Maxim of Law
To be able to know is the same as to know.

This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law.

{jcom­ments off}

Eval­u­ate this state­ment by ref­er­ence to the nature and pur­pose of Equity today.

The term “equity” is in a gen­eral sense, asso­ci­ated with notions of fair­ness, moral­ity and jus­tice. It is an eth­i­cal juris­dic­tion. On a more legal­is­tic level, how­ever, “equity” is the branch of law that was admin­is­tered in the Court of Chancery prior to the Judi­ca­ture Acts 1873 and 1875. This was a juris­dic­tion evolved to achieve jus­tice and to over­come the rig­or­ous and defi­cien­cies of the common-​law. Although an ethos of con­science per­vades this aspect of the law, equity never bestowed an unfet­tered juris­dic­tion on the Court of Chancery to do what was fair in the set­tle­ment of a dis­pute. Embody­ing aspects of eccle­si­as­ti­cal law and Roman law, equity devel­oped and grad­u­ally emerged as a dis­tinct body of law. In time, the sys­tem became as hide­bound by rules and prin­ci­ples as it common-​law counterpart.

It was not until 1875 that equity was prac­tised in the com­mon law courts. The exis­tence of a dual sys­tem entailed that, for exam­ple, when a defen­dant had an equi­table defence to a com­mon law action, he would have to go to the Court of Chancery to obtain­ing an injunc­tion to sus­pend the pro­ceed­ings in common-​law court. He would then begin a fresh action for relief in the Court of Chancery. Fac­ing dual­ity per­sisted until the Judi­ca­ture Acts which cre­ated the Supreme Court of Judi­ca­ture and allowed all courts to exer­cise both a com­mon law and equi­table jurisdiction.

Equi­table maxims

  1. Equi­table max­ims are both sub­stan­tive and pro­ce­dural; Courts use the max­ims in one or two ways: enabling or restrictive.
  2. Enabling per­tain to the sub­ject of equi­table juris­dic­tion and the grant­ing of relief
    1. Restric­tive causes the court to deny relief
    2. While courts do refer to spe­cific max­ims as often as courts in the past., but the equi­table max­i­mums help in analy­sis of issues and in pre­dict­ing the out­come of a case.
  3. Com­mon Equi­table Maxims
    1. He who seeks equity must do equity.
    2. Equity will not enforce an uncon­scionable contract.
    3. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
    4. Equity is not an avenger at large.
    5. Equity aids the vig­i­lant, not those who slum­ber on their rights.
    6. Equity acts in personam.
    7. Equity fol­lows the law.
    8. Equity delights to jus­tice and not by halves.
    9. Equity will not suf­fer a wrong to be with­out a remedy.
    10. Equity regards that done which ought to be done.
    11. Equity regards sub­stance rather than form.
    12. Equity imputes an intent to ful­fill an obligation.
    13. Equal­ity is equity.
    14. Between equal equi­ties the law will prevail.
    15. Between equal equi­ties the first in order of time will prevail.
    16. Equity abhors a forfeiture.
    17. Equity will not aid a volunteer

Note: When using the term “God” we may have other ideas of what that refer to! In this post we are not talk­ing about some­thing out­side of us! As it was writ­ten “God is within you” and within every­thing else.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
like­ness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is
in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth: (dupli­ca­tion)
Res­i­dent of the State. Res = thing, Ident = iden­ti­fied a thing iden­ti­fied (no longer a man or woman). Does the term “res­i­dent” apply to you?


20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thy­self to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jeal­ous God, vis­it­ing the
iniq­uity of the fathers upon the chil­dren unto the third and fourth gen­er­a­tion of them that hate me;

Remem­ber what “dupli­ca­tion” means and that no 2 objects can be in the same space at the same time?

A maxim of law says: “the law does not require impos­si­bil­i­ties.” Another maxim is, “where the Laws of Holy Scrip­ture and the laws of man are at vari­ance, the for­mer shall always be obeyed.”

A “moral choice,” is in truth a Higher Law. A law which is given to mankind by, and I quote the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, ‘Nature and of Nature’s God.” A law assumed by all mankind but more espe­cially in these united States, is the law given us by, “Nature’s God,” that all men are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able rights, that is: Life, Lib­erty and the pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness and that there is an eter­nal dif­fer­ence between right and wrong and that we are per­son­ally respon­si­ble for our own actions. Igno­rance is not a defence against the behest of this Higher Law but knowl­edge of this Higher Law more fully con­demns the edu­cated.

The supreme law of the whole world is that found In the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence: that we are endowed by our Cre­ator with unalien­able rights, i.e. rights that can­not be abridged nor abro­gated by any gov­ern­ment or law.
When we take this into con­sid­er­a­tion then we must deem all laws that are in vio­la­tion of this High­est Law, to be null an void and with­out merit or value and that we must not fol­low them.

vs 46
Requires receiv­ing, observ­ing, and keep­ing pure and entire, all such reli­gious wor­ship and ordi­nances as God has appointed; and zeal in resist­ing those who would cor­rupt wor­ship; because of God’s own­er­ship of us, and inter­est in our sal­va­tion.
Pro­hibits the wor­ship­ping of God by images, or by con­fu­sion of any creature(corporation maybe ?) with God, or any other way not appointed in his Word.

inter­est
1 a (1) : right, title, or legal share in some­thing

title
Func­tion: tran­si­tive verb
Inflected Form(s): ti·tled; ti·tling /‘tIt-li[ng], ‘tI-t&l-i[ng]/
1 : to pro­vide a title for
2 : to des­ig­nate or call by a title : TERM, STYLE

(Maxim of Law
Legal­ity is not real­ity)

le·gal
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘lE-g&l
Func­tion: adjec­tive
Ety­mol­ogy: Mid­dle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-​, lex law
1 : of or relat­ing to law
2 a : deriv­ing author­ity from or founded on law : DE JURE b : hav­ing a for­mal sta­tus derived from law often with­out a basis in actual fact : TIT­U­LAR <a cor­po­ra­tion is a legal but not a real per­son> c : estab­lished by law; espe­cially : STATU­TORY
3 : con­form­ing to or per­mit­ted by law or estab­lished rules
4 : rec­og­nized or made effec­tive by a court of law as dis­tin­guished from a court of equity
5 : of, relat­ing to, or hav­ing the char­ac­ter­is­tics of the pro­fes­sion of law or of one of its mem­bers
6 : cre­ated by the con­struc­tions of the law <a legal fic­tion>
syn­onym see LAW­FUL
– le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

