Quite possibly the most successful and most common manner of trickery the courts employ to entrap men or women of God, is to ask this simple, yet seemingly helpful and harmless question; "do you understand?" Now they may ask if you understand what is going on, or if you understand their procedures, or if you understand what they are saying, or any variety of things, but they will always ask if you "under" stand them. In the old established English language, the use of the words "under" and "stand", were often used to describe relationships between landlords and subjects, or between those in authority and those in subjection to that authority. In other words, a landlord might very well state to his tenants, that they "stand under" his authority. The English language is also replete with examples of reversing word order within commonly used phrases, yet maintaining the same meaning, or as was the early custom in terms of "standing"; the "tenants 'under stand' the landlord", or conversely, the "landlord 'stands over' his tenants".
What this really means in modern use of the language is no different. When a court asks "do you understand?", the correct response would be; "I comprehend your words, but I do not stand under (understand) your authority." The rules of court clearly state that definitions of both words and phrases as they apply in law, may not always be the same as those that apply or that are common in daily language usage outside of the law! So NEVER say to a court, that "you under-stand them", because this clearly provides them with your consent to be under their jurisdiction - "under their standing", even if you have established yourself as a real live flesh and blood man of God, and even if all you intended to state, was that you "comprehend" them!
Think of this. I am a Man of God and everywhere I go I am standing in God's Kingdom. An officer of some man's court asks me to attend at his court. When I walk into a room that he alleges to be his court, even at his request, I have not yet stepped into his jurisdiction, because I am always standing in God's Kingdom. It then is of no significance what my name is or how it is written, but it is then of paramount importance that I make my declaration of WHERE I am standing! Anyone in that room may ask me my name. My response is simple and straight-forward. "I am a Man of God standing in God's Kingdom, where do you stand?" Or I might say; "I am a Man of God standing in God's Kingdom, where are you?"
Of course there are many possible responses that a statement such as this may elicit. One of the most probable responses, is for the judge to say something like this; "This is my court and you are in my court." He may even demand that because he "says" you are standing in his court, that you "give the court your name". There are also many possible responses you might offer. For example, "I am in God's Kingdom and my Christian Name is not for you, do you not have a name of your own?" Or I might say; "I am in God's Kingdom and you say this is your court, please explain to me where your court is (or where your court stands)?" If he says his court is "right here", then I might say; "I am standing in God's Kingdom, are you also?"
The bottom line with this truthful reasoning is simple. I will always be standing in God's Kingdom and that is all I am required to declare. Without exception, I will only ask him where he is standing or if he is standing in God's Kingdom or where his court stands. I might even walk over to his side on his bench if he says something like "my court is right here in this room (or this room is my court)." If I did walk to his place ("right here") behind his bench, then he will undoubtedly ask me to go back to what he will claim to be "my place", or order me to "stand there", to which I would simply ask; "Is that your court over there because a moment ago you said this right here (point to where he sits) was your court. Is your court in God's kingdom, because I stand in God's Kingdom?"
If I was in a challenging mood, I might ask the judge; "Can you show me where God's Kingdom ends and your court begins, because at this time I stand in God's Kingdom and I do not understand where your court is?" Do you think he will declare that God's Kingdom ends outside of his alleged court room? You might hope so but do not count on it. If he did make such an unlikely statement, my response would be; "I assure you that I am standing in God's Kingdom, therefore your opinion of God's Kingdom is mistaken. You say your court is not in God's Kingdom then I am not in your court and I am not able to understand where your court is."
Now you might conclude that many possible variations of dialogue could ensue. It does not matter what the court officers state, so long as I maintain my simple declaration of being a man standing in God's Kingdom. My declaration is true, it is sound, and above all, no man can prove it to be otherwise. The judge can never bring himself to acknowledge that he is attempting to operate outside of God's Kingdom, hence the judge will never gain jurisdiction over me. And he cannot confirm that he is willing to operate inside of God's Kingdom, because inside of God's Kingdom the judge is merely another man and no man has been granted authority over another by God.
Which brings up one more point. I may ask the judge something like; "Are you a judge in (this) your court that you cannot find for me?" If he says; "I am a judge in this (or my) court", then I would respond with; "You testify that you are therefore not a man and that you do not stand in God's Kingdom, as God alone declares Himself as Judge in His Kingdom. As I am now standing in God's Kingdom, I bid you farewell and may God bless you with understanding of His Kingdom."
You might also consider that upon making your declaration of where YOU stand, that you add the following underlined words: "I am a Man of God standing in God's Kingdom, and I can only see other men, my brothers standing in this room with me in God's Kingdom." This will leave the judge in the very uncomfortable and inescapable position of not being able to respond in either the affirmative or the negative. He will try to simply ignore your statement.
He cannot agree that he and the other court officers are also "men of God", as in so doing, he would be negating his own alleged authority. He also cannot disagree with you and say that he and the other court officers are not of God's Kingdom, because this would be tantamount to admitting Treason and breach of Office (in spite of it being true). Because he cannot then identify who HE is, you cannot understand how he can proceed and you state this to him. Then you have him in the position where his only choice of action is to dismiss the court room because he literally cannot make a response that will not cause him infinitely more grief than what he and his court officers intended to inflict upon you.
http://www.naturalgod.com/NaturalMan.html#Where ______________________________
