IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PROTESTING GOVERNMENT

October 31, 2014

You are a Man that had a contract with the Lord Almighty in Genesis chapter 9 1-17. Some say Chapter 17. You were to give full allegiance to the Lord. The Lord gave the land to all men. The Lord alone requires no tax to be paid him for your living on it. The Lord never requires any license of any Kind that you know exists. However, Man has taken all land and claims it for himself through the fallen angel Satan. Man then creates corporations and calls them government to confuse the masses into believing they now have a King, a President, a Governor or a mayor of a town they have to listen to. This is false idol before them of which the Lord warned them. But YOU are too ignorant to believe this. These so called government beings now make you their subject. However all men BELIEVE that they are somehow sovereign. Sovereign meaning they are free from any control. They are made to believe by MYTHS that they created this so-called wonder government that is really a huge corporation. This is not the case, for man inherently cannot be sovereign. He is not sovereign under the Lord and is but a servant of the Lord. When a man takes control of other men he assumes the Role of Mammon when the Lord said no man can have two masters. It’s either The Lord or Mammon. Man can make a choice. Man meaning YOU, made a choice and wanted a president and a governor. So you cling to Mammon. You then swore off of the contract of the Lord and lost all Christian leanings and can no longer swear you follow the Lord as you forsook the Lord for Mammon and follow Mammon. So there is not one true follower of the Lord in America that I know of. Not one, as they all are citizens of a new master, called Mammon. You then took the only thing the Lord wanted from his servants, allegiance, and gave it to a corporation that this one man created. So you sold your soul to mammon (man) and you claim you are a Christian that follows the Lord? Remember the Lord said you cannot have Him or Man as a master. It’s one or the other. YOU chose the “OTHER” a President now called Obama and the Governor of the corporate State you reside in. You became a fiction called a PERSON so the corporation, itself a fiction, can control you as a PERSON. PERSON is not MAN that the Lord Created. PERSON is an artificial entity that the corporation created so it, meaning YOU, can be controlled. YOU always answer to PERSON in what ever YOU do or read and can’t deny that fact. The Corporation then writes STATUTES that are NOT LAW. They are man made writings that appear to be law but are not. Here is what the real; ancient Hebrew said in the real Exodus 10 that is not found in the basterized Bible of the KJA . Exodus 20

Vs 4 You shall not write your own “ statutes” except that is after the heavenly. And those in the Land in place of, and which are made contrary to the Way by men, you shall not bow down to or appease, and you shall not obey them.

And it says in Vs 13 You shall not tolerate lies or deception in those who goveren.

Statutes only become Law as you think, when you accept the rank of citizenship and pledge all allegiance to the corporation. Please follow me as YOU did it to yourself and have no one BUT YOURSELF to blame. BEFORE that time YOU were an Alien to that corporation.. The Corporation writes statutes with the term PERSON so they can control that artificial PERSON through statute. They can never write a statute with the word MAN in it because then they would take the Alien still called MAN and control that Alien. They cannot do that in corporate law. That Alien is a servant of the Lord and is called MAN and NOT a PERSON . So you did it to yourself when escaping the control of the Lord when you broke that Contract with the Lord in Genesis and left the HOUSEHOLD of THE LORD in Ephesians 2:19 to become a citizen /resident in the HOUSEHOLD of the Corporation of a man that was called State or United States that is subject to all statutes of Man. Those are not law statutes but becomes the Law of the corporation that then does bind one to fully obey that corporation statute as it was just as powerful as the Lord’s real Law. Now if you don’t know how to escape from the predicament YOU yourself threw YOU into. I say Tough S&%#T

You are suffering what the Lord said would happen and it’s YOUR Problem how YOU get out. It’s not mine; It’s not your neighbors; it’s no ones problem but YOURS. Here is what the Solicitor General of Lincoln stated, and he is the only legal person that can make a statement binding the corporation United States to Law and statute of man.

Whiting from the 1863 edition of his book War Powers

320 MILITARY GOVERNMENT.

….otherwise the conqueror would be subjected to the rule of those whom he has subjugated.

But the local Laws of a conquered country may be changed not only by the law-making power of the conquering country, but by virtue of the BELLIGERENT rights of the conqueror.*

All these propositions follow from the fact that the power of a public enemy to make or administer law is terminated by the conquest of that territory by It different law-making and law-administering power, viz., that of the conqueror.

The local laws of a conquered country of which our army holds military occupation, have no force or effect whatever, except by our permission. When such local laws agree with those of the invading country, such laws may be, and usually are, adopted and sanctioned because they do so agree therewith. Thus rules governing the rights of property, the relations of persons,

321
…and the laws of crimes in the respective countries of the belligerents are often so nearly alike that the administration of them is permitted to remain unchanged even in war . But no law or institution established by law is permitted to survive, which is in conflict with those of the conqueror.

In all cases, the will of the conqueror governs. Hence, in a ceded or subjugated territory, all laws violating treaty stipulations with foreign nations, or granting rank and titles or commercial privileges in conflict with the institutions of the conqueror, are abrogated.*

It has been asserted that the municipal laws of a belligerent territory remain in force, “proprio vigore,” until altered by military orders; but, although such laws may have been tacitly adopted, or the enforcement thereof may have been permitted, it is not because these laws retained any validity” proprio vigore.” .Their only validity was derived from the tacit or express sanction and adoption thereof by the will of the commander in-chief of the invading army.

In case of conquest of a foreign country, the question has been asked, what laws, if any, of the invading country are ipso vigore, and without legislation extended over the territory acquired in war?

The suppression of the present rebellion is not the conquest of a foreign country. The citizens of the United States residing in the districts in rebellion are not alien enemies, though. they are public enemies; and it is important, in several points of view, to observe the dis-

322 MILITARY GOVERNMENT.
tinction between enemies who are subjects of a foreign government, and are therefore called” alien enemies,” and those who are denizens and subjects of the United States, and being engaged in civil war, are called” public enemies. “

An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclama tions. . A citizen subject is bound to obey them all. In refusing such obedience, he is guilty of crime against his country, and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien, being under no such obligation, is justified in refusing such obedience. Over an alien enemy, our government can make no constitution, law, or proclamation of obligatory force, because our laws bind only our own subjects, and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Over citizens who are subjects of this government, even if they have so far repudiated their duties as to become enemies, our constitution, statutes, and proclamations are the supreme law of the land. The fact that their enforcement is resisted does not make them void. It is not in the power of armed subjects of the Union to repeal or legally nullify our constitution, laws, or other governmental acts .

The proclamation of the President, issued during the present rebellion, in executing the powers’ conferred on him by the Constitution; the Acts of Congress, in executing its powers; and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, are all, in one respect, “like the Pope’s bull against the comet;” the proclamation, the laws, and the decisions are alike resisted and spurned by our adversaries; neither can be enforced until the enemy is overthrown. But when the soldiers of the Union shall have routed and dispersed the last armed

323
force of the rebellion, and when the supremacy of our military power is undisputed, the constitution, the laws of Congress, the proclamation, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, will at the same time, pari passu, be acknowledged and enforced. It is, therefore, idle to speculate upon the legal validity and operation of the proclamation liberating enemies’ slaves, in districts not yet secured in our military possession. It would be equally useless to attempt to determine the validity an operation of our constitution, laws, and decisions of courts in these rebellious districts. Neither of them will be enforced upon the enemy until they have been subjugated. When that event takes place, whether it be the result of battles or of returning sanity of repentant madmen, the army of the United States will then have actual possession of every portion of the United States, and of every slave who may be found therein; and the rights of the slave to his freedom under the constitution, the statutes passed, and the proclamations issued by the Government during the war, will be secured to him at the same time that other rights under the same Constitution and proclamations will be secured to the other inhabitants of the country..

And there can be no doubt that in civil war the laws of the United States, rightfully extending at all times over the whole country, are to be enforced, so far as applicable, in time of war, over the belligerent territory as fast as it comes under our military control; and that in case of complete conquest, the constitution and laws of the Union will be restored to full operation over all the inhabitants thereof. At the same time, the laws of war will have swept away all local hostile authorities, and all laws, rights, and institutions resting solely thereon.

West’s Dictionary: a·li·en (a’le-?n, al’y?n)
adj.
Owing political allegiance to another country or government ; foreign: alien residents.
Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See synonyms at foreign.
Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen .
A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
Ecology. An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. Law., -ened, -en·ing, -ens.
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin alienus, from alius, other.]

Now if you think you can get out of this corporation as easy as you can get into it read this and tell me it will be a piece of cake. Remember Satan now rules you through this one man’s corporation that chartered all things in this world, and NOT the Lord. He is sitting up there crying because he knows man is inherently evil. YES YOU ARE, so don’t give me the sob story that you didn’t forsake the Lord for a President or Governor and you yearn to be a citizen of Satan’s corporation, and just love that corporate Constitution you wrote so much you would die for it and people have, called the corporations soldiers. The MAMMON representing Satan wrote that Constitution and controls you through a document about which YOU have no concept but the Myths taught you by fellow Satan followers. Here is your nemesis that YOU created and no matter how much YOU wail and say it is not so, IT IS SO . http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs066.htm and http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs067.htm.

Now you are on YOUR own to figure how YOU are either going to stay in the corporation and pay property taxes all your life; be subject to getting a Driver License all your life; Registering a car all your life; paying income taxes all your life; Paying permits for house building or repair; buying a gun; carrying a gun concealed or not; and all the ills befallen you where you have to pay the debt that Mammon runs up and expects citizen slaves to pay where you have absolutely no say so whatsoever. Congress and State corporate legislators only are responsible to the corporation of this one man that YOU never knew existed and still don’t. That man or men all through the ages represent Satan and so state in their organizational structure.

DO NOT COME TO ME FOR ANY ANSWERS ON HOW TO GET OUT OR WRITE TO ATGPRESS .
If you have to ask then you are not ready to get out because you don’t yet understand God’s natural law of nature and contracts. Only those with analytical thinking and deductive reasoning will know how to get out.

The Informer April 24 2009

Born Again and the Old and New Covenant

July 11, 2014

Great study;

Rightly Dividing….. The Word of Truth TWO
Chapter Two

Born again and the Old and New Covenant… Sonship and Adoption

The subject of this Manual is based on Paul’s words found at 2 Timothy 2:15 and along with this counsel, we can add another admonition from Paul taken from Philippians 1:9,10 “to test things which are of consequence.” CLV While the King James Authorized Version words it this way “That ye may approve things that are excellent that ye may be without offence till the day of Christ” In the footnotes of the Companion Bible, it states the word, excellent used here is literally “differ” Dr Bullinger says in the same footnotes on this passage, “We are to test the things and having found them to differ, we must not join them together, but rightly divide them (2 Timothy 2:15)” There is much we should test in our relationship with Christ and others but in this Manual we are primarily concerned with, weeding out error in our doctrines, eliminating “the lies and myths” prevalent today in all denominations, so that we can “fully follow Paul and His sound doctrine and words” 2 Timothy 3:10 Paul also repeats this at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Yet be testing all, retaining the ideal from everything wicked to the perception, abstain.” The division between the two administrations is only one of the many things we must learn to rightly divide through testing what is said in the scriptures. We “test” what is for us and distinguish it from what is for Israel. We learned in Chapter One that there are two differing ecclesia with two distinct evangels. Now we also must learn the need to divide between dispensations. This is a controversial subject on how many dispensations there really are in God’s Word or in the history of mankind. I want to consider only two in this chapter, the Law dispensation and the Grace dispensation. The Law dispensation began with Israel and Moses agreeing to a covenant with Jehovah which in scripture was likened to a marriage contract with Jehovah as the husband and Israel being the wife. Israel failed to keep the contract and as we discussed in Chapter One Jehovah divorced her. Christ fulfilled the Law Covenant with His sinless life, death, burial and resurrection, ending the Law dispensation. God begins to demonstrate His Grace with Saul of Tarsus seven years after Jesus died. Thus begins the dispensation of Grace.

This then shows us the need to also “test” which dispensation, is being discussed in any given passage as information or truth may change: Israel was in the Law dispensation, being under the law covenant, that was their truth but it was not our truth as Gentiles then nor is it today, in the Grace Dispensation. “To Test” can apply in several ways. We test things we are told by others, measuring it to Gods Word and we test what is in Gods Word whether it applies to us or someone else, also what time period past, present or future. To test things that differ agrees with correctly cutting or rightly dividing Gods words in order to see how and where things that differ fit either for Israel or for us, the Body of Christ. It’s like a puzzle we are working on; when we pick up a piece we test it to see if it fits where we think it should. So in our Bible research we test a verse to see where it fits? We ask questions, to who is it written and for what dispensation, time period or age and who the author is. We examine the context, paying attention to the use of small words and figures of speech; all of this is used in helping us to put the puzzle together and this helps us build on our understanding of Gods Word.

So this testing we are told to do is all part of “rightly dividing” and if we do not learn how to do this we will find ourselves confused with words and terms used in the Scriptures. As is the subject matter we are going to discuss in this Chapter. The common expression used today, is that we must be Born Again, so we ask the question, who is this really for?

As we discussed in Chapter One, The Whole Bible is for us to learn from. In it we find information and truths which fit all believers no matter which church or dispensation they are in. These would be Universal truths, such as the Creation account, History and Who our Savior is along with guidance about morals, our conduct, and counsel in dealing with others in life. Then we have Specific truth given to and for different individuals, churches and dispensations. Israel had specific instructions based on their Law Covenant to do with worship, obedience and their every day life. In the Grace dispensation our instructions are not based on law keeping, but ours are based on Grace given to us by God. We also have a different destination from Israel. We have seen the need to recognize the Different or Specific road maps for each church, with maybe the easiest way to understand this principle, is how easy it is for us to recognize the counsel given for individuals! For instance; counsel given husbands differs from that given to wives or counsel directed towards children is different from husbands and wives, also the counsel given to slaves as in Paul’s day. Likewise the Nation of Israel has counsel, different from our counsel given to us by Paul for the Body of Christ.

The New Birth or Born Again WE have been told a believer today is “born again” based on John 3:3. WE need to test this by asking questions. Which Bible book is this term found in and who is the writer of it and to whom is it speaking or written to? This book was written by the Apostle John, one of the twelve Apostles for Israel which is our first clue that this information is not for us but for Israel. Let’s review this passage of scripture in its context. John 3:1-7 “Now there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a chief of the Jews. This one came to Him by night and said to Him, Rabbi we are aware that Thou are a Teacher come from God, for no one can be doing these signs which Thou are doing, if God should not be with Him…Jesus answered and said to Him, Verily, verily, I am saying to you, if anyone should not be begotten anew, he can not perceive the kingdom of God. Nicodemus is saying to Him, How can a man being a veteran be begotten? He can not be entering into the womb of his mother a second time and be begotten! Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I am saying to you, If anyone should not be begotten of water and of spirit, he can not be entering into the kingdom of God. That which is begotten by the flesh is flesh and that which is begotten by the spirit is spirit, You should not be marveling that I said to you, you must be begotten anew”

Jesus was not talking about heavenly life for Israel and so He was not talking to Nicodemus about going to heaven or that he needed a spiritual rebirth right then as is commonly taught. We learned in Chapter One the heavenly calling was the “secret hidden in God” a secret or mystery until it was given to Paul to reveal it and so that secret of heavenly life would have still been hidden when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus. Remember Paul is not converted until 7 years, after Christ dies. If Jesus had been talking about heavenly life with Nicodemus He then would have revealed this secret and not Paul and that would make Paul a liar. Paul told us it was given to him…to reveal this secret for the Body of Christ. Ephesians 3:1-3 Colossians 1:26, 27

Jesus in His ministry only proclaimed the evangel of His Kingdom to come, on earth! Jesus taught from the Old Testament, the promises and prophecies about His Kingdom. The man Jesus was bound by His Hebrew heritage being born into the nation of Israel as their Messiah. He had to live up to the Covenant and Laws of that nation in order to fulfill it. He would not be able, lawfully to bring in anything not already found in the Hebrew Scriptures. So Jesus, in his reply to Nicodemus, saying “you must be begotten anew” would not have been speaking of going to heaven or of a spiritual rebirth into the Body of Christ as is taught today. This term has been translated as born again or to be born anew. Nicodemus asks, how can a man be born anew? In John 3:7 Jesus turns the conversation from Nicodemus the individual, to what the scriptures taught for Israel the Nation. We need to look at the small word Jesus used in His reply. The word is “you” in that verse, “you must be begotten anew” “You” is in the plural and refers to the national interests of the Nation of Israel and not just of those of Nicodemus.

Another example of this is found at Ezekiel 36:22 “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD…I do not do this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for MINE holy names sake” Verses 26-29 “A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you shall keep My judgments and do them. And you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers and you shall be My People and I will be your God….I will save you from all your uncleanness.”

“YOU” we see speaks of the Nation of Israel and not of an individual. Another example is seen in Matthew 5:14″You are the light of the world.” How was Israel the light of the world? They were the keepers of Gods words written on scrolls. His light is His Word. Israel was used to record the scriptures and safeguard them. Today the Light has been passed to the Body of Christ for safe keeping. The Light is Gods Word and when we go home, it will be handed back to Israel once again. The Book of Ezekiel which we just read from is full of promises for Israel which teaches that the Nation will be restored in the Kingdom age on the earth and for this to happen, they must be born anew, born again or regenerated which means to be brought back to life, through the spirit of God. This is of course by means of a physical earthly resurrection of which their own prophets spoke of in the scriptures many times. One reason, most believers do not understand this, is because that they have been taught, at death, a person goes immediately either to heaven or hell. They are taught man has an immortal soul thus they also just like Nicodemus, do not understand the resurrections taught in the scriptures. The doctrine of an immortal soul is a false doctrine and has clouded the truths in the scriptures concerning death and the resurrections. Nicodemas was blind to the scriptures as was most of the Nation of Israel.

To enter this Kingdom on earth, Jesus told Nicodemus “You must be born again” referring to the faithful of Israel, “the just” are guaranteed a resurrection in that Kingdom. This will be the first resurrection on earth after Christ’s advent and which will begin the one thousand year reign of Christ. This is that Kingdom on earth they were taught to pray for in the “Lords prayer.” Matthew 6:9,10 This will be the time of the new birth for Israel. The Israeli saints will be born again, brought forth from the grave through the power of the spirit of God and this then is how the Nation is reborn and this is how this nation inherits Physical blessings along with Spiritual blessings, not in heaven but in that Kingdom on the earth. Daniel 12:1,2 John 5:28 and also please read Ezekiel 37:1-14 of the prophesy of “dry bones” and note Verse 11 “This is the whole house of Israel.”

In John 3:1-7 Jesus spoke of being born anew, through the water and spirit…as Nicodemus could not grasp…being begotten anew. The human birth is through water. The Physical nation of Israel was born through the waters of the Red Sea when Moses brought them out of Egypt. The next birth for them when they are begotten anew will be through the spirit. God’s Spirit will regenerate them, in the resurrection from the dead, giving them their new vivified, immortal bodies. The terrestrial glory Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:40 is for the Israeli saints resurrected with a body like Jesus had AFTER His resurrection and BEFORE He ascended to heaven. Ezekiel 36:26,27 Israel will be given by God a new heart and a new spirit capable of righteous living. Water and spirit are used as symbolisms of a birth, of bringing to life as well as a cleansing.

The word vivify in the Greek is “zo’ o poi e’ o” and means Live-Do, make alive or made alive In other words being placed beyond the reach of death or given life within oneself. This is immortality, and is promised to be given to a believer at their resurrections. We do not already have it as is erroneously taught by the religions of the world and sad to say, Christendom. Paul refuted the false belief in an immortal soul at 1Corinthians 15:53 “For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.” For a list of all the places the word vivify is found, please refer to the index in your Concordance in the back of the Concordant Bible…Page 320.

The nation of Israel produced Christ whose death guarantees the fulfillment of the promise made first to Abram at Genesis 12:3 and then to Abraham Genesis 22:18 “All families of the earth will be blessed through his seed” Christ is the seed coming through the nation of Israel, descendants of Abraham through his promised son Isaac. Christ will in turn bring forth that nation again by means of the spirit of regeneration; this is the resurrection in the Kingdom, on earth. In that Kingdom, Jesus promised them, that they then would have all the powers that Jesus had and more, to perform miracles and signs, worldwide, blessing all the families of the earth bringing them to life in Christ. John 14:12 “he who is believing in Me will be doing greater than these”

Water baptism was a symbol of cleansing for Israel and of re-birth as it ties in to their history. Their first birth was through the waters of the Red Sea as they fled Egypt and then in their becoming the nation of Israel. The symbol of water is carried on down to Jesus day and the requirement for baptism for Israel. A washing or cleansing, repenting from breaking their vows in their covenant with Jehovah. Everything for Israel is tied to a physical reality they knew in relation to their Law Covenant with Jehovah. The Gentile nations were never in a relationship with Jehovah; these details of their covenant have no meaning for us. God only worked with His chosen nation at that time, Gentiles were lost, dead to God. It is only through the Body of Christ that God now works with the Nations, calling people from all the nations; God showing another aspect of His Plan of the ages…Salvation to all through Grace, the opposite of Law. Israel needs a cleansing, from her sin of unfaithfulness; baptism was the sign…the Body of Christ has a spirit baptism.

Baptism for the Body of Christ is a spiritual baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.” Paul did not baptize after he began the dispensation of Grace. He states this in two ways “Christ did not commission me to baptize and I am thankful I baptized only a few” 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 Is not this a strange thing for Paul to say if water baptism is required for us or for our salvation? Not strange at all when we rightly divide the evangels. We then can understand how Israel’s water baptism differs from our spirit baptism into Christ. If we will always remember the differences, Israel is physical, fleshly, and earthly while the Body of Christ is spiritual, heavenly. We then will not confuse Israel’s promises of inheriting a literal earthly land in the Kingdom on this earth. While the Body of Christ, through Paul is called to heaven. We are aliens here. “inherently or all along our place is in the celestial realm” Philippians 3:20 “WE are ambassadors for Christ” 2 Corinthians 5:19,20 Ambassadors live in foreign lands representing the government they are a citizen of, but when war breaks out, they are called home. We, whose citizenship is in heaven, with this earth being our foreign land, from which we will be called home before the greatest war of history! When it is time for God to restore Israel to her land and launch Christ’s war against Israel’s apostasy and bring judgment to the antichrist and his allies here on the earth….we will be gone, taken to heaven to fulfill our assignment, joining Paul in reconciling those living in the celestial realms.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a teacher in Israel, he did not understand or believe his own scriptures, he did not understand the resurrection. These religious leaders were in apostasy and not understanding their own promises through the prophets. The nation as a whole was blind, because of being, in the Lo ammi state, this was the reason they were unable to understand spiritual things. This Lo ammi state began 400 plus years earlier when Israel was divorced by Jehovah and allowed to go into captivity under Babylon for the 70 years. From that time onward the Nation as a whole was without Gods spirit, guidance and protection as their husbandly owner. Only to individuals in Israel did God give insight, like Daniel and the Prophets which He used to record His prophetic words and Israel’s history. While living in Babylon, the Israelis were susceptible to the false teachings of that pagan Nation and even adopted their false beliefs and this is the reason why the Pharisees of Jesus day were teaching many false doctrines. In Chapter Seven we will “Rightly Divide Truth and Error” and look at some of these pagan doctrines which came straight from Babylon and can be found taught in the Body of Christ today. Paul refuted these doctrines which many are referred to as the Gnostic beliefs.

In Chapter One we discussed the different evangels and the way they are phrased, such as “God’s evangel” “My evangel” “The Kingdom evangel” and “The Grace Evangel” Some other small words we also need to test the differences with are in these phrases, “The kingdom of heaven” with “The Kingdom out of heaven” and “The kingdom in heaven” Gods Kingdom with Christ’s Kingdom. WE must separate the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom in heaven!

God’s Kingdom: refers to His overall Kingdom, Taking up both heaven and earth. So we see there are two spheres of God’s Kingdom, an earthly and a heavenly. The Kingdom of heaven is the earthly part of God’s Kingdom. Christ is of heaven and He will come from heaven to set up the Kingdom of heaven on the earth. This is always so surprising for me how many believers do not understand this, since at least 90% of the Bible talks of Israel and her promises for this earthly Kingdom and yet Christendom as a whole insists on sending them to heaven with us? The Kingdom in Heaven is for The Body of Christ who, will go to heaven. Christ’s Kingdom: refers to His Millennial reign on earth after His advent.

God’s evangel is His complete plan for salvation through Christ, which includes both, The Kingdom evangel for Israel on earth with Peter and the other Apostles which Jesus chose in His earthly ministry and The Grace evangel given to the Body of Christ which is Paul’s evangel. Paul revealed “the secret” of a body of saints who are called to the heavens. We have discussed why Paul refers to his message as “my evangel” and that only Paul taught the “mystery” or the “secret” which is the Body of Christ with the heavenly calling and this is in part why Paul tells us to “rightly divide and to test things which differ,” which is how we are to separate “OUR” calling from the evangel for Israel, the Kingdom evangel, the Kingdom on earth.

This little word of is so important to distinguish from in and to understand that believers today are not taught of Israel and the literal fulfillment of her prophecies which are yet to come. They read of heaven, in the scriptures and immediately assume it is talking of being in heaven because they have been taught there is only the one calling for all saints, which is to go to heaven if they are good enough.

The subject of the old and new covenants is also misunderstood. The Old Covenant was made with Israel. Deuteronomy 4:13 “He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments: and He wrote them upon two tablets of stone” In this original covenant God promised to look after their welfare in return for their obedience and it consisted of far more than the ten commandments. Deuteronomy 4:40 The first question we might ask is what is a covenant? Definitions always help us to analyze “things that differ” The New Century Dictionary says for Covenant; (covenant means to agree) “An agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act; a compact; a contract; in Biblical usage, the agreement or engagement of God with man as set forth in the Old and the New Testament; in law a formal agreement of legal validity”

So simply put, a covenant is an agreement or a contract between two parties, in this case, Jehovah and Israel. Their agreement is called the Old Covenant in Scriptures. The contract consisted of laws and codes of conduct. Jehovah as the Husband promised to provide, protect and care for Israel as long as she kept her side of the contract as a faithful wife. In the account in Exodus 24:3 we can see Moses presented the contract to the people and they agreed to it, saying “All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.” This complete Covenant was thus a contract and is quite lengthy and can be found at Exodus 20-23 they were in covenant and or married to Jehovah. As recorded in the scriptures, Israel’s history shows her unfaithfulness to her Husband Jehovah and after she took other lovers, described as whoredom in the KJAV. This is not sexual immorality but spiritual, the worship of other gods thru idolatry and forsaking the Laws she agreed to keep with Jehovah, He announces His divorcement of her at Hosea 1:9 He also promised to take Israel back and make a new covenant with them. Hosea 1:10,11 Israel would one day be His People again. The renewing of His relationship with Israel is for them in the new covenant as promised. We will go through many of these promises in this Chapter.

The whole book of Hosea is a picture for Israel and for us to understand God’s dealings with them in her unfaithfulness. Hosea was told to “take a wife of Whoredom,” this was a woman from the 10 tribes, named Israel who was in Idolatry. Judah, the name for the two tribe kingdom which were still faithful to Jehovah in their capital at Jerusalem. The 10 tribe Kingdom was in Idolatry. Hosea took a wife from that 10 tribe kingdom whose capital was at Samaria. Hosea is a picture of Jehovah married to faithless Israel.

When Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, they too at that time were idol worshippers, having adopted the Egyptian gods as theirs. Jehovah married a whore, Israel. She produced some faithful children but most were unfaithful. With this understanding in mind, read Hosea through, it is interesting reading and see how Israel is likened to a wife there as well as in many other places in scripture.

At Ezekiel 16: 32 she is a wife committing adultery, Ezekiel 16:38 Israel compared to a woman breaking wedlock. Numbers 14:34, Hosea 3:3 “And I said unto her, Thou shall abide for me many days; thou shalt play the harlot, and thou shalt be for another man; so will I also be for thee” At Jeremiah 3:1 “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou has played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to ME….saith the LORD” Jeremiah 3:8 says “When I got to see that for the very reason that unfaithful Israel had committed adultery, I sent her away and proceeded to give the certificate of her full divorce to her, yet….” NWT Please read the whole of Chapter Three in Jeremiah and you will see the divorce and the promise of her return to Jehovah. In Verse 12 “do return O renegade Israel, is the utterance of Jehovah….I shall not stay resentful to time indefinite.” Jeremiah takes us on to the Kingdom on earth in Verse 17 “In that time they call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at Jerusalem and they will no more walk after the stubbornness of their bad heart.” This is an excellent passage showing Jehovah restoring her and that she will rule over the nations of the world….evangelizing them to their God Jehovah in the person of Christ in the prophetic Messianic Kingdom on earth.

God promises through every prophet of Israel, over and over that He purposes to forgive Israel and take her back at some future time, promising to wait for her and take her back in the latter days. Jeremiah 3:14-18 continues with a prophesy for their future, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD: for I am married unto you and I will take you one of a city and two of a family and I bring you to Zion; And I will give you pastors according to MINE heart, which they shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass; when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days…saith the Lord….they shall say no more. The ark of the covenant of the LORD neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it neither shall that be done any more…At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD and all the nation shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the imaginings of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers” We see the call for them to come back to Him. “Return sons of returning, avers Jehovah, for I own you”

Also we find the Prophet Isaiah speaks of her divorcement at Isaiah 50:1 and Isaiah 62:4 “Thou shall no more be termed forsaken neither shall thy land any more be termed desolate…but thou shall be called Hephziabah and thy land Beulah…for the Lord delighteth in thee and thy land shall be married” The name Hephziabah means “my delight is in her” and Beulah means, “married” She became King Hezekiah’s wife after Jehovah restored his health and gave him 15 more years to live. In the third year of the fifteen years given to him, his wife gave birth to Manasseh, who later became Israel’s worst King ever. His name means “forgetting” refer to Genesis 41:51 So was he named, because God made Hezekiah forget his troubles. But it seems Manasseh forgot to rule his people in the ways of Jehovah. The prophecy in Isaiah 62 uses the comparison to Hezekiah’s restoration to health, his marriage, his wife as a small picture of Jehovah and Israel as husband and wife divorced but taken back in marriage again. Israel is in the divorced state now; cast off, lo ammi, not My People, all during the “times of the gentiles” which began with their Babylonian captivity. This is their time of being dominated by Gentile nations and the time of their blindness. Their blindness as a nation will continue until, Christ’s Second Advent.
Jeremiah 50:20 “In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve” This is yet unfulfilled prophecy and reserved for the last days before and into and on the other side of the tribulation. Also, Ezekiel 11:16-20 “Therefore say, ‘Thus saith the Lord God; Although I have cast them (Israel) far off among the heathen, (Gentile nations) and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.”
Ezekiel 36:22-38 Verse 23 “And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes” Notice how the heathen which is the Gentiles or nations are going to learn about God by and through His work with Israel on the earth.
Ezekiel 36:25-29 “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh and I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people and I will be your God….I will also save you from all your uncleannesses” This is an interesting passage notice, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you” this is baptism, another controversial subject. We have settled water baptism is not for the Body of Christ as it is for Israel only. The other area of dispute is of immersion or sprinkling. Max Binney has done a small pamphlet on this subject which is quite good. If you do not have it, contact me for one. Or his daughter at 1-423-442-4564
Zephaniah 3:8-20 starting in Verse 8 we see the time of indignation and work forward to the time of Christ’s rule and the nations referred to in Verse 12 as “the afflicted and poor people” who will be coming to the Lord, showing us that nations and or peoples in these nations will survive the tribulation time period and come to worship God.
Thus we see through all these passages, Israel is the wife. Israel on the earth a physical nation of which we the gentiles had no part in it or her marriage to Jehovah. We have to ask the question, why would any of the promises in the Old Testament made to this literal physical earthly nation of people apply to The Body of Christ in any way, shape or form? Israel is promised The New covenant specifically. In the many promises, she is named, Judah and Israel, and promised to be one nation again. To be the Wife! Even though Jehovah divorces her, He states He will always be for her. Hosea 3:3, 4 He cannot marry another such as the Body of Christ; He would be unfaithful to His wife, Israel and his betrothed bride, The Remnant! God Promises to make a New Covenant with Israel Jeremiah 31:31-34 “Behold, the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more.”
This is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12 “For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord….For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People” This is written to the Hebrews, who are the Jews and the information here can not be placed within Paul’s evangel in any way. The only way to do so would be to spiritualize the scriptures, a very dangerous thing to do. Notice also how it refers to Israel waiting for her covenant, which it is still in the future for them as foretold in prophecy, but not for the body of Christ, we have our
Spiritual covenant now, God made it and keeps it for us, we are secure in our calling.

Hebrews 10:16-18 “This is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with them after those days, the Lord is saying, imparting My laws to their hearts, I shall be inscribing them on their comprehension also, and of their sins and their lawlessness shall I under no circumstances still be reminded.” This continues with how it refers to the future with these words. “I will make a new covenant” notice it does not say I have made, The writer of this book lived after Christ died and after Pentecost and he uses the future tense in regards to Israel’s New Covenant. We must make note of these words also, “In the days to come” and “after those days” All of these references point to the future and are yet to be fulfilled. According to these words all of Israel and Judah, Israel the 10 tribes and Judah the 2 tribes will be united as One Nation again, this has not happened yet. This is the complete House of Israel restored. The next thing to note is the differences with the New Covenant over the Old, remember in the Old Covenant, obedience was required for Jehovah’s care? While in the New Covenant. Jehovah does it all. “He imparts His law to their hearts and He cleanses them and does not remember their sin”.

Acts 28:27 Also refers to Israel in their Lo-ammi state. “Their heart is stout, their ears are heavy, their eyes are shut, lest they should perceive and hear and understand and Jehovah should heal them.” This is why only a few in Israel responded to the Kingdom message. Again we see God dealing with individuals and not the nation as a whole. All through the ministry of Jesus and then in the ministry of the apostles a Remnant was chosen by God, a part taken out of the whole House of Israel. The nation was blind while Jesus carried out His ministry among them. He did not come to restore the nation at that time. He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets concerning Himself. Christ had to die to save Israel and the world from their sins. This was first in God’s order and demonstrated by the Passover celebration. Next was death, burial, resurrection and ascension to heaven to sit at Gods right hand and wait until time to return and establish His Messianic Kingdom on earth. During Jesus earthly ministry He chose a Remnant out of Israel, some, not all in that nation, for that future Kingdom ruling class. Paul refers to this at Romans 11:5 “there has come to be a remnant according to the choice of grace”

Notice Jesus words at John 15:16 “You did not choose me, I but I chose you.” God chose those for Jesus and then Jesus picked His apostles, very few in the nation accepted Him because as John 6:44 says “None come to Me unless the Father draws him” Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22 Israel was still Lo-ammi, and it was not God’s time to bring them out of it. Christ came as their Messiah, He was rejected as Messiah and King, and this was God’s plan and not a surprise at all for God. God had a secret “hidden in Him for the ages” Colossians 1:26, 27 Ephesians 3:3, 4 and 5:32. So after Christ’s death, the time was approaching for this secret to be revealed. The kingdom was to be heralded first to Israel; the Remnant chosen out of the blind nation thus the foundation was laid for the Second Advent and the Kingdom on earth. Time arrived for the body of Christ to be revealed.

Paul comes into the picture many years later with the “secret” given to Him by Christ. Paul does not preach this secret until he is severed from Israel and her Kingdom evangel; this is possibly 17-20 years after his Damascus road experience. WE find Saul at Acts 13 “severed from Israel” and from that point on called by his Roman name of Paul. After his severance it was then the time to reveal this secret given to him only which is why he referred to the secret evangel as “my evangel” His evangel was for the New administration, the Body of Christ, recipients and dispensers of Grace in this dispensation of Grace.

We have more testimony that it is God Who does the choosing and reveals His truths as Jesus also told Peter in Matthew 16:18 “you see these things because the Father reveals them to you” While the purpose of the parables given was because the nation as a whole should not understand. His disciples asked Jesus “Why do you speak in Parables to them?” Matthew 13:10, 11 He said to them “To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has not been given.” (Remember of heaven is the kingdom on earth) Israel knew their promises in the Scriptures were of a Messiah to come, Who would rescue them from the Gentile domination and set up God’s Kingdom on the earth. They then would rule over the Gentile nations. They did not recognize these promises of certain events would not all happen in chronological order. God understanding human nature probably did this on purpose. It seems the believers always felt the time was close. If they knew then as we now know that the timing for Israel was to be thousands of years in the future, they probably would have been discouraged and also relaxed in their work and discouraged?

There are over 300 promises concerning the Messiah, starting with His birth and through His ministry, death and resurrection. Neither Israel nor the Remnant He chose saw or understand that He had to die. They knew of prophecies of their Messiah arriving with a flaming army putting down the enemies ruling over them. They did not understand these referred to His second advent. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 This lowly man, Jesus did not wage the war they were expecting, He did not overthrow their Gentile oppressors thus they did not realize He was their Messiah. It was not time for the Kingdom on earth to be set up; Christ had to be rejected and die first, in order to save all sinners in the world and for God to go into His second stage of Salvation to demonstrate His Grace with us, the Body of Christ and the Grace dispensation a new administration to represent it. All of this planned from before time began. Ephesians 1:3,4

What are the Times of the Gentiles? Gentile domination over Israel is what is meant by the times of the gentiles. Also Jesus spoke of this time in Luke 21:24 “And Jerusalem shall be trodden by the nations, until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled” Eras of the nations or times of the Gentiles…same thing. Daniel while in captivity to Babylon interprets a dream the King of Babylon was given by Jehovah which was a prophecy of each succeeding World power to follow Babylon, who was the first to dominate Israel.

Each succeeding Gentile world power would also be dominate over Israel down to the latter days and then Gods Kingdom would come, rescuing them from Gentile domination and especially the antichrist attempting to wipe them off the earth in the end time. Please read Daniel 2:27-45 What needs to be understood about this prophecy concerning these World Powers depicted by the different elements of the image which stopped with the Grecian Power being split into 4 kingdoms and it then evolved into two with the Roman Empire one of these. But the Roman Empire did not achieve world domination, although Israel was being dominated by the Roman Government in Jesus time. So that prophecy has stopped, it will start up again in the Last Days with the feet and toes, The 10 kings or kingdoms in some sort of alliance, a political Kingdom under the antichrist. Time stops for Israel with her prophecies and her evangel when Paul began his evangel with the exception of Israel’s prophecy for Jerusalem’s destruction at A.D. 70. From that time she was put on hold, until The Dispensation of Grace is over. The kingdom evangel stopped and God then using The New Administration of the secret hidden in God throughout the past eons and only through Paul does God bring in the Body of Christ. We are the Grace Dispensation and it will continue until we are removed from this earth. God then will start up Israel’s clock again. It will be time for her prophecies to begin unfolding where they left off, just as though we had not even been here. The drama for Israel will be played out in that part of the world and in the land of Israel. God will raise up a future remnant. He will cause Jews to return to their land. The temple will be rebuilt, the old worship of Jehovah will resume. The apostate Jew will be working with “the man of Lawlessness” leading Israel into the peace treaty with him which begin the last days. This will be the one seven of Daniels prophecy of the 70 weeks found at Daniel 9:24-27 the one seven is the third and last part of that prophesy, to be fulfilled in the last days after we are called home to heaven. That seven year period of time begins when the “man of lawlessness” signs a peace treaty with Israel. Midway into those 7 years he breaks the treaty and begins warring with Israel, this is said by some to be the “time of Jacob’s trouble” and “the indignation or the time of wrath”, and this tribulation is for Israel as the antichrist seeks to destroy her God’s indignation and wrath will be against those who seek to destroy Israel. Satan will have been cast out of heaven at that midpoint of those seven years, angry knowing he has a short period of time…we read that 42 months which is 31/2 years, the last half of those seven years are given him to wage war with the saints. Revelation 12:7-10, 13-17 and 13:5 All of this leading to the Second Advent of Christ to rescue her and bring in Christ’s Kingdom to be established on the earth, completing the Prophecy found in Daniel 2:27-45 I do not think Jacobs trouble and the great tribulation are the same time period any more…

In Manual two, “The times of Restoration” for Israel, we will go into depth on what I feel are the differences with the time of Jacobs’s trouble and the tribulation time indicating they are different periods of time foretold for Israel. I am now leaning towards, Commander Steedman’s views put forth in the Differentiator Publication years ago…that none of Daniels foretold 70 weeks have yet begun. He felt they would begin after the Body of Christ is snatched away, with all of those 490 years to take place after we are gone. It is a very deep but fascinating study. Rick Farwell has posted those articles on his website. If you wish to begin reading them. http://www.geocities.com/490/ We will discuss them in depth in Manual Two.

Now many say, “If Israel had repented and accepted Christ, He would have come back and set up the Kingdom and there never would have been a body of Christ!” I cannot accept this teaching, The Body of Christ was “chosen before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:3,4 and chosen even before Israel, for her prophecies state “at the foundation or from the foundation.” Matthew 25:34 Israel could not accept Christ, because God had blinded her and because God all along planned to insert, the Secret, Grace Dispensation into the ages. If God had wanted to bring in the Kingdom at that time, all He had to do was unblind Israel, open her eyes, soften her calloused heart, just as He did for those men He chose to be the Remnant church. He allowed them to see, Jesus was the Messiah. They did not do it of their own volition; it is by means of His spirit that eyes are opened. None of us in any age or dispensation come to God on our own nor do we understand spiritual things on our own, the sooner we get this into our heads the sooner we will begin to understand God is in control and this is His program for humanity, you and I are merely the players and He chooses Who He will…for whatever assignment He wishes.

Because of not understanding the different ages and dispensations, most scholars see time in the scripture as one continuance stream and so there are many theories on Daniels prophecy, some teach that these world powers have already come about, with many trying to make them fit into the World powers of our day. When we Rightly Divide and Test things which differ all the nonsense of trying to find the USA in prophecy will end. We will recognize all prophecy in the scriptures mainly concerns Israel in her land and concerns her Kingdom Evangel, her apostasy and with her conflict with her enemies, the nations surrounding her, just as in the days of old. That is still, unfinished business for Israel. God must be vindicated and Israel restored so Gods focus will once again be on Israel’s region of the world.

There are also many different ideas on the time period of Israel’s divorcement, when she was cast off. Some see her in and out of Lo ammi from Babylon on down to Jesus day and then finally cast off at Acts 28:27, 28 while some see her as not being cast off until her rejection of their Messiah, Jesus. Some teach, it happened at A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. It seems to me, we must go back to the pronouncement made in Hosea 1:9 of her then becoming Lo ammi (not My People) this began the withdrawal of Jehovah’s protection as He divorced her and so from that time on He was no longer her husbandly owner and her casting off for sure was some years after Hosea pronounced those words and when the 10 tribe kingdom called Israel had left Judah, the two tribe kingdom. Israel was first conquered by Assyria and later conquered by Babylon and when Judah fell into apostasy they two were conquered by Babylon the then World Power. This was the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, Israel no longer a sovereign nation or kingdom and that domination has continued uninterrupted down to our day, this is still the times of the Gentiles for Israel. The prophecies of the new covenant and the remarriage are yet to come. In Gods eyes, today Israel is just one of the nations until the times of restoration.

Israel’s restoration is to happen after a long period of Gentile domination and after losing their temple and all their records and the sacrifices stopped which describe Israel even to this day. Hosea 3:4 “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king and without a prince and without a sacrifice and without an image and without an ephod *(a garment only the High priest wore) and without teraphim *(idols) afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God and David their King; and shall fear the Lord and His goodness….in the latter days.” The latter days, I believe will be the 490 years of Daniels prophecy leading to the Last Days, end times, the final seven years of that prophecy which reference the time of tribulation and Israel’s greatest apostasy leading to the coming of their Messiah. It is obvious this did not happen at Christ’s first coming but all of this will be fulfilled during His presence and Second Advent for Israel. Daniel 9:24-27

I can find no evidence that Israel has been taken back by Jehovah since her being conquered by Babylon. Those promises are for the future after we are removed and take her on into the Christ’s Kingdom. This to me is why they were blind and calloused in Jesus day, which made them unable to see or hear or to understand spiritual things. Romans 11:8 “What then? What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen (the remnant of Israel) encountered it. Now the rest ( the nation of Israel) were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.” Isaiah foretold this and Paul repeats it in his day. Isaiah 20:10

As we go through this Manual learning to, Rightly Divide Israel’s Kingdom Evangel from Paul’s Grace Evangel, I am hoping this will become clear for the reader. So when we view Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah it is shown by the evidence that it was because they were blind to spiritual things since the time of their divorcement in Hosea. It then is clear for us; they were not blinded and cast off because of the rejection of Jesus but Israel rejected Him because, of being blind, which began with their divorcement, after the time of Hosea words, you are Lo ammi. God continued to deal with individuals in that nation, but the Nation was cast off, blind to spiritual things. God used prophets whom He called and enlightened them , so using some out of Israel, but not all and this is explained by the phrase; The Remnant of Israel. God chose a Remnant from the Blind Nation to begin the Kingdom church with. He was still divorced from the nation of Israel; she was no longer His wife during Jesus ministry, the scriptures speak of a bride for the lambkin, this has to do with the marriage of the lambkin to the Remnant of Israel and takes place in the future Messianic kingdom on the earth.

The New Covenant with Israel: Another way to understand the New birth for Israel is to see how it is linked with their New Covenant which God promises to make with them in His Kingdom on earth and is still in the future for them. We in the Body of Christ have no part in this new birth or their new covenant which we see is to take place on the earth and for one very important reason. We are told by our Apostle Paul that our allotment is in the celestials, which is in heaven. Paul told us we are to be snatched from this earth and taken to heaven.

So we have discussed how Jehovah made the Old Covenant with Israel, and she was the only nation He made any covenant with or took as His wife and so logically His promises to the House of Israel cannot be transferred to the nations, the Body of Christ as is so commonly taught! God promises to forgive Israel and to reunite them. These are specifically spoken to the House of Israel, which is Israel and Judah and are linked to His words of giving them a new heart and a new spirit. None of these can apply to the Nations who were never in the covenant nor were we ever His wife. The nations have no need to be forgiven for unfaithfulness but Israel does. This is why, Paul states we are a New Administration and he does not say, the old is transferred to a new, but that we are a brand new administration, God goes from Law to GRACE. Paul reminds us at Ephesians 2:11,12 “Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations in flesh who are termed uncircumcision by those termed circumcision in flesh, made by hands that you (gentiles of the nations) were, in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promised covenants, having no expectation and without God in the world.”

There is a lot of confusion with the Old and the New Covenant for Israel. Most denominations, in one form or another place the Body of Christ into the New Covenant with Israel or Israel into the Body of Christ. Some throw Israel out of the picture completely and teach The Body of Christ is now Spiritual Israel. For us to say all of this was taken from Israel and transferred to the Body of Christ and that we are the ones remarried and to whom the new covenant in prophecy applies is to spiritualize the scriptures and is in total error. It is even said outright by many, that we are Spiritual Israel. While some other sects claim they alone are spiritual Israel. Like the Seventh Day Adventist…Jehovah’s Witnesses…The Mormons and others who are off shoots of the British Israelism Doctrine which started long ago with the spiritualizing of the church and which has been taught in many different forms since that doctrine began. The Anglo Saxon’s taught of the lost tribes of Israel and that believers since Christ are a Spiritual Israel who are replacing Israel because they believe the nation of Israel is lost forever. If we ignore Israel and her promises past and future in this way along with her place in Gods Kingdom on earth we are guilty of that false teaching. How confusing are all these theories and false notions for the believer, who should ask these questions. Who is right and how do I figure it out? By learning to Test things which differ and to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth, this is what will help us to avoid these errors being taught today and take us right to Paul our Apostle for sound doctrine.

So we have seen in the scriptures how Israel is to be born anew and this is when their new covenant is to be put into effect in the Kingdom on earth, through a marriage union. The new birth will be done in spirit as they will be given vivified bodies, made immortal and their wedding feast or celebration to take place at that time will last throughout the1000 years of Christ’s reign, this is the reward for the faithful. The unfaithful will be saved later but they miss out on the reward of ruling and reigning with Christ and the glories of that Kingdom. They will stay sleeping in the dust and will not be raised until that kingdom time is over, then, they will stand with the unjust in the last resurrection of shame or contempt. Revelation 20:5,6 Daniel 12:1,2

The Old Covenant was based on Law so we should ask, what about the New Covenant with Israel? The first covenant was a fleshly contract with a Nation of people. The Law given them was on stone tablets, stone is hard and unyielding. It was a death dealing covenant. God knew they would fail. The Law in fact did not save them but pointed to their sin and inability to achieve their own righteousness. Romans 5:20 7:6,7 The Law led them to Christ for He alone could live up to it and fulfill it and thus it was nailed to the cross with Him, removing the death curse, it only could give. Jesus Christ born into this world totally human but untainted by sin bought all of mankind out from under the curse of sin and death inherited from Adam and Eve. Paul tells us at Philippians 2:7 Christ empties himself (of his deity) to be born in the fashion of mankind.” With His death, His blood, as the unspotted sacrificial Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29 He, undoing the works of Satan, buys and redeems all humanity from sin and death! This releases them from being captive to the death state but as Paul told us there is an order for the resurrections. 1 Corinthians 15:23 “each in their own order or class” Three resurrections are taught in Scripture. Verse 22 “For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Nothing is said of only those who repent or who accept what Christ did, But a blanket statement made by Paul…all dying in Adam…. which is all of humanity who will be made alive in Christ! Let this beautiful truth wrap itself around your heart and Praise God!

Israel broke the first covenant by not keeping the Law and turning to other gods in worship. They had ignored the Sabbaths for the land of every seven years letting it lie fallow thus in the 70 years of their captivity the Land was given its Sabbaths back, allowed to lie fallow for those 70 years. It seems to me that the law Covenant did not generate love in their hearts for Jehovah, being forced to obey with punishment hanging over ones head will never generate love. The Law was used as a foil to demonstrate Gods mercy and love for His Creation unable on their own to achieve God’s righteousness. But God’s righteousness generates mercy and thus God promises to forgive Israel and remarry her in The Kingdom on earth. First, He provided the Lamb which takes away the sin of the world, Christ. Second, in the Kingdom, He makes the New Covenant with them, it will be a spiritual covenant done by His spirit. Just as their….re birth is done by the spirit as stated in the Ezekiel prophecy, where we read. “God gives them a new heart and a new spirit and HE writes HIS Law on their Hearts.” This covenant also based on Law keeping but this time, God gives them the ability to keep His Law with a new heart and a new spirit, HIS! His Laws in their Hearts as His Spirit will be All within them. It would be impossible for them to do otherwise.

The Physical nation of Israel failed, flesh always fails, and God knows this. He made provision for this failure long before anyone ever failed. Israel in the millennial reign will be born again as a new nation. By spirit…a re-birth. This re-birth will be God’s work for Israel thus the verses of; The Potter and His vessel are fitting and very beautiful and promised for Israel. Jeremiah 18:1-6 “The word, which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying. Arise and go down to the potters house and there I will cause thee to hear My words. Then, I went down to the potter’s house and behold, he wrought to work on the wheels And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter so he made it again, another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand so are you in Mine hand O house of Israel.”

God illustrated to Jeremiah in the above passage that Israel was a marred vessel. But just as, the marred vessel does not leave the potters hand, make note of this beautiful truth. “The Potter” does not throw the marred pot away but he reworks it until it is acceptable. That is what God is doing with Israel through the centuries of chastening she will become a vessel of honor but only through the new covenant in which God remakes her, “giving her a new heart and spirit.” This is when the Great Potter will display His perfect vessel. That is the promise Paul also shows with God as the Potter in Romans 9:14-33 This is also what Paul is telling us when, he spoke of the time when “God would be All in all” in order for all creation to become righteous, able to live up to Gods standards of righteousness, His spirit must fill us all before this is possible. 1 Corinthians 15:28

Two more little words which differ…Before and From: Ephesians 1:3,4 “according as He chooses us in Him before the disruption or the laying down of the foundation of the world” The Body of Christ chosen before. While Matthew says Israel was chosen from the disruption or foundation of the world. Matthew 25:34 “Then shall the King be declaring to those at His right, Hitherto, blessed of My Father! Enjoy the allotment of the kingdom made ready for you from the disruption or foundation of the world”. Test the differences, “Before” an event began and “From” that same event in history. There is a controversy whether these verses should be translated as foundation or disruption, I will leave you to do a word study of your own on this. The point, I want to focus on are those two little words and how they differ…before and from. If all saints are in the body of Christ as claimed by most denominations and that all saints are going to heaven we have to ask another question. Why so many different words and titles for one church or the same group of saints? These differing titles and words and terms are showing us there are some differences being spoken about. The scriptures are consistent, that there are two different churches and evangels with two different times for there creation by God and that they have two different purposes in Gods Plan of Salvation throughout the ages!

Another question should come to our minds. Why did God choose to create the Body of Christ before Adam and Eve were created and had even sinned? If or unless… God knew sin would enter the world of mankind before He ever created them? Please let it sink into your heart and mind God has been in control from day one of creation and nothing has taken Him by surprise. Everything was planned and or foreknown, laid out in its proper order by God. He had a plan for His creation and He put Plan A into operation from the beginning. God never needed to revert to a Plan B for a remedy for sin or to save mankind.

The Body of Christ chosen by God Ephesians 1:3,4 and as I studied this subject of His doing the choosing, over and over I see in scripture, that He always did the choosing, no one came to Him on their own. God did the choosing with Abram, and Israel, His prophets and even His Remnant with Jesus and of course us in the Body of Christ. Paul stresses “the natural or soulish man can not understand spiritual things” 1 Corinthians 2:14 WE, who believe in Christ, only are able to believe, because of being given, the spirit from God which enables us to do so. 1 Corinthians 2:12 Today, the unbeliever is unable to respond to God or spiritual things because of not having yet been chosen and given the spirit which is necessary to do so from God. God has many stages laid out in the eons through which He is demonstrating Who He is not just for mankind but also for the vast celestial realm. They are watching God’s work with mortals. God gave a example in his choosing of Abram, it is stated that he is the father of believers and all as Paul tells us, for the Body of Christ in spirit, through faith are we being declared righteous. For Israel, Abraham was their Physical father in the flesh. Israel, the physical nation under Law, earning righteousness through Law keeping contrasted with the body of Christ being graced, given a righteous standing. Abram was not seeking Jehovah, he was an idol worshipper when God chose him and made an unconditional covenant with him. Genesis 15. This is how Abraham is our father but later with his descendants God made a conditional covenant with the nation of Israel through Moses with circumcision as the sign. It is always God Who chooses, enabling some to respond to Him. In Israel’s case, as Jesus stated He chose His followers, and they could not respond unless the Father had drawn them to Him and gave them spiritual understanding. For us Paul explains it so eloquently in Ephesians…let read it.

Ephesians 3:1-12 “On this behalf I, Paul the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you the nations, since you hear of the administration of grace of God that is given to me for you for by revelation the secret is made know to me according as I write before, in brief, by which you who are reading are able to apprehend my understanding in the secret of the Christ, which, in other generations, is not made known to the sons of humanity as it was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets: in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body and joint partakers of the promise is Christ Jesus through the evangel of which I became the dispenser, in accord with the gratuity of the grace of God which is granted to me in accord with His powerful operation. To me less that the least of all saints, was granted this grace; to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations, and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the secret, which has been concealed from the eons in God, Who creates all, that now may be made known to the sovereignties and the authorities among the celestials, through the ecclesia, the multifarious wisdom of God in accord with the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence, through His faith.”

Paul in prison in Rome, states “he is the prisoner of Christ” for us, those of the nations who are in the administration of grace. This secret was given to him and not to Peter, through direct revelations from Christ. “The secret not made known in other generations” unheard of, unknown, untraceable, because it can not be found in the Old Testament writings for Israel because it is not for Israel! It was unheard of, unknown until revealed to and through Paul, our Apostle for the Body of Christ. The term, in spirit, the nations, is plural, this also includes Israel as a nation, because of her lo ammi state. Those called out of all nations, make up the joint body, of Gentiles and Jews, but the new administration does not replace the remnant church nor is Israel in the Body of Christ. What was given to Paul was separate from Israel and was a brand new administration, a spiritual entity. God also called individual Jews into this body but not the nation of Israel or any of the leaders, Jesus chose for the Remnant Church… like the twelve Apostles whose is, the Kingdom evangel for Israel and the Kingdom on earth!

Paul taught the “untraceable or unsearchable riches” which was the “mystery or secret.” It cannot be traced or searched out in any other scriptures before Paul writes of it. This new administration of Grace was “hid in God through out all the past eons” and was only then being made known through Paul, that those called into the Body of Christ which was a Joint Body made up of Jews and Gentiles but also being revealed to those living in heaven. The spirit world consists of many different levels of beings. Paul refers to them as the “sovereignties and authorities among the celestials.” God’s wisdom, mercy and love on display in this new church, whose message is Grace dispensed to and by this new administration. Read Colossians 1:16, 20 26 and 2:10 mentioning these spiritual beings who are witnessing God’s grace in us.

The Body of Christ being a spiritual entity and so our covenant is a spiritual covenant and is in effect now, which it consists of our being “given every spiritual blessing in the celestials” Ephesians 1:3 These spiritual blessings are our spiritual covenant as Paul shows at 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 contrasting the one made in stone with ours as spiritual blessings freely given. The main point to consider is that Israel’s New Covenant is still to come in the future. While we have ours now, the free gift of grace, we did nothing to earn these spiritual blessings and we can do nothing to lose them. This covenant was freely given to us, without our even knowing about it. We are declared righteous as Abram was, even though we in the flesh are not. I couldn’t help but think that we like Abram were also asleep when God made this covenant with the Body of Christ, choosing us “before the foundation of the world.” We did not have to agree to it, we knew nothing of it. God seals us with the earnest of the spirit. God does the sealing, the choosing and the justifying. These are all included in our spiritual blessings in the celestials and are ours right now. We do not earn them, or wait for them. The spirit of God within us is crying “Abba Father” and it enables us to recognize God is our Father, our Creator and our Saviour is Christ. The next step is ours, we need to study God’s words written to and for us through our Apostle Paul, so that we can then be educated as to what God in Christ has done for us and how our blessings are different from Israel’s, we then, like Abram merely say “amen.” which is the same as saying, so be it…Lord. This is believing God!

It is only through a study of the letters (epistles) written to us by Paul from God and with the aid of the Holy Spirit that we come to understand who we are in Christ and what these spiritual blessings are and of our allotment which is in the celestials and not on earth with Israel or vice versa. This is why we must test things which differ. Our allotment is Christ’s allotment in heaven and our expectation is promised to shed these bodies of humiliation and we will find ourselves changed into the image of God, with a vivified glorified body.

What are all of our spiritual blessings in the celestials? We are declared righteous, we are justified in the flesh, we are indwelt by Christ, we are given the earnest of the spirit…an earnest is a guarantee to us, that a place in heaven with Him is guaranteed. We are sealed, we are sanctified. We are under no condemnation for any failing we may do here and now. WE are said “to have died with Christ and were buried with Christ and raised with Christ and are seated in the heavens with Christ” in spirit. We have been “given sonship”. We are “ambassadors for Christ” here and now while on this earth offering conciliation to the world as recorded at 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 Can we think of anything else we might need, a piece of land here on earth? No I think not! The only thing we need and yearn for is to be given our new bodies and to be free of this body of humiliation, to be out of this evil age we live in and to find ourselves with Christ, clothed in our new Glorified body just like His.

Let’s review these Covenants which differ: We can see some comparison with our covenant with the promise made with ABRAM with His being declared righteous without the Law, Abram was put to sleep while Jehovah passed through the offering. In those days when a covenant was made, an offering was split in half and the two parties walked between them, this sealed the covenant. Jeremiah 34:18-20. Like a handshake was used in our country or customs but in today’s world we have a written contract and both parties better read the fine print before signing it. Jehovah made the covenant with Abram while he was sleeping, this shows that Jehovah God Himself was the only one bound to that covenant and that He would see to it that the covenant was kept. He took the whole contract onto Himself. Genesis 15:9-18 Later, God changes Abram’s name to ABRAHAM and makes again this promise with him in which He asks for circumcision to be a sign of it. Genesis 17:4-14 Circumcision set Jehovah’s people apart from those not chosen. This was still an unconditional covenant even though Abraham agreed to be circumcised. Jehovah was bound by the first one to see it accomplished, even if Abraham failed or if the nation to come from him failed. Jehovah was bound to His promises to Abram. We could say that covenant was grandfathered in? No matter that Israel would fail, God would still bring it about! This is demonstrated in how that Abraham and Sarah when very old and past child bearing years, considered dead at 99 and 90 years of age. God makes them alive again, able to make a baby. This promise of a child, through which the promised seed would come, kept by Jehovah not Abraham, unable on his own to do so.

Within Israel’s history we then move forward to the Mosaic Covenant made with Israel. The people agreed to the terms and regulations of the Covenant of Law with its blessings through obedience along with its curses if they broke it. This was a conditional covenant based on law keeping with both parties bound by it. But God goes one step further, as He is bound by the first covenant made with Abraham and so He promises to take Israel back, even though she is unfaithful, He promises to cleanse her of her sins and to write His Law on their hearts, to marry her again in the Kingdom on earth which Jesus taught his disciples to pray for. This should make it clear who the New Covenant referred to in the Old Testament is for and who it will be made with and it is not the same covenant Paul speaks of for the Body of Christ. We are adopted into God’s family and receive our own spiritual covenant and blessings now which are to be kept separate from Israel’s promised New Covenant which is to come about in the millennial kingdom on this earth.

Sonship and Adoption: Israel is the “sonship” because of their covenant relationship with Jehovah. Read Exodus 4:22 Hosea 11:1-4 Paul tells us this at Romans 9:1-4 ” The truth am I telling in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifying together with me in His spirit, that my sorrow is great, and unintermittent pain is in my heart—for I myself wished to be anathema from Christ for my brethren, my relatives according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the “sonship” and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises: whose are the fathers and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be blessed for the eons. Amen!” Note, covenants plural…God is not through with Israel…shame, shame on those who teach that He is! They are seeking to rob Him of the Glory He will receive through His work with that nation on this earth bring all nation to reconciliation!

From this sonship Israel strayed and became “the prodigal son” found in Luke 15:11-24 also “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Mathew 10:5,6 15:24 For them to enter the Kingdom of God and enjoy their sonship again, they must be “begotten anew or born again” through the spirit. John 3:3-8 and Ezekiel 36:22-38 This term sonship in the Israeli Bible books applies strictly to Israel and concerns their earthly salvation and allotment in a future day of restoration. Isaiah 66:7-9 Ezekiel 36:22-38.

Now we can look at, Adoption or son placing “h uio the si’a” this means: “legally into the place belonging to a son.” Galatians 4:5-7 “we may be getting the place as a son. Now seeing that you are sons, God delegates the sprit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father!” Ephesians 1:5 “designating us before for the place of a son” Gentiles who never had sonship and who were aliens, without hope and without God in the world. Acts 14:16 “God, who in bygone generations leaves all the nations to go their ways” By His grace through faith, we receive the adoption of sons and are made members of God’s family. Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, then, no longer are you guests and sojourners, but are fellow citizens of the saints and belong to God’s family, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the capstone for the corner being Christ Jesus Himself, in Whom the entire building, being connected together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord: in Whom you, also are being built together for God’s dwelling place, in spirit”

Test the different words; first Paul speaks of an entire building of God which again is Gods overall family, his complete Kingdom taking in both, on earth and in heaven. Then Paul said in Whom you, also, always watch for those little words which connect one thought to another sometimes switching from one subject to another in this case, note the words, also and you. So he went from speaking of Gods entire family to a part of it, the body of Christ with the words, you also are. He is telling us, that we are a spiritual temple where God’s spirit dwells. Israel still looks to the day when her literal physical temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the ruling saints will govern from it. Then in the Day of God which follows the Day of the Lord, and after the Millennial reign of Christ and the great White throne judgment we see that “the holy city new Jerusalem descending out of heaven” Revelation 21:1,2 This city will come down to the earth from heaven. That will be the home of the bride/wife/Remnant of Israel, this celestial city is what Jesus referred to when He said to his apostles, “I go to prepare a place for you.” John 14:2 We must recognize that Paul never refers to that city in relation to the Body of Christ; it would seem to me if we also were to be in it. Paul would have told us. We must let go of the mind set, taught to us from our youth on because of attending some sort of denominations that all saints go to heaven! The scripture do not support that. We will discuss this further in Chapter Three of this Manual. Let’s continue on with our sonship through adoption.

Romans 8:15, 23 “For whoever are being led by God’s spirit, these are sons of God…For you did not get slavery’s spirit to fear again but you got the spirit of sonship, in which we are crying Abba Father! The spirit itself is testifying together with our spirit that we are children of God. Yet if children, enjoyers also of an allotment from God yet joint enjoyers of Christ’s allotment if so be that we are suffering together, that we should be glorified together also. Paul alone speaks of “sonship” by adoption and the salvation with an allotment of glory in the heavens Philippians 3:20,1 “For our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Savior also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself.” Notice the phrase Paul uses, “we are awaiting a Savior also” that little word, also, which implies someone else is waiting for their Savior. Yes, Israel also waiting for His return to the earth to rescue and redeem them while we wait to be called and snatched from this earth to meet with Him in the air.

In The Kingdom of God, He has a big family, made up of those living in the heavens composed of the Spirit world and of Humanity here on the earth. He chose the Physical nation of Israel to demonstrate the standard set by His Righteous Law through, these “are the sonship” and He chooses The Body of Christ to demonstrate His Grace through for mankind and to the celestial beings. For humanity who could never in the flesh live up to Gods righteousness, we are adopted into His family and given sonship. Both realms are in Gods family with each given a specific calling and place in that Household of God, placed in it through Christ’s shed blood to bless others and to be blessed.

The Israelites saw Jehovah’s power and might when they witnessed the many plagues in Egypt brought by Jehovah, aimed at putting down the false gods of the Egyptians. Watching as the Red Sea parted and allowed them to escape Pharaoh Armies, and watching those armies drowned as God closed the waters after Israel passed through safely. As they traveled through the desert they were led by a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day. Moses strikes a rock giving them water. Manna fell from heaven fresh every day to feed them. Their sandals did not wear out. The people saw fearful displays of Gods power and many signs of His care and love for them and yet they could not keep the law and they could not be faithful, they continually failed. Nothing caused or enabled them to be faithful. Not Gods mighty Power or fear of Him caused them to love their Husbandly owner. It seems just the opposite as living in fear or under a dictatorship never generates love, the Law was a dictator. God knew this, His covenant was a demonstration of a Righteous Law that no man except Christ could live up too, that is why the Law is said to be death dealing. God showed them through their sacrificial system for sin that He would provide a way out of the condemnation of the Law and of the sin and death inherited from Adam.

We need to understand these people were not indwelt by Christ or the spirit of God and so it seems without Gods spirit upon or within, we humans are unable to believe and or obey even in the presence of His powerful signs. They had miracles and signs and the Prophets and Priests who told them what to do and when and who also were there to enforce the laws. These people later demanded a King, which God granted to them, very few were good kings as most led them astray. The spirit of God came upon those who God chose to prophesy and to record His words. Again this shows, without Gods spirit, a person cannot respond to spiritual things even those of us with the spirit do not recognize the complete plan of God for the ages and this spirit within us does not make us perfect in the flesh, we still err and sin daily. The spiritual blessings given to the Body of Christ are unconditional. God does it all for us through Christ. We have been placed in Christ and this takes care of all of this for us, we do not do it ourselves. We are declared righteous before God, right now. Israel is still waiting for her New Covenant and for God to grace and bestow His mercy on them by giving them their righteousness.

God is demonstrating through the Body of Christ the opposite of the Law and of God’s power enforcing the Law. Grace from God gives life through the indwelling of Christ. We were chosen before the foundation of the world and called to heaven. This is all God’s doing, we do not earn it or ask for it. WE are a picture of His future work with Israel in the Kingdom and I have to ask, if He freely graces us in this way and promises to grace Israel in the Kingdom, writing His Law on their hearts, forgiving them, taking them back in marriage. What of the unbelievers, who He has not yet called, how could they be given any less? What is an unbeliever, just someone without the spirit of God enabling them to believe? How do we get the spirit? God gives it.

This brings us again to the question of who does the choosing. We have seen it is God. The term, Free Will and our deciding on our own to follow Christ are not founded in scripture. The denominations teach we choose to serve God and at our accepting Christ we then receive these spiritual blessing which give us the indwelling…the sealing…the earnest of the spirit….etc. Yet we have seen through the scriptures that they have it backwards or the cart before the horse! Without the spirit from God we cannot believe, we believe because we are chosen…plain and simple. So the question should be, not who chooses but when does God choose us, thus giving us these spiritual blessings? For the past few years, Vance and I have wondered when exactly it is, that we receive the indwelling. We all have been taught it is at the point of believing but as I just said…how can we believe first with no spirit to help us to do so? That is where the unbelievers find themselves. We have some thoughts on when we receive the earnest of the spirit, to share here and welcome any comments on them. I think this may be something we cannot prove conclusively but we have had some questions come to our minds concerning some of the things Paul says and wondered if we are given hints or clues so I will add our thoughts here for your consideration.

Ephesians 1:13,14 tells us of receiving the sealing of the spirit. What was a seal in those days? A seal was a symbol of security placed on pouches or letters and on things like tombs, keeping others in or out, etc. Paul first mentions our sealing in 2 Corinthians 1:22 “Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and Who anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts.” Ephesians 4:30 “And do not be causing sorrow to the holy spirit of God by which you are sealed for the day of deliverance.” These are just a couple of the “spiritual blessings” bestowed upon the Body of Christ referred to at Ephesians 1:3 How do we cause the Holy Spirit sorrow? By allowing ourselves to be deceived by Satan’s lies and myths and not holding to our God ordained sound doctrine through Paul and not recognizing the spiritual blessings freely given in grace.

Sealing for the believer is a sign of security, I can not find where the circumcision saints were sealed. Circumcising was the outward mark or visible sign of belonging for that nation. The circumcision saints did not experience this spiritual blessing, they were not sealed and so some did fall away as the physical sign did not prevent this for them. The 144,000 chosen out of Israel’s 12 tribes, it is said are going to be sealed and protected through the tribulation time period, there is no mention of the sealing of the Pentecostal saints other than Jesus did say those who were His, He would not lose and this pertained to the Apostles whom He chose for His remnant church. Read of the 144,000 at Revelation 7 and 14

We are sealed by the earnest of the spirit which is a down payment, like today in Real Estate when purchasing a property. An earnest payment is required which is a pledge that in the future; the complete payment will follow. In our case in the spiritual realm, it’s the pledge of our expectation, and not a hope. Israel hoped to be in their Kingdom on earth, their faithfulness was a requirement. Not so with the Body of Christ. Our sealing, and the earnest of the spirit, is the guarantee of the future deliverance from these bodies of humiliation at the rapture and that we will be given the new bodies which will then be the payment made in full and we will then be filled to the brim with God’s spirit.

So we asked the question at what point in our life does Christ choose us to be in the Body of Christ. Paul tells us at Ephesians 1:4 “We were chosen before the foundation or disruption of the world” and it is interesting his words at 2 Timothy 3:14,15 where Paul in speaking to Timothy he said “from a babe you were acquainted with the scriptures” Let’s examine this verse with the Greek word used “babe” which is “breathoss” Tracing this word in research shows this to mean “in the womb or at best on the breast” and referring to only about the first week after birth. Another word in that statement to Timothy, we wanted to understand was the word “acquainted” which means, to inherently know or to know all along. In the Greek, inherently, is “Oida” and there are two different words for know and the second and a different word for know or knowing is acquired knowledge and in the Greek that word is “gno si s” so this is then acquired or learned knowledge while Oida is inherent knowledge.

Inherent is defined by the dictionary as “to exist permanently and inseparably as a quality, attribute or element…to belong intrinsically” Or to know all along, this is inbuilt or indwelt and the other word, Gnosis, is acquired knowledge or the learning process and of being taught. Now, the questions we are having with this in seeking to understand what Paul meant with the use of this word inherently about Timothy as a Babe, the scriptures were known by him inherently so in this verse Paul is referring to inherent knowledge…to inherently know which is to know all along. This is not acquired knowledge from learning since a babe would not have acquired knowledge. A babe is not able to read and or learn all the scriptures, so we asked, how could a babe in the womb or at one week old inherently know the scriptures?

Now I realize some explain this to mean, His mother and grandmother read the scriptures while he was in the womb and this is how he knew them. I do not discount that this is beneficial for a child in the womb. But, without the spirit from God that child in the womb would not understand or inherently know the scriptures. The key here it seems to me, is that it is the spirit from God which inherently knows the scriptures. The Holy Spirit dictated them or breathed those scriptures. Paul stated they were inherent in Timothy as a babe. Thus we asked the question, are we given the earnest of the spirit in the womb or at our birth? It seems this is when we are chosen and this is why we then are able to recognize Gods Word when we hear it and that Christ is our Savior and Lord later in our life by means of the spirit within us, never by our flesh or with our soulish nature.

Paul tells us at 2 Timothy 3:18,17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The word translated inspiration in the Greek is “theopneustos” and literally means…God breathed…..All scripture is God breathed. The indwelling spirit given to us from God, breathes in Gods Words; this is our life giving breath from God, our spiritual breath! Just as our physical body needs oxygen to live our indwelling spirit needs Gods Words to live, to breathe, to be awake, to grow and mature in truth, it needs God’s words.

So we find this verse interesting, as it seems to indicate that Timothy was already chosen in the womb or in the first week of his life. Now we next added into this research, something else Paul said in regards to his own calling at Galatians 1:15,16 “Now when it delights God, who severs me from my mothers womb and calls me through His grace, to unveil His Son in me that I may be evangelizing Him among the nations” Now why would Paul use this term; severs me from my mothers womb, if it was not that he recognized he had been chosen then. God had intended him for the office of an Apostle while in his mother’s womb and severed him at his birth; obviously Paul did not know this until after God opened his spiritual eyes to recognize this. God arranged the outcome of his life? This is different from when Paul tells us he was severed from Israel. It seems to me, that Paul did not believe his being saved, or chosen began on the road to Damascus or would he not have said, God chose me when I was at such and such an age and or God chose me on the road to Damascus? Again note that Paul on that road was not seeking Christ, he was not repenting of his rejection of Jesus. It was Christ, Who came to Saul and forcibly graced him and caused him to recognize Him as the Lord. As Saul, the Pharisee, he thought he was zealous for Jehovah and the Law and earning his own righteousness and thus he was persecuting those followers of Jesus believing them to be heretics.

These passages lead us to believe that we are chosen in Christ while in the womb and thus would seem to indicate that we have the indwelling spirit from birth and so this then is why spiritual things would be attractive to us and when hearing Gods Word being read or taught at home or in a church our spirit would respond to it, since that Word is filled with those God Breathed words. Paul speaks of those who are chosen, happening upon salvation and coming to a realization of the truth. By his own testimony He recognized with his experience on the Damascus road what had happen to him in his mother’s womb. Lets read 2 Timothy 2:10 “Therefore I am enduring all because of those who are chosen that they may be happening upon the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with glory eonian.” Paul says…the chosen happen upon the salvation…they are already chosen so already saved. The happening upon is, understanding what God had already done for us and so Paul also adds to this at Colossians 1:9 “Therefore we also from the day on which we hear, do not cease praying for you and requesting that you may be filled full with the realization of His will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding”

My only thoughts on those who profess to be believers and yet reject the truth of Gods Word are, that these are the soulish or carnal believers of which Paul spoke of many times. They are thinking with only their fleshly or soulish heart and not the spiritual heart. I find it unfathomable for any believer, Graced in the beloved to continue to believe in the God defaming doctrine of Hellfire. Why do so many, when shown the possibility of it not being true, turn on us and will not even research it. Angry instead of being happy to learn unbelievers will not be tormented for eternity but will also one day be saved and glorify God. Instead they vehemently fight for the doctrine of Eternal Torment, holding onto revenge, hate and a punishment that out weighs the crime. These are human, soulish emotions and are not God given Grace, nor the spiritual understanding of a God of Love and mercy. They forget they are no better than the unbeliever; we all are born in sin and fail daily. Why would we not want the unbelievers to also be shown grace and be given the ability to believe just as we have been? We did not come to God on our own; if we had, our salvation would not be Grace, but we would have done something to earn it, but then of course the denominations teach that they do earn it and so they think they have chosen all on their own to serve God and this seems to inspire a self righteous attitude towards the unbelievers in the world.

To not have this Grace in our hearts, would be carnal indeed and I have no other explanation for the hard hearts that cling to the doctrine of millions doomed to suffer eternity in a mythical place of torment. We all must recognize what the issue really is. It is not our own salvation, but God receiving the Glory due Him as our Creator and our Savior. He receives the greatest glory from the worst of circumstances and the worst of sinners reconciled to Him. His Grace extended to the most vile of His creatures does not make Him a weak God but shows Him to be the Most High God of Love in all the Universe. Nothing threatens His sovereignty. He makes all evil into good as only He can and will do! God as Creator owns everything, why would He allow anything or anyone to be lost or stolen from Him by an inferior being such as the adversary or the will of humanity?

Hellfire or the theory of punishment in a mythical, underground world was believed in Babylon and also before her by the many other pagan nations. The Israelites became contaminated with this doctrine during their 70 years of captivity in Babylon. When we study the history of the Jews we will find after their release from Babylon, many did not want to return to Jerusalem, they liked where they were living. This I believe is why Peter went to Babylon…to herald the kingdom of Jesus Christ to the Jews living there.

From those years living in Babylon, many of their pagan teachings became part of the Jewish Talmud and so it became corrupted. The Talmud is like a Civil Book of rules or etiquette which the Rabbis use. A second Talmud has been found dating from that time of Babylonian captivity. It is corrupted with Babylonian beliefs. I will put a copy of one section of the corrupted one in Chapter Seven which relates to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, a favorite passage of the Hellfire teachers, not understanding Jesus was not teaching Hellfire but ridiculing the Pharisees for their belief in it! Hells origin comes from the pagans and not the scriptures. This is why we find reference to it by only Jesus! Jesus did not teach anything outside of the Hebrew prophets and scriptures so he would not have been instituting a new doctrine of punishment as claimed by the Hellfire lovers, he exposed the Pharisees for the false teacher that they were, they were teaching hellfire and other myths adopted from pagan religions and philosophies.

That parable was directed at the Pharisees who were standing in the crowd listening to Jesus, who were clothed in their purple robes, fitting the description Jesus gave of the “rich man” and they knew exactly who He was talking about…them! Jesus placed them in their very own mythical place of torment and the beggar in the parable placed in Abraham’s bosom, the beggar depicting the common men of the Israel, and were chosen to be the Remnant church for the Kingdom, and who were replacing the Pharisees, the religions leaders of Israel. Jesus ministered to the poor, starving in spirit as a result of those religious leaders who had not been instructing them with Gods word but instead with lies and myths. Jesus places the common man in the place of honor, Abraham’s bosom, which is where the Pharisee had placed themselves. This is why the Pharisees hated Him so and sought to kill Jesus as He exposed them over and over for the hypocrites and liars that they were. The Pharisees also taught, if Israel would become moral or good, then their Messiah would come and establish the kingdom and they used Hellfire to scare them into obeying them, the Pharisees, not God and being moral, sound familiar?

How sad that the Body of Christ today is carrying on in the tradition of the Pharisees of Jesus day, blind to the truth of God’s Grace and His Plan of the ages to bring about the salvation of All. They are blind to the fact that God will be glorified through the saving of the unbeliever and the wicked. He only will receive His full Glory with the complete Reconciliation of the Universe. This vindicates God as He lives up to His own righteous standard of justice and mercy. “Creation subjected to vanity….involuntarily” Romans 8:18-25 It is God Who has subjected all Creation to evil in order for it to understand good and evil, love and hate, teaching us to appreciate the good and what Gods love is. For God to lose one person would be a failure. God does not fail. Instead the denominations hold dear many of these false doctrines from Babylon, the mother of false religion. The church today is steeped in her pagan doctrines, practices, traditions and holy days. In Paul’s day, he refuted the many lies and myths taught by the Gnostics, the pagans and even those who would not give up their Jewish customs and traditions, which I will elaborate on further in Chapter Seven of this Manual.

A closing thought about Israel’s evangel and their commission for the Kingdom on earth.

After Christ was resurrected, He met with the eleven and other disciples in the mountain and told them. “He would be with them until the conclusion of the eon” Matthew 28:20 This is of course still a future promise for after Christ returns. Christ will then have arrived for the second time. But the eon Christ is referring to is the next eon, which has in it the 1000 years reign of Christ. Those who were listening to Him then are now dead, sleeping in the dust, waiting to be raised after His advent in the raising of the “just” class. He will be with them throughout that eon, they will be ruling and reigning with Him from Jerusalem on this earth. The words of Jesus at Matthew 28:19,20 are prophetic for the Kingdom eon or age after His advent. They understood this and this is why they never baptized in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” They continued to baptize in the name of Jesus, using John’s baptism for repentance. Bullinger makes some interesting notes on this future baptism. He points out “it says in the name of…which is singular…and not names of as plural, as of three individuals. The name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the One God.” Also, in that time period. Israel will be evangelizing the nations of the world, fulfilling Matthew 24:14 These will be Gentiles, not needing Johns baptism but the new baptism will be fitting for Gentiles as they come to know God in the person of the Son, Christ and they will also be witnesses of the Holy Spirit’s power as it will be operative with signs and miracles, bringing them to faith and their Creator.

A. E. Knoch points out in his commentary on this passage in Matthew 28:18-20 “This account is principally concerned with the rejection of the kingdom. How fitting that it should close with a preview of its establishment in the coming eon! The place is significant. Satan took Him to a high mountain to show Him the kingdoms of the earth. The transformation was on a mountain. The place speaks of His exaltation. This will not be realized until He comes in glory. He has not yet taken His great power. Revelation 11:17 The apostles never went out to all nations. On the contrary, Peter was opposed when he went to the proselyte Cornelius. Acts 11:3 They never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They used the titles of Christ intelligently when they baptized. They used “Jesus Christ” in baptizing Israelites, “Lord Jesus” for the Samaritans Acts 8:16 They never used “Christ Jesus” the title of His present heavenly glory. They never used the formula here given because they knew that it was reserved for the future kingdom proclamation. They never discipled the nations as such. The Lord was not with them till the conclusion of that eon, but left them soon after, when He ascended. This commission cannot be carried out until His return in power and glory to bless all nations through His people Israel.” That will be the next eon, in which the Messianic Kingdom of Christ will rule on earth.

JURISDICTION & THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT

July 8, 2014

The following is taken from the Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXVII, 1932-1924 with my comments in brackets if any. This is not the complete Review but only portions.

The Federal Judiciary of September 24, 1789, was Senate Bill No. 1, in the First Session of the First Congress. No adequate account of this famous legislation has ever been written; and Ellsworth’s latest able and careful biographer stated in 1905 that “no complete history of the bill, can now be written.” [The authors go on to say that the original draft and bills have been found since that statement in 1905] The disclosure of this new evidence now makes it possible, by comparison with the statute as finally enacted, to write, for the first time, an accurate history of the progress of the Act through the Congress, and of the variations of the final Act from the original Draft Bill. Such a comparison reveals certain legal and historical surprises, and makes it certain that Madison was wrong in stating, in 1836 (when he was eighty five years of age and probably of failing memory), that “it was not materially changed in its passage into a law.” William Garret Brown stated “There is enough in the Journals of the two Houses and in the debates of the House of Representatives to sustain Madison’s impression that it went through without any radical change.” The new facts disprove this statement.

Four of the great changes may be particularly mentioned at this point. First, it appears that the United States District and Circuit Courts were intended to take jurisdiction over common law crimes, instead of being confined to crimes specifically defined by Congress, as the Draft Bill when introduced provided, and as later erroneously held by the courts. Second, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in controversies between citizens of different States was made far more restrictive than the Draft Bill intended. Third,– a surprising feature –The Draft Bill contained no such provision as was contained in the much litigated Section 34 of the Act, which provided that “the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” [Do you have that, they did not exist. Who and why did they put them there?] This Section 34 was inserted as a Senate Amendment. Fourth — a fact of still greater consequence — it is apparent, from the manner in which the original draft of this Senate amendment constituting Section 34 was altered by its proposer before its proposal, that the word “laws” in this Section 34 was not intended to be confined to “statute laws,” as Judge Story held in the famous case of Swift v Tyson, but was intended to include the common law of the State as well as the statute law. Had Judge Story seen this original draft of the amendment, it is almost certain that his decision would have been the reverse of what it was. All these points are discussed at greater length later on in this article.

In view of these new sources of information, it seems that a revised history of the Judiciary Act is warranted, since knowledge of the additions, subtractions, deletions and amendments relating to the original draft may possibly afford assistance to Federal Courts in future interpretations of the Act. [People, they do not want to change it for to do so would overturn every case based on the Judiciary Act including Swift v Tyson and the Erie case]

[Rather than going into all 83 pages I will point out one flaw that about which no one in the patriot community has any idea and neither do 98 percent of the lawyers, A.K.A. Judges, etc, etc.

Section 10 of the Draft Bill (Section 9 of the Act) relating to the jurisdiction of the District Courts was changed in several important features. No one of all the changes in the Draft Bill was more significant than the following. The Draft Bill gave to the District Courts, “cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States and defined by the laws of the same.” The italicized words make it clear that the framers of the Bill meant to confine criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by Congress, and to them only. In Other words, the framers clearly intended to exclude the Federal Courts from jurisdiction over common law crimes, and crimes under the law of nations. It will be recalled that, for many years after the passage of the Act, there was a heated political contest between the Federalist and the Jeffersonian parties as to whether the Federal Courts possessed such jurisdiction — a contest finally decided in the negative, as urged by the Jeffersonians, supported by the authority of the Federalist Judge, Samuel Chase. Yet many eminent Judges and lawyers maintained at the outset and continued long to maintain, that such jurisdiction over crimes at common law and under the law of nations was intended to be vested in the Federal Courts. It is a singular thing that no one appears to have investigated or cited the action of Congress on the original Draft Bill; for such action would seem to afford the strongest argument in favor of such a jurisdiction. It now appears, on comparison of the Draft Bill with the Act as passed, that by an amendment introduced in and adopted by the Senate, the restrictive clause–” and defined by the laws of the same” – was deliberately stricken out, thus leaving the District Courts with jurisdiction over crimes “cognizable under the authority of the United States,” without any limitation. The only rational meaning that can be given to this action striking out the restrictive words is, that Congress did not intend to limit criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by it. Had the Supreme Court consulted these Senate Files, it is probable that the decisions in United States v. Hudson,(55) in I812, and United States v. Coolidge,(56) in I816, might have been otherwise than they were.

55 7 Cranch (U.S.) 32 (1812). 56 1 Wheat. (U.S.) 415 (I816).

The jurisdiction of the District Courts contained in the Draft Bill was increased by the Senate by adding the words: “and shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the Courts of the several States of all suits against consuls, or vice consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.” (57),

An interesting addition to the District Court jurisdiction was made by another amendment. The Draft Bill gave “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable by the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas.” In view of the extreme fears expressed by opponents of the Federal system lest the right of jury trial should ‘be impaired, the jurisdiction thus granted to the District Courts, in the clause beginning with the words “including all seizures,” was extraordinary. For in England, the admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to such “seizures under laws of import, navigation or trade,” which, consequently, were triable, in that country, in a common law Court by a jury. Although in some of the Colonies, trials of such cases had been had in the Colonial Admiralty Courts without jury, it seems curious that the framers of this Bill should have deliberately included such cases of seizure within the admiralty jurisdiction of the new Federal Courts and should thus have deliberately enlarged the scope of such Courts and consequently the scope of trials without jury, beyond the scope then existent in England. But such was the effect of the phraseology of this portion of the Act, as the Supreme Court later held, Judge Samuel Chase saying that “the reason for putting seizures of this kind in admiralty side of the Court was the great danger to the revenue if such cases should be left to the caprice of juries “–a rather insufficient explanation, in view of the insistence on jury trial shown by the Congress throughout other portions of the Act. [As I have always said any revenue case of any nature be it IRS, driver license etc. is all admiralty and maritime in nature. Maybe now some of the skeptics will believe me if they haven’t already read Matthew P Benders, Benedict on Admiralty and the numerous cases I have cited in the past, which again you will see in the footnotes. I have maintained that State courts had admiralty jurisdiction but many a lawyer argued against me on this so now they eat crow by reading this from The Harvard Law Review. Here is an excerpt from “Benedict on Admiralty” –
.7-22 SOURCE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION 109

…….. maritime legislation generally.(6) The Constitution, however, is a document which must be construed as a whole and it has always been interpreted(7) as investing the paramount legislative power in the Congress whether such power was sought to be derived from one or other of the express powers above mentioned, or as a necessary concomittant of and inherent in the grant of the judicial power.
“Commentators took that view, Congress acted on it, and the Courts including this Court [the Supreme Court] gave effect to it. Practically, therefore, the situation is as if that view were written into the provision.”(8) This interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.(9) in these words:

“Article III, Section 2, cl. 1 (3d provision) of the Constitution and section 9 of the Act of September 24, 1789, have from the beginning been the sources of jurisdiction in litigation based upon federal maritime law. Article III impliedly contained three grants. (1) It empowered Congress to confer admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the ‘Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court’ which were authorized by Art. I, Section 8, cl. 9. (2) It empowered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, to draw on the substantive law ‘inherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 LEd. 598 (1956), and to continue the development of this law within constitutional limits. (3) It empowered Congress to revise and supplement the maritime law within the limits of the Constitution. See Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 55.

“Section 9 of the First Judiciary Act granted the District Courts maritime jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has remained unchanged in substance to the present day.”

When the Constitution was adopted, the existing maritime law became the law of the United States subject to the power in Congress to modify or supplement it as experience or changing conditions might require. Congress thus has the paramount and undisputed power to fix, determine, alter and revise the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country; and federal statutes, if constitutional, are paramount to any judicially fashioned rules of admiralty.H
Whatever may be necessary to the complete exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is in the covenant of the Union, and Congress may pass all laws which are necessary and
(6) Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917), is perhaps the only case which relies solely on the combination of the granting of judicial power and the eighteenth power of Article 1, section 8 as general authority to legislate in respect of maritime law.

(7) Detroit Trust Co. v. Steamer Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 55 S. Ct. 31, 79 L. Ed. 176 (1934); Panama Railroad Co. v. Andrew Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 718, 1924 A.M.C. 554 (1924).
(8) Panama Railroad Co. v. AndrewJohnson, N. 7, supra.
(9) Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 79 S. Ct. 468, 3 L. Ed. 2d 368, 1959 A.M.C. 832 (1959).

(10) Waring v. Clarke, 48 U.S. (5 How.) 441, 12 L. Ed. 226 (1847); The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558, 22 L. Ed. 654 (1875); Butler v. Boston & S.S.S.C., 130 U.S. 527, 9 S. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017 (1889); Ex parte (jarneff, 141 U.S. 1, 11 S. Ct. 840, 35 L. Ed. 631 (1891); The Hamilton (Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore), 207 U.S. 398, 28 S. Ct. 133, 52 L. Ed. 264 (1907); Atlantic Transp. Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52, 34 S. Ct. 733, 58 L. Ed. 1208 (1914); Southern P. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 40 S. Or. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834 (1920); Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 44 S. or. 302, 68 L. Ed. 646 (1924); Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748 (1924); Crowell v. Bensen, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S. Ct. 285, 76 L. Ed. 598 (1932); U.S.v. Flores, 289 U.S. 131, 53 S. Ct. 580, 77 L. Ed. 1086, 933 A.M.C. 649 (1933); Detroit Trust Go. v. Steamer Thomas Barlure, N. 7, supra; Swanson v. Marra Bros., 328 U.S. 1, 66 S. Ct. 869, 90 L. Ed. 1045 (1946). In Panama Ry. Co. v. Johnson, supra, the court said, “[T]here are boundaries to the maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction which inhere in those subjects and cannot be altered by legislation …” The limitation refers to Congress’ power to alter admiralty jurisdiction, not to the substantive law. Lucas v. “Brinkness” Schiffahrts (]es. Franz Lange, 387 F. Supp. 440, 1975 A.M.C. 1684 (E.D. Pa. 1974), appeal dismissed, (3d Cir. April 30, 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 866 (1975). Congress may not bring under the jurisdiction of the federal admiralty court a completely land-based accident or transaction, or remove from admiralty jurisdiction those types of accidents which occur on navigable waters.
(11) Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co., 301 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1962); and see Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 75 S. Ct. 368, 99 L. Ed. 337 (1955).

[and for those that say Driver laws are not maritime read this from Benedict, it tells you something without an-in- your-face description under the chapter Maritime Crimes]
9-34 MARITIME CRIMES § 114

the recent Supreme Court decision of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, (a) in which the majority of the Court concluded that the action of customs officials in boarding and stopping a vessel without any “reasonable suspicion of a law violation” was indeed “reasonable” and consequently not violative of the fourth amendment. The Court articulated several factors upon which it based its decision:

1.19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which authorizes customs officers to examine the manifest and other documents and papers by hailing and stopping the vessel is a “lineal ancestor” to section 31 of the Act of August 4, 1790, ch. 35, i Stat. 145, in which the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels. This fact naturally led the Court to conclude that such boardings do not run afoul of the fourth amendment;
2. While random stops of automobiles away from borders are not allowable under the protections of the fourth amendment, stops at fixed checkpoints or at roadblocks are allowable. However, where commerce at sea provides clear access to the open waters and is quite different from highway traffic, alternative methods of searching vessels which differ from the “stop” approach are less likely to accomplish the government’s objective of deterring criminal activity;
3. The system of marking automobiles utilized by the states is considerably less complex than the types of documentation and external marking that the federal government requires for vessels at sea. Indeed, the government has a substantial interest in making sure that the vessel documentation requirements are complied with, especially where there is a great need to frustrate and apprehend smugglers.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the intrusion made in vessel search cases might not realistically be termed “minimal, “it is indeed “limited” when balanced against the “substantial” state interest involved.
As a practical matter, most border searches are conducted pursuant to informer’s tips and the instinct of the experienced customs official in discerning nervousness in a suspected traveller. If probable cause or proof of the reliability of an informer were a necessary pre-requisite to customs searches, protection of the national borders would be difficult if not impossible without a more sophisticated surveillance system than is now used. While the search of a person’s body is not specifically contemplated by the present statutes authorizing border [also see 19 U.S.C. 482].

Back to Harvard Law Review
But while jurisdiction over such seizures on the seas was given by the Draft Bill to the District Courts sitting in admiralty, no jurisdiction over seizures by the Federal Government made elsewhere than on the high seas was vested in any Federal Court, and hence such cases were left entirely to the State Courts. (59) The Senate, however, now added greatly to the scope of Federal jurisdiction by inserting the following words: “and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.”(6o) These cases, however, were not included within the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court, but were left as suits at common law to be tried by a jury.

The anxiety to preserve the right of jury trial was shown by the insertion by the Senate, at the end of Section 9 of the Act: “and the trial of issues in (sic) fact in the District Court, in all causes, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.” (61) An amendment, drafted by Maclay, and favored by Grayson and Bassett, to provide that” no District Judge shall give a vote in any case of appeal or error from his own decision, but may assign the reason of such his decision,” was adopted by the Senate(62)

Section 10 of the Act was a new Section, introduced by the Senate in order to make special provision as to Federal Courts
(58) See The Vengeance, 3 Dall. (U.S.) 297 (1796); United States v. Schooner Sally,: Cranch (U.S.) 406 (1805); United States v. Schooner Betsy, 4 Cranch (U.S.) 443 (1808); Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch (U.S.) 112 (1812:); Ship Octavia, I Wheat. (U.S.) 20 (I816); Woodbury, J., dissenting, Waring v. Clarke, S How. (U.S.) 441, 483 {1847); The Eagle, 8 Wall. (U.S.) I5 (1869). See I Kent, Comm, 367. See also R. W. Greene, arguing in New Jersey Steam Nav.. Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. (U.S.) 344, 376 (I848), and see Daniel, J’., dissenting, ibid., 409, 414.
(59) See The Sarah, 8 Wheat. (U.S.) 391 (I823).

(60) This amendment, in the Senate Files, is probably in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(61)See Senate Files.. The Draft Bill had a clause substantially the same (but which was not broad enough, after the Senate had decided to insert its Amendments to Section 9) as follows: “And the trial of facts in both cases last mentioned shall be by jury.” It is to be noted that the District Court was given no equity powers. United States v. Nourse, 6 Pet. (U.S.) 470, 496 (I832).
(62) : See MaClay July 7.

[You will love this next section for those that argue you are a non citizen. You can use the federal courts and bring up this information from Harvard.]

The chief and only real reason for this diverse citizenship jurisdiction was to afford a tribunal in which a foreigner or citizen of another State might have the law administered free from the local prejudices or passions which might prevail in a State Court against foreigners or non-citizens. The Federal Court was to secure to a non-citizen the application of the same law’ which a State Court would give to its own citizens, and to see that within a State there should be no discrimination against a-citizens in the application of justice(79) There is not a trace any other purpose than the above to be found in any of the amendments made in I787-I789 as to this jurisdiction. The idea that a Federal Court in a State was to administer any other than the law of that State or were to discriminate in favor of a non-citizen, and against a citizen, or to administer law as an :entirely free and independent tribunal, never appears to have entered the mind of any one. But to make it perfectly certain that the Federal Courts were simply to administer State law, (79) Marshall, C. J., in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (U.S.) 87 (i8o9): “The judicial department was introduced into the American Constitution under impressions, and with views, which are too apparent not to perceived by all. However true the fact may be, that the tribunals of the States will administer justice as impartially as those of the Nation, to parties of every description, it is not less true that the Constitution itself either entertains apprehensions on this subject, or views with such indulgence the possible’ fears apprehensions of suitors, that it has established National tribunals for the decision of controversies between aliens and a citizen, or between citizens of different States.” Wayne, .]’., in Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. (U.S.) 33I, 354 55): “The foundation of the right of citizens of different States to sue each other in the Courts of the United States, is not an unworthy jealousy of the impartiality of the State tribunals. It was a higher aim and purpose. It is to make the people think and feel, though residing in different States of the Union, their relations to each other were protected by the strictest justice, administered in Courts independent of all local control or connection with the subject matter of the controversy between the parties to a suit.” Pitney, J’., in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 46I, 478 (1915): it “was established for the very purpose of avoiding the influence of local opinion.” Bradley, J, in Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20, 34 (1882): its object ,” to institute independent tribunals which it might be supposed would be unaffected by local prejudices and sectional views…. “

See Curtis, J., dissenting in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (U.S.) 393, 580 (1856): “Its purpose was to extend the judicial power to those controversies into which local feelings or interests might so enter as to disturb the course of justice, give rise to suspicions that they had done so, and thus possibly give occasion jealousy or ill will between different States. . .”
End footnotes.

the Senate amended the Draft Bill by adding Section 34, which in its final form read as follows: “The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States in cases where they apply.” Unquestionably the addition of this Section was intended to remove the objections of those who had opposed the Constitution and which had been expressed in 1787 by a prominent Massachusetts man as follows:

“Causes of all kinds between citizens of different States are to be tried before a Continental Court. The Court is not bound to try it according to the local laws where the controversies happen; for in that case it may as well be tried in the State Court. The rule which is to govern the new Courts must therefore be made by the Court itself, or by its employees, the Congress …. Congress, therefore, have the right to make rules for trying all kinds of questions relating to property between citizens of different States …. The right to appoint such Courts necessarily involves in it the right of defining their powers and determining the rules by which their judgment shall be regulated… It is vain to tell us that a maxim of common law required contracts to be determined by the law existing where the contract was made; for it is also a maxim that the Legislature has the right to alter the common law.” (80)
[Isn’t that nice, Congress can change the common law and you people traded one King for another that is worse because the King could not change common law like Congress can. This is why the anti-federalist was so dead set against a Congress and their con-stitution. Just think, you elect these same criminals year after year and is it any wonder they will not respond to Schultz or anyone else? They are god]
Until Judge Story, in 1842, in Swift v. Tyson,81 decided that the word “laws” in this section did not include the “common law” of the State, and that the Federal Courts in a State were free to decide questions of general commercial law for them-selves, it had never been held that there was even any doubt about the matter. The sole object for which this jurisdiction is vested in the Federal Courts, Judge Johnson had said in 1820, “is to secure to all the administration of justice upon the same principles upon which it is administered between citizens of the same State.” The object, Chief Justice Taney had said in 1838, “was to make the rules of decisions in the Courts of the United States, the same with those of ‘the States, taking care to preserve (80) ,, Letters of Agrippa ,, (James Winthrop), Massachusetts Gazette, Dec. 11, 14, I787. (81) 16 Pet. (U.S.) 1 (I842). the rights of the United States by the exception contained in the same Section …. Justice to citizens of the several States required this to be done.” If this was so, then as has been said, Judge Story’s construction was “hardly possible, unless the purpose of the provision is ignored “; (82) but Story’s decision has been affirmed and extended by the Supreme Court from 1842 to the present day, with the result that, as to a large class of cases, that which was feared in 1787 has virtually taken place.(83) [ In other words, we, the men and woman in the states have been screwed if you haven’t already realized this.] The application of Story’s doctrine has resulted in the total reversal of the purposes for which Sections 11 and 34 were originally enacted. Diverse citizenship jurisdiction in the Federal Courts now, in many cases, instead of preventing a discrimination against a non-citizen, results in discrimination in their favor and against the citizen; and instead of making one law for all in a State, makes different law for citizen and non-citizen.

It now appears from an examination of the Senate Files, however, that if Judge Story and the Court had had recourse to those Files in preparing the decision in Swift v. Tyson, it is highly probable that the decision would have been different. and that the word “laws” in Section 34 would have been construed to include the common law of a State as well as the statute law. This conclusion will probably be reached by anyone who examines the original slip of paper on which the amendment containing Section 34 was written, and which is, with little doubt, . in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(82) J.. B. Heiske, “Conflict between Federal and State Decisions.” 16 Am. L. Rev. 743, 747. “It remained for Mr. Justice Story to construe ‘ laws ‘ as ‘ statute laws,’ and so to defeat a great part of the object contemplated by the Constitution. If the reason for the grant of jurisdiction had been kept in view, it is inconceivable that such a construction could have been adopted.” GEORGE WHARTON ‘PEPPER, THE BORDERLAND OF FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS. See also William Trickett, “The Non-Federal Law Administered in Federal Courts,” 40 Am. L. Rev. 819.

(83) As an example of this, see the long line of municipal bond cases, in which the Federal Courts administer the law in one way in favor of a non-citizen, and the State Courts the law in another way, in favor of a citizen. “It is to be observed that the parties were to have been put on terms of equality- a construction which favors a non-resident brings about an evil as great as that which exists when bias is exerted in favor of a resident. A construction which makes a common carrier liable to non-residents in cases where it is not liable to residents brings about a state of affairs as unjust as if the reverse of that condition were true.” GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER,supra
[Not so today people – we are discriminated to the hilt, citizen and non citizen, to satisfy the fascist government, of which it truly is when looking at the private banking cartel operating the country via its purse strings. Then there are all the other corporations like the phone companies, drug companies etc etc. that actually make and collect taxes that the government cannot legally impose. Read the Cases of Importance on the atgpress web page to see what I mean as only one example. Do pull this Harvard Law Review and read and weep as you go along as there are 83 pages to read containing so much more info that you have to rethink and redo all your beliefs in the courts, and always remember the constitution was for them and not you. They just like you to think that so you can slide right into their trap when saying “I want my constitutional rights”. Well there are no constitutional rights and never have been, so your words are what kill your arguments. Your so-called “constitutional rights are mere privileges that a subject is given and called a right. The constitution is a charter of corporate powers, nothing more, nothing less, and it tells them what they can do and what they can’t do. And for them to have power over you, you must concede to their jurisdiction and you do by mouthing those mythical words “I want my constitutional rights,” for only subjects of the Corporate board can have anything to say on “constitutional (privileges) Rights.” That United States, is only Congress assembled and does not mean the executive or judiciary departments. That they are, departments of Congress Assembled. That’s why the Judiciary did not write the 1789 Judiciary Act, Congress did and you see it in the Harvard Law Review. One final thing I have to say on Admiralty and Revenue and that is for you to pull two cases that flat out states IRS revenue matters are based on Maritime.

They are United States v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. 0C66W145329 347, Federal Rules Decisions 564. Head note #1 states “Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7323 (a); 40 U.S.C.A. § 304i; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 55 and (c), 60 and (b), 81(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Admiralty Rules 2, 10, 21, 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1355″

And this case;
United States of America v ONE 1966 CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK et al. Civ. A. No. 526 cited at 56 Federal Rules Decision 459 where in they state the controlling laws are, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) §§ 7325 (3); Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A, C (4,6), 28 U.S.C.A..; Federal Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b) (1,2) Fed. Rules, Civ Proc. Rules 55 (b), (1,2), 60, 28 U.S.C.A.
Yes, Title 28 is totally based on Admiralty and is the admiralty law Title for the Congress to operate under their 1789 Judiciary Act and the process is Civil, when you are hit with a “Revenue crime”. Now how many knew that revenue crimes are a Civil Matter? You have a lot to learn dear reader.

As Always The Informer June 1, 2003

How the government got you in its clutches, slave

July 8, 2014

You did it to yourself through citizenship that you claimed because you were told to be a citizen all your life by the public fools system, or what they call the public school system.

Little known to most people, but practiced every day in the public fool system by the children, till they knew it by heart is the pledge of allegiance. At all ceremonies outside the school people recite the pledge of allegiance by rote and frown on anyone near by that don’t. It is so ingrained in the people, I call them slaves, and rightly so. To be polite, you/they are servants of the Master no doubt about that.

I had written many articles on atgpress on why, but very few heed what is written and yet they still whine and complain and say how they (government) can do that to us because we have God given rights, that they can’t do that. MY and I cap MY, for a reason. It’s MY (your) constitution because I (past lineage) created government and we are the rulers. Well sadly that myth has been fostered on us by those in power and no “we” did not create any government nor did the people ever create any written document called a constitution and I do go into that in atgpress articles. I made it more evident in my book called “The New History of America”. The last article I wrote on citizenship had reference to allegiance. I will wager that went right over peoples’ heads whether educated or not. It’s not something people have in the back of their minds. Well let me say that it is a big deal and should be in the back of every ones minds. Here is an article that came across the Internet today that will bring into perspective what you are about to read from Black’s Law 2 nd Ed. The small portion of the government propaganda from Statement of Nathan J. Hochman, Tax Division’s Assistant Attorney General, Announcing Creation of the National Tax Defier Initiative WASHINGTON April 8, 2008- are these few sentences—130 million Americans voluntarily engage in this ritual every year. These individuals participate because they know that with the privileges (what privileges?) that the United States has given them come the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ saying states it best: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

Now how did you get privileges and where did those God given right go? Well we shall see below what you did to yourself. Now if you will, find the passage in the bible where the people wanted a King and the Lord, who was their King said; if you leave me and cling to a King I cannot help you . Or close to that. He said you can’t have two Masters, it’s Me or Mammon. What did the Lord Almighty want? He wanted Allegiance. That’s it, plain and simple. So let’s see why you no longer have any “God given rights” you claim to have, right from the government’s own Law book and if you don’t think so, you are sadly mistaken. I do highlight these words that enslave you and the god given rights you tossed out the window when taking away allegiance to the Lord and gave it to your new master, willingly I might add. And if this WAS REALLY a Christian Nation, why did we give up total allegiance to the Lord Almighty and let a bunch of Mammon creates a new religion, give it a constitution and say Join us as we are your new savior. Give us the allegiance when becoming a member of our church and we will give you all the privileges (because we can’t give you rights the Lord gave you, under their breath) that you will ever need and protect you, but it will bear a huge cost laid upon you. We will create so many laws you won’t know what to do when we attack you for wanting out of your slavery you so willing entered into that our con job which we wrote won’t help you out of your willing slavery in your total allegiance we request of you.

Blacks Law 2 nd Edition
ALLEGIANCE . By allegiance Is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence . Carlisle v. U. S. , 16 Wall. 154, 21 L. Ed. 426; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 191; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 501.
“The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen." ] 1 Bl. Comm. 366. It consists in “a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign.” 7 Coke, 4&. Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the state. Pol. Code Cal. § 55.

In Norman French. Alleviation; relief; redress. Kelham.

— Local allegiance. That measure of obedience which is due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident.—

Natural allegiance. In English law. That kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king’s dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. 1 Bl. Comm. 369; 2 Kent, Oomni. 42.

In American law. The allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law . 2 Kent , Comm. 43—49. It differs from local allegiance, which is temporary only, being due from an alien or stranger born for so long a time as he continues within the sovereign’s dominions and protection. Fost. Cr. Law, 184.

Now do you all see how you are mere slaves, serfs, subjects, whatever you want to call yourselves? Your questions are all answered here. Now all the religions and their preachers are in on this because they all know we were supposed to owe complete allegiance to the Lord Almighty and none other. That’s why the preachers are serving the state and mammon with being false preachers that The Lord mentioned in the Bible. No one reading this is then a true Christian despite your rants and raves you are. If you have a Constitution, if you created government, if you are a citizen of the State or United States, then you are not a citizen of the household of the Lord Eph 2-19, and abide by His Laws, are you? To whom do you owe allegiance, The Lord or the master called the US or state? Don’t you say you are a citizen of so and so state even if you don’t claim US citizenship? Well let me tell you the states are mere territories of the United States and as such it makes no difference you owe no allegiance to the Lord Almighty. Don’t believe me? Try renouncing very publicly your allegiance to either State or United States and see what happens as stated in Black’s definitions above. Don’t they say “ which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law .”

The Informer April 2008

Contrary to all beliefs that you, the slave, yes you are still in bondage to the original corporation your corporate citizenship is based on. Your corporate citizenship was determined by Treaty of 1783 and other treaties. After reading the words of this treaty document, which by the way is well over 1400 pages, you can see why slaves/subjects/serfs/citizen classification of man and woman are not sovereign and never were, even under Roman law. I say this because being a corporate citizen is subject of the actions of corporate sovereigns, law makers, internationalists that make international agreements.

The evidence found in these documents such as the Treaty of 1783 was violated by both the United States and Britain and required the 1792 Jay Treaty to compensate for the breach of the contract ( Treaty) and that was also breached by both parties. Even that did not work and hence the Treaties were absolved and the Secret Treaty of Varona came into play as the controlling Treaty affecting all of us. So much for believing that you, the man and woman, were ever sovereign and that you created this god forsaken criminal organization passing itself off as “your government”.

If you can obtain this document you will learn a lot about your slavery and why they ( so called government) want you to accept citizenship status as all debtors in possession having no rights and no claim to any land as you are all tenants on the land expected to pay all debts they cause/create/establish. You see what I mean Brian? the point is if we are the people of the people by the people, why have we bee standing in the opposite legal position of that status ever since these treaties supposedly settled the Kings hash back then? Citizens are slaves no sovereigns. Now we have a crime scene here, we have perps, my point I’ve tried to get across to you is the investigation cannot stop with the thugs you see at the crime scene, we have to connect them to the rest of the syndicate so to speak or those orchestrating these crimes get off scott free. They left a legal paper trail in all of their international agreements.

The reason it is important to comprehend the real history behind all of this deception, say from the Concession of King John of 1213 to the Pope forward through all of the international agreements at least to the end of the constitutional convention is because once we know the truth of what is taking place before our eyes, we lose the anger. We find some peace of mind.

America never stopped being a British Colony and those documents prove it. I really dig LAW LIBRARIES because its all in there.

THE ROTHSCHILDS PAPAL KNIGHTS OF ROME

July 8, 2014

For those who doubt the balance of power between the Rothschilds, British Royalty and; the Papacy, I have compiled the following collection of information showing verifiable Papal & Royal knighthoods bestowed on the Rothschilds. These do not include any deduced or hearsay knighthoods. Note that in the Grand scheme of things these knighthoods are not even from the most elite of such orders, e.g. the Garter or the Bath to name but two. I would draw your attention to the two following articles which reveal many of the covert connections in European (and; thus international) finance, politics, military and; intelligence. These give a taste of the extent of influence of Catholic and; Papal-loyal elites, including knighthood orders such as the SMOM (Knights of Malta) and; Franco-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order. The Venetian & Genoese aristocracy and; their so called Black Nobility descendants are given some context here too:

** Italy’s Black Prince: Terror War Against the Nation-State

** Le Cercle and the Struggle for the European Continent

There are other good sources that touch on the Vatican’s wealth, including David Yallop’s “In God’s Name” (which is by no means an anti-Catholic polemic). How anyone can think that the Rothschilds are the pinnacle of power is beyond me. Very powerful? Yes. The mind behind the all-seeing eye? No way. We have to look much deeper beyond these Kabbalistically-minded businessmen. While not wishing to diminish the truth about their influence, we must keep things in perspective.Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, former head of the now British Rothschild banking interests (now united with the French Rothschild banking interests & overseen since 2003 by David René de Rothschild) being interviewed on intelligence-controlled television & his son David Mayer de Rothschild on the Alex Jones radio show? Hilarious. Evelyn de Rothschild US & UK TV interviews, late 2008:

** Evelyn de Rothschild U.K. Interview 2008

Watch the end of the latter one for some humour. The English interviewer was most pleased with his encounter! David Mayer de Rothschild interviewed by Alex “C.I.A. asset, Jesuit Coadjutor” Jones on the matter of Live Earth concert, which event took place on the Kabbalistically-significant 7/7/07:

** Alex Jones – David Mayer De Rothschild Interview

The Jesuit Superior-General Adolfo Nicolas, Pope Benedict XVI, SMOM Grand Master Matthew Festing, Constantinian Grand Masters the Duke of Castro & Duke of Calabria, Queen Elizabeth II: would any of them lower themselves in this manner? No chance. Most people have only heard about the Pope & the Queen out of that lot. They make fork-tongued speeches for the Profane to accept on face value. Evelyn de Rothschild was invested as a Knight in 1989, though not of any Order that I have been able to find. This would mean that he is a Knight Bachelor. Some conspiracy sites state that he is a Knight of the British Empire, however I have only been able to confirm that his dynastic cousin Lord Jacob is a knight of that order:

** Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild

** Knight Bachelor

Lord Jacob (the 4th Baron) Rothschild was made a Member of the Queen’s Order of Merit (personally selected & bestowed by the Monarch, this is directly below the rank of Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath in terms of honour) in 2002 & Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1998. Note that his title of Baron Rothschild is a UK title going back to 1885. He is also – & perhaps confusingly – the 5th Baronet Rothschild, a UK title going back to 1847 & the current Baron von Rothschild, an Austrian Empire title dating back to 1822. We should also note that in 1985 he was made a Commander of the Order of Henry the Navigator of Portugal:

** Sir Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild

His father Lord Victor (the 3rd Baron) Rothschild was made a Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire in 1975 & was also a Knight of the Queen’s Order of St John:

** Sir Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild

The Queen, as Sovereign of the Order of St John (& of the Order of Sts Michael & George, which just recently bestowed an Honorary Knighthood on Jesuit/Vatican asset & Freemason Shimon Peres) is the head of a franchise of the Pope’s Order of Malta, the SMOM. Thus she is a Dame of Malta. As the Rothschilds defer to Queen, so do they both defer to the Papacy & ultimately to the Jesuit General. For good databases of Sir Evelyn & Lord Jacob’s (& Lord Victor’s) New World Order-related connections, see:

** Lord Jacob Rothschild (and his father Victor)Sir Evelyn de Rothschild

There is also a bio for the French Baron Edmond de Rothschild there:

** Baron Edmond de Rothschild

The current Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has no such honours & nor does his cousin David Mayer de Rothschild, nor does the united French & British Rothschilds banking head David René de Rothschild. And nor have any of their other respective paternal ancestors other than those listed above, as far as my research has turned up:

** Check (1)

** Check (2)

** Check (3)

Note that the Great Great Great Great (yes, that’s four Greats!) Grandfather of Lord Jacob Rothschild & the Great Great Great Grandfather of Sir Evelyn & David René de Rothschild – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, was made an Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) Crown Agent in 1800:

** Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Evelyn de Rothschild’s Grandfather Leopold de Rothschild was invested as a Commander, Royal Victorian Order (C.V.O.) in 1902. Leopold’s brother Sir Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the Great Grandfather of Lord Jacob Rothschild, was invested as a Knight Grand Cross, Royal Victorian Order (G.C.V.O.), also in 1902. Leopold & Nathan Mayer’s parents were Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild and Charlotte de Rothschild. Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was senior partner of NM Rothschild and Sons in 1836.

** Leopold de Rothschild

** Sir Nathan Mayer de Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild

** Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild

Lionel Nathan’s father was – confusingly – another Nathan Mayer & the son of Mayer Amschel. This Nathan Mayer was the ancestor of both Sir Evelyn & Lord Jacob. His brother (another of the original (in)famous five sons of Mayer Amschel) Jame Mayer was the ancestor of David René de Rothschild. I will note here that at the bottom of this focus on the Rothschilds I have selected some career & business-related information from Wikipedia to get some up-to-date, mainstream information on the prominent Rothschilds to use as a quick comparison of one family member with another & for comparing with more conspiracy-orientated material. Now for some bankers information more directly related to the American side of things, note that US financial magnate J.P. Morgan (who escaped death by not going on the Titanic that he was booked to travel on) died appropriately enough in Rome & was a Knight of the Papal-loyal House of Savoy’s Order of Sts Maurice & Lazarus:

** J.P. Morgan

** Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus

And of course, from 1918 J.P. Morgan, Jr’s lawyer & frontman Elihu Root headed the club that became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, which Root was a leading member of & it is of course no surprise that J.P. Morgan’s Chief Counsel was the first C.F.R. President:

** Morgan and Rockefeller involvement

** Download Book – The Vatican Billions For Free

** Excerpt From “Does the Vatican Hold Your Mortgage?” by William Thomas

The Fed gets its orders from the Queen Mum of All Banks, the Bank of England – aka, the Bank of Rothschild. Considered by many to be the world’s most powerful institution – the power behind all presidencies, dictatorships and thrones – does the Bank of England answer to any other bank? Well, yes, actually. The Bank of Rome began opening branch offices in Venice in 1587. Bank of Rome = Vatican Bank controlled by the Jesuit General, aka the “Black” (hidden, shadowy) Pope. The Jesuit’s Bank of Rome opened its Bank of England branch in 1694. The first bank to be named after a country, the Bank of England had nothing to do with the British government – except to own it through privately held, interest-compounded debt. Unaccountable to either the Queen or Parliament, the misleadingly labeled “Bank of England” finances the throne, the British prime minister, parliament and much of the planet out of “The City” located in central London. All major British banks have their main offices in this “Square Mile” – as well as 70 U.S. banks. Throw in the London Stock Exchange, Lloyd’s of London, the Baltic Exchange (shipping), Fleet Street (publishing and newspapers), the London Commodity and Metal exchanges – and you are looking at Earth’s financial axis. (Descent into Slavery) The City operates as a sovereign state, just like the Vatican. Since 1820, the Rothschilds have traditionally chosen The City’s Lord Mayor. Back in the USA, as author Eric Phelps explained in an interview just before publication of his secrecy-shredding Vatican Assassins, (which was held up to include corrections by sympathetic Jesuits) – the Vatican’s Black Robes “own and control” the Federal Reserve Bank “by proxy, through the Knights of Malta, with their various trusts and so on. They never own anything outright; they always own it through a trusted third party.” … “All roads do lead to Rome … We have the Federal Reserve begat by the Bank of England begat by the Bank of Rome. Similarly, the Bank of Canada is an offspring of the Bank of England, which in turn is a child of the Bank of Rome – aka, the Vatican Bank. And the Vatican, as everyone “knows” is run by the CNN-featured “White” Pope. Left untranslated is the coronation moment when the new Pontiff is told in Latin: “Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, and art the governor of the world.” [Vatican Assassins] … According to Baron Avro Manhattan, author of a jaw-dropping series of Vatican books, “Many historians and researchers and one American Congressman stated that: ‘The Vatican through the Jesuit Order controlling the Illuminati is in control of the United States Federal Reserve.’” (Vatican Billions by Avro Manhattan)** Check

“It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface, Unam Sanctam (1302) … we’re beginning to see how more than 150 years ago, the General of a subversive military power called the Jesuits could brag to Duke de Brissac, “From this room, your grace, I govern not only Paris, but China – not only China, but the whole world – and all without any one knowing how it is done.” (Constitution of the Jesuits 1843) National and personal sovereignty haven’t improved much since. As Baron Avro Manhattan put it, the Pope “doesn’t have to pray for divine intervention to operate the levers of economic power – he merely has to give instructions to his officials in the Vatican Bank. Only the pope and a couple of top bank officers know precise details of its operations… This secrecy is one of the main reasons why few people know that the papacy directs one of the world’s major financial corporations.” The Vatican likes to point out that it’s going broke running Vatican City. But Cardinal Edmund Szoka, the Vatican’s unofficial finance minister, told Money Week that the Vatican’s assets total some $5 billion. Vatican City “has a separate financial statement,” he added. According to Baron Manhattan’s research: “The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. ” A nationally syndicated Catholic priest has stated, “The Catholic Church must be the biggest corporation in the United States. We have a branch office in every neighborhood. Our assets and real estate holdings must exceed those of Standard Oil, A.T.&T., and U.S. Steel combined. And our roster of dues-paying members must be second only to the tax rolls of the United States Government.” (The Vatican Billions) “But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country,” Baron Manhattan explains. “The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence.” (Vatican Billions) Don’t forget to throw in more than 18,000 works of art. (Fortune Dec 21/87) The Vatican’s gold treasure alone has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. The Independent has independently confirmed that “the Vatican Bank – Istituto per le Opere di Religione – manages more than $4 billion in assets. It does not reveal its profits or dividends, which are paid directly to the Pope. It enjoys the status of a central bank and has a dealing room adorned with crucifixes and papal portraits where 20 traders work .” (Independent Apr 19/02) …

Quote: Early in the 19th century the Pope approached the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcastically say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope. . . Order has at last been re-established”
Derek Wilson: ”Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty”, p. 101

** Check

Quote:
“Carl Mayer (Kalman) Rothschild (*1788-†1855, Oesterreich) (Not to be confused with his son Mayer Carl referenced below)He even granted Pope Gregory XVI cash injections and was received on January the 10th 1832 in audience, the kiss on the hand allowed and the Order of Saint George awarded.” [Possibly a medal from the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. See:

** Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George

“Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild was born in 1788. … He is the son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Gutle Schnapper. … He was the founder of the Naples branch of Rothschilds, which after the unification of Italy returned to Frankfurt. He lived at Naples, Italy.”

** Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild

Also See:

** Carl Mayer von Rothschild

Amschel Mayer Rothschild
(Not to be confused with his father Mayer Amschel referenced below )

“Amschel Mayer Rothschild was born in 1773. He was the son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Gutle Schnapper. He died in 1855. … He continued the family business at Frankfurt. He was created Baron Rothschild (Austrian Empire) on 29 September 1822. On his death, his business eventually passed into the hands of the Naples Rothschilds.”

** Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1)

** Amschel Mayer Rothschild (2)

Wears a (Order of Malta, Order of St John, Johanniterorden) Maltese cross. After all Amschel Mayer was the first son of the old Rothschild, Mayer Amschel, and took over the head office in Frankfurt.

Baron Mayer Carl de Rothschild (Not to be confused with his father Carl Mayer referenced above) Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild was born in 1820. He is the son of Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild and Adelheid Hertz. … Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild lived at Naples, Italy. He lived at Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, Germany.”

** Baron Mayer Carl RothschildOnly the decoration to the left (the gentleman in the photo’s right ) could be Jewish – the others rather not. Star of the Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire, above the Order of Malta or Order of St John’s Maltese Cross, I believe. The source of this photo appears to be:

** Check

Thus, if the gentleman in the photo above is Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild – as appears to be the case, as referenced at the above academic site – then it is most interesting & curious that this Italian & German-based Rothschild was honoured by the British Monarch, assuming that my identification of the 8-pointed star is correct.

Mayer RothschildBelow seems to be dangling a Christian (ostensibly Christian, in fact Pagan Romanist ) cross
Not to be confused with his son Amschel Mayer referenced above. “Mayer Amschel Rothschild was born on 23 February 1743/44. He was the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild and Schönche Lechnich. … Mayer Amschel Rothschild was an Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) Crown Agent in 1800.”
** Check (1)

** Check (2)

Focusing on the more prominent Rothschilds, here’s a selection of career-related information from Wikipedia:

Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild:
** Check

“He is a shareholder in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, the Swiss-based holding company for the Rothschild interests which has positions in many of the family businesses, including the bank N M Rothschild & Sons. After resigning from the bank, Jacob Rothschild went on to found J. Rothschild Assurance Group (now St. James’s Place) with Sir Mark Weinberg in 1991. In 1989, he joined forces with Sir James Goldsmith and Kerry Packer, in an unsuccessful bid for British American Tobacco. His main business interests now are RIT Capital Partners plc, an investment trust company with net assets under management of £1700m (Aug 2008), of which he is Chairman, Spencer House Capital Management LLP founded with Richard Horlick (formerly CIO of Schroders), and Spencer House Partners, a “mini merchant bank” headed by Rothschild and Ronald Cohen of Apax Partners. He also retains many other venture capital and property interests. On 17 November 2003, he took up his post as deputy chairman of BSkyB. From his headquarters in St James’s Place in London, Jacob Rothschild has cultivated an influential set of clients, business associates and friends who have extended his interests far beyond the normal scope of a banker. He was a close personal friend of Diana, Princess of Wales and maintains strong personal and business links with Henry Kissinger. His country estate has been a regular venue for visiting heads of state including Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Margaret Thatcher received French President François Mitterrand there at a summit in 1990. He hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002, attended by such figures as James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, Nicky Oppenheimer, Warren Buffett and Arnold Schwarzenegger.In 2003 Rothschild came under scrutiny when Russian oil industrialist Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares in YUKOS passed to him under a deal they concluded prior to Khodorkovsky’s arrest.”

Nat Rothschild:
** Check

“Rothschild began his career in 1994 at Lazard Brothers Asset Management in London, before joining Gleacher Partners, the New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. Rothschild is the co-chairman of Atticus Capital LP, an international investment management firm established in 1995, that has offices in New York and London. He is also a director of RIT Capital Partners plc, and a director of The Rothschild Foundation. In 2006, he was appointed chairman of Trigranit, a Hungarian developer of which he is a major shareholder. Rothschild is a member of the Belfer Center’s International Council at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. He is also a member of the International Advisory Board of the Barrick Gold Corporation. He was nominated as a “Young Global Leader” by the World Economic Forum in 2005.”

Evelyn de Rothschild:
** Check

“In 1968, Evelyn de Rothschild was appointed a director of Paris-based de Rothschild Frères while Guy de Rothschild from the French branch of the family became a partner at N M Rothschild & Sons. In 1976 he took over as bank chairman from Victor Rothschild and in 1982 became chairman of Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG, the co-ordinating company for the merchant banking group. He became co-chairman of Rothschild Bank A.G., Zurich in 1994, serving until 2003 when he oversaw the merger of the family’s French and UK houses. David René de Rothschild of the French branch took over as executive chairman of Rothschild International after the different branches had been merged and Sir Evelyn continued as non-executive chairman of N M Rothschild & Sons. In 2003, he founded with his wife, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a holding company, E.L. Rothschild, to manage their investments in The Economist and various enterprises in India.Throughout his career, Evelyn de Rothschild has been actively involved in a number of other organisations in both the private and public sectors and has held the following business positions:
* Chairman – The Economist (1972-1989)
* Chairman – British Merchant Banking & Securities House Association (1985-1989)
* Deputy Chairman – Milton Keynes Development Corporation (1971-1984)
* Chairman – United Racecourses (1977-1994)
* Director – De Beers Consolidated Mines (1977-1994)
* Director – IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited (1972-1995)
Evelyn de Rothschild also served as a Director of the newspaper group owned by Lord Beaverbrook. Years later, he served for a time as a Director of Lord Black’s Daily Telegraph newspaper and was a member of the Hollinger International Advisory Board. An owner of thoroughbred racehorses, he is a former chairman of United Racecourses, which owns Epsom Downs and Sandown Park racecourses. In 1989 he was knighted by HM Queen Elizabeth II. He has been a Governor of the London School of Economics and Political Science as well as an active patron of the arts and supporter of a number of charities. He served as Chairman of the Delegacy of St Mary’s Hospital Medical School from 1977 to 1988. He has been a Member of the Council of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, a trustee of the Shakespeare Globe Trust, and in 1998 was appointed Chairman of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Sir Evelyn was the founding chairman of the 1990 European Association for Banking and Financial History e.V. in Frankfurt, Germany, a position he held until retiring in 2004.”

David Mayer de Rothschild:
** Check

“Neither he nor his brother have shown interest in joining the family-owned N M Rothschild & Sons London banking business and when their father stepped down as chairman in 2003, cousin David René de Rothschild of the French branch of the family took over as head of the worldwide Rothschild Group.” The most active & prominent living Rothschild in the business world today is:

David René James de Rothschild:
** Check
“… born in 1942. He is the son of Guy Edouard Alphonse Paul de Rothschild and Alix Hermine Jeanette Schey von Koromla. He married Princess Olimpia Anna Aldobrandini in 1974. David René James de Rothschild was head of NM Rothschild, London in 2003.”

** Check

“David de Rothschild was educated at Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris in Paris from which he graduated in 1966. He began his business career at Société miniére et métallurgique de Peñarroya, one of the family’s international mining businesses headquartered in Paris. He then began training in de Rothschild Frères bank. French government reform of banking regulations ended the legal distinction between banques d’affaires and deposit banks and in 1967 de Rothschild Frères became Banque Rothschild, a limited-liability company. David de Rothschild’s father was an aggressive businessman who strove to expand the bank and their investments in mining and oil exploration as chairman of Imetal S.A.. However, the family fortunes suffered a severe setback following the election to the French Presidency of the socialist government of François Mitterrand in 1981. The new parliament nationalized a number of large companies and banks including that of the Rothschild family. An angry and discouraged 72-year-old Guy de Rothschild left France for a time and settled in New York City where the family had existing but limited business activities. In an October 18, 2003 interview with George Trefgarne published in the The Spectator, David de Rothschild said that after nationalisation it took until 1986, when the Socialists lost power, for Rothschild family members to get a new banking license. In 1987 a successor company called Rothschild & Cie Banque was created by David de Rothschild who was joined by his half-brother Edouard and cousin Eric de Rothschild. Capitalized at only $1 million and starting with just three employees, they soon built their tiny investment bank into a major competitor in France and continental Europe. In 2003, following the retirement of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild as head of N M Rothschild & Sons of London, the English and French firms merged to become one umbrella entity called “Group Rothschild.” Ownership was shared equally between the French and English branches of the family under the leadership of David de Rothschild. In 2007, the English branch sold their share to the French branch. The French branch now fully own N M Rothschild & Sons. As of 2008, David de Rothschild holds the following corporate positions:
* Chairman of N M Rothschild & Sons
* Chairman of Rothschilds Continuation Holdings
* Vice Chairman of Rothschild Bank AG
* Vice Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Paris Orleans
* Senior Partner of Rothschild & Cie Banque
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Compagnie Financiere Saint-Honore
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Compagnie Financiere Martin Maurel
* Member of the Supervisory Board of De Beers Group
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Groupe Casino
David de Rothschild also owns a share of the Château Lafite-Rothschild vineyard but is not active in the day to day operations.”

And we shall also note:
Benjamin Edmond Maurice de Rothschild

** Check
“… born in 1963. He is the son of Edmond Adolphe Maurice Jules Jacques de Rothschild and Nadine Nelly Jeannette L’Hopitalier. Benjamin Edmond Maurice de Rothschild was head of the Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild. In 2001 he launched e-Rothschild (an online bank).”

Admiralty Law of the HOLY SEE

July 8, 2014

Admiralty Law – Proving once again, there is no Rule of Law or Justice under Western-Roman law

http://blog.ucadia.com/

_________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > LINK (39 min 16 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins for Thursday 26th June 2014 and thank you for taking the time to read and listen to the Ucadia blog for this week entitled “Admiralty Law – Proving once again, there is no Rule of Law or Justice under Western-Roman law”.

If you had the chance to listen to the Ucadia blog last week then you might have heard me say that we were going to start the three part series on the history of law in America. So some might be asking “what has Admiralty Law got to do with the law of America?”

Actually, it has everything to do with the origins and history of America. That is why on reflection I felt it critically important to return to discussing Admiralty Law, which we have discussed a few times in previous blogs. To put it simply – the only way to make sense of the history of the United States is through knowing the history of Admiralty Law.

So this is why we are discussing Admiralty Law first, before we get into the meat of the three part series on the history of the United States, beginning with its foundation and the period leading up to and just after the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, the formation of the Constitution and the recognition of peace by Westminster by an act of parliament in 1796.

Also on reflection, given the recent three part series on Common Law, particularly on sharing some of the references to the actual key statutes concerning the history of the laws of Westminster, I felt that following up with Admiralty Law was also a good follow up before we get into the detail of the history of the United States law and the law of the New World Order and the Global Economic System.

So lets start then and I hope that as a result of this blog and audio, you will have a better appreciation of the significance of Admiralty Law and its effect on us even today.
What is Admiralty Law?

To define what is Admiralty Law, lets go to the canons under Sovereign Law and article 190 Admiralty Law:

Canon 6804

Admiralty (Admiralty Law) refers to a organized pseudo – legal commercial (OPCA) form of law first formed in the early 18th Century, but falsely claimed of much older provenance, whereby the operation of the “law of the land” and “laws of nations” is suspended during times of controversy and belligerence in favor of a legal system based loosely around maritime themes and mimicking all other forms of law “on the land” for the exercising of jurisdiction over causes, both civil and criminal, commerce, navigation, capture and transfer of property and the conduct and behavior of public servants as if military personnel. As Admiralty Law is a pseudo – legal commercial (OPCA) form of law, based on fraud, deception, false pretences, theft, force, violence, fear, corruption, profanity, sacrilige, ignorance and piracy (literally), all forms of Admiralty Law issed by Westminster and subsequent parliaments and bodies are hereby null and void having no force or effect ecclesiastically, lawfully or legally.

Canon 6805

The word Admiral is an English military title first formed in the 16th Century from three (3) common Latin terms ad meaning “to”, mira meaning “wonderful, marvellous, amazing, surprising, awesome” and alis meaning “a wing of the military”. Hence, the original and literal meaning of the title Admiral was “to command a wonderful, marvellous, amazing, surprising, awesome wing of the military”. The claim that the title is a borrowed Arabic title amir-ar-rahl meaning “chief of the transport” is an absolute absurdity and clumsy insult to intelligence as for England under Henry VIII and his Venetian advisors to honor the Ottomans at the time by using an alleged title would have been an unthinkable and mortal insult against both nations.

So that is what Admiralty and Admiralty law means and is and we are talking about a fraud, a sham, a trick, a deception, a lie, a theft, a profane system that has not an ounce of true law connected to it but simply a means by which certain families, groups and people concocted a way to steal and control the world as if the world be stupid and ignorant slaves.

Lets be absolutely clear before we get into the detail of Admiralty Law, that nothing about it – absolutely nothing about it is lawful or moral or just or has any connection whatsoever to true Rule of Law and the Golden Rule. I want to make this clear because when we start to get into the history it is easy to get lost.

Why is Admiralty Law important to comprehend?

Now the next logical question is if Admiralty Law is a sham and a trick and a deception, why bother knowing about it? The answer is because this is the form of law in operation through almost 99.9% of courts around the world today.

Again, to make sense of this lets have a look at Canon 6807 under Sovereign Law:

Canon 6807

While the codes, laws and practices of Admiralty court rooms may vary slightly in different jurisdictions, the general elements of Admiralty law and courts are:

(i) Through the Statutes of Westminster, Admiralty Law and Courts have the same effective range of jurisdiction over traditionally “Common Law” areas such as (but not limited to) Trust Law, Estate Law, Property Law, Land Law, Tax Law, Judicial Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Company Law. However, in times of conflict (real or artificial), Admiralty Law now has effectively superiority under the Western-Roman model compared to “Common Law”; and

(ii) In Admiralty, the mere existence of controversy (i.e. its recording or filing) is sufficient for there to be a cause in law (to answer) whereas in Common Law, the claim must first be proven, before the cause of law is permitted to proceed. This is the primary test for the existence of Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture, denial or dispute; and

(iii) In Admiralty, the form of law carries with the issue in contest at any given time – as Admiralty Law is able to switch between Trust Law, Estate Law, Judicial Law, Criminal Law and back again as each issue is addressed; whereas in Common Law the form of law by tradition was associated with the specific jurisdiction and type of court. This is the second test for the existence of Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture, denial or dispute; and

(iv) In Admiralty, the existence of the controversy is paramount and the origin of cause is secondary; whereas in Common Law, the cause of action is primary and the procedural form is traditionally secondary to justice. Thus Admiralty is predicated on “style over substance of law” and is why Admiralty justice rests on procedural integrity rather than questions of law and true justice. This is the third test for the existence of Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture, denial or dispute; and

(v) As procedural integrity is paramount in Admiralty, the deliberate and willful breach of procedures by justices, magistrates, attorneys, clerks and law officers under Admiralty matters are the most grave of offences with severe punishment. These procedures are borne from Admiralty statute and not subject to judicial or clerical interpretation and not from “internal policies”; and

(vi) Admiralty Courts and Law principally deal with persons in one of two states: (1) as a seaman (In Propria Persona) or (private) agent (Sui Juris) (2) as a prize (thing and commodity as Legal Person). Unless otherwise stated, Admiralty Courts inevitably deal with the accused as a legal person and therefore as a thing and “prize” to be salvaged, secured and against which certain bounties, duties and fines may be levied. Therefore, in an Admiralty Court there is no such object as a “man” or “woman” only a “seaman” or “agent”; and

(vii) Agents must be bonded and an authorized certificate of the Bond duly registered and recorded in accord with Admiralty Law, otherwise they are not authorized to act for their principal. A Party acting as an Agent that refuses to produce their Bond or License Certificate (proving the existence of the Bond) automatically is in default and holding full liability. Under Admiralty Law, an Officer of the Court (such as a Justice) is forbidden to act as an Agent and to receive any interest in the salvage of prize money; and

(viii) In Admiralty Law, as the existence of the controversy is paramount (as a debt) compared to the offence that originated it, the controversy may be settled financially as compensation without admission of culpability or guilt to the originating offence in matters of fraud, negligence, trespass and waste except in matters of murder, violence, sexual abuse and treason; and

(ix) The only doorway to Common Law (in limited circumstances) is through a sworn affidavit where the statute is annexed to the affidavit and attached memorandum as prima facie evidence prior to any hearing or trial under Admiralty Law.

What is the legislative (statute) history of Admiralty Law?

So do you see the significance and importance now of comprehending Admiralty Law? OK, now I won’t get into the history part of Admiralty Law, but instead will go through the legislative history of Admiralty law under Canon 6809 with you. It is pretty long, so please bear with me and remember that you can click on the links and download the individual acts yourself, to become more acquainted and competent:

Canon 6809

The first laws of Admiralty were not properly codified until the middle of the 17th Century, focusing equally on the discipline and maintenance of duty of Navy officers and Navy personnel as well as the operation of courts of Admiralty and capture and management of property:

(i) The first laws of Admiralty were introduced under Charles II through 13 Car c.9 (1661) which for the first time in history expressed clearly through thirty six (36) articles the rules and conduct of Navy personnel, the operation of courts of Admiralty and capture and management of property. The claim of legitimacy of the alleged statute by King Richard III in 1391 (15Rich2 c.3) concerning Admiralty jurisdiction and by Henry 4th in 1400 (2Hen4. c.11) as remedy against Admiralty actions are almost certainly fraud, despite the limited remedy provided by both statutes; and

(ii) In 1690, (2W&M_S2c2) William and Mary introduced for the first time the concept of Commissioners of the Admiralty to whom were vested the full powers of the Lord High Admiral, without adding to those powers; and

(iii) In 1719, King George I introduced a new concept within Admiralty Law through 6 Geo. I. c.19 whereby those persons in “sea service” who committed crimes mentioned under 13 Car c.9 (1661) upon the shore in foreign parts were to be tried and punished as if they had been committed on the “main sea”. This was the first application of Admiralty Law on the land, in defiance of its alleged original purpose; and

(iv) In 1729, (2Geo2. c.7) the powers of Greenwich Hospital as the site of Admiralty was again expanded to include duties charged on vessels as well as the recovery of duties unpaid, therefore the effective “salvage” of revenues for the Crown as debt and tax collectors within the colonies and dominions of the British Empire; and

(v) In 1738, (11 Geo2. c.30) an extraordinary act saw the edict that the estates of all those who had not paid fines, or failed to pay and perform their duties, or were popish “recusants” were to be forfeited and transferred to the Admiralty for use and benefit of the Greenwich Hospital; and

(vi) In 1740, King George II introduced through 13 Geo. II. c. 4 in Article II the concept of three (3) commissioners being required to administer a properly constituted Admiralty court. The Act also introduced for the first time in legal history the concept that owners of ships taking commissions of letters of marque were to provide bail and security. Furthermore, in Article III, the requirement for security to prosecute a case in Admiralty was introduced making the entire administration of Admiralty courts commercial; and

(vii) In 1745, George II through 18Geo2. c.35 the Commissioners and Lord High Admiral were granted the power to commission lesser officers such as flag officers and captains to assist in the calling of courts martial; and

(viii) In 1747, (20Geo2. C.24), for the first time Greenwich Hospital became the central administration for the payment of prizes to Admiralty by privateers (licensed pirates as agents) in the service of the Crown and the central banks. In the same year, a new fund (20Geo2. c.38) was established under the guise of “widows and orphans” of injured and lost seamen. However, in effect of the act in creating a fund, the Admiralty became a private traded corporation of immense wealth and power. In the same year again, the “sinking fund” (22Geo2. c.23) was created as the public fund to which prizes and other valuables received by the Admiralty were to be transferred to the use of the Crown. The system was further refined in 1751 (24Geo2. C.44) ; and

(ix) In 1749, George II through 22 Geo. II c.33 introduced a modified Admiralty Law and modified thirty six (36) articles of the Code of Admiralty, repealing the 1661 act of Charles II. Most importantly, the revisions to Admiralty Law made clear that those administering it were to be officers under fiduciary obligations through formal oath and that no agent or privateer was to hold any position of authority or conduct proceedings within an admiralty court. Furthermore, the act made clear that a valid court of Admiralty for court – martial only existed when three (3) commissioners were duly sworn and present; and

(x) In 1752, the macabre and bizarre act (25Geo2. C.11) granted than an unspecified and unclear number referred as the body of the dead could be deposited in the vaults of Admiralty at Greenwich Hospital, demonstrating the conveyance of the poor. In the same year, an act (25Geo2. c.42) made valid all contracts issued by Admiralty through Greenwich Hospital relating to lands, tenements and hereditements and that unlike Common Law, under Admiralty Law, the Commissioners could force those who refused to entreat to be punished and to enter into contracts – an extraordinary corruption of the most ancient principle that an act through force cannot be lawful; and

(xi) In 1755 (28Geo2. c.11), then in 1756 (29Geo2. C.6), laws were passed mixing Admiralty Law with Common Law through the regulation of forces “on shore”. The laws were further refined and expanding Admiralty Law to mirror Common Law in 1760 (1Geo3. C.8), in 1761 (2Geo3. C.12) and in 1763 (4Geo3. C.8); and
(xii) In 1756, an act was introduced (29Geo2. C.27) creating the county courts of the colonies of America being Admiralty Courts. In 1757 (30Geo2. C.8), the concept of lower Admiralty Courts administered by magistrates as a form of martial law and the enforcement of injustice was introduced and then refined in (30Geo2. c.11); and

(xiii) In 1761, (2Geo3. c.31) Admiralty Law was made perpetual for the Colonies and Plantations of the United States, which remains in force up to the 21st Century; and
(xiv) In 1776, (16Geo3. C.24), the public estates held in trust were converted to private use and control of the Commissioners of the Admiralty Corporation; and

(xv) In 1793, King George III through 33 Geo.III. c.66. significantly altered and refined Admiralty Law to make clear the taking of prizes by the Admiralty courts and officers of the Crown during war as well as the procedural details of the issuing and administration of Letters of Marque. The act also reinforced the principles of those accused or “captured” requiring to provide security or “bail” in order to retrieve use of any goods seized as a prize. Under Article XIV it made clear the need to make surety under oath to obtain a valid Letter of Marque. Article XXXIV made clear the absolute forbiddance of officers of the court of Admiralty acting as an agent, or advocate or proctor in the same matter before the court. Article LXX reiterated the requirement of three (3) or more Commissioners to present to hear and adjudicate a valid case in Admiralty, while Article LXXI permitted individual commissioner or justice of the peace to gather and hear evidence, but not to rule. Article XXXIII made clear the independence of the officers and judiciary of Admiralty from having any interest whatsoever in prizes or acting as privateers or possess letters of marquee namely “ That no Judge, Register, or Deputy Register, Marshall, or Deputy Marshall, or any other Officer whomsoever, of or belonging to any Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty in Great Britain, or in any of his Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in America, or in any other of his Majesty’s Dominions, nor any Person or Persons practicing either as Advocate, Proctor or otherwise, in any such Court or Courts, shall be concerned or interested, directly or indirectly, as Owner, Part Owner, Sharer, Adventurer, in any private Ship or Ships, or Vessel or Vessels of War whatsoever, having any Commission or Commissions, or Letter of Marque as aforesaid; and in any case such Judge, Register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Office, Advocate, or Proctor whatsoever, shall, notwithstanding this Act, be directly or indirectly concerned or interested as aforesaid, such Judge, register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Officer respectively, shall for every such Offence (being thereof lawfully convicted in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record in Great Britain or at any General Session of the Peace in any of his Majesty’s Colonies in America) absolutely forfeit his Office and Employment in and belonging to any such Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty, of what Kind or Nature so ever such Office and Employment may be”; and

(xvi) In 1797, King George III through 38 Geo. III. c.38 confirmed that subjects of America were permitted to appeal in chancery from sentences of vice – admiralty courts confirming not only the continuing function of the estates of the United States as the plantations and property of Great Britain, but the course of potential remedy against adverse action of the vice – admiralty courts; and

(xvii) In 1801, whilst hostilities with France continued, the prize (Admiralty) courts of the West Indies and America were reorganized through 41. Geo. III. c. 96 so that Admiralty Law would continue in light of possible further conflicts, independent of the hostilities at the time. Most significantly, the act reinforced the absolute division between officers of the courts and agents under letters of marque whereby one could not hold a position in such a manner. Furthermore, that judges of Admiralty were absolutely forbidden to be concerned with the care of any property of estates, namely in clause XVII “ And it be further enacted, That no person during the time he shall hold the office of judge of any of the said courts, shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, or for his benefit, act as agent for any prizes that may be captured from the enemy, or shall have any share or interest directly or indirectly in any privateer or letter of marquee, or shall be anywise concerned in the care, management, or superintendence of any estates in any island in the West Indies or on the continent of America”; and
(xviii) In 1801, through 41. Geo. III. c. 76 King George III approved the extension of the system of Letters of Marque to permit the rules of their issue and application of their issue to be widened and applied as commissioners saw fit, providing within the general bounds of the act. This coincided with the dramatic extension of the use of Letters of Marque in the American plantations under the government of the United States corporation to all branches of its government as approved by Congress; and

(xix) In 1806, through 46. Geo. III. c. 54 King George III reinforced clear the requirement of three (3) or more duly appointed commissioners in order to constitute a valid Admiralty Court throughout all dominions whether it be a court – martial or determination of prize; and

(xx) In 1810, an Act was passed being 50 Geo. III. c. 118 regulating the office of registrars of Admiralty Prize Courts whereby the deduction of expenses from any “fees, dues, perquisites, emoluments or profits” and incident to the duties of offices was confirmed as lawful providing the remainder was carried to an account of the Consolidated Fund controlled by the Bank of England. This confirmed the admiralty courts as now purely organized “pseudo – legal” commercial agencies and not under any pretence of justice; and

(xxi) In 1813, an Act was passed being 53 Geo. III. c. 151 regulating the financial handling of monies, bills of exchange and various government securities associated with Admiralty Courts including procedures and the obligation to deposit and report funds to the Bank of England and for the Admiralty Courts to effectively act as an agency and branch of the Bank in the management of all associated securities; and

(xxii) In 1816 through (56 Geo. III. c.31) and an Act entitled “An Act for transferring all Contracts and Securities entered into with or given to the Commissioners for Transports to the Commissioners of the Navy and Victualling”, with “victualling” being a deliberately obscure word meaning food and simple agriculture as “small estates”, whereby for the first time Employment Contracts, Sale of Land Contracts and Tenancy Contracts were to be determined by the laws of Admiralty and not land courts; and
(xxiii) In 1816, through an extraordinary act 56 Geo.III. c.82 the judicial acts of surrogates of vice – admiralty courts appointed to act as judges of such courts during vacancies in those offices by the said judges or by the governors of the plantations and colonies in which such courts are were rendered valid, thus permitting for the first time agents to act in such capacity through Admiralty (in direct defiance of previous Admiralty law) providing such judicial offices were considered vacant; and

(xxiv) In 1822, through 3 Geo. IV c.19, the minimum number of commissioners needed to convene a proper Admiralty Court and execute valid judicial acts was reduced from three (3) to two (2) where the number of commissioners in a particular court jurisdiction was less than six (6). The most noticeable effect of this act is the present day magistrates courts in Admiralty, compared to the District and Supreme Courts where the existence of six (6) or more justices require a quorum of three (3) or more for a valid Admiralty Court to be convened; and

(xxv) In 1823, through 4 Geo. IV. c. 41 all “vessels” were required to be registered under admiralty to encourage “shipping” and “navigation” as euphemisms for trade. The act made clear that no “vessel” may enjoy privileges unless registered.

(xxvi) In 1827 through 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c.65 reinforced the powers of two (2) commissioners in signing an official act under admiralty law, changing also the structure of the board of Lord High Admiral to a council; and

(xxvii) In 1830 (1Will. IV. c.68) and an Act entitled “An Act for the more effectual Protection of Main Contractors, Stage Coach Proprietors, and other common Carriers for Hire, against the Loss of or Injury to Parcels or Packages delivered to them for Conveyance or Custody …etc” whereby for the first time, the liability of Agents or Brokers was limited and indemnified against loss under circumstances, subject to the Agent or Broker possessing a proper license and following proper procedures; and
(xxviii) In 1832 through 2 Will. IV c.40 Admiralty Law was further refined with the commercial administration of the Navy and the extension of Admiralty Courts over the full range of fiduciary duties of affairs of officers, marines and seaman, in particular the determination of probate and will and testaments and the adjudication of estate matters of as if land courts – a significant historic event; and

(xxix) The concept of Contracts connected with the simple delivery of goods as Letters and Packets for money between a sender and receiver was first introduced in 1835 (5 & 6 Will. IV. c.25) through an Act entitled “An Act to extend the Accommodation by the Post to and from Foreign Parts, and for other Purposes relating to the Post Office” whereby for the first time certain Letters and Packets were registered as a Contract, giving birth to the Simple Contract; and

(xxx) In 1836 (6 Will. IV c.85) through an Act entitled “An Act for Marriages in England” for the first time in history, marriages were reduced to Corporate Contracts under commercial License, thereafter producing not living beings, but Things and commodities as less than slaves. The only people excluded from such an abomination by §2 were those who profess the nominally commercial Christian sects of Quakers or Jews as all others thereafter were condemned to conversion to commercial chattel as “things”. In the same year through (6 Will. IV c.86) all Births, Deaths and Marriages were required to be centrally Registered; and

(xxxi) The creation of people into “vessels” by statute was created with Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1836 (c. 86) whereby all births were to be registered and sent to a General Registry Office. The key word “Birth” directly implies a vessel. To ensure Admiralty was connected to the procedures of “births, deaths and marriages”, several clauses made clear the connection such as XXI. Being Registry of children born at sea. In later decades, the introduction of “health acts” that required “births in hospitals” meant that by the beginning of the 20th century almost 99% of infants were born at sea by virtue of being born on board a british vessel being a hospital; and

(xxxii) In 1837 (7 Will. IV c.3) through an Act entitled “An Act transferring to the Commissioners of the Admiralty all Contracts, Bonds and other Securities entered into with the Postmaster General in relation to the Packet Service”, all Simple Contracts validated by registration through a valid Post Office or court having Postal powers, were now to be determined in any dispute by the laws of Admiralty and not land courts. Thus from 1837, all determination of disputes concerning all types of Contracts were now automatically subject to being determined by the laws of Admiralty in any court with valid Admiralty powers; and

(xxxiii) In 1838 (1 Vict. c.10) through an Act entitled “An Act to make good certain Contracts which have been or may be entered into by certain Banking and other Copartnerships”, for the first time a Contract could be entered into by a Spiritual Person in relation to Corporations, Associations and Copartnerships without such a Contract being void, by virtue of Contracts originally being designed for lesser persons and for voluntary enslavement and servitude; and

(xxxiv) The Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 made clear the extraordinary power and transition of Admiralty to the land by permitting a claimed crime on the “high seas” to then be transferred to a specific location on land and to be treated in law as if it had occurred on the land. Thus, providing the legal argument that the original crime occurred “on the high seas”, the matter could be heard by an Admiralty court as if a matter of common law on the land. This act helped precipitate the creation of the absurdity of placing the “high water marks” of various states and counties on the highest peaks so that “all alleged crimes” were committed on the “high seas” and thus subject to Admiralty. The accompany rules of “summary justice” were introduced later under Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848); and

(xxxv) In 1845, by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 the registration of “vessels” was further refined to identify them as British vessels under one of the largest acts in the 19th Century (over 140 pages). The act reinforced in Article II that no “ship” or “vessel” as euphemisms for companies and bodies may be entitled to any privileges of a “British – registered ship” unless registered. This act is also the first time that “Birth” and “Birth Certificates” associated with people are connected with “Ships” and “Vessels” and openly to Admiralty Law; and

(xxxvi) The application of Admiralty law more widely to criminal matters greatly expanded with the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848) whereby the traditional rules of common law such as original writs and right of reply and right to jury appeared to be “suspended” in preference to a faster, less rigorous form of justice or “summary justice” (itself an oxymoron). This act followed the act of Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 (1844) that placed common law and all previous statute law in the administration of justice in the lowers courts with the operation of Admiralty law; and

(xxxvii) In 1854, the act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 78 was significant in introducing for the first time the use of stamps on legal documents in Admiralty – the first time stamps were required on legal documents – in lieu of small fees for lodgement. This act is the origin of the use of stamps on such documents and enabled judges, clerks and courts of Admiralty to then recoup such fees from the Consolidated Fund, also rendering it no longer necessary to publish such legal notices in the London Gazette as the cancelled stamp denoted the proper “delivery” as well as “publication” and “public notice” of the legal instrument; and

(xxxviii) In 1859, through the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 6 Act, for the first time in history, Serjeants, Barristers – At – Law, Attorneys and Solicitors were granted permission to practice in Admiralty Courts, thus moving closer to Admiralty courts being full mirrors of land courts; and

(xxxix) In 1863, first through 26 & 27 Vict. c.24, the former “back door” through 56 Geo.III. c.82 whereby surrogates as agents could also act in the vacant roles of offices was clarified. For example, under article 4, where the office of a judge of Admiralty court is vacant, the Chief Justice or Principal Judicial Officer becomes the ex officio Judge of the Vice – Admiralty Court until notification is received and one is appointed to that vacant office. This act further reinforced the technique and explanation for why some jurisdictions from 1863 failed to duly appointed officers in the manner prescribed. Through 26 & 27 Vict. c.116 the concept of agents for prizes was reinforced with clear identification in clause 10 that no person holding officer under the crown may act as an agent; and

(xl) In 1864 and then in 1865, major changes to Admiralty law were instituted through (27&28Vict.c.24) and (27&28Vict. c.25) in the key role of “agents” replacing notions of “privateers” and the conduct of Admiralty Courts and procedures in time of war, particularly in treating people as commodities via the 1845 act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 89) and the registration of people as vessels and commodities. In the same year, previous prize acts then appeared to be repealed by (27&28Vict. c.34), but on the condition “only if their effects were no longer in operation”. Thus, for the first time, a major historic section of Admiralty law was removed from the public record and made secret via repeal, such as acts pertaining to America and the United States, which remained technically still in operation because of ongoing declarations of war; and

(xli) In 1865, Admiralty gained control of all property of alleged deceased (28&29Vict. c.111) making any court claiming to be a “Probate Court” an admission of Admiralty Jurisdiction. The Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act 1867 (30&31Vict. c.114) while exclusively for the jurisdiction of Ireland is nonetheless instructive as broader knowledge of Admiralty in demonstrating the limited rights of Admiralty to those accused and its summary form and function in one (1) act; and

(xlii) The completion of Admiralty law replacing common law within the courts to “mimic” as pseudo law that believed as common law was largely completed with the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31&32Vict. c.78); and

(xliii) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1865 included in 1868 the effective “end” of any operational Common Law courts with Admiralty in operation in County Courts (31&32Vict. c.71) and the Admiralty Suit Proceedings (31&32Vict. c.78) which was followed up by Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (42&43Vict. c.49) that established the framework of the modern Admiralty courts in operation throughout the Western – Roman law operating pseudo – legal form of admiralty, masquerading as common law; and

(xlv) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1868 include Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act 1878 c. 53 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (53&54Vict. c.27).

Piecing it all together- what is means

There you have it, the legislative history of Admiralty law, minus a few acts concerning the handling of prizes in the 18th century. You can click on the links and you can see for yourself in black and white. It is not conspiracy, or assumption or conjecture, it is fact – prima facie evidence that under the rules of evidence is admissible in certain circumstances in their own courts.

So what then does all this mean? Simply, that there is absolutely no true Rule of Law or Justice whatsoever in Western-Roman nations, nor has there been for hundreds of years.
Furthermore, the system is deliberately designed to favor merchants and banks and particular groups of people who created a fake non-Christian religion between the 16th and 18th Centuries along with fake sacred texts and fake evidence to support purely commercial goals of superiority. If you want to know what I am talking about, then go and read Age of the Nazarenes under Lebor Clann Glas on One-Heaven.Org and you will see exactly what I mean. Everything about these people is a fraud, except for their violence, their inability to tell the truth, their perpetual need to keep people unbalanced and stupid – they are the only things that are real.

Furthermore, the point about highlighting Admiralty Law is to prove that many of the courts around the world have become so corrupt and so incompetent that they openly refuse to follow their own fake rules of fake law. So there can be no doubt- absolutely no doubt that you live under the tyranny of force, fear and lies – actively supported by religion.

A classic example is what is happening in the Northern Territory of Australia. Elders and talented indigenous leaders are being brutalized, tortured and in some cases murdered with the tacit support of the Commonwealth Government of Australia and with the Judiciary and often perpetrated by the Police with impunity – and absolutely not a single Jesuit Priest, or Jesuit legal scholar gives a damn about it because they are happy to see it continue. They want the genocide of the Australian Aboriginal People to succeed.

So when the Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory laughs in the face of an indigenous man and tells lies that they refuse to accept properly constructed affidavits, when they send police in to bash and torment and intimidate indigenous people trying to save their land, when not a single Catholic Bishop, or Jesuit Priest or Legal Scholar anywhere in Australia sees a problem with the blatant corruption and arrogance and criminality of the Northern Territory Magistrates Courts and Courts in general – then you know there is absolutely no law whatsoever in Australia, except for the law of the traditional owners and those that stand in honor of the Golden Rule – that no one is above the law and all are subject to it and any law that contradicts such a rule cannot be law.

Thank you for taking the time to listen and to all of you who continue to support and continue to care what happens and are prepared to support Ucadia and see the work continue, I want to say thank you and I look forward to going through the 1st part of the series on the history of law in the United States from next week. Till then, please be well, thank you and good night.

Gods free will? Or Babylon’s Bondage?

June 29, 2014

Most u.s. citizens using right left baseless political/pseudoscientific/philosophical rhetoric, constitutional and or otherwise are fighting to preserve their own bondage. Participation in the Roman system justifies bondage. All of it. If they want bondage they have nothing to complain about.

I’ve researched the Bible in relationship to law. The legal system of God versus the lawful system of man. We all study the Bible differently. Some men work on a chronological historical account of the Biblical tribes ancestry. I worked on the mathematical info in the bible, and the legal concepts of free will concerning Biblical law versus Mans law. Biblical law being true freedom, mans law being bondage. Because I want out of bondage. YOU cannot free everyone around us, YOU can only learn the differences and seek to remove yourself from bondage.

Part 5 Abortion is a symptom of a deeper error that hits at the heart of society.

HHC – This World, NNSeries: 6-10

HHC – Romans 13, NNSeries: 7-10

HHC – Is America Free, NNSeries: 8-10

HHC – Gods Many, SSSeries: 9-10

THE BIBLE IS A VERY NUMERIC DOCUMENT

June 26, 2014

The Meaning of Numbers: The Number 8

The number 8 in the Bible represents a new beginning, meaning a new order or creation, and man’s true ‘born again’ event when he is resurrected from the dead into eternal life.

Like the Old Testament Passover lamb, Jesus was selected as the Lamb to take away man’s sins on the Hebrew day of Nisan 10 (April 1, 30 A.D. – John 12: 28 – 29). He was crucified on Nisan 14 (Wednesday, April 5 in 30 A.D.). His resurrection occurred, exactly as he stated, three days and three nights after he was buried, which was at the end of the weekly Sabbath day that fell on Nisan 17 (seventeen symbolizes victory). Nisan 17 was also the eighth day, counting inclusively, from the time Christ was selected as man’s sacrificial Lamb. All this bears record of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice and His complete victory over death.

Boys were to be circumcised on the 8th day. The number 8 symbolizes circumcision of the heart through Christ and the receiving of the Holy Spirit (Romans 2:28 – 29, Colossians 2:11 – 13). Those in Christ are becoming a new creation, with godly character being created by the power of God’s Spirit (2Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 2:10; 4:23 – 24).
After the 7 weeks of the spring harvest, the next day, the 50th day, is Pentecost. This day is also the eighth day of the seventh week. This 8th and 50th day combination pictures the first resurrection when the saints will be raised from the dead and made immortal

(1Corinthians 15:20 – 23, John 3:3 – 12, Revelation 20:4 – 6). After the 7 days of the Feast of Tabernacles there is an 8th day, called the Last Great Day.

Forty different people wrote the Scriptures. Forty is a number composed of five (symbolizing grace) times 8 (symbolizing a new beginning). It is therefore only by God’s grace and love that man will someday be given a chance for a new beginning, as promised in the Word of God.

Appearances of the number eight

The New Testament was penned by only eight men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude, Paul).

Abdon (in the East) was a Judge of Israel who served 8 years (Judges 12:13 – 14).

The most joyous Feast period of the year is the eight day period of the Fall Feast of Tabernacles followed immediately afterward by the Last Great Day.

Abraham, the father of the faithful, had 8 sons total. They were Ishmael, Issac, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah.

Timekeeping

One method of timekeeping used in Israel was called a ‘watch.’ Watches were time periods in which guards were placed on duty. Although days were initially divided into 6 equal watch periods (Judges 7:19), by the time of the New Testament days were divided into 8 equal parts (Matthew 14:25, Mark 6:48).

NIGHT WATCHES
First watch – Sunset to 9 p.m.
Second watch – 9 p.m. to Midnight
Third watch – Midnight to 3 a.m.
Fourth watch – 3 a.m. to Sunrise

DAY WATCHES
First watch – Sunrise to 9 a.m.
Second watch – 9 a.m. to Noon
Third watch – Noon to 3 p.m.
Fourth watch – 3 p.m. to Sunset

How is the number 8 related to Jesus’ resurrection?

Jesus showed himself alive EIGHT times after his resurrection from the dead. His first appearance alive was to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9 – 11). He then showed himself to two disciples traveling to Emmaus (Luke 24). Next, he appeared to all the disciples except Thomas (John 20:19 – 24) then a week later to all them when Thomas was present (John 20:26 – 29). According to the apostle Paul, Christ also was seen by 500 believers at one time (1Corinthians 15:4 – 7). Jesus also met his disciples at the appointed place in Galilee (Matthew 28:16 – 17) and on Galilee’s shores (John 21:1 – 24). His final meeting was on the Mount of Olives, where he gave his followers instructions before ascending to heaven (Acts 1).

Additional information on the Biblical Meaning of 8
God saved eight people on the ark in order to have a new beginning for mankind after the flood. Since the meaning of four is derived from God’s creation of everything, 8 (4 + 4) pictures the new creation after the flood.

Eight is the number of Jesus, whose name in the Greek adds up to 888.

I RECOMMEND NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance by E.W. Bullinger.

Bible numerics part 1 through 6

The King James Code Part 1 – Bible Numerics

Amazing Numbers of The Bible

The Hofjuden Court Jews have been serving Caesar for centuries

June 23, 2014

“It Is Simply Amazing!”

By Darryl Eberhart, Editor of “Tackling the Tough Topics (TTT)”
June 28, 2006 (Updated through: October 20, 2007) (www.toughissues.org)

What I am about to tell you is “simply amazing!” A sizable portion of the”alternative media” tells us that “the Jews” (i.e., “the [Masonic-Zionist] Jews”) RUN the New World Order, to include banking, the current U.S. administration, the U.S. Congress, Hollywood, and the mainstream media. Well, let’s first just discuss Hollywood and the mainstream media. For if the Masonic-Zionist Jews do indeed CONTROL Hollywood and the mainstream media, then I am very confused. You may be asking: “Why are you confused?”

I am glad you asked.

Dear reader, the greatest murderer of Jews over the past 1000 plus years has been the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has also been the biggest murderer of independent Christian groups (e.g., the Albigensian and Waldensian Christians) – the biggest murderer of Protestants (e.g., French Huguenots, Irish Protestants, and Bohemian Protestants) – and one of the biggest murderers of Orthodox Christians (e.g., the genocide carried out against Serb Orthodox Christians in ROMAN CATHOLIC-controlled Fascist Croatia in the 1940s). If the mainstream media and Hollywood are run by
Masonic-Zionist Jews, then WHY aren’t they exposing the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH’S extensive support of Fascist states that slaughtered Jews in Europe during World War II?

First, let’s examine just a small portion of the well-documented history of ROMAN CATHOLIC mass murder of Jews. Please consider the following quotations:

“Jews were slaughtered by the thousands all across Europe as the [ROMAN] CATHOLIC Crusaders made their way to the ‘Holy Land’ to recover it from both Jews and Turks for the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.” – Dave Hunt (“A Cup of Trembling”; 1995; Page 159)

“One of history’s most malevolent persons died on this day [September 16] in 1498. Tomas de Torquemada, as [ROMAN CATHOLIC] Inquisitor General of Spain, ordered more than 10,000 people to be burned at the stake because they didn’t agree with his religious views. He used the Inquisition for religious and political reasons, believing punishment of [Ed. Note: so-called] ‘heretics’ and non-Christians – chiefly Jews and Muslims – was the only way to achieve political unity in Spain. Greatly feared and hated by millions, he persuaded [Spanish King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella to rid Spain of Jews. More than a MILLION families were driven from Spain during that time. The country never recovered from the resulting decline.” – Ron Hembree (“A Daily Joy”; Page 272)

“.[ROMAN] CATHOLIC priest, [Monsignor] Fr. Jozef Tiso, ruler of Slovakia’s Nazi puppet regime of 1939-45.sent that tiny country’s Jewish population of 70,000 to the extermination camps in Poland.” – Dave Hunt (“A Cup of Trembling”; 1995; Page 191)

“To a Jew, Hitler and [Italian Fascist dictator] Mussolini were ‘Christians’. In fact, they were ROMAN CATHOLICS from birth, and in spite of their horrendous crimes against humanity they were never excommunicated from their Church. The same was true of [Nazi SS Chief Heinrich] Himmler and many others in the Nazi hierarchy. Indeed, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has a long history of persecution, expulsion, and slaughter of Jews, to which Hitler referred in justifying the Holocaust.” – Dave Hunt (“A Cup of Trembling”; 1995; Page 158)

Here is some of that historical record of ROMAN CATHOLIC slaughter of Jews:

(1) 1095 A.D. – Pope Urban II (pope: 1088-1099) proclaims the First Crusade. Here is what historian Will Durant has written concerning this PAPACY-instigated murder spree: “When in 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade, some Christians [i.e., ROMAN CATHOLICS] thought it desirable to kill the Jews in Europe before proceeding so far to fight Turks in Jerusalem. Godfrey of Bouillon, having accepted the leadership of the crusade, announced that he would avenge the blood of Jesus upon the Jews.leaving not one of them alive; and his companions proclaimed their intention to kill all Jews who would not accept Christianity [Ed. Note:
i.e., the ROMAN CATHOLIC version of it].”

(2) 1096 A.D. – ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders slaughter half the Jews of Worms, Germany on their way through that town.

(3) 1099 A.D. – ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders, sent on a “holy” mission by the pope of Rome [i.e., Pope Urban II], make it to the walls of Jerusalem. Upon capturing the city, the Crusaders herd the Jews into the synagogue, and then set it on fire. These ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders butcher almost all of the city’s inhabitants – men, women, and children – Jews, Moslems, and probably even a few Christians! (The ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders had earlier slaughtered the inhabitants of the city of Antioch [in southern Turkey] – men, women, and children – when they had captured it!)

(4) 1236 A.D. – ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders slaughter Jews in the Anjou and Poitou regions of western France. Historian Will Durant tells us: “[ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders] invaded the Jewish settlements of Anjou and Poitou. .[These ROMAN CATHOLIC Crusaders] bade all Jews be baptized; when the Jews refused, the [ROMAN CATHOLIC] Crusaders trampled 3000 of them to death under their horses’ hoofs.”

(5) 1243 A.D. – All Jews in Belitz, Germany (near Berlin) are burned alive by ROMAN CATHOLICS. According to historian Will Durant, their alleged crime was that “some of them had defiled a consecrated host”.

(6) 1298 A.D. – All Jews in Rottingen are burned to death by ROMAN CATHOLICS. According to historian Will Durant, their alleged crime was:”desecrating a sacramental wafer”.

(7) 14th century (1300s) – The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH blames the Jews for the”Black Death” (probably the bubonic plague). Here is what author Dave Hunt has written in his book, “A Woman Rides the Beast” (1994), concerning this time in history: “From the time the popes ruled Rome, the Jews’ plight.was far more grievous than it had ever been at the hands of the pagan rulers.

Pagans had blamed every disaster upon Christians. Now the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH blamed all on the Jews. Accused of causing the ‘Black Death’, Jews were rounded up and hanged, burned, and drowned by the thousands in revenge.” (Page 267)

(8) 1481 A.D. – Kickoff of the “Spanish Inquisition”. The hierarchy of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH choreographs an orgy of torture and burning people alive – called the Inquisition. Though it is aimed initially and primarily at Jews and Moslems, the Inquisition also targets those Christians whose beliefs are not completely in line with the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines and practices. In the first two years (1481-1483), at least 2000 individuals are burned alive. Author Dave Hunt, in his book “A Woman Rides the Beast” (1994), states: “.In Spain alone the number of condemned exceeded three MILLION, with about 300,000 burned at the stake [during the length of the Spanish Inquisition].” (Page 79; Hunt quoting from R.W. Thompson’s book”The Papacy and the Civil Power”)

(9) 1941-1945 A.D. – The Jewish holocaust occurs in Nazi-Fascist-controlled Europe. Up to six MILLION Jews are murdered and starved to death. ROMAN CATHOLIC involvement in this holocaust is extensive. Roman Catholic German Knight of Malta Franz von Papen is one of the top players involved in putting Adolf Hitler into power. The German ROMAN CATHOLIC Center Party’s endorsement of, and unanimous vote for, the “Enabling Act” of March 1933 is crucial, giving Adolf Hitler the 2/3s majority he needs to assume dictatorial powers in Germany. JESUIT “father” Himmler (uncle to Heinrich Himmler) is a top officer in the Nazi SS (which is admittedly modeled after the JESUIT ORDER).

A number of ROMAN CATHOLIC priests put on the black uniforms of the Nazi SS. The VATICAN signs Concordats with Nazi Germany and with Fascist Italy. ROMAN CATHOLICS are installed as puppet dictators in a number of Fascist countries. For example, in Slovakia, the JESUIT priest, Monsignor Tiso, is installed as dictator. Additionally, Roman Catholic Knights of Malta head up three powerful intelligence agencies during World War II (William Donovan heads the American OSS – which later becomes the CIA; German General Reinhard Gehlen heads Nazi Intelligence on the eastern front; and Russian Anton Turkul heads Soviet Intelligence, and uses Jesuit priests for his couriers). By using elements within the warring factions, the VATICAN is able to ensure the slaughter of large numbers of its favorite targets: Jews, Protestants (in northern Germany and in Prussia), and Orthodox Christians. At the end of the war, the VATICAN helps many Nazi and Fascist war criminals to escape via the “Vatican Ratlines”, hiding them in convents and monasteries in Europe until they can safely escape to such countries as the USA, Argentina, etc.

(10) 1941-1945 A.D. – The “VATICAN’S holocaust” occurs in Croatia. Though primarily directed against Serb Orthodox Christians, much smaller numbers of Jews and gypsies are also targeted. This monstrous, barbaric, and savage religious genocide is planned, orchestrated, and conducted by ROMAN CATHOLIC clergymen – mainly FRANCISCAN monks, friars, and priests, along with several high-ranking JESUITS. Roman Catholic Croatian Fuehrer Ante Pavelic teams up with high-ranking ROMAN CATHOLIC prelates, such as JESUIT Monsignor Aloysius Stepinac (Archbishop of Zagreb) and JESUIT Monsignor Ivan Saric (Archbishop of Sarajevo), to use ROMAN CATHOLIC Ustashi military units to torture and butcher from 600,000 to 1 MILLION innocent Serb Orthodox Christian men, women, elderly, and children. This religious genocide includes the most brutal forms of torture, forced conversions, burning people alive, raping and murdering girls and women, impaling young children alive on stakes, gouging out the eyes of victims to make necklaces, starving children to death, burying victims alive, crucifying Orthodox priests to wooden doors, and some other atrocities that I do not feel should be written in an article. ROMAN CATHOLIC clergymen not only frequently advise the Roman Catholic Ustashi military units on how to torture and murder, but also actually participate in the savagery. A Franciscan monk, by name of “father” Miroslav Filipovic, serves as the cruel camp commandant at Jasenovac (one of the worst of the concentration camps).

NOTE: The above historical items were taken from my TTT newsletter entitled”Bloody Hands & Wicked Hearts” that is posted on http://www.toughissues.org.

The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has for many decades tried to “WHITEWASH” her involvement in agitating, inspiring, and actually orchestrating and leading, the persecution and slaughter of Jews throughout history, and especially her involvement in such atrocities during World War II. Please consider the following quote by author Dave Hunt, in which he analyzes the Roman Catholic Church’s modern “condemnation” of “anti-Semitism” from the Vatican II Council:

“Nothing could be more hypocritical than this statement [by the Roman Catholic Church's Vatican II Council condemning "anti-Semitism"]. The [Roman Catholic] Church strongly condemns ‘hatreds, persecutions.anti-Semitism’, but only by others, not by herself. No mention is made of the fact that during the many centuries when the [ROMAN] CATHOLIC CHURCH held sway over society, ruling even kings and emperors, she was the inspirer and perpetrator of an anti-Jewish bias as bad as anything the world has ever seen.” (“A Cup of Trembling”; 1995; Page 165)

Indeed, ROMAN CATHOLIC involvement in helping to foment World War II (WWII), and then supporting ROMAN CATHOLIC-controlled Fascist regimes in Europe during that time, has been well documented. Please carefully consider the following quotations that show ROMAN CATHOLIC involvement “to the maximum” in WWII – involvement that resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of both Jews and Christians:

“The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the VATICAN and its JESUITS in the starting of two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the VATICAN and its JESUITS, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict.” – Edmond Paris (“The Secret History of the Jesuits”; 1975; Page 9)

“The JESUITS, in control of [Adolf] Hitler’s occultic and homosexual Third Reich. installed puppet dictators throughout Europe. They were:
(1) Bavarian Germany and the Third Reich – [Adolf] Hitler [born-died:
1889-1945]
(2) Italy – [Benito] Mussolini [born-died: 1883-1945]
(3) ‘Vichy’ France – [Henri Philippe] Petain [born-died: 1856-1951]
(4) Spain – [Francisco] Franco [born-died: 1892-1975]
(5) Austria – Seyss-Inquart
(6) Poland – Frank
(7) Slovakia – [Jesuit] Priest [Monsignor] Tiso
(8) Croatia – [Ante] Pavelitch (Ed. Note: alternate spelling: Pavelic)
(9) Belgium – Degrelle.

All these ROMAN CATHOLIC, JESUIT-controlled, Jew-hating dictators were loyal to the greatest war criminal of all, Papal Caesar Pius XII and his master, JESUIT [Superior] General Wlodimir Ledochowski.” – Eric Jon Phelps (“Vatican Assassins”; 2001; Page 478)

“The [Nazi] Third Reich is the first power which not only recognizes, but which puts into practice the high principles of the PAPACY.” – Franz von Papen (German Roman Catholic Knight of Malta; January 14, 1934)

“The [ROMAN CATHOLIC] priests and the faithful must unhesitatingly uphold the great German state [i.e., Nazi Germany], and the Fuehrer [i.e., Adolf Hitler] whose struggle to set up [Nazi] Germany’s power, honor and prosperity is in accord with the wishes of Providence [i.e., the VATICAN].” – JESUIT Roman Catholic Cardinal Innitzer (Archbishop of Vienna, Austria)

“The declaration of [ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT] Monseigneur [Ed. Note: French spelling of "Monsignor"] Tiso, chief of the Slovakian state, stating his intention to build up Slovakia according to a Christian [sic] plan, has the full approval of the Holy See [i.e., the PAPACY].” – Radio Vatican (June 1940)

“I have learnt most of all from the JESUIT ORDER. .So far, there has been nothing more imposing on earth than the hierarchical organization of the [ROMAN] CATHOLIC CHURCH. A good part of that organization I have transported direct to my own [Nazi] party. .The [ROMAN] CATHOLIC CHURCH must be held up as an example. .I will tell you a secret. I am founding an order [Ed. Note: the Nazi SS]. .In [Heinrich] Himmler [who would become head of the Nazi SS]

I see our Ignatius de Loyola [Ed. Note: the founder of the Jesuit Order].” – Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Roman Catholic Nazi leader of Germany from 1933-1945)

((Ed. Comment to the preceding quote: This quotation of Hitler was taken from Edmond Paris’ book “The Vatican Against Europe”; 1959; Pages 252, 256.))

“The [ROMAN] CATHOLIC priests [in Fascist Croatia in the 1940s] changed their robes for the uniforms of the dreaded [ROMAN CATHOLIC] Ustashi [militia - and later the army] killer squads, and led the most barbaric, brutal raids upon those [Serb Orthodox Christian] people, and practiced satanic torture never before known in this century. We are not talking about 800 years ago. We are talking 1940.” – Jack Chick (“Smokescreens”; 1983; Page 25)

“This [Ed. Note: her booklet "Ravening Wolves"] is the record of torture and murder committed in Europe in 1941-1945 by an army of [ROMAN] CATHOLIC Actionists known as the Ustashi, led by monks and priests, and even participated in by nuns.” – Monica Farrell (“Ravening Wolves”)

“Most of [Fascist] Croatia’s [ROMAN] CATHOLIC clergy were fanatically behind [Croatian "supreme leader" Ante] Pavelic and his unbelievably evil regime. Medals were even given by Pavelic to nuns and priests, thus betraying the fact that many of them played active roles alongside the Ustashi military. FRANCISCAN monks in particular joined Ustashi battalions.”
– Dave Hunt (“A Woman Rides the Beast”; 1994; Page 301)

“[ROMAN] CATHOLIC religious orders gave total and continuous support to the [ROMAN CATHOLIC] Ustashi [militia - and later the army]. Before the establishment of the Independent State of Croatia (1941) their convents were hiding places for the Ustashi terrorists, [where they] concealed Ustashi presses, and were depositories of Ustashi subversive literature and even of hand grenades, guns and dynamite.
The Ustashi carried out their [pre-World War II terrorist] activities screened by members of [ROMAN CATHOLIC] religious orders, male and female.

Nuns prepared uniforms, emblems and medical equipment for Ustashi detachments.” – Avro Manhattan (“The Vatican’s Holocaust”; 1986; Page 99)

“Once [Croatian "supreme leader" Ante] Pavelic took power, [JESUIT] Archbishop [Aloysius] Stepinac issued a Pastoral Letter ordering the Croatian clergy to support the new Ustasha State. The involvement of [ROMAN] CATHOLIC clergy either in active participation or in blessing the Ustashi-run holocaust is well documented. One Franciscan monk, Miroslav Filipovic, headed the Jasenovac concentration camp for two years, during which time he directed the extermination of no less than 100,000 victims, mostly Serbian Orthodox. [JESUIT] Archbishop Stepinac headed the committee which was responsible for forcible ‘conversions’ to Roman Catholicism under threat of death – and was also the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, which effected the slaughter of those who failed to convert [to Roman Catholicism]. [JESUIT Archbishop] Stepinac was known as the ‘father-confessor’ to the Ustashi, and continually bestowed the blessing of Holy Mother Church upon its members and actions.” – Dave Hunt (“A Woman Rides the Beast”; 1994; Page 302)

“Estimates of the number of victims [of the VATICAN'S Holocaust in Croatia in the 1940s] exceed a MILLION. This is probably a realistic figure. Yugoslavia in its war crimes trials estimated that from 700,000 to 900,000 victims were ‘tortured and put to death.[in] the two dozen concentration camps’ within Croatia, and tens of thousands never reached the camps. Many were Jews, but most were Serbians of Orthodox faith who were give the choice of conversion to Roman Catholicism or death.

Both in Yugoslavia and the Ukraine, ROMAN CATHOLIC priests, bishops, and cardinals, with the full knowledge of the VATICAN, participated in and gave their blessing to some of the bloodiest and most barbaric massacres of the war, aimed at giving ROMAN CATHOLICISM control of these regions.” – Dave Hunt (“A Woman Rides the Beast”; 1994; Pages 303, 304)

“.By a ‘providential’ synchronism, when [Italian dictator] Mussolini seized power in Italy thanks to don Sturzo, [who was a] JESUIT and chief of the CATHOLIC party, [then it was at that same time that] Monseigneur Seipel, a JESUIT, became chancellor of Austria. He held that position until 1929, with an interregnum of two years, and, during those decisive years, he led the Austrian interior politics on to the reactionary and clerical road; his successors followed him on that road which led to the absorption of that country into the German block. The bloody repression of working-class uprisings earned him [i.e., JESUIT Seipel] the nickname ‘Keine Milde Kardinal’ – the ‘Cardinal without mercy’.” – Edmond Paris (“The Secret History of the Jesuits”; 1975; Page 139)

“It is believed that the Pope [i.e., Pius XI] will offer these services to Signor [Benito] Mussolini through the JESUIT Father Pietro Tachi-Venturi, who is often consulted by Mussolini on important matters.” (Daily Express, 2/9/1935) British United Press

“[Nazi SS Chief Heinrich] Himmler’s CATHOLICISM was very important to him. He attended church regularly, took Communion, confessed, and prayed.” G.S. Graber (“The History of the SS”)

“Adolf Hitler himself was a ROMAN CATHOLIC. Hitler had been reared in a traditional [Roman] Catholic family. As a child and youngster little Adolf had regularly attended Mass, had served as an acolyte during Mass, had hoped to become a priest, and had attended school in a Benedictine monastery at Lambach, Austria. .As an adult, Hitler remained a member in good standing in the ROMAN [CATHOLIC] CHURCH-STATE. At no time did officials of the [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CHURCH-STATE excommunicate him. When the German military plotted
to assassinate Hitler in 1944, and the plot failed, the ROMAN [CATHOLIC] CHURCH-STATE in Germany offered a ‘Te Deum’ to thank God for the Fuehrer’s escape.” – John W. Robbins (“Ecclesiastical Megalomania”; 1999 and 2006; Page 167)

“The SS had been organized by [Heinrich] Himmler according to the principles of the JESUIT ORDER. The rules of service and spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius de Loyola [Ed. Note: the founder of the Jesuit Order] constituted a model which [Heinrich] Himmler strove carefully to copy. Absolute obedience was the supreme rule; every order had to be executed without comment.” – Walter Shellenberg (Chief of the Nazi Sicherheitdienst)

((Ed. Comment to the preceding quote: ROMAN CATHOLIC priests put on the black uniforms of the Nazi SS, serving especially in the SS Central Security Service.))

“In the early days of May (1936), [German Knight of Malta Franz] von Papen entered into secret negotiations with Dr. Schussnigg (Austrian Chancellor) working on his weak point [i.e., he was a devout Roman Catholic] and showed him how advantageous a reconciliation with [Nazi leader Adolf] Hitler would be as far as the VATICAN’S interests were concerned; the argument may seem odd, but Schussnigg was very devout, and von Papen was the POPE’S [German] chamberlain [i.e., a high official in certain royal courts]. Not surprisingly, it was the [POPE'S] secret chamberlain [in Germany - i.e., Knight of Malta Franz von Papen] who led the whole affair, which ended, on the 11th of March 1938, with the resignation of the pious Schussnigg (pupil of the JESUITS), in favor of Seyss-Inquart, chief of the Austrian Nazis. The following day [March 12, 1938], the German troops entered Austria and the puppet government of Seyss-Inquart proclaimed the union of the country to the [Nazi German Third] Reich. The event was welcomed by an enthusiastic declaration of Vienna’s archbishop, Cardinal Innitzer (a JESUIT).” – Edmond Paris (“The Secret History of the Jesuits”; 1975; Page 139)

“The German author Walter Hagen gives also this discreet information: ‘The JESUITS’ [Superior] General, Count Halke von Ledochowski, was ready to organize, on the common basis of anti-communism, some collaboration between the German Secret Service and the JESUIT ORDER.’ As a result, within the SS Central Security Service, an organization was created, and most of its main posts were held by [ROMAN] CATHOLIC priests wearing the black uniform of the [Nazi] SS. The JESUIT [priest] ‘father’ Himmler [uncle of Heinrich Himmler] was one of its superior officers.” – Edmond Paris (“The Secret History of the Jesuits”; 1975; Page 168)

“.Kurt Heinrich Himmler [was] chief of the Gestapo [i.e., the secret police force of the German Nazi state], which meant he held in his hand the essential reins of power of the [Nazi] regime. Was it his personal merits which earned him such a high position? Did Hitler see in him a superior genius when he compared him [i.e., Heinrich Himmler] to the creator of the Jesuit Order [i.e., Ignatius of Loyola]? It is certainly not what the testimonies of those who knew him imply, as they saw in him nothing more than mediocrity. Was that ‘star’ [of Heinrich Himmler] shining with a borrowed ‘brightness’? Was it really Kurt Heinrich Himmler, the ostensible [i.e., apparent] chief, who actually reigned over the Gestapo and the secret services? Who was sending millions of people, deported for political reasons, and Jews to
their death? Was it the flat-faced nephew or [was it] the [JESUIT priest] uncle, the former Canon at the Court of Bavaria, one of [JESUIT Superior General] Ledochowski’s favorites, a JESUIT ‘father’ and superior officer of the [Nazi] SS?” – Edmond Paris (“The Secret History of the Jesuits”; 1975; Page 168)

“When thousands of German anti-Nazis were tortured to death in Hitler’s concentration camps, when the Polish intelligentsia was slaughtered, when hundreds of thousands of Russians died as the result of being treated as Slavic Untermenschen [subhumans], and when 6,000,000 human beings were murdered for being ‘non-Aryan’, [ROMAN] CATHOLIC CHURCH officials in Germany bolstered the [Nazi] regime perpetrating these crimes. The Pope in Rome [i.e., Pius XII], the spiritual head and supreme moral teacher of the Roman Catholic Church, remained silent. In the face of these greatest of moral depravities which mankind has been forced to witness in recent centuries, the moral teachings of a Church [allegedly] dedicated to love and charity, could be heard in no other form but vague generalities.” – Guenter Lewy (“The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany”; 1964; Page 341)

“[German] soldiers returning from the Eastern Front were telling horrible stories, how in occupied Russia Jewish civilians – men, women and children – were being lined up and machine-gunned by the thousands. .In the spring of 1942 the leaflets of the ‘White Rose’, composed by a group of students and a professor of philosophy at the University of Munich, told of the murder of 300,000 Jews in Poland and asked why the German people remained so apathetic in the face of these revolting times?” – Guenter Lewy (“The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany”; 1964; Page 287)

“This concealment [of the truth concerning ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH cooperation with the Nazi regime] has been so bold and successful that in Germany.not a single [Roman Catholic] bishop had to resign his office [because of his cooperation with the Nazis during World War II].

Quite the contrary, Bishop Berning, who had served until the downfall of Hitler in Goering’s Prussian State Council, in 1949 was given the honorary title of Archbishop. Herr [Franz] von Papen [who helped put Hitler into power and who negotiated the Concordat between the VATICAN and Nazi Germany in 1933] was made Papal Privy Chamberlain in 1959.
Such rewards for men deeply involved with the Nazi regime represent a mockery of [the true] heroic figures.who died fighting Hitler.” – Guenter Lewy (“The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany”; 1964; Page 321)

“Without the deadening hand of VATICAN control, resistance might have been multiplied across the country [i.e., Nazi Germany during World War II] from the outset. And had [ROMAN] CATHOLIC officialdom, from the outset, not turned a blind eye to the expanding anti-Semitic propaganda and persecution, the terrible disaster that befell the Jews might never have occurred.” – John Cornwell (Roman Catholic historian and journalist; “Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII”; 1999; Page 199)

“Practically every right-wing dictator of the period [i.e., in Europe during World War II] had been born and brought up a [ROMAN] CATHOLIC – notably Hitler, Franco, Petain, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Tiso (who was a CATHOLIC priest).” – John Cornwell (“Hitler’s Pope”; 1999; Page 280)

“Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the CHURCH OF ROME.” – Civilta Cattolica (House organ of the JESUITS)

Well, then, we seem to have a well-documented history that:

(1) The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has been slaughtering Jews from at least the time of the early Crusades.
(2) The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH launched a “holy” INQUISITION that initially targeted many Jews in Spain.
(3) The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was heavily involved in supporting Nazi Germany and other Fascist regimes in Europe during World War II – at a time when up to 6 MILLION Jews were being exterminated by these ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH-supported murdering regimes!

Let us remember that much of the “alternative media” tells us that the
“Masonic-Zionist Jews” are running the New World Order! Much of the “alternative media” also tells us that these Masonic-Zionist Jews are running Hollywood and the mainstream media. If these Masonic-Zionist Jews are really running Hollywood and the mainstream media, then why in blazes aren’t CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS telling us the whole story about ROMAN CATHOLIC heavy-duty involvement in fomenting World War II (WWII), helping to bring Hitler to power, filling key positions in the Nazi SS, supporting numerous Fascist regimes in Europe during WWII, orchestrating the “VATICAN’S Holocaust” in Croatia, and helping Fascist war criminals escape at the end of WWII via the VATICAN Ratlines? Why isn’t Hollywood producing numerous movies to show us all these facts that tie the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH directly into brutal genocide against Jews and Christians in Europe during WWII? After all, we’ve seen from the numerous quotations in this article that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has been the greatest enemy the Jews have ever seen – especially in the past 1000 plus years! Again I must ask: “If the ‘Masonic-Zionist Jews’ are controlling the mainstream media and Hollywood in America, then why in blazes aren’t they exposing this greatest enemy of the Jews, i.e., the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Let me tell you “WHY” this isn’t happening: It is because the”Masonic-Zionist Jews” are NOT “in charge”. Oh, yes, they hold some mid-level “management positions” within the New World Order (to include some
positions inside Hollywood and America’s mainstream media), and even a couple high-level “management positions”. However, they are NOT the “top player” in the New World Order. The real “controllers” (who operate “in the shadows” and “behind the scenes”) are the “secret societies”, such as the JESUIT ORDER, its Knights of Malta, and the top levels of JESUIT-controlled Freemasonry. (They direct and “steer” the mid-level managers.) Some folks in the “alternative media” love to point out that the Jewish B’nai B’rith is a Masonic organization, and it indeed is. But, WHO runs Freemasonry? Please consider the following quotes:

“.If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top, head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the BLACK POPE - the Superior General of the JESUIT ORDER] are one and the same person.” – James Parton (American historian)

“This inner and invisible Freemasonry is international in extent, and it is within the Inner Circle that the JESUITS conceal themselves, work, and mastermind the projects that suit their goals.” – John Daniel (“The Grand Design Exposed”; 1999; Page 170)

“Without exception, every chief actor in the French Revolution [of 1789-1799] was either JESUIT-educated, a [ROMAN] CATHOLIC prelate, or a member of the Illuminati Order [Ed. Note: a JESUIT front organization] where within the Jacobin Club they would come together to conspire and carry out the ‘Great Work’ – which in the open system of the Jacobins was the reflection of the complete hidden system of the Illuminati – and in back of the Illuminati were the hidden JESUIT ‘masters’.” – John Daniel (“The Grand Design Exposed”; 1999; Pages 212, 213)

“There are other secret and semi-secret organizations such as the International Bankers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberger Group, [the] Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, the New Age Movement, the Illuminati, and Freemasonry, who are all deeply involved in global politics, and who actively promote the uniting of the people of our planet under a New World Order. However.these all are but mere ‘front’ organizations, behind which the true source of power [i.e., the JESUIT ORDER] hides, and uses [them] to distribute and channel its designs. And, as in any conspiracy, secrecy and shifting attention and blame away from itself is paramount to its success.” – John Daniel (“The Grand Design Exposed”; 1999; Page 9)

I highly recommend that you read John Daniel’s book “The Grand Design Exposed”. His 411-page paperback book makes a compelling case that the ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT ORDER took over the top levels of British and French Freemasonry. To order his book for $20 postpaid, please make check or postal money order payable to “American Sentry Books”, and mail it to: American Sentry Books // P.O. Box 14 // Crawley, WV 24931.

Well, someone may now ask: “Didn’t the mainstream media expose some of the horrible pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church?” Yes, they did – but how could they not help but do so, since so much information was leaking out about it through numerous sources (such as many local newspapers)? They simply reported what was necessary to show that they were aware of the problem, and so that they would not lose total credibility with the American people!

NO, the “Masonic-Zionist Jews” do NOT control Hollywood or the mainstream media in America. They do NOT control international banking (although there are some wealthy Jews involved), the international intelligence community, or the New World Order itself! The JESUIT ORDER (which controls the Vatican, the wealthy and powerful Knights of Malta, and the top levels of Freemasonry) is the TOP PLAYER on the world’s geopolitical-financial-religious “chessboard”!

The following famous men warned us about the JESUIT ORDER:

“.They [i.e., the JESUITS] are a secret society, a sort of Masonic order with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous. They are not merely priests, or priests of one religious creed; they are merchants, and lawyers, and editors, and men of any profession, having no outward badge (in this country [i.e., the USA]) by which to be recognized; they are about in all your society. .They [i.e., the JESUITS] are educated men, prepared, and sworn to start at any moment, and in any direction, and for any service, commanded by the general of their order [i.e., the Jesuit Superior General, the "Black Pope"], bound to NO family, community, or country, by the ordinary ties which bind men; and sold for life to the cause of the ROMAN PONTIFF.” – Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph)

“My history of the JESUITS is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, is very particular and very horrible. Their restoration [i.e., the Jesuits' reinstatement as a religious order by Pope Pius VII in 1814] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, perfidy, despotism, [and] death. .I do not like the appearance of the JESUITS. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Loyola’s [i.e., the Jesuits, the "Company"].” (1816; from a letter to Thomas Jefferson) John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

“[The JESUITS] are the deadly enemies of civil and religious liberty.” R.W. Thompson (Ex-Secretary, American Navy)

“It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.” – Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general)

NOTES added on October 20, 2007:
(1) I originally wrote this article on June 28, 2006. I finished this second update early this morning on Oct. 20, 2007. Nothing much has changed with that large section of the so-called “alternative media” that likes to blame”the Jews” for two world wars – and for allegedly running the “New World Order”. They continue to ignore “tons” of historical evidence that clearly shows that the Vatican-Papacy-Jesuit-Knights of Malta cabal was the fomenter of those two world wars – and is the “Number One Player” on the New World Order “chessboard”.
(2) Please do some research about this wealthy and powerful Vatican-Papacy-Jesuit-Knights of Malta cabal. At the end of a number of my writings posted on http://www.toughissues.org you will find quite a large number of recommended “informational tools”, such as DVDs, audiotapes, and books.

Please obtain as many as you can afford, and then share them with others. And here are some other websites that contain important information about the Vatican-Papacy-Jesuit-Knights of Malta cabal (I will try to list as many as I can remember – some of them have articles that deal with this cabal, and others have “broadcast/podcast interviews” of folks who have written about this cabal – and some of them recommend other resources for further research on this wealthy and powerful cabal):

(1) http://www.ctwilcox.com (Canadian actor and author C.T. Wilcox’s website; I highly recommend that you purchase a copy of his 345-page paperback book”The Transformation of the Republic”.)
(2) http://www.arcticbeacon.com (Broadcast host Greg Szymanski’s website)
(3) http://www.gordoncomstock.com (Podcast host “Gordon Comstock’s” website)
(4) http://www.vyzygoth.com (Broadcast host “Vyzygoth’s” website)
(5) http://www.vaticanassassins.org (Author Eric Jon Phelps’ website; I recommend that you purchase a copy of his CD-ROM “Vatican Assassins”.)
(6) http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com (Author John Daniel’s website; I recommend
that you purchase a copy of his 411-page paperback book “The Grand Design Exposed”.)
(7) http://www.bereanbeacon.org (Author Richard Bennett’s website; I recommend that you purchase a copy of his 58-minute color DVD “The Inquisition”.)
(9) http://www.chick.com (Chick Publications website; I recommend that you buy the book “The Secret History of the Jesuits” by Edmond Paris, and the book”Smokescreens” by Jack Chick, from them.)
(10) http://www.whitehorsemedia.com (Steve Wohlberg’s website; I recommend that you buy his book “End Time DELUSIONS”.)

NOTE: The above websites are NOT listed in any particular order – and my inclusion of each of them does NOT mean that I agree necessarily with EVERYTHING that may be posted on that particular website. If I have forgotten to list a good website of which I am aware that deals with the Vatican-Papacy-Jesuit-Knights of Malta cabal – or if I do not personally know of a particularly good website that deals with this cabal and thus failed to list it – then please FORGIVE me! And please do make good use of all the above-listed websites while they are STILL there. Powerful people want desperately to totally CONTROL the Internet, and they will no doubt SOON move to do so!

Lastly, I would like you to consider this following Bible verse – and a request from me:

“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers, or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Psalm 94:16)

REQUEST: Please print off copies of this article and give them to others. The truth about WHO is really running America MUST be told to the American people! If you received this article via E-Mail, then please forward the main text (from “BEGIN TEXT” to “END TEXT”) on to others. THANKS!

END TEXT.

I hope that the above information proves helpful. Again, the American people MUST be told WHO really is the TOP PLAYER on the geopolitical and financial scene today!

Psalm 94:16, Ephesians 5:11, and Ezekiel 22:30

In Christ,
Darryl Eberhart

The common man never created the U.S. Constitution nor was the Bill of Rights for him.

June 23, 2014

Since 1990 I have been preaching that the Constitution was never mine and the People in “We the People” was not the common man on the street, but rather the aristocracy of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Jay and others. Lysander Spooner is another man in the 1800’s that had the same sentiments. He too showed that the constitution was not only NOT a contract with the people, but that none of the signers signed it with any conviction and it is evident that they only signed in a witness capacity, check it out for yourself by looking at how they signed the constitution and bound no one unless they agreed to the terms in the alleged contract called a constitution that they drafted.

The following is from the Cases in Constitutional law. I had used the John Barron case to prove my point that the common man on the street had nothing to do with creating the constitution quite a few years back.. The majority of the people put the constitution even before the word of the LORD ALMIGHTY, because they revere it so much they will say they will defend it. What they do not know is that the constitution gives unlimited power to those men who assume the power and jurisdiction over them and offers them no protection whatsoever. The hoopla of the government spin doctors have led the common man to believe the common man has protections built in to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lie is so big that people, even when shown, still revert back to the constitution as if it were GOD himself. It is only because of the teachings they had that was passed down from generation to generation. Just like the little boy believes in the big lie you tell him for the fist 5 to 7 years of his life that there is a Santa, Tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Small lies but still lies. He won’t believe there is none of the above when you tell him. It is more serious in real life, the lies that have been fed your relatives all the way back to 1776, and now when we researchers tell you the truth, you still want to believe in the Big Lie, just like the 5 year old wants to believe in Santa. I want to point out that what you read is not one word of mine, except where I make comments. I will bold those words that will draw your attention and make you see the light that I saw over 10 years ago. It is a slow process, to come to the realization that in order to control the people, they must be made to believe in (government) lies. Please note how the courts, after the John Barron case, have changed the meaning so that they can start changing what the genesis of the constitution was all about. They had to do this to keep the people 10 steps behind in figuring out what Patrick Henry warned, that the constitution was a document to enslave the people of America. So I start with the book, which is the same book I used describing the 16th Amendment, Direct and Indirect taxes. Remember it is what the enemy (government State and Federal) says that counts. Sometimes they tell us things in court cases that go right over our heads. They can’t say that we were not warned.

Chapter 16
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights
Early Efforts To Extend the Bill of Rights to the States
BARRON v. BALTIMORE
7 Peters 243; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)

One of the bitter criticisms urged against our federal Constitution as it came from the hands of the Convention was that it contained no bill of rights. It was feared that without specific guarantees the civil rights and liberties of the people and the states would be at the mercy of the proposed national government. Ratification was secured, but with a tacit understanding that a bill of rights should promptly be added which should restrict the national government in behalf of individual liberty. That the early statesmen thought of a federal bill of rights only in terms of restrictions on national power is emphasized by Hamilton’s ingenious argument in The Federalist (No. 84) that since the proposed central government was one which possessed only the powers delegated to it, it would be not only unnecessary but unwise to prohibit it from doing things which were clearly outside the scope of its delegated authority.

When the First Congress convened, the House of Representatives proposed seventeen amendments in the nature of a bill of rights. One of these, the fourteenth, provided that “no state should infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press. This amendment, which was the only one restricting the powers of the states, was rejected by the Senate. The substance of the others was consolidated into twelve amendments, ten of which were finally ratified by the states.

The First Amendment indicates by its own language that it is directed only against the federal government, for it begins, “Congress shall make no law …. ” The other amendments are couched in terms of general prohibition; and in spite of the perfectly clear historical evidence as to the intention of those who framed them, it came to be argued that these guarantees of civil liberty ought to be construed as restrictions upon state and federal governments alike. Whether this view is correct is the issue involved in Barron v. Baltimore, the last constitutional decision in which Mr. Chief Justice Marshall participated.

While paving its streets, the city of Baltimore had diverted from their natural courses certain streams, with the result that sand and gravel were deposited near Barron’s wharf. The wharf, which had previously enjoyed the deepest water in the harbor, was rendered practically useless, for the deposits prevented the approach of vessels. A verdict of $4500 for Barron had been reversed by the state court of appeals, and a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was alleged by Barron that this action upon the part of the city constituted a violation of that clause of the Fifth Amendment which forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation. He insisted that this amendment, being a guarantee in behalf of individual liberty, ought to be construed to restrain the states as well as the national government.

The decision in Barron v. Baltimore has left an indelible impression on the development of civil rights in this country. While today Barron would have brought his case under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does restrict the states), the process of change by which parts of the Bill of Rights have come to be applicable to the states has been slow, uncertain, and confusing. While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been overruled.

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court:
The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the twenty-fifth section of the Judicial Act.

The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a State, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. . . . .

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government–not against those of the local governments.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress, and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion that the provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States.

This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and [it] is dismissed.

Informer’s Comment: Ever wonder why the federal judges say, “don’t bring the constitution in my court?” Now you know why. So now we see the progression to hide this fact from the people in the states, who had no say whatsoever in drafting and creating the U.S. Constitution, by the courts dictating change by their decisions. Remember also, that the constitution of each of the states was never created or ratified by the common man either, for the same reasons the U. S. Constitution was never drafted nor ratified by the common man. So why do you all claim it is your constitution and Bill of Rights when it clearly is stated by the court that it is not?

In the next case please see if you can see RIGHTS mentioned. First the government granted “privileges” and after they were granted, they became rights under statute, only at the whim of the Congress. Today that is called “statutory rights” and NOT God given rights. That is why it was always a “privilege” to vote, because of the original restrictions, having property and money was the only criteria allowing those to vote. History has shown this to be so. That left the common man, who had no property or money in excess of 100 dollars silver, who you believe to have drafted both the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could not vote.

THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 16 Wallace 36; 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)
In the years prior to the Civil War the individual relied almost entirely on the constitution of his state for the protection of his rights and liberties. The Supreme Court had ruled in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights limited only the national government, and with the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had passed no law which anyone seriously believed had violated these limitations. The ordinary citizen looked to the state legislature to protect his person and property from private interference, and to the state bill of rights for protection against injury by his state government. Certainly he did not, and could not, expect the national government to step in and protect him either from his neighbor or from his state government.

At the close of the Civil War it seemed clear that without the intervention of the federal government the Southern states would by legislative restrictions strip the newly freed Negro of most of the ordinary rights and immunities of free citizens. To place the civil rights of the Negro upon a firm basis Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment authorizing the national government to step in and protect the Negro against actions by his own state government. The states were forbidden to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to deny anyone the equal protection of the laws. The amendment defined United States citizenship in terms which included the Negro, and the states were forbidden to make laws abridging the privileges and immunities of that citizenship.

Exactly what the framers of the amendment intended to include in the phrase “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” is not altogether clear, and there is evidence to indicate that it was not clear even to the framers. Some apparently believed that the clause would include within its protection those basic rights enjoyed by all persons–such as the right to marry, to own property, to do business, and to move about freely. Others thought that it would include all or part of the protections listed in the federal Bill of Rights. In the Slaughter-House Cases the Court held that the privileges and immunities clause protected none of these rights, and from this decision the Court has never retreated.

The Slaughter-House Cases were the first cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, and they had nothing whatever to do with the rights of freedmen. The case arose on the following facts: the Reconstruction or “carpetbag,’ government in Louisiana, unquestionably under corrupt influence, had granted a monopoly of the slaughterhouse business to a single concern, thus preventing over one thousand other persons and firms from continuing in that business. The validity of the law was attacked under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was argued before the Supreme Court twice and was decided by a majority of five to four.

The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship, and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally. Nor has the Court been willing to expand the scope of the privileges and immunities clause beyond this early, limited interpretation. Five years before the Slaughter-House Cases the Supreme Court had held void, in Crandall v. Nevada (1868), a state tax on transporting persons out of the state, on the ground that such a tax would obstruct the citizen in his inherent federal right to come to the seat of his government. Two members of the Court, while concurring in the judgment, held the tax to be a violation of the commerce clause. In his opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice Miller cites this freedom of movement as an example of the privileges and immunities of United States citizens, and in 1941 in Edwards v. California, four members of the Court strongly urged that the California “anti-Okie” law should be held invalid on this ground. The majority had rested their decision, as had the minority in the Crandall case, upon the commerce power.

Had the Slaughter-House Cases been decided 25 years later, the Louisiana statute would in all probability have been invalidated as a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws. But the majority of the Court disposed rather summarily of these clauses by holding in substance that the due process of law clause was not a limitation on the state’s police power and that the equal protection of the laws clause, equally inapplicable, would probably never be invoked except for the protection of the Negro. It is important to bear in mind that Mr. Justice Miller’s comments about the due process and equal protection clauses no longer state the law. The Court has long since given those clauses the broadest possible applicability. There have, in fact, been more cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment than on any other phase of constitutional law.

It looked for a time (1935-1940) as though the Court might also broaden the scope and applicability of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Colgate v. Harvey (1935) the Court held void a provision of a Vermont income tax law which taxed income from money loaned outside the state at a higher rate than that loaned inside the state. Besides denying the equal protection of the laws, this act was held to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

The right to carry on business freely across state lines was declared to be a privilege or immunity of federal citizenship, a doctrine sharply differing from the rule of Slaughter-House Cases. In 1939, in Hague v. CIO, involving the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of various repressions of free speech, assembly, etc., in Jersey City, two justices of the Supreme Court from the majority held that the right of citizens to assemble and discuss their rights under the National Labor Relations Act was a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was also speculation as to whether protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was also a privilege and immunity of federal citizenship, but no decision was made on that point. There was sharp dissent in both cases against this tendency to enlarge the scope of the privileges and immunities clause; and in Madden v. Kentucky (1940), in a case similar to Colgate v. Harvey, the Court specifically overruled that case and returned to the timeworn narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause embodied in the Slaughter-House Cases.

Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part:
The plaintiffs in error accepting this issue, allege that the statute is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in these several particulars:

Informer’s comment: The Plaintiffs lost because the constitution of the United States did not apply to them and the amendments did not apply to the states. The part of the decision of Miller states, “But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, AND WITHOUT that of the federal government.” Emphasis mine.

Now I hope all you understand that the Bill of Rights, as originally adopted, DID NOT belong to the people that lived in the states and they did not, contrary to the big lie they are led to believe, create the Bill of Rights, just like they did not create the Constitutions of the United States, much less the state constitution where they live. The common man never ratified any constitution.

Now in Nebbia v New York 291 U.S. 502, Justice Roberts stated, “So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitution restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adopted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. . . .

Informer’s Comment: People, “public welfare” means government welfare, NOT your welfare. How many believe when they say “public,” that it means you and me? Probably 95 percent of you think this way. Not so, the government is termed public. Ever hear the term “public office?” That is easy to understand it means government office. Why is it so difficult to understand the “public welfare clause “means government welfare and not your welfare? Therefore, as stated by the Nebbia court, the federal courts are without authority to override the state’s domain.

BUT, the problem has completely gone away and with the advent of the War Powers the Congress and the President now control all states and actually throws out all these court arguments because “Public Policy” (Government AKA Congress’s Policy) over rules all law except what they drafted after the Reconstruction Acts. The enemy, that is the common man, has no rights, State or otherwise under emergency power control. And, even if we were to revert back to peace time and be under no emergency rule, the Constitution would still not protect you nor the Bill of Rights against State control. Now that blows the 2nd Amendment right out of the water because it only applies to the People of the United States and NOT to the people of the States. Go an Pull the entire John Barron case to see where they addressed every item in the Bill of Rights and how they do not pertain to the people in the states, with the exception of one.

Have a nice day. Sincerely, The Informer


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.