Advancing the Kingdom of Yeshua law lesson 2

First page Table of contents 1 Next page Last page

KINGDOM FAMILY LEARNING CENTER CHURCH

Advancing The KINGDOM of Yeshua!

PH: 208.701.5781 Email: admin@kflcc.org / Web: Kflcc.org KFLCC

Lesson 1

1 | Page

Strategies for Advancing the KINGDOM of Yeshua!

Understanding The Law, Legalese and Legal Structures!

LAW: Although one would ordinarily think that in the course of history there have been many different forms of law, one would likely be surprised, if not downright shocked, to learn how many different forms of “law” exist in America at this very moment. Here are but a few of the styles of law that you may be called to operate within if you find yourself head-to-head with the legal system:

Common Law Equity Law

Constitutional Law Treaty Law Federal Law State Law Municipal Law

Corporate Law Contract Law Tax Law Civil Law Criminal Law Labor Law Bankruptcy Law

Admiralty/Maritime Administrative Law Private Law Public Law International Law

Probate Law Family Law

As you can see, things can get challenging rather quickly. Each form of law has its own special doctrines and standards. Many times one form of law “nests” within another. Unless one understands the idiosyncrasies of the type of law being used or applied in a certain case, one will often feel railroaded toward an unpleasant outcome. Although KFLCC cannot possibly educate you in every area of the law, it is our goal to make you aware of the broad concepts that govern the legal trade. After that, it is you who must do the work if you wish to better understand the Byzantine maze that is our legal system. “The Law” is any system (or part of that system) that creates or recognizes rights, duties, or obligations, and provides a forum through which to seek a remedy in the event that any of those rights, duties, or obligations are breached . Fundamental Forms of American Law In America, our laws are comprised of several fundamental levels. The first is Constitutional law. No other law, of any form, is valid unless it comports itself with the applicable Constitution. A law that cannot find its basis in the applicable Constitution is an unconstitutional law, and thus null and void.

www.kflcc.org

The State level is the next operative form of law called common law. The corporate government has done everything within its power to wipe common-law from the face of America, but the common law was, is, and always will be, the proper form of law for the de jure state Citizen. Some modern expositors have stated that the common law is “ harsh ”. We might observe that it is unforgiving and inflexible when a person transgresses the rights of others. We are not convinced that this makes the common-law harsh, so much as it does strict.

Next in significance is Equity law. Equity law covers a broad scope of legal issues and is used extensively in today’s courts. Equity is distinct from common -law.

Equity – “…a system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, ‘law’”. Black’s Law D ictionary, 6th Ed. Equity Jurisdiction – “That portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administrated by courts of equity as distinguished from courts of common law”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. And here is a fascinating definition, from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1856]: Equity, Court of - A court of equity is one which administers justice, where there are no legal rights…

The most succinct (although not exhaustive) definition of “ Equity ” would be this: “The term ‘ equity ’ denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right

dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men” Gilles v. Dept. of Human Resources Development, 11 Cal.3d 313

It is important to note that whenever the wor d “ fair ” is involved, it means that a third party will decide what is fair for you. Despite the lofty ideals of “ equity ”, what is thought to be “ fair ” in the mind of one person, may often times be thought completely unfair in the mind of another. If the common-law is competent to provide a remedy, one need not acquiesce to the jurisdiction of a court of equity. Next would come statutory law. This is the form of law that most Americans know as “ the law ”, although it is in reality a form of law with very limited power. Statutory law is comprised solely of the acts of the legislature that have become law and are currently in force. Most of these legislative acts (statutes) have been codified to one “ title ” or another within a set of “ codes ”. There are a coupl e of significant points to remember. First, most codes are not law, but are merely indicative of the law; the law is the actual statute that was passed by the legislature. It is conceivable that a statute could have been repealed, yet the code section still exist. If you are in a legal fight, always check the statute behind the code section.

Second, keep in mind that not every statute passed into law is codified; some statutes simply stand-alone and remain non-codified, hence the name “ statute-at-large ”. And here’s the real kicker concerning statutory law:

A statute is an enactment by a legislative body bringing into existence its creatures (e.g. corporations) and setting forth the privileges, immunities and responsibilities of each creation. A statute applies only to the “rightful subject of legislation” (i.e. the creatures created by statutory fiat). The “rightful subjects of legislation” does not mean The People, unless the statute specifically states its intent to apply to private Citizens.

Of course one should remember that one can create an obligation to a law that would not otherwise bind him by involving himself in various regulated activities or by entering into an agreement with the government (such as acquiring a business license, resale permit, w-4 agreement, w-2 and 1099 agreements etc.)

Other Important Distinctions

Classifications

Every law that defines an offense falls into one of two categories.

The first category is mala in se: A mala in se offense is a crime that is, by the laws of nature and God, a true crime.

Examples of this would be: murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc.

and the second is mala prohibita : A mala prohibita offense is one that would not be an offense were it not for the legislature passing a law that makes a particular act a punishable offense. Examples of this would be: possessing or smoking marijuana, buying and selling more than 7 cars a year without a dealer’s license (in California), not obeying road signs and speed limits, etc.

THE ART OF WORDS: LEGALESE

The Amazing Disappearing Law

Laws do not actually disappear, but their language is altered over time to obscure the true purpose and intent of the law. One would think that once a law is passed it would not need to be altered unless some flaw or shortcoming becomes apparent, or some circumstance changes that requires the statute to keep up with the times.

The average citizen would be surprised to learn that statutes are amended to alter their language for no apparent reason . We stress the word “ apparent ” because the legislative draftsmen who propose these changes know exactly what their purpose is.

In the following fictitious example, we are going to provide you with the year that the statute was passed as well as the text. I will then give you the year of each amendment of the statute that changes the prior language. After viewing the progression of the changes, look again at the original version and take note of all the clarity that has been lost. You will see how the changes have rendered it impossible for a person to know the original intent of the law. This practice is more common than you would believe. Example: 1959 – It shall be illegal for any foreign corporation to produce widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345. 1970 - It shall be illegal for any corporation to produce widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345. 1973 - No corporation shall produce or sell widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345. 1979 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except during the times allowed by law. Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1990 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except in accordance with regulations pertaining to this section. Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345. 1994 - No person shall produce or sell widgets without first having obtained a license. What is important for the reader to know is that the intended meaning and application of the law, as indicated by its original language, cannot be altered by amendment! The 1994 versions still means the same exact thing as the 1959 version. If there are any questions as to the proper meaning and application of a law, the prudent person will seek out the earliest possible version of the statute in order to confirm the issues. The “Other” Law There is a form of “ law ” that is not really law at all. It’s commonly referred to as “ case law ” (also known as “ decisional law ” or “ precedent ”). C ase law is the previous ruling on a point of law by a court of competent jurisdiction. Case law, when used properly, was/is intended to provide consistency concerning points of law over time. The Language of Law One of the greatest stumbling blocks for the American public in understanding the laws their representatives enact is that laws use words in a different manner than we do in common speech. There are two kinds of language that are primarily used in law – one is “words” (just as we use in common speech) and the other is “terms” (which can be substantially different than we use in common speech). “ Words ” are just that – words. They are presumed to be used in their ordinary manner and they are subject to the “ plain meaning rule ” when interpreting a statute. Their meaning must be sought through the common English dictionaries of the era in which the statute was written. In the absence of any clear contrary intent by the legislature, the meaning found in these dictionaries is the sole meaning that must be given to the word. “ Terms ” are another matter. Terms appear no different, to the layperson, than words. The difference is that terms are not su bject to the “ plain meaning rule ” because the legislature has provided its own definition for the term being used. Where the legislature has provided its own definition, the ordinary English dictionary must be thrown out the window; the definition given to the term by the legislature controls the meaning completely. The meanings of terms can be identified by seeking out the “ definitions ” section applicable the text that you are reading. Unfortunately, this may not always be as straight forward a proposition as one might imagine. Here is an example: Title 26 USC 7701 contains definitions that are applicable for the entire Internal Revenue Code. Section 7701(a)(20) defined “ employee ”:

For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term "employee" shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21, or in the case of services performed before January 1, 1951, who would be considered an employee if his services were performed during 1951. The term is redefined for use in chapter 24 of the Code: (26 USC 3401(c)) For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation. As you can see the terms are defined very differently. The title-wide definition addresses insurance salesmen, while the definition for chapter 24 addresses only government workers under the direct or indirect authority of the federal government. [The corporation that is mentioned is a corporation wholly owned by the federal government.]

CORPORATION: An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, Synonyms . The words "company" and corporation" are commonly used as interchangeable terms. In strictness, however, company is an association of persons for business or other purposes, embracing a considerable number of individuals, which may or may not be incorporated. In the former case, it is legally a partnership or a joint stock company; in the latter case, it is properly called a "corporation." Goddard v. Railroad

CHURCH: In its most general sense, true religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances. A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government the profession of the same faith, and the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies. The term may denote either a society of persons who, professing Christianity, hold certain doctrines or observances which differentiate them from other like groups, and who use a common discipline, or the building in which such persons habitually assemble for public worship. In other words, its own community and government under the Lord Yeshua As KING!

T he legal attributes of the corporation, and the alleged “ benefits ” that attorneys most commonly discuss with churches to convince them of their need to incorporate are: 1. A corporation has limited liability protection. 2. A corporation may exist in perpetuity. 3. A corporation may hold title to real property. One additional legal attribute of any corporation is something that attorneys generally don't like to discuss with their church clients: 1. A corporation may sue and be sued . In point of fact, there is a great deal that your attorney is not likely to disclose, in the way of the various legal attributes of the corporation, that you might not find so attractive. In the landmark case of Hale vs. Henkel, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following regarding corporations: Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906) From this case we learn that:

1. A corporation is “a creature of the State.” 2. The State is "sovereign" over the corporation. 3. The corporation is “incorporated for the benefit of the public.” 4. A corporation is a State “franchise.” 5. Incorporation is a State “privilege.” 6. A corpor ation is “subject to the laws of the State.” 7. “Its powers are limited by law.” 8. It must “obey the laws of its creation.” 9. A corporation has no constitutionally-protected rights.

These are not new or novel legal principles that the Supreme Court just discovered in 1906. Rather, these are legal principles that date back many centuries. The corporation is a product of ancient Rome. The corporation, as the legal entity we are familiar with today, dates back to at least 250 B.C.

By 6 A.D. and the codification of Corpus Juris Civilis (the first great codification of Roman civil law) all "spontaneous collectivities of persons" were required to incorporate. The early church was persecuted over their refusal to incorporate. Had they incorporated they could have avoided much of the persecution they otherwise suffered at the hands of the Romans. Rome persecuted the Christians not for Who they worshipped. Rome had hundreds of deities, and they could care less who or what you worshipped, as long as you were "licit" (licensed). The church was persecuted not because they worshipped Jesus Christ, but because of the manner in which they functioned -- an ecclesia. The church was declared to be "illicit," and held in a state of "civil disobedience," because of their refusal to incorporate. Why did the church refuse incorporation? Largely because they knew that it would destroy their testimony that Jesus Christ is "Lord" and "Sovereign." Under Roman civil law, "Caesar is sovereign over the corporation," and "the corporation is a creature of the State." The early church willingly suffered for its refusal to accept "State privileges and benefits." Because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles . (3 John 7) Corporations have been known and widely used for many centuries in virtually every corner of the earth. However, the corporation was not at all widely known in America during the colonial era, and for many decades after our independency. Indeed, the corporation was an entity viewed with great suspicion, if not trepidation. For many years it was extremely difficult and expensive to incorporate and, therefore, it was rather difficult to identify corporations of any kind, especially incorporated churches. Today, all that is necessary to incorporate is that you fill out the necessary forms and file them with your Secretary Of State's office; but that wasn't always the case. It used to be that if you wanted to incorporate you would have to petition your state legislature for a corporate charter, and they weren't in the habit of handing those out to just anyone who wanted one. In order to be issued a corporate charter, you had to prove to a majority of your state legislators that you simply couldn't operate any other way. As a result, the vast majority of businesses operated as sole proprietorships and general partnerships. This was the industrial age and industrialists had rapidly become "corporate men." In their worldview, the church too must become "modernized," and incorporation was a necessary element of modernization.

Eventually, many local churches, encouraged by the example of their denominations, also incorporated. By the mid-twentieth century, incorporation of the church had become the status quo, even greater concern is the fact that today's church has, with few exceptions, abandoned the beliefs of the early church fathers who refused to incorporate, and suffered Rome's persecution, as a direct result. Incorporation was mandatory for all "spontaneous collectivities of persons" throughout Rome. Yet they refused Caesar's "privilege." a church cannot be sued and brought into court until it incorporates. A church “is not an entity recognized in law.” If the court cannot legally recognize it, it cannot be sued. A church is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court. However, should a church incorporate it most certainly may be sued. Incorporation becomes the nexus of government jurisdiction to the incorporated church. In America, incorporation is completely voluntary. Furthermore, as we've already mentioned, it used to be almost impossible to incorporate a church, based upon the fact that no church can be free and independent of that government that incorporates it. Scriptural Law: Mat_12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Pro_18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. Psa_94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? Ezra 4:1-5; Ezra 4:13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. Ezra 7:10-27 Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. Matthew 12:17; 22:21, Luke 20:25, Luk 22:26 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Matttew_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Teach to enlighten, not to excite: Yours because of Yeshua: Apostle Gary Carter, Jr.

KINGDOM FAMILY LEARNING CENTER CHURCH

Advancing The KINGDOM of Yeshua!

PH: 208.701.5781 Email: admin@kflcc.org Web: Kflcc.org KFLCC

Lesson 2

Ref: Peter Kershaw | In Caesar's Grip Forward by Apostle Gary Carter Jr.

Strategies for Advancing the KINGDOM of Yeshua! Understanding The Law, Legalese and Legal Structures! Who’s Your Benefactor:

Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars [Courts], break their sacred pillars [their public servants], and cut down their wooden images (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant [franchise contract, to receive any government “benefits”] with the inhabitants

of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.” [Exodus 34:10-16, KJV] Mat_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure"). The Legal Definition of mammon is not money! Sorry you have been truly misled as so many of us have been down through the centuries. Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Luke 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. [KJV] “The U.S. current government has become a pagan deity and most of the statutes it passes have become the equivalent of a religion, because most are voluntary franchises, and our public dis-servants are refusing to acknowledge the voluntary nature of nearly all the laws they pass and the right to NOT! participate in their franchises”.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What is “religion”? Black’s Law Dictionary defines “religion” as follows: “Religion. Man's relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments. Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292] The essential characteristics of religion according to the above therefore include: 1. “Belief” in the existence of a specific “superior being”. This “belief” is what those engaged in a religion call “faith”, and it consists of an opinion that either is not supported by evidence or cannot be supported by evidence. 2. Worship, obedience, and submission to the mandates and precepts of a specific supernatural or superior being. 3. Rules of conduct with future rewards and punishments. For instance, the Bible contains a system of biblical laws which regulate the conduct of all believers. When one's belief collides with the power of the state, the latter is supreme within its sphere and submission or punishment follows. But, in the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the state has always been maintained. The reservation of that supreme obligation, as a matter of principle, would unquestionably be made by many of our conscientious and law-abiding citizens. The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those [283 U.S. 605, 634] arising from any human relation. As was stated by Mr. Justice Field, in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 , 10 S.Ct. 299, 300: 'The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.' One cannot speak of religious liberty, with proper appreciation of its essential and historic significance, without assuming the existence of a belief in supreme allegiance to the will of God. Church: the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances. A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith, and the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies. [Blacks Law Dictionary 1910 2 nd ed.]

So how did they tricked or deceived the Church?

Psa 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship [equal power] with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? [KJV] Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with You--they who frame and hide their unrighteous doings under [the sacred name of] law? [AMP] Is a throne of mischief joined with Thee? A framer of perverseness by statute? [YLT] “In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.” The Framers of America's Founding Documents relied heavily upon the writings of the French political philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu. Typical of Montesquieu's brilliant insight, he once wrote that: “A more certain way to attack religion is by favor , by the comforts

of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm , when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent . In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.” The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748)

Jesus did indeed say, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s;” but that’s only half the verse! Jesus went on to say, “and to God the things that are God’s.” The obvious question to be asked is at what time did Jesus place His church under the authority and jurisdiction of Caesar (the State)? Mark 12:17 is the most brilliant teaching on lawful authority and legal jurisdiction that anyone has ever uttered. We can properly interpret Jesus’ teaching in this way, “Don’t render to Caesar the things that don't belong Caesar.”

“It should wrong our consciences.”

The clergy in America have not always been so confused on the issue of State taxation of the church. For many years it was understood that the church cannot and must not go to the State with hat in hand and ask permission to be exempted from taxes. To do so would be an admission that the church was under State jurisdiction. Instead, the church must

refuse such an admission. The Rev. Isaac Backus was one such clergyman. In September of 1775 he preached a sermon to the Massachusetts Assembly in which he stated:

“Yet, as we are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers to religious worship is not a mere favor from any man or men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands us to stand fast in it, we have not only the same reason to refuse an acknowledgment of such a taxing power here, as America has the abovesaid power, but also, according to our present light, we should wrong our consciences in allowing that power to men, which we believe belongs only to God.” “The church is the moral compass of society.” John Adams stated while he was our President, “The church is the moral compass of society.” But in order to remain a true and faithful compass, the church must remain separate and independent of the influences of that society, particularly its civil government. It must be a “free-church.” Should the church become subordinate, or in any way controlled or co opted by the civil government (a “State-Church” system), it can no longer effectively serve as that society’s moral compass. Unless it is respected, no one will listen to what it has to say. Indeed, few citizens in any society, at any time in history, in any nation, have ever had any genuine respect for any State

Church system (nor should they). State-Church systems are inevitably compromised and governed by pragmatism, rather than genuine Christian faithfulness. It should surprise no one that the [Incorporated Church, Corporate Sole, along with and 501c3, 508, etc…] church in America has lost its prophetic voice, lost the respect it once held, and is no longer “the moral compass of society.”

In 1811 Congress ratified a bill, to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia. When the bill was presented for President James Madison’s signature, he promptly vetoed it. He furnished a list of his objections, in a veto message, which in part included: "Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil

and religious functions and violates the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’ The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated…

This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration." James Madison had no difficulty with grasping the fact that the bill was wholly unconstitutional, although the majority in Congress evidently did not. With the Episcopal Church having already declared its intentions, the Virginia state legislature prevented any church from ever incorporating by amending their Constitution to preclude their doing so. To this very day, it is unlawful to incorporate a church in Virginia. Of Madison's historic veto, constitutional law professor John Eidsmoe states in his book, Christianity and the Constitution : His reason was that incorporation [ Non-for profit, Corporate Sole, LLC etc…] was a form of licensing (‘Licit’ legal term) by which government gave churches permission to operate. Therefore, incorporation was superfluous; government has no jurisdictional authority to tell churches they can or cannot operate. Madison's veto set an historic precedent that was seldom departed from, at least up until the turn of the twentieth century. In 1898, New Jersey became the first state to "liberalize" their incorporation laws. The New Jersey state legislature delegated its powers to incorporate to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Rather than issuing corporate charters, the Secretary of State issued "articles of incorporation." All the former impediments to obtaining corporate status were done away with. In order to "compete" with New Jersey, other states quickly followed suit and liberalized their incorporation laws, as well. Soon the mainline church denominations, no longer hindered by state legislators, incorporated. Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy industrialist who sat on the board of directors for the largest Presbyterian denomination (PCUSA), was first to encourage his denomination to incorporate. Carnegie did so not because of all the reasons we hear today. Not once did he ever even mention limited liability protection. Rather, Carnegie spoke highly of the corporation, based upon its alleged "efficiencies." Other industrialist tycoons, such as Cleveland Dodge and John Wanamaker, who sat on the boards of other mainline denominations, also encouraged their denominations to incorporate, based upon their theories of "improved efficiency." This was the industrial age and industrialists had rapidly become "corporate men." In their worldview, the church too must become "modernized," and incorporation was a necessary element of modernization. Eventually, many local churches, encouraged by the example of their denominations, also incorporated. By the mid-twentieth century, incorporation of the church had become the status quo.

President Madison's veto of 1811, and his reasons for that veto have, by and large, been abandoned, if not completely forgotten.

Even greater concern is the fact that today's church has, with few exceptions, abandoned the beliefs of the early church fathers who refused to incorporate, and suffered Rome's persecution, as a direct result. Incorporation was mandatory for all "spontaneous collectivities of persons" throughout Rome. Yet they refused Caesar's "privilege." In America, incorporation is completely voluntary. Furthermore, as we've already mentioned, it used to be almost impossible to incorporate a church, based upon the fact that no church can be free and independent of that government that incorporates it.

Incorporation Myths:

Duet 22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. [KJV] You shall not plow with an ox [ a clean animal, righteous ] and a donkey [ unclean, rebellion ] together. [Amp]

Limited Liability Protection?

Limited liability protection is generally first among the legal “benefits” used by attorneys to convince a church to incorporate. However, limited liability protection is, for several reasons, largely a phantasm promulgated by (you guessed it) the legal profession and fails to consider significant trends in tort law in recent years. The American Bar Association has hosted “Tort & Religion” conferences since at least 1989 in which they instruct attorneys in the finer points of how to target incorporated “religious organizations” and “pierce the corporate veil.” Incorporation does little if anything in the way of protecting the church. “The legal reality is that a church cannot be sued and brought into court until it incorporates”. A church “is not an entity recognized in law.” If the court cannot legally recognize it, it cannot be sued. A church is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court. However, should a church incorporate it most certainly may be sued. Incorporation becomes the nexus of government jurisdiction to the incorporated church. One of the legal attributes that seldom if ever is discussed by the attorney is:

 A corporation may sue and be sued .

How they can sell that as a “benefit” to the Church [to be your benefactor]is hard to comprehend.

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse:

One thing attorneys will never discuss is just who offers the “protection” to the corporation. The answer is the State. Is this wise or prudent? Even decades ago when the State was openly cordial to the church it would be hard to argue from Scripture that the church should seek its “protection” from the State. But in post-Christian America when the State has grown openly antagonistic toward biblical Christianity, is it smart to seek State “protection”? That would be like asking the fox to guard the henhouse (or in biblical vernacular, the wolf protecting the sheep)!

Incorporation Problems:

There are numerous problems associated with a church organizing as a corporation of [any type, shape or form]. Attorneys will enthusiastically market the alleged “benefits,” but never a word is mentioned about all the pitfalls of incorporation. Not only are there legal pitfalls, but there are significant theological ones, as well.

A Creature Of the State:

Two of the most serious of all problems for the church that incorporates is the legal fact that:

 The corporation is a “creature of the State.”  The State is “sovereign over the corporation.”

These are legal maxims that originated in ancient pagan Rome, and they survive as governing legal dictum to this very day. The corporation that we know today, with all of its legal attributes, was perfected by the Romans at least 250 years prior to the birth of Christ Jesus. Those who have studied Roman culture will appreciate how every element of society, including its legal system, was imbued by their pagan worldview. There were no personal liberties in the Roman empire, only State-sanctioned privileges, and benefits. The State was sovereign (the supreme authority) in all matters and nothing could be done absent the State’s license. Incorporation became mandatory by 6 A.D. for all “spontaneous collectivities of persons.” The church was not persecuted by Rome because of who they worshipped (there were hundreds of deities that Rome permitted to be worshipped). Persecution began because of the manner in which they worshipped. The church was held to be “illicit” because they refused to seek the permission of the State through incorporation. Why would the early Christians suffer the wrath of Rome rather than incorporate? The answer is both legal and, necessarily, theological. For the church to incorporate would have been a public proclamation that Caesar was sovereign (the supreme authority) over Jesus Christ, the object of the church’s worship. Those Christians would have considered such a thing blasphemy!

Secondly, they well knew that the church is the body of Christ -- corpus Christi -- not the corpus of the State (the word “corporation” comes from the Latin “corpus” or “body”). The early church had far more regard for the consistency of their testimony than many churches do today. We should try to learn something from their example. It is because of that testimony that they at no time sought the privileges and benefits of the Roman State: 3 Jn 1:7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. [KJV] For these [ traveling missionaries ] have gone out for the Name's sake (for His sake) and are accepting nothing from the Gentiles (the heathen, the non Israelites, Non-Kingdom people of the body of Christ). The early church existed to testify to the world the authority and Lordship of its Head and Founder, the Lord Jesus Christ -- an imperial gospel . The local church, though persecuted, was free and unconstrained to impact the culture of the Roman Empire, not become subordinate to its pagan rulers. Incorporated churches in America today, however, are constrained by the dictates of the State by virtue of the myriad of laws which apply to non-profit corporations. Let’s now follow one of the more typical scenarios in how the pastor (and often the elders, and deacons) are convinced to incorporate the local church. Sunday morning the pastor gives a stirring sermon on the passage from John 3:3, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” He closes with an altar call, “Friends, Jesus is not only the Savior merely of men’s souls, He is the Savior, the Lord, the Sovereign of every area of our lives, Jesus wants to not only save your soul from eternal damnation, His will is to govern every area of your life. Jesus is the Provider. Jesus is the great Protector.” They are convinced the Pastor really believes what he says. Ok, Monday morning into the church comes an attorney who informs the Pastor, “Reverend, in combing through the Secretary Of State’s records, I noticed that your church is not incorporated. Don’t you know that most churches are incorporated? Pastor, you’re flirting with danger. Didn’t you hear about the church just down the road here that got “sued” because some grandmother walked in and fell over a rumple in the carpet and broke her hip. She got a judgement not only against the church, but because the church wasn’t incorporated, she was able to attach the personal assets of the pastor, elders, deacons, and any of the members of the church with deep pockets.” The approach and shakedown:

What the attorney just presented to the Pastor is a LIE! (just ask that attorney to give you a citation for the case of granny and her broken hip, and you’ll never see him again), but lies rooted in fear often sell, and the attorney well knows this. He’s not concerned for the truth, just for roping in another paying client. The law profession is far more competitive than most people realize. There are over one-million attorneys in America (that’s more than the entire attorney population of the rest of the world combined). There are too many attorneys chasing too little legitimate legal work, so many of them have to create work for themselves -- to create a perception of a need where no legitimate need exists. 2 Timothy_1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Sadly, the issue of our testimony is seldom ever considered when making that monumental decision. But it is one that many others will ponder when they are presented with the gospel message. “Let’s see, the Pastor just said that Jesus not only saves my soul, but He will be my Savior in every area of my life. He’s my Provider. He’s my Protector. If he’s such a great Protector, why then do HIS Church think they needed to go to the State and get its limited liability protection by incorporating? Obviously, the church must not think very much of Jesus’ ability to provide and protect them.” Luke_20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's [corporations], and unto God the things which be God's [The Church Ecclesia]. Just what kind of a testimony is it to the world when the church incorporates, and particularly when we do so out of a spirit of fear?

Matthew_16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Teach to enlighten, not to excite: Yours because of Yeshua: Apostle Gary Carter, Jr.

KINGDOM FAMILY LEARNING CENTER CHURCH

Advancing The KINGDOM of Yeshua!

Office: 208.701.5781 Cell: 208.243.7697 Email: admin@kflcc.org Apostle Gary Carter Jr.

Ref: Kasey Waller | Revelent Business Soulutions Office: 469-240-9378 Cell: 469-321-7487

Email: info@relevantbizgroup.com Forward by Apostle Gary Carter Jr.

Strategies for Advancing the KINGDOM of Yeshua! Understanding The Law, Legalese and Legal Structures! The Natural Law Trust Lesson I:

Perpetual Longevity Beyond the Present Global Changes More and more people today know that a worldwide financial reset is underway, and as such, many have wondered if an offshore trust, LLC, foundation, domestic corporation, IBC, or statutory trust will be made extinct or redundant after the restoration of a Basel III-mandated asset-based world economic system has become ubiquitous and made widely known. World changes are causing experts to question what types of legal structures, what types of banking, what types of commercial arrangements, and which economic instruments will flourish in longevity long after the global transformations have taken effect. This centuries old, little-known, and time-tested asset protection instrument is ideal, because it will continue to be valid even after a Golden Age has dawned worldwide. It is non-statutory. So, such a trust can go on being renewed generation after generation and go on enduring through whatever changes may take place in the statutes. Well into the Golden Ages, and long past the end of taxes and crime on this planet, Kingdom Family Learning Center Church & Relevant Business Solutions Group will continue to serve - - not so much necessarily for protection against thieves and intruders anymore, but more for the superior means of organization of resources, estate planning, the efficient assignment of assets for various humanitarian projects. This is the type of trust that many of the billionaires have been using. It is time for peaceful people of the Kingdom of God to disseminate beneficial influences in society with the same sovereign legal instruments with which the elite have previously been hiding their assets. It was known in the early 1990s that the Rockefellers had some 7000 of these trusts. Likewise, many of the other wealthiest families quietly use them. When one of the Texas billionaire Hunt brothers died, all they could find in his name was a pickup truck and $5000 in cash. It turns out that the rest of his billions were in one of these trusts. His brother heir instantly inherited control of the trust as successor trustee. There was no probate, no death taxes, and no delay. It was seamless. Traditionally the elite have monopolized the knowledge of these trusts because they preferred to keep the benefits of them to themselves. The statutory entities taught in public law schools tend to benefit the vested interests by giving them more control over the affairs of the world. If everyone had a Natural Law Trust, it would free everyone to be independent and sovereign, thus reducing the tribute to the elite’s coffers. Hence, they have had no inclination to approve the faculty and curricula of law schools knowing about Not Taught in Law Schools the Warnings Against Them are Disinformation

these trusts. This means the average attorney is clueless about these trusts and is therefore afraid of them. They are afraid of the unknown. Most Bar licensed attorneys will thus warn against them, and will usually cite inapplicable laws in an effort to dissuade people from using them. They often cite cases where they claim courts have dishonored such trusts. Any so-called “pure” or “common law” trust which has ever been “dishonored” in such a case was most definitely not the kind we are talking about herein. The kind we are talking about herein has never been invalidated, and in fact, cannot be invalidated. Therefore it is advisable to steer clear of Bar licensed attorneys in general, and avoid their counsel on this subject. It is better to connect with the true experts, who may or may not have a Bar license. The true experts are those who, like the counsel that advise the elite, have been quietly operating these trusts for generations and have had no problem with them. There are various adjectives that describe aspects of this trust. Some are: Pure. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “pure” trust is: “A trust situation that involves three parties. The parties are the creator of the trust, the trustee, and the beneficiary. This is a contractual trust and is different from a statutory trust and is a legal document.” Irrevocable. Suppose you have a million dollars, and someone wants to get it from you. Suppose they were able to file a court case against you and win a judgment against you for a million dollars. Then the court could force you to give it to the winning party. Now suppose you had put the million dollars into a revocable trust. That means you could revoke the transfer at any time. If the court orders you to pay the million dollars, you might say you don’t have it, because it is in the trust. But if the trust is revocable, the court could order you to revoke the transfer – thus retrieving the money back from the trust. In that case too, you will have lost, because you could still be forced to pay. But if the trust were irrevocable, then that means even if you order the trust to give the money back to you, it has no obligation to do so. The trustee could say that it is irrevocable, and it can refuse to return the money. Then even the court cannot force you to pay the million dollars. You truly have it no more. And the court cannot order the trust to pay it, because the trust is not you – the trust is a legal separate entity. If the trustee has a private arrangement with you whereby, he allows the trust funds to take care of your expenses or fulfills your wishes to distribute monies to various parties, then you can still benefit from the trust. . . but the court has no power to force the trust to honor the judgment against you personally. That is called “bullet proof asset protection”. What is a Natural Law Trust?

Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker