Feb 10 2014
John Lennon, the best-known, recent promoter of peace, continually said, “Give Peace a Chance”. A decade ago, I wrote that if I hear it on TV, radio, from a politician, or see it in print, I can count on the opposite being the truth –not quite so. When Lennon was assassinated, it was because he was promoting peace and, at the time, over 30 years ago, we all figured that the CIA didn’t want anyone promoting peace because they want to promote war. It is worse than that. The operatives martyred him. John’s death forced us to cling, even more tenaciously, to peace, as, surely, the thugs didn’t want that! Don’t they want us to believe in their wars? AGAIN, they don’t care what we believe –as long as our belief is not in ourselves. They care only that we DO NOTHING!
As long as we stay in “peace, love, and light”, we remain powerless to be in opposition to them. They do NOT want us to retaliate, to march into their offices and bodily remove them, to go and talk with the armed members of their society, in order to convince armed forces that, by siding with the psychopaths and fighting us, they are ensuring not only their own slavery but also the enslavement of their children. We must actively convince the cops and military that if they continue to choose unconsciousness, they are slitting their own throats.
Our thinking that we can love a psychopath into wellness is just New Age nonsense. We are being harmed by psychopaths and so we must retaliate with force. No longer is it the matter of corporate fraud which upsets me; rather, it is people who continue to live as if corporate fraud is acceptable. It is NOT. The psychopaths and the willfully blind –people who choose to remain in ignorance, as acquiescent slaves– are our enemy. We actually co-exist with these people –our enemies– pretending they have redeeming characteristics, when it is they who are further entrenching us in our millennia-old enslavement.
The ‘system’ is our enemy and the people in our lives who adhere to the system and, in fact, even defend it, are opting for willful blindness and are, therefore, also, our enemy.
Whereas, Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”
Supremacy of God: This must mean, Natural Law, since God made no laws (LORD God –not Creator God– dictated the 10 Commandments). So, Natural Law is superior to the Rule of Law, but it seems as if we live in “a nation of laws”;
Rule of Law: This is man-made Law, which dictates: “No one is above the law and all are equal before the law”.
1. This means we all have the same Rights. Since our rights are our Creator-given birth-right, then no man can either “grant” Rights to, or “revoke” Rights from, another.
2. There is no “law”; there is only Statute. What law-enforcers call “laws” are all just code, act, regulation, etc. There is no ‘law’ which is titled, “law”;
“Laws” are something which cannot change –e.g.: “law of gravity”. Although gravity can be countered with “anti-gravity”, the fact of gravity still remains. This is how we know that there are NO man-made “laws”, only statute, to which no man is subject. However, it is the ever-changing nature of statute –what’s legal today is illegal tomorrow– that makes the justice system truly insane; even MORE insane than whether or not man is subject to statute.
3. Since law-enforcers –judges, attorneys, cops, etc. behave both above the law and not equal, to us, before the law, and all of them violate the alleged “law”, with impunity, then, THEY have proven that the Rule of Law no longer exists;
The Law Society can’t have it both ways: neither ‘supremacy of God’ nor “rule of law” exists, so, the preamble to the Constitution, albeit convoluted, is a bloody lie.
As we now see that there is only statute (codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, bylaws, acts, bills, legislations, constitutions, policies, charters, and treaties) which serves only to restrict our Natural, God-given Birth-Rights, then Statute must apply to something other than man. Statutes apply only to NAMES.
Over the years, we have all vacillated on “who owns the name?”. It’s been the prime question: how did thugs come to believe they have authority over us? Answer: someone, whom they believe has authority over them, told them, and they foolishly believed it.
We know it is via the NAME. They create debt in OUR Name, and are holding us as surety, but the eternal question is, how did they manage to get what they believe to be the right to do this? We all know about the birth certificate is backed by a bond and that the NAME on the BC is what is charged, for the benefit of the public, not us, and then we are made liable for a debt we did not create. Not only that but also no debt could possibly exist, if all debts and charges were handled properly, i.e.: via offset and discharge, respectively.
The NAME was made into a legal fiction, called a “person”, to which all statute applies. NOT ONE Statute applies to “man”. In only a few acts/codes, is there any definition for person, and NONE for man or woman. In the BC Motor Vehicle Act the word person is mentioned over 1200 times; in Alberta’s Traffic Safety Act, the word person is mentioned 938 times, however, in the list of 49 definitions, “person” is not defined. Since “person” is to whom the entire Act applies, logic dictates that the word would be defined, if obfuscation were not the motive for the deliberate omission.
If any man or woman (“man”) chooses to identify himself with a NAME which is, again, somehow, under the control of the province/state, whether upon demand or under threat, intimidation, coercion, or even voluntarily, then all 100 million statutes apply to him, yet, if he is smart enough not to identify with a legal fiction/person/NAME on the BC, then, only Natural Law applies to him.
Our holding the BC proves that only we have a right to use the name. No one can use our (or our parents’) intellectual property without our consent and, since the public has, indeed, used it for their unjust enrichment, it was fraud because their access to the name came only from having deceived and coerced our parents into signing over the name, and intimidating us into obtaining and paying for unnecessary documents. This is extortion, all in order to defraud us of our labour. The main issue is that there was no full disclosure. If only the agent, at the hospital had said, “We’re going to set up a trust, in your child’s name, making him the beneficiary, so that any debt he incurs, will be offset as soon as he signs, because he is entitled to his share of Canada’s value (GNP). But, any sane parent, used to the old way –prior to the bankruptcy of 1933-34– of having to pay debts with cash, would ask, “What’s the catch?” Due to the fraud, undertaken when parents are not in a state of mind to handle this type of situation, our use of the NAME causes them to think we are the trustees and liable for the accounting, and they made sure that we cannot access the credit of the trust, in order to do so. So, we had better be very careful not to identify with the name/trusteeship, until we gain control.
From Salhany’s Police Manual: “Refusal of Citizen to Identify Self: The common law does not require a citizen to identify himself or carry identification of any sort. Therefore, while it may be the mark of a good citizen to identify himself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify himself when he refuses; otherwise, he will be guilty of criminal assault and be liable to vicil damages.”
No officer has the right to demand identification from any man, unless said officer is witness to a breach of common law. This does not mean statute; it means: if there is an injury to a man or damage to his property. Otherwise, officers have the right to request identification, but not demand it. An officer can charge only a NAME so, without that information, a man is not subject to charges under statute. Since everything, including theft, assault, and murder are under statute, you can see that no man is subject to charges of statute. Your question ought to be: so, how can a victim of such crimes obtain justice?
As all alleged provincial/state courts operate under statute, and no man can be charged under statute, unless he actively consents or reluctantly acquiesces or tacitly agrees, then, the only way to seek justice is to take the offender into civil court under common law jurisdiction. No man is permitted in any other court and no court has jurisdiction over man.
The best example of this is the OJ Simpson trial. How is it that a jury could not convict Simpson, but his ex-wife’s family could? Is it because Judge Ito told the jury what verdict to return? On what grounds? It is because that case was won in the first few minutes of the trial, specifically, the instant Simpson’s attorney asked, “Which Orenthal James Simpson do you want?”, after Ito called the NAME. This told Ito that Cochran knew that it was the NAME/a “person” which was charged. No man can be charged in state court; a man can be charged only in civil court which is where Nicole’s family took Simpson.
I have searched for the opening remarks of this trial and cannot find any indication of this. Only in the news of the day did we see/hear that this is what Cochran asked. We all know that this sort of information disappears before anyone can take notice (just as the intruder in the queen’s bedroom, in 1982, was a black man, but now, Michael Fagan is the fall guy, as he had sneaked into the palace, previously. Was the news changed because the black man had actually been invited?) The entire trial, after the first few minutes, was only a dog and pony show, during which advertisers had a field day.
All court cases are about only the drama –acting, script, cast, set design, etc. They are NOT about justice, clients, or truth. I dated an FBI agent who told me that “all lawyers are just frustrated actors.” They couldn’t make it on stage so they opted for litigation. The courtroom is their stage. Like all actors, their ability to act is the crux of whether they win or not, however, their script is almost equally important. Therefore, it is a wise defendant who tells his attorney what is true, as truth will offer him a better script. Truth serves no other purpose in court. An actor can be great, but a good script determines his win or loss, so he must know what’s true. Give him a better script so that he has more to work with and he will perform better. Just know that neither truth nor justice matters in fiction and all court cases are in fiction. If someone is guilty of a true crime (not a statutory commercial crime) and feels the need to hire an attorney, then, he ought to hire a good actor and give him a good script, i.e.: the truth, as truth cannot harm a defendant; however, truth will assist the performer.
I keep hearing, “Money is created out of thin air” or “out of nothing”. “Money” is NOT “created out of thin air”. Credit, which can be ‘monetized’, is created based upon an IOU –a promise-to-pay, an agreement to payment terms, i.e.: a security, which can and will be sold, on the securities market. The only requirement, in order for the bank to give us credit, is our agreement to pay, i.e.: a note, which includes: date, payee, amount, and signature. That note is securitized and sold.
Think “pawnbroker”: We trade an item of value, e.g.: a ring, for cash. If we bring back the cash, we get back the ring. Yet, if, in the meantime, the pawnbroker sells the ring/security to someone else, then we no longer owe the pawnbroker the cash that he gave us, in exchange for the ring, because he already got it. It’s simple. The transaction BEGINS with US: WE bring the value and, in exchange, we receive cash. Since the value we bring to the transaction must equal the value we receive, then, the account books are balanced and the ledgers show zero. Anything but “balanced” would have the auditors down their throats. Ergo, at the end of the day, there is NO outstanding “debt”. The “Accounts Payable” ledger proves this, but that ledger is well-hidden. Still, nothing is owed. In such a case, one ought to subpoena the Accounts Payable ledger.
A serious problem arises when one offers his house or car as collateral, i.e.: a secondary security, in the event that we do not “pay back” the alleged loan. In the event that we wake up and realize that we never owed ANY debt, and we opt not to succumb to their fraud, they can steal the collateral which, in this case, is the house or car. This –people waking up to the fraud– along with loss of jobs, increased property taxes, the myth of interest rates, etc. is why the banks are stealing so many houses/cars. (A decade ago, I wrote that property taxes would increase to the point of “unaffordable” and the bank would steal houses, whether or not they were “paid-for” which is now occurring and no questions to the banks are being answered.)
If one is being harassed by a bank, these idiotic questions might be asked, in court: “Is this your signature? Did you receive a loan? How did you buy your property?” “No; no; and via funds based upon our agreement to exchange my note for your cheque; i.e.: an IOU for an IOU.” A signature indicates agreement to terms but, since the terms are based upon fraud, then the signature is moot. No loan took place; it was simply an exchange of credit. It’s not up to us to prove we did or did not receive anything; it is up to the claimant to prove he suffered a loss. If the bank no longer has the note/agreement, then it was sold and the “debt” was paid. Why would we pay for the thing which was, essentially, pawned, but then sold by the pawnbroker?
If the bank’s books were not balanced at the end of the day on which the alleged “money” was “lent”, then, wouldn’t the auditors have discovered this debt and thrown the “lender” in jail? Are banks allowed to lend money? or just exchange credit? Didn’t “lender” and I simply exchange notes of equal value? Since when would any institution ever give a man a cheque, without getting the equivalent value in advance? Are you asking if I signed an agreement to “pay back”? Maybe, but, wasn’t that before I discovered the fraud, which vitiates my agreement? Show me the Accounts Payable; the part of the ledger which proves that the bank accepted my note as an asset.
How can a live man owe a dead person/legal fiction? The signature of the witness, on their document, is a wo/man’s; banks can’t sign. So, who is the live wo/man claiming I owe him/her money? Whatever wo/man has a claim against me must provide proof that s/he “lent money”, on behalf of the bank, sworn under penalty of perjury, and signed in wet-ink. You have 10 days. Your failure to provide sworn proof that a bank lent me money constitutes your agreement that I was never indebted to a bank which operates in fraud.
Where one ought to be vigilant, in this fraudulent fiasco, is not to answer any of their questions. We’re the ones with the questions. As always, the burden of proof is on the accuser/plaintiff. They must prove their claim. If it gets to court, I would continue to re-iterate: this isn’t about ME; this is about your proving your claim that I owe you. Go ahead; I’m waiting. Since nothing can ever be proven, they’re sunk. The problem, as always, is the court, which always sides with the banks. I’d let the judge know that he cannot possibly rule in favour of the bank when they have failed to prove their claim. Getting caught up in their questioning appears as if we are defending ourselves and that is NOT what this is all about. There is no ‘defending’; it is about their ‘proving’. This is what ALL court cases are about, yet, no one seems to grasp this.
Of all the successes I’ve heard –no matter what the situation– there is one thing they all have in common: no paper or documents were mailed or filed. All were won by the spoken word.
I heard that, as of 1676, law is no longer auricular; so, unless it is ‘written’, it has no existence in law (statute). So, just as with all statute, this also applies to only fictions. Anything written in 2-D (on paper) is in fiction. As we are not fiction, we must not deal with paper; we must speak. Each has its own realm. Dead men tell no tales –meaning fictions cannot speak– and only the living can voice. What the law society writes has meaning to only them, in an illusional, fictitious, flatland (2-D) world. Paper is for their purposes, as a record, so what we write does not exist for them. That is why our paper is always ignored. Statute/paper applies to only them, unless we get trapped in it. They live in paper; we do not. They cannot ignore us when we are face-to-face. I’m not suggesting anyone go to court; I am suggesting that we make our paper live, by hand-writing upon it.
We know that when they speak, it is all lies, so we must have them “put it in writing”, since this is all that has any meaning to them. Why would anyone go to court where they are all armed, they lie when they speak, and we cannot voice-record their lies. We must stop acquiescing to their means of communication. This is why they all hide behind P.O. Boxes. They fear our spoken word. Remember, a fiction and a live man cannot communicate, ergo, the worthlessness of going to court, not to mention the obvious –it is hazardous to our safety. That said, we still must resolve issues but we must voice to one who must write. We must not write to fictions; we must not allow fictions to speak to us.
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” –S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795
In my book, I relate the story of a hunter who was accosted by a forest ranger who had seen animal skins in his truck. The ranger pointed to the fur skins and asked, “Where did you get those furs?” Our hero answered, “What furs?” Even in court, he acted as if he had no idea what this was all about. “What furs?”
Never make a statement, always ask questions. Acknowledgement of cops, attorneys, judges, etc., and consent to their accusations and demands are the actions which take us down. Speaking of whom, have you ever noticed that, when these people sense that they know less than you do, but pretend otherwise, they yell and talk over you? It’s good evidence of with whom we’re dealing. Those who really DO know speak calmly. Cops, attorneys, and judges know nothing, other than what they are told to know, and, since attorneys and judges remained in school longer than the rest of us, you know that they have been indoctrinated better than the rest of us. They have no clue about how the economic/justice system really operates. At some level they must know that they know nothing or they wouldn’t have to lie to us. Their lying is proof that we know more than they do. Remember this, when dealing with them.
The time for rebellion is well-overdue. Whether you call it peaceful non-compliance, revolution, renaissance, protesting, or enough is enough, we must get these crooks off our land. They have pulled every stunt in the book to distract us and to offer us some bogus peace-of-mind. In the texts, A Course In Miracles, the concept of “forgiveness” was propagandized so that when we figure out who is the cause of all our problems, we won’t lynch them. They have given us channeled entities (I used to get a kick out of Bashar, until I realized that he was just another “peace, love, and light” guru); the ETs are coming to save us, but, even if they arrive tomorrow, it is too little, too late; and my favourite scam of all, the second coming of Christ. Since people have been praying, for centuries, for “God’s will” to be done on Earth, then, given the hell we have always had, either this IS God’s will or God is completely ignoring those who pray. If people are still waiting for Jesus to ‘save’ them, then, Jesus has truly let them down. ALL this is propaganda to get people to sit on their hands and do nothing except wait to be saved, and foolishly forgive their tormenters, whilst the order-followers systematically destroy the planet and everything on it.
I think we have erred in our strategy to get the psychopaths off the planet. Assisting our fellows to deal with thugs has only delayed our freedom. We want agencies to raise, dramatically, the cost of property tax, citations, income tax, utilities, insurance, etc. Yes, it will cost us more, but the win is that people, who now complain but still pay, i.e.: those who are still part of the problem and not yet part of the solution, will become enraged and wake up to their slavery. I heard that a young man was fined for an air freshener hanging from his mirror because it “obscured his vision”. We need MORE of this idiocy. In most cases, those of us who are awake, woke up because we got beaten up. So, we intend that the people who choose willful blindness will get beaten up, so they wake up to the tyranny and oppression. We ought to thank those rotten people, who snitch to IRS/CRA, on our unaware friends and relatives. Their acceptance of slavery makes them our enemy. “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” –Mark Twain
Many in-the-news people talk about the income tax fraud and how it pays for war, etc. yet, they still pay tax. They tell us to lead the charge against the fraud, to create a new system, all whilst they continue to fund the old system and those who perpetrate it. As long as they are part of the problem, they cannot be part of the solution. Are they just rabble-rousers who are only repeating what we already know?
When bureaucrats cause us harm or loss, we have to attack the ones who do so. Forget the hot shots whose signatures are nowhere to be found. As my friend said to her banker, “YOU signed this; I don’t see Rothschild’s signature. He’s too smart to be liable. He told YOU to do his dirty work, so YOU are operating under your full, personal, commercial liability. YOU are the one who is being dangled over the snake’s cage and I am the snake. Where’s your bond?” We have to take them down. We can’t get to the order-givers; we can only get to the order-takers who are the true terrorists. If they cry, “I’m just doing my job”, then, their job is causing us harm and loss, so we get their public hazard bond and 2 pieces of gov’t-issued ID, along with an address. Nuremberg Principle IV: Those who claimed, “I was just doing my job” were also hanged. If they try to weasel out of their actions, which are wrong, immoral, and unethical, all of which indicates they are evil, by their saying, “I’ll get my supervisor”, this doesn’t let them off the hook; rather, this just means we can sue both. When we are harmed, we have the right to retaliate in whatever form we see fit. Maybe this will wake them up.
Do we allow our fellow slaves to tell us, “it’s not so bad”? –that we will get hurt much more by standing up for our principles? Do we just accept that the world is run by psychopaths who cannot be defeated and so we might just as well try to make the best of second-rate life in a world gone bad? We know the system is our enemy, but those who adhere to the system are also our enemy.