THE RISE AND FALL OF AMERICA.

THE RISE AND FALL OF AMERICA.

America is heading for major disaster.

The President of United States and the Rogue Supreme Judges have conspired to destroy the (counterfeit) constitution of America. They have been planning this for a long time but God has not permitted them to do it unto now, you will see it happen 2019 or 2022. 

 There are two reasons why they want to destroy it. (1) So they can start and create One World Government that will be run by their man, which is the anti- Christ who will be most likely come to power sometime from 2019 to 2022. You cannot have two world powers competing, therefore, America as a super power must be destroyed. (2) First destroy the (counterfeit) constitution so they can disarm the general public of their right to carry guns. The Americans won’t take this sitting down; they will fight this Presidential Ruling for the next seven years!!

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1868.htm

Therefore, the President will declare Marshal Law and will use one million armed forces to fulfill their wicked plans. They will destroy greatly; 90,000,000 Americans will be arrested and thrown into concentration camps, many to never to be released.

http://jediknightsquad.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/hidden-agendas-of-secret-societies.html

 Most of them will be raped and murdered in satanic rituals to give more power to those who believe in a New World Order. If there is no constitution, there will be no access to judges, lawyers or a fair trial. Because of this situation arising, the U.S. Government will start to weaken and it strength as a super power will self-destruct; slavery and marshal law will be implemented.

The President acts if he is a God, The President acts if he is a King,

The President acts if he is a Christian. What do you think? Is he!

http://www.jahtruth.net/nsongad.htm

http://www.jahtruth.net/comand.htm

The Presidents Administration think they are above the law (Torah, God’s law) and also the rogue Judges think so too. This is known as sedition, Satan did this a long time ago and God threw him out of heaven because he wanted to be a God and a King.

The American Public have failed to stand for Truth http://www.jahtruth.net/truth.htm

and because of this the Obama Administration has almost-they have already destroyed the (counterfeit) constitution One day soon the President with just one stroke of his gold pen (no need to, since 9/11 he said I AM ABOVE THE LAW,-I make my laws, I will make the (Counterfeit) constitution obsolete. Why, Has He not done that already?  The President and the rogue Judges have been elected to serve the American Public. The constitution was written for all 322,583,006 American Publics benefit. 
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/10/5-triggering-events-place-u-s-martial-law.html?
So they could live in peace, have freedom and be protected from evil men. But evil men in high places have been corrupted by power, lust, greed and making a name for themselves. Pride comes before a fall. God in his wisdom will let evil men reign but shortly He will judge all nations according to their actions and motives. America is going fast towards a major downfall.

Shredding the Magna Carta

OBAMA HAS A Military Industrial Complex, IN OTHER WORDS HE IS INSANE, CRAZY AND A RUTHLESS DICTATOR. OBAMA IS THE CAUSE OF THE WAR TO COME and all 7.25 billion of us human+beings will suffer directly because of him.
you must understand that Obama is ONLY a puppet on a string, he has no power whatsoever. The real power is satan, the devil where all evil flows from...PERIOD.
Russia Issues Full-Scale War Alert As West Faces Financial Armageddon

The Obama Administration wants to rip up not just the Bill of Rights. It's going after the Magna Carta, too. It wants to do away with habeas corpus, the essential, 800-year-old right that allows the accused to appear before a judge and plead.

Please go to http://jahtruth.net/mastplan.htm

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the pre-eminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.
You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

THE RISE AND FALL OF AMERICA.

CHAPTER ONE                                     Text of the Magna Carta

CHAPTER TWO                                           THE ROGUE JUDGES

CHAPTER THREE                                YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED

CHAPTER FOUR                   Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman Murders

CHAPTER FIVE                300000 HUMANS BEINGS MURDERED

CHAPTER SIX               Zionists Murder Unarmed Policewoman

CHAPTER SEVEN                               MARSHAL LAW 2017-2018

CHAPTER EIGHT                                 CONCENTRATION CAMPS

CHAPTER NINE                               THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE

                                                                    BEEN DECEIVED AND BETRAYED

CHAPTER TEN                                                 GOG AND MAGOG

CHAPTER ELEVEN                                            ALIENS AND UFO

CHAPTER TWELF        TEN MAJOR INVENTS - USA AND ISRAEL

           CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE MASTER PLAN OF THE ILLUMINATED ROTHSCHILD’S:

CHAPTER FOURTEEN                                     THE REASON WHY

CHAPTER FIFTEEN                             CLINTONS IMPEACHMENT

CHAPTER SIXTEEN                                     WORLD WAR THREE

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN                                       THE WAY HOME

CHAPTER ONE

Text of the Magna Carta

As might be expected, the text of the Magna Carta of 1215 bears many traces of haste, and is clearly the product of much bargaining and many hands. Most of its clauses deal with specific, and often long-standing, grievances rather than with general principles of law. Some of the grievances are self-explanatory: others can be understood only in the context of the feudal society in which they arose. Of a few clauses, the precise meaning is still a matter of argument.

In feudal society, the king's barons held their lands `in fee' (feudum) from the king, for an oath to him of loyalty and obedience, and with the obligation to provide him with a fixed number of knights whenever these were required for military service. At first the barons provided the knights by dividing their estates (of which the largest and most important were known as `honours') into smaller parcels described as `knights' fees', which they distributed to tenants able to serve as knights. But by the time of King John it had become more convenient and usual for the obligation for service to be commuted for a cash payment known as `scutage', and for the revenue so obtained to be used to maintain paid armies.

Besides military service, feudal custom allowed the king to make certain other exactions from his barons. In times of emergency, and on such special occasions as the marriage of his eldest daughter, he could demand from them a financial levy known as an `aid' (auxilium). When a baron died, he could demand a succession duty or `relief' (relevium) from the baron's heir. If there was no heir, or if the succession was disputed, the baron's lands could be forfeited or `escheated' to the Crown. If the heir was under age, the king could assume the guardianship of his estates, and enjoy all the profits from them-ven to the extent of despoliation-until the heir came of age. The king had the right, if he chose, to sell such a guardianship to the highest bidder, and to sell the heir himself in marriage for such price as the value of his estates would command. The widows and daughters of barons might also be sold in marriage. With their own tenants, the barons could deal similarly.

The scope for extortion and abuse in this system, if it were not benevolently applied, was obviously great and had been the subject of complaint long before King John came to the throne. Abuses were, moreover, aggravated by the difficulty of obtaining redress for them, and in Magna Carta the provision of the means for obtaining a fair hearing of complaints, not only against the king and his agents but against lesser feudal lords, achieves corresponding importance.

About two-thirds of the clauses of the Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned with matters such as these and with the misuse of their powers by royal officials. As regards other topics, the first clause, conceding the freedom of the Church, and in particular confirming its right to elect its own dignitaries without royal interference, reflects John's dispute with the Pope over Stephen Langton's election as archbishop of Canterbury: it does not appear in the Articles of the Barons, and its somewhat stilted phrasing seems in part to be attempting to justify its inclusion, none the less, in the charter itself. The clauses that deal with the royal forests), over which the king had special powers and jurisdiction, reflect the disquiet and anxieties that had arisen on account of a longstanding royal tendency to extend the forest boundaries, to the detriment of the holders of the lands affected. Those that deal with debts reflect administrative problems created by the chronic scarcity of ready cash among the upper and middle classes, and their need to resort to money-lenders when this was required. The clause promising the removal of fish-weirs was intended to facilitate the navigation of rivers. A number of clauses deal with the special circumstances that surrounded the making of the charter, and are such as might be found in any treaty of peace. Others, such as those relating to the city of London and to merchants clearly represent concessions to special interests.

Magna Carta and Its American Legacy

Before penning the Declaration of Independence--the first of the American Charters of Freedom--in 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament. They found it in a gathering that took place 561 years earlier on the plains of Runnymede, not far from where Windsor Castle stands today. There, on June 15, 1215, an assembly of barons confronted a despotic and cash-strapped King John and demanded that traditional rights be recognized, written down, confirmed with the royal seal, and sent to each of the counties to be read to all freemen. The result was Magna Carta--a momentous achievement for the English barons and, nearly six centuries later, an inspiration for angry American colonists.

Magna Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous foreign policy and overzealous financial administration. John had suffered a staggering blow the previous year, having lost an important battle to King Philip II at Bouvines and with it all hope of regaining the French lands he had inherited. When the defeated John returned from the Continent, he attempted to rebuild his coffers by demanding scutage (a fee paid in lieu of military service) from the barons who had not joined his war with Philip. The barons in question, predominantly lords of northern estates, protested, condemning John's policies and insisting on a reconfirmation of Henry I's Coronation Oath (1100), which would, in theory, limit the king's ability to obtain funds. (As even Henry ignored the provisions of this charter, however, a reconfirmation would not necessarily guarantee fewer taxes.) But John refused to withdraw his demands, and by spring most baronial families began to take sides. The rebelling barons soon faltered before John's superior resources, but with the unexpected capture of London, they earned a substantial bargaining chip. John agreed to grant a charter.

The document conceded by John and set with his seal in 1215, however, was not what we know today as Magna Carta but rather a set of baronial stipulations, now lost, known as the "Articles of the barons." After John and his barons agreed on the final provisions and additional wording changes, they issued a formal version on June 19, and it is this document that came to be known as Magna Carta. Of great significance to future generations was a minor wording change, the replacement of the term "any baron" with "any freeman" in stipulating to whom the provisions applied. Over time, it would help justify the application of the Charter's provisions to a greater part of the population. While freemen were a minority in 13th-century England, the term would eventually include all English, just as "We the People" would come to apply to all Americans in this century.

While Magna Carta would one day become a basic document of the British Constitution, democracy and universal protection of ancient liberties were not among the barons' goals. The Charter was a feudal document and meant to protect the rights and property of the few powerful families that topped the rigidly structured feudal system. In fact, the majority of the population, the thousands of unfree labourers, are only mentioned once, in a clause concerning the use of court-set fines to punish minor offences. Magna Carta's primary purpose was restorative: to force King John to recognize the supremacy of ancient liberties, to limit his ability to raise funds, and to reassert the principle of "due process." Only a final clause, which created an enforcement council of tenants-in-chief, and clergymen, would have severely limited the king's power and introduced something new to English law: the principle of "majority rule." But majority rule was an idea whose time had not yet come; in September, at John's urging, Pope Innocent II annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear." The civil war that followed ended only with John's death in October 1216.

On indefinite loan from the Perot Foundation, a 1297 version of Magna Carta shares space with the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives Rotunda.

To gain support for the new monarch--John's 9-year-old son, Henry III--the young king's regents reissued the charter in 1217. Neither this version nor that issued by Henry when he assumed personal control of the throne in 1225 were exact duplicates of John's charter; both lacked some provisions, including that providing for the enforcement council, found in the original. With the 1225 issuance, however, the evolution of the document ended. While English monarchs, including Henry, confirmed Magna Carta several times after this, each subsequent issue followed the form of this "final" version. With each confirmation, copies of the document were made and sent to the counties so that everyone would know their rights and obligations. Of these original issues of Magna Carta, 17 survive: 4 from the reign of John; 8 from that of Henry III; and 5 from Edward I, including the version now on display at the National Archives.

Although tradition and interpretation would one day make Magna Carta a document of great importance to both England and the American colonies, it originally granted concessions to few but the powerful baronial families. It did include concessions to the Church, merchants, townsmen, and the lower aristocracy for their aid in the rebellion, but the majority of the English population would remain without an active voice in government for another 700 years.

Despite its historical significance, however, Magna Carta may have remained legally inconsequential had it not been resurrected and reinterpreted by Sir Edward Coke in the early 17th century. Coke, Attorney General for Elizabeth, Chief Justice during the reign of James, and a leader in Parliament in opposition to Charles I, used Magna Carta as a weapon against the oppressive tactics of the Stuart kings. Coke argued that even kings must comply to common law. As he proclaimed to Parliament in 1628, "Magna Carta . . . will have no sovereign."

Lord Coke's view of the law was particularly relevant to the American experience for it was during this period that the charters for the colonies were written. Each included the guarantee that those sailing for the New World and their heirs would have "all the rights and immunities of free and natural subjects." As our forefathers developed legal codes for the colonies, many incorporated liberties guaranteed by Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights directly into their own statutes. Although few colonists could afford legal training in England, they remained remarkably familiar with English common law. During one parliamentary debate in the late 18th century, Edmund Burke observed, "In no country, perhaps in the world, is law so general a study." Through Coke, whose four-volume Institutes of the Laws of England was widely read by American law students, young colonists such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison learned of the spirit of the charter and the common law--or at least Coke's interpretation of them. Later, Jefferson would write to Madison of Coke: "a sounder whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties." It is no wonder then that as the colonists prepared for war they would look to Coke and Magna Carta for justification.

By the 1760s the colonists had come to believe that in America they were creating a place that adopted the best of the English system but adapted it to new circumstances; a place where a person could rise by merit, not birth; a place where men could voice their opinions and actively share in self-government. But these beliefs were soon tested. Following the costly Seven Years' War, Great Britain was burdened with substantial debts and the continuing expense of keeping troops on American soil. Parliament thought the colonies should finance much of their own defence and levied the first direct tax, the Stamp Act, in 1765. As a result, virtually every document--newspapers, licenses, insurance policies, legal writs, even playing cards--would have to carry a stamp showing that required taxes had been paid. The colonists rebelled against such control over their daily affairs. Their own elected legislative bodies had not been asked to consent to the Stamp Act. The colonists argued that without either this local consent or direct representation in Parliament, the act was "taxation without representation." They also objected to the law's provision that those who disobeyed could be tried in admiralty courts without a jury of their peers. Coke's influence on Americans showed clearly when the Massachusetts Assembly reacted by declaring the Stamp Act "against the Magna Carta and the natural rights of Englishmen, and therefore, according to Lord Coke, null and void."

But regardless of whether the charter forbade taxation without representation or if this was merely implied by the "spirit," the colonists used this "misinterpretation" to condemn the Stamp Act. To defend their objections, they turned to a 1609 or 1610 defence argument used by Coke: superiority of the common law over acts of Parliament. Coke claimed "When an act of parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act void. Because the Stamp Act seemed to tread on the concept of consensual taxation, the colonists believed it, "according to Lord Coke," invalid.

The colonists were enraged. Benjamin Franklin and others in England eloquently argued the American case, and Parliament quickly rescinded the bill. But the damage was done; the political climate was changing. As John Adams later wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was affected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."

Relations between Great Britain and the colonies continued to deteriorate. The more Parliament tried to raise revenue and suppress the growing unrest, the more the colonists demanded the charter rights they had brought with them a century and a half earlier. At the height of the Stamp Act crisis, William Pitt proclaimed in Parliament, "The Americans are the sons not the bastards of England." Parliament and the Crown, however, appeared to believe otherwise. But the Americans would have their rights, and they would fight for them. The seal adopted by Massachusetts on the eve of the Revolution summed up the mood--a militiaman with sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other.

Armed resistance broke out in April 1775. Fifteen months later, the final break was made with the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Although the colonies had finally and irrevocably articulated their goal, Independence did not come swiftly. Not until the surrender of British forces at Yorktown in 1781 was the military struggle won. The constitutional battle, however, was just beginning.

In the war's aftermath, many Americans recognized that the rather loose confederation of states would have to be strengthened if the new nation were to survive. James Madison expressed these concerns in a call for a convention at Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation: "The good people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether they will by wise and magnanimous efforts reap the just fruits of that Independence which they so gloriously acquired . . . or whether by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution." The representatives of the states listened to Madison and drew heavily from his ideas. Instead of revising the Articles, they created a new form of government, embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Authority emanated directly from the people, not from any governmental body. And the Constitution would be "the supreme Law of the Land"--just as Magna Carta had been deemed superior to other statutes.

Conclusion

In 1215, when King John confirmed Magna Carta with his seal, he was acknowledging the now firmly embedded concept that no man--not even the king--is above the law. That was a milestone in constitutional thought for the 13th century and for centuries to come. In 1779 John Adams expressed it this way: "A government of laws, and not of men." Further, the charter established important individual rights that have a direct legacy in the American Bill of Rights. And during the United States' history, these rights have been expanded. The U.S. Constitution is not a static document. (1) Like Magna Carta, it has been interpreted and reinterpreted throughout the years. This has allowed the Constitution to become the longest-lasting constitution in the world and a model for those penned by other nations. Through judicial review and amendment, it has evolved (2) so that today Americans--regardless of gender, race, or creed--can enjoy the liberties (3) and protection (4) it guarantees. Just as Magna Carta stood as a bulwark against tyranny in England, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights today serve similar roles, protecting the individual freedoms of all Americans against arbitrary (5) and capricious  (6) rule.

The conclusion is the biggest deception invented by man. If you believe what has been written above to be true, then you have been robbed by the anti-christ deception already. To explain myself I will relate it to the Character of God and His Laws that never change.

(1)              The U.S. Constitution is not a static document. It should be static but you have rogue judges that have destroyed it. However, the Word of God is static. It never changes, God’s Ten Commandments have never changed but man’s view of them has.  http://www.jahtruth.net/comand.htm

(2)              Evolved? The Character of God and His Laws have never evolved or changed. His Laws are a written Testament against the wickedness of men’s hearts.                                                                                 

(3)              Liberties? America is enslaved to greed, lust and is full of pride. They are marching to a major downfall. True freedom is found in Yahshua and His Precious Blood that washes away our sin.  http://www.jahtruth.net/syst.htm

(4)              Protection? If you want protection, whether you are guilty or innocent, money is the key to everything so they think. The innocent suffer while evil men get promoted. The Lord is my Shepard, I shall lack nothing. . Psalm 23:  His Angels will place a guard around me and protect me from the wicked one.  Psalm 91:

(5)              Arbitrary/ Autocrat. A ruler who has absolute power. Such as a dictatorship. Supreme Judges and the President of U.S.A. right now have absolute power; therefore, they are the dictators of American laws and policies. However, The true King is Yahshua. Follow Him.    http://www.jahtruth.net/fightfor.htm

(6)              Capricious; given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour. Today’s politicians can never agree on anything worthy and change their minds so much; they don’t know what they believe. Their morals and ethics are corrupt and can base their values on nothing positive. However, God’s Character and Word is positive and will never be corrupted.  http://www.jahtruth.net/defin.htm

CHAPTER TWO

THE ROGUE JUDGES

Rogue Judges have been strangling U.S.A. democracy for 200 years.

Sometime in the past an unknown Supreme Judge has made a wild claim that the Supreme Building is like the Pagan Temple of Kaknak and the Supreme Court Judges are the High Priests and the other Judges are the Priests of a Civic Religion. Supposedly, they have priestly clothes, ceremonies and a counterfeit bible which is the bogus constitution which has been written by the rogues Judges.

They want us to believe that the constitution evolves over time by good and loving Judges that meet the needs of the American people. Some one is pulling the wool over your eyes if you believe that.

Niccole Machiavelli, an Italian bureaucrat, wrote a book called “The Prince” in the time of Shakespeare. http://www.jahtruth.net/defin.htm

This book has been a blueprint for dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin and the entire rogue Supreme Judges. Niccole was only interested in how to gain power. Moral and ethics and the lore of the land was the last thing on his mind, therefore you end up with evil men in high positions who hate good and love evil.

In 1795, the Georgia Legislative sold 35,000,000 acres of state-owned land to four New England Companies at a price of 1.5 cents per acre. This was a fraudulent sale so these Companies sold it quickly to speculators who resold it too. Then they all played the innocent game and looked surprised when a law was passed declaring their titles invalid.

A rogue Supreme Judge by the name of John Marshall resided over the case and found in his own counterfeit constitution it was ok to steal the land from the American people. By the way, he wrote many counterfeits into the real constitution. John Marshall died in 1835 and in is honour they rung the liberty bell. It is said that the bell suffered a giant crack in its side and has been silent ever since. So be it.

American Civil War

Dread Scott was an elderly slave who sued his owner, named Sandford, for his freedom. They had lived for sometime in the Wisconsin Territory. In the 1820, congress had enacted a law that forbade slavery in that Territory. The rogue Judges in looking for an excuse for their actions focused on the idea that slaves were property of the landlord. The Firth Amendment says that nobody could be deprived of “life, liberty, property, without due process of the law”.

 These Judges wanted complete power, so in the process they threw out the 1820 law and said it was unconstitutional. What gives them the right to create laws out of nothing?

Legislatures have control over the substance of the laws and the courts controlled the processes by which the laws are applied to individual cases. Abraham Lincoln not to be out done said in a speech in 1859. “The people of these united states are the rightful masters of both congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution”.

The 1860 election was followed by the civil war. The Southerners thought the constitution was on their side. Truth and Justice were on their side for the bogus high priests of the Supreme Court had told them so. For the South, the civil war was insane but they had fallen for the biggest lie ever invented, that slaves are the property of landlords. Dream on, get real, and get a life. Rogue Judges are the ones fully responsibly for the 500,000 dead and 500,000 wounded in the civil war.

In December, 1866, The Washington Chronicle wrote that “treason had found a refuge in the bosom of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

In April, 1867, The Independent wrote that the “Supreme Court was regarded as a diseased member of the body politic and was risking amputation.”

These rogue Judges found in their counterfeit constitution it was okay to have abortions even though all states had laws against it. They also tied up police hands with crazy laws which caused over 100,000 murders and 500,000 rapes and also had a hand in the cause of the Great Depression.

The Levitical Priesthood of Tennessee

http://library.georgegordon.com/

A preacher approached me in Swanee, Tennessee some years ago and asked me if it was true that I practiced the Law of Moses. I replied that it was true. His next question was if I practiced the sacrificial laws. Perceiving his craftiness by asking this forked question, I asked him if he practiced the Levitical Priesthood in Tennessee. He emphatically denied that he did any such thing, and proceeded to preach me a true fire and brimstone sermon about Christ Crucified and how Jesus did away with the Law of Moses in general, and the sacrificial laws in particular.

Seeing that the man was a Christian in distress over doctrine, I apologized for my outrageous suggestion that HE, of all people, might be a practitioner of the sacrificial system of Tennessee, explaining that I was a stranger from a far, far land called Missouri, and that I had heard the people of Tennessee practiced the Levitical Priesthood, complete with sacrifices and heave offerings, but they called it another name, the 'Judicial System.' As he stared at me for a few minutes, like I'd just announced that I'd taken a ride in a UFO, I asked if they had a Highway Patrol in Tennessee. He said they did, and after a few more questions, it came out that they also had police, lawyers, judges, courts, and courthouses, courtrooms complete with bars and benches and, even, fines for criminal activities; the sum total of which constituted the judicial system of the State of Tennessee. Looking at him, I said that the stories I'd heard were true, that the people of Tennessee were indeed a religious lot, which lead him to ask how having police and all the rest was religious. So I told him a story.

Let's say that one day you decide to take a drive, and an ever vigilant policeman sees you tooling along at 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he takes off after you, and pulls you over. Asking for your driver's license, he notes that it doesn't give you permission to drive 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he arrests you and hauls you off to the nearest jail. From there, you're brought to the courthouse and into a courtroom, where you face a judge sitting on a bench behind a bar. You're stood beside your lawyer, who enters a plea of guilty, which makes you a criminal. The judge levies a fine and court costs. If you don't like the decision, you can appeal, if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court. So what you have are the civil servants of the State of Tennessee performing their jobs, which constitute the judicial system of the State of Tennessee.

In olden days, this system wasn't called the judicial system, it was called the Levitical Priesthood, and it worked the same way.

Today's policeman was known as the High Priest's servant. As such, he was constantly on the lookout for sin, which is the transgression of the Law (1John 3:4). When he uncovered a sin, he hauled the sinner off to the temple ward, which is today's courthouse/jail combination. Modern courthouses are designed like temples, even to the point of sitting in the town square, so that everything in town revolves around them. The temple is where the High Priest conducted the sacrifices in the Holy Place. It was easy to recognize the High Priest going about his duties because of his long, flowing, often black, robes. When he had to sit in judgement on a sinner, he would go to the Holy Place and go behind the altar, which was behind the veil to the Holy Place. Sound anything like a judge entering a courtroom, and sitting on his bench, which is behind the bar? In order for a sinner to pass through the veil and approach the High Priest required an intercessor, which helped in your prayer to the High Priest concerning your sin. Sound like a lawyer entering a plea? When the accused admitted his guilt, he became a sinner. The High Priest then commanded him to perform penance, overtimes in the form of sacrifices, which he called a sin offering. He would also impose a heave offering, to reimburse him for his time. Sounds more and more like a modern court, with you entering a plea of guilty, and having fines and court costs levied. If the sinner thought the High Priest was not acting properly, he could go before the Aaronic Priesthood, if necessary all the way to Moses, which is essentially the same as going through the court of appeals to the Supreme Court. So, what you had were the Levites of Israel performing their jobs which constituted the Levitical Priesthood of Israel. What's the phrase, 'a rose by any other name...?'

So, I closed by chiding this Christian preacher a little, reminding him that he practices the sacrificial system of the State of Tennessee every time he goes into court. Remember, Tennessee is a sovereign, sovereigns make laws, lawmakers are gods, violating laws is sin, sins require sacrifice as a matter of law, either Civil or Common, and people who practice the religion of the United States make sacrifices to their god, voluntarily or involuntarily.

The Levitical Priesthood Of Tennessee

The Police = The High Priest's Servants

Crimes = Sins

The Jail = The Ward

The Courthouse = The Temple

The Courtroom = The Holy Place

The Judge = The High Priest

The Bench = The Altar

The Bar = The Veil

Lawyers = Intercessors

Pleas = Prayers

Being Guilty of a Crime = Being Guilty of a Sin

Criminals = Sinners

Fines = Sin Offerings

Court Costs = Heave Offering

The Supreme Court = The Holy of Holies

The Judicial System = The Levitical Priesthood

Written by George Gordon.

2000 AND BEYOND

January 9, 2003

An Outrageous Ruling

On January 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District placed the imprimatur of legality upon one of the most egregious moves by Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld: the holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" in military brigs without charging them with a crime and without giving them access to a lawyer or other standard due process protections.

The case involves Yasser Hamdi, who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration labelled him an enemy combatant, and sent him to a military brig in Norfolk, Virginia.

A lower court judge, Robert Doumar, did not cotton to the Administration's treatment. "This case appears to be the first in American citizen that has been held incommunicado and subjected to an indefinite detention in the continental United States without charges, without any findings by a military tribunal, and without access to a lawyer," he wrote.

When the government tried to assert a right to keep Hamdi in the brig, the judge asked one of Ashcroft's lawyers: "So, the Constitution doesn't apply to Mr. Hamdi?"

Incredibly, the Fourth Circuit basically said it doesn't. The President has "extraordinary broad authority as Commander in Chief," the court said, and this "compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority."

But the Fifth Amendment states that "no person" shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Throw that one out the window.

The Bush Administration had plenty of legal tools to deal with Hamdi. It could have charged him with treason, for instance. But instead it chose not to charge him with anything and just toss him into the clink and leave him languish there. That's medieval.

The Administration's approach to those it has captured or arrested in the war on terror is highly inconsistent.

Look at John Walker Lindh. He is an American citizen who was caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Yet he was entitled to his day in court. Why wasn't Hamdi?

Or take Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth hijacker. He isn't even a U.S. citizen, and he's been duly charged and is being prosecuted through our civilian courts. Why not Hamdi?

Then there's Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber, who is also a U.S. citizen. He, like Hamdi, gets the collar "enemy combatant." But what makes him different from Lindh and Moussaoui?

Does the Bush Administration get to decide all by itself who has access to due process, and who doesn't?

For Padilla, the Fourth Circuit's decision may hold a flicker of hope. Ruling on Hamdi, it said: "At least where it is undisputed that he was present in a zone of active combat operations," the government does not need to face stiff scrutiny from the courts.

Since Padilla was apprehended in Chicago, he may have a case.

But not if the courts continue to assume the "deferential posture" and uphold the President's "extraordinary broad authority."

By Matthew Rothschild

July 3, 2003

Kangaroo Justice

The Bush Administration is using a system of kangaroo justice. It bounces from one legal designation to another in an effort to keep untried and unconvicted people penned up.

Ali Saleh Kahlal Al-Marri is a perfect example.

Al-Marri, a student from Qatar who was pursuing graduate studies in Peoria, was first detained by the FBI as a material witness, a designation the Justice Department has been using illegitimately to hold suspects.

Then, the Justice Department charged Al-Marri with lying to the FBI and credit card fraud. Weeks before his trial on those charges was to start, the Bush Administration declared him an "enemy combatant," removed him from prison in Illinois, and tossed him into a military brig in South Carolina.

Bush has arrogated to himself the sole power to label someone an enemy combatant, and at the moment, Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, both American citizens, are so designated. Al-Marri, who is not a citizen, is now the third in this dubious class.

By branding people enemy combatants, Bush has pulled an end-around the Constitution, which grants to all persons the right to due process of law and equal protection, as well as the right to an attorney and to a trial.

As Human Rights Watch has pointed out, "This kind of military detention has no place in a country committed to the rule of law."

There's no rhyme or reason to Bush's use of this designation, either.

The American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, was not labelled an enemy combatant. He was allowed access to the courts.

Zacarias Moussaoui also was granted such access, which may yet be withdrawn.

Hamdi, Padilla, and Al-Marri have been denied this. On what basis does the Bush Administration distinguish between these two groups?

Could it be that when the government thinks its case is weak it just slaps the novel designation of "enemy combatant" on the person?

This is an amazing assertion of Presidential power.

Actually, it's a regal power, pre-Magna Carta.

Who gave Bush the throne?

By Matthew Rothschild

December 23, 2003

Snap of the Judicial Branch

Last week, the judicial branch snapped back.

Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has been seizing extraordinary power, often by fiat, in the way it's waging its so-called war on terror.

Finally, the courts are asserting their rightful power to protect people against Executive abuses.

On December 18, an appellate court in San Francisco ruled that Bush's policy of indefinitely imprisoning more than 600 people at Guantanamo who were captured during the Afghan War is unconstitutional. Said the court, "The government's position is inconsistent with fundamental tenets of American jurisprudence and raises most serious concerns under international law."

Then, in an even more crucial ruling, an appeals court in New York ruled that Bush can't grab U.S. citizens, slap a label of "enemy combatant" on them, and then hold them without charge and without access to a lawyer in some military brig. This is the Jose Padilla case, and it represents a threat to the rights of all U.S. citizens.

Now both cases are likely to be decided by the Rehnquist Court, which does not inspire confidence.

But at least the San Francisco appellate court framed the issues well. "Even in times of national emergency-indeed, particularly in such times-it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike."

Roughshod is the word for this Administration, and at least some of the courts--if not the Congress--are starting to realize this.

By Matthew Rothschild

January 13, 2004   The Supreme Court Upholds Secrecy

The Supreme Court just made a terrible decision by not making a decision.

It refused even to hear the appeal of a lower court decision that said the Bush Administration could keep secret the names and circumstances of people it arrested after September 11.

Secret detention not only violates our Constitutional protections, it violates the Magna Carta.

But last June, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a panel of the D.C. appeals court said, "The judiciary owes some measure of deference to the executive in cases implicating national security."

I don't know where in the Constitution those judges found the concept of deference, but this goes way beyond deference. This is a blank check to let the Administration do just about whatever it wants under the cloak of national security.

Why can't we know the names of the thousand people the Administration rounded up?

Why can't we see the charges they were detained on?

The whole idea that the President can set up a separate system of justice all by himself and not let the public know what's going should be anathema to anyone who cherishes civil liberties in this country.

This case provides a chilling warning that under George Bush and John Ashcroft, those civil liberties are in grave peril.

And don't count on the Supreme Court to restrain Bush or Ashcroft from their oppressive ways.

By Matthew Rothschild

June 2004 Issue

Shredding the Magna Carta

The Bush Administration wants to rip up not just the Bill of Rights. It's going after the Magna Carta, too. It wants to do away with habeas corpus, the essential, 800-year-old right that allows the accused to appear before a judge and plead.

But the Bush Administration can't be bothered with that.

The foreign enemy combatants it is holding in Guantánamo have no due process rights at all, according to the Justice Department.

CHAPTER THREE

YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED

ALL Constitutions THAT ARE Written BY MAN ARE ALL ILLEGAL

http://www.jahtruth.net/mastplan.htm

America, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and all other countries that have a written constitution by man are all counterfeits of the real.

There is only one constitution that is written by Lord God (Guardian of Divinity) and that is which is to be found in the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. There is only one supreme King and Master that rules over  all and that is your real Father “Yahweh” as known to the HOUSE of Israel and “I AM” as known to the non-Jew. The Torah and the Logos are the only legal constitution that our real Father has ever let man to live by and DO.  Any other constitution is a counterfeit and you have all been conned. (con-stitution).

Just encase you do not understand, you must live by the ten commandments which include all 613 laws given to the HOUSE of Israel through Moses direct from your real Father in Heaven. Your real Father then sent his only well beloved Son who came in the body (human) known as Yahshua who gave two more commands which all humans must live by.

All rules and laws that are invented and created by man that contradict and are the opposite of what Yahweh has said in His written constitution the TORAH will have to pay the penalty of death. All prime ministers and presidents, kings and queens that rule over men, whether it is governments or kingdoms, God will hold all of them accountable for treason and they will all face the fire and will all die.

Any man who uses these counterfeit laws to bring judgments against the guilty or innocent will be accountable to God for treason.

I am referring to the Supreme Court and all judges, lawyers, barristers, Justice Department and prosecutors will be accountable to God for treason.

Any man who is considering being a judge, lawyer, barrister, and work for the Justice department and is willing to contradict and do the opposite of the TORAH will be accountable to God for treason. If you are really smart you will work for your real Father by building the KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH ON HIS TERMS AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. By doing this and living according to the TORAH and by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of “I AM” you shall live and have eternal live.

Any person that does not live by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of Yahweh shall face the fire and will all die – no exceptions.

For it says in Deuteronomy 4:2 where it states plainly we are not to add or detract not even one letter from THE Law/God's Laws. Also I would like to point out that when Jesus came He said, "I am not come to destroy the prophets or the Law. I am not come to destroy but FULFILL the Law".

Now I am going to give evidence that all HUMAN BEINGS that I have listed above are all liars and deceivers and not one of them cares about any kind of justice at all. They should all be locked up and all the innocent human beings that they have caused to be put in jails under their counterfeit laws should be released and given their freedom.

Any human being that lives by the Torah are free indeed of mans laws, amen.

Here is a list of all those who have been murdered or put in prison for no good reason. They have NEVER had a TRAIL by a JURY. The evidence is planted by corrupt police, CIA and FBI.(MI 5 and MI 6)

Titles purposely designed to deceive 

Have you ever taken the time to analyse just how many things in life are designed to deceive us and how many things we have been taught, that just aren't so?  

For example:-

The Honourable M.P. for . . . - denotes a politician and everyone knows that most politicians are professional liars and therefore are the opposite of the definition.

Italian Renaissance statesman and political writer, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote in The Prince, one of the most influential political works of all time, that governments are created to lie to the greatest number of people the greatest amount of the time.
And why do governments lie? Why, to cover up their previous lies in order to protect the perpetrators, of course.

Conservatism:- Conservatism in politics denotes a party whose doctrine is runaway consumerism and a disposable and "throw-away" society. Conservatism and Consumerism are by definition opposites. It is impossible to consume and conserve: it is either consumed or it is conserved and it is impossible for one to be the same as the other, so Conservatism is the opposite of its definition.

Labour - Labourism in politics normally denotes people wanting as much pay as possible for the least amount of labour, so Labourism is the opposite of its definition.

National Economy - a national economy in the western world is totally wasteful; where most products are consumed and thrown away as quickly as possible and are actually manufactured to be waste within a very short space of time; so a National Economy is the opposite of its definition.

Feminism - denotes women who want to be men and who act in a totally unfeminine manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition.

Gay-homosexual - denotes someone who is unhappy with their gender and wants to pretend to be the opposite gender or to have a relationship with someone of the same gender because they are not happy with normality, so gay, which really means happy, is the opposite of its definition.

These groups of people choose a title that is the opposite of what they are or do to try to deceive the world into believing that they are something that they are not. In other words they are a LIE designed to hide the TRUTH and deceive us.

Holiday - holy-day to worship and serve God; now used to denote the period/s when people often go abroad and spend their time doing many different unholy acts that they would not dare to be seen doing at home, so holiday is now the opposite of its definition.
Joy-riding - the unlawful, "taking without the owner's consent" (theft in the eyes of most sensible people) of another person's motor-vehicle, which often involves damage to, or the "writing-off" of the vehicle and the death and/or injury of innocent third-parties, as well as the perpetrators themselves, causing havoc and distress, not only to the owner, but to everyone concerned. So joy-riding is the opposite of its definition, because, even if there is no damage done to the vehicle, the owner is left distressed, at what he considers to be the theft of his vehicle, and greatly inconvenienced. There is certainly no joy in that.
Diocese - Dio-cese (Dio=God in Italian and ce(a)se, that is a dio-cese is an area of Catholic-priest influence, teaching men to cease communicating effectively with Father/God!)
Jewel - El is Hebrew for God, so JEW-EL or JEW-GOD means that jewels are worshipped as gods by so-called Jews; many of whom are jewellers; whilst claiming to worship God.
Noel - El is Hebrew for God, so so-called Christians who celebrate NO-EL or NO-GOD are actually celebrating there being no God in their Godless pagan Winter Solstice, drunken, gluttonous, sun-festival called No-el/Xmas/Yuletide.
X-MASS – YULETIDE A PAGAN FESTIVAL
(which is actually condemned by Christ) CHRIST'S OPINION of SANTA CLAUS and YULETIDE, as expressed by HIS ANGEL, to HIS APOSTLE JOHN, in THE APOCALYPSE, Chapter 2.
Xmas has absolutely nothing to do with God. It was originally called Yuletide, which is a pagan festival from the Babylonian Mystery religion of SUN worship. The Babylonians were merchants (they were the originators of the "Market-system" which is condemned by God) and they used Yuletide to sell their merchandise because, like today, it made them lots of money. Then in the first century A.D. Simon (the Sorcerer) Pater (NOT Peter) stole the name christian, mixed it with the Babylonian Mystery religion and formed a new religion called christianity, that teaches the opposite of what Christ taught, and has SUNdays as its sabbath days, due to its SUN-god worshipping origins (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4). Simon Pater NOT Simon Peter (Cephas) started the fake religion called "christianity" (Acts 8:9-25). Christ's TRUE followers or disciples called themselves "Followers of The Way" or "Those True to The Covenant" (Nazrim ha-Brit), NOT christians.
http://jahtruth.net/xmas.htm

http://jahtruth.net/passnot.htm

THE FULL STORY MAY BE FOUND AT
https://www.facebook.com/groups/797108517014536/1226095804115803/