Living document

Living document


This is the living document part of agreements and is divided into subheadings of section themes to assist in re-reading, and unless specified, for efficacy, all quotes from scripture hereafter are offered from Her Majesty’s 1611 King James Version Bible.

I trust you, the peruser, will perceive that my grammatical intent of expressing and defending my faith is evident in reading this letter and future letters as my duty as the scriptural watchman of Ezekiel 33 necessitates. My singular purpose is to communicate freely, hoping to gain a brother through the agreement of facts, without scripted pretentiousness or flowery words, demonstrating my heartfelt faith bound deep sincerity!

of correspondence

My name is simply Keidrych. +minister [verb] placed in front as a reflection of my acceptance of Yehoshua’s offer at John 15:16 and to ensure no confusion with a misspelling or use of a title Minister [noun]

In my duty as the Ezekiel 33 watchman, I offer a fair warning by drawing to your attention that there is an obligation to ensure communication complies with the General Data Protection Regulation & Australian Privacy Act 1988 (GDPR-APA) addressed to the intended recipient’s identity. Should you desire to send return correspondence, please ensure it is handled correctly as per my details at the commencement of this letter, without using a postcode, as I will be unable to peruse any mislabeled/addressed correspondence.

of a minister and ministerial duty

Yehoshua is the original Hebrew name of Jesus, transliterated through multiple languages until known as Jesus in English ( - Jeff A. Benner)

  • Yehoshua(Hebrew)
  • -> Yeshua(Aramaic)
  • -> Iesous(Greek)
  • -> Iesus(Latin)
  • -> Jesus(English) Yehoshua means “YaHWeH(YHWH, the tetragrammaton, the one and only God) saves”, and it is Yehoshua who presented the offer to be his ordained minister according to the way of Yahweh in John 15:16. An offer of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:10, 6:23, John 10:28) I unequivocally accepted, joining Yehoshua in death and resurrection (John 11:25, 2 Corinthians 5:14-21), and became his living child (John 1:12, Colossians 2:9), a citizen of the kingdom of Yahweh (Ephesians 2:19), abiding together (John 6:53, Romans 8:10, Colossians 1:27, 3:11) with Yehoshua as head of the Church. Yehoshua’s Church is a people walking in the way of Yahweh (Colossians 1:10, Matthew 6:14-15, Romans 13:8) (for more information: - Jeff A. Benner), pilgrims moving through but not of this world. (Psalm 39:12, Jeremiah 50:5, Hebrews 11:10, 11:16, 1 Peter 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 29:15)

I bring to your awareness:

  • minister [verb], /ˈmɪn·ə·stər/ - to give help to or care for people (Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary)
  • Minister [noun], /ˈmɪnɪstər/ - a member of the government who is in charge of a particular department or has an important position in it (Cambridge Business English Dictionary) They are two separate words in logic, meaning and pronunciation.

The concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), used in the compilation of the Authorised 1611 King James Version Bible (KJV). Provides a foundation that is vital to know when reading the KJV and especially when reading Romans 13:1-5 whereby, in maintaining Sola Scriptura, the definition of a minister reveals its meaning in Ezra 7:23-26:

  • Pay no toll, tribute or custom (Leviticus 6:16, Ezra 4:13, Matthew 17:23-27)
  • Know the Laws of Yahweh(God) (Exodus 20:2-17, with repetition in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Matthew 19:18-19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:8-10), and not adding any other laws to the Laws of Yahweh(God) (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6)
  • Teach the Laws of Yahweh(God) to others

Only in actively fulfilling the above scriptural requirements and evil continuing to prevail could a minister become an avenger and carry the sword to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Ezra 7:26, Romans 13:4). I make it clear, as stated previously, that I am a peaceful non-combatant or minister with no desire to be an avenger and approach you as such in the hope that honour will prevail and evil stayed through informed knowledge and awareness in our private agreement and demand for accommodation of faith.

All who have been called and chosen as Yehoshua’s ministers are also bondservants of Yehoshua (Galatians 1:10, Ephesians 6:6, 1 Peter 2:16), and unable to serve mammon(commerce) as they solely serve Yahweh (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13)

As repeated here for diligence sake, the duty of a minister includes being the watchman described in Ezekiel 33:1-10; actively warning those that may be harmed or are walking down the path of potentially causing harm to others so I may be saved harmless according to my faith.

My ministry is actively empathetic, emphatic, and deliberately scripturally inspired to break with the commonly referred assumption of law that I or others following the way of Yahweh are a person(s). Again, my faith-based imperative and genuine intent is to remove any and all assumptions you may wish to rely upon that could allow you to, in error, assume I am a person or in the use of dead code relative to persons. I do this while ensuring we agree that AUSTRALIA, the dead debtor corporation person of law, cannot supersede my faith nor exercise any jurisdiction over it. (Psalm 115:17, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, Galatians 2:19-20) My wish is for you to accept in agreement that I am a man redeemed by the blood of Yehoshua, washed clean of the sin of the world. (Psalm 51:2, Colossians 2:14-23, Revelation 1:5)

The officiation of my ministry is continual, per 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, Romans 12:12, Ephesians 6:18, Colossians 4:2, John 15:18, 1 Peter 5:7, Hebrews 13:15, Luke 18:1, Luke 18:7-8, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 Chronicles 16:11, 1 Timothy 2:8). Even while sleeping (Numbers 12:6, Job 33:14-18, Matthew 1:20-23, Acts 2:17, Joel 2:28)

of blood and water

The bottom of this letter contains my autograph, not a signature, used in representation that in being a minister of Yehoshua through accepting his offer in John 15:16, per Ezra 7:23-26 and fulfilling my duty as the watchman described in Ezekial 33:1-10 my name is written in Yehoshua’s book of life (Exodus 32:33, Malachi 34:16-18, John 1:29, John 14:16, Revelation 20:11-15, Revelation 21:27) saving me harmless according to my faith.

This autograph of mine is my syntactically unique name among the living written across a book representing the Bible and lambs book of life.

So there may be no latent misunderstanding of any part of my approach, I offer my unique thumbprint not used towards any OPCA or malicious paper terrorism but merely as a following of marking myself a minister of Yehoshua, and it is his blood that you see in my thumbprint. I am his minister officiating in the action of: “carrying out the full function of my calling while exercising my faith in the KJV”. I am making sure of my election in Yehoshua and Yahweh’s new Covenant as sealed by Yehoshua’s blood therein, as part of my gifted, granted and offered by his grace freedom.

It is Yehoshua’s blood, sharing the DNA of Yahweh, eternally and continually staining history (Hebrews 12:24) as the lamb slain for our redemption before the foundation of the world. (Leviticus 17:11, Matthew 26:28, 1 Peter 1:19,20) And “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 1:20, 2:14) washing me, and his other ministers clean from sin. (Hebrews 9:22, Romans 5:2, Ephesians 1:7, Revelation 1:5)

of oaths

Before commencing office, you swore an Oath/Affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen or The Defender of the Faith as grandfathered into the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 and Statute of Westminster of 1931. In writing to you, I, a follower of the same faith Her Majesty the Queen defends, desire to be treated: equitably and respectfully for my faith in following the direction of scripture and God’s immutable law, as sworn to be defended by the Christian Monarch from whom your authority stems.

An oath sworn to a Christian Monarch is an act of religious worship, and all who refuse to acknowledge and submit to the fact are classified as imposters, lying to obtain their profession/office (Westminster Confession of Faith Act of the British Parliament 1648 Chapter 22)

Her Majesty’s coronation ceremony as explained by British historian, Nick Spencer: The coronation has its origins in a service first used in 973. Although modified greatly since then, it retains the same basic structure, being located in a Christian church, presided by a Christian minister and based on the service of the Eucharist… the monarch promises, among other things, to ‘maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’ and to uphold the cause of law, justice and mercy. She is presented with a copy of the Bible (‘the most valuable thing that this world affords’) by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who says to her, ‘Here is Wisdom; this is Royal Law; these are the lively Oracles(and government) of God… the queen is anointed with oil just as ‘Zadok the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet anointed Salomon the King… She is presented with the orb, with the words, ‘Remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.’ She is invested with the coronation ring, with the words, ‘receive the ring of kingly dignity, and the seal of Catholic Faith … may you continue steadfastly as the Defender of Christ’s Religion’. She receives the sceptre with the cross, the ensign of kingly power and justice. And she is given the rod of ‘equity and mercy’, marked by the dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit.

I, however, as a minister of Yehoshua, am unable to swear an oath unless it is by Yahweh’s name (Genesis 22:16, Jeremiah 12:16) “And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.”

of treaty’s (Supreme Laws of the Land)

I wish to draw your attention to the treaty’s, your Supreme Laws of the Land that AUSTRALIA has signed, ratified and placed in force through all the land. Specifically, I draw your attention to the following treaties: 1. United Nation (alias Vienna) Convention on the Law of Treaties acceded by AUSTRALIA 13 June 1974, Entry into Force 27 January 1980 (a) Article 27 - Internal law and observance of treaties: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46”. (b) Article 46 - Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties: “1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.” 2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified 13 August 1980, Entry into Force 13 November 1980 (a) Article 50: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

Should confusion remain on the authority of the treaties on the government of AUSTRALIA and its affiliations:

  • A treaty is declared the supreme law of the land and is therefore obligatory on courts (1 Cranch, R. 103; 1 Wash).
  • PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA in a senate inquiry: “Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make & Implement Treaties” s3.3 confirms treaties are binding, while s13.7 clarifies AUSTRALIA has full federal authority to implement the treaty.
  • The current Attorney-General, Michaelia Cash, confirmed: “responsibility for implementation of Australia’s human rights obligations under the ICCPR is shared, and all levels of government have a role to play in fulfilling these obligations.” (#MC20-032878)

For clarity, any Treaty ratified into AUSTRALIAN law or legal framework at just “ratification” status: washes away, voids, and nullifies any conflicting internal legislation. When raised to the “In Force” level, those directly going against the treaty upon receiving a demand for accommodation of faith are found without excuse, outside of the Courts’ inherent jurisdiction, and in conflict with PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA direction.

of the rule of law

While mankind has filled the four corners of the Earth, it is of one blood (Deuteronomy 32:8, Acts 17:26) a single nation under Yahweh, whereby each of us walks a path of recognising our own individuality (perhaps you remember the first time you believed you were different to those around you?), the importance and influence of the family and tribe of common interest to knowing we all bleed red as a single nation. Indeed some of the memorable moments in my life have come from spending time with others of different visual persuasion.

The foundation of all Western Legal Frameworks is unequivocally the Bible, specifically the Authorised 1611 King James Version. “it is wrong to believe people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity” (Benjamin Constant), and “the ancients had no idea of what it(rights) meant” (Fustel de Coulanges).

The Bible makes it very clear that Yahweh is the supreme Judge, Lawgiver and King (Isiah 33:22)

Many throughout history understood that the power of the rule of law for mankind to enjoy freedom required an absolute foundation in the Bible:

  • AD390 Bishop Ambrose set the modern world precedent that all were before the law, forcing Emperor Theodosius to repent of his vindictive massacre of seven thousand people.
  • St Augustine of Hippo: “an unjust law is a contradiction in terms; an unjust law is no law at all.”
  • St Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
  • Henry de Bracton (Royal Judge, ‘the father of common law’) author of De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia: “a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite”, or, the state law can never depart from Yahweh’s higher laws. Jurisprudence was defined as “the science of the just and unjust”. “because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.”, or the State is under Yahweh and his laws.
  • Willian Blackstone: “No human laws should be suffered to contradict [Yahweh’s] laws … Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.”
  • F.A. Schaffer: “the State is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has not proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.” (A Christian Manifesto)
  • Pope John XXIII: “Since the right to command is required by the moral order and has its source in God, it follows that, if civil authorities pass laws or command anything opposed to the moral order and consequently contrary to the will of God, neither the laws made nor the authorisations granted can be binding on the consciences of the citizens, since God has more right to be obeyed than men. Otherwise, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.” (Pecem in Terris, p51 1963)
  • Lord Fortescue (1394-1479) summarises the importance of Yahweh’s law as the rule of law. As Fortescue put it, the law of England provided freedom to the people only because it was entirely indebted to the Holy Scriptures (Mark 2:27): “A law is necessarily adjudged cruel if it increases servitude and diminishes freedom, for which human nature always craves. For servitude was introduced by men for vicious purposes. But freedom was instilled into human nature by God. Hence freedom taken away from men always desires to return, as is always the case when natural liberty is denied. So he who does not favour liberty is to be deemed impious and cruel.” (De Laudibus Legum Anglie)

Finally, Sir William Holdsworth: “Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England, and therefore is to be protected by it; now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to dissolution of civil government.” (A History of English Law) backed by court rulings: ‘the law of England is the law of God’ and ‘the law of God is the law of England.’; ‘Christianity is parcel of the laws of England, therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.’ Chief Justice Lord Hale, 1676

AUSTRALIA, according to the Supreme Court: “Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law” (Ex Parte Thackeray(1874) - Justice Hargraves)

Thus the Court declared the supremacy of Christian legal principles—namely, that the divine or revealed law is applicable, and superior, to colonial laws –and that ‘all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation’, are applicable, and superior, to colonial laws!

of “persons”

In being a diligent minister of Yehoshua, I and others have dedicated our lives to “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15). As a result, we learned the factual reality of Yahweh’s disrespect for persons, of which I am very desirous that you may be with knowledge and awareness to understand, the importance of my faith-based adherence to the scriptures, directing me not to be observed or perceived as respecting persons.

Our entire modern civilisation finds itself founded on the KJV as the authority Her Majesty swore to uphold being the government, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:11) to whom all authority in heaven and Earth is given (Matthew 28:18) fact by fact, or brick by brick. I am revealing step-by-step knowledge of the truth, saving my right of self-determination to exercise my faith harmless from any assault upon it by those unaware I am not nor can be a person.

This one word, “person”, I draw simple attention to, is to aid our communications. I do this in true biblical definition and with the full intent of exposing the present secular purpose of the word so we may agree as members of mankind; what the scriptural writers intent was in their use of the word person, a word originally written in Hebrew as nephesh, then Greek as persona. It is essential in my duty to ensure we agree on what the word person means. It is indeed a further blessing to have you in agreement with the knowledge of meaning for the word person as this essential knowledge will help you peruse the Bible and legal texts. It will also aid others with whom you may share this demand.

Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, 2nd Samuel 14:14, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and James 2:9 for emphasis, are clear about God’s disrespect for persons.

This word “person” is a crucially defining word, as it is that word all of AUSTRALIA’s statute code and regulations are applicable upon and only applicable upon with that word ultimately defining a “corporation” within the AUSTRALIAN legal framework: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (2C1), Bankruptcy Act 1966 (IA5), Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (960-E), and AUSTRALIA Criminal Code Act 1995:

  • A person is a corporation;
  • An individual is a natural person and an entity.
  • An entity, per its dictionary definition, cannot be a man.
  • An entity is a legal fiction
  • Legal fictions are dead and cannot be living, yet men and women are the living while breath is in their body You may wish to refer to Staufen v The Attorney General of British Columbia 2001 (Common Law relevance), wherein the Court describes a legal fiction in detail. I offer this rendition of commercial law to demonstrate to you, so you and I can agree upon that word’s meaning as intended scriptural and commercially.

I also point out that men and women are the living, including you and I; living requires God’s breath within. (Genesis 1:27, 2:27, Job 27:3, James 2:26). The living cannot be a dead legal fiction.

  1. I offer for your knowledge, awareness, and agreement that the English word person comes from Latin/Greek persona, a noun, defined as a mask worn to perform an act or portray a character in a play, coalescing a part, or assuming the character or appearance of another to pass oneself off as another, especially with fraudulent intent or to impersonate!
  2. In such a situation, I, as of my faith bound imperative, cannot respect persons or claim to be a person. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”. (Exodus 20:16) strictly forbids me from exercising or co-joining with fraudulent intent, and this is offered as further illustration of the prior verses that I cannot respect persons nor lawfully be compelled to do so.
  3. Personation, or the act of representing as a person, is a crime! Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899 s514,515

I also wish to point to the fact that should I be under duress, threat or intimidation to force me to offer respect to persons, then as per the scriptures provided above, I would be classified as a sinner in contravention of my faith in Yahweh. This contravention of faith is because I would break the requirement to walk only in his law (Leviticus 18:3-4, Numbers 15:15), and risk losing my salvation (Hebrews 10:16) in receiving rebuke from Yehoshua (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7)

of the treaty: International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

In gaining knowledge of Yahweh’s disrespect of “persons”, I draw your attention back to your AUSTRALIAN Legal Framework. I point out that AUSTRALIA has not issued a notice of derogation from its obligations under the ICCPR: “Australia has made no notices of derogation from ICCPR rights.” ( at time of writing. I include a non-exhaustive selection of excepts of the ICCPR here for efficacy, demonstrating that my freedom purchased by Yahushua’s sacrifice is protected within AUSTRALIAN Legal Framework.

Article 1:

  1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
  2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Article 3: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women (mankind) to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4:

  1. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 8:

  1. No one shall be held in servitude.
  2. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour

Article 11: No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 12:

  1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
  2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognised in the present Covenant.
  3. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Article 16: Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (As of a faith-based necessity of spiritual admonishment, I must waive all such relied upon assumption)

Article 17:

  1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18:

  1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
  2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
  3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

[Man/Woman], let it be known: I +minister Keidrych, decline the offer presented in Article 16 in accordance with my faith as described throughout this letter. I cannot respect persons.

In non-exhaustively examining the Criminal Codes within AUSTRALIA’s Legal Framework

  • Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (s4) Attempts to commit offences:
    • (1): When a person, intending to commit an offence, begins to put the person’s intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfilment, and manifests the person’s intention by some overt act, but does not fulfil the person’s intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, the person is said to attempt to commit the offence.
  • Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (s12) Application of Code as to offences wholly or partially committed in Queensland
    • (3): Where an event occurs in Queensland caused by an act done or omission made out of Queensland which, if done or made in Queensland, would constitute an offence, the person who does the act or makes the omission is guilty of an offence of the same kind and is liable to the same punishment as if the act or omission had occurred in Queensland

At the time of writing, I have chosen to abide within the landmass commonly referred to as AUSTRALIA, within the shared descriptive territory of QUEENSLAND, globally sojourning as required in officiating or performing the duties of following Yehoshua. Thus at a minimum, the Queensland Criminal Code 1899, Criminal Code Act 1995, and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would be applicable to any person intending harm towards me (a man) and the group of people witnessing our agreement to the facts and demand for accommodation of faith.

Per my duty as the watchman, I specifically draw your attention to the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (s206) and (s207) in full:

  • s206 Offering violence to officiating ministers of religion: Any person who—
    • (a) by threats or force prevents or attempts to prevent any minister of religion from lawfully officiating in any place of religious worship, or from performing the minister’s duty in the lawful burial of the dead in any cemetery or other burial place; or
    • (b) by threats or force obstructs or attempts to obstruct any minister of religion while so officiating or performing the minister’s duty; or
    • (c) assaults, or, upon or under the pretence of executing any civil process, arrests, any minister of religion who is engaged in, or is, to the knowledge of the offender, about to engage in, any of the offices or duties aforesaid, or who is, to the knowledge of the offender, going to perform the same or returning from the performance thereof;
  • s207 Disturbing religious worship: Any person who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, disquiets or disturbs any meeting of persons lawfully assembled for religious worship, or assaults any person lawfully officiating at any such meeting, or any of the persons there assembled, is guilty of an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for 2 months, or to a fine of $10 Note that ministers of religion are not classified as persons by the Queensland Criminal Code 1899, reinforcing that those who originally crafted the criminal code were aware of the distinction of person, human and minister.

As clarified previously, swearing an Oath or Affirmation to Her Majesty is an act of worship (Westminster Confession of Faith Act of the British Parliament 1648 Chapter 22), where Her Majesty holds the grandfathered title of Defender of the Faith. Should a person threaten, harass or intimidate a minister of Yehoshua, they are also acting against Her Majesty in her sworn defence of our shared faith and liable persons under the following clauses:

  • Queensland Criminal Code 1899: sections, 44, 131, 136, 206, 207, and 355
  • Racial Discrimination Act 1975: section 18c
  • Criminal Code Act 1995: sections, 80.1AC, 80.2A, 80.2D, 83.4, 268.4, 268.5, 268.8, and 268.20
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Articles 6 and 8

I point out that even within your law, my duty as a watchman according to my faith is recognised:

  • Queensland Criminal Code 1899: sections 26, 45, 206, 207
  • Criminal Code Act 1995: sections 10.2

Finally, I wish to share an understanding of honour and dishonour. Honour is a biblical term, found in Genesis 34:1, and according to Websters dictionary: honourable: “Possessing a high mind; actuated by principles of honour, or a scrupulous regard to probity, rectitude or reputation” whereas dishonour is analogous with cheating or fraud in most Legal Frameworks (Dishonour of Cheques: Liability-civil & Criminal, S.N. Gupta).

of assumpsit social contract

The word constitutor (kon-st[schwa]-t[y]oo-t[schwa]r), n. [Latin “an orderer, arranger”] Roman law. A person who, by agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt. ( where the agreement used in the definition is called a constitution. The Commonwealth of AUSTRALIA Constitution Act is simply the terms of debt agreement owed to Her Majesty, the Throne of England (House of Windsor), and the UNITED KINGDOM.

“For our (my) citizenship is in Heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20 VW), “Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of Yahweh(God)” (Ephesians 2:19). This citizenship, available to the living, is accepted to the exclusion of all others; it does not require a constitution or debt agreement to partake in as I am washed clean by the water of Yahweh’s word and the blood of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Yehoshua).

Additionally, I carefully use AUSTRALIA in capitals to demonstrate that as of my sincere faith in Yehoshua, I am in an illuminated state of awareness regarding the relationship I have unaware and in error engaged in regarding my uninformed non consented to affiliation with the dead corporate entity AUSTRALIA, (i.e. Australian Government(Commonwealth of Australia) a privately owned and domiciled American company CIK:0000805157)). Including all the associated dead legal fiction persons of law being the sub-corporate entities registered with AUSTRALIA, the debtor corporation. This assumpsit social contract is now void as of my newborn awareness and this agreement with you. A frustrated contract cannot be forced upon the one in frustration. Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem

I was lawfully born Keidrych to Charles Stanbury and Daryl Cynthia of the clan Oates. Both were followers of Yehoshua at the time of my birth. Early correspondence from the hospital and relatives confirmed my birth name to be Keidrych alone. Yet, due to lack of knowledge and awareness, the registrar and hospital staff took it upon themselves to fraudulently alter my name from Keidrych of the clan Oates to the legal fiction of OATES, Keidrych Charles Stanbury or Keidrych Charles Stanbury of the family OATES, are both variations of dead in law corporate legal fictitious names of entities for commerce.

The Oates clan is one of the oldest in the world, with roots tracing back to the Dacian empire (the foundation of the Roman empire) recognised initially as Ode, Otta, Ord. It loosely means “riches at the point of the spear”. Significant contributions or members of history: Archbishop of Bayeux, half-brother of William the Conqueror; the hereditary name of the Saxon ruling house.; and loyal subjects of the throne of England for many years, having bestowed on them a coat of arms, castle, and land.

I, in error, unaware of the ménage à trois involved the dead legal fiction of OATES, Keidrych Charles Stanbury in 2020 wrote to New Zealand, Birth Deaths and Marriages requesting a simplification of name to Keidrych Oates Anton (to simplify coffee orders, and immigration paperwork eclectically). However, as an aware minister of Yehoshua, I cannot and will not have any association with the name(s): Keidrych Charles Stanbury or Keidrych Oates and any variation of the family names: OATES, ANTON, or any other dead in law person/corporate fiction formation of my private appellation as that is necrophilia.

For absolute clarity and to remove all possibility of confusion, I am also writing to the private man or woman acting as the registrar for New Zealand Births, Deaths and Marriages to:

  1. Ensure all dead in law name variations of my private appellation are expunged.
  2. Should a necrophiliac person be force associated upon me, it is and only will be represented as Keidrych Ellipsis(…)
  3. In contravention with my faith, this forced upon dead legal fiction person would only use a Katakanji signature of Keidrych in Katakanji as a stamp (in the likeness of a corporate seal) used three times in red ink. Symbolising the blood of the innocent spilled to transgress the Laws of Yahweh.

of marriage and divorce

Yahweh ordained marriage. (Genesis 2:23-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4). Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli were significant thought contributors to the Church of England

Martin Luther: “This is the true definition of marriage: Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God. The ultimate purpose is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one’s wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross; but if there are no children, nevertheless to live with one’s wife in contentment;” (“What Luther Says” CPH 1959, Vol. II, page 884)

For the past five hundred years, there have been three simultaneous types of marriages co-existing in the United Kingdom & greater Europe ordered against chronological origin:

  1. social - in alignment with thousands of years of observed tradition across world cultures immemorial
  2. religious - ceremony and records kept according to rites
  3. legal - ménage à trois involving a dead legal fiction person (STATE, AUSTRALIA etc.), and two natural persons, collectively spouses 18 November 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a de facto annulment of all marriages based on gender. (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health) Marriage, according to the ruling, is owned by the government with police intimidation:
    • “The government creates civil marriage.”
    • “Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power.”

The very wording on a party certificate issued on behalf of AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA example): Marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Marriage Act 1961 between the parties named below on XXXX at XXXX according to XXXX

  • solemnised - according to Websters Dictionary: to perform with solemn or ritual ceremonies, or according to legal forms
  • Parties - within the AUSTRALIAN Legal Framework ( - a person with the capacity to sue and have standing before the Court, and own the obligation or right undersuit. Additionally, parties only acquire rights against another party through a contract (privy of contract rule)
  • Marriage Act 1961
    • s27 Registers of ministers of religion - register as per etymology means: (13c) to rule, or to guide or keep straight a list of matters recorded
    • s101 Solemnisation of marriage by unauthorised person
  • ICCPR Article 23(3) No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

For transparency, let it be known that under threats and intimidation, in 2012, the person Keidrych Charles Stanbury Oates was placed in a frustrated ménage à trois necrophiliac marriage contract with the State of VICTORIA in contravention of the man, Keidrych’s, faith and beliefs. This contract, as a frustrated contract, is voided as discussed in of assumpsit social contract.

My faith requires coming to Yehoshua as a little child. (Luke 18:16, Mark 9:37, Matthew 18:10, Matther 18:14, with Luke 18:17 for emphasis), and to be in awe (Psalm 4:4, 33:8, 119:16) of him.

Children naturally search for meaning in interactions through the art of asking questions; thus, in light of this letter and you’re now found awareness and knowledge according to my faith, should I have an interaction with an agent representing a dead legal fiction, I can only ask questions, searching for the possibility of meaning in the interaction, and not engaging in one practising necrophilia, to continue to be saved harmless according to my faith,

of acquiescence

For awareness, pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) per Vienna Convention Article 27; this agreement is binding and obligatory on both of us as men within mankind.

I bring to your awareness qui tacit consentire videtur (he who keeps silent is held to consent), so we may both know acquiescence(law of tacit consent) applies as the content of this letter demonstrates:

  1. Notoriety or awareness of the facts;
  2. Of interest to your position of public trust;
  3. Consistency in the facts have stood the test of time;
  4. And the provenance of conduct for a man in such a position of public trust.

The content on this website, of which is crafted by +minister Keidrych following direction of Yehoshua on behalf of Yahweh, is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0