth according to His promise, we expect, in which righteousness dwells.

Wherefore, beloved, these things expecting, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot, and unblameable." 2 Peter 3:13-14

As the worldly battle between good and evil rages on in the "mind" of the natural man's Imperial State (who "believes" itself to be its own god walking on earth), there will always be a presumption by that State that those seen in the world are also partaking of its tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil.

It is proposed by the State that "world order" will balance the scales, and therefore it will go to great lengths to maintain that "order" for its masters, the merchants of the earth. But, we must also remember that "the balances of deceit are in their hand." And, of course, with the serpent always speaking backwards, we can see that, in truth and in spirit, its true goal is actually a world of "disorder" to be militarily regulated by them.

In this discourse, we will not concern ourselves with its Hegelian world disorder, for we already know that "they may speak against you as evildoers"; therefore we must "sanctify the Lord God in our hearts: and be ready always for a defence to everyone that asks you an account concerning the hope in you, with meekness and fear" (see 1 Peter 3:15-17). And:

"Prove all things; hold fast the right; from every form of wickedness abstain." 1Thessalonians 5:21

"Ye cannot drink of the Lord's cup, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons." 1 Corinthians 10:21

The Christ's called-out ones, His ekklesia, His elect, His little ones that have "separated" themselves from the ways of the world, are, and must remain in, the world. For, if they believe that they can be a witness "of the hope that is in them" to the world by finding some secluded place where "no one will bother me anymore," they are in error. There is no place on earth where "no one will bother you"; and if you were to find such a place, only the righteous would see Who your Law and Lawgiver is; but we have been told from the beginning:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what shall it be salted? for no strength has it any longer, but to be cast out, and to be trampled upon by men. Ye are the light of the world, a city cannot be hid on a mountain situated. Nor do they light a lamp, and put it under the corn measure, but upon the lampstand; and it shines for all who are in the house. Thus let shine your light before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father Who is in the heavens. Think not that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: I came not to abolish, but to fulfil."

"...we know that the law is good, if anyone use it lawfully, knowing this, that for a righteous one law is not enacted, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for ungodly and sinful, for unholy and profane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for slayers of man, fornicators, abusers of themselves with men, men-stealers, liars, perjurers, and if any other thing to sound teaching is opposed;" 1 Timothy 1:8-10

Since all of those that are alive in Christ must remain in the world, and will therefore be confronted by the world; and though you may be on the road of repentance to be found unspotted from the world, the natural man will still operate on the presumption that you are partaking of his father's table, and are therefore one of several of his regulatable "right and duty bearing units." This is seen in the following:

"The opinions of individuals, once entertained and expressed, and the state of mind once proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary appears." In Sleeper v. Middlesworth, 4 Denio 431, the court designated this presumption as one "against any sudden change in the moral, as well as the mental and social, condition of man." Greenleaf on Evidence, 1 Ev. §42.

But along with his spiritually dead presumptions comes the ability, by the Grace of God, to rebut the lie with the Sword of the Word. To rebut is:

"Rebut. To overcome; to contradict; to persuade or convince to the contrary. Buhler v. Maddison, 166 P.2d 205, 210. Also, to repel or bar a claim. Black's L.D." Corpus Juris Secundum, vol. 75, page 640.

Our Master is our example of rebutting presumptions. In the following two accounts of rebutting the presumptions of the Pharisees and scribes, we see that the Sword of the Word is the rebutter of the "natural reason" of those that are full of dead men's bones--those that presume evil where there is none:

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils [*the presumption of evil].

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them [*the rebuttal-], Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you."

"And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon Him with the elders,

And spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things or who is he that gave thee this authority? [*the presumption of evil]?

And He answered and said unto them [*the rebuttal-], I will also ask you one thing; and answer Me:

And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; He will say, Why then believed ye him not?

But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." Luke 20:1-8 (KJV)

These two examples (of many) of rebutting the presumptions of the Pharisees and scribes is our standard. The Pharisees here reveal, just as the natural man today reveals, that they first presume evil before any true evidence of evil is found. When they presume evil towards His called-out ones, it is because they despise Him on account of their own self-willed (self-loving) spirit:

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV)

Contrary to modern Church doctrine, that government being despised is "the Christ's glory," not the supposed secular government of the world:

"Government. (2963) kuriotes (koo-ree-ot'-ace); (2Pet.2:10) fem. noun from kurios (2962), Lord, Mighty One. The word is peculiar to New Testament and Patristic Greek, and denotes the kingly glory of Christ." Zodiates Complete Word Study Dict., page 902.

And those that are presumptuous towards His government ministers are tempting Him to anger, and are utterly insolvent in Law:

"Presumptuous. 5113 tolmetes (tol-may-tace'); from 5111; a daring (audacious) man: KJV-- presumptuous." Strong's.

"Audacious. 2. Contemning the restraints of law, religion, or decorum; bold in wickedness; presumptuous; brazenly impudent; insolvent." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 151.

This insolvency, as with the Pharisees and scribes, is the outcome of their self-loving human reason:

"'Presumption' is that which may be assumed without proof, or taken for granted. It is asserted as a self-evident result of human reason and experience. Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Co., Inc., 123 P.2d 780, 785, 13 Wash.2d 28; Rich Hill Coal. Co. v. Bashore, 7 A.2d 302, 314, 334 Pa. 449." 33a Words and Phrases 63.

"A 'presumption' is simply an inference or conclusion logically deduced from known data. It follows that, when contradictory conclusions are asserted [*the rebuttal] as resulting from the same premises, one or the other or possibly both must be erroneous. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Shivers, 61 A. 618, 620, 101 Md. 391." 33a Words and Phrases 67.

"A 'presumption' is not evidence of a fact, but purely a conclusion [*of human reason]. Morris v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 97 P.2d 119, 125, 126, 1 Wash.2d 587." 33a Words and Phrases 67.

As with the legal fictions created for "administrative purposes," the presumptions of the modern day Pharisees and scribes are conjurations of the natural man's insolvent reasonable law:

"Presumptions are purely creatures of the law." Davis v. Hearst (1911), 160 C. 143, 116 P. 530.

And we see that presumptions are one of the indulgences resulting from spiritually dead natural reason:

"Presumptions are indulged to supply the absence of facts, but never against ascertained and established facts." Boggs v. Merced Min. Co. (1859), 14 C. 279, 375 err. dismd. (1866) 3 Wall. (U.S) 304, 18 L.Ed. 245.

And we see that the burdens that today's Pharisees and scribes put on men's backs are a result of their self-loving, insatiably indulgent reasonable minds:

"A 'presumption' is but a rule of procedure used to supply want of facts, and its only effect is to cast burden on opposite party of going forward with proof. Cichecki v. City of Hamtrumck, 170 N.W.2d 58, 61, 382 Mich. 428." 33a Words & Phrases 62.

And how does the natural man create the ability to cast these reasonable burdens upon the backs of others? They simply create a "Substantial Evidence Rule":

"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE. Under the substantial evidence rule, as applied in administrative proceedings, all evidence is competent and may be considered, regardless of its source and nature [*whether based in truth or deceit], if it is the kind of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In other words, the competency of evidence for purposes of administrative agency adjudicatory proceedings is made to rest upon the logical persuasiveness of such evidence to the reasonable mind in using it to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Chrysler Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., C.A., 631 F.2d 865, 890, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 283.

And of course, what would the "Substantial Evidence Rule" be without another conjuration known as "Substantially Justified":

"SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED. Test for whether government's litigation position is 'substantially justified' within meaning of Equal Access to Justic Act provision governing award of attorney fees is one of reasonableness, under which the government is required to establish that its position has reasonable basis both in law and in fact." Russell v. National Mediation Board, C.A.Tex., 775 F.2d 1284, 1289.

Wow!!! It all sounds so "substantial and reasonable." Since that is the case, let's look at what substantial and reasonable really mean:

"SUBSTANTIAL. Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of precision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial's flexibility. A place for discretion." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 626.

"REASONABLE. Reasonable means in the law what it means in ordinary English: rational, just, fair-minded, not too much and not too little, etc. Reasonable means what you want it to mean. Ambrose Bierce- 'Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion, and evasion. (The Devil's Dictionary). Reasonable has no precise legal meaning. It is flexible. That is its virtue and only utility for the law." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 539.

And let's see what a "reasonable man" is, according to those that create such fictional entities:

"The reasonable-man test. The difference between Justice Holmes and the majority of the [*U.S. Supreme] Court was essentially this: The majority members thought they should declare the [*minimum wage] law unconstitutional if they themselves could see no reasonable relation between the means and the end; Holmes thought the basis of the decision should not be the opinion of the judges on the matter of means and ends, but of a hypothetical 'reasonable man.' The judges probably would have differed just as widely on what 'a rational and fair man necessarily would admit' as they did in their personal opinions. There were millions of eminently reasonable men in the United States, some of whom could easily see a reasonable connection between a ten-hour law and the promotion of public health and others of whom could not see it at all. If the judges were to be guided by the opinions of all reasonable men, it would be necessary to take a national referendum before they could decide; if by the opinion of any reasonable man, they should uphold the law even though only one reasonable man in the entire country could see the real and substantial relation between the end and the means; if by the opinion of a reasonable man in the abstract, each judge had as much right as any other to impute opinion to such a creature.

"A year later, however, Justice Holmes, dissenting from the decision of the Supreme Court holding void the minimum wage law of the District of Columbia, restated his 'reasonable man' doctrine in somewhat different terms. 'The criterion of constitutionality,' he said, 'is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good. We certainly cannot be prepared to deny that a reasonable man reasonably might have that belief in view of the legislation of Great Britain, Victoria, and a number of the States of this Union. The belief is fortified by a very remarkable collection of documents submitted on behalf of the appellants, material here, I conceive, only as showing that the belief reasonably may be held.'

The controlling factor, according to this restatement, should not be what a reasonable man thinks but what he reasonably might think. It is difficult to see how this refinement could help. Justice Holmes was impressed by a mass of documentary evidence which left no doubt in his mind that a reasonable man might reasonably believe that a minimum wage law would promote public welfare in various ways. But there were reasonable men--in deed, justices of the Supreme Court--who deduced the very opposite conclusion from the same documentary evidence!" Chester C. Maxey, The American Problem of Government (1949), p. 439.

When we see the obvious deceit, arbitrariness, and capriciousness of the reasonable man and his presumptions, which are the conjurations of the natural man's natural reasoning, we can see why natural men with their self-pleasing creations are the walking dead, for they are "dead while they liveth."

But we must remember that our Father allows these things to exist; for through them, He will ultimately be glorified:

“But to the sinner God has said, Why dost thou declare My ordinances, and take My covenant in thy mouth? Whereas thou hast hated instruction, and hast cast My words behind thee. If thou sawest a thief, thou rannest along with him, and hast cast in thy lot with adulterers. Thy mouth has multiplied wickedness, and thy tongue has framed deceit. Thou didst sit and speak against thy brother, and didst scandalise thy mother's son.

These things thou didst, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest wickedly that I should be like thee: but I will reprove thee, and set thine offenses before thee. Now consider these things, ye that forget God, lest He rend you, and there be no deliverer. The sacrifice of praise will glorify Me: and that is the way wherein I will shew to him the salvation of God." Psalm 50:16-23

In the transcripts and testimonies on the following pages, we will see how His obedient children can set the record in His court, for His glory, through the rebuttal of the presumptions of the natural man.

The time for the judgment to have begun from the house of God is come: but if first from us, what be the end of those disobeying the glad tidings of God? And if the righteous with difficulty be saved, where shall appear the ungodly and sinner? Wherefore also they who suffer according to the will of God as to a faithful Creator let them commit their souls in well doing." 1 Peter 4:17-19

Of God's merciful power shown at Daniel 6:22, our Brother Daniel said to king Darius:

"My God has sent His angel, and stopped the lion's mouth, and they have not hurt me: for uprightness was found in me before Him; and moreover before thee, O king, I have committed no trespass."

The trespass he was "accused" of was for making supplication to our Father, and not to king Darius.

In the following "court record," we can see that there is truly "nothing new under the sun." Our Daniel of today fails to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality, and is therefore thrown into one of today's lion's den, the County Jail. For "failure to appear" on a "traffic violation," they came with guns and dogs on a Friday night to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. This was the first time that he had ever been in jail, though he has had a long running spiritual battle within the municipality concerning other "violations" which he had not "satisfactorily complied with."

Our Brother here having previously abated and defaulted the "warrant for arrest," and the municipality thereafter having recalled the "warrant," reissued it three weeks later. It appears that they reissued it because he had failed to serve the District Attorney; at least that is the excuse they used.

In the following "record," we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original transcript. Randy Lee's comments are in bracketed italics. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, of course, but strictly for the edification of those that may at one time or another be confronted with the same type of situation.

While reading the following spiritual warfare, keep in mind while in that lion's den, he was awakened by the jail-keepers every hour during the weekend to deprive him of sleep before he was brought before "THE COURT." ...

[*Comment: He here leaves the presumption of who he is, in the judge's mouth. All responses to anything said should be directed to the prosecuting attorney, not the judge.]

COURT: "Daniel -- --," that is what the name says here. I don't know if that is a true name or not. You are charged in Case 0532 in Count I with resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. Count II reflects the charge of being an unlicensed driver. How do you plead?

[*Comment: To further rebut the courts presumption, and to clarify what the court "doesn't know is true or not," he could have pointed out that the "name" was in all capital letters, and therefore could not be him.

The "obstructing or delaying a police officer" was for not answering the "officer's" questions the way he wanted them answered.]

DANIEL: For the record, greetings in the name of my Sovereign Lord Jesus, the Christ, who all power - - it is written - -

[*Comment: The judge interrupts him as soon as he fails to enter a plea or speak the words of the world.]

COURT: I will go ahead and enter a not guilty plea on behalf of Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel, the issue here is whether or not I am going to release you on your own recognizance. Why don't you tell me some information on your behalf which would give me a good reason why I should release you on your own recognizance. Do you have community ties? Do you live in the area?

DANIEL: For the record, I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is written that thou shalt worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and only Him thou shall serve.

[*Comment: This is the correct initial response. It sets the state of the forum, and ignores the "benefit of discussion" that the court has offered him to enter into. He could have continued with, "and also for the record, I am not a 'Mr.' or a'sir,' for those are pagan and heathen titles of nobility." (If they continue to use those designations, it doesn't matter, for you have rebutted the presumption that you are one of their pagan entities). Since he had already abated the court, he could have also added, "and for the record, the issue here is not about me, but about whether or not this is a Lawful court.]

COURT: Sir, the question I have is: Do you live in Beastly, and how long have you lived in Beastly? The address here on the file reflects a Beastly address.

[*Comment: These two commands (sit down, stand up) were probably issued to establish a response to the 'name', and thereby 'presumed' jurisdiction.]

[*Comment: Having responded to the 'name' by sitting down and standing up at the direction of the judge, "you say that I am" is no longer a valid response. The judge now 'presumes' that 'you and the name are one and the same,' due to the obedience shown to the commands.]

COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, the Court has entered a not guilty plea. After taking a look at the motion that you filed today, it is clear to the Court that you intend to plead not guilty to the charges. Is that correct, sir?

[*Comment: A motion was not filed with the court. Here, the judge attempts to reduce the previously served abatements to 'a motion.' The proper response would be, "A motion was not filed with this court, but all defendants concerning this matter have been abated.]

COURT: Do you want to represent yourself on this matter? I need you to answer "yes" or "no" out loud - -

COURT: - - can take down what you are saying on the record. You would like to speak with the Prosecutor and have a conference on this matter at this time? Is that what you want to do, have a conference on the matter with the Prosecutor?

DANIEL: Greetings in the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Sovereign Lord. I am one of His bondservants and ministers, and I possibly - - all - - it is written that all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto Him, and I would like to see a record in law establishing this court under His authority leading to the tree of life, which is the - - Jesus, the Christ. I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, God, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is willful or evil. It is written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve. It is also written no man can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will despise the one and cleave unto the other.

[*Comment: He is standing with the Sword of the Word, and he clarifies and improves upon some of his earlier statements. Again, the judge interrupts.]

COURT: Mr. Daniel, can I just stop you for a moment here? That is typical if you were having a conference and you were represented by an attorney. You have entered a not guilty plea. After hearing you speak today, I at this point - - and based upon your motion, because you are repeating a number of things in the motion, I don't know - - did you file the motion with the District Attorney's office or just with the Court?

[*Comment: He should have said, "It was not a motion, and it was not filed. It was served.]

DANIEL: - - on a man from the Beastly police department named K. Predador and also Judge Faracy.

[*Comment: Judge Faracy was the judge on the case, but was removed from it after being served with the abatement. Since Daniel never rebutted that it was not a motion filed with the court, the judge reiterates the following for the 'record':]

COURT: All right. The motion that was filed with the Court is in the court file and was filed. I think the People are entitled to read it as well because it is a legal motion that you have filed. And based on - - the other question that I want answered - - what are you doing, basically, is having a pretrial conference. This is normally not the pretrial stage. When you failed to appear in court at your arraignment day, I am going to assume, for - - based on what you have said, that that was not a purposeful failure to appear, but that is what resulted in the bench warrant being issued. I would like to set this for another pretrial conference so that we can - - you can continue this conference on the record with the District Attorney, who is present. However, right now it is five minutes after noon. The Court needs to take a recess. And I just need an assurance from you that you will return on the court date so that you can continue with the conference with the District Attorney. So why didn't you appear? Is it just because you don't - -

COURT: Okay. We can continue it for settlement conference this afternoon if you think that would be - - This is the question I have: Are you - - do you think you would be willing to plead to either of the charges?

DANIEL: I have been - - as I said, I was - - I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of.

COURT: The one charge, which is the unlicensed driver charge, just is a charge that reflects that you were not - - that your license had expired, and if - - that doesn't require any willfulness. It is not a charge that requires any specific intent to, quote, unquote, do bad or harm. It is just a licensing charge by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that law says you are supposed to be a licensed driver to drive.

DANIEL: On the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999, I was arrested by a man from Beastly Police Department, K. Predador, and I asked this man for some information, and he told me he wasn't a public servant, that he was an employee of the City of Beastly. Now, it is written, I believe, in your law that an officer of the law is appointed, and you don't become an officer of the law by having an employment contract with a dead corporation. I believe it is written in your law, also, that corporations, such as the city of Beastly, State of California, are - - have - - it is said that they have no soul. Therefore, they are dead, and the dead cannot be sued. Is there any law - - can you show me any law that says the living must be joined to the dead? It is written that whosoever shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ shall have everlasting life.

[*Comment: Brother Daniel is doing very well at this point. He is quoting their maxims (not codes, rules and regulations) and is staying with the Sword of the Word.]

COURT: I am not sure what the point is. You are charged with driving a car without a license, and how do you want - -

COURT: Mr. Daniel, we can finish - - Mr. Daniel, it is going on into the lunch hour now. At this point in time, we can take a break. What would you offer if Mr. Daniel wanted to plead to the charge? [*speaking to Ms. Argot, the prosecutor.] What charge would you want him to plead to? How many days have you been in custody, Mr. Daniel?

COURT: You have spent four days in custody. Okay. Based on the - - based on my reading of the police report, my indicated sentence, if you wanted to plead to either charge, would be four, credit four. The question is: What charge would the People be willing to accept if Mr. Daniel were to plead no contest? Or we can take it up this afternoon if you want to.

COURT: This is what we are going to do, Mr. Daniel. Ms. Argot also just received the file. I want her to have an opportunity to take a look at the motion that you have filed and reflect upon your comments this morning. We will resume at 1:45 this afternoon. At that time we can continue with the conference, and then Ms. Argot can make you an offer in terms of the charges.

[*Comment: This comment creates confusion. It would have been better stated that, "This whole process has evidenced contempt for the Law.]

COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you very much, sir. Why don't you have a seat, and we will trail the Daniel matter until this afternoon.

COURT: Sir, you wanted to - - did you want to continue, with the District Attorney, having a pretrial conference? We are back on the record on the Daniel -- -- matter, Case 0534. We put it over this afternoon. Mr. Daniel requested we put it over, as well as Ms. Argot, the Deputy District Attorney in the case, for purposes of seeing if the matter could be resolved. Mr. Daniel, if you want to continue, go ahead.

DANIEL: Is it not written in your law that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible, and, also, any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all? I would like to go back to the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999. I had told K. Predador that I was exercising my duty of movement upon the common ways. My warrant for doing that is written in the word of God. It is - - go ye unto all the world and teach the gospel to every creature, also visit the widows, and feed the orphans. And it is also written I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me, and it is also written that I can do all things lawfully, but not all things are expedient.

[*Comment: Somewhat refreshed after the break, Daniel goes for the throat here. It is an excellent discourse, reconfirming what was said in the abatement process, and ultimately has an effect on the judge and prosecutor.]

COURT: Okay. Mr. Daniel, I am wondering, for purposes of determining whether or not we can resolve this matter - - there was something that you said this morning that caught the Court's attention, and that was in response to the question that I had. You did sign a citation that you would appear in this court - - and that is, essentially, a promise to appear - - on January 27th. I note that the warrant that was issued was on that date. And I would also note that you did file - - or I believe you said you had two persons file on your behalf the eight-page motion, that I have read, in this court. And as you commented this morning that - - you made some statement about the failure to appear in this matter, and the question is whether or not you would be willing to acknowledge that you failed to appear in this matter. Because there is a - - in the Penal Code, which this is the book containing the laws of the State of California - - I believe it is 853 - - What is that section?

COURT: 853.7, and that is a violation of a promise to appear. Let me just look at this. "Upon a written promise to appear - - let me just take a look and read the section if that actually applies.

MS. DA: Okay. As I recall, Mr. Daniel, you - - we were talking to you about the four days you had done in custody. You said you felt that was - - that was for contempt. Okay.

DANIEL: - - two men served the abatement on K. Predador and the presiding judge, Judge Faracy, and ten days later, they came back for an answer or request for extension of time, and there was no answer, or extension of time asked for, and they promptly served a default - - a default notice, and default judgment was then posted at the local post office and also in several places at Beastly of the default judgment.

[*Comment: He continues to stay on point. The efforts of the judge to sidetrack him have failed. He now forces the judge to enter into discussion of the abatement and default, which shows us that the court does recognize the abatement process, but still calling it a 'motion.']

COURT: And that was because of a failure of the Court to respond to your motion?

DANIEL: The abatement is - - abatement is abating an unlawful persona designata or misnomer or nom de guerre, and until the defects are corrected in the paper work, nothing can proceed. The case can't proceed. So it went into default, and there was a default judgment.

COURT: Now, see, I read the motion, and I didn't see anything in the motion - - because on a criminal matter, and you are charged with a misdemeanor, the law requires that you personally appear in the court on the date so ordered. In other words, unlike a civil - - unlike a civil law case where you can file motions in writing and deal with it that way, in a misdemeanor case, such as the case we are dealing with here, when you sign the citation promising to appear, you personally need to appear in court. In other words, if you - - if it was your understanding that it was up to the Court to then respond and failure of the Court to respond in writing to your motion, then that was, I would say, a misunderstanding on your part of the way that the criminal justice system works.

The people weren't served with the motion. The Prosecution is the entity prosecuting, not the Court, and the People are entitled to be served with the motion, and then if there were to be a written response, it wouldn't be from the Court, but it would be from the Prosecution from the District Attorney's Office, and because the People weren't served with the motion, then there was no response.

So I think the question that I have for you is whether or not the People would be willing - - well, I should ask this to the District Attorney.

Is there anything that you would be willing to offer by way of an attempt to resolve this matter? I think that is what Mr. Daniel wants is to try and resolve this case, and so - - yes. Go ahead, Ms. Argot.

DANIEL: On the fifth day of the fifth month of the year 2000, I was again arrested by K. Predador and two other - - or three other officers from Beastly Police Department, and he said to me mockingly that, "I received your eight-page manifesto, but I don't know what to do with it" or "What am I supposed to do with it?" And I believe that - - and then I spent the four days in jail. I believe that was - - it is written in your law that - - let me see - - that that was contempt of the law, unlawful process, and it is written in your law that - -

COURT: So - - Mr. Daniel, I want to understand what you are saying. You are saying that the fact that you were arrested on Friday, which would have been May 5th, was actually an unlawful process? In other words, you don't believe that you were subject to arrest? Is that what you are stating?

DANIEL: And he had contempt for - - he had contempt for the law and, I believe, my Master and Lord Jesus Christ and for the church themselves because it is written when one member suffer, all members suffer, and less a contempt for me - -

DANIEL: And it is written ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially in those trying to execute the law.

COURT: All right. Let me just respond because some of the issues that you have raised are - - pertain specifically to the Complaint, which has been filed by the District Attorney, and perhaps - - and, with all due respect, perhaps ignorance of the law of the State of California on your part, and that is that when you were served with the citation to appear in court, you must appear in court, and then the - -

Let me just explain the procedure to you, and that is that when you do fail to appear, a warrant is issued for your arrest. And that is what happened. A bench warrant was issued on January 27th, which was the date that you were to appear in court. And then when you are arrested, as you tell me that you were on Friday, then you must be brought to court, as you are today.

And so, Mr. Daniel, here is the question - - and there are a couple of different ways to go on this. If you want to resolve the matter today, I think the People would be willing to offer a charge, which is a failing to appear in court as promised. Now, that hasn't been added yet. I am not going to ask the People whether or not they want to add that charge at this point in time until I hear from you whether or not you are willing to acknowledge - - or plead to any charges at all.

If you don't want to plead to any charges, that is fine. You enter a not guilty plea. I will set the matter over for a pretrial date. Based on the fact that you appear to have not come to court and that your failure to do so, according to what you have told me, comes from your understanding that the Court needed to respond to you, and by failing to do so, it was actually the Court that defaulted on this case, I would go ahead and release you on your own recognizance. You would be released this afternoon. I would set another date in the case, and you would need to appear on the date that I selected, and I will pick a date that would be convenient with your calendar.

This is the typical pretrial conference that we are having now. Usually, the People offer - -

MS. DA: In order to resolve the case, that would be a much less serious count for Mr. Daniel.

[*Comment: All of the convoluted diatribe that has just been spoken is for the purpose of covering up the compromise that the court is offering. Note that Daniel has not yet been charged with 'failure to appear,' though that was what he was supposedly arrested for. They will add that charge and drop the 'obstruction, unlicensed driver, etc.' charges. At this point, the combination of the words spoken by Daniel and the served abatements have sent the court into a 'negotiation' mode. They have 'tried the spirits,' and found him to be who he and his Father says he is.]

COURT: That is what the People's offer is. Do you want to accept that offer and resolve the case today, or do you want to go ahead and put the matter over for another conference?

DANIEL: I believe that - - that my Lord was transgressed upon, and I was also. And I have been four days in jail and have a wife and three small children.

[*Comment: This declaration has to be firm. Not 'maybe.' And not 'I would like,' but 'if this court is truly interested in justice, this case should be dismissed.' This puts them on the defensive.]

MS. DA: No. We can't dismiss everything in this case, I don't think, Your Honor. I would be willing to offer a lesser charge to Mr. Daniel that would resolve it, and that would be over. It would not affect his - -

COURT: The charge the People, basically, have indicated that they would add is a Count III, which is a violation of - - a failure to appear on a written promise, and that is just your failure to come to court as you promised you would do by signing the citation. It is, basically, a plea disposition.

You would be willing to dismiss the charges that he was actually cited for on December 18th?

But it is your choice to make, to make sure, and if you want to plead not guilty, I will release you on your own recognizance today.

MS. DA: I should say - - I am sorry. I should say, also, I think that - - I am offering that today. I can't guarantee that another prosecutor would offer that later on.

COURT: Okay. All right. But it is up to you, Mr. Daniel. It is your choice. If you are not sure what you want to do, in any event, I assure you I will release you on your own recognizance. I will set another date. If you want to think about whether or not the People - - to accept the People's offer, I can pass this matter. I have another matter that I can attend to now, and I can bring you back out when we are through with the other court matter.

COURT: Do you want to think about it? Okay. Let me just clarify what is being offered here. The People would add a Count III, a violation of 853.7, violation of a promise to appear. The sentence would be four days, credit four, no fine, no probation. Basically, the time that you have spent in custody would be the sentence in the case. That would be it. If you don't want to accept that offer, that is fine. That is your choice. I would release you today on your own recognizance. I would set another pretrial date.

COURT: The charges would remain. You could come back on another date. You would be out of custody, assuming you come back as ordered. You could discuss the matter again with the District Attorney further, if you would like to do that.

COURT: The two charges here are resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. That is Count I. And Count II is - - alleges that you were an unlicensed driver. Those charges are alleged to have occurred on December 18.

COURT: If you do not accept the People's offer to plead to what they are offering, which is a Count III, a violation of 853.7, failure to appear in court as promised. If you accept that offer, they will dismiss Count I and II. If you don't accept the offer, Counts I and II will remain pending another pretrial date, a future court date. You could discuss the matter with the People at a future court date.

[*Comment: What we see here is, the court will not let everything 'slide.' They must have a conviction on something, to justify the arrest. By accepting the offer and compromise, the abatement stands (the original 'violations' are dropped) and the 'failure to appear' charges stand for the court.]

DANIEL: Are not codes, rules and regulations arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, not law?

COURT: That is the People's response. "They are not arbitrary and capricious" is the People's response to your inquiry.

[*Comment: Note that the prosecutor never challenged whether they are law or not.]

COURT: All right. We will have one more brief conference this afternoon. If you haven't decided by that time, I will take it as a not guilty plea, we will go ahead and release you, and you can come back on another date, okay, sir?

COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, we have - - we just concluded the other matter, and - - so have you thought about the offer -

[*Comment: This is the proper response to the situation. This lets the court off of the hook, and allows you to continue with your life outside of the lion's den. What has been accomplished is, Daniel has done his duty of, "let shine your light before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father Who is in the heavens." ]

COURT: Now, this is the People's offer because, just for clarification, Mr. Daniel, it is the District Attorney's Office that makes the decision on charging, and that is why, as I explained before, when - - although, I know, you did serve the Court and, apparently, Officer Predador as well, the District Attorney's Office did not receive a copy of the filing.

(speaking to MS. DA) And that is why you didn't respond . Because it would be the District Attorney's Office to respond.

But as I understand it, this is the offer, and that is that the People will be willing to amend to allege a Count III, a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7 - -

COURT: - - and if you would plead no contest to that, the Court does sentencing, and I would - - the sentence would be four days, credit four. It would be a time served sentence. And then the People would be dismissing the resisting, obstructing, delaying arrest and would be dismissing the unlicensed driver charge. Is that what the offer is, MS. DA?

COURT: Okay. Mr. Daniel, there is one more issue that I want to cover with you, and that is that I am a court commissioner, and in order for me to go ahead and sentence you in this case, you would agree to - - I would need to have you agree that I can impose the four day-credit four- sentence. Is that agreeable with you?

COURT: Mr. Daniel - - First of all, is there a People's motion to add a Count III, a violation of 853.7? And that is a failure to appear in court as promised on the citation.

COURT: Okay. That is the charge. Mr. Daniel, you do have the right to have an attorney in this matter, and if you cannot afford an attorney, I would appoint an attorney for you free of charge. Do you understand that right, sir?

COURT: And do you give up that right in order to represent yourself on this matter?

COURT: You have the right to a jury trial or a court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to present a defense in your own behalf and the right to remain silent. Those are your Constitutional rights, according to the United States Constitution. Do you understand those rights?

[*Comment: He could of at this point said, instead of 'Yes' , "I never have and do not now claim any Constitutional rights, but whatever rights the court 'presumes' I have, the court can also presume that they are waived.]

COURT: How do you plead to Count III, which is the amended count that was just added by Ms. Argot. And that is a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7, failure to appear.

COURT: Okay. A no contest plea has the same force and effect as a guilty plea. You are convicted on the plea. It just cannot be used against you in a civil court. Do you understand this?

COURT: Okay. Sir, I find that you have expressly, knowingly, understandingly and intelligently waived your Constitutional rights. I find that your plea has been freely and voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature and consequences thereof and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

At this time I will impose the sentence of four days, credit four. The $100 restitution fine is waived because of the time that Mr. Daniel has served in County Jail. There is no fine, no probation. That is it Mr. Daniel. Thank you very much. And are Counts I and II dismissed on People's motion - -

COURT: Counts I and II are dismissed. Sir, that resolves this matter. Thank you very much, sir.

DANIEL: I want to thank you both very much, and may God richly bless you both for your compassion and your respect to the law.

In the above article we were shown our Father's tender mercies toward our Daniel of today when he had refused to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality where he is currently sojourning because he had committed no trespass, and how our Father's Providence stayed the lion's mouth.

In this long running spiritual battle, those same kings these many months later have again falsely accused our Brother of another "trespass," this time in the form of "failure to appear" on a charge of "practicing medicine without certification" and other sundry "violations" concerned with his making available our Father's healing herbs to those in need.

After having abated and defaulted the charges four months earlier, they came on a Sunday to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. After spending two nights in vinculus in their grey-bar hotel, he was brought before "THE COURT" on a Tuesday morning. The following "record" is the "arraignment" on that day. If the Lord wills, over the next month or two we may present the "record" (with commentary) of the "pretrial conference" which took place about a week after the "arraignment."

In these transcript's, we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original copies. Randy Lee's comments are in bracketed italics. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, and it is not an effort to put words in anyone's mouth, for only the Holy Spirit can do that. The comments are simply given for the edification and guidance of those that may at one time or another be in the same type of situation. Again, we must remember that only the Spirit of God will give you the words to say in that hour.

DANIEL: I couldn't be the person - - I mean I couldn't be who you think I am because the name you have is in all capital letters, which is a misnomer.

DANIEL: My God-given name is spelled capital "D," lowercase "a-n-i-e-l," uppercase "C" - -

COURT: Let's go over this. I want to get the spelling correct here. Your first name - - go ahead and stand up, sir. Your first name is capital "D," and then it is a lowercase "a" - -

[*Comment: We should recognize here that the judge's patronizing acceptance of the proper spelling is done for deceptive purposes. After the acceptance of the proper spelling by the Court, one should object to this acceptance because the Court can "normally" only prosecute the "person" (name in all caps), not the substance. If objection is not made, it is taken by the Court that you are giving permission to be prosecuted.]

DANIEL: Lowercase "a," lowercase "n," lowercase "i," lowercase "e," lowercase "l."

DANIEL: And I do not accept or use the designations, which are heathen, of "Sir" or "Mister."

COURT: All right. On this matter I have corrected the spelling to reflect the spelling that you have given the Court. [*Comment: With that, they have recognized his substance in Christ and have abandoned the ability of prosecuting him as a "person" (name in all caps). At this point, one should object to being prosecuted under his true name and point out that the Court does not have the ability of prosecuting him under his true name without his permission, and that he does not give them permission to do so.

In this matter you are charged in Case No. 1645 in Count I with practicing medicine without certification, a violation of Business and Professions Code Sec. 2052. Count II alleges practicing medicine without certification, a violation (of the same Code). Count III alleges conducting business without a license, a violation of the Beastly Municipal Code Sec. 4.09.030. And Count IV alleges not having a food permit, violation of Health and Safety Code Sec. 10554(a). How do you wish to plead? Guilty or not guilty?

DANIEL: I could not be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is evil.

[*Comment: "I could not be willful in this thing" is defensive and goes to the "facts" of the case, which causes "joinder." At this point, the "charges" are still against the "person" only. Better is: "Those charges are against the person DANIEL C.... in all capital letters, which I am not, because I am known by and do the will of my Father only." But with the "defensive" response, the Court "assumes" jurisdiction with a plea for the "DEFENDANT"]:

Are you going to represent yourself, hire an attorney, or do you want the Court to appoint an attorney to represent you in this matter?

[*Comment: A bondmen of Jesus the Christ cannot represent "himself." The Christ is your Advocate and Wonderful Counselor. "Myself" denotes self-will. Always remember that any "benefits" offered by the Court are the same "benefits" that were offered to our Lord by Satin when he offered Him the glory and powers of the kingdoms of the world. As He rejected them, we must also.]

[*Comment: Here, the Court gives him the ability to recant by asking him to reconfirm that he "would like" to represent "himself."]

COURT: All right. On what issue do you wish to address the District Attorney at this time? On the issue of the charges?

COURT: Okay. Before I go ahead and allow you to do that, I am going to go over some information with you just to make certain you understand. [*"The Court" then stated all of his (civil) "rights" to an attorney, the "right" to represent himself, etc.] With that in mind, do you understand and give up your right to have an attorney in this case so that you can represent yourself? [*Comment: Again the judge gives him the opportunity to say "Get behind me Satin".]

[*Comment: Giving the "impression" that he "had" rights allows the Court to "presume" that he is a 14th Amendment citizen and that he has previously exercised (civil) "rights." In this position, we must remember that all of the questions coming from the bench are "loaded." The Court is seeking the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to "fully" acquire jurisdiction.]

MS. DA: Are you able to tell whether this is a City Attorney or a District Attorney matter?

[*Comment: Here, the Ms. suggests that see is unaware of what the case is concerned with. But, the District Attorney's Office had been working on the case for close to six months. It would "appear" that the Ms. came to court unprepared. Don't be fooled!]

COURT: This is a District Attorney filing. There is a Beastly Municipal Code violation that is included in the filing; however, the case was filed by the District Attorney's Office by Ms. Gantry.

COURT: All right. Sir, what is it that you would like to talk to the District Attorney about?

[*Comment: He finally receives the opportunity to set the "record" straight. The following should have been stated at the time of the "name spelling," so as to set "the state of the forum" at the beginning of the proceedings. The blessing is that he was able to seize the moment in the name of the Lord and make manifest his duty as a bondman of the Christ]

DANIEL: Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my Sovereign. I am a bondservant of Him. And the law of God and the law of the land are all one and the same, and both preserve and favor the land. And all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and I would like to see a record in law leading to the establishment of this Court under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not a person, I am not a human being or - - or a natural man or a resident because it is written from the beginning the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I am not a person because it has been written from the beginning God is not a respecter of persons, and, also, if you respect the person you have sent and are convinced of the law and are a transgressor of the law - -

COURT: I know you don't like to be addressed as "Mr. Daniel." How do you choose to be addressed here?

[*Comment: Here, the judge deliberately interrupts, changing the subject with a patronizing "bone." His above statement is a blessing, but at this point he had already given the "impression" to the Court that he is "a person" due to his acknowledging "rights," and "representing himself." But for witnessing purposes, the Spirit of God wrote it on his heart to state the Truth.]

COURT: Okay. In this case the issues that you are discussing right now appear to be of a jurisdictional nature, and those are issues that you are discussing with the District Attorney in court; Ms. DA represents the People of the State of California, and it is by the authority vested in her by the State of California that the District Attorney's Office is pursuing this prosecution. Certainly, the issues that you are raising, if you wish to set forth in motions, that would be fine. [*Comment: Here, the judge seeks further jurisdiction by "suggesting" that "motions" be "set forth." Whether "set forth" or "filed," whether on a jurisdictional question or otherwise, any "formal" motion gives the Court jurisdiction over "the person," because motions are created for "persons" only.]

At this point in time I also would like to note that there - - let's see. I have taken a look at the - - on the issue of bail, that is something that needs to be discussed today. Daniel, we need to talk about bail. I note that you did fail to appear and that you were cited to appear on July 25th, and I would ask that you address the Court on that issue so - - since that is a determination that I need to make at this time.

[*Comment: Here again the judge seeks the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to further "enhance" the jurisdiction of the Court. In this situation, one must stay with the Sword of the Word, avoiding any defensive posture or addressing the facts of the case, thereby avoiding any further joinder. But Daniel defends:]

DANIEL: Yes. I have never practiced medicine or attempted to practice medicine or have any intent to practice medicine at any time, and so I haven't broken the law. I work with God's herbs to help people. I have never diagnosed, treated or operated on anyone for any disease whatsoever. I have never used drugs or phamacia or practiced sorceries.

And I had 22 people come into my ministry, the sanctuary where I work for my Lord and Savior, and they tore the place apart. They had a warrant, they said, a so-called warrant. They were looking for antibiotics, prescription drugs, drugs with expiration dates, medical equipment, which they found none. So whoever made up the affidavit lied about it, and so I did not break the law. And they told me if I didn't sign the citation that I would go to jail, and I was - - I did it under duress and threat of jail time.

[*Comment: With this "defensive" statement, he has given all that the Court needs to proceed with the prosecution--full joinder. But since he has, more importantly, brought the Power of the Word to bear down on the Court and the District Attorney's Office in this arraignment and in the Abatement/Default (of which they never answered), he will ultimately fare well. And they know that they will still have to deal with the Abatement issue at some point due to their experience with him in the previous traffic case.]

COURT: All right. Daniel, I have to ask you a question. If, in fact, I order that you return to court - - because now these charges are pending, and they have been brought by the People of the State of California - - will you promise me that you will appear in court? Because without that promise, I have no choice but to set bail in this case. Otherwise, based upon the nature of the charges - - I have had an opportunity to read through the reports in this particular case. I am familiar - - because there was another case a while back involving a traffic ticket. We have had the discussion before on the appearance issue, if you will recall, so I am familiar with what your belief system is in regard to that; however, I need to know that you would come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, to defend the charges against you.

[*Comment: As we can see, she is very familiar with whom she is dealing. At this point, the judge is simply "following procedure".]

DANIEL: Would that be signing a contract or losing my venue if I came back to court? Because when I walk through that door there (the bar), I would be under - - I would be giving you jurisdiction; is that right.

COURT: Well, the Court - - basically, the way you look at it, the Court, essentially, forces the jurisdiction upon you. I mean, I know that you do not accept the jurisdiction of the Court. I know that that is your position. Nonetheless - -

[*Comment. This is an ambiguous statement. When we mention the word "law," we must clarify which "law" we are talking about. If not, the judge will "presume" that you mean man's law.]

COURT: This is the law. You are charged with a case. There is a Complaint. The People of the State of California brought this Complaint.

And at this point in time, I would deny any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the statements that you have made today in court. [*Emphasis added.] [*Comment: With this full revelation from the bench, it would do everyone good to study and analyze this transcript to better understand what was said by Daniel to give the Court full jurisdiction.]

We must also consider that the judge is admitting that the Court's original jurisdiction is only "presumed," and that it is the words that come out of your mouth which transforms the "presumption" into a "reality" for them.]

I need to know that you would, in fact, come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, so that this case can be litigated, if necessary, or settled, so that you could have a further conference with the District Attorney on the issue of settlement and - - or, if it is necessary, to set the case for trial.

[*Comment: It is interesting that the judge is already talking about "settlement." Could it be that the Sword of the Word has already broken the bands of their fasces, and at this point they're only going through their motions of jurisdictional procedure?]

COURT: The People have 30 days from today's date to bring this case to trial. I anticipate the People aren't ready to start a trial today.

COURT: So, no, we would not be able to start a trial in this matter today. We could set the case for trial now if you want to do so.

Normally, the procedure is to set a pretrial conference, which would give you an opportunity to discuss the matter with the District Attorney, to see whether or not you had any discovery motions or any other motions that you might want to file and then, also, set a trial date.

[*Comment: The Court is still trying to lure him in by "suggesting" that he "might want" to "file" a motion.]

[*Comment: At this point, due to the Court "having" jurisdiction because of his previous defenses and giving acknowledgment to 'rights," it was best for him to request a Court trial-- not a jury trial--since juries cannot consider the Law in their verdicts, whereas the judge can. But either way, he would have the opportunity to let his light shine before them and thereby honor the Father and glorify our Lord and Master. That is Daniel's purpose in this situation. We must remember that the Spirit of God has been giving His minister (Daniel) the words to speak for His purposes.]

[*At this point, the judge has already made it clear that jurisdiction was already given "based on the statements that you have made today in court". But he has not yet compromised the Non-statutory Abatement, as will be seen later.]

COURT: No. At this point your motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. You can renew that motion at a later date if you choose to do so.

[*Comment: Here, the judge tries to reduce the Power of God's Word to a "motion." To counter this 'reduction,' he now brings up the subject of the Non-statutory Abatement, which nullifies any idea that a "motion" was made.]

DANIEL: Yes. Well, the People and the District Attorney were served with an abatement and were lawfully abated, and all the defendants were abated, and I don't know why I am standing here.

[*Comment: It was very important for him to have brought up "the abatement issue" during the arraignment, thereby giving him the ability to force their hand in either a pretrial conference or in a trial itself if it came to that.]

COURT: That is something you can discuss with the District Attorney. I don't have any information on that issue, and Ms. DA doesn't have her file at this point in time. That is something that should be discussed at a pretrial conference. The question I need you to answer is an assurance from you that you will be here if I set another date. If you do assure me of that, I will release you on your own recognizance and order that you come back to court.

DANIEL: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar - -

DANIEL: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar on my return?

COURT: Why would I? Why would I arrest you if you come in here? No, not if you come in here. If you don't come, then you get arrested. I have a question. If you want to represent yourself, you have to come up to the table here.

[*Comment: Here, we see the implications of "representing yourself." It brings you "in bar."]

[*This is an excellent point to make. It is not defensive, and it makes it clear in this "trial of spirits" that Daniel does not serve the natural man's god. And it also forces the Court to show the extent of its police power when it has determined that it has full jurisdiction over "THE DEFENDANT"]

COURT: Well, then you don't waive time. If he doesn't waive time, he doesn't waive time, does he? He doesn't have to sign anything if he doesn't waive time? He has to sign an O. R.

[*Comment: At this point, we see from the above statement from THE COURT that the judge is flustered and probably running out of patience. The statement is what is known as "convoluted diatribe" for confusion purposes.]

COURT: You have to sign a promise to appear. You do have to do that. I am just checking with the procedure. That is also in the Penal Code. That is a law of the State of California. I know that you abide by the law of the State of California because you have told me that before.

[*Comment: This last statement stems from Daniel's earlier statement that "I accept the law." We see here that the judge hears every word that comes out of your mouth.]

DANIEL: If I did not sign it, I would be - - I would be arrested and put in jail; is that correct?

COURT: If you don't sign it, then I can't release you O. R. This is an order by the Court that you return to this court for your pretrial conference.

COURT: I can't release you O. R. without your signature on this, and that is Penal Code Sec. 1216, which is noted right here on the bottom of the page.

DANIEL: I would like to get this over with because I have been persecuted by the Beastly Police Department for ten months.

[*Comment: This reference to "ten months" consists of "building code violations," the earlier "traffic case," and this present case.]

COURT: All right. I am going to - - I want to release you on your own recognizance. In order for me to release you on your own recognizance, you must sign the O. R. form. Will you do so, sir?

COURT: You are released on your own recognizance pending your complying with the Court order that you sign an O. R. form. And we will set this matter for a pretrial conference on October 16th, 9:00 a.m., Division II. That would give the People sufficient time to find their file on this case, and then you can have a conference with the Deputy District Attorney that is in court. Do you want me to go ahead and set a jury trial or a court trial date at this time? Or what we could do is just set that pretrial conference date, have your conference with the District Attorney and then see if the matter can be resolved.

[*Comment: With this last statement, the judge sends a "message" to the District Attorney that "the Ms." may have a difficult time with a conviction, since it would be the judge that would be determining the final outcome if it was to go to trial.]

COURT: All right. And then pending that appearance - - I do not know the status currently of the - - I am familiar with the allegations. I have read the allegations in the police report. And a condition of your being released on your own recognizance is that you are not to practice medicine.

COURT: So you do understand and accept that condition. All right. Please have a seat, and Deputy Swenson will have you sign the form and give you a date - - a slip of paper with a date on it.

Due to the extended length of trivial dialog by "THE COURT" in the following "Pretrial Conference" which was held a few days later, we present here (without commentary) only that portion of it that brought the substance, the Sword of the Word, to bear on the case.

After the many agencies involved had spent several months investigating our Daniel of today, and most likely thousands of "dollars" on it, we see in the following that when His bondmen shine the pure Truth from the Spirit of God on the darkness of these synagogues of the natural man and his vain imaginations, that darkness is exposed, and they can do nothing against the Truth.

The final outcome of this "Pretrial Conference" and "Case" was that it was ended that day, without a fine or any additional jail time (he had spent two or three nights in their gray-bar hotel previously). With this deliverance from the lion's mouth, we can all say--Praise be to Him, and Him alone--Abba, Father.

COURT: The People are saying they are not going to respond in writing [*to the abatement].

MS. DA: That, Your Honor, I would have to check with Ms. Gantry. She has contacted us here. She has received that. She did not intend on responding in writing. I do not know if she will personally be before the Court.

COURT: If she does not, will you or another representative of your office just be prepared on this?

DANIEL: I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am here to execute His will and testament, and it is written from the beginning that man does not live by bread alone but by all the words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and so I have to do His will. And I believe it is written, as He has accepted me, I will also accept you. From the beginning it is written -- and it is also written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve.

I am His bondservant and must do His law. I believe it is written in your law that any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all. I do His will. I am a minister.

It has been written from the beginning that the fruit of the trees are for -- the fruit of the trees are for meat, and the leaves are for medicine, and it, also, has been written from the beginning that the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And so I couldn't be willful in the thing that I am accused of.

And I believe it is also written in your law that an act -- any act -- an act does not make a man guilty unless the intention be guilty. It is not my will. It is His will. And so first in time is first in right. That is written in your law, I believe.

And so it has been written from the beginning that Jesus Christ went from village to city healing the people and curing their afflictions. And, again, as He has accepted me, now I have accepted you. I am commanded by Him to do this.

And, again, he who is before in time is preferred in right. I believe that is written in your law. It is also a perpetual law -- that no human law can be perpetual.

And manifestation of the spirit has been given to every man to profit with all and so some, the gift of faith, some, the gift of healing, and if a man knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to Him, it is a sin.

I believe in -- also, in your law it says that afflictions arise from law and law -- and not law from afflictions. And so I could not -- also, bankrupt entities have no force or effect in law, and I believe it has been written in your law that cities such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the State of California or the County of Los Angeles have no soul and, therefore, cannot be sued, and they are dead. The dead cannot receive an injury. I believe that is also written in your law.

And the word of God says the body without the soul is dead, and the dead know not anything. We are to avoid the appearance of evil.

And I believe it is written in your law that licenses are permission to do what would, otherwise, be unlawful, illegal, a tort or a trespass.

And there is also no law that says that the living should be joined to the dead.

COURT: All right. Have you completed what you wanted to state for the record at this time?

It is also -- we are commanded not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and I believe it is written in your law that the unequal things ought not to be joined.

COURT: I am not sure that I understand that, what you just said, so if you want to clarify. How does that apply--

DANIEL: It goes back to, there is no law that says that the dead should be -- or the living should be joined to the dead, and the corporations are dead. It is ruled in God's law and, also, I believe, your law. So I should not be joined to the dead.

COURT: I see what you are saying. You are saying -- basically, what -- I have heard your arguments, and, basically, you have got two different areas that you are arguing. One, again, relates to factual issues, the factual issues being that you lacked the criminal intent. You have stated that. And your other argument was, along those lines, relating to use of -- I am assuming there is some use of herbal healing, and that is --

And then, also, the legal issue would be whether or not the People would be able to proceed against you --

COURT: -- lawfully based on the argument that you have made about not being able to join the living with the dead.

And so we have both the legal issue that needs to be resolved by way of your motion and then the factual issues. Depending upon how the Court rules on your legal issue, the factual issues are issues that then would be determined by a jury and -- or a court, depending upon whether or not the sides in this case want to proceed and agree to proceed by way of a court trial or a jury trial.

Now, since you are representing yourself on this case, do you have any issues at all at this point by way of discovery? Have you received the police reports in the case? I think on the last date when you were in court, you received a packet. Yes.

COURT: You don't have any issues right now. There was someone else here earlier that had an issue regarding a desire for the People to do an investigation.

Is there anything at all at this point in time that you feel you do not have that you would need from the Prosecution by way of discovery for alleged evidence?

Our Brother, Joseph Robert, now sojourning in the area of Washington state, or thereabouts, sent us the following three accounts of his encounters while sojourning in a fictitious jurisdiction called The State of Arizona in previous times. We hope and pray that all are edified by the testimony given, showing that the Power of the Word does, in fact, slay the principalities and powers of the world.

In 1976 "my world" as a "human being" was falling apart. So I "hit the highway" as a "hitchhiker." My biggest fears (remember the story of Job in the Old Testament) were perverts and thugs in uniform. Perverts were easy, I simply said "the next stop is mine" and got out of the car. Police, well, they were something else. I hitchhiked from 1976 until 1994, at which time I stopped asking men for a ride, and began to ask God, who has, without a doubt, always provided me with the spiritually correct ride.

Over the years I never went to jail or got roughed up, but I did get intimidated and was left feeling "emotionally raped." Something wasn't right; I could just feel it in my bones.

By 1994 my relationship with God was beginning to truly develop, and as such I began to ask Him for more advice and information on this "legal" dilemma that was troubling me, which was about "I.D." and its "law." At first I tried to "travel" without any "I.D." (and sometimes not), but I was always being confronted by Johnny Good Boy only to end up never completely satisfying their curiosity; for they were never satisfied. Always, they wanted to know more. They were just like a machine: how old are you? when were you born? what's your address, etc. I then tried getting them to agree up front by asking them if they would be content with just the name?

Then in 1996, no doubt in response to my prayers to the Lord to help me with this matter, a ride opened my eyes with knowledge and information about "sovereign citizen" stuff. He was associated with the "freemen" of Montana at the time. At first it seemed to work, but right away I was beginning to find flaws in their "system." Besides, you had to carry a lot of paperwork quoting codes, rules, and regulations. Still in search of the truth, I was directed by this same man to the Jural Society in California. Once I discovered the true nature of I. D., through them, I set out to test it by going to my nemisis, the State of Arizona.

Arizona has, in my book (and in the book of the local people there), the epitome of the Gestapo resurrected in the United States. Arizona has on its statutes a bazaar "law" that says in effect, that when an officer asks for I.D. and you don't present it, they can arrest you, even if you're doing everything else "legal" according to their "law." To accommodate them, I generally remain behind the "No Pedestrian" sign located on the freeway on-ramps; or, as is the case of the account in Oro Valley (read on), I walk facing the traffic on a busy street.

The following are accounts of recent dealings with Johnny Good Boy and Jilly Good Girl of the Arizona Highway Patrol and the Oro Valley Police and Sheriff near Tucson, Arizona.

In the seventh month of the one thousand and nine hundred and ninety eighth year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ I was waiting for my ride on the on-ramp of Dysart Road and Interstate ten, about twenty miles west of Phoenix, when hear came two Johnny Good Boy's in the guise of the Arizona Highway Patrol. As they stepped out of the car I could see one was the senior officer and the other appeared to be a young rooky in training, and I had the feeling that I was supposed to be his next lesson.

"Greetings and salutations in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ," I said.

So that we all knew we were talking about the same thing, I begin by defining what it is the man was looking for.) I said:

"Identification: that which is used to describe the status of the holder as a citizen, resident, driver-- (they were starting to nod their heads),-- operator, passenger, pedestrian-- ("yeh, yeh," he murmured),-- hitchhiker-- ("got any," he said?);-- none of which I am; and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my father God. But, I do have something better..."

I continued, "I have here the Holy Scriptures which describes me as a good and lawful Christian."

"Wherever my Lord and Master leads me," said I. At which point, the senior officer turned to the junior officer and said:

"Have a nice day sir," and they turned to walk away. Halfway to their car, the senior officer turned to me and said:

"And don't go beyond that sign (pointing to one of six "NO PARKING" signs along the ramp, not realizing I was already standing at the "NO PEDESTRIANS" sign.

It was the fourth month of the one thousand nine hundred and ninety ninth year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.

A blessed and comfortable warm day, and Johnny Good Boy was out in force stopping people left and right. So in hopes of being left alone, I decided to walk facing the traffic. And no sooner thinking that I didn't want to be harassed, here she came, Jilly Good Girl with red and blue lights aflashin'. When I saw her coming, I got out my glasses and Bible and waited for her.

"Greetings in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ," said I.

My response - "Identification: that which describes the status of the holder as a person, resident, citizen,-- (she began to nod her head)-- driver, operator, passenger....

"Yeah," she said as I continued.... pedestrian, hitchhiker... "Yeah," she said again, "do you have any..." and I continued, "none of which I am."

Her chin fell to her chest with mouth wide open. As she stood there with her mouth agape, I said:

"The holy scriptures (holding up my Bible) describes me as a Good and Lawful Christian, are you?"

With this being her answer, the Spirit of God put the following response on my lips:

"Good, maybe you would like to sit down and discuss the Scriptures for a moment.

With her heart being hardened to this, she said, "Some other time. What's your name?"

"Name: the note, mark, or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those in subjection, and I am only in subjection to my Lord and Master Jesus the Christ. Only my Father knows my name, for it is written in His book of Life; but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

Standing fast in the Word, I could only respond-- "No, no. You don't understand. I don't have a name, but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

For the next several minutes she kept pounding away at this "name" thing. Finally, she said, "Well you had a family name at one time, didn't you?" To which I had to honestly say, "yes."

"Emmett," I said. "And that's with a colon between the "Joseph Robert" and the "Emmett."

By now, a second Jilly Good Girl had arrived and was standing next to the first one. This second one, I thought at first, was a supervisor of some kind.

Again, our Shield and Buckler was with me-- "You do what you must. I can only tell you what our Lord and Master has said."

With the Lord beginning to open her heart with this question, I was moved to say, "Not to fear those who can harm the body, but fear only Him who has the power to cast both body and soul into hell."

By this time, a third officer, a Johnny Good Boy, had arrived and sat on the front fender of the lead car observing the goings on.

At that point, our "Good and Lawful" Christian "girl" asked me, "Is there anybody here (in Tucson or Oro Valley) who can verify who you are?"

Again, the Spirit of God bearing witness, "My Father knows me, and if you knew my Father as you say you do, then you already know me, for he sends me. The Holy Spirit knows me, and all of the saints of heaven bear witness and I bear witness of myself. Which, even you must admit, makes it a majority.

Without showing any "emotion," she continued to pound away, "Where do you live?"

Having satisfied her curiosity, she moved on to, "How old are you?" The only answer being, "I don't know."

Again, the only answer being, "I don't know, I wasn't exactly conscious at the time, and my Father has never told me. Besides, in your law, that's hearsay and irrelevant."

She, of course, tried to convince me otherwise but I wasn't going to volunteer to be the fiction she wanted me to be, so I remained in the Truth.

At this point, she left me with her "sister" officer and went back to her car and the other officer to call in for advice, no doubt, and to see if there was something to arrest me for, other than just being one of their "usual suspects" walking down the street minding the Lord's business.

During this break in the "action," I turned to the "sister" and ask her, "What's this all about? I don't quite understand. Even in your law I was doing no wrong, so why all of the hoopla and commotion?"

In typical bureaucratic fashion, her response was, "I don't know, you'll have to ask the initiating officer." (With this, I knew she was not a supervisor).

I said, "Well, I'm here to execute Christ's Testament and bear witness to somebody, so perhaps you're here for that purpose. Her eyes got real big when those words were spoken. So I continued:

"Well, that doesn't sound too enthusiastic," said I. "Do you go to "Church" or something?

"No," she said, "I don't have time. I'm a working single mother with two jobs and a seven year old boy."

For the next couple of minutes her and I developed a good rapport and were in good spirits when the first officer returned.

"Of course," said I, and turning to the second "sister" standing there, I said, "be sure and take some time to study, if not for yourself, then for the boy's sake."

Wishing them a Good day in the Lord, they left, and I continued on to go where the Lord led me.

About twenty five miles north of Oro Valley in a deserty place where the nearest house is about two miles away it was just me and the jackrabbits having a long wait on a blessed day for the next ride, and along came another Johnny Good Boy from the sheriff's patrol.

He got out of his car and started with "good morning," which is always their way of getting you off guard.

"Greetings and salutations in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ," said I.

And, of course, I said "Identification, that which describes the holder as a citizen, resident, driver, operator-- (his head was beginning to nod)-- passenger, pedestrian, hitchhiker--

--none of which I am, and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my Father God, for it is written, thou shalt not bear false witness. But, I have something better."

"I have here the Holy Scriptures which describe me as a Good and Lawful Christian. Are you?"

And again, "Name: a name is a note, mark or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those in subjection, and I am only in subjection to our Lord and Master Jesus the Christ. My name is written in the Book of Life, sealed by the Holy Spirit, and known only to my Father God. However, if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

"As I have said, I don't have a name, but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond."

This officer could not get past "the name thing," and finally used his radio to call in to see if there were any warrants. While waiting, he had the audacity to say to me, "I'm not here to harass or hurt you."

I was tempted to say more but thought otherwise under the circumstances. The radio dispatch said, "we have no warrants or wants for Joseph Robert, but we do have one for a Joseph Robert Davis." The officer looked at me with a sardonic grin and said,

"Well, Joseph Robert Davis..."-- thinking that he had me. But I simply said, "nope, not me."

He was a little puzzled but had nowhere to go with it, made a few notes on his pad, and said "have a nice day," and left the scene.

I do not mind telling you that each one of these experiences has had my heart pounding in my chest and my knees, and sometimes my whole body shakes. Everything shakes but my neck and mouth which are calm and smooth. I usually continue to shake for five or ten minutes after the incident. I attribute all of this shaking to the movement of the Holy Spirit through me. Each one of these experiences has left me with the stark realization that the Word, and Work, of God does "slay the enemy." His Word is powerful and is the only way to keep the "land sharks" at bay.

In the past, each encounter with Johnny Good Boy usually lasted up to twenty or thirty minutes. Now, they're usually out of my face in five minutes or less. This is a testimony for the remarkable Testament of our Lord and Savior, to whom I attribute all good that has come out of these encounters, and all other experiences in my life. Hallelujah, and Amen. Glory be to God forever.

Our Brother Joseph Robert, currently sojourning with us here in Southern California, recently sojourned from here to the Northwest and back again. The following is an account of one of his encounters during that sojourn and the blessings thereof, and his afterthoughts that we hope will be for your edification.

September 23, 2000. Interstate 5 at Brownsville exit, thirty minutes north of Eugene, Oregon. Linn county Sheriff's (two of them) allegedly investigating a nearby grass fire (which looked more like a farmer burning his field -- very common at this time of year) with the wind blowing towards the freeway. The first sheriff stopped 'because the fire department (there were none) said the fire could have been started from the freeway (it couldn't due to the direction of the wind).

On this fine day, sojourning with the Lord and waiting for whomsoever He was to send to meet me, and along comes Johnny Good Boy number one.

"Hello," says he. My response, "Greetings in the name of my sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ."

"We're looking for a possible arsonist that started that grass fire; can I see your I.D.?"

And, as always, my response, "Identification: that which is used to describe the status of the holder as a citizen, resident, person, driver, operator, hitchhiker, passenger, pedestrian, none of which I am, and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my Father God, for it is written, thou shalt not bear false witness. But I have something better, I have here the Holy Scriptures which describes me as a bondservant of Christ Jesus."

And, again, my response--"Name: a note, mark or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those subject to that authority, and I am only subject to the authority of my Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ. However, if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond."

My response was, "What I deem a long, or short time is irrelevant. I am required to wait patiently on the Lord. My sense of time is irrelevant. Sometimes He has me wait hours, days or weeks. It's all up to Him. How do you define a short or long time?

"Certainly. No problem." I proceeded to reveal the contents of the waist pack and he seemed satisfied. About this time, number two Johnny Good Boy arrived and stood next to number one without saying a word.

"I don't have any personal knowledge; and besides, in your law it would be irrelevant and hearsay.

"Well, I'm not going to leave until you tell me your name, age, and how long you've been standing here."

"You're going to do what you're going to do. I can only tell you what my Lord and Saviour says...

"Not to fear those who can harm the body, but to fear He who can take the soul and the body and cast them into hell."

"Yes. You should know that hitchhiking in Oregon is illegal." (In truth, it's not!)

"That may be so, but it only applies to persons, and it doesn't concern me, because as I told you before, I'm not a person, nor am I a hitchhiker."

"I'm waiting here to meet someone to whom I am to witness for the Lord. This is what I do; I move along the common way and witness for the Lord."

Having given them nothing but the Truth at this point, he was left with, "Can we check the contents of your pack?"

I replied, "Certainly, but let's go down to the grassy area off the shoulder so as to keep things clean." (As we proceeded down the hill, he asked):

Beginning to mellow, he asked, "Will you tell me your...uh....your other...what else are you called besides Joseph?"

"Thank you." At this point, the first one went back to his car to check for warrants, or instructions on what to do; I'm not sure which. The other one stood by while I carefully laid out the contents of my pack and revealed the contents of all the pockets. The second one now said,

And I said, "I understand that you have a job to do, and you must also understand that I also have a job to do; and no offense, but my Boss is Superior to your boss." Then the first one came back and joined the second one.

"I don't get mail. But if I did get any First class mail matter, it would be at the general post office.

Excited, he asked, "Where?" As I thought about this question, we all chimed in together as if they were reading my mind by now:

Then they both said together, "In whose name do you get it?" Here I had to seek guidance as I thought, and then said:

By this time their hearts were definitely softening, as they were now in good spirits. They were all smiles as I rearranged my pack, and the first said to me: "Well, Joseph Robert, I must compliment you on being so neat and organized."

My reply--"If any good comes from me it is only the work of my Lord and Savior."

And the Lord had me add, "By the way, next time you see me out here, stop to say hello, and we'll have some Bible study together."

I had recently left the southland of California and had a wonderful fellowship with Randy Lee. During our conversation at that time, I had mentioned to Randy my distaste for these encounters with the police, and Randy enlightened me with the attitude to look upon them as a blessing as well as an opportunity to witness to them. Needless to say, when the first officer appeared, the thought that immediately came to mind was to think of this as a blessing. And indeed, the very idea seemed to bring a fresh source of inspiration and goodwill in the handling of the matter that resulted in the positive outcome of the event. There can be no doubt that the spirit we hold in mind and heart in such situations indeed gives us 'fuel for the fire,' honors the Father, and, as in this case, 'heaps coals upon their heads.'

"And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." Acts 5:41 (KJV)

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:17 (KJV)

"And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:" 1 Corinthians 4:12 (KJV)

"If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ." 1 Corinthians 9:12 (KJV)

"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:" 2 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)

"Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;" Hebrews 11:25 (KJV)

"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;" James 1:2 (KJV)

"For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." 1 Peter 2:20 (KJV)

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;" 1 Peter 3:14 (KJV)

"For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." 1 Peter 3:17 (KJV)

"Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:19

The following is Appendix Seventeen from Greg Loren Durand's excellent 380 page book "America's Caesar -- Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire." The full book can be requested by writing to: Crown Rights Book Company -- c/o U. S. Post Office Box 769 -- Wiggins, Mississippi C. S. A.

Persona designata is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as, "A person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class [a political or religious community, or state], or as filling a particular [military or commercial] character."^¹ In his Dictionary of Latin Synonymes, Francis Lieber likewise wrote, "Persona was the name given to 'the mask of the actor... that covered his whole head.'"^² Two maxims of Law applicable in this case are Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus,^³ and Homo vocabulum est naturie; persona juris civilis.^⁴ Further understanding of this important legal concept may be derived from the following:

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the [civil] rights and duties are attributed.^⁵

A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law [statute] itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his "personality" [military character], that is to say, the "man-person"; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.^⁶

A juristic person is domestic in the state [forum] by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality [i.e. "U.S. citizenship"] in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person.^⁷

Those who followed the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles, California will remember that the perjured ex-police officer, Mark Fuhrman, repeatedly invoked his "Fifth Amendment privilege" when asked self-incriminating questions. It should be noted that the protection against being compelled to be a witness against oneself in the Fifth Amendment is included under what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights, not the "bill of privileges." "Persons," which are "fictitious" and "purely legal conceptions or creations," are granted privileges ("civil rights") by the "law" (statute) which creates them, whereas "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." We clearly see this distinction made in the Act of Congress of 3 March 1863, which rubber-stamped Lincoln's unlawful suspension of habeas corpus:

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present rebellion, the president of the United States, whenever, in his judgment, the public [bondholders'] safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof. And whenever and wherever the said privilege shall be suspended, as aforesaid, no military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ of habeas corpus, to return the body of any person or persons detained by him by authority of the President....

If a man is necessarily a "person," then it would be highly unusual to speak of returning "the body of any person or persons detained," as if man may be imprisoned while his body is set free. However, once the fact is understood that a persona, represented by the nom de guerre, must first be assigned to a man, and accepted by him, before he may be detained under martial law, then the wording of this Act makes sense.

All "warrants" issued by William H. Seward "by the authority of the president" ordered the arrest of fictitious "persons," not men. Of course, the difference between the two was apparently understood by few, if any, of Lincoln's "political prisoners." Even today, the number of "warrants" successfully served would drop to zero if the intended recipients would decline to answer to the "name" written in all capitals on the document. The courts-martial also cannot lawfully proceed against or collect "war reparations" from any man or woman who does not allow themselves to become surety for the persona::

...[A] court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence with the state, except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. The modern law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant ["person"] is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will render judgment against him for default of appearance.^⁸

Perhaps the simplest method to abate the process of such tribunals, then, is to insist that one's lawful Christian [*God Given] name (or appellation) and surname (family name) be spelled in the court's documents in proper English:

A person's name consists in law, of a given or Christian name, and a family surname. It has been said that a description or abbreviation [initial] is not the equivalent of a name....

The Christian or first name is, in law, denominated the "proper name," and has been used from early times to distinguish a particular individual from his fellows.... Originally, it was the only name which was recognized in [the common] law, and consequently, it has always been considered an essential part of a person's name. The giving of a wrong Christian or given name to a person, in legal proceedings or in conveyances, generally constitutes an error which may invalidate a judgment or deprive the record of an instrument of its effect as notice. It has been held that the law knows but one Christian name of a single individual.^⁹

Misnomer. Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Under rules of practice in some states, such is ground for dismissal by motion. In most states, however, as well as in the federal courts, such misnomer can be corrected by amendment of the pleadings.^¹0

Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody.^¹1

If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to all legal instruments, as well declarations and pleadings as grants and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the rules of the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian without a name of baptism, or that such a person should have two Christian names, since our church allows of no re-baptizing....^¹2

It is in the process (paperwork) of these courts that they depart from the common Law and all the rights that are protected therein. The common Law, from which the writ of habeas corpus issues, is concerned with justice between men, and does not deal with fictions. In a literal sense, the common Law, then, is the law of the land (substance, public Law), not the purported law (fiction, private contract law) which is generated by paper. On the other hand, "it is precisely those enterprises [persons] that are 'creatures of the law' to which the fourteenth amendment is addressed."^¹3 The venue of such courts is necessarily in equity, because they serve to enforce contractual obligations between fictions (the corporate United States and its "citizens"), not to decide on constitutional matters.^¹4 The quotations provided below are relevant to an understanding of what is actually happening in these courts:

Fictio.... In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. Such was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse [challenge].... The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction.^¹5

Fictitous. Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object [i.e. to trick the unsuspecting into submitting themselves to an unlawful court].^¹6

Both in Roman and English [statutory, civil] law there are certain obligations which were not in truth contractual, but which the law treats as if they were. They are contractual in law, but not in fact, being the subject-matter of a fictitious extension of the sphere of contract [jurisdiction] to cover obligations which do not in reality fall within it.^¹7

Constructive/quasi-contracts are created by statute on the premise that they are needed as a matter of reason and justice [when martial law is in force], and are allowed to be enforced ex contractu.^¹8

Ex contractu is a form of action under the civil [roman] law, whereas under the common law it would arise from actions of case, trespass, replevin, trover, or detinue. Ex contractu actions are from the civil law, not the common law, and are enforced by actions in personam [against the "person"].^¹9

Thus, by assigning a person designata or a "fictitious name" to a living, breathing man, the military tribunal is able to view him as having been "born" (created) within the corporate United States and therefore, through the subsequent process-known as "novation,"^²0 he is rendered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and becomes obligated to pay his "fair share" of the unlawful debt legalized by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this is done "to deceive or mislead," under the laws of war, deception is legal, and the United States Government is therefore under no obligation to reveal its most useful ruse de guerre. Synonyms of this statutory "person" are "natural person," "U.S. citizen," "individual," "taxpayer," "consumer," "resident," etc.

1. G4704. σπουδάζω spŏudazō, spoo-dad'-zo; from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:- do (give) diligence,

be diligent (forward), endeavor, labour, study. Strong's Greek Dictionary.

2. G3936. παρίστημι paristēmi, par-is'-tay-mee; or prol. παριστάνω paristanō par-is-tan'-o; from 3844, and 2476; to stand beside,

i.e. (tran.) to exhibit, proffer, (spec.) recommend, (fig.) substantiate; or (intr.) to be at hand (or ready), aid:- assist, bring before,

command, commend, give presently, present, prove, provide, shew, stand (before, by, here, up, with), yield. Strong's Greek

Dictionary.

3. G1384. δόκιμος dǒkimǒs, dok'-ee-mos; from 1380; prop. acceptable (current after assayal), i.e. approved:- approved, tried.

Strong's Greek Dictionary.

4. G2040. ἐργάτης ĕrgatēs, er-gat'-ace; from 2041; a toiler; fig. a teacher:- labourer, worker (men). Strong's Greek Dictionary.

5. G422. ἀνεπαίσχυντος aněpaischuntŏs, an-ep-ah'-ee-skhoon-tos; from 1 (as a neg. particle) and a presumed der. of a comp. Of 1909

and 153; not ashamed, i.e. (by impl.) irreprehensible:- that needeth not be ashamed. Strong's Greek Dictionary.

6. G3718. ὀρθοτομέω ŏrthŏtŏmĕō, or-thot-om-eh'-o; from a compound of 3717 and the base of 5114, to make a straight cut, i.e. (fig.)

to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message):- rightly divide. Strong's Greek Dictionary.

2. Francis Lieber, Dictionary of Latin Synonymes (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Co., 1854).

5. Pollack, First Treatise on Jurisprudence, quoted in Black's Law Dictionary (fourth Edition, 1968), page 1300.

7. E. Hilton Young, article: "The Nationality of a Juristic Person," 22 Harvard Law Review 1, 3, 7.

11 . Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Davis, 1832), Volume IV, page 7.

13 . Pollack, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity (1959), 108 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1.

14 . A court is required to give some kind of notice to those present as to the nature of the proceedings. Most often, this notice is given in

the type of flag that is flying in the court room. The gold-fringed military flag of the United States, with either an eagle or spear

finial, will always accompany proceedings in equity under the fourteenth amendment.

17 . Salmond on Jurisprudence (England: Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd., 1937; Ninth Edition).

18 . Kraft Foods Co. of Wise v. Commodity Credit Corp., 266 F.2d 254; Hill v. Waxberg, 237 F.2d 936.

19 . Indep. School District of White Bear Lake v. City of White Bear Lake, 292 N.W. 777.

20 . Novation is defined as "a type of substituted contract that has the effect of adding a party, either as obligor or obligee, who was not a

party to the original duty", Black's Law Dictionary [Sixth Edition], page 1064.

The Book
of the Hundreds

Fourth Edition

The Lawful Path - http://lawfulpath.com