Archive for January, 2011



This is what appears on the front page of the Crowns Disclosure Notice (under Hwy Traffic Act) that I accepted in court last week.

If you are able to make admissions in the case, have information that you wish to have considered by the Crown as to the proper disposition or resolution of the case, or wish to discuss the case with a prosecutor, please contact our office.

Is that not an invitation or opportunity to address the matter and facts in the private?

I agree with the allegations made by the police officer (= admissions), but, I am not VB the name is VB (= information) , and I am asking that the crown investigate. To help it here is the Vital Statistics Act (= information) and if you need any more information from me or if I can be of further assistance, do let me know.

The objective of course is to get to the bottom of things once and for all that my body is or is no longer handed tickets or summons or recognized or treated as VB or an owner of that name or any other thing.

The BC is like a credit card. When I am VB I benefit from use of the card but when I am not I do not. Whoever does (the 'One', thanx Wendy) has the obligation to pay, but since the One already gave his only begotten son, so the story goes, the obligation is already paid, or, pre-paid. In other-words, debt is not real but since we believe in it and/or serve self, it does for that reason only. Not allowing our energy/life to flow freely is the debt in the non-physical manifested as debt in the physical, or, on Accounts.

This is why I say, with the BC (tool like your human body) comes with choices (law of free will/Extortion), to serve self or other self, the One. So when I say serve God [not mammon] I mean serve the One, of which we all are. All are One.

Since there is only the One then no matter what we do we serve the One, but, it is your desire, intention, the purpose you have given yourself, serve self or other self, that the term 'cannot serve God and mammon' is.

With love

Man or person


I sent this that follows to Wally in response to his email information about women are 'persons' (posted below);

My take is that men and women do not become persons except by joining in to the cartoon world. Like the men and women who play Hollywood roles. Man is the actor but as batman he is a person because batman is not real. In that sense batman (name/title), person, is a creation of law or fiction. So for the women in that person case to be a Senator, like the man wishing to play batman, she had to be accepted into the cartoon world where men and women are no longer as men and women.

I've suggested previously that to be a man one must in my view remain man, meaning, cannot also be a tenant as an example. A man who identifies himself as a tenant, senator, taxpayer, etc., is a person in law, but to do that one must first identify himself as, in your case, WD. I say that because as you know, if you went to sign a lease for a car and say I am not WD or sign For WD, the seller is not going to accept the lease. You are saying I am not in the cartoon world and the liabilities in that world do not extend to this world. You may squeak it by the seller but someone up the ladder will see that and take issue with it.

I think that when the name thing is properly addressed, meaning you are not WD, you are or remain a man. WD is of and exists in the cartoon world and so to be WD is man choosing to be a person in the cartoon world. Men and persons are terms to distinguish in which world one stands I think. Natural or fiction, or, outside the movie studio stands man but inside he is a person, in costume, cloaked, in persona. This is why I say it is futile to fight the tax system because to do so must be as a taxpayer, person under Canadian law.

Bottom line for me, and maybe you think the same, by dealing with the lack of lawful authority to say you are WD we cover all bases. We cannot be in the cartoon world but the name is and will in all ways be in that world. The government says it is by registration of birth that one becomes a person. In my view it is what is not said in that regard, that being, but you do not have to be a person. To say you must be a person interferes with your freedom of choice and is called Extortion. In other words, without the BC and name on it no one could choose to be a person. In other words, the way to not be a person is to not be WD. It starts and ends there. To be or not to be WD, that is the question or choice. So the BC then affords us a choice, or creates a second possibility, that being, man and woman can become, of his/her own free will and choice, whether made negligently or not, a person under Canadian law. Under being the keyword meaning subject to the law. It is not by birth that we become persons but the choices we make afterward.

When you are not WD and make it clear you are not making any claim to the name, you own nothing and cannot be with liability. I shared this before and here it is again what the courts says regarding the use of the word 'anything' in section 346 of the Annotated version of the Criminal code (Extortion); the purpose of this provision (section 346) is to protect against interference with freedom of choice. So you see here they have codified our right to self-determination under that section of the code. Serve God, other self, or serve mammon, self. The BC allows us that choice.

With lottsa love.

Women become persons

Broadcast Date: June 11, 1938

On this day in 1929, women are finally declared "persons" under Canadian law . The historic legal victory is due to the persistence of five Alberta women — Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards.

The battle started in 1916. From Murphy's very first day as a judge, lawyers had challenged her rulings because she is not a "person" under Canadian law .



I shared a few years back what a friend had done. He issued a chq to a Money Mart knowing there were no funds in the account to cover the chq. The fraud squad was called but they had not yet spoke with my friend. I suggested he go to the Money Mart and make a deal to repay and then go to the fraud squad and tell them what he had done.

He did that and the fraud squad guys responded, get out of here nobody does this. Does what, take responsibility and settles privately.

That was the end of it. My friend by settling up privately with the Money Mart, they convert chqs to cash, avoided going public. Sure had we known back then what we do regarding the name he could have gone to court and said, I am not so and so the name is, and maybe be successful passing off the liability. I say pass off because what my friend had done was not honourable.

This brings me to another aspect of the name game.

Now we can say I did not cause the officer to issue a charge or traffic ticket but the fact you are there yes you did.

Did you know that if you are at a stop sign and the car is rear ended by another that your liability is 25%. Why, because you were there. I had two instances where I got the other drive to sign a confession an accident was their fault and on both occasions the 25% liability did not kick in on my account. Why, because they took full responsibility when they signed the confession, other wise the default is 25% no matter how not at fault you believe you are. The point here is that even though you do not believe you did something to receive a traffic ticket blah blah, the fact you receive it you did. Just like our money mart friend would have except he knew full well he was the cause.When he got over himself and his pride he accepted and took care of it. So the acceptance by the other drivers freed me. Is that good or what?

My point then is that it seems quite often when someone say's I am not so and so or I am not so and so the name is, or I am not that person, the system agents get on this wagon of, he is saying he was not there, that he did not do what is alleged, he is crazy.hahaha!

That may be a trained response I don't know but it is strange that many agents seem to have that reaction. To nullify that and in keeping with the you were there thing consideration, consider accepting the allegations are correct but that, I am not so and so the name is so and so.

In my view you are taking responsibility for what you caused/created = acceptance, and the system will take care of what it created, the legal liabilities. I mean if you are charged for having an open beer in public that is not the issue because it is true, how you react is. If we do not accept then it becomes an issue is what I am saying. So acceptance for value then has nothing to do with commercial crap, unless one is under the law, but self. Acceptance, we are one, i received this because I was there, I am involved, I can accept a responsibility to protect the one (family) of which we all belong.

So unless you were not with an open beer in the public, non-acceptance of the causative facts is dumb. Perhaps default or fault number 2.

To shorten this story lets leave off here. I am suggesting that the causative facts are accepted but also add that I am not so and so the name is so and so. There is no getting away with anything or victory. Who are you competing against? Who are you trying to beat or defeat? All are One.

With love

Settle in the Private


I hear a lot of audio recordings on talk-shoe and other mediums that speak of how to fix things in court.

If a matter has made it before a court an opportunity has been missed. That opportunity is to settle the matter, mistake, privately before an appearance in court. I appreciate that there are occasions one is dragged into the court, but that does not mean an attempt cannot be made to clear up a mistake before going before the judge.

Worst case scenario yes, you raise the mistake in court before the judge but this is about opportunities to settle beforehand. The opportunity being to deal with the mistake and have the public record set straight that you would no longer be summoned to court.

One of the cases called in court last week was withdrawn at the request of the Attorney General. The chief law officer. That officer can make it that other officers leave you alone. Crown attorneys represent the Attorney General. Now that you know I am not VB, who has the liability for VB?

It is stated in the bible to go to thy brother first to settle privately, and if you think about it, if you and I have some sort of situation that may escalate to a lawsuit, appearance in court, would you prefer I come to you privately or blast all over town, in the public, that you did this or did that or failed to do this or that?

I am not against those placing an emphasis on what to say and do in court but am suggesting we look at the settle privately aspect first and foremost. If a matter is before a court that has not occurred or failed. I see that as the first de-fault or fault. Not making an effort to settle privately.

I think I spoke about this on one of the conference calls last year. Step one, make an effort to settle the matter privately. Carrying on with the pretend situation you and I have, when I come to you in the private to work things out to the satisfaction of both of us, would you prefer I come to you arms a waving and screaming and yelling and accusing you? Or would you prefer i come to you like we are best brothers and we chat about the situation peacefully, letting the evidence do the speaking?

We may agree or agree not to agree. No resistance, no controversy, no argument; we simply have a situation we do not see eye to eye on. Which method is the most honourable and sensible?

I guess what I am saying is, as much as we can strive to settle the matter in court we can do so in the private. Whilst in the private and it is agreed you are not so and so, you can then take it to the next level and ask the crown in private, who then has the liability for the name. If he cannot answer, ask him to find out.

Asking who has the liability for the name in and of itself may cause a glitch and even a victory, but does not put forth any evidence that answers or may help answer the question. When it was believed you are so and so you had the liability. When it is known you are not so and so some other party must have it.

Anyhow, the main focus here is the suggestion that we each has an opportunity to settle this name thing first in the private and that it may be that by not so doing is a sign of fault or evidence of acceptance by you that you are so and so, the name. Further, if you wish to be in the private think and act like one.

I mean, if your belief is that there is a mistake, why wait days or weeks to get to court to deal with it? Far less chance of messing with the protected public illusion (PPI, haha) if an effort is made and/or settled in the private.

If a matter does proceed to court you can inform the court that you made an effort to settle the matter in the private. Shows good faith, that you are serious, and that you made an attempt to settle. That in and of itself gives cause (in response if the judge asks why are you here) for your being in court.

As far as I can tell, there is no way the crown would call a case but to withdraw the charges after having had a conversation in private about the name and the governing legislation. I have said and believe that raising the idea of a mistake and or who has the liability for the name does not bring closure to the situation. But, that coupled with the governing legislation in evidence, there can be no assumptions you are so and so. That legislation in my view is cause for the eyes of claimants to look elsewhere for who has the liability, thus the legislation provides for settlement and closure. I believe that until that legislation is put before the eyes of the system agents, ignorance prevails.

In that sense, that legislation is the source, source law. It is not always what the law says but what it does not say.

The only way you can own something is if you are so and so, the name.

A man who is not named. haha!

With love

Blog info……


You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. Seems some people have difficulty navigating the blog

This is for the computer illiterate. Those having trouble navigating the blog or to lazy to play around or pay attention. Post means, of textual information and/or audio and/or video recordings or links etc.

From the Home page:

To view old posts (archives) scroll down to where it says 'Posts Calender' on the right hand side. Boxes lit in red indicate a day information was posted. Click on a day lit in red and poof, postings for that day. You can go back to each previous month which is not many since this blog is fairly new. You can also make a comment or partake in comments made.

If you wish to hear recordings of conference calls, scroll down to where it says 'Internal Links' and click on 'Past Teleconference Recordings'. It is recommended that you hear them in order. That is from oldest to newest.

If your settings page (accessed by left clicking the 'profile' button under 'Subscribing to Posts - Options) looks like the one in the attachment (thanx jaynothin) then you should receive information posted to the site directly into your email in box via the site.

If you wish to read 'Comments' about information posted, click on 'Leave a Comment', or 'Comments'. If no Comment has been made about a particular post you will see  'Leave a Comment' at the top right corner of a post, but if comments have been made, you will see 'Comment'. Click either one and your there. Your comment will appear in the Comments box on the home page regardless how long ago the post was made.

Do read the Disclaimer by scrolling down to where it says 'Disclaimer' on the right side of the home page. We start talking about Pay it Forward October 2010.

Also on the home page and under "Quick Links', click on 'Chat With Other Logged in Members' to chat with other logged in members. This part of the site is not used by many and yet is a good way to ask questions and stay in the information loop. If more people partook I would make myself available more often.

With love.

Blogger trouble


From a disgruntled.......and my response follows

This site has to be one of the most exasperating sites I have ever been to. One time you log in and you are taken to the article, next time you are met with the info on if you want to unsubscribe, next you are met with the enter password, then password is already there, comon, can you get it together and have some consistency? I mean if I enter my user name and password, then why not leave it alone and let me enter without the rigmarole of all the other STUFF! To confusing, I thought you were trying to help people! VB


This is my response

First off. All information is shared freely. I and the administrator of the site have asked that he receive funds so he does not have to pay out of his pocket so you can receive free information based on work others do. It takes money to purchase add on's that would improve the site. He has to my knowledge received a piddly 50 bucks. So, may I suggest you ask the administrator how much money it would take to make you happy.

Question and answer


The following question was asked based on the email PEACE and LOVE

I gather from one of your latest emails you may not be involved yourself with the 'pay it forward' program and may be moving on to other things after 16 Feb. 2011.  Is this correct?


With regard to the meeting with the lawyer everyone in pay it forward will be informed of that meeting. In other words, no action will be taken on your behalf without your knowledge and approval.

Also, the conference call held on the 24th was not organized by me. I was asked to partake and is why no notice of the call was sent to those on our email list.

I hope this clarifies a couple things.

With love

To be a Man book 2


I love you...............


Takes a dog to show us who we are


I perceive the dog on the road is the system in which is our family. We have the choice to be as the dog to help or to drive on by......Takes a dog to show us who we are; LOVE?



I made a request to the Queens printer regarding the information on the face of a birth certificate. Here is the response.

Thank you for your inquiry.
We did not receive your original e-mail.

The Queen's Printer for Ontario holds copyright over all works prepared by or for the Crown, including the birth certificate.  While copyright does not apply to individual facts (data), it does apply to the design of the form and compilations of information such as the birth certificate, both with and without information entered.   Additionally, logos or other symbols are protected by copyright and/or trademark laws.

Copyright falls under federal law.  The web site of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ( contains extensive information relating to copyright and trademarks.

Yours truly

Carolyn Gray

Senior Copyright Adviser,
ServiceOntario Publications

On another note, this is Notice that the Pay it Forward program as we know it MAY end as of Sunday February 13 2011 as I will not be here after that day to receive mail prior to the 16th. Any agreements received after that date MAY be returned. How the pay it forward program will function after the meeting I cannot say. I did say previously that no one is being shut out and it may be that anyone interested would have to contact the lawyer directly. I know not the future. I will say that my function will likely change. What the divine has planned for me I cannot say but I feel my energy will be focused more on helping myself and others come to a greater awareness of and be at peace. I do not see a way out of the box except by peace. Hence I accepted the offer to help build and era of love and peace. If not us, who? How does claiming titles to things, agent bashing, system bashing, pope bashing, bank bashing, help in that regard?

I sense that the only or main reason we face grief is because we attract it, or, that it is we do not see the good/divine in everything we face that we receive other than good or
negativity. All are one. In other words, when I have peace inside I have peace outside, the me in the mirror. As far as I can tell that is what this whole thing comes down to. Once one has that inner peace one then knows what he has to do to make peace with the system. Treat others as you would like to be treated never meant so much for me as it does now, for that other is me. In making peace I am making peace with myself since all are one. If I am negative then other me is negative and I have myself stuck fighting not what is outside of me (the system, bank, cop, court, government) but me. How can I ever win that battle with myself except to come to know that is what I am doing and make peace; love myself?

I feel this is what is happening to everyone; we are not fighting the system, judge, court, law, cop, agent, but self. ALL IS ONE. As per the movie Revolver, the last place we will look is at self as the solution. So many continue to focus on that what is outside of them, in the mirror, as the cause of their situation.

Are you going to brow beat an agent? Do you know he is you? All are one. Are you going to make accusations? Do you know you'd be accusing yourself? Are you going to withhold energy? Do you know you'd be withholding from yourself? This i believe is the loop we are in.

I have offered the Pay it Forward program to almost everyone who partook in the Giver program of 2007. I am stunned that so few accepted even though for them the fee is waived. If there are any Givers I have not contacted who may be interested let me know and I will confirm you are a Giver and send you the information to join pay it forward if you so choose.

So we are clear, the pay it forward program will not be as it is now after the 16th. If the lawyer requires funding to do what must needs be done, everyone not already in the program will be given an opportunity to pitch in.

On another note, I rec'd word from Wendy that a bailiff came to evict, but, and without getting into more detail, she is still in the home. It seems, and I have yet to confirm this, that she made peace with the system and has been accepted as a peaceful inhabitant. So far anyway. What I can say is she did not make any claims and that two ladies spoke with her prior to the bailiff coming who were from the Office of the Public Guardian. Something about 'vulnerable persons'. The bailiff appeared on a previous occasions and
suggested a mental evaluation, which, Wendy did not resist or say, I am not crazy, I do not need such an evaluation, fuck you; she accepted; hence the ladies showed up. I shared her audio recordings and they are posted on the blog site.

We are all vulnerable in the sense that the system is a big machine and has an advantage over us and we are vulnerable to attack as if believed to be the name/claimants /owners. I am not saying you should contact the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. Wendy did not do that it was offered. I think when we express a sincere desire to be at peace with the system, make no claims, clear up a mistake, that protection for those will kick in. Peaceful inhabitants are of no concern to the military forces or public. It is
the belligerents (resistance) they are concerned with. Remember, the military forces exist because we people are not at peace. If you want to make claims or demands by parol or on paper you are considered belligerent, or, not working for the greater good of the family, the one. All are one and that one is the family I am talking about here. Even hidden-hand said the duty is to the family. You may have thought some special family and you are correct, but that family is the one, the all. The head, the one infinite creator.

And I did share what happened when a man did claim and reserve all rights in the name while making a first appearance in court. They put on a show for the public but the matter was dismissed. Most likely because they did not want to respond, it is not your name to claim. That would have revealed that the name is not who you are. Sometimes it is in the public interest to let go and give the man what he wants. I also shared what happened to a man who went the opposite direction. Someone else has paid the rent since. For me it is simple. I am not, as supported by legislation, VB, therefore; no one can point to my body and say; he is liable. In that sense I am indemnified as possessor of the corresponding BC.

If you want to claim the name as your name I do not see how that benefits or helps the family, the one. To me anyone doing that is saying, I am on my own. You want to own you are on your own. To give you an example. Let us say you are able to claim full title to a car. Do you think the state is going to allow you to use that car on the roads. Who is going to be liable for any damage to the public? If you say the state has that obligation after claiming all titles to what you think is yours, then it has it via our use of the BC. I think the state would be more inclined to support/indemnify those that support/love it through the name, having come to peace, rather than those who wish to be on their own. Time will tell I suppose.

I accept the BC is a form of indemnification as i have been privy to a few instances where that can be the only conclusion. In that sense, the divine has provided us the tool via
government that we may use it one of two ways; to serve self or other self. Claiming title to the name or property is saying, I serve self is what i get out of that thinking. How it is we will come to unity if we all claim this that and the other thing is MINE? Imagine 7 billion people all claiming as mine. We'd have arm-and-gettem. Or, image everyone in your home adopted the mine attitude, claiming title to this that and the other thing; all would be fighting each other for what, STUFF.
No peaceful inhabitants here.

It is my understanding that it is the mine attitude that got us in this mess going back long ago. Read Babylonia Woe. And if that be the consciousness or teaching what will change? Acts 4:32 to 5:4. We either share in common or own individually and if the latter, the stage is set for war. War amongst ourselves because now the coveting comes into play, therefore, we must know and be peace first and foremost as the focus. But to place claiming things/titles as mine as the top priority and nothing in my estimation will change for that is where we are now.

There may be Canon laws but there are also laws of the Universe. This simplest of which is, love thy neighbor as thyself. All are one thus nothing to claim but the letting go of

A Latin slogan in the court here in Cobourg says, shame on he that thinks evil of it.

That says it all in my view. All are one so who put those words on that plaque. Man or the one infinite creator?

We have the choice to react negatively or to accept and ponder and see the real purpose behind events. To learn and grow, to cease being the judge; to be at peace.

I do not claim to be a wise man for it surely means I do not know.

Nuff said

I love you

Court and other


Was in court briefly today.

Upon entering court I went up to the crown prosecutor and I said I would like to speak with him 'in private' before he calls the case.

As soon as I said that he said make an appointment with my office and I will put the matter over for another day which we did.

I was a bit surprised at his response but accepted as it is good. I can present my situation for purposes of setting the public record straight, which in my mind is that I am not VB, the name is.

So we have it on the table that there is an attempt now to settle the matter privately with thy brother, other self. All are one.

I would add for interest sake that my main reason for appearing was two.

1. To set the public record straight. That is why I accepted the summons a couple of months back. I was given an opportunity and ACCEPTED. Last night we watched 'The Living Matrix' and one of the women had a brain tumor. It was when she accepted it as her friend, the experience, that it disappeared. The power of acceptance; not to be confused with the commercial version of it. Up until that point she resisted it. There is much to be gleaned from, as Ra says, acceptance of catalysts. The non acceptance leads to materialization of something one may not want, but even then, the manifestation is to give the receiver physical notice, hey, if you do not accept, your may not like what comes next.

2. To deal with some internal issues. Face the music rather than feel like I am running from opportunities. I knew if i did not go i would have not felt good about myself. I am learning to surrender.

I have only seen about 15 minutes of the new Zeitgeist but so far it is really good. They are going in a new direction; materialism has to and is going and love/peace is the way. More evidence that the shift is on not to mention the same in The Living Matrix.

Watch it now.... you'll never see the world in the same way again.

With love

R. v. McIntosh


This case addresses the intent of the legislature. If the legislature did not say it, it is not to be read into an Act by any party what the intention of the legislature is.

Show me in the Birth registration legislation where the legislature intends to say you are so and so, or the authority to say you are so and so, or that a BC or name is personal id.

14. This case raises a question of pure statutory interpretation:
26. The Crown is asking this Court to read words into s. 34(2) which are simply not there.
27. Even if I were to conclude that the relevant statutory provisions were ambiguous and equivocal . . . I would have to find for the appellant in this case. It is unnecessary to emphasize the importance of clarity and certainty when freedom is at stake.

Our freedom is at stake alright when it comes to saying we are so and so, the name, we have no freedom.

I underlined and bolded the important parts of this case. Enjoy.

With love

R v. McIntosh

Conference Call Jan 24th

The following is an audio to a teleconference call (recording) held last night regarding the Pay It Forward process. (FREE Member Pages) Please Login first to listen... Read the rest of this entry



This is a rough review of the reason for meeting the lawyer via the church Feb 16th.

We repent in that we did serve mammon but no longer are. That is a choice we each may make. Church's help people do that.

People are not born with money thus the legislature could not have intended that we pay it but, we all went and served mammon, do what we do for money.

We serve God, all, love, other self, so we have not any money nor can we be made to have it or forced to work for it.

We are not the name the name is the name. BC/name is not and was never intended to be personal id and so we have no liability anyway. The Vital Statistics Act, governing legislation, confirms this. Lawyer with the same law firm confirmed that a BC is not personal id.

It is when we are the name that we are perceived as owner and as you know the owner is with the liability.

When we are the name we are perceived as benefiting from Read the rest of this entry

Naming is of an event


England.........Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (c.20). Here is section 13 as shared previously; 13.

Registration of name of child or of alteration of name.

— (1) Where, before the expiration of twelve months from the date of the registration of the birth of any child, the name by which it was registered is altered or, if it (my emphasis, the event) was registered without a name, a name is given to the child, the registrar or superintendent registrar having the custody of the register in which the birth was registered, upon delivery to him at any time of a certificate in the prescribed form signed—

(a) if the name was altered or given in baptism, either by the person who performed the rite of baptism or by the person who has the custody of the register, if any, in which the baptism is recorded, or

(b) if a name has not been given to the child in baptism, by the father, mother or guardian of the child or other person procuring the name of the child to be altered or given,

My comments; Since the government does not register people but events, IT, applies to the event.

So the event of the birth is named. The name by which IT, the event, not you, was registered.

Rome also registered births long before the arrival of Jesus and in the beginning, before the moneychangers took control, all Romans prospered.

There seem to be a lot of folks on this we are slaves thing. Maybe we are, but, unlike the black slaves of days gone by, we have freedom of choice and movement they did not have. They were not free to do anything, on call/demand to perform 24/7, which is not the case with us now.

I do not buy into they are doing to all of us now what they did to the blacks then.

With love



I take this moment to remind folks that a reason for a fee with regard to joining Pay it Forward is to have a legal fund in the event there are legal fees. It is a bit of an oxymoron in that the purpose of the meeting is we serve love thus have no money or property (ownership) to put up as a security. Thing is though we cannot expect a lawyer to work for free and so funds may be required.

Your support is appreciated.

I remind you that back in 2006 I plead VB guilty to a minor criminal charge and signed the form with the word For in front of the signature. The conviction has not been registered and a lawyer said when I signed like that I was not accepting liability. Clearly if I am VB, signing 'For' would have had no effect.

This is further evidence in my view that by signing For one is saying, I am not so and so, and that, the truth will be accepted. In other words, I did not consent to be VB and no questions were asked no any attempt made to challenge. Further, when I am not VB I receive no benefits. The flow of energy as previously covered would be from me to name and out from there to the public, whereas, if I am VB, the energy never really moved away from me. It is like adding veggies to our soup but claiming the veggies as mine rather than for all to enjoy.

I love you



Some of you may recall a while back I shared info what John A MacDonald said back in his day. The main quote is this; when Canada seized the territory, meaning what we know as Canada.

I read a brochure at a campground north of here and it had the history of the area. It went on to say that a reason England came to Canada was for lumber to build ships given the ongoing war with Spain I believe at the time. Spain had taken control of the boreal (not sure of the spelling) forest and so England had no source of lumber to build its warships/defenses. Not a bad thing what they did but perhaps misunderstood.

I would say this is evidence of a military type takeover/occupation and is likely why the government says it does not own anything per se', it seizes things and assumes control and responsibility until the war is over. The pay it forward program is about peace and love as discussed on previous occasions and at the whybefudd blog.

See yourself as an inhabitant of what we now call Canada and see that a military has taken over. So long as the people are peaceful inhabitants and not combatants we are in a sense civilians or non military, with and not against, and as such, protected. Did the allies not receive great praise when they liberated nations during WWII?

Now we can support the military or fight it. The latter I would say a loosing battle but that, so it seems, is what we have been doing albeit unknowingly.

When a military seizes a territory it, with regard to the peaceful inhabitants, assumes all responsibility and liability. So long as the military maintains occupancy everything on and of the land land is seized. Now we can support/help the military or not, the latter a form of resistance.

When all become one the war is over, hence; now more than ever is the time for people of like mind, those desirous of peace and love, to come together to help bring in the era of peace and love. This is the main theme of pay it forward and with regard to the meeting set with a lawyer for Feb 16th. The lawyer would be like an 'envoy'. To help bring the two sides, currently at war, or not at peace, together.

So if in fact as MacDonald said the territory was seized, then claiming ownership or acting as if we are owners is going against the grain. Remember, God gave man dominion but not ownership rights. The military of today as it is in Canada is here in my view to maintain peace and order. We can help or fight.

Further, if in fact we are under military occupation we are never going to beat it except at the cost of many many lives. Thus it is perhaps better to accept what is and work with and fit in with it. In so doing the military/government has the responsibility/liability. If we are under military occupation we have the liability because we have not been helping. Helping to achieve peace that is.

So it is all fine and dandy that Jesus died that we have no debts but if the reality is we are under military occupation, it may be at this time because without such an occupation greed and anger may have killed us all, or at least, made life miserable. No doubt some folks are going to take issue with these thoughts but to do so may be to claim to know the truth when it may be we have no clue. We read and seek and search and find, but, do we really know what the heck is going on? Regardless, where there is love there is peace there is no contract there is no law there is no military except maybe on standby because you never know when someone is going go berserk.

Consider the above is somewhat correct and consider surrendering to the situation. Let go.

Some folks may have success claiming this that and the other title to what they believe they own or have right to, and that may be, but, they also assume the responsibility and burdens. I know a man whose brother in law, I believe it was, claimed all rights in the name in a court and the case was dismissed, but, we figured it was their way of letting go rather than getting into the truth, you do not own that name; which would have disclosed much now wouldn't it? So it seems sometimes they will allow us the illusion of ownership and victory but you have to ask yourself, do I own anything and did I win? To be clear here, had the court said you do not own the name the obvious outcome would be, then i do not have the liability for it. The whole game, law of free will, would come crashing down and a question is, is everyone ready for the truth? How would life for us be if everyone knew it was the name charged and not them?

I say not everyone is ready for the truth and this is why we have a military occupation, to keep the peace as best as possible and we do not seem to be helping when we make claims rather than ask, how can we help.

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for it. J.F.K.

We may have been looking at this thing with the wrong ideas in mind.

If you want to own your on your own. Gee, I am a poet and did not know it. haha!

With love..... 🙂

One good swoop


As you listen to Wendy and her story and others with similar stories and successes, for the same reasons they have success, clearing up a mistake, is what the meeting with the lawyer is out accomplish in one swoop.

In other words, for the same reasons those people are having their successes is the reason we are meeting with the lawyer to get out of the box once and for all (unless one goes back in) so we do not have to face these case by case or account by account, contract by contract, legal mumbo jumbo situations. That meeting is set for Feb 16th.

We did as i wrote in the email 'New perspective' take the name as our own into the public and did use it as personal id which is a no no. That is a mistake we made and the one that needs to be fixed.

I could make a long list here of the things we attract to ourselves as a result of the error of our ways, such as Read the rest of this entry

Good Link


Yippee, we have high speed internet as of today. 🙂

I received this link a few weeks ago and again today from a pay it forwarder.

This is right on point where we are, peace and love, and is quite good.

With love



I think it is important to make a distinction.

That is that the name on court papers or an account is of a BC because that is the name to which liabilities rights and duties are attached/able.

It is also the name there is no authority to say you is it or that it is your name, that you are Mr or Miss so and so, or or or or or or or or.

There is a lot of assuming going on both sides of the fence.

As a lawyer in the gallery said during my application before the court Nov 2010; the Vital Statistics Act is vague and a court could send the legislation back to the legislature for clarification.

We can offer all the opinions and theories we wish but that is all they are.

With love

 Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 »
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline