|
|
We are the New Covenant Israelites, of the faith of Abraham; reconciled through a Spiritual adoption to eternal life through our Messiah Yah'shua, by the grace of Yahweh. |
||||||||||
|
The Natural Congregation of Yahweh is what the secular world, modern traditional 'Christians', and the modern 'Jews', would phrase as, "The Natural Church of God" |
||||||||||
Behaving as Responsible Israelites: Yahweh is not a free ticket out of our responsibilities. Possessing identification documents declaring our citizenship in Yahweh's Kingdom, or having knowledge of the superiority of Yahweh's Laws and His original authority, does not mean we can shirk our responsibilities to our fellow man - not even those responsibilities we owe to our deceived fellow man such as police officers or judges. If we are to gain and maintain the respect of the unbelievers, we must always behave in a Godly and proper manner as prescribed in Yahweh's word. It is called, "setting the good Israelite example". "The earth is Yahweh's, and all its fullness" (Psalms 24:1). That fairly well sums up who really owns things. Perhaps Yahweh's other remark "The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me" (Lev. 25:23), also adds some insight into the Messiah's later statement regarding His own living accommodation, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Matt. 8:20). And we suspect that all of these plus many other similarly themed Bible verses are what prompted the Messiah's disciples and the apostles to report "neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own" (Acts 4:32-35). We may possess things, but we may never truly own things, as the entire "earth is Yahweh's, and all its fullness". We believe that it would be commendable for everyone to give thanks to Yahweh for their peaceful possession of those things that they have need of. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to Yahweh; and the peace of Yahweh, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Yah'shua the Messiah" (Phil. 4:6,7). Do not become entangled in the things "of the world" such as prideful "ownership". Be content with Yahweh's gift of simple possession for your times of need. There is a Godly purpose to our faithful acceptance that Yahweh will provide for possessions that will fulfill our needs without the necessity to selfishly "own" them. This peace of Yahweh may well be something that "surpasses all [human - temporal] understanding". Remember the Commandment of Yahweh regarding ownership, "Thou shall not covet", but rather be content with what Yahweh has blessed you with. We are living in the world that Yahweh confirms is under Satan's temporary rule. Satan's man-made system of commerce including its temporal provisions for land ownership, is a far cry from being perfect. Yahweh knows this and He knows your needs. "Let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing" (James 1:4). Ask in faith, and you shall receive! But remember that it is Yahweh that you are to ask of! In the strict sense, we do not have or own any land save that which we have been blessed possession of by our Father. The land that we enjoy possession of is "owned" pursuant to man's laws by a corporation (legal person, corporate persona, straw man) and the corporation is in turn entrusted to us (Natural living man) as its trustee. It may appear at times from our various writings in support of different ideas and concepts regarding man-made commerce, that we are "anti-establishment", which to the degree that being so is in harmony with Yahweh, we are - because the "establishment" belongs to Satan. But we do not allow these things to blind us to the reality that this earth and all its fullness has been given into the hands of men to be governed by them until the Messiah returns! The earth is Yahweh's and all its fullness, but indeed, Ps 115:16 says: "The heaven, even the heavens, are Yahweh's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men [until the Messiah returns]." We are unfortunately bound by men's rule even on Yahweh's earth, whether we like it or not. That is why we are told to obey every ordinance of man, particularly those ordinances that allow us to enjoy what man has determined to be "privileges" such as "owning" or "renting" land or driving on the highways that they mistakenly believe they "own". I know the Bible says that land shall not be sold forever, but that is just another example of Yahweh's laws that are simply not obeyed by mainstream "disobedient" man. In this regard, even though man is definitely "wrong", we are nonetheless instructed to "let yourselves be defrauded" (1 Co.6:7). You cannot "let yourself be defrauded" if you are challenging everything that is fraudulent! So the land that the state perceives us to "own", is registered in a corporate identity which they also recognize. The issues of land ownership and driving and how they play into Godly obedience are not unlike most issues of commerce and how they relate to Scripture. To totally maintain Yahweh's perfect laws as He has perfectly set them out, does not mean that you must disobey every ordinance of man, nor does it imply that you have any right to disobey any ordinance of man. Yahweh provides a temporary compromise during this lifetime that we experience under man's rule. That compromise is exampled in the manner by which Paul acknowledges having lived in a "rented" house, and the Messiah acknowledged paying taxes and participating in His bogus trial at the hands of "man" and man's inferior "law". No authority exists that does not come from Yahweh, including the authority of "man", hence Yahweh expects us to obey every one of Man's ordinances, because indirectly, they emanate from Him! This obviously does not include any of man's ordinances that are in direct contradiction to any of Yahweh's commandments. For example, man says that Sunday is the "Lord's Day", so keeping Sunday as a holiday has caused many to disobey Yahweh's command to keep the Sabbath [Saturday] as His Holy Day. However paying rent in the form of artificial money does not cause you to disobey any of Yahweh's commands regarding possession of land. Nor does the payment of taxes cause you to violate any of Yahweh's commands. In other words, you do not have to kill someone, or commit adultery or steal from someone to pay taxes, pay rent, or otherwise "let" man be deceived by any of his own means. Also it is not in violation of any of Yahweh's laws to be obedient to man's "traffic laws". A man may drive on the highway in Yahweh's Kingdom and for Godly purposes and do so in complete obedience to man's laws regarding speeds, stop signs, seat-belts, and other "safety" concerns. In fact if a man of Yahweh disobeys these "laws" of man when they are not in direct conflict with Yahweh's law, then that man is acting in direct defiance of Yahweh, and by doing so he has provided the man-state with a plausible jurisdiction over his actions. In short, a man cannot claim Yahweh as his Sovereign Lord and then directly disobey His commands! The unbelieving witness [police officer or judge for example] has every right to use such behavior to gain jurisdiction over that man. Why? Because by disobeying Yahweh, you are claiming that you as a man, have the superior authority. The state cares not whether you agree that their authority is valid, so long as you provide them with any evidence that the authority of some "man", including your self, is superior. You cannot control that which another man thinks. Hence even if you discriminate with regard to payment of taxes, trying for example, only to pay the mandatory as opposed to the voluntary, etc., you are really not changing anything. The ungodly tax collector will use all taxes to support his ungodly schemes regardless of whether or not those taxes were voluntary, obligatory, direct or indirect, so in the strict sense, if you pay any taxes at all, you are in league with the "common purse of the ungodly", just like the Messiah and Peter were, and even as Paul was by paying rent to a landlord that undoubtedly paid taxes from the rent money. In other words, do not worry, rather let yourself be defrauded, and be thankful that at least YOU know the difference! The only way to not be in the common purse with the ungodly is to not spend ANY of Caesar's money on anything, or to pay any of it to anyone that could directly or indirectly use that money to support any of Caesar’s schemes, which means total abstinence from commerce, which is NOT what Yahweh has decreed by the examples of the Messiah or the Apostles which are confirmed in His statement, "obey every ordinance of man". Remember that He said "obey", He did not say "enjoy" nor did He say "agree in your heart". If you are truly concerned about how you should "own" land, or if you are truly concerned about how should operate your vehicle as compared to how you should obey Yahweh, we will state that you are truly concerned about two quite different things. We will not presume to give "advice" on land ownership or driving principles - these are man-made rules and regulations to be taken for what they are worth and obeyed because Yahweh commanded us so - not because man attempts to enforce them. We will explain to the best of our abilities as many things as we can related to "man's" ordinances, so that you might find it a little easier to sift through some of them to see if one is more preferable to you than the other, but you will in any event, have to choose obedience to one or more of man's ordinances to deal with the issues of "land ownership" and driving your vehicle for example. On the second issue of obeying Yahweh, that should be self-evident, but even this has been clouded by man's persistent interference with his own traditions. For example, in order to facilitate your Godly possession of land, you must obey one or more of man's ungodly ordinances. Not so with man's "traditions". The Saturday verses Sunday "tradition" for example, or the false Christmas or Easter "traditions" which man does not obligate you to keep, but if you do keep them you are disobeying Yahweh's ordinances in many ways.
Firstly you are being disobedient to Yahweh by keeping the
pagan traditions, secondly by not keeping the Yahweh ordained festivals, and
thirdly by not honoring a host of Yahweh's ordinances such as His direct command
not to keep a "Christmas tree" as set out in
We do not know everyone’s potential rationale for being concerned about all of these issues surrounding commerce, which we are happy to answer to the best of our ability, but we suspect that it may be wise for many to spend a little more time understanding Yahweh's ordinances that they can obey without any conflict from man, as opposed to concerning yourself with challenging man's ordinances that you must obey because Yahweh has instructed thus. TOP ^
No Truth in Men's Courts Pilate therefore said unto him, "Art thou a king then?" Yah'shua answered, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice". Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find in him no fault at all". (Jn 18:37-38) Believe it or not, Pilate actually asked the question, "What is truth!" Pilate was administering Caesar's court when he asked that question! One would suspect that even Caesar's court officers would know truth, but they do not. In fact they cannot! The plain statement of the Messiah, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice", makes that perfectly clear. If Pilate, or any one of Caesar's modern day court officers, judges, police officers, etc., could actually "hear truth", then they would of necessity, step out of their man-made offices and into the truth of the Messiah, because the Messiah's words are truth. If these court officers could hear truth, they would start acting in truth; doing unto others as they would have done unto themselves, judging not lest they shall be judged with the same measure, working in an office of the Messiah's Congregation for the glory of Yahweh, forsaking vengeance as Yahweh's duty, proclaiming the Gospel, etc. But they cannot hear truth, hence they act in the lie. Some refer to the lie as the fiction. It does not matter the name, it matters that it is not of the truth. But many will say they demand witnesses to speak the truth in their courts. This is correct. But they do NOT allow witnesses to speak the truth as the witness understands it, they instead play games with idioms of the truth they call "facts". Who could possibly know more truth about the circumstances of an event, the witness, or an officer of the court? Anyone can plainly see that the witness must know more of the truthful circumstances of an event than any court officer could possibly know. Yet the witness is not allowed to express his truth! The witness is limited to answering questions posed by the court officer. Questions that by design must be posed from the perspective of the party having less knowledge of the truth. In man's modern courts, and even as far back as Caesar's time, an answer to a question posed by an officer of the court, whether the answer be of the truth or of a lie, becomes a "fact in evidence", without exception! The whole point of any court exercise (act) is to ascertain what the court refers to as "facts in evidence", not "facts of evidence". Facts that are IN evidence are "deemed" to be true-evidence [not truth], whereas facts that would be OF evidence would necessarily be of truth because that is all "evidence" really can be. Let's look at an example. A male witness, "Mr. Smith", is being questioned by crown counsel concerning an "accused" party sitting in the court room. The crown counsel holds up a red shirt, makes a "statement" which he infers to the witness is a question as follows: "Mr. Smith, I suggest to you that this is the shirt found on the accused at the time of the incident." Mr. Smith then "answers" the non-question, which confirms the "fact IN evidence". You see, any way that Mr. Smith answers this non-question, ends up creating the "fact IN evidence". For example, if he replies with "yes it is", the implications are obvious. If he replies with "no", the court will deem him to have meant "no you are not suggesting this", which effectively means that the "fact" is now IN evidence, but the crown merely did not have your agreement to his "suggestion". Another common example is the double negative. Universally, crown counsel will ask "non-questions" this way: "Is it not true, that this is the red shirt you saw on the accused?" If Mr. Smith answers "yes", the court will accept it as confirmation that Mr. Smith is saying it is the red shirt. If he answers "no", the court will also accept it as the same thing, because "no, it is not true" really means yes! You see, if I say "no, it is not true", then I am effectively saying “it is false” (“not true” = “false”). If I say "yes, it is not true", I am still saying it is false. You see the crown's question was "is it not true" which is identical to saying "is it false". So the answer of yes, really means, yes it is false. But the court will always accept every answer as meaning you agree that it was the red shirt, as a fact in evidence. An even more blatant example would be when the crown counsel holds up a red shirt and asks Mr. Smith as follows: "Is it not true, that this is the yellow shirt you saw on the accused?". Now if Mr. Smith answers with the typical "No", he has just confirmed the "fact IN evidence", that "no, it is not true", which means "no, it is true", because his answer of ‘no” means that he must mean the opposite of the question, which was “not true”! Suddenly the red shirt literally becomes the "yellow" shirt as a "fact IN evidence"! You see, the judge will eventually be called to make a so-called "ruling"; a determination based upon the facts IN evidence. Because these facts can be created and interpreted in any subjective manner that the court wishes, there is never any danger of the judge being accused of a false determination. No matter what the judge's verdict may be, the so-called facts in evidence can be and are interpreted in whatever subjective manner is necessary to support his equally subjective ruling. This is why the essence of Man's courts is summed up in the "win" and the "loss". In men's courts you cannot have truth, because men's courts are designed to determine "winners" and "losers". If you truly seek the truth of any matter, everyone involved can only benefit; there will be no losers as a result of revealing or ascertaining the truth. "Facts" in evidence are created by the lawyers [liars] so as to disguise the real truth. It's all about presentation; which "side" can present the "facts" in a manner so as to be deemed the "winner". In short, who is the most capable of directing the act; the players behind the masks. If truth were the issue, there could not possibly be any "sides" to the matter. Who would be the party to stand up and openly declare that they wanted to be on the "other" side if you were on the side of truth? Just try presenting something of truth in the courts of men, and you will very quickly find that you have undermined and exposed their very nature. Remember, they CANNOT HEAR TRUTH! Truth does not have two sides. Truth does not make winners and losers. Truth exposes them for what they are. Sons of the father of lies; Satan's Charlatans! For example, if you truthfully inform a judge that you are a live man of Yahweh and that you perceive that their court has some type of claim against their straw man [persona identity with a name-title similar to yours], and that your desire is to make settlement with them in an honorable way on behalf of that straw man, they will respond with a declaration that "they do not understand"! Why? Because you have spoken of the truth! How hard can it possibly be to understand that you are a live man of Yahweh that wishes to make an honorable settlement with them on any claim that they may have? Now try the reverse. When they speak their lie to you; when they declare their allegation or "charge", simply explain that you are a live man of Yahweh and that you do not understand the nature of their claim against you or their straw man and you wish to be fully informed so that you may settle with them honorably. So long as you do not fully understand what their charge is, they cannot proceed, nor will they. They will NOT provide you with your disclosure of truth behind their charge, because that act would expose them, hence they will not proceed against you if you continue to ask for your entitled disclosure of the truth which does not exist in their court. Your offer of settlement is in essence your honorable acceptance of their "charge", which gives you authority even by their law, to ask for disclosure of the original charge or order, in a manner such that you can make settlement of that alleged "just" claim. Because the claim is not just; it is in fact an artificial claim against an artificial entity, they cannot bring it forward to provide you with disclosure, hence you cannot fully understand the charge, hence they cannot proceed. They can only accept your offer to settle by withdrawing their charge. It is simply the truth that shall set you free! TOP ^
"Who You Are" or "Where You Stand"! In essence, the issue of "who you are" as compared to "where you stand", may be summed up in the following statement: "By declaring and or by defining who you are, you do not define where you stand, but when you declare where you stand, you have also concurrently defined who you are without discussing the matter." In other words, when I inform a judge by declaring to him that I stand in the Kingdom of Yahweh, and ask him to declare to me whether or not his court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom, that judge already knows that I am a real, live man of Yahweh, and he knows that I am not a "straw-man", without my having ever brought up that issue. However, if I declare to that same judge that I am not a straw man, or that I am not a corporate persona of the state and that I am a real live man of Yahweh, that judge still has every right according to man's law to do everything in his power to entice me into volunteering to enter into "his" jurisdiction. The public record is replete with examples of men and women that have rightly declared that they are real live men or women of Yahweh, yet, these same men or women have been subsequently tricked into volunteering to step into the judge's jurisdiction, simply because they did not know where they should be standing! In fact, the mere act of your offering evidence in the form of argument over the issue of the "name" implies that you have tacitly and obviously unwittingly, accepted the judge's alleged authority to rule on that issue! In short, "who you are" is an issue designed to aid in the court's trickery. That is why they always start with that issue by asking for a "name", or confirmation of a name. Virtually any response you offer in direct response to the issue of a name, can only be accepted by them as an offer of evidence concerning the issue of the "name", not the issue of jurisdiction. Even if you "win" the argument with your evidence of "who you are", or "who you are not", you still have not dealt with the more important issue of "where you stand", and in fact you have volunteered to enter their jurisdiction but only as a "man"! Again, the public record is replete with examples where the courts have ruled against real live men and women of Yahweh for this very reason. By ignoring the issue of the name; by not responding to it at all; by simply going right to the issue of "where you stand", YOU will be the one trapping the judge as opposed to him potentially trapping you into his jurisdiction. The judge will not be able to tell you that his court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom any more than he will be able to tell you it does not stand in Yahweh's Kingdom, and until he addresses your simple question of where his court stands, he does not have any jurisdiction to continue with his quest to have you address "his" issue of a name. Why do you think the police, the prosecutors, the courts, or all of the other "persons", always ask you what your name is? Why do you think they persist on this issue so adamantly, often demanding that you "give them your name"? The answer may surprise you. They really do not care who you are, but they really do care "where" you are! And in most cases, they do know the difference! Basically, they only have jurisdiction over you as a man when you offer to "go" someplace with them. You must "go" into their jurisdiction before they have any control over you. Your name, whether or not it is in upper, or lower case or some mixture thereof, is not the real issue. Whether you are a man of Yahweh or a "straw-man" cannot really be the issue, because YOU cannot be a straw man even if you wanted to be. Your "standing" is the issue! There are only two possible places for you to "stand". You have your entitlement to Yahweh's gift of being able to stand in Yahweh's Kingdom. And you have the option of "stepping" out of Yahweh's Kingdom and into the kingdoms of man. There are many ways the tricksters may utilize to induce, coerce, intimidate or influence you to step into one of their imaginary "kingdoms", but the result is always the same. The principle result of stepping into any one of their jurisdictions, is that you have voluntarily stepped out of Yahweh's Kingdom - the only true sanctuary. Quite possibly the most successful and most common manner of trickery the courts employ to entrap men or women of Yahweh, is to ask this simple, yet seemingly helpful and harmless question; "do you understand?" Now they may ask if you understand what is going on, or if you understand their procedures, or if you understand what they are saying, or any variety of things, but they will always ask if you "under" stand them. In the old established English language, the use of the words "under" and "stand", were often used to describe relationships between landlords and subjects, or between those in authority and those in subjection to that authority. In other words, a landlord might very well state to his tenants, that they "stand under" his authority. The English language is also replete with examples of reversing word order within commonly used phrases, yet maintaining the same meaning, or as was the early custom in terms of "standing"; the "tenants 'under stand' the landlord", or conversely, the "landlord 'stands over' his tenants". What this really means in modern use of the language is no different. When a court asks "do you understand?", the correct response would be; "I comprehend your words, but I do not stand under (understand) your authority." The rules of court clearly state that definitions of both words and phrases as they apply in law, may not always be the same as those that apply or that are common in daily language usage outside of the law! So NEVER say to a court, that "you under-stand them", because this clearly provides them with your consent to be under their jurisdiction - "under their standing", even if you have established yourself as a real live flesh and blood man of Yahweh, and even if all you intended to state, was that you "comprehend" them! Think of this. I am a man of Yahweh and everywhere I go I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. An officer of some man's court asks me to attend at his court. When I walk into a room that he alleges to be his court, even at his request, I have not yet stepped into his jurisdiction, because I am always standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. It then is of no significance what my name is or how it is written, but it is then of paramount importance that I make my declaration of WHERE I am standing! Anyone in that room may ask me my name. My response is simple and straight-forward. "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, where do you stand?" Or I might say; "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, where are you?" Of course there are many possible responses that a statement such as this may elicit. One of the most probable responses, is for the judge to say something like this; "This is my court and you are in my court." He may even demand that because he "says" you are standing in his court, that you "give the court your name". There are also many possible responses you might offer. For example, "I am in Yahweh's Kingdom and my name is not for you, do you not have a name of your own?" Or I might say; "I am in Yahweh's Kingdom and you say this is your court, please explain to me where your court is (or where your court stands)?" If he says his court is "right here", then I might say; "I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, are you also?" The bottom line with this truthful reasoning is simple. I will always be standing in Yahweh's Kingdom and that is all I am required to declare. Without exception, I will only ask him where he is standing or if he is standing in Yahweh's Kingdom or where his court stands. I might even walk over to his side on his bench if he says something like "my court is right here in this room (or this room is my court)." If I did walk to his place ("right here") behind his bench, then he will undoubtedly ask me to go back to what he will claim to be "my place", or order me to "stand there", to which I would simply ask; "Is that your court over there because a moment ago you said this right here (point to where he sits) was your court. Is your court in Yahweh's kingdom, because I stand in Yahweh's Kingdom?" If I was in a challenging mood, I might ask the judge; "Can you show me where Yahweh's Kingdom ends and your court begins, because at this time I stand in Yahweh's Kingdom and I do not understand where your court is?" Do you think he will declare that Yahweh's Kingdom ends outside of his alleged court room? You might hope so but do not count on it. If he did make such an unlikely statement, my response would be; "I assure you that I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, therefore your opinion of Yahweh's Kingdom is mistaken. You say your court is not in Yahweh's Kingdom then I am not in your court and I am not able to understand where your court is." Now you might conclude that many possible variations of dialogue could ensue. It does not matter what the court officers state, so long as I maintain my simple declaration of being a man standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. My declaration is true, it is sound, and above all, no man can prove it to be otherwise. The judge can never bring himself to acknowledge that he is attempting to operate outside of Yahweh's Kingdom, hence the judge will never gain jurisdiction over me. And he cannot confirm that he is willing to operate inside of Yahweh's Kingdom, because inside of Yahweh's Kingdom the judge is merely another man and no man has been granted authority over another by Yahweh. Which brings up one more point. I may ask the judge something like; "Are you a judge in (this) your court that you cannot find for me?" If he says; "I am a judge in this (or my) court", then I would respond with; "You testify that you are therefore not a man and that you do not stand in Yahweh's Kingdom, as Yahweh alone declares Himself as Judge in His Kingdom. As I am now standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, I bid you farewell and may Yahweh bless you with understanding of His Kingdom." You might also consider that upon making your declaration of where YOU stand, that you add the following underlined words: "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, and I can only see other men, my brothers standing in this room with me in Yahweh's Kingdom." This will leave the judge in the very uncomfortable and inescapable position of not being able to respond in either the affirmative or the negative. He will try to simply ignore your statement. He cannot agree that he and the other court officers are also "men of Yahweh", as in so doing, he would be negating his own alleged authority. He also cannot disagree with you and say that he and the other court officers are not of Yahweh's Kingdom, because this would be tantamount to admitting Treason and breach of Office (in spite of it being true). Because he cannot then identify who HE is, you cannot understand how he can proceed and you state this to him. Then you have him in the position where his only choice of action is to dismiss the court room because he literally cannot make a response that will not cause him infinitely more grief than what he and his court officers intended to inflict upon you. TOP ^
A Man of Yahweh in the Courts of Men
Have you ever felt like you were continually learning new and better information and techniques to deal with the legal process or courts, but never really sure you had the "best" information or even information that was certain to "work" for you? The truth is, there are lots of methods to successfully deal with courts and legal processes so long as you are living "of" the world as opposed to faithfully living "in" it. In fact it is this very issue that one might use to aid in their determinations as to whether they are indeed living in, or as part of this world. The answers are not found by learning more or newer processes or in discovering new techniques that may or may not work. The answers are not even in knowing what "works", for there have been many concepts that have "worked" and many more will follow. Are you prepared to continue learning forever, only to learn that each new and temporarily successful process will continually require evolving into the next, and the next, and so on? Or are you tired of spending valuable time attending expensive seminars? Perhaps you might consider what motivated Paul to pen the words: "Men will be...lovers of money...lovers of themselves...rather than lovers of Yahweh...always learning [the things of man] and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [of Yahweh]." The answer lies simply in learning what is "right", not in learning what "works", or in what one knows of man's laws or procedures, because at the end of it all, only what is right, actually works. What is right, is timeless, constant and never-changing and freely available - and always has been - especially since the Messiah set us the perfect example! Knowing what "works" for the moment, is interesting but not necessarily "right". Knowing what is "right" however, is necessarily interesting because it always works! The Messiah lived and died the right way, leaving an example that His true Apostles found easy to follow, and one which His true followers find just as easy to follow in today's system of courts and legal processes. In fact, we have been strictly instructed to "imitate" His examples and those examples of His Apostles in dealing with all things, and in particular, in dealing with the courts and legal processes of man. Additionally, we were sternly warned not to try and invent or discover a new or better approach to these matters! Do you really understand what the Messiah's example for dealing with legal matters was? Let's take an objective look at it from a modern and perhaps more practical perspective for today's audience, and learn why we do not overcome evil by way of practicing man's evil ways, but rather we overcome it by practicing Yahweh's good ways which are always - "right"! The Messiah was aware that He was going to be arrested prior to the event, yet He did not run or hide in an attempt to avoid it. When the Messiah was arrested it was not because He gave an invitation, He was taken involuntarily, yet He did not resist or allow others to draw their swords in His defense. Upon attending the "court", or hearing, the Messiah offered or "tendered" NO evidence, which simply means He never stepped out of Yahweh's Kingdom and into "their" claimed jurisdiction. He politely confirmed a truthful fact that was brought to His attention by the court, by simply responding with "it is as you say", when told that the "Jews" had maliciously accused Him of being their King. The Messiah did what was "right". Did it "work"? If you have the faith of Yahweh, all things work that are done right! The Messiah was crucified - so technically, one might argue that His lack of defense worked against Him - He "lost" the "case" in Caesar's court. This is true, but it is a perspective very much limited by the blindness of those without faith. The Messiah’s behavior quite literally changed the world - He was a success in terms of bringing awareness to His message of the Kingdom of Yahweh such as has never been duplicated. Does this mean that in order to win we must always loose in men's courts? Of course not, but if we truly wish to always win in Yahweh's eyes, then we must always be prepared to do what is right before Yahweh and to accept the temporal consequences of man. When Peter and John were arrested and taken to the council, they also did not give an invitation to be arrested and they were taken involuntarily, but neither one of them drew a sword nor resisted. In fact the NT is replete with examples of the Apostles many arrests, beatings, false accusations, and other injustices at the hands of men, yet they persevered by continuing to do what was right, and in the end, they too were extremely successful. They were responsible for the successful recording of the events that allowed the Messiah's message of Yahweh's Kingdom to change this world even unto this day!
Peter and John for example, went along to the council because
they had to bear witness of the Truth to the Sanhedrim as to why and what
they were doing. Notice how simple the words Peter and John spoke; so simple
that they could not be overcome.
They didn’t use extravagant words or opinions or offer to tender any evidence, they simply asked truthful questions. In other words, Peter and John were saying, "We ought to obey Yahweh rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and they were declaring that hearsay would not be the truth, and is not evidence, because they can only speak of things that they themselves have witnessed (John 18:34). But notice that they, like the Messiah, never tendered the information in any form other than in the format of a question. By always asking questions, they showed us how to remain in Yahweh's Kingdom and stay out of man's claimed jurisdiction. The simple truth is we are not bound to understand man's laws or procedures, nor is it even necessary to fully understand them in order to do what is right before Yahweh and to always "win". We may have to learn to re-define what a "win" is, but not if we are truly of the faith of Yahweh. Let's play with an example that might be applicable to many in these times, like an allegation of "failure to comply", or "failure to file". A good question might be: "can you please advise me as to what efforts you have gone to, that establish your allegation that I have failed to file a return? Have all of your employees searched all of your electronic and hard copy files in all of your offices, and if not, when might you do that, or alternatively, would you like me to go and prepare a copy of what it is you cannot find or are unwilling to search for?" A better series of opening questions might include any of the following and might happen in any random order, pending the circumstances. Essentially, these questions can be asked in many ways, repeatedly if necessary, until the matter is simply dismissed, because in point of truth, the "court" cannot possibly answer any of them: Can you please advise me as to why you choose to erroneously inscribe my salutation onto your documents in all capital letters? Is this not the manner of addressing corporate entities within your Law? Is it your belief that I am a corporate entity? If the name style or types of letters are of no consequence, why do you persist upon doing it thusly? Does the basis of your legal system rely upon other operations that are of no consequence? Do you not understand that I am who my Father says I am, not who you say I am. Is it not written in your law that, no man can claim against or sue another in the name of another? Are you attempting to deceive me by offering to accuse me in the name of another? Why do you ask if I wish to represent myself when I am here? Why do you ask if I represent someone when I am here? I am here, and I do not understand why you suggest that I represent any other party including myself? Do you seek to accuse another by asking me if I represent myself? I am here, who is the other party you are asking that I represent! Why do you ask if I wish to have another represent me when I am here. Why do you attempt to trick me into your jurisdiction with your words that tempt me to tender evidence? Does your law rely upon this form of trickery? Do you wish to adjudicate this matter without first disclosing to me the most basic workings of your law or your procedure? Am I expected to answer you before I have a basic understanding of your law or of your procedure? Do you fully understand your law and your procedure? Are you then prepared to disclose to me such that I may comprehend any specific aspects of your law or procedure that may be to my benefit? Are you then prepared to disclose to me such that I may comprehend any specific aspects of your law or procedure that may be to my detriment? Will you accuse me of being in contempt when I ask only that you inform me of your your law or procedure that may be to my detriment or benefit? I wish to know if your court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom? I wish to know if you stand in Yahweh's Kingdom? I understand the Kingdom of Yahweh, which is why I wish to know whether or not you or your court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom? Will you accuse me of being in contempt when I ask only that you inform me of your standing in Yahweh's Kingdom? I ask if you stand in Yahweh's Kingdom because it is written in your law that "No man is ignorant of Yahweh’s Law" (Maxim), therefore, do you understand the Kingdom of Yahweh? Then who made you judge and lawgiver when in Yahweh's Kingdom we are all brethren and only Yahweh is Judge and Lawgiver?" Are you willing to provide me with demonstrable proof that Yahweh's authority in this matter is subordinate or does not exist, in order that I may accept your authority? In the course of any such discourse, the only time you might consider speaking in the affirmative as opposed to asking a question, would be in response to something like; "Are you a member of Yahweh's Congregation"", or "are you a Citizen of Yahweh's Kingdom?" Then of course, your answers could be; "It is as you say."
In other words, as in
The terms "unjust" and "saints" in the above verse are referring to unbelievers as opposed to believers. How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice! Why set them to judge who are least esteemed (i.e. the heathen) in the Messiah's Congregation (1 Corinthians 6:4)?
Even Yah'shua said, in
What is the purpose for being "brought" to court? Peter states the purpose:
So, yes, you are going to be taken before the magistrate, but it’s the will of Yahweh that you appear before magistrates, and it’s also the will of Yahweh that you speak the Truth to them, so that they also will understand and come to the knowledge of Yahweh, through Yah'shua the Messiah.
This is bearing witness to the world. When the world attacks you, you bear witness to the Truth. We are to bear witness of Yah'shua the Messiah in us that the world may see who He is, and have that evidence in the works that we do and the words that we speak. This is how we are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). We are not the arguers of the world, we are only the light of the world.
We are also not the salt of the world. The world has
no salt. We are "the salt of the earth", not of the world
(Matthew 5:13). The terms ‘world’ and ‘earth’ have different meanings. Yah'shua
certainly made a distinction between ‘world’ and ‘earth’ when he said, "I have
overcome the world" in
If you go to Jail If you are taken to jail, do not fret. Do not think, "Man is hindering the work that Yahweh has for me by putting me in jail," because man does not have the power to hinder Yahweh's Will. Remember Joseph (Genesis 37-48)? He was shown a vision by Yahweh that he would be a ruler some day. But his brothers sold him into slavery, and then his master's wife falsely accused him of rape, and he was thrown into prison for years and years. It might have never crossed Joseph’s mind, until it was all over, that this was Yahweh’s process to prepare him to rule. Joseph was learning obedience by what he suffered (Hebrews 5:8). And after Yahweh saw to it that he was ready, Joseph became a ruler. As the prime example, we are reminded that "the Messiah became perfect through sufferings". Now let's look at the example of Paul. On the Sabbath day (Acts 16:13), Paul did the Godly work of healing a woman who was possessed (Acts 16:16-18), but this took away "gain" from some merchants, so they accused Paul and brought him to the rulers and magistrates (Acts 16:19-21). The magistrates sentenced him to get beaten with 39 stripes (2 Corinthians 11:24), and put him in prison with his feet in stocks (Acts 16:22-24). Did Paul get depressed and complain that men were hindering him from doing Yahweh's Will? No. Did he get angry at the men who put him in prison? No. What did Paul do? Well, let's see.
Then his loving Father sent an earthquake which opened the prison doors and loosed the shackles from everyone (Acts 16:26). Most people would look at this as an opportunity to "escape" from prison. After all, it's not Yahweh's Will that we be in prison. Right? If Yahweh loosed my chains, that must mean he wants me to escape. Right? But is this what Paul did? No, Paul did not leave prison; he stayed in prison!
But this is not all. The next day, the magistrates told the
sergeants, which, in turn, told the guards, to tell Paul that he and his men
were free to go (Acts 16:35-36)! Did Paul leave prison after he had permission
from the guards? No, he did not!!! Why? Listen to what Paul said:
Paul wanted his accusers to tell him, face to face, that he was free to go. He did not want them to release him "privately." And even though his accusers feared him because of this bold stand, his accusers did go to him in directly and asked him to leave prison (Acts 16:38-39). This humbled his accusers. And only then did Paul leave prison (Acts 16:40). The earthquake was not intended to deliver Paul but to convert the jailer; Yahweh knew that Paul would be released the next day. Likewise, maybe Yahweh will send you to jail to convert someone in need. The earthquake would have been meaningless had not the jailer and prisoners heard Paul's testimony in prayer and song. Their singing brought about divine intervention. If you go to jail, you should do likewise. Not for your benefit, but for Yahweh's Glory.
Some may think that they cannot submit to jail or prison. You
can submit to unfair treatment, if you know the Father's Will is
unfolding.
Sometimes, after being arrested, the police will become angry that you will not sign anything, or submit to their injections of drugs, or give them your fingerprints and mug-shot. Do not give in. For those who are thrown in jail, either after sentence, or before you're taken to court, the authorities will not allow anyone to visit you if they have no identification. However, ministers or bondservants of the Messiah do not need identification - their membership is registered in Heaven. If asked, explain why you don't have any Identification. Sometimes, when you tell a judge that you are a bondservant of Yah'shua the Messiah, he will send you to a psychiatric hospital to see if you're crazy. But our Lord was in the same position as well, because Yah'shua was accused of being mad. Many of Yah'shua's listeners thought he was mad and crazy (John 10:20). Even Yah'shua's friends went to lay hold on him because they thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21). Brother Paul was also accused of being crazy by the Roman government, specifically by Festus, the procurator of Judea (Acts 26:24-25). So, you're in good company. When you are sent to a psychiatric hospital, there is no obligation for you to say anything to the psychologist, but if you do say anything, simply speak the Truth to them and take the opportunity to share the Kingdom of Yahweh with them. They may keep you there for days, weeks, or months, but this is actually a blessing! During your stay at the hospital, you are allowed visitors on a daily basis, you eat much better food than they serve in jail, you are assigned a comfortable bed, etc. You have much more freedom there than in a jail cell. A court may also try to force you to take a lawyer, often by assigning a court appointed lawyer to you. By accepting a lawyer you give jurisdiction to the court, and you are considered a "ward of the court" in their heathen law, meaning you are not capable of speaking in court. Besides, this is a benefit of the court, and will nullify your witness. You cannot be forced to accept one. Therefore, when the lawyer comes to see you, simply tell him, "If you believe you are hired, consider yourself fired. Yah'shua the Messiah, and He alone, is my Advocate and Wonderful Counsellor." Before you are brought to the judge, pray for the judge, and pray that his judgment will be a righteous judgment as Yahweh would have led him to make. The judge's job is not easy, and pray that Yahweh will bless him with the strength and wisdom to do it well, and pray that Yahweh continue to bless him. The judge will most likely be under political pressure from the government, and from the court that he works in. How to Speak in Court Those in government are trying to impose a foreign law on you, by taking you out of your Godly venue and putting you in a foreign venue to answer a charge to a foreign law. They are always testing the spirits. Therefore, when you walk into a foreign court, you must import Yahweh’s Law into that court in order to distinguish and separate yourself from that court's foreign law. When you are confronted by governing authorities, pray in spirit while you are talking to them. For example, "Father, just give me the words. Tell me what it is you want me to say and I’ll say them, because I know that only your knowledge and wisdom will deliver me out of these tribulations." Warning: Do not ever keep a copy of this information with you while you are on the roads or in court. If you do, and the judge sees this paper, it may nullify your witness, because the words you speak are not coming from your heart as guided by His Holy Spirit, but are coming from a piece of paper. The governing authorities will see by your actions that you lack faith, and they may choose not to believe that you mean what you say. More important than the words that come out of your mouth is whether or not you are sincere in what you speak. If you are simply repeating what somebody else told you, you are not being sincere. These are not just words that you're parroting, because even the carnal man knows when you're lying because he walks in a lie all the time, so he recognizes his own. So, you have to speak the things that are written on your heart. Name If you have not answered to the fictitious name that Caesar has given you, Caesar will assign a different fictitious name to you; JOHN DOE. Never answer to this name. John Doe: A fictitious name frequently used to indicate a person for the purpose of argument or illustration, or in the course of enforcing a fiction in the law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, page 1696. By answering to this name, you admit you're a "person", engaged in an "argument," and are partaking of Caesar's "fictions in the law." If the judge calls out your name (JOHN DOE for example, even if JOHN DOE is your given name), do not respond, since that name is not yours. Even if it sounds like your name, it will not be the correct spelling, because all names on their process are spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and, since your name is not spelled in all capital letters, that name is not yours. That is not who you are. This is where you revert to the suggested questions listed above. Procedures are many and must be cautioned. If the judge says something like, "Let's go over this. I want to get the spelling correct. Your first name is..." you should recognize here that the judge's patronizing acceptance of the proper spelling is done for deceptive purposes. By the acceptance of the proper spelling by the Court, they have recognized your substance in the Messiah and have abandoned the ability of prosecuting you. One should object to this acceptance because the Court can "normally" only prosecute the "person" (name in all caps), not the substance. If objection is not made, it is taken by the court that you are giving permission to be prosecuted as the man of substance. So simply revert back to the list of questions about the name. You may say something like, "I have not given your court permission to charge me as a flesh and blood man under my Yahweh-given name, therefore how do you justify your proceeding." or, "I wish you to explain to me how you obtained permission to charge me as a flesh and blood man of Yahweh?" If the court addresses you as ‘Mr. So and So,’ or as ‘Sir’, respond, "Are the salutations you offer such as ‘Mr. So and So,’ or as ‘Sir’, not defined in your law as being reserved for your corporate or military personnel like your other pagan and heathen titles of nobility." The court is presuming you are the person named on their papers. They may try to "test" you to establish a response from you to the "name" on their papers, so that they may "presume" jurisdiction over you. For example, the court may say, "Mr. ___, why don’t you have a seat for just a minute." Then, after you sit down, the court might say, "Mr. ___, would you stand up, please." Having responded to the name by sitting down and standing up at the direction of the judge, the judge can now presume that "you and the name are one and the same," due to the obedience shown by his commands.
If the court says, "Well, it says on our papers that you are
so and so," then reply, "You say it does." If the court says, "So, are you
saying you are not so and so?" Do not answer yes or no, do not deny or confirm
it. Simply say, "As you heard, you say it does." If the court asks you, "Well,
what is your name?" reply, "I will also ask you one thing. Is a name a
note, symbol, or mark of a thing given by those in authority to those in
subjection to that authority?" If the judge is "honest," he should concur and
say, "Yes." Reply, "Well, I am under the authority of Yah'shua the Messiah, and
I am commanded by Him to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to Yahweh
the things that are Yahweh's (Matthew 22:21,
If the court asks what others call you, say, "Are you my accuser?", or "Is this court my accuser?" If a positive response is garnered, then say, "You are my accuser and my accuser presumes I am so and so. But it is written in both Yahweh's Law and man's law that everything must be proved by at least two witnesses. I see no witnesses here so I ask where your witnesses are?" If accused of being a resident, respond, I'm a bondservant of and sojourner with Yah'shua the Messiah." If they say their laws apply to non-residents as well, respond, "My Father has never described me as such. I'm a bondservant of and sojourner with Yah'shua the Messiah. Are you making presumptions contrary to the facts already in evidence?" If asked what evidence, respond: "Do you not recall the truth of the matter as spoken to you? I am who my Father says I am, not who Caesar says I am. For instance, are you breathing on your own, or is Yahweh giving you your breath? If you have control over you're own breath, will you then live forever. Where does your DNA come from? Were you created randomly by chance, or by Caesar, or were you created by Yahweh? Are you not living proof that Yahweh is your Creator." If they say, "I was created by random chance," reply, "Then I have your permission to randomly walk out of this court!" If the court reads the charges to you, they are still against the "person" only. One reply could be, "Are those charges against the person JOHN DOE in all capital letters, which I understand you to have agreed that I am not? because as I have said, I am known by, and do the will of, my Father only." If the court has your fingerprints and tries to admit evidence to prove you to be one of theirs, such as showing the mug shot from their computers, or a signature of you from a piece of paper, these are fictions and can be rebutted. If they point to a picture of you and ask, "Is this you?" Reply "You say it is me, but is it not only an image on paper that you envision with a mind given to you by Yahweh? What or who it is I cannot tell, but is it not even clear to you that I am me." You may also add, "By the law of my Master, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13:1), thus where are your witnesses? Are you asking me to be a witness against myself? Everything on a piece of paper is an idle word. Everything on a computer is a false image. Do you presume that is my picture or my signature. Do you presume that is me in the computer. Are you asking me to accept your allegations based upon those presumptions that you have agreed are all based on fiction." You may also say, "Is it not written in your law that computer generated images evidence nothing and have no substance, but are rather only conclusionary reasoning indulged in to supply the absence of facts. Does not "reason" mean whatever you want it to mean? Authority The Scripture saith, "There is one lawgiver (James 4:12). Yahweh is our lawgiver" (Isaiah 33:22). Is it not also written in your law, "We are all bound to our lawgiver, regardless of our personal interpretation of reality" (Maxim), and that Legality is not reality" (Maxim). Therefore is your reality what Yahweh says it is, or what your perception of it is? It is also written in your law, "There is no fiction without law. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions" (Maxim). Are you binding me with this fiction? If the judge says you cannot bring Yahweh’s Law in his court, you can say, "Was it not in fact you that brought Yahweh's Law in here? I’m simply confirming it. Or do you bring another law in here which you fail to disclose to me?" If the judge says no preaching is allowed in his courtroom, you can respond by saying, "Is it your opinion that I’m preaching when in fact I merely declare Yahweh's law, or is your opinion greater than the Law of Yahweh?"
If he labels you a "defendant," respond by saying, "What do
you accuse me of defending? Am I not merely maintaining my standing in Yahweh's
Kingdom? Do you recognize that I am one of His several ambassadors (2
Corinthians 5:20,
If they ask you to prove ambassador-ship, say, "Is it not written in your law, ‘everything must be proved by two witnesses’" (Maxim). I am one that bears witness of myself, the works I do bear witness of me, the Scriptures bear witness of me, His Holy Spirit bears witness of me, all the saints in heaven bear witness of me, and my Father that sent me bears witness of me. Who bears witness of you?" If they ask who your father is, reply, "As an ambassador for the Messiah, ye neither know me nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 8:19). If you know me why do you ask my name and if you know me you would know my Father? If they ask where in the scripture it says you're an ambassador, reply, "Is it not written in your law, 'Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law' (Maxim) and 'all men know God'?" (Maxim). If they try to discuss the facts of the case, reply, "Do you say this thing of yourself, or did others tell it to you of me? (John 18:34 )." Declare the Law Remember, you are in court to declare the Law, and not to dispute or join with their jurisdiction. Raise a political question, because there's no jurisdiction there. An example of a political question would be to confess that you are a bondservant of the Messiah. Man's law only applies to “persons”, and under the law of slaves, slaves are not persons. The courts recognize this, and judges cannot decide on political questions. That political question is “Who do you belong to? Which Kingdom do you walk in? Do you walk in man's kingdom or Yahweh's Kingdom? You have to evidence that you are part of His Kingdom by the words that come out of your mouth. You can say you're an Israelite all day long and you love Yah'shua, but if you partake of the things of the world then you belong to the world! And the world will take jurisdiction over you. Yah'shua told us we cannot serve two masters, and if you are serving two masters, that second master will have jurisdiction over you. If you challenge jurisdiction in a court because of your status, as soon as you argue status you give them jurisdiction, because you're arguing a "moral" question, and moral questions are their realm. If accused of being brought in court for breaking the law, respond, "I am here by visitation. To declare and testify to you the Gospel of the Messiah. This is why Yahweh brought me here, to bring the Gospel." You should only make positive declaratory statements in the manner of questions. You don't ever hear the Messiah saying, "I believe..." and then go on with an opinion. Or saying, "The morality of this situation dictates this…" He never spoke like that. At every question that was put to him, he declared the Law, and wasted no words.
And this is how you walk in His Way. Basically, you answer
like the Messiah answered, “It is written…” You're basically saying, “I didn't
write it, but these are the things that I have seen and heard from Yahweh.”
You're going back to
"Is it not written in your law that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible (maxim), and, also, any law contrary to the law of Yahweh is no law at all (maxim)? If court says, "You are here because you are charged with so and so," reply, "I am here because I have obeyed Yahweh rather than man (Acts 5:29). Your duty is to punish evil doers as Yahweh has defined evil. What evil have I done?
"Is it not written in your law, 'Whoever does anything by the command of a judge is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey' (Maxim). I am obeying the commands of a Judge, and are you accusing me for obeying the commands of a Judge? Do you understand that Yahweh is our Judge (Psalms 50:6; 75:7), or that Yahweh is our Judge (Isaiah 33:22)? Conclusion:
Remember, Yahweh is True to His Word, and is always with His children in times of trouble. We pray that you are inspired to learn the simple truth about what laws and procedures are "right" in Yahweh's eyes, and to thereby enjoy the easy works and light burdens of the Messiah, rather than striving for what "works" in this world, condemning yourself to the hard works and heavy burdens of man's inferior laws and his silly procedures. TOP ^
A lady came into the same lawyer’s office in July 1996, with 2 teen-age girls, her purse and the clothes on her back. She was frantic. Her husband was at the family home, drinking alcohol, threatening to burn down the family home. He threatened her and the girls - couldn't face the prospect of a separation/divorce. The lady explained she had been to see 2 lawyers. The first told her he'd help, but first she needed to come up with $5000 so he could file a Statement of Claim [$ 262], a Notice of Motion [$ 62], an Affidavit and other documents in Supreme Court of B.C. He said it would take some time to get things done. She didn't have the money so he sent her away. The second lawyer said to apply for Legal Aid... but that would take weeks and she would need to make financial disclosure - resulting in being denied because she had too many assets. She was in a Transition House that promised a maximum 2-week stay. She was at her wits end when she came to this lawyer. They talked. He said he would take her and her story to Abbotsford Provincial Court - they would see a Provincial Court Judge and ask for Orders that she be allowed to return to the family home, gain exclusive occupancy of the home, get police escort to the home for safety, get the husband/father out of the home under police escort, and restraining orders preventing him contacting the girls or their mom. But... he told her the Supreme Court of Canada [and the B.C. Court of Appeal] had made rulings that said no Provincial Court Judge could make those types of Orders... telling the people of Canada, that there was no other way except going to Superior Court - explaining the Provincial Court doors were closed to her and to others in her position. The case Reference Re: Section 6 Family Relations Act [S.C.C.] prevented the Provincial Court from assisting her in any way. He said we would still go to Provincial Court, with the Law and Equity Act [B.C.] and would ask the Provincial Court Judge to give the help needed, regardless of what a 'higher' Court said. She agreed with his delusional proposal. So they went. He explained to the Judge how the Law and Equity Act allowed him to make the Orders requested, even though other Courts had said no. He agreed. Judge Lenaghan made the Orders asked for, despite 'higher' Court precedent rulings. She and the girls were home that night, they had their own beds, their father was out of the home, getting help and she and the girls had the protection they needed. Ultimately, the couple reconciled - inviting the lawyer for coffee at their Latte Specialty Shop. The case culminated in an article given to Professor Wes Pue, UBC Nemetz Professor of Legal History. Wes holds a Doctorate in Law, specializing in Administrative Law and Constitutional Law. He taught previously at Carleton University and at the University of Manitoba. On reading the article, he said clearly it presented a precedent argument that tips the scales in favor of the lay person - it flew in the face of "centralist" legalisms and provided what he called "a revolutionary argument" in Canada's constitutional law history as it then was. He asked whether the lawyer/author was wanting to start a revolution, because the argument was unique in Canadian history. He circulated the article amongst other faculty, who agreed with his conclusions - stating that the argument provided a way for the common person to hold judges accountable for what they do and don't do. Ultimately, the article was published in a law journal distributed throughout B.C., called The Advocate [July 1998, Vol. 56, No. 4]. The editor, Tom Woods, said the journal needed to change editorial policy to allow publication because policy prevented a lawyer from commenting on his own case. He said, given the import of the argument and the effects on family law and law generally in B.C., editorial policy was changed to allow this lawyer to comment on his own case. The argument is simple. Family Law takes precedence over all other law. The Act is the only piece of legislation in B.C. that governs what judges do and how they do it. It is not taught in Law School faculties, does not form part of the curriculum. Portions of it are edited out of the Law Society of B.C.'s Professional Legal Training Course [P.L.T.C.]. A recent publication called The Annotated Law and Equity Act says this piece of legislation stands unique among all the laws enacted in B.C. It carries much power when properly used - power to allow a mother with 2 kids to stand up to and against powerful Supreme Court of Canada Justices, who are all federally appointed public officials. B.C. Supreme Court Justices are also federal government appointed federal officials. Every member of the Law Society of B.C. upon joining the Society becomes a federal officer of the federal courts. Every Law Society of B.C. member, who carries a practicing certificate allowing them exclusively to practice law, functions as an 'officer' of a politically appointed federal public body. Hence, the demand for loyalty to higher standing federal officers, i.e. Superior Court Justices. On July 27.01, a federally appointed B.C. Supreme Court Justice admitted on transcript in Court to altering, revising, changing the pleadings filed on behalf of 180+ seniors involved in a case against Gordon Campbell, Bill Barisoff, and Rick Thorpe [B.C. Liberal Party officials]. The Legal Profession Act [s. 15(3)] says no one but practicing lawyers holding a practicing certificate can revise [draft] pleadings in Court. Justice Drossos was not a lawyer, he functioned as a Justice under the Judges Act [Canada] that prevents Justices from engaging in work licensed lawyers can do. Effectively, Justice Drossos practiced law without a license - an offence under the Legal Profession Act - yet the Society of Law in B.C. took no action against him, and neither did the Canadian Judicial Council. Letters were delivered to the Council Dec. 13.01 and to the Attorney General of B.C. at the time [Mr Dosanjh] covered up wrongdoing by Campbell, Thorpe and Barisoff - refusing to prosecute a case against the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources where clear evidence of fraud, breach of trust, misrepresentation and contraventions of Mining Law were admitted in Court, including filed Affidavits. Indeed, during the case, up to 5 lawyers on the other side stood up in Court asking the Justice to ignore their client's filed affidavits... and they were ignored. Those affidavits admit Barisoff and his company mined without a permit, admit seniors blockaded Ministry of Highway tandem trucks from leaving the illegal mine, admit the trucks were loaded with road crush for a highway to the Osoyoos Indian Band casino, admit government and private funds were used to place a fish ladder in a spawning salmon creek to assist the fall salmon spawning run - in a creek that was and is dry in the fall... admit a 15 ton bridge was built with tax money to allow the fish ladder rock to be placed in the creek... a bridge just strong enough to withstand the weight of a rock crusher used by Barisoffs during California Bighorn Sheep rutting and birthing season, right under the lambing grounds and admit the mine operated during the migration time for the California Bighorn to get to their winter feeding grounds. Hundreds of sheep died the next year, emaciated, starved to death - but the Ministry of Environment [B.C.] did nothing. This lawyer filed argument in B.C. Supreme Court on June 28.00 that resulted in the Law Society of B.C. lodging its own complaint against him on July 28.00 - the first time in its over 130 year history, that the Society decided to attack one of its own members. The reason? His argument left the Justice and the Superior Courts no choice - the Law and Equity Act demands and mandates all courts in B.C. and all judges in B.C., including all tribunals and administrative decision-making in B.C., must comply with the rules of equity, the rules of fairness, i.e. the principles of righteousness that protects families and sacred mother nature, first - above all. The Society later, through its counsel Jessica Gossen, offered him a deal. Dec. 01, he was told to drop the case against the MLA's and other officials, including a high ranking Q.C. T. Richard Brooke, Q.C. - he was told to tell his clients he would not work for them for free anymore, that yes, everyone knew and agreed they got 'screwed', but that to save any chance of keeping his license intact, he must turn his back on his clients, tell them he quit on them, and walk away. His arguments in that case were based on the same principles he argued for the lady with 2 kids in distress. The Law and Equity Act applies to all court cases, regardless of the parties involved. It ranks unique among legislation in B.C. [and in the Common Law world – all over the world], for it continues to hold to the principle that the family unit, the fabric of extended family, overrides all other legal rulings no matter where made or by whom. Justice Drossos resigned one week after admitting in Court to practicing law without a license. The Chief Mining Offical, Eric Beresford, who turned a blind eye to illegal mining and environmental havoc, resigned. The Deputy Executive Director of the B.C. Law Society [and Director of Discipline and Professional Responsibility], Jean Whittow, Q.C., resigned. James Matkin, Q.C., former Executive Director of the Society, resigned. In May 2000, on the 29th, a lawyer involved in the case, Thomas W. Barnes, wrote to Jean Whittow, Q.C., asking the Society to shut this lawyer down - because his pleadings had raised concerns... He acted for 150 municipalities in B.C., all facing repercussions at a local level, because local government decision making would be affected by my argument. Local councils and administrative bodies would be subjected to having to abide by equitable principles, and could not continue to hide behind government secrecy, non-disclosure or other means of avoiding responsibility, accountability and potential personal liability for 'official' decisions. All Chambers of Commerce, and all other volunteer agencies or societies, should garner their energy, strength and support to stand up to government corruption, allowed by Law Society's who function not unlike the priests of old, who for a price, called indulgences, would take confessions and for money, would make wrongdoing go away and let wrongdoers go free. No different are those Society members, those federal 'officers', who take money from the people, lots of it, claiming justification because some rules say so. Our argument simply states that Canada is governed by the rule of law, not the law of rules. The Provincial Court of B.C. is well equipped to deal with all family law problems, without exception. That Court has no filing fee, there are no "costs" at the end of the day, people can come there to get recourse and redress at little or not cost in a timely way. But lawyers generally will not tell you that - they instead will say to you as they did to the lady and her two teen-age daughters... pay me $ 5000 up front, and I will help you. But that goes contrary to the Barrister's Oath, that says "Harm No One", just like the Hippocratic Oath. But in B.C. that Oath is meaningless, given that the Society says a licensed practicing member has no duty to tell his or her client to obey the law. It says, a client's interest is paramount. Choose between right and wrong. There is no divided loyalty that can allow any 'officer' holding 'public' office, from harming or abusing or otherwise mis-educating the public, except the lawyer-driven apartheid commonly referred to as the Solicitor Client relationship! Interestingly, the Law Foundation of B.C. shares responsibility with the Law Society of B.C., to ensure proper education of the public regarding law. But, neither corporation shows any interest in promulgating or promoting or enhancing or supporting education in matters of equity or in making sure would-be and wanna-be lawyers get properly educated about law as a service, not just a job. The B.C. Law Society has deteriorated into just another business, the injustice business, a legal monopoly exclusively granting to its licensed members the chance to rip off the public because the public is taught 'lawyers' are the only ones trained to deal with 'legal' problems. That is a lie. As long as people treat lawyers like people treated priests of old, with their own vocabulary, their own lingo, their own prestige... the people are doomed to live in 'the dark ages'. There is a way out. An ancient way that recognizes the extended family begins with the idea that all nature is sacred, all life is sacred, there is no 'religious' - 'secular' distinction as far as equity is concerned. TOP ^
Means Which Rules and Which Act Applies?
There are NO rules of court established and there is no Act per se, regarding either "THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA", or the "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA", (or for that matter, "The Supreme Court of British Columbia"), hence there is NO jurisdiction for such an alleged court, nor is there any manner of participating in any of these non-venues, except by ignorant acquiescence. Almost universally the paperwork in the [claimed] British Columbia (alleged) court actions is styled such that the alleged venue is written as either "THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA", or the "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA". The relevant manner of question and the only question to be posed to the alleged judge claiming to preside in any [claimed] action where that action is styled after the all-capital-letter-style "court", is simply to hold up a sign with the following question in letters large enough for the alleged judge and the alleged court clerk to read:
Are we in this court:
Supreme Court of British Columbia;
Or are we in this court:
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA?
Inevitably the alleged judge will dismiss the case rather than address the issue, provided you do not allow him to side-track you.
(10) Unless the incorporation of a corporate party or the office or status of a party is specifically denied, it shall be deemed to be admitted. (Underline added for emphasis.) Rule 1 – Citation, Application and Interpretation ("Supreme Court of British Columbia") Definitions (8) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires: "Act" means the Supreme Court Act; "action" means a proceeding commenced by writ of summons; "court" means the Supreme Court of British Columbia and, where a master has jurisdiction, includes a master of the Supreme Court; SUPREME COURT ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 443 Definitions 1 In this Act: "court" means the Supreme Court of British Columbia; "judge" means a judge of the court; "judicial district" means a judicial district defined by this Act; "master" means a master of the court; "order" includes a judgment and a decree; "proceeding" includes an action, suit, cause, matter, appeal or originating application; "registry" means an office of the Supreme Court in a judicial district. Supreme Court of British Columbia 2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia". (Underline and bold added for emphasis.)
Grace and peace to you, from our Father, Yahweh, and Yah'shua our Messiah!
Previous Topic - Next Topic - Site Index Updated on 10/06/2008 |
|