Archive for February, 2011

Where there is love

Hi

With BC in hand which we know is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it.

I am the man Her Majesty serves in this name and I am the man who serves in that name.

For those who are still stuck on, how will my bills get paid, first off when you say it like that is why the bills are you bills. Where there is love, there is no thought of or concern for money or RRSP's or tax refunds, as all that is where mammon mind is focused.

This is for those with the faith. We are sons and heirs of God with dominion over the earth . Everything is given freely or as some say, pre-paid. The reason we have not realized on that yet is because we have not stepped up to serve, give nothing less than the whole of ourselves in the name.

It is the foreigner who pays the tax (price/burden) and the foreigners are those serving mammon in the stead of giving nothing less than the whole of self.

How can one receive his God given inheritance if he not give nothing less than the whole of himself. God does not know, recognize those serving mammon = foreigner. God is love. So, love does not recognize and cannot serve those who serve mammon.

The legal name is an extension of God. We can be served and serve self/mammon in that name or; give nothing less than the whole of ourselves in that name. By so doing one is, on paper, legally, and spiritually, serving God and is then, a son and heir of God ready to receive his inheritance; free of contract and free of law. Free of paying taxes and debts and the price.

It is then, by your actions, that one is no longer a foreigner and is one with God, love. For heirs everything is free. So long as one holds the thought 'where will this or that come from' or 'who will take care of this and that, that one is in denial all his needs are already given. When one has faith he cannot also have those concerns for such concerns are an expression of ones lack of faith.

By buying into mammon we said no to our inheritance is basically the bottom line here. Lead us not into TEMPTATION. Well, we were tempted with riches and power and glory and we took the bait hook line and sinker, leading ourselves into evil, debasing influence, mammon. The answer is not outside of you or to concern yourself with the past or future, or to blame others or seek refunds.

God is not a thing or place but a state of being; LOVE. In that sense we, when giving nothing less than the whole of ourselves, are God.

All this talk of God and religion is not the point, who or what and how you serve is.

I love you

Resurrection

Hi

Son serves.

If your eyes see unity, oneness in everything, then you see it on the BC.  Her Majesty's BC and the token, Her name on the BC for you to use to play the game.

But, we are only united if we serve in the name, thus, glorifying the Father. The old son dies, is crucified, and a true son and heir of God is born.

Crucify; to destroy the power of : MORTIFY (crucify the flesh).

Resurrection; The spirit of Christ rising from the dead, our fleshly desires. We are the dead to the spirit until we assume our role as sons; Good sons are good leaders because they are good and obedient servants. Obedient in that they stay on the path of righteousness, or, right use of energy.

The law cannot execute against a son. Where there is true love, there is a true son, there is no contract there is no law.

I love you

Form and substance

Hi

We receive substance via the name and the billing (form) is to the name. When we give substance in return, give nothing less than the whole of ourselves in the name, the billing will not come to us.

Her Majesty is not in mammon. Mammon is or exists where love is not. When we serve; give nothing less than the whole of ourselves in a name of her majesty, e.g. BVR, I am not in mammon.

On paper we are not in mammon but by our actions or lack of action, serving in the name, we are in mammon. I would say that by stepping up to the plate to serve in the name of her majesty, e.g. BVR, one is on that very straight and very narrow path leading out of mammon.

Giving nothing less than the whole of ourselves is that path.

With love

Serve

Hi

Court went fine yesterday. I said what i wanted to say, the judge glitched and did the, BVR is not here and agree'd with the crown to go exparte'.

Since I am not BVR I walked out.

I am writing a letter re I give nothing less than the whole of myself in the name BVR, that I do not see any lawful authority that authorizes anyone to recognize me by that name as serving mammon. I dafted it on the basis these guys are not accepting that and so had to go to court to make sure it is so.

We know we are entitled to be recognized by the name, but that law does not speak to you and I unless we are under or justifying ourselves by the law. That entitlement is speaking to those who uphold and enforce the law and is why I say, as per section 2.1 of the Change of Name Act, there is nothing that authorizes them to recognize us by that name as serving mammon but that is exactly what is going on.

A good leader is a good servant.

So the question is, from where do you get the authority to recognize me by that name as serving mammon (e.g. as the owner of property in that name)? It is not there but, asking that in and of itself is not likely good enough, hence; I add that I am indebted to and serve her majesty in that name.

That is the short version of how I see we get out of the box.

It is quite simple actually. Since the purpose of a BC is not meant to be evidence of the identity of the one presenting it, clearly the legislation has a different purpose for it. So if it is not meant to id me, who then but her majesty since the name is extracted from her majesty's legal registry/womb?

In other words, we receive through the name and we can serve through the name. This balances the equation.

So you see, it is not about who holds the title to or owns the name, or that you do not consent to be recognized by the name; it is about us and who we serve. In other words, I would say the game is built on the basis (love) that we may be recognized by the name as serving through the name but we have not, hence; the mess we are in.

With love

Oh girl….haha

Hi

Once you say "this birth certificate was issued under the authority of Her Majesty that I may serve and protect/defend Her Majesty’ interests in the name BVR and that is what I do", it does not matter if you are the name or recognized by the name because your energy is now directed toward her majesty.

One could also pose it in the form of a question.

Is this birth certificate not issued under the authority of Her Majesty that I may serve Her Majesty’s interests in the name BVR?

Yes.

Well that is what I do.

No need to get into I am not the name or not recognized by the name the issue is the purpose of the BC.  Her majesty gave it a purpose and we can too. As personal id or not as personal id, but, to say not as personal id does not bring closure, I serve her majesty in that name does.

Further, the law does not look to who has the liability but who received the benefit. The maxim says, he who receives the benefit ought also receive the burdens, not, he who has the liability ought also have the benefit.

So when you are recognized by or as the name (who cares), as in service to her majesty, her majesty is the recipient of the benefit.

It was shared with me today by a friend that a native friend of his who before having read my email about serving her majesty (bond-servant), woke in the middle of the night with the same thoughts.  Synchronicity or what. Love is in the air.

Anyhow, do not take what i scribed as the way to say what need be said.

I luv you

Oh boy more

Hi

If that is not true then, for purposes of law, I could go about my business in a name issued from my head.

I would say you can remove birth certificate and enter citizenship card for immigrants.

After saying “This birth certificate was issued under the authority of Her Majesty that I may serve Her Majesty’ interests in the name BVR and that is what I do”, then you ask for assistance. haha!

Say it in court and then ask for assistance. You are asking a paid employees of Her Majesty to assist a servant of her majesty.

The paid have a duty to then serve you since you serve her majesty is how I am seeing this so there is absolutely no doubt to be anything but humble and loving.

If you meet resistance, suggest it is in their interest to prove you wrong or it may be considered as an attempt to overthrow the Queen……Oooooooooops

Treason.

A gov’t lawyer once said the your BC is your passport is your license.

I would say it is so but only if you say something like;

This birth certificate was issued under the authority of Her Majesty that I may serve Her Majesty’ interests in the name BVR and that is what I am doing driving this car. hahahaha!

Seriously.

Many have played the game this car is not used for commercial purposes. That is not the issue, is it your car or are you using it in service to her majesty……yee haw…..

Are you feeling the power of Love?  😯

It is an honour to serve

Oh boy

Hi

Can it be any simpler?

This birth certificate was issued under the authority of Her Majesty that I may serve Her Majesty’ interests in the name BVR and that is what I do.

You have identified who receives the benefit of your energy, who has the liability but in a positive way, your allegiance, that even if I am BVR I serve Her Majesty's interests, that I am not an owner, that I have no debts.

I would say that any officer of the court that messes with that comitted treason because if your interests are Her Majestys then screwing you is screwing her.............Ooooooooops!

I am told that provost marshalls can intervene as their duty is to protect Her Majesty's interests. They can and have arrested police officers.

If you see the light in this you can implement this anytime anywhere. Everything we have talked about what the legislation says and does not say backs up that a BC was issued to serve Her Majesty's interest.

Lottsa love on this wonderful sunny day.

Questions

Hi

With BC in hand ask these questions.

Is this BC proof of the registration of the extraction of a living fetus from the womb of a woman?

Is it proof that VB is extracted from a registration held in the Office of the Registrar General?

Am I from the registration held in the Office of the ORG

Am I VB?

Who then benefits from my use of that name?

I love you

Here’s one for you

Hi

If you shake the negativity you too can see the light.

To say you are so and so is to say that when your mother gave birth she gave birth to a name.

It was not a name that by the Grace of God was extracted  from my earthly mother’s womb.

One can have a lot of fun with that one.

Just a moment here guys, let me get this right. By saying I am VB you are saying my mother gave birth to a name. Or, are you saying that my mother gave birth to a name?

Give your head a shake. hahahahaha!

That is another way of saying "I am not a name".

In fact just ask the question, do you believe that when my mother gave birth she gave birth to a name? No. Then how it is I am VB? 😆

I am that I am.

I love you

I bet you that will turn some heads.

Invaluable services

Hi

Wow, look at all the resistors out there.

All I can say folks is this, if you feel okay accepting services and do not feel or have the conscience to accept that and give back that is your choice. It may be that everything that is happening to you legally is because we lack honour. You speak of love but yet go against the fact her majesty has provided invaluable services. The negativity we reap is not her fault. Look in the mirror. Has anyone here taken a dying child to the hospital to have its life saved and if so, did you consider who made it possible and are you not grateful? Was the service/treatment valuable or invaluable? Yes the doctor did the work but who put the systems in place. In whose name is that done? If you had to pay the full price for the life saving treatment you'd be forever in debt. So be thankful someone stepped up to the plate that you did not have to pay the full price and had a place to go for treatment in the stead of complaining.

In this case to at least acknowledge, yes I rec'd services from her majesty but I am going to tell her to fuck off and not give back anything.

Shame shame shame.

I do not care what you all think. I know i received INVALUABLE SERVICES, that I have not even acknowledge them, and I am going to acknowledge that and I feel free to admit I am gratefully indebted. I have been fighting myself. All are one but here many of you see her majesty is not part of the one but how can that be when all is one. OR ANSWER ME NOW WHERE GOD BEGINS AND ENDS OR FOREVER SHUT UP ABOUT THAT IS BAD.  You are what you see in others folks. So I see by many of the recent comments a bunch of people angry with themselves. Let go.

I drafted this for others but feel it good to share my addition views.

I do not see me in commerce, I see VB in commerce, but, they, her majesty's reps, see me in commerce.

I am seeing the simplicity of this. To begin we must accept and acknowledge we have received benefits from her majesty. We can name numerous services and I do not think any rep of her majesty will argue that. Point is that establishes an indebtedness.

Now when you of your own free will acknowledge a debt then you of your own free will can say you are indebted and hold yourself to pay. We do not need anyone to agree with us is what I am saying, we just say, I am indebted to her majesty and why and it is done because you are the one acknowledging the truth as you see it.

There is an aspect of honour here and what her majesty is is what you are.

Beginning with myself, yes I receive invaluable services thanks to her Majesty that I am not charged for and thus I am indebted. We do not expect a free ride do we? What agent of her majesty would say yes to that?

Due the honour aspect I feel no need to do anything but acknowledge my indebtedness to her majesty. I need not skirt around any bush or issues.

What is in my heart is what matters.

So what I see in doing that one has accepted liability, but, as men the only thing we can do to satisfy the debt is pledge our life in service to her majesty as fulfillment of the debt for the PRICELESS OR INVALUABLE SERVICES.

I see it something like this. I do not cook, you do. I do the dishes as my way of acknowledging you for what you did. Her majesty has done a lot of dishes but I have not washed any or her feet. hahaha! Humble thyselfs people. Go in low (slave) to leave high (free).

Once I say I am indebted to her majesty and pledged my life as payment for the invaluable services, huge huge debt (hahaha), then whatever I do in the name BVR that is commercial in nature belongs to her majesty. I am out of commerce. No longer regulated due an act of LOVE.

I am the servant. With this on the table I would say her majesty's agents must back off because if they do not they are messing with the Queens debtor, her interests and even lawyer sare oath and duty bound to protect her interests.  So if your interest is her interest then you are protected, immune.

In other words, they cannot do anything that blocks or prevents or prohibits me from honouring the debt. My life energy is pledged and spoken for. I could argue to the death I owe her majesty if for no other reason than to clear my conscience; I have received and have not given back and heaven it, I am giving back to get the burden off my back, conscience. I do this to release me.

We could say her majesty is the master creditor, or creditor of creditors, so when I acknowledge my debt to her she is at the top of the heap and all other creditors subordinate. The repentance aspect is an admission by me I screwed up but allows for debts with others to be set-off or whatever because I do not work for money any more so I do not have it but have redirected my energy to her majesty because of my original debt to her. No attempt here to avoid or evade responsibility or get something for nothing. Shame shame shame!

See, their game is 'pay your debts' so I am paying my debt. I call it the original debt meaning, name stuff aside, I was indebted to her majesty long before I was to a bank or phone company or any other service provider.

Throwing me in jail burdens her majesty and prevents the debtor from working off his debt which is not beneficial to the creditor/her majesty who would be getting my energy for free.

As it is in heaven (heaven is in you) so it is on earth. What is in my heart is what I reap, and heaven it, I love it all.

With love

Focal point

Hi

It seems some are either misunderstanding me or I am out in left field out for lunch.

Tis my use of the word debt that has caused some stir. First off, debt is a word we may misunderstand. The word debt long ago may have been settle by saying thanks but there has to be a reason for saying thanks and that is what I call debt. The reason for saying thanx. Nevertheless, where the concept of debt is in my mind is your answer to this that we can be on the same page.

If I did a service for you and you felt compelled, driven, inspired, to do something in kind for me, what word would you use in respect of the compelled part?

I know love is not owed and asks for nothing but we are not all there. We interface with where love is not and for them the word debt computes and true love not done. The reason we have law is to divide the lawless from the lawful.

In their mind world there are creditors and debtors and the creditor has the burden but we think the debtor does. Read the evidence in the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce we spoke of last fall.

If you are not a debtor, legally speaking, the act, then your account cannot be charged to squeeze out credit/energy. So you see, as debtor we are also creditor = balance. We are everything and nothing = balance.  But if I am that, e.g. a creditor only, then the scale tips that way = no balance.

We are all things so fear not the debtor man...........haha!

I also as you may read in the comments section, received quite a reaction to being indebted to or serving her majesty. Her Majesty may not be the problem as i shared already. It may be her creations are more powerful than her because we focus our collective energy all over the place than at one focal point where great power would reside of and in the people.

In other words, it may be her majesty's creations that have gone rogue because her majesty lacks the power to do anything about it because we have focused our power elsewhere. I don't know I am just saying.  Mr Smith a creation of the matrix was out of control. Neo made peace with Smiths maker because only Neo, man giving himself, energy direct to and so the god of the matrix, I believe to be her majesty, could help overpower Smith on Neo's Account.

Wally and I have talked often that something changed in the courts. Like a take over and it may be that has happened or is happening. It would not make sense that her majesty take over her own courts.

I totally get the serve God thing. I also believe her majesty is appointed by God as trustee of sorts and i either trust that or not. All are one.

Regardless, we have to have a focal point in this world for our energy that the dark is overcome, and if it is not her majesty then please offer ideas. Again, my saying I am indebted to her majesty is so that I have a focal point to direct my energy, but if someone has a better thought, share it. As I see it, it is the creator of the legal entities that we have to join with to overcome her creations. We have and do in fact direct our energy for the most part, everywhere but her majesty and even then, not freely. We have pledged zillions worth to the banks and we wonder why banks rule. Ohya ohya.

It may be that those corporate special interest groups and lobbyists get what they want because our energy being dispersed wantonly over a wide area and for the most part self serving reasons, that the corporate entities get what they want and we feel shafted. Without a collective focal point we are in essence powerless to stop them. And why would her majesty who can do something about it when we do not even acknowledge her, e.g. thank you. Not as our savior but that through her we can save ourselves, otherwise, it may very well be, that she is almost powerless.

Can you not see that is what is going on? We are divided when we need a focal point in this world where men are.

Anyhow, I said the concept we are bondservants of her majesty, or should i say may volunteer to be, and indebted to her majesty, was shared for contemplation.

Take it as you do but listen to a speech she made.  Does she sound like a liar and before you answer that know that only you know what a liar is and if you see it in another it is in you. Listen for when she says; we must give nothing less than the whole of ourselves. The only one saying anything good and the primary one many hate. Tis written in the bible there are those of you who will put down those who do good. Naw, not us, we never judge. That applies to others but not me. hahahahaha!

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx

Go within or go without.

With love.

I luv you

In the circuit

Hi

It seems that until we fuse our life into the circuit willingly that the accounts can never be balanced and closed, even after death.

By acknowledging the indebtedness and the offering of our life in satisfaction of it we would be, so it seems, willingly fusing our body into the circuit that the energy flows freely 24/7.

In other words, once fused into the circuit willingly our energy is available on demand to settle any financial obligation the instant an obligation is born. Like the battery in the flashlight. Switch on creates a need, battery fulfills the need, bulb lites.

BC is proof of the registration of the 'birth' of a life event and life events are not born with money, thus the only thing we can offer in satisfaction is our life.

Thing is, it seems we are already fused in the circuit and providing free energy but we just don't know it and or working for the money resistance.

I say that because everything we do that is of interest to her majesty we do IN THE BC NAME.  On one hand we receive benefits via the name and on the other we give through it. When we act as if the name, or claim it as my name, or act as owners, or work for my money, then we receive but make no return makes for an unbalanced Account. Taxes may reduce the debt load, or postpone the day or reckoning, but the debt is growing.

So by acknowledging the indebtedness and offering our life in satisfaction we are offering the only thing we have to offer that we can say is ours and that cannot be taken or pledged without your consent, will.  Now, if the offer is refused then there is no debt and no way to satisfy the debt. It is a bit of a mute point because they cannot really refuse the offer given we are already giving freely via the name, given we are not the name.

And what good would it do to kill the debtor? I mean, if I come to you acknowledging I am indebted to you and offer you my life as the only thing I have to satisfy the debt, would you kill me? What the point of that would be.

Since as I say everything we do that is of interest to her majesty is done in the name, we have in that sense given back, or made a return in kind, substance for substance. It seems then that there is only two things to do, acknowledge we are indebted to her majesty, that the BC is proof (we do receive benefits through it), and offer our life in satisfaction by asking if they will accept the pledge of our life in satisfaction of the debt. Or as Ang put it, i will continue to give my labour for free. Continue because we already are on paper.

The fact money does not pay debt aside, we cannot be made to work money to pay that debt, but, i think it good to offer something rather than nothing. Man comes to the table with one thing he has title to, his life, energy.

So given our energy is already flowing freely, but for the working for the money aspect, which is dealt with in this thinking, and your no good dead, the offer should be accepted.

Corintians II

8:8; I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

8:11; Now therefore perform the doing of it; that there was a readiness to will, so that there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. (what we have is energy)

8:12; For if there first be a willing mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not. (we hath energy not money). It is not disclosed what it is but it refers to that what ye hath, not what you hath not, love, and if love, free energy.

So if our body is already fused in the circuit then we only need to willingly allow our energy to flow freely. Acknowledge the debt and offer the life in satisfaction is all we can do other than working for the money. That fuses your body/energy into the circuit and is available 24/7.

If you own and operate the mother of all corporations that no matter where one is all are part of that corporation, as evidenced by a BC, and I come to you acknowledging my indebtedness and offer my life in satisfaction because it is the only thing I have, would you kill me or welcome me as a servant? Would you have me sit in a chair all day?  Would you rather pay me knowing it burdens you or accept my free energy and provide me with tools that I may use to serve?

The real value is the energy and not its price. But, if her majesty needs to put a price on your, the slaves energy, she as the employer can do that because that is what employers/master do. When we ran companies the company, not the employee, set the labour rate on jobs.

I love you

Who the debtor is?

Hi

In keeping with the concept we may consider looking at things from a different perspective, I share these thoughts for your discernment.

It is said all we need do is give thanks to creator in acknowledgment we have already been given or received what we need.  The universe was created and given to us.

Just what does the word thanks imply?;  debt or indebtedness. We often say to each other from time to time that I am indebted to you after having received a benefit from a friend or stranger. I paved the way to your door by clearing the snow. You received a benefit and your thanks acknowledges the  debt. Where there is love that is the payment or balancing of the account.

Giving thanks, saying I owe or I am indebted to you acknowledges a debt.

Let us carry on now with this world in mind an the landmass that we officially entered this world.  In my case we call it Canada.

Now with regard to being a bondservant one is indebted but the debt need not be financial. The debt you acknowledge me for clearing the way to your door had nothing to do with a financial obligation requiring accounting. You simply acknowledged the service and the matter was closed when you said thank you.

Now we have held this beleif that the governments and crown and her majesty are screwing us and that we are owed. What if it is the other way around, what if we owe. In other words, we beleive we are creditors but what if we are debtors, like the sense we are indebted to the one infinite creator.

In other words, we seem to be coming from the position we are creditors or owed and that the BC is evidence of that, that her majesty is the beneficiary, but maybe it is us because we failed to do something to neutralize the benefit.

Now this is going to toss some crap into corm flakes but, ponder it anyway.

In a similar way how the one infinite creator created the universe her majesty created opportunity for us. If not for her majesty there may not be any hospitols or medical care that we have. As much as it has gone down hill over time the cause i think is us. We may not have highways and bi-ways and shopping malls and parks and slides and rides and to a greater degree than many another countries, peace.

So what if the BC is proof, if we so choose to see the gifts, of our indebtedness to her majesty and proof of pledge of our life in fulfillment of the debt. Now you say it cost money to enjoy life but maybe because we have not acknowledged an indebtedness, gratitude, and not put our life energy as collateral in fulfillment of the debt; e.g. as bondservants and why. In other words, we can pay, give thanx with money (taxpayer tithe) or that which precedes the money, our energy.

We are saying thank you for all you did and do and in so doing acknowledge the debt, but, we cannot expect a free ride and should, certainly spiritually, give back. The question is how one pays the debt.

We know we are not the name that we own nothing and that it is our energy that is the true value and not how much one gets paid per hour.

Judges have said, you want the benefits Canada has to offer but you do not want to pay the tax. So as they see it we receive benefits and what the judge did not say is there are other ways to offset or pay for or nullify the benefit, e.g. by pledging our life in fulfillment rather than the fruits of it via taxes.

So I am suggesting here that we accept that what her majesty does is for our benefit but that we can offset or pay it by pledging our life force.  The only thing we can say belongs to us.

We do not have to work for money and are not born with it so realistically the only thing we can pledge is our life/existence/energy.

Let us break down what I am saying when i write; The BC is proof of my indebtedness to her majesty and proof of the pledge of my life in fulfillment of the debt. I am recognizing, accepting, that i receive benefits. I pledge my life, the only real thing I have to give, in fulfillment of the debt = no debt.

In essence i pledge myself as a bondservant of her majesty and the grounds that we may be that may be that we do receive benefits one way or another; even if only on the basis Canada is a peaceful place to live.  Someone or thing is keeping it safe to live here. It may be that for not acknowledging an indebtedness that we are in the mess we are and that had we acknowledged a debt and pledged our life in fulfillment of the debt, we would not be in this financial mess and would not have misgivings in regard of her majesty's purpose or intentions.

I think that when you really think about it, see the bigger picture, we here in Canada have it pretty good and that it may not be this way if not for her majesty. If we accept that then in that sense we are indebted and thanx would be in order.

Someone has to take charge to make it all happen and there can only be one master at the helm.

Acknowledging a debt is an opening to serve. The lady that accepted the tumor in her brain accepted it helped her, gave thanx, and it went away. So perhaps by accepting and acknowledging we are indebted the belief we are debtors goes away.

So rather than coming from I am owed, a denial that we have received, perhaps it is better that we accept we received and that we owe. In that sense we are debtors.

Keep in mind here working for money is and has always been a choice and that we are not born with it. Realistically then the only thing we have to give/pledge in payment of a debt is our life. I do not mean there has to be a death, but giving of your energy rather than selling it for the money which we know does not pay debt.

So the only real way then for men to pay debt is to do as Jesus and give you life is what I am feeling very strongly about; hence, the birth certificate is proof of my indebtedness (why you may be a bondservant) and pledge of my life (energy, the only thing I have to pay with) in fulfillment of the debt.

In the sense that we are not the name our energy is already pledged is why I suggest you can say the BC is proof of the pledge of your life in fulfillment or satisfaction of the debt.

In any case, we are saying thank you and I love you.

Main point I send for your consideration is that we are debtors in that we have and do benefit by living in Canada and if not for her majesty it may not be so.  As good as it feels to acknowledge myself as a bondservant of her majesty, I feel even better acknowledging I am indebted.

What is the worst they can say but that you are not indebted to her. haha! I think it will be accepted and I base that in part on the general beleif out there that we do receive benefits and again, if we accept that then the only question is, how do we offset the benefits and I say paying taxes is not it but pledging our lives will. Debt does not pay debt.

We see here we are right back to giving of ourselves freely and unconditionally.

I am not VB the name is VB. I am a bondservant of her majesty and this BC is proof of my indebtedness and that I pledge my life in satisfaction/fulfillment of the debt. I have no money, I own no property and I have no debts.

I do think there is much doubt it is perceived and believed that we receive benefits be it via the name or as the name may not matter. We are the recipient. You say the name is but who got their broken bone mended?

By virtue we were issued a name, we are perceived to receive benefits via the name. The only question is what are we giving back if anything? By that I mean intentionally and willingly rather than grudgingly or not at all as we are.

So, this is a bit of a switch I know but I ask that you contemplate rather than react.

I love you

United we stand

Hi

Since all legal entities, capcities, status, are creations of law under the authority of her majesty, it may be that because we have served self via the name that her majesty has been weakened and slowly succumbing to the other powers, her creations.

It may very well be that is why we are not receiving the protection mentioned her majesty is to do.  Because we are not serving her majesty via the name. In the instant we do, assuming this is doable, then your fruits belong to the master and the slave has no liability. Anyone targeting a bondservant of her majesty may as well be targeting her majesty, because taking from you, the servant, is taking what belongs to her majesty, the master, is damaging her majesty and perhaps treasonous.

This is how I can see the protection aspect kicks in. Foreign powers, other masters, cannot claim the fruits of the bondservant of another. That is like an act of war, theft, treason if a citizen and her creations, agents, are citizens.

If we see her majesty in a legal sense as we see God in a spiritual sense, we see both as focal points. Points to give to for distibution to the family. Like we are the water (energy) for the fountainhead (system) that spreads water (needs) over a large area.

Serve God you serve in a spiritual sense, serve her majesty you serve in a legal sense. Of course, one would have to chose to serve spiritually before he would consider doing so legally. But regardless, i would say if the choice is made spiritually, then one must serve that way on all fronts, legally and otherwise. In other words, one cannot, in my estimation, have legal claims and claim to have made the choice to serve God for spiritual reasons.

There can be no limitation in ones heart who or how one serves; serve all or nothing/self.

So her majesty's creations may have grown in power because we serve self through them and in so doing her majesty's power over them is diminished. I would add that if we never step up to the plate to help there will come a time corporate entities will have total control.

The control they have now may be the result of us not stepping to the plate. Perhaps when we step up to the plate,e.g. as bondservants, we can grow real food again, and have unlimited access to choices of health care and so on and so on. We say legal entities are fictions which means not real. Well I would say we are all fictions then because we are not being who we really are and maybe that is why we eat fiction food.

So we have three fractions. Us, her majesty, and her majesty's creations. I say it is her creations that are the threat and not her majesty. But her majesty is weak, wounded, suffering due a lack of our help. When we empower her majesty by being her servants her majesty who has the the force(s) can take back control of her creations, thereby protecting us and her interests which in my view are our interests. Again, it may be her creations, banks, business, etc, that is the real enemy so to say.

But we do not fight them, we empower her majesty who already holds the power but cannot help us legally if we do not help her anymore than God can help us if we do not acknowledge God spiritually as the master/protector. How long does a military with no forces last? Let the force be with us. We are it and can beam our energy collectively to a focal point for redistribution to all. Where we take what we need not what we want.

We can serve God but that does not mean diddly to the legal agents. If we are free, then we have the choice, I say, and it seems to be backed by legislation, to introduce ourselves as bondservants of her majesty, thereby indicating the slave owner and owner of the property and anyone messing with that is a master fool trying to take from the legal master of masters, creator of the legal universe; her majesty. A figurehead, an imaginary focal point, like God to serve to be served.

Now don't jump all over me for refering to God as an imaginary figurehead. I put it in context this way. We know of a greater entity but know not much more than that unless there are masters out there who know the greatest master of all and know everything that masters knows, therefore, in that sense God is imaginary but a real focal point for our energy that it can be spread over a wide area spiritually and via her majesty legally.

Interestingly Ra says the sun beams energy to the core of mother earth and it emanates outwardly from there to the surface and into us via the feet. In that sense the earth is the focal point. That is what I mean God and her majesty as focal points. Imagine then if that is true that the sun beamed its energy in a less focused manner. Would not all life suffer?

Perhaps this is what is transpiring in a legal sense. Because we are not beaming our energy via the legal name to a legal focal point, her majesty, but spreading it out e.g. to other legal entities, business, banks, self, we and all life suffer.

So registration in her majesty's registry may be to register the masters, her majesty's, property. Protection under the Guardian Act.

If her property, then no other master can touch you. Further, we are allied with her majesty and master pays. I am not saying our body is property but the fruits of our energy is her property. It is that what her creations want from us but as bondservants, sorry boys, not my stuff.  Belongs to your employer and i cannot stop you from stealing it but I think she has laws and courts that deal with theives.

So maybe we should stand united with her majesty.

I love you.  The Queen is dead, long live the Queen.

Cannot serve two masters

There are many interpretaions of what cannot serve God and mammon or cannot serve two masters means.

My take is based on that I am the creator of my reality and nothing out there is the problem.

I can be as a master or allow God to be my Master. I cannot serve me as master and God. Is it my will, mastery, be done or Gods? Who here on earth but a fool claims or believes himself to be master of anything?

For me God's will by design, is, service to others.

Now we can each be our own master or in service to one another. To be in service to another as a bondservant, one cannot also be a master.

See the doublemindedness in all this? I serve God but I want to be free. haha!  Since all is one, by trying to break free one is trying to do the impossible, and that my lover friends is insanity and perhaps why we have the liability. That or for lack of trying to put humpty dumpty, us, God, back together again.

Service need not be binding or imply hardship but will and desire. We reap what we sew. So for me, to be free, I cannot also be master of anything. In otherwords, to be sslave, in service to others, I have to let go of the desire to be a master, in control. To not be master or in control, I, as the slave components added to master devices, must be a slave, ruled by another, a master. In this case that other is God, the law of love.

For some it may mean the government.

So for me cannot serve two masters has nothing to do with anything outside of me, but, I serve self (master) or God/love (master).

So we may agree then that we can be slave 24/7 or self serving 24/7 or a bit of both but only one is a true path of service to others, God, the light, self. In other words, we cannot serve on one hand and not on the other and be giving of ourselves 100% .

It may be that the reason we have the liabilities is because we want control, to be master, in charge, and that, had we served as bondservants in the stead, no money, wage slavery, involved, we'd have been GIVEN freely the tools we need to serve.

Wage slavery is a good one to read up on. Slave to money/self rather than God. hahahahahahahaha!

I love it. It feels so good to surrender and feel like a slave. So freeing rather than struggling. 😆

Like when I was in the paddy wagon all chained up yet never felt so free having accepted my enslavement because I knew i caused it. I had no control. I was no longer master. Where others saw men in bonds I felt free. Perhaps a glimpse of what it is like to not be in control. It was for me.

Anyhow, this is a slight twist on the cannot serve God and mammon thing or cannot serve two masters.In master servant relationships, the master has the burdens/liability. God will take our spiritual burdens and her majesty our legal if we stop being masters, in control. It is like a tug of war.

The real master is one who surrenders himself to the teacher and accepts the tasks given him that he may go his way and teach others; his lessons learned. Masters are not teachable, they know everything.  That may be why lawyers practice, admitting they are not masters of the trade. I mean, who is master of anything? As soon as one claims he is a master he closed the door on receiving greater learnings. He believes nothing changes, thus; has no desire to change.

The creator of the heavens and the earth is the one true master. All others are slave components of that one master component, master slave.

It is a beleif we are seperate from God we are where we are and yet, we are trying to break free.  Break free of what? God, yourself! All is one.

I love you muchly.......... 😎

Bondservant or wage slave

Hi

I is back home now.

First off i wish to share a new perspective for folks to ponder, not judge. This is for ponderance only at this time and may spark some interesting responses. Ego's may struggle with this but that is okay. The idea here is based in part on acceptance, acceptance of what those out there believe and so work with it rather than resist it is what I am suggesting.

Everyone is trying to break free of the system and the system does all it can to maintain a hold on you. Are we trying to break free of God?

What if we are going about this the wrong way? What if we admit we are cheerful slaves or bond servants of her majesty and the BC is proof. haha! God loves a cheerful giver.

Slavery is abolished and if they agree you are a slave then you must be set free, otherwise, they may argue you are not a slave, in which case you are free.

I can think of dozens of ways to prove my claim I am a slave. For example, I am not VB the name is VB therefore all my energy like that of a slave flows to and benefits VB. Or, they do everything in their power to say you are so and so against your will sure seems like slavery to me because slaves have no choice. The point here is that it may be that by acknowledging yourself to be a slave that you are set free because that is abolished.

The ultimate resistance may be to try to break free of the system rather than admit, even argue, one is a slave or bond servant.

Now, I am fully aware what it says in the bible about bond-servants.

Bottom line is this; bond-servants serve for no wage and since I am not VB sure makes me seem like a bond-servant. Bond-servants and slaves do not serve self and the point of being in service to God is to be in service to other self or not self. Further, neither slaves nor bond-servants have money or own property or have financial debts. Since we are not the name we have no money and own no property, and if an agent of the system, her majesty, wants to make me be VB then that right there makes me a slave because slaves have no choice. haha!

You may recall the TV series ROOTS. Kinta Kunte was named Toby by his master. Seem familiar? When we are talking slavery here it is not like the slavery of the days gone bye. No whips and chains.

So, I am not VB the name is VB. I am a bond-servant of her majesty, I have no money, I own no property, I have no debts, and this BC is proof. If they respond I am VB then I am a slave because they would not let me be me = no choice = not freedom = slavery. Let us see, the legislation evidence is that I am not VB but serve via that name and that name was issued under the authority of her majesty, hence bond-servant of her majesty.

We are constantly being told what to do, when and how, seems like we are not free, but I say again, it may be all we have to do is acknowledge ourselves as slaves that we are then set free, unlike those seeking freedom by other means and going no where. In fact it seems the harder one tries to be free the more wrath he receives. Thing is, if you are a slave, chattel, the master is with the liability.

I sent this to two friends yesterday for their feedback. Keep in mind that the word 'of' in law means belonging to. Ok, as a subject of her majesty or citizen of Canada we may be considered property which is what slaves are.

The Term Bondservant here comes from the word dulos. And is defined as:

1. a slave, bondman, man of servile condition

1. a slave 2. metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men. (notice extending and advancing his cause among men. Do his work, love, for the living. We serve the living through corporations as well. So it seems to be a bondservant of Christ is to serve men/others. Sure seems to be saying: devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests)
3. devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests

# a servant, attendant

The best definition here is "devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests." (I did not write that)

Subject; a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign. (they say her majesty is the sovereign)

Slave; a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.
a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. (there is certainly a domination thing going on)

They say if you are born in Canada you are a citizen and citizens it is said OWE allegiance. It is said we are subjects 'of' her majesty.

All the above seem to point at something. One, a duty is owed, and two, a reduction of freedom of choice. In that sense one is not free.

I am only asking that you ponder this and let me know your thoughts. In other words, this is offered to see what reaction I get.

We are either free or not free.

What if we were to identify ourselves something like this. I am a bond-servant, or slave, of her majesty and this birth certificate is proof.

I have no money and I do not own any property and I have no debts. Do slaves own property?

First off, if the response is you are not a slave or bond servant of her majesty, then you are free, but are we really?

I say maybe but the fact they will say we have to do this and do that can be used by us to prove we are not feeling free. Further, if they are going to say I am so and so, the name, or hold the body in jail until one says he is so and so, that is not freedom.


Like the show Roots. You are Toby.

We agree we are not the name so the name then is beneficiary of our energy and we get nothing in return seems like a form of bond-servant and is a reason we can say we are slaves, or bond servants, of her majesty because the BC is issued for her majesty by the gov. We have no choice but to use the BC name in the public, for contracting etc. Where is the freedom in that?

If slaves then the master is liable. They will never say you must get a job (wage slave) or order you to perform labour because that would make you a real slave, but those days are gone.

You have to think this through how you may apply it in a practical way but I can think of numerous ways, by agreeing with the adversary, that it should be clear one is a slave but then they cannot admit that either. I bet you would get an interesting reaction if you said, I am a bond-servant of her majesty blah blah.

We are saying basically the same when we say we serve God or other self. We serve God by serving other self, service to others path. So I do not see being a slave or bond servant of her majesty is bad.

How they react I cannot say but to me they have two choices when you say "I am a bond-servant, or slave, of her majesty and this birth certificate is proof. I have no money and I do not own any property", you are not a slave and my response may be, then I am free to go, or, you are a slave and master pays.

If we stick to we are slaves/bond-servants of her majesty, I think we can prove we are slaves, chattel and the master has the liability.

You know they want you to be the name right there is proof in my view you can get them quivering when they hear you say you are a slave. Not like the days of old though so don't let those thoughts of slavery blur your mind here.

They would have to argue you are not a slave blah blah (hahahahaha) and you can say, you guys do not give me a choice what name i use so that is slavery. If i did not show up in court today or i say in court I am not VB you issue a warrant. Seems like i have no choice in the matter and slaves have no choice. haha! It is me that decides if I am a slave and the facts of life seem to indicate we all are. Do this do that do that this way and this that way blah blah blah. If you want this do that blah blah blah.


We can have fun with this. It may be that by surrendering cheerfully to the concept we are slaves/bond-servants is how we get freedom. If you give your life you shall find it. Most slaves seek freedom which may be the resistance.

Think about it. Everyone is trying to break free and maybe it is by accepting that you is a slave and pressing the issue that the system lets you go. Slavery is abolished.

Think about what Col. Mandel House said, they will be our chattel. Think about what Hidden Hand said, we are chattel but were never intended to bear the burdens as we are. So it may very well be that by trying to break free, or not acknowledging self is a slave, is what is keeping us in bondage, why we receive the liabilities.

So we are clear here, I am not saying they say I am a slave, I am saying I am based on my perceptions, do this do that do it like this not that way. A guy in the US suggested the 14th Amendment made us all citizens and slaves but that the government intends to pay the debts because it is the master. Like a principal agent relationship. It seems to me that one trying to break free is trying to be a master, the opposite of course is to be a slave. So really it is the master in this day and age who is bound.

In the end i see me as a slave in service to God not man and all are one. If all are one then we have the choice to serve self, be a master, bear the burden, or to serve other self (all) and be burden free. I mean, when one says he is in service to God what does that really mean? Do you send money or property to God? Do you labour for God? It says in the bible if you serve God you serve all, all are one. Get it?

I have asked time and time again to know where God begins and ends or where God is not and no one has answered yet folks act as if government/her majesty is not part of God. All is one so how can we not serve God, all? The question is, intention. Do you really live to serve or are you concerned with loss, yourself? If one is doing this: devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests, one cannot also be concerned with loss.

Now this part here under bond-servant say it all in my view; "devoted to another to the disregard OF ONES OWN INTERESTS".

What does it mean to be a bond-servant of Christ? Do you go to his office and work or is it to walk his walk. Can you serve Christ in the physical the way you do an employer or may your borther? So maybe what is meant by serving God or being a bond servant of Christ is you do love, serve others to the disregard of your own interests; hence, bond-servant. We cannot serve the dead but we may serve the living so how it is you can serve Christ but to be as he?

Our brothers and sisters make up the public and so for me being a bond-servant means to serve them or not self which benefits all one way or another. If I am then how can i own property or have money or debts?

No doubt this will spur feedback from religionists. All I can say is, to serve God is to serve ALL. It says that in the bible. By saying I am a bond-servant of her majesty I am not saying I am her slave but that I serve other than self.

Serving self attitude is what got us in this mess.* *So how does one relieve his brothers and sisters of burdens, he serves them. How can one do that by breaking free of the system (God) that maybe, affords one the opportunity to serve through the name but we are so full of self we cannot see or believe it.

Now if I say I am a bond servant of Christ, how does that imply I serve all here on earth? We are dealing with a legal system here on earth. If I say that I am not a slave then I must be a master and master has the liability. Slaves own nothing and it seems to me many of you agree you own nothing. If you own nothing you cannot have debts. Further, we do the work and own nothing seems like slaves/bond-servants to me. We work but money is not paid to us in our name seems like bond-servant to me. Wage slavery a choice. If it be Gods will you desire then i suggest seeking to break free of the system, to be in control and master of of your life, interests, is to edge God out = ego.

Anyhow, I share my thought for you to ponder. I am not saying I am correct. If you take the time to think before you share your feelings it may do us good.

I met with the crown prosecutor yesterday. I knew they'd be looking for me driving a car and so was ready for that. haha! Anyhow, he suggested based on what I said, I am not VB the name is, I am not the owner of the car VB is, that we go to trial. Now why would i do that if I am not VB.


I will be in court this Thursday to inform the court I am not VB blah blah. The crown is aware I will be doing that.

I love you

Short reminder

Hi

Firstly the meeting went very well with the lawyer. For those unsure, we are not hiring the lawyer. I am well aware one becomes a ward of the court by being client. I will share more about that meeting when I get home in a couple of days and have access to the full email database. I will say that the lawyer agreed for sure that a birth certificate is not evidence of your identity and that, criminal and civil liability is a genuine remedy against those who treat a BC as evidence of your identity absent your consent.  The rule of law comes into play.

On another note, if you are the name or recognzied by the name you are the beneficiary but, when you are not the name or recognized by it, who then the ultimate beneficiary is?

Some say the child was given to the crown at birth. Ok, let us say it is true. All that means to me is, I am a source of energy but not the name thus not the beneficiary and not with liability. If that makes me a slave fine, for is not the idea of love to give freely of oneself?

I say again, it is us doing for the money and serving ego, my house my car my money, that we took on the liability.

I love you

Legal owner

Hi

We covered this quite a while ago but now is time for remembering.

'Legal owner' (Blks Law 4th Ed) is defined as the one that the law recognizes and holds responsible as the owner of property.

Now we know we are not the name so and so, blah blah, but that we can be recognized by it. Now, if you are recognized by it, whom do you think the law will recognize and hold responsible as the owner of property in the name so and so?

From there you see the question to be answered.

Again, as far as I can tell, the prevailing presumption is we all accept to be recognized by the name and everyone I know started the game in that zone. My house my car my name.

If you produce evidence you are not, in my case, VB, and that being recognized by the name is a choice and express waiver of the offer to be so recognized, how the heck can the law recognize you as the legal owner?

In this day and age legal owner seems to equate to trustee, and, this name thing in my view can only be settled in the private and can be as simple as asking with evidence on the table, who does the law recognize and hold responsible as the owner of property in that name? The bearer of the BC or ?.

I love you

Money is the consideration

Hi

From the legal mans perspective, 'money' , an absence of love, is the consideration on contracts; legal relationships.

Of course, by serving God, service to others path, love is the consideration.

I love you

Entitlement update

Hi

Choosing to be recognized by the name, acceptance of the entitlement, is established by ones actions. E.G. This is my car, or paying for the car.

So being recognized by the name is what gets one into legal relationships. The entitlement then affords one the opportunity to believe he is party to legal relationships. In other words, the entitlement in and of itself is not a benefit, it simply affords one the opportunity to recognize himself by the name as party to a contract, legal relationship.

I say "believe he is party to a legal relationships" because he is not the name on the contract.

A benefit flows from contract. E.G. a new car.

I love you

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline
s2Member®