Download Category: Law

THIS PAPER AND STUDY IS A COMPILATION OF NOTES TAKEN FROM ARTICLES AND VIDEOS. MOST OF THE NOTES ARE QUOTED FROM ROMLEY STEWART. There are a few bits of information from Kobus of South Africa and other sources, and scriptural references and commentary have been added by Brother Hebert to show the direct connection in which this grammatical deception is the mode of operation of the literal children of the Devil. It connects so many dots. This paper was inspired by the truth and the fraud which Romley has exposed, and the fact that this deception only proves that the bible is true and that the enemies of our race want to do nothing but corrupt, destroy, usurp, and enslave us, just as prophesied in Genesis 3:15.

I am not a lawyer, familiar with law, or even properly educated in grammar because I was taught by the Jewish run education system. The depth of information between law and grammar is vast and my understanding of it all is next to nothing. But what I do understand is that this information is real, legal, and in place. The system is running on deception in every aspect. We are corporations, we have strayed from The Way, and we have put our trust in the world system, and keep it going. We are in a Jewish Matrix of Deceit. We have all been grammatically deceived to continue this deception, to continue being born into slavery, to continue giving up our inheritance, and continue taking from the tree of good and evil.

Some of you who are familiar with law and grammar will understand all this and even be wowed. Most of you may find this information uninteresting, boring, or even pointless. No problem.

There’s not much we can do about this situation we are in, this legal slavery condition, this dead corporation status we are in. But I believe we should be aware of the world around us and any information we can gain will help us to ‘come up out of her’ as much as possible. Knowledge is wisdom, and when we seek wisdom, Yahweh will preserve us and protect us while we are trapped in this system.

This information is getting out there and people are finding ways to fight the system with success. I believe this paper will help people wet their beaks on what this DOG LATIN is and the references and links I have provided will further your understanding and eventually one of these guys will present an easy step-by-step guide on how to claim back your name, your life, your liberty.

Kobus, of the House of :Hinsbeeck, the South African from the videos on the GLOSSA channel on YouTube has said he has a Live-Life-Claim in which you can claim and identify your name.

THE following is an attempt towards an Examination into the just grounds of a proposition, which hath been advanced by some sages of the law, and assented to by many other persons; but which the Writer of this little Tract apprehends to be false in itself, and of the most dangerous consequence with respect to public liberty in general, and the Liberty of the Press in particular. If the light in which he considers it be a just one, no subject can be more worthy of the public attention. It is observed by Mr. Hume, that whenever any attempts to wrest from us the Liberty of the Press shall succeed, we may then conclude, that the liberty of Britain is gone for ever. And though the freedom of the press may often degenerate into a censurable licentiousness, yet it is certain, that a free people have much more danger to apprehend from a restraint of the Liberty of the Press, than from any, even the worst abuse of it.

The ingenious author just quoted, observes; that, “’tis sufficiently known, that despotic power would steal in upon us, were we not extremely watchful to prevent its progress; and were there not an easy method of conveying the alarm from one end of the kingdom to the other. The spirit of the people must frequently be routed to curb the ambition of the court; and the dread of rousing this spirit, must be employed to prevent that ambition. And nothing is so effectual to this purpose as the Liberty of the Press; by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation, may be employed on the side of liberty, and every one animated to its defence.”

That the freedom of the Press may, and sometimes does, degenerate into licentiousness, cannot be disputed; but the laws against sedition and libelling are already amply sufficient, and much too strong to be left to the arbitrary decision of any Lord Chief Justice. The liberty which this nation enjoys, has rendered it the admiration and the envy of Europe; the man who is insensible of its value and its importance, is unworthy to live in a free country. With the Liberty of the Press in particular, Civil Liberty in general is closely and inseparably connected: they will stand or fall together. Let us not, then, suffer our opinion of the value of this inestimable Privilege to be lessened, because it is attended, as every thing human is, with some inconveniences; but which are infinitely overbalanced by its advantages; nor let us suffer that Liberty, for which our gallant ancestors have so often and so nobly hazarded their lives and fortunes, to be wrested from us by the quibbling of lawyers.

Whether in the following pages any light is thrown upon the subject which is attempted to be investigated, the Public will determine. They are not written to serve the purposes of any party; nor has the Writer, in what be has advanced, been influenced by any motives, but the love of Freedom, and of his Country.

IF YOU ASK MOST PEOPLE WHAT THEY ASSOCIATE WITH MAGNA CARTA, they may say: King John, barons, Runnymede, or the beginning of English democracy. What they will not say is: Jews.

Yet three of its clauses directly relate to Jews, and, in particular, their money lending activities. It means that the document not only has enormous significance for English history, but also epitomises the privileges and problems of medieval Anglo Jewry.

Magna Carta was signed on June 15 1215, and there will be many commemorative events for its 800th anniversary next year, but its Jewish roots go back to 1066. It is likely that individual Jews came to this country long before then, as far back as Roman times, whether willingly as traders, or by force as slaves. However, it is impossible to talk of a settled Jewish community until the late 11th century. It was then that William of Normandy brought over Jews from his French territory to help colonise his new kingdom.

ENGLISH LAW, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions.[2] The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England,[3] in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English law.

Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system.[4] Notable among these is the written credit agreement—shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or “Jewish Gage,” was a lien on all property (including realty)[5] that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage[.6] Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor.[7] Both “movable and immovable” property were subject to distraint.[8]

In contrast, the obligation of knight service under Anglo-Norman law barred a land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant (and therefore a different knight owing service) upon the lord.[9] The dominance of personal feudal loyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of a debt; only the debtor’s chattels could be seized.[10] These rules kept feudal obligations intact, assuring that the lord would continue to be served by his own knights. When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by “all property, movable and immovable” was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding.[11]

The Crusades of the twelfth century opened an era of change in feudal England. To obtain funds from Jews, nobles offered their land as collateral.[12] Although the Jews, as aliens, could not hold land in fee simple,[13] they could take security interests of substantial money value[14] That Jews were permitted to hold security interests in land they did not occupy expanded interests in land beyond the traditional tenancies[15] The separation of possessory interest from interest in fee contributed to the decline of the rigid feudal land tenure structure.[16]

As might be expected, the text of the Magna Carta of 1215 bears many traces of haste, and is clearly the product of much bargaining and many hands. Most of its clauses deal with specific, and often long-standing, grievances rather than with general principles of law. Some of the grievances are self-explanatory: others can be understood only in the context of the feudal society in which they arose. Of a few clauses, the precise meaning is still a matter of argument.

In feudal society, the king’s barons held their lands `in fee’ (feudum) from the king, for an oath to him of loyalty and obedience, and with the obligation to provide him with a fixed number of knights whenever these were required for military service. At first the barons provided the knights by dividing their estates (of which the largest and most important were known as `honours’) into smaller parcels described as `knights’ fees’, which they distributed to tenants able to serve as knights. But by the time of King John it had become more convenient and usual for the obligation for service to be commuted for a cash payment known as `scutage’, and for the revenue so obtained to be used to maintain paid armies.

Besides military service, feudal custom allowed the king to make certain other exactions from his barons. In times of emergency, and on such special occasions as the marriage of his eldest daughter, he could demand from them a financial levy known as an `aid’ (auxilium). When a baron died, he could demand a succession duty or `relief’ (relevium) from the baron’s heir. If there was no heir, or if the succession was disputed, the baron’s lands could be forfeited or `escheated’ to the Crown. If the heir was under age, the king could assume the guardianship of his estates, and enjoy all the profits from them to the extent of despoliation-until the heir came of age. The king had the right, if he chose, to sell such a guardianship to the highest bidder, and to sell the heir himself in marriage for such price as the value of his estates would command. The widows and daughters of barons might also be sold in marriage. With their own tenants, the barons could deal similarly.

(The contents of this booklet are based on two lectures under this title, given by the author at Open-Bible Fellowship, Belfast during September 2001)

INTRODUCTION

As we commence our study into this vital topic let us read a portion of God’s Word:

PSALM 19:7-11 “The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean enduring forever: the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than Gold, yea than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. More over by them is thy servant warned and in keeping of them there is great reward”

I want to make two statements right from the outset of this message.

(A) I believe that the success and progress of the Gospel in the days that are past, was in direct proportion to the extent that God’s holy law was preached, proclaimed and given its proper place, and also the extent to which its purpose was understood.

What passes for Evangelism and Revival today makes no lasting impact upon our society because the Law of God has been neglected or even cast aside.

In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage Protection Agency (“YHPA”) was being prosecuted by the Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes, as well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.

The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the largest organized tax protester group to ever have existed in the United States (with respectful deference to our Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung “tax protester” patriots living and laying their lives on the line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its heyday in the 1970’s/1980’s, the YHPA’s dues-paying membership reached well into the 20,000 to 30,000 range, before it was ultimately brought into a state of non-existence through the intervention of strongly persuasive federal influences.

The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and continued on in their efforts for several years, with their primary focus based upon the illegitimacy of Federal Reserve Notes, contending thereon that receipt of said Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute “income,” therefore, no one receiving said notes was liable under federal income tax statutes. Although additional proprietary “tax protester” positions were routinely addressed, the YHPA’s primary focus remained centred around Federal Reserve Notes.

Curiously, as a side note, individuals choosing to join the YHPA (usually in the context of a dinner/seminar setting), were guided through a “joining process” at the conclusion of the seminar, where dual ID photos were taken (the YHPA kept one photo, and you received the other, using a dual-photo camera similar to the dual-photo cameras used at your local Department of Motor Vehicles or local passport photo vendor) and slick, professional looking “ID cards” were processed on the spot and given to each new member at that time.

In hindsight, the stated reasons given at these dinner/ seminars with respect to the “necessity” of having/ creating a photo ID card were rather specious at best, and in fact, there was some additional hindsight talk that perhaps the YHPA was a Federal “Tax Protester” Sting Operation all along, designed to attract and then identify. [For example, in the U.S.S.R., the KGB is known to have secretly “created” (sponsored is more like it) — various protester groups for the sole purpose of throwing out some attractive philosophy designed to attract a certain type of individual, and then having “extracted” those individuals from society, and having thus identified them — then shutting down the organization and arresting the members. This practice is a utilization of the principle known as the “Doctrine of False Opposition.”

IT Is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one’s one detriment.
The people of the United States find themselves in such a position right now, forced to choose between a moral and ethical position that carries with it the potential for “inconvenience”, or supporting the status quo and having to admit to themselves that they are not the champions of justice they imagine themselves to be. By the end of this article, you will know for yourself which one you are.
Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.
But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!
The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii’s path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.
But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns or moral right and legality. Hawaii’s legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.
Hawaii’s government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this “superior force of the United States of America,” Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people. .

THE 1960’S saw a major historic shift of belief in Britain. No longer did our erstwhile politicians and their unseen masters, see our country’s laws as being of divine origin based on God’s Law, and therefore were fixed. Rather, they were seen as being of human origin, based upon “the will of the people.” Therefore, they could be and were changed.
Since the end of the second world war, a great deal of Bible-based legislation has been removed from British Law Books and replaced by very inferior and permissive laws. Today there are, at least in the mind of British Parliamentarians, and its behind the scenes law makers, all absolutes the restraints are off, an action that is in open defiance of God and His Word. The general consensus is that “morality is what you make it”
However, historically, God’s Law has shaped particularly the English statute book. In Anglo-Saxon times Alfred the Great laid down a sound foundation. He added to his laws a free translation of the Ten Commandments and an abridgment of the enactments of Exodus chapters 21-23. Alfred took his responsibilities as a Christian ruler seriously, and the spiritual welfare of his subjects was important to him
The true significance of the removal of biblical restraints and replacement by inferior laws is well summed up by Rev David Samuel who wrote: “When a law is passed by Parliament and put upon the statute book it can still be lawlessness when it is judged by that higher law – the Law of God. Yet w e have witnessed this kind of thing repeatedly in recent years…. Iniquity , lawlessness. in our society today is no longer merely the aberration of the individual, but it is the structured, codified and deliberate lawlessness of society itself.”

IN 1892, THE FAMOUS GERMAN CHURCH HISTORIAN REV. PROFESSOR DR. J. H. KURTZ1 called King Alfred the greatest and noblest of all the monarchs England has ever had. King Alfred ruled from 871 to 901 A.D. He applied all the energy of his mind to the difficult problems of government; to the emancipation of his Christian country by driving out the Pagan Danish invaders and robbers; and then to improving the internal condition of the land.

Alfred is perhaps best of all remembered for his famous Law Code. According to the celebrated former British Statesman and Historian Sir Winston Churchill,2 the roots of King Alfred’s Book of Laws or Dooms (alias his “Deemings”) came forth from the (as then already long-established) laws of Kent, Mercia and Wessex. All these attempted to blend the Mosaic Code with the Christian principles of Celto-Brythonic Law and old Germanic customs.