I am not this hair or this skin, I'm the soul that lives within...
                                                         India Arie

masyhead

The Cur­rent Year is 6274

The feel­ing is strong and it over­pow­ers my thoughts, I am not aware of the real­ity that my blood knows only to well!
My mind is hos­tile for the wrong rea­sons, I am only sun and man, but the need to be brother is tremendous!


bible rights list­ing maxim

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.

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 4 – 6
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 THE “CIR­CUIT” COURT ACT­ING WITHIN THE MERGER OF LAW AND EQUITY “ACTS 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 THE “CIR­CUIT” COURT ACT­ING WITHIN THE MERGER OF LAW AND EQUITY ‘ACTS” AS 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 SCRU­PLES — ON MORAL GROUNDS ALONE IF THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE COURT IS ACT­ING CRIM­I­NALLY OR FOR IMMORAL PUR­POSES. THE ADMIN­IS­TRA­TIVE “WAR­RENTS” MAY 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 “CRIM­I­NAL” JUS­TICE 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 1⁄2), 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}

Argentina’s Peo­ple Say No More!

Breadcrumbs

  1. You are here:  
  2. Welcome
  3. Just Us
  4. Maxim of law

We are setting up an area for observers! If you are one and wish to find or join a group with that interest, please do.

Send a message to an admin if you wish to help as a Moderator.

Why?

Truth-​Rated “R”

Current State

Who Dat ?

We have 78 guests and no members online

Breadcrumbs

  1. You are here:  
  2. Home
  3. Just Us
  4. Maxim of law

Wise Words

Inner City Blues?

Never Forget

Most Read