Video 8

Confusion of God
Hi, my name is Marcus

Now this will be a shorter program because we really dont know much about God. Unless of course we make up some stuff, which a lot of people seem to do. You will recall when I first started trying to figure out things, I was having a hard time with words, I am finding that a word means this or that, and in law it would mean something else. I also keep seeing the word God being used in all these legal and constitutional documents and politicians are talking about God in their speeches. I see that politicians are making oaths that end with so help me God.! "eople say in court they will tell the truth, so help me God. #ur $ueen claims to rule over us by the grace of God. I am thinking what does God have to do with the law. %aw is made in the legislature or the congress, the house of commons, or house of representatives, laws are an act of parliament, or an act of congress. I know for certain that God doesnt live there. &hat is the peoples house, not Gods house. 'verybody knows God lives in the church. I was born into a (oman )atholic family and I know e*actly where god lives, in the tabernacle. &he "riest told me he lives in there. It about this big and is locked with a key. +o )atholics keep him locked in there. I do not have the key, so I have never seen God.

,s I was having a look at the law, here are the places I found God in the law. Yes, I found God.

Now, because of what I know today, I am going to make some comments as we look at this concept of God. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- 198 !art of Constitution" #hereas Canada is founded u$on $rinci$%es that recogni&e the su$remacy of God and the ru%e of %a'( )) -+trange, because I know the $ueen is the most high in )anada, all power is vested in her. 'very lawyer makes an oath to her, not God..

Canadian *i%% of Rights 19+, -he !ar%iament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian .ation is founded u$on $rinci$%es that ac/no'%edge the su$remacy of God, the dignity and 'orth of the human $erson and the $osition of the fami%y in a society of free men and free institutions0 1ffirming a%so that men and institutions remain free on%y 'hen freedom is founded u$on res$ect for mora% and s$iritua% 2a%ues and the ru%e of %a'0)) -+trange, because I read on the /ustice )anada website said courts do not deal with moral laws or morality. 3n a%% Canadian money coins is engra2ed( 4ei Gratia Regina-*y the grace of God, 5ueen " 6 heard $eo$%e in court say 73 H89! :3; G34" -&he formula at the end of a common oath, as administered to a witness who testifies in chief. .-God must help the chief. -he di2ine right of /ings or di2ine-right theory of /ingshi$ is a $o%itica% and re%igious doctrine of roya% and $o%itica% %egitimacy" 6t asserts that a monarch is su<=ect to no earth%y authority, deri2ing his right to ru%e direct%y from the 'i%% of God">I dont know why athiests obey the $ueen as Gods representive on earth. /ust plain 0yprocrites or they are confused.. 6n the ;"7" , 6 came across this $hrase, 3ne .ation under God 'ith 9i<erty and ?ustice for a%%" 1fter they =ust $%edged a%%egiance to a f%ag" -If you are under God, would you not pledge allegiance to God. -I heard a )NN anchor say that they do not want to descend into a theocracy, &his means we do not want to descend to or under God.. 6n the ;"7" 6 sa', 6n God 'e trust, on the $a$er money, and engra2ed on numerous go2ernment <ui%dings" 3n the 'a%% in many courtrooms" -+trange to put God on )anadian and ,merican money, when God said the love of it is the root of all evil.. -If in God we trust, that would make us a trustee of God. 1hen was the last time an I(+ agent said, God sent me and I am here to e*amine or audit the trust. 6 heard a song, God *%ess 1merica sung <y 1mericans, e2en the 1merican %a'ma/ers" > there is a line that says, stand beside me to guide me!, that is not under God.. 6 heard an army Motto( God, Country, 4uty" I saw in the U.+. declaration of independence, that man was created by a )reator. #e ho%d these truths to <e se%f-e2ident, -nobody needs to e*plain this to you, it is self2evident. that a%% men are created e@ua%, that they are endo'ed <y their Creator 'ith certain una%iena<%e Rights, that among these are 9ife, 9i<erty and the $ursuit of Ha$$iness" -No, &hat is not right. &he government approved education curriculum does not teach these self2evident truths. It should say that all men evolved e3ually and

are endowed as the most evolved animal with certain unalienable rights. I 4ust wanted to correct that.. *y artic%e 1, of amendments to the Constitution of the ;nited 7tates, it is $ro2ided that ACongress sha%% ma/e no %a's res$ecting an esta<%ishment of re%igion, or $rohi<iting the free eBercise thereof"A 6n the ;nited 7tates, therefore, e2eryone is a%%o'ed to 'orshi$ God according to the dictates of his o'n conscience" %ets see what religion means5 it means to re-<ind" From %igio to <ind, and re, again ane'" In essence it means to hold, or bind or bond yourself to something new. &o become something new, or move from one state to another state. &o be part of something by binding to it. 1hen you bind to something you become part of the thing. It is the bond that holds you in place. Re%igion( 7trictness of fide%ity in conforming to any $ractice, as if it 'ere an en=oined ru%e of conduct" C191D #e<sterE 0ow does the word religion tie in with God6 1ell It doesnt. Your local Golf )lub can be your religion if you are a member. (eligion really 4ust means member. 1 re%igion cou%d in2o%2e God or not in2o%2e God" ,ll depends on your religion. ,nd no matter what I say or prove to you, you will still believe religion is a belief in God. ,nd it is N#&. :ou cou%d <e a mem<er of no re%igion, and sti%% <e%ie2e or /no' the truth a<out God" FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 1here else did I see God in %aw or Government. ,s you walk up the steps to the building which houses the ;"7" 7u$reme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world7s law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view 2 it is 8oses and he is holding the &en )ommandments9 -&hat is not God, only 8oses, pretty close, I think 8oses knew God. ,s you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the +upreme )ourt 4udges sit, a display of the -en CommandmentsG -written by God. 'very session of )ongress begins with a $rayer to God by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the ta*payer since :;;;. -,nd that is a lawmakers house. I saw during the 1manda HnoB tria% in 6ta%y, that on the wall of the courtroom a huge crucifi* with /esus on it. 0e was dead 4ust hanging there. -I know that is not God, only his son, but still pretty close. and that was a court of law. I have seen the *i<%e in e2ery courtroom" >I know the bible is suppose to be the word of God".

'very session of +upreme )ourt begins with these words, God sa2e the ;nited 7tates and this honora<%e court" 7o this conce$t of god is found on money, on <ui%dings, on constitutiona% documents etc" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 1ith all these references to God, it would appear that God has something to do with %aw or the Government. =ut I cannot find a connection between (eligion and God. Not based on what religion is and not based on law. =ut then you hear of the separation of church and state. "eople think that means separation of (eligion and +tate. =ut it doesnt say that. It cant be the separation of religion and state because the state decides what your religious freedoms are, and because the +upreme )ourt said that the 3fficia% re%igion of the ;"7" is 7ecu%ar Humanism" 6f the ;"7" or Canada got rid of their re%igion, 'hat 'ou%d they $ractice in courtI <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< +o what does the law say about God, or define God as6 >rom various law books. G34" From the 7aBon god, -he source of a%% good0 the su$reme <eing" 1" 82ery man is $resumed to <e%ie2e in God, and he 'ho o$$oses a 'itness on the ground of his un<e%ief is <ound to $ro2e it" D *ou2" 6nst" u" D18,")) -+o the law says that you do not have to prove God e*ists, but he who opposes the e*istence of god must prove it.. -hat is the %a'" *%as$hemy against the 1%mighty, <y denying his <eing or $ro2idence, 'as an offence $unisha<%e at common %a' <y fine and im$risonment, or other infamous cor$ora% $unishment" God( 1ccording to the <est efforts of %inguists and researchers, the root of the $resent 'ord God is the 7ans/rit 'ord hu 'hich means to call upon, invoke, implore" God( 6n2o/ed one - Cite as an authority0 resort to" God( -he su$ernatura% <eing concei2ed as the $erfect and omni$otent and omniscient originator and ru%er of the uni2erse0 the o<=ect of 'orshi$" God G#?, n. :. &he +upreme =eing@ the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe. God is a spirit@ and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. /ohn A..

God( 1ny su$ernatura% <eing 'orshi$$ed as contro%%ing some $art of the 'or%d or some as$ect of %ife or 'ho is the $ersonification of a force" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< +o based on all of the above I am getting a clearer concept of God. 6t is a 7u$reme *eingGGG -hat is it" =ut to be a God you must be a )reator, %awmaker, , /udge and a +overeign. 7o in other 'ords a God must create something, ma/e some ru%es for the thing he created and use those ru%es to go2ern the thing he created" -hat is <asica%%y 'hat a God is" +o, with all this now in mind, what can we say a God is6 1e use many words for +upreme =eings. It all depends on what we are referring to as its +upreme =eing. , supreme being can be a master, king, chief, president, emperor, monarch, father, chairman, mayor, premier, 4udge, creator, lord, maker, head, crown, God. &hese are all supreme beings of something. #e ca%% the mayor of a city, your 'orshi$" #e ca%% a =ustice of the $eace, your 'orshi$" #e ca%% =udges, your honour or my %ord" 6 ca%% my dad, father" #e ca%% the man 'ho 'rote our constitution our founding father" 3n and on it goes" -hese are a%% su$reme <eings of something" 6 a%so %earn that %a' comes from a 7o2ereign, a God $o'er" -hat 'ou%d no' ma/e sense" +o what is a +overeign6 ,gain from law books. 73V8R86G., n" su2Jeran" 1" 1 su$reme %ord or ru%er0 one 'ho $ossesses the highest authority 'ithout contro%" 73V8R86G." 1 chief ru%er 'ith su$reme $o'er0 one $ossessing so2ereignty 6n the ;nited 7tates the so2ereignty resides in the <ody of the $eo$%e" Vide Rutherf" 6nst" 8 6n Canada 7o2ereignty is in the 5ueen" 73;RC87 3F -H8 91#" *y this eB$ression is understood the authority from 'hich the %a's deri2e their force" 6n the ;"7" and Canada the $o'er of ma/ing a%% %a's is in the $eo$%e or - their re$resentati2es, and none can ha2e any force 'hate2er, 'hich is deri2ed from any other source" - +orry God, you have been replaced. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF #kay, now it is becoming clearer. Now I understand this separation of church and state. &he God of U+, and the God of )anada stated in documents cannot be the God

religious people think of as God. Under religious freedom rights, man decides if you can obey the law of God. #o', that does not on%y ma/e you a God, <ut that $uts you higher than God" #hat a re2e%ation" Conc%usion( 7o our %ega% system can on%y <e man himse%f acting as God" -here is no<ody here on earth <ut us $eo$%e" %et us see if anyone who studies God and %aw agrees with this conclusion. The Godless Constitution 'as 'ritten <y t'o $rofessors of go2ernment and history at Corne%% ;ni2ersity" 6saac Hramnic/ and R" 9aurence Moore ha2e s$ent their careers studying re%igion in 1merican %ife" 7ome @uotes from their <oo/( -he $ream<%e of the Constitution in2o/es the $eo$%e of the ;nited 7tates" 6t does not in2o/e any sort of God" -he Constitution for<ids any re%igious test to ho%d office" 1 god%ess $erson is =ust as e%igi<%e as a god%y oneG >1rtic%e +, !aragra$h D) -he origina% motto of the ;nited 7tates 'as secu%ar" AE Pluribus UnumA is 9atin for AOne from manyA or AOne from many parts"A 3r 3ut of many 'e are 3ne" If I remember my catechism right, it says that out of #N' we are many999 It looks like this is backwards, or upside down or 4ust the e*act opposite.

John Adams 6n a %etter to -homas ?efferson, he 'rote( A-he ;nited 7tates of 1merica ha2e eBhi<ited, $erha$s, the first eBam$%e of go2ernments erected on the sim$%e $rinci$%es of nature0 and if men are no' sufficient%y en%ightened to disa<use themse%2es of artifice, im$osture, hy$ocrisy, and su$erstition, they 'i%% consider this e2ent as an era in their history" 1%though the detai% of the formation of the 1merican go2ernments is at $resent %itt%e /no'n or regarded either in 8uro$e or in 1merica, it may hereafter <ecome an o<=ect of curiosity" 6t 'i%% ne2er <e $retended that any $ersons em$%oyed in that ser2ice had inter2ie's 'ith the gods, or 'ere in any degree under the inf%uence of Hea2en, more than those at 'or/ u$on shi$s or houses, or %a<oring in merchandise or agricu%ture0 it 'i%% fore2er <e ac/no'%edged that these go2ernments 'ere contri2ed mere%y <y the use of reason and the senses" -I thought you said in God we trust and one nation under God. A" " " -hirteen go2ernments Cof the origina% statesE thus founded on the natura% authority of the $eo$%e a%one, 'ithout a $retence of mirac%e or mystery, and 'hich are destined to s$read o2er the northern $art of that 'ho%e @uarter of the g%o<e, are a great $oint gained in fa2or of the rights of man/ind"A -what happened to being founded upon the supremacy of God6

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< %et us have a look at what )anadian law professors from University law schools say about the supremacy of God. ,ll of these 3uotes are from the )hief /ustice and other /ustices of the +upreme )ourt of )anada, >ederal )ourt /ustices, "rovincial )ourts of ,ppeal, )onstitutional %aw +cholars, %aw "rofessors, "oliticians etc. &here is no higher source of thinking or authority on this topic. -H8 8M*1RR1776.G !R81M*98I ;.48R7-1.46.G -H8 7;!R8M1C: 3F G34 .o' 6 am going to read this as if there is a God" #hyI *ecause the Constitution says there is" 4o 6 /no' if there is a GodI 6t doesnKt matter 'hat 6 thin/" -he Constitution says there is, and thatKs the 91#" ,t the outset of )anadas most 2enerated human rights documentBthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:Bis a short but profound declaration5 C )anada is founded upon principles that recogniDe the supremacy of God and the rule of law.! &his reference to the supremacy of God! and the rule of law!, of course, appears in the "reambleBthe part of the )onstitution that the +upreme )ourt of )anada has called the grand entrance ha%% to the cast%e of the Constitution ,E wherein the political theory which the ,ct embodies! is found.F ,ccordingly, the rule of law! has played a rather remarkable role in the 4urisprudence of the courts, most notably the +upreme )ourt.A It has been called a fundamental postulate! of our constitutional structure!,G a notion that that comprises indispensable elements of civiliDed life!,H and a principle with profound constitutional and political significance.!; 6n star/ contrast, the su$remacy of God has suffered a much different fate. ,s recently noted by "rofessor %orne +ossin, the reference to the supremacy of God! in the "reambleB herein referred to as the Isupremacy of God clauseBhas been a%most entire%y ignored <y the 7u$reme Court of Canada.J >urther, the few times it has received attention from courts and academics, it has been consistent%y margina%i&ed" >or "rofessor "eter 0ogg, the supremacy of God clause $ro2ides %itt%e assistance in understanding the )onstitution.:K >or "rofessor ?ale Gibson, its 2a%ue Cis to <eE L serious%y dou<ted.!:: &o others it is a contradiction,:E a dead letter!:F stemming from ing%orious origins!.:A ,nd to /ustice =ertha 1ilson, the clause is possibly in conf%ict 'ith 2a%ues of a free and democratic society!:G -+upremacy of God is embarrassing, it is marginaliDed, should be ignored and in conflict with the (ule of %aw..

:K "eter 1. 0ogg, Canada Act 1982 Annotated -&oronto5 )arswell, :LJE. at L - C MINt is difficu%t to see 'hat aid can <e deri2ed ..from the references to Ithe supremacy of God and Irule of lawC .!.. -It is of no aid to us. ,s ?avid 8. =rown has noted, this statement suggests that -- God and democracy L stand o$$osed to each other -=rown, supra note L at GH:.. -+upremacy of God and rule of law stand opposed to each other. 0e is saying, God opposes democracy. +tates Bill of Rights:H <ecause they 'ere em<arrassed a<out the im$%ications of its $ro$er inter$retation":; ?avid =rown has written that C courts and academics have treated the "reamble, especially in its reference to the Isupremacy of God, as an em<arrassment to <e ignored >=rown, supra note L at GH:.. :J +ee Olassen, supra note :E. Olassen argued that the supremacy of God clause ought to <e remo2ed. -we have fooled the people, now 4ust ignore it.. of the paper briefly outlines the way in which the su$remacy of God c%ause has recei2ed the si%ent treatment <oth from academics and courtsMin $articu%ar, the 7u$reme Court of Canada" &hus, the )ourt in Zylberberg was content to relegate the su$remacy of God c%ause to the side%ines of constitutiona% ad=udication, essentia%%y ho%ding that it 'as of no %ega% im$ort as either an inde$endent source of %a' or an inter$reti2e aid" /ustice 1ilson, writing in R. . !orgentaler,F: implied that it conf%icted 'ith the 2a%ues of a free and democratic society" -'ho, as a%ready noted, ha2e @uestioned the 2a%ue of the su$remacy of God c%ause) and you ha2e a reci$e for irre%e2ance" -&he supremacy of God clause is irrelevant. I ask rhetorically this 3uestion5 6f the $ream<%e creates, <ecause of the 'ords the ru%e of %a', a constitutiona% foundation for stri/ing a statute do'n, do the 'ords su$remacy of God 'hich $recede those 'ords, a%so create such a foundation and ho' are 'e to define and a$$%y itI &he reason for the Irhetorical nature of 8adam /ustice +outhins 3uestion would appear to be the notion that the su$remacy of God cou%d ne2er stri/e do'n %egis%ation.

-this one 3uestion is the answer to the whole legal system, it is unconstitutional. references to religion in 1merican %a' and $o%itics0 'hat the ;nited 7tates 7u$reme Court has ca%%ed ceremonia% deism. ,ccording to the United +tates +upreme )ourt, ceremonial deism! >or e*ample, in the recently decided "l# $ro e %nified &ch. 'ist. . (e)do), :EA +. )t. EFK: -EKKA. at EFEF, --?ustice 7andra 4ay 3KConnor found that the reference to NGodK in the ;"7" !%edge of 1%%egiance did not 2io%ate the 8sta<%ishment C%ause of the ;"7" Constitution >'hich $re2ents the state from ad2ocating or esta<%ishing any re%igion) <ecause the reference constituted a form of ceremonia% deism that had, o2er time, %ost a%% re%igious significance" Many commentators <e%ie2e that such =udicia% treatment has rendered references to NGodK in %a' and $o%itics meaning%ess and irre%e2ant" -she is telling you that your religion is meaning less and irrelevant, how do all you evangelical )hristians think of that6.-nothing to do with law..-it means less than nothing. Furthermore, at the %e2e% of CanadaKs highest court, 'hen the su$remacy of God c%ause is not <eing denigrated. &hough the +upreme )ourt of )anada has referred God, in this conteBt, is sim$%y out of $%ace" - see, I told you God does not live in )anada. &hus, in the courts, scholarly halls, and the news media, the prevailing opinion is that the su$remacy of God c%ause is of trif%ing im$ortance" -+orry God, you could not even make it into trivial pursuit. -he Court in2o/ed the foundationa% constitutiona% $rinci$%e of the ru%e of %a' to $re2ent the chaos that 'ou%d resu%t if a%% of the %a's 'ere immediate%y ru%ed in2a%id" . 6f the $ream<%es to CanadaKs constitutiona% teBts ha2e such remar/a<%e significance 'hen the ru%e of %a' is at issue, at %east some significance cannot, 'ithout further =ustification, <e denied 'hen the su$remacy of God is <eing construed" ?ustice 1ddy stated that the common %a' has a%'ays recogni&ed the su$remacy of God L "+O #hat eBact%y did ?ustice 1ddy mean <y thisI -o 'hat history 'as he referringI 7ure%y there is some story under%ying the su$remacy of God c%ause that remains unto%d" -&hats right /ustic ,ddy, and I am going to tell it.. )hief /ustice %amer wrote 6n other 'ords, the constitutiona% !ream<%eM inc%uding the reference to the su$remacy of GodMis not a source of positive la ! Rather, it e%ucidates other sources of the constitutiona% $ro2isions and rights" #hat cou%d these NotherK sources of constitutiona% %a' <eI

-he most im$ortant rights he%d <y indi2idua%s are deri2ed not from !ar%iament, or any other %a'ma/ing <ranches of the state, <ut rather from other NhigherK, or Nsu$remeK, sources" -his terri<%e story te%%s us that there must <e some higher %a', some set of rights that no go2ernment, no human authority can ta/e a'ay"P+ -Yes, there must be somewhere, but you will never find it. -hat a $ro$er understanding of the su$remacy of God c%ause is no more denominationa% >or e2en reli"ious) than modern human rights doctrine itse%f"1 Q Gi2en this assum$tion a<out -rudeauKs $o%itics, 8gerton reso%2ed the $u&&%e <y conc%uding that the inc%usion of the su$remacy of God c%ause 'as not $rinci$%ed, <ut rather a $o%itica% ca%cu%ation <y -rudeau to garner su$$ort for the Charter"1DQ House of Commons on Fe<ruary 1P, 1981 on his amendment to add a reference to the su$remacy of God in the Charter, 8$$ stated( #hat does this charter doI #here does it start fromI -his charter starts from the $remise that the go2ernment 'i%% grant us rights" -hat is 'here the charter starts and that is 'here the charter is 'rong" My rights, our rights in this House, the rights of Canadians, are not granted <y any go2ernment L " 6t is for that reason that 'e mo2ed an amendment, not on%y <ecause the Right Hon" ?ohn 4iefen<a/er, the then %eader of this $arty and the $rime minister of this country, had entrenched in the Canadian *i%% of Rights, <ut <ecause the $hi%oso$hy under%ying the charter 'as right" #hat it did 'as to say that e2ery human <eing created in the image of God has certain ina%iena<%e rights"1Q+ -I looked up to see if /ake 'pp was a lawyer6.-0e is not. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Now here are a couple of statements on %aw. -hus Cicero 'rote in #e $e Publica( C-Ehere 'i%% <e <ut one %a', eterna% and unchangea<%e, <inding at a%% times u$on a%% $eo$%es0 and there 'i%% <e, as it 'ere, one common master and ru%er of men, name%y God, 'ho is the author of this %a', its inter$reter, and its s$onsor"8P 6f the rights in the Charter $ur$ort to re$resent, in genera%, uni2ersa% and ina%iena<%e rights deri2ed from greater sources <eyond the state, then the state cannot com$%ete%y a<rogate or ta/e those rights a'ay, no matter ho' $ressing or su<stantia% the state o<=ecti2e" !ut most sim$%y, hat the state did not besto , it may never fully take a ay"

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF +o to sum up what the highest authorities on law in )anada and the U.+. say. &he +upremacy of God5 God 6s em<arrassing" God has ing%orious origins" God in our constitution is a contradiction" God as the most high 6s in conf%ict 'ith 2a%ues of a free and democratic society 3ur democracy and God stand o$$osed to each other" -he im$%ications of God as the most high and its $ro$er inter$retation 'ou%d <e em<arrassing" God is an em<arrassment to <e ignored" God ought to <e remo2ed" God as 7u$reme has recei2ed the si%ent treatment <oth from academics and courtsMin $articu%ar, the 7u$reme Court of Canada" #e shou%d re%egate the su$remacy of God c%ause to the side%ines of constitutiona% ad=udication" God is of no %ega% im$ort as either an inde$endent source of %a' or an inter$reti2e aid" God cou%d ne2er stri/e do'n %egis%ation" References to NGodK in %a' and $o%itics are meaning%ess and irre%e2ant" God is <eing denigrated <y CanadaKs highest court" God is of trif%ing im$ortance"

1ow, why is it in the constitution then. Not only in it, but the first sentence. 1hy is God in pretty well the constitution of all countries6 It is very clear that God is irrelevant. No need for it. #r is there6

Now, I am 4ust a very simple man, but I can tell you that if, the preamble said@ Canada 'as founded u$on the $rinci$%e that recogni&es the 7u$remacy of Man and the Ru%e of %a'" &here would be no embarrassment, conflicts, opposed, marginaliDed, ignoring, irrelevant comments from any %aw '*perts or the )ourts anymore. &he statement would make perfect sense in its meaning and application or use by the courts. ,sk any lawyer if any court will take 4udicial notice of the laws of God. &he answer will be no. Ne*t time you claim some freedom of religion, remember it is only to practice some ceremonial deism based on your religion. Not law. , court cannot rule on any law of God, only the law within its 4urisdiction. I think by the time you go through all the Unraveled "rograms, all religious people are going to be a little upset, maybe angry, but certainly will feel deceived, tricked and fooled. ?ont get mad at your pastors, priests and ministers. &hey dont know this. &hey are the same as you. 1e have to go much higher to find out who is behind all this. ?o not think that these contradictions that cannot be e*plained are 4ust in )anada. I only use )anada as an e*ample. &his deliberate deception, is worldwide, and has a very good reason. :ou guessed it" -o $u%% off the Greatest 7'ind%e e2er" :ou o'n nothing" 6ts 'ho%e $ur$ose is to stea%, stea%ing" ,nd some of you will still not believe it, but who cares what you believe, the only ones who care what you believe are those that that want to deceive you and take advantage of you, and you are letting it happen. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I am now at the point in my 3uest where I am starting to believe what all e*perts on law are saying. &hat the word of God, is the highest and final authority on law. =ut courts can only deal in the %aw of )anada, not the %aw of God. =ut why then is there a =ible in every courtroom6 Nobody uses that law, they only swear on it to tell the truth. +o I did some more research. ,lways best to go back in history to the source to find things. I find out that )atholics killed millions of people if they had the =ible or tried to read it. )alled the in3uisition. Not only kill them, but killed them in the slowest most cruel and painful way they could devise. 1hy would anyone kill so many people over a book. 7o using my <rain again, I am thinking whats the big deal, 4ust a book. God is suppose to be good and holy and loves us etc. 8akes you wonder.

&hen I learn that the (oman )atholic church declared it a sin as late as :LHE to read the bible. 1ow. &hen I have a look at the $ueen of )anada and her coronation. I get every word that was said during the ceremony. God is invoked all through it. ,t the end she is given the =ible which is 4ust called the book and is told -his is the most 2a%ua<%e thing the 'or%d affords. 1ow. +he has one third of the whole world but this is the most valuable thing she has. +he owns everything you have, but this is the most valuable. 7o using my <rain again, I got me =ook. &hey are all over the place now, but nobody ever reads it. ,gain I wonder why6 I read what is called the :K commandments. Now being a (oman )atholic, I sort of knew them, but there was one I had never heard of. It was number E. I go on the internet and look up the )atholic :K )ommandments. +ure enough, number two is not there. Instead the :Kth commandment was divided into E to make an even :K commandments. 7o using my <rain again, could this be a typing error or why was it deleted. "utting this altogether, I have millions of people being killed in the worst way possible, being told for centuries it is a sin to read it, it is the most valuable thing the $ueen has and the End commandment is deleted on purpose. -his nd commandment must <e rea%%y im$ortant" (emember I am on a 3uest and I am not sure where I am headed. ,ll I do is take what is true and put it in one column and what is believed or opinion and put it in another column. I stopped listening to everyone and started thinking for myself. -his is $oint 'here the rea% <%essing in disguise <egan for me" ?o you remember in the introduction video I told you that much has been done so you will not find the answer, and I said that if you find it, much has been done to be sure you will re4ect it. 1ell, we are at that point. (emember when I said, what does God have to do with the law6 I am over GK years old and I never read it. I only knew one guy who had read it and he was a peculiar man. +o first, someone wanted to be sure you do not know what is in the book. &hey used to kill you for that. &hen it is translated in to %atin, and the priests will tell you what is in it. &hen when the book finally got printed and distributed, something has happened that ensures nobody even wants to read it. ,nd then, something has happened that even if you do read it, you will not understand it. 7o, using my <rain again, I read the =ook. &he =ook on %aw ,s I am reading through the =ook I start to see things that are completely contrary to what I believed was in there from my limited religious e*perience. &hen I start finding things that are contrary to our laws and our legal system.

+o I read the whole book start to finish twice and many of the things I thought was stupid or wrong in our legal system, &he =ook on %aw agreed with me. I actually got some confirmation from a guy who claims to know everything. 1ow, finally I find someone that agrees with me, but most importantly he confirmed for me the truth of what I was finding and thinking. It turns out I am not nuts after all. ,s I started carefully studying the law I realiDed that our whole system of 4urisprudence is a complete counterfeit from top to bottom. It also took me some time to understand the effects of this, and they are not good. 1hen you stop believing everything you think you know, look at all the evidence and proof around you, hiding in plain sight, your education will begin. Is it possible that the =ook is the real )onstitution and any law that is unconstitutional has no force or effect6 /ust something to think about. Go back and learn what religion is. 'ven the +upreme )ourt declared that God cannot have anything to do with religion. Your religion is a creature of the state, a person. #therwise, your right to freedom of religion or free religious e*ercise would trump the rule of law. 1ake up, you have been deceived. &hen I thought to myself, its 4ust a book. &hen I thought, what has been done to me subliminally that would make me never read it.6 &he same one you are probably having. &oday, if you 3uote God as an authority on anything that is contrary to public policy, it is called hate speech. -hen 'hen 6 actua%%y found out that it is this <oo/ that is used to s'ind%e us, 'o', 'hat a disco2ery" 6f you thin/ the s'ind%er is a genius, he is not" He on%y read a<out it, and $ut it into action" #here did he read a<out itI 1ns'er" 6n the #ritten Constitution" -he *oo/" &he swindler, the fraudster, the deceiver uses this authority to swindle you because there is none higher. ,nd you too can and must use this authority to reclaim your =irthright. &he deceiver uses the law to keep you ensnared in captivity. No man is more enslaved and ensnared than a man who thinks he is free. Remem<er, your *irthright is your greatest $ossession, the /no'%edge to rec%aiming it is in the *oo/" FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Now let me tell you about life. Now, let me tell you about life. You wont believe this. -he %ife $rotected in your constitution is not your %ife" Your state cannot give you life. You gave the state life. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or here in )anada, security of the personCyour right to life is not life -its a kind of life but its not a living life..

%et me read this to you. &his comes from =lacks %aw ?ictionary. &he word IlifeC.it says, that state of animals, humans and plants or of an organiDed being in which natural functions and motions are performed or in which organs are capable of performing their functions!. &hats life, thats real life. 0uman life begins at conception -really66. but the stage of pregnancy of a woman determines the conditions under which she may be entitled to an abortion free of state interference!. (oe vs. 1ade &hen it says %ife!, protected by the >ederal )onstitution includes all personal rights and their en4oyment of the faculties ac3uiring useful knowledge, the right to marry, establish a home and bringing up children, freedom of worship C. it all sounds good, right6 &he life that is protected is the state2created lifeClife that came from the +tate, not your real life. Ill show you. &urn to Inatural life in =lacks %aw ?ictionary. Natural %ifeCthe period of a persons e*istence considered as continuing until terminated by physical dissolution or death occurring in the course of nature. -&hats life. U+'?.. &hat life is used in contradistinction to that 4uristic and artificial conception of life as an aggregate of legal rights or the possession of a legal personality which could be terminated by civil death that is the e*tinction of personality which resulted from being attainted of treason or felony.! -&his is the life your constitution protects. You are giving your life to something that is not life.. It is a 4uristic and artificial conception of life as an aggregate of legal rights or the possession of legal personality.! &hat is the only life your +tate, your )ountry can guarantee you the right to life, not your real life. -he conce$tion of %ife that you anti-a<ortionists are trying to $rotect is not the conce$tion of %ife your 7u$reme Court is ru%ing on" :ou ha2e <een decei2ed" :ou are confused" Your whole legal system is a forgery a counterfeit from top to bottom. Your being, your voice, your face, your life, your money, everything is a counterfeit from top to bottom. It is all >(,U?. ,nd you are the >(,U?+&'(. You have been deceived into committing >(,U? by the 8asters of )onfusion. (emember, there is a subtlety to all of this. 0ard to grasp by the mind. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Now, I am going to end the )onfusion videos with these statements.

:ou %i2e in the Constitution of a%% that there is" -his <oo/ is not the Constitution, 'hat you %i2e in is the Constitution" -his *oo/, mere%y ca%%ed -he *oo/ is the 'ritten constitution of a%% that there is" Man is a constituent mem<er of the Constitution, not <y choice or <y free 'i%%, <ut <y conce$tion of %ife" -here is nothing you can do a<out it""""" eBce$t <e decei2ed" :ou ha2e no ho$e of understanding the Constitution unti% you can gras$ the conce$tion of %ife and death" 9ife can ne2er die" 6t is im$ossi<%e" #hyI *ecause it eBists" 9ife is %ife" 9ife can on%y %ea2e or de$art from a thing that ho%ds %ife" -hen the thing is dead" -he thing has no %ife" -he Constitution that you <e%ie2e you are a mem<er of, has no %ife" 6t is dead" -he constituent mem<ers are $ersons, and the human $erson is as airy as the fairy ones" 6t is =ust ma/e <e%ie2e, a conce$tion you ho%d" 6t is your thin/ing, and your s$ea/ing, and your acting that a$$ears to gi2e %ife to the dead, and you do not e2en /no' you are doing it" &hat is the end of the )onfusion programs. I hope you will 4oin me in ;nra2e%ing !rograms, """""""""it cou%d change your %ife"
-i%% then"""""""""

My name is Marcus"