Main Entry: 1tit·u·lar
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘ti-ch&-l&r, ‘tich-l&r
Func­tion: adjec­tive
Ety­mol­ogy: Latin tit­u­lus title
1 a : exist­ing in title only; espe­cially : bear­ing a title derived from a defunct eccle­si­as­ti­cal juris­dic­tion (as an epis­co­pal see) <a tit­u­lar bishop> b : hav­ing the title and usu­ally the hon­ors belong­ing to an office or dig­nity with­out the duties, func­tions, or respon­si­bil­i­ties <the tit­u­lar head of a polit­i­cal party>
2 : bear­ing a title : TITLED
3 : of, relat­ing to, or con­sti­tut­ing a title <the tit­u­lar hero of the play>
– tit·u·lar·ly adverb

Duplic­ity

Main Entry: du·plic·i·ty
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: du-‘pli-s&-tE also dyu–
Func­tion: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural –ties
Ety­mol­ogy: Mid­dle Eng­lish duplicite, from Mid­dle French, from Late Latin duplicitat-​, duplic­i­tas, from Latin duplex
1 : con­tra­dic­tory dou­ble­ness of thought, speech, or action; espe­cially : the bely­ing of one’s true inten­tions by decep­tive words or action
2 : the qual­ity or state of being dou­ble or twofold
3 : the tech­ni­cally incor­rect use of two or more dis­tinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a sin­gle legal action

vs 7
Enjoins a holy and a rev­er­ent use of God’s names, titles, attrib­utes, ordi­nances, Word, and works.
For­bids all abuse of any­thing by which God makes him­self known. Some Protes­tants, espe­cially in the tra­di­tion of paci­fism, read this Com­mand­ment as for­bid­ding any and all oaths, includ­ing judi­cial oaths and oaths of alle­giance to a gov­ern­ment, not­ing that human weak­ness can­not fore­tell whether such oaths will in fact be vain.

Min­is­ters of state act under eccle­si­as­ti­cal canons called “judi­cial’.


Amish peo­ple for­bid any sort of graven image, such as pho­tos.

Quak­ers and pietism have his­tor­i­cally set them­selves against the Law as a form of com­mand­ment bind­ing on Chris­tians, and have empha­sized the inner guid­ance and lib­erty of the believer, so that the law is ful­filled not merely by avoid­ing what the Law pro­hibits, but by car­ry­ing out what the Spirit of God urges upon their con­science.

IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE BUT TWO FORUMS OF LAW IN WHICH THE CIVIL MAY BE COM­BINED WITH THE CRIM­I­NAL. ONE IS THE LAW OF ADMI­RALTY AND THE OTHER IS ENGLAND’S
ECCLE­SI­AS­TI­CAL LAW WHICH DOES NOT SEP­A­RATE CHURCH AND STATE.

IN ENG­LAND, THE PARISH OF THE CHURCH AND THE COUNTY ARE ONE AND
THE SAME AND THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THECIR­CUITCOURT ACT­ING WITHIN THE MERGER OF LAW AND EQUITYACTS AS A COURT OF CON­SCIENCE AND A COURT OF LAW AT THE SAME TIME.(to dupli­cate!!!!! does not have within its pow­ers the aton­ing grace to erase the actions and abom­i­na­tions com­manded under the laws of that gov­ern­ment.

(Maxim of Law
Many things have been intro­duced into the com­mon law, with a view to the pub­lic good, which are incon­sis­tent with sound rea­son. [The law of mer­chants was merged with the com­mon law]

Proverbs 11:3 says, “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaith­ful are destroyed by their duplic­ity.” Integrity means whole­ness. Integrity means being unim­paired, hon­est and whole. A per­son walk­ing in integrity with God is guided by God and has assur­ance in God’s lead­ing. Duplic­ity (per­ver­sity, crooked­ness, dis­hon­esty, false­ness) destroys and robs any hope of faith­fully stand­ing. Integrity and duplic­ity are oppo­sites. The per­son stuck in duplic­ity is not able to fully trust God, God’s guid­ance, or hear­ing God cor­rectly. It is a vicious cir­cle. Even if you could hear cor­rectly, you can’t trust God. Even if you could trust God, surely you could never hear cor­rectly. The Hebrew word trans­lated duplic­ity is celeph and means dis­tor­tion, i.e. (fig­u­ra­tively) viciousness.1

Lib­erty is a right unalien­able and there­fore to sug­gest any per­son can be in a state of invol­un­tary servi­tude by a gov­ern­ment enacted com­mer­cial cur­rency sys­tem that allows a per­son no means to access his right to lib­erty is to advo­cate gov­ern­ment spon­sored tres­pass.

The sys­tem had to be from its incep­tion one that a per­son par­tic­i­pates in daily by agree­ment, but NOT by con­tract. If the per­son has no opt out clause the agree­ment is unlaw­ful because it would be a tres­pass.


LUKE ch.16 (Expa­tri­a­tion also)
7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hun­dred mea­sures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8 And the lord com­mended the unjust stew­ard, because he had done wisely: for the chil­dren of this world are in their gen­er­a­tion wiser than the chil­dren of light.
9 And I say unto you, Make to your­selves friends of the mam­mon of unright­eous­ness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into ever­last­ing habi­ta­tions.
10 He that is faith­ful in that which is least is faith­ful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11 If there­fore ye have not been faith­ful in the unright­eous mam­mon, who will com­mit to your trust the true riches?
12 And if ye have not been faith­ful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
13 No ser­vant can serve two mas­ters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye can­not serve God and mam­mon.
14 And the Phar­isees also, who were cov­etous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which jus­tify your­selves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abom­i­na­tion in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the king­dom of God is preached, and every man pres­seth into it.

(Man, on the other hand, is an anom­aly in this dis­cus­sion of law because man pos­sesses a trait unique and set apart from the other beasts of nature. Man exer­cises imag­i­na­tion. Man can con­struct an abstract of his obser­va­tions of real­ity and in so doing cre­ate a real­ity not con­tem­plated by nature. Assum­ing for the sake of argu­ment that an ant lacks the power of imag­i­na­tion, the ant then can­not cog­nate the idea of doing any­thing else other than haul­ing the cargo through the tun­nels of the colony. The moss can­not imag­ine not grow­ing on a rock or exposed tree root. The tiger can­not con­tem­plate har­vest­ing soy­beans as an alter­na­tive pro­tein to the gazelle that it chases down and kills with its claws and jaws. Man alone (as far as we know) pos­sesses this trait.

This means man can imag­ine his way out­side of the law. Man is the only crea­ture that can push that enve­lope. He can agree to com­merce out­side those bound­aries, he can breach, tres­pass, defy, and rise above the law. But man can­not change the law. It is this fact that makes our statu­tory maze of codes and reg­u­la­tions so mad­den­ing. Yet the most dif­fi­cult con­cept many have in their com­pre­hen­sion of the statu­tory won­der­land is that it does in fact con­form with the notion that man can­not change the law. )

17 And it is eas­ier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tit­tle of the law to fail.

Matt. ch.5
18 For ver­ily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one iote(jot,iota) or one tit­tle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful­filled.

When try­ing to ascer­tain and under­stand the law it is often help­ful to look to nature and rec­og­nize the laws we tend to never ques­tion.

One need look no far­ther than the obvi­ous in nature to also find iden­ti­fi­able exam­ples of agree­ment. Hydro­gen and Oxy­gen hook up and make water. Flame iden­ti­fies the agree­ment of heat, car­bon, and oxy­gen. Polar mag­net­ism, moss on a rock, tree roots in the soil, the train of cargo haul­ing ants in the colony, the plan­ets in orbit…all these unique events of nature demon­strate a har­mony of agree­ment.


IOTA
1 : the 9th let­ter of the Greek alpha­bet
2 : an infin­i­tes­i­mal amount:JOT
JOT
: the least bit : IOTA
INFIN­I­TES­I­MAL
2 : immea­sur­ably or incal­cu­la­bly small <an infin­i­tes­i­mal dif­fer­ence>
infin­i­tes­i­mal cal­cu­lus
1 a : a method of com­pu­ta­tion or cal­cu­la­tion in a spe­cial nota­tion (as of logic or sym­bolic logic)4 : a sys­tem or arrange­ment of intri­cate or inter­re­lated parts

Main Entry: at·om
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘a-t&m
Func­tion: noun
Ety­mol­ogy: Mid­dle Eng­lish, from Latin ato­mus, from Greek ato­mos, from ato­mos indi­vis­i­ble, from a– + tem­nein to cut
1 : one of the minute indi­vis­i­ble par­ti­cles of which accord­ing to ancient mate­ri­al­ism the uni­verse is com­posed
2 : a tiny par­ti­cle : BIT
3 : the small­est par­ti­cle of an ele­ment that can exist either alone or in com­bi­na­tion
4 : the atom con­sid­ered as a source of vast poten­tial energy

Com­bined with a form of fusion (think­ing you and the straw­man are the same) the machines (banks) have found more energy (cur­rency) than they will ever need. End­less fields! Humans are no longer born — we are grown (includ­ing a title — birth cer­tifi­cate). For a long time I did not believe it until I seen it with my own eyes. I watched them liq­uefy (liq­ui­date) the dead (inan­i­mate straw­man) so they could be fed intra­venously (through the net­work of com­merce) to the liv­ing.
What is the Matrix? Con­trol! It is a dream world built to keep us under con­trol in order to change a human being into this (a “cop­per­top” bat­tery, a pro­duc­tion unit that pro­vides energy called “cur­rency” more com­monly called money).

Maxim of Law
To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power. [John 6:68]
Law is the sci­ence of what is good and evil.
The dis­po­si­tion of law is firmer and more pow­er­ful than the will of man.
Energy
Energy is rec­og­nized as the key to all activ­ity on earth. Nat­ural sci­ence is the study of the sources and con­trol of nat­ural energy, and social sci­ence, the­o­ret­i­cally expressed as eco­nom­ics, is the study of the sources and con­trol of social energy. Both are book­keep­ing sys­tems: math­e­mat­ics. There­fore, math­e­mat­ics is the pri­mary energy sci­ence. And the book­keeper can be king if the pub­lic can be kept igno­rant of the method­ol­ogy of the bookkeeping.(Commerce)
All sci­ence is merely a means to an end. The means is knowl­edge. The end is con­trol. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the ben­e­fi­ciary?
In 1954 this was the issue of pri­mary con­cern. Although the so-​called “moral issues” were raised, in view of the law of nat­ural selec­tion it was agreed that a nation or world of peo­ple who will not use their intel­li­gence are no bet­ter than ani­mals who do not have intel­li­gence. Such peo­ple are beasts of bur­den and steaks on the table by choice and con­sent. (He is in vol­un­tary servi­tude.)

In order to achieve a totally pre­dictable econ­omy, the low-​class ele­ments of soci­ety must be brought under total con­trol, i.e., must be house­bro­ken, trained, and assigned a yoke and long-​term social duties from a very early age, before they have an oppor­tu­nity to ques­tion the pro­pri­ety of the mat­ter

The qual­ity of edu­ca­tion given to the lower class must be of the poor­est sort, so that the moat of igno­rance iso­lat­ing the infe­rior class from the supe­rior class is and remains incom­pre­hen­si­ble to the infe­rior class. With such an ini­tial hand­i­cap, even bright lower class indi­vid­u­als have lit­tle if any hope of extri­cat­ing them­selves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slav­ery is essen­tial to main­tain some mea­sure of social order, peace, and tran­quil­lity for the rul­ing upper class.


MATT ch.5 (Juris­dic­tion also)
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glo­rify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to ful­fil.
18 For ver­ily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tit­tle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful­filled.
19 Whoso­ever there­fore shall break one of these least com­mand­ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the king­dom of heaven: but whoso­ever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the king­dom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your right­eous­ness shall exceed the right­eous­ness of the scribes and Phar­isees, ye shall in no case enter into the king­dom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whoso­ever shall kill shall be in dan­ger of the judg­ment:
22 But I say unto you, That whoso­ever is angry with his brother with­out a cause shall be in dan­ger of the judg­ment: and whoso­ever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in dan­ger of the coun­cil: but whoso­ever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in dan­ger of hell fire.
23 There­fore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remem­ber­est that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be rec­on­ciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adver­sary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adver­sary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the offi­cer, and thou be cast into prison.

Power. [LL potere, to be able, from L. posse, from potis, able + esse, to be.] Abil­ity to act; the fac­ulty of doing or per­form­ing some­thing; capa­bil­ity; the right of gov­ern­ing or actual gov­ern­ment; domin­ion; rule; author­ity; a sov­er­eign; a spirit or super­hu­man agent hav­ing a cer­tain sway (celes­tial pow­ers); the mov­ing force applied to pro­duce the required effect;

Power of Accep­tance. Capac­ity of offeree, upon accep­tance of terms of offer, to cre­ate bind­ing con­tract.

When you get an offer, THE OFFEROR JUST PUT YOU IN A POSI­TION OF POWER! What an honor! Why not accept that gift?

Maxim of Law
To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power. [John 6:68]

Matt 21 (Rem­edy)
22 And all things, what­so­ever ye shall ask in prayer, believ­ing, ye shall receive.
23 And when he was come into the tem­ple, the chief priests and the elders of the peo­ple came unto him as he was teach­ing, and said, By what author­ity doest thou these things? and who gave thee this author­ity?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what author­ity I do these things.
25 The bap­tism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they rea­soned with them­selves, say­ing, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the peo­ple; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We can­not tell. And he said unto them, Nei­ther tell I you by what author­ity I do these things.

By way of endors­ing this fact, the con­sti­tu­tion of the United States of Amer­ica clearly states that the con­di­tion of “invol­un­tary” servi­tude shall for­ever be pro­hib­ited. The key word here is “invol­un­tary.” This means that your nat­ural Rights can­not be con­verted to priv­i­leges (with­out your con­sent), and priv­i­leges can­not be con­verted to Rights (with­out con­sent of the author­ity).

(Maxim of Law)
All law has either been derived from the con­sent of the peo­ple, estab­lished by neces­sity, con­firmed by cus­tom, or of Divine Prov­i­dence.

Who Is The Boss?
All power rests with the Peo­ple. After all, it is the Peo­ple who cre­ated gov­ern­ment in the first place. Since the ‘cre­ated” can­not be greater than the “cre­ator”, it must fol­low that the gov­ern­ment is some­thing less that the “cre­ator” and must by its very nature be the “creator’s” ser­vant. This is true until you vol­un­tar­ily allow the ser­vant to be your mas­ter. Which is what most peo­ple have done to them­selves É made pub­lic ser­vants their mas­ters. The gov­ern­ment can­not do any­thing for you or against you with­out your con­sent. Your con­sent is either given in writ­ing, by what you say (ver­bal con­sent), or by your silence (acqui­es­cence). A maxim of law says: “the law does not require impos­si­bil­i­ties.” Another maxim is, “where the Laws of Holy Scrip­ture and the laws of man are at vari­ance, the for­mer shall always be obeyed.” A maxim of law is some­thing that has been ruled on so many times that it is a firmly estab­lished truth, and is no longer up for debate.


Man alone oper­ates as a crea­ture, bound in a mate­r­ial uni­verse with phys­i­cal bound­aries, capa­ble of con­ceiv­ing and imag­in­ing what the nat­ural world rarely seems to demon­strate to all but those with faith. While here, how­ever, man must rec­on­cile that imag­i­na­tion of lib­erty with the lim­its the law of his phys­i­cal exis­tence lays out on the game board. His power of imag­i­na­tion is lim­it­less, but it also sug­gests his power to imag­ine him­self right out of the equa­tion by fail­ing to guard against the ulti­mate of human weak­ness, pride. That weak­ness demon­strates itself whether the player is a reli­gious fanatic or an unbe­liever. One denies man’s abil­ity as an equal part­ner in this stage play because of the con­stant need for a supreme deity in the spir­i­tual hier­ar­chy. The other denies man’s intu­ition to con­nect with and con­ceive of real­i­ties our sci­ence and exten­sive sys­tem of aca­d­e­mics falls short of explain­ing.

Eph­esians
006:012
For we wres­tle not against flesh and blood, but against prin­ci­pal­i­ties, against pow­ers, against the rulers of the dark­ness of this world, against spir­i­tual wicked­ness in high places.


Main Entry: prin·ci·pal·i·ty
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: “prin(t)-s&-‘pa-l&-tE
Func­tion: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural –ties
1 a : the state, office, or author­ity of a prince b : the posi­tion or respon­si­bil­i­ties of a prin­ci­pal (as of a school)
2 : the ter­ri­tory or juris­dic­tion of a prince : the coun­try that gives title to a prince
3 plural : an order of angels — see CELES­TIAL HIER­AR­CHY (take a look)



mam­mon
mate­r­ial wealth or pos­ses­sions espe­cially as hav­ing a debas­ing influ­ence

2. Max­ims in law are some­what like axioms in geom­e­try. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are prin­ci­ples and author­i­ties, and part of the gen­eral cus­toms or com­mon law of the land

Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘ak-sE-&m
Func­tion: noun
Ety­mol­ogy: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, lit­er­ally, some­thing wor­thy, from axioun to think wor­thy, from axios worth, wor­thy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive — more at AGENT(take look mmm!)
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrin­sic merit
2 : a state­ment accepted as true as the basis for argu­ment or infer­ence : POS­TU­LATE 1
3 : an estab­lished rule or prin­ci­ple or a self-​evident truth

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, –s&-b&l
Func­tion: noun
Ety­mol­ogy: Mid­dle Eng­lish, from Mid­dle French principe, prin­ci­ple, from Old French, from Latin prin­cip­ium begin­ning, from princip-​, prin­ceps ini­tia­tor — more at PRINCE
1 a : a com­pre­hen­sive and fun­da­men­tal law, doc­trine, or assump­tion b (1) : a rule or code of con­duct (2) : habit­ual devo­tion to right prin­ci­ples <a man of prin­ci­ple> c : the laws or facts of nature under­ly­ing the work­ing of an arti­fi­cial device
2 : a pri­mary source : ORI­GIN
3 a : an under­ly­ing fac­ulty or endow­ment <such prin­ci­ples of human nature as greed and curios­ity> b : an ingre­di­ent (as a chem­i­cal) that exhibits or imparts a char­ac­ter­is­tic qual­ity
4 cap­i­tal­ized, Chris­t­ian Sci­ence : a divine prin­ci­ple : GOD
– in prin­ci­ple : with respect to fun­da­men­tals <pre­pared to accept the propo­si­tion in prin­ci­ple>
usage Although nearly every hand­book and many dic­tio­nar­ies warn against con­fus­ing prin­ci­ple and prin­ci­pal, many peo­ple still do. Prin­ci­ple is only a noun; prin­ci­pal is both adjec­tive and noun. If you are unsure which noun you want, read the def­i­n­i­tions in this dic­tio­nary.

Main Entry: 1god
Pro­nun­ci­a­tion: ‘gäd also ‘god
Func­tion: noun
Ety­mol­ogy: Mid­dle Eng­lish, from Old Eng­lish; akin to Old High Ger­man got god
1 cap­i­tal­ized : the supreme or ulti­mate real­ity: as a : the Being per­fect in power, wis­dom, and good­ness who is wor­shipped as cre­ator and ruler of the uni­verse b Chris­t­ian Sci­ence : the incor­po­real divine Prin­ci­ple rul­ing over all as eter­nal Spirit : infi­nite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than nat­ural attrib­utes and pow­ers and to require human wor­ship; specif­i­cally : one con­trol­ling a par­tic­u­lar aspect or part of real­ity
3 : a per­son or thing of supreme value
4 : a pow­er­ful ruler

in·cor·po·re·al
1 : not cor­po­real : hav­ing no mate­r­ial body or form
2 : of, relat­ing to, or con­sti­tut­ing a right that is based on prop­erty (as bonds or patents) which has no intrin­sic value

(Maxim of Law)
The law which gov­erns cor­po­ra­tions is the same as that which gov­erns indi­vid­u­als [god­less enti­ties].
When the rea­son, which is the soul of a law, ceases to exist, the law itself should lose its oper­a­tive effect.
The law pun­ishes false­hood. Rea­son and author­ity are the two bright­est lights in the world. The rea­son of the law is the soul of the law. The rea­son ceas­ing, the law itself ceases.
(Person,Corporation,Resident,Defendent NO Soul)

Name change: Your per­sona changes to a legal fic­tion with no per­sona (as a man or woman) stand­ing in judi­cio (in court) what­so­ever. This is accom­plished by chang­ing your law­fully “given name” (appel­la­tion) to that of a legal fic­tion. That legal fic­tion is rep­re­sented by your name spelled in all cap­i­tal let­ters, and may include ini­tials. All gov­ern­ment and cor­po­rate enti­ties cur­rently issu­ing ID cards today are legal fic­tions. They only exist on paper. They do not die (like a man or woman), they live on in per­pe­tu­ity.
There­fore, when you are iden­ti­fied by a “legal fic­tion”, you must become a legal fic­tion as well. Remem­ber the “cre­ated” can never be greater than the “cre­ator.”

Maxim of Law
Human laws are born, live and die. It is a per­pet­ual law that no human or pos­i­tive law can be per­pet­ual.

Duplic­ity (per­ver­sity, crooked­ness, dis­hon­esty, false­ness) destroys and robs any hope of faith­fully stand­ing.

That is, a firm legal attach­ment has been made between you and the issu­ing party. By car­ry­ing a state issued ID card you are placed “within” the issu­ing state as a res­i­dent of the state. Res = thing, Ident = iden­ti­fied. A thing iden­ti­fied (no longer a man or woman). (NO SOUL)

. Forms an adhe­sion con­tract or agree­ment: The dis­tinc­tive fea­ture of an adhe­sion con­tract or agree­ment is that the weaker party has no real­is­tic choice as to the terms.


Remem­ber, Holy Scrip­tures tell us that in the begin­ning Yah­weh (God) cre­ated Man in His image. He did not cre­ate cor­po­ra­tions, fran­chises, indi­vid­u­als, human beings or mon­sters. These are the cre­ations of Satan, cre­ated in Satan’s image.

(Maxim of Law)
a)Many things have been intro­duced into the com­mon law, with a view to the pub­lic good, which are incon­sis­tent with sound rea­son. [The law of mer­chants was merged with the com­mon law]
b)The civil law is what a peo­ple estab­lishes for itself. [It is not estab­lished by God]

c)In ambigu­ous things, such a con­struc­tion is to be made, that what is incon­ve­nient and absurd is to be avoided.

The only time any­one is required to have ID is to access so-​called priv­i­leges and ben­e­fits granted by the issu­ing party. If you have no need for spe­cial priv­i­leges and ben­e­fits granted by oth­ers, there is no need for an ID card. Keep in mind that the gov­ern­ment has noth­ing to give.For clar­ity it is nec­es­sary to define the dif­fer­ence between nat­ural Rights, which are unalien­able and not within the power of gov­ern­ment to grant, and priv­i­leges and ben­e­fits, which clearly are.

ambigu­ous
Ety­mol­ogy: Latin ambiguus, from ambigere to be unde­cided, from ambi– + agere to drive — more at AGENT(oh here we are again)
1 a : doubt­ful or uncer­tain espe­cially from obscu­rity or indis­tinct­ness <eyes of an ambigu­ous color> b : INEX­PLIC­A­BLE
2 : capa­ble of being under­stood in two or more pos­si­ble senses or ways <an ambigu­ous smile> <an ambigu­ous term> <a delib­er­ately ambigu­ous reply>
syn­onym see OBSCURE

There can­not be a sep­a­ra­tion of church and state

We all know that the Satanic reli­gion is in direct oppo­si­tion to Chris­tian­ity but we read in Isa­iah 9:6 and 7 that this oppo­si­tion is on all lev­els includ­ing who is in charge of gov­ern­ments.

The iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of indi­vid­u­als has been with us for cen­turies. Your iden­tity may rep­re­sent your posi­tion of honor, sta­tus, or stand­ing among other men and women. You can be self-​identified, or iden­ti­fied by oth­ers. If you are self-​identified, it is usu­ally accom­plished by rep­u­ta­tion, occu­pa­tion, noble deeds, char­ac­ter, etc. Being self-​identified car­ries a nat­ural place of honor (or dis-​honor) among peers. You are either hon­est, trust­wor­thy, and of good moral char­ac­ter, or you are not. In other words, the rep­u­ta­tion, honor and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of a good and law­ful man or woman, pre­cedes them. They are known for who they are and what they stand for. This form of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, at its best, is accom­plished by a lot of hard work, and by adher­ing to the high­est stan­dards of ethics and moral char­ac­ter.



That is the dumb­est phrase I ever heard! It is an impos­si­bil­ity of law to “prac­tice law with­out license.” In fact, the very con­cept of a soci­ety capa­ble of man­i­fest­ing order and lib­erty, side by side, pre­sumes that every­one prac­tice law. It is, how­ever, an absolute neces­sity to know the law in order to prac­tice it.

(Maxim of Law)


Licenses and fran­chises offered by the State Of Michi­gan are sim­i­lar in nature to those of other such cor­po­ra­tions. Min­is­ters of state act under eccle­si­as­ti­cal canons called “judi­cial’.



IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE BUT TWO FORUMS OF LAW IN WHICH THE CIVIL MAY BE COM­BINED WITH THE CRIM­I­NAL. ONE IS THE LAW OF ADMI­RALTY AND THE OTHER IS ENGLAND’S
ECCLE­SI­AS­TI­CAL LAW WHICH DOES NOT SEP­A­RATE CHURCH AND STATE.

IN ENG­LAND, THE PARISH OF THE CHURCH AND THE COUNTY ARE ONE AND
THE SAME AND THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THECIR­CUITCOURT ACT­ING WITHIN THE MERGER OF LAW AND EQUITYACTSAS A COURT OF CON­SCIENCE AND A COURT OF LAW AT THE SAME TIME.
(Maxim of Law
Many things have been intro­duced into the com­mon law, with a view to the pub­lic good, which are incon­sis­tent with sound rea­son. [The law of mer­chants was merged with the com­mon law] )
THE CIT­I­ZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE DRAFTS OF THE COURT
BY CON­SCI­EN­TIOUS SCRU­PLESON MORAL GROUNDS ALONE IF THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE COURT IS ACT­ING CRIM­I­NALLY OR FOR IMMORAL PUR­POSES. THE ADMIN­IS­TRA­TIVEWAR­RENTSMAY BE OBJECTED TO JUST AS THE CON­SCI­EN­TIOUS OBJEC­TOR WAS/​IS ALLOWED TO AVOID THE DRAFT FOR PER­SONAL CON­FLICT OF LAWS.

THE DIS­TRICT AND CIR­CUIT COURTS ARE COURTS OF LIT­I­GA­TION AND NOT ADJU­DI­CA­TION IN MANY INSTANCES RELAT­ING TO ISSUES. LIT­I­GA­TION IS A WAR-​LIKE ADVER­SAR­IAL COM­BAT USING LIN­GUIS­TIC SKILLS IN DEBATE AND ARGU­MENT UNDER PRI­VATE, COPY­RIGHTS, OF THE AMER­I­CAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S “CRIM­I­NALJUS­TICE STAN­DARDS.

IF SUCH ADVER­SAR­IAL COM­BAT IS ODIOS TO YOUR CON­SCIENCE AND YOU
DO NOT BELONG TO THE SOCI­ETY THAT PRO­MOTES THAT ADVER­SAR­IAL AREA, YOU MAY OBJECT THAT YOU FIND THEIR RULES AND PRO­CE­DURES FOR THE SILENT TAKEOVER OF THE ORGANIC STATE CON­STI­TU­TION TO BE REPUG­NANT TO ALL THAT YOU BELIEVE IS NEC­ES­SARY FOR THE SAL­VA­TION OF YOUR SOUL.

DIS­HON­ESTY IN PER­SONAL AFFAIRS AND IN GOV­ERN­MENT IS REVOLT­ING AND DIS­GUST­ING TO HEALTHY AND FREE GOV­ERN­MENTS. THEIR DIS­HON­ESTY STEMS FROM THE FACT THAT THE FED­ERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE NOT REDEEMABLE IN SPECIE AND THAT PER­FOR­MANCE TO THE CON­TRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IS A VIO­LA­TION OF THE PEON­AGE ACTS OF THE CON­GRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. SLAV­ERY IS UNCON­SCIONABLE
REGARD­LESS OF THE COLOR OF OFFICE APPLIED TO ENFORCE THE SECRET AGREE­MENTS IN THE NAME OF THE VIC­TIMS.


9. POLAR­ITY

You may be ask­ing your­self, “how are we like a cop­per top bat­tery?” The key word here is “polar­ity!”

Pole [Fr. pole, L polus, the pole of the heav­ens, from Grk. polos, the axis of the sphere, the fir­ma­ment, from pelo, to turn or move, Skt carati he moves, wan­ders.]

Remem­ber what “attor­ney” means? To “turn” homage and ser­vice to a new feu­dal lord. And who “moves” the court by enter­ing “motions?” In case you haven’t notice by now, we attempt to use the “lit­eral” def­i­n­i­tions in a “fig­u­ra­tive” sense in order to invite you to think on a higher level of “real­ity” – so strap in for a rocket ride!

Pole. One of the points of a body at which its attrac­tive or repul­sive energy is con­cen­trated (focus­ing thoughts on),

Polar forces. Phys­i­cal forces that are devel­oped and act in pairs, with oppo­site ten­den­cies, as in mag­net­ism, elec­tric­ity, etc.

DRILL: name some other exam­ples of “polar forces” in today’s soci­ety that are “devel­oped” and manip­u­lated (racism, reli­gion, pol­i­tics…..). Why would it be so impor­tant to the “power elite” to cre­ate oppo­si­tion in soci­ety?

Polar­iza­tion of Light. A change pro­duced upon light (under­stand­ing) by the action (emo­tion) of cer­tain media (TV, news…), by which it exhibits (dra­ma­tizes) the appear­ance of hav­ing polar­ity or poles pos­sess­ing dif­fer­ent prop­er­ties.

Media/​medium. [L medium the mid­dle, midst, a means] Some­thing placed or ranked between other things; a mean between two extremes; some­thing serv­ing as a means of trans­mis­sion or com­mu­ni­ca­tion; nec­es­sary means of motion or action; agency of trans­mis­sion; that by or through which any­thing is accom­plished, con­veyed or car­ried on; a per­son through whom spir­i­tual man­i­fes­ta­tions are claimed to be made by believ­ers in spir­i­tu­al­ism. Cir­cu­lat­ing medium. Coin and bank-​notes or paper con­vert­ible into money on demand.

DEMO; Review the def­i­n­i­tion of the above 2 def­i­n­i­tions.

1. List all the media sources that you can think of (reli­gion, school, par­ents, TV, radio, movies, news­pa­pers, mag­a­zines, gov­ern­ment, IRS, just about every sin­gle thing in today’s soci­ety, etc.)
2. How does the “media” pro­duce changes in under­stand­ing by dra­ma­tiz­ing the “appear­ance” of peo­ple hav­ing dif­fer­ent prop­er­ties?
3. How can the media be a means to instill or evoke “emo­tion” (to move out of the mind) in you so that it appears that you are con­fused?
4. Why do you think the media call them­selves “pro­duc­tion com­pa­nies” and the con­trollers of them “pro­duc­ers”? What do you think they are really “pro­duc­ing”?
5. What “means of trans­mis­sion” (trans­mit­ting util­ity) was cre­ated to sep­a­rate you from your pos­ses­sions?
6. How could one get sep­a­rated from one’s prop­erty and sov­er­eignty by using the “accepted cir­cu­lat­ing medium” (Fed­eral Reserve Notes)?

Polar­iza­tion of a bat­tery – the con­nec­tions (con­tracts) at which the cur­rent (cur­rency) passes from the bat­tery (cred­i­tor) to the exter­nal cir­cuit (pub­lic cir­cu­la­tion), the stting up of a back (debt) elec­tro­mo­tive force owing to the depo­si­tion (deposit) of gases (promis­sory notes) on the elec­trodes (in the banks).

Desire. [L desidero to desire, from de to take away + sidero the mind, from siderus a con­stel­la­tion] To wish for pos­ses­sion, to long for, an emo­tion or excite­ment of the mind directed to the attain­ment or pos­ses­sion of an object from which plea­sure is expected.

DEMO: How did the power elite “polar­ize” us into using our attrac­tion for things as an energy source, Cop­per top? Per­haps the “desire” to own a “new car or house for NO MONEY DOWN and NO INTER­EST”? Demon­strate this method to your team mate.

The secret of reveal­ing the power of desire is – every­thing you see that you want was made using YOUR CREDIT! Every­thing you see is ALREADY YOURS. This sub­ject will be detailed in the courses ahead.

So it appears that our emo­tions are at play here as a vehi­cle to “cre­ate lack.” It appears that oth­ers are “feed­ing” off of our emo­tions as an energy source, but it “appears” we our­selves can­not enjoy our own energy, our own credit. What exactly is emo­tion and how does it cre­ate “polar­ity”?

Emo­tion. [L emo­tio, from emoveo, from e out from + moveo to move] a mov­ing of the mind or soul, a state of excited feel­ing of any kind as plea­sure, pain, grief, joy, aston­ish­ment;

Could it be sum­ma­rized by the above def­i­n­i­tion that “emo­tion” means “to move out” of the mind or soul or per­haps YOUR­SELF? Where before you had the emo­tion you were “one” or in agree­ment, by expe­ri­enc­ing emo­tion you are now “divided” or sep­a­rate?

Motion. The act or process of chang­ing place; the pass­ing of a body from one place to another; move­ment of the mind or soul.

Move. To carry, con­vey, or draw from one place to another; to cause to change place or pos­ture; to set in motion, to influ­ence, caus­ing to move or act; impelling; excit­ing the feel­ings, touch­ing, pathetic, affect­ing.

DRILL: List sev­eral exam­ples of how the sys­tem has been able, through emo­tion, “to change you from one posi­tion to another”, from sov­er­eign to “cit­i­zen”, cred­i­tor to debtor, owner to renter, etc.

Basi­cally emo­tion moves you into another place, thereby divid­ing your atten­tion or focus to where it would “log­i­cally” need to be. It is not the intent here to degrade emo­tion or call it a bad thing – it is a state of exis­tence, it just IS. One can be aware of emo­tion and expe­ri­ence it, feel and ACCEPT it at that very moment in time. When one does this, the emo­tion “moves” out of you as eas­ily as it came in. Basi­cally it dis­ap­pears, just like on the cir­cle. It comes into exis­tence as a cre­ation from your past (#3), you decide to take respon­si­bil­ity for it (#3 12), you accept it (#4), you con­sume and expe­ri­ence it fully (#5), you take it into your mind as an expe­ri­ence (#6), and it dis­ap­pears (#7). How­ever, one can ignore it, fight it, hide it, degrade it and DIS-​HONOR it (all #3). In which case, the emo­tion will be “a stuck flow.” If you do not “move” with the emo­tion, that energy will turn into a mass or ridge and become solid and heavy. It will weigh you down like a “ball and chain.” Where have we heard that before?

The “pow­ers that be” KNOW this con­cept and use it bril­liantly to their advan­tage. We, on the other hand, have been unaware of this pow­er­ful mech­a­nism and have been con­tent NOT KNOW­ING we are being used to pro­duce this energy and make it man­i­fest into mate­r­ial wealth for the “guys at the top.”

What about the repul­sion of some­thing, how does that cre­ate energy for the power elite? You mean like taxes, get­ting a ticket, going to court, going to the den­tist, war, etc.?

DRILL: Think about all the things that you do not like in your life. Write them down. How could these things be devel­oped and pro­moted by another to give you anx­i­ety and worry? How could some­one ben­e­fit by you being in fear or anger over any of the things you listed?

Power of accep­tance. Capac­ity of offeree (you) upon accep­tance of terms of offer, to cre­ate bind­ing con­tract.

You have it in your “power” to accept every offer and turn it into a con­tract on your own terms and con­di­tions. How­ever, if you fight, deny or oth­er­wise dis-​honor the offer, you turn your ser­vice to another where they are the head and you become the tail.

It is an attorney’s job to “turn” your atten­tion and focus to another lord, another entity other than your­self. Their exper­tise is to divide you and they do this job extremely well. When we go to court and argue or fight it, we dis-​honor our­selves because we are not accept­ing it. We are “repulsed” by the accuser and may become fear­ful or angry. We may think that there is “another power greater than our­selves,” or that we are “sep­a­rate” from the images and sen­sa­tions that we may be expe­ri­enc­ing at the time.

Guilty. [Anglo Saxon gildan – to pay, pay­ment] justly charge­able with a crime (com­mer­cial lia­bil­ity); Webster’s Con­sol­i­dated Ency­clo­pe­dic Dic­tio­nary, 1939 edi­tion

But, what if we plead guilty? What are you say­ing when you say “guilty”? Isn’t this a “bad” thing? As you well know, all crimes are com­mer­cial lia­bil­i­ties. Instead of say­ing “I am guilty”, you are REALLY say­ing “I am pay­ment, I can pay, I am the CRED­I­TOR in this mat­ter and I will dis­charge the debt.” You are say­ing “the debtor is charge­able and I, as the cred­i­tor am going to pay with my sig­na­ture as pay­ment, just like all the other credit that I have cre­ated with my sig­na­ture, which the munic­i­pal­i­ties and cor­po­ra­tions have been cap­i­tal­iz­ing on up to this point.” You are say­ing, “I don’t have to get per­mis­sion from the Fed­eral Reserve Sys­tem to use MY OWN CREDIT. The Fed inten­tion­ally did NOT print enough Fed­eral Reserve Notes to cover the inter­est pay­ments known as “income taxes” (which cre­ates the national debt) which they keep “bleed­ing” out of pub­lic cir­cu­la­tion. So, I am bypass­ing them and their faulty account­ing sys­tem and will han­dle this mat­ter myself as the prin­ci­pal to dis­charge the national debt.”

One must admit that the idea behind this sys­tem we are speak­ing of is absolutely bril­liant, if not admirable. Who would have ever thought that the state­ment “I am guilty” means “I am the cred­i­tor who can pay”? There is a uni­ver­sal prin­ci­ple at work here, “what you resist per­sists,” but on the con­trary, “what you accept and admire dis­ap­pears”!

DEMO: Get 2 mag­nets and demon­strate how the manip­u­la­tion of polar­ity pro­duce oppo­site energy forces.

1. Take the 2 mag­nets and arrange the pos­i­tive pole to the neg­a­tive. Now pull the mag­nets apart approx­i­mately ¼ of an inch and hold it there and feel the force of “attrac­tion.”
2. Now put the 2 neg­a­tive poles together. Push them together and feel the “repul­sion” and force of this energy.
3. How could these forces of attrac­tion and repul­sion be used to pro­duce energy?
4. How could these “oppos­ing points of view” be used to pro­duce “cur­rency”?
5. How could say­ing “I have it” instead of “I want it” cre­ate a more pos­i­tive atti­tude.
6. What if you looked at some­thing you dis­liked until you could find how you are respon­si­ble for it and accepted it. Would that prob­lem dis­ap­pear if you truly started to admire it?

DEMO: What one resists per­sists – what one admires dis­ap­pears!

If some­thing “influ­enced” you to do some­thing that you nor­mally would not do, could one con­sider this to be an “attempt to con­trol”? We could say this of the “bankers” and “the gov­ern­ment”, but it would then be giv­ing our power away to some­thing out­side our­selves.

If an out­side influ­ence can divide us through emo­tion and keep us in a state of “desire” or “denial” (both in #3) with­out our aware­ness, then they can suck our blood from us. They can drain our pro­duc­tion and even though we may exhibit a snivel or com­plaint we keep on pro­duc­ing for them. Divide and con­quer!

DRILL: Get a piece of paper and draw a cir­cle in the mid­dle.

1. Draw a line inside the cir­cle going per­pen­dic­u­lar from top to bot­tom with 2 equal halves.
2. Draw a sec­ond line inside the cir­cle going hor­i­zon­tal from left to right with 2 equal halves. You should now have a cir­cle divided in to 4 equal quar­ters.
3. Now label the 4 direc­tions as you learned in course 2 start­ing with the top being EAST, the bot­tom – WEST, the left – NORTH, and the right – SOUTH.
4. Divide the cir­cle into 8 sec­tions and label them 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6 & 7 start­ing from the left, down to the bot­tom and up to the top.
5. Label the left half of the cir­cle above the hor­i­zon­tal line – PUBLIC/​DEBIT and the right side – PRIVATE/​CREDIT.
6. Enter one mil­lion dol­lars in the lower left quar­ter of the cir­cle and also on the lower right quar­ter of the cir­cle.

Now what does this look like – pos­si­bly a t– account? This is what your straw man looks like – a t-​account. It was cre­ated by the state to keep an account­ing of the straw man’s DEBT on the left/​negative/​public side of the account that the “gov­ern­ment” uses, as well as the CREDIT on the right/​positive/​private side of the account to show they owe you as the CRED­I­TOR until the debt is dis­charged.

7. Start from the top of the cir­cle and trace around the inside of the cir­cle going to the left and down until you reach the bot­tom. Now draw a stick man hang­ing from the t-​account or “on the cross.”

Appliance/​apply. [L appli­care, to fas­ten to, from ad to + plico to fold]

This is you when you think that you are the straw man. This is you when you don’t accept their offers and you dis-​honor. You get “stuck” with the bill, you are not cross­ing over to the right side of the account, the pri­vate side. If you remain on the account, you act as the source of the energy AND you act as the appli­ance to be uti­lized by oth­ers – namely the power elite. You allow the “cur­rency” to go through you, but YOU DON’T GET TO USE IT YOUR­SELF!

You must redeem the offer so that you can use your own credit. When you do this, you “close” the account (cir­cuit) and now you can use the accep­tance as “cur­rency” (current/​power/​energy). If you do not cross over to the right/​private/​credit side of the account, one could say that you get “hung-​up on the cross­ing” or “hung on the cross.”

Who was “hung” on either side of Christ when he was cru­ci­fied? Two thieves were. Who “rep­re­sents” these 2 thieves in the t-​account sce­nario? Remem­ber on the cir­cle where the moon is? It is at the bot­tom under the mar­itime law and the sea of
com­merce in the West. What is the def­i­n­i­tion of moon – a illu­mi­nated, night – to twist or “turn” from the light. This is where the attor­ney gets you to deny and then by using your emo­tions, “turns” or polar­izes your atten­tion out­side your­self in the sea of con­fu­sion in mar­itime courts. This is the theif on the left side.

Since you are the appli­ance in the mid­dle “act­ing like a trans­mit­ting util­ity,” who is on the right side meter­ing or “count­ing” the energy that you are pro­duc­ing? It is the accoun­tants or bankers who count, tally and bank your pro­duc­tion. Banks are stuck in #5 – con­sume. Banks are one of the few enti­ties in this world which con­sumes oth­ers pro­duc­tion with­out exchange. This is the thief on the right side.

8. Draw a line around the inside of the cir­cle start­ing from the bot­tom to the right until you get to the top of the cir­cle again.
9. Notice that when you “cross over” into #4, that this is accep­tance. Now you have 3 sec­tions or units to go before you can dis­charge the debt. The 3 units rep­re­sent the 3 days and 3 nights Christ was in the earth and cor­re­sponds to the 72 hours (3 days) banks have to either honor or dis-​honor an accep­tance. If you do not hear from them (he who has an ear, let him hear), then they have accepted even if they say they do not at a later date.
10. Once you are in #7, the debt “dis­ap­pears” and you “rise again” to your sov­er­eignty.

We have UNLIM­ITED energy and resources – IF we are of one mind. But, when we get stuck in emo­tion, we polar­ize our self and allow oth­ers to suck the energy from us. What if you could “pull your­self together” when­ever the media attempted to divide you through emo­tion?” What if you could focus and oper­ate with one mind in every action you do? You would be at one with your uni­verse. You would be “the one.”

Edi­tors note:

None of this infor­ma­tion can be used in the court. It is for you infor­ma­tion in order to point a way to proceed!

This is a col­lec­tion of infor­ma­tion which I only have a small part.

I had to shut down the com­ment sec­tion con­nected on the page because of a prob­lem it was giv­ing one of the users. But you can still leave a com­ment by click­ing on the image below​.Do not leave com­ments on the form at the end or it will be deleted!

I may have to remove all com­ments and just point to the new page if peo­ple can’t fol­low directions.

{jcom­ments on}

Web Analytics