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

Fresh air

Hi Lovers

It is not often I post someone elses perspectives but this guy, John Stuart, is right on with regard to bullshit people buy into. He says what has to be said and he says it well. Please listen to Episode 136

An alternative to legal stuff is to get out of legal land by being a full time volunteer.


I love you


Hi Lovers

Hi Vic.
Just got back from Citizenship and Immigration Services, ceremony and the main theme here is...'Volunteer' your time. Thought to let you know, in keeping with your emails.

I received this from D. Thank you D.

This from nad, thanx nad

When you get a grip on the volunteer thing and make your intention known, you are free of all legal entanglements, so money and tri-lateral commissions, councils, free trade agreements, and the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah things they do, mean nothing. You want free energy and free this and that, then volunteer. If we all do, there is no money master.

I love you

by: volunteer


Hi Lovers, aka, volunteers

It is beginning to look like the word 'volunteer' is quite significant, in fact may be a code type word but not a secret code.

As I know it and many of you agree, there are basically two path choices we have in life, service to self, and service to other self.

Another way to say that may be, we can choose a path of service to self, contracting, or a path of service to other self, volunteer.

The word volunteer seems to cover the intention of what we say love is, unconditional giving. Not doing anything for a consideration of any kind. We can call it love, or we can say I volunteer. A volunteer you see does not do something but for to help. When one is volunteering or a volunteer he is not expecting anything what so ever for his service.

Interestingly enough volunteers do get paid but there is no tax liability. Why, no INTENT to profit or gain. CRA recognizes what volunteer means.

That is the basis of pay it forward to establish an intention. Our intention is love, to give freely, but, there is no need to offer 100% of the monies back. We were offering a 100% return of tax to demonstrate our love and that we serve other self but, one it seems, I am not saying for sure, but it seems, we demonstrate our love, our intention to serve freely, by being a volunteer.

There is a bunch of information I can share here that supports this but until tried no one knows. For you in pay it forward your intention has been expressed but we did not employ the word volunteer. I think all that need be done though, and this has to come from you because it has to come from the heart, we just have to inform them we are volunteer.

Your intention for working is either profit and gain (contract, what am I getting out of this) or to help as a volunteer (Love, no specific reason other than to help). Recently I shared a labour board got involved in a case where friends were helping a friend re-tile a roof. A guy fell and died and the board got involved and the first question was; was any money offered and someone said beer. Right then and there the board guy said that is a consideration (contract) and the board has jurisdiction. Now what if the guys said, we volunteered? I say this, the consideration would have been love and love is not regulated.

So it may be our right to contract equates to we are in it for the money, out of love and in commerce and regulated.

So what is to stop anyone from saying on their tax return, I am Volunteer. Just because a pay cheque is issued does not mean you are in it for the money. It may be all they need to hear or see is you are a volunteer which may remove a presumption your in it for the money, profit, gain. As i said above, volunteers can get paid and there is no tax liability. No requirement to file. You are not a tax payer as a volunteer.

It is what the intention is. We covered all that last year about this time. I do not think anyone can prevent you from being a volunteer. That would be to say you are in it for the money but who but you can make such a determination. But this is why i say, it has to come from the heart. In fact it already is.

If you are in it for the money, that comes from your heart, and, if you're a volunteer, that too comes from the heart but you have to express it or how do they know?

Who can dictate to you what your heart says? Regardless that money is flowing, if your intention is not profit and gain but expressed as volunteer, from your heart, be true to yourself, then as far as I can tell, it is done. Your will is being done now one way so how can you be prevented from changing your mind?

Since the intention of those in PIF has already been expressed, as I see it, all that need be done is clarify, when i said I wanted 100% of money returned to Receiver General etc, i meant, my intention is not profit or gain, I do not work for money, I work to help, I am volunteer.

Now if there is more to add to that I am pondering or, it may suffice come tax time, I don't know this to be true, but, indicate on the tax return you are a volunteer and claim back all income tax deductions.

See, if money comes to you as a result of your volunteering you are not in it for the money but love, so taking is not the issue, your INTENTION is.

Money is a gift to you and not taxable because it has nothing to do with services volunteered. When a gift is offered, we should accept. If you do not want the money, pay it forward then.

Now I am thinking on how to apply this to the BC that is not INTENDED to be personal id. Wink wink. I think I know why, when we ask the government what the intention is for a BC if not personal id, they do not answer.

I think we decide the purpose and it comes from.................your......................HEART.

To fix the recent blog problem James hit the reset button. haha. That took the site back to its original virgin state or natural state. Like a system restore except going all the way back to the core source program. For people that equates in my mind to just prior to the so called big bang. Everything was in its pristine state prior to the big bang but events after the big bang had no choice but to cause distortion.

Distortion is talked about by Ra in the law of one and I get it now. Ye haw. It is not a bad thing it just means everything has a beginning, that instant in time, and events after that alter the appearance of the beginning. Not sure if I am making my point here. Let me say it like this. A rock is. It is sitting in sand. It is picked up and painted. The rock is still there and is still a rock and the paint is the distortion is what i mean by distortion. More paint can be added and baking and sand blasting of the paint all of which are distortions. In us that can include memories. When the paint is removed the rock is back to its original state or has been reset.

Everything that happens after that moment is a distortion, an alteration of the original foundation, or as the natives refer to it, the original instructions. So we too then maybe we have to press an internal reset button to get back to our original state, natural state, who and what we really are. We get there by removing distortions, that what has been added unto or covered over who and what we really are. Distorting our view of ourselves, each other and reality.

What I am getting at is the biggest if not THE primary distortion is, we do what we do for a consideration other than as creator intended, who and what we are. SERVERS, source. In this world it is either love of others or love of money. Either way money can flow but it seems one is taxable the other not. Fits perfectly with the love thing and what we've covered here in respect of it.

By not being who we are, and i say the word in this world is volunteers, we have entered another reality. Government reality and all its powerhouse corporations and regulations. Land of contract, "what am i getting out of this", "what is in it for me", and since that is I would say a distortion, there must be a consequence and that in this world seems to be heavy burdens. TAXED.

We cannot be other than who we really are and experience the freedom of who we really are. The truth is though, I do not know the truth.

The word volunteer is cognized in law whereas to say I work or serve of love does not seem to compute. Saying the same thing but one computes and the other it seems does not.

Anyhoo, it is looking like the word volunteer means love but the word volunteer is cognized to mean, not in it for the money. Volunteer means, SERVER of love.

I believe that we have the choice to say we volunteer, and regardless whether or not money is flowing, because the intention is to help there is no tax liability, no burden and i do not believe they can say you cannot do that. I am not saying any of this is correct.

With love




Over view

Hi Lovers

While the blog was down I drafted some thoughts and they are here as an attachment.

Hi Lovers

As usual this information is shared for your discernment only.

Recently we did a post here Ask and it is Given or Ask and you Receive. Well, we can use that same principle to get the truth as Christ says to reveal the truth.

I love you



The Blog Is Secured

Hi everyone,

NEWSFLASH - The login issue is now resolved. If anyone still has a problem logging in, please send me a message.

Thank you for your patience... and thanks to all those who offered assistance and feedback.

There are now extra security measures in place to hopefully prevent hackers from taking over the redirection of pages on this blog.

I'm sorry that this oversight may have caused others some grief on their computers as well, please forgive me. The virus that I have had to deal with was a trojan which meant those of you out there who also log into servers were the target as well.  It's purpose appears to be to gain access to as many other computers as possible to share their nasty virus and gain access to as many other servers as possible etc etc (I guess they want to take over the world or something!)

The lessons learned from this experience (and therefore candid advice to prevent other [your] computers from being hacked)

1. Use a strong password for anyone to log on to your own computer (PC) and change it every 45 days. You can string three or four of your favorite passwords sequentially and then change up the order. Or if you really want to be safe, use a 256 bit password that may look something like this:


(you can create random 256 bit passwords at the following URL) - a little extreme but you get the point if you want protection...

2. When you are doing most of your work (play) on your own computer, create a second username which has limited privileges i.e. you can't install or modify any programs or files everywhere else on your computer except that profile. If you have to change any programs, add or delete files in your "Administrator" profile, do that quickly and then switch users to the limited profile to carry on. Save your passwords in a text file and have it handy to just do a "Control Copy" (CTRL C) "Control Paste" (CTRL V) to enter it into the password line instead of typing it or letting your computer memorize it for you.

3. If you use an FTP program such as Filezilla (like I do to change certain things on the hosting account for a blog/website) make sure you don't save the passwords (the normal setting) thus making it easy for a hacker to log in to your FTP program and change anything they want on your hosting account. Choose the "Ask for password" option and use the same strategy as described in paragraph 2 above.

4. If you also run a wordpress website (like this blog) the information in the following post was what helped me correct the problem.

Now everyone can carry on with the next phase related to the "Address".

From an administrators perspective:

When someone is "Registered" on this blog I know they exist somewhere at a valid email "address" (or the emails bounce back to me). If someone is NOT registered on this blog, I don't know that they exist! If they give me a valid email "address" I can create an account and have everything sent to that address, they need do nothing more but login and get the mail!

Now think about the implications: Judy Hartman has consistently told us that a Statement of Birth and Birth Certificate is about registering events NOT people. If you're a "people" you are NOT registered and you do not exist (in the legal/matrix or computer land of ones and zeros). We all chose to use the BC which is the extract which "MAY" be used as a foundation document (and have everyone looking for the name on the BC at an address we give where we sleep at night) Now it looks like the choice is easy: If I "MAY" use it, I also may NOT too!

Now it's about removing presumptions... yahoooooooooooo.


They call me James



Round and Round

Hi Lovers

This is for consideration. I am not saying it is correct.

The Queen took an oath to the people. Government folks take an oath to the Queen, oath of Allegiance, and an oath of office.

So let us say the Queen has promised to serve the people but as the head of state the service is provided through that what she is head of. In right of Ontario, Canada, etc. The head of general motors is not liable for general motors, general motors is.

Would it make sense that I promise to serve you in a name I issue you but you not serve me in kind? What standing would you have to claim breach of promise if you are asking the court to order me that I honour my promise to you while you use the name to serve you? Good luck to you.

However, the opposite occurs the instant you use the name I issue you to serve me, at that point I am bound to my promise. See the post Subscription. If the subscription, promise, is not used as intended, the subscriber, Ontario/Canada in my case, is not liable.

In my mind, and I am not saying it is correct for you but it is for me, by taking the initiative to have the address changed as per previous posts and comments, one is bringing things about face, correcting a mistake, and the promise becomes binding and they know it. They are probably waiting for us, God is.

The address of course we are talking about is not 'your' address but that of the name from the foundation document, the document the extract that may be used as a foundation document but is not a foundation document (fiction of law) points to. So you have to have it clear in your mind who is who and what is what and the relations.

So, if this is correct then it has to be that Ontario/Canada benefit from my use of the legal name of the BC because until one or the other or both do, the promise does not kick in for want of consideration, the consideration as stated above but with modification, why would I pay your bills when you do nothing for me? But they are not my bills, and you are correct, but, the address thing indicates you are the beneficiary but not in truth but they play the game on your ignorance which is no excuse but in any case, as I see it, so long as the truth is not brought to light (I see the address change as a way to the means) you must like things the way they are.

The address change focus is not so you get your bills paid but so the promise kicks in and in my case B, VR or vendor is covered. I serve through B, VR but no one knows who I am or rather, I am not recognized in law, BVR is. The law does not care who you are, man or woman, it cares who is on the hook, unless of course harm was done; it may take a different view.

If you see yourself as a slave you know you own nothing and have no money so any claims against you or your name however you wish to look at it must be settled by the master so by making the address change thing with the additional information e.g. contact that office for the address of the B,VR; although you are a slave but in a good way because your doing it voluntarily, you are causing the invoking of the promise and are we not children of the promise? I mean if you say and believe the name is not your name, not you or who you are, then are you not more or less saying, I am a slave, especially if you say, I use the BC of necessity because I have to? (Servants can own slaves do not)

The Queen I beleive has taken oath to serve the people and without trespassing against your free will, maybe you can figure out how to complete the circuit that the promise kicks in. If you do not beleive in some kind of promise then I do not know what other process will work that is binding.

I accept that God did not create this world that we divide it among us like executors of our wee pieces of heaven but that we share in it all. For that to happen we have to be of one mind and one heart and collectively we are the heart of Canada. It, as Harper said, must reflect the character of the people and we know the condition of ones heart is reflected in his character, his walk and talk.

The reason I do not get real specific here with regard to a letter writing approach or content (how and to whom etc) is that I know no more than you the answer to say, this is it do it this way. So rather than influence I choose to let you go your way because your way may be the right way and mine wrong if you get the point?

If there is a scam going on I say it is those who know the truth and take advantage of it, being our ignorance. I believe that when we make our intent clear that Ontario/Canada/subscriber is recognized as the beneficiary, the scam will stop because the scam exists because we used the BC as a foundation document when we provided the address where our ass is, thus the subscriber is not liable and we are fair game. The oath, A PROMISE, (a subscription is a promise) rendered not applicable.

I am not saying any of this is correct but put up for consideration. What I see is this and it is free energy machine.

Queen made a promise to us  = service and when we are known to serve through the name recognized in law, the one from a birth reg/BC, the promise kicks in and round and round it goes. Everyone wins

I love you


Back to Kansas (land)

Hi Lovers,

The Deputy Registrar General has indicated in several letters (I have one) in one sentence that a birth certificate is an abstract of a birth registration and that a birth certificate ‘may’ be used as a foundation document for identification purposes for people born in Ontario, but, as an extract the BC is not that but points to the real foundation document (historical facts/1958) that is not and cannot be evidence of current identity of this man.

It is like until we inject new information, we are stuck in the age of current identity. A different dimension. We are not stuck in the past, Kansas, we are in OZ and the address change gets us back to Kansas, the state we were in at birth, 1958; totally free…………NOT CURRENT IDENTITY.

Anyhow, the writing it seems is on the wall. A BC is an extract of a foundation document, it is not a foundation document, but as she says, may be used as a foundation document, current identity, to serve yourself. hahahaha!

The only way I can see that being the case is the address that points to where our ass is, where we work, vacation, bank. We own nothing but the address indicates differently to those who see the information which includes two critical pieces of data, name and address for service, domicile.
But we can also apply the BC as an extract, let them know we know, which now alters the scope of things. Correct me if I am wrong but an extract is not a foundation document it points to the foundation document.

Judy said the extract may be used as a foundation document for id purposes for people born in Ontario. Id for people.

In this case the foundations document is the information certified true and correct (SOB). A certification cannot be of something in the future (has not happened yet) thus the SOB is a historical facts and not current identity of the recipient of a birth certificate.

I think we have ample grounds to justify the address change request and that it will be accepted. 

It seems to me they see us took the may option but that only means we are idiots (owners, taxpayers, persons) and by making the address change are saying, no more may going on here…….hahaha!

So the event of Dorothy returning to Kansas may be a metaphor in this day, loose that current identity tag, the external address of VRB. In other words, when the address for legal matters is changed, you are in Kansas, on the soil, the land, and the name I would say is berthed, domiciled in the harbor (til death/scuttled), sea, Port of Thunder Bay. By taking the ‘may’ use the BC as a foundation document option we took on the identify of the vessel where the laws of the sea (admiralty) apply to us. Kansas is land.

I love us!

Address correction

Hi Lovers

Let us go forth to the next level of this new thought process.

When a process server knocks on your door and asks are you so and so, does he know you have the BC with the particular legal name on it? Not unless you show it to him which if you do will verify for him he is knocking on the correct door.

So what it is that got it that the server is knocking on your door and not someone elses door? Was it because you used the BC as personal id and if so, what the proof is of that?

To make a long story short and in conjunction with the post yesterday in the comments to the most recent post, Nov 6th, it is the address you gave that they come knocking on your door. As i said last summer, all agents act on information and the information comes from some database. They see VRB and they see and address and it is to that address they direct their attention and will keep doing so until they see a different address is the point.

So the address is THE or a big problem. By giving an address associated with BC name or name contracts etc are in you are saying send the legal matters to where my ass is.

I said last summer the information in the system must be changed and the only information that need be changed in keeping with no information in the system is about you but the legal name, name recognized in law, is the address.

Change that and regardless of what information is under the name they will not knock on your door with regard to legal claims.

Here it is again the type of legal issues, claims, that you may receive service of now (from a government web site);

• Law enforcement

• For use by lawyers, process servers, bailiffs and private investigators for legal purposes related to the justice system including:

o Service of legal documents
o Investigations which may give rise to legal proceedings
o Locating persons in connection with claims/litigation/motor vehicle collisions
o Repossession of assets
• Verification of information by financial institutions (banks fall under justice system, hmmmm)
• Collection of debts resulting from failure to pay amounts owing to:
o Road toll authorities
o Financial institutions
o Government (including courts)
o Municipal and private parking authorities
• Toll collection (e.g. 407-ETR)
• Key tag service (War Amps)
• Automobile insurance purposes (e.g. claims and underwriting)
• Parking violations (private, municipal and government parking)
• Government use for program delivery where authorized by statute

By changing the address via that one place none of the above can come to you. Now, many do not use their head because at no time have I said or suggested to change the address to that of the Office of the Registrar General. I did say something about verification of domicile which you've seen if you actually read these posts. Further, that because a BC is an extract the truth of the domicile for the VRB of interest (not the man) is where the registration is held but it does no good for me to tell a third party that because they as you know will not accept that. They are acting on what was got from the information system which includes an address so we have to get into the system at a point we can have the address changes so no more of that legal claims are delivered to where you are located.

So we can use the BC to effect the change of address because the BC is an extract and can be used to guide the change of address folks to the ORG or government, source of extract, holder of the facts, truth, proof, for verification of the domicile of in my case VRB.

When we met the Deputy she said we do not know who gets these birth certificates to me is very significant and I will leave for you to ponder but will say, it is my belief that via the process of effecting this address change/correction, your connection with all account will change. The system will know and accept that VRB is domiciled within and is not any man out there..............and it will act on the promise it issued that you know as a BC and that I have suggested is a subscription.

By having the address changed you are saying I serve, do not use this BC or anything as personal id, have no personal income, owe no money, own no property, have no debts.

Bottom line, so long as the address points to where you are they will not go to any place else but that address...........Think about it.

I love you

Two names

Hi Lovers

In addition to the last post is this. The name in records can only be of your head or the BC.

So a question to a court and yourself may be, is the name on that paper, in the information system, of my head or this birth certificate?

It is not but if they say it is of your head then in the information system then they are saying they are using your proprietary property and I may say something like; ok, you have just said you are using my proprietary property for commercial purposes without my consent and so you already owe me a grand and a grand a minute.

Are you sure the name is not of this certified extract from a birth registration?

That gives them an out if they choose to take it which I think is the best way.

Point here is simple, the subject name is either of your head, your property that you and only you can authorize or restrict use of, or the BC.

Now I have no intention of applying this knowledge in a court because that is dealing with things on a case by case basis whereas I want the record properly corrected once and for all to the extent when I present the BC no one says I am VRB.

I see by comments relating to the last post that most are stuck in yesterday.

I said before and say again, and this is my take; the best way to have it that those working on the outside do not see you as the BC name is to go deep within the system, to its heart and from there as in us, the changes are reflected outwardly.

In other words, if you want to change the world change yourself and the same goes for the system in that if you want it to see you differently, it has to be changed on the inside to reflect the change on the outside world.

From where i sit, all this conspiracy crap and banks screwing us crap is not true. You signed up and no gun was put to your head to justify you blaming them for your choices. Ignorance of what you do and why is no excuse.

You have the tools and it is up to you oh no longer a baby to grow up and use it properly. I see pain bodies everywhere, they this they that, fiction this fiction that, yet not one of those people is themselves being real.

Like a bunch of out of control children. Listen to yourselves.

With love

I think you will love this true…….Got it!

Hi Lovers

Alrighty then. Just as we have suspected, the truth is in our face, the face of the birth certificate.

It says right on it what it is and the related legislation says the same, and that is, a BC is CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION.

That means this, the BC points to the original registration, foundation document, patent, SOB which is not personal identification either BUT, a historical fact and nothing more. The BC points to the SOB because the BC is an extract of that historical fact just like you'd end up with if you got a certified extract of a record on file at a land registry office. That extract points to the land registry office in which the particular parcel of land is located but the land is not located in that office but outside of it.

Now relate that to the SOB. It being the original foundation document it is a like a patent, proof of the existence of something new and when. The difference between where that record is held and land records are held is that there is no out there. VRB IS domiciled where the record, SOB, is held.

There is an exception to that and that is, you do something that attracts the information back to you, such as, write letters with a name with the sender name similar enough to the one on the SOB, where the BC, the extract in your hand points.

Rather than do that you must quickly point out, this BC is an extract from a birth registration not personal id. I see now why it is criminal to treat it as personal id, certainly after you say that and draw there attention what it says right under the registrars seal on BC's issued in Ontario.

In short, the BC does not and is not pointing at you but where the record is held but we keep doing things that attract the attention back to us, e.g. I am VB or VB 123 Main St. the stead of immediately pointing out, this is a CERTIFIED EXTRACT admissible in court as proof of the facts certified 53 fucking years ago which has nothing to do with now hence, BC nor SOB, are evidence of the identity of the one telling you, this is a CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION (held or under control of office of ORG) and if you proceed on the basis I am VRB you will be apologizing.

Are you getting this?

The BC is an extract of a record not personal id means whoever sees the BC must look to the office that holds the record for further instruction and that office knows full well neither the SOB or BC are personal id. Oh yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

This, is the return to source. Everything is already certified and the signatures are not to be questions and both documents are admissible in court as prooooooooooooooooooof, so there is no need to acknowledge this or that as a deed, you already have it in the form of a subscription but you cannot do anything whatsoever that may draw the attention back to you is fatal.

When that connection is made and your not in the loop CANADA is the beneficiary and you the holder of the promise.

This makes perfect sense now why it was G's request that the registrar of a court settle a debt did. All she did was issue simple instructions on a post it note and stuck it to the SOB. No return address, no phone number, nothing to draw attention back to her but the flaw for others has been or inconsistency has been because we never said see it says right here - CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION and just so you know folks in case you need to know, anyone who proceeds on the basis you are, in my case VRB, is subject to criminal charges and more and has no defense.

This EXTRACT is signed sealed and delivered and the signatures are not to be questioned and ignorance of the law is no excuse........

I think you all can carry on with this now that you see right on the face of the BC what it is and how F%$^&^* blind have we been? haha!

Make the connection to the SOB by the BC (extract of it) as the connector and the office that holds that record is the office that told me, knows, a BC is not personal id so I suggest once you've made the obvious connection for them, one way or another sooner or later, depending on your circumstance, the truth will prevail and you shall be set free.

But, I say again, making the connection for them is the objective and do not say or do or write anything by word or mouth that may cause them to look to you as so and so. If they say you are trying to commit fraud you say no you are. If they say I know you as VRB I say, that may be but I assure you you cannot prove I am that VRB or that any information anywhere in any system in the name VRB has anything whatsoever to do with this guy right here mam. It says right here, certified extract and if you do not know what that is under the registrars seal, you'd best get legal advice and quickly.

If I sound harsh it is to empower that there is nothing to fear here. The truth is the truth in this case proof and it is on the face of the BC. I may be VRB but I assure you as does this BC, I am not that VRB. hahahahahahaha!

Ta daa

I love you


Hi Lovers

The attachment here is for your review and is not meant you act on it like folks always do. Just because it sounds good does not make it right so please, do your diligence and share your findings that either support the conclusion or tear it down.


I love you


Hi Lovers

19:15:05 ‹Hallow› Can't build a foundations on water......Once again, get out the dictionaries and on the net and study the meaning of words and how they apply in the context used.

19:17:43 ‹Hallow› For example, the word 'entitled' as used in the change of name act as far as I can tell means authorized to be recognized by the name on the BC.
19:18:58 ‹Hallow› The entitlement is to be recognized by said name. So we have to look at the word 'entitle' in that context.
19:22:40 ‹Hallow› Blacks on entitle; "in its usual sense, to entitle is to give a right or title", and title can be a name or authority but since the entitlement is to be recognized by the name, title cannot in this case mean is given a name to be recognized by the name on the BC, so it has to mean authority.
19:24:29 ‹Hallow› Authorized means to empower another with the legal right to perform an action and the heading of that section of the change of name act says, for all purposes of Ontario law.
19:26:27 ‹Hallow› Dictionary of Law says 'entitle means to bestow a right, and so we see once again some sort of authorization thing going on.
19:27:46 ‹Hallow› So the word entitle seems to me to be an authorization in this case, we are empowered with the legal right to perform an action in the name appearing on the BC; whatever the action may be it is authorized by the authorizor, the principal.
19:28:37 ‹Hallow› This is why it is starting to make sense to say, I am authorized and bonded by Her Majesty to use that name. Bonded in this case means Her Majesty is responsible as the principal.
19:29:21 ‹Hallow› Bonded can mean insured in this case by Her Majesty.
19:32:10 ‹Hallow› This fits in with the idea that a BC is a subscription. The promise kicks in and is binding upon the subscriber, Her Majesty, Canada, Ontario, when the BC is used as intended, thus the eliment of consideration is made and Canada etc the beneficiary and we the holder of the promise, insurance. As user of the name we get use of property in the name that on the books does not belong to us but is under our control.
19:33:17 ‹Hallow› So, if I am authorized to be recognized by the name then I am merely a user of the name, thus, serving through the name thus I have an interest in Canada, in the country.


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





 Page 6 of 22  « First  ... « 4  5  6  7  8 » ...  Last » 
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline