Friday, July 14, 2006

The Banker Relationship

I’m going to appeal to some of your common sense. If you use it the relationship you obtained with the banker will be obvious. It is important to understand this relationship especially when there is a lot of propaganda to have you believe contrariwise. When you arrive at the bank seeking a loan it is in response to a solicitation that they have money to lend. This is either true or a false advertisement. Once you’ve agreed to terms of a fully disclosed transaction paperwork is generated. Both parties operating on knowledgeable informed consent. Of course we know this part is not true so let us look at the actual facts verses the presumed set. When you create the promissory note it immediately is given value by the surety, pledge of the maker’s labor and word. It becomes a financial asset and consideration from your side of the transaction. Now the cash/credit is suppose to come from the banker’s side. It should already be present in their portfolio before you arrived. It is not! Therefore the transaction is going to take on species not like a typical borrower/lender relationship. If the bank had the funds they would have put up consideration and brought their own set of rights to the contract and would have no obligations to you except that which was binding in the contract. Since they do not use their capital/credit and are precluded by Revised Statute 62 from doing so they must enter the relationship obligated to the one they are obtaining benefit from. In this case it is you. Your financial asset now being the only consideration in the transaction is the source of all rights, title, and interest. Since the banker’s have no rights, title, or interest in this financial asset they can only attach to it as an agent. Agents are like fiduciaries in that their obligations are to another for the benefit of the principle. They are to now use their skill and connections to move your financial asset into the commercial market place and see if they can get a liquid purchase. They are successful and place the funds into a deposit account without your knowledge bearing your name. This is known as the transaction account that will be depleted to fund the real estate transaction that was the instigator of this relationship. When they open this account with the funds obtained by your financial asset they add a fiduciary obligation to their agency obligation. When they fail to disclose this account they have breached this fiduciary duty and conflicted themselves. They have catered to relationships and duties outside their obligations to you. They have made themselves the beneficiary instead of account maker. Once they have taken the benefit to themselves by an act of conversion they begin to assert rights of a lender as though they put up these funds. They record a security interest, obtain fees, for creation, servicing, selling your asset. This is fraud pure and simple. In the normal lending relationship you would enter the bank that had cash/credit of its own to lend. You would create a financial asset called a promissory note and exchange if for the credits. Over a protracted period of time you would reverse this exchange with an interest benefit to the lender. Your financial asset would remain in their possession the entire time as evidence of the agreement and security for the loan. Once you return the cash/credit they return the note unaltered to the maker. There have been no mediators or interest conflicting the parties. If this is the type of loan you received you are obligated to pay it. There is no fraud; everyone is informed, knowledgeable, and consenting for mutual benefit. You did not have this relationship because in a debt-based fiat currency economy the bankers are precluded from consideration. They can only steal the wealth of victims in exchange for their licensed ability to convert all assets and credit worthiness into unredeemable credit. Are these crimes new? Certainly not but they have become more blatant and in a secured transaction there are too many pitfalls that these crooks have overlooked that expose the nature and method of their fraud. A successful challenge will have them running scared and putting their 1000 lb. Gorilla called the purchased UNITED STATES on those exposing the truth. Remember this, gorillas are under the domain of man according to God. Man is smarter! As a test for your own verification call your lender and tell them you would like to view your original unaltered promissory note and will go to where ever they possess it. Offer to cover your own expenses so they have no excuses. If they do not possess it they are precluded from making a claim. Should be simple, right? Get ready for a surprise. You have a right to view this. Do not accept a certified copy, only the original!

57 comments:

son of a prophet said...

son of a prophet said...
mogel said....


No immaculate conception here!!!! No mystery. God the Father, literally came down from Heaven in his glory & had some holy sex. Mary knew how this happened. There was no confusion



mog, you dont believe the immaculate conceptin???


interesting.

i do, but i do not believe in the 'perpetual virginity' of roman catholicsm

son of a prophet said...

lol! bette hurry up with those settlemants, before none of us is around to collect, or pay out!
------------------------------




Israeli - Palestinian War

ALL-OUT WAR?!

Analysis: Israel is at war

Danger rises in the Mideast: German Chancellor Angela Merkel put the frightening violence in the Middle East into anxious perspective

IAF Targets Hizbullah Deep in Beirut

Airstrikes on Lebanon kill 50

Israel intensifies siege on Lebanon

Over 700 Katyusha rockets and mortar shells have been fired on northern Israel in the current offensive in Lebanon

Iranian President Ahmadinejad warns against Syria strike: "such a move would equate to an attack against the Islamic world" -- vows "crushing response"

Israel orders more strikes

War Exposes P.A.-Hizbullah-Iran Connection

More Missiles Strike Tzfat, Nahariya; Hizbullah Says Haifa Next -- Haifa Hit by Long-Range Missiles Overnight

Israeli Givati Brigade Leaves Central Gaza: But Kassam Rocket Attacks Continue

US vetoes UN resolution urging end to Israeli attacks in Gaza

Bush defends Israeli strikes into Lebanon

Grim and determined, Israelis want foes crushed

IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border

Are Israel and Her Arab Enemies Racing Towards "Judgment Day"? Dave Hunt book taking on new meaning in light of current war


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Americans Plan to Vote for Democrats


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Powers Responsible for Spreading N-Weapons: US nod to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs encouraged other countries like Iran and North Korea to arm with nuclear weapons

son of a prophet said...

above from cuttingdedge.org

son of a prophet said...

My first question is, if this new currency comes into effect (with a new SUPER-Federal Reserve covering all three countries), could it happen where every "citizen" must exchange their US$, Canadian$, or Peso for the new currency? Maybe at a severe exchange rate like US$100 = 1 Amero, and say a loaf of bread costs 2 Ameros (extreme example)? Has this happened before, possibly in the EU when they switched to the Euro? Like I said, extreme novice. [Answer: Yes. Anything is possible because America is now rules by Executive Orders and is in what Jim Kunjstler calls "The Long Emergency." Anything can be ordered.]

My second question is similar to the first, except where each country retains its' currency, but it is a two-tiered currency. It would be kind of like the discussion about the new "Redbacks" a couple of months back, only this time the more valuable Amero currency (with stronger purchasing power) is held mostly by the wealthy class and TPTB, and the "masses" use "greenbacks" (basically toilet paper). Is this possible and/or has this scenario happened before? [See previous answer: ANYTHING is possible when CONgress has ceded its powers to whomever.]

Thanks for the help, and keep up the good work!"

son of a prophet said...

just had lunch at my fav deli, and notice something i never noticed befoer.

i got a $10 bill back in cahnge and it was RED!

I red, i mean red abuot this earlier in the month about making 2 currencyies, but thought like everthing else, it was bull.

NOW I KNOW THAT IT WAS TRUE!

i wish that i could find the rticle. was the red currency the good or the worhtless one. I willl hold on to this red 10 until i find out.

ALSO: it had on it printed in old style SCRIPT printing, like the contitutoin was writtne in....

"WE THE PEOPLE" across the center of the bill in large script.

is this code? are the ptb telling us that we ARE going back to the contituoin? WOW!

IF SO, that means the DG is a winner, and more DG type groups are already in the works.

DG type tax groups, rights gropus. etc. and they will all be successful.

the dawning of the millenail kingdom is upon us.

ENJOY IT BECASUE IT WONT LAST LONG!


i admit, it will even be hard for me to beleive that it wont last long. but, i too will enjoy it while it last.

it is going to tempt even those with HS wisdom to say, i rather stay on earth rather than be in heaven, earth is so nice!

alas, when they say..."peace, safety and prosperity..." and then cometh destruction....

perhaps from the incomeing comet that is headed our way, which wont hit us, but change the electromagnetic fields which will wreak havoc on earth; quakes, canse, nados, you know the rest.....

son of a prophet said...

perhaps from the incomeing comet that is headed our way, which wont hit us, but change the electromagnetic fields which will wreak havoc on earth; quakes, canse, nados, you know the rest.....


could it be the "WORMWOOD" of the bible book of REVELATION that is coming to destroy the earth????

papa_dont_preach said...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, the sky is falling........to hell with the women and children, save SOP!

mogel said...

Some of the ideas below might explain why Kurt pleaded guilty. The real question is: "Guilty of what"? Is Kurt Guilty of recognizing that common law or constitutional rights as oppoosed to UCC laws, laws that the Courts today are governed by, are two separate things and each have different purposes? One is God's law, and one is man's law.
_______________________________


Our ultimate expression of Freedom, especially in today's
capitalistic world, is our Right to enter into a contract with anyone
we wish. It comes from what we refer to as the "free-enterprise
clause" of the Constitution, which recognizes this Right of the People
(as a limitation of the States) and we use it, though unwittingly, to
subject ourselves to "private law" (terms and conditions of private
contracts) with the various levels of government:

* *

*Article I, Section 10 Clause 1: *

*_No State shall enter into any_* Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emits Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of
Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or *_Law_*_
*impairing the Obligation of Contracts*_, or grant any Title of
Nobility. [Boldface and underlines added]

There are three significant things we should all come to know and
understand in reading this clause:

1. It is a restriction forbidding ANY State (nation - this includes
the United States as well as all foreign nations) of *_ANY_*
ability to deny the People (of the several States - the Union)
of their Right to obligate themselves via a private contract.
2. Once you've entered into such a contract you are now "obligated"
and to the same extent as in item one, the State can't help you
out of it either. Meaning, once you enter into a legal contract,
with whomever; it is a *_Constitutional guarantee that you are
now obligated to fulfilling the terms and conditions of that
contract_*, even to the extent that you have, as a Freeman,
*_waived access_* to any or all of your Natural Rights in the
process.
3. There are NO restrictions or limitations placed upon the People
to enter into a legal contract with anyone, including the
various levels of government.

A contract is a set of explicit terms and conditions (*_rules_*),
which become, in effect, "private *_law_*," and is today, recognized
as what we have come to call the "*_rule of law_*."

So the "*_rule of law_*" is nothing more than the "*_terms and
conditions_*" (in the form of government statutes, codes or
regulations) of "*_private contracts_*" we agree to as a *_100%
voluntary act on our part_*, as Freemen, under our Constitutionally
guaranteed Right to "free enterprise.

Since it is not permissible to argue that which is not included within
the four corners of the contract as part of its terms and conditions,
you cannot argue your Constitutional Rights in the courtroom in
matters of equity. *_All contracts are a matter of equity_*...*_ _*

To back track just a little, I should remind you that the Constitution
only guarantees the People the Right to Common Law in matters of
equity. Equity, of course, is a matter of value and/or performance.



*Bill of Rights - Article VII* (Seventh Amendment):



In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.



While the Common Law is also made a part of every State's Statutes,
usually in the form of an Act of the State Legislature and usually
publicized as one of their first statutes; the statutes themselves do
not include the Common Law itself. It is doubtful you will ever find a
copy of the Common Law, especially in State documents, despite the
fact they reference it, not to mention authorize it.

The question here is, "*_What is Common Law, where is it and how do we
gain access to it?_*"

The word "Common" in the phrase "Common Law," means the law is natural
and ordinary that it exists because it is historically what the people
have commonly done in response to their needs.

In other words a crime of murder is not a crime at Common Law simply
because the government says so or anyone else for that matter, but
rather because, historically, when someone killed someone else, people
who knew the one killed, would seek out the killer and exact a
punishment. Hence, Common Law is law because it reflects or recognizes
the way things naturally are.

Common Law cannot be written down, not because one can't record the
way things naturally are, but rather because in doing so, the record
becomes something which is not the way things naturally are.

One can come to agreement with others and write down that within the
social structure of the group, murder will be punished, but the best
such writing can ever be, is an equitable restatement of the Common
Law. No writing can ever be a statement of Common Law. Common Law
cannot be stated in writing. The reason is that, in writing it, one
removes it from the realm of the ordinary, from which Common Law is
derived, and places it at a level which is not ordinary, that is to
say, is non historical in nature.

The written statement will be viewed tomorrow, as having the same
features as it did on the day it was written. In the ordinariness of
the natural world, time either takes its toll or adds its gloss, as
the case may be, but never is time without effect. By committing a
condition to writing, so that a reader may perceive it anew every time
it is read, time is effectively suspended with regards to the effects
of the condition. Such conditions are referred to by governments, as
"law."

Common Law gets it's authority only from historical precedent, and
nowhere else. With regards to the Common Law, what can be stated in
writing is the decisions which judges have historically arrived at.
These decisions are evidence of the Common Law, but are not the Common
Law itself.

So where is the Common Law found? It's found all around you in the
ordinary rightful non disputable forces and activities of nature and
people, and evidence about it is found in the historical records of
free people.

Except as may be determined from the historical record, Common Law
cannot be accessed by referencing anything written.

Many today, in the so-called patriot movement have come to incorporate
the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is equity law and has been
adopted by most states. In reality it is "private law," which can be
adopted by anyone who wishes to indulge in it. It concerns itself
with, as the title implies, equity in the form of a commercial
transaction. It is an attempt to write down the Common Law.

In the ANDERSON version of the UCC (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
Co.), it states the following:

"*_The Code is complimentary to the Common Law_*, which remains in
force, *_except where displaced by the code_*. A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." [UCC 1-103.6][boldface
and underlines added]

So to make use of any part of the UCC, in anyway, is to agree to the
UCC and therefore one has subjected himself to the writings of the UCC
rather than to the Common Law itself. In other words, once you invoke
the UCC you have in effect displaced the Common Law.

The reason I bring up the UCC is because so many in the patriot
movement are using it by referencing section 1-207, which is a section
called "Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights" leading
one to believe that the mere use of this section is all that is
necessary to protecting ones rights. Here is the pertinent text:

*The Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207:*



Performance or Acceptance *_Under Reservation of Rights_*

"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises
performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered
by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved.
Such words as *_'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like _*are
sufficient."

One may sign without prejudice if one wishes, and because historically
that is what people have always done if they wished to make a mark
that did not prejudice themselves, one may remain at common law by
doing so. However, the moment one adds any reference of any written
code or law, one is subjecting one's action to equity law, and that
subjection reduces the action and all connected with it to nothing
more than just another activity which has taken place within an
equitable jurisdiction.

The UCC is not an historical record. It is rather the current view of
the State, that is to say, it's the liquid changeable "will of the
prince." It, like all written law, "perishes with the using," or is
changed constantly as usages permits or requires. New sections are
added. Old ones changed or removed. This activity of changing law
goes on continually and constantly. The UCC of today is not the UCC
of yesterday nor will it be the UCC of tomorrow.

To refer to the UCC, is to submit to it. If you want to access the
common law, don't refer to any written code or statute other than as
may be necessary to recognize an historical fact.

The common law is to equity law as water is to oil. In the same sense
that water and oil cannot be mixed, so neither can common law and
equity law. There are no such things as doorways to the common law in
equity law, and UCC 1-207 is not any such thing. Notwithstanding that
UCC 1-207 may be an equitable restatement of common law, if one is
subject to equity law, that fact does not in any way allow an exit
from equity law and said section is not more than an equitable
authority for those who are subjects of equity law whereby they may be
not prejudiced.

If you want to access common law, look to the historical record and
avoid referencing any other form of law.

So, what exactly does one do to protect their rights?

*_WHENEVER you lay your hand or "sign manual" (never just say sign or
signature) ANY document with ANY level of government, or any entity
involved, either directly or indirectly, with the Federal Reserve be
sure to reserve your rights by signing that document with the phrase,
"without prejudice" immediately above your signed (manual) name_*.
Example:

*"without prejudice" *

J. C. STERLING

Personally, I like writing, *"with reservation of all rights" or "All
rights reserved."*

Because, when asked by some unknowing clerk, "what does that mean?" I
say, *_"Since you are asking me to sign something and I am not a
lawyer. It means I am reserving my Constitutionally guaranteed Rights.
You wouldn't try to deny me of my Rights, would you?"_*

At this point, he/she just thinks you're being silly and usually says
in reply, "of course not" and that's the end of it.

But, if you try to impress them with all this stuff you've just
learned by trying to explain it to them, they may actually try to deny
your Right to do so, by not accepting it at all. This is illegal of
course, for once you have asserted your Rights it is a federal crime
for ANY government official or employee to deny you any of your
Rights, though you may go through quite an ordeal to win your case.
That is, until more and more of us start using this, our only legal
technique, in an effort to regain access to our Natural Rights and to
the Common Law, while dealing in otherwise "private law" (contracts)
with any level of government.

Now you know how and why it is,

*"If you don't reserve your Rights, you don't have any." *



By the way, Common Law is about equality and fairness, it is not just
about money. Equity law is just about money and who gets it. We know
this is true, because the UCC does not concern itself with your
Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, while the Constitution does
concern itself with your Right to "free enterprise" (contracts).

Under Common Law there is no such thing as a crime against the State.
After all, the State is nothing more than an idea, a concept, it is in
fact just a piece of paper representing a non-living thing.

Before there is a crime, there must first be harm or injury to a
person or their property. But under statute law, you can be convicted
of a crime by merely not adhering to the statute, even if there is no
harm or foul to a living human being or their property. All that is
required here is to not obey the statute. That is, not to honor the
terms and conditions of the contract.

If it is ever necessary for you to assert your Rights in a courtroom,
when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when
explaining what you meant when you claimed "with reservation of
Rights."

"It indicates, as espoused within the Declaration of Independence, I
have exercised my Natural Right not to consent, not to be compelled to
perform under any contract that I have not entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally. It also notifies all administrative
agencies of all governments that I do not accept the liability
associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial
agreement"

Some people are putting the words, "with reservation of all rights,"
above their names (sign manual) on every document they engage in. For
example, they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax
returns, voter registration, bank accounts, checks, gun purchases,
etc. Even marriage licenses, since this is where the government gets
its authority (jurisdiction) over our children, as well as the
internal affairs of our lives.

In short, everything the various levels of government are offering us,
by way of some program or perceived benefit, where you are being asked
to sign up for it, is a "private contract" between you and that
government agency. To which, you are now OBLIGATED to perform
according to the statutes, codes and regulations, which have been
referenced to on the very document you just agreed to. Now you know
why it is so important to read the fine print.

We are literally signing up for the *_privilege_* of being fined or
thrown in jail, if somehow we disobey one of their statutes (terms and
conditions)

In closing, I leave you with this thought,"Business is the art of
extracting money from another man's pocket without resorting to
violence".

J.C.

mogel said...

Banks do things against their charter. Even though the Courts in the past have ruled that they are operating illegally in their practices today, today's Courts ignore case rulings prior to 1938 as if they never existed. How convenient for the banks.
___________________________________


National banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of an important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. Pollard v. State, Ala.1880, 65 Ala. 628. See, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer Nat. Bank, 1913, 61 So. 47, 7 Ala.App. 285.



A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App.1921, 236 S.W. 153, dismissed w.o.j.



A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First Nat. Bank v. Crespi & Co., Tex.Civ.App.1920, 217 S.W. 705, dismissed w.o.j.



National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v. Lumbermen's Nat. Bank of Portland, Or.1917, 168 P. 616, 86 Or. 324.



A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.



A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist.Col.1883, 2 Mackey, 513.



Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla.1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla. 186.



Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower's assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on bank. Young v. Goetting, C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1926, 16 F.2d 248.



Bank is liable for its vice president's participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National City Bank v. Carter, C.C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1926, 14 F.2d 940.



A national bank receiving the proceeds of a customer's note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon a first mortgage lien upon real estate is acting intra vires and liable for breach of its duty. Brandenburg v. First Nat. Bank of Casselton, N.D.1921, 183 N.W. 643, 48 N.D. 176.



It has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authorize the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. Lazear v. National Union Bank, Md.1879, 52 Md. 78, 36 Am.Rep. 355. See, also, Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 1877, 24 Minn. 140, 31 Am.Rep. 341.



National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.



Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.



A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.



A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, Ga.App.1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 Ga.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171.



Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation, D.C.Mass.1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27.



'In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153.



National banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it except the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan.1920, 187 P. 697, 106 Kan. 303.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

son of a prophet said...

as these laws have always existed, i guess that the ball game has now changed in the sense that these law will begin to be dnforced as originally intended.

why now all of a sudden?

do the ptb have a motive to allow it, or has the other side reached a critical mass and the ptb knows that change cannot be stopped or avoided any longer?

mogel said...

Kurt, isn't there enough case law below to justify your release from jail in light of the circumstances that got you put in jail?
_________________________________
Cases Habeas Corpus!

IN RE: WAGNER, No. G031641 (Cal. 4th App. Dist. February 25, 2005)
Plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed after his incarceration for an alleged violation of a condition of his probation, is granted where the trial judge failed to provide him with required due process protections.



FRANKLIN v. MCCAUGHTRY, No. 03-1031 (7th Cir. February 24, 2005)
Denial of plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed where his trial judge was actually biased since the only inference that can be drawn from the facts of record is that the judge decided that plaintiff was guilty before he conducted the trial.



"...he is subject to restraints "not shared by the public generally," Jones v. Cunningham, supra, at 240: that is, the obligation to appear "at all times and places as ordered" by "[a]ny court or magistrate of competent jurisdiction." He cannot come and go as he pleases. His freedom of movement rests in the hands of state judicial officers..." Hensley v Municipal, 411 U.S. 345 (1973)



We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of the great writ Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, in Anglo-American Jurisprudence: "The most celebrated writ in the English Law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries: It is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restrain or Confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use occurring in the thirty-third year of Edward I." Secretary of State for Home Affairs v O'Brien, (1923) A.C. 603, 609 (H.L.).- - United States Supreme Court Opinion - - Fay v Noia, (1963) 372 U.S. 391.



The scope and flexibility of the writ - its capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention - its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes - have always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts and lawmakers. The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected. - - United States Supreme Court Opinion.- - HARRIS v. NELSON, (1969) 394 U.S. 286

GANTT v. ROE, No. 99-55477 (9th Cir. November 22, 2004)


Plaintiff's habeas petition is granted where the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).



"The question presented for our decision is a narrow one: namely, whether the conditions imposed on petitioner as the price of his release constitute "custody" as that term is used in the habeas corpus statute. Respondent contends that the conditions imposed on petitioner are significantly less restrictive than those imposed on the petitioner in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), where we held that a person released on parole is "in custody" for purposes of the district courts' habeas corpus jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that the parolee is generally subject to greater restrictions on his liberty of movement than a person released on bail or his own recognizance. And some lower courts have reasoned [411 U.S. 345, 349] that this difference precludes an extension of the writ in cases such as the one before us.5 On the other hand, a substantial number of courts, perhaps a majority, have concluded that a person released on bail or on his own recognizance may be "in custody" within the meaning of the statute.6 In view of the analysis, which led to a finding of custody in Jones v. Cunningham, supra, we conclude that this latter line of cases reflects the sounder view. While the "rhetoric celebrating habeas corpus has changed little over the centuries,"7 it is nevertheless true that the functions of the writ have undergone dramatic change. Our recent decisions have reasoned from the premise that habeas corpus is not "a static, narrow, formalistic remedy,"



Jones v. Cunningham, supra, at 243, [411 U.S. 345, 350] but one which must retain the "ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 91 (1969). See Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 346 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting).



"The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris v. Nelson, supra, at 291.

Thus, we have consistently rejected interpretations of the habeas corpus statute that would suffocate the writ in stifling formalisms or hobble its effectiveness with the manacles of arcane and scholastic procedural requirements. The demand for speed, flexibility, and simplicity is clearly evident in our decisions concerning the exhaustion doctrine, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953); the criteria for relitigation of factual questions, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963); the prematurity doctrine, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968); the choice of forum, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341 (1972); and the procedural requirements of a habeas corpus hearing, Harris v. Nelson, supra. That same theme has indelibly marked our construction of the statute's custody requirement. See Strait v. Laird, supra; Peyton v. Rowe, supra; Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968); Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, supra.8 [411 U.S. 345, 351]

The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty. Since habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy whose operation is to a large extent uninhibited by traditional rules of finality and federalism, its use has been limited to cases of special urgency, leaving more conventional remedies for cases in which the restraints on liberty are neither severe nor immediate. Applying that principle, we can only conclude that petitioner is in custody for purposes of the habeas corpus statute. First, he is subject to restraints "not shared by the public generally," Jones v. Cunningham, supra, at 240: that is, the obligation to appear "at all times and places as ordered" by "[a]ny court or magistrate of competent jurisdiction." Cal. Penal Code 1318.4 (a), 1318.4 (c). He cannot come and go as he pleases. His freedom of movement rests in the hands of state judicial officers, who may demand his presence at any time and without a moment's notice. Disobedience is itself a criminal offense. The restraint on his liberty is surely no less severe than the conditions imposed on the unattached reserve officer whom we held to be "in custody" in Strait v. Laird, supra.9. Second, petitioner remains at large only by the grace of a stay entered first by the state trial court and then extended by two Justices of this Court. The State has emphatically indicated its determination to put him behind bars, and the State has taken every possible step to secure that result. His incarceration is not, in other [411 U.S. 345, 352] words, a speculative possibility that depends on a number of contingencies over which he has no control. This is not a case where the unfolding of events may render the entire controversy academic. The petitioner has been forced to fend off the state authorities by means of a stay, and those authorities retain the determination and the power to seize him as soon as the obstacle of the stay is removed. The need to keep the stay in force is itself an unusual and substantial impairment of his liberty. Moreover, our conclusion that the petitioner is presently in custody does not interfere with any significant interest of the State. Indeed, even if we were to accept respondent's argument that petitioner is not in custody, that result would do no more than postpone this habeas corpus action until petitioner had begun service of his sentence.10 It would still remain open to the District Court to order petitioner's release pending consideration of his habeas corpus claim. In re Shuttlesworth, 369 U.S. 35 (1962). Even if petitioner remained in jail only long enough to have his petition filed in the District Court, his release by order of the District Court would not jeopardize his "custody" for purposes of a habeas corpus action. Carafas v. LaVallee, supra.11 Plainly, [411 U.S. 345, 353] we would badly serve the purposes and the history of the writ to hold that under these circumstances the petitioner's failure to spend even 10 minutes in jail is enough to deprive the District Court of power to hear his constitutional claim."











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mogel said...

Questions to ask the judge, IRS agent or defense attorney.

Mr. (Name), thank you for accepting the court appointment as my defense attorney. I have been charged with Tax evasion, which if convicted carries a penalty of 3 to 5 years in federal prison, so you can understand my need to conclude if you are competent to represent me in this action. In order to assure the court and myself that you have the necessary knowledge to represent me and file my counterclaim against the government, I would like to ask you some questions so that I may determine the depth of your knowledge and ability.


1. How many years have you been a practicing attorney?

2. Have you ever conducted a tax related criminal trial as a defense attorney and if so how many?

3. Have you been successful in having your clients acquitted?

4. Are you knowledgeable of the tax code 26 USC and the code of federal regulations?

5. Does my name, being spelled in all capital letters within the caption of the complaint, have any legal significance?

6. Does my name being spelled in all capital letters indicate to the court that I am a legal fiction such as a member of a corporation?

7. Does there exist any legal requirement that mandates my name being spelled in that manner?

8. Can you identify any supporting lawful authorization for the spelling of proper nouns in all capital letters within the caption or within the body of the complaint?

9. Does the United States Government Style Manual regarding writing of court papers, state that all proper nouns will be spelled in Upper and Lower case letters?

10. In the “Government Style Manual”, March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Chapter 3, Capitalization, at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:

"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."

11. Title 31 Lists the Treasury and its entire agencies. The IRS and BATF are not among the agencies listed. Why?

12. As the IRS is not found in 31 USC Chapter 3 as an agency of the Department of the Treasury, which “Department of the Treasury” shown on their letterhead do they refer to?

13. Are all documents, directives and regulations having general applicability to the population of the union states, required to be published in the federal register?

14. Do you know why the Form 1040 has an OMB number, indexes and describes its use as for the Virgin Islands and certain U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens with foreign source income?

15. Do you know of any legal requirement for the IRS to require that I file a form, which I have no legal capacity to sign as I am not one of those class of persons described who are required to use it?

16. How may I sign a form under penalty of perjury when I have not taken an Oath, Oath of Office and am not an officer, employee, or elected official of the District of Columbia or any of its instrumentalities?

17. How can I sign a form wherein the affirmation is for an individual who is “within” the United States, if I am domiciled within one of the 50 Union states, which is “without” the United States pursuant to 28 USC §1746?

18. If I signed that affirmation would that constitute a fraudulent admission that I am a citizen or resident of the United States when in-fact I am a Citizen of one of the Union States?

19. The IRS discloses in the 1040 instruction book, that my return may be given to the Justice Department, and numerous other agencies. That disclosure is important, in that after disclosing said fact, I cannot later claim my 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, as I would have voluntarily waived that right by filing that form. Can the Justice department use the return in a prosecution effort against me?

20. How may I sign a 1040 form and maintain my 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights?

21. Can the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice give me Use immunity, in writing, for all of the information contained in the form 1040 each year?

22. Can the IRS coerce me with threats of prosecution or seizure of property into filing a Form 1040, which has the legal effect of abrogating my constitutional right?

23. Does there exist an Internal Revenue District established by authority of 26 USC §7621 within my state?

24. What specific species of tax does the government allege I am liable for?

25. As promulgated by the Secretary the only source of income for income tax purposes is located at 26 CFR 1.861.1 et seq. and at 26 USC §861. Is there any other section of the code, which requires that compensation in exchange for personal labor is a source of income for income tax purposes?

26. Is the income tax an excise tax?

27. Is not an excise tax a tax on an event or licensed activity?

28. What event or licensed activity could I be involved in, which would require that I be liable for an excise tax?

29. What specific Statute makes me liable to file a return and for what species of tax?

30. What specific Statute requires me to File Form 1040?

31. In your review of the government’s charges against me, do you have evidence that the Secretary or his Delegate has ever “Noticed” me as being one required to maintain records and making me liable to file a return and pay a tax?

32. Are you familiar with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and the Federal Register Act?

33. Are any of these Title 26 USC Statutes which I am accused of violating recorded in the Federal Register?

34. If the Statutes are recorded in the Federal Register, are there regulations in 26 CFR which implement the Statute as is applicable to a natural person of one of the Union states, not involved with some excise taxable event, which have been published in the federal register?

35. Why does the IRS also insist on spelling my name in all Capital letters?

36. Does this create a “Juristic Personality” or legal fiction over which the (IRS), and the Courts have equity jurisdiction?

37. If I do not have a Bank account, have renounced my Social Security participation and filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Affidavit rescinding all adhesion contracts that I may have filed in the past, what jurisdiction would this Territorial Administrative court have over me as a Natural Man of one of the 50 Union States?

38. Why does the IRS rely on Title 27 CFR for implementing regulations to enforce Title 26 USC when Title 27 is for the exclusive use of the BATF?

39. Does the IRS have Delegated Authority or by reference to use another agency’s regulations to enforce the statutes they are responsible for?

40. Why are there no “Delegation of Authority” Orders recorded in the Federal Register for Title 26 USC, either for lien, levy, collections or judicial enforcement?

41. Why isn’t Title 26 Codified into Positive law?

42. What is the legal effect of positive law vs. prima facie law?

43. Are all natural persons, who deny the corporation’s existence, subject to all federal law including non-positive law?

44. Why is not the Organization and Field Offices of the IRS Recorded in the Federal Register as is required for all Government agencies pursuant to 5 USC §551 thru §558?

45. Can an income tax be imposed on a natural human of one of the Union states if there exist, no internal revenue district within that state?

46. Where is the authority for the IRS to collect taxes within a geographical area that has not been authorized as an Internal Revenue District?

47. Title 26 USC §7621, requires that the President authorize Internal Revenue Districts. In 1998, via Executive Order #10289, as amended, President William J. Clinton authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish revenue districts under authority of §7621 of the Internal Revenue Code. Although § 7621 isn't listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, E.O. #10289 is listed. The implementing regulation is Part 101 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulation establishes customs collection offices in each State of the Union; it does not establish internal revenue districts. A note at Part 301.7621-1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations confirms that E.O. #10289 is the only authority for establishing revenue districts. Is there or is there not a statutorily created Internal Revenue District in this state?

48. What evidence do you have that there does exist a legitimate, authorized Internal Revenue District within this state?

49. The Government has fulfilled the notice requirements for maintaining records relevant to 26 USC Chapters 61 through 80, by maintaining those records exclusively within a Privacy Act System of Records, which system is Treasury/ATF .003. In addition 5 USC §558 (b) prohibits an agency from issuing any substantive rule or order, or imposing any sanctions, outside the jurisdiction delegated to the agency. Is the IRS maintaining records in violation of the notice requirements of the Federal Register Act and the Privacy Act?

50. Would those records if unlawfully maintained be permitted to be introduced into the court record?

51. Do you have knowledge of the computer coding system used by the IRS as used in the Individual Master File?

52. Why is the TC 150 computer code, applied to my Individual Master File?

53. Does the TC 150 code indicate that I am within the venue of the Virgin Islands?

54. Does the coding of my IMF reflect that I am involved in some sort of unlawful activity within the Virgin Islands such as drug trafficking or Gun manufacturing, Insurance sales, etc.?

55. Does the IRS have any evidence that supports such a claim?

56. Does the IRS rely upon Title III of the National Prohibition Act of 1919 to secure jurisdiction over the individual that has had their IMF mis-coded with the TC 150, and then rely upon the Customs and commercial crimes for shore line jurisdiction to initiate a criminal investigation or seizure of property using Customs laws and BATF regulations?

57. Are not all seizures of property done under the authority of the Customs laws?

58. Would not it be necessary for the federal government to extradite me to the District of Columbia, if I am accused of violating a federal law of the District of Columbia?

59. If there exists a constitutional question, a question of constitutionality of an Act of Congress or an Executive Order of the President, or significant implications in the administration of the customs laws, would not the proper Venue and Jurisdiction be with the Court of International Trade and not the United States District Court?

60. Is this court an Article III court, at common law, or a Article IV, Administrative court, with Vice-Admiralty/Admiralty jurisdiction for the federal Territories?

61. Is the Court of International Trade an Article III court?

62. Can a party in controversy, petition the court for a 3 judge panel in the Court of International Trade to hear the case if there exist significant implications in the administration of the customs laws?

63. Does the Constitution for the United States guarantee a Republican or a Corporation Form of Government?

64. Are not the Federal and State governments compelled to guarantee “we the people” a Republican form of government pursuant to the Constitution?

