Regarding the date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

As I show below, I believe Jesus was born 21 August 7 BC as the Urantia Book claims (see text below).  I write this to show corroboration from historical writings and artifacts.

Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a coin struck in 8 BC to commemorate the census he ordered for the purpose of tax collection. 

From Augustus' personal written statement of his list of accomplishments, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, or "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus", engraved on the walls of numerous temples like that at Ankara (monumentum Ancyranum):

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html

English translation are those of Frederick W. Shipley, as printed in the volume of the Loeb Classical Library, Velleius Paterculus and Res Gestae Divi Augusti, first published in 1924

8 As consul for the fifth time,32 by order of the people and the senate I increased the number of the patricians. Three times I revised the roll of the senate.33 In my sixth consulship, with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people.34I performed the lustrum35 after an interval of forty-one years. In this •lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time,36 in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, p359and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius.37 In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. By the passage of new laws I restored many traditions of our ancestors which were then falling into disuse, and I myself set precedents in many things for posterity to imitate.38

The lustrum is a purification ritual for the people every 5 years after a census.  Augustus ordered a census in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. Footnote 36 shows the second one at 8 B.C., the year preceding Jesus' birth.  And notice that August explains that he performed the third with his son Tiberias during the two and a half years when they jointly ruled the Roman Empire at the end of Augustus' life.

This coin (below), struck in 8 B.C., shows an Augustus bust on one side and Gaius [Octavius] Caesar (Augustus) on horseback on the obverse side. Notice the items at the top of the center legionary standard on the far side of  the horse's rear haunch.  The inscription from the experts identifies it as an eagle.  To me it looks like barley ears above an object that might be an eagle.  Perhaps those barley ears symbolize the medium of taxation, crops and other food.


This site shows images of many coins struck during the rein of Augustus, including the coins shown below:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2155749@N22/

The specific coin of interest also appears here, with descriptive text and images as shown:

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/augustus/i.html

RIC 198	Augustus AV Aureus. Lyons mint, 9-8 BC. AVGVSTVS DIVI F, laureate head right / C CAES, Caius Caesar galloping right, eagle between two standards behind, AVGVS F in ex. Cohen 39.	Text	Image
		Text	Image

Freeman & Sear - Mail Bid Sale 14        Lot: 388        ROMAN EMPIRE: Augustus. (27 BC–AD 14). AV aureus.        ROMAN EMPIRE. Augustus (27 BC–AD 14). AV aureus (7.67         gm). Lugdunum, 8 BC. AVGVSTVS DIVI. F, laureate head of         Augustus right / C. CAES AVGVS. F, Gaius Caesar on horse         leaping right, three standards in background. RIC 198.         BMCRE 498. CBN 1468. RCTV 1596. Some edge filing and         damage on reverse edge at 7:30. Fine/nearly very fine         Estimated Value: $ 750     ... Lot 388 sold for high bid of $1350 [ $1552.5, or approx 1148.85 EUR, 776.25 GBP including the 15% buyers fee.]   Freeman & Sear Mail Bid Sale 14 closed June 21st, 2007.  Re-used by permission of Freeman & Sear: www.freemanandsear.com          Freeman & Sear - F&S Mail Bid Sale #11        ancient classic artifacts coins numismatic roman greek Show F&S Mail               Bid Sale #11 Lots     Enter Search Term  (i.e. Keywords, Catalog ID, etc.)        Lot: 287        (click on image to enlarge)        KRH011        ROMAN EMPIRE: Augustus. 27 BC-AD 14. AV aureus (7.90 gm).        ROMAN EMPIRE: Augustus (27 BC-AD 14). AV aureus (7.90         gm), Lugdunum, 8-7 BC. Laureate head of Augustus right /         C. CAES above, AVGVS. F below, C. Caesar on horseback         galloping right, holding sword and round shield, aquila         between two standards behind. RIC 198, pl. 4. BMCRE 498,         pl. 12, 15. C. 39. An unusually well-centered specimen.         A few edge marks. Good very fine         Estimated Value: $ 5,500    Lot sold for $4,875, [ approx 3656.25 EUR, 2535 GBP ] plus 15% buyers fee.   Re-used by permission of Freeman and Sear, www.freemanandsear.com.    

The text above refers to an eagle on the center pike.  If that splotch on the pike is an eagle, then it is not at the top of the pike.  As I said, the item at the top looks like ears of barley to me.  The breastplate carved into a marble statue of Augustus from Livia'a villa a Prima Porta shows the Parthian king returning to Augustus a war prize, a Roman legionary standard captured in battle, having an eagle at the top, the most typical location.

*********************************************  

That particular coin seems to corroborate explanations in The Urantia Book.  See the excerpts below.


From the Bible, Luke 2:1 

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be registered."

The Urantia Book

Paper 121

Rome, Herod, and politics around the time of Jesus's Birth

--> ^{(1334.1) 121:2.7} The Jewish people of this time, although under Roman suzerainty, enjoyed a considerable degree of self-government and, remembering the then only recent heroic exploits of deliverance executed by Judas Maccabee and his immediate successors, were vibrant with the expectation of the immediate appearance of a still greater deliverer, the long-expected Messiah.
^{(1334.2) 121:2.8} The secret of the survival of Palestine, the kingdom of the Jews, as a semi-independent state was wrapped up in the foreign policy of the Roman government, which desired to maintain control of the Palestinian highway of travel between Syria and Egypt as well as the western terminals of the caravan routes between the Orient and the Occident. Rome did not wish any power to arise in the Levant which might curb her future expansion in these regions. The policy of intrigue which had for its object the pitting of Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt against each other necessitated fostering Palestine as a separate and independent state. Roman policy, the degeneration of Egypt, and the progressive weakening of the Seleucids before the rising power of Parthia, explain why it was that for several generations a small and unpowerful group of Jews was able to maintain its independence against both Seleucidae to the north and Ptolemies to the south. This fortuitous liberty and independence of the political rule of surrounding and more powerful peoples the Jews attributed to the fact that they were the “chosen people,” to the direct interposition of Yahweh. Such an attitude of racial superiority made it all the harder for them to endure Roman suzerainty when it finally fell upon their land. But even in that sad hour the Jews refused to learn that their world mission was spiritual, not political.
^{(1334.3) 121:2.9} The Jews were unusually apprehensive and suspicious during the times of Jesus because they were then ruled by an outsider, Herod the Idumean, who had seized the overlordship of Judea by cleverly ingratiating himself with the Roman rulers. And though Herod professed loyalty to the Hebrew ceremonial observances, he proceeded to build temples for many strange gods.
^{(1334.4) 121:2.10} The friendly relations of Herod with the Roman rulers made the world safe for Jewish travel and thus opened the way for increased Jewish penetration even of distant portions of the Roman Empire and of foreign treaty nations with the new gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Herod’s reign also contributed much toward the further blending of Hebrew and Hellenistic philosophies.
^{(1334.5) 121:2.11} Herod built the harbor of Caesarea, which further aided in making Palestine the crossroads of the civilized world. He died in 4 B.C., and his son Herod Antipas governed Galilee and Perea during Jesus’ youth and ministry to A.D. 39. Antipas, like his father, was a great builder. He rebuilt many of the cities of Galilee, including the important trade center of Sepphoris.
^{(1334.6) 121:2.12} The Galileans were not regarded with full favor by the Jerusalem religious leaders and rabbinical teachers. Galilee was more gentile than Jewish when Jesus was born.

From Paper 122

Rome's census and taxation, the delay by Herod, and the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

^{(1350.3) 122:7.1} In the month of March, 8 B.C. (the month Joseph and Mary were married), Caesar Augustus decreed that all inhabitants of the Roman Empire should be numbered, that a census should be made which could be used for effecting better taxation. The Jews had always been greatly prejudiced against any attempt to “number the people,” and this, in connection with the serious domestic difficulties of Herod, King of Judea, had conspired to cause the postponement of the taking of this census in the Jewish kingdom for one year. Throughout all the Roman Empire this census was registered in the year 8 B.C., except in the Palestinian kingdom of Herod, where it was taken in 7 B.C., one year later.



--> ^{(1351.5) 122:8.1} All that night Mary was restless so that neither of them slept much. By the break of day the pangs of childbirth were well in evidence, and at noon, August 21, 7 B.C., with the help and kind ministrations of women fellow travelers, Mary was delivered of a male child. Jesus of Nazareth was born into the world, was wrapped in the clothes which Mary had brought along for such a possible contingency, and laid in a near-by manger.
^{(1351.6) 122:8.2} In just the same manner as all babies before that day and since have come into the world, the promised child was born; and on the eighth day, according to the Jewish practice, he was circumcised and formally named Joshua (Jesus).
^{(1351.7) 122:8.3} The next day after the birth of Jesus, Joseph made his enrollment. Meeting a man they had talked with two nights previously at Jericho, Joseph was taken by him to a well-to-do friend who had a room at the inn, and who said he would gladly exchange quarters with the Nazareth couple. That afternoon they moved up to the inn, where they lived for almost three weeks until they found lodgings in the home of a distant relative of Joseph.
^{(1351.8) 122:8.4} The second day after the birth of Jesus, Mary sent word to Elizabeth that her child had come and received word in return inviting Joseph up to Jerusalem to talk over all their affairs with Zacharias. The following week Joseph went to Jerusalem to confer with Zacharias. Both Zacharias and Elizabeth had become possessed with the sincere conviction that Jesus was indeed to become the Jewish deliverer, the Messiah, and that their son John was to be his chief of aides, his right-hand man of destiny. And since Mary held these same ideas, it was not difficult to prevail upon Joseph to remain in Bethlehem, the City of David, so that Jesus might grow up to become the successor of David on the throne of all Israel. Accordingly, they remained in Bethlehem more than a year, Joseph meantime working some at his carpenter’s trade.
^{(1352.1) 122:8.5} At the noontide birth of Jesus the seraphim of Urantia, assembled under their directors, did sing anthems of glory over the Bethlehem manger, but these utterances of praise were not heard by human ears. No shepherds nor any other mortal creatures came to pay homage to the babe of Bethlehem until the day of the arrival of certain priests from Ur, who were sent down from Jerusalem by Zacharias.
^{(1352.2) 122:8.6} These priests from Mesopotamia had been told sometime before by a strange religious teacher of their country that he had had a dream in which he was informed that “the light of life” was about to appear on earth as a babe and among the Jews. And thither went these three teachers looking for this “light of life.” After many weeks of futile search in Jerusalem, they were about to return to Ur when Zacharias met them and disclosed his belief that Jesus was the object of their quest and sent them on to Bethlehem, where they found the babe and left their gifts with Mary, his earth mother. The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit.
^{(1352.3) 122:8.7} These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts.

Paper 174

The Right to Mint Coins and the Right to Levy Taxes

--> ^{(1899.2) 174:2.2} Tuesday morning, when Jesus arrived in the temple court and began to teach, he had uttered but few words when a group of the younger students from the academies, who had been rehearsed for this purpose, came forward and by their spokesman addressed Jesus: “Master, we know you are a righteous teacher, and we know that you proclaim the ways of truth, and that you serve only God, for you fear no man, and that you are no respecter of persons. We are only students, and we would know the truth about a matter which troubles us; our difficulty is this: Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar? Shall we give or shall we not give?” Jesus, perceiving their hypocrisy and craftiness, said to them: “Why do you thus come to tempt me? Show me the tribute money, and I will answer you.” And when they handed him a denarius, he looked at it and said, “Whose image and superscription does this coin bear?” And when they answered him, “Caesar’s,” Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render to God the things that are God’s.”
^{(1899.3) 174:2.3} When he had thus answered these young scribes and their Herodian accomplices, they withdrew from his presence, and the people, even the Sadducees, enjoyed their discomfiture. Even the youths who had endeavored to entrap him marveled greatly at the unexpected sagacity of the Master’s answer.
^{(1899.4) 174:2.4} The previous day the rulers had sought to trip him before the multitude on matters of ecclesiastical authority, and having failed, they now sought to involve him in a damaging discussion of civil authority. Both Pilate and Herod were in Jerusalem at this time, and Jesus’ enemies conjectured that, if he would dare to advise against the payment of tribute to Caesar, they could go at once before the Roman authorities and charge him with sedition. On the other hand, if he should advise the payment of tribute in so many words, they rightly calculated that such a pronouncement would greatly wound the national pride of his Jewish hearers, thereby alienating the good will and affection of the multitude.
^{(1899.5) 174:2.5} In all this the enemies of Jesus were defeated since it was a well-known ruling of the Sanhedrin, made for the guidance of the Jews dispersed among the gentile nations, that the “right of coinage carried with it the right to levy taxes.” In this manner Jesus avoided their trap. To have answered “No” to their question would have been equivalent to inciting rebellion; to have answered “Yes” would have shocked the deep-rooted nationalist sentiments of that day. The Master did not evade the question; he merely employed the wisdom of making a double reply. Jesus was never evasive, but he was always wise in his dealings with those who sought to harass and destroy him.

Papers 135 and 136

Regarding Jesus' age at baptism.

-->



--> ^{(1504.3) 135:8.5} Being engrossed with the details of rapidly baptizing such a large number of converts, John did not look up to see Jesus until the Son of Man stood in his immediate presence. When John recognized Jesus, the ceremonies were halted for a moment while he greeted his cousin in the flesh and asked, “But why do you come down into the water to greet me?” And Jesus answered, “To be subject to your baptism.” John replied: “But I have need to be baptized by you. Why do you come to me?” And Jesus whispered to John: “Bear with me now, for it becomes us to set this example for my brothers standing here with me, and that the people may know that my hour has come.”
^{(1504.4) 135:8.6} There was a tone of finality and authority in Jesus’ voice. John was atremble with emotion as he made ready to baptize Jesus of Nazareth in the Jordan at noon on Monday, January 14, A.D. 26. Thus did John baptize Jesus and his two brothers James and Jude. And when John had baptized these three, he dismissed the others for the day, announcing that he would resume baptisms at noon the next day. As the people were departing, the four men still standing in the water heard a strange sound, and presently there appeared for a moment an apparition immediately over the head of Jesus, and they heard a voice saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” A great change came over the countenance of Jesus, and coming up out of the water in silence he took leave of them, going toward the hills to the east. And no man saw Jesus again for forty days.
(1512.4) ^136:2.8 (Jesus was almost thirty-one and one-half years old when he was baptized. While Luke says that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which would be A.D. 29 since Augustus died in A.D. 14, it should be recalled that Tiberius was coemperor with Augustus for two and one-half years before the death of Augustus, having had coins struck in his honor in October, A.D. 11. The fifteenth year of his actual rule was, therefore, this very year of A.D. 26, that of Jesus’ baptism. And this was also the year that Pontius Pilate began his rule as governor of Judea.)

****************** End of Urantia Book excerpts *********************


This coin shows Augustus on one side and Tiberias on the other, signifying the period of their joint rule.


Augustus & Tiberius Denarius. Lugdunum mint, 13-14 AD. CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, laureate head right / TI CAESAR AVG F TR POT XV, bare head of Tiberius right. RSC 2.







Augustus Denarius. Lugdunum mint, 13 AD. CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, laureate head right / TI CAESAR AVG F TR POT XV, Tiberius standing right in triumphal quadriga, holding eagle tipped sceptre. RSC 301.

Another, from 13 AD honoring Augustus and Tiberias jointly

Augustus AV Aureus. Rome mint, 13-14 AD. CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, laureate head right / AVG F TR POT XV, TI CAESAR below, Tiberius riding quadriga right, holding eagle tipped sceptre. Cohen 299.http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/augustus/RIC_0221.jpg




http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html#21


Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Tiberius

"21  1 Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies; but he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private."

-->

​ Seutonius was a Roman historian born in 69 A.D.

-->

​

Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

On 12/12/2013 1:47 PM, Bible Scholar Jerry Bernard wrote:

Bob Hurt sent this information to me: 

"The Urantia Book establishes Jesus' birth at noon 21

August 7 BCE, the year Herod implemented Augustus'

census for taxation purposes.  Herod convinced Augustus

to delay the census a year in order to settle Jewish unrest

over being numbered. History corroborates it because

Augustus ordered coins struck in 8 BCE to commemorate

the event.  The tax authorities collected taxes after the

summer harvest, and that occasioned Joseph to travel to

his home town in late August for registration."

Jerry adds:

Herod died three years later, in the year 4 BCE.  At the

end of Herod’s reign, anger and dissatisfaction was a

common feeling amongst the Jews. Heavy violence such

as riots occurred following Herod’s death in many cities,

one being Jerusalem. All the grievances Jews had toward

Herod caused during his reign such as heavy taxes and

rule breakage were built up until now.  Because of the

treatment the Jews were receiving at the time, they were

ready to break free from Roman Rule. Herod’s leadership

sparked such anger and revolt that it eventually led to be

one of that causes of the Great Revolt of 70 C.E.  He was

known for his colossal building projects throughout Judea,

including his expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem

(Herod's Temple), the construction of the port at Caesarea

Maritima, the fortress at Masada and Herodium. Vital

details of his life are recorded in the works of the 1st

century CE Roman–Jewish historian Josephus.  Upon

Herod's death, the Romans divided his kingdom among

three of his sons—Archelaus became ethnarch of the

tetrarchy of Judea, Herod Antipas became tetrarch of

Galilee and Peraea, and Philip became tetrarch of

territories east of the Jordan.

More online info for research on the many Herods:

Herod is a name used of several kings belonging to the Herodian Dynasty of the Roman province of Judaea:

• Herod the Great (c. 74–4 BCE), client king of Judaea who rebuilt the Second Temple (in Jerusalem) into Herod's Temple
• Herod Archelaus (23 BC–c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
• Herod Antipas (20 BC–c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, called "Herod the Tetrarch" or "Herod" in the New Testament up to Acts 4:27, and described therein as ordering John the Baptist's death and as mocking Jesus
• Herod II (c. 27 BC–33 AD), sometimes called Herod Philip I, father of Salome
• Philip the Tetrarch (4 BC–AD 34), sometimes called Herod Philip II, tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
• Herod Agrippa I (c. 10 BC–AD 44), client king of Judaea, called "King Herod" or "Herod" in Acts 12 of the New Testament
• Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41–48)
• Herod Agrippa II (AD 27–100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as "King Agrippa" before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself
• Herodes Atticus (AD 101–177), an unrelated Greek aristocrat who served as a Roman Senator and proponent of Sophism

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Wayne Bernard, Director, Author, and Musician
Library in the Palms Research Center on Tongva Peak
2328 Via Saldivar Street, Glendale, CA 91208-1953
--------
To receive all the material in the Gospel of John study...
Go to...
http://www.jerrybernard.com/BooksByJWB.htm

Failure to file costs Friend Tom Harter 3 yrs, $438K

Florida's Middle District USDC just convicted my friend, Dr. Thomas W. Harter (Tom), an Ocala, FL, dentist, of 6 tax crimes and sentenced him to 3 years plus a year of supervised release and restitution of $438K.  I haven't read the case documents, but Attorney Mark Schleben from Clearwater charged him a wad for writing some motions in limine and jury instructions, and defending him at trial.  Tom fired him and tapped the experience of Frank Kowalik, author of IRS Humbug. 

Tom submitted his affidavit to protest the Kangaroo Court nature of the proceeding. You might find it interesting reading.  Note that it does not have the form of a formal motion or petition.  So, I imagine no attorney would ever submit such a document to a court with the expectation of provoking any action from the court.  Tom submitted another affidavit, attached, to reinforce the first, and to attack the judgment. See the Docket Report.  I imagine he plans an appeal.

Tom runs his dental practice 4 days a week with a highly loyal, efficient, pleasant, and busy staff.  He cycles from room to room during his work day serving his patients.  His practice was 3 times bigger till the economy collapsed.  Going to prison would kill his practice, of course, and it wouldn't help his personal life.

The court labeled Tom a tax protestor and I imagine the DOJ considers his case "high profile." I saw the news report of his sentence today on TV while I lounged around with Maria.  His handsome face filled my 46" flat panel as the announcer mentioned the conviction, 3-year sentence, and $400,000+ restitution.

I met Tom when I headed the Lawman group in Tampa, devoted mostly to helping IRS victims find some way to hold their lives together and avoid disaster. Tom donated $3K to pay for me to attend Richard Cornforth's rocket-speed law school in 2007. Apparently it did me too little good.  Many of those Lawman members met their own IRS disasters, of course, now including my friend Tom.

Maybe it's too late for any special mojo to do Tom some good in this case.  But some crafty, powerful attorney might be able to convince the Circuit to agree with Tom, wipe out his $438K obligation, and keep him out of prison.

What do you think?

Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

One-World Government - Inevitable? Or Impossible?

Doesn't it seem obvious that ONLY a one-world government will bring an end to wars?  Have we not yet learned that NATIONALISM incubates the sense of racial or national superiority that foments war?  Maybe our only resistance to it comes from the fear that that one-world government will have a totalitarian and evil nature.

Okay, what makes OUR government so evil that we could not justify its becoming a government over the whole world?  How about the corrupt, irresolute, or irresponsible nature of the INDIVIDUALS at the top of it?  How did those people get into those positions of power?  Ultimately through elections by irresponsible or corrupt voters, right?

How did corrupt or irresponsible people get the right to have a say in government?  I think it happened through the FALSE NOTION that "all men are created equal."  Why should an irresponsible, unproductive, ignorant person have the right to vote?

If society and law does not allow such people to drive a dangerous vehicle, why does it allow them to have a vote equal to that of a responsible, productive, ethical person?

How did our land come to have a population in which 25% lack the intelligence to graduate from high school (or vote sensibly), and another 50% lack the knowledge and responsibility to live honorably or productively?

What makes people think they have the right to force others to pay for the subsistence of the feckless and irresponsibility, or allow the feckless and irresponsible to vote?  How shall an enlightened populace cull its stupid and irresponsible members so that the rest of the population does not need to support them or grant them suffrage?

Would a culling program solve this problem of criminals getting elected and appointed to high positions in government?  Or would a eugenics program make more sense?

Either way, how would the responsible implement it over the objection of the irresponsible while the irresponsible have voting rights?

Don't the answers to the above questions lead us to understand why those who finance election campaigns and rig elections desperately want unchecked immigration and procreation of irresponsible people?

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION TO CLIENT

I crafted this contract addendum for people who cannot trust their attorneys.  If every client demanded proper answers and signature on this document, it would reduce lawyer shenanigans.  I have yet to hear or read a single cogent reason why an honorable lawyer should refuse to sign this with appropriate boxes checked.  Why should you hire a law practitioner who won't sign it?

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION TO CLIENT

I, the undersigned Attorney, hereby attest as follows, without any duress or mental reservation:

1. I (am / am not) currently licensed by the Florida Supreme Court as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida courts.
2. I (am / am not) a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
3. I (do /  do not) acknowledge my status as officer of the court and, in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution affirm my oath of admission to the Florida Bar, to wit: “I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God.”
4. I (am / am not) protected by surety bond / malpractice insurance $_­_______­____. (Carrier info attached)
5. I (shall /  shall not) accept ______________________________ (“Client”) as my law client in exchange for fee, in accordance with separate agreement which shall not supersede any provisions of this Attestation.
6. I (shall / shall not) in my relationships with Client, the Courts and its officers, abide by my oath above by giving my first loyalty, without compromise, to Client and to securing Client’s constitutionally guaranteed rights.
7. (shall / shall not) in the tasks for which Client has retained me fulfill my promises to Client, be punctual, answer Client’s questions truthfully, aggressively advocate Client’s cause, defend Client’s rights guaranteed by the relevant Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto, bill fairly and only for actual services rendered, treat retainers as advance pay for services, and ensure that my employees and subcontractors fully support me in that effort.
8. I (shall / shall not) refund Client’s fees for any portion of work for which Client hired me that I fail to perform substantially with high quality, diligence, and integrity.
9. I (shall / shall not) hand over to Client upon Client’s request, and retain none of:  all originals, copies, and derivatives of information provided to me by Client, other than items of public record, and all unused retainer money.
10. This attestation (does / does not) supersede all contrary assertions except by specific written reference to one or more provisions herein, acknowledged in writing by Client.
11. I have worked _____________ cases like Client’s case and won ___________ (__________%) of them.

Attorney Signature		Printed Name   or Stamp		Date
Witness or Notary Signature		Printed Name, Stamp, or Seal		Date

How to Disqualify a Florida Trial Judge The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct imposes certain constraints on judges' behavior. Canon 3 warns the judge against prejudice. However, judges assert immunity for their errors and torts as components of judicial acts.  So litigants can't do much more about judicial prejudice than complaining to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, legislature, bar, and news or social media to make a record, and look for dirt on the judge through private investigation, particularly of the judge's financial affairs and general integrity outside of court, or campaigning against the judge in the next election or appointment opportunity.  But in the more immediate sense, one can seek to disqualify the judge.  Florida makes provisions for that in the law and rules.   Start by citing specific violations of Canon 3.  "A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently" Study and cite this case opinion: Rogers v State 630 So. 2d 513 Fl. Statute 38.10 http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2013/38.10, Rules of Judicial Admin, Rule 2.330 I like this "Toca Technique":   The law and rule allow a litigant to force disqualification of only one judge.  File judicial notice of intent to file a motion for disqualification for prejudice.  This might motivate judge to recuse self to avoid embarrassment.  If judge does not recuse self, THEN file the motion to disqualify.  This preserves the right to disqualify for use on a subsequent judge if the current judge recuses self.  Nowadays virtually every judge will declare that the motion to disqualify lacks legal sufficiency, and deny the motion.  I don't know of anything to beat this but motion for clarification (then correct and refile the motion), motion to reconsider, and interlocutory appeal. Example - The below effort did not fully work but shows the Toca Technique in action.  Jesse Toca did not carry it through to completion, but he might some day. http://www.doah.state.fl.us/ALJ/ - Enter Case #:  10-009935RX Jesse Toca vs. Florida Department of Revenue (filed 10/29/2010) The docket offers trove of interesting documents.

--
​

​

Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

FL 3rd DCA reversed foreclosure because bank flouted 5-yr Statute of limitations.

Court reluctantly reverses foreclosure because plaintiff ignored Florida 5-year Statute of limitations.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D11-0136.pdf

"As someone - probably either St. Thomas More or George Costanza - must have said, the law is the law.  Notwithstanding the distasteful consequences of applying it in this case, it must be served."  Elizabeth Spencer v EMC Mortgage Corporation, 3D11-136, Fla 3rd DCA, 29 August 2012.

Did the court attribute that axiom (the law is the law) to George Costanza, from Seinfeld?

Let's get real, folks.  As Rich Cantwell of Jubilee recently pointed out when he sent me this opinion, many foreclosure victims might have the right to escape foreclosure because the bank has played musical chairs with the note for so long that it has neglected to act within the 5-year statute of limitations on foreclosures.

Florida Statute 95.11 Limitations other than for the recovery of real property.—Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:

(2)WITHIN FIVE YEARS.—

(c)An action to foreclose a mortgage.

From <http://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html> ​

​

Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

On 10/23/2013 5:54 PM, Rich Cantwell wrote:

 

Charleston Judge in Heinrich Foreclosure Dismissal Misconstrues Carpenter v Longan

Foreclosure defender Jeff Barns, Esq posted this article on his web site:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=530

SOUTH CAROLINA COURT HOLDS THAT FORECLOSURE LAW OF U.S. SUPREME COURT TRUMPS EVERYTHING: FORECLOSING PARTY MUST OWN BOTH THE NOTE AND THE MORTGAGE TO FORECLOSE September 20, 2013 In a stunning ruling from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Charleston, South Carolina, a Judge has issued a detailed, 4-page written opinion dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as the claimed trustee of an IndyMac securitization, holding that DB failed to show that it was the owner and holder of the original Note and Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed. FDN South Carolina network counsel Bill Sloan, Esq. represents the homeowner and prepared and argued the homeowner's Motion to Dismiss. Counsel for DB made the familiar argument that it had possession of the original Note endorsed in blank, that the Note was a negotiable instrument under the UCC, that the Mortgage follows the Note, and that thus DB had established its right to foreclose. The Court disagreed, citing precedent from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) which the Court found "clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must own the Note and the Mortgage to foreclose on the property (emphasis in the opinion)." The Court determined that "Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed", and also noted that the Mortgage shows MERS to be the mortgagee but that "MERS is never mentioned in the Note." The Court stated: "It is clear that to have standing in this foreclosure case, Plaintiff must not only be the holder and owner of the original Note, but also the Mortgage as well. Plaintiff's Complaint in this case fails to meet this criteria. Plaintiff lacks standing to initiate and prosecute the foreclosure, and dismissal pursuant to Rule 17(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) SCRCP is appropriate." This ruling is based on foreclosure law from the United States Supreme Court, which trumps any contrary state law which does not require the foreclosing Plaintiff to own both the Note and the Mortgage at the time that the foreclosure Complaint is filed. This ruling demonstrates the essential fallacy in the "UCC, I have the Note, mortgage follows the Note" theory espoused by every attorney for the banks and servicers. What remains to be seen is whether the judiciary handling foreclosure cases will follow the law of the U.S. Supreme Court or not. A copy of the Order is available upon e-mail request.

I asked Jeff for a copy of the order, and Jeff emailed it to me.  I uploaded it to http://lixe.org: Deutsche_Bank_Trust_v_Heinrich-Charleston_SC_Opinion.pdf .  The Heinrichs filed a motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint in Charleston SC 9th Judicial Circuit Court pursuant to rules 12 (b)(6) and (7).  Nicholson dismissed pursuant to 12(b)(6) only, on the basis of lack of standing because of bifurcation of the note and mortgage. In his opinion Presiding Judge J. C. Nicholson wrote this:

Plaintiff claims that the note is a negotiable instrument under the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code, S.C. Code §36-3 et seq. which would entitle them certainly to sue on the note in this action. However, Plaintiff is seeking to foreclose on the mortgage that is attached to the real property as opposed to simply suing on the promissory note. The idea that the Mortgage follows the Note is one which has been repeatedly confirmed by our courts: "South Carolina recognizes the 'familiar and uncontroverted proposition' that 'the assignment of a note secured by a mortgage carries with it an assignment of mortgage. However, Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872), quoted by Plaintiffs counsel in this oral argument and brief, clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must clearly own the Note and the Mortgage to foreclose on the property. Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed.  In its complaint, Plaintiff merely contends in §3 of its Complaint that is a holder and has the right to enforce.  Further, the mortgage of this case shows Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to be the mortgagee. This was confirmed by Plaintiffs counsel in oral argument. MERS is never mentioned on the Note.

Let us remember that this opinion comes from a state trial court, and that the judge admits going against established South Carolina's traditional adherence to the Carpenter v Longan ideal that one cannot bifurcate (separate) the note from the mortgage, no matter how hard one tries.  The Owner of Beneficial Interest (OOBI) in the note has the right to enforce both the note and the mortgage through foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property.  The U.S. Supreme Court wrote this suporting text in its Carpenter v Longan opinion:

"The question presented for our determination is, whether an assignee, under the circumstances of this case, takes the mortgage as he takes the note, free from the objections to which it was liable in the hands of the mortgagee. We hold the affirmative….The mortgaged premises are pledged as security for the debt. In proportion as a remedy is denied the contract is violated, and the rights of the assignee are set at naught. In other words, the mortgage ceases to be security for a part or the whole of the debt, its express provisions to the contrary notwithstanding. The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity."

Get it? If remedy (mortgagee taking the mortgaged collateral) is denied (such as by whining about broken chain of ownership of the note), the contract (note and mortgage) is violated.  The court should not force a violation of a valid contract.  Thus, assignment of the mortgage (to a party other than OOBI) becomes a nullity. The owner of beneficial interest in the note ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT both to enforce the note and to benefit from the remedy in the mortgage security instrument.  And a party with corresponding power under contract to the owner of beneficial interest in the note (like MERS) may enforce the note by using the court to force sale of the mortgaged property in the event the mortgagor breaches the note.  Let us remind ourselves that the OOBI set up MERS as the mortgagee upon execution of the note and mortgage by the maker-mortgagor.  MERS operates as an agent of the OOBI.

Thus, "inseparable" means INSEPARABLE: CANNOT be separated, even if they appear separate or have different beneficiaries on them.

You see, the UCC in Article III Part 3 makes short shrift of many of these concerns by allowing enforceability of the note in spite of OOBI-related confusion. Read this from the Florida Statutes UCC:

673.3011 Person entitled to enforce instrument. — The term "person entitled to enforce" an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s.673.3091 or s. 673.4181(4). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

You see, while I have used the term OOBI for simplicity, the UCC uses the term "HOLDER" because it does not matter who OWNS the note, because

1. the HOLDER can enforce it, and

2. so can a nonholder possessor, and

3. so can a nonholder nonpossessor, and

4. so can a non-OOBI, and

5. so can a possessor finder or thief.

As to a note indorsed in blank, that made it a bearer instrument enforceable by the possessor or possessor's agent.

I maintain that an assignment or indorsement in blank of the note to the trustee, if invalid/void as an operation of law with respect to limitations in the PSA becomes an assignment or indorsement to the entity identified as trustee in that entity's individual capacity, and not as the trustee. That's how the Glaski court erred in its opinion. A legislative act cannot impair the obligations of contracts, especially the note and mortgage. That would violate the State and US Constitutions. Thus, an assignment of a negotiable instrument under the terms of the note and mortgage cannot be undone by the legislature. Your mortgage or note clearly states the owner of beneficial interest may sell the note, and both custom and the UCC stand in accord with that principle.

You bark up the wrong tree when you take up a position in opposition to those principles I inscribed above. NOTHING can substitute for knowing the law. It means what the highest courts of jurisdiction say it means, not what you or I think it means. And you MUST learn how to read and comprehend the law and its interpretations of meaning by those courts.

When you think no due process exists, you should first of all contemplate HOW YOU MISUNDERSTOOD the law or rules and WHY the court ruled as it did. For one reason, you usually opine wrongly if you disagree with the court. For another, only a higher appeal court can unravel your dispute with the lower court. For yet another, appeals courts sometimes get it wrong, and later panels in the same court reverse earlier rulings by that court.

That's what happened in Carpenter v Longan, and it will happen in the Heinrich opinion if the bank appeals it.  In my opinion, Presiding Judge Nicholson dies not understand the Supreme Court's crystal clear opinion.

As for Jeff, Esq.,'s laud of Nicholson's opinion, I can only conclude that the lawyer doesn't understand the SCOTUS in Carpenter v Longan any better than the judge does.  In due course I shall present supporting case law that shows how most courts around the US view note-mortgage bifurcation as a bogus and failing legal theory. Meanwhile, these articles should satisfy your craving for fairness.  As you read them, ask yourself WHY a lender should have to slog through endless litigation mud to take the collateral for a loan the borrower failed to pay.

http://www.realestaterama.com/2013/05/29/mers-model-prevails-again-in-the-fifth-circuit-ID021162.html

In Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Judges Jerry E. Smith, Edward C. Prado and Priscilla R. Owen dismissed the plaintiff's "show-me-the-note" theory alleging that the defendant lacked standing to foreclose because the assignment of the mortgage by MERS to BAC separated the note from the deed of trust, rendering the mortgage unenforceable and invalid. "Numerous district courts have addressed this question, and each one to analyze Texas law has concluded that Texas recognizes assignment of mortgages through MERS and its equivalents as valid and enforceable," Judge Smith wrote on behalf of the panel. The Court further held that Texas differentiates between enforcement of a note and foreclosure, with the latter enforcing a deed of trust, and can be accomplished without judicial supervision. Importantly, the Court noted that "the mortgage was assigned by MERS, which had been given such power, including the power to foreclose, by the deed of trust."

http://agbeat.com/housing-news/yet-another-court-rules-mers-had-authority-to-foreclose/

Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, has ruled in favor of Mortgage Eectronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and its co-defendant members, denying a nine-count complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure and violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
MERS has been sued numerous times, with plaintiffs commonly citing the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc. wherein a judge ruled a beneficiary cannot foreclose on a property under Washington state law, and regardless of what cases are cited, MERS continues to argue in court the legitimacy of its role in foreclosures as plaintiffs continue to come forward saying their foreclosures should be voided.

http://legalnewsline.com/issues/sub-prime-mortgages/241728-federal-court-dismisses-wrongful-foreclosure-lawsuit-against-mortgage-registry-others

Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a nine-count complaint filed by plaintiff Angela Ukpoma.
Rice, in his May 9 order, found that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims.
In particular, the judge found no merit to Ukpoma's reliance on Bain in support of a wrongful foreclosure count against MERS.
"Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, the fact that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the deed of trust is not relevant to the outcome of this case," Rice wrote in his 15-page order.


http://www.housingwire.com/articles/print/alabama-supreme-court-mers-decision-attorney-guidepost

The highest court in Alabama upheld a lower court opinion that previously validated the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to legally assign a mortgage. The decision creates precedent in Alabama, giving MERS a strong legal buffer in the state when similar challenges arise in foreclosure disputes.
In the original case, the homeowners challenged MERS ability 'to assign a mortgage or take other actions as the nominee for a lender and the lenders' assigns.'
The court rejected those claims, with the Alabama Supreme Court affirming its decision without challenging the initial analysis supplied by the lower court.
The original decision concluded that a previous appellate court case in Alabama — Crum v. LaSalle — established that MERS has the ability to assign or take actions in regards to a mortgage as a nominee for a lender and the lender's assigns.

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/print/idaho-supreme-court-secures-mers-role-beneficiary

In the Edwards v. MERS case, the homeowner pushed back after Pioneer Lender Trustee Services launched foreclosure proceedings.
The homeowner suggested that listing MERS as beneficiary of the trust was not enough to give MERS the authority to appoint Pioneer as a successor trustee with foreclosure rights.
The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed holding that "the beneficiary has the authority to appoint a successor trustee and MERS, as nominee of the lender, had the authority to appoint Pioneer as successor trustee."

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/234122/Consumer+Credit/Sixth+Circuit+Upholds+Dismissal+Of+Suit+To+Set+Aside+Foreclosure+Sale

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing plaintiff's action to set aside a foreclosure sale based on alleged violations of the non-judicial foreclosure process in Michigan. After plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage loan,his property was foreclosed upon and sold at a sheriff's sale through Michigan's non-judicial foreclosure process, which provides for a six-month redemption period. Plaintiff subsequently initiated an action seeking to set aside the non-judicial foreclosure asserting that the mortgagee could not foreclose on him because the mortgagee was not the note-holder, mortgage holder, or servicer as required by Michigan law. Plaintiff's claim was based on the assertions that the mortgage assignment was either forged or "robo-signed" and MERS had no authority to assign the mortgage to the foreclosing mortgagee.

​

Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary