Archive for July, 2011


Hi lovers

If you were to say I am the one that contributed the value/assets/property that is accounted in the name on or of your BC, what proof have you?

If there is money in a bank account in the name of your BC you want access to, what proof have you of your entitlement?

The BC in that sense, but not limited to, is a security. It proves in the end that the rightful holder of the BC is the one doing the work that there are assets or value in the name of a BC. I am not saying and did not say it is some form of financial security.

The BC not being personal identification is not identifying you but your entitlement. Entitlement to what, to share in our collective productivity.

God did give man dominion over the earth but unless he exercise it in proper manner, just take control like you know it is true, he  is out of or not in control.

Now writing to the government to say God gave me dominion over the earth is not taking control. Giving orders knowing God gave you dominion over the earth is taking control. We are speaking in generalities here.

Writing to the government for any reason but to give orders and one is out of or not in control. Believing the government has authority over you and or your purpose is why it does have control. It did not legislate control over us it passed legislation that we responded to and obey therefore, we are not in control.

Even Moses asked the Pharaoh, "will you let my people go" is saying, you have control. Regardless, then is not now. Then is who we were not who we are or can be.

When the President of the U.S. A. demanded gold be turned over back in 1933ish, he was not speaking to the people but yet the people did as they heard and we wonder how it is we believe government has ultimate never ending control. The power is with the people but the people act like it is with government and so it is.

Every time we complain about government, as per the laws of the universe, we empower that government. If one holds the view the government has the power how the heck can one ever acquire it or true freedom? To say God will save us is to say, he has not yet done so. I say God never intended we be in bondage therefore, true freedom is here for those who want it.

We are as Abraham says and i believe, so free we choose bondage. Well we can choose another way and we do that by focusing our attention on what we want.

Now if you look at the names on the BC did you issue it? Is not the issuer with liability? So we can say an investor in a company is a surety but that is why he is a shareholder. We are not talking financial here but for ease on the mind, does not a share certificate bear the name of the issuer and the name of the one entitled to redemption? As a former owner of a couple corporations and being the sole investor, the share of the company were held by me to show my equity in the companies. The share certificate had the name of the companies, issuer, and my name, name of holder.

Let us say a bunch of us, 100 of us get together to work as a unit. We each brings something to the table and do what we do and account for it in a name for a trust. Let us say that the property that is in trust is the fruits of our productivity and that it got there by the output of our energy and not input of money. So we are talking only substance here.

We 100 love so we do not account for who does what; we just know at the end of each day the substance pot gets bigger because of our labour. Shares could be issued to each of the 100 to secure his her rights to use of our collective efforts; house, car, stuff. Let us say that over time the 100 grows to 33 million people. Certainly when we are talking about 33 million people we cannot know each contributor/grantor so such shares would be a good idea otherwise others not entitled could be entitled.

So the share means, the holder has given in the way of the fruits of his labour into the pot and as such is entitled to share in what is in the pot. Simple as that. So we see not one of us owns anything but each has use of our collective effort (output/productivity). Now like all trusts there is a trustee and beneficiary, one appointed to take care of the paperwork and all share in the benefit of our collective productivity.  So one will be the trustee and settlement comes out of the trust and not from any particular individual. Not personal id.

Since we 100 or 33 million are the ones contributing we are entitled to share in the productivity and in that sense benefit or are beneficiaries. Not of any government, unless you apply for gov benefits, but of our collective productivity. As far as we can tell the government is that trustee but we recognized the government as authoritative over us and so the roles got mixed up. As far as i can tell, the BC not being personal id, what we have going on is that a certificate of share has evolved into but is not personal id.

I love you




Hi lovers

Alrighty then, this is meant to add to the post "What are You".


I do not buy into the concept that Canada is a corporation and so when I say shareholder I do not mean it in that sense but in this context;

Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.5


1. (1) “security” includes,

(h) any certificate of share or interest in a trust, estate or association.

