Archive for March, 2011

The Light

And we do it in the name on the BC.

BC is not personal id, is not intended to be used that we advance our private interests. Therefore, it, a legal document, must be issued to advance the interests of others, e.g. the public. Did I not send a definition for that the other days about philanthropy, private initiative for public good. The law controls and regulates anything that affects the public but not our choices.

You could say I think that all information in the government system everywhere is for public benefit, name on BC being how title goes from us to the public system where it is protected. We lost our way when money became the main consideration. We pledge away and by so doing give up our rights, legal title, to the lender. But the system I will say is built of light, that we give freely.

It seems to me a reason if not the reason why the system agents do not want to hear anything but that we are so and so, is the negative helping steer us to the light because they love us. There are other negative entities but they are different. You know them by their big ego and there way is the way or your wrong which is of no help.

So Hidden-Hand is perhaps like a Lucifer, tough but fair. In fact he spoke of Lucifer, the light bearer.

Shrouding dark with light and the dark is still dark, but getting the light within the dark turns the dark to light.

We do not put dark in lighted rooms, we put light bulbs in rooms to remove the dark. We are the light and as we shed the dark within the light becomes brighter.

So we need to get under their skin, go within the system to light it up with the love bulbs at full power that the dark is no more.

How do we do that, we love it as we are loved but were blind to see what is before us is perfect. TRON.

We thought we could better ourselves through hard work. hahahaha! Daaaaaa! Make a life not a living.

We use the name to serve through. That is a teaching of Jesus, to serve, and who many say is a son of God even though he washed the feet of sluts. hahahahah!

So a good son is a son who serves, gives nothing less than the whole of shimself. Tis the Will of the Father and does not require you occupy the office of executor. We are talking spiritual here and I doubt we are executors in non-physical form.

I suppose we could be but why if we are all equal which in the non-physical I am sure we are sure?

We can all be equal dooda's or men and women or humans or beings or entities.

What the difference is if we are equal? Words have a habit of stigmatizing.

The BC name is a legal name thus intended for legal purposes or purposes of law. The law serves the public good is the idea. Law or legal name recognized in law is a legal name and I would say a BC is not intended that you use it to advance your private interests.

I am a slave, I am a slave, yippee! Sir, that is outlawed so we made you an agent. Oh thank you so much but you know, with regard to the agent part, I have been a slave/agent/servant/member since i was made part of the one. I am like a cell in a human body that lives to serve. It knows no other purpose and it does it lovingly. I wonder if it knows the consequences of not serving or consuming. Hmmmm? Love expands. We are in contraction because we are in commerce where contracts makes things happen.

Surely we are smarter than a single celled organism?

I do have a question. If you accept all is one and you feel you are an involuntary slave, from who or what are you trying to separate to be free?

Lottsa love.

Pledge

Hi

It seems one way or another we are slaves. We are told to do this and that and how, what our name is who we are, and seized and jailed and all sorts of stuff that implies slavery.

Anytime we sense we have no choice one must sense he is a slave. Tis an honour to serve.

Maybe then we should accept that some how or work with it which if the BC is not personal id we are more or less slaves to the system via the name. We are the source of energy. It was likely intended we volunteer to serve.

We can resist, seek to be free, or accept what they do on the face as evidence we are slaves/chattel and work with that somehow.
Even though there is nothing in legislation that says a BC is evidence of the identity of the one presenting it, the agents and courts do not want to hear that so I have no right of self determination; therefore, I am BVR, a slave, and you should be talking to the master.

Master; one having authority over another; RULER, GOVERNOR.
Master, Blacks 4th; a principal who employs another to perform service in his affairs and who controls or has right to control physical conduct of other in performance of the service; One having authority or who rules, directs, instructs or superintends; a head or chief; an instructor; an employer.

Her Majesty is the head of the executive and governor commander in chief.

Master and Servant, Blacks 4th; the relation of master and servant exists where one person, for pay or 'other valuable consideration', enters into the service of another and devotes to him his personal labour for an agreed period.

Could be the law is master since rule of law is said to be reality but it is all done in Her Majesty's name, head of the executive.

The best slave is one who thinks he is free. Our concept of what freedom is may be out of whack. Perhaps true freedom is an unrestricted ability to serve and doing it. Tis the will of the one infinite creator you know.

This fight for freedom has got us no where, like Neo for 2 and 3/4 movies. So we should maybe surrender to the fact we are slaves. Maybe one who knows and accepts he is a slave and pledges his life to serve is the free one.

I do not see this as being slave to Her Majesty but the one infinite creator of which we all are. A truth I would say. Many of you do not see that far, stopping at the government/vatican as the apparent master.

They will either have to accept we are slaves or say no, and if no, then we have the right of self determination and my comment the BC is not personal id would rule. But, everyone is meeting resistance and yes maybe criminal charges may be a remedy but, it may not get the crown to the table to take liability on all accounts.

Slave; a person held in servitude as chattel for another. Col House did say and Hidden Hand did say we are chattel and as I see it, that is exactly what is going on.

So perhaps if we acknowledge ourselves as slaves the burden then shifts to the master because whatever the slave does belongs to the master.

The crown is always exercising its authority 24/7. It never sleeps. It is a machine.

This may be a way of invoking a master servant or principal agent relationship.

They cannot in my view hold you as a slave so would have to recognize you as other than, e.g. servant or agent.

The remedy is either to pay you money or as said above, other valuable consideration; E.G. the crown is the principal on the account and I will be the agent. haha!

Like the show ROOTS, Kinta Kunte was told his name is TOBY. Whatever the slave does in the name given him by the master (e.g. as on BC) belongs to the master, and we are mandated that we used the BC name in the public.

So when they say a BC is not and was never intended as personal id may simply mean, was not intended you use it to serve self. Servants and agents are not serving self, but, if money is the consideration, then the servant/agent has received his just reward and is liable. If we see ourselves given the option to serve via the name, still not personal id because we are serving others, then we decide why we serve. For the money or an other consideration, e.g. love and natural affection for the one infinite creator; the true master.

This brings back the memory of the vision I had of waiving a white flag in court as a show of surrender, saying, you own me. Not to man but to the will of the one infinite creator. I am free to serve others. The burden is not doing so.

In not taking a BC one does not exist, therefore, is like a freeman on the land doing what pleases him by virtue he is not serving the greater good but his own interests.

So we may look at the BC then as opportunity. Personal id, self serving, or, proof you is a slave, thus not the owner of anything and cannot possible have the financial or legal liability. The exception of course damage to property or life.

Slaves are protected because they are valuable to the master. Freemen can be free one moment and under attack the next.

All are one and so this idea of separating ourselves from the name rather than seeing it as a conduit does not compute. No doubt the government wants our energy/output, so let them have it. Once your life is pledged you have nothing more to give, and you own nothing else.

I stand for my right to be a slave. haha!

I love you

Attestation

Hi

I was away for a few days to meet some folks in Quebec and share information.

Whilst there a couple friends visited the Civil Registrar, births and deaths and marriages. She said the BC is for public purposes and that the name is shared.

I am not saying what she said is accurate or not but it seems to fix my perspective.

The word attestation came up and I would say that when you give a name from your mouth and it looks or sounds like one on the BC and accounts, it is your attestation that name is your name. A connection is made in the mind of the one hearing you say a name. Another good reason to say my I do not give my name out for it is private and not for public or commercial purposes. This leaves the name on the BC recognized in law.

You have the right to and are the only one that can determine your identity. In short, no one can tell you who you are. You have the right of self-determination.

Since the information collected regarding a birth is certified by the parents/informant and given certification of information is valid at the moment of certification and not after, the name on the BC you could say was your name at that moment of certification then but not now and the government knows it. A fact cannot be certified into the future and because you have the right to determine your identity the name on the BC is your name if you say so or say something that causes an other to believe the name on the BC or account(s) is your name. Another good reason not to speak a name from your mouth that sounds like the one on the BC as it may be construed as your attestation the name on the BC is your name.

In short, the name on the BC never is your name unless you say it is or say something that would cause an other to believe it is. In other words, if I am holding an account with the name XYZ on it and you give a name XYZ from your mouth, I am going to believe I am speaking to the one whose account I am holding. BC is not current id but historical fact because in my case the birth information was certified in 1958. Just say, the information on this BC was certified on such and such a date and as you know there is no such thing as certification into the future, so no that is not my name. Hence, the event was named and the government, not you, registered it. In other words, a BC is not proof of a name given you by your folks, but, presumptions have risen because of our actions.

In short, since the government did not register you but an event, none of the information collected regarding your birth has anything to do with you. Since the government registers events and not people, and the information certified was valid at the moment of certification (historical fact) of the event, the event is given name(s).

If they say you can change your name under the appropriate act know that you can change your name at will without application to a court and that name is now your legal name, but again, you are not obligated to speak it or give it. For all intents and purposes you could show the BC as proof of date of birth and where you were born but the name on it is not your name and what your name is is your business.

The long and short of it seems to be a BC is not personal identification and there is nothing in law that says otherwise. Big thing seems to be if you speak a name that is similar to that on the BC it is deemed your attestation that name is your name.

My name is private but here is the BC that is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it.
I love you

Private or public

Definitions (2)

1. Personal or restricted, as opposed to public.

A BC is not personal identification seems to mean not meant to be used for private purposes. This would fall in line with philanthropy; private initiative for public good.

Webster's; public: devoted to the general or national welfare.

A form of allegiance.

Friends met with the Civil Registrar in Quebec earlier this week and the lady there indicated a BC is meant for public purposes. I am not saying she is right or wrong but would say if it is believed we use the BC for personal benefit and gain, then we are not using the BC as intended and may be why we have the liability.

