PJ 73
CHAPTER 1
REC #1 HATONN
MON., JULY 12, 1993 8:34 A.M. YEAR 6, DAY 330
MON., JULY 12, 1993
DO YOU REALLY KNOW?
WHAT do you really KNOW? From "where" came your information? WHY do you believe "it" to be so? HOW do you KNOW? WHO IS YOUR SOURCE?
You watch and listen to your video boxes and what do you KNOW when you turn it, finally, OFF? You go forth, possibly, on a Sunday or Saturday and sit passively listening to a "preacher" TELLING you WHAT HE BELIEVES. You sit and are TOLD that that which is in a book called Bible, or Talmud or Koran or Torah--is truth. (They all tell it differently.) Does the listening make it so? You may well even listen to me--but who am I? What am I? From where do I come so elusively and tout "truth"? Frightening? I hope so, for in caution you become discerning and can then judge that which is presented and the actions of those who present--and therein you will find TRUTH.
Moreover, do you STAY with something long enough if it seems to be truth--to KNOW? Do you take unto YOURSELF everything AVAILABLE by and through a given source--UNTIL YOU KNOW FOR SELF THAT IT BE TRUTH? Or, do you LISTEN TO ANOTHER'S OPINION about this or that and let THEM control your own beliefs?
WHAT DO THE ONES WHO MUST HAVE INTERMEDIARIES (PRIESTS) HAVE TO HIDE? WHAT TRUTH DO THESE ONES WHO "SAY" THEY ARE OF GOD--HAVE TO HIDE THAT THEY MUST DRESS IN ROBES AND PRONOUNCE UPON YOU, THEIR BELIEF BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE TOLD THEM WHAT TO BELIEVE?
AM "I", THIS SPEAKER, REAL?
What difference does it make WHO I might be? Do I bring Truth? How do you know? Why would I bother if I have my infinite ticket? And, further, what difference could it possibly make? NONE--TO YOU! It matters not if I am a worm on the sunny rock or a voice from the tree leaf--IF I BRING TRUTH--IT IS THAT TRUTH THAT YOU MUST INGEST.
A prophet? Is this being a prophet? In the "highest sense of the meaning", yes. I am NOT a fortune teller. A prophet is one who overall brings the concept and expected probabilities back into your consciousness--nothing more. Moreover, a prophet will never give you specifics for, "Even the son shall not know the moment of His return." He will be right 100% of the time--but you may well not be around when the prophecy began or ends! (In the form you now project.) He will bring these truths, not for his own gain--but with a driving need to WARN you and offer Truth to you. A fortune teller will, on the other hand, sit and tell you wondrously comprehensive things and data--and specifics so that YOU must fulfill the projections in your span of expression. You will discount or you will accept but, within, you KNOW that you are walking a very, very thin line in the truth game.
The truth offerings will come, always in truth and in giving to fellow-man, with, "Share it any way you can use it." Why? Because TRUTH is open, shared, and only WORTHY IF SHARED. The very birthright of MAN is to have TRUTH. He who HIDES Truth ALWAYS HAS SOMETHING OF HIS OWN TO HIDE.
God did not say to Hatonn, "Get down there and radio in and force every last one of the people on Earth to pay attention." He did not say, "Cram it down their throats and twist their arm until they succumb." My job is to help present the Truth of the journey AND lay forth for your attention that which IS GOING ON THAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW. Then, armed with facts and probabilities--you can act in responsive wisdom or ANYWAY you choose--I will have fulfilled MY TASK. Next, my mission is to point out what you very well may have FORGOTTEN and remind you that remembering is now the name of the game at hand. I don't need a "church" or anything else--save a method of presenting to you in a form which you can experience--communications of some sort. Since I don't need to type words I must have someone who can "translate" (NOT INTERPRET) MY LANGUAGE. Since you have forgotten your Universal language you have to have spoken word or written script of some kind. Is this so difficult to understand?
Indeed there are many who claim to speak or translate or whatever, for higher energies. Well, some of those energies are LOWER--not higher. Some "speak" from the nearest governmental "base" and YOU don't know the difference. If "they" tell you the truth then you have it made, don't you? But can you depend on them to not want to get whatever they came to get from you?
Does Truth have to wend its way down through the silver bells of ancient temple bells? Of course not--TRUTH IS ALL AROUND YOU--THERE ARE NO LIES AROUND YOU. Only MAN produces lies so you must beware the "speaker" or movie projector. But, COULD "I" be evil and fool you? Yes. Now, however, AGAIN, what is evil? Evil is that which deliberately pulls you from the path--unto higher goodness and God. Which do "I" do--pull you toward God in goodness and wholeness--or push you into the physical things of the "senses"? I would think that if you care enough to study that which I have offered--YOU WILL KNOW! There won't be confusion or doubts--you WILL KNOW! How do "I" know that you will KNOW? Because you will care enough to follow-up with confirmation of "fact" in proper evaluation of the contents of the information, purpose of the information and "whether I seem to be evil or goodly." If I then consistently am GOODLY, then I may well seem like a safe "bet" to stick with for a while until you can RESEARCH, STUDY, PRAY AND ANALYZE my offerings as to your own connections. If you cast me and my word aside--DO I EFFORT TO FORCE YOU BY HIDDEN TACTICS TO SOMEHOW COME WITHIN MY CELL AND BIND YOU WITH SHACKLES? NOPE, SORRY, I BLESS YOU AND ASK YOU TO GO YOUR WAY--OR STAY AS YOU WILL, AND DO WHATEVER YOU WILL--PREFERABLY LEAVE MY SCRIBE ALONE. I WILL ANSWER WHAT I CAN "PERSONALLY" WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF MY HUMAN HELPERS--BUT YOU, SPECIFICALLY--ARE NOT MY CONCERN--YOU ARE YOUR CONCERN. I bring the Truth upon which you can balance your foundation of input--YOU must use the foundation or build your own. Mine does seem to infinitely stand while I note that almost all others fold quickly or, even at great time spread, fall. WHEN YOU FIND A FOUNDATION OF SEEMING TRUTH WHICH STANDS ALL ASSAULT AND THE AGES OF TIME--IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE SAME AS "MINE". I am but a messenger; you can call me a prophet but it means nothing--for I am like the alarm clock which REMEMBERS the time you need to awaken to get on with your experience (usually, unfortunately, within someone else's prophecies or fortune-telling tales).
Don't misunderstand that which I or Little Crow say, chelas. Now that there is a small book out by Little Crow I have ones who get to the writings on "truth" and come back at me with--"You say there is only one Truth," but Little Crow says: "Check it out. We all have our own truth, so that means God has multiple truths, does He not? Does IT not? DOES SHE NOT?"
Readers, THERE IS ONLY ONE--anything. And yet, look around you--except for the PROJECTIONS OF MAN--everything, everywhere, any time, any place--is TRUTH! And, further, even man is not a LIE, he only presents the lie. Even in his projection, further, lays also truth if nothing more than the truthful validity of a given spoken "term". For this reason--must you discern, accept, study and come to recognize THE TRUTH WHICH FITS YOUR PATH OF INTENT! "All truths are individual and all truths are equal in their priority."This does not mean, however, that all truths are equal in their IMPORTANCE! Further, Crow will tell you: "We are all sacred and in that sacredness we have an obligation and responsibility to all things to which we are connected. " This does NOT mean you have some "right" to butt into an-other's business and cram your "truth" down his throat!
Some even say that they "want to go to hell!" They haven't the remotest idea of what is hell--but they work toward that end incessantly--who are YOU or ME--to force (if we even could) them into a different place? All I have "right" to do is assume my responsibility and obligation and "offer" help and information which may make them reconsider things which possibly have eluded their attention.
Crow has said something else which you must understand if you are to claim passage on this good old Red Road: "You are the messengers of time. You are the prophets of the time. You carry forth the word through your own behavior. If you are into the world of materialism and that is your message, then that is the world you portray... " You WILL portray the world you represent and desire--no matter how hard you effort to hide it. You ARE exactly WHAT YOU ARE!
If you wish to change from that which you ARE--then take responsibility and become that which you desire--STOP blaming your lack of change on anything or anyone ELSE! If you are so foolish as to base your existence on another's OPINIONS WITHOUT QUESTION--THEN CHANGE IS NOT THAT WHICH YOU DESIRE--YOU LIE! When you desire something enough to change--you will DO IT. It is absolutely THAT simple.
So, why do I burden you with all the lies, deceits and hidden agendas which only cause you indigestion, chaos, headaches and such? Because THAT is my responsibility--to choose that which fits most closely to the Truth as I KNOW it to be and select that which will give you ammunition to make changes if you desire change--no more and no less. I would hope to spark an interest as we touch on the myriads of topics--and perchance ONE will spark your interest enough to at least go TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG! I want you to investigate, test and research. If you find "errors"--SHARE THEM SO THAT OTHERS CAN HAVE TRUTH AS YOU FIND IT TO BE--IF INDEED IT IS TRUTH.
I do not mean by this that if, as for instance as I present things from "The Informer" in a minute, he misses the time of a meeting by a day or by fifteen minutes--his "truth" is now wrong. TRUTH is a concept and you who continue to nit-pick over fifteen minutes--are destined to be locked to the clock for the rest of your lives. The only time that is important is in justification of "time"--when "time" IS the topic at point.
I have here a document which I believe to be well done and "generally" accurate enough to share, as is, with you. It is a compilation of subjects with some rather fresh perspectives which YOU WILL NOT LIKE FOR THE MOST PART. Sorry about that--TRUTH IS RARELY WHAT YOU LIKE TO HEAR. The perspective will help BALANCE your perceptions and perchance you will go DIG OUT SOME ANSWERS IF QUESTIONS BE RISEN--YOU, not me--YOU! "I" do NOT have THE problems facing YOU! Actually, on a personal level--neither does my scribe--so why bother her from her work when it is YOUR responsibility--not hers? Is everybody with me so far? Is ANYBODY with me so far? Do you see, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE!
In the following writing I won't put a name to the authorship BECAUSE THE WRITER CALLS HIMSELF/HERSELF "THE INFORMER"--for privacy. I did not even say "secrecy"--I said "privacy". This person is presenting for sharing what he has uncovered and judged, as well as discerned, to be valid. He "offers" it--he does NOT--shove it into any orifice. I thank the one who sent this to my attention and I thank the writer:
THE BIG LIE
by the Informer
Some parts of this Article are redundant, with other articles that appeared in the American Bulletin, but so were the ABC's, redundant, till you learned them. In this article the abundant use of highlight is necessary to bring across the points needed to understand the BIG LIE.
You have been lied to from the beginning, as were the people at the time the United States was created, by the "founding Fathers", hereafter called Fathers. The truth I am about to tell you is passed off as a lie by the people in power and you too will consider it a lie because it is so foreign to what you have been taught. There are a lot in Congress and the majority of the functional illiterates who work for "The State" who truly believe the BIG LIE is the truth. So much so that you could tell them the real truth, as I am about to lay on you in this article, and they wouldn't believe it, even as the bullet enters their brain from the firing squad as they are being executed for treason and sedition. The concept you have been led to believe as the "truth" will now be exposed as the biggest lie in the history of this country. Your school teachers have been told the lie, their school teachers have been told this lie and on ad infinitum back to the beginning. Is it any wonder then, why you believe the lie and do not question it and accept it as a "truth", when in fact it is a lie? I will not bore you with all the documentation to prove the "truth" you have been taught is a lie, but I do have it, as do a few others. I want no one to network this for any amount of money by charging for this Article. They are to give it for free. You may copy to your heart's delight and pass it all over the country. Only recoup copy cost, which runs from .02 to .10 cents per page depending where you are. Nobody should pay more than $3.30, which includes the 16 pages of Interpol material because that is what I have to pay for copies where I live. Postage is about $1.05 to mail the material. [H: The author herein thanks John Nelson for much of the material, which will not be included here.]
To begin, I quote two people, they are Lysander Spooner and Albert J. Nock, to give you a feel for the basis. First Lysander Spooner, in his book, NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority. Library of Congress Catalog No. 73-2173, he states: "The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principle of law and reason, binding upon him. In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning." [H: Could this be so? Of course it COULD be so--this man has stated as much and is prepared to "prove" his perception. The point is not what Spooner believes but what is real, right, wrong and possible! That much is YOUR JOB--we can only present the information to you.]
VOTING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT!
People, who exercise a privilege of voting, become citizens/members and vote by ballot that none of us see, so this is what Spooner had to say about that.
"A secret ballot makes for a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.
"This is the kind of government we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: WE will consent to no constitution, except to such a one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.... Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves 'the government', the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to him representing himself to be the agent of 'the government'--that is, the agent for the secret band of robbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of 'the government', and have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand (Informer's comment: you are put in jail or they take your property today). To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as this agent does not make his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who are 'the government'--that is, who were the robbers--than he did before."
YOU DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL GOVERNMENT!
The Constitution was only witnessed by the Fathers and, as Lysander stated, was never signed by the Fathers in a capacity to make it binding upon them or anyone else. Prove it for yourself by looking at the end of the Constitution wherein they state, "In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names." In essence they only witness the compact between the States and the ambiguous entity known as "The United States", for only 39 out of the 74 had signed it as witnesses.
The Constitution did not create a "government" of social order, it only created a "political corporation" to deal with the "merchant State, as all the states of America, the Nation, were "merchant-States." The Fathers were shrewd businessmen and had much more education and wealth than did the masses. But remember, the masses were much more educated than we are today. Why, they could run rings around any of us today, me included. So the "Fathers" created the monster, "the State", that we have today.
Now we move to, Our Enemy, The State, by Albert J. Nock. ISBN 0-930073-04-5; In talking about the formation of corporate United States, the State, by the Constitution he stated this: "There was complete unanimity also regarding the nature of the new and independent political institution which the Declaration contemplated as within "the right of the people" to set up. There was a great and memorable dissension about its form, but none about its nature. It should be in essence the mere continuance of the merchant-State already existing. There was no idea of setting up government, the purely social institution which should have no other object than, as the Declaration put it, to secure the natural rights of the individual; or as Paine put it, which should contemplate nothing beyond the maintenance of freedom and security--the institution which should make no positive interventions of any kind upon the individual, but should confine itself exclusively to such negative interventions as the maintenance of freedom and security might indicate. The idea was to perpetuate an institution of another character entirely, the State, the organization of the political means; and this was accordingly done. The State, then, whether primitive, feudal, or merchant, is the organization of political means. Emphasis his, underline mine.
Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, stated, when he couldn't stop the 55 People (Fathers) from adopting a new State (religion): "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American." Echoing James Wilson's 1787 words in the Virginia Debates at Petersburg 1788-89 Convention. "(Patrick) Henry looked upon 'that paper' (constitution) as 'the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people." From Son of Thunder by Henry Mayer, p. xv. also confirmed by Lysander Spooner, a noted lawyer of his time. As you can see, Patrick didn't want to be associated with "the State" of Virginia any more. You will see why when I get to the definition of "citizen".
Everybody believes we are under the Constitution and this is what the political State wants you to believe. To keep things straight you can't mix the terms "State" and "government". There is no such thing as "the State", which is the "political organization", passing itself off as "the government", the social institution. We, the people, (not to be confused with the phrase "We, the People" in the Preamble), are the dejure "government", while the State, with its citizens, is the defacto government. The State wants you to believe you are a citizen of the State or the United States. Both are political institutions and need more "residents" (slaves) to satisfy their needs. Remember, the Declaration of Independence took all of the people out of any British government domain and for that matter the individual States of America, who were nothing but "merchant States" at that time, see Nock. Now the United States, which is nothing but Congress, a specific class called People, as stated in the Preamble, separated from the general class people, created the illusion that the States of America needed more protection and got each of the political merchant establishments, the States, to agree to join a compact that the Fathers said was to make the union "a more perfect union". So the States joined a compact, not the people, just like you would join the union of electrical workers but your family members wouldn't.
I hope I haven't lost you at this point because in using the parallel between the Electrical Union and the Union of States, I will show you how you have been made a slave in your own country to satisfy the foreign power brokers that run this country. You also have to remember that this started at the time the U.S. Constitution was formed which, by the way, has no power over you unless you state, "I demand my Constitutional Rights," and therefore you fall into the compact trap by association. Hint--now you fit the definition of "person" in the tax law because you are part of the "association" which is one of the words describing "person".
YOU ARE AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER IF YOU
ARE CITIZEN
The States became the political sub-divisions of the Congress who are the Union leaders. In the capacity of "political subdivisions" they are not sovereign, see Texas v White 74 US 7 Wall, Lawyers Ed. You, as a natural individual, cannot join the Union of States BUT, you can be a member by association. Enter the term "citizen". I explained this term in my book "Which One Are You", but people still do not comprehend because of the lie they have been fed all their lives as being the "truth", that being, they are the citizens of the State. Here it is again with the highlighted words that lock you up to them. Remember, and don't forget it, the definitions are what the definer (Congress) wants them to mean, not what you think or believe it to mean.
[H: I suggest you do not stop right here and go blasting your way around in the courts and resigning everything and blowing smoke out every crevice in your huffing and puffing and "blowing the State down". THEY HAVE THE GUNS! THAT MAKES WHAT THEY DO "LEGAL", so cool off, look at the facts and then, only then, can you as a "people" formulate action. Remember, that almost ALL of the Founding Fathers at that Constitution table--were Freemasons and BUSINESS MEN, i.e., good old boys with commercial intent and hidden agendas--from the beginning. They are the same ones who removed all "rights" from blacks and "Indians" and on it goes. If you don't, however, have the slightest idea as to what was the Constitution in the first place--how can you fix it if it is broken? All you really had back then was a "corporation" for the "State" newly set up. Can you now just simply withdraw? Yes, but the "FORCE" OF THE "STATE won't let you go!]
CITIZEN: One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.
Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. Blk's 5th Pg. 222. cite omitted.
This cannot be any plainer. You, as an associated member of a political State that joined the Union, are now entitled to vote for the Union President, Clinton in this time period, thereby giving up your power of self-government as declared by the Declaration of Independence. You now deny your unalienable rights (notice the definition above does not include any unalienable natural law rights given to us by God) for the civil rights the State grants you by their statutes and are bound by and under the quasi-contract (constitution) you are "resident" in, by implied consent. Isn't colorable law neat for them? It has to be implied because neither you nor anybody in any capacity as a defacto government official ever signed the various constitutions in this country. Therefore, can it ever be called a contract? NO! If you believe you are under the Constitutions and are part of that organization by having a representative in Congress or State legislature, then you must be and I won't go against your wishes. Look up the definition of "under". I thought that if you were the person, not to be confused with compact "person", in sovereign character, that you are not bound by the quasi-contract or subject to the tax statutes dictated by that contract's bylaws. Of course you understand the definition of quasi. When I refer to the Constitution, be it State or United States, as a "contract", I mean it to be quasi. Being you submitted yourself, voluntarily, by joyfully doing your duty as a citizen, by registering to vote, to be under the dominion of your union leaders, representatives, you cannot escape anything your straw boss/shop union foreman (representative) does for or against you. He only represents PUBLIC POLICY! You must pay the tax, any tax, and follow all laws they deem is necessary to keep the political corporate institution from collapsing. It's right in the compact; when you agreed by signing the voters registration, at Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3, or by not voting while claiming "citizenship" by any other control by any agency they create, whether it be in their political sub-division or the corporate headquarters located in Washington, D.C..
Voting was never a "right", it was always a privilege. Now do you know why Henry didn't want to be known as a Virginian but only as an American? And, he didn't say American citizen! As I said, I have everything to back me up, but to keep this short I have to leave out the documentation.
* * *
Let us leave this for a few minutes of break. I do not want you ones to take this as if it comes from Hatonn out of the Cosmos somewhere. You will be remembering the things I tell you and "don't target yourself" is a major warning. I have not changed one iota--we covered all this in one of the first JOURNALS as to truth of circumstance--BUT YOU MUST FUNCTION IN THE WORLD THAT IS and getting yourself incarcerated foolishly or "taken-out" as a troublemaker--makes you some kind of stupid "martyr", self-styled and not very bright in thought and deed. If ever there was a time and need for WISDOM IN THOUGHT AND ACTION--IT IS NOW!
PJ 73
CHAPTER 2
REC #2 HATONN
MON., JULY 12, 1993 11:58 A.M. YEAR 6, DAY 330
MON., JULY 12, 1993
"There is no way a man can make a wise decision unless he be informed--except when the decision is TO BECOME MORE INFORMED." Me.
Let us continue with the document from "The Informer":
PRIVATE COURTS
This leads us to the courts that uphold their scam because you declare you are their subject while espousing their lie, which you believe is the "truth". The constitution is an option quasi-contract, look it up in the law of contracts, which allows the political organization, look up "organization" in the definitions of the Uniform Commercial Code, to shift to the United Nations Charter, by treaty. You, as an associated union member have no say, remember public policy is for the good of the masses and not the individual, and are dragged over to reside in this new contract. Hey, I didn't do it, you did it to yourself by believing the BIG LIE told to you as being the "truth". It ain't nuttin' like you thought, is it? The defacto government cannot write a law for the people in the States as they are forbidden by their Constitution but they can do it by treaty. Case in point is that by 1996, all cars in this country cannot have Freon (R-12) in their air conditioning, they must use R-34. It is based on the problem with the Ozone and its destruction by R-12. That destruction is contrived and put upon the Americans by the controlled news media so that further control can be maintained. So how did the Congress do it? By treaty! This was aired in the last week of April 1993, on national news TV. This is only one of many laws used on us by treaty. Larry Becraft did a good article on this as it went back to 1915 concerning duck hunting and protection of interstate waterfowl when the U.S. and Canada signed the treaty. With the courts being private political institutions, adjudicating, for the most part, private law, it is fatal when you declare yourself a United States or Union State citizen. If you declare yourself a citizen of the Republic State of the Union, because you want a "Republican" form of government, here is what you openly declared to the private court: That you are subject to the political corporate sub-division (State) of the political corporate organization called the United States. I received a letter from a man in Minnesota who used my advice and asked questions of the Sec. of the State of Minnesota. The Office of the Secretary stated this: "The state of Minnesota is not a corporation, it is a state. The county of Hubbard is not a corporation, it is a county. These are political subdivisions, while corporations are business entities." Note that they made state and county in small case. Had they capitalized them it would be corporate and could not say they were not a corporation. Either the person writing it was extremely ignorant or knew exactly what they were doing because all the headings on the corporate letterhead in reference to Minnesota contained the capitalized word State. Don't you capitalize the term State when writing, so why didn't they? [H: Be very, very careful how you do these things, chelas, for I catch two impossibilities right here, myself, regarding definitions, terms and grammar. "Office of the stated..." The "office" could not "state" anything. And, "they" thus and so. "They" couldn't have stated anything either unless the sentence was written by more than ONE party. I do not intend to belabor the point for the concept may be totally correct--but when you nit-pick details--the meaning of a statement can be so altered as to NEVER have "like" defining. Be very cautious as to how you utilize ANYTHING because you may be WELL INFORMED but I believe this example shows very well the fact that MOST, IF NOT NEARLY ALL, MISUNDERSTAND OR HAVEN'T EVEN THE MOST FOGGY IDEA OF THAT WHICH YOU MEAN. Moreover, IF you make it to court (Admiralty as is now prevalent) you will be tossed out on your ear and IF you continue to harass the Judge he will aptly toss you in jail for contempt. What is "legal" is probably NOT what is "right" OR lawful--but if "he" has the GUN--it is legal. If, however, YOU have the gun--you are dead! The Ideal is wondrous to consider--it is not necessarily the best avenue to travel.] So they were talking about only one of the states of the State, see the Texas courts conclusion [H: See, again right here: is the way this is written literal or not properly attended?: Texas courts conclusion, or Texas' courts conclusion, or Texas court's conclusion OR Texas courts' conclusion. I only mean to make nit-picking detailed attention to this because most often the "slips" are exactly THAT--simple ignorant "slips". You CAN base court action and decision on these errors--but haven't you had enough blithering error judgments AND/OR errors in judgement? You choose.] to see what I mean, of course the court capitalized both terms. Joe lunchbucket [H: Hold up here, is that REALLY Joe (L)unchbucket as written or Joe (L)unchbucket? I may appear totally insulting to this author--I AM NOT! It is simply that you cannot have IT both ways! If your errors are "OK" then the "their" errors are also subject to being "OK"--do you see? IT IS THE "CONCEPT" THAT IS NOT "OK" OR NOT "OK"!] would rather believe the BIG LIE than the truth [H: Again--YOU can only ASSUME or calculate or guess WHAT Joe (L)(1)unchbucket may or may not WANT to believe.] because by this time it is causing him a headache. So let's see why their lie rules over the truth. Case in point being Texas v. White, wherein the court stated very clearly: "From the date of admission. until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired." [H: Ah, but TEXAS under any circumstances is not a good example--TEXAS is the only State state that has a treaty which must be signed ANNUALLY to be a member of this union Union. Are you confused? Of course--that was my full intent. You cannot make informed conclusions with only bits of information--I don't care WHERE they come from. I make plenty of errors, my secretary gets so frustrated she threatens to "quit" daily--so ALL are subject to err ("sin"--against something or another) but I do not base my conclusions on such flimsy foundations of "argument" for this is "argument" and not debate at all. I can postulate that the sky is green and only APPEARS blue and, as a matter of fact--"I" will have spoken truth--for it is all in the refraction of LIGHT as perceived by the individual EYE. I don't want to do this but neither can I caution you readers enough--pay attention.]
Please note that people cannot join the Union, only States can and the State has representatives, not the people. If the people want to be recognized as part of that State they join by voting and then call themselves citizens of the State of Texas, who gave up their God given rights to join a corporate State. Remember, people are not citizens (union associates), until subjecting themselves to a sovereign (union leaders), thereby giving up certain rights. Gee, why don't you now go back to 26 USC 77-1 (a) (1) and look for the term association that describes "person". Why did you think that term didn't apply to you? The BIG LIE rules again. Then by compact (constitutions) you are granted certain rights by the by-laws (statutes). Your remedy is only in the bylaws, NOT in the Natural Law rights you gave up by entering the compact. Isn't any man free to make contract? Why it even says so in the Constitution, doesn't it, by stating government shall not obligate a contract. Continuing on the court states:
The court's conclusion is this. "Our conclusion therefore is. that Texas continued to be a State. and a State of the Union. notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. The obligations of allegiance to the State, and of the obedience to her laws. subject to the Constitution of the United States. are binding upon all citizens, whether faithful or unfaithful to them."
Isn't that interesting, she was a State AND a State of the Union. Just a little while back didn't I say Minnesota was defining one of the states of the State? You readers had better understand the english language [H: And so must the author--you wouldn't get an A in "language" if you left (E)nglish as (e)nglish as you have in this document. Or, did your secretary note or miss this? Are YOU as author responsible--OR is there hidden meaning in the lack of capitalization?] and how they subvert the definitions to suit their means. For if you don't, you never will grasp the meaning of the sentence. [H: But you see, even by paying very, very close attention to every letter of every word--I still don't understand the intent or the meaning. Since Texas joined the union Union through annual renewal of TREATY--how can you determine how a person fits or does not fit--for the state State does not fit into any of the above categories except THROUGH misperception of everything about the circumstance--and total ignorance of the ones handling the "books".]
* * *
I am going to leave this presentation because it is bogging down into "opinion" based on "errors" from the original writer, to the author of this dissertation to my own probable misrepresentations to make a point.
You can go all the way through the document and find that perhaps a thing "should" be a given way--BUT THE FACTS ARE: IT AIN'T THAT WAY. YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH AND WITHIN THAT WHICH IS. IF YOU CONTINUE ON THE NIT-PICKING--YOU WILL MISS THE CONCEPT. YOU MAY WELL CONVINCE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE TO DEMAND A RESPELLING OR CAPITALIZATION OF WORDS--BUT YOU WON'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT MAKE THE ONES IN CHARGE--VERY ANGRY AND HARD TO DEAL WITH.
It is far better to understand "what went wrong", "what IS wrong" and how did it happen--than all this reconstruction. Not that it should not be done--it simply will make so little impact and difference as to set you behind in your "do it right" task. It simply is not the way it "should" be, perhaps for--for goodness sakes, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make law--only interpret the law--BUT THEY MAKE LAW AND IT CAN IMPRISON YOU THROUGH FORCE-BEARERS. DO YOU have the time, money, space and "pull" to get what "should be" (in your opinion) changed? You MAY WELL BE RIGHT--but I simply want to know if YOU have what is required to get it changed?
Here is where I have to inquire of you--just who is this INFORMER? Is his information true or false? Oh? How do you know? Are you going to "take action" based on his information? Why?, and what are you going to do? It reminds me just a bit of the story of the two cars that collided in the middle of the intersection. The car to the right had the right-of-way and the driver was killed. The car at the left did not have the right-of-way--but lived to walk away and drive another day. Actually, both arrived at the same instant (which is the reason the car at the right had the right-of-way). Now, the driver to the "right" COULD have stopped and there would have been no collision--but having the "right-of-way" plowed right on into the fray. So, he was right--DEAD right! How many of YOU are going to be DEAD RIGHT?
You may have every right to that automatic sub-machine gun--but I'll tell you, when the ATF comes to get it (and you)--you will be DEAD right if you argue.
Now, I "feel" your response to all this writing drifting back to me as, "Why did you waste all this time on this story just to point out the errors of the author?" What makes you conclude such a thing? Did I say the author is WRONG? Is he RIGHT? Do you have enough information to base a conclusion? What are you going to do about it? IT IS NOT THE AUTHOR'S OPINIONS OR INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT (AND HE HAS ABOUT 8 MORE PAGES THAN GIVEN)--WHAT DO YOU THINK? Will you set this aside and never think of it again or will you not sleep until you acquire the remaining pages and lose yourself in weeks of research? WHY? Will endless research into this and/or the author bring you closer into the realization of Truth in/through God? Will this approach bring your nation whole within God's charter? What are YOU REALLY trying to get accomplished? ARE YOU APT TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU DEEM CORRECT--THROUGH PERSONAL BATTLE IN THE NATION'S CORRUPT COURT SYSTEM OR FIGHTING THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO BE WHAT YOU THINK OR EVEN "KNOW" TO BE YOUR "RIGHT"? ARE WE NOW BACK RIGHT WHERE WE STARTED?
Does this "Informer" have a history of excellence and perfection in concept and interpretation? How do you know? Let me share a truth with you, readers.
If you want to convince someone of something the best way to do it is to get it in PRINT and published. Then, the next important thing is to get an "expert" to state the "thing". Speak with authority and throw a bunch of credentials around and you have a sure bet. Put it on television as a documentary (not just a commentary) and thus and so. Is the "Informer's" opinion actually as good as yours if you go read, say, Mr. Spooner's book? Who is this Mr. Spooner? Who told you? Chelas, you are going to have to DISCERN for self, form opinion for self, hopefully with wise research into what is available and DIG beneath the "obvious". If the "Informer" is so SURE of his own pronouncements--why does he not sign his label? Oh, "Hatonn said he didn't, for 'privacy'." What does Hatonn know about this Informer? Hatonn knows a whole lot about one, John Nelson, but almost NOTHING about the Informer OR Spooner. I KNOW GOD and I KNOW GOD'S LAWS (CONSTITUTION) AND IT IS AGAINST THOSE LAWS THAT I RELATE AND COMPARE EVERY OTHER EXPRESSION. I DO NOT FIGHT OTHER LAWS--I SIMPLY LIVE GOD'S LAWS AND EFFORT TO ABIDE BY THOSE RULES LAID FORTH IN ANY EXPRESSION IN WHICH I EXPERIENCE. YOU MUST COME TO KNOW--YOU CAN DO BOTH!
There is no magic, chelas. There is no fairy god-mother with gossamer wings to make "your" way the "right" way. And, how do you KNOW "your way" is the right way? You can only deal with that WHICH IS--to the very best of your ability within the laws of God--minute by minute, step by step. In so-doing you will be shown the WAY! You must really study to see IF a thing is broken, then, if it be broken, what is required to fix it? In the fixing if you use the incorrect approach--how long will the "fix" last or have you insured worse "breaking" of the thing? At best or worst (interpretation, again) has a Bandaid worked or only postponed the REAL problem's confrontation? Now, let us suppose that you cannot survive without this "thing". Do you not try to make it useable someway WHILE you work at the REAL PROBLEMS and build something with which it can be repaired?
Let us go further and assume you need a "figity gibit" to REALLY fix the "thing". Ah, you go to the figity-gibit place and the man in charge laughs at you and says, nope, I have one but you can't have it. What can you do? You can bargain with the man, bribe the man, threaten the man, etc. So, you choose to pay the man a fair price and pull out your gun and prepare to "take" the f.g. Oops, HE has an automatic Carthegenian floozy-whopper ten times the size of your little .22 hand-pistol. WHO STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE FIGITY-GIBIT? You STILL don't know because YOU don't know what is an automatic Carthegenian floozy-whopper! What you don't know CAN KILL YOU! Can you not further see that if worse comes to worse and you hold your own but he holds the f.g.--he can smash it and YOU STILL DON'T HAVE THE PART YOU NEED!?
Mr. Spooner AND the INFORMER can be "right", "correct" and totally "accurate"--WILL THEIR APPROACH WORK?? Will it work enough to pull a whole nation and then, world, into realignment--in time to save the economy, the figity gibit, freedom, the judicial system, et al.? In other words, are THESE WORDS of the Informer the key to the Kingdom? Do you want my opinion? Will MY opinion give YOU a figity-gibit? I thought NOT. But, if you go within and ask help and guidance--HE may well give you some alternatives and the figity gibit be damned!
Just in our own instance, 78 JOURNALS plus thousands of pages of other writings and thousands of hours of tapes TELL YOU THAT GOD WELL GIVE YOU INSIGHT AND POSSIBILITIES--BUT YOU HAVE TO USE IT--JUST SITTING ON THE SHELF WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING.
Some people will say "take action even if it is wrong"! What nonsense--it seems to me that that is what your civilization has been blindly doing since you got on that stage. Why not see what IS, study it in wisdom then take action in a way that might be "right"? Surely you don't have anything to lose either way? Oh? Except everything you are and everything you have! There actually ARE some instances where wise inaction can save your assets. If you are going to make a lemon cake, for instance, don't you first consider the cake and THEN consider how to make it "lemon" flavored? I know of no way to make lemon cake out of a bushel of tomatoes or a peck of spinach. So why do you ones continually try to make "righteousness" from "evil"? Create right--and evil is dead! So, what IS the problem? I thought you would never ask?
YOU MUST LEARN WHAT IS AND THEN LEARN TO CREATE, NOT CONTINUE TO DESTROY--USING THAT WHICH IS ALREADY CREATED IN ERROR! Just look carefully at all you have which has not, does not and will not--ever work.
This means that you must constantly be in remembering and in finding cause so that you can consider effect--and it will need be for every limiting problem in the cracking and breaking foundation of everything around and within you. Let us just take your national debt as a for instance. It isn't a spiritual subject but how much do you know and UNDERSTAND just about your national debt? How about your own personal debt? Unless you can see what has gotten you to "here" how can you expect to move on into a "new" system? You may very well re-invent the same or worse, system.
Let me share an excellent brief:
WHY WE ARE IN DEBT.....PERMANENTLY!
By: Nick Repac
(He even gives a phone number, he is so open to sharing.)
Let me give you something to consider. Tomorrow you go down to your local bank and borrow $10,000. As most of us already know there is actually no money in the bank (except for a few miscellaneous savings accounts and CDs) so to complete your transaction, the bank 'creates' (Of course, they do this by law. There is nothing illegal in this transaction. Just immoral.) $10,000 and credits it to your checking account. You execute a note for $10,000 at 10% interest (keeps the math simple) due in one year and present it to the bank in exchange for your 'deposit'. In one year, to the day, prompt as always, you return to the bank and pay them the $10,000 back. This completes the bookkeeping on the original creation of $10,000. It was created from nothing one year ago, and it is destroyed by your return of the funds.
Hold it, King's-X, time-out, take a break. I can see the smirks from here. That comes from talking about this for so many years and watching people's reaction when I tell them "the money disappears". Money can't just appear and disappear! I mean, get real! But it CAN just appear and disappear when you use a debt based monetary system. That is, a system where you pass debt back and forth as money. That's what we use. Money based on debt. If we don't have debt we don't have money.
Since the money did not exist until you borrowed it and put it into play in the economy, it can hardly exist after the destruction of the original note, or means of creation. This is the explanation of the real problem with our system. We do not have a permanent MONEY SYSTEM. That means that the amount of 'money' (debt) in existence at any given time is solely at the whim of private bankers whose motto is "the end justifies the means" and "might makes right".
This also means that EVERY dollar in existence collects interest for every moment it exists. There is no 'free' money, except for a very small amount of U.S. Notes, or Government issued money, dating from the Civil War. To explain this a little better, remember that a debt-based monetary system is actually just a bookkeeping system for debt. In other words, there is actually no money. We just pass debt back and forth as if it were money. Since the "actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks" (from a November 1, 1982, letter from the Department of the Treasury), nothing can exist except debt! The answer, of course, is that you can not! ...always involves the extension of credit...., credit equals debt. Therefore, the only 'money' available to operate our economy is the amount of debt available each year. Remember, 99% of all 'debt money' used in this Nation does not exist except as ink on some bank's computer print-out, and exists solely at the whim of the banker. You must never stop borrowing or have your 'credit' shut off or you have a recession, or in the extreme case, a depression. And since this type of monetary system is actually nothing but a bookkeeping system for debt, all entries must balance. When you borrow 'money', a bookkeeping entry is made to create the funds. When you pay the 'money' back, a corresponding entry is made to destroy the funds. It can't work any other way.
But wait! Now the $10,000 has a 'tail'. A tail called interest. The $1,000 that you owe to the bank for the use of their bookkeeping entry. Actually, after you understand how the system works, what you owe to the bank for borrowing 'nothing'. Where did the interest come from? The bank didn't 'create' it. They only 'created' the original $10,000. So who created it? Did you? And I'm not talking about your labor. Have you authority to 'create' money? NO? Then where did the $1,000 come from? We realize that it was never 'created', so the only place it could come from is the same place all other 'money' comes from: "someone else's debt".
NO ONE HAS EVER 'CREATED' ANYTHING TO PAY THE INTEREST! Let me put this another way. Suppose that $10,000 you borrowed was the only money in existence. Real money, not debt. Gold, and no other gold exists except that $10,000. And you borrow it under the condition that you repay $11,000 in gold in one year and if you agree to do this you have agreed to do the impossible. Does it not make sense, then, that every time we borrow 'created' money we agree to do the impossible?
Let's go back to our bookkeeping system for debt. The $10,000 you borrowed was 'created' by a bookkeeping entry and when you paid it back it was 'extinguished' by a corresponding bookkeeping entry. In order to 'extinguish' the interest out of the bookkeeping system for debt, there has to be two corresponding entries. Since the first bookkeeping entry, the 'creation' of the interest, does not exist, the interest can never be extinguished but must stay within the system and accumulate as permanent debt collecting more and more compound interest. Sounds just like a banker's dream, doesn't it?
Let me explain this very clearly, almost 95% of the 16+ trillions of dollars of debt of this Nation has been caused by the compound interest we pay on all of the debt carried by both the public and private sectors of our Nation through the 'creation' of money by our banks. This accumulation of debt has occurred since 1940 and shows the power of compound interest. This interest (debt due to the banks for the use of their bookkeeping entries) to the banks is primarily paid by the massive deficits our Government runs and pumps into the system. This interest can never be paid! It can only accumulate as permanent debt within the system and becomes a permanent mortgage on the people of the Nation through taxation for the benefit of the International Bankers.
This is an exact prescription for economic slavery and can only result in higher and higher taxes. There is no other result possible. The man who devised this system was named Rothschild and he and his descendants have used this system, coupled with bribery and corruption of government officials and of the European Royalty, to obtain a chokehold on the economic fortunes of the world through ever increasing amounts of unpayable debts (interest). As time went on they brought other families and lesser individuals who were willing to do their bidding into their plan as accomplices. Would it surprise you to know that everything you see happening in America today (our problems) was predicted by Rothschild in the manuscript he wrote in 1773? This plan to enslave the world through economic slavery has been carried out over a long period of time. Naturally, I'm supposed to assume that this has occurred by chance because it surely could not be a "conspiracy"!?!
The ultimate result of this system is the destruction of the middle class, exactly as we see it happening in America today, leaving a thin slice of extremely rich at the very top. Everyone else, except those working for the very rich, are left to pay a crushing burden of taxes for the direct benefit of those same Elite Rich. This will eventually leave almost nothing for the average citizen to subsist on. At that point you will not have to wonder who the homeless are or what it feels like to go to bed hungry because you will know ! The American people now pay between 60 and 65% of their incomes in taxes. How close are we to the end, then, when they repossess all of the real property we owe so much 'money' on just as they took our gold and silver? All for our 'excesses' in borrowing 'NOTHING'!
And, of course, our inattention and our unwillingness to face reality. We insist in judging others by our own moral absolutes when these men and their minions have no morals. They have nothing except an insatiable appetite for more money and power, and THEY OWN YOUR FEDERAL RESERVE! Are you willing to join their 'beneficent' dictatorship, their "New World Order"?
If not--then stand up and BE COUNTED!
Nick Repac
7-10-93
In the next writing I will ask Dharma to effort to locate Dr. Peter Beter's information on "A new gold standard" as given in lecture form on 8/25/81. You must understand that there are other clever manipulators involved as well as are the Rothschilds, etc. Remember the "Rockefellers"? How many of you remember those Bolsheviks we did so much writing about lo, so many months ago? It's time to drag them out, dust them off and look again at how you got into this dastardly trap! We don't even have to go back to formation of the Federal Reserve--we can hop in anywhere. If you want to know about the Federal Reserve, get our book on same--or, get Eustace Mullins' book, THE SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. We don't have it here so I can't ask Dharma to go look up the information--it is easy to find, however, for it is probably the most plagiarized book in existence today.
Most of you regular readers, however, already know enough to make sense out of "just jumping in" and allowing others to do their homework and "catch up".
When our "troops" get control of those prior JOURNALS, we consider them so damaged as to be relatively "worthless" as collateral so I believe the volumes will be released at no more than half the original price of $10. So, if you are raring to get at them--WAIT A LITTLE WHILE UNTIL WE CAN PRY THEM LOOSE. I suspect the only actual "value" can now be calculated at the rate of "pounds" of scrap-paper. This was the value Mr. Green placed on "getting the word out" it seems.
Enough for today. Thank you.
Tags, 상세검색
PJ#073, RELATIVE CONNECTIONS VOL. I
