Are you not created in his image? Does the word not say that you are a saint?
Does the word not say you are the temple of the most high? So does this temple
deserve to be revered? That word in the Hebrew is used 316 times in the Old
Testament. So do not take the meaning of the word out of context. It means to
revere. H3372 (Strong)
יָרֵא
yârê'
yaw-ray'
A primitive root; to fear; morally to revere; causatively to frighten: -
affright, be (make) afraid, dread (-ful), (put in) fear (-ful, -fully, -ing).
(be had in) reverence (-end), X see, terrible (act, -ness, thing).
Rev. Brian-Vincent Robertson©
Trustee/Minister
All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice.
On Feb 13, 2021, at 11:11, Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hope you know the tile Reverend is not for man and is sold reserved for Jesus.
See kjv 1611 psalms 111:9 "reverend" refers only to God Himself, and not once
is it applied to a man. The lone instance of the word, found in the King James
version, says: "He [God] sent redemption unto His people: He hath commanded His
covenant for ever: holy and reverend is His name." God alone has a name worthy
of reverence. No man, including any minister, has a name worthy of such respect
or worship
On Feb 13, 2021, at 10:58 AM, Brian Robertson <cueballx26@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They are not expanding Admiralty. Admiralty is the rule. Now here is the crux
of the problem. People are not going to like what I am about to say, but hear
me out. People think admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law are the same.
Maritime law is only 1 side of admiralty jurisdiction. I was taught like most
of us that maritime law is law of the sea. Well, it’s not. I recently learned
by multiple quotations from old source materials that maritime law is actually
law of nations. It just so happens that almost all cases do involve ships,
shipping, and parts of commerce.
The other side of admiralty jurisdiction is contracts in commerce. We have all
heard that “they brought the sea on to the land”. Well, they didn’t. What
actually is going on is the commerce Clause. So any contract that is in
commerce falls under admiralty or law of nations. Why you may ask? Well, what
are the states? They are 50 sovereign nations. This in why it is understood in
the Governmental Styles Manual there is a section called table of nations. The
federal government was given exclusive power to regulate commerce to make sure
those nations played fair with each other.
I actually was taking a contract law class from Harvard and it blew me away on
what the professor admitted. He said that admiralty jurisdiction is the federal
common law of contract in short. Attached is the screenshot of what he said.
<image0.jpeg>
Rev. Brian-Vincent Robertson©
Trustee/Minister
All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice.
On Feb 13, 2021, at 07:50, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
its public knowledge, all you have to do is a quick search look up what it
takes for a judge and/or cop to be in uniform on your state (its good to learn
too, as most "judges" dont have an oath of office or may proclaim they dont
have one and dont need it and/or the documents may not be bs and/or not "in
order"/proper. if you know what to do, thats called them hangin themselves).
boris (iamsomedude) has talked about this on the forum before, just as i have
talked about it and knowin things like miranda rights so you can think on your
feet. i have gotten out of a situation where i was bein a ass to a douche bag
mall cop and started tellin him im stealin in front of him while stuffin things
in my pocket that had me arrested, the cop didnt read me the miranda rights. i
didnt need documents or paper work, i told my public defender the cop didnt
read the miranda.
never herd from the public defender again, when i went to the court date no one
could find me in the system, and they wouldnt notarize a document statin i
shown up for the court date lol. normally when you ask a cop for their peace
officer certificate, they pack their bags and start leavin because they know
they aint operatin as a peace officer and dont have that certificate [but they
need ALL aforementioned documents in my last message on them or in their police
car for them to be in uniform, or else they are just a thief on the street
utilizing government property in "illegal" and unlawful activites, not limited
to possible abduction that fools keep callin kidnappin when their over 18],
boris has confirmed that; so have i for myself. i dont want anyone to feel as
if im talkin down to them, but as many times as i had repeatedly posted the
same things multiple occasions over the years i been in this group, i no longer
have time to post the same things
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 8:38 AM The Experts
<experts303@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:experts303@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Yes I am interested also... These cops are stepping on my unalienable right to
travel. This information will go good with the car handout when the cop ask for
licence
See attached... Contract law ... First in time is first in line!!! Please feel
free to tell me what you think!
Sincerely Enjoy life,
By:Daniel Henderson Hornburg
All rights reserved UCC 1-308
"OUTSMART, OUTGUN & OUTLAST Your Competition!"
For entertainment Only/Not legal advice.
As a disclaimer, I am not a Republican just an honest observer
without all the emotional baggage and social programming.
I do not take part in the pharmaceutical religion, My right to choose my
Spirituality!
If you don't know your rights, you don’t know your options and/or the
opportunities!
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:20 AM Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Sounds great where is the cited evidence for this. As if I ask the cop I don’t
look like I pulled it out of thin air. Thanks.
On Feb 12, 2021, at 7:56 AM, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
a cop needs to have their business card, oath of office, hazard bond, i.d (some
state(s) 3 forms of id etc) and peace officer certificate on them or in their
squad car; if they dont have all of those things they aint in uniform. i could
add a lot more but i dont have the time
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 3:05 AM Mike
<leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
From: J_B<mailto:tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 7:59 PM
To:
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Understanding more on how
courts today are extending admiralty jurisdiction in Tyranny
fictitious name certificate ok i get that but most likely i wil have to produce
some code or reference to such and they will have to look it up to know they
cant do business with me? another thing what if you get some cop who has no
clue what your talking about and has that look on their face?
id feel more comfortable know what im talking about with backup info i can
reference or show some code usc or other directly relating to what you state
about
thanks
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:24 PM Schaefer Carl
<schaeferfreight@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:schaeferfreight@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
My point is, they are just doing business. That is all. They are making offers
to contract. If you allow them to inspect your truck or car, they presume you
agree, but now you know they are not authorized, so you demand to see their
fictitious name certificate, them won't be able to produce it, so you tell
them, sorry but you are not authorized to sell dounuts or lemonaide in this
state, without registration first.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet
-------- Original message --------
From: Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 2/11/21 7:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
To:
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Understanding more on how
courts today are extending admiralty jurisdiction in Tyranny
Carl
You starred the officer said he was not doing business, but you explained he
was. Would you give detail of that explain?
On Feb 11, 2021, 3:32 PM -0700, M Schaefer Carl
<schaeferfreight@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:schaeferfreight@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, wrote:
You