RSS

Welcome to the “Best Legal System in the World”

24 Feb

Creationism:  Endowed by his Creator [courtesy Google Images]

Creationism: Endowed by his Creator
[courtesy Google Images]

Dr. Kent Hovind is a Christian minister and has been America’s leading advocate of Creationism for at least 20 years.  His crusade against the Theory of Evolution eventually brought him into confrontation with the federal government.  Back about A.D. 2007, the government tried him for a number of causes and sentenced him to ten years in federal prison.  He should have already been released, but the government has decided to try him for some more causes and is currently threatening Dr. Hovind (who’s in his 60s) with another 20 years in prison.

You might think it odd that the government would be so incensed by a minister who advocates Creationism, but if you’ve read any of the “man or other animals” articles on this blog (especially, my A.D. 2006 legal defense based on this subject), you can see that:  1) animals have no meaningful rights; 2) government has expressly defined us to be “animals” in relation to food, drugs and (medical) devices at 21 USC 321 in order to strip us of our rights.  So far as I can see, the only defense against government’s presumption that you are an “animal” is to claim to be a “man made in God’s image” who’s given “dominion over the animals” and therefore can’t be an animal.  Because the status of “man made in God’s image” flows from Genesis 1:26-28, that’s a fundamental principle of Creationism–for which Dr. Hovind is a primary advocate.

The Theory of Evolution has government’s approval because under that Theory, all of us are “animals”.  That’s why government hates Creationism because under that element of religion, we can’t be treated as animals.  I doubt that when Dr. Hovind was convicted about 8 years ago, he fully understood that his advocacy of Creationism posed a mortal threat to the current governmental system.  But I strongly suspect that the judges and prosecutors understood the threat Dr. Hovind posed, and therefore locked him (and his wife) up for eight years.  His wife has been released, but Dr. Hovind is still being held and is facing a new prosecution that might get him imprisoned for another 20 years.  If the government can get that second convictions, Dr. Hovind might spend the balance of his life in prison.

To most people, the fight between Evolution and Creationism may seem like a mere intellectual debate of little real importance.  But that’s not true.   The struggle between Evolution and Creationism will determine whether and your family have any claim on the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our Declaration of Independence, or if you can be employed as a “human (animal) resource” and deemed to have no more rights than a cow walking up the ramp into a meat-packing plant.  The struggle between Evolution and Creationism is an essential evidence of spiritual warfare that’s being waged by the upper echelons of the US government against the people of The United States of America.  This conflict is no game.  It’s as big as it gets.

Incidentally, in his upcoming second trial, Dr. Hovind is being tried by the same federal judge and the same federal prosecutor as succeeded in convicting him in his first trial, 8 years ago.  What a coincidence, hmm?  That judge refuses to recuse herself.

•  Rudy Davis and his wife Erin have been working tirelessly for the past six or eight months to cause Dr. Hovind to be freed from prison.  You can only hope that if you are one day imprisoned that you have a friend as dedicated and determined as Rudy and Erin to work for your release.

Here’s a recent video of Rudy Davis demonstrating his shock and even rage at the injustice that’s being perpetrated by the “best legal system in the world” against Dr. Hovind.

You can see Rudy’s concern, shock, dismay and, if you watch the whole video, his righteous rage at the judges and prosecutors who are again working to destroy Dr. Hovind’s life.  At times Rudy is almost speechless.  This is not a video of someone who’s simply reading a script.  If you watch the entire video, you’re going to see something so real, so moving, that you may, yourself, be shocked.

Like I said, you can only hope that if you’re unjustly imprisoned, you have someone on the outside who’s as determined to set you free as Rudy and Erin Davis.

video    00:16:26

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

66 responses to “Welcome to the “Best Legal System in the World”

  1. Joan of Arc

    February 24, 2015 at 12:19 PM

    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. -Ben Franklin
    If you’ve withdrawn cash from your bank account, you are guilty of the same structuring crime Kent Hovind was convicted of. Go to freekenthovind.com and join the fight. Trial date is March 2, 2015.

     
    • MPK

      February 24, 2015 at 7:48 PM

      Its should be named ” WELCOME TO THE BEST EVIL LEGAL SYSTEM NOW IN THE WORLD” If your not a ” lawyer (A Lyre and twister of the truth your self) you have no chance of winning. Satan loves Lyre’s.

       
  2. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 12:38 PM

    Reading his complete docket and documents on PACER it appears another off-base right wing patriot arguments. That is the Statute says what it says, it is the law so why continue this losing battle and arguments that are not within the law or statutes? Prison, loss of property for what?

     
    • Joan of Arc

      February 24, 2015 at 2:21 PM

      The IRS admitted it was wrong and apologized for misapplying the structuring law which was designed to detect drug trafficekers. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/02/11/irs-apologizes-for-seizing-bank-accounts-of-small-businessesThe IRS owes Kent Hovind more than an apology. The structuring law must be REPEALED, the prisoners RELEASED, the property RESTORED.
      Regarding the charge against Hovind for not withholding federal taxes, there is no law that requires ministers to withhold taxes.

       
      • Colin

        February 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM

        Please note that the article you link to relates to the seizure of bank accounts “from otherwise law-abiding business owners.” That does not apply to Mr. Hovind, who was not otherwise law-abiding. A jury of his peers convicted him of a dozen criminal counts other than structuring.

        That article also relates to the practice of seizing bank accounts without charging the owners with a crime. That also doesn’t apply to Mr. Hovind. He was charged with and convicted of structuring, meaning that a jury of his peers concluded after a review of the evidence both that he knew his behavior was criminal and that he did it in order to evade the law.

        “Regarding the charge against Hovind for not withholding federal taxes, there is no law that requires ministers to withhold taxes.”

        That is not true. Withholding may not necessary for ministers themselves, but employees of a ministry are employees and the employing ministry must withhold the proper taxes. That’s true of religious institutions and 501(c)(3) organizations. The Evangelical Council on Financial Responsibility provides a lot of good financial advice that is more useful, more accurate, more honest and more ethical than Kent Hovind’s approach: http://www.ecfa.org/Content/ART-BeforeIRSCallsYourChurch

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 4:45 AM

        Joan of Arc
        @ > This is not a dating service
        Well Hay-YULLS FORE !! After reading your messages I kinda hoped this blog did have, not only what it does offer, but also, the extra addition of a dating service. Shoot. Shucks. Darn. jus joshin. Tell your husband he is one lucky rascal :)

         
  3. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 12:51 PM

    Just finished reading the docket for the second indictment. Again another off-base argument and procedurally flawed argument and procedure. How in the world could they even begin to think after a Court issues a Judgement and Order that they could continue to lien a property that was taken from them in a procedure that was correct. You may not like the law or the procedure but the government did it right, Hovind did it wrong within the legal system. Which means that if you have an argument see if it is LEGAL first then read the rules. He is certainly not going to beat them.

     
    • Jethro!

      February 24, 2015 at 2:48 PM

      How do you know that regarding the property seized from Hovind it was done “in a procedure that was correct”? It’s obvious to me the first trial was nothing but a political railroad job. Now he is trying to protect his property using LAWFUL means. If someone doesn’t like a lien, CHALLENGE IT. Not agreeing with a lien is not a basis for a lawful prosecution, which is all this second prosecution is about — thieves throwing a temper tantrum over having a difficult time thieving. (And they’re deathly afraid of a persuasive Creationist let loose).

       
    • Michele

      February 24, 2015 at 6:27 PM

      Lawernce, please go and read the declartion of independence. None of these laws are natures law.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 24, 2015 at 6:29 PM

        The Declaration of Independence is just that a Declaration look up the legal definition of that word

         
      • Adask

        February 24, 2015 at 7:29 PM

        If you are suggesting that the “Declaration of Independence” is only a “declaration” and otherwise legally insignificant, you’re mistaken. It’s the first of four documents that Congress declared in the Revised Statutes of A.D. 1873 and/or 1875 to comprise “The Organic Law of The United States of America”. The other three documents are the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, and Constitution of the United States. See my article at: https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/.

        It appears that all four documents are of equal weight within The United States of America. The “Declaration” has every bit as much legal force as the Constitution of the United States–provided that you’re within The United States of America rather than a territory of the United States.

         
      • Colin

        February 24, 2015 at 8:18 PM

        Hi Alfred,

        I’ve been meaning to get involved with the comments here since our interview, I’m sorry it’s taken so long. I hope you don’t mind!

        It is not correct to say that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States have equal “legal force.” The Constitution trumps acts of Congress, and any such acts are routinely measured against it by the courts. The Declaration articulates our founding principles but does not have legal force in the same way that the Constitution does. That’s intentional; the Constitution can be amended, while the Declaration cannot.

        There is no practical difference between “states” and “territories” in the sense that you mean. If you’re in Texas, you’re in Texas–the state. There’s no shadow “territory” of Texas overlapping it.

         
      • Adask

        February 24, 2015 at 11:57 PM

        If you compare the 13th Amendment’s use of the term “their jurisdiction” in reference to the term “United States” and the 14th Amendment’s reference to “the jurisdiction” in reference to the “United States,” you might agree that “their jurisdiction” refers to the several “United States” while “the jurisdiction” refers to a singular “United States”. That would suggest that there may be both a singular and plural “United States”.

        It may very well be that there’s no difference between the “states of the United States” (as seen in regard to judicial districts in 28 USC 81-131–which “states” include the District of Columbia) and “territories of the United States“. But there’s a big difference between those states/territories “of the United States” and the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. The Articles of Confederation created “The United States of America”. “The United States of America” is not the same “plane” or “venue” as the “United States”. The “United States” makes allowances for and includes territories and districts. “The United States of America” includes only States of the Union–no proviso for territories or districts.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 1:39 PM

        “But there’s a big difference between those states/territories “of the United States” and the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.”

        No. If you’re in Texas, you’re in the state of Texas; there’s no Texas-from-the-perpetual-Union that’s separate from Texas-from-the-United-States-of-America.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 26, 2015 at 1:14 PM

        Colin
        I have read every Statute and find that there is no such thing as you state about Texas where is this law at? Or is it as they say a figment of our imagination?

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 9:57 PM

        I have read every Statute and find that there is no such thing as you state about Texas where is this law at? Or is it as they say a figment of our imagination?

        I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question. Are you asking me whether there is a law stating that Texas is a state?

         
  4. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 12:52 PM

    Yes we have a flawed legal system, however if you are going to play within that system then know the rules and the LAW, it is the BEST LEGAL SYSTEM

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 15, 2015 at 6:51 AM

      @ it is the BEST LEGAL SYSTEM
      We agree 100%. BUT !!! There are legal ways to steal. There are legal ways to murder BUT there is not ANY LAWFUL way to do either. Your heart is so calloused you see that ANYTHING that is CALLED LAW & YOU say is LAW, you embrace it wholeheartedly.YOU also say you are a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. Thomas Jefferson said, Man Made LAWS that conflict with God’s LAWS ARE ANNULITY. But you also say, The Statute of 1776 is nothing more than a declaration. YOU say,look up the legal definition of that word. LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL. This IS the extent of your vocabulary. Some of us are for what is LAWFUL NOT LEGAL.

       
  5. David Baugh

    February 24, 2015 at 1:04 PM

    Thanks for posting this Al. We all need to have and exhibit such outrage at such manifest injustice! Our mutual old friend, RJF would certainly have calling these “Jezebels” the quisling, pettifogger, shyster lawyers they are as condemned in Luke 11:46-52! Anyone can file formal, official complaints against these evil miscreants to have them impeached or removed from office. Wonder if that has been done. Not sure of the procedure but I remember learning about it several years ago. As the man says in his rant, all the evil wickedness they have done against Dr. Kent Hovind will serve our Creator/Savior’s purpose pursuant to Romans 8:28. The manifest injustice rekindles the flames of liberty, freedom, and justice smoldering in the hearts and minds of men compelling them into righteous indignation. Me thinks the “Jezebels” may end up as Ahab’s evil wife if our Creator/Savior has His way.

     
  6. Bruce

    February 24, 2015 at 1:19 PM

    You don’t need religion (from religāre – to be bound) to hear your conscience tell you that it’s wrong (and UNSKILLFUL) to invade the lives of your sisters and brothers (and animals). The “Best Legal System in the World” is entirely outside of the real law: Do no harm, abide by your word. You don’t need scripture to know this. When the people no longer tolerate a deceitful system that rationalizes violation, change will come.

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      February 24, 2015 at 1:24 PM

      You can be bound by your conscience but be prepared for the consequences if you break the law. I feel for the incarceration for sisters and brothers bu THE BEST LEGAL SYSTEM is still the best in the world. If the people are un happy you have a way to change, have Congress do what needs to be done.

       
      • Robert Baty

        February 24, 2015 at 3:53 PM

        @ Lawrence Kenemore, Jr.

        I appreciate you having taken the time to consider the record and post your analysis.

        I have a FaceBook page dedicated to following the Hovind – Hansen action at:

        https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kent-Hovind-and-Jo-Hovind-v-USA-IRS/339508739517135

         
      • Joan of Arc

        February 24, 2015 at 4:03 PM

        Didn’t take long for paid liar Baty to find Kent’s name and continue his slander campaign against him.

         
      • Robert Baty

        February 24, 2015 at 4:12 PM

        And it didn’t take long for the anonymous Hovindicator to pop off with claims he/she will most likely not be willing to take up openly and honestly; allowing me to face my accusers and the evidence, alleged, against me for either acceptance or rebuttal.

        His/her claims are common amongst Hovindicators and I have yet to find any one of them willing to come out into the light and so engage that matter.

        I win either way.
        Hovindicators lose.

         
      • Joan of Arc

        February 24, 2015 at 4:39 PM

        The name says Joan. I am not a homosexual. I am a Christian who recognizes Christian persecution. Who are you and what is your motivation?

         
      • Robert Baty

        February 24, 2015 at 4:45 PM

        Joan, you wrote of me, in part:

        “…paid liar Baty…”
        “…his slander campaign against (Kent Hovind).”

        I provided a link to one of my places where can be found links to other places that help identify me.

        You, “Joan” have provided nothing that would allow me to investigate your background and “who you are”.

        Were you wanting to come out into the light and take up your charges against me; openly and honestly?

        If so, we can begin the negotiations as to how that exercise might be produced.

         
      • Joan of Arc

        February 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM

        This is not a dating service. I have no desire to have a relationship with you. This is a forum for ideas. What is your motivation for following Kent Hovind around the internet?

         
      • Robert Baty

        February 24, 2015 at 4:56 PM

        @ “Joan of Arc”, or whoever you are:

        You made some very serious charges against me; charges that have become common to Hovindicators.

        I take your latest response as an indication that you are not up to openly and honestly allowing me to face you, my accuser, and attempt a resolution of your ipse dixit charges against me.

        That’s fine, and that should bring our discussion to a reasonable conclusion.

        Thanks for your demonstration.

         
  7. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 1:37 PM

    That’s exactly right !! What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws.

    They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. Isiah 10:1-2

     
  8. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 2:11 PM

    Speaker on video says, Sometimes it gets a little confusing if you are not paying attention” ? Nah no way. D

     
  9. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM

    Kent is correct about the FIT system and courts/attorneys. One can never be sure they are within their “law” because the legal definitions are ambiguous and deceptive on purpose. If definitions are the “law” of the “law” why the deception? Best to not contract with them, but if you must, at least define the terms yourself unambiguously on your contracts. These two links demonstrate the level of deception and fraud within the “law” of the “legal society” that most folks are not aware of:

    http://www.weissparis.com/july4.html

     
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 11:35 PM

      I left a comment about this in the other thread, but FYI those guys you link to are either outrageously incompetent or just straight-up scam artists. They talk about getting people’s petitions “dismissed” as if they’re winning cases, but that’s not what’s happening.

      It looks to me like they’re filing petitions in tax court on behalf of their customers. That makes the customer the petitioner. Then they fail to handle the case properly, so the petition gets dismissed, and they tout the dismissal like it’s a victory. I think they want you to think that they got the tax assessment dismissed. All they actually did was file a petition on the customer’s behalf and then mishandle it until the court dismissed it. They’re taking money from their customers, losing their cases, and bragging about it. It’s appalling.

      There’s more information here: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9619

       
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 1:49 PM

        Colin, you say to Alfred Adask, >There is no practical difference between “states” and “territories” in the sense that you mean. If you’re in Texas, you’re in Texas–the state. There’s no shadow “territory” of Texas overlapping it.

        Then, & no matter what State we are in, e.g. Texas, California, etc., why do the “detaining emergency stop Peace Officers” say, When you’re on (not in) United States Territory, you are bound to obey both State & Federal laws. Why do they say this?

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 10:01 PM

        Police officers aren’t law robots, who use very precise and specific language in every encounter with exact legal effect. They’re human beings (and therefore “persons” under the law) who use language that’s sometimes inexact. I think that’s what you’re referring to.

        First, there’s no practical difference between “in” and “on” in those circumstances.

        Second, assuming that’s a direct quote, the officer probably meant “territory” in the loose sense of “land within the national border” rather than the sense you seem to mean, “one of the Territories of the United States.”

        In other word, it sounds like they just said that if you’re in the United States (including inside any state) you’re bound to obey state and federal laws. That’s true.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 5:05 AM

        Dear Colin, There is a video posted on this blog where this Sgt. Peace Officer, tells the occupant in a vehicle this. he SAID, “when you are on a United States Territory, you are bound by ALL Federal & State laws”.< Now I thought, why did he say, ON? AND I also thought, this is in California, so HOW is it also, a, U.S. Territory? Anyway, Colin, I firmly believe a lot of other
        "Peace Officers" & Judges understand this the same way the Sgt. does, AND, I also believe this applies to every State, the WAY they see it. SO, why did the Sgt. advise the occupant he was ON a U.S. Territory? The Sgt. IS a CITY Policeman, & IF my memory is correct, this incident takes place in, Los Angeles city limits.

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 12:09 AM

        Dear Colin, There is a video posted on this blog where this Sgt. Peace Officer, tells the occupant in a vehicle this. he SAID, “when you are on a United States Territory, you are bound by ALL Federal & State laws”.< Now I thought, why did he say, ON? AND I also thought, this is in California, so HOW is it also, a, U.S. Territory?

        This is a pretty good example of how paranoia works: taking a normal use of language and insisting on using a hyper-technical, out-of-context definition for select words to make it sound like it means something it doesn’t.

        Why did he say “on”? Why not? If he had the same conversation ten times, he’d probably say “in” sometimes and “on” sometimes. Legally, there’s no difference between being “in” a jurisdiction and “on” a jurisdiction. Why did he say “territory”? Probably because “territory” is a very common word for jurisdiction. People can say that Texas is the territory of the United States without meaning anything other than that the state is within the US national borders. We can tell that’s what he meant because his point is very simple: if you’re inside the US, you’re bound by federal & state laws. That doesn’t refer to some secret division of what’s “The United States” and what is a territory that overlaps a state or whatever weird theory du jour is on tap. If you’re north of the Rio Grande and south of Canada, you’re inside the United States and subject to both federal and state laws.

        Are you claiming that cops have some secret knowledge of the secret jurisdictions? Yikes. You’re talking about a conspiracy of thousands and thousands of people that somehow hasn’t leaked to lawyers and law professors, all of whom act like a state is a state is a state (or else you’d be able to find law review articles about this fascinating but completely false idea). Go with Occam’s Razor. The notion is false. Hyper-analyzing a transcript of an off-the-cuff interaction isn’t proof of the contrary.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 11:29 PM

        Colin, you say, The Constitution trumps acts of Congress, and any such acts are routinely measured against it by the courts.

        How can you say that when you say the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, & every Amendment beginning with the 13th Amendment says this article shall be enforecd via Appropriate Legislation. This power clause is a part of the Constitution ITSELF.SO HOW can the Constitution TRUMP itself?
        P.S there may be an Amendment or two AFTER the 13th that does not have that “power clause” but that does not change the fact that legislation, appropriate, of course, is THE POWER of “THAT Constitution”.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 16, 2015 at 5:38 PM

      About 2 years ago I sent this man on the infowars 1/2 page of information that to me showed he was misunderstanding certain things. He responded immediately telling me it was me not understanding. I responded immediately back to him with 3 short case excerpts from 3 different cases showing him he was still mistaken. ONE of these excerpts was the Stockton v. Reynolds jurisdiction issue. He responded the next day & sent me two full pages of how he was being amost overwhelmed with giving lectures, teaching, etc. BUT, he assured me that as soon as things relaxed a bit he most certainly would get back in touch with me. I haven’t heard from him since.

       
  10. Jacob Kachelhofer

    February 24, 2015 at 2:50 PM

    Well done, sir author, whoever you are.

    It is difficult to explain or demonstrate to people just how exactly evolution is a state sponsored religion–but that is precisely what it is and your argument lays out an excellent logical case for why this is so.

    Truths such as what you have articulated here are foundational to all else that we stand for, and I thank you for doing so.

    I AM KENT HOVIND.

    FLAMMA LUX! FUGA NOX!

     
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM

      Jacob Kachelhofer
      Re: > I AM KENT HOVIND. FLAMMA LUX! FUGA NOX!
      Does this mean, a house of ill repute, aka, Brothel, aka, bordello, aka, Whorehouse? IF SO, how is this associated with, I AM KENT HOVIND?

       
  11. the-earth-plan-solution

    February 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM

    Best in the world? BS. Bought and paid for by the bankster thieves. There is a peaceful solution but it will never come when one seeks approval from the fox to free the hens…

     
  12. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM

    There is no such thing as a legal definition being ambiguous there is no deception. The problem is most people do not know how to read the law or research the law. If Kent Hovind had done that he would have known he was breaking the law. And if you listen to the video above you will find yourself violating laws and possibly being prosecuted. Need to ask this guy if he guarantees that will not happen if you follow what he says. As usual most of these speakers have not done it themselves.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 6:11 PM

      Could you provide me with one or two legal definitions that are absolutely not “ambiguous”?

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 24, 2015 at 9:31 PM

        Al tell me just one (1) you think is ambiguous and let me respond I will be glad to just one (1)

         
      • Adask

        February 24, 2015 at 10:29 PM

        You declared that there are no ambiguous “legal definitions”. I think they’re all ambiguous. I’m asking you to take your best shot and show me just one unambiguous definition and I will endeavor to prove that your legal definition is ambiguous.

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 12:35 AM

        Re: @ > Could you provide me with one or two legal definitions that are absolutely not “ambiguous”?
        Absolutely not.

         
    • Michele

      February 24, 2015 at 6:29 PM

      Please wake up Lawrence!

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 24, 2015 at 9:27 PM

        Michele
        I am awake, I went through the fire, I was on that side before I studied the law and figured out how to play in their system. The system is there it is not going to change know it know the rules then you will understand what it is really about. Al Adask knows.

         
  13. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 5:39 PM

    Lawernce Kenemore Jr, Robert Baty,et.al
    Re: > There is no such thing as a legal definition being ambiguous there is no deception

    Isaiah 10:1-2
    1Woe to those who make unjust laws to those who issue oppressive decrees,
    2 Woe to those who deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
    1. Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression,
    1. Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,

     
  14. MPK

    February 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM

    Read prophecy and know that there is nothing that is going to stop what is to come, yes true believers know what is come, and all of you who plan to fight, plan to run, plan no matter what, will fail while evil is in power and when the Anti Christ comes into power. The people of all nations are powerless, Governments have total control, and are only restrained to a point to forestall revolution towards their power base to which they don’t want if they can help it, but they will take out each one separately, this way you cant win, your laws are double edged and you the people are not twisters of the laws to be able enough to win or protect your self, these are the facts and only a fool will try unless you know the truth as even the justice systems of Governments know that only truth has the power for defense, but like the time of Jesus when he was arrested so are these days are for you, you will be arrested, tried and convicted.

    Understand in what times you are now in, there is nothing new under the sun that shall not be known. A good lawyer can win some of the time, a great lawyer can win all of time, but people will lose all of the time as the Government knows not one has not broken a law and so it can be found or made up if necessary and used to convict you. Evil people in a evil system will lie and have the power to kill you in what ever way that they feel is necessary to remove you, and others are made as examples unto others.

    If you stand against these evils you will become martyr’s know this it has been written to happen then be prepared to suffer or be killed, but don’t think your going to change things for the better or stop the evil, its to win for a short time, and its no good to be angry or to rant and rave, say the truth, but speak the truth calmly as it will be the last and witnessed as to the crimes these evil people have done unto you and on the day of lords judgment true justice will be in your favor.

    Their is no more GODs justice in any court in any government of any nation of man, for man in power have removed it.

     
    • Joan of Arc

      February 24, 2015 at 7:49 PM

      You say we “will fail” but that depends on your definition of success. I will follow orders from my boss, the Jewish carpenter. I like most of what you said, however.

      For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

       
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 9:17 PM

      @ > If you stand against these evils you will become martyr’s know this it has been written to happen then be prepared to suffer or be killed.

      THEN DON’T STAND !! I’m going to die anyway so BRING IT ONNNNNNNNNNN ! I will STAND UP for what is morally RIGHT. I KNOW WHAT BEING MORALLY RIGHT IS. IF I “GO DOWN” STANDING UP SO BE IT BRING IT ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN !!!! MAKE MY ETERNITY !!!!

       
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 12:58 AM

      MPK
      Re:@ > If you stand against these evils you will become martyr’s know this it has been written to happen then be prepared to suffer or be killed,

      Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Hebrews 11:35-40

       
  15. timmy

    February 24, 2015 at 9:41 PM

    Any “law” that is repugnant to the Constitution is automatically null and void, per the Supreme Court. So that is case law in their system…

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      February 24, 2015 at 9:45 PM

      Yes you are right however which law is repugnant to the Constitution? And which court has so said so. You cannot say so only a court can.

       
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 7:40 AM

      timmy,
      @ > Any “law” that is repugnant to the Constitution is automatically null and void, per the Supreme Court.
      “Appropriate Legislation laws” are not repugnant to “that Constitution” which is enforced by “Appropriate Legislation.” Those laws ARE appropriate to & for “that Constitution.”

       
  16. erin

    February 24, 2015 at 11:28 PM

    TYVM Al for a great article today, and an excellent show tonight! GBY :)

     
    • Adask

      February 25, 2015 at 12:23 AM

      My pleasure. Thanks to you and Rudy for being on the show. GBY, 2

       
  17. PEOPLEISIM - Peaceful Solutions Now

    February 25, 2015 at 7:22 AM

    Obviously you jest when you say “THE BEST LEGAL SYSTEM” one which has allowed vaccine courts, Family courts, etc to hide and steal energy, children, and justice. I direct you to this: American Declaration of Independence excerpt (of which I’m sure you are all intimately aware of):

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    I would argue that this time is now and that there are plenty evidences of these destructive ends, and long trains of abuses. Lets now talk solutions.

    CLICK MY LINK to find out more. There are peaceful solutions. The darkness only serves to allow appreciation for the light. Lets look to the light for solutions and people dedicated to peace.

    If you have any integrity, you will CLICK MY LINK and read, and forward this comment to those you know who care about freedom.

    Peace

     
    • Adask

      February 25, 2015 at 12:59 PM

      My “integrity” has absolutely nothing to do with clicking your link. I assume that your claim to the contrary is probably an innocent error in writing.

       
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 2:38 PM

        I thought he meant his statement to br for,Lawernce Kenemore Jr. Lawernce said, on, February 24, 2015 at 12:52 PM, > “Yes we have a flawed legal system, however if you are going to play within that system then know the rules and the LAW, it is the BEST LEGAL SYSTEM.”

         
  18. S lay

    February 25, 2015 at 11:33 AM

    Hello , children in CHRIST.
    Remember this one? ” woe to those pregnant and nursing…”???
    Better start growing up ,, fast !! Rouse yourselves , a wolf is at your door , while you slumber and nurse. The watchmen shout but you turn deaf ears, there for prepare your self for a great chastisement …
    Repeat this message to all brothers and sisters, in your daily walk , even to the alien and the dead .

     
  19. Dennis Naanes

    February 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    5/25/2015

    Alford

    RE: – Dr. Kent Hovind

    Thank you for sending me this information.

    I am not surprised, as I already knew how corrupt the USA is, and has been for a very long time.

    My parents took me to a Southern Baptist Church from a small child along with my two sisters.

    The Judge along with all the others are worshiping the Devil – (Lucifer) They do not understand right from wrong, just the love for Fiat Money.

    Dennis

    Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:01:45 +0000 To: dancdldriverth@hotmail.com

     
  20. Eric

    February 28, 2015 at 5:32 AM

    Colin, you say, I think that’s what you’re referring to.

    Colin, I AM REFERRING TO WHAT THE POLICEMAN SAID VERBATIM. I ALSO SAY THEY

    ARE TAUGHT TO SAY THIS. IF YOU, Colin, ARE RIGHT, WHY CAN’T THEY SAY WHAT

    THEY MEAN & MEAN WHAT THEY SAY? ALSO, IF YOU KNEW WHO THE AUTHOR OF

    CONFUSION IS YOU WOULD, I THINK, SEE THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT MAYBE NOT. ALSO, it’s easy to see why some of this confusion takes place on any blog that does not

    have a Reply to click on in most of the messages. SOME messages have that Reply button but

    most messages do not. This response from me, is regarding your message on, February 26, 2015 at 10:01 PM

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s