Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power.

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:34 pm

Not quite. What I asked is, can the boy scouts enter the girl scouts camp and make their rules apply to the girl scouts? I said nothing about the boy scouts acquiescing to the girl scouts. Do the boy scouts have territorial jurisdiction on girl scout property? The answer is NO they DO NOT!! Neither does United States have territorial jurisdiction on your land.
I was giving you the backside of the jurisdiction. I'll reword it. Unless the girl scouts contracted to the contrary, the boy scouts do not have territorial jurisdiction on girl scout property. But, say... a boy scout got hurt on the girl scouts' property, don't think that the boy scouts won't claim personal jurisdiction in order to right wrongs. Same with my or your land.
I do not know about you, but my land is not located "in" a federal area or it would cease to be my land any longer. In order for that to happen United States would have to buy my land in order for it to be a federal area.
No, they have to have an interest in the land to be a federal area. They don't need to buy it, only hold, acquire, use.
Any territory of United States is where The United States of America has a proprietary (ownership) interest. Of course that territory, should the government not exist, would revert back to the people. Are you familiar with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787? Did it create a temporary district under United States jurisdiction or was it to be permanent?
When I asked "Where do they claim proprietary interest?" I meant where in their writings do they use that term and claim it. I have not seen where they claim ownership of anything. It's been a while since I've read the Northwest Ordinance, I'll reread it.
Sorry, but Title 28 only applies in United States (Federal territory).
Beings the pdf wasn't downloaded, I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it. Yes, it applies in United States, but the sections I included describe how they act towards those out of the United States when they have contacts with the United States.
There is no public or private side in the perpetual Union. Government has no jurisdiction over the free inhabitants thereof, period.
Are you saying that the free inhabitants don't have a right to contract? That doesn't sound very free to me. Of course they do, and they can choose to give interest or give up rights to whoever/whatever they want.
No one pledges their property upon registration willingly and with knowledge.
Not true. Even with knowledge, people usually choose the easy path, and/or the path that limits their liability. Try getting insurance on unregistered property without a federal address. Not going to happen.
It can be easily proven the "State" does not have territorial jurisdiction to tax private land.
Easy enough to prove their lack of jurisdiction over private land, much harder to prove your land is private. Not impossible, but harder. They DO NOT want to give up their interest.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:08 pm

You asked:
Are you familiar with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787? Did it create a temporary district under United States jurisdiction or was it to be permanent?
It appears to me that a temporary district was formed:

Section 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.

until they got their act together and:

Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:22 pm

notmartha wrote:
Not quite. What I asked is, can the boy scouts enter the girl scouts camp and make their rules apply to the girl scouts? I said nothing about the boy scouts acquiescing to the girl scouts. Do the boy scouts have territorial jurisdiction on girl scout property? The answer is NO they DO NOT!! Neither does United States have territorial jurisdiction on your land.
I was giving you the backside of the jurisdiction. I'll reword it. Unless the girl scouts contracted to the contrary, the boy scouts do not have territorial jurisdiction on girl scout property. But, say... a boy scout got hurt on the girl scouts' property, don't think that the boy scouts won't claim personal jurisdiction in order to right wrongs. Same with my or your land. It is not a matter of personal jurisdiction, it is a matter of taking full responsibility, not limited liability.
I do not know about you, but my land is not located "in" a federal area or it would cease to be my land any longer. In order for that to happen United States would have to buy my land in order for it to be a federal area.
No, they have to have an interest in the land to be a federal area. They don't need to buy it, only hold, acquire, use. That interest must be proprietary. Statutes do not give government authority/jurisdiction anywhere other than federal property. The Constitution of the United States states as follows:

Article 4.3.2

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... y+interest
proprietary interest

n. a total or partial ownership.
Any territory of United States is where The United States of America has a proprietary (ownership) interest. Of course that territory, should the government not exist, would revert back to the people. Are you familiar with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787? Did it create a temporary district under United States jurisdiction or was it to be permanent?
When I asked "Where do they claim proprietary interest?" I meant where in their writings do they use that term and claim it. I have not seen where they claim ownership of anything. It's been a while since I've read the Northwest Ordinance, I'll reread it.
Sorry, but Title 28 only applies in United States (Federal territory).
Beings the pdf wasn't downloaded, I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it. Yes, it applies in United States, but the sections I included describe how they act towards those out of the United States when they have contacts with the United States. I am familiar with the PDF you uploaded. The only way it can apply to me is if I decide to join the club United States. There is no United States court that can gain territorial jurisdiction on a free inhabitant of the perpetual Union. I will say this again, Title 28 only applies in United States and nowhere else. Can you prove otherwise? I don't need some federal court of United States to tell me whether I am a foreign State. They do not have that jurisdiction.
There is no public or private side in the perpetual Union. Government has no jurisdiction over the free inhabitants thereof, period.
Are you saying that the free inhabitants don't have a right to contract? That doesn't sound very free to me. Of course they do, and they can choose to give interest or give up rights to whoever/whatever they want. Yes, free inhabitants have the right to contract, but what free inhabitant would contract his unalienable rights away? What does one have to doin order to become a US citizen, and no other way?
2_stat_153_1802.pdf
(232.24 KiB) Downloaded 726 times
No one pledges their property upon registration willingly and with knowledge.
Not true. Even with knowledge, people usually choose the easy path, and/or the path that limits their liability. Try getting insurance on unregistered property without a federal address. Not going to happen. And what free inhabitant in his right mind would do such a things. Most people are ignorant and have no clue who or where they are. You believe if people knew government could not tax their private property that they would take the easy route? LOL!!! The problem is most people are confused, including you. I'm not saying this to disparage, just simply stating fact based on your posts.
It can be easily proven the "State" does not have territorial jurisdiction to tax private land.
Easy enough to prove their lack of jurisdiction over private land, much harder to prove your land is private. Not impossible, but harder. They DO NOT want to give up their interest.
They have no interest, and that's the simple fact. It is much easier than you think to prove "your" land is private. The problem, once again, is, most people have no clue what has happened to them. The more truth you have the easier it is to deal with any situation that arises. The only way to know the truth is start at the beginning, not in the middle or the end, and study forward. This is something most people have never done, and is why so may are confused and deluded. My forum was started to give people the truth not patriot mythology.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:41 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:It is not a matter of personal jurisdiction, it is a matter of taking full responsibility, not limited liability.
The analogy was a bad one from the beginning. You originally were talking of two corporations, creations of State, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. They take full responsibility for nothing. Their creator makes the rules, decides the territory, and limits the liability. This does not apply to privately owned land of free inhabitants. If I was a cynic I'd wonder if you aren't trying to derail your own thread.
iamfreeru2 wrote:That interest must be proprietary. Statutes do not give government authority/jurisdiction anywhere other than federal property.
You confuse territories, possessions, federal areas, and federal property. They are not the same. Federal Areas do not have to be owned, and federal property does not have to be land.
iamfreeru2 wrote: I will say this again, Title 28 only applies in United States and nowhere else. Can you prove otherwise? I don't need some federal court of United States to tell me whether I am a foreign State. They do not have that jurisdiction.
I didn't cloak Title 28 with any authority to apply anywhere. I have posted what they claim and act on. And they will claim jurisdiction via your contacts whether you reside in the "United States" or not.
iamfreeru2 wrote:Yes, free inhabitants have the right to contract, but what free inhabitant would contract his unalienable rights away?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here or not. Do you remember the People in Samuel's time screaming for a king? Do you remember Esau? Has the nature of people changed? People (generally) have always chosen what was bad for them, trading their rights for a bowl of stew. It is no different today.
iamfreeru2 wrote:What does one have to doin order to become a US citizen, and no other way?
The statute you posted was in regards to aliens. They need to take an oath. Babies "born in the US "do not need to take any oath. They are citizens because their parents said they were. What is your point?
iamfreeru2 wrote:And what free inhabitant in his right mind would do such a things. Most people are ignorant and have no clue who or where they are. You believe if people knew government could not tax their private property that they would take the easy route? LOL!!! The problem is most people are confused, including you. I'm not saying this to disparage, just simply stating fact based on your posts.


Again, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you are really that oblivious. Yes, I KNOW most people will knowingly choose to pay property taxes in exchange for the benefits of having a mortgage, home owners insurance, and a mailbox. No, they are not in their right mind. No, they shouldn't be participating in usury and surety. But the people will not give these things up, even if they know they have a choice. They will give them up when they are forced to, period.

Discrediting what I post as “patriot mythology” is bogus and off point. Calling me “confused” to poison the well is presumptuous and vindictive. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are not all truth, in spite of the fact that you portray yourself as having a corner on it. That aside, I hope readers believe nothing you or I say, but rather prayerfully do their own research and discern fact from fiction on their own. As this discussion is not going in a positive direction, I will end my part in it with these verses, and my final thoughts on the matter.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

A yoke, fellowship, communion, concord, part, and/or agreement are all forms of contacts. Unbelieving, unrighteous, dark, Belial, infidel, and idol all describe “this State”. If you think it is ok to “touch the unclean thing” by having contacts with ”this State” and that those contacts won’t put you on their jurisdictional plane, have at it! But as for me, I want to be in my King’s jurisdiction, walking His plane in the “perfect law of liberty”, out of “this State”. I choose to keep all contacts with “this State” to a minimum, not because of what some statute or code or constitution says, but because my Lord says. And that truth is not up for debate.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:57 pm

notmartha wrote:
iamfreeru2 wrote:It is not a matter of personal jurisdiction, it is a matter of taking full responsibility, not limited liability.
The analogy was a bad one from the beginning. You originally were talking of two corporations, creations of State, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. They take full responsibility for nothing. Their creator makes the rules, decides the territory, and limits the liability. This does not apply to privately owned land of free inhabitants. If I was a cynic I'd wonder if you aren't trying to derail your own thread. Never claimed they take full responsibility, only made a comment that this is not about personal jurisdiction.
iamfreeru2 wrote:That interest must be proprietary. Statutes do not give government authority/jurisdiction anywhere other than federal property.
You confuse territories, possessions, federal areas, and federal property. They are not the same. Federal Areas do not have to be owned, and federal property does not have to be land. No, sorry to disagree with you. but In order for any area to be federal The United States of America must have a proprietary interest there. The Constitutions and Statutes are all in conformity with each other. Statutes cannot make any area they want federal areas. You are correct, it does not have to be land, it can merely be a building, but government must have an ownership interest..
iamfreeru2 wrote: I will say this again, Title 28 only applies in United States and nowhere else. Can you prove otherwise? I don't need some federal court of United States to tell me whether I am a foreign State. They do not have that jurisdiction.
I didn't cloak Title 28 with any authority to apply anywhere. I have posted what they claim and act on. And they will claim jurisdiction via your contacts whether you reside in the "United States" or not. Yes, but that claim can only be made on federal territory, and that's a fact.
iamfreeru2 wrote:Yes, free inhabitants have the right to contract, but what free inhabitant would contract his unalienable rights away?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here or not. Do you remember the People in Samuel's time screaming for a king? Do you remember Esau? Has the nature of people changed? People (generally) have always chosen what was bad for them, trading their rights for a bowl of stew. It is no different today. Yes, I am very familiar with 1 Samuel 8. I am referring to people that know who they are, and to whom they belong.
iamfreeru2 wrote:What does one have to doin order to become a US citizen, and no other way?
The statute you posted was in regards to aliens. They need to take an oath. Babies "born in the US "do not need to take any oath. They are citizens because their parents said they were. What is your point? And free inhabitants of the perpetual Union are not alien to United States? My point is you don't just become a citizen at birth. It takes a voluntary act and the only way is according to that Statute.
iamfreeru2 wrote:And what free inhabitant in his right mind would do such a things. Most people are ignorant and have no clue who or where they are. You believe if people knew government could not tax their private property that they would take the easy route? LOL!!! The problem is most people are confused, including you. I'm not saying this to disparage, just simply stating fact based on your posts.


Again, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you are really that oblivious. Yes, I KNOW most people will knowingly choose to pay property taxes in exchange for the benefits of having a mortgage, home owners insurance, and a mailbox. No, they are not in their right mind. No, they shouldn't be participating in usury and surety. But the people will not give these things up, even if they know they have a choice. They will give them up when they are forced to, period. Yes, there are people that do exactly what you state, but not those that have had their eyes and ears opened. I can tell you if people knew what is taking place they would stop it. Did I not state that most people have no clue who they are or where they are? Government has no authority anywhere other that its territory, notwithstanding people's ignorance.

Discrediting what I post as “patriot mythology” is bogus and off point. Calling me “confused” to poison the well is presumptuous and vindictive. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are not all truth, in spite of the fact that you portray yourself as having a corner on it. That aside, I hope readers believe nothing you or I say, but rather prayerfully do their own research and discern fact from fiction on their own. As this discussion is not going in a positive direction, I will end my part in it with these verses, and my final thoughts on the matter. I was not calling your info "patriot mythology" and I apologize if you took it that way. I will not apologize for my comment about you being confused. Also I do not have a corner on anything. I simply share the knowledge I have gleaned from our (group) research. I am certainly in agreement with you that no one take my or your word for anything. It takes study and research. The principle part of everything is its beginning. Unless you start from the beginning you will never know the truth of a matter. Most people fail at this, including me at one time.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

A yoke, fellowship, communion, concord, part, and/or agreement are all forms of contacts. Unbelieving, unrighteous, dark, Belial, infidel, and idol all describe “this State”. If you think it is ok to “touch the unclean thing” by having contacts with ”this State” and that those contacts won’t put you on their jurisdictional plane, have at it! But as for me, I want to be in my King’s jurisdiction, walking His plane in the “perfect law of liberty”, out of “this State”. I choose to keep all contacts with “this State” to a minimum, not because of what some statute or code or constitution says, but because my Lord says. And that truth is not up for debate.
I know who/what/where I am. Does the contact you have with a cop that stops you on the highway put you in his territorial plane? Not at all, if you know the truth and how to use it. I am in total agreement with you regarding yoking with unbelievers.

This is how I give notice of what/who I am:
Proof of Identity Mike(a).docx
(115.11 KiB) Downloaded 674 times
Last edited by iamfreeru2 on Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:38 pm

notmartha wrote:You asked:
Are you familiar with the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787? Did it create a temporary district under United States jurisdiction or was it to be permanent?
It appears to me that a temporary district was formed:

Section 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.

until they got their act together and: Who is the "they" that got "their" act together?

Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
What are the "States" that are formed within the said territory?

From Ed Rivera:
Eduardo Rivera wrote:What doesn’t the Assessor tell you?!
The Assessor doesn’t explain why only personal property located within the federal
territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of
America might be subject to forced taxation. The government of the State of California
within California is the only one which has been authorized by Congress to tax property
within the State of California, however, because the State of California is the
designation for the federal territory, within California, owned by or subject to the
exclusive legislative power of the United States of America, only non-federal personal
property can be taxed. Before admission into the second Union, a State must promise
not to tax federal property
, which leaves only the personal property not owned by the
United States of America subject to property taxation. !

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA!
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America,
and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.!
The above sentence means the State of California is the same kind of federal territory
made a permanent part of the Confederacy by Article 4 of the Northwest Ordinance
of
July 13, 1787, so only non-governmental personal property located on the federal
territory within California is taxable.!
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:02 pm

Calling me “confused” to poison the well is presumptuous and vindictive. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are not all truth, in spite of the fact that you portray yourself as having a corner on it. That aside, I hope readers believe nothing you or I say, but rather prayerfully do their own research and discern fact from fiction on their own.
I am sorry you believe me to be poisoning the well when I said you are confused. I was confused myself until someone was kind enough to, not only tell me I was confused, but showed me why/how with documentation. My post to you was never meant to be presumptuous or vindictive. However, if that is the way you see it, so be it. Never said any of my opinions are all truth either. I will say this, however, truth is truth whether, you, me or anyone else believes it is or not.

Many people believe the Constitution of the United States applies to them, and this would be false. Many people also believe there is a Constitution for the United States of America, and this would also be false. The Constitution of the people of The United States of America is the Articles of Confederation of November 15, A.D. 1777. It has never been repealed, replaced or done away with. Even Volume 1 of the U.S Code lists all 4 organic laws as current law in its front matter. This is something that many people are confused about due to indoctrination. Am I poisoning the well or being presumptuous or vindictive is so stating?

http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmat ... ion=prelim

The biggest problem is, people do not like to admit they have been duped. I know I did not like it one bit, going through life, in my 40s, and all of a sudden my world was shaken. Here I was a believer in Yeshua, a church goer, but duped none the less. I can't tell you how much time and energy I have spent on useless information.

Everything I have stated above about the Constitution and the AOC is correct and true. This can easily be proven. Did you listen to the audios I linked in my previous post? Rather that feeling like you have been wronged, why don't you did deeper and see if the information I present is true or not. This has nothing to do with me or you, but the truth. I am posting links again here to the two audios. They are both from Dr. Ed Rivera who has 35 years research into this. You would do well listening to what Dr. Rivera has to say.

https://app.box.com/s/k0eltj82ir1xnok4wqpz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbV-d6XW_ag
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:59 pm

Short on time right now. Can't listen to audios w/ dial up. Have read some of ER's writings. I think he is missing a big piece of the puzzle. Had you qualified the title of your thread Proof that the federal courts are without Article III judicial power I would have agreed. I don't think they are Art 4 either. Dennis had this issue nailed down. It is ALL executive. But it doesn't apply to me anyway. So I have no interest in wasting any more time on the matter.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:29 am

notmartha wrote:Short on time right now. Can't listen to audios w/ dial up. Have read some of ER's writings. I think he is missing a big piece of the puzzle. Had you qualified the title of your thread Proof that the federal courts are without Article III judicial power I would have agreed. I don't think they are Art 4 either. Dennis had this issue nailed down. It is ALL executive. But it doesn't apply to me anyway. So I have no interest in wasting any more time on the matter.
I am sorry, I forgot you are on dial-up. Maybe you can get a friend to download the audios on disc, although the one on youtube is visual as well as audio, which helps in the translation. I am sorry to say, but I have found that Dennis had very little nailed down. He certainly did not have the issue of the courts nailed down.

I don't think it's a waste of time learning the truth. Truth is Ed is missing nothing, but unless you have studied as we have you would not know this. The courts are all without any judicial power at all. The Chief Justice under the Constitution has no judicial authority whatsoever. Article 1 of the Constitution is legislative, not executive.
Article 1, Section 3, clause 6

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
According to the above the Chief Justice's sole duty is to preside at the impeachment of the President of the United States. It is a legislative duty, and nowhere in the Constitution will you find the Chief Justice has any other duty.

You might also be interested to know That the President of the United States is also legislative under Article 1 and not executive. The President of the United States of America has executive power, not the President of the United States.
Article II
Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Also look at Article 3
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Anywhere in the above quote does it mention justices of the Supreme Court? When the President of the United States appoints Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States it becomes legislative and not judicial. The SCOTUS legislates in the United States not The United States of America.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Dr. Rivera has helped me tremendously to know what is really going on, but like I said until you start at the beginning, all the way back to the Revolutionary War, and study forward you will never be able to gain the knowledge needed to know what to do.
John 8:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:44 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:like I said until you start at the beginning, all the way back to the Revolutionary War, and study forward you will never be able to gain the knowledge needed to know what to do.
If that is where you think the beginning starts, you won't be able to identify the flaws in man's constructions. You must start in the Garden.
Post Reply