WOW! Jews we know where they are going because they were not to mix with
foreigners. Utterly destroy foreigners or I'll judge. It's amazing the
interpretations one can get without using Genesis to Revelations. Plus they
had land ownership that eliminated foreigners every fifty years. The land
was granted to tribes and individuals. If one lost their land for unwise
decisions or bad luck. Fifty years it was returned to the original Jews
ancestry. Showing ownership is valid. David who defended the borders of
Israel then became King. He fought Goliath to protect the border.
Personally I'm tired of colleges preaching social justice as it is not
scriptural. Love from my heart and compassion are taught. It also defies
the law of equality that God laid down.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:09 PM Aéius Cercle of Quantum-Note(Law-Division) <
Law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will make a brief attempt at trying to clear up a little bit ofLife in one word--LOVE
«confusion» going on here...
One cannot «enter» into a corporate-construct (what many people seem to
think is a country but is not; it is a corporation) without a contract.
Furthermore, ALL «land» is *owned* by *God*, not any mere mortal man nor
any man-made institution of man (*cough*such-as*cough*governments*cough*).
Walt Disney (i.e.: the *man*) is NOT the same thing as WALT DISNEY (the
corporate-construct). ANY time you use the word «legal» or «illegal» it is
ALWAYS pertaining to the CORPORATE-construct (in *contrast* to saying
«lawful» or «unlawful»). ANY claim of ownership of *land* by man or
man-made institutions DOES NOT ABROGATE *«**GODS'»** true ownership* over
said land-mass (I suggest everyone ready the *Border-Patrol Decree* from
The Messiah's writings *before* they end up on the «wrong side» of God's
law come the time when their spirit is «scheduled» to depart from their
earthly flesh)... that is all I am going to respond with for now other than
the following quote from yet again The Messiah's writings *whether or not*
you believe that «the second coming» is *yet* to happen or not :
*~ The 'border' Decree ~*
*Any person operating as a 'border' policing Agent who is empowered by the
'State' of man to halt or restrict or prohibit the exit or entry of any
person for any reason onto or away from any national borders is also *
*'barred' **from entering the State of Heaven, as is any person demanding
any 'fee' for the import or export of any goods by others,*
*The Decree:*
*"To enter Heaven you must withdraw from being a 'user' of any darkness in
your daily deed. The 'control' exercised by Immigration & Customs
regulation is darkness in action*
*From this moment on all God's children are deemed by God to be citizens
of Earth and able to move anywhere and reside anywhere, and trade anywhere,
they so wish to without 'let or hindrance' from any other.*
*Any whom for any reason continue to demand or 'ask' others
to first obtain a travel passport or 'permit' or 'visa' prior to
embarkation or disembarkation on airline or ship or passage through a road
border will 'bar' themselves from entering Heaven and they become a
'citizen slave' of Hell by their own hand.*
-Quoted from
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/truth/web/heaven.htm#page%205
On 2021-05-27 4:16 p.m., Charley Dan wrote:
Not true at all. Because if one entered internationally illegal. The
constitution grants United States authority over it. Then again?
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:10 PM Garrett Mersman <c1rcaman48@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Charlie you seemed confused... if you are born on the land of America.Life in one word--LOVE
You are automatically naturalized and are an American National. Doesn’t
matter your skin color
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:50 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For another perspective from what happened historically. Lincoln went
south that United States rules over the states and they could not make
their own law as a whole. And required to pay those United starts servant
taxes to the United States. The Fourteenth amendment is about the
constitution of the United States now applies to the states of United
States because it. rules over the state.
It also made blacks citizens to the United States. I would love the case
with a black Individual being denied the constitution. At this point the
United States has not challenged that yet. Obama. Talked. Of this in his
departing speech. "Some people in this country has more rights then others.
Trump. Has referred to it and said Congress needs to take care of it. This
is not an executive order fixer but congressional Signature.
The people coming here and borned here without naturalization are in the
same boat as blacks. If I was one, I would go get naturalized because
without it. Your children have the same problem and can get extradited
quickly. A man from Norway came here and was to work on naturalization but
did not. His grandson a very good dairy farmer but got extradited this year
and he never lived in Norway. America is not perfect.
On May 27, 2021, 13:44 -0600, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>, wrote:
agree. i found the fact the justice noted the BoR was not binding on
the states.
if one opens the commentary, the notation is made that 20th century
courts shy away from this interpretation, based on 14th amendment
citizenship (paraphrase)
------------------------------
*From:* administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 2:58 PM
*To:* administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Barron vs.
Baltimore 1833
Bill of rights is only a light to ones freedom. Unless they are in a
free citizens jurisdiction.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:44 PM Don Mashak <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello
Interesting... the Initial assessment that the Bill of Rights does not
apply actions of States...
Though it is incorrect...
I was about to have a hissy until I read deeper into the text (where it
says read more)
I found this there
*Case Commentary*
While the decision was reaffirmed by later 19th-century Supreme Court
cases, the 20th-century Court moved away from Marshall's view. *It has
found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies most
of the Bill of Rights to the states under a doctrine known as
incorporation. Therefore, Barron, although not explicitly overruled,
probably cannot be considered valid law.*
------------------------------
But I would argue the ruling was wrong from the beginning...
The UNALIENABLE NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL exits in a state of
Nature, before the government.
We only agree to give up our rights to act a Judge, Executive and
Legislator when we CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.
Unalienable Rights do not come from government; depending on your
preference inalienable rights are either inherent and innate in the
individual and/or bestowed by God.
<JeffersonJudgesOligrachyClipArtSmall.jpg>
By definition, unalienable rights are not alienable. They do not require
explicit restatement in every government document. To argue that the Bill
of Rights (a partial list of Natural rights as evinced by the 9th
Amendment) and damages caused by
alienation of alienation (Takings - 5th Amendment) only apply to the
Federal Government and NOT lower governments is wholly in error.
The unalienable Rights of an individual exist with or without any
government. The difference being in the Pre-government
state it is the obligation of the individual to enforce their Natural
Rights, and after words, it is Government's duty to protect the inalienable
rights of all individuals from the trespasses of others.
<NaturalLawVsProgressivismPurposeOfGovernment07292016.jpg>
Finally, I should have started with this.... Judges are not God's... We
don't have to take their word for anything.
Judges are just as nonvirtuous as the rest of us.. and Progressive
Globalist judges hate the Concept of Natural Rights.
Each of us has the unalienable Natural Right to Establish Truth for
ourselves using our own observations and reasoning.
I previously demonstrated that Judges over 50 years changed
Jurisprudence from the "Pound Principle" where all matter before the courts
are to be settled on the merits, not technicality; to a new jurisprudence
where deciding matters on a technicality are much more accepted... as
evince by SCOTUS refusing to hear Election Fraud on Technicality.
With that precedent, why wouldn't they misinterpret the application of
Natural Rights as a means to advance the
Progressive Globalist Insurgency?
<ResolvingCasesOnTheMeritsRevisited03172021.jpg>
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
On Thursday, May 27, 2021, 11:25:05 AM CDT, NELSON DICE <
nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F32%2F243%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3001c1fb5c754a247d9808d9214188b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637577387635376637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dt%2FuxLH9RjHBleNXzZTRpXzood7KnAYppSzbVSS3USI%3D&reserved=0>
Sent from Mail
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3001c1fb5c754a247d9808d9214188b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637577387635376637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DI0VsjNdUfSUc%2B8fsOMnA%2BR90r3WBgNOnHNdNvc2qZM%3D&reserved=0>
for Windows 10
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
--
