Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce May 9, 1939 p.394

"Will you tell me why the government with power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly and then borrow that which parliament can create itself back at interest to the point of national bankruptcy"... "Why should a government borrow that money at interest?" Mr Towers, "Now, if parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament."..."why cannot the people get the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit"?

– MINUTES – CANADA – Bank of Canada

Read it for yourself HERE

An International Solution - Must See! Click Image Below
Time For The TruthFind Out Here

Please Help Keep This Blog Alive!

Please Give Anything For Ongoing Blog Expenses...

Sponsors Supporting This Blog

Ad Square Ad Square


Hi lovers

With respect to the most previous post, DO YOU HAVE EYES THAT SEE; everyone who has commented thus far has commented on the obvious but that is not the reason I uploaded that file ENTITLEMENT DOCUMENT.

Folks, your not getting it. Hahahahahahaha!

That document is very revealing but the commenter's thus far obviously believe they are CANADIANS, thus that you are in Canada. There is no Canada.....................Hahahahahahah! It exists in your mind and that has you blind.........Canada is an abstract, nothing concrete...........

There is a huge tip to getting out of the box in that doc but have you the eyes to see it.

Do you recall recently I posted here about a movie. In it the crazy guy was going around holding his hand between his face and the others face, saying look at me and tell me how many fingers you see? Everyone said 4 and the crazy guy was pissed. Finally someone comes along and the crazy guy says, look at me, look at me look at me. Finally someone listened to the crazy guy and LOOKED through the fingers at the crazy guy and said, I see 8 fingers. The crazy guy said, finally someone that can see.

So far, those commenting on that uploaded doc see 4 fingers because you are seeing the obvious, the hand. Do you think I am asking, do you have eyes that see, in regard of the obvious?

This is evidence we are in robotic mode. Free you mind.

With love!



Do you have eyes that see?

Hi Lovers

I shared this a month or two ago.

Entitlement Documents


I love you


Notice of mistake

Hi Lovers

As I have been the recipient of some new information that is not yet complete, I suggest no one send any more letters based on information posted here. The information posted here is not correct.

Further, as the information I received was received in confidence, I am not at liberty to say any more.

I love you




COURT CHALLENGE–Bank of Canada and…..

Hi Lovers

You may wish to share this far and wide. Get it to your municipalities as they stand to benefit and are at the grass roots where we are, the community. Try to get them to support this action. Send it to your local newspapers and other media. Get involved.

A press conference will be held on Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to answer any questions the media may have of the Plaintiffs at: 637 College Street, Suite 203, Toronto, Ontario.

With love


Mind of a Child correction

Hi Lovers

Another error I think is this.

Once the claim is made we become lord, the government remains as title holder/trustee and in my case BVR (title) is the beneficiary, not me; not the holder of the BC. The holder of the BC is not the beneficiary but as holder of the BC, enjoys the benefit to BVR.

The reason I see BVR is the beneficiary (me in the sense that I hold the BC with that name) is because the gov has a duty to protect the evidence of title bearing the name/title BVR that my folks intended for me. They are protecting the name (beneficiary) but the claim is the title.

This is from the government.......The SOB is considered definitive legal proof of the intent of your folks to give you the name, title on it. Remember, the government does not register people so it only sees titles, not people, and the government holds the evidence of the title (right) intended for us.

We see the ramifications of appearing as in my case BVR or saying I am BVR. I am saying I am the beneficiary and now the government can see me. We see then that it is not us that owns anything on paper except the right.

The purpose of registration is public notice to all of who has a right/interest in something, not to transfer rights. So the registration of the birth was by way of foundation document (SOB) bearing a name, the subject. The right, title, interest, was intended for you by your folks but the government took and holds that document that is the evidence of your right, title, interest. In the case of the registration of the evidence of title, right, the government did it absent our consent thus is with the obligation as titleholder to protect that right, title, and interest.

See,  one may register a copyright by his own consent, the registration of which secures his interest but he is the one that caused the registration, thus is the one with the obligation to enforce and protect his interest. He would have to launch a law suit if a cease and desist order is not effective.

In other words, in the case of a copyright infringement, it is up to the one that caused the registration of the copyright (the titleholder) to deal with trespassers, whereas the government is regarding trespass against our interest that the government was the cause of the registration of and is the titleholder. We were not a party to that ex parte proceeding. The registrant is the cause. See BUT 4 Test.

When a copyright holder has knowledge of an infringement it is up to him to contact the trespasser whereas in our case regarding registration of births and documentation, evidence of title intended for us that we could have been the titleholder, we would contact the government (titleholder) about trespassers, but, we must make the claim to the title first because until we do, we are not secure and so there is no trespass.

I love you


Mind of a Child, addendum addendum

Hi Lovers

The paper is not the title/right, it is evidence of the title/right. Paper evidences a right. Registration of it secures the right. Remember, if it is not on paper in law it did not happen.

See, unlike most registrations of title where the paper is registered that identifies something out there in the world, the SOB is evidence of your title in the name recognized in law, not something tangible out there.

SOB (paper) is evidence of a right/title and the BC (paper) is your right/title to claim it. The paper is the proof, not the property, thing. BC is an extract of title, your title, your property.

So when we are speaking of claiming the title, we are not talking about claiming the paper or name, but the sum total of all rights.

Think about it. There is a tv in the middle of the road and three people arguing over who it belongs to. Each staking his claim. Just as they are about to come to fistacuffs along comes this 12 year old who presents a piece of paper that contains enough information that sufficiently satisfy the other claimants that his title (right to the tv) is the best. That is what I see the BC (paper) as in relation to the SOB (paper).

The BC is proof of claim to the SOB, your property.

By claiming the rights you claim the legal title/SOB. The BC is the equitable title side -  right to claim the legal title. Now you have both, legal and equitable title secured to you once you've made the claim. Is that perfect title or what? Now we have reached this point the government still has possession so far of the legal title but you are lord over the title holder. Lord - servant - beneficiary.

Is God not the perfect maker?

I cannot say the best way to say this what I am suggesting is transpiring here but we shall try. Let us say someone is holding the SOB (valuable property) intended for you and it is worth 100 dollars but the holder does not know who he is holding the SOB for. Obviously that is your first move.

Now keep in mind in this case you did not ask the gov to hold the SOB intended for you and this is based on, you are happy to let them continue holding it. If they offer it to you you can say no. Know this. To transfer perfect title from gov to you, you would have to accept and acknowledge the offer.

I am not telling you what to do but will say, if one takes possession of that doc or accepts and acknowledges full transfer of rights, meaning the government has no interest or claim, one would be free of the system but have no easy way to interface. You'd have to give up the BC and the SOB won't get you jack. You'd have no name recognized in law. For some that may be a good thing.

So now it is established you have the right to the 100 bucks and the title holder is going to continue holding the 100 bucks, but, you are in control and the beneficiary. As I said, if they do not want the liability give us the SOB.

Everything here is fiction. Do not believe any of it.

With love


Mind of a Child addendum

Hi Lovers

I took this from Comments as I feel it important. I also added a bit to it.

Hi Vic,

So, as I see it, the letter I sent to the Provincial Finance Minister asking to redeem the BC was a mistake. I should have asked for return of the title? Today is the final day for a reply, which honestly, I do not expect.

Yes to your first point and No no no to the other……….Just establish that they hold it (your title) and claim it. You are claiming your rights. All of them.

I think a letter can be drafted that would incite them to contact you. No need to threaten, just lay out the facts. They are waiting to hear from you. They are tired of looking after your car without direction from you or knowing what you want to do……hahaha

First move though is to layout and prove your claim. Just show them what they did that they hold title (RIGHTS) intended for you AND SECURED BY REGISTRATION for you by the government and claim it. This is how you become land lord in the stead of a tenant. That is what the attornment is, from tenant to land lord or lord over the land. As the gov retains your title it is as trustee, you the lord (God on the title) and beneficial user. Property is private but public but sort of not really til you die or transfer title to assets.

Mine is in the mail …….who hoo

I think seriously that a big problem for us is we think in terms of duality. There is only the one and we are of that one for there ain’t no place else to originate from. So if my toe claims to be god or my hand claims to be god, are they wrong given they are members of the one body. Which member of the body is god? Together the members are god, separate members fall to the ground and die!

Subject: Re: [Freedom From Debt] Mind of a child

Mind of a child

Hi Lovers

I am satisfied now that the information and perspectives being tossed around are B.S.

First off, we used the BC incorrectly and that caused the mess we are in.

Now forget the past and be in the now. Put all that fiction stuff aside for the moment. Do not draw on memories. Have the mind of a child, open, inquisitive.

I used the analogy of the name being a car in a parking lot the other day here. To carry on with that thinking here we go;

If you compel it that you take possession of legal title to property intended for me, who has the liability?

If I have never claimed the title, to whom is the liability owed?

Ahhg we give up, who? And there is the question the car lot guy cannot answer because the claimant, owner, has not shown up.

What if I claim the title but the holder will not give it to me, who has the liability?

To whom the liability is owed?

Now we can answer the question, the claimant.

We see here that the holder of the title intended for you has the liability before you claim title and after you claim it. The differences are, in the first case he has no clue to whom he is liable, whereas in the second case he does. As claimant you can take the money or keep reading. Claimant is how the title holder sees you. People I am sure see me as an ass but I do not care.

Let us say you have claimed the title but the holder of it will not give it to you. What to do?. I guess I will either complain or do nothing or sue the bastard.

But wait, why the heck would I do that. If the holder of the title intended for me, not him, won't give it to me, I guess I can send him the liabilities.

Hmmm, but what if he complains, then he can give me my title (property) and free himself of the liability.

Ya, that route seems the shortest quickest route.

No listen up people. Imagine you are 12 years old sitting on the couch looking at the birth certificate. You are a smart boy and know all about titles and you notice on the BC, CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION.

What may you have done? Read on.

Wholly cow, this is not what my folks intended for me, this is proof someone else is holding what my folks intended for me. Gee, if I do not do something and use this BC to get a SIN card, shit may happen, I may be recognized as a citizen or performing a function of government as an owner as a trustee, that I ABANDON TITLE, fuck - THEY MIGHT THINK I HAVE AGREED TO ATTORN myself over to another lord and that I like being cared for by that lord. I better make an inquiry into this and fast.

I am gonna take this BC and exchange it for the title my folks intended for me.

Knock knock. ya I am here to get my property and here is the claim ticket.

What have you, oh yes, we have this instrument. We registered and recorded it. However my boy, you are not yet of legal age to make this claim. You are still under the care and tutorship of your mommy and daddy. But when you are a big boy, a man, you can come back and we will talk. In the meantime, I will note in the file you came here and made your claim to your property. Hope fully you come back boy. (yes, mommy and daddy can make the claim but work with me here).

6 years later, 18 and a man now.

Knock knock. Hi man, long time no see. Yes it has been 6 years and I am grown up now and do not need mommy and daddy or some stranger lord to look after me anymore so if you don't mind, I am here to get the title my folks intended for me. I am here for my property, the title we spoke of 6 years ago.

Yes, I remember my boy. Do you recall I said we will talk.


Good. You see boy, we cannot give you what you ask for because it is a permanent record, but, that does not excuse us as holder of the title so there are two suggestions I can make. One is you sue us for failing to deliver your property and you'll settle for a sum, or, you use that BC there and go about your business in the name on it and we will pick up the tab. How does that sound boy. Well gee that sounds great mister and it makes perfect sense. I accept plan B.

You guys hold the title to the name intended for me not the government. I do business in this name on here which means I own nothing on paper but, since the title you hold is mine, and we have come to this agreement, I get use. Yes boy, that is my promise to you. That is what this birth certificate is boy. You see, the moment you accepted to be one with the one, the BC being a subscription, the promise kicks in.

In essence, as holder of title, my title, the holder of my the title gets the asset value,  the liabilities and I am free to be me and enjoy use of property.

That's right my boy. Don't tell anyone son but some people believe government is in control and they are right. Not because we are but because they believe it.

Fact is boy, God set this all up for the benefit of all and all are one, but some people, well, we will leave the one alone, except to say, a belief in other than perfect oneness and support thereof, is the cause of all war and crime.

But my boy, as you are fully accepting to be one with the one, he is your key to the Kingdom. The END..........

Truth or fiction folks?

See, if they will won't give up the title, they must accept the liability and if they do not want the liability THEN GIVE US THE TITLE.

How easy is that?

We are more or less forcing a confession by the facts of their acts and disclosure and lack thereof.

So we are clear, if you accept that your folks did intend that you receive the title (SOB) and the extract as proof the gov holds that title intended for you, then what are you going to do about it?

Is it because we have not properly made claim to the title, our property (rights), our inheritance, it is presumed we voluntarily attorned ourselves to another lord or considered abandonment of title?  Get rid of the lord so you are lord on the account and over your life.

Think about it. Until you are 18 your folks are liable for you and the government by law has a responsibility to children and those who cannot protect them selves. There must have been some sort of attornment for that to happen and it can be evidenced only by the SOB.

The day you turned 18 you are free to claim the title (rights) what your folks intended for you as evidence by the foundation document and was registered/recorded by the government.

The idea of making the claim is to establish one and we all have a valid claim. If the gov does not want the liability, give us the title intended for us, simple as that.

Time to grow up.

One can see bad or see the goodness. I leave that to each. I think it safe to say that what is meant by the BC is not personal id, it is intended to be used to prove your claim.

With love


Hi Lovers

This is in addition to and support of the most recent posts and related comments and should be read and considered in conjunction with them.

Here is another consideration when claiming the names your folks intend are gifted to you. The ones on the SOB. When making your claim, claim those names under your jurisdiction. This is the sovereign stepping up to the plate.

Sample: I hereby acknowledge my acceptance of the said names as my names under my jurisdiction.

Of course you want to qualify things in some context but the point here is 'my jurisdiction'. Those names are your names and yours to claim under your authority = jurisdiction, as they were gifted to you for your use when you come of age. We have government letters saying, the SOB is considered definitive legal proof of the intent of your parents to give you that name.  Great, I accept but I never received it.

This I believe is how you get to be THE sovereign on the account in control of your name and subsequently the trustee and your life. In other words, until you claim your name in your jurisdiction, you are not a sovereign let alone the sovereign on the account. The gov is by your silence or lack of action.You are not claiming actual possession of your name but basically constructive without saying so because the government will not give up possession of the foundation document.

Got to start at the bottom, the foundation, right?

Remember, The name on the BC and any and all names derived of the BC, all of them, are derived of the SOB. When you claim your names gifted you as found on the respective foundation document, you do the same with all others, connecting all of them to the trust/trustee, Ontario, Canada, common wealth; mutual benefit, oneness, as God I am sure would have it.

With Love

All for One and One for All

Hi Lovers

A trustees first duty is to the trust, not the beneficiary. As our names it seems are registered with the trust, held in trust, it suggests that it is intended our duty is to the trust or mutual benefit. Not that it has to be as evidenced by the fact that a BC may be used as a foundation document (personal identification) although it is not, the SOB is the foundation document, or document evidencing legal title in the name. Who received delivery of it and still has it.

It seems to me that the government being a not for profit institution (serves mutual benefit) is doing the best it can to serve the best interest of the trust, and that, anyone going against the best interest of the trust, is an enemy of, threat to the trust.

I will say that the general public (trust) is the beneficiary of your name, that is, until you come forth as the beneficiary of your name. First off, if one does not appear as a beneficiary of his name (himself) then his identity is unknown and he cannot be served privately but as one of the general public fools.

I see the way to that is to acknowledge it is your name on the SOB and that the gov is holding your name and since it is your name, you can add in, and I am the beneficiary. To give rise to possible breach of trust one may add, cease and desist use of my name and contact me to read me my rights and options.

Further, and this is interesting. If the trustee contracts with the beneficiary the transaction is considered fraudulent unless the trustee can show that the beneficiary entered into the transaction with full knowledge and awareness blah blah of what he was getting into and further, this is specially serious, if the trustee has taken advantage of its stronger position of knowledge. This may be how these so called invisible and adhesion contracts are nullified because there is no way the government can prove we were fully informed of all facts when said alleged contracts were entered into. In other words, I do not think that can block you from moving forward because of past contracts such as driver license.

Now, the big thing here to be cognizant of is the trustees first duty is to the trust, not the beneficiary. I would say we have three options. Stay as you are, get paid out, or to carry on serving the trust, becoming one with the trust, your interest is the same as the governments, and enjoying the benefits of the trust that are known then to belong to the trust, not you, and you are using them some way somehow to benefit the trust; oneness, love, mutual - benefit.

If your interest is to benefit the trust, then, the trustees first duty is to you because your duty is to the trust. Either that or cash out.

All can be for one, or all can be for one and one for all. Or, all (people) can be for one (self) or, all (people) can be for one (trust/estate) and one (trust/estate) can be for all (people/beneficiaries).

The file is to large to upload but you can find 'A Trustees Handbook' by AUGUSTUS PEABODY LORING (published 1898). Keep in mind as you read that book that the concepts spoke of are not quite in line with our situation. That being, it is our name held in trust and not assets that generate funds that are paid to or benefit beneficiaries. Another difference is, as our name is held in trust, everything we do serves the trust, we are its contributors; whereas, the other type of beneficiary is served by the trust or the trust is not such that the beneficiary is serving the trust. This is a reason I see this game is intended as a oneness thing. Not individual estates or companies, but members of the one, never separate although we can act as if we are. It is interesting with all our names held in trust or by the government there is no separation possible from the trust, but, we can act as if we are, e.g. use BC as personal id, a.k.a. a foundation document.

I guess what i am saying is, Canada is like one big mother trust. It is set up such that we are each a contributor and each a beneficiary, we are the one.

The duty of the trustee as any good captain or CEO is to the trust or ship or company, not the people. Save the ship you save the people so we see the focus is the ship, in this case, I am calling it the mother trust. That may explain why a lawyers first duty is to the system, not his client. We are either on board having the same interest as the trustee or going against the trust, thus against the trustee, and we know well the power of the trustee we are talking about here.

I for one, chose oneness.

These are my views and should not be trusted. Get your own trust. LOL!

I love ye all..............



We are Complete

Hi Lovers

Alrighty then

The pieces of previous posts here may fall into place for you here.

It is your name on the SOB but the government received the name on paper when it accepted the SOB. We received the BC, or extract, and as posted here previously, an extract points to, in this case, who holds the SOB or your name on paper. So the BC is like a certificate of deposit that indicates where your name on paper is held/deposited.

The idea here is not to claim your name per se but work with the situation. You claim the name as your name when you contact the government to let them know you know they are holding your name in trust. The BC is proof of that. I am not saying trust is the correct word but see the flow.

If you perceive the name as a tangible thing you see that delivery of it was made to the government dock and there is no paper trail that proves it left or was shipped from there but it is your name and so what does that mean prey tel?

So your name is held in trust or guardianship or something like that. It is your name, thus you call the shots and since it is your name you are the beneficiary. I am not saying but lets see this then as a big trust. It is my name that is domiciled in the system.

All our names are held in trust so whatever we do in those names is for the trust. We see then that we are already performing for mutual benefit and that we own nothing.

Seems to me then all one need do is communicate his wishes to the trustee, the party who received your name on paper. Then and only then can that party perform as trustee in the stead of us doing so. The facts speak for themselves.

If it is my name on the SOB, and they say it is and I accept it is, then it must be held in trust because of the paper trail. There is no proof on paper that delivery of the name was made to me and an extract (BC) is not proof of delivery.  Again, the BC points to who received/holds your name on paper. The fact another is holding your name (interest/property) means what?

The fact that the government holds title to your name/interest means you can tell them what you want.

It is our name, we do the work, the value is by virtue the name is in trust added to the trust and as our name is held in trust and we hold the BC, we are also the beneficiary. Contributor/beneficiary. I would not say I am the grantor and in fact would leave all that language out of the thinking.

My name was received on paper by the government, the BC (valuable token) is proof of that in my hands - END OF STORY.

I sent some communications in last month and did receive two phone calls in one week last week. One from the Deputy Minister of Finance. Two calls from government in one week has never happened in all the years I have been at this.

The BC is your license it is your passport but you have to know what you got and what to say.

I will be doing a one time one day seminar on this.

With love






What a BC is?

Hi Lovers

Let us put to rest what the BC is.

I have indicated here on many an occasion lately what it is and maybe now when you see what I see, calling it as I see it, you will agree.

Once you see what I see at point # 38 in the attachment here (click on the red title) then the significance of - for whose use and benefit the name was secured by registration is obvious. Could be for you exclusively or for mutual benefit.

M.D.R. v Deputy Registrar General

Registration serves to protect your interest and the government is the witness. One can make that claim or ask a claimant, for whose benefit was this name secured by registration?  The idea of asking the question is not because one is stupid but the answer will enlighten e.g. a third party claimant.

As we shared here March of this year, you have the right to restrict the use of your name and thus your property. The name on the BC is derived of the SOB. It is also in the Vital Statistics Act and further clarified on the application for a BC from where the name on the BC is derived.

We also know what the government lawyer said when he appeared out of the blue to mediate a landlord tenant matter. Telling the court it does not have jurisdiction over this man and the name on those papers is of this SOB.

As I see it, all names are derived of the SOB and the government the witness, protector.

Serving through the name for mutual benefit is a function of God. The highest of Offices.

I would add to this that it may be the successful attachment to one of titles such as driver, tenant, that the name is used against you or for the benefit of a 3rd party.

Seems that if one does not know who he is, he allows them to use his name for his benefit and attach titles to him such as tenant and driver to which duties and obligations are attached.......

Johnny signed in as the alleged tenant after getting the SOB in the file. So maybe what was happening then was they know the name is his for his benefit but tried to get the title tenant upon his head which he did not take the bait (alleged tenant), hence, gov lawyer appeared out of the blue to mediate saying to the court, "no jurisdiction over this man and this name on your papers is derived of this SOB and is protected".

All these titles, tenant, driver, etc., are creations of and defined in statute, thus, shoes to be filled by those who know not who they are and appear as performing a function of government.

It may be then that the government has the liability for what it created but what it created is not the name but the other titles, tenant, driver, purchaser, taxpayer, debtor, etc.

With love




Two choices, paths – Love or business

Hi Lovers

People and only people have two choices, serve God, give nothing less than the whole of themselves for mutual benefit, volunteer time and services 24/7 or partake in commerce, business. Service to self or service to other self.

Corporations cannot give of themselves and cannot serve God. Corpse have only one choice. If you believe you have only one choice you are no more than a dead corpse.

A distinguishing feature indeed. Come out of Her oh ye divine beings who are not the body and need not suffer or fear lack.

Note that the only way it can be said that a corporation can give of itself, is if the people who come together in the corporate name give freely of themselves.

I think we may find soon enough that this has nothing to do with the BC or SOB or name but rather the choices we make and there are essentially two, love or business. I think one can step out of commerce anytime and it has nothing to do with legality but who you are; people.

I think that until one expresses his intent to give of himself for mutual benefit, whatever the words are, his lack of such expression means he stays where he is, in business.

Business will not fix this world but people can. I think when one is serious about serving for mutual benefit doors will open. Right to life will kick in and no one can say to one who gives of his time and services 24/7 as a volunteer that he is getting something for nothing. In fact, if the volunteer makes the first move it is all really good.

We are recognized by the name now as in business. Each soul has the power and the right, freedom, to change his mind. We cannot be made to serve for money. We cannot be forced to be in business. God owns everything.

Men interpret what it means God gave man dominion over the earth. I think he interprets that from a man perspective rather than a divine soul perspective, and so the interpretations are out of whack. I do not think dominion over the earth is a me thing but a do good for earth and her inhabitants thing. That does not mean directing your energy at bad, but doing good with it.

If you accept the law of cause and effect, as the cause - what effects do you desire?

Tis better to give than to receive to me means; tis better to make the first gift move from the heart and the law of cause and effect will make return in kind.

With lottsa love..........



Hi Lovers
This here is good. Now more than ever is time to come together as one. Let go and get in the zone. Fits well with the volunteer consciousness focus I shall speak of tomorrow at the meeting. See, the opportunity to volunteer, do not let that word limit the meaning, is an opportunity to come together as one and direct our energies for the greater good rather than our petty selfish ways and wants. Listen well to this and maybe you will see the ridiculousness of what most in the freedom movement are about. Get over yourself, let go.

I love you


Registrant – Mutual Benefit

Hi Lovers

There is no proof, physical evidence, that delivery of the name recognized in law was made to you, that you accepted it as your name, or that it was secured for your benefit. Absent such proof there is no proof you own property in that name. If you not be the owner of property in that name, who should pay?

In addition, the name is, it exists. It appears it has a commercial or charitable purpose, therefore, it must be secure for the benefit of someone or thing.

Blacks 4th Ed. Registrant; one who registers, particularly one who registers anything (e.g. a trade mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration.

In the case of the registration of a trademark it would be registered in accordance with the trade mark act, the rights and privileges secured are as enumerated in that Act.

Anything is defined in the criminal code as anything. We may conclude then that 'birth' (event) falls within the meaning of anything.

In the case of the registration of a trade mark, the one causing the registration is securing a mark for the benefit of someone or entity.

In the case of a registration of a birth event (a happening, no mark), we did not play any part in it so although it can be said the government performed as registrant to secure a right or privilege, what we do not know is, for whose benefit?

To say the government registers people is to say, it secured our body as a right or privilege. Of course we know that is not accurate  because the government does not register people, and also, it is the name that is recognized in law. I do not see how cognizance can be taken of that what is not registered. To Register is to take cognizance of, memorize, memorialize.

That leaves only the name that cognizance can be taken of. B,VR, event name.

See, in the case of the registration of a 'mark', the mark (actual thing) is the event, or subject, thing recognized in law, but, the event of your birth being an event, an occurrence, extraction of a fetus, on its own cannot be recognized unless the event is given a name.

In fact, they won't register the event of a birth without at least a surname.

If you cause a registration you are knowingly securing a right or privilege and aware of for who or what.

Unlike the Trade-Mark Act there is no stipulation in the Vital Statistics Act that indicates what the rights and privileges are that are secured on condition of registration. It may be that the government holds the birth record as proof the name was secured for our use. Thing is we are the one that decides the path we are on, its use, e.g. service to self (business, personal id) or service to other self (love, charity, volunteer, not personal id).

If there was a trade-mark use infringement the secure party can rely on the Trade-Mark Act but in the case of the Vital Statistics Act there is nothing in it what rights are established let alone in whose favor. Maybe because life events have freewill.

If the government did secure the name for our benefit it must in my view protect our interest, right or privilege, which should in my view include our choice to volunteer our time and services for mutual benefit, or whatever words you wish to put to it - spiritual values, changing the focus. Not in or benefiting from commercial activity, profit and gain.

The BC not being personal id but also that it may be used as personal id suggests strongly that we give it its purposes, either we use it for our personal benefit or for mutual benefit. Mutual is an interesting word; directed by each toward the other or others; shared in common; public. Read Acts 4:32ish, those who know they are of one mind and one heart thought not that what he possessed was his own but had all things in common. All are one and all things are of and belong to God so mutual fits.

A house divided cannot stand

I think our maker divine shows a good example of what mutual benefit is. I figure as divine beings made in the image of what created us that it is intended the spirit of our maker guide the body it occupies.

Any way we look at it, and I am not saying this is accurate, but any way we look at it, it seems the name was secured for mutual benefit and that we have the choice to give of ourselves via the name for mutual benefit. Perhaps that is the Wisdom. Maybe the way out because we sure did not take that course to get in where we are. If would seem to me that if the name is secured for mutual benefit purposes, no one has the right to cry fowl.

We volunteer to take on ownership and related burdens or we volunteer to serve; create and serve for mutual benefit. The latter choice may be protected, hence name is protected. No longer having to buy and sell to survive.

As I see it, the name is secured for mutual benefit but may be used for personal benefit; that we either exist in commerce as quasi owners of sole proprietorships or stand one with God or be godlike. Question is, do we have the heart? Quasi, having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent. In other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, be it a duck or not, for legal purposes, it is a duck.

Still we cannot say for sure the purpose of a BC except it is not intended to be used as personal identification so once again it seems we give the BC its purpose and that we may give it a mutual benefit purpose. If there is any challenge or question regarding that choice, then the registrant should be contacted by the challenger/doubter.

I love you

The Beaver

Hi Lovers

Mel Gibson was in a recent movie titled The Beaver where he wore a puppet beaver on his arm.

The longer Mel wore the beaver the more Mel empowered the beaver puppet to the point the beaver puppet ruled over Mel to the extent that Mel cut his arm off to get rid of the beaver, yet, all he had to do was see it for what it is and pull it off.

Sort of like in the Wizard of Oz when the dog pulled back the curtain (veil) and exposed the game is smoke and mirrors, lots of noise but nothing to fear.

At no time did the beaver empower itself, nor does rome or the vatican or any of those other huge and powerful things (beavers) that rule those who believe so.

The moral of the story may be, only that what you empower to or believe or recognize has power over you does.

Mel was arguing with a puppet beaver like so many seek to understand to better argue the law of the dead gods.

If you watch that movie you may feel as I which at first was bewilderment and wondering and then comes the realization that Mel is not joking. Wholly cow, he actually thinks this beaver is in control or has a say in his destiny.

I see this is where many are, trying to make sense of no sense in the stead of seeing and calling things as they is. Empowering the weak and dead as if they are alive and powerful.


Ignorance of the law that does apply to you, the living law, the foundation of all that is, is no excuse.

Gee beev

With beaver love..........

December 3rd meeting


Ignorance of which law

Hi Lovers

Funny how folks blame others for their oppression. How they claim fraud and theft and slavery, conspiracy. How they charge for their time and services and do not comprehend why they themselves are charged. They focus on the foundation of the laws of this world as the root of all law but, we are not of this world. They do not see the goings on in the energy field, nor are they cognizant of the laws of the universe such as, the law of free will and cause and effect. These laws are unchanging, they are part of the makeup of the universe, the foundation, us, what holds everything together and in its place and space.

This law of cause and effect may be known as, what goes around comes around, or, you reap what you sew. So let us all consider this law and the effects on those who charge for their time and services. But one of countless causes. In law they call it the BUT 4 TEST. But for the action of the defendant..........In the universe sense it would be, if not for the actions of a spiritual being charging for his time and services, he would not be taxed. You see, the law is the law and unlike laws of men, the law of the universe do not change nor do they know forgiveness. So, one may ask himself, which laws should I obey or not offend or acknowledge as my law, or what are called laws of God, or laws of the Universe. The universe knows no jokes; it reacts to thought and goes into action. Those who see negativity are the very source of the negativity, not because i say so, but as a fact of the laws of the universe, or, cause and effect. Go ahead and resist these statements for ye not resist me but the law. So we see we need look no further than the cause to know where the correction must take place for what is wanted to be reaped to be reaped. In short, if one does not like what he sees, he need but change what he projects.

These laws and other of the universe are inescapable. As they say, ignorance of the law is not excuse but the question for us may be, which law?

It is in my prayers that we have peace. It is in my prayers that we have it within ourselves that we will see it.

Ruled by God

Hi Lovers

Just got this from Bruce. Love God with all thy heart and thy brother as thyself = charity = governed by God in my mind.

This says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those people who will not be  governed  by God will be ruled by tyrants

William Penn

There was a graphic emblem - 'United States Navy' - immediately below THIS SAYS IT ALL but it disappeared.

The law favors charity

Hi Lovers

I got this from Just-A- man; On the face of the Indiana Court House

Along those lines, look at the courthouse pictured at the link below and read the words just above the columns and below the elongated pyramid.

The Court from an angle

With love


 Page 5 of 22  « First  ... « 3  4  5  6  7 » ...  Last » 
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline