Southernisraelite.files.wordpress.com



A Defense of Legal FictionsMastery of the Universal-Legal-Technology RefutedBy Drake Shelton, The Southern Israelite8/26/2020Mastery of the Universal-Legal-Technology(MULT) states, “The oath is the cornerstone of authority of any judicial officer or judicial employee. We are told today that we have remedy if a judge violates his oath, but as a practical matter, for an average person, it is as easy to win the lottery as to have any judge or judicial employee prosecuted for breaching his oath. If attacking the very cornerstone of authority is so ineffective, then we must identify the sources of the problem and deal with the matter. We are about to find out the myriad of problems with the oath. The oath is no more binding than a simple contract, has ancient cult origins, and is a violation of the Christian faith. Happily, if the believer simply accepts Matthew 5: 34_36 and he abides by these verses, this chapter can be entirely skipped! Jesus said, “But I say to you, never swear; neither by heaven, because it is Yahweh’s throne ‘Nor by the earth, for it is a stool under his feet’, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of a great king. Neither shall you swear by your own head, because you cannot create in it a single black or white hair. But let your words be yes, yes, and no, no; for anything which adds to these is a deception.” As we will see in a separate treatment The Common Law school is intimately connected with the Antinomian and Gnostic theology of the Catholic Church. Here, the author of MULT, in typical Catholic fashion, attempts to pit the words of Christ against the Law and the Prophets which was directly denied by Christ himself. (Mat. 5:17-19) Robert Shaw commenting on Chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession refutes this Antinomian and Gnostic heresy, “An oath for confirmation is warranted by the third precept of the moral law; for while that precept prohibits the taking of God's name in vain, it sanctions swearing by the name of God on lawful occasions. The practice is confirmed by numerous approved examples under the Old Testament. Abraham swore to Abimelech that he would not deal falsely with him.–Gen. xxi. 23, 24. A king of the same name desired that an oath might be between Isaac and him; and they swore one to another. - Gen. 2. xxvi. 31. In like manner Jacob swore to Laban (Gen. xxxi. 53); and Joseph swore to his father.–Gen. xlvii. 31. All these examples occurred before the Mosaic law was given to the Jews, and therefore an oath can be no peculiarity of the Mosaic dispensation. But that law expressly recognised the warrantableness of taking an oath (Lev. v. 1), and under that dispensation we have various examples of holy men swearing by the name of God. Thus Jonathan required David to swear unto him (1 Sam. xx. 17); and David also swore unto Saul.–1 Sam. xxiv. 21,22. The taking of an oath being no part of the judicial, or of the ceremonial law, it must be equally warrantable under the present dispensation, unless expressly prohibited in the New Testament. But there is much in the New Testament to confirm the practice. The Apostle Paul frequently appeals to God in these and similar expressions: "God is my witness:"–"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not", (Rom. i. 9, ix.1): "I call God for a record upon my soul."–2 Cor. i. 23. Christ himself answered the question of the high priest, when he adjured him by the living God; which was the common form of administering an oath among the Jews. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the oath which God swore to Abraham, "who, because he could swear by no greater, aware by himself;" and he adds, "An oath for confirmation is an end of all strife" (Heb. vi. 13, 16); plainly showing that he sanctioned the practice. It must be evident, therefore, that our Saviour's words (Matt. v. 34), "Swear not at all," and the similar words of the Apostle James (v. 12), do not absolutely prohibit all swearing on necessary end solemn occasions; but only forbid the practice of swearing in common conversation, and particularly of swearing by creatures. It must be remarked, however, that an appeal to God in trivial matters, and the frequent and unnecessary repetition of the same oath, is a taking the name of God in vain. And it may also be observed, that as the lifting up of the hand is the usual mode of swearing mentioned in Scripture (Gen. xiv. 22; Rev. x. 5, 6), so it ought to be preferred; and all superstitious forms ought to be rejected.”?MULT has an aversion to Legal Fictions due to his Libertarian Satanic idea of Individualism. He states, “The reasons why legal fictions were employed by earlier judicial officers were technology related. Forms of communication and modes of transportation made the legal structure slow to adjust. Legislation was infrequent, and the distribution of the newer laws was slow. So judges were left alone to make do. Gaps in the law left the judges sometimes with no guidance at all for the remedies they were expected to decide.”“Examples of assumptive fictions are the “As if” statements that sometimesassume major events. In Bouviers’ Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, contains 194 “as if” statements. A few unsettlingexamples of the “as if” statements include the following:(1) “as if” he were the owner,(2) “as if” he were of majority age,(3) “as if” he had accepted,(4) “as if” they had received full value,(5) “as if” the acknowledgment of the execution of the same deed had been,(6) “as if” under an oath,(7) “as if” he had signed.”This is incorrect. The primary reason for Legal Fictions(The proper term is Public Persons or Federal Heads) pertains to Group Dynamics and Federal Headship. Adam and Christ function as Federal heads of the human race, AS IF, their actions were the actions of all individual human beings. (Rom. 5:12-19) 1 Cor. 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.The Church or Body of Christ is a Legal Fiction. (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12:12, Eph. 3:6) The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism states, “Q. Are public social covenants of continuous obligation? or, are they binding upon the posterity of the original covenanters, as long as the corporate body exists; or, until such time as the object for which they were framed has been accomplished? A. They are; and this position is sustained by forcible arguments. 1. We find posterity recognised in the transaction between God and Jacob, at Bethel. Gen. xxviii. 13; compared with Hosea xii. 4. "He found him (Jacob) in Bethel, and there he spake with us." 2. We have another remarkable instance of the transmission of covenant obligation to posterity in Deut. v. 2,3. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (only) but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." 3. Another example occurs in Deut. xxix. 10-15; the covenant is here made with three descriptions of persons. 1. With those addressed adults. "Neither with you only." 2. Minors. "Him that standeth here with us." 3. Posterity. "Him that is not here with us this day"-for this could have no reference to any of the Israelites then in existence, as they were all present. It must, therefore, include posterity, together with all future accessions to the community. With them, Moses informs us, the covenant was made, as well as with those who actually entered into it, in the plains of Moab. 4. Another instance in which posterity is recognised in covenant obligation is found in Joshua ix. 15. This covenant was made between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites. Between four and five hundred years after that time, the children of Israel are visited with a very severe famine, in the days of David. 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And it is expressly declared by the Lord that, "It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." And at the same time, v. 2, that very covenant is recognised, and the breach of it is stated, as being the formal reason of the divine displeasure. Now, had it not been for this covenant, the extirpation of the Gibeonites would not have been imputed to Israel as a thing criminal; for they were comprehended in Caananitish nations, which God had commanded them to root out. 5. Posterity are charged with the sin of violating the covenant of their ancestors. Jer. xi. 10. "The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers"- by which they are evidently considered as bound. 6. The principle of federal representation confirms this doctrine. Thus when Joseph made a covenant with his brethren, that they should carry up his bones from Egypt to the land of promise, he assumed that those whom he addressed, were the representatives of their successors, as he knew well that the whole of that generation should die before the 89 deliverance of Israel by Moses. Posterity recognised the obligation. Ex. xiii. 19. A similar case of federal representation, is that of the Gibeonites quoted above. 6. Infant baptism is a forcible illustration of the continuous obligation of covenants. 7. The principle of the transmissibility of the obligations of covenants to posterity, is recognised by civilians in civil matters. In the obligations, for example, of the heir of an estate, for the engagements of his predecessor in the possession of it. All national treaties and other engagements of the corporate body, descend with all their weight upon succeeding generations.”And of course we know that groups of people are real. They share the same blood, the same genetics, the same organic communities and loyalties, languages and geographic locations. Federal headship simply gives a name to what we all know is real. The other reason pertains to the idea of Imputation. From my Systematic Theology, pg. 353,“The word imputation can be taken in two ways: properly and improperly. The improper use of the term refers to someone who has done something or has something and because of this is decreed a reward or punishment (2 Sam. 19:19, Psalm 106:31). The proper use of the term refers to someone who has not done a certain thing but is to be considered as if he had. In like manner, with respect to the proper use, to not impute is to hold someone who has done a thing as if he had not done it (Philem. 18, 2 Tim. 4:16). The former is referred to as debt; the latter, grace (Rom. 4:4-5). Therefore this term cannot refer to something physical or ontological – as in an infusion of righteousness – but is forensic. What is imputed is directly opposed to what is inherent (Phil. 3:9). This is exactly what you have in Rom 4:5 where the ungodly qua ungodly yet united to Christ is justified. Here justification cannot be a result of infused righteousness or an effect of godliness.”Lev. 16:?21?And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:?22?And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.Isa. 53:?5?But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.10?Yet it pleased the?Lord?to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the?Lord?shall prosper in his hand.Last but certainly not least, Sir William Blackstone himself acknowledged the reality of legal Fictions: Commentaries On The Laws Of England, Book The First, “Persons?also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.“ (pg. 119) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download