Archive for October, 2011


Hi Lovers

This is for those who hold the viewpoint we are slaves and have no choice.

Some of you may be following the acknowledgment and acceptance of and re-recording of the deed to land they are doing in the U.S.A. It may be a bit early to draw conclusions but so far so good.

A quick review. Folks who were noted as tenants on the land title documents are now recorded as sole owner. The excise tax guy says this land was given by the government as evidenced by the original land patent/grant and is not taxable. Mortgages are worthless. Worthless because the mortgage as well as the insurance is on the legal title and not the land. Two worlds out there people. Which do you see?

Now, if we are total slaves like some suggest, then how are these things possible? Let us see, they were formerly tenants but now they are not tenants. That suggests loud and clear the land is our land but until we step forth just as the Fed guy in Canada said in 1878 AND CLAIM OUR INTEREST,  we have more or less abandoned our interest and are mere users or tenants of property that belongs to us but we have not established a claim therefore it does not belong to us.

Now, when the deeds are properly acknowledged and accepted and re-recorded the mortgage is worthless which suggests clearly we never had to pay for the land in the first place. We thought we did but all we bought was a legal title, a piece of paper and it is that they insure (title insurance) but not for you, for the one risking lending you money to buy paper in the event you figure things out, e.g. the grant of land conveys the land free and clear. Clearly we are either ignorant or stupid for why would we pay for that what is free except we believe everything we hear?

Now I am not interested in pursuing the deed thing because I see the BC is the claim ticket that we can obtain a homestead, necessities, etc, and not have to pay or go through the process of credit or mortgage approval and then go through the deed process to get rid of the mortgage is stupid.

It may be buying the legal title has one in Admiralty but we see by the deed thing they are doing we have another choice. Whether or not one chooses the other choice I guess depends on his viewpoint.

Further, the fact these people doing the deed thing have a driver license or tax number did not interfere one iota with the process. It never came up.

If you read the post Subscription and Speculators document and did some study on that you see two possibilities, we have an interest in Canada and/or the BC evidences a right or promise accruing to the bearer.

I think it goes without saying that all we do we do in a legal name that is registered with the system and that is recognized in law. I think taking any action that is not in acceptance of that is like trying to say your mother is not your mother.  In other words, we all originated from an original source and cannot separate from it and thus serve it one way or anther, willingly or ignorantly. I see the legal name thing as the same.

Synonyms of 'interest' are; claim, share, stake. So when I say I have an interest in Canada that is what I mean.

I love you





Hi Lovers

A year or so ago i was told of a guy who went into court and said, I am authorized and bonded by her majesty to use that name.  I am told that was the end of the matter.

If a BC is scrip and scrip is a replacement for money (to obtain actual substance direct), then the BC is the real money (not the type that circulates) because the bank of canada notes are redeemable for the same kind of note. Paper for paper, IOU for IOU.

This all makes sense given it is us that is the basis of government, the family, credit. I see government as upper management of the family enterprise. They get paid to do the things that have to be done to keep the family together. Hmmm, what have we done to assist in that regard?

So, making the connections from source and the return, or, the beginning and end. You can only see this in your mind.

Starts with the registration of birth. Gets your existence  registered. They make it such that you need a BC, actually, holder of a share, contributor, source of energy.

When we use the BC a connection is made to the original registration which acknowledges (confirms) your energetic existence and that it is registered with the system/Information BANK. Good, we have a source of energy online. By acknowledging the BC as proof you have an interest in Canada, Canada authorizes the release of your energy in the form of payment. The return to you is the release to your use the thing obtained by payment. Balance, ZERO. The tax liability is with the vendors registered. Said vendors are funded by the family jewels, credit.

Of course I am not saying you go to Walmart and use the BC to make a purchase, that is not the point here. I am showing the connections so you can see the one that is missing. It is of course, acknowledgment of the BC as proof you have an interest in Canada and if your messing with me your messing with Canada, so, how can I help you? If I had a court matter on the table, that is an idea how I may speak recognizing that I when I am speaking, to whomever I am speaking I am speaking to me. I would surely make no excuse and accept full responsibility for what ever it is i did to release it; no controversy no mens rea, whereas avoidance is or appears to be. I am the causality in my reality.

The bigger picture is not about court matters but acknowledging the BC for what you know it to be. If, and I say if on your account, if you beleive you have an interest (investment, stake) in Canada then the BC is the proof of that interest end of story.

But, the claim has to be established meaning, you know what your rights and options are so you can choose whats next whatever it may be.

Treat this like a stock in General Motors. You do not go in saying, I did this and i did that in this name and and and is irreverent. In my view the KISS method is best in that nothing more need be said than, this BC proves I have an interest in Canada and i want to know what my rights and options are. That in my view is step one. If you beleive Canada or the province is screwing you, then you are correct, there is no family situation but do remember what Hidden-Hand, the so called dark side representative said, FAMILY FIRST. He did not come across to me that he meant his immediate family in terms like we do. There is only the one thus only one family.

It is up to you to acknowledge first to yourself whether or not you have an interest in Canada. God gave you the land known as Canada, then you have an interest in Canada.

If you say, everything I do in the name is for the owner of it and like jazz or who has the liability for that name, knowing the other facts, then you are saying I have an interest in Canada, or, you can hold the view, Canada is screwing me and this is not my name and all that jazz. Can you not sense the resistance in that?

What proof has anyone of a trust or estate? They dropped the 'E' in state or purposely did not add the word Estate after the name on the BC. Where is the proof of those allegations? Be not justified by the law and is not law of trust and reliance on it just that? How about plain old trust without law to regulate it and stipulate the rights and obligations of the parties to me is based on no trust.

Notice when you are resisting and consider a non resistive response or viewpoint in the stead.

With love

You decide

Hi Lovers

I share this as it was shared with me. It is for your discernment. I suggest dialogue on the issue can do it no justice the exception being, those of like mind coming together.

I tell you this, if any of this is true, and it is exactly what Ra said in the books the Law of One, and what Christ speaks of in his Letters from Christsway it makes our petty legality reality issues of ZERO importance.

Pole Shift is coming


Hi Lovers

I posted this under comments but thought to post it here.


“The act of writing one’s name under a written instrument; the affixing of one’s signature to any document, whether for the purpose of authenticating or attesting it, of adopting its terms as one’s own expressions, or of binding one’s self by an engagement which it contains.

State law determines the enforceability of oral and written subscriptions. Courts have regarded subscriptions that are not supported by some consideration as mere offers that become legally binding when accepted or when the recipient of the promise has acted in reliance on the offers. The promise that forms the subscription need not be to pay money but might be for the performance of other acts, such as to convey land or provide labor for construction”.

First off we see who the subscriber is on the BC. As i said, see it from the bottom up. You want to find out who is liable on a contract you look at the bottom of it.

This part “mere offers that become legally binding when accepted or when the recipient of the promise has acted in reliance on the offers” is interesting. We are children of the promise, but, as recipients of the BC who have not used it as intended, not acted in reliance of the offer, therefore, not binding on the issuer or promisor, e.g. of the BC.

Further from that site; “A subscription contract does not have to be in a particular form, or even in writing, provided the promisor clearly indicates an intention to have such an agreement or contract”.

Perhaps as was suggested here previously, accepting to be recognized by the name on the BC, an offer, is the contract. We know not accepting said offer has not resulted favorably.

I came across subscription whilst looking at scrip it came up.

Further from that site; “Where a state law mandates a writing, the subscriber’s name can be signed to the contract by the individual who solicits the contribution for the organization, if that person is authorized to do so by the subscriber”.

Is not the Registrar General compelled to register births and is the subscriber Ontario and or Canada (organization) and the BC the writing. We see at the top of a BC, ONTARIO and above that CANADA.

So it seems to me when the registrar signs a BC he/she is authorized to bind the organization, the one who ordered births be registered and authorizes BC, certificates, be issued; the subscriber.

Yup, my name is VRB and I have an interest, share in Ontario and or Canada. I would say Canada at the end of the day since it is named on the top-est part of a BC as it would appear on a contract.

Further; “Courts, as a matter of policy, uphold subscriptions if any consideration can be found. In a situation where the recipient of the subscription has begun work or incurred liability in reliance upon it, such action constitutes a consideration. A benefit to the subscriber, although it is enjoyed by her in common with others or with the general public, is also deemed sufficient consideration for the promise”.

I think we fit in there nicely regarding the consideration with one exception, we have not made known our interest/claim, thus, no reliance on the subscription. This situation with the BC seems to be a stock purchase backward, meaning, Canada has invested in us and given us the subscription so Canada would benefit in her name but as holders of the subscription there is a reciprocation thing. A Vortex of power but we are not in it. In short, Canada is the beneficiary of our productivity (assets in Canada) but as holders of the promise the beneficiary promises to pay for the benefit and we get use of property, land, etc.

I would say then one need not say he accepts to be recognized by the name because it is already the case.

Further; "Where a subscription indicates that any material change in the plan or purpose for which the subscription was made cannot be done without the consent of the subscriber, the subscriber will be released from the obligation if such a change is made without consent". I would say this is saying, if you wish to use a BC for a purpose other than as intended by the subscriber, you need to get the subscribers consent and if you do not have such consent, the subscriber will carry on treating the BC as intended regardless of what you, the holder, promisee, says or does or beleives. In other words, the subscriber is liable only if you use the BC as intended.

Further from that site; “Where the subscriber dies”……………….is this why they say, the king is dead, long live the king, subscriber. haha!

Seems there are two major forces out there. Us and them and so long as we see them has the power we do not when in fact we all do. Comes down to who uses it and who is a sheep. baaa baaaa! hahahaha!

The truth is, I do not know the truth, do you?

With love...................

Is the joke on us

Hi Lovers

You may recall a few months back discussions regarding the income taxes collected pay the interest to the bondholder, usurer.

For years conspiratorialists have asked and contemplated and accused regarding who the unknown shareholders are of the Federal Reserve or Bank of Canada.

Since it says on the Bank of Canada home page, "Ultimately the bank is owned by the people of Canada", I think the bondholder/shareholder is us. It sure fits with the most recent posts here, re scrip.

Let us consider this. You draw an income in the belief you need money to live. You know all money including source of income is borrowed into existence so who the usurer (burden shifter) is? Specially if you are holding a share that all that could be avoided. Daaa. No they did not tell us but as you read in the Speculator document they are under no obligation to find you and inform you you have an interest that you can claim so so get over it. How often have we said God gave this to us and and and. Ok, if you really believe that then what you are saying is, I have an interest, so claim it.

Further, are not the shareholders the true owners? Scrip includes, certificate of ownership, share.

This is further proof to me that the ego has us looking everyone for blame or remedy but the self. Get over it.

The Crown is the fiduciary. Fiduciary over what, what belongs to us but since we have not shown up to claim our interest they are protecting the shareholders interest even if that means tossing you in jail or taxing you to death to pay you back. Cannot pay you back though because you have not claimed or established your interest and that it is Canada.

Why do you think you need a license and insurance? Because you are operating things that do not belong to you, that is, until you have established your interest/claim. Why do you think you are noted as tenants? Because you are using property that is not officially yours, that is until you establish/prove your claim/interest. Why do you think you are subject to courts? Same reasons.

In short, is what is happening to us happening to us because we are the unknown true owners of assets/property in Canada? You mess with the tax code your messing with the family jewels, wealth. You damage property or life you are messing with the family jewels or is that jamly fools. haha!

The fax I sent to the Bank of Canada expressing what I think a BC is was very specific (proof of priority claim to assets/property in Canada) and a lady called in under 2 hours after I faxed it and said, "not us, contact the government of Ontario". There is an order from the ground up.

My mom says, if you got that information a year and a half ago why did you not act on it then. All I can answer is, my heart was not in the right place.

If you look at your BC starting from the bottom, we in Ontario see the signatures and seal. As we go up a bit we see issued in Province of Ontario. We go up a bit more we see VRB and a bit more ONTARIO and above that CANADA.

I will say that Canada is our family enterprise, all things are of and belong to God, that it was set up on that basis and that because we have been so self centered we had not the eyes that see or ears that hear.

So we are on the same page-ish here, this is not about getting bills paid or deflecting liability or getting a house or car or lottsa money or establishing your laws. Before you can claim against a corporation you have to establish a claim. Before you can claim an interest you have to establish the interest. I suggest we get this idea out of our heads that they owe us. We are owed yes but not by them. They it seems have given us the tools to be free of the money, usury, debt, burden, tax, lack, part of the game, but perhaps we began the game with the notion the game is not set up to serve us, the creators and inheritors of the earth and all her fruits.

I mean, most of us were going along in the game not aware there are other choices and then all of the sudden 10 or so years ago, out comes all this conspiracy stuff and we have been on that path every since and where has it got anyone? But, what began 10 or so years ago in a big way has led us to this point and so it is good, but, maybe it is time to let go of that beLIEf.

Folks are gearing up for a big crash and if that happens, we failed ourselves. It does not have to happen people. It is the pain body speaking those things.We can be a part of the problem or solution and wishing or hoping the system will crash is no solution but a scape goat.

I could be totally wrong about all this but something inside says otherwise. One thing for sure is that the goings on of the last 10 or so years has not got us the freedom we seek. Surely to carry on with the same basis of thought about the system is insanity.

But, the truth is I do not know the truth.

Be Well

I love you





Oh boy

Hi lovers

I am not saying, I leave that to you, but it sure seems if the BC establishes ones interest is Canada, then everything he does since it is in Canada is for Canada, if that is, Canada is his interest.

"however, only holders of an allodial title on land really do own the land forever, and land thus held is not subject to property tax.."

So even with fee simple title the property is subject to taxation.

Combo of BC proves interest in Canada and choosing to serve that interest, our major ONE investment if you will, there is no tax liability. I would be serving Canada (corporation, whatever, who cares), my, our interest. How can Canada, the mother corporation, tax itself?

Your service, whatever it is if any, would be recognized in the name on the BC.

If any of this is correct, refusing to be recognized by the name and all that other crapola stuff, is resistance and going in the wrong direction. Or is that EEEEEEEEEEErection...............? If the government is after you it is because you are fooling with our family jewels. Ok, you got me, I am a jamly fool.

What we have then is, you hold a BC that establishes your interest (share) in Canada and you have three primary choices as I see it and they are accounted in the name on the BC. Two of the choices are acceptable, the 3rd is where some choose to be.

They are, (1) you redeem and cash out, bye bye. (2) You use the BC to establish your interest in Canada and say, my interest is Canada so it is known you serve your interest, Canada, not yourself, not personal id, Canada pays. (3)You do neither.

But this is not about you, keep that in mind, but you can reap well I think

I know nothing..............

with one exception


I mentioned I had put together some information regarding pawn and pawnbroker. This of course was prior to concluding that a BC is scrip and so let this attachment add to that viewpoint.


Ah ha!

Hi Lovers

You really need to read about 'scrip'. I am going out on a limb here but I think that is what a BC is, scrip.

It is much like a pawnticket as discussed here recently.

Scrip; the holder is owed something, certificate of ownership, replacement for money, token, share in a corporation.

We know there is no money and so the money game is an illusion perpetuated by a very crafty but effective marketing campaign and our continued support. Get the credit you deserve, if you buy today you save ten bucks..............We took the bait hook line and sunker...........

This here from a previous post;

“Without offering, therefore, a recommendation in the matter, permit to remark that it seems to me to be no part of the duties of the Government to compel, so to speak, the half-breeds to prove their claims.

It is not necessary to look up parties who have claims. If they care for their interests, they themselves will come forward and establish their claims”.

We know a BC is not personal id but the way we use it in keeping with the above is contrary to its purpose. When we use it as personal id we care for our own interests like when we say I am the executor of this estate or pay these bills this is not my name and related crapola.

A BC is proof you have an interest in Canada aka. not personal identification. I shared what the Bank of Canada said to me by phone.

By the word scrip we see there are options or choices. If you read the post in which Sir John A. spoke he said there are two ways to claim land. Go and claim it now and work it and get the patent, or, take scrip which is to be used later to acquire land. Scrip is a claim ticket, valuable token.

Certificate of ownership in Canada. Now the choices in reality as i see it are two, you can claim your interest in a share of a corporation/Canada, take the money and cash out, or, claim land. As Sir John A said, if you take the land one is no longer under the PARENTAGE of the government. We have to get to land.

So if the BC is scrip as I believe it is, then we by using the BC as personal id gave the BC a purpose not intended and more importantly, not recognized, therefore, no legal basis for the claims we have made to date regarding the BC.

Using the pawn shop as an example the pawnticket/scrip means the holder is owned something and that the holder has an interest in the pawnshop, that being, not the pawnshop, but that what is yours to claim in the pawnshop, your property. In that sense as i said then, Canada is the pawnshop and all assets in Canada belong to the shareholders, us. But, as holders of scrip, we have two options, take the money or the land. Treat the scrip as a share in a corporation which is redeemable (claimable) only for money and cash out or as a share in (claim) the land.

So again I am going out on a limb but I think that if one indicates the BC is his proof of interest in Canada he is, although not confirmed, saying, this is not about my success but the success of Canada and everyone on board. That is what opens the first door.

In using the BC as personal id we create or perpetuate a total illusion. If the BC is scrip then its purpose is very narrow and if the purpose you give it is in any way indicative you use it or the name for your own interest, which you are if you do not say it establishes your interest in Canada, meaning not you, ones care is for himself and that is going totally against the grain, purpose of a BC, and now you know why we reap what we do, if, any of this is correct that is.

Like Sir John A. said, we gave them this so they could get that and gave them this and that and that and that and they complain...........

Sound familiar?

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye ego...................Now only a fool would act solely on what he read here. Tis recommended you not watch tv and that you get out the books or on the computer, get off your ass, do your own due diligence and seek to confirm or refute the above. Just because it sounds good or reads well does not make it right or true. How many times have we reacted to what we read on the net, implemented it, and we are still here so obviously that copy cat method does not work.

Scrip is a very neat word we covered years ago but maybe did not have the eyes to see because the heart was in the wrong place. A replacement for money does not mean to get bills paid for that statement right there or mindset has ones head in the sand. Scrip if you so choose proves your interest is not in yourself and not being personal id, how can that be disputed?

If the BC is scrip then it is proof that the holder has an interest in Canada and is owed something. Just what we are owed to be honest, I have no clue, but what I can do is ASK.

Do you listen to yourself. Do you say I know nothing but then go forth as if you know? If so, clearly there is inner turmoil that should be cleared.

Now if you read about Sir John A. in the post attachment you see an order of things regarding the making of claims. If you do not claim you do not care for your interest.

You can bet your booties the scrip Sir John A. speaks of was valuable and was signed and sealed for authentication.

I love it, I mean you, I mean me, I mean one, the all.








Hi lovers

I am putting it out there that it would be neat to share here the results of asking.

Asking for forgiveness, something, release, whatever.

I mean, if some people think giving orders and issuing commands will get results, surely asking will.

What is so difficult about contacting a creditor and asking forgiveness? What is so difficult about asking a judge for forgiveness?

Forgiveness may be a remedy. If not asked for then perhaps that is what they act on. The lack of asking to be forgiven may being saying, I intended to do what I did. What if one were to ask for forgiveness and is denied? Might the refuser get stuck with a liability? Not that the issue is who has the liability but if i ask you to forgive me and you refuse, which of us is stuck with the burden?

Ya ya I know we have been screwed over and the screwers owe us and so no way I, me, a man, king of the hill, big cheese, big chief, know it all, am going to ask them for forgiveness. THEY OWE ME.

I read posts of people taking that go get the bastards stance and for most it does not go well, therefore, maybe, just maybe, humbling thyself and asking forgiveness is better.

Could it be that not asking forgiveness is why they do what they do? Why they continue to come after one? The fact they come after one one must have done something to attract it. We must acknowledge and accept that for we are an integral part of everything, the one, the all. All is one and so when asking forgiveness who are you asking? I feel peace within when I think to ask forgiveness. Is it because I am making peace with, me, the one, the all?

I suppose it depends where one is at but as it goes in this world, one is not given greater responsibility until he demonstrates he is responsible .

Anyone going up the corporate ladder knows that well and the higher up the ladder one goes the greater the responsibility. So how it be God is going to allow us greater freedom and responsibility, to advance up the spiritual ladder if we cannot humble ourselves and admit a mistake and ask to be forgiven?

What charge can be held against one who admits a mistake and asks forgiveness? When a child does a so called wrong and looks you in the eye and says, sorry, do you punish the child? Is his confession good enough?

Do we come to peace by admitting a mistake and asking forgiveness or forgoing that and do anything but? Does belligerence bring peace? Does ordering those and commanding those not under your direct employ make friends? You ask them for the authority to do what they do yet order them. Where is your authority to do that and that aside, if you are going to order or command, you'd best be prepared to be order and commanded.

Law of Cause and Effect is inescapable but not believed by many. Oh ya, they talk about it but then ignore it, they acknowledge the laws of this world in the stead and react and cause and react and cause and things just get bigger and badder.

I suppose that we when see ourselves in all others, and the love and compassion grows, we will ask for forgiveness knowing we are asking and making peace with self.

I saw a short picture clip thingy, thank you Christine, and one picture was of an old woman in raggedy clothing sitting on the ground her back to a post. She was asking for help. The caption below said, she is mother nature. I cried when I saw that picture and I am now. The question is not what I do to get them to do about it but what I am going to do about it............?

Enough of the fight. If we want peace we must be at peace within.

Ask and it is given

I love you





grant of scrip and land

Hi Lovers

The attachment contains the stuff I mentioned about Sir John A. MacDonald. I think you will find it very enlightening. Keep in mind that things are not as they were back in 1878ish........Much is revealed in my view.

From the attachment

"Without offering, therefore, a recommendation in the matter, permit to remark that it seems to me to be no part of the duties of the Government to compel, so to speak, the half-breeds to prove their claims.

It is not necessary to look up parties who have claims. If they care for their interests, they themselves will come forward and establish their claims".

They are saying the government is not under a duty or obligation to locate and confirm claims.

I am not saying but it may be the BC establishes an interest thus a claim. I did inform the Bank of Canada I have a BC issued in Ontario and believe it to be proof of claim to assets in Canada. I got a call back from that bank in about 2 hours. Contact the Gov't of in my case, Ontario.







Ask and it is Given (granted)

Hi lovers

I was going to send this to a friend but as it progressed I thought it good to share here.
I have been reviewing your certificates of acceptance.

These are my thoughts;

The gov did not grant you a name or dictatorship but a BC, short of the long form.

All I have read about executor is that party is with the liability and or obligation, duty to perform. They will, in my view, act on what is said in their rules etc and not by what we say. God did not make us executors and so what I see them seeing you say is, send the bills/charges to here.

They still say many who followed the D.C. executor method are in jail.

Regarding the deed thing, at no time has anyone said anything about executor or administrator in that it seems not to be necessary.

Think about this; in the stead of passing off or appearing to pass off or not accept obligations, ask and it is given. Ask for forgiveness.

How responsible or honourable it is to say or insinuate  "you have the obligation"? To me that is a legal land mindset. Obligations, there are no obligations with God.

I am not saying but it sure seems one of the lessons of life on this planet is to learn to and be responsible and ok with being humble. No orders, no demands, ask.

When the government was giving out land by grants, all one had to do was ask and it was given; he did not demand land. The ego will say, God gave it to me so I am not asking they owe me. And that may be so but if asking does the trick, demanding seems to not work, then ask.

Maybe we doubt who is in charge is why we do not think to ask. Maybe that mindset is what empowers them (other self) to use that power over the thinker (self), like for like. or reaping what one sews.

Maybe we have not been children yet but irresponsible and by asking we are as children. When the request is granted, you can be the babysitter, we then at that moment are grown up, responsible. The government did not grant land to children so I am speaking metaphorically, the point being, has anyone asked?

When someone owes you do you not ask for what is owed. If the ower (issuer of BC in this case) is not sure who he owes, would it not be good for the owee (recipient) to identify himself and ask?

We have land and legal land. One is real property the other is where everyone's mind is. Land of obligations but if ones asks, there are no obligations, it is either yes or no and done, finished, right then and there.

I shared what someone shared with me recently, and that is his wife asked that a debt be forgiven and I was told it was. A lady out west sent in a copy of the SOB with a short note asking that a debt be settled, it was.

Perhaps taking any other action is what has us bound up in legal title land. See, when you ask you are dealing with things GIVEN, not like when you offer you are buying or contracting. And ordering those not under your employ to perform in my view is akin to egotistical warfare that will be matched in kind.

If you ponder over whats going on with the deed thing shared lately on the net, ask and ye shall receive seems may be the smooth road.

I mean, if one can have the record changed after the fact to show one is the sole owner of the land in fee simple, no claims are on the land itself, then one can obtain land from the get go by making it clear before hand the warranty deed (indenture) is used to transfer good clear title. No surprises.
That be the case, one can simply request land. If that can be done then surely at that moment it is accepted you are not part of legal land.

Perhaps that is what children of God do, they ask. Perhaps the earthly authorities are his authorities waiting for you to ask. We have taken many roads that are dead ends and yet when people have asked they have received.

I think the government at upper levels knows what a BC is and who you are and that the body is of the ground and that God did breathe life into it and you are a child/heir of God but..........................HAVE YOU ASKED? Ask and it is GRANTED.

Maybe that is what a BC is for, to recognize you as a son/heir of God.

Like i said, these are my thoughts.

With love.

p.s. I was just informed that the lady who asked that a debt be forgiven did not include the SOB or BC. This suggests to me that they know the difference of man and corporation and same regarding the names. In other words, when they see VRB they know they are dealing with a person or a man or a woman. Persons contract, children of God ask. The asking is what makes one a child of God.

The BC is a 'valuable token', and since it was not required that the debt was forgiven, it did not prove identity on that account, the name did, so the BC must be representative of something else. Perhaps a form of or a crown grant or proof of right to request land (maybe more) by grant which is all they had to do way back when according to Sir John A MacDonald. I shared he was pissed when he became aware the land was being taken by speculators. The same happened in California and probably everywhere and evolved into what we have today, speculators. We are all speculators.

Now isn't that spectacular?

I would say that anyone purchasing land is seen as purchasing it for investment and do not people say my house is worth more now or less now and is that not what speculation is? Based on an inituial investment in terms of money. So money not the land is the interest. Do you see it?

The reason for capital gain tax is the investment was based on speculation.

My point is, purchasing land like we have may deem one a speculator. If you ask and it is given dare you sell it and take the money (total disgrace) therefore, the market or commercial value is of no interest to you, the substance is, thus no speculation nor speculator. Just accept what is already given by the creator of the heaven and earth.


Law Relating to Registration

Hi Lovers

I came across the document upload here. Take note of the purpose of extracts.

"An Act for enabling Courts of Justice to admit Non- parochial (parish) Registers as Evidence of Births or Baptisms, Deaths or Burials, and Marriages".

As far as I can tell, they are upholding that act. An example is section 46 of the Vital Statistics Act Ontario. I would say a certified copy of registration or certified extract, a BC,  are certificated authentication documents. Admissible as proof means no doubt, highest level of evidence. The proof is the proof. So, although a BC is no the original, for purposes of law it is original. But it must be a Certified Extract.

Further, when I had the certified copy of registration of birth (SOB) authenticated on it includes this; "I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the facsimile signature is that of JUDITH M. HARTMAN, and the Seal, an impression of which appears on the annexed certificate (SOB), is the Seal of the Registrar General of the Province of Ontario and that faith and credence are due and ought to be given to such signature and Seal in all places.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto set my Hand and affixed the Seal of the Management Board of Cabinet of the Province of Ontario at the City of Toronto in the said Province this twenty-seventh day of April A.D. 2004   [signature] for SECRETARY OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET".

So, the only question now is, what does the record verify or mean and how can it benefit us? I think we can use it to verify, we, the soul of God, occupy the body of the dust of the ground known as man and are the donne of the given names. We being the spirits in the bodies of the dust of the ground, earth/land. That gets us to land and man has dominion over the land.

Are we immovables?

If a deed to land proves lawful occupation of it, then I think the SOB proves lawful occupation of the body and given names as donee. As a divine being occupying a body of the dust of the ground, what are you occupying and the names given you by your folks were not given to the body but received, recorded in your memory?It is all how you look at it. You are not the body you occupy one. So if the SOB means that then the BC must by extension as another extract, short form, have the same meaning. I dunno.............

But there is this: A birth certificate according to the Deputy Registrar General is a 'abstract' and Websters says this about that; a shortened form of a work RETAINING the general sense and UNITY of the original. The original of course is the SOB and so it would seem that the BC is nothing more than proof of the original which may include your body in the originating process. So it sure seems that the BC is a form of a crown grant/deed.

In other words, we have a name in mind, they are the given names, and we have names in the system as a judge put it but that name includes the surname and is not the one in mind. But the surname does connect lineage for inheritance. What did we inherit? Land, a name, what was given before me time here, a freehold or landed estate as distinguished from an estate at will only. See Statute of Frauds.

Now with regard to the name on the BC, one it seems would be in a better position to take lawful ownership of the landed estate VRB, which may be or include your body since it is of the dust of the ground and you are the life breathed into man. Your body is recognized by or as the name in my case VRB and if the body also be of the land, then the name is recognizing that what is of the land, not you personally because you occupy the body, you are not the body.  The land is your in inheritance along with dominion over it.

A death certificate certifies the death of a testator. If you read Genesis 2:7 and the Ontario Vital Stats Act of the meaning of birth you see a relationship which suggests a knowingness to me that they know we occupy a body of the land. We just have to get it right within ourselves.

Genesis 2:7, and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

birth” means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a fetus that did at any time after being completely expelled or extracted from the mother breathe or show any other sign of life..........

The phrase "other signs of life" is interesting. They are aware of life and signs of it. But what the signs of life are, signature, thumb print, blood? I am not saying but I think given the order of events in the bible, God gave man dominion over the earth and then later breathed life into him. Is that symbolic of the awakening of the spirit of God or that it exists in us but until awake, we are mere men led by human rather than divine consciousness? Regardless, I know I am not the body therefore I occupy it and I (soul of God) am the donee of the name and man is of the land and the land, earth, man is given dominion over and that could mean or include the body once you acknowledge possession/occupation of it. Acceptance of the SOB may be the 1/10th giving one absolute indefeasible title, power and authority as all power is ordained of God.

Terminology aside, see it this way, there is I am, the spirit of God and donee of the given names occupying (not own) the body of the dust of the ground known as man that is the recipient of a BC and lawful owner of the landed estate known as VRB. If the body be recognized by the name in my case VRB, then I as acceptor would be the lawful owner of it as well as appurtenances and hereditaments and tenements and you get the drift if this makes sense.

Seal (noun); something that confirms, ratifies, or makes secure: GUARANTEE, ASSURANCE. That is what we have on a BC and a authenticated cert copy of SOB. Faith and credence.........

Law Relating to Registration 3

Statute of Frauds (mentions legalization)

Still working things out


With Love






Hi Lovers

Seal (contract law)

Until modern statutory reforms in contract law, a seal was widely recognised by courts in common law jurisdictions as removing the need for consideration (value) in a contract. This reflects classical contract theory, in which consideration was viewed as a formal aspect of a contract, so that a seal could be considered an alternative form. A seal was not per se a type of consideration, but rather raised a presumption of consideration (courts have varied in their opinions of whether this presumption was rebuttable). See, e.g., Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. Hurley, 365 Mass. 280, 285-86 (1974).

The rationale for this special treatment of sealed contracts can be understood in terms of the legal formalities that are associated with sealing a document with a wax seal. Firstly, the following of the legal formality of affixing a seal to a document was evidence of the existence of a contract. Secondly, the need to use a seal – widely known to have legal significance – served to impress upon the parties the significance of the agreement being made. This element of deliberation is important in the context of many legal theories for why donative promises are not generally enforceable in the same way as contracts: there is a concern that donative promises are sometimes made under pressure (for example, from family members) without adequate deliberation, which explains why a requirement for the legal formality of the seal might substitute for consideration to give enforceability to donative promises. Thirdly, the following of the legal formalities through the use of a seal demonstrated beyond doubt that a legal transaction was intended by the parties.[1]

Like we wrote the other day, with regard to the name the folks gave us we are the donee, but as for the BC the gov gave (granted) us, it has a seal onto it for it seems, enforceability.

The common law rule which required that a deed made by a private individual had to be sealed to be validly executed was finally abolished in 1989 by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The Act implemented recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in their 1987 report Deeds and Escrows[7] and replaced seals with the requirements that the document had to explicitly state that it was being executed as a deed, and had to be witnessed.[8]

Keep in mind that the grantor is with the liability. Notice to "the common law rule" regarding a private individual. When have you ever acknowledged a deed as a private individual (man)?

There are title deeds and land deeds.

Seal of office

7.  (1)  The Registrar General shall have a seal of office. If you look at the Coat of Arms for Ontario it is very similar to the emblem on the BC but, it is not the same. The parts in colour are not on the one on the BC. I would say that is the Seal of Office of the BC and cert true copies of SOB.

Seal of office--effect.

374.050. 1. The seal now used by said department shall be the seal of the office of the director of the department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration, and the same may be renewed whenever necessary.

2. Every certificate or other paper executed by said director in pursuance of any authority conferred on him by law, and sealed with his seal of office, and all copies of papers in the office of said director, certified by him and authenticated by said seal, shall, in all cases, be evidence equally and in like manner as the originals, and shall have the same force and effect as the originals thereof would, in any suit or proceeding in any court of this state.

Divided titles

Hi Lovers

What is fee simple?

At common law, an estate in fee simple in a parcel of land is one transferred absolutely to a person and his or her heirs, forever, without any conditions. This is the highest estate in land that can be held by a person in a common law province.  The civil law equivalent of a fee simple estate is the concept of "ownership," which is the right of enjoying and disposing of an immovable in the most absolute manner. The only restriction is that no use be made of the immovable that is prohibited by law or regulation.  An estate in fee simple is freely transferable by deed, will or otherwise.”

So we see two types of titles, one in common law the other under civil law.

For a $50 fee landowners can obtain a certified copy of the Crown Land Patent Grant relating to their property by contacting the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources with the lot, concession and original township information.

I was typing and this came out;

"When one wakes up to who he is he can move back to the common law side of the fence where the land is leaving the legal title and the encumbrances and debts on the other side because that is where they are".

We land when we get back to common law and stop playing in legal land or dealing in legal titles except as grantee. Delivery of the baby was made to the dock/tor and then delivery was made back to mom. The baby is still at sea, in transit, negotiation, receivership pendente lite, still working things out.

Another thing hit me when typing.

On land documents the property is registered like this SMITH, Mary.

They like on the BC put the surname first in line and on the land thing it is always that I have seen in BLOCK letters.

SMITH is a legal title and so I wonder if by putting it first like that on the legal title it means, first in line first in time. In other words, the legal title is priority title.

Now, when the land deed stemming from the crown grant is acknowledged and accepted, if we do that acknowledgement like this Mary Smith and Mary has also already accepted the given names, now Mary is first in line and in time under common law of God because the land was created and given long before civil law or legal titles came to be.

So perhaps for want of the acknowledgement being done legal title trumps.

It is probably better to be a friendly occupant of land than a owner of legal title.

Certificate of Occupancy

Hi Lovers

Strange title for a post but hopefully we make sense of it.

- Order and Truth -

All order is based up-on real-truth, so the-only way to get back, to true-law, and real-order, is to return to the-real truth. Chinese Proverb.

Ok then, let us begin by taking that advice and heed to this;

Genesis 2:7, and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

and this;

Vital Statistics Act, "birth" means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a foetus that did at any time after being completely expelled or extracted from the mother breathe or show any other sign of life…………

So, man is of the dust of the ground, earth, thus the body (dead meat) is of the land. Then God breathed life into man and that life occupies the body known as man.

That is a truth we can then move forward from.

The life is not the body but the lyghte occupying the body thus we can say that a birth certificate, given the events surrounding its issue and the facts of life, is a certificate of occupancy, you, the divine, in the body.

So the registration of birth process ACKNOWLEDGES and ACCEPTS, proven by act of registration, the facts of life. Firth there was life/lyghte so we are at the beginning and the foundation of truth.

Now onto some more truth.

Statement of Birth, form folks sign, proves (records) you are the donee of the given names or names given. Those givens name(s) exist in your head. They are not part of any public record as far as originals go. You do not answer to paper you answer to a name you hear and when you hear e.g. mary you, the life, not body, is the one called.

Who those name(s) are TO be received by however is a different story. In your mind you have received and accepted the name(s) but that is not public NOTICE.

Not known, still in transit, on the seas, until the deed, SOB) is properly acknowledged and accepted as donee of the givens name e.g. Mary. Once that is done there is no doubt now that when you say "I am Mary", you are not MARY SMITH.

Negotiation (transit) is completed by delivery and delivery is past tense for, accepted. You see, until the goods are offloaded it cannot be said delivery has been made let alone the cargo accepted.

So upon notice of acceptance (these terms are found in the bills of exhange act) then delivery has been made, means, landed. No longer in transit or negotiation or at sea. It, the voyage, is finished, and a re-birth/berth.

At this point now we have you who answers to the name mary occupying the body. That concludes part one; opening of first chakra.

Part two is a completely separate but connected situation that until part one is done blocks the second chakra from opening.

Part two is dealing with the birth certificate (BC) and the issue of it and first off, when part one is done there is no way the BC evidences the name on it was given to you by your folks, because on the BC it would show, SMITH, MARY or Smith, Mary.

Further, the law did not compel your folks to give you a name they were going to do that law or no law. Another reason the name you, the life, answers to is not on the BC and the birth record proves it, is acknowledgement.

What I am getting at is, and is the reason i chose the word donee above, the names given me we given freely by my folks whereas the one on the BC had to be applied for and we do not apply for a name but a BC.  In other words, a child does not apply to his parents for a name, it is forgiven, but if you want a BC you must apply for it.

Further, for title in the BC to pass to the recipient would have to receive some kind of release or receipt/acknowledgement. The fee paid for a BC is an admin fee, not a contract, no consideration in money or that can be sued on, and full legal title does not pass to the recipient.

So, what the heck is a BC.

I say it is a form of a Crown Grant and i say that because of the information already put above and also because although one may apply for a BC he may not obtain one which means it can be withheld which means if you did obtain one it was granted as is simultaneously the entitlement of the recipient, the body, to be recognized by the name appearing on the BC.

At this point now we have you in the body who answers to the name mary occupying the body recognized by the name MARY SMITH (a legal title).

Remember we are talking of a grant here and that you are not MARY SMITH and the grantor holds the title and the liability. Warranty Deeds are made out by the grantor and the grantor by his hand and seal (see birth certificate/deed) is with liability. All we got is a BC, grant. I think this more of a province type grant than a government grant. Further, if the grantee not be known, e.g. did not accept as grantee, marketable title stands as king.

Since the BC was granted and because the name on it is not the one given us by our folks (see part one) it is granted us by the province. By accepting the deed as grantee we bind the grantor. to his promise. God is the likely real grantor and so even better we accept as grantee. Accept the Father into our heart.

Blacks 4th DEED, at common law, a sealed instrument, containing a contract or covenant, delivered by the party to be bound thereby, AND ACCEPTED BY THE PARTY TO WHOM THE CONTRACT OR COVENANT RUNS. Now it cannot run to you until you accept and it does not run to you but MARY SMITH when dealing with MARY SMITH, hence, it is okay for the body to be recognized by the name MARY SMITH; you are a user, for we are talking the legal title side. I believe the contract is the entitlement to be recognized by the name (offer and acceptance). I am not certain that the acceptance of the BC only is sufficient to bind the grantor.

I see we are on the fee simple side of the fence (common law, grants, gifting, life) and the BC name on the legal title side of the fence (marketable titles. paper,debt, death).

It may be said like this with respect to the BC or part two here.

I, mary, a woman, in the capacity of MARY SMITH am recorded as the grantee on the deed (grant/BC). That is the opening sentence and does not include the acknowledgement and acceptance. This allows me to interface with commerce but without the obligation of being MARY SMITH (i am doing but not in my name but I am grantee after acceptance) or beneficiary or under civil law and if the BC is a grant by grantor, which in my estimation it is considering there is no consideration involved and there is a or signatures and a seal on BC's and it is not the name given me on the BC, it appears to be a deed at common law, where life is, and I think the party bound thereby will step forth voluntarily once it receives acknowledgement and acceptance. So long as you are in the loop of MARY SMITH as grantee, you mary receives no benefit or recognition. Which is exactly how Father would have it.

They have to because once you acknowledge and accept the SOB deed, for all intents and purposes you are mary and so someone has to take the legal liability for MARY. Part two formalizes or as my good cook friend Chris says, caramelize. Taste better........haha!

Acceptance is delivery meaning you have landed. The process for acceptance I would say cannot be done and witnessed only by you. I think your witnesses have to know you as mary at which point mary is the one who can accept. That is minor technical stuff.

I am still pondering this through but it was after reading revised statues of Ontario 1950 that I came across Certificate of Occupancy and I saw me in the body occupying it as one with dominion over the earth and a BC as an acknowledgment of that.

In this country when first settled, to get land you had to apply and if you got the grant then your application, offer, was accepted. The point is, if you do not ask how it is you can receive?

Well, we are the children of the promise (deed, contract under seal, lyghte) and as far as I can tell, the government has done it by the book on the basis we are with dominion over the earth and have rights to share of it as seeds-of-lyghte.

Only you can acknowledge and accept what was given you and only you can acknowledge and accept the corresponding BC etc as grantee.

At this point now we have you in the body who answers to the name mary occupying the body recognized by the name MARY SMITH (a legal title) recognized as grantee.

Legal liabilities (title) are in MARY SMITH who is a legal title on the legal title side of the fence and we by virtue of acceptance of the grant/deed as grantee, should as far as I can tell, if any of this is correct, enjoy the ride, inheritance.

It is suggested in the bible to come out of her, to be in the world not of it. I am thinking that means, come out of MARY SMITH as MARY SMITH and be in MARY SMITH as grantee. Your friends call you (the occupant) mary, the public sees your body as MARY SMITH and the information system knows MARY SMITH as a friendly, SON (in law) to be served.

Gives a new meaning to 'go within or go without'........hahahahaha!

With love



Hi Lovers

Found this in the 1960 Revised Statutes of Ontario link here....

You have to scroll down alphabetically. Notice to the words have changed. I think they scanned the documents using some kind of word reader and so you will notice incomplete sentences and other errors but the meat is there.

Personal 42. — (1) No tax is payable under section 4 or 5 by a .......corporations exempt corporation for a fiscal year during which it was a
personal corporation.

(2) In this Act, "personal corporation" means a corporation that, during the whole of the fiscal year in respect of which the expression is being applied,

(a) was controlled, whether through holding of the majority of the shares of the corporation or in any other manner whatsoever, by an individual resident in Ontario, by such individual and one or more members of his family [qualified below] who were resident in Ontario or by any other person on his or their behalf; [Hallow: a holder of BC you can be sole shareholder]

(b) derived at least one-quarter of its income from,

(i) ownership of or trading or dealing in bonds, shares, debentures, mortgages, hypothecs, bills, notes or other similar property or interest therein,

(ii) lending money with or without securities,

(iii) rents, hire of chattels, charterparty fees or remunerations, annuities, royalties, interest or dividends, or

(iv) estates or trusts; and [Hallow: this one here although I am withholding until further investigation, seems is very much applicable, in fact, provable].

(c) did not carry on an active financial, commercial or industrial business. [Hallow: Charities, estates, do not, I believe, fall into that category unless of course, we do or do not do something that the information in the system, otherwise known as NOTICE, indicates either we are partaking in such, or, have not given NOTICE of something. I will get into that aspect here in the coming days. I have some verifying to do yet]

Idem (3) For the purpose of clause a of subsection 2, the members of the family of an individual are his spouse, sons and daughters, whether or not they live together.

Distribution (4) The income of a personal corporation whether actually distributed or not shall be deemed to have been distributed to and received by the shareholders as a dividend on the last day of each fiscal year of the corporation.

Sec. 42 (9) HI CORPORATIONS TAX Chap. 73 931

(5) The part of the Income of a personal corporation that Division [<<< I think that is the wrong word, maybe it should be distribution] of shall be deemed under this section to have been distributed to and received by a shareholder of the corporation shall be the proportion thereof that the value of all property [Hallow: private-productiivitylabour] transferred or loaned to the corporation by the shareholder or any person by whom his share was previously owned is of the value of the property so acquired by the corporation from all its shareholders.

(6) The value of property transferred or loaned to a Valuation personal corporation shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be its value at the time the property was transferred or loaned to the corporation.

87. — (1) Every corporation that is required by this Act to pay taxes shall keep records and books of account, including an annual inventory kept in the prescribed manner, at its permanent establishment in Ontario or at such other place as is designated by the Treasurer, in such form and containing such information as will enable the taxes payable under this Act to be determined. Hallow: since there appears to be no tax liability, this section is not applicable but I wanted you to see it.

Now the above is from 1960 and so we need to find it in more current legislation. This is a request to all of you researches to seek and find it and let me know. Thank you!

Now onto what they call the Registry Act in Ontario. Here is section 105 of that Act;



105.  In this Part,

“document” includes,

(a) a plan of survey,

(b) any certificate, affidavit, statutory declaration or other proof as to the birth, baptism, marriage, divorce, death, burial, descendants or pedigree of any person, or as to the existence or non-existence, happening or non-happening of any fact, event or occurrence upon which the title to land may depend,

(e) a notarial copy of a certificate, affidavit, statutory declaration, proof, notice or receipt described in this section that the Director specifies. 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 260.

Deposit of document

106.  (1)  A document may be deposited in the office of the land registrar of any registry division in which any land to which it relates is situate. R.S.O. 1990, c. R.20, s. 106 (1).

Question, for what reason or purpose may one wish to make such a deposit? With what I have in mind and when verified, and I share more information, the dots may start connecting for you. Hint, if it is not in writing it did not happen = no NOTICE. When you see what they do with land, the paperwork, deeds, certificates etc, they are or I should say we believe they are following the same process and procedures when they register births. SOB is the deed and the BC the certificate but there is more to it not mentioned.

Hint, a thing is not given unless the recipient has acknowledged his ACCEPTANCE of the gift. Til then, title has not passed or is an uncertainty. A uncertainty for example can be this under Gratuitous Promises and Gifts; a gift is given but the giver, grantor, changes his mind later and says he did not give the gift and sues for the value of the gift. What action may you take as the recipient of the gift, grantee, that may prevent that? Not only that, if you do not take such action, what proof have you it was you that received or was meant to receive the gift?

Hint: do not rely on the other guy to do what need be done that your ass, rights in property are secure and witnesses must be involved as must some form of NOTICE = public record.A public record is un-defeatable barring fraud or mistake which is no concern for us here given the government in the case of registration of birth did it.

Years ago I used to say at seminars, sometimes we see folks have things on their front lawn saying FREE and you stop and pick up the free thing. Here is the kicker, what proof have you the property is yours, that you did not steal it?

Now another kicker, absent proof of gift, I mean proof, the law presumes he purchased the property (rights) but since we are talking of a gift here there is no proof of purchase, receipt, which is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, hence; what action can you take to secure yourself from the happening of that event? I tell you this, it is really simple....................hahahaha!

With love

p.s. It is possible that when we buy land we are not paying for land. It is a scam.



Hi Lovers

This is the result of redeeming the token/BC.

You will come out with your freedom like you do when you redeem a token when playing, or want out of,  monopoly. As long as you play that game you are not free. How can you be when your sitting in a chair at a table?. So when one quits the game, e.g. by way of redeeming the token the only thing the player walks away with is his freedom. He has no debts to settle because that is part of the game as are the houses and cars and all that stuff.

What greater thing do you value than your freedom?

Now if you think you are entitled to more than your freedom, I believe that mindset will or is what is blocking us from being free of the game.

If your freedom is not good enough then you will be in the game. How do you know what comes with freedom from the game? You don't but you know the burdens of playing the game, monopoly.

I think at the end of the day what binds us most is we want more than life and freedom. I am confident that with freedom comes the gifts and love of God that Father. That they will flow to us or fall in our lap. Oh ye of little faith.

When Neo was asked what he wanted he said Peace.



Are we considered Hostages

Hi Lovers

Are we in the host age?

Indeed, the “pawn” in pawnshop comes from the word for “pledge”, as in the collateral left, with a token IOU provided by the shop that is later “redeemed” for the item left. St. Nick is the patron saint of pawnshops (and, appropriately, for thieves), while “Old Nick” refers to the devil (hence, the red suit and chimney soot) to whom we pawn our souls. The Tenth Commandment’s prohibition on coveting thy neighbor’s wife (which goes on to include male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor) has nothing to do with sex and adultery but rather with receiving them as pawns for debt. By contrast, Christ is known as “the Redeemer”—the “Sin Eater” who steps forward to pay the debts we cannot redeem, a much older tradition that lay behind the practice of human sacrifice to repay the gods.*

I have not yet confirmed the accuracy of this;

In the Hand- Book on Roman Civil-Law c 1933 under Security it says the First-Thing that You NEED is A HOSTAGE

I have drafted a document but before I share its content you may wish to consider that a BC is a pawnticket, token IOU.

You may wish to research further into the meaning of words that are related; pledge, pawn, hostage, conflict and other words you will see in your seeking. Keep in mind that the Deputy Registrar told us that a BC is not personal id but a valuable token.

Now what if that token is like a pawnshop ticket? What if we use a pawnshop ticket as personal id. Did you know that the pledgor is responsible to report income to the pledgee and it is all binding until the ticket is redeemed. Are we using or benefiting from trust or estate property?

Under pledge; The pledgee has the right to the possession and control of any income accruing during the period of the pledge, unless an agreement to the contrary exists. [Perhaps the use of a SIN number by employee is that agreement? Using the estate name, property, to profit. Who knows, we may be the estate] This income reduces the amount of the debt, and the pledgor must account for it to the pledgee. Perhaps the estate (you) is backing the money paying you, hence, the debt.

Now does that not fit what is going on with all of us. No matter what we do or where we go it seems we are constantly called upon to pay and or perform. No escape from 'pay or else'. Bound to the money game because the gov't accepts its money only in payment of taxes and fees. Under pledges, until the pledge is redeemed, the pledgee is in control and is with all the rights.

The gov does have possession or control of the SOB's and we do have an extract/extension (BC). A pawn ticket is to bear the same number as affixed to the pledge and we see the number on a SOB does also appear on a BC.

Identification of pledge

14.Each pledge shall be identified by a number that corresponds with the number of the pawnticket and the entry of the transaction in the pawnbroker’s book, and, when the pledge is redeemed, the pawnbroker shall record the amount of interest taken and of all other charges and shall keep the record for not less than one year after redemption. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.6, s. 14.

Anyhow, you have to read between the lines a bit (one thing being we have no debts) and do look up the word hostage and here is a definition but seek more; a person held by one party in a conflict (brings to mind the Leiber code) as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party.

The other party may be the name on the SOB/BC which we know is not us. In other words, we are the pawns for the debts of the name because the name itself cannot perform. In that sense the name may be a estate and I am of the thinking that until the BC/token is redeemed, the estate remains under the control (protection/guardianship) of the pledgee.

Pawn Brokers Act Ontario;

Production of ticket

16.Except as hereinafter provided, a pawnbroker is not bound to deliver a pledge until the pawnticket for it is produced and delivered to the pawnbroker. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.6, s. 16.

Since the government does not know us, it like a pawnbroker would need to see the token, pawnticket, that it may know who is entitled to the particular estate/property In any case, not until the ticket is delivered is the pawnbroker bound to make delivery or can the account be settled.

It seems to that anyone who has got only the SOB in evidence has had success. Presentment of the BC then may be evidence of the pledge, that it is still in effect, hence; the holder upon presenting it is unknowingly indicating himself as a hostage, pawn for debt.

So our folks left us a name to be picked up that constitutes the basis or foundation of a or continuance or member of a family estate, lineage, family name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

All things we do in that name, extended to our use via the BC, is added unto the estate, property of the estate, but again, until the token is redeemed and the estate freed, the heir is a security/hostage and the property under bond/seal/pledge and the pledgee has the burden because we are using estate property that does not, if this comes down to redeeming the token IOU, belong to us as heirs. We would be mere vassals.

There are expenses (burdens) passed forward by the pledgee and the pledgee is not bound to perform until delivery of the pawnticket is made to the pawnbroker.

It may be that CANADA is the pawnshop or warehouse, each province a compartment with its own interests apart from the other compartments. All are one.

All the fancy diction aside, and if any of this is accurate, all one need do it seems is redeem the BC, token we owe you. We have something here that belongs to you. Control is what we are talking about when we say 'belongs' and with control comes freedom.

As divine beings, do we really need a BC?

We could also see it this way perhaps. SOB represents a life, source of energy, we are the gold in that sense. I did read that the doctors notification of birth is known as the 'gold standard form'. Pledgee, moneychanger, by holding the SOB holds the gold, albeit constructively but with full rights which includes taking actual possession. Seizure of property comes to mind. But the gold is not his gold, it belongs to the one holding the receipt/token IOU.  So like the days of old, one would deliver his token IOU issued by the money changer to the money changer/Caesar (who must accept his own IOU as you will read in the document I have prepared) and give it for his gold in this case for us, that may simply mean freedom and all the attachments that go with it now that we would be free of the pledge and perhaps led by the spirit of our Father, our vessel under his tow.

If a pawnbroker were to refuse acceptance of his own issued token IOU on presentment, he to is subject to the requisite rules of dishonour.

What is written here are my thoughts and no claim is made regarding the accuracy. As always, before you jump on a bandwagon make sure you know the tune being played that you can play along or you may get boo-ded off the staged.

With love



Marc Stevens

Hi Lovers

This guy is quite good.

He is quite correct that the state is not the land and so no offense occurs in the state or under its jurisdiction.

How can anything occur in the state when the state exists in information? Is information on paper/microfiche. The legal name (VRB) is in the state, information, a member, part, information technology system.

He helps one see through the corporate-veil.

Gets interesting near the twenty - twenty two minute mark......

Point for you and I is, there is no state, no Canada/CANADA, ONTARIO/Ontario, PROVINCE/province. So how can claims in said names be made?

With Love


You choose

Hi Lovers

This message is not suitable for children, being those who wish to perpetuate through participation the very things they are hoping to break free from.

A quote from Christ; "I must withdraw from everything which I do not want to SEE perpetuated".

As you know I would normally comment but this is for you to figure out?

With love


Hi Lovers

There is only one or all is one.

I has a question. In that oneness, how can there be a trust or trust? How can there be executors, trustees, grantors, beneficiaries, estates? Notice the plurality.

Do such things not signify and or promote and or perpetuate a beleif in separation or that, there is more than one?

Perhaps it is time to ask once again, where does God begin and end, where is God, the one, not?

I have asked this question many times over the years and no one has answered, yet most by their actions and words must beleive there is more than the one otherwise, why do they do what they does?  Why?

With love




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