Example. You flag your car as private property. That car cannot then be in service to the public but the one who posted the notice. For example. Mom and dad and the siblings pour all the fruits of the work into the family treasury. The treasury buys each family member a car. The cars belong to the family but then one child claims one car as private property. Should the family (public) bear the burden to pay for gas and insurance etc on the car?

In this sense the one who posted the notice has said, this car is restricted to my private (non-family) use.  As such the one posting the private notice claims a (public/family) benefit and as such ought also bear the burden.

This is why I say, who authorized this name be used for public or commercial use? I think we know claiming the name as my name makes it personal or private.

So, private may mean, self service path and public use/service may mean, service to others path, or, not my car thus not my duty to provide insurance or gas etc.

Based on things I have read and heard, the Consolidated Revenue Funds is our family treasury.

It may be part of our solution is to be adamant I do not use this BC that is not personal id for private purpose or personal benefit or gain. Or, since this BC is not by law intended to be evidence of the identity of the one presenting it, meaning not meant that it is to be used for my personal (private) benefit or gain (serve self), I use it for the public good.

I would say anyone who ignores this is attempting to pass off liabilities associated with the name. Remember, if you use the name to serve through you have given/dedicated all you have to give; yourself, your life for the betterment of mankind. It is that intent that my dentist friend says is why he has zero personal tax liability.

The name in your head is issued in the private but the one on the BC is I would say, issued from the public but not for personal use.

I would say that if you claim anything as private you are also claiming the name the property is in is private or, my private name.

I love you

Foundation/PIF update

Hi

I have a few letters in which the Deputy Registrar indicates a BC may be used as a foundation document.

Foundations have to do with charity and philanthropy; private initiatives for public good.

I think we can say that use is the opposite of using the BC/token for commercial purposes or personal benefit and gain. Another reason i say the BC may have been created to benefit the public for which it ought also bear the burden/liability.

Also, one in pay it forward did receive a reply from the Minister of National Revenue. In it he suggests the one in Pay it Forward got bad advice and that the courts have upheld that Canada has the authority to levy and collect taxes. He is more or less saying good luck challenging Canada's authority to tax.

My reply was quite simple. I do not believe you read the letters from the trustee. If you had you'd notice there is no effort to challenge the taxing authority but that we offered 100% tax payment. This is good because it reveals where the Minister is at and Commissioner regarding their interpretation of the letters sent by the trustee on behalf of those in pay it forward. It is in evidence now we are not challenging the authority to tax but offering 100%. By offering 100% it would be difficult to prove we are in it for the money, or benefit from commercial activity.

I love you

Question

Hi

Based on the last post I would say the question is; who authorized this name on this BC is to be used for or can be used for commercial purposes?

It should be evident the name is used for commercial purpose by the fact cops will issue a traffic ticket requiring the payment of money. That is but one example. Governments are secular/business oriented. Further evidence is, you cannot get a bank account or buy a car without a BC or id founded on it.

Again, if your intent is not to use the name for commercial purposes it leaves he she it that did, on the hook.

That may be the original intent and the real reason for a bond being created off your birth if in fact that is done and I am told it is by a friend here.

Point is if it was never intended we have the liability, a means to cover our financial obligations must have been put in place.

I love you

All are one

Hi

Question. If you separate yourself from the name can you say you are the source of energy/credit for it?

Also, we have letters from the Deputy Registrar saying the BC may be used as a foundation document for identification purposes. We have taken that to mean, used as personal identification but that may not be the case since a BC is not that.

Also, to address concerns some of you have. By restricting use of the name is not making a claim of any sort. If it is not your name you have no right to restrict its use nor can you have the liability that be the case. If it is your name how is it you are making a claim to the name by restricting it use if it is already your name?

We have beleived that an SOB is evidence of title to the name and that because the government holds it it has rights in the name. That may not be so. We have many letters that say otherwise. Are they lying and if so, how does what you see in others is in you come into play or is it only sometimes that applies?

If I wish to be a member of a golf club I need to provide information, fill out a form. They give me a tag that goes on the golf bag that is evidence I am a member. The tag is not the proof the application is and the tag steers one to the application.

Point here is that just because the golf club has the application with my information does not give it title to anything. It is simply proof I am a member and it is in my interest they have it. I may when I complete the application stipulate to be kept totally private and not used for commercial purposes. Any company that refuses that clearly intends to use your information for commercial purposes.

You restricting use of your information and name is not in my view grounds to refuse to provide you services.

Regardless the SOB seems to be proof, held by the government, that the name on the SOB and BC/extract of that document, is your name.

If your name (TOKEN TO PLAY THE GAME) which is different than mine, hence, your name my name, is intended to be used for commercial or public purposes (perhaps the public trust) then whoever gave/gives it that purpose is liable. So long as you do not then it is not you that is liable but you have accepted full liability when you said, yes that is my name. I am not saying but if a bond was issued at your birth like many believe, that bond can be applied to offset the liability but not so long as it is your intention the name is used for commercial or public purposes.

It may be that you are drawing on the said bond, your credit, via loans when you use the name for commercial purposes. In other words, perhaps that is where the/your credit is, in that bond.

It may be the name being used for public purposes is good in that who else would you serve via the name when you serve God in your heart? Regardless, the commercial purpose aspect is the main thing in my estimation that has to be addressed. In other words, it is not my intention my token/name is used for commercial purposes but if it is the governments intention then it has the liability in commerce/contracts.

In other words, my using the token for commercial purposes blocks the name from being used for public purposes/ BENEFIT, thus the public (the one family trust) does not receive a benefit thus ought not bear the burden, bond will not be applied as intended. In other words, if it is my intention to use my token/name to serve me, for commercial purposes, I ought also bear the burdens. If it is my intention that I use my body to serve me I ought also bear the burdens. Note the similarities.

I suggest that as God structured things in a way regardless what we humans do we serve the one, the government has done essentially the same with regard to names on file in the office of the Registrar General. But, in both cases it is our intent how we use those tools that is the determining factor. The divine prefers i would say that we take the service to others path but does not judge our choices but here on earth, we are judged.

As it is in heaven, inside you, so it is on earth, outside of you. Thy will be done on earth, in information systems, as it is in heaven, in you. So what you are is what you see in the mirror or what appears is outside of you. Intent intent intent. The playing field was created before we all got here and is created on the basis of service to others path, but if your intent, who you are, is not in sync with that SHIT HAPPENS.

With love

P.S. The french word for seal is FUCK although it is not spelled that way it sounds that way. haha!

Signed sealed and delivered = Signed fucked and delivered unto evil. hahahahaha!

Your Account

Hi

This is but one example of 'your account'.

Whose name it is on the credit card and statement? Your name right? Whose credit it is then? The benefit to the credit card company is the interest charge which means, they are using your name for commercial purposes. Now, since it is your name on the account, your account, and your credit, why on earth would you pay yourself back and why on earth would you allow the credit card company to benefit off your name? Whose interest it is? The credit card companies are however entitled to charge the retailers a percentage on each transaction. The interest they get from us is that free money I mentioned the other day.

If you see the corporations and governments that hold our accounts as trustees and yourself as the grantor, by virture you are not in commerce if the name is not used for commercial purposes (no benefit to you), you see a trust. But a spiritual trust in that it is private and not a public type trust that is taxable.

The public i would say is the beneficiary and the public thus is with the corresponding liability = balanced account. The premiere has said more than once they are the guardians of the public trust.

With love

What if?

Hi lovers

What if I was to use the name Sony or General Motors or Canada or Bayer or General Foods for commercial purposes?

What would it take to stop me? A letter of cease and desist? Court action if I refuse.

Those entitles are created by law for commercial purposes.

What if I was to use your name for commercial purposes? haha!

I love this..........

p.s. I presume most if not all of you are aware what is happening in Japan. I presume you are seeing these events in a good way. This is but one: 6 billion people seeing 50 men prepared to die for them and here we all are concerned with debts and money and me me me.........Shame on me is what I am getting out of these events. It is a wake up call for those seeing the good of it. It is a sign in my view of who we can be or perhaps must be to move on up in vibration; preparation for the harvest. Eyes of an Angel; the greatest gift a soul can give another (in physical terms) is to give its life for another. It is coming to the point that thousands have to die on national tv that the living get the message. They die for us so we can see who we are in comparison. Know ourselves who we are right now and an opportunity through realization to WAKE UP from our bull shit or more and more will die until we do. As much as I felt shame for my role in the state of earthly affairs, I see this is a great experience for me to relate me to out there, have thanked the Japanese for sacrificing their lives in the physical to help me be better and I FEEL GREAT JOY.

Go back to the earlier pay it forward calls.

Jan Arden was interviewed and when asked about Japan she, and rightfully so, lambasted we north americans because of our disrespect for one another and mother earth, and riotous, looteristic, the world owes us bullshit attitude. She did not say it in exactly those words but the intent is clear.

You go girl...........

Am I concerned for my health, never. A healthy mind is a healthy body.

KEY up-date

Hi

This is seeming to be very simple. You get a call from a collection agency, CRA, or bill from a court. I think all you need to do is acknowledge the name is your name and then ask, who authorized you to use my name, or that name if you are more comfortable, for public or commercial purposes? Maybe the government did but so long as you do not, your out of the box.

If you do not acknowledge the name as your name then you cannot restrict its use.
It can only be you or the government that gave the authorization if it actually exists. Again, we may be presuming to say a BC is intended to be used for public or commercial purposes. A government lawyer told a friend "your BC is your license it is your passport but I am not supposed to tell you that".

I see now how a BC is a license. If the cop cannot use the name for public or commercial purposes because you restricted its purpose to private non-commercial, he cannot or should not issue a ticket; you are not agreeing to contract. If he does you have numerous options.

You may wish to add in or at least bear in mind that it is your understanding a BC is not evidence of the id of the one presenting it.

According to a lawyer from the B.C. government, the SOB is considered definitive legal proof of the intent of your folks that the name on it was given to you. BC of course is an extract of the SOB. In other words, the BC is proof of the facts so certified which are those found on a SOB. So it seems from the governments perspective it is your name on the BC and if it is then you and only you can restrict its use.

I say again, I think the mistake we made was not restricting its use and for that we are deemed to be in commerce, in it for the money, a benefit. Let us be real about this. They take our name, attach liabilities to it and then pass the debt to us. It would be fraudulent to do that if the name is not our name and rather than see it that way see it that they have been profiting off our name because we let them. So restricting the use is taking control.

As i see it, with this information brought to the attention of a court, they'd have no choice but to extinguish any and all debts. Clearly debt on your account is evidence they are wanting to profit off your work/labour because labouring is the only legal way you can get money to pay.

There is nothing to fear here but to stand up for yourself. If you cannot do that how then can you be free?

I love you



More on the KEY

I had hoped I made it clear that saying my name means my token to play the game which is not implying ownership but use. If you have played monopoly we all say move my token or move my man please but we all know my does not mean mine as in ownership. The game owns the token we is the users.

We know that a BC is not evidence of the id of the one presenting it. By restricting the use of my name (token) to private non-commercial purposes, not in mammon/commerce, we prevent third parties from using our name to draw on us or from profiting off us.

As for control, it means taking charge of your affairs. If you do not control your token your out of control and someone else is in control, controlling you via your token.

The they's say the name on the BC is our name. Good bad right or wrong consider accepting that is true. When we restrict its use we are speaking of ourselves and that it is not our intent to use the token for public or commercial purposes. What the other guy does with the token is not my concern but if he attempts to get something from me via my token, e.g. money or performance, after he was made aware of the restriction, he has the liability. It is like he is using anothers copyrighted property (work) for profit or gain without permission of the owner of the work. Our labour is our work and our property.

I sense the bottom line is that until we restrict the use of the token it is deemed we are in it, commerce, for the money. That we want the liabilities. If we do not use it for commercial purposes and the BC does not id the one presenting it, who then has the liability?

I say the crown does and intended to given that it was not intended as personal id. Meaning, not intended we have the liability.

The one thing we have that we can claim as our property or right is our energy/labour. We decide how it is spent. Either freely or to profit self and others.

When we restrict the use of the token we are saying, my energy is given freely and not for you to profit off.

If you've played monopoly you know propety is vest in the token and by having control of the token we have possession and control of property in the token, not ownership. If we do not restrict the use then we are deemed to be the owner of property and subject to all liabilities.

Seems to me one of the founders of the banking cartel said; it is not about ownership but control. Surrendering in my terms is to the will of God that I give of myself freely and unconditionally. If I have not restricted the use of the token then I am not giving freely, I am serving mammon.

Serving mammon then is being in commerce.

Think about it. You show a cop your BC saying that is my name on there and it is not to be used for public or commercial purposes. If he hands you a ticket he just trespassed against you. He like all agents get paid money for their job so what he is doing, not likely knowingly, is attempting to profit off you.

Have you ever played monopoly where another player moves your token as if his own? Perhaps by mistake which can be corrected. If not a mistake then he is attempting to steal from you.

All that money they get from us is free money and they use it for all sorts of purposes, war being but one. If we all restricted the use of our token the flow of that free money would stop.

I love you

The KEY

Hi you lovely lovers

Good one for those of you who will not let go of the money that is not your property.

This is why Pay it Forward was resurrected. We recognize so long as we hold/use money we are servant to its owner.

In short, you is a perma slave. haha!

Now, rather than ask, how will I get food on the table, ask, what can I do that there is plenty of food on the table?

Also; My name is private but i will write it on a piece of paper so you can see it but only if you agree not to use it for public or commercial purposes. Now I just had an interesting thought. What if the piece of paper I show is the BC? Remember what the Deputy Registrar said, a BC is a valuable TOKEN. So see the name on it as the name for the TOKEN. So when we say my name we mean name for my token to play the game. We do it while playing monopoly. Please move MY token but we all know that my does not mean I own it, but rather I use it.
What I am getting at here is, it is the legal name (token) they want to see at the end of the day which is not evidence of the identity of the one using it, and it may simply come down to whether or not you use the token for public and commercial purposes or not. So they are shown the BC = token/name but informed it is not to be used for public or commercial purposes. Perhaps we are assuming it is issued for those purposes. Maybe so long as we see ourselves as players playing the game monopoly is why we believe the token was created for that purpose only. It is the token that is paid for your work but, perhaps until you say the name is not to be used for public or commercial purposes, express your intent, maybe, just maybe, it is deemed you are in the game for profit and gain; commercial purposes which is the public venue where you are subject to public persecution, law.

Now, I would say that if the token is used for commercial purposes even though you said no, whoever applies it for such purposes is stuck with the liability. You cannot be forced to partake in commerce; work for money, not to mention the use of your token is not authorized for such purposes when you said not to be used for such purposes. In other words, someone is trying to profit off anothers work. Perhaps then the mistake is that the token is used for public and commercial purposes and that when the mistake is corrected, one moves out of the commercial world and is resurrected as a son and heir of God?

The opposite of commercial activity and public is, love and private. Sons and heirs do not need money to pay to another to receive what is theirs.

The foreigner, taxpayer, are those who partake in commercial activity; in it for the money where true love is not. I do not think you will hear, you cannot limit the use of this token.

If the token cannot be used for public and commercial purposes then the BC takes on a whole new meaning. You give them what they want to see to stay in honour, the token, but restrict its application to private non-commercial use. If they say you cannot do that then the name is not your name. It is not the name that matters but whether or not you are in it for the money. If not, then your in it for the love of all.

I think restricting the use of the token by saying not to be used for public or commercial purposes is the shield we've been seeking. The token is part of the game so everything you do with the token the game benefits and has the money to pay the obligations of the token. Again, it may be that by not rstricting the use of the token/name in the beginning, it is deemed our interest is profit and gain where sons of God are not.
The Supreme Court said in R. v. Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55 (thanx Wally) if information given is not restricted to private use only, it is not private. Documents such as a birth certificate carry information.

It may be that it is not so much that we are identified with a BC but how. Does the one presenting it partake in commercial activity? He did not restrict use of the name so we saaaaaaaaaaay he uses it for purposes of personal profit and gain. Even if it is intended that the token is in commerce, the main thing is that by restricting its use, you are not using it for those purposes. I really do think that is the key. That right there could cause all accounts to be flagged private. That may be the legal way of saying, I am and do love; our divinely natural state.

The lawyer who appeared in that first landlord tenant case did say the name is protected. Perhaps that applies if and only if my intent is to not use it for commercial purposes. If you do not use it for commercial purposes then you cannot be considered an owner or debtor or creditor or any terms words phrases that serve the regulator of commercial activity. You control the token you control the tokens property and if the intent is the token is not used for commercial purposes then i say you are free of the burden to come up with the money. After all, the rules do not require that the player provides the money for the game.

So by restricting the use of the token/BC you are not in it for the money, not in it for profit and gain, therefore, not subject to the Income Tax Act. It would not be 'your' income but the tokens play money.

I love you

How to remain in the private.

Hi

If you've read 'Eyes of an Angel' by Paul Elder, you know as a spiritual being you have no use for a name. We are vibrational beings and know each other by vibration. Thing is though we are so focus on physicality our perception of sound is changed. Have you had dreams where you know who you are talking to even though you have not seen the face. When you answer a phone do you recognize who you are talking to by sight or sound?

A few years back i was laying on a hill looking up and saw a plane very high in the atmosphere. I thought to myself, what a wonderful invention and I guess so long as we believe we need such things to get from here to there, it is so. In other words, we will never reacquire the ability to tele-transport/bi/tri-locate so long as we doubt we can.Read 'Anna, Grandmother of Jesus' for greater insight. It has nothing to do with religion.

It is only when something is solid, a noun, that it can be captured, thus, to be a man is to be a noun is to be capturable. Verbs on the other hand are free, always on the move, in action. I got that insight from David Wynn Miller years ago.

To say I am that that is what I am to the exclusion of other possibilities but to be nothing is to be everything. So again, to be a man is to place limitations upon self. Be the spirit, verb, you is.

So, best keep your mouth shut saying as little as possible; hence, I will not give my name as it is my private property, locked away in my head and only I know it. What we do have though is the BC name that does exist in fact and is caputureable.

In fact on one first appearance in court i said I promised to appear (remained in honour) but said nothing of speaking. The judge looked at the crown and the crown immediately made an offer to settle. I accepted the offer but in hindsight should have kept my mouth shut because they cannot proceed on a silent record meaning, if I did not speak was I there?

Pilate said to Jesus, they say you are Jesus, to which he replied, sayeth you. He did not identify himself by name. If you give a name from your mouth you are going to get burned. Further, many beleive we are a name, but if I say my name is private am i saying I am private?

Again, so we are clear, to say my name is private is not making claim to a name because if you do not say it how can anyone say your claimed that name as your name? But by saying my name means not your name means not your puppy to use for your benefit which would be commercial purposes or benefit.

When you say my name is private that means your name is not and was never in the public or recognized by law. That leaves only the legal name and is why I say, get that BC in evidence saying something like, you are authorized by the government to use this name on this BC that I understand is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it. They have the BC name, noun, with which to play with and your the verb.

You see, no doubt they want your name from your mouth so they can use it and you for commercial purposes. You could if you so choose, tell the court you will say your name but that it is not to be used for commercial purposes. It is private. If you accept that judge I will put my name on paper for you only so no one else here knows it. 😎

Once again your in honour but restrict the use of 'your name'. I prefer to not say a name from my mouth. You just have to know when someone is asking for your name if they are wanting it for commercial purposes or not. The best response I have used for dealing with debt collectors is to inform the caller the name they ask for is a name for a business, can i help you.

Business, commercial, same thing.

Key point here is you and only you can keep your name in the private. By so doing you are in the private and not in commerce.

So the advice given in the bible, come out of her, be in it but not of it, may mean, do not give  a name from your mouth. That way you are not in it; commerce. Public has no claim over private.

The name on the BC is issued for public use. So where many have supposed that they are held as surety for the name, the question is, which name if you gave a name out of your mouth? Again, if the name from your mouth sounds like to one the crown calls, which cannot be a private name or he would not have it to call it, you will get burned. On the other hand, if you say your name is private, then it cannot be your name the crown called.

With the BC in evidence they have what they need to settle up. At that point the crown charged the crown and the charge comes full circle; never leaving the public circuit.

Bottom line, if you want to be private, free of public persecution, stop speaking your name to those you know want it for commercial purposes. Judges have warned people. If you post your private information on the net it will be used against you. I suggest saying your name to those who want names for commercial purposes has the same effect.

With love

This is it

Hi

A must see.

Consider joining. I did

http://wayseermanifesto.com/

Good one

Hi

The following was posted under Comments and i feel it should be posted here.

Commenter: I had an interesting phone conversation a few weeks back… I rang the office of the ‘director of public prosecutions’ and spoke to the female receptionist that answered the phone in regards to a matter currently before the court, after our brief interataction I asked for her NAME as I wanted to refrence our conversattion in court, her response left me flabbergastted, she said and i quote ” I’m sorry but i do not give out my NAME because it’s private property”….0.0

Hallow:

Good one

There was a recent Supreme Court case in Canada wherein the judges in essence said, if you do not note something, information, as private, then it is not private.

This is good because if asked for a name you can say "I do not give my name out because it is private property, but Her Majesty authorizes that you can take this name on this birth certificate that as you know is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it".

Now the only name they see is the one on the BC that is not evidence of your identity.

Giving a name this way and there can be no doubt of the source of the name. In other words, not coming from your mouth there can be no mistaking that the name on accounts etc are derived of a BC.

Where one goes from there is up to that one.

http://freemanontheair.com/

I love you

Masters and Programs

Hi

I think that we can make sense of things if we consider that those operating in the public and for the public are living breathing programs. Each plays a particular role and each is programmed that he she cannot see beyond that role. In other words, they cannot see or hear or make sense of things like, I am not so and so. And if they can make sense of it is not part of their programming so they do not have to react the way you want them to when you say, I am not so and so. I am not limiting this to I am not so and so here. Anything we say that does not fall into their role does not compute.

Be it a banker, cop, doctor, judge, they give you forms to fill out. The one handing them out are programmed to do this and do that and make sure this form is completed and signed. Beyond that, it is beyond the scope of thier program.

Those folks that play the roles we interface with out there are not the ones drafting the forms that are followed.

In short, I suggest one is wasting his time playing the name game or trying to get anything outside the norm accepted by such programs, roles. That is why you end up in jail or the psych ward if you do. The role player is programmed to follow forms, you can do this, and unless he sees one that says leave you alone he will not leave you alone.

The role player is not the director, programmer, draftsman. Not the one pulling the strings.

What I am suggesting is that one has to go to the programmer, the director, the master. The master knows everything. That is what true masters are.

We are under rule of law which is contract so I would say the CONTRACT is the master in law. Lawyers cannot deal where there is no controversy and controversy can only stem from a contract/legal relationship. There is nothing for a court to hear if there is no contract in dispute.  There is no jurisdiction or legal relationship if there is no contract.

A contract may be presummed to exist and you may be hauled into court on that basis but, if there is no contract it would be better to pay your attention on that and how I am not so and so plays a role in that. If you were not recognizable by the name on your BC you cannot be recognized as a party to a contract.

Now the contract or lack thereof can be dealt with in court or by going to the court employees employer. The reason people sign under threat and duress is as an indication this contract was not entered into voluntarily.

Thing is we are being recognized by the name on the BC and as receiving benefits from the biggest contractor of all, the crown. We are not going to nip any contract between us and the crown in the bud through those who follow the forms created by the crown. It does not compute.

Courts determine if there is a contract and if there is the contract, master, controls, empowers the court.

Main point i wish to make is that those operating in the public and for the public are living breathing programs and they can only see and hear within the limitations of their programming, so if you meet resistance to, and i use this as but one example, I am not so and so, it is because such talk does not compute and trying to make it compute is not going to happen in under 20 years. hahahaha!

This may explain and does in my view why cops react the way they do when someone does anything outside of the norm. I am not saying you play dead but there is another venue to deal with it from in the box, under contract, the master, to get out of the box, free of contract, the master, once and for all.

The contract is the law. If those operating in the public and for the public, including cops, can see you they have not been informed otherwise and only you can make that happen. So long as it is believed you are party to a contract it is presumed you receive benefits.

The only way in my view that the law, master, contract, or adjudicator can identify you as a party to a contract, is if you are recognized by the name on the BC.

Again, telling this to a cop may or may not fly. If you sense resistance or non acceptance you may be best to let the cop have it his way because he is not programmed that what you say computes. Section 265(3) of the Criminal Code says basically that obeying authority is not consent, consent to what; contract.

So it may be that while in the box you walk into court and say hi (that will compute), I complied with the officer but my compliance with his authority should not be accepted as consent to contract and i do not consent to contract. If ignored or mocked, are you forcing me into a contract, are you forcing me to accept benefits?

I am seeing that all those filling an office, from the janitor on up to the CEO, are programs.

There is more to ponder here but I hope this sets a basis for further thought.

I love you

Beneficiary of Crown offerings

Hi

Contact is the law.

A BC is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it so how it is the one presenting it receives crown benefits? Also, the change of name act says, and this for us is the biggy. For all purposes of Ontario law (= contract), a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name on the BC.  It is your choice whether or not you wish to be recognized by the name thus as a beneficiary of crown offerings.

If the recognition is forced upon you, it is not binding.

So ask, the court, judge, cop, crown, I said I do not consent to be recognized by the name on this BC. Are you forcing me to be so recognized and is that legally binding or unlawful?

In the annotated version of the criminal code under section 265 (3) Assault, it explains when consent is not obtained. In essence, you cannot be forced to accept a benefit and benefits stem from CONTRACT and contracts to be binding must be entered into voluntarily and based on informed consent (full disclosure).

So, the entitlement to be recognized by the name appearing on a BC is an offer to contract with the crown and put the crown in the drivers seat.

Being so recognized voluntarily is the basis of a contract to which you are the loosing party.

I recommend you read that section of the Criminal Code and section 55 (2) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Bottom line is this, unless you consent voluntarily based on informed consent, acceptance to be recognized by the name and assume liabilities does not exist.

At that point the benefit flows the other way in that the crown receives the benefit of the labour of the one using a BC. hahahaha!

Now who is in the driver seat. See, receiving a BC is not a benefit; accepting or not doing anything about being recognized by the name on it is, and since the crown made an offer that you may recognize yourself by the name (= contract), but can say no (= no contract), the crown then fails in its attempt to pass off the liability for the name and is stuck with it.

Our friend in the landlord tenant disputes, by signing in as the alleged tenant, indicated he did not consent to be recognized by the name as the tenant.

Where there is no contract there is no claim. Tomkins vs. Erie Railroad should make more sense now.

The courts look to see who received the benefit and the law comes down on that party. In our case, so long as we use the BC the crown receives the benefit.

Stay tuned.

I love you

Substance and Form

Hi

There is form and there is substance. Like oil and water they do not mix well.

People (life events) are the (vital) source of energy, labour, and substance.

We build the stuff, substance.  The use of the stuff we produce is the return of our energy, therefore, it is the billing, or form side, that is not being dealt with by us properly. Since we do the work we are entitled to the fruits of it and not paying the price does not mean we are getting something for noting.

In other words, a BC is not evidence of your identity for purpose of billing.

It is a given that we serve but not in the name, we just do; like God. The name is on the form side.

So it is not that we serve in the name, which to say it is self glorification, or that we are not owners; it is that we should not be paying the price.

We may in fact be the true owners but regardless, the law deals with who pays; who is liable.

Our energy output is payment on the substance side, the goods etc the return of that energy. Collectively we are God and God created the heaven and earth and the cars and stuff (substance). Collectively we serve God, each other. These are givens and need not be mentioned.

Since the name on the BC does not id you it does not id you as the payor/debtor. So you could ask when someone hands you a bill in the name of the BC; are you recognizing me by that name as the one to pay?

The government has no claim to the substance but does to the form, titles.

So I think the bottom line here is that; 'is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it means, is not liable to pay money, form, hence the question; are you recognizing me by that name as the payor, or having the liability to pay blah blah?

A BC is not personal id means the one presenting a BC is not recognized in law by the name on it as the payor/debtor.

The system/law only has authority on the form side.

The BC, not the name, does identify the one presenting it (life event) as with the right to use the BC and enjoy property in the name on or derived it.

Since the name on the BC does not id the one presenting it, the law should not be seeing us as having the liability. If it does, it is because we allow it.

Again, the law is only interested in or can only see the titles, the form.

So to see you as the owner is not the real issue, to see you by the name as the obligated is.
So the crime stems from identifying you personally by the name on the BC as the one that is liable to pay. It is basically an attempt to pass off the liability to you.

Since a BC is not and was never intended to be personal id, it was never intended the law/contract hold us liable to pay.

Are you getting this?

I love you

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline
s2Member®