Archive for August, 2011

Consciousness of I AM

Hi Lovers

Food for thought or mediation here.

In the first page of the updates of the Letters of Christ at Christ's Way, Christ says this; "Where I reside in the consciousness of I AM".

Ponder those words of wisdom and relate it to previous posts in which I AM is mentioned.

I received this from a friend who has a friend in ill health and I AM thought to pass it on.

As we grow up

I love you

 

Title in Allodium

Hi Lovers

Here is some information about allodial title or title in allodium.

Land: Lawful Title by Inheritance          http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=47          

First and foremost, there is no such thing as an "allodial title"! One may hold land by allodial right, or in an allodium, but there is no Lawful piece of paper that says “Allodial Title” at the top of it. An allodial right is a right found in the lex non scripta, the unwritten law - common law - and is not some form of title that can be granted by any civil government.

Before you go any further, look up the definitions of allodium, allodial, and land patent in the many standard and law dictionaries available. A good place to start is at the indexes and links to your left.

Do not confuse a "land patent" with a "title in allodium"! If you learn nothing else from this article, let that point get deep into your understanding and mind-set. When the United States Federal government patented land to anyone, especially after 1863, it merely acted as a legal agent for the People and created a record of who acquired the land, how much land was involved, the price that was paid, and a notice of what, if any, restrictions may have applied to the land. The end. There is absolutely nothing more to a "land patent" issued by the government. The original patentee did not hold his land in allodium, but by right from the civil power. Since he purchased the land, he could not possibly have held the land in allodium because true title to land never passes by purchase.

What have we been doing but purchasing that what cannot be purchased; title to land. What the last two sentences are saying is that because the original patentee purchased the land title did not pass and the patentor is the lord or superior. Up until the first patentee purchased the land, making him patentee, he had the land in allodium as we all do. We can say based on lex non scripta that our inheritance of dominion over the earth is held in allodium.

I would say to that by purchasing not only land but anything we do not know who we are or are not walking the walk of an heir and more significantly, we by purchasing have, on the face, adandon our right of title in allodium. Heirs do not pay for what belongs to them. So if we are going to let the government know we know who we are we have no excuse what is happening to us so long as we do not stand up for our title in allodium. Is short, by purchasing land we are recognizing, know it or not, the government as the lord, superior.

The government does not hold title in allodium either so their land patents are really junk.

Can't have the cake and eat it to nor can one have title in allodium and the money.This seems to answer why the bank walked away when the guy asked for title in allodium. We have that right and the government cannot give it to us either but by asking for such title we are saying, I am the lord, the superior, it is our land and I do not have to pay a price, you do.

I am told there are forms on the government website for the province that deal with title in allodium but i do not know the truth of that or under what heading the form(s) may be found. If anyone seeks and finds, do let me know please.

Since no one can sell or grant title in allodium, it just is, it may be all we have to say is, I hold title in allodium to that land over there. Does that not fall under dominion over the Earth?

With love

 

 

 

Drawer

Hi Lovers

More food for thought.

Hi Lovers iii

It is said that if one has not a birth certificate he she does not exist, therefore, by having a birth certificate, I AM. I suppose one could walk into court and hold out the BC saying, this BC is legal proof of existence, therefore, I AM. hahaha!

Therefore, you public servant, shall have no other God before you on this account, and thou shalt not steal or murder or withhold or covet or bear false witness or do other than serve.

I love you

Further to last post

Hi Lovers

Further to the last post and to clarify.

When I referenced that the Financial Administration Act is where money is defined and that is our remedy, the bill, it is our remedy in that once the trustees issue the bill for your signature that is payment but the remedy is not you remedy it is the trustees remedy. So we are not relying on any legislation here as our remedy but propose it to the trustees as their remedy.

The grantor is with liability and did Jesus not say glorify God the Father as the Father accepts all burdens, liability. Well, since you are a God that is you in this world. You are the Father.

Therefore, here is what we see we have to do.Oh ya before i get to that there is this. Many have said the name on the BC is likened to a vessel and even I have used that term. Ok, let us accept it is a vessel but what type of vessel it is? Commercial.

Ok, next question. Who registered it as a commercial vessel knowing full well the captain is not born with money.

If, the government did register the name as a commercial vessel then it has the liability to settle the accounting. If not, no big deal, especially when you get this next bit. It should make sense then. When I say liability to settle the accounting I mean to as trustee to provide the remedy (e.g the bill) and not that the government bears burdens.

I AM Victor-Robert and I accept full liability for VRB. You see, a bill is a three party instrument. By accepting full liability as a divine being, the Father, you, source energy, has accepted liability and there is no where else to go. That is the end of the line, closure.

Like I said in the previous post this is not about you but when you step up to the plate as the I AM to accept full liability FOR, in my case, VRB, the vessels name, I have given my credit, my life, to settle the account. Did Jesus not accept full liability and was his spirit not free after three days?

As of now your spirit, I AM, is under SEAL.

By saying I AM Victor-Robert and I accept full liability for VRB did i not just say I am I AM but not VRB? Am I without saying so not the grantor?

A birth certificate is not personal id and it is criminal for another to use it as such therefore, they cannot come back atchya and successfully attach the name to you as if you are the commercial vessel which is what is happening and thus when your body is seized, your body seen by the trustees as the vessel, is captured in rem.

Some say they say God is dead. Sort of makes sense when you see it is us that are the Gods and we have not shown up as such. I think I wrote a few months back that we are the end of the line in that there is no other source of energy or credit than the people. So then the people have to accept full liability but you are not doing it for you you are doing it for in my case, VRB, the commercial vessel and since you identify yourself as I AM in my case, Victor- Robert, there is no where else to look for remedy.

These trustees, public servants, court, lawyers, exist to settle accounts and that is another reason I say that the Financial Administration Act and Bills of Exchange Act, is for them to get their remedy so they can do their job and balance the accounts. We have to stop playing the money game as if we have it. Also, when I say I AM Victor-Robert and I accept full liability for VRB and I hold the birth certificate bearing name of vessel, I am the grantor and so whatever money may be in bank accounts is not their money to request or take. That aside, the proper course of business is to issue a bill for a sum certain in money once the sum certain owing is established.

One other thing. I have receive two information's the last two weeks about two un-related people asking for allodial title. They asked for it and in the case of a bank foreclosing the bank walked away and in the other case a car dealer received a cheque from government to pay for a new car.  My theory on that is this.

Anything registered is registered with the trust, assets in Canada for example. When one asks for allodial title it is not that he will get it but that by asking for it he is saying you have it not me therefore, this home car whatever thing that is or will be registered, such as a new car, does not belong to me it is or will become property HELD in trust and trust pays. Main point is you do not own the thing therefore have no liability to pay.

That is not to say though that you should not ask for the bill. In the cases of asking for allodial title they may have a bill of exchange to cover the purchase. Such bill is mentioned in the Sale of Goods Act and we do not get that bill so where do they go and what value if any do they hold?

In the end I guess we can settle on the main main point is we need to get the government to know we know who we are. I see stepping up to the place and accepting full liability for the vessel named, in my case, VRB, that one is coming into better alignment with who one is if the least of the reasons be there is no arguing. I accept full liability for VRB and I see here in these Acts what may be your remedy Mr Public Servant. I am not saying it is your remedy but there must be one for you since you know and the men and women who work for the government know men and women are not born with money. Get it? In other words, there has to be a remedy build into the system that payment is received by the sellers on the basis the men and women are not born with money and may not slave for after tax debt money. That path is ruining everything.

We have the right to contract but we are not born with money.

Regardless if there be money in a bank account now in your vessels name, when you accept full liability for the vessel the remedy has to come from you and not the vessels account. If they say you cannot do that then i guess your outta there because if you are not liable for the vessel who is?

As before, nothing here is meant to be or should be accepted as or considered as definitive or conclusionary but rather for educational purposes that may add to your viewpoint but make sure it is your view point.

Have a wonderful peaceful now.

I love you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you are

Hi Lovers

Read the Attachment 'Hi Lovers' first and then 'Lovers ii'.

This is information for your discernment and should not be considered conclusionary with one exception. I AM Victor-Robert and I am not born with money.

Hi lovers

Lovers ii

It was shared with us that the words I AM is a key that indicates one is God. I do not know that to be true or not but what I can say is almost every spiritual teacher says the greatest command to the Universe starts with I AM. Those words are said to be very powerful and so it may be identifying yourself starting with I AM is as suggested. I am told that an indivudual contacted a certain aspect of government and was asked 3 times if there was a Miss or Mrs in front of that and the response was the same each time, I AM followed by given names. Twas after she replied that way the third time the call went through.We are told this. The government needs to know that we know who we are before anyone will be allowed to enter the Kingdom, access to the Treasury. It is said as I have shared before that Her Majesty protects the treasury.This is why I say you have to stop acting like children complaining. As Gods you have nothing to complain about I guess is the point and so until one gets it who he is, I mean really gets it, there may not be a way out.

I read on a web site that the Executor does not seek peace. That is a load of crap because God is peace.

Anyhow you will read in the first attachment that we have begun a process by which we will have our dominion over the earth accepted along with we are not born with money and the trustees, the public servants, are to take care of the payment of money but the focus is not the money but who we are and we are not saying I am this and i am that like many of you do. God set forth in the bible who we are and we do have dominion over the earth because as you should know, only God, the grantor, can take away what was granted just like the Crown may.

Enjoy

I love you

 

 

 

Remedy

Hi lovers

We are going out on a limb here but a good one i think.

Firstly, one must come from a if I do not protect myself no one will attitude when dealing with the government or its licencees, corporate entities, then my rights will be walked on.

The name on the BC was given to me to use. So a question for anyone else using it is, who authorized you to use that name and administer the Estate. BC is proof you hold the rights/interest in the name because it is your energy backing it or giving it life. In that sense you are the contributor/beneficiary if you so choose to be and by that I mean, if you allow others to put your name on paper and come at you with debt or charges or demands for money, the authority to do so, unless you want to contract, is your silence. Hence why I'd be asking, who authorized you to use my name? Who authorized you to administer the Estate? That talk there puts you in the seat of power because it is your name to use and you and only you decide how it is used, if at all.  But, when there is a contract in place then those comments do not apply, what does is, where is the bill. Bill = bill of exchange = money. A statement of account or invoice is not a bill. Bill is defined in section 16 of the Bills of Exchange Act.

As the holder of a BC you are the one with the power, dominion, over the name and your destiny.

But what the game is really about? Is it not to keep the people in bondage, slaves to debt? If you have unlimited means to pay debts would you care of the amount or cost?

The reason I ask that is this. There is a remedy that is deliberately withheld from us and it is that withholding in my view that must be addressed as it is in my view the remedy. We are not born with money and by withholding the 'bill' (the money) is the cause of the enslavement of the people. So we must push to get the bill as it is our remedy.

Where do we find the definition for money? In the Financial Administration Acts (section 1 or 2) is where. You will not to my knowledge find the meaning for money in any other legislation.Are you born with money?

The gov should be protecting our name and rights and interests since it is the one that registers the births of those born naked and with no money and issues the BC that proves name is your name, right and interest. Why is the gov or its licensees attacking you and your name when it should be protecting it. Because we allow it is the answer. Simple as that.

So we have two basic types of situations. Those where say an agent of government wants to contract with you, issue a ticket bearing your name, an obvious attempt to draw on your energy (get something from you), but you do not want to contract and or  you set the terms to contract because it is your name. The other is where you want to contract or there is already a contract but you want the bill/money otherwise you cannot pay. So we see here that playing in the traditional money game is the trap. To argue or do anything but accept full liability/responsibility and asking even demanding a bill is not in my view hitting the mark.

In fact I order that I be ordered to pay because the order for the money is the bill is the money. When a bank takes a debt matter to court what is it the bank is asking the court to do; issue an order for the money. The thing is though the bank gets possession of the order when you should be get, even demand it, because without it you cannot pay, unless you wish to go the I will work as a good slave and pay with after tax dollars. I will give 100% at work and pay out of the after tax net loss return of 65%. Did God create you to live like that?

Our friend D was in tax court years ago and the judge said, ok D I am giving you your REMEDY. The judge signed an order and handed it to D who then signed it and returned it to the court file. He got an acknowledgement from the Dept of Justice, paid in full . In that case the tax man was asking the court to order D to pay. The order is defined in section 16 of the Bills of Exchange Act. Just like you order goods the seller/claimant should order the money by issuing a bill but they do not. We have to press this and base it on a simple truth. I am not born with money and yes i did promise to pay and i agree with the amount but I need a bill. I need the remedy because I am not born with it and do not have it. Cannot get blood out of a stone means, Extortion, no sense trying to get money from he who does not have it but the obligations must be paid and the bill is as the court said to D, our remedy.

I guess what I am saying is we have to press for our remedy basing it in truth, I am not born with money, give me the bill. We have to get the bill knowing that if we do not we cannot pay and or that there is a deliberate attempt to withhold your remedy thus a deliberate attempt to enslave you.

The withholding of the bill is the withholding of our remedy is the cause of the enslavement of the people and it is time we stand up and stop  taking it in the you know what.

Now whoever refuses to give you a bill is the cause now of the debt, is the one with the liability, is the one blocking settlement of a account or debt.

It is called the But 4 Test. But for the actions of so and so not issuing a bill there would be no debt on this account. Now they use debt as a means of seizing assets. They use debt to control and regulate and enslave us period. We need the bill end of story.

So we can block attachment of debt and other obligations (contractual) by restricting use of our name and/or by saying, ok, you want to use my name here are the terms and conditions. When we want to contract or are already in a contract we free ourselves from bondage by asking for or demanding the bill. The proper course of business is to issue a bill. A statement or invoice is not a bill and a bill is the money.

So in situations where there is an existing contractual obligation to pay money, you need the bill. Or, you can continue to volunteer payment the slave way, via after tax dollars or borrowing.

I would like to hold a conference call about this and so if someone is willing to set it up, I do not care when, I will partake. Just organize it and let me know the day and time.

I love you

 

 

 

 

Interesting

Hi lovers

For your discernment. Please withhold your opinions.

http://awakeningasone.com/

Add-on to Valuable Token

Hi lovers

I was going to post this in the Comment section but decided it best be here...........

I am not saying but I believe when the BC in your hands is used properly as a valuable security issued by or under the authority of Her Majesty, how you sign documents etc matters not.  The focus is the security end of story.

You hold the security, her majesty issued it, and those being employed (paid) in the service of her majesty or a municipality are the public servants/trustees.

The security then informs the trustee that her majesty recognizes you have the power to direct. This power does not come from her majesty it is your birthright so long as you are in capacity as man or not one that is below a public servant. Her Majesty by the issue of a BC recognizes, is an acknowledgement of, the birthright, is what I am saying. The men and woman acting as public servants are, in that capacity, without their birthright. In a box.

This explains to me how it is people can send in a judgement to the court registrar (public servant) with instructions to settle it and it is settled. Simple as that. No mention of Occupying any Office either. No papers to file.

I am pondering the best way with the fewest words to cause the public servant to carry out what it is you want done.

The BC being a security is all the proof you need or your power to direct, instruct, command, demand, issue Orders to the trustees.

Section 4. (2) of the Criminal Code is where the rule for determining the value of a valuable security is but also says, "where value is material".

Since I said the BC as a security or valuable security is not a financial type, but performance, in that sense value is not material, performance is.

That is not to say a claim cannot be made for value but that is not my path to correct my mistake at the expense of others. Certainly not when the trustee performs as instructed.

I love you

Valuable Token

Hi lovers

As some of you know three of us met with the Deputy Registrar General face to face. At no time did we sense we were lied to or misled.

She said with 5 others in the room; "a BC is not and was never intended to be personal id that it is a valuable token". When she said that I handed her the BC and she said " it is not valuable in her hands".

It is however very valuable in my hands and is why I believe it to be a security. Not a financial type security but one that authorizes the holder to command performance.

Section 337 of the Criminal Code defines who the public servants/trustees are.

It is them you direct. The director directs the actors, those in capacity as other than man or man who is man or director.

So the BC in your hands is this type of security;

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

Definitions

1. (1) “security” includes,

(h) any certificate of share or interest in a trust, estate or association. Nothing to do with money

Section 2 (a) of the criminal code further defines a security as a 'valuable security". Are you seeing the picture now? You or the House you are of is the holder of the security and Her Majesty or legislature of a province the issuer and the issuer is the obliged, in this case, to make sure the public servants/trustees perform their duty. The criminal code is to keep them (public servants) in line. That from a retired RCMP.

So you can be, if you so choose, sitting on the throne of power/dominion. You hold the very valuable security and there can only be one master on the account.

As I see it the BC in your hands warrants you to direct the public servants and that Her Majesty agrees. The director directs the actors.

Now as per Webster's Dictionary "token" includes partial fulfillment of an obligation. Just like a bus token is in that by having it, you gave value and have not used it. The fulfillment of the obligation in the case of a bus token is that the bearer of the token is entitled to ride the bus (obligation of the bus company) and hands over the token to go for a ride. Hence a BC is an obligation of Her Majesty but not, as I said, in a financial sense. The BC has no inherent financial value.

I am not saying you hand over the BC because it is your token for life. It has similar characteristics is all I am saying.

To not take the throne is in my view presumed to be abandonment by you of your God given and Her Majesty recognized right of dominion. You can take the throne at anytime.

Fear and guilt are your worst enemies.

I leave you to ponder these things. More later.

I love you

 


The Dominion Project

Hi Lovers

It seems everytime there is a new guy on the block sharing information, everyone flocks to that guy and then next week or month flock to another new guy on the block. Have you not yet noticed your going around in circles.

I say, whatever they can do you can do. I say, no man holds or has your truth, you do.

Neverthesless, we inherited a birthright, dominium over the Earth, hereinafter the "Estate". Now why one would consider less than that is his choice I guess. So here, as members of the Kingdom of God, we are talking about the Estate being planet earth.

Now, you either have that birth right or you do not. If you do not, who took, by what authority, and where it is?

Thing is, no one or thing or fiction entity or title can take it therefore, it is presumed we have adandon our birthright/Inheritance.

Simple as that.

So we are now preparing documentation to make it known that we have not adandon said inheritance and this House administers this inheritance. We are giving ten days to dispute the Claim of Right or it is accepted we have dominion over the earth therefore are warranted to give orders. In short, it will be accepted we are warranted by Her Majesty, issuer of BC/security, to warrant so and so agent/trustee to perform the following and make your list.

The Criminal Code is meant to keep the trustees in line not us.

If you are of this world or acting that way then yes you will see you each can control a mini Estate or Estate within an Estate but in the higher vibration you know God gave man (not things/titles of this world) Dominium over the earth, the Master(s) Estate, and no small part of it.

This is all I have to say on this subject for now and offer it for your consideration.  

I love you

 

 

 

 

You Hold the Power

YOU HOLD THE POWER

I am of the opinion that this was posted previously but opinions carry little weight.

God gave man dominion over the earth, Estate. Her Majesty took an oath to maintain the laws (will) of God, Grantor. Protection of Her Majesty cannot include lifting us up but from being dragged under/depths/sinking/DEBT; non-spiritual. In other words, a vessel (name/Estate) is either under water (insolvent), admiralty, or on it (solvent). When you were extracted from the womb you got out of the water. Your feet print on the SOB the landmarks. You can walk on water, admiralty law, or drown in debt. God walks on water.

This is shared for informational purposes to add to viewpoints only.

I love you

 

 

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline
s2Member®