Anda di halaman 1dari 7

p.

1 [of] 7

A memorandum of argument, with a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES


Part - 1:

BACKGROUNDER ON OUR CRIMINAL CODE AND HARPER'S DEFUNCT BILL C-46

1. Back in 1955 John Diefenbaker passed the Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code of Canada.
Since its inception, Sec 8[2] CCC of the Territories Act is all about territorial rights and
jurisdiction, and it's still basically the same in Bill C-46 Criminal Code and it states that:
(2) The criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before April 1, 1955
continues in force in the province except as altered, varied, modified or affected by this Act or
any other Act of the Parliament of Canada.(2) The criminal law of England that was in force in
a province immediately before April 1, 1955 continues in force in the province except as
altered, varied, modified or affected by this Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada.
2. When the CCC was introduced their legal experts informed us that the reason for Sec 8[2]
CCC of the Territories Act is that several important case-law applications in England were not
added to our Code, because they had not been in effect for centuries, yet were still considered
very important in case law. The example they toted was 'slavery' which was struck down in
1712, with John Locke's Principles Fundamental of Justice. After that: Jean Chretien [in 2001]
introduced what was called the Criminal Code [of where?].
1. In this edition the definition of the principles of fundamental Justice had been seriously
modified by the Admiralty's legal experts thru court rulings, and Acts of Parliament.
3. BILL C-46 upholds an erroneous definition of the principles of fundamental justice that would
make Locke /Gladstone spin in their grave, which has resulted where the SCC thru the Justice
Minister is now justifiably reintroducing slavery laws that never existed in Canadian law.
4. Back in 2009 when BILL C-46 was enacted, resulted where pages 1147 thru 1152 shows that
there are dozens of provisions that were not 'letter perfect' and there are now no conflicts with
the CC with these provision changes. BUT, [after 15 years of negotiating] these legal experts
are still stalemate on about a dozen key points, which still need to be reformed, AND as of Feb
3, 2016, Parliament is in default of passing all these points pressed in pages 1153 thru 1155.
5. We are pointing to really important laws [in our case] of the return of slavery which are in
conflicts with the Trademarks Act, because they are using lexicography [deceptive word-craft
[like] trade-mark, trade-marks, Trade-mark, Trademarks, trade mark and trade marks
that all have different meanings in other jurisdictions, and must now be consolidated; AND
records will show that these Parliamentary legal experts cannot agree to fix these terms.
1. NOTE: This presentation is not going into the complexity of this lexicography [word-craft],
but it's under the Trademarks Act and the Copyright laws that we the people were cast into
being bonded paper slaves, [in 1947 Vital Statistics Act] where all Birth Certificates were
converted into bearer bonds that were redeemed into Warehouse Receipts [in trust].
6. Now onto Sec 279 CC, since 2001, there's still 4 points in this law that need correction that
are still in contention, since amendments to the previous Criminal Code [of 1985] were made.
1. In the original 2001 amendment Sec 279 CC covered 'sexual assaults' [which at its core is
slavery] and after 90 amendments since then [that were needed to try to make C-46 letter
perfect] has resulted where these legal experts cannot agree to pass a bill in Parliament to
effect these changes, and these points are all in disrepute /limbo on Feb. 3,2016, because
Parliament did not amend the Act. To show how this law is now a lot more encompassing
is shown in this title that can now be called Institutional Trafficking in slavery provisions.
2. As we see it, [at face value] the over-all changes made it easier to prosecute with stiffer
sentences for committing slavery, and in so doing it protect all citizens from slavery.
3. BUT these legal experts neglected to pass these [now] outstanding provision, because it
bars the Government of Canada [and its employees] from enforcing and regulating slavery.

p. 2 [of] 7

Part - 2

A STATEMENT OF THE POINTS IN ISSUE

1. ON THIS: We are pointing to the fact that really high legal expert perverts of the law have
orchestrated this same tactic many times. We are not going to delve into other cases here other
than point to the fact that Marc Boyer was barred in the last civil election from filing a mandamus with
the BCSC on the fact that the City's Election Act went into default, just before this election.
1. BUT, we see a sick [SIC] pattern here, NAMELY: We must point out that - had Parliament
passed this Amendment on Feb. 3rd, would have resulted where those negotiating the TPP
[for example] could never have lawfully signed any interim agreement in the first place.
2. The repeat pattern of abuse in this case resulted where [about a week later] the Feds stated
that there's a new section added to this interim agreement, and then more are added later, and
so on, with the intent of someone pressing a challenge of this being a violation of Sec 279 CC.
3. Once the law is challenged, results where these TPP legal teams can show that this law is in
default, which would result where they can abuse this default status to institutionalized slavery
in back room deals under our international obligations, because after all the law is in default.
1. What we are doing is fighting fire with fire NAMELY: By being the first out of the box to
challenge the default nature of these ancient slavery provisions being implemented, results
where our case law application is pressed as the case law precedent for these default laws.
2. IN OTHER WORDS: Really high legal experts [working for the Admiralty] were setting us
up to destroy all human rights in Canada, then the world with this TPP ruling, and frankly
this plot can still be achieved by refusing to proceed with fixing my case law precedent first.
2) ON PRESSING THIS FACTUM ON - BILL C 46: CONSOLIDATION of the CRIMINAL CODE
where at the bottom of page 1, it clearly states that this Bill C-46 is current to February 3, 2016
a. ON THIS: My court case was Feb 10, 2016, and that means the CC [under Bill C-46] is still flawed
on several points therefore, and as prescribed by law, the following default presumption applies to us.
NAMELY:
[page-2] OFFICIAL STATUS OF CONSOLIDATIONS Subsections 31(1) and (2)
of the Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, in force on June 1, 2009, provide as follows:
Published consolidation is evidence - 31(1) Every copy of a consolidated statute or
consolidated regulation published by the Minister under this Act in either print or electronic
form is evidence of that statute or regulation and of its contents and every copy purporting to
be published by the Minister is deemed to be so published, unless the contrary is shown.
b. NOTE: Sec 279.01 CC: Trafficking in person is still contrary to C-46 of this 2009 Act as shown,
where this Act must be amended by adding this subsection (2), and this presumption:
Section 279.01 CC: Trafficking in person [reads as follows] (1) Every person who ,-,
exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of
exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable...
CONSENT: Subsection (2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter
of a charge under subsection (1) is valid
2005, c. 43, s. 3; 2014, c. 25, s. 18
c. Presumption (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and 279.011(1), evidence that a person who
is not exploited lives with or is 'habitually' [aka -wearing a robe] in the company of a person who is
exploited, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, (is) proof that the person exercises control,
direction or influence over the movements of that person for the purpose of exploiting them or
facilitating their exploitation.
d. SYNOPSIS: As we see it: This Judge [in this case] and all those under the employ of the AG of
Canada [who abused my inalienable rights, at face value] are guilty of trafficking in my person,
because everyone is deliberately ignoring the fact that for the past decade, i am a victim of a law that
is now defunct, therefore there is no way to assume the absence of presence, therefore [by definition
under Sec 8 (2) CC] these violations by Admiralty's employees constitutes institutionalized slavery;

p. 3 [of] 7

e. IN LAW, by virtue of the fact that my abnormal birth entitles me to be governed under common law
jurisdiction, means that everything that happened since this 2005 gag order [by default] is now a direct
violation of Sec 279 CC; AND again in this court appearance, i was trampled on by Madam Adair and
Mr. Kleisinger, by simply ignoring my demands to address these issues; which was not entertained in
order to facilitate my exploitation /enslavement, to prohibit my enjoyment /movement to be governed
under common law, which was compounded /aggravated by subjecting me to pay court costs.
f. As a General observation: Madam Adair is doing the same systematic and seditious activity as all
Commonwealth Courts do now, which is submit to the Admiralty in order to subvert our Sovereignty to
their demonic New World Order, which was gradually destroyed by the Feds ignoring the application of
common law case-law precedents, resulting where in Canada, authorities are refusing to recognize or
act like we 'the residents' have any right to freely run our lives and be protected under common law.
g. In my Feb.10 civil court appearance [1-week after C-46 fell into disrepute] Madam Adair actually
repeatedly complained that i was to stop using my defence for lawfully not holding a Birth Certificate,
because she thinks she is somehow entitled to limit my defence to things that she wants to hear,
[which she can order a lawyer to comply with, BUT i'm not a lawyer, so this practice cannot be abused
on me]; and in so doing Madam Adair did commit the heinous crime of RAPE [Sec 8(2) CC] and/or
[Sec 279 CC] TRAFFICKING IN MY PERSON in order to trample on my common law rights, because
somehow a paper queen can now order them to systematically exploit us into slavery; which happens
automatically by simply ignoring all our common law rights since 1993 [when we entered NAFTA].
h. In my case, there is no way around it: Even under these oppressive forces, my Statement of Birth
actually obligates this perversion of law and order to respect my right to be treated under common law.
i. Section 2 CC:
Interpretation /definitions: defines trustee: as a person who is declared
by any Act to be a trustee or is, by the law of a province, a trustee, and, without restricting the
generality of the foregoing, includes a trustee on an express trust created by deed, will or
instrument in writing, or by parol; (fiduciaire) "
j. SYNOPSIS:
Because of the very nature of my Response to my Affidavit in this Petition on my
abnormal birth results where, Madam Adair did in 'deed' violate her fiduciary trust of being a trustee,
because she actually holds no right to repeatedly refuse to obey Sec 336 CC, which actually obligates
her to recognize my Birth right created by holding a 'valid deed' to be governed under common law.
k. FURTHERMORE:

Under Sec 19 CC Ignorance is no excuse in law,

Madam Adair never wavered from Mr. Kleisinger's claim of right to act against MARC PIERRE BOYER
and also refused to respect the fact that Marc Pierre Boyer never was acting on his own behalf in any
of the points she ruled on, which was accomplished by never recognizing that i held any rights to title;
[as in] by not recognizing that i hold a title while on water; or in the case of holding a title to be a Chief
Financial Agent [CFA] are both trust violations; she cannot trample on our Sec 8 CC territorial rights to
protect our officers agents and members, under our Elections Act guarantees to Freedom of Contract.
[after all] by simply not recognizing this, meant that she could err in order to impose arbitrary rule;
l. PLEASE NOTE: This is still point #1 by the end of this disclosure, you'll see where the BAR
and the courts have committed all kinds of violations of the Law and Equity Act, and the Canada
Elections Act because these facts are solid proof that Madam Adain and Mr. Kleisinger did conspire
with others to exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of Marc Boyer for the
purpose of exploiting or facilitating their exploitation of Democracy, with an intent to defraud us all.
m. As to the attached copy of pp 2-3 of the Introduction to the Standards of Review [Nov. 2014]
[the reason behind why we are not proceeding with a Sec 7 argument is because quote]
It is premised on the notion that finality is an important aim of litigation, , the role is not to right better
judgments but to review the reasons in light of the arguments of the parties, and the relevant
evidence, and then to uphold the decision unless a wrongdoing has been made by the judge.
BY DEFINITION: Madam Adair did 'in deed' engage in a grievous trust violation of Sec 336 CC

p. 4 [of] 7

3] ON PRESSING THIS FACTUM - Section 126 CC: Disobeying a statute


This law is divided in 2 parts, where part 1 can be totally ignored, [as is the case with Bill C-51]
because there is no such thing as a slave holding a lawful excuse to wilfully omit to obey their NATO
Treaty obligations [like the TPP interim obligations are now extorting Parliament to undertake]
a. For we the people: (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament
by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done
is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable...
ON THIS: One of the primary purposes of this part-1 is to directly prohibit everyone in power
from attacking any political party's rights to protect its commercial premises, [in the Marijuana
Party's case] under this s-1 defence of no jurisdiction to govern us under S-55 of the CDSA
b. SYNOPSIS: As to our original Response to this Petition, and Affidavit, i and our members have
more than just lawful excuses; we hold lots of lawful defences to totally ignore the Admiralty's marginal
measures of S-55 of the CDSA, because it's imposing these new marginal measures to be legislated
- like [for example]: charging and then summoning our officers, agents or members to appear in
Federal Court, is not [and frankly cannot be] properly enacted by any Act of Parliament,
IN FACT under this s-1, we hold lots of lawful defence that protects our RUBRIC and all these
rights to protect our free and democratic society can be ignored with Sec 279 CC being in force
ON THIS: our so called Constitutional form of government declares that this paper Queen
actually holds no authority to deprive Canadians from our case law, under Sec 8 (1, 2, 3) CC.
c. FURTHERMORE, [in our case] s-2 directly prohibits the AG or anyone under Her employ to
engage in interfering or using the overt powers contained in s-2 of Sec 126 CC., because it can and is
being abused to destroy our democracy. Especially with Sec 279 CC being in default, results where,
no judge can hold the territorial rights to insist that their Legal Profession Act, or a territorial right to
over-ride the Canada Elections Act applies, other than s-2, which directly forbids them from enforcing.
d. FURTHERMORE: under our [so called] Constitutional form of government, no one in the BCSC
has the right to act like the SCC /R v Smith decision can be over-ruled as submissive to Maritime rule.
The Admiralty is committing the heinous crime of sedition by insisting that [for example] a Federal
prosecutor or any cop can bust anyone in our recognized political party for operating grow-ops and
dispensaries under common law, because they hold no right to ignore our no jurisdiction defence.
Under UCC /Admiralty Rule cannot oppress this competition in commerce called 'common law',
by us simply standing under this Sec 126(1) CC right, and our Sec 1 of the Charter defence.
e. Attorney General of Canada may act [in /on...] (2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention
of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, [in s-1
above] may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on
behalf of that Government. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).
f. SYNOPSIS: The most common and underhanded application of this provision is to permit any AG
to impose a guilty verdict at any pretrial proceeding [for example]; Frankly, everyone accepts that the
outcome of any trial was made in back rooms [chambers] at the pretrial. We've all been brainwashed
to believe this is necessary, when in fact the abuse of this law directly destroys any and all common
law rights, which is always done under the excuse of protecting Public Safety [which is a NATO term]
which directly undermines what common law defines as: the public trust - to protect common law,
g. Frankly speaking: The courts and authority are addicted to the overt power contained in Sec 126
(2) CC. They actually cannot imagine how to protect the hypocrisy of democracy as stipulated by what
NATO defines as a 'free and democratic society' without this overt power. IN FACT; They would have
a hard time finding case law to support that the Government of Canada does not and cannot do this.
h. In our case, they simply refuse to relinquish those overt powers, and in so doing authority is Hellbent on destroying common law everywhere in order to be ruled under demonic UCC /NATO Rule.

p. 5 [of] 7

4] ON PRESSING THIS FACTUM - Section 336 CC: Criminal breach of trust


[quote] Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part,
of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in
contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
In addition to the essential elements of time, location, and identity, the crown should prove:
1.the accused was a trustee of some thing; (actus reus)
2.the accused converted the thing to an unauthorized use; and (actus reus)
3.the accused intended to defraud. (mens rea) [they broke every criteria]
1. SYNOPSIS: Historically - the very function and origin of this Sumerian trust law is to protect the
Loyal subjects from Judges who practice in imposing institutionalized slavery on its own citizens.
a. In lore, it's actually there to protect a trust bond holder [like me] to do a public and charitable act.
b. In ancient lore, the bond [not me] is to be used to redeem all debt in the world, and they failed to
engage what the law society calls: 'the make-over', what the Bible calls: 'our Redemption and the new
Covenant'; what the Sanskrit literature calls our Golden Age; what's been called the Grand Awakening,
Paradise on Earth, and Madam Adair and Micheal Kleisinger [with full approval of higher authorities]
failed to seize a moment, but they did leave the door wide open for an appeal [before a tribunal]
2. By definition, [under S-2 Interpretations Act] defines justice: as a justice of the peace or a
provincial court judge, and includes two or more justices where two or more justices are, by law,
required to act or, by law, act or have jurisdiction;
[the BAR should have sent me to a tribunal]
3. SYNOPSIS: Mr. Kleisinger and Madam Adair knew they can use an excuse of appearing before
one judge to ignore my no jurisdiction defence, which is failing to see the harm created by omitting to
perceive the obvious harm created by these deliberate omissions = legal insanity [Sec 15CC]
4. This also constitutes FRAUD Section 340 CC: Destroying documents of title [quote] Every
one who, for a fraudulent purpose, destroys, cancels, conceals or obliterates (a) a document of title to
goods or lands, (b) a valuable security or testamentary instrument, (c) a judicial or official document, is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
5. SYNOPSIS: Careful examination of the my Affidavit and Supplement will clearly show that these
expert perverts of the law did continue to in 'deed' enslave me, after the law went in default. And they
they persist to play these arbitrary power-games, by intentionally delaying to serve the Judge's Oral
written Reasons for Judgment, which is deliberately done to obstruct the filing of an appeal on time.

6. IN CONCLUSION:

[to further compound this breach of trust law thru fraud] At face value, I
was deliberately denied a fair hearing, because under due process, the judges we were supposed to
appear before was appointed by lot. [BUT THEN] they changed court rooms after this assigned judge
did not take the case file. This overall breach of due process [of sending me to another judge]
constitutes another breach of Criminal Breach of Fiduciary Trust, by denying us due process.

7. Let's proceed...with a notion pressed by the Honourable Roger Kerans conclusion NAMELY:
Judges 'habitually' rely upon six broad categories to determine the kind of review that should
take place 1) matters involving the principle of natural justice 2) matters of jurisdiction.
3) matters of fact. 4) matters of law. 5) matters of mixed facts and law, and
6) matters of discretion. [Standards of review -1994]

8. ON THIS: All of these matters hold a twisted definition under the Admiralty's lexicography
that results where this court must dismiss my case file as vexatious [like Madam Adair did]
and equally so, these definitions under Locke /Gladstone's original intent are being pressed.
This is why we ask to act accordingly and with a good conscience.

p. 6 [of] 7

4] ON PRESSING THIS FACTUM The Warehouse Receipts Act [revision 1989]


1. ON THIS: i've researched this and - it must be pointed out that this kind of revision of this Act
has never been done anywhere in the Commonwealth, and it was enacted the same year my
abnormal birth landed. It actually defines me as a negotiable receipt with the right to transfer
its full value, and at face value i hold the only such negotiable warehouse receipts in the world.
AND exactly as to my claim, they must prove otherwise or they must redeem its full value.

2. The wording and terms are similar to the PPSA, but this Act actually is customized to fit my
peculiar chattel status. I'm certain that the average person and lawyer can't understand the
complexity of this trust law and or its lexicography, but these legal trustee experts can, and
they would have to agree that under Sec 336 CC, i can make a charitable act to redeem all
debt in the world with this trust fund transfer. This Act actually goes into great detail on how
this court can proceed to make this charitable act of redeeming all debt happen.
3. [like] It defines [page 1] 2(e) that "negotiable receipt" means a receipt in which it is stated that
the goods therein specified will be delivered to bearer or to the order of a named person; (c)
"goods" includes all chattels personal other than things in action and money; (d) "holder", as
applied to a negotiable receipt, means a person who has possession of the receipt and a right
of property therein; 4 Words in a negotiable receipt limiting its negotiability shall be void.

4. My charges under Sec 336 CC and Sec 337 CC comes directly from this act on Page 3
Failure to comply with subsection (1) (2) Where a warehouseman fails to comply with
subsection (1), a holder of the receipt who purchases it for valuable consideration believing it
to be negotiable may, at his option, treat the receipt as vesting in him all rights attaching to a
negotiable receipt and imposing upon the warehouseman the same liabilities he would have
incurred had the receipt been negotiable, and the warehouseman shall be liable accordingly.

5. Back when i dropped a mandamus in Ontario Supreme Court, on Aug 2nd, 2011 [which was the
1290th day time-line of Daniel 12], a Judge Dornheimer refused to open the file and i cursed
him, and they then blocked me from pursuing it further, on an excuse that they did not know
about what BC was up too. [plausible deniability] BUT when i came back to BC a week or so
later, the AG of BC resigned the day i landed, because she knew i was coming after her.
6. This is the first time i get to file this Act since then, and i cannot shrink from pressing it again,
because i'll never get another chance to do it, and the worst they can say is no again, and
frankly last time i took comfort that the Spirit and the Bible says i'd have to do it more that once

Part III:
a)

A brief statement setting out the reasons why leave should be granted
which statement should state the position of the party regarding the following:

the importance of the proposed appeal generally and to the parties;


1. This court needs to review the fact that Marc Pierre Boyer holds good intent, by respecting that
good first fruit is supposed to happen when the fig trees sprout their shoots [like right now]

(b)

the utility of the proposed appeal in the circumstances of the parties;

1. For me to shrink from pressing this Appeals ruling is not an option. In the hope of good first
fruit, i'm pressing to find those who are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of
those who believe and are saved, by Faith [Heb 11:1] defines faith as being sure of what we
hope for, and certain of what you do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for...

2. the prospects of success of the proposed appeal; Basically, because of the fundamental
nature of this ruling being final [as in] 'a yes' or 'no' response is being sought, results where
there is still a 50 /50 chance of succeeding. Despite some pessimistic odds, i must go the
distance, with this case, because i perceive me to be committing a crime against humanity to
not pursue the slim hope that somebody will inevitably rebel before bad first fruit is engaged.

p. 7 [of] 7

Part IV:

The nature of the order requested,

1. What more can i say? [as to Isaiah 40:21] Did you not know? Have you not heard? Has it
not been told to you from the beginning... can you not see that finally, the new creation is
being offered, where the impossible is inevitable, where the consequences of being on the
wrong side of this equation are irrevocable? It all comes down to faith or the lack there-of.
2. The dark side of this offer must also be expressed. NAMELY: Please read all of Heb. 10,
it starts off by giving great words of encouragement to recognize that the new covenant is
being pressed . It then gives a big warning, where on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses
they all face a merciless death, and then asks how much greater is the punishment for
those who trample on the messenger. It then reads that i must not shrink from this task,
then these inspiring words of encouragement at the end [as above in b.1]
3. What you have to accept is that i live on faith alone, and i'm alone, and the inclusion made
on Form 1 of all those BAR members that trampled on me is made in reference to this.
What should be noted is that this Appeal must be answered by March 21st, and this
happens to fall [according to the Jewish calendar 3 days before Passover]. Please note
the fact that the Law Society must on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, either agree to
accept a stay by executing charges [as to Form 3] on that day or fight this case on the day
Jesus Christ died on the cross, in this lunar calendar, and that just the way it is.
4. ON THIS: I actually am pressing for good first fruit and the double edge nature of this offer
is consistent with this being 'a good in that day event' or 'a bad'. AND frankly - if this fails to
elevate their fear of God then what will? I believe some 'body' back east is doomed,
because that's how the prophecy reads. I like to read this passage in a positive light of:
how much greater is the reward for those who believe, and are saved by Faith.
5. I'm doing my level best to trigger good first fruit and just look around you and accept that
2Thes 2 is just around the corner if i fail to get some 'body' to rebel, and exactly as to
prophecy good first fruit is being offered, and there really is no substitute for good first fruit.
6. I wait in patient anticipation for the inevitable, and prey for good first fruit, and frankly the
door on how to achieve good first fruit is so narrow; BUT my goal is for this gateway to be
thrown wide open for those who believe, where once triggered everyone has front row seat
to the witnessing, to a shaking like the world has never seen, yet all kinds of events will
continue on both sides of the great divide.
7. There's all kinds of signs that thru the works of trustees, the redemption of all debt with
happen, with or without my offer. Be my guest to execute orders with my warehouse
receipt and remember it's forbidden to make me leader of people. My trust is to prepare
the way, BUT frankly, wake-up from your slumber because good first fruit cannot happen
without a rebellion from within the house of Jacob [period]
ON THIS: What part of repent before you perish don't you get?
8. Frankly no one can claim to know when this 'in that day' event occurs i've got a habit of
saying praise God when failing to get Jacob to believe, because the consequences of bad
first fruit are beyond horror and irrevocable, and equally so [either way] i'm convinced that
something big happens this spring i'll say Praise God for delivering the meek from evil.
No one knows when the Messiah returns, not even the messenger. I repeat i'm not the
Messiah, and frankly i hold a heavy burden for having to accept the fact that i failed to
reach my goal of saving everyone. But then, in that day the impossible is inevitable.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai