"To seek out that which was lost..."

The Assembly of the Body of IaHUShUA Ha-MaShIaCh

To: the Circuit/District Court of the State of Oregon for Lane County
Regarding: Challenge of JURISDICTION.. Motion to DISMISS.. Plea bargain..
Concerning: Indictment # 10 - 96 07033

The Assembly of IaHUShUA MaShIaChaH
In the person of our Body Member:

On the Date of 9/27/96 in an act of good faith and in the Spirit of finding an Acceptable solution to our present Persecution.. MaTiTIaHU and also MiKIaHU, Representing the Assembly of IaHUShUA MaShIaChaH and on the behalf of DaUID IeShRaEL, came forward to show the Court the reason for DaUID's non-appearance.

When DaUID was called.. MaTiTIaHU Addressed the court.. Identifying himself as a representative of the Assembly.. Informing of intent to deliver papers Informing of our stand.. and of the State's Trespass against the Assembly.
Again the Court was reminded that it has no LAWFUL JURISDICTION over the Assembly of IaHUShUA.. and that it is a Transgression of the First COMMANDMENT to worship, bow down to, obey or serve any "mighty-ones" but the CREATOR IaHUeH.

He also informed the court that DaUID had tried to contact the District Attorneys office.. to make an appointment to try to work things out.. we were not called back.. Mr. Hunt (assistant DA) stated that he had recieved the message and had tried unsuccessfully to return the call.

The Judge asked Mr. Hunt what he suggested be done.. a $20,000 Warrant was issued for DaUID's arrest. But Mr. Hunt stated that he wanted to speak with us and work something out.. It really should not be that big of a deal.. we are talking about 5 or 6 young plants.. less than a foot tall on average.. and possibly Males.. (not really classifiable as "Marijuana" but rather "Hemp") It was OBVIOUSLY not a COMMERCIAL venture... etc...

DaUID and the above mentioned Brethren.. met with Mr. Hunt.. he seemed to be actually going out of his way to help us resolve this issue.. without causing us to Transgress the LAW. We appreciate this..
We were presented with three options.. Pleading Guilty to a Misdemeanor (Possession) and..
(1) Two days in Jail.. no probation or Fine.
(2) A Fine of up to $1000 and Probation.
(3) 40 hours of Community service and Probation.

Even though DaUID cannot honestly say that he has "done wrong".. he can say that the way he did it was a mistake.. This is stretching it a little.. but seems ok under the circumstances..

But... (1) Jail is a place where you are forced to bow down.. and for one that this is forbidden by LAW, to voluntarily walk into that place would be equal to Suicide.. to take him against his will would be Murder! In the past we have experienced that you cannot get out of there unless you Deny IaHUShUA! (IaHUShUA means IaHUeH's SALVATION.. one of the Requirements to Recieving this Salvation is being Immersed in His Name.. this is the point of death and Rebirth for us.. we are no longer that old person.. we have a new name.. to identify ourself as that old person (even AKA) is saying that it was not actually real, a "ritual without meaning" .. ) ALSO See: the Document entitled "the Problem with Court".. "http://www.iahushua.com/decourt.html"

The other objection is to the Probation.. it was explained that whenever there was a fine involved, or community service.. that the court attached the probation as an Assurance that the Fine or Service will be rendered... Ohh.. but we are instructed not to bind ourselves with an oath, and neither to swear.. for our word is good.. Yes means Yes.. No means No.. we are taught to say what we mean and to mean what we say. (Mtt. 5:34, James 5:12, Seventh Commandment) ..

Oregon Bill of rights:
Section 7. Manner of administering oath or affirmation. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered.-

and what is this additional oath related to the Probation itself? a Double bind... this "condition" is that you Promise to be a "law abiding" Citizen.
I begin to appreciate why the assistant DA was so anxious to make a deal.. this is a tangled up mess!!!

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition
Citizen- One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. U.S.Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship .

"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

This last part Stinks of IDOLATROUS WORSHIP!! This definition in no way describes who we are or our Righteous King! This is a thing UNLAWFUL to us! We are not your Subjects! As stated in previous documents (and defined above and below) you ONLY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER US .. IF WE GIVE IT TO YOU! We REFUSE!

We cannot be your Citizen. Niether are we 14th Amend. persons. Let us look at this "law abiding".
We define this "LAW abiding" to mean in obedience to the Ten Commandments (written in stone) IaHUeH said of these to not Add to or Take away from this LAW! We follow IaHUShUA in Obedience to this LAW and follow His Instructions (which form the Basis of our Social Law) These as also the Statutes and Precepts of the Covenant, we apply through His Singular Spirit of TRUTH's Guidance.. Common Sense.. and Context.. these are not written in stone..

The way we apply the above.. Concerning: Anything that is not LAW (10 Commandments) or that does not Stand in the Light of that LAW.. (Permissible according to) is UNLAWFUL! All else falls into the realm of AGREEMENTS.. which we can make , if they are LAWFUL. Of course we cannot make an AGREEMENT that we DISAGREE WITH. This would fall under Transgression of the Ninth Commandment.. if you Transgress one Commandment you also Transgress the whole LAW!

Your Definition:
Bouvier 1856:
LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law. Id omne licitum est, quod non est legibus prohibitum, quamobrem, quod, lege permittente, fit, poenam non meretur.
To be valid a contract must be lawful.

LAWLESS. Without law; without lawful control.

By your Courts definition to be "law abiding" means to obey your laws.. which as I have stated above are UNLAWFUL! Your laws are based on ROMAN LAW.. and are foreign to us!
IaHUeH Most High is our SOVEREIGN.. OUR LAWGIVER.. this as you very well know is what distinguishes "sovereignity" .. the ability to MAKE AND ALSO TO ENFORCE LAWS. Though IaHUeH does not need to enforce His LAW.. it is Self Enforcing.. Just as we are Self Governed by it..
so step off!

For IaHUeH has Promised..

Deut 32:35
35 To Me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and the things that shall come upon them make haste. -(KJV)

But your laws are not only UNLAWFUL by IaHUeH's LAW.. but also by your very own law.. as I will now demonstrate.
Our LAW falls more into the Category of "Common Law".. which we believe is of Purer INTENT.

Giles Jacob English Law Dictionary - 1782
Common Law "(Lex communis) Is taken for the law of this kingdom simply, without any other laws; as it was generally holden before any statute was enacted in parliament to alter the same: and the king's courts of justice are called the Common Law Courts. The Common Law is grounded upon the general customs of the realm; and includes in it the law of nature, the law of God, and the principles and maxims of the law: it is founded upon reason; and is said to be the perfection of reason, acquired by long study, observation and experience, and refined by learned men in all ages. And it is the common birthright, that the subject hath for the safe-guard and defense, not only of his goods, lands, and revenues; but of his wife and children, body, fame, and life also. Co. Lit. 97, 142. Treatise of Laws, p.2."

For awhile we winked at.. your Criminality.. for we did not Understand the LAW. But when you Violate your own laws and IaHUeH's LAW.. you are UNLAWFUL and To be valid a contract must be lawful.

Bouvier 1856:
CONTRACT. This term, in its more extensive sense, includes every description of agreement, or obligation, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money, or to do or omit to do a certain act; or, a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation. In its more confined sense, it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are bound to each other, *or one is bound to the other. 1 Pow. Contr. 6; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 1754; Code Civ. 1101; Poth. Oblig. pt. i. c. 1, S. 1, 1; Blackstone, (2 Comm. 442,) defines it to be an agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing. A contract has also been defined to be a compact between two or more persons. 6 Cranch, R. 136.

You are in Fact a de facto Government Body.. as defined:

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition
de facto --In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure , which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955,57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure ; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. Compare de jure.

You are UNLAWFUL in that you would even attempt to compel DaUID DaNIaHU to Transgress the First and Ninth COMMANDMENT of the LAW!
Therefore you operate under the mere Color of law...

Color of law - The appearance of semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188

First Ammendment US.. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means NO U.S. JURISDICTION over the Assembly of the Body of IaHUShUA Ha-MaShIaCh .. or of its particular Members..

Oregon BOR
Section 1. Natural Rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all
free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.-

We thought it more than Proper to Abolish your government in this WAY and manner!

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in their Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.-
[As Noted we take exception to the term "Almighty God".. for we Know that IaHUeH ALONE IS MIGHTY!!!!]

Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.-
The wording here is explicit.. Your "Marijuana" Laws are a SEVERE attempt to Control our free excercise and an attempt to regulate our religious opinions.. and Greatly Interferes with our rights of conscience.. and then to add insult to injury.. you attempt to cause us to Transgress the LAW of our CREATOR.. Shame on you!

OK so back to the AGREEMENT.. Since we Know that an UNLAWFUL CONTRACT IS NOT VALID.
And we have Informed you that we Know this and we are informing you now, that you do in fact KNOW THIS...
Then it would be nothing for us to make any agreement with you.. but we are not prone to VANITY.. And do not like to be Compelled that way. Actually this would also be a False witness (Transgression of the ninth Word) for as stated.. we do not Bind with an Oath but our Agreements are Bond.. our word is good.. If we were to enter into an agreement with you, both parties knowing that it is not LAWFUL BINDING .. it would be a Transgression of the LAW.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections-

(b)"...the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion.:
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

(2) lack of jurisdiction over the person.

..a motion making any of these defenses shall be made BEFORE PLEADING...

(h)(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise
that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.

Section 15. Reformation the basis of criminal law/ Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not be vindictive justice.-

Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.- In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial as in civil cases.

This begins to touch on the VINDICTIVE or PUNITIVE NATURE OF YOUR "JUSTICE"...
Since your "criminal law" is Based on the "principles of reformation" .. and we are in actuality more LAW ABIDING than your system or its ministers.. in that we study this LAW continually.. rising up and sitting down etc... and weigh all of our daily activities against it.. and also Apparently Understand the Basis of your own law, the Constitution, (Which you ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD) better than you.. The ONLY POSSIBLE MOTIVE YOU HAVE FOR PRESSING THIS ISSUE... IS PURELY VINDICTIVE! For you will NOT REFORM US!

Bouvier 1856
COMPULSION. The forcible inducement to an act.
2. Compulsion may be lawful or unlawful. 1. When a man is compelled by lawful authority to do that which he ought to do, that compulsion does not affect the validity of the act; as for example, when a court of competent jurisdiction compels a party to execute a deed, under the pain of attachment for contempt, the grantor cannot object to it on the ground of compulsion. 2. But if the court compelled a party to do an act forbidden by law, or not having jurisdiction over the parties or the subject-matter, the act done by such compulsion would be void.
Bowy. Mod. C. L. 305.

3. Compulsion is never presumed. Coercion. (q. v.)

How is it possible? We are not in BONDAGE TO YOU.. YOU ARE UNLAWFUL!

This brings us to your RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT of 1993...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prevents the state from taking action that substantially burdens religious exercise, unless its action furthers a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means of addressing that interest. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1.

In order to understand RFRA, it is necessary to appreciate what this Act was meant to restore. The First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This simple phrase has been subject to debate and controversy for over 200 years --
particularly as it is applied in the prison context.

The question of religious exercise would have been surprising to the reformers who first developed prisons. Prisons were conceived of as places in which inmates would engage in prayerful reflection. Of course, the religion was Protestant and there was little tolerance of other beliefs.

The Restriction Must Post a Substantial Burden Assuming that there is a religious belief at issue, a restriction on the practice of that faith must pose a substantial burden before RFRA is invoked. This threshold is crossed if a restriction meaningfully curtails a prisoner's ability to express adherence to his or her faith or if it denies reasonable opportunities to engage in activities that are fundamental to that religion. Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d at 1480.

Courts have reached different conclusions when religious restrictions implicate fundamental tenets of belief or prevent prisoners from filling religious obligations. In Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d at 1480, the important role of sweat lodge to a prisoner's religious beliefs established a prima facie claim under RFRA. Similarly, in Rust. Clarke, 883 F.Supp. 1293 (D.Neb. 1995), the sincere belief that certain conduct was necessary under the Asatru religion implicated RFRA.

This principle was applied in Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F.Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y 1994), after prisoners sought to wear Santeria beads throughout the institution. Although not all Santeria adherents wore beads, it was an essential religious practice for those who wore them. The court emphasized, "[T]he wearing of the beads is a bonafide tenet of a significant number of Santeria practitioners. . . . [T]he beads are not, as defendants would have [the court] recognize, an optional devotional item."

Accordingly, a restriction may be "substantial" if it restricts a practice that is fundamental to a prisoner's sincere beliefs.

A Compelling State Interest
Assuming that there is a substantial burden on a religious practice, the state must advance a compelling state interest. When it passed RFRA, Congress recognized that prison security or public safety will be a compelling state interest. However, the standard is objective, and requires more than good faith. Thus, an exaggerated response to prison security will not create a compelling interest.

Even under the old rational basis standard, some prison restrictions were found to be an exaggerated response. See Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir. 1989) (restrictions that prevented Jewish inmates at Michigan prison from gathering together for services not rational).

By the above Criterea.. We DEMAND that the STATE Show the COMPELLING INTEREST to JUSTIFY its INTRUSION into our Worship of the CREATOR and Obedience to His LAW..

CONCLUSION: [The following statement is an excerpt from our ORIGINALLY PROCLAIMED STAND made Public via AOL and eMail to the White House and President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON in "May" of 1994.. and was also made known to your District Court Lane County (in 1994) ]

Our religion is The Way of Life. We choose to actually live our daily lives according to our belief and faith in IaHUShUA Ha-MaShIaCh. This is not seen anywhere else among the children of men, and may seem to be a strange and unfamiliar concept. We live our lives according to The Truth of IaHUeH's Salvation.
This ROCK on which we stand is a Separated place. IaHUShUA is the ONLY King.
You can believe our testimony for we refuse to lie. This Body is composed of [...] conscious members. We are not of "the World" but of the Kingdom of IaHUeH. By constitutional definition we are not United States citizens, for we are not under the jurisdiction of the United States government; being subject to a Higher authority, Namely IaHUeH Elohim, the creator of heaven and earth, who we will obey even to the laying down of our lives. We are not enemies [...] neither a threat to the welfare and safety of the citizenry. We keep IaHUeH's ten Commandments, publish the Truth of the Good News of IaHUeH's Salvation (the meaning of IaHUShUA) and Proclaim His Kingdom.
The Practice of our Religious Beliefs.. includes being together, sharing all things common; continuing daily with one accord in the Assembly (which is the Temple) sharing our food from house to house with gladness and singleness of heart.. Knowing the TRUTH SET US FREE! Praising IaHUeH! Learning and Instructing according to the LAW.. Publishing the GOOD NEWS of IaHUeH's SALVATION.. Proclaiming His Kingdom.. among other things.
You can find out more by visiting our WebSite at "http://www.iahushua.com/"
This is not something that we just made up in order to get our way.. and win a court case... we were doing it Two Thousand years ago! And have some records that mention such.. you will find them in the "Bible".

We hereby MOVE.. that you Drop this whole matter and REPENT!! Molest us no more!
Otherwise you must find a Court of LAW that *DOES* HAVE JURISDICTION.. and come up with a Jury of our PEERS... both of which, so far, you will only find in the Assembly of IaHUShUA MaShIaChaH.
Is there any other -de jure Court in the land?
Our Peers are Subjects of the Kingdom of IaHUeH.. and as stated cannot be your "Citizens" so here we are at variance.. for you require Jurors to be your Citizens..

Actually we think that you are Happy that we are not your Citizens.. because then we could Press Suit against you.. for your violations against us...
We understand the flipside.. you see.. Being not Citizens we are not Entitled to the So Called "Benefits" of being your subjects.. which is what you are when you OWE ALLEGIANCE.. (how did they pull that one over on you folks?)

Your Law is in VIOLATION of IaHUeH's LAW.. and also, Being UNLAWFUL... a VIOLATION OF ITSELF! It tells you one thing yet Implies another.. or maybe that is another voice that says "government is the servant of the people" for Truly this Owed Allegiance makes your Citizens SLAVES!!


Under the diversity statute, which mirrors U.S. Const Article lII's diversity clause, a person is a "citizen of a state"
if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116.

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long
been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been
judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United
States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state."
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. (92 U.S. 542) Oct. 1875

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE opinion of the court.
The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. [...]
This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in
common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has
voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, practice. That which is given to courts to take cognizance of cases which may be instituted in those courts in the first instance. The constitution of the United States gives the supreme court of the United States original jurisdiction in cases which affect ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and to those in which a state is a party. Art. 3, s. 2; 1 Kent, Com. 314.

IaHUeH has the ORIGINAL and SUPREME JURISDICTION. We Freely Give our Allegiance to our Righteous King IaHUShUA.. He Sends us into your World to Proclaim the GOOD NEWS! IaHUShUA has come to wash away Transgressions.. to Instruct us According to the LAW.. and to thereby Set us FREE!

AMBASSADOR, international law. A public minister sent abroad by some sovereign state or prince, with a legal commission and authority to transact business on behalf of his country with the government to which he is sent. He is a minister of the highest rank, and represents the person of his sovereign.
2. The United States have always been represented by ministers plenipotentiary, never having sent a person of the rald of an, ambassador in the diplomatic sense. 1 Kent's Com. 39, n.

3. Ambassadors, when acknowledged as such, are exempted, absolutely from all allegiance, and from all responsibility to the laws. If, however, they should be so regardless of their duty, and of the object of their privilege, as to insult or openly to attack the laws of the government, their functions may be suspended by a refusal to treat with them, or application can be made to their own sovereign for their recall, or they may be dismissed, and required to depart within a reasonable time. By fiction of law, an ambassador is considered as if he were out of the territory of the foreign power; and it is an implied agreement among nations, that the ambassador, while he resides in the foreign state, shall be considered as a member of his own country, and the government he represents has exclusive cognizance of his conduct, and control of his person. The attendants of
the ambassador are attached to his person, and the effects in his use are under his protection and privilege, and, generally, equally exempt from foreign jurisdiction.

Your other option... Destroy us!

I. IaHU-NaTaN, IeShRaEL .. Servant of IaHUeH.. Minister to the Assembly.


For E. DaUID DaNIaHU, IeShRaEL ____________________________________

On this worldly date.. 10/07/96 (our 07/16/78)

Witnessed by..

I. A. MaTiTIaHU _______________________________________

Ch. MiKIaHU __________________________________________

(Signatures are of wife/husband Units.)



Problem with Court



The Speech and the Inspiration behind it

The Source of the CONSTITUTION
And the PURPOSE it SERVES!!!

Who Gives Us Our RIGHTS?

REPEAL the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

PROPOSED: CONSTITUTION of the Habitation of Shalom!


If you would like to contact us...

our email address is... iahu@efn.org
Public PGP KEY

The Great Marijuana CONSPIRACY Page