Source: http://tomremington.com/category/history/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:45:07+00:00

Document:
A brief sharing of emails among friends and colleagues show us historical depictions of how Native Americans killed and used the remains of wolves as a tool for hunting as well as headdress and other useful things.
This photo cracks me up! Boiled wolf pup? Yum!
And if you Google “native american wolf headdress” you’ll see countless historical examples of how native americans so revered the wolf as their “spiritual brothers” they killed them for pelts, disguises and elaborate headdresses and other functional clothing and costumes.
So just how “spiritual” was that nasty, diseased, canine, killing machine?
Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.
Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.
RULES OF PUNCTUATION–COMMAS THAT SET OFF.
So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.
Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?
OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.
So it is a conjunction.
CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.
Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.
OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.
OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.
Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?
Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?
You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.
This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.
Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM.
A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.
David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
“Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.
“No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us.
The world system and it’s lies are the mockery, and those managing that system who know the real story hide the key to eternal salvation and mock those who are lost in strong delusional distraction.. They are doing this because there is no salvation for them as their crimes against the LORD GOD YHWH are unforgivable.. They die with this world system.. All the news, all the entertainment, the scientism, all of the political left right THEATRICS are mockery.. They’ve formulated a monstrous illusion and they laugh at those lost in that illusion..
Isaiah 52:5 To wit, by the wicked, which think that I have no power to deliver them.
10 1 Christ proveth that the Pharisees are the evil shepherds,?8 and by many reasons, that himself?11, 14 is the good shepherd:?19 And thereof dissension ariseth.?31 They take up stones,?39 and go about to take him, but he escapeth.
1 Verily, [a]verily I say unto you, He that entereth not in by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, he is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that goeth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the [b]porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he hath sent forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And they will not follow a stranger, but they flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6 This [c]parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily I say unto you, I am that door of the sheep.
8 [d]All that [e]ever came before me, are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 [f]I am that door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall [g]go in, and go out, and find pasture.
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and have it in abundance.
11 I am that good shepherd: that good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
12 But an hireling, and he which is not the shepherd, neither the sheep are his own, seeth the wolf coming, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 So the hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am that good shepherd, and know mine, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father [h]knoweth me, so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
16 [i]Other sheep I have also, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be [j]one sheepfold, and one shepherd.
17 [k]Therefore doth my Father love me, because [l]I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and have power to take it again: this commandment have I received of my Father.
19 ¶ [m]Then there was a dissension again among the Jews for these sayings.
20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear ye him?
21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil: can the devil open the eyes of the blind?
22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the [n]Dedication, and it was winter.
23 [o]And Jesus walked in the Temple, in Solomon’s porch.
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be that Christ, tell us plainly.
25 [p]Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s Name, they bear witness of me.
26 [q]But ye believe not: [r]for ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
28 And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of mine hand.
29 My Father which gave them me, is greater than all, and none is able to take them out of my Father’s hand.
31 [s]Then the Jews again took up stones, to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my [t]Father: for which of these works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For the good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and that thou being a man, makest thyself God.
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?
38 But if I do, then though ye believe not me, yet believe the works, that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
40 And went again beyond Jordan, into the place where John first baptized, and there abode.
41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man, were true.
John 10:1 Seeing that by Christ only we have access to the Father, there are neither other true shepherds, than those which come to Christ themselves, and bring others thither also, neither is any to be thought the true sheepfold, but that which is gathered to Christ.
John 10:3 In those days they used to have a servant always sitting at the door, and therefore he speaketh after the manner of those days.
John 10:6 This word (parable) which the Evangelist useth here, signifieth a dark kind of speech, when words are taken from their natural meaning, to signify another thing to us.
John 10:8 It maketh no matter, how many, neither how old the false teachers there have been.
John 10:8 These large terms must be applied to the matter he speaketh of. And therefore when he calleth himself the door, he calleth all them thieves and robbers which take upon them this name of Door, which none of the Prophets can, for they showed the sheep, that Christ was the door.
John 10:9 Only Christ is the true Pastor, and that only is the true Church, which acknowledgeth him to be properly their only Pastor: To him are opposite thieves which feed not the sheep, but kill them: and hirelings also, which forsake the flock in time of danger, because they feed it only for their own profit and gains.
John 10:9 That is, shall live safely: so use the Jews to speak, as Deut. 26:6, and yet there is a peculiar alluding to the shepherd’s office.
John 10:15 Loveth me, alloweth me.
John 10:16 The calling of the Gentiles.
John 10:16 The certain mark of the Catholic Church throughout all the world, which hath one head, that is Christ, the only keeper and only shepherd of it.
John 10:17 Christ is by the decree of the Father, the only true shepherd of the true Church, for he willingly gave his life for his sheep, and by his own power rose again to life.
John 10:17 He speaketh in the time that now is because Christ’s whole life was as it were a perpetual death.
John 10:19 The Gospel discovereth hypocrisy, and therefore the world must needs rage when it cometh forth.
John 10:22 The feast of the Dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabeus and his brethren, after the restoring of God’s true religion, by the casting out of Antiochus his garrison, 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:23 The unbelievers and proud men accuse the Gospel of darkness, which darkness indeed is within themselves.
John 10:25 The doctrine of the Gospel is proved from heaven by two witnesses: both by the purity of the doctrine, and by miracles.
John 10:26 It is no marvel that there do but a few believe, seeing that all men are by nature untamed beasts: yet notwithstanding God hath his, which he turneth into sheep, and commiteth them unto his Son, and preserveth them against the cruelty of all wild beasts.
John 10:26 He giveth a reason why they believed not, to wit, because they are none of his sheep.
John 10:31 Christ proveth his dignity by divine works.
John 10:32 Through my Father’s authority and power.
John 10:35 Void and of none effect.
John 10:39 Christ fleeth danger, not of mistrust, nor for fear of death, nor that he would be idle, but to gather a Church in another place.
82 1 The Prophet declaring God to be present among the Judges and Magistrates,?2 Reproveth their partiality.?3 And exhorteth them to do justice.?5 But seeing none amendment,?8 He desireth God to undertake the matter and execute justice himself.
A Psalm committeth to Aspah.
1 God standeth in the assembly of [a]gods: he judgeth among gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the [b]wicked? Selah.
3 Do right to the poor and fatherless: do justice to the poor and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and [c]needy: save them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not and understand nothing: they walk in darkness, albeit all the [d]foundations of the earth be moved.
6 I have said, Ye are gods, and ye all are children of the most High.
7 [e]But ye shall die as a man, and ye princes shall fall like others.
8 O God, arise, therefore judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit [f]all nations.
Psalm 82:1 The Prophet showeth that if princes and judges do not their duty, God whose authority is above them, will take vengeance on them.
Psalm 82:2 For thieves and murderers find favor in judgment, when the cause of the godly cannot be heard.
Psalm 82:4 Not only when they cry for help, but when their cause requireth aid and support.
Psalm 82:5 That is, all things are out of order either by their tyranny or careless negligence.
Psalm 82:7 No title of honor shall excuse you, but you shall be subject to God’s judgment, and render account as well as other men.
Psalm 82:8 Therefore no tyrant shall pluck thy right and authority from thee.

References: v. 
 § 2167
 v. 
 art. 3
 v. 
 § 2165
 § 4904
 § 2259
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 3
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 2