Sep 10 2014

STOP! part 2

Published by under Knowing Who You Are

This post is not meant for all the lovely people who were astute enough to detect what I am doing and to write to cheer me on and make payments, without question.


This post is for you who think I am after the money.  If that were true, I’d have charged for my book, plus all the hours I  spent on telephone, skype, and email, to assist people. If I’d had the answer, I’d have charged, but I didn’t. It seems that my level of ethics never stopped the “gurus” who work by the “take the money and run” standard.  So, now that I DO have the answer to give, I am being questioned, because I am charging?!?!


I am under NO obligation to explain, yet, I want to do so, for the ignorant people to grasp this.  Yes, it takes a brain to read between the lines, i.e.: that I work with ‘insiders’ to whom I shall be distributing these funds; that I am not at liberty to say who approached me to tell me how to put the tyrants out of commission; that this is a TWO-step process, so the $50 payment is not for just the letter; that my referring to my letter as a ‘notice’ is NOT a common law crime (open your mind); that we require huge numbers to implement change: etc.  $50 is not even enough to cover my time to read the idiotic emails.


Think about it: if I didn’t charge for 96 pages, why would I charge for 2 pages?   I am collecting $50 for 2 reasons: 1.  to discover how many people truly want out of the slavery and hold the wrongdoers accountable; and, 2. to contribute to the people who are risking their lives to expose the fraud and end this tyranny, not to those selling templates, online. I want to know what all you complainers are doing for our freedom. Hats off to Bill, Dean, Charles, jd, Kate, Robin, Santo, Wally, to name only a few, who are working the front-lines (no matter what you think of them), with minimal resources, i.e.: their own funds.


Have I NOW made myself clear?  Or am I still going to receive emails, questioning why I need the cash?  Do you really think that there are 10,000 people world-wide, –never mind in these apathetic provinces or the neurotic states– who want to be free?  I can tell by your emails that freedom is not paramount in your minds.  How much money I’m going to receive is bothering you vastly more than leaving, to our children, such a sick world.  I really thought you were made of sterner stuff –alas.


Do you really believe freedom is free?  It was intended to be free but we were deceived into slavery.  What are you doing about it?  Just calculating how much money I’m going to get and guessing at why I might need it?   To you who can’t put a crowbar into your pockets to pry out $50, in order to assist the people who are doing real work, do not email me.  I will no longer answer emails about personal situations. This is my last ditch. After this, I’m shutting down.


“Honourability” is standing up for ourselves; it is NOT “being polite” to tyrants. The “peace, love, and light” attitude will NOT work.  Gandhi’s soldiers were slaughtered. Stop acquiescing!   When you develop some respect for yourselves, you’ll stop allowing people to tell you what to do. When we demand that the tyranny stop, it will stop, but, in the meantime, it’s going to cost you.


No responses yet

Aug 25 2014


Published by under Knowing Who You Are

Stop paying attention to statute: codes, regulations, acts, etc. which are called “law” but which couldn’t possibly be “law” because ‘legislation’  (Statute) is subject to change and repeal. THE (true) LAW has always existed, is unchanging, and is never-ending.

The “justice system”, using Statute, is what enslaved us; so it cannot possibly liberate us.  Appealing to titled tyrants and their thug lackeys has done no good.  ”Slavery” and “common law”  have both been addressed but have seldom been implemented.

So, until we stop them, their abuse won’t stop. For them to ‘learn’, they must experience the same pain and fear by which we learned. They exist only to rob our estate (status) to fund their pensions, and, if they do not stop their fraud, they will reap what they have sown. We will no longer tolerate their bullying.

The “end of tyranny” comes from several insiders who are as frustrated as we are, as they witness ridiculous orders handed to us and our worthless antics to resist them. Cops, attorneys, and judges will quit harming us when we hold them accountable.

The ‘insiders’ told us: get organized, be on the same page, know that change occurs only when there is huge opposition to the way things are, and the simple solution has been under our noses the entire time.  I grasped their clue, when they said they expected compensation for revealing the process.  Ergo, we are charging a small fee.

I don’t want to warn the tyrants, by posting the letter, here, so I shall email the 2-part solution. The only emails I have time to answer are those asking for a mailing address:  For Canada:  $55 CAD; for USA and rest of the world:  $50 USD –cash or money order, non-refundable. Please email me at:   I will release Part-1 of the process after I get enough people on board. So it is in your best interest to bring in as many people as possible, asap.

Start looking up names and addresses of all men and women, acting as titled entities, e.g.:  Registrar General, Attorney General, BAR, Ministers, Police Commissioners, etc. including the ones who have personally bothered you, e.g.: attorneys, judges, cops, etc.   Know that you can remain anonymous by signing just a first name or whatever you want.

This is a world-wide project. We must send out tens of thousands of letters, by October, so time is of the essence. Emails which question my integrity or the fee will be deleted.  I will know how many people are serious about ending slavery, by how many join us.  I’ll provide “step 2″, after “step 1″ is complete.  For Canada, alone, we require at least 10,000 people, and every other country requires a similar number.          

Let’s Go, Canada!    ;-)

No responses yet

Apr 26 2014

Forgive? Really?

Published by under Knowing Who You Are

I just heard Elissa Hawke’s interview with Sherry Peel Jackson, wherein she mentions me.

Her website is:


She mentions that part of my book is based upon ACIM, which is accurate, yet, as I have since become suspicious of those texts, she prompted me to write this.  Not only do I question the strange circumstances under which the texts came to be published, but also, over the years, I’ve observed the circumstances under which we either do or do not forgive.


When I realized that ALL propaganda is about 90% truth –for the purpose of gaining our confidence– and the final 10% is the scam, I began to see that same final 10% in ACIM. When I took another look at it, about 3 years ago, and its prime theory –that of forgiveness– I was forced to ask: Who benefits?  The popular thinking is that we all do, as the result is peace of mind and peace with our fellow man.  I did believe this until I began to discover otherwise.


I noticed it first within myself; then I noticed the hypocrisy of other people who claimed to have forgiven someone, yet, by their deeds, revealed that they had not.  A year ago, I heard a woman lecture about forgiving a man who had held her daughter for ransom and, in the months it took her to raise the ransom, her daughter’s health was destroyed.  The woman spoke of her rage, torment, grief, etc. but found that the only way to escape how she felt was to forgive him. I might have believed her had I not overheard what she had to say, to a select group, after the lecture.  There is no question that very few of us can come to terms with anyone who has caused us huge harm or loss. Even for cases of very little harm or loss, it seems we cannot forgive without, at least, an apology.


Again, I wondered, then, who, if not we, benefits from this concept?  For all the horrors that people have suffered at the hands of the Vatican/Crown/Bank and all their subsidiary  agencies (the list is endless), if they have convinced us to “forgive” and that “love is the answer whatever the question”, then, their intent and hope is that, when we figure out the details of this phenomenal abuse, we might just overlook the fact that, were the situation  reversed, we would be severely punished.  We have all heard the cliché, “If men ran their businesses the way the government operates, they would be out of business in a day.”  So, I wonder why we are being taught to forgive.  Forgiveness is neither instinctive nor a natural solution to having been harmed.  No animal forgives the one who abuses it.


In season 4, episode 6 of Boston Legal –the funniest, most brilliant TV show, ever– we hear Alan Shore defend a woman who killed her daughter’s murderer.  Please do not miss this.

Go to:  18:38-21:35,  then,  30:05-33:30


We must “take the law into our own hands” and forget all about Statute.  I do not advocate ‘murder’ however, keep in mind that the definition of murder is the “senseless killing” of another.  What must occur is the “sensible” putting out of commission, those who are destroying us.


“Man possesses the Natural Right to defend himself, from violence, with any amount of force necessary to stop the attack, up to and including deadly force.” –Mark Passio

THAT, not “love, light, and peace”, IS Natural Law.


Gilbert & Sullivan, in The Mikado, say “… let the punishment fit the crime.” THIS, and only this, is where a “jury of one’s peers” comes into play.  Jurors must have the same qualities, experiences, and knowledge of the man who is accused; i.e.: knowing that no man can be charged, 1. by a legal fiction; or, 2.  under Statute.  That would be the end of all court cases, except claims by one man against another.  Those of us who have been harmed must assemble, and do whatever is necessary to take down the insipid, stupid people who work for and protect legal fictions, and that their job is to cause us harm and loss.  I often wonder if people truly grasp what types of low-lifes we all are having to deal with every damn day.


We can no longer simply “stay out of their way”; they are actively and deliberately intruding in our lives and attacking us.  We all admit to feeling slight anxiety when we see a cop car.  This was unheard of until 30 years ago; in part, because we don’t see cops anywhere BUT in cars.  Cops used to mozy the streets of town, chatting with vendors and townsfolk.  I have lived in a several small towns, over the past 30 years and have not once seen a cop walking his beat, looking for people whom he can assist.  Prior to that, I was stopped by cops, at least 6 times that I can recall, and all were friendly and helpful, and not just because I was cuter then than I am now.


Now see this:

It warms the cockles of your hearts, doesn’t it?   So, get a megaphone and yell this at them, “Whatever you do to me, you can count on someone doing that to your children.”


Certainly, we forgive people in our lives whom we love and with whom we want to continue a friendship, but what triggers it?  An apology.  Prior to an apology, the matter is still “out there –in the ether”. Without an apology, the matter cannot be put to rest and, in those cases, as much as people like to say they have forgiven, they have not.  Most of us do have compassion, but even that is short-lived if the offender shows no remorse. We are given NO compassion by the ones who judge us.


True, in a sense, all our behaviour is forgivable, as most of it is simply due to our traumatic childhood programming. But we, the people, get punished for our behaviour, whilst we cannot even access those who deliberately damage the planet and the people on it. We must NOT forgive that, as doing so is utterly illogical. We must end this by causing them as much fear, harm, and loss as they have caused us.  It is NOT up to God to judge; it is up to us; and Jesus is NOT coming to play ‘saviour’; it is we who must save us from those who are doing the damage.  For millennia, people have been praying to God, “Thy will be done on Earth”, so, either they are being completely ignored, by “God”, or what we’re experiencing IS, indeed, God’s will, in which case, God is Evil. Jesus’ “second coming” is just more propaganda from those who want us to continue to WAIT and DO NOTHING.  Christians have been phenomenally duped by those whose intent it is to destroy not only us but also the entire planet.


I don’t know why we’re here and I’d bet no one else knows, either.  “Forgiveness” was presented to us by psychopaths, to convince us –once we caught onto their fraud– to forgive them, rather than hang them up by their balls which is what they deserve. Well, we’ve caught on, so now it’s time to round them up.

No responses yet

Mar 10 2014

If it isn’t simple, it isn’t accurate.

Published by under Knowing Who You Are


Lately, I’ve been reading ‘murder mysteries’.  Invariably, people are dragged into the cop-shop and interrogated.  When I read how people answer the infuriating questions, I always think: Hell, I wouldn’t have answered that question.  I figure that the mere fact that the cops are asking any questions, at all, proves that they don’t actually know if the culprit murdered anyone, not to mention, isn’t this the job of a prosecutor in court?  Isn’t it he who ought to be asking the questions?  It’s all just more drama for them –thinking of creative ways to get someone to admit his guilt, only to fill their days because they have nothing more constructive to do.  


Once these people are in court, they are not only asked the same questions asked previously but also now to answer “under oath”.  So as not to lie under oath, people say what’s true. Then, the prosecutor says, “But that’s not what you told the police. Did you lie to the police?  How can we believe anything you say, now?”  I’m always stunned that the alleged culprits don’t know how to respond to that idiocy.  It’s so damn obvious:  “Are you claiming there is a law against lying to police?  If so, prove it.  Was I “under oath”, then?  Since you knew you would be asking me the same questions, now, why was I asked any questions, then?  Wasn’t it so you can use that information against me?  Isn’t this why you actually warn us, “anything you say will be used against you”?  No one is obliged to answer hired thugs who are employed by corporations.  If we had an actual government who hired real peace officers, then I expect we would be bound to answer their questions, but not when the purpose is trick people into incriminations and false confessions.  Don’t talk to police, other than to say, “Am I going to have to answer these questions in court?  If so, I’ll wait and tell my story, then.”


When I read how people are treated, I always think, I would have said, “You say I murdered someone?  Prove it.  No; you don’t get to ask me questions.  You wouldn’t have brought me in if you didn’t think I did it, so, what makes you think I did it?  If what you think doesn’t prove I did it, that’s called ‘reasonable doubt’.  Sorry, you lose.”


None of us has to explain a damn thing.  In ANY case, all we have to say is, “You got a claim?  Alright, prove it.”  Their questions are ludicrous and a waste of our time.  “Where were you on the night of the murder?  Did you receive money?  Were you driving 120 in a 90 zone?  Did you use that credit card to obtain goods?  Were you wearing your seat belt?  Did the house get paid for you?  Did you stop for that red light?   Did you use the bank loan for your schooling?”  IMMATERIAL!  IRRELEVANT!  The ONLY thing we have to ask is, “You say I owe you?  Prove it. You claim I didn’t have on a seatbelt?  Prove it.  You claim that the bank paid for my house?  Prove it.  You claim I murdered someone?  Prove it.”


I always imagined being stopped by a cop who might say, “Do you know why I stopped you?”  “Are you asking me if I can read your mind?”  “I clocked you at 120 in a 90 zone.”  “How are you going to prove that?”  “I got you on radar.”  “How are you going to prove, three weeks from now, that the detector even works, never mind that you didn’t fabricate that?”  Or, how about those camera trucks. How can they prove that it wasn’t photo-shopped?  The burden of proof is always on the accuser.  Answering questions only fuels them.  If they think we violated a statute –not that any of them apply to us, anyway– it is their job, and I do mean their job, to PROVE IT.


I am certain that we so complicate matters, by saying anything other than “prove it”.  In a bank case, it would be “Yeh?  Says who?”  “The attorney for the bank.”  “What’s his name?”  “Mr. Smith”  “Alright, Mr. Smith; prove I owe you money.”   “Well, you don’t owe me money; you owe the bank.”  “Alright, I’m going to subpoena the bank; what’s its name?”  “Bank of America”  “Alright, have Bank of America in court next week and, if it can speak, have IT prove to me that I owe IT money.”  Her Majesty The Queen (an entity which the Crown hopes we will think has something to do with Elizabeth II, when, really, it is a legal fiction/corporation) has a claim against the NAME.  “Have Elizabeth II show up next week and prove I injured her.”   I realize this sounds idiotic but that is my entire point.  The entire fiasco is idiotic.  For us to be doing/saying anything only proves we are not clear on the concept of their fraud.


If they cannot prove that we owe a legal fiction, that we injured a legal fiction, etc., then, they are out of luck.  Remember, no one can ‘prove’ anything; e.g.: the only way to “prove” our fingerprints are unique is to compare them to every other fingerprint on the planet.  Since it is ‘they’ who started this harassment, then it is ‘they’ who ought to get charged. We must bill them for stopping us, hindering us, and questioning us, as their doing so is subject to a  ‘consultation fee’, at least, and even more for our time.  “Please tell me what it is that makes you think that you, a public servant, have any authority over me, one who funds your salary.”


I don’t know about our having to prove we are not dead; that seems ludicrous to me.  I think the most valuable information we have, now, is that, via intimidation, threat, coercion, indoctrination, e.g.:  “everyone knows you have to have a driver licence” ?!?!?!, somehow, they obtained from us our Power of Attorney.  In their doing so, they have violated our trust. That is Breach of Trust –the only crime there is.  Since a PoA is the document which seems to have clout above all others, I guess we ought to cancel those PoAs, which we unwittingly gave them, and submit ours, proving we have PoA over our commercial affairs.


The only laws which apply to the people are contract law and trust law. We use common law courts to enforce private contract and public trust, by claiming “breach”.  All other “law” is really statute, enforced by fictitious corporations, i.e.: legal fictions, masquerading as Government but NOT Government, and applicable to equally fictitious “persons”, not a man or a woman. As it is impossible for a man to contract with a legal fiction, yet, it IS possible for a public servant to breach our trust in what we thought was a Government, existing solely for our protection, so then, not only could a public agent have NO claim against us, for breach of contract, but also we have EVERY claim against Public Agents, for breach of trust. The Public, via their fraud, has caused us ALL much harm and loss.  We must, first, lay claims against them, not allow them to file charges against us.


Parents are not ‘persuaded’; they are ‘threatened’ to hand over their property, i.e.: signatures, and told that it is for the benefit of their children, yet, it is for the benefit of  Crown agents. The children are already entitled to the benefits which agents claim to be conditional upon the procuring of the BC.  We simply repeat what our parents did. We hand over signatures, allegedly for our benefit, when, actually, we hand our Power of Attorney, for the benefit of Crown agents.


“Ignorance of the law…”  has nothing to do with our responsibility to learn “trust law”.  We “trusted” public servants.  That is the entire point of “trust law” –that a trust is built between us and them who claim to mind our possessions, yet, out of which they deliberately fleeced us.  It is they who are in breach of trust.


What CCC §19, which applies only to ‘them’, means is: those with titles (public entities), who are in breach of the people’s trust, are guilty of defrauding the people and cannot use the excuse that they didn’t know they were defrauding us. They KNOW they are committing fraud!  It has nothing to do with: we were supposed to investigate trust law.  NONE of us had an inkling that those whom we trusted would deliberately breach that trust.


Whenever we discover that there is anyone in our lives whom we cannot trust –e.g. a parent, it is NOT our fault for not having investigated.  We were raised to trust; (no coincidence).  The entire viciousness of the world is based upon the pretence of trust and we all discover, too late in life, that there is NO ONE we can trust.


Conclusion:  there was an intent to defraud when they deliberately set out to gain our trust, knowing we wouldn’t investigate if we trusted them to protect our children and our assets. Then they betrayed that trust for their unjust enrichment.  It was premeditated, that trust was breached, and it was for their profit. That is FRAUD.



“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” –Mark Twain

No responses yet

Feb 10 2014

Let’s NOT “give peace a chance”

Published by under Knowing Who You Are


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 lawexists, 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.


No responses yet

Oct 22 2013


Published by under Knowing Who You Are


In the 1976 movie, “Network”, Peter Finch yelled, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.”  Why did it take us over 35 years to feel what he felt?  In the same movie, Ned Beatty says, “There are no countries; there are only corporations.”  We’ve had this information a long time. What have we been doing with it?  Trying to remain in honour? – peace? – forgiveness? – love?   None of that worked; did you notice?


In my article, wherein I wrote, “Ye are gods”, I received a few emails which suggest that people still believe in an “external authority”. The controllers do not care which “authority” that is and the “religion authority” fraud seems to be the most efficient means used to keep us from knowing who we are.  Shifting our “authority” from gov’t, money, law, over to LORD God, Allah, or whatever is just re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. There is no authority outside the God within us. Our authority is we.


A man emailed me about how to avoid the school’s threat of “vaccinate your child or she can’t attend.”  That’s easy, eh?  Talk about two wins in one fell swoop.  Which poison is worse? Indoctrination or vaccination? The issuer of such an ultimatum ought to be made to put it in writing and sign it.  On paper, it looks even stupider than it sounds. If the word, “you”, is on paper, make them define it. Who is you? 


The only thing over which they have jurisdiction is the NAME, not the man, so, if we make it abundantly clear that they can do whatever they want to the NAME, but we are not their property, they might catch on that they had better leave us alone. My ‘name’ is private and I can use it, privately, but I’d better be bloody careful if I intend to use it in public because, publicly, my ‘name’ becomes a ‘NAME’, owned by the CROWN, and my using it is in violation of §403 CCC (Personation/ Identity Theft), i.e.: fraud . Their demanding that we use it means they are enticing us to commit fraud.


The NAME belongs to the CROWN, so if we register things –children, homes, cars, accounts, businesses– then, we do not “own” them, but that which we obtained via our labour –a verifiable, logical, true exchange; i.e.: compensation for labour– is our property. Don’t make the mistake of surrendering that which was earned, to the CROWN Corporation, by registering them.


Remember, in my book, I wrote the story about the fellow in the store whose kids were acting up and he yelled at them.  Some twit woman overheard this, called CPS, and the next day ALL 5 of his kids were stolen. The following day, they returned one –the boy with no BC, saying, “This one’s not ours.”  What does this tell us?


A man’s children were kidnapped by CPS or Children’s Aid or whatever that corrupt agency is called. It seems that feeding children real food and keeping them safe from the Medical Mafia is a crime.  The children were returned only when he finally yelled, “You stole my property! Give it back!”  Remember I wrote that Jay Weidner said that the way to deal with Archons (or any bully, thug, corporate stooge) is to stand up to them, politely. Keep this in mind when you next encounter one of those automatons.


Compensation for labour in the form of cash, or any other gratuity, is not commercial, as it is based upon private contract and we get paid. Operating in commerce via public contract requires use of the NAME which gets paid and that compensation belongs to the CROWN.  Keep ALL transactions private.


In 1996, I was in court. When asked if I were the NAME, I said, “That’s not my name.”  I was in handcuffs before I knew what happened. But, now, I know what happened. They are in irons, if we do not admit to being the name.


I was in Toronto, in 2001, with an ex-friend who was stupid enough to fall for a Nigerian scam. When she realized she got fleeced out of $4,000, she couldn’t get out of town fast enough.  After I waved good-bye to her, I hailed a cop and asked him if there were anything we could do about this. I could describe the man with the suitcase, I had a telephone number, did the cops know where this gang might be?, etc. BUT, when he asked me only about the NAME and DOB, I became suspicious. When I refused to give information, he walked away, saying “I can’t help you.”  We now know that what he meant was, “I can’t make any money, if you won’t give me the account details.”


In my book, I also told about the woman who was being transferred from jail to prison. Upon arrival, she was asked her NAME.  She asked, “How can you imprison me if you don’t know who I am?”  I don’t know the outcome but I do know that they are stymied if they cannot catch us committing fraud; i.e.: if we do not admit to being the NAME.


I was at the passport office, a decade ago, and when asked if my ‘guarantor’ would know me as “Mary Croft”, when contacted, I said, “Of course”, until I remembered that he knew me by another name, which I told her. She said, “It’s against the law to go by two names.” I said, “Not if there is no intent to defraud.” She never said another word. Fraud is the issue, here.


The court is banking on (and I do mean ‘banking on’) our committing fraud by identifying with a NAME which does not belong to us. This is Personation/ Identity Theft. All public agents work for the CROWN and their business is fraud. This includes their enticing us to aid and abet their fraud. Forcing us to participate in their fraud, via threat and intimidation, which is extortion, is against their law: CCC §423 –Intimidation.


Now that the Pope has lifted their immunity, we can file a Claim of Trespass, because their intent is to make us accomplices to their fraud. To write a common law claim: use no adjectives or pronouns; define names and NAMES; use no periods until the very end; use semi-colons in place of periods, throughout; keep it in present tense; use point-form, not sentences; use “i” not “I”; use the name of the one to whom you are writing, not “you”; keep it short, calm, and lawful.  Seal; do not ‘sign’.


Be sure to include both the Pope’s Apostolic Letter


How can the reprobates in law enforcement and the “justice system” not see that every one of their work days takes their own children closer to harm, loss, and utter ruin?  Are they just hoping that their kids will remain the “elite”?  Can’t they see that their inheritance will be stolen, just as ours has been stolen, by them? Can’t they figure what they, by their actions, are creating for their children?  It is mind-boggling that they do not grasp that which John Taylor Gatto did.  He quit the NYC school board, saying, “I refuse to harm one more child.” Can’t cops, attorneys, judges, even for the sake of their children, quit doing the dirty work of the CROWN?


Our parents were extorted, tricked, deceived, enticed, coerced, i.e.: defrauded. Had my parents declined to hand over the name, they would have been told, “But if your daughter does not have a birth certificate, she will not be permitted to attend school.” Since, back then, people thought school was a good thing, my parents would have acquiesced. That is extortion. Also, had my father not paid income tax, the “benefit” of the Baby Bonus cheques would have come to a screeching halt. So, “benefits”, based upon the BC, did, indeed, cost my parents.


I ask again, what is it which causes people like cops, attorneys, judges, to think they have authority over us? The answer can only be that someone, whom they believe has authority over them, TOLD them they had authority over others and they BELIEVED this crap!  NO ONE has a right to tell another how to live. We were created as equal and no one has authority over another. It is staggering to a logical mind that these people do not grasp this concept.


There is no hierarchy of slavery, but, when we quit using the NAME, we will be free and they will become subordinate to us. They will be in huge trouble because many  have sworn oaths to the B.A.R. and cannot escape it. This is similar to, “It’s really, really, really difficult to get into the CIA, but it is absolutely impossible to get out.”


I wish I could get the word out that, as of a particular date, we shall all stop going to work, stop signing papers, take our cash out of the bank, and stop paying –bills, etc. everything! We would disempower them in a heartbeat.


Use of the NAME is what requires us to pay. We are meant to use our dominion.



No responses yet

Sep 29 2013

AGAIN, Remember Who You Are

Published by under Knowing Who You Are


There is NO solution within commerce. The solution to everything is within US. Every “solution to commerce” required that we use statutory law, which only further  entrapped us in “commerce”, where we lost our standing.  ANY “commercial solution” IS, itself, the trap.


Thanks to “minister Edward-Jay-Robin”, and his ‘owlmon’ videos, and also Bill Donahue’s Ten Commandments lectures, I now grasp the Ten Commandments the first three of which are the most significant:


First Commandment (C1): Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Second  (C2): Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, …

Third (C3): Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: …


“Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of law”. Well, which is it? It can’t be both. This means, “Now that we’ve conned you into believing God is supreme, we’ll add our laws, so you’ll think they, too, are God’s laws.


Deuteronomy 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.


Michaelle Jean, former Governor General, revealed the fraud by declaring Canada a “de facto government”, about which the World Bank says: A “de facto government” comes into or remains in power by means not provided for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d’état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution. – , meaning, “The Government of Canada”, along with all other alleged countries, is a corporation.


De facto governments:

1.  ”added” their laws to God’s laws, thereby making “governments” false gods; and demanded we fear their ostensible authority and follow their ‘laws’; (Leviticus 18:3-4)

2. “respect persons”, i.e.: “make graven images” of man, by giving us titles and names. They deal with only ‘persons’, and demand we BE ‘persons’. (James 2:9)

3.  ”bow down to” these fictions/systems, e.g.: justice, medical, law enforcement, financial, military, etc. and intimidate and threaten us to do the same.


Live men and women:

1.  are God and have dominion; there is no authority outside ourselves;

2.  cannot BE ‘persons’ which are dead, as we are live;

3.  must ignore all alleged authorities distracting us from the Kingdom of God within.


The Commerce Game is the 3D version of our ignoring the first 3 commandments, which, if we obey and meditate on, we can raise our frequency, from 3D. Being in 3D, none of us knows anything about any of the “holy books”. Religious controversy, dreamt up by the controllers, is to make us believe we are separate from one another, make war, and make money.  Remembering who we are will end this controversy.


Deuteronomy 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Leviticus 18:3-4  After the doings of the land of Egypt, … neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances to walk therein:


Deuteronomy 1-17  Ye shall not respect persons in judgment;

Romans 2:11  For there is no respect of persons with God.

James 2:9  But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


Exodus 23:24  Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.


It is our job to “overthrow them”.  We are to stand up to thugs, NOT accept their nonsense as ‘law’; it is their law. Don’t get caught up in the “oath” hoax, unless the man has sworn a correctly-worded oath to us, the people. All their oaths are nonsense –either false, or to a false monarch, or even, in the case of the RCMP, to the RCMP.  How enigmatic!  and tantamount to the BAR protecting fraudulent lawyers and the CMA protecting negligent doctors.


To all of you who continue to refer to “us, the people,” please know that “We, the People” means “We, the Crown”.  Men and women are ‘people’, not ‘People’.


“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”  “I do, but, when I do, you’ll be out of a job. Are you sure you want me to tell the whole truth?”


I am to have no other gods before ME, the I AM; I am not to allow them to make me into a graven image; and I must not bow down to anything outside myself.


If we bow down to anything man-made, if we believe anything to be greater than ourselves and worship it –whether that be money, institutions, medicine, government, possessions, organizations, desires and passions, any external information, doctrine, tradition, religion, ‘persons’, i.e.: titled people with ostensible authority, memberships, relationships with friends, family, lovers, or colleagues, degrees and certificates, laws, belief systems, advertising, Santa Claus –all of which are “false gods”– for whatever seeming significant reason, then, we have denied the God within. Doing so disempowers us and we fall under the spell of believing there is an authority –or multiple authorities– outside ourselves.


We must not give, to any fiction, our regard, obedience, attention, energy, emotion, respect, or time. If we are forced to obey their laws, via threat and intimidation, then we must call them on it, vociferously:  “You are intimidating me. Why are you threatening me?”  These private men and women will either back down or lose their public jobs, hazard bonds, and pensions. Since September 1, according to the Pope, they are no longer immune to our claims. We must not allow them to intimidate us and threaten us into breaching the first three Commandments, the entire principle of which is that we are God, the I AM, and believing that anything else is god only keeps us enslaved. There is nothing of any importance outside our God-selves and that includes agents who compromise their personal integrity, earn their living, sacrifice their ethics, in fact, live their entire lives trying to make us believe otherwise.  The reason we are enslaved is simple: we believe in authorities outside our God-self, the I AM.  When we quit believing in external authorities, we will be free.


Luke 17:20-21  The kingdom of God is within you.

Psalms 82:6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 14:12  He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


We have no rights –not “human”, not “inherent”, not “unalienable”. We have “inalienable” rights –sold to us, by the government, which, as we all know, can take them from us.  ‘Rights’ are just another red herring, to threaten and control us. (see: Canadian Treasury Board, #3 Policy Statement: It is government policy to collect payment before providing a product, a service, the use of a facility, a right, or a privilege.”  As God, the I AM, we have dominion over all the earth. That is all we have and all we require.


We do have a name, but it is private and we do not use it publicly, unless it benefits us to do so. We do not use it for the benefit of a public entity. Their altering our names without our consent and then registering them is to render us dead, fiction, personae, masked, unreal –a violation of C2. My family motto is: “Esse quam videri” (To be than to seem)  We must not present, to anyone, anything false. “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” –Polonius, Hamlet, Shakespeare. “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.” –ACIM.   Use of the name, in a commercial environment, such as carrying a driver licence, i.e. as a PERSON, evidences our belief that we are separate from our true God-self.  They, the dead, have no power over us, the living. They know this. No valid contract exists, if it frustrates our ability to practise our faith in God’s law, i.e.: faith in our Godness.


The Bible is written in allegory, as a guide for our spiritual growth. It reads: No one can dictate to us how to live our lives. No one has authority over us.  We have dominion. We are Gods.

No responses yet

Aug 15 2013

If I Could Tell the World Just 3 Things

Published by under Knowing Who You Are

1.  There is NO government. “Governments” are only corporations. What almost everyone calls ‘the government” is a de facto government.  The Governor General, herself, admitted this. We are in anarchy; i.e.: NO government. The employees are not authorities; they are servants who have stolen from us. Quit sending letters which only prove you believe that they have authority over you and that they are the de jure government –neither of which is true. Quit saying “the government” when what we really mean is, “a private, foreign, belligerent, for-profit corporation whose intent it is to diminish the supply of cash on the planet, so that we kill one another in order to get our mitts on it.”  Corporate “laws” apply only to fictions and we were conned into believing, for far too long, they had something to do with us. Quit believing you are a fiction.

2.  There is NO ‘money’, only credit and debt. The credit is ours; the debt is theirs. When they speak of “public debt”, they mean the debt that is payable to us, the private, by them, the public. They owe us. We are the principals; how could we possibly be in debt when we are the ones providing ALL the value?! Quit saying, “my debt” and “I owe…”  We do not own what we think we own, so, if we don’t own anything, how can we owe anything. The debt belongs to the ones who stole the credit from our trust and the cash from our labour. Cash cannot ‘pay’ debt; only credit can ‘offset’ debt. Cash and credit can NOT be used interchangeably. As all debt was created on paper, so, then, all debt can be discharged with other pieces of paper –NOT cash. Their taking our cash is solely to reduce our ability to function in their world.  There is something drastically wrong with a system in which, as Vic said, “The man who built the chair can’t afford to buy the chair.”

It seems as if the only way to remove ourselves from this enslavement is to remove ourselves from their fraudulent system. Maybe we ought to give back every single paper –BC, SIN, licences, property titles– we have in our possession (render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s) and use the Statement of Birth in order to get what we need and want. Werner Erhard said, “Don’t confuse the menu with the meal.”  Quit paying for the menu and exchange it for the meal.

I hear talk of going after the “inheritance/ patrimony/ birthright/ entitlement”.  Knowing that this has been stolen from us and trying to get it back is tantamount to yelling at the crook who just stole our car, “Hey! Come back here!”  It has zero impact. Why would they give it back? Under what conditions?  Do we set up a private trust?  Why would we want it back. Their entire system is an illusion. Chasing an illusion only keeps us in the illusion and keeps the illusion alive. So, do we continue to try to beat them at a game where they not only make but also change the rules? Or do we hand over the damaging “citizenship” and walk away from the game?

3.   The Pope’s Apostolic Letter: Because the frauds believe their sole authority is the Pope, if I were being harassed by any entity for my cash, I would send a letter to the man behind the fiction/ corporation/ ‘person’, suggesting he quit, with a copy of the Apostolic Letter issued by Pope Francis, July 11th, 2013.

All employees of corporations, all of which are established under the Roman Curia, are no longer immune. So, ALL employees of courts, governments, law enforcement, banks, collection agents, IRS, CRA, etc., as of September 1st, 2013, will be held accountable for crimes against humanity which include: refusal to settle accounting; and, prosecution of fraudulent claims.

I’d be sure to have him mail me a certified copy of his Oath of Office –his swearing of which I hereby accept, two pieces of his government-issued ID, and his Public Hazard Bond, listing the underwriter’s name, address, and policy number, which, by law, he is under obligation to do. (see: CCC §337). He is to govern himself accordingly. (A few people have already prevailed with this.)

This is all that is necessary to end the fraud, as we can now go after the men and women who continue to harm their fellow man. Please, let them all know that they will be going to civil court and then to jail, if they don’t quit their jobs.

Why are we told, “Anything you say can and will be used against you”? and then, in court, they ask, “How do you plead to the charges?”  How absurd!  I’d shut up, except to ask, “Doesn’t the prosecutor have to prove his claim?” and “Isn’t the one who charged the trust the trustee?” Going to court, voluntarily, as defendant, only proves we still believe in their authority. Insane! Filing docs is asking for the court’s authority to validate our claim that it has no authority –even more insane.

As I have written, on and off for a decade:  1.  If the solution isn’t simple, it isn’t accurate;  2.  There is no solution TO commerce, IN commerce; and,  3. The only way to win is not to play. We must get out of this maniacal Commerce Game. Quit giving them your attention, time, energy, and emotion.

No responses yet

Aug 12 2013

Why We Can’t Win

Published by under Knowing Who You Are

Why We Can’t Win

Those who know, don’t tell; those who don’t know, sell.

That wraps up our problem, however, here are the details. We have met the enemy and it is we.  We are now competing with one another, never mind with those whose intent it is to destroy us. There is dissension among the ranks.  Those who charge their fellows, i.e.: those of us whose intent it is to end the fraud, have become the perpetrators of the fraud.

I received this Skype message from a fellow I’ve know for years and who, I thought, was intending to assist us.

“This info. is NOT for everyone. I have spent a many of hours (sic) on this stuff and am NOT about to give it all out for free. U feel me?”

I have heard approximately the same words from scores of people who continue to charge for their information.  We have ALL put, at least, “many hours on this stuff”, and, at most, YEARS, yet, I could list dozens of people who are continuing to charge for information –info which NEVER gets us anywhere.  I’m not saying the info is inaccurate; I’m saying it is never the complete story. Very few people are willing to assist others with the entire ‘process’. I continue to be appalled by those who want payment for either the time they spent on research or that which they discovered. We all want information, yet, it seems as if some want it not to use, test, and then to spread the word, but to sell. To all who claim, “I spent years investigating”, I say, “You did that because you wanted to do it; we did not  commission you to do it, nor did we claim we would pay you for the answer if you found it.”  I wrote a book which took me a long time –more time to edit than to write. Reading, dozens of times, to be clear about what I had written, was difficult, yet, I persevered. I notice that very few people bother to edit their work. Most of what I have seen, as “the solution”, is such bad grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure that I wouldn’t know if it were accurate or not. Some of it is almost indecipherable!

So, I shall simply say it again: Do NOT pay anyone for information or time, unless you are CERTAIN s/he has completed the “process”, s/he has tested it and won, many others have tried it and also won, and s/he is willing to spend his time doing it FOR you.  Those are many criteria to meet. I have paid very few people for alleged ‘exigent’ information, but even at that, it is all to no avail.

Tip: no one has the answer. Let’s face it; if anyone has prevailed, in whatever area, then he would not need to charge anyone.  I don’t know of anyone who, for having used someone’s information and prevailed, wouldn’t be willing to compensate the author a percentage of his win for his win. Since I have NO proof of any successes, albeit I have heard some sensational grapevine stories, this suggests that, even if there were a solution, we aren’t going to get it. We are, virtually, on our own.

The Crown Prosecutor revealed that those in the “truth movement” who charge are a huge source of derisive amusement for them. She said, “We don’t have to do anything; you’ll destroy each other.” Those who charge are doing to their fellow man what the banks are doing to all of us.  In my book, I wrote what a bloody lie this excuse for charging is, “If people don’t pay for it, they don’t appreciate it.” Nonsense!  We were never meant to ‘pay for’ anything; and don’t think you are off the hook by saying, “I don’t charge a fee; I only request a donation … and that donation is $500”. Donations are voluntary, not demanding. Stating an amount is charging. Bank fraud will continue, as those who charge are as culpable as the bankers.

We’ve ALL put time and energy into this project, so, are we going to share, or will you join the extortionists?  The banks’ plan is to destroy us by slowly pulling  cash from circulation, so we end up killing each other for it. There IS a ‘they‘ and there IS a ‘we’. “We” are those who charge their fellow man for information which will not result in anyone’s freedom.

The stories I have heard about people, in desperate situations, paying money to the ‘gurus’ –wolves in sheep’s clothing– and getting nothing for it, would curl your hair. If we, who appear to be on the same team, are NOT, then to what have we to look forward?  If you gurus want “money”, then get a job. Quit fleecing your teammates.

If I Could Tell the World Just 3 Things (coming soon)

No responses yet

Mar 18 2013


Published by under Knowing Who You Are

We come to a fork in a road where we know twin brothers live. One always lies; one always tells the truth. We can ask only one question of one brother, and we don’t know which one is the liar.

What question can we ask so that the answer reveals which road to take?

The question is: “Which road would your brother tell me to take?”

If we ask the truth-teller, “Which road would your brother tell me to take?” he will honestly tell us that his brother, a liar, would say, “take the road to the east”. If we ask the liar, ”Which road would your brother tell me to take?”, he will lie and tell us that his brother, a truth-teller, would say, “take the road to the east”.

Both brothers will indicate the wrong road, so we would take the other one.

In language, a double negative equals a positive, a double positive equals a positive, and only a negative plus a positive equals a negative. So, we incorporate both the truth  and the lie and we get the LIE. In spirit we all agreed to play a game where what is real is not real and what is not real is real.  We created a duality.  We made life both truth and fiction, but, no matter how we put the two together, we are left with the LIE.

I had a friend who quit seeing her fellow, Ralph. When I asked how she was doing, she said that she noticed that she was either thinking about Ralph or thinking about not thinking about Ralph, so, life was always about “Ralph” and “not Ralph”, but it was STILL Ralph.  When we are faced with opposite concepts: up/down, male/female, dark/light, good cop/bad cop, God/LORD God, war and peace, good news/bad news, wet/dry, etc., then, no matter which we choose to regard, we are always in a LIE. We can’t know ‘good’ without knowing ‘bad’. The mere fact that we label or judge anything, as we perceive it to be, means we are including the opposite: two sides of the same coin. The instant we do so, we are in a LIE.  In the case of good news/bad news we must learn to see it ALL as propaganda because if it seems good, OR bad, then it is a LIE.

The duality for us all on this planet began forever ago, but for our own particular lives, it began with the birth certificate. It split us into two entities: free and slave.  We cannot say we are “free” without noticing the “slave”; ergo, even “free” is part of the lie. The big LIE is the “love and fear” coin.  If we are looking at love as an opposite to fear, we have instantly fallen into a lie. This is why, in the texts of A Course In Miracles, we read that we cannot possibly know ‘love’, as it is NOT a part of our experience within an illusion. We have all felt what we believe to be love, but we truly have no concept of what it is. How can we know, when, on planet Earth, ‘love’ is another aspect of the lie? I am perturbed by life and by my fellow man because I notice that we ALL continue to expect this nightmare to be pleasant, which is insanity. A LIE is never pleasant, even when a lie is meant to protect someone from frightful information.

So, all the concepts we have ever heard which cause us to believe we have a solution to the fraud which goes on all over this planet, cannot be TRUTH.  There is no truth when our entire lives are based upon, constructed with, strived for, lived by, and resulted in LIES.  Everything we have ever experienced is, from the perspective of “truth”, a LIE.  Disheartening, isn’t it? The more we claim a thing to be ‘true’, the more we make the opposite real, and the more we reinforce the lie. “Truth-seeking” only digs us deeper, as ‘truth’ is not where we are.

The only way out of our dilemma is to back out of ALL lies and that includes what we believe to be “truth”, and “love”, and “light”, and “peace”. The more attention we give these alleged aspects of life within a lie, the stronger we make their opposites. Conversely, the opposite is also part of all this. The more attention we give to resisting anything: slavery, fraud, hatred, violence, theft, etc. we further empower it. I know this sounds like a contradiction, because I just said that when we think of love, peace, truth, light, etc. we are empowering the opposite, but here is where we have been royally deceived. 1.  empowering EITHER side of the coin makes the coin, i.e.: the fiction, the lie, the illusion only stronger; and, 2. remember that a negative and a positive always makes a negative.  Sad, eh?  So, if we focus on ‘fear’, we make fear stronger; if we focus on ‘love’, we make the coin, i.e.: the illusion, which includes ‘fear’, only stronger.  Lose/lose; and isn’t this precisely what we have noticed? –NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. We fight, we lose; we behave honourably, we lose; we love; we lose. No good deed ever goes unpunished. It’s all the same concept. We must remove ourselves from the entire fiction and that fiction includes all that we have judged as ‘good’. The ‘good’ is not the problem. The problem is the judgement. Even assessing a situation as anything other than what it is, is keeping us caught in the fiction, lie, illusion; hence, my loathing for the ludicrous comment, so vogue these days, “It’s all good.”  YIKES!

So, with every comment, such as “going to peace”, “bringing in the love”, “seeking the truth”, etc., we make the entire fiction ever more hazardous to us. Yes, we must do, in the moment, what we believe we must do and, if that is demonstrating what we believe to be love, kindness, playfulness, forgiveness, compassion, peace, then, that is what we have to do, but we must remain mindful that it is just another aspect of the lie. There is nothing wrong with living a lie, as long as we  are aware of it. As I used to say to a friend, whom I drove crazy with my comment, “NONE of this matters!”  Even I was incapable of seeing life this way, until just the other day. I knew it, intellectually, but I just never ‘got it’ until I took the concept of “de facto government” down to the basics.

Can we remain outside the choice of everything, all the while knowing that it doesn’t matter what we choose because NONE of it is true?  I used to have a friend, who, when I told her that I didn’t think I ought to be living with my “beau of the day”, said, “It doesn’t matter who you’re with.” (sic)  If it’s all an illusion, what part of an illusion is more important than another part?  What part of a novel is any truer than any other part?  If we can avoid believing that a choice has significance, or is any different from the option we did not choose, as all options involve the duality, then we can avoid continually stepping into the lie  –the sole action which causes our insanity.

Over 30 years ago, I learned what “decide” means.  We think we are deciding among options, but, really, all we are doing is making one aspect of what isn’t so, more important than another aspect of what isn’t so.  NONE of it matters. Again, I am not suggesting that we not do what we feel prompted to do, as, without that, we have no life at all, and, as long as we are on this beautiful planet with utterly insane agenda, we might as well pretend we are creating good, enjoying people, having fun, albeit difficult to do, as we become aware that the only truth is, “Life is meaningless.”

I’ve said for years, “If it isn’t simple, it isn’t accurate” which I still contend is accurate. This does NOT mean, “If it isn’t easy, it isn’t accurate”.  It is not easy to realize that our entire lives are the construct of our flash of insanity when we thought it would be fun to make what is truth, not truth and what is fiction, not fiction. What were we thinking?  How do we stop playing a game which is no longer fun?  Was it EVER fun?  I suppose it was, as long as we had our memory, but, what happened that we lost our knowing that it was all just a prank we played on ourself?  Or, were we deceived?  If so, who deceived us?  If, indeed, the Archons or Aeons or whoever are intending to destroy us, then, what’s to do?  The more attention we give either them OR those who oppose them, i.e.: those of us still trying to find a solution to a problem which does not exist, except in our minds, then we are wasting our time, energy, and emotions, not to mention further empowering the opposite of what we want.

How can we step away from the duality?  Where is there to go when the entire planet and all we know or have ever known is the lie of duality?  As we read in ACIM, we could choose to live a happy dream, as opposed to a nightmare, but it is still not truth. It is all still illusion.  I contend we have to remove ourselves from ALL illusion. How do we do that?  The only way is to continually keep in mind that none of this is real, none of it matters, and judging what appears to be going on is only keeping us attached to what appears to be going on, which is not really going on. Judgement keeps us attached.

How can we judge anything unless we have all the information?  Knowing this, why bother searching when: 1. we will never have it; 2. even if we did, making a judgement will only further entrench us in the LIE.

So, “doing something about” is a waste of our time, energy, and emotion, unless, of course, we adore doing whatever that might be, but, for instance, all that we have heard lately: Notice & Demand, OPPT, arrest the pope, lawsuits, patrimony, bonds, parliament dissolved,  corporations foreclosed, trustees/beneficiaries, appealing to the UN, ICCPR #16, writing to de facto agents, going to court, filing documents, studying “law”, UCC, qualifying signatures, etc. is all just drawing energy to the two-sided coin, lying on the pavement. We cannot choose to value one side of the “LIE coin” over the other; picking up the coin is the problem. The entire façade is an illusion as “they” are all de facto, not real, fiction, dead, a lie.

If we were truly “awake” and “conscious”, we would not be trying to change the events within our nightmares, as even talking about doing so would be a waste of time, energy, and emotion. When we are awake and conscious, we can only intend that the night will arrive when we stop having nightmares. Now, can we bring consciousness INTO the nightmare?  In his book, “Handbook of Higher Consciousness”, Ken Keyes suggested that, in our dreams, we look at our hands. Then we will know we are conscious within the dream.  If, in the nightmare of life, we can remember that all banks and their minion government agencies are de facto, i.e.: fictions, lies, frauds, illusions, then, we can escape their tyranny by letting them know that we know this. This is tantamount to turning to the monsters in our nightmares, standing up to them, and saying, “You can’t harm me. You’re not real”.

“They”, as fictions, cannot DO anything without our empowering them to do so. They cannot recognize our inherent rights; they cannot write us a letter; they cannot judge us; they cannot interfere with us, and they cannot harm us, unless we are already thinking that the other side of the coin –the ‘good’ side– also cannot. The only way to rid nightmares is to realize they are constructs of our imaginations, just like everything else in our mis-created illusion. When did we plan this game to be over? Did we set the clock?  Will it end when our mums call us for supper?  I suspect it will end when we all ‘remember’ that the entire nightmare is only that and we can opt to become conscious, right in the middle of it.

NOTHING is going to get us out of this mess other than removing our thoughts, judgements, “knowledge”, information, attention, decisions, beliefs, and choices. E.g.: chocolate or vanilla?  The answer is, “I don’t care because it doesn’t matter” UNLESS we actually have a preference, as I mentioned above. If we are motivated or prompted to act, then we must do what we feel we must do, as that –and only that– is ‘life’, but we must know, whilst acting, that even that is inconsequential, in the grand scheme.  I suspect that only this will bring us the peace we seek. There is nothing else. As long as we think there is, we’ll remain stuck in the LIE.

No responses yet

Next »