Thursday, 27th May 2010

Veronica dumps the contents of her brain on all and sundry.

Thursday, 27th May 2010

Postby Veronica » Fri May 28, 2010 12:35 am

What did we learn today, children?

Well, today we finally got round to reading about Commercial Liens

(This has probably been posted elsewhere, I'm sure ... but a reminder won't go amiss)

(And, talking about God's laws) Yesterday we got the following e-mail :

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is detestable according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Thursday, 27th May 2010

Postby Veronica » Fri May 28, 2010 10:38 am

A Google on Commercial Liens in the UK, brings up this thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1986

... the main argument apparently being "Where to file?". I would have thought the answer was obvious: Get it Notarised, and file with a Clerk at a County Court.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Thursday, 27th May 2010

Postby Veronica » Fri May 28, 2010 10:45 am

Another (apparent) problem was identified by Mark ... namely the 'complexity of quoting Case Law'.

I don't see that.

Common Sense should prevail (as Mark suggested in one of the Posts):

1. You have a beef.

2. You believe you can prove it.

3. You write a sworn Affidavit describing it.

4. Get it Notarised.

5. Get it Recorded.

6. Sit back.

IF THERE IS ANY CASE LAW THAT WOULD REBUT IT ... it is up to the 'Liened' to find it, and use it in rebuttal.

7. Work from there.

The only problem I see is that threats don't count. You have to have suffered demonstrable 'damage', which the Lien is designed to restore. (My problem it that I have yet to actually suffer any damage. All I, personally, have received thus far are multiple threats & menaces)
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Thursday, 27th May 2010

Postby Veronica » Fri May 28, 2010 11:21 am

I must admit I found this bit interesting:

There are basically three classes of laws: The Laws of God, which encompass the Laws of Nature; The Law of the Land, also referred to as the Common Law; and lastly there is Private Law, or man-made law, also referred to as Contract Law.


... not least of which because I had already written about the first two in my book, and recently expanded to this to the three in the FMOTL Wiki Page http://www.fmotl.com/wiki/index.php/Legal/Lawful

1. Laws of Nature (including Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc), i.e. "lawful":

a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them & their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton's Laws), Boyle's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Charles' Law, Ohm's Law, etc.

b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No 'Courts' are required.

c) There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.


2. The Common Law i.e. considered "lawful" by freemen:

a) Mankind does make them, based entirely on Common Sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (What you know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de jure (Courts of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by means of a Jury of 12.

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.


3. The Legislated Rules of Societies (Statutes), i.e. "legal":

a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitration or Tribunals, etc ). They are not applied equally because they always depend on 'judgment'. It is often said "There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor".

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b. We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a & 2b. Thus to use the same word, "law" to describe both 1 and 2 is not unrealistic.

However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are the exact inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word is used to describe them in common parlance! This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both "fire" and "water".
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England


Return to Veronica's Blog

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron