Posts
Post 346
“Well that’s all fine and dandy for some,” you may say; “but I have no desire or intention of being anybody’s governor or assembly member in the kingdom of heaven. That stuff has nothing to do with me, so I cannot be included in the fault.”
Really?~ (said dryly).
Have you ever contemplated then just what it is that you want to be doing in the Lord’s kingdom? Will you be lounging on pillows and waited on by servants hand-and-foot for all eternity having finally arrived at your deserved luxury so long kept from you? Have you forgone all those temporal gratifying experiences here so that you can reap them in abundance for eternity there as a kind of “delayed payment for services rendered”? Is it really, in the end, actually all about YOU?
It’s a curious thought isn’t it? What do the Scriptures have to say regarding your activities in the kingdom of heaven? You would be surprised! I mean REALLY surprised.
But we are not ready to go into all that just yet. For now, let’s just get our basic thinking straight by briefly reviewing some details in a few related parables of scripture:
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant:…enter thou into the joy of the lord.”
What Christian is not well familiar with this verse as a motivational longing to hear on the day we enter heaven to reap our reward that makes it all worth it? But even in your enthusiastic confidence of clear understanding, are you not just a little curious to recall the missing part made evident by the three dots? Let’s try again:
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things,…enter thou into the joy of the lord.”
Oh yah, there’s the missing part. So if we contemplate the meaning of the parable, we see that, while the pleasure of entering into the joy of the Lord may arguably not be; getting the commendation of praise is unquestionably contingent upon being faithful over a few things.
“Sure, I already got that concept in the “good and faithful” comment, even without the missing part.”
Yes, but I don’t think you yet comprehend what it’s actually saying. Did you see the additional three dots? Let's try it one more time:
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, (therefore) I will make thee ruler over many things: (and to that end;) enter thou into the joy of the lord” Matthew 25:21.
“Hmmm a ruler huh? and over a lot of things? That’s the reward for being a faithful steward of a few of the master’s things? Where’s the luxury in that!?"-- Right?
So let me ask you; IF your Lord and Master, wants you to forever be a “governor or assembly member” of some sort or another, what happened to your dream of pampering luxury in consuming upon yourself the pleasures of the eternal kingdom with just you and your Lord living happily ever after? Just how secretly wicked-stepsister is your Cinderella heart anyway? Apparently we have some work to do before your Prince comes to find you by trying on that spiritual slipper of identification; It seems that your foot must have swollen since the ball, it looks to be uncomfortably pinching.
You see, the child’s fairytale always ends at; “they lived happily ever after,” because all we need to help get us through the bitter trials of our child-like struggles in the here-and-now is a glimpse of that great and wonderful eternity where all our trials will be turned into gold (James 1:12+Romans 8:28, I Corinthians 9:24-25, Jeremiah 29:11, Isaiah 61:3, etc.). The simplistic version without all the complicated details, gives us a very clear and sufficiently strong Hope to cling to, when, by the struggles, we have no capacity to contemplate more (John 16:12). It is enough (Revelation 2:8-9a,10-11, 3:4-6, 3:7-8,10-13).
But there IS more if we want it. Why?
The details are hidden from the simple in faith so that they do not get discouraged in the struggles of their early maturation: Hold firm to the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and you will be counted among the citizens of his kingdom (Matthew 10:22). Period.
But we are speaking simplistically of a very sophisticated spiritual topic. Simply speaking: The more of the details in our maturity that we gather and comprehend in application, the greater our qualifications for the job we apply for. If you don’t see yourself as a “ruler over many things” in the kingdom of heaven then don’t apply with anticipation for the job that gets the; “Well done thou good and faithful servant,” commendation. Public correction for being comparatively under-qualified is embarrassing to say the least (Revelation 3:17-18):
“When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room (G5117)” Luke 14:8-9.
“In my Father’s house are many mansions (G3438: a staying, i.e. residence (the act or the place))…” John 14:2. We may translate this as stations, or seats; Occupations.
The concept of this parable is not to discourage anyone from seeking the highest seat they are qualified for, but to refrain from overreaching expectations of self worth. I understand that the above passage is a parable, and I have seemed to borrow it’s intended point for another application; a very dangerous use of parables indeed. But the parable is speaking of pride in imagining oneself greater and more qualified that one actually is, and in this way I have not abused it’s point. Especially because, even though the event in which it was delivered was not a wedding, the parable of that event is centered at a generic wedding, and can therefore be easily applied to THE wedding in the Kingdom of Heaven. So let’s try a non-parable verse regarding various seats in the kingdom:
“And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold” Revelation 4:4.
If you are anything like me; it never even crossed your mind to sit in one of those twenty-four seats. Of course not! That is a position of which I am far under-qualified to fill. But those seats are there for somebody to fill. That means there are seats: greater and lesser seats. So, if we are not going to sit there in those very high seats, where will you sit; what room --(G5117; a spot, general in space, but limited by occupancy)-- will you fill at the great wedding of the Lamb?
“And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” Hebrews 6:11.
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” James 2:14.
It cannot now be denied that faith and righteousness go hand in hand, and that getting through the gate is not the same thing as finding your seat; as great or as least as it may be. So let me ask you; “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
It’s a question for contemplation asked of almost every kid in their adolescence long before their life station is acquired. Some know at a very early age exactly what they want to be, while others graduate from college still not knowing. Far too many, sort-of drift along and let the random winds of life give them whatever comes. Well maybe these people do get by, but who dreams of flipping hamburgers as a life’s career? I suppose that some might. and the world needs burger flippers. and garbage collectors. and sewer treatment operators. So I suppose it’s good that there are so many who have no ambition but to survive life on the lowest rungs, grateful to have a job at all.
It is likewise in the kingdom of heaven, which this life Types parabolically (*1):
…“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” II Timothy 2:…19-21.
So we see (in the fuller passage) that successfully departing from iniquity, and shunning vain and profane babblings and strife in pointless conversations, are among the significant factors of qualification for a better job position in the kingdom of heaven, while conversely, a failure to avoid these things, though maybe not disqualifying us from a place in the larger kingdom of God (I John 5:17), certainly keeps us from an honorable seat.
Do you suppose that Cinderella; the bride of the Prince, would be considered a vessel unto dishonor? Yah~, me neither. Can you suddenly see that not everybody who enters heaven is the bride of Christ? Does that shake your very perceptions of the faith and your eternity? It should.
Like the kid who is asked; “What do you want to be when you grow up?,” you need to contemplate this thought for longer than a moment. It’s very important to your eternity. It goes hand in hand with the earlier question regarding the first generation Hebrews of Promise who crossed the Red Sea in baptism but never crossed the Jordan in the righteousness of faith. In Post 247 we asked; “Are They In Hell?” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/05/are-they-in-hell.html), and we are still discovering the HUGE answer that opens the door to that kingdom for a peak inside. The Grand Tapestry shows us what that kingdom looks like and why.
So I ask you again: If not everybody who enters heaven is the Bride of Christ, where do they all sit: what is their station; their room; their seat? But more important to ask personally is: Where then do I sit with my slightly “Wicked Stepsister” heart?
“How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed!...The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!” Lamentations 4:1-2.
It seems that even “magically perfect” Cinderella can indeed fall from her glory if she is not diligent (I Corinthians 10:12, II Thessalonians 2:3, II Peter 1:10, etc.). What her wicked stepsisters assume is “just the way she was born,” is actually a very earnestly built persona of choice; a robe of righteousness chosen with care from a closet of options (I Corinthians 6:11).
Spiritually precious fine-gold vessels of honor can indeed deteriorate to be esteemed as mere clay vessels of dishonor as they are manipulated by molders not God. After it is made, I am persuaded that the regressive transformation is not contingent upon what it’s made of, but what you put in it (Romans 12:2, 6:16). My computer may be a lofty fine-gold spiritual tool of God, while my neighbor’s computer may be a mere earthy tool of base-nature pornography and wasted time.
Our personal question above that sprung from a sudden realization that we are not all the bride of Christ, should be quickly followed with; Is there anything I can still do to improve my designated seating before my name is called? I’d rather not collect garbage for eternity, if I have a choice in the matter.
The above II Timothy 2:21 seems to tell us that we do indeed have a say in the matter!
“But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end;” Hebrews 3:13-14, (underlined capital type emphasis added).
Does that warning admonition of retaining the beginning confidence ring any Revelation 2:4 “First love” bells? The deceitfulness of sin is the very great bump that will throw you from the train without so much as spilling your tea! But that mystery is a topic for the next Post. This Post is your wakeup call as we prepare for the bump.
Applications are being reviewed and placements arranged as we speak! (John 14:2b).
* * * * * * *
(*1) Parabola: Greek: parabole; a place beside. See Parable.
Parabolic: 1. Allegoric. 2. [From parabola] Geometry a. Resembling, relating to, or generated or directed by, a parabola. b. Hence, having the form of a parabola; as, a parabolic course. - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th Edition 1948.
*
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Self Righteousness
Post 345
enhanced links 12/27/2015 (thanks Mom!)
By now you should not need help making the direct link between the last Post about Cinderella in the kingdom of heaven and the preceding topic about rogue government personnel and treasonous conduct, though you may still need assistance to see how all this works into the Grand Tapestry. But in making the connection, the last Post created a very important question of distinction to be explored while looking for answers of clarification. How are we to deal with well-meaning zealous persons that nonetheless work earnestly to destroy what they think they are protecting and/or even enhancing?
…“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”… Romans 10:2-3.
How do we dare to criticize devout Christians who successfully cast out devils in Jesus name and/or devote their Christian lives to doing wonderfully good works in that great name? (Matthew 7:22), especially in the face of the fact that some of Jesus’ first disciples had trouble casting out some demons yet his criticism was only light and constructive (Matthew 17:19-20).
We have only just begun to bring back a long neglected remembrance regarding the importance of righteousness in God’s kingdom as distinct from getting there at all, and the question to answer now is; How do we distinguish worthy righteousness from its deceitful imitation of self righteousness? Note, in the above passage, that we are not speaking of the flagrantly un-righteous (*1), but making a distinction between two very earnest and zealous but different righteousnesses.
Remember that hidden third option principle we discussed many Posts back? (*2), well that comprehension is needed now. In this latter age we have been beguiled to see simplistically that there is either righteousness or unrighteousness, and we all know how easy it is to identify one from the other: “Joining UNICEF to save kids is righteous, and selling kids into human trafficking is unrighteous.” Pointing that finger of simplistic two-sided distinction is what automatically places us in the opposite camp from the accused; “That’s unrighteous, and I don’t do that.” So we assume by default that we are therefore righteous… and, by the inclusion of the root-word in each pro-distinction; it seems we are: Righteous and self-righteous vs. un-righteousness. Therefore, in the above Romans passage revealing that there is a further distinction to be made within the righteous category, let’s ask the questions it engenders:
• Who might it be that would have such zeal of God but not according to knowledge?
• Who could know of how important righteousness is, yet be wholly ignorant of what God’s righteousness looks like?
• What kind of a faithful person would go about establishing their own righteousness to fill the important need, because they have not submitted to God’s distinction of righteousness due to their ignorance?
Read the passage again and contemplate these questions before moving on.
Applying this concept question to our governing officials in Type: What kind of a faithful official would go about establishing their own laws to fill the important need, because they have not submitted to the Constitution’s Law?
Whoever “they” are in the above passage, their kind of zealous righteousness is identified as self-righteous. It’s a common word that we all use instinctively to describe a personality and conduct that quickly comes to mind at the breath of the word, yet we so easily fail to actually define specifically what we mean. What does self-righteous mean? It means exactly what the above passage says it means. Read it again.
In this light we begin to see that there are indeed two camps of righteousness, but the division is now different than we originally speculated: Righteous vs. unrighteous and self-righteous.
The reason why I initially left off the identity of those that Paul is referencing is because it allows our contemplations to extend to anyone that does this, rather than just those he specifically identifies. The moment that we discover “their” identity (which identity distinguishes them from us), our finger-pointing places us in the safe camp of two sides. So without identifying Paul’s target right away, we are free to see that there are very many self-proclaimed Christians today who fall fully into this category of very diligently and zealously motivated people going about establishing their own righteousness… and being called self-righteous behind their prudish backs by self-righteous people feeling more righteous because of their numerous diligent works of sacrifices and offerings of charity in liberty that is outside of the constraining rule of law (Isaiah 65:3-5). All these people comparing themselves with themselves have no knowledge of what God’s righteousness looks like, so they faithfully do what their heart dictates with their limited understanding; The blind leading the blind, seeming to seek out the ditch on purpose because of what they cannot see!
So since we now know that righteousness is very important to the kingdom, but only the right kind is counted worthy (Romans 4:3, Psalm 106:30-31, Romans 2:26); Is “their” righteousness sufficient to be counted compatible among the citizens of God’s kingdom? Let’s find out by reading the opening line of the above critical passage:
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved”… Romans 10:1.
Huh~ (a statement, not a question). Paul is talking about Israel. And he makes it clear that they are NOT saved. This is Israel we are talking about, you know; The blessed children of Abraham as distinct from “the other” of his children. These are those special people who were given the law of God to keep and protect for the world. God’s chosen people. I thought they had a shoe-in; they are guaranteed a seat in the kingdom. How are they not saved?
Well, Paul makes it clear that their lack of salvation and their quazi-righteousness are linked, they have failed to submit to the righteousness of God and instead have set up their own as the standard-- not as an alternate replacement, but as the original righteousness; “This IS God’s righteousness.” The point to note is why they are not saved.
So is salvation about faith, or about righteousness? Strangely the answer is; “Yes.”
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 5:20, (see also 23:13 for an shocking extension of this alarming pronouncement).
The topic here is righteousness as it relates to getting into heaven. So we discover that by use of the word exceed (G4052 superabound), Christ is not suggesting “just more of the same” but a righteousness G4119 surpassed. This confusing distinction only makes real sense when we understand that he is speaking of their kind of righteousness (G1343 equity (of character or act)) as distinct from a better, superior kind that multiplies the affect of the lesser (II Corinthians 9:9-11). So how is it that the Israelites, of all people, would not know of God’s kind of righteousness? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that they were set up to fail by misdirection:
“For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them” Romans 10:5.
What did the Israelites have but the law of Moses? It’s what God dramatically gave them on the fiery mountain after leading them out of slavery in Egypt. It’s the only form of righteousness they knew. What hope could they have to comprehend another kind of righteousness when it eventually came?
“For Christ is the end (G5056 conclusion) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” Romans 10:4. -- But apparently not for anyone who doesn’t. For them; the completion of the law has not yet come, though it did. So they stick with the law, though by circumstance they cannot.
I drug this verse out of its order from the passage to draw attention to its point. The prophets foretold the Israelites of God’s Messiah that was still to come after the law, and the Typology that God gave them by “Moses in two parts (*3)" foretold of another kind to complete the work started by the former (Hebrews 7:11-12). The Israelites well knew of this coming Messiah and were looking for him, but they got hung up on the law and its righteousness of self-works-- self-righteousness-- in duty; a slave/servant mentality of doing as told without the passion of “want to” that gave the law validity. A blind obedience of following became duty, and duty eventually turned militant in the effort of holding the obedience to what they no longer wanted to do but were obligated to. The militancy became power, and power reinterpreted the law to get the best of both worlds: “YOUR kingdom MY way.” In their heart they want God’s kingdom, so that makes their unrighteous means righteous. Self-righteous.
Verse 4 follows verse 3 of Romans ten as its answer of explanation: They went about establishing their own righteousness of the familiar law because they rejected the new Christ of fulfilled righteousness who came after the work of the law had done its preparatory but incomplete work. Instead of a stepping-stone means the law became the end itself. They saw nothing coming after the law. There is no 8th day at the end of the week. So in zeal of God they rejected he who came to lead them beyond the law in a different kind of righteousness that did not destroy the law but surpassed it. Exceeded it. Completed it.
“But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?... or, Who shall descend into the deep?... But what saith it? (The righteousness of faith says:) The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” Romans 10:6-10.
Again the marriage Typology; the influence of the heart to motivate and the mouth of action to declare the path chosen. I confess, this is a very full passage and hard to digest its full related meaning without chapters of explanation, so let’s just focus on the general topic at hand. Paul is not here talking to the unsaved Israelites but to those all-inclusive people who can understand the discussion by experience of accepting Jesus the Christ as the sum of completion. In this passage we see clearly that faith and law are not at all the same things and therefore their righteousness’ are not the same either: Unlike that of faith, the righteousness of the law does indeed ask; Who shall ascend into heaven? (intellectually questioning Jesus’ legitimacy), and, Who shall descend into the deep? (another intellectually doubting question of Christ Jesus). There are whole sections of the seminaries dedicated to researching and explaining these questions-- such as the virgin birth and the resurrection from the dead-- and establishing the authorized opinion on the matter that their students will then propagate to their parishioners as the official answer of the Church to the questions of doubt.
So why doesn’t the righteousness of faith ask such important questions? To be simplistic, it’s because it doesn’t care to drag up the complexities of doubts not felt. Faith is established in the heart and the result is righteousness born of love rather than intellect. Cinderella does not think to justify her conduct as unselfish because the unimpeachable state of her pure heart automatically justifies it on a level beyond intellectual scrutiny (I John 3:20-21, II Timothy 4:8, Colossians 2:16-18, etc.).
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” (repeated from above).
This kind of faith-full righteousness doesn’t do its work because it fears punishment or desires reward. It does it because of love. What are rules and laws of proper conduct to a love that has devoted obedient faith in the target of its devotion? No punishment can deter it and no reward can buy it, and no doubt can quench it!
“From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” Luke 6:45.
And so the lawfully necessary confession of the mouth that results in salvation by the publicly declared chosen path, is but a byproduct of what cannot be restrained in the heart: “I DO! a thousand times over, I do!” A slave/servant cannot adequately express such unbound passion to his lord, and so his righteousness is that of mere duty, even if he loves his master: Duty takes default precedence by law; “You did it because you had to.” (This important concept is the sum of why humanity is allowed to fail by experience of learning, but that is a topic to discuss at length later).
The Israelites are still the slaves/servants of God because they reject their liberating Messiah out of fear of the known dangers due to a lack of faith in he who desires to liberate them (Numbers 13:25-14:10). Being familiar and content to be servants on the safe-side rather than beloved friends on the dangerous side, they were content to continue following Moses through the wilderness to the end of their days, --servants who got what their un-servant-like rebelliousness in fear demanded--. So God agreed… with a long-range national plan in mind that doesn’t included many individuals. (Israel’s future guaranteed shoe-in salvation is national in nature; not personal, as is likewise the Church. THIS IS A CRITICAL CONCEPT TO GRASP). So while Moses indeed led them through the wilderness thereafter, God’s passion is with those whose faith breeds a spontaneous righteousness as a byproduct (II Corinthians 3:6+).
…“that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that (righteousness) which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (G4102 persuasion):”… Philippians 3:9.
* * *
So now that we better comprehend Paul’s commended kind of righteousness born out of faith in love of God’s Son, let’s go back a verse and see what was on his mind that brought him to this point:
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ…” (Philippians 3:8)
OK wait. Paul declares that it was for Christ Jesus’ sake that he suffered the loss of all things? (and his list of “all things” is significant). Why didn’t that great loss distance his heart from the Lord in bitterness? Why would he instead, with cavalier disdain, joyfully fling away everything that was lost as if it were utterly insignificant and unwanted anyway?
It was because he saw that loss as the waste-byproduct of digestion for sustenance that led him to the intimate knowledge of the Messiah his Lord, and prepared his heart to be counted worthy of that Lord’s kingdom through the righteousness that is provided by God in the love called faith, as explanatory verse 9 stated. It is like the young woman who joyfully leaves her father and mother's home of her upbringing to cling to her new husband in his.
Is there any comparison between these two righteousness’? No! a thousand times, No!
So why would liberated Christians today, turn again to learn the legal righteousness found at the feet of the faith-less Scribes and Pharisees now calling themselves Rabbis of great learning? (“Everyone needs a Rabbi”). It’s because these Christians have lost their first love and therefore need an alternate guidance of G4102 persuasion faith to do what they no longer feel inclined to do but know they should:
“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted” Revelation 2:1-3.
Wow, what a commendable list of righteous works! What a gloriously praiseworthy list of evidences of faithfulness and endurance! If only we could all be so commended! (Matthew 25:21 or 23). But now let’s get to the meat that this recognition by our Lord leads up to for comparison sake:
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love” Revelation 1:4.
Oh boy, I thought after the nevertheless he was really going to hit them with something serious! Lost first love?- that just comes with the familiarity of a long relationship; It’s nothing serious, they are still amazingly faithful, fulfilling the duties of their gender role, and that above criticism. So now that we know they are safe, let’s continue:
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first (G4413 foremost) works;…”
Hold on just a second; “Do the more important works?” These folks are filled to the brim with good and commendable works for the Lord, and very good and commendable works they are! They are very righteous works that no one, not even the Lord, denies has great value. So how are they to find the time or energy to do the foremost works as well? “Come to think of it; I don’t even remember what the foremost works are. Surely this can’t actually be too big a deal,” right? Let’s see:
…“or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” Revelation 1:5b.
“Oh common! Seriously?! After all that I have given to this relationship...” right?
Can you feel their frustration with an ungrateful spouse and lord who can’t seem to see the great benefit they bring to the relationship and kingdom by their hard work of devotion? Can you relate?
We don’t even have to explore the details of the letter, like; What does the candlestick represent? or, Where does it go after it is removed? and, Where is it’s place in the first place? These are legal details that aren’t needed in order to feel the weight of his heartfelt unhappiness in the relationship.
If there is any of that old righteousness spawned of love in devoted faith in this my lord, then this last days church will eagerly go about finding the nature of those foremost works that he wants. But if that pure and unrestrainable righteousness has been completely replaced by the righteousness of duty in the law of wifery, then the bitterness of her diligent work being under-appreciated will make the problem worse, and thereby require the study of the letter of the law to root out the legitimacy of his complaint... if it's even wanted.
Adding “sandwiching verse 6” reconfirms that the numerous works listed on both sides of the complaint are indeed appreciated and commended, but they are different than the works that are really far more important, foremost, first. So is it the works that are really important to him or the motive that validates them? The question that may make discovery easier is; “Why and when did I stop doing the foremost works?” Let me help answer that question:
* * *
“And some (seed) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. …
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. …and that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection” Luke 8:7,11,14.
There is nothing inherently sinful about generic cares and riches and pleasures, they can simply be a healthy and necessary part of natural life. In fact the list of our Church’s commendation is one of commendable cares. But cares (G3308 distraction), like the deceitfulness of riches and (G1939 longing) pleasures, i.e. lusts (Mark 4:19), good or bad, can choke out the faith (persuasion), that springs from the word of God as seed, by overwhelming it through neglect of what gives faith life: the Spirit of the word as seed, called Faith. Such choking starvation by preoccupation with lesser things results in the needful works of love becoming duty without love. Without love, duty becomes the justifying focus as an end in itself. An unhappy end. A faithless end. An end not counted worth its effort.
To remind you that we are indeed still moving forward from the discussion of rogue governments, let me overlay its Type:
The overwhelming political duties of the daily seat chokes the original intent to keep to the standard of the office’s actual purpose. What is that standard? The Law (capital L meaning Constitutional values) to which we swore and oath to uphold, but which became neglected by the complexity of the daily effort. Choked by cares. And riches, and inappropriate desires.
It is my personal opinion of observation that we elect ignorant and unqualified persons to office, and instead of then quickly educating themselves to become qualified on the job, they are heaped to distraction by the overload of daily bureaucracy until they succumb to the “norm” of the job while never learning the tenor of the Law that should always remain their foremost focus. Their first works.
Ironically the Law is left behind neglected while they work diligently to occupy the seat of governance.
If in this Typology the Law is Righteousness, then this distracting bureaucracy is self-righteousness. Simply another, more pleasant form of un-righteousness. Lawlessness.
This corrupt result is not from a lack of good will or earnest desire. It’s wholly due to a state of ignorance herded by busyness through forced obligation of cares, riches, and pleasures that the job is supposedly demanding.
Christ is telling the Revelation last days Church that we are missing the whole point of the office that originally moved us to choose it in the first place. No good works, however important, should stand in the way of recovering that foremost perspective ASAP. So with the Governmental offices as the Type, America is falling today because lawmakers and bureaucrats have utterly forgotten that the Constitution is their primary concern and guideline.
The reason why this is foremostly important, while the other should not be neglected (Luke 11:42) is because, while the commendable works we do are indeed needful, the neglect of the Law by ignorance causes us to necessarily set up our own version of law in the effort. But we are not the Founders! we lack their deep faith and understanding. Our ignorant modern wisdom falls pathetically short of “good enough” to cross that line. In our diminished state of mind and comprehension today, we are wholly incapable of coming up with a replacement document that equals the proven supremacy of the U.S. Constitution for governing such a great nation of human liberty in abundant peace and prosperity. But the bureaucracy of the seat sitting in ignorance, demands by the deceitfulness of misdirection that we try. Our current national and local condition of legal depravity proves my point.
…“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of our Founders, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of our Founder’s Law, and going about to establish their own laws, have not submitted themselves unto the Law of our Founders.”… Romans 10:2-3 applied.
This generic state of political depravity through diligent though well-meaning ignorance opens the door to many various corruptions; whether through their own good intentions, or through those wily enemies who lead them intentionally to make bad choices by the complexity of deception. Ignorance of the Constitutional fence is simultaneously as destructive to this Christian nation as ignorance of the Biblical fence is to the kingdom of heaven. The one is simply the shadow of the other.
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” Matthew 11:12-13.
There is a very useful value to the law and prophets to keep our liberated hearts tracking straight. The violence against the kingdom of heaven, after the law had passed, is done by the abuse of liberty that freed us from the oppression of the law. Abortion being just one temporal example, and the forced incorporation of so-called transgender (*4) another.
* * * * * * *
(*1) “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed (i.e. put down like a rabid dog), speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time (i.e. broad daylight, before all, brazenly, unashamed).”… II Peter 2:12-13.
(*2) The third option principle can be found compiled in Posts 191, May 17, 2011, Blind Side (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/blind-side.html) -through- Post 193, May 20, 2011, End of Book One (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/end-of-book-one.html), and concluded as a simplistic description in application by the words:
“The Third Option:
A nation collectively bound to the calling that; God is supreme, is the nation that stands as an unmovable wall against the storms of tormented neighbors.” - Post 194, May 26, 2011, Peace (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace.html).
(*3) Moses in Two Parts, Post 246, May 23, 2012 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/05/moses-in-two-parts.html).
(*4) Transgender ruling CNN Nov 3, 2015 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-school-district-transgender-ruling/).
Do not let this topic derail the point of the Post, but along this line allow me to simply interject a few questions for contemplation: Since when is the Y-chromosome present or absent by choice or opinion or determination to be so? Are all the body's Y-chromosomes found only in the genitalia and so removed with the parts upon surgically becoming a girl? Do Estrogen injections eliminate the Y-chromosomes or just confuse them? If you put a dress on a baby boy does that make it a girl because it looks like a girl?
*
enhanced links 12/27/2015 (thanks Mom!)
By now you should not need help making the direct link between the last Post about Cinderella in the kingdom of heaven and the preceding topic about rogue government personnel and treasonous conduct, though you may still need assistance to see how all this works into the Grand Tapestry. But in making the connection, the last Post created a very important question of distinction to be explored while looking for answers of clarification. How are we to deal with well-meaning zealous persons that nonetheless work earnestly to destroy what they think they are protecting and/or even enhancing?
…“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”… Romans 10:2-3.
How do we dare to criticize devout Christians who successfully cast out devils in Jesus name and/or devote their Christian lives to doing wonderfully good works in that great name? (Matthew 7:22), especially in the face of the fact that some of Jesus’ first disciples had trouble casting out some demons yet his criticism was only light and constructive (Matthew 17:19-20).
We have only just begun to bring back a long neglected remembrance regarding the importance of righteousness in God’s kingdom as distinct from getting there at all, and the question to answer now is; How do we distinguish worthy righteousness from its deceitful imitation of self righteousness? Note, in the above passage, that we are not speaking of the flagrantly un-righteous (*1), but making a distinction between two very earnest and zealous but different righteousnesses.
Remember that hidden third option principle we discussed many Posts back? (*2), well that comprehension is needed now. In this latter age we have been beguiled to see simplistically that there is either righteousness or unrighteousness, and we all know how easy it is to identify one from the other: “Joining UNICEF to save kids is righteous, and selling kids into human trafficking is unrighteous.” Pointing that finger of simplistic two-sided distinction is what automatically places us in the opposite camp from the accused; “That’s unrighteous, and I don’t do that.” So we assume by default that we are therefore righteous… and, by the inclusion of the root-word in each pro-distinction; it seems we are: Righteous and self-righteous vs. un-righteousness. Therefore, in the above Romans passage revealing that there is a further distinction to be made within the righteous category, let’s ask the questions it engenders:
• Who might it be that would have such zeal of God but not according to knowledge?
• Who could know of how important righteousness is, yet be wholly ignorant of what God’s righteousness looks like?
• What kind of a faithful person would go about establishing their own righteousness to fill the important need, because they have not submitted to God’s distinction of righteousness due to their ignorance?
Read the passage again and contemplate these questions before moving on.
Applying this concept question to our governing officials in Type: What kind of a faithful official would go about establishing their own laws to fill the important need, because they have not submitted to the Constitution’s Law?
Whoever “they” are in the above passage, their kind of zealous righteousness is identified as self-righteous. It’s a common word that we all use instinctively to describe a personality and conduct that quickly comes to mind at the breath of the word, yet we so easily fail to actually define specifically what we mean. What does self-righteous mean? It means exactly what the above passage says it means. Read it again.
In this light we begin to see that there are indeed two camps of righteousness, but the division is now different than we originally speculated: Righteous vs. unrighteous and self-righteous.
The reason why I initially left off the identity of those that Paul is referencing is because it allows our contemplations to extend to anyone that does this, rather than just those he specifically identifies. The moment that we discover “their” identity (which identity distinguishes them from us), our finger-pointing places us in the safe camp of two sides. So without identifying Paul’s target right away, we are free to see that there are very many self-proclaimed Christians today who fall fully into this category of very diligently and zealously motivated people going about establishing their own righteousness… and being called self-righteous behind their prudish backs by self-righteous people feeling more righteous because of their numerous diligent works of sacrifices and offerings of charity in liberty that is outside of the constraining rule of law (Isaiah 65:3-5). All these people comparing themselves with themselves have no knowledge of what God’s righteousness looks like, so they faithfully do what their heart dictates with their limited understanding; The blind leading the blind, seeming to seek out the ditch on purpose because of what they cannot see!
So since we now know that righteousness is very important to the kingdom, but only the right kind is counted worthy (Romans 4:3, Psalm 106:30-31, Romans 2:26); Is “their” righteousness sufficient to be counted compatible among the citizens of God’s kingdom? Let’s find out by reading the opening line of the above critical passage:
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved”… Romans 10:1.
Huh~ (a statement, not a question). Paul is talking about Israel. And he makes it clear that they are NOT saved. This is Israel we are talking about, you know; The blessed children of Abraham as distinct from “the other” of his children. These are those special people who were given the law of God to keep and protect for the world. God’s chosen people. I thought they had a shoe-in; they are guaranteed a seat in the kingdom. How are they not saved?
Well, Paul makes it clear that their lack of salvation and their quazi-righteousness are linked, they have failed to submit to the righteousness of God and instead have set up their own as the standard-- not as an alternate replacement, but as the original righteousness; “This IS God’s righteousness.” The point to note is why they are not saved.
So is salvation about faith, or about righteousness? Strangely the answer is; “Yes.”
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 5:20, (see also 23:13 for an shocking extension of this alarming pronouncement).
The topic here is righteousness as it relates to getting into heaven. So we discover that by use of the word exceed (G4052 superabound), Christ is not suggesting “just more of the same” but a righteousness G4119 surpassed. This confusing distinction only makes real sense when we understand that he is speaking of their kind of righteousness (G1343 equity (of character or act)) as distinct from a better, superior kind that multiplies the affect of the lesser (II Corinthians 9:9-11). So how is it that the Israelites, of all people, would not know of God’s kind of righteousness? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that they were set up to fail by misdirection:
“For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them” Romans 10:5.
What did the Israelites have but the law of Moses? It’s what God dramatically gave them on the fiery mountain after leading them out of slavery in Egypt. It’s the only form of righteousness they knew. What hope could they have to comprehend another kind of righteousness when it eventually came?
“For Christ is the end (G5056 conclusion) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” Romans 10:4. -- But apparently not for anyone who doesn’t. For them; the completion of the law has not yet come, though it did. So they stick with the law, though by circumstance they cannot.
I drug this verse out of its order from the passage to draw attention to its point. The prophets foretold the Israelites of God’s Messiah that was still to come after the law, and the Typology that God gave them by “Moses in two parts (*3)" foretold of another kind to complete the work started by the former (Hebrews 7:11-12). The Israelites well knew of this coming Messiah and were looking for him, but they got hung up on the law and its righteousness of self-works-- self-righteousness-- in duty; a slave/servant mentality of doing as told without the passion of “want to” that gave the law validity. A blind obedience of following became duty, and duty eventually turned militant in the effort of holding the obedience to what they no longer wanted to do but were obligated to. The militancy became power, and power reinterpreted the law to get the best of both worlds: “YOUR kingdom MY way.” In their heart they want God’s kingdom, so that makes their unrighteous means righteous. Self-righteous.
Verse 4 follows verse 3 of Romans ten as its answer of explanation: They went about establishing their own righteousness of the familiar law because they rejected the new Christ of fulfilled righteousness who came after the work of the law had done its preparatory but incomplete work. Instead of a stepping-stone means the law became the end itself. They saw nothing coming after the law. There is no 8th day at the end of the week. So in zeal of God they rejected he who came to lead them beyond the law in a different kind of righteousness that did not destroy the law but surpassed it. Exceeded it. Completed it.
“But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?... or, Who shall descend into the deep?... But what saith it? (The righteousness of faith says:) The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” Romans 10:6-10.
Again the marriage Typology; the influence of the heart to motivate and the mouth of action to declare the path chosen. I confess, this is a very full passage and hard to digest its full related meaning without chapters of explanation, so let’s just focus on the general topic at hand. Paul is not here talking to the unsaved Israelites but to those all-inclusive people who can understand the discussion by experience of accepting Jesus the Christ as the sum of completion. In this passage we see clearly that faith and law are not at all the same things and therefore their righteousness’ are not the same either: Unlike that of faith, the righteousness of the law does indeed ask; Who shall ascend into heaven? (intellectually questioning Jesus’ legitimacy), and, Who shall descend into the deep? (another intellectually doubting question of Christ Jesus). There are whole sections of the seminaries dedicated to researching and explaining these questions-- such as the virgin birth and the resurrection from the dead-- and establishing the authorized opinion on the matter that their students will then propagate to their parishioners as the official answer of the Church to the questions of doubt.
So why doesn’t the righteousness of faith ask such important questions? To be simplistic, it’s because it doesn’t care to drag up the complexities of doubts not felt. Faith is established in the heart and the result is righteousness born of love rather than intellect. Cinderella does not think to justify her conduct as unselfish because the unimpeachable state of her pure heart automatically justifies it on a level beyond intellectual scrutiny (I John 3:20-21, II Timothy 4:8, Colossians 2:16-18, etc.).
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” (repeated from above).
This kind of faith-full righteousness doesn’t do its work because it fears punishment or desires reward. It does it because of love. What are rules and laws of proper conduct to a love that has devoted obedient faith in the target of its devotion? No punishment can deter it and no reward can buy it, and no doubt can quench it!
“From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” Luke 6:45.
And so the lawfully necessary confession of the mouth that results in salvation by the publicly declared chosen path, is but a byproduct of what cannot be restrained in the heart: “I DO! a thousand times over, I do!” A slave/servant cannot adequately express such unbound passion to his lord, and so his righteousness is that of mere duty, even if he loves his master: Duty takes default precedence by law; “You did it because you had to.” (This important concept is the sum of why humanity is allowed to fail by experience of learning, but that is a topic to discuss at length later).
The Israelites are still the slaves/servants of God because they reject their liberating Messiah out of fear of the known dangers due to a lack of faith in he who desires to liberate them (Numbers 13:25-14:10). Being familiar and content to be servants on the safe-side rather than beloved friends on the dangerous side, they were content to continue following Moses through the wilderness to the end of their days, --servants who got what their un-servant-like rebelliousness in fear demanded--. So God agreed… with a long-range national plan in mind that doesn’t included many individuals. (Israel’s future guaranteed shoe-in salvation is national in nature; not personal, as is likewise the Church. THIS IS A CRITICAL CONCEPT TO GRASP). So while Moses indeed led them through the wilderness thereafter, God’s passion is with those whose faith breeds a spontaneous righteousness as a byproduct (II Corinthians 3:6+).
…“that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that (righteousness) which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (G4102 persuasion):”… Philippians 3:9.
* * *
So now that we better comprehend Paul’s commended kind of righteousness born out of faith in love of God’s Son, let’s go back a verse and see what was on his mind that brought him to this point:
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ…” (Philippians 3:8)
OK wait. Paul declares that it was for Christ Jesus’ sake that he suffered the loss of all things? (and his list of “all things” is significant). Why didn’t that great loss distance his heart from the Lord in bitterness? Why would he instead, with cavalier disdain, joyfully fling away everything that was lost as if it were utterly insignificant and unwanted anyway?
It was because he saw that loss as the waste-byproduct of digestion for sustenance that led him to the intimate knowledge of the Messiah his Lord, and prepared his heart to be counted worthy of that Lord’s kingdom through the righteousness that is provided by God in the love called faith, as explanatory verse 9 stated. It is like the young woman who joyfully leaves her father and mother's home of her upbringing to cling to her new husband in his.
Is there any comparison between these two righteousness’? No! a thousand times, No!
So why would liberated Christians today, turn again to learn the legal righteousness found at the feet of the faith-less Scribes and Pharisees now calling themselves Rabbis of great learning? (“Everyone needs a Rabbi”). It’s because these Christians have lost their first love and therefore need an alternate guidance of G4102 persuasion faith to do what they no longer feel inclined to do but know they should:
“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted” Revelation 2:1-3.
Wow, what a commendable list of righteous works! What a gloriously praiseworthy list of evidences of faithfulness and endurance! If only we could all be so commended! (Matthew 25:21 or 23). But now let’s get to the meat that this recognition by our Lord leads up to for comparison sake:
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love” Revelation 1:4.
Oh boy, I thought after the nevertheless he was really going to hit them with something serious! Lost first love?- that just comes with the familiarity of a long relationship; It’s nothing serious, they are still amazingly faithful, fulfilling the duties of their gender role, and that above criticism. So now that we know they are safe, let’s continue:
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first (G4413 foremost) works;…”
Hold on just a second; “Do the more important works?” These folks are filled to the brim with good and commendable works for the Lord, and very good and commendable works they are! They are very righteous works that no one, not even the Lord, denies has great value. So how are they to find the time or energy to do the foremost works as well? “Come to think of it; I don’t even remember what the foremost works are. Surely this can’t actually be too big a deal,” right? Let’s see:
…“or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” Revelation 1:5b.
“Oh common! Seriously?! After all that I have given to this relationship...” right?
Can you feel their frustration with an ungrateful spouse and lord who can’t seem to see the great benefit they bring to the relationship and kingdom by their hard work of devotion? Can you relate?
We don’t even have to explore the details of the letter, like; What does the candlestick represent? or, Where does it go after it is removed? and, Where is it’s place in the first place? These are legal details that aren’t needed in order to feel the weight of his heartfelt unhappiness in the relationship.
If there is any of that old righteousness spawned of love in devoted faith in this my lord, then this last days church will eagerly go about finding the nature of those foremost works that he wants. But if that pure and unrestrainable righteousness has been completely replaced by the righteousness of duty in the law of wifery, then the bitterness of her diligent work being under-appreciated will make the problem worse, and thereby require the study of the letter of the law to root out the legitimacy of his complaint... if it's even wanted.
Adding “sandwiching verse 6” reconfirms that the numerous works listed on both sides of the complaint are indeed appreciated and commended, but they are different than the works that are really far more important, foremost, first. So is it the works that are really important to him or the motive that validates them? The question that may make discovery easier is; “Why and when did I stop doing the foremost works?” Let me help answer that question:
* * *
“And some (seed) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. …
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. …and that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection” Luke 8:7,11,14.
There is nothing inherently sinful about generic cares and riches and pleasures, they can simply be a healthy and necessary part of natural life. In fact the list of our Church’s commendation is one of commendable cares. But cares (G3308 distraction), like the deceitfulness of riches and (G1939 longing) pleasures, i.e. lusts (Mark 4:19), good or bad, can choke out the faith (persuasion), that springs from the word of God as seed, by overwhelming it through neglect of what gives faith life: the Spirit of the word as seed, called Faith. Such choking starvation by preoccupation with lesser things results in the needful works of love becoming duty without love. Without love, duty becomes the justifying focus as an end in itself. An unhappy end. A faithless end. An end not counted worth its effort.
To remind you that we are indeed still moving forward from the discussion of rogue governments, let me overlay its Type:
The overwhelming political duties of the daily seat chokes the original intent to keep to the standard of the office’s actual purpose. What is that standard? The Law (capital L meaning Constitutional values) to which we swore and oath to uphold, but which became neglected by the complexity of the daily effort. Choked by cares. And riches, and inappropriate desires.
It is my personal opinion of observation that we elect ignorant and unqualified persons to office, and instead of then quickly educating themselves to become qualified on the job, they are heaped to distraction by the overload of daily bureaucracy until they succumb to the “norm” of the job while never learning the tenor of the Law that should always remain their foremost focus. Their first works.
Ironically the Law is left behind neglected while they work diligently to occupy the seat of governance.
If in this Typology the Law is Righteousness, then this distracting bureaucracy is self-righteousness. Simply another, more pleasant form of un-righteousness. Lawlessness.
This corrupt result is not from a lack of good will or earnest desire. It’s wholly due to a state of ignorance herded by busyness through forced obligation of cares, riches, and pleasures that the job is supposedly demanding.
Christ is telling the Revelation last days Church that we are missing the whole point of the office that originally moved us to choose it in the first place. No good works, however important, should stand in the way of recovering that foremost perspective ASAP. So with the Governmental offices as the Type, America is falling today because lawmakers and bureaucrats have utterly forgotten that the Constitution is their primary concern and guideline.
The reason why this is foremostly important, while the other should not be neglected (Luke 11:42) is because, while the commendable works we do are indeed needful, the neglect of the Law by ignorance causes us to necessarily set up our own version of law in the effort. But we are not the Founders! we lack their deep faith and understanding. Our ignorant modern wisdom falls pathetically short of “good enough” to cross that line. In our diminished state of mind and comprehension today, we are wholly incapable of coming up with a replacement document that equals the proven supremacy of the U.S. Constitution for governing such a great nation of human liberty in abundant peace and prosperity. But the bureaucracy of the seat sitting in ignorance, demands by the deceitfulness of misdirection that we try. Our current national and local condition of legal depravity proves my point.
…“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of our Founders, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of our Founder’s Law, and going about to establish their own laws, have not submitted themselves unto the Law of our Founders.”… Romans 10:2-3 applied.
This generic state of political depravity through diligent though well-meaning ignorance opens the door to many various corruptions; whether through their own good intentions, or through those wily enemies who lead them intentionally to make bad choices by the complexity of deception. Ignorance of the Constitutional fence is simultaneously as destructive to this Christian nation as ignorance of the Biblical fence is to the kingdom of heaven. The one is simply the shadow of the other.
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” Matthew 11:12-13.
There is a very useful value to the law and prophets to keep our liberated hearts tracking straight. The violence against the kingdom of heaven, after the law had passed, is done by the abuse of liberty that freed us from the oppression of the law. Abortion being just one temporal example, and the forced incorporation of so-called transgender (*4) another.
* * * * * * *
(*1) “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed (i.e. put down like a rabid dog), speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time (i.e. broad daylight, before all, brazenly, unashamed).”… II Peter 2:12-13.
(*2) The third option principle can be found compiled in Posts 191, May 17, 2011, Blind Side (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/blind-side.html) -through- Post 193, May 20, 2011, End of Book One (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/end-of-book-one.html), and concluded as a simplistic description in application by the words:
“The Third Option:
A nation collectively bound to the calling that; God is supreme, is the nation that stands as an unmovable wall against the storms of tormented neighbors.” - Post 194, May 26, 2011, Peace (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace.html).
(*3) Moses in Two Parts, Post 246, May 23, 2012 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/05/moses-in-two-parts.html).
(*4) Transgender ruling CNN Nov 3, 2015 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-school-district-transgender-ruling/).
Do not let this topic derail the point of the Post, but along this line allow me to simply interject a few questions for contemplation: Since when is the Y-chromosome present or absent by choice or opinion or determination to be so? Are all the body's Y-chromosomes found only in the genitalia and so removed with the parts upon surgically becoming a girl? Do Estrogen injections eliminate the Y-chromosomes or just confuse them? If you put a dress on a baby boy does that make it a girl because it looks like a girl?
*
Saturday, December 12, 2015
The Mature Bride of Christ
Post 344
Have you ever contemplated what it would mean to be the bride of Christ the Son of God?
I don’t mean the girlish Cinderella fairytale of escapism in blissful romance and magical castles far away where all is perfect and no one ever disagrees; I mean the day to day reality of living as the spouse of God long after the bloom falls from the rose and the once blushing bride who marveled that the Prince chose her, gets used to the power and authority that comes with the name and she begins to feel her Lord’s equal in rights and opinions and will. The “ever after” of Eternity is a very long time.
Speaking of eternity, do you imagine that there is no time in eternity? Do you imagine that eternity is a state of nothingness and nowhere at no time because those cannot exist in eternity? Do you imagine that you never change or learn as events are experienced because you are locked in a perpetual state of being perfectly eighteen in body and mind? You would be mistaken.
Eternity is eternity only because of the passage of time and things and events to mark its passage. Without time and events to measure it eternity has no substance.
So what does the bride of Christ do for eternity? Even BonBons would get tiresome eventually, not to mention the whole “harps on clouds” bit. How long can you be content sitting around in beautiful gowns doing needlework as a virgin in waiting? (Matthew 25:5).
Do you imagine that Cinderella never matures past the youthful beauty of her photogenic point in time when she gets her first kiss from the Prince to “live happily ever after”? What happiness does “ever after” have in store for her as she matures from young bride, to mature wife in the kingdom of her Great Prince? Does she play any factor in that happiness or is she just a victim of fortunate circumstances for all eternity thereafter? Is marriage to the Lamb of God the end of it all, or is it perhaps the beginning of it all? Like our temporal typology of marriage; doesn’t that answer depend on your perspective of “it all”?
I ask all these questions for you to contemplate because the strained fairytale of a happily-ever-after marriage today refuses to examine beyond the glorious off-white gown and “I do”s. It refuses to look, because the overwhelming evidence is very disheartening and destroys the happy dream; “Let me have my happiness in this moment of bliss and I will worry about the misery when it comes.”
Isn’t that even biblical?:
…“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” Matthew 6:34.
It might be… if it didn’t follow the preceding verse in context:
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”… Matthew 6:33.
So if we are going to apply the first read verse in this way then we must also apply the second in the same way: Seeking implies something not yet attained. Why seek for things to be acquired later if the very next verse tells us not to worry about it?
No, the passage plainly tells us that there is a distinction to be made regarding what we should and should not be concerned about. Seeking both the kingdom of God and his righteousness are clearly commanded.
So Cinderella focuses on that far away kingdom in hope and preparation, and the troubles of this life don’t so dramatically affect her focus of attention as she faces them. In fact, as painful as they are to experience, she rejoices that these trials come, because they put her faith’s prepared righteousness to the test for perfecting it (*1). Her focus on seeking that kingdom and applying the righteousness of that kingdom’s lord is her secret to being Cinderella through her trials. Without the trials and her righteous responses, Cinderella is a non-story.
In all truth, these two things commanded are all that she needs to be attentive to. The happily-every-after is simply a guaranteed result.
* * *
BUT.
What if Cinderella stops short of the full command and only seeks the kingdom of God? What would Cinderella look like if she failed to seek the righteousness of her lord? What attraction would she have for the prince if she acted like all the other ladies in waiting hoping to be the one to reach that kingdom? What compatibility does the handsome prince have with the wicked stepsister?
Cinderella believes in the handsome prince and his kingdom, she earnestly wants to be the bride of the prince. Isn’t that earnest desire enough to guarantee success? It wasn’t enough for the wicked stepsisters who felt the same way:
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:19-20.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” Matthew 7:21.
So in the old fairytale written to make a point, the princess-in-making has been given the nature of a princess of that kingdom even before she meets the prince. How did she get that nature, was she just born lucky?
In the old fairytale of long ago that part was not necessary to explain because even very young girls not yet personally committed to Jesus Christ were already being raised in the discipline to seat the characteristics of that kingdom, yet they also experienced the wicked nature of the flesh in their fallen humanity. The fairytale, by a vision of something far off to be attained, encourages her to supplant her dark nature of the wicked stepsisters with the characteristics of a princess that would be attractive to the prince and naturally welcome in his kingdom. As long as she put on and maintained the garments of righteousness as a nature in the longing to be counted a worthy citizen of that kingdom and delight to the prince, Cinderella need not worry about the details of the happily-ever-after: she would be ready and able to play her part in making it a long-term reality.
But let’s also contemplate the idea if the wicked stepsister succeeded in keeping Cinderella locked up, and was therefore the one to catch the prince’s eye and win his heart with her beauty.
Such a thought is naturally repulsive to us even today, because we see that she is very ugly where ugliness is undesirable. We can grasp that her physical ugliness represents her personal ugliness and we easily see that her personality and his are utterly incompatible. There is just no chance that the handsome prince could be persuaded to marry the ugly stepsister.
But now let’s go further in our contemplations; Let’s assume that after locking Cinderella in the tower, the ugly stepsister is the best looking thing at the ball and somehow she persuades the prince to marry her in his great kingdom and introduce her to his father the king; her new father in law. What natural reaction would the kingdom of happily-ever-after have with this new “woman of the house” long waited for in hope and expectation? Can you picture her walking the streets of gold, meeting the inhabitants, and implementing the power of her position as bride of the prince? Without the need of explanation we can easily see that her self-centered power-hungry ugly nature would desire to make servants of the inhabitants and consume the kingdom and its wealth for her glory and pride, even against any earnest efforts to be “a good wife” (*2). These results are the very nature and motive behind her earnest desire to marry the prince and attain the kingdom:
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, […] and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33 slightly abridged by perception of focus.
Can you see now how important it is to include the second half of the command?
“[and his righteousness;]”
God the King has made perfectly clear that nobody naturally has the appropriate nature of the kingdom. All of us are born wicked stepsisters; it’s in our very nature of fallen humanity:
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” Romans 3:10.
Therefore we must choose to seek after the righteousness of the prince of the righteous kingdom of which we want to be citizens who need not be ashamed there as here (II Thessalonians 3:14). We are talking about laboriously exchanging our natural nature for another. We are talking about becoming “somebody else” by efforts of refinement.
“Be not deceived: evil communications (G3657 companionships) corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some (of you Cinderella wanna-bees) have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame” I Corinthians 15:33-34.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15.
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” II Corinthians 10:5.
The very next verse speaks of a future state and purpose that the simple Cinderella of pure heart working on her here-and-now nature in preparation need not concern herself with greatly. Yet it reveals to us a bit of the part we will play in maintaining the happily-ever-after:
...“and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” II Corinthians 10:6.
Until our obedience is fulfilled, we are unworthy to seriously contemplate the other. So we work on our obedience; our application of his righteousness; our new nature. We focus on becoming Cinderella while we wait for the Prince.
Who doesn’t think that beautiful, kind, loving, patient, forgiving, captivating, endearing Cinderella does not have the nature and experiential evidence to rightly revenge all disobedience? What do you imagine Cinderella does to the Stepsisters after she becomes princess; does she let them continue in their hurtful wickedness’s? No; because she is kind and cannot abide such in her kingdom. But is she cruel in her righteous revenge? No; cruelty is not in her Lord's righteous nature, which she has adopted as her own. Though justice is.
As we contemplate Cinderella and her life as an easy-to-comprehend likeness of the Christian, we see that there are two simultaneous endeavors going on within her. One: to be united with the prince, and Two: to be counted worthy of him. Seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.
* * *
OK, but now let’s imagine the better educated wicked stepsister after the ball, wisely imitating righteousness in the desire to win the prince’s kingdom by forcing the slipper to fit. By our analogy that beauty=goodness we understand that the ugly stepsister cannot be otherwise than ugly. She has a wicked heart and she has no intention of changing it.
“The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath” Proverbs 11:23.
But you know? Some shoes can be made to look like they fit while hiding the painful truth, and lipstick really does change the initial appearance of the pig. Well, that and a fine dress of righteousness and some deceitfully dirty glasses (I Corinthians 13:12). Today even boys can be made to look like very beautiful young women by their trappings. But a pig is still a pig no matter what you do to alter it.
Yet what great damage can be done by deceiving a righteous young man into being genuinely attracted to another young man that he thinks is a woman! Upon discovery the destruction of confusion is unspeakable, even if no lines of righteousness were crossed by the honorable young man, who was deceived because he wouldn’t cross those lines!
Similar is a wicked woman dressed in robes of righteousness (Proverbs 11:22). Today the art of lipsticking pigs is on the verge of magical (Proverbs 11:16a+18a+19+Matthew 24:24=Hebrews 3:13-14).
Our world is growing up quickly as it reaches its final stage of preparation and the lessons of experience are teaching the wicked in their wickedness at the same rate they are teaching the righteous in their righteousness. The wicked are likewise learning the power of righteousness, or at least the appearance of it. Criminals are now dressing in fine suits and good manners. Evil seducers are learning how to sweet talk with class and feigned morals. Prostitutes are now called Escorts, and they are being taught refinement and style in order to be able to play the illusionary part more convincingly. And in kind, the wicked are infiltrating the church to practice their deceitful craft of illusionary godliness (II Timothy 3:5-7).
So if they are both earnestly seeking the kingdom, and if they are both applying robes of righteousness to look the part, what really makes the difference between Cinderella and the wicked stepsister in this advanced age of Adamically fallen women?
In today’s advanced wickedness’ we need to discern WHY she is seeking the kingdom. Does she love the prince and his kingdom or is she just a Gold-digger looking to chew up some heavenly asphalt to the diminishment of the kingdom and be served as a queen in the process? To massage a coined term: Motive is nine-tenths of the ends.
Nobody even thinks to question Cinderella in her motives; which are obviously righteous and above reproach. But what if someone does? What are Cinderella’s motives for wanting to marry the prince? Suddenly even Cinderella herself begins to question her motives, that, before the question was presented, were as pure and true as the driven snow. But in attempting to answer the question, they begin to look like desires of selfishness. Does she want to escape the suffering? Sure. Does she want to be loved by the prince? Yes. Does she want to experience the majesty of the great kingdom with all its glory? Absolutely. So is she self-focused?
“Why I, I, I don’t know! I suppose I am. Oh dear!”
But is she? Of course not! She is the prince’s dream girl. and if you would just stop trying to complicate things you could see it as clear as polished glass. How do we know? Because she has sought after the kingdom of heaven and the prince’s righteousness her whole life in hope and longing and laborious efforts to be counted worthy of him, though she knows she is not. It’s not her own righteousness that she has been applying to herself. In her eyes this is not about her but about HIM!
* * *
Two great Commands in a unified singular goal:
This is a repeating primary concept in the kingdom of heaven. The concept is best and most easily expressed by the word Marriage; The union of two very different elements into a singular whole greater than its parts. This is the reason why it is so important to maintain the Holy sanctity of marriage as God ordained it, and why the wicked are so diligently subverting its Typology.
This kingdom concept of marriage is again expressed to us by the two very distinct tables of the Commandments. Did you even know that the Law and Commandments were given in two stone slabs?
“And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written” Exodus 32:15.
Is that important to know? Not necessarily, but the knowing helps us understand the Typology and engine of function. As we explore the Ten Commandments we can identify a distinct difference in nature between the first four and the last six, with the fifth being an authority transition between them and therefore easily grouped as five on each table. The first group outlines our relationship with divine authority: God, which can be summed up like this:
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment” Matthew 22:37-38.
The second group of Commandments outline our relationship with our fellow man, which can be summed up like this:
“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” Matthew 22:39-40.
Imagine then if we choose to apply only half of the twin great commandments. What can we expect would be the result if we focused only on our love for God but failed to consider our fellow man? In all well-meaning and good intent we would become Tyrannical to our fellow man in our attempt to please God by application of his first table of laws. This is imaged in our previous discussion as seeking the kingdom of heaven without seeking God’s righteousness. We saw this historically acted out in the conduct of the ancient Jews in their growing plethora of silly rules as extensions of the law to ensure compliance, and again today in the Islamists that follow Mohammadism killing and subjugating all the infidels. “The Law of protecting the kingdom of God must be applied without mercy or pardon.” Such can be described as the Masculine approach to governance.
But the other approach is likewise imaged in our discussion as seeking his righteousness without concern for God or his kingdom. “Forget God and religion; be nice to your fellow man is what’s really important.” We see this acted out in the overthrow of the law by Democracy. Historically Democracy is in earnest a relief of the oppressed people and a ready answer for Despotism, but, as exampled by the historical Roman Catholic Church and today’s abortion laws, always soon ends in far greater blood and a more desperate Tyranny than what it overthrew by subversion. Such can be described as the Feminine approach of governance.
By realizing there is a very important reason for the order of first and second with its related designations of chain-of-command authority, as well as the simultaneous dual application of both portions of the singular Commandments, we see that there is a very complex result that is far greater than its parts.
As we now understand by prophecy that humanity is in its last age of experiential preparation before that kingdom’s Prince comes for Cinderella, we can see that the masculine approach of the guiding Law had to come first, then became tyrannical by corruption, and thereby caused need for the Democracy of deliverance to come next, to likewise fail in its turn by corruption; each corruption brought on by a failure of tempering the one with the other, which were both given at the beginning in the genders of Adam and Eve as a married couple.
Today near the end of the human timeline, we are seeing the glorious early maturity of Democracy in liberation from the Law before it implodes by its very nature of lawless laws. This is most easily described as applying self-righteousness while casting disdain for the Lord of the kingdom we hope to acquire. “You can’t get his stuff if you don’t marry the man.” So the last Church of the Revelation 3 order of history does what she has to do to get his name and therefore his stuff by power and authority of bearing his name. She has no real interest in the Prince himself, but only what association with him can do for her: “It’s all about ME.”
It’s the wicked stepsister locking away the real Cinderella and standing in her stead hoping to win the prince by dressing like her because she has learned that that’s what he likes.
But a pig is still a pig.
The prince is looking for his princess, with a bigger picture of reasoning in mind. That union is only the beginning of something that needs such a union. We are talking about The Kingdom of Heaven, which Christ told us to preach to those who knew the basics (Matthew 10:6-7, 22:9), and to preach the basics as the gospel of salvation to those who didn’t (Mark 16:15-16). They go together, one before the other, as a set for a single purpose far greater than the parts. Of course!
So how long have you been a Christian focused only on acquiring the kingdom by the basics of salvation as the end of it all? By not focusing on seeking the king’s righteousness as commanded, such limited vision remains existentially focused and is strangled to fruitlessness by the thorns and thistles of this earthly life.
* * * * * * *
(*1) “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting (G3007 lacking) nothing” James 1:2-4.
(*2) “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” Matthew 7:22-23.
*
Have you ever contemplated what it would mean to be the bride of Christ the Son of God?
I don’t mean the girlish Cinderella fairytale of escapism in blissful romance and magical castles far away where all is perfect and no one ever disagrees; I mean the day to day reality of living as the spouse of God long after the bloom falls from the rose and the once blushing bride who marveled that the Prince chose her, gets used to the power and authority that comes with the name and she begins to feel her Lord’s equal in rights and opinions and will. The “ever after” of Eternity is a very long time.
Speaking of eternity, do you imagine that there is no time in eternity? Do you imagine that eternity is a state of nothingness and nowhere at no time because those cannot exist in eternity? Do you imagine that you never change or learn as events are experienced because you are locked in a perpetual state of being perfectly eighteen in body and mind? You would be mistaken.
Eternity is eternity only because of the passage of time and things and events to mark its passage. Without time and events to measure it eternity has no substance.
So what does the bride of Christ do for eternity? Even BonBons would get tiresome eventually, not to mention the whole “harps on clouds” bit. How long can you be content sitting around in beautiful gowns doing needlework as a virgin in waiting? (Matthew 25:5).
Do you imagine that Cinderella never matures past the youthful beauty of her photogenic point in time when she gets her first kiss from the Prince to “live happily ever after”? What happiness does “ever after” have in store for her as she matures from young bride, to mature wife in the kingdom of her Great Prince? Does she play any factor in that happiness or is she just a victim of fortunate circumstances for all eternity thereafter? Is marriage to the Lamb of God the end of it all, or is it perhaps the beginning of it all? Like our temporal typology of marriage; doesn’t that answer depend on your perspective of “it all”?
I ask all these questions for you to contemplate because the strained fairytale of a happily-ever-after marriage today refuses to examine beyond the glorious off-white gown and “I do”s. It refuses to look, because the overwhelming evidence is very disheartening and destroys the happy dream; “Let me have my happiness in this moment of bliss and I will worry about the misery when it comes.”
Isn’t that even biblical?:
…“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” Matthew 6:34.
It might be… if it didn’t follow the preceding verse in context:
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”… Matthew 6:33.
So if we are going to apply the first read verse in this way then we must also apply the second in the same way: Seeking implies something not yet attained. Why seek for things to be acquired later if the very next verse tells us not to worry about it?
No, the passage plainly tells us that there is a distinction to be made regarding what we should and should not be concerned about. Seeking both the kingdom of God and his righteousness are clearly commanded.
So Cinderella focuses on that far away kingdom in hope and preparation, and the troubles of this life don’t so dramatically affect her focus of attention as she faces them. In fact, as painful as they are to experience, she rejoices that these trials come, because they put her faith’s prepared righteousness to the test for perfecting it (*1). Her focus on seeking that kingdom and applying the righteousness of that kingdom’s lord is her secret to being Cinderella through her trials. Without the trials and her righteous responses, Cinderella is a non-story.
In all truth, these two things commanded are all that she needs to be attentive to. The happily-every-after is simply a guaranteed result.
* * *
BUT.
What if Cinderella stops short of the full command and only seeks the kingdom of God? What would Cinderella look like if she failed to seek the righteousness of her lord? What attraction would she have for the prince if she acted like all the other ladies in waiting hoping to be the one to reach that kingdom? What compatibility does the handsome prince have with the wicked stepsister?
Cinderella believes in the handsome prince and his kingdom, she earnestly wants to be the bride of the prince. Isn’t that earnest desire enough to guarantee success? It wasn’t enough for the wicked stepsisters who felt the same way:
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:19-20.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” Matthew 7:21.
So in the old fairytale written to make a point, the princess-in-making has been given the nature of a princess of that kingdom even before she meets the prince. How did she get that nature, was she just born lucky?
In the old fairytale of long ago that part was not necessary to explain because even very young girls not yet personally committed to Jesus Christ were already being raised in the discipline to seat the characteristics of that kingdom, yet they also experienced the wicked nature of the flesh in their fallen humanity. The fairytale, by a vision of something far off to be attained, encourages her to supplant her dark nature of the wicked stepsisters with the characteristics of a princess that would be attractive to the prince and naturally welcome in his kingdom. As long as she put on and maintained the garments of righteousness as a nature in the longing to be counted a worthy citizen of that kingdom and delight to the prince, Cinderella need not worry about the details of the happily-ever-after: she would be ready and able to play her part in making it a long-term reality.
But let’s also contemplate the idea if the wicked stepsister succeeded in keeping Cinderella locked up, and was therefore the one to catch the prince’s eye and win his heart with her beauty.
Such a thought is naturally repulsive to us even today, because we see that she is very ugly where ugliness is undesirable. We can grasp that her physical ugliness represents her personal ugliness and we easily see that her personality and his are utterly incompatible. There is just no chance that the handsome prince could be persuaded to marry the ugly stepsister.
But now let’s go further in our contemplations; Let’s assume that after locking Cinderella in the tower, the ugly stepsister is the best looking thing at the ball and somehow she persuades the prince to marry her in his great kingdom and introduce her to his father the king; her new father in law. What natural reaction would the kingdom of happily-ever-after have with this new “woman of the house” long waited for in hope and expectation? Can you picture her walking the streets of gold, meeting the inhabitants, and implementing the power of her position as bride of the prince? Without the need of explanation we can easily see that her self-centered power-hungry ugly nature would desire to make servants of the inhabitants and consume the kingdom and its wealth for her glory and pride, even against any earnest efforts to be “a good wife” (*2). These results are the very nature and motive behind her earnest desire to marry the prince and attain the kingdom:
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, […] and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33 slightly abridged by perception of focus.
Can you see now how important it is to include the second half of the command?
“[and his righteousness;]”
God the King has made perfectly clear that nobody naturally has the appropriate nature of the kingdom. All of us are born wicked stepsisters; it’s in our very nature of fallen humanity:
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” Romans 3:10.
Therefore we must choose to seek after the righteousness of the prince of the righteous kingdom of which we want to be citizens who need not be ashamed there as here (II Thessalonians 3:14). We are talking about laboriously exchanging our natural nature for another. We are talking about becoming “somebody else” by efforts of refinement.
“Be not deceived: evil communications (G3657 companionships) corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some (of you Cinderella wanna-bees) have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame” I Corinthians 15:33-34.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15.
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” II Corinthians 10:5.
The very next verse speaks of a future state and purpose that the simple Cinderella of pure heart working on her here-and-now nature in preparation need not concern herself with greatly. Yet it reveals to us a bit of the part we will play in maintaining the happily-ever-after:
...“and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” II Corinthians 10:6.
Until our obedience is fulfilled, we are unworthy to seriously contemplate the other. So we work on our obedience; our application of his righteousness; our new nature. We focus on becoming Cinderella while we wait for the Prince.
Who doesn’t think that beautiful, kind, loving, patient, forgiving, captivating, endearing Cinderella does not have the nature and experiential evidence to rightly revenge all disobedience? What do you imagine Cinderella does to the Stepsisters after she becomes princess; does she let them continue in their hurtful wickedness’s? No; because she is kind and cannot abide such in her kingdom. But is she cruel in her righteous revenge? No; cruelty is not in her Lord's righteous nature, which she has adopted as her own. Though justice is.
As we contemplate Cinderella and her life as an easy-to-comprehend likeness of the Christian, we see that there are two simultaneous endeavors going on within her. One: to be united with the prince, and Two: to be counted worthy of him. Seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.
* * *
OK, but now let’s imagine the better educated wicked stepsister after the ball, wisely imitating righteousness in the desire to win the prince’s kingdom by forcing the slipper to fit. By our analogy that beauty=goodness we understand that the ugly stepsister cannot be otherwise than ugly. She has a wicked heart and she has no intention of changing it.
“The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath” Proverbs 11:23.
But you know? Some shoes can be made to look like they fit while hiding the painful truth, and lipstick really does change the initial appearance of the pig. Well, that and a fine dress of righteousness and some deceitfully dirty glasses (I Corinthians 13:12). Today even boys can be made to look like very beautiful young women by their trappings. But a pig is still a pig no matter what you do to alter it.
Yet what great damage can be done by deceiving a righteous young man into being genuinely attracted to another young man that he thinks is a woman! Upon discovery the destruction of confusion is unspeakable, even if no lines of righteousness were crossed by the honorable young man, who was deceived because he wouldn’t cross those lines!
Similar is a wicked woman dressed in robes of righteousness (Proverbs 11:22). Today the art of lipsticking pigs is on the verge of magical (Proverbs 11:16a+18a+19+Matthew 24:24=Hebrews 3:13-14).
Our world is growing up quickly as it reaches its final stage of preparation and the lessons of experience are teaching the wicked in their wickedness at the same rate they are teaching the righteous in their righteousness. The wicked are likewise learning the power of righteousness, or at least the appearance of it. Criminals are now dressing in fine suits and good manners. Evil seducers are learning how to sweet talk with class and feigned morals. Prostitutes are now called Escorts, and they are being taught refinement and style in order to be able to play the illusionary part more convincingly. And in kind, the wicked are infiltrating the church to practice their deceitful craft of illusionary godliness (II Timothy 3:5-7).
So if they are both earnestly seeking the kingdom, and if they are both applying robes of righteousness to look the part, what really makes the difference between Cinderella and the wicked stepsister in this advanced age of Adamically fallen women?
In today’s advanced wickedness’ we need to discern WHY she is seeking the kingdom. Does she love the prince and his kingdom or is she just a Gold-digger looking to chew up some heavenly asphalt to the diminishment of the kingdom and be served as a queen in the process? To massage a coined term: Motive is nine-tenths of the ends.
Nobody even thinks to question Cinderella in her motives; which are obviously righteous and above reproach. But what if someone does? What are Cinderella’s motives for wanting to marry the prince? Suddenly even Cinderella herself begins to question her motives, that, before the question was presented, were as pure and true as the driven snow. But in attempting to answer the question, they begin to look like desires of selfishness. Does she want to escape the suffering? Sure. Does she want to be loved by the prince? Yes. Does she want to experience the majesty of the great kingdom with all its glory? Absolutely. So is she self-focused?
“Why I, I, I don’t know! I suppose I am. Oh dear!”
But is she? Of course not! She is the prince’s dream girl. and if you would just stop trying to complicate things you could see it as clear as polished glass. How do we know? Because she has sought after the kingdom of heaven and the prince’s righteousness her whole life in hope and longing and laborious efforts to be counted worthy of him, though she knows she is not. It’s not her own righteousness that she has been applying to herself. In her eyes this is not about her but about HIM!
* * *
Two great Commands in a unified singular goal:
This is a repeating primary concept in the kingdom of heaven. The concept is best and most easily expressed by the word Marriage; The union of two very different elements into a singular whole greater than its parts. This is the reason why it is so important to maintain the Holy sanctity of marriage as God ordained it, and why the wicked are so diligently subverting its Typology.
This kingdom concept of marriage is again expressed to us by the two very distinct tables of the Commandments. Did you even know that the Law and Commandments were given in two stone slabs?
“And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written” Exodus 32:15.
Is that important to know? Not necessarily, but the knowing helps us understand the Typology and engine of function. As we explore the Ten Commandments we can identify a distinct difference in nature between the first four and the last six, with the fifth being an authority transition between them and therefore easily grouped as five on each table. The first group outlines our relationship with divine authority: God, which can be summed up like this:
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment” Matthew 22:37-38.
The second group of Commandments outline our relationship with our fellow man, which can be summed up like this:
“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” Matthew 22:39-40.
Imagine then if we choose to apply only half of the twin great commandments. What can we expect would be the result if we focused only on our love for God but failed to consider our fellow man? In all well-meaning and good intent we would become Tyrannical to our fellow man in our attempt to please God by application of his first table of laws. This is imaged in our previous discussion as seeking the kingdom of heaven without seeking God’s righteousness. We saw this historically acted out in the conduct of the ancient Jews in their growing plethora of silly rules as extensions of the law to ensure compliance, and again today in the Islamists that follow Mohammadism killing and subjugating all the infidels. “The Law of protecting the kingdom of God must be applied without mercy or pardon.” Such can be described as the Masculine approach to governance.
But the other approach is likewise imaged in our discussion as seeking his righteousness without concern for God or his kingdom. “Forget God and religion; be nice to your fellow man is what’s really important.” We see this acted out in the overthrow of the law by Democracy. Historically Democracy is in earnest a relief of the oppressed people and a ready answer for Despotism, but, as exampled by the historical Roman Catholic Church and today’s abortion laws, always soon ends in far greater blood and a more desperate Tyranny than what it overthrew by subversion. Such can be described as the Feminine approach of governance.
By realizing there is a very important reason for the order of first and second with its related designations of chain-of-command authority, as well as the simultaneous dual application of both portions of the singular Commandments, we see that there is a very complex result that is far greater than its parts.
As we now understand by prophecy that humanity is in its last age of experiential preparation before that kingdom’s Prince comes for Cinderella, we can see that the masculine approach of the guiding Law had to come first, then became tyrannical by corruption, and thereby caused need for the Democracy of deliverance to come next, to likewise fail in its turn by corruption; each corruption brought on by a failure of tempering the one with the other, which were both given at the beginning in the genders of Adam and Eve as a married couple.
Today near the end of the human timeline, we are seeing the glorious early maturity of Democracy in liberation from the Law before it implodes by its very nature of lawless laws. This is most easily described as applying self-righteousness while casting disdain for the Lord of the kingdom we hope to acquire. “You can’t get his stuff if you don’t marry the man.” So the last Church of the Revelation 3 order of history does what she has to do to get his name and therefore his stuff by power and authority of bearing his name. She has no real interest in the Prince himself, but only what association with him can do for her: “It’s all about ME.”
It’s the wicked stepsister locking away the real Cinderella and standing in her stead hoping to win the prince by dressing like her because she has learned that that’s what he likes.
But a pig is still a pig.
The prince is looking for his princess, with a bigger picture of reasoning in mind. That union is only the beginning of something that needs such a union. We are talking about The Kingdom of Heaven, which Christ told us to preach to those who knew the basics (Matthew 10:6-7, 22:9), and to preach the basics as the gospel of salvation to those who didn’t (Mark 16:15-16). They go together, one before the other, as a set for a single purpose far greater than the parts. Of course!
So how long have you been a Christian focused only on acquiring the kingdom by the basics of salvation as the end of it all? By not focusing on seeking the king’s righteousness as commanded, such limited vision remains existentially focused and is strangled to fruitlessness by the thorns and thistles of this earthly life.
* * * * * * *
(*1) “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting (G3007 lacking) nothing” James 1:2-4.
(*2) “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” Matthew 7:22-23.
*
Sunday, October 18, 2015
The Family Chauffeur
Post 343
As a last Post to complete the related subject of my small community likeness to our national problem that is clearly explained by the Grand Tapestry, I offer the following sum.
Rather than apply the law and legally recall (i.e. impeach) a few of the belligerently willful Assembly members for both violation of the law, and failure to remain within the tenor of their commission, our small resolving force of citizens, against my solitary recommendations, chose instead to make an appeal by petition to get the present Assembly to comply with our wishes, withdraw the Minor Offense Ordinance they just passed unlawfully, and follow the lawful process to pass it.
After submitting the petition with a stunning 652 signatures, (about 75% of the voting population), the Assembly very reluctantly reconsidered their vote and unanimously voted to send it back to the Commissions originally established to review it, before the Assembly votes on it again.
Not a single Assembly member expressed a changed heart; those that voted against it before were still against the way it was passed, and those that voted on it before openly stated that they still feel the ordinance is good, they legally did the right thing, the public is ignorant, and they only reconsidered their vote because the public by mass “bullied” them to do so.
So, after remaining even more deeply entrenched in their seats than before, and, for the time being safe by complying to the latest request of the population, the Assembly also commissioned a Special Commission of seven that would consist of both Assemblymen and Citizens to review the ordinance for acceptability.
The following is a short parable that explains just what we have now:
* * *
The Family Chauffeur
There once was a well-established family that hired a family chauffeur for the kids. They created and signed a simple contract and turned over the keys of the family car. The duties were simple; maintain the car, be available at all regular hours to take the family where they spontaneously desired, and follow the family’s written schedule taking the members wherever they were need to go; such as soccer practice, music lessons, school, work, etc. It was a great relationship and the family learned to love the chauffeur as a valuable member.
Over the next few years the stoic family chauffeur saw many interesting interactions with various family members, some good and some bad. There was a regular and ongoing squabble among the children, and whenever two or more members asked the chauffeur to drive them, there was always an argument as to where that should be. If one asked to be taken to the mall, the other would declare a hatred for the mall. If one requested the skating rink, the other wanted the beach in the opposite direction. Even when the chauffeur was determined to take the children to school-- per the family written schedule-- the children demanded to be taken to the park instead.
When appealing to the parents for help or ideas, Mrs. State simply showed the chauffeur the contract, suggested some unique applications, and left the details up to the chauffeur to work out with the children. The chauffeur began to quietly see himself less as a chauffeur, and more like a nanny with rebellious children that needed to be managed. The children got less and less what they demanded and were more and more driven to where the chauffeur deemed was in their best interest. The children usually accepted this as the easiest way to resolve family contentions.
Somewhere along the way, the family children all climbed into the car for their familiar trip to school but the chauffeur decided that they would be better served in a different kind of educational establishment. The family car pulled up in front of a military academy. The children were confused. Then became scared. And finally, in a desperate attempt to avoid this change, started to think about the contract and proper roll of the chauffeur. Had any of them actually read the contract? Did any of them actually know the prescribed power that the chauffeur had been given? And finally; What could be done to change the new and dramatic reality of standing before this new institution of re-education called the Minor Offense Academy For Wayward Children?
In a very rare and unusual display of solidarity, all the family children were united in voice declaring to the chauffeur that it was his duty to take them to their regular school. He argued that he had observed their long undisciplined behavior, and as a wise adult he knew better than they did what was good for them. He declared; “I have been a part of this family a long time now, do you honestly think that I would do anything to harm this family?”
But, while still quite confused as to the reach of his authority, the scope of the actual contract, and the merits of a military school; the children knew instinctively that they were supposed to be taken to their regular school and so they unanimously appealed to the chauffeur to take them to their proper school per their desire, which they knew was somehow an obligatory part of the contract on many levels.
The smart chauffeur knew by their unified determination that if he did not comply they would go to their parents about his stubborn willfulness as well as his breach of contract, and things would get significantly ugly to the degree of risking his employment. He was, after all, just the chauffeur.
So, although he made it very clear that he felt the ignorant children belonged in a military school for their own good, he reluctantly drove them to the Home Rule School on their regular written schedule, per their demands.
The end?
Not hardly!
Rather than just hire a new responsive chauffeur, it has now become necessary for one of the older children to sit in the front seat anytime any of the children want to go anywhere, just to make sure the unresponsive chauffeur they retained drives them to the proper destination.
But the now entrenched chauffeur is not deterred. He knows that they will eventually get tired of this and he will ultimately get his way. Military school for the whole lot of them, and a bit of peace for himself!
* * *
I now intend to bring all these many strings together and with them weave the fabric of the Grand Tapestry that explains all of Creation in a way that can be practically applied.
*
As a last Post to complete the related subject of my small community likeness to our national problem that is clearly explained by the Grand Tapestry, I offer the following sum.
Rather than apply the law and legally recall (i.e. impeach) a few of the belligerently willful Assembly members for both violation of the law, and failure to remain within the tenor of their commission, our small resolving force of citizens, against my solitary recommendations, chose instead to make an appeal by petition to get the present Assembly to comply with our wishes, withdraw the Minor Offense Ordinance they just passed unlawfully, and follow the lawful process to pass it.
After submitting the petition with a stunning 652 signatures, (about 75% of the voting population), the Assembly very reluctantly reconsidered their vote and unanimously voted to send it back to the Commissions originally established to review it, before the Assembly votes on it again.
Not a single Assembly member expressed a changed heart; those that voted against it before were still against the way it was passed, and those that voted on it before openly stated that they still feel the ordinance is good, they legally did the right thing, the public is ignorant, and they only reconsidered their vote because the public by mass “bullied” them to do so.
So, after remaining even more deeply entrenched in their seats than before, and, for the time being safe by complying to the latest request of the population, the Assembly also commissioned a Special Commission of seven that would consist of both Assemblymen and Citizens to review the ordinance for acceptability.
The following is a short parable that explains just what we have now:
* * *
The Family Chauffeur
There once was a well-established family that hired a family chauffeur for the kids. They created and signed a simple contract and turned over the keys of the family car. The duties were simple; maintain the car, be available at all regular hours to take the family where they spontaneously desired, and follow the family’s written schedule taking the members wherever they were need to go; such as soccer practice, music lessons, school, work, etc. It was a great relationship and the family learned to love the chauffeur as a valuable member.
Over the next few years the stoic family chauffeur saw many interesting interactions with various family members, some good and some bad. There was a regular and ongoing squabble among the children, and whenever two or more members asked the chauffeur to drive them, there was always an argument as to where that should be. If one asked to be taken to the mall, the other would declare a hatred for the mall. If one requested the skating rink, the other wanted the beach in the opposite direction. Even when the chauffeur was determined to take the children to school-- per the family written schedule-- the children demanded to be taken to the park instead.
When appealing to the parents for help or ideas, Mrs. State simply showed the chauffeur the contract, suggested some unique applications, and left the details up to the chauffeur to work out with the children. The chauffeur began to quietly see himself less as a chauffeur, and more like a nanny with rebellious children that needed to be managed. The children got less and less what they demanded and were more and more driven to where the chauffeur deemed was in their best interest. The children usually accepted this as the easiest way to resolve family contentions.
Somewhere along the way, the family children all climbed into the car for their familiar trip to school but the chauffeur decided that they would be better served in a different kind of educational establishment. The family car pulled up in front of a military academy. The children were confused. Then became scared. And finally, in a desperate attempt to avoid this change, started to think about the contract and proper roll of the chauffeur. Had any of them actually read the contract? Did any of them actually know the prescribed power that the chauffeur had been given? And finally; What could be done to change the new and dramatic reality of standing before this new institution of re-education called the Minor Offense Academy For Wayward Children?
In a very rare and unusual display of solidarity, all the family children were united in voice declaring to the chauffeur that it was his duty to take them to their regular school. He argued that he had observed their long undisciplined behavior, and as a wise adult he knew better than they did what was good for them. He declared; “I have been a part of this family a long time now, do you honestly think that I would do anything to harm this family?”
But, while still quite confused as to the reach of his authority, the scope of the actual contract, and the merits of a military school; the children knew instinctively that they were supposed to be taken to their regular school and so they unanimously appealed to the chauffeur to take them to their proper school per their desire, which they knew was somehow an obligatory part of the contract on many levels.
The smart chauffeur knew by their unified determination that if he did not comply they would go to their parents about his stubborn willfulness as well as his breach of contract, and things would get significantly ugly to the degree of risking his employment. He was, after all, just the chauffeur.
So, although he made it very clear that he felt the ignorant children belonged in a military school for their own good, he reluctantly drove them to the Home Rule School on their regular written schedule, per their demands.
The end?
Not hardly!
Rather than just hire a new responsive chauffeur, it has now become necessary for one of the older children to sit in the front seat anytime any of the children want to go anywhere, just to make sure the unresponsive chauffeur they retained drives them to the proper destination.
But the now entrenched chauffeur is not deterred. He knows that they will eventually get tired of this and he will ultimately get his way. Military school for the whole lot of them, and a bit of peace for himself!
* * *
I now intend to bring all these many strings together and with them weave the fabric of the Grand Tapestry that explains all of Creation in a way that can be practically applied.
*
Thursday, October 8, 2015
The Minor Offense Ordinance
- A New America Here At Home -
342
Kyle’s open letter of noteworthy points,
I never thought I would see the day when I discovered a darkness even darker than Nancy Peloci’s “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” advice to Congress. But last night the Haines Borough Assembly just passed that mark. From Leftist to rightwing, men and women, wealthy businessmen and paupers, Mud Bay and Highway and towns people, persons of deep faith and serious dope smokers; a very impressive ensemble of notoriously contrarily opinionated Haines Citizens, whose votes are ALWAYS divided right down the middle, showed up last night to the Public Hearing at 6:30 in unprecedented solidarity to make very clear by attendance, as well as an impressively long string of three-minute speeches, declaring that the people do not want the Minor Offense Ordinance. Yet strangely it passed… and “strangely” is not nearly a powerful enough word, which we will get to near the end of this address. The list of shocking “in spite ofs” goes on-and-on even beyond the past three weeks of public hearings on this ordinance, and many citizens, both committee and privately, put their lives on hold to individually research and then compile their several mind’s work to address the assembly in written form, exposing advised precautions to consider, as well as the high volume of direct and indirect violations of U.S. Law, Alaska Statute, and Haines Borough Charter. Yet the Assembly plunged ahead with an equally unprecedented determination to pass this ordinance against all argument and against all reason, and in direct violation of their oath of office to “support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the Charter of the Haines Borough.” Borough Charter 2.04.040 (*1).
Allow me to short-list just a few of the many strange facts that brought this ordinance to life by less-than authorized means.
• By document and website, the Assembly chose to tell the people, whom they represent, that this ordinance was mandated by Alaska Court Order No 1797. But there is no mandate. Yet after being directly challenged on this fact, and even confessing this truth, they chose not to correct the lie.
• The Assembly chose to tell the people that this ordinance was about tabling existing infractions. Yet after being challenged on this beguilement they chose not to correct the deception:
• Although the public pointed out the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Charter-changing right-steeling concepts and wording such as in proposed 1.24.010, 1.24.060 and 1.24.070 among others, including phrases like: “It is not a defense to the charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offence allegedly attempted…”, the Assembly chose to leave those lawless words and intents unremoved and unchanged.
• The alteration of our retained rights and the re-coding of our home rule infractions into State managed Minor Offenses by the nature of this charter-amending ordinance “determines the culture under which our government operates and is the enforcement mechanism for all of our public behavior and transactions” (Carol Tuynman), and therefore makes this a Charter amending ordinance by nature, requiring a public vote: “Proposed amendments [to the charter] shall be submitted to the voters…” Haines Borough Charter Article 17.02 (*2).
• This deceptively packaged ordinance is in violation of Charter Title 2.12.070 by combining administrative tabling and Charter changing elements. By unlawfully combining the two natures of this singular ordinance it confuses how it must be enacted: Article 3.02(c) “a simple majority vote of the total membership of the assembly may pass an ordinance” vs. Article 17.01 “This Charter may be amended by the Haines Borough electorate ratifying an amendment at a regular or special election,” and Alaska Statute 29.10.100 “A home rule charter may be amended as provided in the charter, except that no amendment is effective unless ratified by the voters.” Yet by this forbidden combination and the disguise of its true nature, the Assembly called it an administrative “tabling ordinance” and went about passing it by simple majority vote of the Assembly, keeping the choice of changing the nature of our chartered laws out of the hands of the people. This is a blatant ignoring of identifying a restrictive nature as to when the Agents can act and when they must let the people act: Borough Charter 2.12.090 “When an act is required by ordinance (this is) and the act may be done as well by an agent [i.e. Assembly] as by the principle [i.e. the people]…”
This act cannot be done as well by our agents as by our express will by vote.
Alaska Statute 44.62.312(3) confirms this concept by saying: “the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them;” and (4) “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people…” Yet the Assembly did just that by passing this ordinance on their own, and in direct opposition to every voice of the people who spoke at every meeting held on this ordinance.
• On Sept. 8, 2015 at the Public Hearing, the Assembly allowed an Assemblyman to speak on a topic that had already been closed. This violated Charter Title 2.10.060B: “Every member while speaking shall speak only to the subject under debate.” That violation speech resulted in a likewise violating vote that spawned an impressive chaos of following violating votes and reconsiders that eventually resulted in eliminating the previous rightfully established third public hearing-- with its extended date for cause-- and unlawfully enacted a vote of passage at the next scheduled Public Hearing time-slot (see Borough Assembly Minutes 9/8/15 p2 of 4 for a very interesting read).
• At that next scheduled meeting, of Sept. 22, 2015-- last night-- after a very impressive public turnout that-- at least for those who spoke-- TO THE PERSON, stood firmly against the passage of this ordinance, and by solidarity the silent-attending agreed, it was declared by two Assembly persons that although maybe one-hundred strong, our united voice against this ordinance was a small percentage of the 1700 citizens of the Haines Borough. They declared that they were enacting this ordinance in the name, and by the wishes of, the silent population that elected them. It seems apparent that while the exact ratio is admittedly debatable, they utterly reject the universally recognized concept declaring that each individual who acts or votes, accurately represents a far larger number of those who do not. 1 to 10 is not at all outside the scope of an easily accepted ratio. And so, since all of the “100” persons who acted have declared by appearance, written submission, or speech, that this ordinance is not of the will of the people, it cannot be reasonably assumed that the silent majority was not heard decidedly. The fact that there was not a single contrary opinion among them boosts those ratios enormously.
• After the lengthy three-minute public speeches, acting Chair; Madam Lapham, berated the public by saying, as close as I can remember; “I don’t know why the people site; Police State and Nazism, and Communism… the public need to chose their words more wisely,” “I take offense...” Her context and wording and tone expressly told the public that she did not believe we believed what we were saying and therefore dismissed our speeches as insignificant blather and not the real concerns of the people to be received. She even berated one speaker, who said reading this ordinance was reminiscent of what he experienced in East Germany before the wall came down, by accusing him of not living through Communism and so not knowing what was and was not Communistic. This dismissive reaction to the public speeches given in the time slot of “being heard” is an untenable violation of the law. This directly and offensively violates the “reasonably heard” laws as well as the tenor of her commission as pubic servant.
• Only at this last meeting, when the vote was to be cast, did Assemblyman Case expose to the public that his medical condition interfered with his ability to read. Normally I would not even mention such an infliction in the effort to respect the individual who suffers what he did not bring upon himself, but because of how this vote went down this bit of information becomes legally important. Both Alaska Statute and Borough Code makes clear that the people have a very important and foundational right to be heard by those who represent them. Alaska Statute 29.20.020: “The governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings,” and Haines Borough Code 2.08.060A: “The public shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” There is no way that three-minutes to speak can be construed to be a reasonable opportunity to be heard on matters of this importance. But the public is allowed to write letters and emails to the Assembly conveying their concerns, so this may be construed as to fulfill that meaning even if it doesn’t accurately conform to the letter, and possibly even the intent. So after spending many hours carefully researching and wording each letter, the public has gone to great lengths in the effort to be heard so that the assembly can grasp their concerns to be applied when they vote. Yet now we learn too late, by his own confession, that Mr. Case cannot physically read the import of the public, and therefore has failed to provide a lawfully required and very important element of being an actual representative of the people. And, while I have long suspected that many of the Assembly does not read the presentations of the people, we have solid evidence that says at least two of the six members of the assembly votes without hearing the public’s concerns.
• Several points of the law regarding process were submitted by Mr. Denker and read, and some even referenced by assemblyman Campbell at this meeting before the vote was taken. In the composition of those laws are specific requirements of access to information before a meeting, which the Assembly was still missing, as well as information which the public was guaranteed timely but not yet provided. The several laws state clearly that this information must be in place: The Haines Borough Charter Preamble and Bill of Rights (*3) declares “The right to access a well maintained public record of all actions of public officials in accordance with this charter, so that the citizens of the borough may retain control over the affairs of their government.” Borough Code 2.60.120 states; “The minutes shall be filed in the office of the clerk as soon as feasible, but in no case later than two weeks following the committee meeting, and shall be a public record open to inspection by any person.” Borough Code 2.10.030(A) states: “The mayor, with assistance from the clerk, shall arrange [the committee information] according to the order of business and the clerk shall furnish each member of the assembly, the mayor, the manager and the chief fiscal officer with a copy of the same in packet form five calendar days in advance of the assembly meeting.” Yet in spite of Assemblyman Campbell’s efforts to caution the Assembly against voting on a subject of which all pertinent information was not available, as obligatory by law, Madam Lapham as the acting Chair moved forward with the determination to have the vote anyway.
• Assemblyman Campbell then earnestly asked the question; “Why is it so important that we pass this now, especially since it won’t be implemented until January?” To which he did not receive an honest answer to his question, but did receive some mocking replies. Assemblyman Campbell earnestly pleaded with reason to delay the unlawful vote, but he was harshly overruled by the Chair as being out of order.
• In a last-ditch desperate attempt to do as much quick patching of a heinously flawed document that was obviously about to be passed, Mr. Campbell made several successive motions to amend the proposed ordinance by including in bulk the recommendations of various committees that had been heard but ignored. Some of his motions carried while others were defeated. Eventually, after the Chair unofficially belittled Mr. Campbell for his seemingly “unending” attempts to do his best to at least diminish the flaws of the document before it went to vote, the vote was called for, and taken…… and Mr. Campbell refused to vote, on the grounds that the missing information made the vote unlawful according to requirements of the Charter itself.
• Not being deterred from her note-worthily unexplainable determination, the Chair utterly ignored his claims of unlawful vote, and, with the Clerk, began immediate explorations of the charter for options to force Mr. Campbell to vote. They tried portions of Code 2.10.200: “All assembly members present shall vote unless the presiding officer, for special reasons, permits a member to abstain.” But neglected to allow for the part of the same Code that reads: “or is allowed to abstain by law.” He stood firm and refused to vote, again declaring it violates the law. Eventually after a recessed deliberation with the Clerk, and the Mayor by teleconference, the Chair determined that Mr. Campbell’s refusal to vote would be considered as a “presumed” vote.
• So in a true-life fulfillment of the gnat-straining-camel-swallowing proverb, the blaring fact of declared lawlessness of the Assembly was utterly ignored, and a confusion ensued as to just how to count his vote. To stem the confusion the question presented by Assemblyman Berry then became: “Which form of rules should be followed; Roberts Rules of Order, or the Borough Charter?” (Title 2.10.050): By the one set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to go with the majority and make it a 2-4 vote to pass the ordinance, but under the other set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to be deemed a descent and therefore make it a 3-3 tie vote. By Assembly deliberation the Borough Charter won over the Roberts Rules, and the Mayor by teleconference voted in favor to break the tie, and the ordinance was unlawfully and strangely passed 3-4 with one member not voting.
And that, my friends, is a very short list of the many details in how your Assembly chose to represent you, the silent majority. I bet you didn’t know that you wanted to be stripped of your Habeas Corpus rights, or your right to Trial by Jury, or your previously maintained right to adjudication by your piers, or your right to expect your Assemblymen to adhere to the law, or…
Sincerely,
- Kyle Ponsford, counted among the unsilent.
(address and phone number removed)
* * * * * * *
(*1) NOTE: All information and links of existing Borough Code in this address will be based on established Code current through ordinance 15-07-417 last accessed on 9/23/15. Subsequent changes to the Code in these links after this date may not represent the evidences as described and or copied in this address. Such example accessed for confirmation on 9/29/15 is as follows in note (*2):
(*2) “Title 17 (Reserved)
The Haines Borough Code is current through Ordinance 15-07-417, passed August 11, 2015.
Disclaimer: The Borough Clerk's Office has the official version of the Haines Borough Code. Users should contact the Borough Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”
(*3) The Preamble and Bill of Rights are artfully buried at the bottom of the Table of Contents page as if it were not actually a part of the Charter.
*
342
Kyle’s open letter of noteworthy points,
I never thought I would see the day when I discovered a darkness even darker than Nancy Peloci’s “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” advice to Congress. But last night the Haines Borough Assembly just passed that mark. From Leftist to rightwing, men and women, wealthy businessmen and paupers, Mud Bay and Highway and towns people, persons of deep faith and serious dope smokers; a very impressive ensemble of notoriously contrarily opinionated Haines Citizens, whose votes are ALWAYS divided right down the middle, showed up last night to the Public Hearing at 6:30 in unprecedented solidarity to make very clear by attendance, as well as an impressively long string of three-minute speeches, declaring that the people do not want the Minor Offense Ordinance. Yet strangely it passed… and “strangely” is not nearly a powerful enough word, which we will get to near the end of this address. The list of shocking “in spite ofs” goes on-and-on even beyond the past three weeks of public hearings on this ordinance, and many citizens, both committee and privately, put their lives on hold to individually research and then compile their several mind’s work to address the assembly in written form, exposing advised precautions to consider, as well as the high volume of direct and indirect violations of U.S. Law, Alaska Statute, and Haines Borough Charter. Yet the Assembly plunged ahead with an equally unprecedented determination to pass this ordinance against all argument and against all reason, and in direct violation of their oath of office to “support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the Charter of the Haines Borough.” Borough Charter 2.04.040 (*1).
Allow me to short-list just a few of the many strange facts that brought this ordinance to life by less-than authorized means.
• By document and website, the Assembly chose to tell the people, whom they represent, that this ordinance was mandated by Alaska Court Order No 1797. But there is no mandate. Yet after being directly challenged on this fact, and even confessing this truth, they chose not to correct the lie.
• The Assembly chose to tell the people that this ordinance was about tabling existing infractions. Yet after being challenged on this beguilement they chose not to correct the deception:
• Although the public pointed out the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Charter-changing right-steeling concepts and wording such as in proposed 1.24.010, 1.24.060 and 1.24.070 among others, including phrases like: “It is not a defense to the charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offence allegedly attempted…”, the Assembly chose to leave those lawless words and intents unremoved and unchanged.
• The alteration of our retained rights and the re-coding of our home rule infractions into State managed Minor Offenses by the nature of this charter-amending ordinance “determines the culture under which our government operates and is the enforcement mechanism for all of our public behavior and transactions” (Carol Tuynman), and therefore makes this a Charter amending ordinance by nature, requiring a public vote: “Proposed amendments [to the charter] shall be submitted to the voters…” Haines Borough Charter Article 17.02 (*2).
• This deceptively packaged ordinance is in violation of Charter Title 2.12.070 by combining administrative tabling and Charter changing elements. By unlawfully combining the two natures of this singular ordinance it confuses how it must be enacted: Article 3.02(c) “a simple majority vote of the total membership of the assembly may pass an ordinance” vs. Article 17.01 “This Charter may be amended by the Haines Borough electorate ratifying an amendment at a regular or special election,” and Alaska Statute 29.10.100 “A home rule charter may be amended as provided in the charter, except that no amendment is effective unless ratified by the voters.” Yet by this forbidden combination and the disguise of its true nature, the Assembly called it an administrative “tabling ordinance” and went about passing it by simple majority vote of the Assembly, keeping the choice of changing the nature of our chartered laws out of the hands of the people. This is a blatant ignoring of identifying a restrictive nature as to when the Agents can act and when they must let the people act: Borough Charter 2.12.090 “When an act is required by ordinance (this is) and the act may be done as well by an agent [i.e. Assembly] as by the principle [i.e. the people]…”
This act cannot be done as well by our agents as by our express will by vote.
Alaska Statute 44.62.312(3) confirms this concept by saying: “the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them;” and (4) “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people…” Yet the Assembly did just that by passing this ordinance on their own, and in direct opposition to every voice of the people who spoke at every meeting held on this ordinance.
• On Sept. 8, 2015 at the Public Hearing, the Assembly allowed an Assemblyman to speak on a topic that had already been closed. This violated Charter Title 2.10.060B: “Every member while speaking shall speak only to the subject under debate.” That violation speech resulted in a likewise violating vote that spawned an impressive chaos of following violating votes and reconsiders that eventually resulted in eliminating the previous rightfully established third public hearing-- with its extended date for cause-- and unlawfully enacted a vote of passage at the next scheduled Public Hearing time-slot (see Borough Assembly Minutes 9/8/15 p2 of 4 for a very interesting read).
• At that next scheduled meeting, of Sept. 22, 2015-- last night-- after a very impressive public turnout that-- at least for those who spoke-- TO THE PERSON, stood firmly against the passage of this ordinance, and by solidarity the silent-attending agreed, it was declared by two Assembly persons that although maybe one-hundred strong, our united voice against this ordinance was a small percentage of the 1700 citizens of the Haines Borough. They declared that they were enacting this ordinance in the name, and by the wishes of, the silent population that elected them. It seems apparent that while the exact ratio is admittedly debatable, they utterly reject the universally recognized concept declaring that each individual who acts or votes, accurately represents a far larger number of those who do not. 1 to 10 is not at all outside the scope of an easily accepted ratio. And so, since all of the “100” persons who acted have declared by appearance, written submission, or speech, that this ordinance is not of the will of the people, it cannot be reasonably assumed that the silent majority was not heard decidedly. The fact that there was not a single contrary opinion among them boosts those ratios enormously.
• After the lengthy three-minute public speeches, acting Chair; Madam Lapham, berated the public by saying, as close as I can remember; “I don’t know why the people site; Police State and Nazism, and Communism… the public need to chose their words more wisely,” “I take offense...” Her context and wording and tone expressly told the public that she did not believe we believed what we were saying and therefore dismissed our speeches as insignificant blather and not the real concerns of the people to be received. She even berated one speaker, who said reading this ordinance was reminiscent of what he experienced in East Germany before the wall came down, by accusing him of not living through Communism and so not knowing what was and was not Communistic. This dismissive reaction to the public speeches given in the time slot of “being heard” is an untenable violation of the law. This directly and offensively violates the “reasonably heard” laws as well as the tenor of her commission as pubic servant.
• Only at this last meeting, when the vote was to be cast, did Assemblyman Case expose to the public that his medical condition interfered with his ability to read. Normally I would not even mention such an infliction in the effort to respect the individual who suffers what he did not bring upon himself, but because of how this vote went down this bit of information becomes legally important. Both Alaska Statute and Borough Code makes clear that the people have a very important and foundational right to be heard by those who represent them. Alaska Statute 29.20.020: “The governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings,” and Haines Borough Code 2.08.060A: “The public shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” There is no way that three-minutes to speak can be construed to be a reasonable opportunity to be heard on matters of this importance. But the public is allowed to write letters and emails to the Assembly conveying their concerns, so this may be construed as to fulfill that meaning even if it doesn’t accurately conform to the letter, and possibly even the intent. So after spending many hours carefully researching and wording each letter, the public has gone to great lengths in the effort to be heard so that the assembly can grasp their concerns to be applied when they vote. Yet now we learn too late, by his own confession, that Mr. Case cannot physically read the import of the public, and therefore has failed to provide a lawfully required and very important element of being an actual representative of the people. And, while I have long suspected that many of the Assembly does not read the presentations of the people, we have solid evidence that says at least two of the six members of the assembly votes without hearing the public’s concerns.
• Several points of the law regarding process were submitted by Mr. Denker and read, and some even referenced by assemblyman Campbell at this meeting before the vote was taken. In the composition of those laws are specific requirements of access to information before a meeting, which the Assembly was still missing, as well as information which the public was guaranteed timely but not yet provided. The several laws state clearly that this information must be in place: The Haines Borough Charter Preamble and Bill of Rights (*3) declares “The right to access a well maintained public record of all actions of public officials in accordance with this charter, so that the citizens of the borough may retain control over the affairs of their government.” Borough Code 2.60.120 states; “The minutes shall be filed in the office of the clerk as soon as feasible, but in no case later than two weeks following the committee meeting, and shall be a public record open to inspection by any person.” Borough Code 2.10.030(A) states: “The mayor, with assistance from the clerk, shall arrange [the committee information] according to the order of business and the clerk shall furnish each member of the assembly, the mayor, the manager and the chief fiscal officer with a copy of the same in packet form five calendar days in advance of the assembly meeting.” Yet in spite of Assemblyman Campbell’s efforts to caution the Assembly against voting on a subject of which all pertinent information was not available, as obligatory by law, Madam Lapham as the acting Chair moved forward with the determination to have the vote anyway.
• Assemblyman Campbell then earnestly asked the question; “Why is it so important that we pass this now, especially since it won’t be implemented until January?” To which he did not receive an honest answer to his question, but did receive some mocking replies. Assemblyman Campbell earnestly pleaded with reason to delay the unlawful vote, but he was harshly overruled by the Chair as being out of order.
• In a last-ditch desperate attempt to do as much quick patching of a heinously flawed document that was obviously about to be passed, Mr. Campbell made several successive motions to amend the proposed ordinance by including in bulk the recommendations of various committees that had been heard but ignored. Some of his motions carried while others were defeated. Eventually, after the Chair unofficially belittled Mr. Campbell for his seemingly “unending” attempts to do his best to at least diminish the flaws of the document before it went to vote, the vote was called for, and taken…… and Mr. Campbell refused to vote, on the grounds that the missing information made the vote unlawful according to requirements of the Charter itself.
• Not being deterred from her note-worthily unexplainable determination, the Chair utterly ignored his claims of unlawful vote, and, with the Clerk, began immediate explorations of the charter for options to force Mr. Campbell to vote. They tried portions of Code 2.10.200: “All assembly members present shall vote unless the presiding officer, for special reasons, permits a member to abstain.” But neglected to allow for the part of the same Code that reads: “or is allowed to abstain by law.” He stood firm and refused to vote, again declaring it violates the law. Eventually after a recessed deliberation with the Clerk, and the Mayor by teleconference, the Chair determined that Mr. Campbell’s refusal to vote would be considered as a “presumed” vote.
• So in a true-life fulfillment of the gnat-straining-camel-swallowing proverb, the blaring fact of declared lawlessness of the Assembly was utterly ignored, and a confusion ensued as to just how to count his vote. To stem the confusion the question presented by Assemblyman Berry then became: “Which form of rules should be followed; Roberts Rules of Order, or the Borough Charter?” (Title 2.10.050): By the one set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to go with the majority and make it a 2-4 vote to pass the ordinance, but under the other set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to be deemed a descent and therefore make it a 3-3 tie vote. By Assembly deliberation the Borough Charter won over the Roberts Rules, and the Mayor by teleconference voted in favor to break the tie, and the ordinance was unlawfully and strangely passed 3-4 with one member not voting.
And that, my friends, is a very short list of the many details in how your Assembly chose to represent you, the silent majority. I bet you didn’t know that you wanted to be stripped of your Habeas Corpus rights, or your right to Trial by Jury, or your previously maintained right to adjudication by your piers, or your right to expect your Assemblymen to adhere to the law, or…
Sincerely,
- Kyle Ponsford, counted among the unsilent.
(address and phone number removed)
* * * * * * *
(*1) NOTE: All information and links of existing Borough Code in this address will be based on established Code current through ordinance 15-07-417 last accessed on 9/23/15. Subsequent changes to the Code in these links after this date may not represent the evidences as described and or copied in this address. Such example accessed for confirmation on 9/29/15 is as follows in note (*2):
(*2) “Title 17 (Reserved)
The Haines Borough Code is current through Ordinance 15-07-417, passed August 11, 2015.
Disclaimer: The Borough Clerk's Office has the official version of the Haines Borough Code. Users should contact the Borough Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”
(*3) The Preamble and Bill of Rights are artfully buried at the bottom of the Table of Contents page as if it were not actually a part of the Charter.
*
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Haines Borough Address #2 - 9/8/2015
Regarding Minor Offense Ordinance No. 15-06-413
(Post 341)
Mayor Hill, Borough Manager, and may it please the Haines Borough Assembly,
It’s not about what you think:
While exploring the Borough website regarding this proposed ordinance regarding the new “Minor Offense” category of law, I found what I believe to be an unintentional yet artfully deceptive claim that easily misleads the public into ignoring this change in our Code as something insignificant:
“The items on the DRAFT list DO NOT represent new rules or new violations. The items on the list are taken from EXISTING code and placed on ONE LIST to make the violations more visible to the public” - (*1).
And the website relates the intended “listing” of existing violations as a mandate from the January 22, 2013 Supreme Court ruling #1797 (*2), strongly suggesting to us that this ordinance is simply a State-required administrative format change to “table” or “menu” the existing Borough rules according to constitutionally lawful court procedural-policy changes.
IF this were actually true I would not be here today. What do I care about administrative tables and columns and files? But this ordinance goes way beyond tabling existing rules. In fact this ordinance so profoundly alters our existing Home Rule government that the “required tabled offenses” used to sell it to the people is actually the “pork of the bill” rather than the substance. It’s not about the lists of this ordinance; it’s about everything else.
Again, let me make clear that I am not yet convinced that the members of the Assembly are intentionally hiding this subversion from the public, but are unknowingly ceding our rights of self-government indirectly to the European Courts by allowing an unelected attorney to remake our code with a lackadaisical administrative oversight that assumes he has our borough’s best interest in heart.
But ignorance is no excuse regarding the outcome. Therefore it is my intention in this address to walk through the specific main-points of this ordinance that actually strips the Constitutionally protected rights from the Haines Borough people on a grand foundational scale, and by the revealing information, encourage the Assembly to recognize the danger of this ordinance and act accordingly.
Yet like removing cancer once spread; it has already become very complex to identify and separate deadly corruption from healthy-- even problematic but tolerable-- policy. In this late stage that complexity is great, but I will at least attempt to streamline the general description for a positive and simplistic identification of the political cancer of this ordinance that cannot be allowed to survive.
Changing the nature of Laws, and then changing our Rules into those Laws:
The Borough website states;
“The attorneys drafted this ordinance with the goal of changing as little of the current Code as possible.” - (*1).
And suddenly I found myself asking; If that’s the case, then what is so “necessary” about the repealment and Reenactiment of the whole of Chapter 1.24? And by exploration I found that it seems to parallel the repealment and Reenactment of the State Court Rules that change some “Crime rules” into “Minor Offence rules” in the aforementioned Order No. 1797 that is said to also mandate this local change.
“District Court Criminal Rules 8, 8.1 and 8.2 are renamed and renumbered as Minor Offense Rules 1-22 as follows…” - (*2).
Parallel to the fundamental changes at our Federal level, Something alarmingly large is changing at the State level that also requires such a foundational change of local ordinances. And in that light I asked; What is so “necessary” about the first line-item change to our local ordinance?:
• “Every act prohibited by city [Borough] ordinance is (now) unlawful” (proposed 1.24.010),
changed from;
• “…any person failing to abide by any provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code is guilty of a violation…” (existing 1.24.010).
Has anyone asked why the original writers of this Charter chose to word this in such a complex way, seeming to intentionally and laboriously avoid claiming that the ordinance code was law? So why is it “necessary” to change this to declare that we are now violating the law?
The Borough website goes further in explaining just what this new approach actually means:
• “What will change (with this ordinance) is the method of enforcement, and in some cases, the penalties for violations. Some violations of Borough law [not law] that are currently “administrative” in nature would become “minor offenses” (now law). The practical difference is that the former is handled by Borough staff (and the Assembly on appeal), and the later will be handled by the court. …” - (*1) underlines added.
None of this is minor.
If the method changes, and the penalties change, and a case of infraction is now handled by a foundationally different authority, the only thing left to change is the list of specific violations… which very nature is also changed from infraction of local rules to breach of law… and the nature of that law has also been changed by the Court from what used to be openly called crime, but is now “crime without rights.”
You don’t suppose that having changed virtually everything but the actual listed violations themselves, the next Assembly will choose to change those too, under this new form of law? or maybe more likely; being now law and therefore in the State’s domain of jurisdiction, the State Courts will be the ones to next mandate a change of the listed borough “laws” to suit their own will and design, which itself is mandated unlawfully by European courts through unlawful treaties by a corruption of the Presidency (*3), who like you, cedes our inalienable rights to others by unconstitutional allegiance to the nongoverned.
Since it is well known and universally understood that the Supreme Court cannot write law, I feel that there is no need to site the Federal and State Constitutions on that matter. So if it wasn’t the U.N. Courts, and it wasn’t the U.S. Courts, then who exactly commanded you to change this ordinance? (*4).
If this ordinance is passed, what used to be an “in house” issue of self governance within our Constitutional Home Rule community, has, first; been changed from violation of rules to a legal issue of law, and then, in that new form, is sent outside of our jurisdiction into the authority of the State courts that try issues of law... and there-- without the writ of Habeas Corpus (*5,6a), without a jury of our piers (*6b), and without state supplied council (*7)-- there are consequences of penalty above the Alaska Constitutional maximums for denying a jury trial for civil offenses (*8) presumably because they now fall under the magical realm of “Minor Offense Laws” that constitutionally don’t exist, but by a ceded-authority Police State sure seem to. I quickly found no less than 52 direct “tabled fines” that already exceed the maximum allowed by the Alaska Constitution for such a transformed setting. And that does not take into account the compounding daily increases, the added surcharges, court costs, etc. What do you propose to do about that once these infractions of rules become infractions of law and subject to the courts, which are constrained by Alaska State constitutional boundaries?
So how does the Borough explain this dramatic alteration of our home-rule foundations? The website continues:
“We view this as a tremendous benefit to both the Borough and the person accused of the violation because a court is the best forum to adjudicate whether a violation occurred and to impose penalties, not city hall and the Assembly chambers.” - Underline added (*1).
Has anyone asked what the founders of our Home Rule Borough had in mind when they established this Charter that clearly provided the opposite opinion on just who is best suited for that job? Why do you suppose that they didn’t think that dragging our people to a State Court over local matters was a good idea?
Let me help answer that: It’s because, as it has long stood in our present Charter; breaking our local code is not a crime. It’s not a breach of the law (in spite of the fact that the borough website seems to think it is), and therefore it’s not a case for the Courts to adjudicate. Rather, it’s an infraction of the local rules of social conduct put forward by an Assembly of elected local residence and accepted by a vote of the governed, and therefore, the Assembly are more likely to judge in a manner common with our unique local traditions and lifestyles. And if not, we the people have the direct ability to vote them out of office and elect those who’s values and ideas of lifestyle are more like our own. Because IT’S OUR BOROUGH! We make the rules in our own borough. That’s one of the points that makes this non-European nation so special!
American Courts don’t adjudicate infractions of local rules. Does a father take his son to court if he doesn’t take out the trash? Maybe if he changed the word “Chores” to “Laws” he could! And maybe both the son and the father would view this as a tremendous benefit to both, but that very statement is missing the point of even why it seems that way to them. Such a change of mindframe reveals a breakdown in the family relationship that desperately needs to be addressed. It seems that the Borough government thinks the people are rebellious, and perhaps the people think the government is tyrannical. This is not a good relationship!
So speaking to the Assembly; Is our entire borough-- or even just our local community-- so full of lawless anarchy of Alaskan tradition, customs, and lifestyles, that we need to make this foundational change in governance that brings in The Big Dog? I don’t see it even close. We really have a wonderful sleepy and friendly community, and that, even including our “family” contentions of dramatic lifestyle differences and values now arriving from outside, as well as created by consolidating the City and the Borough into a single governance of lifestyle. The far more reasonable solution would be Redistricting rather than turning over our adjudicating powers to the Courts of law (See I Corinthians 6:4-7). But I don’t yet see the need of even redistricting.
If my “City Hall” is so corrupt and/or antagonistically wrong-headed that I can’t get a reasonable “verdict” from them-- and accept it as just, then its not time to take it to the court; it’s time to revamp either City Hall or my way of thinking. This is an In House matter for the community to determine, not a matter for the Courts!
And to be honest, my first contemplation on this line is questioning if the City Hall’s rules of conduct are not already too restrictive and arbitrary and entirely too focused on more income, thus encouraging both rebellion (Ephesians 6:4) and an overstuffed docket of frivolous and unnecessary cases to review and adjudicate, which our own Preamble and Bill of Rights guarantees to prevent:
“the right to enjoyment of (normal local life) without unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary laws or regulations.”
If the City Hall has a whole stack of similar violations (such as ticketing 75 cars parked along the road for a basketball game) it’s a good indicator that the people do not like the rule. The rule should change, or at least be administratively momentarily waved in good faith. It’s your job to hear the people, not bring in the Court to make us comply to a nanny-State governance of external values.
I already have a whole long list of substantial complaints regarding many of the specific listed infractions being unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary, but that argument must be postponed for a separate address another time. What we are addressing here is the very nature and purpose of a Home Rule governance, and that is more important today than at any time in Alaska’s history. We are talking directly about the last of our diminishing freedoms; the right of democratic defense against a rogue government that now wants to rule us. In our borough we call this defense Home Rule, in court we call this Trial by Jury. This Assembly is about to ignorantly deny us both, because; “That’s what our attorney wrote”? I’m not buying it.
In keeping with the motives of the State Constitution, in keeping with the same in the Federal; our wise body of Home Rule community-makers diminished only those rights required to maintain the minimalist order necessary for the local people to “keep from killing each other.” After all; It’s the people’s community to live as they collectively like and are commonly used to living. But yes, we do need basic rules that all can easily see as worthy, and comply with, as a common politeness to our neighbors who have as much rights as we do to expect to be safe and secure in our community. Just don’t forget that the Borough of Haines is a very unique place, and in the Alaska State Constitution it grants us the autonomy of maintaining our uniqueness (*9). And in the Preamble of our Borough Charter we specifically retain that right to be a special community with our odd customs and lifestyles that define us, even different than anywhere else in the State or Country. Reformation is the job of the Church, without the force of law. Don’t attempt to “reform” us with your lifestyle-changing ideas as laws; like turning us all into a Californian neighborhood absent of junk cars and useful odds in the yard that, because of our rural location and lack of ready money, have great “spare parts” value as a way of life. This is Haines, in rugged Alaska, and except for extreme and abnormal cases that may need to be addressed from time to time; we live this way on purpose because it makes us happy and/or independently secure. And THAT right is actually spelled out as the lawfully protected and retained rights of the people of the Haines Borough, the People of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America.
Rule 1 of Order #1797 seems to want to take that away (*10), but it can do so only if we voluntarily change our rules into Minor Offenses as this ordinance is want to do.
More Danger still:
Now that you grasp the significance of what this changed ordinance is attempting to do, and that the Alaska Supreme Court is complicit with this alteration of our American and uniquely Alaskan rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness through our borough self-regulation, and seeing too the now lawless insanity of all three branches of our Federal and State Governments on a nation-destroying scale; allow me to combine a few specifics of this ordinance that drives the point home sharply.
By denying us the right of Habeas Corpus both in the Superior Court Rules and in the proposed Borough Ordinance (*5,6a), there now needs to be virtually no evidence or proof that we are guilty of what we are accused of. Add to that the ability of the accuser to declare probable cause without providing a shred of evidence, combined with an accusation that the accused thought he was about to do something unlawful, and we arrive at a determined guilt for any and everything imagined by the accuser.
The accuser: “Your honor, I have reason to believe that this citizen intended to fish without a license.”
The Judge: “By the authority provided by law and this Charter, I find the defendant Guilty as charged!”
By this ordinance, it does not matter that the accused doesn’t even own a fishing pole, or a boat, and wasn’t anywhere near the water, the accuser has stated his statement of probable cause based on his imagination of what the perpetrator was thinking, and according to the combined acts of this ordinance, that is good enough for a guilty verdict of a presumed bad thought that has not even the possibility of fulfillment! (*5c).
You think I am mocking this legislation because you would never take these ordinances to such extremes. But by your actions today these will be the ordinances well entrenched in another five years. Who and what will be on the Assembly at that time…Muslims? If you are willing to toss over the values of those who gave us this Charter of Home Rule, then why will the next generation not be willing to toss over your values while lawfully using these ordinance elements that you enacted “with good intentions”?
Perhaps completely outside of your awareness, these changes are not intended for application today but for what they can be made to do tomorrow. This is a bad ordinance on a foundational level. And it’s not good enough to delete the few lines of the ordinance that I used to make a point. DO NOT re-class our Borough rules into “Minor Offenses,” because State Jurisdiction comes with the name that they created and govern by their lawless Rules (*11).
For the most part, the people trust you, much like you trust your attorney, much like he trusts the Courts. In good-will faith, the people naturally allow you administrative powers that you feel are necessary. This ordinance is sold to them as administrative, but is foundationally destructive to our Home Rule governance and the people’s rights. Therefore, on behalf of the Haines Borough People, I urgently request that the Assembly withdraw this proposed ordinance even before it goes to vote. It’s the responsible thing to do.
*
Footnotes:
(*1) Haines Borough Website, describing the Minor Offense Ordinance - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*2) AK Court Order No 1797 - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*3) Jose’ Ernesto Medellin vs. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984) “is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing.” Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice (U.N.) are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.” (Sited from; A Time for Truth, 2015, Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court).
(*4) I have searched the whole of Order No. 1797 and so far I find no mandate to change Borough code, as declared in Haines Borough Agenda Bill No. 15-576 as well as on the Haines Borough Website.
(*5) Supreme Court Order No. 1797:
• “The officer must state on the citation that the officer has probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense but need not state the grounds for the probable cause determination beyond the essential facts.” - Rule 3(f).
[In our example, the lack of a fishing license is the essential fact mentioned.]
and Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “Every person who attempts to commit a minor offense but fails or is prevented or is intercepted in its perpetration is guilty of a minor offense and shall be punished in the manner prescribed for the infraction itself.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 A.
• “…it is not a defense to charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offense allegedly attempted if the conduct engaged in by the defendant would be an offense had the circumstances been as defendant believed them to be.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 B.
(*6) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…On application for injunctive relief and a finding of…threatened violation, the superior court shall grant the injunction.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.101B.
• “As a minor offense, trial is by the court without a jury…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*7) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…and there is no right to court-appointed defense counsel.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*8) Alaska Constitution Article 1 Section 16:
• “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law (i.e. crime).”
(*9) Alaska Constitution Article 10 Section 3:
• “Each borough shall embrace an area and population with common interests to the maximum degree possible.” - Underline added.
(*10) Supreme Court Order #1797:
• “These rules govern the procedure in cases involving minor offenses…” - Rule 1. Scope, Purpose and Construction.
(*11) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “...is guilty of a minor offense as that term is defined in the Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedures…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.010 A.
Respectfully and sincerely submitted this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord 2015,
(With current global trending we have a new reason to define just which calendar we are using and why),
- Kyle Ponsford
(address removed)
Haines AK 99827
c.c. via paper and email 9/8/2015:
Borough Mayor Jan Hill jhill@haines.ak.us
Borough Manager David Sosa dsosa@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Dave Berry Jr. dberry@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Diana Lapham dlapham@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Michael Case mcase@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Joanne Waterman jwaterman@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman George Campbell gcampbell@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Ronald Jackson rjackson@haines.ak.us
Borough Clerk July Cozzie jcozzi@haines.ak.us
*
(Post 341)
Mayor Hill, Borough Manager, and may it please the Haines Borough Assembly,
It’s not about what you think:
While exploring the Borough website regarding this proposed ordinance regarding the new “Minor Offense” category of law, I found what I believe to be an unintentional yet artfully deceptive claim that easily misleads the public into ignoring this change in our Code as something insignificant:
“The items on the DRAFT list DO NOT represent new rules or new violations. The items on the list are taken from EXISTING code and placed on ONE LIST to make the violations more visible to the public” - (*1).
And the website relates the intended “listing” of existing violations as a mandate from the January 22, 2013 Supreme Court ruling #1797 (*2), strongly suggesting to us that this ordinance is simply a State-required administrative format change to “table” or “menu” the existing Borough rules according to constitutionally lawful court procedural-policy changes.
IF this were actually true I would not be here today. What do I care about administrative tables and columns and files? But this ordinance goes way beyond tabling existing rules. In fact this ordinance so profoundly alters our existing Home Rule government that the “required tabled offenses” used to sell it to the people is actually the “pork of the bill” rather than the substance. It’s not about the lists of this ordinance; it’s about everything else.
Again, let me make clear that I am not yet convinced that the members of the Assembly are intentionally hiding this subversion from the public, but are unknowingly ceding our rights of self-government indirectly to the European Courts by allowing an unelected attorney to remake our code with a lackadaisical administrative oversight that assumes he has our borough’s best interest in heart.
But ignorance is no excuse regarding the outcome. Therefore it is my intention in this address to walk through the specific main-points of this ordinance that actually strips the Constitutionally protected rights from the Haines Borough people on a grand foundational scale, and by the revealing information, encourage the Assembly to recognize the danger of this ordinance and act accordingly.
Yet like removing cancer once spread; it has already become very complex to identify and separate deadly corruption from healthy-- even problematic but tolerable-- policy. In this late stage that complexity is great, but I will at least attempt to streamline the general description for a positive and simplistic identification of the political cancer of this ordinance that cannot be allowed to survive.
Changing the nature of Laws, and then changing our Rules into those Laws:
The Borough website states;
“The attorneys drafted this ordinance with the goal of changing as little of the current Code as possible.” - (*1).
And suddenly I found myself asking; If that’s the case, then what is so “necessary” about the repealment and Reenactiment of the whole of Chapter 1.24? And by exploration I found that it seems to parallel the repealment and Reenactment of the State Court Rules that change some “Crime rules” into “Minor Offence rules” in the aforementioned Order No. 1797 that is said to also mandate this local change.
“District Court Criminal Rules 8, 8.1 and 8.2 are renamed and renumbered as Minor Offense Rules 1-22 as follows…” - (*2).
Parallel to the fundamental changes at our Federal level, Something alarmingly large is changing at the State level that also requires such a foundational change of local ordinances. And in that light I asked; What is so “necessary” about the first line-item change to our local ordinance?:
• “Every act prohibited by city [Borough] ordinance is (now) unlawful” (proposed 1.24.010),
changed from;
• “…any person failing to abide by any provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code is guilty of a violation…” (existing 1.24.010).
Has anyone asked why the original writers of this Charter chose to word this in such a complex way, seeming to intentionally and laboriously avoid claiming that the ordinance code was law? So why is it “necessary” to change this to declare that we are now violating the law?
The Borough website goes further in explaining just what this new approach actually means:
• “What will change (with this ordinance) is the method of enforcement, and in some cases, the penalties for violations. Some violations of Borough law [not law] that are currently “administrative” in nature would become “minor offenses” (now law). The practical difference is that the former is handled by Borough staff (and the Assembly on appeal), and the later will be handled by the court. …” - (*1) underlines added.
None of this is minor.
If the method changes, and the penalties change, and a case of infraction is now handled by a foundationally different authority, the only thing left to change is the list of specific violations… which very nature is also changed from infraction of local rules to breach of law… and the nature of that law has also been changed by the Court from what used to be openly called crime, but is now “crime without rights.”
You don’t suppose that having changed virtually everything but the actual listed violations themselves, the next Assembly will choose to change those too, under this new form of law? or maybe more likely; being now law and therefore in the State’s domain of jurisdiction, the State Courts will be the ones to next mandate a change of the listed borough “laws” to suit their own will and design, which itself is mandated unlawfully by European courts through unlawful treaties by a corruption of the Presidency (*3), who like you, cedes our inalienable rights to others by unconstitutional allegiance to the nongoverned.
Since it is well known and universally understood that the Supreme Court cannot write law, I feel that there is no need to site the Federal and State Constitutions on that matter. So if it wasn’t the U.N. Courts, and it wasn’t the U.S. Courts, then who exactly commanded you to change this ordinance? (*4).
If this ordinance is passed, what used to be an “in house” issue of self governance within our Constitutional Home Rule community, has, first; been changed from violation of rules to a legal issue of law, and then, in that new form, is sent outside of our jurisdiction into the authority of the State courts that try issues of law... and there-- without the writ of Habeas Corpus (*5,6a), without a jury of our piers (*6b), and without state supplied council (*7)-- there are consequences of penalty above the Alaska Constitutional maximums for denying a jury trial for civil offenses (*8) presumably because they now fall under the magical realm of “Minor Offense Laws” that constitutionally don’t exist, but by a ceded-authority Police State sure seem to. I quickly found no less than 52 direct “tabled fines” that already exceed the maximum allowed by the Alaska Constitution for such a transformed setting. And that does not take into account the compounding daily increases, the added surcharges, court costs, etc. What do you propose to do about that once these infractions of rules become infractions of law and subject to the courts, which are constrained by Alaska State constitutional boundaries?
So how does the Borough explain this dramatic alteration of our home-rule foundations? The website continues:
“We view this as a tremendous benefit to both the Borough and the person accused of the violation because a court is the best forum to adjudicate whether a violation occurred and to impose penalties, not city hall and the Assembly chambers.” - Underline added (*1).
Has anyone asked what the founders of our Home Rule Borough had in mind when they established this Charter that clearly provided the opposite opinion on just who is best suited for that job? Why do you suppose that they didn’t think that dragging our people to a State Court over local matters was a good idea?
Let me help answer that: It’s because, as it has long stood in our present Charter; breaking our local code is not a crime. It’s not a breach of the law (in spite of the fact that the borough website seems to think it is), and therefore it’s not a case for the Courts to adjudicate. Rather, it’s an infraction of the local rules of social conduct put forward by an Assembly of elected local residence and accepted by a vote of the governed, and therefore, the Assembly are more likely to judge in a manner common with our unique local traditions and lifestyles. And if not, we the people have the direct ability to vote them out of office and elect those who’s values and ideas of lifestyle are more like our own. Because IT’S OUR BOROUGH! We make the rules in our own borough. That’s one of the points that makes this non-European nation so special!
American Courts don’t adjudicate infractions of local rules. Does a father take his son to court if he doesn’t take out the trash? Maybe if he changed the word “Chores” to “Laws” he could! And maybe both the son and the father would view this as a tremendous benefit to both, but that very statement is missing the point of even why it seems that way to them. Such a change of mindframe reveals a breakdown in the family relationship that desperately needs to be addressed. It seems that the Borough government thinks the people are rebellious, and perhaps the people think the government is tyrannical. This is not a good relationship!
So speaking to the Assembly; Is our entire borough-- or even just our local community-- so full of lawless anarchy of Alaskan tradition, customs, and lifestyles, that we need to make this foundational change in governance that brings in The Big Dog? I don’t see it even close. We really have a wonderful sleepy and friendly community, and that, even including our “family” contentions of dramatic lifestyle differences and values now arriving from outside, as well as created by consolidating the City and the Borough into a single governance of lifestyle. The far more reasonable solution would be Redistricting rather than turning over our adjudicating powers to the Courts of law (See I Corinthians 6:4-7). But I don’t yet see the need of even redistricting.
If my “City Hall” is so corrupt and/or antagonistically wrong-headed that I can’t get a reasonable “verdict” from them-- and accept it as just, then its not time to take it to the court; it’s time to revamp either City Hall or my way of thinking. This is an In House matter for the community to determine, not a matter for the Courts!
And to be honest, my first contemplation on this line is questioning if the City Hall’s rules of conduct are not already too restrictive and arbitrary and entirely too focused on more income, thus encouraging both rebellion (Ephesians 6:4) and an overstuffed docket of frivolous and unnecessary cases to review and adjudicate, which our own Preamble and Bill of Rights guarantees to prevent:
“the right to enjoyment of (normal local life) without unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary laws or regulations.”
If the City Hall has a whole stack of similar violations (such as ticketing 75 cars parked along the road for a basketball game) it’s a good indicator that the people do not like the rule. The rule should change, or at least be administratively momentarily waved in good faith. It’s your job to hear the people, not bring in the Court to make us comply to a nanny-State governance of external values.
I already have a whole long list of substantial complaints regarding many of the specific listed infractions being unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary, but that argument must be postponed for a separate address another time. What we are addressing here is the very nature and purpose of a Home Rule governance, and that is more important today than at any time in Alaska’s history. We are talking directly about the last of our diminishing freedoms; the right of democratic defense against a rogue government that now wants to rule us. In our borough we call this defense Home Rule, in court we call this Trial by Jury. This Assembly is about to ignorantly deny us both, because; “That’s what our attorney wrote”? I’m not buying it.
In keeping with the motives of the State Constitution, in keeping with the same in the Federal; our wise body of Home Rule community-makers diminished only those rights required to maintain the minimalist order necessary for the local people to “keep from killing each other.” After all; It’s the people’s community to live as they collectively like and are commonly used to living. But yes, we do need basic rules that all can easily see as worthy, and comply with, as a common politeness to our neighbors who have as much rights as we do to expect to be safe and secure in our community. Just don’t forget that the Borough of Haines is a very unique place, and in the Alaska State Constitution it grants us the autonomy of maintaining our uniqueness (*9). And in the Preamble of our Borough Charter we specifically retain that right to be a special community with our odd customs and lifestyles that define us, even different than anywhere else in the State or Country. Reformation is the job of the Church, without the force of law. Don’t attempt to “reform” us with your lifestyle-changing ideas as laws; like turning us all into a Californian neighborhood absent of junk cars and useful odds in the yard that, because of our rural location and lack of ready money, have great “spare parts” value as a way of life. This is Haines, in rugged Alaska, and except for extreme and abnormal cases that may need to be addressed from time to time; we live this way on purpose because it makes us happy and/or independently secure. And THAT right is actually spelled out as the lawfully protected and retained rights of the people of the Haines Borough, the People of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America.
Rule 1 of Order #1797 seems to want to take that away (*10), but it can do so only if we voluntarily change our rules into Minor Offenses as this ordinance is want to do.
More Danger still:
Now that you grasp the significance of what this changed ordinance is attempting to do, and that the Alaska Supreme Court is complicit with this alteration of our American and uniquely Alaskan rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness through our borough self-regulation, and seeing too the now lawless insanity of all three branches of our Federal and State Governments on a nation-destroying scale; allow me to combine a few specifics of this ordinance that drives the point home sharply.
By denying us the right of Habeas Corpus both in the Superior Court Rules and in the proposed Borough Ordinance (*5,6a), there now needs to be virtually no evidence or proof that we are guilty of what we are accused of. Add to that the ability of the accuser to declare probable cause without providing a shred of evidence, combined with an accusation that the accused thought he was about to do something unlawful, and we arrive at a determined guilt for any and everything imagined by the accuser.
The accuser: “Your honor, I have reason to believe that this citizen intended to fish without a license.”
The Judge: “By the authority provided by law and this Charter, I find the defendant Guilty as charged!”
By this ordinance, it does not matter that the accused doesn’t even own a fishing pole, or a boat, and wasn’t anywhere near the water, the accuser has stated his statement of probable cause based on his imagination of what the perpetrator was thinking, and according to the combined acts of this ordinance, that is good enough for a guilty verdict of a presumed bad thought that has not even the possibility of fulfillment! (*5c).
You think I am mocking this legislation because you would never take these ordinances to such extremes. But by your actions today these will be the ordinances well entrenched in another five years. Who and what will be on the Assembly at that time…Muslims? If you are willing to toss over the values of those who gave us this Charter of Home Rule, then why will the next generation not be willing to toss over your values while lawfully using these ordinance elements that you enacted “with good intentions”?
Perhaps completely outside of your awareness, these changes are not intended for application today but for what they can be made to do tomorrow. This is a bad ordinance on a foundational level. And it’s not good enough to delete the few lines of the ordinance that I used to make a point. DO NOT re-class our Borough rules into “Minor Offenses,” because State Jurisdiction comes with the name that they created and govern by their lawless Rules (*11).
For the most part, the people trust you, much like you trust your attorney, much like he trusts the Courts. In good-will faith, the people naturally allow you administrative powers that you feel are necessary. This ordinance is sold to them as administrative, but is foundationally destructive to our Home Rule governance and the people’s rights. Therefore, on behalf of the Haines Borough People, I urgently request that the Assembly withdraw this proposed ordinance even before it goes to vote. It’s the responsible thing to do.
*
Footnotes:
(*1) Haines Borough Website, describing the Minor Offense Ordinance - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*2) AK Court Order No 1797 - accessed 9/3/2015.
(*3) Jose’ Ernesto Medellin vs. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984) “is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing.” Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice (U.N.) are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.” (Sited from; A Time for Truth, 2015, Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court).
(*4) I have searched the whole of Order No. 1797 and so far I find no mandate to change Borough code, as declared in Haines Borough Agenda Bill No. 15-576 as well as on the Haines Borough Website.
(*5) Supreme Court Order No. 1797:
• “The officer must state on the citation that the officer has probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense but need not state the grounds for the probable cause determination beyond the essential facts.” - Rule 3(f).
[In our example, the lack of a fishing license is the essential fact mentioned.]
and Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “Every person who attempts to commit a minor offense but fails or is prevented or is intercepted in its perpetration is guilty of a minor offense and shall be punished in the manner prescribed for the infraction itself.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 A.
• “…it is not a defense to charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offense allegedly attempted if the conduct engaged in by the defendant would be an offense had the circumstances been as defendant believed them to be.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.060 B.
(*6) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…On application for injunctive relief and a finding of…threatened violation, the superior court shall grant the injunction.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.101B.
• “As a minor offense, trial is by the court without a jury…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*7) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “…and there is no right to court-appointed defense counsel.” - proposed ordinance 1.24.030.
(*8) Alaska Constitution Article 1 Section 16:
• “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law (i.e. crime).”
(*9) Alaska Constitution Article 10 Section 3:
• “Each borough shall embrace an area and population with common interests to the maximum degree possible.” - Underline added.
(*10) Supreme Court Order #1797:
• “These rules govern the procedure in cases involving minor offenses…” - Rule 1. Scope, Purpose and Construction.
(*11) Haines Borough proposed Ordinance 15-06-413:
• “...is guilty of a minor offense as that term is defined in the Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedures…” - proposed ordinance 1.24.010 A.
Respectfully and sincerely submitted this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord 2015,
(With current global trending we have a new reason to define just which calendar we are using and why),
- Kyle Ponsford
(address removed)
Haines AK 99827
c.c. via paper and email 9/8/2015:
Borough Mayor Jan Hill jhill@haines.ak.us
Borough Manager David Sosa dsosa@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Dave Berry Jr. dberry@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Diana Lapham dlapham@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Michael Case mcase@haines.ak.us
Assemblyperson Joanne Waterman jwaterman@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman George Campbell gcampbell@haines.ak.us
Assemblyman Ronald Jackson rjackson@haines.ak.us
Borough Clerk July Cozzie jcozzi@haines.ak.us
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)