Flawed Redemption Process

[iamfreeru2]

Jerseee,



I receive my redemption from God and remedy by using the UCC. My salvation does not come from the UCC. I think my position has been clearly stated on that issue. God is my redeemer and always has been.



I use the UCC to turn the tables on the money changers. As I said there is a difference in being under it rather than in control of it. To be in control is being master, not slave. I use it to free people, not enslave them. That is not serving or worshipping 2 masters. Proof of your claim that it is.



Using the UCC and Rdemption methodology against them allows us to have remedy without going to war. Using the UCC against them is removing us from commerce, not engaging in it. When we can remove debt by using the UCC, which is what has been used to put us in debt, then that evens the playing field. We are able to use the UCC to effect the remedy that has been given to us to take care of our debts. No debt, no commerce.



The powers that be had to give us this remedy or theiir acts would be treasonous. When the substance (Gold and Silver) was no longer allowed to be used to pay debt the people had to be given a remedy. God would not have allowed it to happen otherwise. Everything happens with God's permission. No permission, no can do. He always makes sure His children have remedy and are taken care of. Now does that mean that all people will know about and access their remedy? I think I have answered that in a previous post.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Kaos Theory,



I have the Cornforth workbook and have seen his videos. I will stick with the UCC and Redemption methodology. I am not interested in going to war. I have no disputes and am only interested in settlement and closure. Leave it to the attorneys to create controversy. Did the Christ come to create controvery or settlement and closure? I think you know the answer.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



Their rules are the tools of war. You are using their own weapons against them--thus you are at war with them.



War does not always mean bloodshed. It is the conquering of one people over another to enslave them in some form or manner.



To prove my claim...



If you are reading, studying, practicing the use of their doctrine--you are serving its purposes.



You said yourself: "I use the UCC to turn the tables on the money changers." THis is my proof. Your words admitting to using their doctrine. Just as you admit to using the scriptures of the bible.



This is serving 2 masters. This is the contradiction. Can you prove that Jesus used unbalanced measures to receive remedy from the money changers?



I believe Jesus stood on the word of the father to challenge and expose the money changers. God has rules in place already to deal with such people. Why on earth are you using their doctrine against them to gain remedy?



You have remedy already but you chose to receive unholy remedy from alleged debts from alleged creditors, through their rules. This is salvation from them. You even know that God has already provided remedy but you chose to ignore that and use their doctrine. To prove this claim, this is what you said: "I receive my redemption from God and remedy by using the UCC."



For clarification "remedy" and "redemption" are one in the same--they are not different from one another. They mean the same thing.



Is the debt valid? If you attest to the debt being valid you are admitting servitude to the master of your debt.



You stated: "When we can remove debt by using the UCC, which is what has been used to put us in debt, then that evens the playing field. We are able to use the UCC to effect the remedy that has been given to us to take care of our debts." Where is the demand for verification? Why are you accepting the validity of the debt when you know the money changers' game?



Can you prove the debt is valid since you are admitting to it?



You are admitting to it--and furthermore, you never even question the validity of such a debt. You just accept it and ask for remedy under their doctrine and not through the word of god. Therefore....



This is my proof. Your admittance to an alleged debt as valid. This is my proof. That you openly admit the use of the UCC for remedy and ignore god's law and his decision on the money changers. This is my proof. That you openly admit to abide by 2 sets of doctrines written by two gods--one holy and unholy. This is my proof. You openly admit to helping your fellow brethen into servitude through the unholy and unapproven use of the UCC for remedy--totally ignoring god's already given remedy. This is my proof. That you openly admit to using their doctrine--which means that you tacitly admit to being a money-changers servant.



I could go on but I know you will deny your own words in some form or fashion. This is the type of contradiction that is being taught to god fearing people who are being taken advantage of by the gurus. Shame on them that fool the sheep for unjust riches from the wolves.

[iamfreeru2]

Jerseee,



I does not matter whether the debt is valid or not. Whether it is owed or not. We use our exemption to discharge it. If I can do that what does it matter. Why does it have to be proved? Is it taking anything away from me if I use my exemption? My exemption reduces the debt when I use it. It does not increase it. Therefore I have been freed from it. There is no controversy. There is no war. There is only settlement and closure.



You know my position and you are entitled to your opinion. That is all it is an opinion. You have proved nothing except your lack of understanding.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



You have just exposed your ignorance to all we do. You use your exemption just in case they can prove the debt. The good faith offer of your exemption does not do it alone--it is the demand of verification that is the driving force.



If the debt is not valid then there is no need for you to tender your exemption.



Accepting the lies of the liar and then offering them your exemption without proving they are lying is foolish at best and irresponsible at least. Your exemption is not to be abused in such a manner. This is unsovereign like.



Instead of demanding that I prove my claims (which I have done convincingly through your own words)--make the money changers prove theirs. You willingly accept their lies but then you challenge one who walks upright through law to prove their claim. You are being twisted and misled terrribly.



Instead of agreeing with them and using their rules of their wicked godforsaken game, of which you yourself part take of; demand proof of their lies and rebuke their doctrine in an effort to receive unworthy remedy--that is not even acknowledge by god's law. They do not deserve your exemption (provided by god); moreover, they do not deserve to have their alleged debt ackowledged as a vaild debt, just for the sake of using an exemption. It is theft through deception/ignorance.



You are being misled. I have proven that also. But if you are satisfied with your "virtual" success--that is all that matters, I guess. I have proved my points by your own words, and I can prove that all alleged debts are not valid through the same means that I have exposed your ignoranace to what we do----through admission.



Keep practicing unholy and unapproved methods of redemption through the UCC and the money changers--you have freewill. AS A LAW ABIDING MAN, I demand that you not recruit the unknowing sheep of god into the wickedness of the gurus. If you cannot throughly explain that they are trading their souls and acting into contradiction of god's word, then don't fool them into believing god approves UCC redemption--when I have overwhelmingly proved otherwise.



<font size=3>OFFICIAL NOTICE OF JERSEEE[/color]



To unknowingly lead the sheeple to the wolves, through their trust of the forked tongued sheep who speaks of god but not follows god's law--is the work of an evil one who believes that they are not evil but righteous.



Shame on the gurus of such treachery.

[Ice]

Guys, just give it up. Going to court is now considered "going to war" but battling in the private is not. We also have this idea that any discussion regarding an alleged "debt" accrued in an act of commerce is somehow not involved with "Commerce".



Me thinks someone should think twice.



Ice

[iamfreeru2]

Jerseee,



You have a right to your opinion. You accuse me of walking with the "devil." It matters not what you or anyone else thinks or says about me and my walk. I know who I belong to. The only thing I ask proof of is that the debt has not been satisfied. If it has there is no controversy, thus settlement and closure. The Lord satisfied my sin debt on the cross. Did He ask for proof of claim first? The end.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

Ice,



I must respectfully say....NO!!!



I have exposed iamfree's ignorance.



I have proven the fraud in their UCC redemption by using the word of my god in vain.



I have proven through iamfree's own words--of the deceit that the gurus are up to.



I have proven that iamfree IS serving 2 masters and knows not of his contradiction and service because he is being misled through his unwavering faith.



I have provided documented proof (with the help of you and SJ) that the people's law is from god's law. You have proven this also.



Iamfree and UCC redemption cohorts denounce the Constitution (which was derived from god's law) as supreme law. Yet they uphold the UCC doctrine as remedy--when it is not. THis evidence in itself is BLASPHEMY!



iamfree has refused to use god's law--the law we try to teach people. iamfree, promotes lawlessness of god's law to unknowing sheep of god by promoting the UCC as remedy approved by god.



Now iamfree, wants to try to sugar coat what has been he has said and I have exposed for all to see--that using UCC redemption is as sinful as murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, sloth, pride, greed, revenge, etc....



I got them in my site, and I will prevent them from spreading such CRAP on this site!!! People come here for truth and want to abide by the law that is theirs--not some doctrine that is unholy created by the money changers.



Don't hold me back Ice!! Hand me my cat-o-nine tail and bring forth another UCC redemptionist so that I may tear them a new one and protect the unknowing. That is my job---protecting and enlightening those that cannot protect themselves--yet.



My apologies brother--but it is on, from now on with UCC folks that pervert god's law with anti-christ doctrines. Its one thing to use it in commerce--its totally another to mix it with god's law.

[iamfreeru2]

Jerseee,



Do what you think you must. You have wrongfully accused me of not using God's law. I will say it again. The Constitution is not God's law. It is based on God's law. The scriptures is God's law. You have wrongfully accused me of walking with the devil. I forgive you. Have a wonderful day.



iamfreeru2

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

. . . The only thing I ask proof of is that the debt has not been satisfied.

[b]<font color=purple> I am free, with much respect to a recognized, seasoned vet, i am curious as to an aspect regarding the cci/BoE approach.

In a nutshell(&by no means exhaustive), it is my understanding that in our cci we ask the agency involved or the fed or whoever to appoint a Data Integrity Board to conduct an investigation to see whether or not the BoE discharged the debt & to then have them ask the SoT to verify the discharge. Because the Privacy Act restricts the SoTfrom reveal ing private info, & because the funds are presumably ledgered from the private side , the SoT cannot tell the DIB head anything. The other factor being that if we do not receive a written notice of dishonor from the SoT, the silence is construed as an admission that the BoE discharged the debt.

My initial problem is that I am not aware of any requirement that obligates the SoT to issue the NoD in the first place. Also, in relation to your quote above, does the mortgage company, etc . . . have the burden of proof to prove a negative ? If the situation goes to court would it be a legitimate claim for the party representing the defendant to imply that the complaintants need proof that the BoE DIDN'T discharge?

It seems to me that the process relies on calling their bluff.

Again, I am asking these questions out of respect & am not taking sides. I apologize if i am missing any obvious logical points.