Court news

Hi lovers

I just received word today from one of us in court the last couple of weeks that things went rather well. It is in relation to a divorce and custody.

The case started out with everyone calm but that last couple days before today the judge began to get irate because our friend was refusing to acknowledge himself by or as the legal name so and so. They were at the point in the court of calling witnesses including the X wife to identify the father as so and so.

When i got wind of that I suggested he acknowledge to the court that the people are correctly identifying him but by his name that is private between him and those who know him as that so and so, that that name is not and has never been authorized for commercial purposes, contract or license (marriage license in this case), and this may be the biggy, is not part of any public record. The judge at this point went silent and was visibly different and the lawyer for the X wife dropped his head. We love them. They tried hard to establish his identity as that of a BC and it appears that door is closed. Time will tell. The good thing is our friend is in it for the enjoyment and experience and not attached to stuff or the outcome.All he would like is fair access to the children.

He also read out a sentence of a letter I have from and signed by the Minister of Government Services that the government registers information about events, not people. The letter was accepted in evidence. He asked the court if it was identifying him or his children by information pertaining to the birth registration. To do so is to say the government registers people which is not true. To do so would make the children and him property of the state and human bodies cannot be owned or claimed.  Not live ones anyhow.

I believe that is how they get jurisdiction over our bodies.

He already had the BC and the court obtained copies of the SOB's pertaining to the children.

So it is on record essentially that the name on the court claim and marriage contract is not our friends name but of information registered by the government. haha! We have been winging this one on the fly, addressing issues as they arise and learning from it although the case is not over yet.

The big thing here is acceptance. There is always a way to turn what may appear bad to good or opportunity. People have asked in the past how  to deal with witnesses identifying them as so and so. Well, now you know how. Unless the name you share with people is from government id, the one you say is private between you and them, no matter who it is. But yes, depending on the situation someone else may assume the name you said and the one on a claim are the same or yours. Although our friend never spoke a name but friend, our friend as far as I am concerned did a fine job of clarifying that, the confusion of names, on the record.

I should add that he has from the beginning identified himself as a friend of the court to assist in settling the matter honourbly.

This sent to us and posted to the blog a couple of weeks ago has been very helpful;

The name you are known by your friends or anyone for that matter is private between you and them. It is not from a BC or any other government id unless of course you go around flashing gov id saying this is me. The name on the BC as we know looks and sounds the same but is not the same. One is private the other for public use, hence; glorify her majesty via the BC/public name.

Maybe we can see it this way; We (tools) serve God, all, Her Majesty on the one hand, serves the public in her name, and on the other, serves in Gods name those who serve the public interest.  At all times it is God working through us tools or fools. haha! All are one so does it matter what we label a thing or is it our intent backed by our actions that is the real factor in all this?

I love you

Legal owner


We covered this quite a while ago but now is time for remembering.

'Legal owner' (Blks Law 4th Ed) is defined as the one that the law recognizes and holds responsible as the owner of property.

Now we know we are not the name so and so, blah blah, but that we can be recognized by it. Now, if you are recognized by it, whom do you think the law will recognize and hold responsible as the owner of property in the name so and so?

From there you see the question to be answered.

Again, as far as I can tell, the prevailing presumption is we all accept to be recognized by the name and everyone I know started the game in that zone. My house my car my name.

If you produce evidence you are not, in my case, VB, and that being recognized by the name is a choice and express waiver of the offer to be so recognized, how the heck can the law recognize you as the legal owner?

In this day and age legal owner seems to equate to trustee, and, this name thing in my view can only be settled in the private and can be as simple as asking with evidence on the table, who does the law recognize and hold responsible as the owner of property in that name? The bearer of the BC or ?.

I love you

Recognized in law


Given that there is nothing in the birth registration legislation that says you are a name or were named a name or that the name on the BC is 'your' name, and that there is an entitlement to be recognized by the name pursuant to the Change of Name Act, and that, all things are presumed unless proven to the contrary, it may be safe to say that it is presumed you accept the offer to be recognized by the name.

The recognition is as per that Act, for all purposes of Ontario Law.

Surely anyone who is claiming property as their own, paying debts, or fighting to hold onto stuff is indicating of their own accord that I am, or I am recognized by, the name.

So a question may be, by whose authority is the name being used as evidence of the identity of the one presenting the BC bearing the name?

Get that BC in evidence because it establishes the name recognized in law. It nails it down for sure which name we are taking about and the source.

Further, when man is known to be man and name known to be name, name is beneficiary of mans energy/credit and the debtor.

I love you



Let us deal with what the real mistake we made is, the mistake of mistakes; serving mammon, self, rather than God, other self/all/love, the one family.

The way out of the box but also to show up now as sons and co-heirs of God. Heirs do not pay to receive their inheritance.

Christ defines SIN as a wrong or misuse of energy. Think about it, you expend energy for a pay cheque but go home with net pay which in terms of dollars and cents is less than the amount of energy you put out in terms of dollars and cents measured as gross pay. That is the cost of serving mammon and where true freedom is not.

This is the mistake, SIN, those in pay it forward are repenting of to correct the mistake of mistakes upon which other mistakes or presumptions are founded.

With that mistake corrected any and all others are corrected. Of course, for one to consider repenting he must first accept it was he that made the mistake, SINNED.

We must in my view and the view of many others, start with repentance.

As Lee points out, to accept the offer to be recognized by the name is to accept a government benefit. So long as it is believed you accept that benefit you are trapped.

What purpose do we have for a name but to draw attention to self. We began life in that mode and are just now realizing or remembering who we are thus can see the error of taking a name as if our own. We denied ourselves as son and heirs of God, which by the way, the church is fully aware of and in agreement with. So the 'I was not properly noticed' thing being harped on in my view, in the manner it is being used, may be correct but misses part of the mark. Had we remembered who we are when born and hung onto that knowingness we are one, we would not be saying, I was not properly noticed. The notice is in your heart and the law of man cannot notice you of that, and even if it does, it does not mean you'd see it if you forgot who you are.

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").

As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted.

So it is not only that it may be presumed you are so and so, the name, that may need to be addressed but also that you accepted the benefit of being recognized by the name.

There is a maxim that says, he who receives the benefit ought also bear the burden. Seem familiar?

A maxim of law we covered previously and as Lee reminds us is, God, not man, makes the heir. All you will makers are acting as false gods.

By what you are all saying about the name, not properly noticed, who has the liability for that name, etc, you are wanting to get the liability off you back. I get that, but I am suggesting we can accomplish the same and greater by going back to the original SIN, the mistake of mistakes. We know from legislation that I am not VB nor was my body named VB nor does the legislature express an intention that the name on the BC is 'my' name. Basically that a BC is not meant to identify a human body but a legal body, the issuer or the one granting the entitlement.

There is nothing in the legislation that says if I do not accept to be VB or to be recognized by that name I must return the BC. Thus we can say that it is intended that we serve God through it. I believe that is the reason the legislation is vague and maybe akin to what some say is improper notice, but I see it that the legislature is aware of and respects 'the law of free will' so you can decide who you serve.

Now when serving God one serves all and so it may be that legally, when serving God via the name it means serving the public. Either way, one is not serving self and has no liability. Again, I am not saying to say I was not given proper notice or by whose authority is the name used as personal id is wrong or will not come to the same outcome. I do suggest though that we make far more headway in helping bring about an era of love and peace if we make repentance of our sin and turning to serving God (LOVE) the reason why we do what we do.

Based on what the legislature says and does not say, it may be as simple as confessing (no avoidance) ones sins. As a result of my sin (wrong use of energy) I did use the name to serve myself. I make no excuse and I accept full responsibility, but, I shall now use the name to serve in a loving way; give freely and unconditionally of myself.

Is not your consideration, self assessment, the purpose for your being, love?

How can they say no, and, love is not regulated so could not one be truly free?

I love you

p.s. My meeting with the crown prosecutor has been put off by his office until Friday Feb 18th.

Rebutting presumptions


A quick review is due now.

There is nothing in the Vital Statistics Act legislation that expresses an intention of the legislature that I am VB or that I was named VB or that the name VB on the BC is my name (that I own or hold the rights in the name VB).

There is nothing in that or the Change of Name Act that suggests it is the intention of the legislature that the recipient/bearer of a BC shall be recognized by the name on the BC.

R. v. McIntosh deals with what the legislature intends and that if it did not say it it does not intend it.

There is however, pursuant to sec. 2.1 of the Change of Name Act, an offer entitling the recipient of a BC to be recognized by the name appearing on it.

I do not believe that if the name on the BC is 'my' name (I own or hold the rights in it) that another, the legislature, has the authority to entitle me to be recognized by the name VB, but yet it does, therefore, the one granting the right must have rights in the name. See legal maxims.

I do not claim the name VB appearing on a BC as 'my' name and I decline the offer to be recognized by the name on the BC that, as per the Change of Name Act, is recognized in law.

Who then has the liability for VB?

Here the presumption that I am VB or was named VB or that I own VB is rebutted. Further, it is established who has/hold the rights in the name thus who has/hold the liability for it, thus, rebuts the presumption I do.

This is best done in my view privately or not in a public venue/setting. The use of the legislation here is to get to the truth.

I love you

We are the ones


Take this for how it resonates. How much longer are we going to play this name game while our, yes OUR, home is dying?

I love you

Recognized BY the name


If you read my posts here you see lots of mention of the Vital Statistics Act, the governing legislation, and the fact that there is nothing in it that authorizes anyone to use the BC and or name as personal id.

That is what I think they mean when they say not properly noticed.

However, there is also a saying "ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE". How that applies here in my view is, if when you turned 18 you did not bother to read the Vital Statistics Act and ask questions, shame on you for not reading the Notice, that being, the PUBLISHED legislation.

In other words, it could be said that the publishing of the legislation is the notice, and if so, everyone was properly noticed whether or not they read the legislation is no excuse.

In respect of that I shared another principle of the system; All things deemed done in good faith and honestly whether done negligently or not.

As far as we can tell, it is a presumption that needs to be addressed, that being, as per the Change of Name Act, that you accepted the entitlement to be recognized by the name = agreement = contract.

The lack of proper notice then may be that we were not informed of the consequences of that choice, which if properly addressed, should nullify the presumption of a contract.

You see, there is nothing in legislation that says you are the name but there is legislation that says you are entitled to be recognized by the name.

All things are presumed unless proven to the contrary and since everyone likes to glorify self, I would say the presumption is that everyone or most people will make the choice, consciously or unconsciously, to be recognized by the name. That probably stems from the human desire/consciousness to own or me me me (selfishness), lack of love.

I wrote before, what purpose does a name serve but to draw attention to self, glorify self rather than God the Father, the one, the true owner and liable party if you will. Did Jesus not suggest we glorify the Father?

So to be the name or recognized BY the name has the same effect, consequence; I glorify self, give me the credit and pat on the back, I own that home and car and stuff.

Worst case scenario is to rebut the presumption you are the name and that you agree to be recognized by the name. In other words, to say I am not the name, or ask, by whose authority is the name being used as personal id, does not deal with the presumption that you agreed to be recognized by the name.

Again, whether you are the name or recognized by the name is what draws attention, attracts financial and legal responsibilities, to self.

There are 2 paths to choose from that I believe are the primary choices, to serve self or other self……

By not nipping in the bud that you agree to be recognized by the name, rebutting the presumption, it is presumed your path choice is one of service to self; hence the attraction of financial and legal obligations to yourself.

So then, in my view, if I was to say I was not properly noticed, it may be that I was not properly noticed of the consequences of being recognized by the name.

This is a reason why the meeting with the lawyer via the church, a necessary step from the heart in my view and one the system can do nothing about; We are repenting of our sin in that we served self/mammon, are the or recognized by the name, and now we serve God, therefore, we cannot be the or be recognized by a name.

It is said we are all born in sin. We can say that is the presumption until proven to the contrary and what greater sin, misuse of energy, can there be but to glorify self rather than God the Father, the one infinite creator? All are one.

Glorify the one infinite creator you glorify all.

Further, it is not your name on the BC that Her Majesty/government entitles you to be recognized by. In other words, if the name is your name on the BC then you do not need another party to entitle you to be recognized by it.

The fact Her Majesty/government does entitle the recipient of a BC to be recognized by the name establishes that Her Majesty holds the rights in the name thus has the liability. In other words, for one to grant the entitlement to be recognized by a name, that one must have rights in the name.

Therefore, when one nips it in the bud that he is recognized BY the name, the liability shifts to where it was intended to be, God the Father via the trustee/executor, Her Majesty.

I love you

To be a Man book 3



Here is book 3 of To be a Man as sent to me today.

Keep in mind folks that this information like all information is to add to your viewpoint, not be it.

Comes a time when one considers that he cease reading from others and do for himself what the others share. It is the only way to know is by our own experiences.

I love you

Ta da



This just in, see 'Event given names' attached.

Here you have it, government evidence that the name is given to an event, the past, a historical fact; hence, a BC is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it.

I believe this form has something to do with change of given names; hence, under Change we see, Event's given names.

I love you

Naming of event, character


Vital Statistics Act…“birth” means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a fetus that did at any time after being completely expelled or extracted from the mother breathe or show any other sign of life, whether or not the umbilical cord was cut or the placenta attached; (“naissance”)

9. (3) The Registrar General, acting on a certification under subsection (1) or information under subsection (2) or on such information as may be prescribed or as he or she considers appropriate, may register the birth of a child in Ontario of which he or she becomes aware. 1994, c. 27, s. 102 (5).

My emphasis: The registration of a birth is registration of the event of a birth, not the human body.

Contents of certificates
Birth certificate

43. (1) A birth certificate shall contain the following particulars of the registration:
(a) name of the child;
(b) date of birth;
(c) place of birth;
(d) sex;
(e) date of registration; and
(f) registration number.

Now section 43 of the Vital Statistics Act is very much like section 13. (1) of England’s Births and Death Registrations Act 1953, in that, since it is not the human body that is registered (not a party) it is not the human body that is named but the event. In other words, the particulars of the registration – e.g. name of the child, is the name of the event (historical fact).

This is a reason that a birth certificate is not evidence of the identity of the one presenting it. In any event, there is nothing in the legislation that says to the effect, a human body shall be named a name; therefore, it is not intended by the legislature that the name does identify a human body.

In the old times one would stake a claim, so a mis-stake is no, misplaced, or bad claim.

So, who has the liability for, in my case, VB is the question.

I love you

Character-Take two


All I am saying regarding this character thing is to have it accepted you are playing the part, meaning you are not the part, character. Seems folks seem to forget about acceptance. In this case having it accepted by the powers on high in the cartoon world that you are the actor not the character, not the name and thus not the owner of anything attached to the name.

If you read the Consumer Reporting Legislation, accounts for our choices, you will note the use of the word character.

I would say the fact a file exists under that Act is evidence we believe we are the character, the name.

Point is rather than going into something guns a blazin do what you gotta do (e.g show the Vital Statistics Act) that it is accepted that you are not the character but you play the part. The Vital Statistics Act being the legislation that in my view proves you are the actor, not the name/character.

So saying I am the actor not the character, is the same as saying I am not so and so, the name is so and so. The thought behind saying I play that character is so one can go along with the script but on the basis those who need to know know you are not the character, not so and so in real life but in the show, the Act.

Saying I am the actor playing VB, the character, is saying, I play batman but I am not batman. Yes, playing batman batman may incur liabilities, but, the actor, man, is not liable, batman, the name, is.

In any case the point i think some are missing here is along the lines of getting it accepted first and foremost that you are the actor, that way whatever happens to the character, the name, is known not to apply to you but the character that is in and of the cartoon world.

For example, you meet privately with a crown attorney to go over the name thing in that you are not VB, the name is. The reason is to come to an agreement with the crown attorney before a case commences that you are the actor and play VB, but is not VB. The two of you can decide how the case is going to play out in court. You can say, I will plead VB guilty and you will do your thing and the judge will render his verdict of guilty and pass sentence. I will then walk out of court and everyone in the court other than us three will think I got convicted but all we did was put on a show, an act, for the public.

The public heard that VB was convicted but me and the crown and the judge know that VB is not me.

So I am saying then it is one thing to play the part of VB the dentist and quite another to be VB the dentist. As it is now everyone I know is recognized as if the name rather than recognized as the actor playing the part of VB.

If you are thinking that by being the actor you go for the ride that the character you play goes on then you do not know what Hollywood does. You think that when Bruce Willis is sent to jail or shot that the man playing that part goes to jail or is shot which is indicative of a mind caught up in the movie/this world/Act/illusion as if it is real.

With love



Where in the script does it say to argue or make claims or mistreat or disrespect other actors? It does not.

Where in the script does it say to do love? In your heart.

The first move to make is to remind everyone that I am playing VB. Once that is accepted then I can go into court and play the part. I can play along and so long as i do not argue, I am respecting my character and the game and all is good. I go home no worse for the wear regardless what happens to VB.

I can be as the owner, as the driver, as the taxpayer, etc.

When we begin a scene by going into argument or controversy are we indicating that we believe ourselves to be the character?

Is the first communication you receive from an outside party the opening act/scene?

In that sense then is what I mean by character-assassination. The character issued to us is dishonored and the actor and all other actors (all are one) along with it.

It takes men and women to be actors and so when it is made clear I am an actor playing the part of VB, then I, am man.

With love



A new twist to things

You should read up on the word 'character' (includes person). It pretty much sums up all possibilities with respect to our interaction with the matrix/computer; who and what we can be in the game, not of it.

Shakes speare said the whole world is a stage and we are all actors on it.

I am thinking that we are acting 24/7. I am seeing the sense of that now. haha!

Waking up then is realizing you are acting. You have, are issued, a character, NAME to play in the game. Hi, I am VB and I am the dentist.

The only real question then is, do I know that I am acting or do I believe the script to be real? Am I in the cartoon or of it? Do I ask how high when told to jump or do i shrug it off?

My point here is that maybe we can see this from a 'give your head a shake, I am not VB I play the character (person) known as VB'. See, if you are playing the character, acting the part, none of it is real and does not apply to or affect you as a man, the actor, unless you allow it, so how can you have a liability?

When you think about it you can admit to everything, accept all accusations, all claims, because it is all just an Act, nothing personal. All those apply to the character, VB, and not the actor...........hahahaha!

What I am saying is maybe we should be saying something like, I am not VB, I play VB, like I play the red token when playing monopoly. Like the man on the bench. He is not the judge his character is.

This all just came to me and it requires further thought but so far I like this because it renders all aspects of what we perceive as real to be an act, and any actor knows regardless what happens to his character, it is not him affected. Whatever obligations the character has the script allows for, or in any case, man, the actor, is not liable for.

So if there is a mistake that needs correction, it may be, that it is believed I am VB the dentist, good guy bad guy, the character, rather than playing the character/person/TOKEN/PART.

We may view the legislation, the Vital Statistics Act, being the part of the script that governs the birth of actors and issue of characters, names, character identity.

If I am not VB then I am not the dentist, but, I can play VB the dentist and yet have no obligation to pay dentist bills or do what VB the dentist must do.

I think I shared recently, the biggest difference between most of us and Hollywood actors is, they know they are acting. hahahahaha!

When we know we are acting is perhaps the day we stop taking things so seriously, stop arguing, controversy. Is the day we remind those who forgot, its just an act man its just an act. I am not VB I play VB. You do not actually believe I can pull that tooth do you?

Here is the script (Vital Statistics ACT) to remind you that I as the holder of this BC, play VB, I am not VB. I am an actor, not a dentist. hahahaha!

With love



Let us look at this a bit differently. First off, any information shared from here is meant to add to your view point, not give you one.

Let us say you receive mail or a phone call asking for so and so, XYZ. Let us say that you are not XYZ and there is no one or name where you are who is or that is XYZ.

In other words, an obvious mistake is what this is. Would it make sense for you to respond with, what proof do you have that I am XYZ or to respond with, I am not XYZ and here is the governing legislation. Please investigate. They cannot come back and say you are so and so. Not lawfully.

Presumption rebutted.

We began this back in March or 2010. We went out to have mistakes corrected on the basis we were not informed that a BC is not personal identification prior to making application for in one case, a driver license. They are posted at

Further, when one is asked for or to give a name in court, what proof does he have what his name is? None, or should I say it depends. Depends on if one wishes to be a name or not. So one could present the BC, not as proof of his name, but THE name and take it from there.

Natural persons have rights and duties and obligations and the only way to be held to or benefit from such, in law, is for one to be identified by a name.

With love

Great video, zoot zoot zoot


With love

All things are presumed


There is a principle in law I read in the criminal code or some other place. It is, 'All things are presumed unless proven to the contrary'.

To me that is saying that what is going on out there is based on bull shit until we truth is offered that may rebut a presumption. (e.g Vital Statistics Act will rebut the presumption you are a/the name)

For example, it is presumed that everyone is a name in absence of evidence to the contrary. Everyone starts the game that way. Therefore the onus is on you to say who you are or to clarify what you are not. No one else can do that for you which is in keeping with the law of free will.

So unless you rebut a presumption, the presumption stands. Until you speak up that you are not so and so, a name, you are for all intents and purposes, so and so, the name.

All things are presumed unless proven to the contrary.


In other words, if you do not know that you are not a name or fail to clarify that you are not the name, or make an effort to correct a mistake, you deserve whats coming. The presumption you are the name stands.

I share those two principles for you to ponder as they form part of the basis of how the system operates. They are etched in stone.

Silence is consent.

I love you



This is what appears on the front page of the Crowns Disclosure Notice (under Hwy Traffic Act) that I accepted in court last week.

If you are able to make admissions in the case, have information that you wish to have considered by the Crown as to the proper disposition or resolution of the case, or wish to discuss the case with a prosecutor, please contact our office.

Is that not an invitation or opportunity to address the matter and facts in the private?

I agree with the allegations made by the police officer (= admissions), but, I am not VB the name is VB (= information) , and I am asking that the crown investigate. To help it here is the Vital Statistics Act (= information) and if you need any more information from me or if I can be of further assistance, do let me know.

The objective of course is to get to the bottom of things once and for all that my body is or is no longer handed tickets or summons or recognized or treated as VB or an owner of that name or any other thing.

The BC is like a credit card. When I am VB I benefit from use of the card but when I am not I do not. Whoever does (the 'One', thanx Wendy) has the obligation to pay, but since the One already gave his only begotten son, so the story goes, the obligation is already paid, or, pre-paid. In other-words, debt is not real but since we believe in it and/or serve self, it does for that reason only. Not allowing our energy/life to flow freely is the debt in the non-physical manifested as debt in the physical, or, on Accounts.

This is why I say, with the BC (tool like your human body) comes with choices (law of free will/Extortion), to serve self or other self, the One. So when I say serve God [not mammon] I mean serve the One, of which we all are. All are One.

Since there is only the One then no matter what we do we serve the One, but, it is your desire, intention, the purpose you have given yourself, serve self or other self, that the term 'cannot serve God and mammon' is.

With love

Man or person


I sent this that follows to Wally in response to his email information about women are 'persons' (posted below);

My take is that men and women do not become persons except by joining in to the cartoon world. Like the men and women who play Hollywood roles. Man is the actor but as batman he is a person because batman is not real. In that sense batman (name/title), person, is a creation of law or fiction. So for the women in that person case to be a Senator, like the man wishing to play batman, she had to be accepted into the cartoon world where men and women are no longer as men and women.

I've suggested previously that to be a man one must in my view remain man, meaning, cannot also be a tenant as an example. A man who identifies himself as a tenant, senator, taxpayer, etc., is a person in law, but to do that one must first identify himself as, in your case, WD. I say that because as you know, if you went to sign a lease for a car and say I am not WD or sign For WD, the seller is not going to accept the lease. You are saying I am not in the cartoon world and the liabilities in that world do not extend to this world. You may squeak it by the seller but someone up the ladder will see that and take issue with it.

I think that when the name thing is properly addressed, meaning you are not WD, you are or remain a man. WD is of and exists in the cartoon world and so to be WD is man choosing to be a person in the cartoon world. Men and persons are terms to distinguish in which world one stands I think. Natural or fiction, or, outside the movie studio stands man but inside he is a person, in costume, cloaked, in persona. This is why I say it is futile to fight the tax system because to do so must be as a taxpayer, person under Canadian law.

Bottom line for me, and maybe you think the same, by dealing with the lack of lawful authority to say you are WD we cover all bases. We cannot be in the cartoon world but the name is and will in all ways be in that world. The government says it is by registration of birth that one becomes a person. In my view it is what is not said in that regard, that being, but you do not have to be a person. To say you must be a person interferes with your freedom of choice and is called Extortion. In other words, without the BC and name on it no one could choose to be a person. In other words, the way to not be a person is to not be WD. It starts and ends there. To be or not to be WD, that is the question or choice. So the BC then affords us a choice, or creates a second possibility, that being, man and woman can become, of his/her own free will and choice, whether made negligently or not, a person under Canadian law. Under being the keyword meaning subject to the law. It is not by birth that we become persons but the choices we make afterward.

When you are not WD and make it clear you are not making any claim to the name, you own nothing and cannot be with liability. I shared this before and here it is again what the courts says regarding the use of the word 'anything' in section 346 of the Annotated version of the Criminal code (Extortion); the purpose of this provision (section 346) is to protect against interference with freedom of choice. So you see here they have codified our right to self-determination under that section of the code. Serve God, other self, or serve mammon, self. The BC allows us that choice.

With lottsa love.

Women become persons

Broadcast Date: June 11, 1938

On this day in 1929, women are finally declared "persons" under Canadian law . The historic legal victory is due to the persistence of five Alberta women — Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards.

The battle started in 1916. From Murphy's very first day as a judge, lawyers had challenged her rulings because she is not a "person" under Canadian law .



I shared a few years back what a friend had done. He issued a chq to a Money Mart knowing there were no funds in the account to cover the chq. The fraud squad was called but they had not yet spoke with my friend. I suggested he go to the Money Mart and make a deal to repay and then go to the fraud squad and tell them what he had done.

He did that and the fraud squad guys responded, get out of here nobody does this. Does what, take responsibility and settles privately.

That was the end of it. My friend by settling up privately with the Money Mart, they convert chqs to cash, avoided going public. Sure had we known back then what we do regarding the name he could have gone to court and said, I am not so and so the name is, and maybe be successful passing off the liability. I say pass off because what my friend had done was not honourable.

This brings me to another aspect of the name game.

Now we can say I did not cause the officer to issue a charge or traffic ticket but the fact you are there yes you did.

Did you know that if you are at a stop sign and the car is rear ended by another that your liability is 25%. Why, because you were there. I had two instances where I got the other drive to sign a confession an accident was their fault and on both occasions the 25% liability did not kick in on my account. Why, because they took full responsibility when they signed the confession, other wise the default is 25% no matter how not at fault you believe you are. The point here is that even though you do not believe you did something to receive a traffic ticket blah blah, the fact you receive it you did. Just like our money mart friend would have except he knew full well he was the cause.When he got over himself and his pride he accepted and took care of it. So the acceptance by the other drivers freed me. Is that good or what?

My point then is that it seems quite often when someone say's I am not so and so or I am not so and so the name is, or I am not that person, the system agents get on this wagon of, he is saying he was not there, that he did not do what is alleged, he is crazy.hahaha!

That may be a trained response I don't know but it is strange that many agents seem to have that reaction. To nullify that and in keeping with the you were there thing consideration, consider accepting the allegations are correct but that, I am not so and so the name is so and so.

In my view you are taking responsibility for what you caused/created = acceptance, and the system will take care of what it created, the legal liabilities. I mean if you are charged for having an open beer in public that is not the issue because it is true, how you react is. If we do not accept then it becomes an issue is what I am saying. So acceptance for value then has nothing to do with commercial crap, unless one is under the law, but self. Acceptance, we are one, i received this because I was there, I am involved, I can accept a responsibility to protect the one (family) of which we all belong.

So unless you were not with an open beer in the public, non-acceptance of the causative facts is dumb. Perhaps default or fault number 2.

To shorten this story lets leave off here. I am suggesting that the causative facts are accepted but also add that I am not so and so the name is so and so. There is no getting away with anything or victory. Who are you competing against? Who are you trying to beat or defeat? All are One.

With love

Settle in the Private


I hear a lot of audio recordings on talk-shoe and other mediums that speak of how to fix things in court.

If a matter has made it before a court an opportunity has been missed. That opportunity is to settle the matter, mistake, privately before an appearance in court. I appreciate that there are occasions one is dragged into the court, but that does not mean an attempt cannot be made to clear up a mistake before going before the judge.

Worst case scenario yes, you raise the mistake in court before the judge but this is about opportunities to settle beforehand. The opportunity being to deal with the mistake and have the public record set straight that you would no longer be summoned to court.

One of the cases called in court last week was withdrawn at the request of the Attorney General. The chief law officer. That officer can make it that other officers leave you alone. Crown attorneys represent the Attorney General. Now that you know I am not VB, who has the liability for VB?

It is stated in the bible to go to thy brother first to settle privately, and if you think about it, if you and I have some sort of situation that may escalate to a lawsuit, appearance in court, would you prefer I come to you privately or blast all over town, in the public, that you did this or did that or failed to do this or that?

I am not against those placing an emphasis on what to say and do in court but am suggesting we look at the settle privately aspect first and foremost. If a matter is before a court that has not occurred or failed. I see that as the first de-fault or fault. Not making an effort to settle privately.

I think I spoke about this on one of the conference calls last year. Step one, make an effort to settle the matter privately. Carrying on with the pretend situation you and I have, when I come to you in the private to work things out to the satisfaction of both of us, would you prefer I come to you arms a waving and screaming and yelling and accusing you? Or would you prefer i come to you like we are best brothers and we chat about the situation peacefully, letting the evidence do the speaking?

We may agree or agree not to agree. No resistance, no controversy, no argument; we simply have a situation we do not see eye to eye on. Which method is the most honourable and sensible?

I guess what I am saying is, as much as we can strive to settle the matter in court we can do so in the private. Whilst in the private and it is agreed you are not so and so, you can then take it to the next level and ask the crown in private, who then has the liability for the name. If he cannot answer, ask him to find out.

Asking who has the liability for the name in and of itself may cause a glitch and even a victory, but does not put forth any evidence that answers or may help answer the question. When it was believed you are so and so you had the liability. When it is known you are not so and so some other party must have it.

Anyhow, the main focus here is the suggestion that we each has an opportunity to settle this name thing first in the private and that it may be that by not so doing is a sign of fault or evidence of acceptance by you that you are so and so, the name. Further, if you wish to be in the private think and act like one.

I mean, if your belief is that there is a mistake, why wait days or weeks to get to court to deal with it? Far less chance of messing with the protected public illusion (PPI, haha) if an effort is made and/or settled in the private.

If a matter does proceed to court you can inform the court that you made an effort to settle the matter in the private. Shows good faith, that you are serious, and that you made an attempt to settle. That in and of itself gives cause (in response if the judge asks why are you here) for your being in court.

As far as I can tell, there is no way the crown would call a case but to withdraw the charges after having had a conversation in private about the name and the governing legislation. I have said and believe that raising the idea of a mistake and or who has the liability for the name does not bring closure to the situation. But, that coupled with the governing legislation in evidence, there can be no assumptions you are so and so. That legislation in my view is cause for the eyes of claimants to look elsewhere for who has the liability, thus the legislation provides for settlement and closure. I believe that until that legislation is put before the eyes of the system agents, ignorance prevails.

In that sense, that legislation is the source, source law. It is not always what the law says but what it does not say.

The only way you can own something is if you are so and so, the name.

A man who is not named. haha!

With love

 Page 1 of 5  1  2  3  4  5 »
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline