The Difference between PCI, PAJC and the New Heritage False Claiming Posers

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

BUMP...

Because this is that good.

I miss some people.

It would be impossible for me to disagree more.


NOT that good at all.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If one is pardoned then there is no crime for which they can be accused, regardless of them "accepting" the pardon. One does not accept a pardon a pardon is given. So either you must be teaching universalism or you are saying that God unjustly sends a pardoned man to hell. Crakjak has converted you. How absurd to think that one would be allowed to remain in jail after being pardoned because they refuse to accept it. They would throw his butt out and lock the gate behind him.

While in no way meaning to impinge on the theological discussion I must bring something to the attention of my young colleague for whom I have infinite respect:

U S v. WILSON, 32 U.S. 150 (1833)

Relevant part of decision rendered by Chief Justice Marshall when Defendant Wilson refused a pardon from Andrew Jackson in a capital case (death penalty) and as far as I am aware is still the law of the land.

“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which, delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete, without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

While in no way meaning to impinge on the theological discussion I must bring something to the attention of my young colleague for whom I have infinite respect:

U S v. WILSON, 32 U.S. 150 (1833)

Relevant part of decision rendered by Chief Justice Marshall when Defendant Wilson refused a pardon from Andrew Jackson in a capital case (death penalty) and as far as I am aware is still the law of the land.

“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which, delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete, without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”

That is correct.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If one is pardoned then there is no crime for which they can be accused, regardless of them "accepting" the pardon. One does not accept a pardon a pardon is given. So either you must be teaching universalism or you are saying that God unjustly sends a pardoned man to hell. Crakjak has converted you. How absurd to think that one would be allowed to remain in jail after being pardoned because they refuse to accept it. They would throw his butt out and lock the gate behind him.

Baron the Lamb took away the sin of the world(that is where universalism gets their thoughts) Jesus at Calvary pardoned all but we must accept the salvation He purchased with His precious blood.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

While in no way meaning to impinge on the theological discussion I must bring something to the attention of my young colleague for whom I have infinite respect:

U S v. WILSON, 32 U.S. 150 (1833)

Relevant part of decision rendered by Chief Justice Marshall when Defendant Wilson refused a pardon from Andrew Jackson in a capital case (death penalty) and as far as I am aware is still the law of the land.

“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which, delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete, without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”

"That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not [32 U.S. 150, 156] material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him."

I bow to your precedent but would argue that the case is limited to judicial notice, Since Jesus Christ is our advocate would he respond as this man's attorney did ..."On the succeeding day, the counsel for the prisoner appeared in court, and on his behalf waived and declined any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon referred to."

"On consideration whereof, this court is of opinion, that the pardon alluded to in the proceedings, not having been brought judicially before the court, by plea, motion or otherwise, ought not to be noticed by the judges, or in any manner to affect the judgment of the law."

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

"That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not [32 U.S. 150, 156] material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him."

I bow to your precedent but would argue that the case is limited to judicial notice, Since Jesus Christ is our advocate would he respond as this man's attorney did ..."On the succeeding day, the counsel for the prisoner appeared in court, and on his behalf waived and declined any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon referred to."

"On consideration whereof, this court is of opinion, that the pardon alluded to in the proceedings, not having been brought judicially before the court, by plea, motion or otherwise, ought not to be noticed by the judges, or in any manner to affect the judgment of the law."

Granted it was ensconced as judicial notice. At the Defendant's request his attorney did not appear and Marshall was of the opinion the court could not act sua sponte. And as you stated above it is possible to decline the pardon, which I believe goes to the issue of free will. As incredible as it sounds, some will refuse their pardon and go to hell.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Granted it was ensconced as judicial notice. At the Defendant's request his attorney did not appear and Marshall was of the opinion the court could not act sua sponte. And as you stated above it is possible to decline the pardon, which I believe goes to the issue of free will. As incredible as it sounds, some will refuse their pardon and go to hell.

I stand corrected as to one's ability to reject a pardon, at least as far as U.S. law goes, (though this was a conditional pardon at best and seems to have weighed heavily into the decision.) This was typical Marshall finding the result he wished to find. Marshall as I am sure you remember was the first great activist on the court, writing full blown decisions about the power of the court only to say they had no jurisdiction. I have little doubt that were this anomaly brought up today it would be overturned and question if any other legal society has taken such a position.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I have little doubt that were this anomaly brought up today it would be overturned and question if any other legal society has taken such a position.

One thing I have tried to find out but seems to be lost to history is why. The closest I could come is speculation he felt guilty his partner was executed and he had not been.

Nonetheless, totally agree it was a interesting anomaly, but you have to admit it makes a GREAT sermon illustration !!

Love ya man, looking forward to filing a class action together someday.

JAG

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

One thing I have tried to find out but seems to be lost to history is why. The closest I could come is speculation he felt guilty his partner was executed and he had not been.

Nonetheless, totally agree it was a interesting anomaly, but you have to admit it makes a GREAT sermon illustration !!

Love ya man, looking forward to filing a class action together someday.

JAG

Only people harder to agree than two Pentecostal preachers would be two Pentecostal preachers who are lawyers. Did you hear the one about............

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Only people harder to agree than two Pentecostal preachers would be two Pentecostal preachers who are lawyers. Did you hear the one about............

Then AD and I are truly a miracle. We have spoken on the phone and had plenty of private correspondence. His is my brother in every sense of the word. I have great respect for his legal mind, and we are pretty much lock-step theologically as well.

While I am reaching the stage in my life to consider whether I will have a last hurrah before fading away, he is just about to come into his own. I expect to hear and read great things from him in the legal profession and the body of Christ.

I am proud, privileged, and honored to call him both brother and colleague.