RSS

Notes on the Messiah’s First Trial Before Pilate

03 Jun

Pilate:  "I Find no Fault in this Man" [courtesy Google Images]

Pilate: “I Find no Fault in this Man”
[courtesy Google Images]

I’ve argued for a number of years that individual sovereignty is a capacity that flows from God.  Sovereignty is primarily a spiritual, rather than political, concept.  We are each “sovereign” because—according to the “Declaration of Independence”—we are each endowed by our Creator with certain, God-given, unalienable Rights.

I’m not alleging that the following comments are correct or even consistent. I’m only saying that they cross my mind as interesting questions or possibilities.

 

Luke 23:1-2   “And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.”

.

Note that “a” is an indefinite article.  It signifies one of many who are otherwise similar or even identical.

According to the King James version of the Bible, the multitude accused the Messiah of claiming to be “a King,” that is to say, “a sovereign”—one of several, perhaps many, but not the only “King”/sovereign.

Luke 23:3  “And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.”

.

Note that “the” is a definite article used to describe one who is in some way unique.  He is “the” one and only.  There is no other of the same classification.

Again, note that according to the KJV, unlike the Messiah’s accusers, Pilate did not ask the Messiah if he was “a King” or ”a sovereign”—meaning one “king” out of several “kings”/”sovereigns”.

Instead, the judge Pilate asked if the Messiah claimed to be “the” (singular, definite, one and only) “King of the Jews”.

In modern courts, if the Messiah denied having said that he was “the King of the Jews,” he might’ve created a controversy with the accusers and/or the judge and thereby given the court subject matter.  Today, such denial and resulting controversy might’ve been achieved by a defendant simply declaring himself to be “not guilty” of the allegations against him.

On the other hand, if the Messiah admitted that he had expressly claimed to be “the King of the Jews” in a modern court, he might’ve provided a second witness (out of the mouths of two or three shall a thing be established) to support the multitude’s accusations.  Alternatively, the defendant’s admission in open court could be construed as a confession in open court the allegations against him.

I’m not saying that some of the principles and procedures that might apply in modern courts also applied in Pilate’s court, twenty centuries ago.   But I am considering that possibility.

What would happen in a modern court, if a defendant neither admits nor denies–somewhat like a nolo contendre/no contest plea– but instead says “Thou” [the judge] “sayest it” and/or “So you [the judge] say”.   I wonder if the court would still have a legitimate charge against the defendant.

If the defendant didn’t deny his guilt by saying “not guilty,” would there be a controversy for the court to resolves?

If the defendant didn’t confess his guilty by saying “guilty as charged,” there might not be a second witness needed (in my opinion) to satisfy the requirements of probable cause to proceed to judgment.

I wonder if a judge in a judicial court has authority to start the trial (usually, only a sentencing hearing) until some actual witness (the cop, the injured party, the plaintiff or even the defendant) has introduced sworn evidence or allegation against the defendant.  Most people assume that the plaintiff’s petition or prosecutor’s complaint provide the initial “sworn” evidence against the defendant.   That may be true, but I wonder if a mere affidavit is enough to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to proceed.  Does the court also need a confession from the defendant or a denial to create a controversy?

Because the judge was not a witness to the alleged offense, the judge in a judicial court shouldn’t be able to introduce evidence, make statements or perhaps even ask questions until after some sort of evidence has been introduced under oath into the court’s record.

I’ve heard or at least one defendant who, when asked how he pled to the charges, asked “What charges?”  The judge said “The charges on the traffic ticket.”  The accused said “No traffic ticket has yet been introduced into evidence.”  The judge allegedly dismissed the case.

One unconfirmed case is nothing to rely on.  Still, the story might make you think a bit.

I wonder if the judge in a judicial court should even be allowed to ask questions like “How do you plead?” until after some sworn evidence of an allegation against the defendant has been introduced into the court.  By itself, is the cop’s traffic ticket sufficient to start a real trial?  Or must the cop first be sworn in, take the stand, introduce the traffic ticket into evidence and then testify to validity of the facts reported on that ticket?

Should a judge be allowed to ask questions about an alleged traffic offense before the traffic ticket or traffic officer’s allegations have been introduced under oath into the case file?

More than likely, if the court is administrative rather than judicial, the court can probably do almost anything it pleases-including introducing its own evidence, making statements or asking questions based on evidence or allegations not yet introduced into the record.

 

•  Remotely, it’s possible that when the Messiah responded to the judge Pilate’s question (“Art thou the King of the Jews?” by saying “Thou sayest it,” the Messiah converted the Judge into a witness.   I.e., insofar as the judge “sayest” that the Messiah was “the King of the Jews,” the judge might be deemed a witness.  If the judge were converted into the status of a witness, could he continue in the capacity of a judge?

 

Luke 23:4  “Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.”

.

Fascinating.  Whatever the explanation, it appears that by neither admitting nor denying that he’d ever claimed to have been “the King of the Jews” and Messiah caused the court to drop the case and/or essentially find him innocent.

 

Luke 23:5  “And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”

.

The multitude of accusers became more “fierce” in their demands that the Messiah be tried.  Pilate was caught between being “politically correct” (following the demands of the multitude) and being technically “legal” (not prosecuting a man in whom he’d expressly “found no fault”

However, when he heard that the Messiah had started his alleged offenses in Galliee, Pilate saw his chance to dump the case.

 

Luke 23:6-7  “When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.  And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.”

.

I’m not sure what the word “unto” (the Messiah “belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction”) meant when the KJV was written as compared to what it means today.  Did the Messiah “belong to” the Galilaean jurisdiction as property because he’d been born there?  Or did the Messiah “belong in” the Galilaean jurisdiction because that was the first place where he’d allegedly committed his offenses?

If the Messiah was born in the Bethlehem of Galilee, he was a “Galilaean”.  Herod, not Pilate, had jurisdiction/authority over Galilee and Galilaeans.  If the Messiah had first committed his alleged offenses in Galilee, then Herod should be the first to try him.

Pilate “found no fault” in the Messiah and therefore should’ve released him.  However, the “multitude” wanted the Messiah convicted and Pilate didn’t want to antagonize the crowd.  Therefore, Pilate did the “politically correct” thing:  Relying on claims that the Messiah was a Galilean and/or committed his first offenses in Galilee, Pilate had avoided his duty to free an innocent man or to convict an innocent man on the say-so of the “multitude”.  Pilate was a man without moral conviction.  So, he wriggled off the hook.  At least temporarily.

And yet, as the Bible would later show, Pilate (who’d already said “I find no fault in” the Messiah) was seemingly chosen (perhaps even condemned) by God to issue the ultimate verdict against the Messiah.  What is the implication of Pilate (who later wanted to “wash his hands” of responsibility for the Messiah’s conviction and crucifixion) being called by God to reach that verdict?  Was God implicitly saying that none of us can escape liability for our moral and legal obligations to do justice?  Must we all be compelled to judge only the guilty to be guilty and only the innocent to be innocent?

 
56 Comments

Posted by on June 3, 2015 in Bible, Morality, Oath, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

56 responses to “Notes on the Messiah’s First Trial Before Pilate

  1. Toland

    June 3, 2015 at 12:40 AM

    John 19:19-22 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

     
  2. tony jones

    June 3, 2015 at 12:44 AM

    Hello I have a documentary film I would like to advertise on your website that the followers really need to see!Please review the  film website at your convenience – get back. Best Regards/Anthony Jones Here is the link: http://www.evillaw.tk

     
  3. Adask

    June 3, 2015 at 1:53 AM

    Sorry, I don’t sell anything over this blog. I haven’t done anything commercial on this blog including advertising. I won’t say that I never will, but I will say, Not yet.

     
  4. Henry

    June 3, 2015 at 2:34 AM

    What is the logical connection between having God-given unalienable Rights and being “sovereign”? How does the first quality imply the second?

     
    • Adask

      June 3, 2015 at 3:53 AM

      What was King Henry the VIII “King” because he had the “DIVINE right of kings” which he received in a coronation ceremony in a church. The King was king because he received his most important rights directly from God. All else were subjects because they did not receive their rights directly from God. When the Declaration of Independence declared that all men receive an equal endowment of unalienable Rights from out Creator/God, the Founders elevated all men to the status of sovereigns. As Chisholm vs Georgia observed, we are all “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”.

       
    • Ted

      June 4, 2015 at 3:38 PM

      Toland, Henry, Roger,Colin, & Co-horts/HEARTS

      This IS the WAY it WAS. How MANY times do you & yours NEED to SEE it!?!? Why do you IGNORE What is written. BUT, I am not saying how it IS now, I mean the WAY it WAS !

      (a). “The People, THAT ENTIRE BODY CALLED, the State.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
      State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 page 152, the Court said:

      (b). “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man (King George) to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subiect of the king is a citizen of the state” and,

      (c). “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20, and,

      (d). Citizen, in American Law. “One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.

      Citizens: Subjects. The members of this society, or the individual units whose association forms the body politic known as the state, are called citizens or subjects; the former term (Citizens) being used in states having republcan forms of government; the latter (Subjects) in those in which monarchial institutions exist.” Accord, The Elements of lntemational Law, 4th ed. George Davis, Harper and Brothers, Publishers.

      Subject. Constitutional law. “One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.” Swiss National. ins. Co. v . Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 69 L. Ed. 504.

       
      • Russell Arms

        June 28, 2015 at 9:52 PM

        @ (b). “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man (King George) to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subiect of the king is a citizen of the state” and,

        A citizen of the state WAS at one time said to be, One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
        This DOES NOT SAY, One of the Sovereign People in their COLLECTIVE CAPACITY.

        @ (c). “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20, and,

        The words written above DO NOT SAY, in their COLLECTIVE CAPACITY. Anyway what difference does it matter TODAY? As Professor Colin says, WE ARE NOW LIVING AFTER THE DAYS OF THE 14th Amendment. The Courts, at least for the most part say, IF YOU or I or anyone BORN in the United States claim to NOT BE A citizen of the United States as provided for in the 14th Amendment THEN YOU ARE A MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY. As Yeshua said to Saul , IT IS HARD TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. Acts 9:5.

        P.S Dear Alfred, you forgot to include Spade, & Ted, & Ira, & Gene, in your list of Les Fuchs POSTERS. Just a friendly reminder. D

         
  5. Toland

    June 3, 2015 at 3:13 AM

    What is the logical connection between having God-given unalienable Rights and being “sovereign”? How does the first quality imply the second?

    I would like to know this also, but I haven’t found this logical connection in any of Al’s articles on the sovereignty topic.

    Al, perhaps you can recommend a specific article for us to read where you explain the reasoning at work here?

     
  6. Adask

    June 3, 2015 at 3:55 AM

    I’ve presented the concept in a couple of speeches, but I don’t recall writing it in its entirety in an article.

     
    • Anthony Clifton

      June 6, 2015 at 8:59 AM

      the inhabitants of Judea at that time did not call themselves “Jews”…
      in fact the word “Jew” doesn’t enter the lexicon until the 18th century AD
      almost 1100 years after the Gog & Magog “Proselytes” to Talmudic Judaism
      are “converted” in Khazaria by King Bulan

      the “Religion” of the Money Changers & Pariahsees during the time of the Messiah for
      IIsrael was a Truth and Justice hating Global Crime syndicate just as it is today

      confusion on this subject need not exist if one truly desires to know the truth
      about the Children of Israel & the Messiah

      https://buelahman.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/did-we-pull-the-plug-on-the-shah/

      the Fog Bank of miasma is easily dispelled by the light of truth

      “Jews” can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em”….eh ?

       
      • Ira Misteree

        June 24, 2015 at 12:37 AM

        Anthony Clifton,
        You, Tony, appear to have a grudge against “Jews”. What is your opinion about the Apostle Paul? Doesn’t the Bible say there are those who call themselves Jews but are not? Isn’t it evident that Yeshua, aka, Jesus, sprang from Judah? What does the Hebrew word, Yehudi, mean in English?

        Revelation 2:9
        I know your afflictions and your poverty yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
        Jew as written above, is defined as,
        Ioudaios: Jewish, a Jew, Judea
        Original Word: Ἰουδαῖος, αία, αῖον

        Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

         
    • Gene

      June 7, 2015 at 2:36 AM

      @ > I’ve presented the concept in a couple of speeches, but I don’t recall writing it in its entirety in an article.
      Be prepared to write, what was it, 46 or 48 Articles you wrote about MOOA? Anyway you will need to do more than just write about “it” once, &, I don’t believe writing about “it” FITTY times will make any difference. BUT, then again, Maybe 51 articles will turn on the lights. :-) D

       
  7. Henry

    June 3, 2015 at 5:57 AM

    “When the Declaration of Independence declared that all men receive an equal endowment of unalienable Rights from out Creator/God, the Founders elevated all men to the status of sovereigns.”

    This is the part I would like to understand better. So far I don’t see how a comparison to the divine right of kings explains it. The divine right of kings makes the king a sovereign because the divine right of kings directly states “this is a sovereign”. However, the God-given rights to life and so forth have other meanings.

    Are you claiming that having any God-given rights whatsoever automatically makes one a sovereign in the political sense? What is the reasoning behind this conclusion?

     
  8. Ted

    June 3, 2015 at 6:57 AM

    Adask
    @ Must we all be compelled to judge only the guilty to be guilty and only the innocent to be innocent?
    “Pilate was a man without moral conviction”. The Good LORD knows the “character” standing of everyone. We are to “strive” to have the “character” of,”God” but we need to know what that IS.
    The key to being accepted by “God” is written in Genesis 4:6,7. See also, 1st Corinthians 2:8,9.

     
  9. Ted

    June 3, 2015 at 7:24 AM

    Adask
    Re: Judicial Court.
    I do not believe we have any “Judicial Courts”.
    Because of your “Creed” I do not believe the following applies to you, but I do believe
    it applies to most people in the “U.S.”

    1. The term “martial law” carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various
    ways by different people and at different times. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 66 S.Ct. 606,
    611,615; 327 U.S. 304; 90 L.Ed. 688.

    2. “When the citizen is governed by the military power, he is not governed by the soldier’s code
    of military law,but he is said to be to be governed by martial law; and this law is perfectly
    distinct and entirely different from military law, to which soldiers are subject.”
    Griffin v. Wilcox, (1863), 21 Indiana, 370, page 376
    Supreme Court of Indiana

    3. President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law,
    military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.
    1 + 1 = 2

     
  10. Adask

    June 3, 2015 at 10:03 AM

    I don’t see martial law as a cause so much as a symptom of something that may be worse: emergency laws. In the context of “emergency” the only law is self-preservation. Anything goes. All substantive law are suspended for the duration of the “emergency”. I suspect the “emergency” makes martial law possible.

    1 + 1 is 2 — unless you’ve been taught New Math.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 18, 2015 at 4:25 PM

      Adask,
      @ I suspect the “emergency” makes martial law possible.

      President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.

      As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. This is also why the difference in the opinions rendered in Chisholm & Wong Kim Ark.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 8, 2015 at 4:58 PM

      @ Anything goes. All substantive law are suspended for the duration of the “emergency”. I suspect the “emergency” makes martial law possible.

      Check out the “National Security Act of 1947”. This should help show why we are where we are, i.e., a state of perpetual emergency & so says Admiral Gene Larocque.
      PERPETUAL EMERGENCY !!!

       
  11. Roger

    June 3, 2015 at 2:39 PM

    Al wrote > As Chisholm vs Georgia observed, we are all “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”.

    The problem with citing Chisholm v. Georgia in support of individual sovereignty is that this ruling explicitly says the exact opposite. Chisholm v. Georgia spells out in very clear terms that the sovereignty is collective:

    ‘…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, “We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution…’

    – Chisholm v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Jay, in the majority, 1793

    That the American people are “sovereigns” (plural) in their “collective” (adjective) capacity is hardly surprising, since there is not a single law in this country that recognizes the individual as being sovereign. None, zero, not even one example of such a law.

    And the American people being “sovereigns” (plural) is obviously not inconsistent with their sovereignty being collective, since Chief Justice Jay refers to the American people as “sovereigns” (plural) – “sovereigns of the whole country” – in the very same paragraph he tells us this sovereignty is collective (see above).

    Would each individually sovereign man and woman, if someone like that existed, be sovereign over “the whole country”? Of course not. Only by being collective could the sovereignty of the “sovereigns” (plural) be so comprehensive.

     
    • Ted

      June 3, 2015 at 4:42 PM

      Roger,
      @ > Chisholm v. Georgia spells out in very clear terms that the sovereignty is collective:
      This is a weary go round dog chasing its tail issue. Anyway, and AGAIN for the umpteenth time,
      “The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
      Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.

      For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.

      56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 — Def. of “person”:
      “Statutes employing the word “person” are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign.”

       
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 2:31 AM

        Ted,
        @ “The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign.
        I think this i a typo error. It should say, sovereignty, not, sovereign. It don’t matter no more no how no way no more tho, at least for a little while longer then LOOK OUT BOY SCOUT. Keep looking up. You & me, Gene, Ted, Nat, Spade, D.B. Cooper,& at least 30 more know what I mean. :-) D
        palani knows 2. Ain’t that right palani? :-) D

        P.S. palani believes in agreeing with the adversary but sometimes palani agrees with friends 2. :-)

         
    • Henry

      June 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM

      Roger,

      Notice that whenever the law describes the sovereignty of the American people, it is invariably referred to in the singular tense – i.e. “sovereignty” (singular). This is because there is only one political sovereignty recognized in American law: the collective sovereignty of the people.

      The American people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”, as Chisholm v. Georgia puts it. Whatever specific meaning you attach to joint tenancy here, “joint tenants in the sovereignty” at least means American sovereignty is unitary: a singular entity. Look up “joint tenancy” in any dictionary you like, unity is always a central feature.

      If everyone was a sovereign in his individual capacity, we’d expect to see “sovereignties” (plural) a few times at least, probably more, but we never see it at all in American law.

      Similarly, amid all the references to sovereignty we find in over 200 years worth of court rulings, never has any specific individual ever been referred to as a “sovereign”.

       
      • Bertha Kitt

        June 30, 2015 at 3:53 PM

        Henry,
        Re: > The American people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”
        Henry do you or Roger or Toland or any other animal that may know of have seminars/classes? If so, what’s the story, i.e. how may I hook up?

         
      • Bertha Kitt

        June 30, 2015 at 3:55 PM

        Henry, I meant any other animal that YOU may know of.

         
    • Toland

      June 4, 2015 at 5:29 AM

      Chief Justice John Jay, in the majority

      You of course refer to Justice Jay as writing “in” the majority rather than “for” the majority because it wasn’t until several years after Chisholm v. Georgia that an “Opinion of the Court” began to be published. At the time of this ruling, the Justices each wrote their own separate opinions.

      Just sayin’ in case anyone was ignorant of this fact and noticed your word choice. Carry on.

       
      • Bertha Kitt

        June 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM

        Toland,
        Greetings, from, Canada,
        Toland do you or Roger or Henry or any other animal you may know of, give seminars/classes? If so, what’s the story, i.e. how may I hook up?

         
    • Ira Misteree

      June 24, 2015 at 1:09 AM

      Roger,
      @ ‘…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution

      Roger, Toland, Henry, How many people, number wise, e.g., 2,3,5,10, etc., does it take, are needed, to fit the definition of, Collective Capacity?

       
  12. Ted

    June 3, 2015 at 4:20 PM

    @ > Anything goes.
    Exactly !! This IS my belief of what “martial law is & it has it’s degrees of being militaristic. I have experienced the ruthless aspect of it & so have you. I have experienced the incredibly barbaric aspect of it & so have a few others. My “railing accusations” in their faces against them brought this on, however. STILL, what I vehemently SAID, was TRUE !!

     
  13. Colin

    June 3, 2015 at 10:07 PM

    What would happen in a modern court, if a defendant neither admits nor denies–somewhat like a nolo contendre/no contest plea– but instead says “Thou” [the judge] “sayest it” and/or “So you [the judge] say”. I wonder if the court would still have a legitimate charge against the defendant.

    Of course. The legitimacy of the charge doesn’t depend on what the defendant says at their arraignment. People actually try this kind of word game all the time—they plead “subornation of false muster” or “UCC section XYZ” or whatever magic words someone told them would make the legal hassle go away. I’d be shocked if one or two people don’t plead “thou sayest it” every year. It doesn’t make the judge throw up her hands and say, “Well, that’s it, can’t put this guy in jail!”

    If the defendant didn’t deny his guilt by saying “not guilty,” would there be a controversy for the court to resolves?

    Yes. The charges don’t go away, so the controversy to be resolved is the accusation itself.

    Does the court also need a confession from the defendant or a denial to create a controversy?

    It does not. Lots of people refuse to plead, or plead something unintelligible. Think of people going for an insanity defense, for example. They may refuse to speak at all, or speak in gibberish, or shout curses at the court, etc. It doesn’t stop the trial. The court essentially presumes that any plea other than an unambiguous “guilty” is a plea of “not guilty.” That protects defendants’ rights. If they won’t or can’t plead guilty, they get the benefit of their constitutional right to a trial—they don’t have to ask specifically for it.

    One unconfirmed case is nothing to rely on.

    Very true.

     
    • Ted

      June 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM

      Colin
      June 3, 2015 at 10:07 PM
      When I am are “ADVISED” that “ANYTHING” I “SAY” CAN BE & WILL BE USED “AGAINST ME” please tell me why I should say ANYTHING? You probably do not understand this question therefore, You not answering it will be understood as to WHY you do not answer

       
    • Anthony Clifton

      June 6, 2015 at 5:33 PM

      doesn’t the preamble to the Constitution declare that Justice is the reason for forming a
      “more perfect union”…

      http://richardedmondson.net/2015/06/05/the-jewish-inquisition/

      See Isaiah 3.

      http://govtslaves.info/montana-man-being-prosecuted-for-hate-speech-holocaust-denial/

      There is only one Sovereign…The Almighty.

      everyone else is just a pretender, and stupid, too.

      stupid defined : spiritually blind.

      Justice is only obtainable with truth…in Good Faith

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 6, 2015 at 3:02 PM

      Colin,
      To your knowledge, is it true that certain evidence is not allowed to be heard by the Jury because it is deemed the Jury is not competent to hear such evidence? If this is true, how or why is the Jury deemed to be incompetent? Is it possible to have a Competent Jury? I’m confused about this.

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 5:31 AM

      Colin,
      @ Of course. The legitimacy of the charge doesn’t depend on what the defendant says at their arraignment.
      RIGHT !! Or, any at any time, or, anywhere. This has been arranged & determined from the inception of the legitimacy via appropriate means, called, appropriate legislation, ENFORCED by the “so called” Executive branch, which is currently, the supreme law of the land.

       
  14. dog-move

    June 4, 2015 at 5:31 AM

    Could the Roman Civil Code have been the same as the civil code here today?
    Matthew 27:4, “But to the governor’s amazement, he offered not a word in answer to any of the charges”. “Do you understand the charges”? “SURETY”: “Do not stand surety beyond your means; if you do stand surety, be prepared to pay up”. Ecclesiasticus 8:13; Going surety has ruined many who were prosperous, tossing them about in a heavy sea”. Ecclesiasticus 29:17.
    Are we talking about Jesus Christ a/k/a JESUS CHRIST”, may he, being wise, have known not to answer for something dead, it is against the Law as it is written in Exodus 20:4-6.
    God created man straightforward, and human artifices (JESUS CHRIST) are human inventions. Ecc 7:29. Jesus Christ could not answer for the JESUS CHRIST estate, person, corporation, and decedent.
    Luke 22:70—They all said” So you are the Son of God then? He answered’ It is you who say I am, then they said, Why do we need any evidence? We heard it for ourselves from his own lips.’
    It seems also that in Luke 23:2 He was opposing payment (tax) of the tribute (usury) to Caesar,
    Usury is a capital crime.
    “He that hath not given forth upon usury…he shall surely live…hath given forth upon usury he shall surely die.” Ezek. 18:8-13
    One may receive interest from a stranger or his bank.” Unto a stranger thou mayeth lend upon usury”. Duet. 23:20
    Jesus Christ understood the Law, He was forbidden to contract with “them”.
    The “Word” forbids contracts and business deals with strangers.
    “Make no league with the inhabitants of this land”; “ye shall throw down their altars”. Judges 2:2. “Thou shall make no covenant with them”. Deut. 7:2 “If thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger (Heb: zûwr) (2114a-Zondervan NASB Concordance) thou art snared”. Prov. 6:1, 2. What part hath he that believe with an infidel”?…come out from among them and be ye separate”. II Corinth.6:15-17. Can two walk together except they be agreed”. Amos 3:3.
    Ecclesiasticus 8:18; “ In a stranger’s presence do nothing that should be kept secret, since you cannot tell what use the stranger will make of it”.
    The enemies of Jesus Christ followed the 63 legal and ethical books of The Babylonian Talmud, Jesus Christ knew better than to contract with these serpents. Roman Civil Code= United States Code= The Babylonian Talmud.

     
  15. Jethro!

    June 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM

    Roger, the “collective and national capacity” is in relation to establishing >>”the present Constitution”,<< nothing else. Constitutions involve the duties and obligations of government, which has no rights. This has nothing to do with not recognizing or diminishing the capacity of man to act in his individual sovereign capacity.

    So no, Chisholm does not say the opposite. I believe Al is correct in his assessment that we are "sovereigns (plural) without subjects", and Chisholm supports this.

    "That the American people are 'sovereigns' (plural) in their 'collective' (adjective) capacity is hardly surprising, since there is not a single law in this country that recognizes the individual as being sovereign. None, zero, not even one example of such a law."

    Governments don't write laws for man, its creator, it writes them for "persons". Man already has the common law when dealing with his fellow man (in an individually sovereign capacity), which exists separate from government. So of course you'll not find a "law" involving man — the servant/created cannot define its master/creator.

     
  16. Toland

    June 4, 2015 at 11:52 AM

    From the famous Wong Kim Ark ruling of 1898, quoting a state court from 60 years earlier….

    The supreme court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr. Justice Gaston, said: Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens…. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State;… British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen;… and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State…. The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

     
    • Joe

      June 4, 2015 at 8:30 PM

      A “free person born within the State” would have been the biological offspring of a man who at the time of said offspring’s birth had taken an oath of allegiance to the State of North Carolina. This is so because according to the law of nations, a child acquires the political status of his father at birth. I doubt that all North Carolina freemen took such an oath. There were likely many who understood that such oaths were both forbidden by scripture and idolatrous, as knowledge of scripture was far better then than now. The first constitution offered to the people of Georgia made it clear that joining “this state” by taking the oath and declaring one’s property subject to tax was an option, not a requirement. The men who did not partake of the idolatry remained “free inhabitants.” Their liberties are secured by Article IV of The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

       
      • Ted

        June 5, 2015 at 1:36 AM

        Joe,
        @ > There were likely many who understood that such oaths were both forbidden by scripture and idolatrous, as knowledge of scripture was far better then than now.
        SUCH OATHS? Such oaths, as WHAT?
        Perhaps this is why Jesus gave a new commandment concerning vows. “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No ,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:33-37). < NOW, how can you say yes or no, without it being an oath? I believe this is ok & this IS what I say, I promise to tell the truth under penalty of PERJURY. < Now you tell me how "God" disapproves of me promising to do that. i.e., tell the truth? And, under penalty of perjury which means, I will not be a false witness which means IF I DO LIE, I WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, AND, FROM "God" IF NOBODY ELSE. SEE !!! God KNOWS IF I AM TELLING THE TRUTH, which also means, He KNOWS IF I AM NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

         
    • Ted

      June 5, 2015 at 1:13 AM

      TOlANd,
      @ > The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
      YES, HOWEVER, it is also written, (a). “The People, THAT ENTIRE BODY CALLED, the State.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
      State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 page 152, the Court said:
      (b). “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man (King George) to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subiect of the king is a citizen of the state” and,
      (c). “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20. Don’t CHERRY PICK !!

       
  17. Ted

    June 4, 2015 at 6:26 PM

    Re: Are you a king, To see the Big Picture, we need to include, Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 22:70; John 18:37. Remember, here a little, & there, a little. Here is a piece of the puzzle,e.g, Matthew 27:11.Here is another piece, Mark 15:2. SEE !!! It works like this. Put the pieces together & believe it or not, A picture APPEARS. Yes indeed. But, even so, you must have EYES 2 C 2. :-) Ain’t that right, Roger, Toland, & Henry? Colin is OUT on this anyway. He is GODLESS, i.e. He says there is no God. SEE !! He is SMART, intelligent TOO. D

     
  18. Roger

    June 4, 2015 at 6:53 PM

    @Toland

    Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel: The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people…

    Exactly, and the members of this sovereign “collective body of the people” are what Chisholm v. Georgia calls “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”, by virtue of their being “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

    But wait, “without subjects”? See this:

    Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel: The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law…

    If citizen = subject, how then are the “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”?

    Answer: The people as “sovereigns” (plural) – that is, the people as individuals – are indeed “without subjects”, because the “proper sovereignty” (Chisholm v. Georgia) of the “sovereigns” (plural) is only exercised at the collective level. Thus, only the “collective body of the people” has subjects: i.e. the “citizens of the State.”

     
    • Ted

      June 4, 2015 at 7:13 PM

      Roger, Toland, Henry,
      ONCE AGAIN, > For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.

      “ONE MAN”. “HIS, NOT THEIR”

       
    • Jethro!

      June 4, 2015 at 10:50 PM

      “Exactly, and the members of this sovereign ‘collective body of the people’ are what Chisholm v. Georgia calls ‘sovereigns’ (plural) ‘without subjects’, by virtue of their being ‘joint tenants in the sovereignty’.”

      The “collective and national capacity” is only in relation to establishing ”the present Constitution”.

      “If citizen = subject, how then are the ‘sovereigns’ (plural) ‘without subjects’?”

      Citizen is a *capacity* in which man may act if he wishes, or not. If he puts on the “citizen hat”, then yes, then he assumes legal duties and obligations… a “subject”. When he takes off the citizen hat (or never put it on), he enjoys his sovereignty among other sovereigns.

       
    • Ted

      June 5, 2015 at 12:45 AM

      Roger,
      @ If citizen = subject, how then are the “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”?
      Citizen = Subject in this sense. Subject to, the laws of God. IF we lived back in the “good ol days” when times were still bad, at least to some degree, & I stole from you, or, if you accused me of stealing from from you,12 KINGS, aka, A JURY, would decide the matter. No, it was not an infallible system. but it was as good as it could get. We also need to keep in mind the false witness aspect. IF I am found guilty of stealing from you, but, I was really innocent, but found guilty because of false witnesses, then it will be hell to pay for you & yours, LATER, not by me but, by, “God.” Anyway, we are not in those “good ol days anymore”. The so called sovereigns of today, are aka, the powers that be, via USURPATION.
      On the other hand, IF I could get ANYONE to tell me what the Chief of police MEANT when he SAID, IF Brandon & Bill had KNOWN that THEY(Jerry Kane & his son) were sovereign citizens, THEY, (Brandon & Bill) would still be with us today. Go to 4:30 into the 60 minute Alfred Adask interview. YOU, or ANYONE tell me what you think he, the Chief of Police, MEANT by that statement. This will HELP ME get a better handle on this “sovereign” issue. Thanks.

       
  19. Henry

    June 5, 2015 at 12:38 AM

    Chisholm v. Georgia: “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution…. Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country…”

    So, the people, in their collective and national capacity, are sovereigns of what again?

    Chisholm v. Georgia: “…the whole country…”

    Okay, got it that time.

    Now from Boyd v. State of Nebraska (1892), U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Fuller, delivering the opinion of the Court, quotes the Dred Scott decision. The referenced “sovereign people” is confirmed to be a collective entity by the addition of “every citizen is one of this people” – “this people” being singular.

    Quote:

    But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Mr. Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty….”

     
    • Ted

      June 5, 2015 at 12:59 AM

      Henry,
      @ > and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty….”
      BUT, Henry, are you saying every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty only in the collective capacity thereof?” Once again, tho, it makes nary bit of difference what it meant. Have you ever been arrested for an alleged traffic violation & FORCED to stay in Jail for 3 days BEFORE you were next FORCED to appear before (in the presence) of a Magistrate in a court of no record? I think I can safely say that NONE of you, i.e., YOU, Roger, & Toland have been arrested as just described.

       
    • Bertha Kitt

      June 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM

      Henry,
      @ But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Mr. Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty….”

      It’s not hard to understand what happened later, is it? Like in, UP POPS THE DEVIL.

       
  20. Toland

    June 5, 2015 at 2:53 AM

    Hang on a minute, what’s this?

    On the one hand….

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) citing State v. Manuel: The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law

    On the other hand….

    Boyd v. State of Nebraska (1892) citing Dred Scott v. Sandford: The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens‘ are synonymous terms, and… both describe the political body who… form the sovereignty

    Being subject and sovereign are pretty much exact opposites, so how can both…..?

    OK, got it! The tenses are different – singular and plural – and that makes all the difference.

    Whereas the singular term “citizen” means a subject, the plural term “citizens” describes the sovereign political body in the United States.

    Cool, that clarifies things and helps cut through the lies.

     
    • Ted

      June 5, 2015 at 9:32 AM

      Toland,
      @ Cool, that clarifies things and helps cut through the lies.
      Who is/are the liar(s) &/or the deceivers? To know this will help to clarify things even more. :-) D

       
    • Ted

      June 5, 2015 at 10:11 PM

      @ > United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) citing State v. Manuel: The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law.
      AND another Court SAID, we will make our decision based on the the Common law & the Bible which is the source of the Common law.

       
      • Adask

        June 6, 2015 at 12:46 AM

        I’m not convinced that the English common law is the panacea many suppose. In England, there is one sovereign (currently, the Queen) and all the rest are subjects. It’s been that way for centuries. The English “common law” is based on, or at least compatible with, the idea that there’s only one sovereign and millions of subjects.

        American common law is supposedly based on English common law. Does American common law rest on the presumption that those who use it are subjects?

        I don’t know. But I wonder.

        I’d like to know if there’s a separate system of law in England that applies to the very few kings and queens (sovereigns) rather than subjects. I’ve never heard of a “law for sovereigns”. But if such could be found, I wonder if we could make credible claims on using such law.

        It occurs to me that, since there’s only one sovereign in each nation of the Holy Roman Empire, a “law for sovereigns” would govern the relationships of the King of England to the King of France, King of Germany, King of Italy, etc. Because there was only one sovereign per country, the “law for sovereigns” (if any) would have to be some sort of “international law”.

         
    • Spade Koolie

      June 12, 2015 at 6:47 AM

      @Toland, Roger, Henry, &, Colin
      @June 5, 2015 at 2:53 AM
      Since you guys LOVE DEFINITIONS, WHAT DID “JURY” ORIGINALLY MEAN? I KNOW, DO YOU?
      WILL ANY ONE OF YOU & YOURS ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I HIGHLY DOUBT IT? D

       
  21. Ted

    June 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM

    Toland said, > “United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) citing State v. Manuel: The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law.”

    I responded to Toland > AND another Court SAID, we will make our decision based on the the Common law & the Bible which is the source of the Common law.
    I believe I CAN find the cite,i.e., The Court that said this. I memorized a lot of things but not the courts themselves that said things that impressed me. Anyway, “The Common Law” I am speaking of, is, that which flowed from the Bible that at least some people at one time commonly understood, e.g., The 10 Commandments. < This kind of Common Law.

     
  22. Ted

    June 6, 2015 at 1:39 AM

    Sometimes things can be right before our eyes & we don’t see it. I am certainly not any exception to this. What follows does not fit in with this thread BUT It IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. This has been my “get out of jail free card” at least for the last 15 years. I sent the following to Jethro, on the Mysterious Ways thread.

    In, U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.Supp. 182, Affirmed in,709 F.2d 1496, the Court says, “unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability.”

    I established this,& afterwards “for some unknown reason” :-) things CHANGED DRASTICALLY :-)

    NOW !! This seems to BE the “KEY” that frees us & applies to everything else we are allegedly, “subject to”.

     
  23. Ted

    June 6, 2015 at 3:30 AM

    Adask,
    @ I’m not convinced that the English common law is the panacea many suppose.

    AND, I was not referring to the ENGLISH COMMON LAW. I am speaking of Christian “Common Law” as it was ORIGINALLY understood, created in the United States of America, aka American Common law, e.g., “Christianity IS and always HAS BEEN a part of the Common Law of Pennsylvania”. Updegraph v. The Commonwealth 11 Sergeant & Rawles, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports 400.

     
  24. Ted

    June 6, 2015 at 5:36 AM

    The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson’s Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362.

     

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