By introducing myself as shareholder I am not a director or trustee or receiver or C.E.O, I am one contributing equity like shareholder equity. To be CEO etc is to glorify self which is the opposite of what Christ teaches.

Is it not the people that constitute the basis of government credit? All our productivity and resources are in Trust and is the collateral backing the system. If however the paid public servant does not perform for the shareholder I would deem that Her Majesty is not filling her role as Executor and so i would step in as acting Executor to PROTECT MY SHARE, MY INTEREST/Canada. Her Majesty has taken an oath to protect that but things are so messed up everyone, her agents and representatives included, and us, lost our way.

As a shareholder there is no reason for you to say I am anything but shareholder upon presentment of the BC, except of course if the public servant/trustee does not perform for the shareholder when asked to do so. If asking does not work then I would as Executor/Grantor, order it.

I should say here that the terms I am using here are not necessarily specific. Things are still percolating within but one thing is certain, all paid employees and agents and agencies of her majesty are trustees.

Now, to be a man is good but man is not recognized, hence, I am shareholder. People are the source of credit/equity and so as such we cannot have any other title recognized in law but shareholder so long as you identify yourself as shareholder (again nothing here is quite concrete yet). Shareholder has an interest and that is your investment in Canada and if you do not say I am shareholder there is a chance you will be recognized as something else of lesser status. Shareholder is # 1.

Now a man who is a crown attorney, as an example, is as a crown attorney a paid trustee.  As a man he is like us, shareholder, but when he is playing crown attorney he is trustee. So we see it is all an act and which role do you play, what are you?

To further validate this in the mind anyhow, when Canada sezied the territories way back when anyone who could prove he was born of her soil could request and receive any 160 Acre parcel of land not claimed. Asking is not begging becuase you have to open your mouth to get something or you will not get it. Sir John A. MacDonald was pissed when he found out these parcels were being acquired by speculators from the people for a song and dance. We see here, people, and speculator, but more significantly, the fact anyone could obtain 160 Acres at the asking suggests very strongly there is not attemtp to block us from what is ours, this land IS our land, but more significantly is the reaction of Sir John A.

His actions suggest a trust because he said, mechanisms were put in place to prevent lands from being taken by speculators suggests protection. He wanted to know how this could happen.

So I believe all land is our land and the fruits of her, our collective productivity, is ours, hence in Trust. All we need do is step up as men/shareholders in the stead of children. Whether or not Canada is a corporation matters not, what you are does and that all government employees as employees are paid servants. Who do servants serve?

This is why if we not give the orders to the servant, over time the servant starts giving orders and we obey. Sound familiar? As a result of loosing our way, we all lost our way. The shareholder has become the servant and the servant the shareholder. Daaaaaaaaa.

The fact that it is your energy, your productivity, in and of itself makes the BC a security in your hands but I am not saying the name on the BC is the Estate or name for it or that it is not. I do not believe it is. I believe Canada is the grand Estate and what belongs to us, the people, men and women, is held in trust.

All things God gave us belong to us. I am not saying we own but share. There is that word 'share' again. We share in the earth and the fruits of our productivity is how it is meant to be and is the basis of the system. We are not in sync is all.

Every time we write a letter to government other than to give instructions, order and commands if necessary, we are acting like children. You are either head of your house or someone else is. We are going to have to get some balls because the

onlything that has given them power over us or that we perceive they have power over us is FEAR tactics. Mere threats but they play on the mind big time.

As a shareholder the court has an obligation to protect your interest thus you. The latter because at that moment you are but a man who is shareholder thus not trustee or any other lesser duty bound capacity.

Bottom line at the end of the day is we need not claim any title or set out to prove our status as shareholder, we just give the orders and if challenged, ask the challenger to prove he is not trustee or that you are.

Certain public servants would be fiduciary trustees such as judges, as such they have the power to appoint a mere trustee who then has the liability in the court. That would be the acting crown attorney or lawyer for a claimant. A very hot potato.

But this is not about court matters because if people are speaking of how to do things in court they are not set their sights beyond that to be free of that. So court stuff, as interesting as it is, serves to hold one back.

So this is the last time i will reference courts or judges here.

So, you have to believe without doubt that you are in charge. It starts there, within, in that if you need a piece of paper or law or quote to define you, you are without power over the other powers. In other words, if you point to something and say something like, see it says here who I am, it surely means you do not know is what I am saying. The truth as Christ says is in you, not out there.

The saving grace if I may choose those words is the BC is proof, in absence of evidence that proves the contrary, of your share/interest in a trust.

It does not define who you are but your capacity. It is not personal identification and so what has been happening is they have been using a share certificate to identify us as other than shareholder. Walks and talks like a driver, tax payer, dentist, victim, defendant, child or from fear, must not be a shareholder and they will act against you accordingly. They are not saying you are those and other such things, it is how we are acting which is why i say, I am shareholder because at that instant that is my capacity and no other applies. As shareholder I am also beneficiary but that is the benefit of being a shareholder is all that means. A shareholder is 'person entitled'. Is protected. Defender of the faith.

So i think we can remove, again nothing here is etched in stone yet, everything off the table and work with, I am shareholder and the BC being proof of that. I think the concept of individual Estates works against that ALL ARE ONE and is another reason I believe the Estate is Canada and that what belongs to all i(shareholder) s held in trust. I am not speaking of a financial type share although i suppose if someone wanted to cash out he may.

But this is not about getting paid off, taking brides, this here on this blog is about entering the Kingdom where one is above what is below and simply tells who (trustee) what he wants.

As a shareholder of the grand Estate, it is in your interest to take care of and help. If you were or are a shareholder in your own business, and we covered this years ago, do you not give your all and best for the business? Do you do what is best for the business? Do you protect it? Do you serve it knowing the better you do the better is serves you? The more successful it is the more successful you are.

See Canada as your business, your/our/my INTEREST. It is the focal point as far as I can tell of our energy/credit/productivity/titles.

So we start by asking and if asking does not work then we order it and if necessary kick it up and demand performance. What ever it is you want done that is not an illegal consideration, and if challenged, simply ask or demand or order the challenger prove his claim or he has no claim. Do not, I repeat, do not argue or you are loosing power. You have the BC as your trump card but I would not necessarily play it right off the get go. Give the trustee and opportunity to do the right thing. Having said that, knowing it is my energy that assets are in the name VRB, I have no fear or doubt about presenting my BC as proof of my interest in a Estate.

I see Her Majesty is the Executor (head of the Executive/State/Estate), the Governor General the administrator, the paid employees the trustee, and all of us also shareholders. 4 walls. Think about it; the Executor did not contribute equity nor the G.G nor the trustees. Who else is there but the shareholders? But again, if Her Majesty's administration/trustee do not perform as the servants they are, I may assume the role of acting Executor to take charge.

This week I received, last two days actually, videos from three different sources, each claiming to have the answer and all three different paths. Goes to show there are many theories out there and yes, there are more ways than one to skin a cat but which cat do you want to skin?

As you know, my function here is to get out of the box and enter the Kingdom full of hope and joy and limitless potential. No more lack or subject to civil proceedings or administrative processes or how to deal with cops or fines or bills or banks or any of that crap. I am not the King of the kingdom but the son of the King of Kings, our Father who art in Heaven.

I am not at all certain that the BC name is anything more than to identify you are a shareholder. That does not mean personal id it means shareholder. I am shareholder Vic of Canada. hahahahahaha!

I mean when you read the Vital Statistics Act there is nothing in it to suggest but one thing, your folks gave you a name and the BC is certification of that fact. You can argue the fact is something else and I am not saying but I think it is hogwash. If the BC be proof of your share in the grand Estate does it matter what the name is or is not. That aside, it is not about the name but what you are. This is where I am at but the door remains open. But, we do have letters from gov't saying the SOB is considered definitive legal proof of the intent of your folks to give the child the name on it. It is easy to see how one can conclude there must be some ulterior motive by what has been happening to us. How we are treated, but, all that may hinge on that we have not stepped up as shareholder. For lack of that we must be something else because we are on stage and this is all an act but choose your role or someone else will and as far as I can tell, shareholder is a good role for man to play. Nothing stops that man from also being a crown attorney. He would move to a different set and follow a different script.

This is why I think to say I am a man is pointless because men play roles and sure you can take the stand I am man, thus not playing a role, but neither can the law take from or serve you. As shareholder the shareholder is served because the shareholder is a reason for the existence of, in the case of a corporation, the corporation. The shareholder has an investment and that has to be protected by rules which suggests further there is a trust. In other words, when one invests in something it is taken in trust that it will be used to serve the shareholders best interest.

So we are clear here, what is shared here as stated in the Disclaimer of this blog site is not meant as conclusionary. I believe it to be most accurate perhaps with minor adjustments but would not jump on any bandwagon just yet.

Now, this site has a particular purpose and some of the posts recently are not at all in line with what I thought this blog is about, the focus. It is my belief that people attract information and so if people are in a fighting mood or court room procedure mood or how to drive or deal with cops mood what have you, they will attract it and so there is no need to post such on this blog.

Having said that this is not my blog, it is our blog. I am voicing my opinion so I am not tacitly agreeing to further such postings but will not stand in anyone's way.

I will leave off here now for you's to ponder and add more in the near future. I will say, I know without doubt I can prove I have an interest in a Estate.

I love you

p.s. Wally pointed out today or it came to him at the asking that for a law to be valid it must involve her majesty. Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

He pointed out that there is no such preamble to the Income Tax Act and suggests that act is a private act. It make sense to me in that the interest of shareholders is not self but when the shareholder signed up to be paid, receive income, he went private and so private acts apply. Something to consider. That does not apply to government employees because they are paid trustees in those jobs whereas we are paid shareholders unless employed as trustees by her majesty's administration.

A way to travel using a STATEMENT OF BIRTH

Could International travel work with this as well? You decide! Done in York Regional jurisdiction, Ontario.

Part 1

Part 2

What are you

Hi lovers

We left off that the birth certificate is evidence of an obligation of Her Majesty. The obligation can be of two types, payment of money or performance.

We know that a BC is not personal identification and were told by the Deputy Registrar that a BC is a 'valuable token'. We know that the registration of birth is registration of the event of the birth of a human being (natural person) and therefore that the name on the BC is not a natural person/individual. We know that human beings are the source of energy, productivity/credit. We know that the gilt-edged credit of the people constitutes the basis of government credit. We know Her Majesty is defined as an entity and that natural persons are personal representatives.

We covered previously that by reserving your rights in the name actions against it/you stop.

This that Lee found from the Securities Act, Ontario

Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.5


1. (1) “security” includes,

(h) any certificate of share or interest in a trust, estate or association.

God gave man dominion over the earth (Estate), not a portion of it.

I will leave thee to ponder now ones capacity but add, it seems there can be individual Estates or membership (association) in one big Estate. The underlying difference is separation or oneness, serving self or other self. Billions of small Estates working for private interests or one big Estate, everyone serving the greater good. In other words, your interest could be in a small Estate or in the bigger Estate.

One element no one speaks of regarding trusts is the protector.

I love you




Debt obligation

Hi Lovers

To give you a bit of an update.

A birth certificate is a debt obligation of Her Majesty; hence Valuable TOKEN/Bank Note Company.

It is in the manner it is presented as to whether or not it will be accepted as such. If you say her majesty is iable for a debt you are not using the debt obligation properly.

Thing is this. You are liable but you can use the debt obligation of Her Majesty to cover your obligations.  I say again, you are liable but you can use the debt obligation of Her Majesty to cover your obligations.

I tell you this, there is no better debt obligation than one of Her Majesty. A BC is not a security it is not a negotiable instrument and it is not personal identification. Now you know what it is.

This is how we draw on or access our credit. It must pass through Her Majesty. Why, because our energy/credit is captured, consitutes the basis of government credit, in that we do what we do, production/output of energy, in the name on the BC that is recognized in law, and is the reason for the issue of the debt obligation OF Her Majesty who is an entity. In short, because our credit consitutes the basis of government credit it has our credit; hence the issue of a debt obligation which is saying or is an acknowledgement, we have your credit/energy/output/production.

The proof it seems is in the Bank Act. I will let you seek it. I do not think I need to say what it means to be in possession of a debt obligation of Her Majesty. Would that put you above, on even ground, or under the authority of Her Majesty?

This debt obligation can be used at any time to free yourself of liabilty but is not limited to finances only.

As per the Bank Act, debt obligations are not of natural persons only entites. Did you get that? Does the significance compute?

This is all I have to say on this for now.

I will not be reachable by any means of communication from July 15 afternoon to July 23rd so please do not send me any emails during that time period.


When two are one.

Hi Lovers

To pick up where we left off last posting.

When you say you are the soul source of credit for your name you are also saying I am not the name. Couple that with a BC is not personal identification and everything falls into place.

It is the legal name that is charged not man. It is your legal name that is the beneficiary of loan (credit) proceeds.

So, there is you, source of credit, and the name; the beneficiary of your credit if you say so. That makes you the grantor, the Bank extending (granting) the credit to your legal name recognized in law. Your credit to your name is free credit = love.

Your name meaning not my name that I can do what i want with it absent your consent because messing with the name is messing with you. It is your valuable token because you are the one giving it (the name) value and the value (energy) is measured in terms of credit.

As the soul source of credit for your name, when you make your name THE beneficiary of your credit you've locked all others out from access. Now you are in control of you, your credit, and your name. How you plug it into the system and what you do with it is your journey. I will say, there is tremendous opportunity for major injections of debt free money thus staving off what some see or hope will happen, financial/system collapse which would mean failure.

I don't know what makes people think we would come out of such holocaust better than before since if such an event does occur we each is responsible. We will have failed ourselves.

To get back on topic, toss in some section 15 of the Bank Act and now who is the Bank of banks? Banks have capacity, capacity to hold. We hold energy which equates to credit in banking. Banks quite often give other banks instructions regarding the funding of an account and I shall leave you with that to ponder.

By the way, the use of the word 'soul' brings the divine, our source of energy into the equation. Also, legal entities, things lacking life like names, have no soul.

However, that is not to say such things cannot have soul. By granting your credit for the benefit of your name, your energy is focused on that one point rather than dispursed as it is now on many many accounts. Further, it is the one way your name is out of debt, or death. Credit is life for your name thus you find life (free from financial burdens) as well because your name is a reflection of you, your character.

You being the source of credit and it being the debited/charged. When the two are one (hence my name) we have instant set-off; the account at zero at all times.

Debits set-off by your previously extended credit to your name; the one you may delegate beneficiary of your credit. Your legal name is recognized in law and so to now can your credit be since you GRANTED your credit, your energy, your reach, your hand, to your name.

The name, not you, is now creditor and debtor all in one.

The legal name would have perpetual credit to set-off all debits/charges. You gotta keep in mind other than you as source of credit, this has nothing to do with you beyond that except as captain/God over your name and the accounts. You, if you so choose, can be the lord over your name thus you.

Some banks extend credit and others provide the service of the transmission of funds (payment system access), and some do both.

Which are ye?

Is love grand or what!

Houston, we are at zero point energy..No good no bad no left no right no credit no debit only an isness in law.

I love you

p.s. Unlike chartered banks we are not subject to the Bank Act and the Bank Act is considered 'uber alles; over everything else. That may and certainly suggest over the constitution since it would fall under everything else. This is very good because we people as source of credit are as Wally says, uber alleser......meaning, the Bank of banks, over/above everything else of this world, or Gods.

Maybe you see dominion over the earth in this.

You are the one

Hi Lovers

Alrighty then. Here we go for a ride.

As much as you are the one responsible for the health of your body, so to are you just as responsible for your name. Yup, the legal name is your name like your body is your body.

You and only you is fully responsible for you and your name. Acting as if someone else is liable for you and or your name is an act of DEPENDENCE when the reason you were given a legal name recognized in law is that you can be INDEPENDENT and by that I mean, not reliant on any source but yourself for your necessities of life.

How many of you have heard a CRA agent ask, how do you get your necessities of life?

I tell you this, if you draw an income you are dependent on the employer, an outside source, for your life.

You are THE SOURCE OF CREDIT FOR YOUR NAME IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO BE, otherwise the employer or someone else or thing is and you are a dependent. You achieve independence by applying your gilt-edged credit to fund your name. If you are not funding it someone else or thing is and you are a dependent. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE END OF STORY.

First off, since the name is YOUR name you can restrict or prohibit its use by others by saying so. Why does that work, because they use your name to get your credit/energy and they are doing it because we allow it. By restricting use of your name you restrict access to you, your gilt-edged credit.  In other words, they come after you through your name and they get what they do through your name but you can put a kibosh on that the instant you accept it is your name, and, that you have the liability for it and the credit to offset any and all liabilities big or small.

Part one is as simple as that folks. The agents have been getting from us using our own name to do it and it is only happening because we allow it rather than say hey, that is my name and who authorized you to use it. I did posts on the 'not for commercial use etc' back in February or March or early April of this year.

Part two is recognizing you have the credit to settle any and all liabilities in real time and offering it in full satisfaction. At no time here am i suggesting we get involved in drafting instruments for that purpose. You tell the claimant to do that and you will sign it thereby transferring the amount of your credit to offset the debt or payment obligation.

In other words, your name is like your name for business and you are the only bank funding the enterprise, that is, unless you wish to be a dependent. You are not born with money and you cannot be made to work for it is to say you must be dependent on that source for your necessities of life, when the fact is, you is the sole source of gilt-edged credit, life giving energy to your name.

That is why your name is registered with the system. To secure it and your credit to you, the source on that, your legal name, accounts.

So to say not my name or ask who has the liability when it is you that is responsible for your name is not being responsible, it is saying, I am dependent on some other source for my life, please save me. Hahahahahaha!

There is no denying you are the source of credit, funding for your name because if not you, then who? You do it when you pay a fine. The fact your name is billed or summoned is an honour. It is recognizing you as the source of credit but you do not have to draw the funding from a source other than yourself. YOU ARE THE ONE.

You are the true source of credit for your name. Who else can be the source of or is gonna be the source of credit for YOUR  name?  A bank you say. Not so, because it is your credit that funds loans.

So you claim your name as your name and in so doing you secure access to your gilt-edged credit to you. You just say it. I did a piece about the name and not to be used for commercial purposes posted to this blog back in February or March or early April this year.

The only question now is what are you going to do with that what gives life to your name; your credit?

This is about all I will say on this for now to give you time to realize way more than maybe you do just how powerful you are. I will say we are talking about funding an account the way your credit card account is funded.

I was told about two recent Court cases in the U.S.A. Both to do with home schooling and both families being told they cannot do it the way they wanted. One family argued using the Constitution and the other stipulating they are obedient to God. Guess what. The family that relied on the Constitution lost and the other family won and the judge said, man cannot be forced to be obedient to the state. I've been saying the exact same thing but using different words. Now the family that won was approached by the state sometime after the case and asked to fill out forms.

Anyone guess why? If you say you are obedient to God then you better limit your obedience to God and not the state.

So this is real simple. You are free by saying and walking the walk your obedience is to God and you free your legal name, thus your body, when you recognize yourself as the one that can fund your name independent of all others. The question is how, directly with your gilt-edged credit (like what is funding your credit card now except the bank is in evidence as the source and you the dependent) or by other means backed by your credit.

The only thing you want to back with your credit is your name and in that sense you are self employed and self sufficient funding your own life journey with your own credit/energy.

Section 15 of the Bank Act reveals who is with the power and best credit. It is not the bank.

So your dependance comes from being obedient to God and funding your own way with your own credit in the stead of pledging it to banks or the government or bondholders or usurer or corporate employers. In other words, you do not have to draw an income from any source but rather draw on your own credit is another way to obtain necessities of life and from this information posted here, anyone should see how debts can be settled. Not run from but settled.

KNOW THYSELF. You are God, source of credit over your name and the system knows it; it is built on it but we not knowing that have been acting like dependents. Happy fourth of July when it comes.

They come at you via your name and you can stop that easily, thus securing your person and credit, but to be responsible, one must accept past and present liabilities attached to his her name and offer his her credit to settle up with and you got to know who you are and know you are with the power. Otherwise, unlike that family that won in Court, you will put yourself right back in the box if you were ever out. Stand firm and go in peace.

The people are the foundation of the entire system so stop acting like you are not and go in peace.

I should add for the benefit of those who did not notice; the family that won did not get into any name game stuff.

It is not my place to say for you but so long as you look someplace outside of you for responsibility or liability you are not ready for independence. I would go as far to say if you do not make it that your credit is the only source funding  your name you are not, and cannot be, independent. Independence in this case means taking responsibility. Many folks are aware they are responsible for their reality, that they create it, yet, turn to or blame some exterior thing for their woes.

You are the one. You are the beginning you are the end. You can make it that you are the only one funding, carrying the burdens associated with your name, and in so doing offset them all with your credit. I would not draft up any paperwork that I think is required to settle a debt, I will get the claimant to do that. I am God over my name. I am responsible for it and I am the source of credit for it in this world.

By registering your birth the name is a permanent part of the system. There is no escape but to toss away all gov id but then your credit is no good to you.

Bottom line; the name is your name and you if you choose can step up as the one responsible and offer the only thing you have to settle with, gilt-edged credit/energy, or, you can work for money, pay taxes that fatten the usurer and carry on as a burdensome dependent (taxed) given you are in that case not the source of necessities of life. In other words, you are not funding your name with your credit directly = dependency.

It is your name and you cannot be made to fund it by being a dependent. The offer of your credit when you know who you are must be accepted. You have no other remedy.

We are talking about equality here. When you fund your name directly with your credit the system gets what it wants, debt free money and you get substance. A re-venuing. Credit from you in the natural world to the system and substance released from the system to you in the natural world. It is in II Corinthians 8; you a supply for their want (credit is like oxygen for the system and debt like carbon monoxide) and the system a supply for your want. All are one.

In today’s terms Render unto Caesar blah blah may mean, render to Caesar your credit he gave you, which he did as a result of taking gold out of circulation as a method of payment. If he did not give you a remedy how would payments be made? Also, you cannot be made or put in a situation of dependancy for neccessities of life is slavery. What belongs to God, the substance, can be rendered to God; in this case you since you are God over your name. Your name is a transmitting utility, or, as in the Matrix, a vessel carrying your energy/credit and you are the Captain or God. Credit is the money, legal tender.

Credit is the money, legal tender; and although you are the source of credit for your name as evidenced by a birth certificate, your name not you must be recognized on the Account as the source of credit because it not you is recognized in law. So it is okay to say you are the source of credit for the name which is true no matter how you cut it, but when connecting the name to Accounts, your name not you must be recognized as the source of credit. 

No one is going to stand up for you and say, I am the source of gilt-edge credit for his name. You are the One.

I love you

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline