Tattooing has been around a long time. It started in the thing that I said above. Now that it has been accepted worldwide, it has taken on various meanings.

Atheism is simply one of the methods that Satan deludes the minds of people with, to turn them away from God so that they won't be saved.

Same reason that most people get tattoos. 'Cause they feel unimportant, weak, guilty, insecure, etc., down deep. A tattoo is something that people can do to themselves to make a statement TO themselves that they are important, because now they don't have any choice but to stand out in public. It can be a very bold and courageous move on the part of some.

The ONLY reason that there has never been a finding that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, is that evolutionary theory essentially (if not straight forwardly) says that every finding is consistent with evolutionary theory. The question is, how do we make multitudes of findings that don't seem to fit with each other in evolutionary theory, or each other in any kind of theory, so that they fit? And how do we do it in the light of many (most?) of those findings fitting creationism and who knows what other theories, as well? The point is, in this exact way, evolutionary theory has virtually proven that it is not worthy of even being called theory, to say nothing about having any kind of chance whatsoever of becoming law. Of course, there are going to be all kinds of scientists that think or say it is law. And there are all kinds of political scientists who say it is law no matter what they think, for other purposes.

The banks will crash all at once, probably from some kind of solar EMP on the electricity of the world. Many governments will go down with them. Local groups will form their own governments as necessary to help the members of their group. Anonymity as we know it will be irrelevant. Small groups hidden in the hills will have anonymity because of their remoteness, and this will be the only anonymity that will count. Militaries will die because there will be no-one to support them. Some areas will be a disaster, with gangs preying on the weak, like in MadMax.

Of course, I could be wrong...

As scientists are able to collect more and different kinds of evidence, much of the other evidence points away from evolution. Then there are those scientists who interpret the evidence in a non-evolution direction.

Mysterious Men Dropping From Helicopters To Chop Down NorCal Marijuana Grows

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/09/12/mysterious-men-dropping-from-helicopters-to-chop-down-norcal-marijuana-grows-mendocino-county-lear-asset-management/

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/162942-2014-09-14-mysterious-men-dropping-from-helicopters-to-chop-down-norcal-marijuana.htm

Why is US supporting ISIS in Syria while opposing it in Iraq? http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/3413/why-is-us-supporting-isis-in-syria-while-opposing-it-in-iraq

Down's varies in people. Some people you would never guess that they have it. Others are vegetables, barely alive. Abortion is murder.

Yes, but some people are going to keep on trying, just like some scientists keep on trying to prove something as silly as evolution.

That was 500 years ago. Five hundred years from now scientists will be amazed at the silly things scientists of the 21st century believed.

This post doesn't have much to do with Bangladesh, but it is a start toward getting back to the common law of the people. Once US people see this, we can start to get our people out of prison, and start the Bangladesh people in America onto methods that they and their relatives still in Bangladesh can use in their home country. American common law is similar to English common law. Bangladesh is based on English common law.

The website for the US Courts has changed. A look at the way it used to be is here: http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_all_state_courts_are_common_law_courts_02._pdf.pdf

The way it is now is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-basics.aspx .  Notice that the common law parts have been removed, at least as far as being stated.

Google "United States common law." Use the DuckDuckGo search engine for some different results.

A reasonable link for finding the position of common law in America: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/DallasMiniConf_Materials/Case%20Law%20on%20Elements%20of%20a%20Potential%20Preservation%20Rule.pdf .

Take a look at the Karl Lentz links in my previous posts on this thread and others.

Not a loophole. It's taken the legal system at least 70 or 80 years of NOT training their attorneys in this kind of common law, to get the legal system where it is today. It's a similar thing to the way the banking industry has turned the banking system into a debt system rather than a simple money system. Only it took the banking system a lot longer to set their whole thing up. For them, we have a $200 trillion more or less hidden world debt that corresponds to our $17 trillion in the US.

The whole thing amounts to trust. Average people placed their trust in the legal system, and the banking system used it to screw them. As for the millions of people in prison, there are loads of them there who have done nothing deserving of it. There was no harm or damage done to anyone. Yet they are treated as though they are criminals of the worst kind. Consider all the people who have done time simply because they smoked a joint, even though they harmed nobody.

If you research it, you will find that the prison system in the US is the largest in the world by far. And if you research a little further, you will find loads of people who are making a lot of money off the people in prison, including something similar to using them for slave labor. All this is happening because the legal system has gradually hidden, over a bunch of decades, the method that the people used to use to protect themselves from government.

Common law is NOT something new. It goes back to the foundations of our country.

For a better understanding of how common law works, read Void Judgments at http://www.scribd.com/doc/75335955/Void-Judgment .

That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done.

Regarding Trinsey v. Pagliaro, the site you gave didn't have the whole case, at least not that I could see. In cases, there are often many "holdings" that have little to do with the particular case, yet they form precedence. The holding I listed above, is in the actual T. v. P. case judgment rendering by the judge. Find it and you will see.

Suicide is murder. However, Suicide can be laying down your life for your friends, like dying to protect your buddies in war.

It depends on if the person has faith in the forgiveness that God provides through Jesus, or not. Not an easy way to answer this.

Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S.

1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.

2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself, but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". This means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney.

3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation.

4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.

5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.

6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose.

7. Go after them for money for filing a false claim against you.

This is American common law. It isn't English common law. English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step.

English common law for Bangladesh.

If any of you readers are having problems in Bangladesh, contact Karl. He has a heavy workload. So, keep on trying if he doesn't get back to you right away. His contact locations are listed at the websites I have already listed in this thread.

If you are American, British (whole British Isles), or Canadian, Karl is ready to go. If CPS (or the corresponding governmental agency in Canada or the U.K.) took your kids, Karl will help you get them back without charging you for it.

I'm not saying any of this to drum up business for Karl. I'm saying it to help anyone who needs help. I am also saying it because we need to strengthen all the common law nations out there - Bangladesh - so that Bitcoin can remain freely in the hands of ALL the people.

See? That's the trick, isn't it?

If we knew all about God, we wouldn't have to believe. Consider your wife (or anybody or anything that you know exists). Do you believe she exists? Maybe. But more than believing, you KNOW she exists.

If the evidence proved God existed, then you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW. But since ALL religion revolves around the idea of believing, there really isn't going to be any proof for God. If there were proof, you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW.

The evidence for God is great. The fact that most of people in the world believe in God or a god, is in itself great evidence. The machine quality of the universe suggests a Maker.

As for consistency, you won't find one person in the whole world who is consistent with yourself. Even your closest, most trusted friend, is at least slightly inconsistent with you.

The point? Don't give up on God. Why not? There will come a time that He will reveal Himself to you and all people. And the thing that He will consider important will be how and how much you believed in Him, here, before He revealed Himself, before the time that you won't have to believe anymore, because you will KNOW.

No, not even the taxman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPGSxSStc6M&list=UUDd9cJ5qa3rx2grmZMqGfjQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv_9vBLas5s&list=UUDd9cJ5qa3rx2grmZMqGfjQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoFn73Je9lY&list=UUDd9cJ5qa3rx2grmZMqGfjQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMSex3rCIls

Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years.

If the other party doesn't attempt to refute the claim, but if he could have attempted, or if he could have refuted, but doesn't, you win. This is the thing that the banks are doing to people with outstanding debts all the time. The difference is that a bank can only file a complaint, whereas people can file claims, if they have a vested interest in what they are claiming.



EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. When she gets a couple of people into court who are a little more organized, she doesn't say much. all she does is make a judgment based on the sworn testimony of the people involved, and the evidence they bring forth.

It can be done in Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is a common law country that uses English common law. The biggest problem is that the people are poor and ignorant much of the time. But if a wealthier person who knew how to read and write helped them out, there would be no stopping them. Either the government would have to become a civil law government, or they would win.