65. Does not a Republican form of government require a judicial common law court for me as a Sovereign of the State of (Name), if I am to be tried for a federal crime?

66. Must not there be a damaged party who by verified complaint has come forward and by affidavit described the actions I have allegedly committed which has damaged him?

67. Has anyone within the government who has first hand knowledge of any alleged damage filed any such complaint and Affidavit?

68. Is this court a judicial court?

69. Is this court an administrative court?

70. Do you have substantial advanced knowledge of common law, which would enable you to defend me in a common law jurisdiction and venue?

71. Is the true Principle of interest of the IRS the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc., the International Monetary Fund or the Treasury of the United States?

72. Did the United States declare bankruptcy in 1933 and has since re-organized several times subsequent to that filing?

73. Did the States of the Union join the Federal government in that bankruptcy under the guise of Cooperative Federalism pact?

74. Did the state governments pledge their land (peoples land) and income (peoples income) as collateral for the bankruptcy?

75. Is each Individual’s Birth Certificate being used as surety and collateral for the bankruptcy?

76. Is the capital letter spelling of the individual’s name on the Birth Certificate a designation of a juristic personality or legal fiction, which is held as collateral for the creditors (Federal Reserve Bank, Inc.
)?

77. Have the State and Federal Governments changed in character from what was mandated by the State and Federal Constitution that of a Republic form of Government to Corporate government?

78. Under what authority granted by the Constitution permitted the federal government or state government to incorporate, and govern in a corporate capacity, rather than in a constitutional capacity?

79. Were federal and state courts fundamentally changed from judicial courts to administrative law courts (Admiralty) by that process of bankruptcy in order to adjudicate issues of and between legal fictions rather than natural beings under the War Powers Act, doctrine of necessity?

80. Are we as a nation still under the War Powers Doctrine of 1933 and Martial Rule?

81. Was the Constitution for the United States suspended because of that doctrine of necessity?

82. Is there any Constitutional authority for the Congress to implement any such suspension?

83. Can judges and prosecutors be prosecuted criminally under the RICO statutes for denying a defendant his access to common law jurisdiction?

84. Can judges and prosecutors be prosecuted civilly for damages resulting from denying a defendant access to a common law jurisdiction?

85. Does the Savings to Suitors clause permit the removal, by the defendant of an action in Admiralty jurisdiction in the federal court, to a state common law jurisdiction where there is remedy under the common law?

86. As my attorney would you move to remove this action to a common law venue of the State?

87. Are you a Free Mason?

88. Is the prosecutor a Free Mason?

89. Is the judge a Free Mason?

90. If any individual is discovered during the conduct of this trial to be a Free Mason, would you recuse them because of their Oath as a Free Mason and the Oath of Office as each Oath would be antecedent to each other and the administration of justice?

dgwondering said...

Appealing to common sense? Whoever you are, when did anyone who listens to you demonstrate any common sense you could appeal to?

Your aged, old-hat quasi-political/religious nonsense lured people into a scheme and now many of them are faced with economic disaster and possible criminal charges.

You lied, bore false witness, concocted a mythology from which to pontificate and now are faced with the penalty but still refuse to admit your sins.

But you've left hundreds (certainly not the thousands you claimed) of people to face economic doom and possible prosecution for participating in a fraud.

Yet you seek the protection of religious affiliation as if that has anything to do with secular law.

You deserve whatever happens to you, as do some of your promoters.

son of a prophet said...

mog,

thats all good, but it it just easier by far to use the defense that i prevously posted about the guy in illinois who had the IRS throw out his case because his attorney brought up the fact that all IRS 1040 FORMS for the last 24 years are bogus and cannot be used becasue they were not authorised by the OMB? office of mgt. and budget

as bogus forms cannot be used, techincally no one is required to file unless this correction is made and approved by the OMB, no?

the IRS itself has said that it dropped the case w/o prejudice meaning it can nvever open this case again. an open and shut case for opponents to use as a defence?

mogel said...

DG Wondering: Do most people have common sense? Most people do the wrong things. So why is it called "common sense", as if having common sense is a good thing that keeps you out of trouble? Maybe you're appealing to the wrong sense as usual.

mogel said...

Appealing to common sense? Whoever you are, when did anyone who listens to you demonstrate any common sense you could appeal to?

APPARENTLY YOU LISTENED TO REPLY TO KURT'S COMMENTS. ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T DEMONSTRATE COMMON SENSE MR. HOT AIR, WONDERING MAN?

Your aged, old-hat quasi-political/religious nonsense lured people into a scheme and now many of them are faced with economic disaster and possible criminal charges.

IS IT RELIGIOUS NONSENSE TO BRING GOD INTO POLITICS? ECONOMIC DISASTER? CAN'T YOU ALWAYS BUY ANOTHER HOUSE? ANYONE CAN BE CHARGED WITH ANY ALLEGATIONS, STILL DON'T MAKE IT TRUE OR ABLE TO STICK.

You lied, bore false witness, concocted a mythology from which to pontificate and now are faced with the penalty but still refuse to admit your sins.

YOU LIE WITH EVERY UTTERANCE, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? FIRST YOU DON'T WANT TO BRING GOD INTO ANYTHING, THEN YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT SINS? EITHER YOU WANT TO BRING GOD INTO THINGS OR NOT? WHICH IS IT? PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

But you've left hundreds (certainly not the thousands you claimed) of people to face economic doom and possible prosecution for participating in a fraud.

YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MANY CLIENTS ARE IN THE PROCESS, SO DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT IN THIS MATTER.

Yet you seek the protection of religious affiliation as if that has anything to do with secular law.

SPOKEN LIKE THE TRUE ANTI-CHRIST THAT YOU ARE.

You deserve whatever happens to you, as do some of your promoters.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE HOPING--- TO GET BACK WHAT WE DESERVE.

neodemes said...

"SPOKEN LIKE THE TRUE ANTI-CHRIST THAT YOU ARE."

Yep. Question or criticize the PROCESS and you WILL be labeled ANTI-CHRIST, FACIST, and TYRANT by the faithful few.

Hey, Kurt, didn't you alrady educate your followers on bankster fraud before you sucked them into your BS program? Why the lesson now, running out of material?

The 18th is approaching. You might want to spend some time on a defense with merit.

neodemes said...

FASCIST

mogel said...

Why can't anyone obtain the lastest particulars of the guilty plea from the Court record? Why the Court secrecy? If there are conditions to the guilty plea, what are they?

mogel said...

Nemo said: "The 18th is approaching. You might want to spend some time on a defense with merit."
__________________________
What defense might that be Nemo? Why does Kurt's approach not show merit? I believe Kurt is showing exactly why the banks committed fraud on all of it's borrowers. How can the lenders/government allow full disclosure without manipulation---- be put in the Court records and not fear this? The Civil trials process when Dorean lost as the Plaintiff was manipulated by Judge Alsup. Now conveniently for the banks interest, we have the SAME bias Judge in the criminal trial, except now, Dorean is not the Plaintiff, but the Defendant and instead of a perponderance of the evidence needed in a Civil Trial to win, you have in the criminal trial a higher standard of proof in order to convict.

How can the Court sentence a penalty upon the guilty when the Prosecuting team cannot prove their case and the Court is bias from it's inception? The evidence or lack of evidence is and always has been AGAINST all the trumped up charges against the Dorean Group.

Still the lenders/prosecuting team need to prove that they brought equity and consideration to the transaction. They can't do that and never can. The Court record will show that. You can't defraud a bank that NEVER brought anything to the table. If bank fraud can't be maintained, all of the other charges wither away.

Kurt had a complete defense before he ever started the Dorean Group. I'm sure he'll present all of this evidence in the court record before all things are said and done.

If Judge Alsup convicts Kurt & Company and throws away the key, than at the same time he is also indicting & convicting the System as we know it too. Judge Alsup is also indicting himself and putting himself into jeopardy at the same time through his sentencing decision that is adverse towards the Dorean Group. Can you pass sentence as a Judge when the evidence is not there? Doesn't the Judge have a moral and legal duty to look at the evidence before passing sentence?

This trial is like two cars heading towards each other going in opposite directions both traveling at 70 miles per hour ready to have a head on crash. Which car is going to get out of the way first or is there going to be a crash with huge repercussions and damages on both sides? There will be a price to pay.

mogel said...

There's a good defense here:

http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/challenges.htm

mogel said...

/challenges.htm

should be typed in on the end of the website. It got cut off.

rollerhockey100 said...

I know for fact the will never produce the orignal Prom. Note and the court will never make them!! Banker= Judge been there

w said...

Mogel said...Can you pass sentence as a Judge when the evidence is not there?

All of your words and arguing dont mean much in reality even if you are 100 percent correct. In this perverted justice system judges do whatever they please with no accountability and they know that which is why they do it.

mogel said...

W: Then the thing to do is to make the Judge accountable for their actions when they do whatever they want. This dictatorial attitude seems to be far too common.

J.A.I.L. is trying to get stricter laws passed to make Judges put in a position where they can have more personal liability for their bad behaviour.

son of a prophet said...

hold on to you hats, all!

the fuse for WWIII has been lit.

israel and lebanon at full open warfare and it wont end anytime soon; next it will involve syria as well.

bible says tht damascus, the oldest continuous city on the planet will get 'lit up'

you know that this time is different because hezbollah has now access to guided rockets whihc they never had before.

you know they are not mfg. these rockets but buying them, so israel will take more agressive steps and this is just what the other side wants and is prepared for.

all hell is going to (has already if you live in middle east) break loose. this war will just spiral out of control.

and porobalby a major event will occur here as well, as the bible tells us that satan (aka, the ptb) want to destroy israel more than anyhing else. as israel has much support in the USA, the ptb will make support of israel in the USA come with a heavy price; some type of planned terrorist attack trying to make the sheeple think that support of israel is not worht it due to the price to be paid.

when the USA stops supoort of israel, right or wrong, the bible says we are done....

"...I will bless those that bless thee, and I will curse those that curseth thee..."

HOLD ON TIGHT FOLKS...THE RIDE IS JUST BEGINNING!!!

son of a prophet said...

for an interesting article trying to understand who may be behind this whole middle east war business, agian check out the artic beacon for an infomative article on it. really an explosive article, if you ask me.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/14-July-2006.html

son of a prophet said...

has the time the bible preidicts as the....

"time of jacob's trouble" began?

jacob (israel) cetainly seems to be having lots of trouble right now.

son of a prophet said...

....are we nearing the "70th week of Daniel"

as prophesied in the Book of Daniel??

Daniel 70 weeks

ok boys, the time of being a bible lightweight is done.

now we need bible 'heavy hitters'

its the 9th inning and mariano is in the game.

a .220 hitter doesnt have a prayer

can we bring back to all time pinch hitting greats.....

manny mota and gates brown?

down but not out said...

If Jesus did away with the Torah (law)why did the deciples and the followers of "The Way" ( they were not converts to Christianity, because it did not exist at this time) continue to go to the Temple all the way up until it's destruction in 70 A.D.?

son of a prophet said...

"...because it did not exist at this time) continue to go to the Temple all the way up until it's..."


this is not true. christianity is just a 'name' given to yeshua teachings by others, like a STRAWMAN.

what you call 'CHRISTIANITY' existed the minute yeshua started teaching; whatever others decided to call it, like the STRAWMAN, is thier business.

CHRISTIANITY© is a ROMAN name

why not call it YESHUANITY© ??

in either case, it has abolutely nothing to do with what yeshua taught.


and regarding keeping the law;

i am saved by yeshuas shed blood but do not keep the law; i am going to heaven at death.

you keep the law, and if you believe on yeshua, you go to heaven.

what difference does it make.

unless you want to add to yeshuas salvation plan...

yehsua + keeping the law gives salvation.


belief on yehsua + NOTHING gives salvation.

i dont keep the law, but am saved, thats all taht counts.

down but not out said...

sop SAID,

this is not true

What is not true? That the temple did not exist, or that the followers of "The WAY'(Yeshua)did not continue to go to the temple?

Is it not true because you say it is not true?

Tony Tuba said...

SOP, if you hadn't already predicted our eminent demise 400 times, perhaps when you actually made a point people would believe you. You can only cry wolf so many times.

mogel said...

Down But Not Out said: "If Jesus did away with the Torah (law)why did the deciples and the followers of "The Way" ( they were not converts to Christianity, because it did not exist at this time) continue to go to the Temple all the way up until it's destruction"
____________________________
I think you are on to something there!! Could it be that necessary ordinances for salvation are necessary to be performed in the temples rather than the assumption you are making? Mormons build temples explicitly for that purpose because only in the temples can important things be performed such as (1) eternal marriages performed, (2) Baptisms for the dead, (3) endowments performed, etc. (4) washings & annointings, etc.

habakkuk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
son of a prophet said...

sorry, i addressed a different question about christianity.

---------------------------------

dbno said....

If Jesus did away with the Torah (law)why did the deciples and the followers of "The Way" ( they were not converts to Christianity, because it did not exist at this time) continue to go to the Temple all the way up until it's destruction in 70 A.D.?


simple. they continued to go to the temple on their own. they did as they wished. yeshua did not tell them to go to the temple after He was crucifed.


God also told them to go into captivity in in the ot in babylon and he would protect them there. some went, others went back to jesrusalem agianst gods command and were killed there.

neodemes said...

"Mormons build temples explicitly for that purpose"

Is there some architectural critera they follow that makes their buildings temples, rather than churches (or any other building)?

Baptism for the Dead - not biblical.

mogel said...

1 Corinthians 15: 29: "Else what shall they do WHICH ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, if the dead rise not at all, why are then, BAPITZED FOR THE DEAD?

Sorry, Nemo, it was a Biblical practice in the early days of Christianity too which was practiced in the temples.

Authority was a key issue in the early part of the Church as it is today. Those in authority today dedicate the temples for special purposes. This is what makes them temples instead of chapels, however, architectually speaking, there are profound differences between the chapels and temples.
Excellent questions by the way.

mogel said...

John 3: 5 "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT INHERIT OR ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (Baptism of water & Baptism of the Holy Ghost).

Nemo, do you want to condemn all sincere & godly people that never had a fair chance to hear the gospel in this life due to their unique circumstances & who never had the necessary ordinances performed for them due to their circumstances of ignornance or opportunity?

Your OWN belief condemns all of those people by Jesus's own words if you believe that baptisms for the dead is not a Biblical practice. How merciful is that? Is God a God of mercy?

neodemes said...

I knew before you posted you would use 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Its the ONLY reference to Baptism for the Dead you can find - you won't even find it in the Book of Mormon, will you?

Taken in context, Paul was speaking n the issue of resurrection, to the effect that IF Jesus was not resurrected, all other matters related to Him and salvation were a sham.

Yes, there were people that 'baptised for the dead' and Paul was merely saying that if there was not a belief in resurrection at all, there would not be people performing that rite.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that TEACHES Baptism for the Dead.

Look to the story of the rich man in hell speaking to Abraham across the void, then take up the issue of God's mercy with God, not me.

I don't make the rules.

Was the thief on the cross Baptised with water? No.

Suppose someone accepted Christ in the desert with no water around and then died shortly after. Are they doomed because they weren't Baptised with water? If you think 'Yes', you need to re-evaluate who your belief system condemns.

There is more in the Bible to suggest that baptism is an outward show of faith than a requirement for salvation.

mogel said...

I knew before you posted you would use 1 Corinthians 15:29.

THEN WHY BEFOREHAND SAY IT ISN'T A DOCTRINE AT ALL TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE?

Its the ONLY reference to Baptism for the Dead you can find - you won't even find it in the Book of Mormon, will you?

AND YOUR POINT IT? MORMONS BELIEVE IN CONTINUING REVELATION. ALL TRUTH IS NOT CONTAINED IN A FEW BOOKS. GOD SPEAKS THROUGH PROPHETS WHENEVER HE WANTS TO REVEAL WHATEVER HE WANTS OR FEELS IS NECESSARY. WE ARE NOT BOXED INTO JUST THE BIBLE OR THE BOOK OF MORMON FOR FURTHER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GOD & HIS WAYS. "IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO HEAVEN FOR JUST 20 MINUTES, YOU WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT GOD & HEAVEN THAN HAS EVER BEEN WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT".

Taken in context, Paul was speaking on the issue of resurrection, to the effect that IF Jesus was not resurrected, all other matters related to Him and salvation were a sham.

HE WAS SPEAKING ON THE ISSUE OF RESURRECTION & BAPTISM OF THE DEAD & TYING THE TWO DOCTRINES INTO MAKING SOME VALID POINTS TO THE CHURCH. HE WAS SAYING IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LITERAL RESURRECTION AS A TRUE PRINCIPLE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, WHY ARE YOU PERFORMING BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD? KIND OF WOULD SEEM LIKE A WASTE OF FAITH TO PERFORM ORDINANCES, IF YOU DIDN'T ALSO EXERT THE SAME FAITH INTO THE BELIEF OF THE RESURRECTION TOO BECAUSE CHRIST WAS THE FIRST FRUITS OF THE RESURRECTION AND HIS RESURRECTION MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR ALL TO LIVE AGAIN & BE RESURRECTED.

Yes, there were people that 'baptised for the dead' and Paul was merely saying that if there was not a belief in resurrection at all, there would not be people performing that rite.

EXACTLY. SO BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD IS A TRUE DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT WAS PRACTICED ANCIENTLY AND PAUL REFERRED TO THIS PRACTICE AS SOMETHING THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS DID. HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T CONDEMN THIS PRACTICE.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that TEACHES Baptism for the Dead.

1 COR. 15: 29

Look to the story of the rich man in hell speaking to Abraham across the void, then take up the issue of God's mercy with God, not me.

NOT ALL PEOPLE DESERVE MERCY. THE RICH MAN WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. HOWEVER, MERCY SHOULD BE GIVEN WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE AND DESERVING.

I don't make the rules.

NO BUT YOU ARE QUICK TO INTERPRET THEM EVEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Was the thief on the cross Baptised with water? No.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE BAPTISMS PERFORMED BY HIM BY PROXY EITHER AFTER HE DIED, SO YOU CAN'T BE SURE OF YOUR ANSWER. BAPTISM IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM, THE HIGHEST ORDER. YOU DON'T NEED IT FOR ENTRANCE INTO ANY OTHER KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE THIEF WILL END UP SINCE WE AREN'T HIS JUDGE. CHIRST SAID HE WOULD BE THERE WITH HIM IN PARADISE, WHICH IS THE WORLD OF SPIRITS. THAT IS NOT HEAVEN AS I MENTIONED BEFORE. PARADISE IS NOT THE CELESTIAL HEAVEN.

HEAVEN IS THE PLACE PEOPLE GO TO AFTER THEY ARE RESURRECTED, NOT WHERE THEY GO AS A SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY DIE. SOME PEOPLE MAY STAY IN THE "WORLD OF SPIRITS" FOR A 1000 YEARS OR LONGER BEFORE THEY ARE RESURRECTED.

Suppose someone accepted Christ in the desert with no water around and then died shortly after. Are they doomed because they weren't Baptised with water? If you think 'Yes', you need to re-evaluate who your belief system condemns.

AGAIN YOU MISS THE POINT. THAT PERSON WHO DIED IN THE DESERT WILL HAVE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCES PERFORMED FOR HIM & WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT OR REJECTD THE BAPTISMS DONE BY PROXY. OBVIOUSLY, IF HE ACCEPTED CHRIST BEFORE HE DIED, HE WOULD ACCEPT THE BAPTISMS BY PROXY ALSO KNOWING THAT HE NEEDS THIS DONE TO PROGRESS IN THE AFTER LIFE.

There is more in the Bible to suggest that baptism is an outward show of faith than a requirement for salvation.

YOU CAN'T PICK & CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE, OTHERWISE, YOU AREN'T A TRUE FOLLOWER OF CHRIST BY KEEPING ALL OF HIS COMMANDMENTS. DEUT 4: 2

SURE BAPTISM IS AN OUTWARD SHOW OF FAITH, BUT SO WHAT? CHRIST IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM OF WATER & BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST AS BEING NECESSARY.

Mark 16: 16 "He that believeth AND is baptized shall be SAVED, BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT, SHALL BE DAMNED." What does damnation mean? It's a "stopping"
of your eternal progression to spiritually move forward.

How clear does it need to get for you Nemo that literal and outward ordinances are necessary for salvation, salvation meaning the ultimate prize and eventual goal for any true believing Christian.

So you think that verse in the book of Mark is a mistranslation from the original Greek or something like that? Do you think it should have read: "He that has enough faith shall be saved and he who is baptized shows this outward faith." Do you think the "damnation" word, should be just thrown out?

son of a prophet said...

i agree that baptims for the dead is not biblical.

in fact, i do not believe in water baptism for anyone.

churches still practice this.

the only way one is "baptised" is baptism by who else.....


ALL TOGETHER NOW......THE HOLY SPIRIT.

the HS is the only one that can baptise one today and He does this at His own good pleasure. in essence when one becmes saved, at that point they are baptised by the HS, not before then, and not when they are waithing to become saved; ie., when they are elect.

yes, it appears that many are condemned ahead of time, and many say that this is not FAIR....BUT, if this is not fair, then explain the LORD saying....

"jacob i have loved; esau i have hated..."

and god gives no explanation whatsoever.

the palestinaians are the house of esau and the house of esau according to the bible, is to be destroyed. all the palesitnians will be killed. not fair?? take it up with god.

was it fair what happen to job??

not by human standards it wasnt as job was a rightewous man in the eyes of god.

who can question god?

remember god says...."my thoughts are not your thoughts...") (and conswquesntly vice versa; your thoughts are not my thoughts)

son of a prophet said...

how dare they steal my comments.....lol!

i said it first!



Gingrich: This is World War III:

Ex-U.S. House speaker asks public: 'Which side do you think should win?'



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news
/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51079

son of a prophet said...

when yu in court, be careful how you talk to da judge,

whatch out!

judges now to be packing heat under the bench....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic
/stories/P/PISTOL_PACKING_JUDGES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

habakkuk said...

SOP said....

"in fact, i do not believe in water baptism for anyone.

churches still practice this."

Huh! I've been trying to stay away from posting on here anymore but I almost fell off my chair when i read that SOP. I had to reply. Your joking right?

son of a prophet said...

SOP said....

"in fact, i do not believe in water baptism for anyone.

churches still practice this."

Huh! I've been trying to stay away from posting on here anymore but I almost fell off my chair when i read that SOP. I had to reply. Your joking right?



no, i am not joking; serious as a heart attack.

only baptism is baptism by the HS.

also known as becoming 'saved'

son of a prophet said...

evidence:

when john the baptist baptised ppl, they stayed 'baptised', ie., saved; permanantly.

99% of christians are people baptised in churches and are also the greatest sinners and mosly all are merely elect and not saved yet.

(saved: when the power of the HS comes about you- you will know when this happens to you.

be honest now, can you if you were baptised by a church, can you still ACTUALLY say taht the power of the HS is upon you??

dont tell me the answer. tell it to youself, and just dont FORGET that the HS know if YOU ARE LIEING!!!

rember our good freind ananias and sophira, LIED TO HS; WHAT HAPPEN TO THEM???? C'YA!!!)

this just did not happen in john teh baptist day; or when yeshua baptised someone. THEY STAYED BAPTISED WITH THE HS.

KYHOOYA said...

All Right All ready!

I think that I have made up for any mist time at church, by reading this Blog content.

Hey I have a thought maybe we can get back to some of the money issues that this Blog I thought was intented for.

Here I'll start:
Why is it that when defending the banks that all of the neysayers overlook the doc. of history that are from men of power and standing that and say certain quotes about the wrongs of the fed.

why is that I have gathered more info in the past 3 yr. about the banking and the workings of our Gov. than in the 12yr. + 4 more that I went to school? VCould it be that they are trying not to teach us the truth about it? I mean come on! I spent way to much time making pictures about the two groups 1 with feathers & us with the funny hats that I could spit!

why is that the case in the schools evean today I can't figure out what the fuck the schools spend there time on all day teaching my daughter, because after there done I talk with her and what she is told is half bull shit so then we have to reteach her the right way.

The funny thing (thyats not so funny) is that the kid's of the time when G Washington & Lincon were around they new more about whats going on than the kids today and for that matter the rest of the counrty by a good 90%.
the kids back then went to school maybe for what 6 yr. tops and still did a full days work at home. Dose'nt any of this make you ask WHY?
I know it sure makes me and it makes me look at what MY TAXES are going to pay for (you know the one they keep wanting me to pay more and more for shit I'am not told about)
in the public safty interest of course, All in the safty of the country, thats why we can't tell you about what were doing your just to STUPID to understand it ( WE SHOULD KNOW WERE THE ONES THAT MADE SURE OF THAT IN YOUR SCHOOLS AS KID) We know you could'nt possably understand the real TRUTH about the AMERICAS AND HER GOVERMENT WORKING.

My question for you all is if the bank and gioverment are so up and up about the way there doing busuness then why all the back words talk and hiding the facts about how it is done???????????
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND IT QUACKS LIKE ONE IT GOT TO BE A FED... DUCK RIGHT?


YA RIGHT THAT IS FOR SURE THE CASE WITH THE BANKS AND THE GOVERMENT AND THERE A HOLE LOT OF SHIT THAT THERE COVERING UP. WHY IS THAT ? ANYONE CARE TO POST ON THAT FOR A CHANGE?

L8R

KYHOOYA said...

bY THE WAY SOMEONE POST BACK ABOUT THE ROCKET OR MISSEL THAT I SAW IN THE BAY AREA They said that the halo from it was the sign of a topserect plane or jet going hiper.

If this was the case than why was it in the bay area and why did it just explode

why was I told that it was fuel being dispurst fron my local law and the airport tower control?

the thing as to strang of a happing to this area and teh fact that it happend almost to the date 1 yr later than that of the twin towers 911 is also strange.

the fact is there ios no resone for anything of that to be flying here as you discribed klike a test plane or even a tested plane. I not one for all the conssp. crap for the most part but I watched this fro a good amout of time and it was enough for me to make calls and have my wife and kid stay where they were in till I found out some more info on it

I guess what I'm saying here is that what you said as for it ID I think is not wrong as for what may have been the power of it but I'm not to sure about the fact that it was'nt still put something pout into the air

for that matter it might have been nothing and was just sent to see the responce to it from the public and there was calls from people that just myself
if you have any other info that would be iteresting about this plz pass it along I would be greatful for anything that shead some light on it

Not that I spend my every waking hour thinking about it and it has been a few yr. but still something like what I saw makes you want to know what the heel it is and what it was that was coming out of it.


Let's fact facts for just one moment about the goverment and say this in the case of the twin towers the amount of people that die in that horrable act was not so many that would have died or that do die in the out come of wars we have had so to think that it might have been some plan by the Gov. to get the people behinde them going back into Iraq when they just told them to get out of that area and let it be is not to far off the mark for a resonable idea about what might have taken place . You know with all that has taken place withis goverment term in the past 67 years I would'nt put it past them to have done just that. this pres has gone to great effort to show any one tha would talk him down that he will do what ever it take right or wrong to get you out of his face and out of the news and if need beout of you job house and country and for kicks how about a trip for you and your to the lovly vacation spot of the infedels at camp GITO bay where you'll spend your day fight of the heat and your night the cold and if your lucky you'll get to talk with a lawyer (of our choose and make of course. we would'nt want you to start to feel like you have any RIGHTS! NOW DO WE ?

CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR YOU MIGHT JUST GET BIT FOR IT.

habakkuk said...

SOP,

YOU NEED TO READ THIS:

Hebrews 6:1-3 (KJV)
1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS (with an S), and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit

OR MAYBE ANOTHER TRANSLATION (LIVING):

1 So let us stop going over the basics of Christianity[a] again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don't need to start all over again with the importance of turning away from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. 2You don't need further instruction about BAPTISMS (with an S), the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And so, God willing, we will move forward to further understanding.

habakkuk said...

SOP, THERES TOO MANY TO LIST BUT LET ME GIVE U ONE OF MY FAVORITES:

ACTS 8:35-38

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

neodemes said...

OK, mogel, you have all the answers, no one need tell you anything about any subject.

Live long, be happy, maybe I'll see you in heaven some day. I'll be there, hope you make it.

Good luck.

getmeoffthisride said...

MOgel, scripture says that there will be no marriage in heaven. It is hard to tell someone who has been brainwashed into believing untruths, such as yourself, into believing God's word. You take bits a pieces but not the full truth and twist those bits and pieces into what the Mormon church has fed you. In reading the bible in its fullness without any help from your Mormon friends, relatives, and books, you might be enlightened. I think this is a great conversation here if only to save your soul from certain death. I think you have a lot of potential and Christ wants to reveal that to you. I know that if you leave your church, it will be a difficult thing. You will be shunned and possibly, depending on far you are into it, even in danger. But, if your life would only belong to Christ, would it matter?

Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..."

Maybe He's standing at your door, Mogel and waiting for you to answer. He loves you and wants you to be free in Him. I encourage you to seek more truth in the scriptures. Stay away from your false prophets.

P.S. There is no way that a woman would want to be eternally pregnant and having children for the rest of her life.

mogel said...

MOgel, scripture says that there will be no marriage in heaven. It is hard to tell someone who has been brainwashed into believing untruths, such as yourself, into believing God's word. You take bits a pieces but not the full truth and twist those bits and pieces into what the Mormon church has fed you.

"THERE IS NEITHER MARRYING OR GIVEN IN MARRIAGE IN THE RESURRECTION."

ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT MARRIAGE IS AN EARTHLY ORDINANCE & MUST BE DONE ON EARTH. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE FAMILY UNIT IS NOT ETERNAL. I THINK FOR MYSELF, THANK-YOU VERY MUCH.


In reading the bible in its fullness without any help from your Mormon friends, relatives, and books, you might be enlightened. I think this is a great conversation here if only to save your soul from certain death.

SPIRITUAL DEATH? SEPARATION FROM GOD ETERNALLY? YOUR god IS A CRUEL god WHO EXECUTES A PUNISHMENT THAT NEVER ENDS. I DON'T WORSHIP SUCH. THE SCRIPTURES SAY THAT ALL WILL BE SAVED EXCEPT THE SONS OF PERDITION. I DON'T QUALIFY FOR THAT FATE FOR I DON'T KNOW ALL ABOUT HEAVEN & GOD & I STILL LIVE BY FAITH.

I think you have a lot of potential and Christ wants to reveal that to you. I know that if you leave your church, it will be a difficult thing. You will be shunned and possibly, depending on far you are into it, even in danger. But, if your life would only belong to Christ, would it matter?

MY LIFE ALREADY BELONGS TO HIM. DON'T CARE ABOUT BEING SHUNNED BY PEOPLE THAT DON'T MATTER. AND THAT ALSO REFERS TO MANY IN THE CHURCH.

Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..."

Maybe He's standing at your door, Mogel and waiting for you to answer. He loves you and wants you to be free in Him. I encourage you to seek more truth in the scriptures. Stay away from your false prophets.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD ADVISE TO STAY AWAY FROM FALSE PROPHETS. IF YOU ARE IMPLYING & THINK JOSEPH SMITH IS A FALSE PROPHET, THAN PROVE IT!!! YOU HAVEN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT.

P.S. There is no way that a woman would want to be eternally pregnant and having children for the rest of her life.

THERE IS NO PAIN OR DEATH IN THE NEXT LIFE, SO YOUR PREMISE IS FALSE AND SO YOU COME TO A FALSE CONCLUSION. PAIN & DEATH IS ONLY AN EARTHLY EXPERIENCE. THE SPIRIT DOESN'T MAKE A PERSON LOOK FAT EVEN NOW OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD BE FAT & UNATTRACTIVE. A FULL GROWN SPIRIT LIVES IN EACH OF US.

A GODDESS IMPREGNATED WITH A SPIRIT BEING ISN'T GOING TO MAKE HER LOOK UNATTRACTIVE OR EVEN FAT. ANY OTHER REASONS WHY A PRIDEFUL WOMAN WOULDN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT OTHERE THAN THE PAIN, PROBLEMS, & THE WAY IT MAKES HER LOOK AND FEEL?

I COULDN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHAT THE GESTATION PERIOD IS TO PRODUCE A SPIRIT SINCE IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN REVEALED. MAYBE THE PERCEIVED LONG TIME PERIOD (9 MONTHS) IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT IS UNAPPEALING TO SOME WOMEN. MAYBE THE TIME PERIOD IS SHORTER THAN EVEN YOU OR I EVEN THINK.

COURSE THERE'S NO NEED FOR YOU TO WORRY ABOUT IT ANYWAY, SINCE IT'S NOT A CONCERN OF YOURS SINCE YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THAT YOU DON'T WANT THAT ANYWAY. ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS IN THE BIBLE, ONLY 100 MILLION & SO MANY THOUSAND PEOPLE (MALE & FEMALE) THAT HAVE EVER LIVED WILL MAKE IT TO THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM ANYWAY. THIS IS SMALL COMPARED TO ALL THAT EVER LIVED. THOSE THAT EVENTUALLY QUALIFY FOR THIS BLESSING DO SO BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN ETERNAL FAMILY UNITS AND WANT EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH THAT.

getmeoffthisride said...

Mogel - my point has been proven. There is plenty of information that Joseph Smith is a false prophet out there, you just have to be willing to see it but your eyes have been blinded and you choose not to see it. No, my God is not a cruel God, He is patient and just, not wanting anyone to perish but for all to have a loving relationship with Him.

You are angry when you respond. God responds with love and if you are in Him, you would respond the same way.

There will not be any marriage in heaven, therefore, there will not be any pregnancy in heaven. The old things will pass away and the new will reign.

We are given but one chance for life and it is here on earth. You choose, life or death. For me, I choose life. How about you? So far, it's seems that you are choosing to find out the hard way.

neodemes said...

"T'S ALWAYS GOOD ADVISE TO STAY AWAY FROM FALSE PROPHETS. IF YOU ARE IMPLYING & THINK JOSEPH SMITH IS A FALSE PROPHET, THAN PROVE IT!!!"

Mogel, the burden of proof lays with you and your fellow Mormons to prove the claims of their so-called prophets.

It is only your hope and lust to be gods that drives you to believe such tripe that is laid before you.

I hope you come to your senses and trust the Lord, whom we, as Christians, serve, before it is too late.

An eternity without the Lord is the penalty for your error.

Erik Mann said...

another great blog from you guys. i'd point you to mine but it isn't yet the way I'd like it. i do have a website that I think is cool, kind of almost about martial art move