Spiritual Economics Now

Perhaps the hardest concept we might have to face is that the system was never designed for our benefit. It has taken me awhile to get that through my skull, for certain. I guess we still judge others by our own standards of ethics and we presume that no one would deliberately set up a system of finance which is so damning and which could so injure us. People to whom I would otherwise credit with intelligence are still saying, “there is nothing wrong with the system, only the people operating it.”   The system was likely set up to ‘appear’ as if it were for our benefit, and likely even ‘reads’ as if it is for our benefit, however, it is not for our benefit; it is for their benefit only and they very adroitly constructed this fraud, literally to steal our spirit, our freedom, our value, our peace of mind, and our lives.  I feel as if I have come full circle as this is what I wrote in my book and I have done my best to repudiate it; alas, to no avail.

It seems as if our being the General Executor/Beneficiary is incidental when we do not have an army to back us up.  As accurate as that concept might be, it is doing us no good. The same can be said for Quantum Language. Until we have the military on our side, I doubt we can enforce it.  I no longer care about trusts or estates or who is the GE or the Trustee or the Beneficiary or whether a sentence reads like a palindrome or not.  Like everything else we’ve ever come up with—so what?  What matters is their fraud, dishonour, deceit, and vicious cruelty by which they deliberately bonded us into slavery.  The very instant that our parents were handed the Statement of Birth was the beginning of their intent to defraud us. I thought that the deception might have begun after this –between the Registration of the Event of the Birth and the BC– but, no; the trickery, entrapment, deception, and fraud all began with their coercion of our parents to sign that document.  There appeared to be benefits for their having done so –baby bonus cheques, schooling, etc. but there is none.  They stole our name and all the value which goes with it.  We were bonded into slavery and the BC is evidence of that.  If we return the evidence of their ownership of the Name to the Crown who owns and controls it, we render, null and void, the bond and, ergo, the value they get from us. I suspect that this is what is making them angry. Where, until now, our antics have been ignored, this seems to have aroused their ire.

Since they can interact with only dead entities, then giving back the birth/death certificate– that which declared us ‘dead’ (everything is backwards in their world of fiction) then, they no longer have control over us, the living. They have control over dead entities and if we are the holder of the BC —or any document derived from that— it evidences that we are dead.  As Kate says, when we return the BC, then we are born again. We are giving up the certificate which has made us dead to them. They have no authority or jurisdiction over the living man.

Using a name which is not ours is ‘impersonation’, which is fraud. This is why the most important thing to them is to get us to admit to being the name.  I heard recently of a fellow, in court, who said to a clerk after she called the name, “Are you calling the man or the person?”  After she called it again, he repeated that and, after she called it a third time, he said, “The man is here, if you’re calling a man; but the person is not here.”  Apparently, they all walked away and he went home.  I love stories like this. It shows us that their game is all about the Name.

Maybe, anyone in court who admits to the name, albeit via coercion, threat, deceit, trickery, intimidation, or force, is admitting to ‘fraud’ and at this point, the Crown/Court has a legitimate crime by which to charge us. So, this is why I have maintained my position on NEVER GO TO COURT !  Our mere ‘appearance’ means that we believe ourselves to BE the Name or, at the very least, to have USED it in circumstances under which we had no right to do so, which has led to our self-incrimination. Since all crime is commercial and “fraud” is most certainly commercial, as it is ‘profit by deceit’, then maybe ‘fraud’ is the only crime there is.  Since their entire system is about ‘money’, then it stands to reason that everything they claim is a crime simply reverts back to only ‘fraud’.

Maybe ‘fraud’ is the only ‘charge’ they can use against us and, conveniently, no one ever says so.  Had anyone ever charged us with ‘fraud’ we would have asked, “Whom did I deceive?” Remember, we are never, ever charged with any ‘crime’ UNTIL we admit to being the Name.  It is always the name which is charged and, if we claim to BE that, then it is we who are charged.  Where we thought that the name was only the means they ‘use’ to charge us, it now seems that admitting to the name might just be the crime itself. Everything after that is just the proverbial “dog and pony show”, i.e.: meaningless.

Kate says that even encouraging someone else to use what they believe to be their own name is “enticing fraud” and this includes the thugs; so, do not ask a cop, judge, attorney for his name.

Stay tuned. I sense this will all play out and prove to be true. Right now, I am just watching, but it sure makes sense to me.

For Kate’s information,

go to:  loveovermind.wordpress.com

see Kate’s (Katherine of Gaia) document:  Denique Ultimatum

also, listen to past interviews:  http://emesowum.com/kt/interviews/

…

A few days ago, I posted an article about Kate — formerly Keith Thompson of the “Judge Bows to Sovereign” video.  My purpose was to present Kate’s position on yet another possibility on how to become free. I posted it prematurely as I think it is important to wait and hear about the results from the people who have already sent Kate’s document, Denique Ultimatum (DU),   loveovermind.wordpress.com to the City of London, State et al.

I hear there have been repercussions; maybe because the DU accuses the thugs of fraud and they don’t like that. Or, maybe because they really are not acting fraudulently, however, I contend that when there is a deliberate and vicious withholding of full disclosure, it might not be ‘fraud’ but it IS ‘bad faith’.  The good news is that this means that the DU must have some clout as they feel threatened.  The bad news is that the thugs are retaliating. Because the premise of the DU document is that we “lose the name and win the game”, and that the name is theirs, not ours, it is possible that they might opt to steal our cash from ‘their’ accounts.  Most of us are not ready for that, yet.

It seems there are two camps:  those who believe the system can be corrected—if only we get the corrupt thugs out of the way, based upon the concept that the system was designed to work for our benefit; and, those who believe the system cannot be corrected because the corruption has gone past the point of no return. I contend that the design of the system must be flawed or their corruption could not have penetrated it in the first place, and so it must be dismantled and replaced by something better. Frank O’Collins is hard at work on a superior system. In the meantime, do we get out or suffer through it?

Kate claims that our parents sold the name and, ergo, us, into slavery. True, on the Statement of Birth, we read “Given Names” and, yes, our parents ‘gave’ us a name, but the instant that this document was handed over to the public, our ‘name’ was no longer private. What the thugs seem to have done with the name is why we must remove ourselves from it.  The instant that our parents cashed the first baby bonus cheque, the contract was deemed ‘accepted’.

One might argue that the contract was between the province and our parents—not us,  however, we simply assumed it and carried on, not only by signing the Name but also by making use of a Name which, for only a few hours, had been solely ours. If the Crown, via the Province, owns the Name, then, our using someone else’s property, without permission and for profit, is fraud. It is not ours to use and, if we do, we can be fined, charged, and arrested for ‘fraud’. Another tactic would be to force them to prove that we ARE a name, yet, I’ve noticed that we seem unable to get anything from them, including the courtesy of a response.

Dean’s position is that the registration of the birth simply allows the public to know of our existence so that an estate can be created for our benefit. If we insist that the public use our name in “inherent rights” and not “statutory” jurisdiction, then it is their duty to protect our inherent rights and our property. But, it seems the public has never done so, and likely never will, so the next step is either to sue them or to file commercial liens against them.

Frank carries this one step further and claims also that the registration of the name is the establishment of the estate of which our parents are the General Executor (GenEx) and we are the beneficiary. But, he adds that once we come of age, we are to establish that WE are now the GenEx and our failing to do so means that the estate is abandoned property and the public simply takes over that role from our parents.  We ought to have corrected this when we reached age 21/18, by drawing up a Last Will and Testament and then notice the Public of both the Will and the Appointment of us as GenEx.  At this point, the Name is still the name of an Estate of which we are still Beneficiary, yet, now, we have become the GenEx.  No one else can act as either, so the public trustees remain Trustees and cannot charge the estate without our authorization. So, unless we consent to their charges, about which we must remain vigilant, there can be none.

I still say, never go to court, as our mere appearance is interpreted by them as our admission to being the name.  If, as Dean says, we win our case before we go to court, then it is alright, however, it is also a ‘why bother?’  It seems, though, that the way to win before going to court is to let the court know, via the two notices — of the ‘Will’ and the ‘Appointment’, that we will be coming to court as the GenEx.  Maybe they’ll get the hint that our appearance will be a lose/lose for them.

As Dean says, the name of the player is not important; rather, it is his ‘position’ in the game that matters.

…

I was just about to post an article on the information I obtained from Dean when, lo and behold, I received a link to his seminar of November 19, 2011.

Straight from the horse’s mouth:  http://www.time4thetruth.info/

Thanks to Phil Thompson, here is the equivalent for those in the states:

The constitution is the american version.

…

I thought of all the court cases, cop stops, and horror stories I had ever heard, witnessed, or experienced and, as I put them all together in my mind, I asked, “What’s the answer to all this tyranny?”  My answer came as a picture.  I then rummaged through my memory to discover that the vision was a scene from the movie, “Mystic River”.  For the answer to “Why all the tyranny?”  watch the first 6 minutes (below).  That’s all you need to see to get the message.

How did this happen?  Family, school, doctors, churches, etc. are institutions set up by ’society’, all for the purpose of “programming”, via disciplining.  Only a few of us have any true personal choice based upon our self-respect, probity, and wisdom.  “Free will” is the most valuable trait of our humanity, yet, it is essentially nipped in the bud before we have even had time to consider the concept.  By age 7, we are programmed for life.  The longer we stay in school, the worse it gets, which is why most corporations prefer to hire only those candidates who have been programmed longer, evidenced by university degrees, than those who were wise enough to have escaped the ritualistic cult abuse to learn about the real world.

Think about handling the situation in this scene–– first, if you were the boys’ age and then at your present stage in life and learning.

Remember to ask, “Who are YOU?”

go to: http://www.1channel.ch/watch-1096-Mystic-River

or:    http://www.cinecast.us/watch-mystic-river-22701-part1.html

.

The purpose of my book was to expose the fraudulent banking system and their collection agents, the courts.  I implemented various tactics to prove it.

All the things I did, albeit correct, are no longer allowed by the banks, which further proves their fraud. Everything we have done over the past 15 years is no longer winnable.  We cannot win against tyrants. Only a more powerful group can put them out of commission; we certainly have been unable to do so.

My book only scratched the surface on certain topics which now seem to be: worse than I thought, or completely irrelevant, or truer than I thought, or immaterial. This is to encourage us all to be even more vigilant and suspicious of everything other than our intuition. I still think we will prevail, but not in any way we could imagine and certainly not any way which is currently being promoted by anyone other than those who say, simply, “Know thyself”.

Immaterial:                                                                                                                                                Since I wrote my book, eight years ago, I have continued to wonder about what I wrote. I have always thought that anything channeled is suspect, so when I heard that ACIM is possibly a result of MK Ultra, I was not surprised. ACIM is likely the result of just one of the many ways that our computer brain is programmed by those who control the world and us. They download by couching what they want us to think, feel, and believe, within something about which we instinctively desire––sex, food, God, friendship, and even spiritual freedom. Certainly, there is valuable information in ACIM, yet, might it be only the conduit for their programs. ACIM texts are not simple to read. Accordingly, they appeal to intellectuals–those  who consider themselves too smart to be manipulated.

Maybe our entire lives are only the playing out of the most traumatic programs of our childhood. Maybe we just operate on the EMF around us and we do and think only to the extent of the particular EMF. Maybe ACIM is our clue to who we are––that we do NOT have free will, as we are only watching the movie of our lives on the DVD which cannot be changed.

Truer than I thought:
After reading a bit of the Bible, I suspect that what I wrote about God and LORD God is actually truer than I thought.  Not only are we on a prison planet but also we are locked within a prison body.  Those of us who have astral-traveled, had OBEs (out-of-body experiences) and lucid dreams, all know that we do not require the body to experience physical sensations. People have astral sex, go to the beach, visit Europe, etc., all without leaving the confines of their beds, and this is not dreaming. It is as real as if they were occupying their physical bodies.  So, why do we require a body?  I doubt we do. I suspect that, Genesis, Ch. 1, 26-28, when God said, “Let us make man in our image”, what we meant by that was this:  “Let us, as one spiritual, conscious frequency just fragment our one self for the purpose of gaining as many experiences as possible through a different frequency/density. When we have played out every possibility on the physical plane, we’ll disappear it all and become as one, again.”  So, what happened in chapter two?  LORD God, whoever that is, captured our individual souls, picked up some clay, and created bodies, which severely limited our spiritual capabilities and from which we could not escape until their death. These bodies, now owned and operated by LORD God, were designed as unique so we could be recognized as separate from one another, and were easy to program for his purposes, via the manipulation of the 12 strands of our DNA which were our receptors and connections to one another and source. We have been severely tampered with.

Completely irrelevant:
Any alleged solution which is outside ourselves. The list is endless: UCC, PPSA, “express, private-contract trusts”, IBOEs, PNs,  AFVs, commercial liens, Quantum Language, IRS forms 56, OID, etc. all of which were designed either to prove the fraud of the banks/courts, or to access the Direct Treasury Accounts and all of which, albeit possibly somewhat initially accurate and temporarily workable, have now proved worthless. Wasting our time and cash studying any patriot guru is for entertainment purposes only––not solutions. If you have heard their names and they are charging for their information, they do NOT have a solution. (To the extent of my knowledge, neither Dean Clifford nor Frank O’Collins charges for information.) The gurus all likely have a gun to their heads and have been told, “We will allow you to continue with your costly seminars, but you will be teaching what we tell you to teach.”

Recently, I re-discovered David Wynn Miller (DWM) and watched his May 2010 youtube video.  His stories alarmed me. When he said that he had met the great, great grandson of Joan of Arc––“what are the odds of that?”, I paused the video to answer, “Zero.” Joan of Arc had no children. She died at 19, was a devout Roman Catholic, had visions of God, and fought a war; I doubt she had the desire to reproduce, never mind the time. Even if she had, this man would have “great’, 14 times before “grandson”, not twice.

When he said that by writing the Wal-Mart contract for the Chinese, thereby increasing Wal-Marts from 100 stores to 1800, I was irked. When he said that he assisted a woman with her claim against the feds for her loss, due to the WTC demolition, and by doing so, vitiated thousands of other claims, I was appalled. When a man whom he assisted at court won his case and was told by the judge that he was free to go, DWM immediately left. The judge then asked the man if he understood what DWM had done. The man admitted he did not and was immediately sentenced to 18 months. DWM’s moral to this story was that we had better know this QL or we could wind up in jail. But, the truth of that story is that DWM ought to have taught the man that any questions from a resentful judge, subsequent to “you are free to go”, are just more offers to contract which he can decline.

DWM has accomplished much, as his QL is likely accurate, but what perturbs me is that, still, after years, there are no reports that any one else has ever won. DWM is unique in that he addresses the fraudulent language of the courts, rather than the commercial and ecclesiastical fraud of the courts, but, still, we cannot win against criminals. It is tantamount to telling the Gestapo, “You can’t do this to me!”

Worse than I thought:
All courts are structured on a concept similar to that of Las Vegas casinos. I’ve heard that both  the courts and the casinos winning odds are 86% to 14%. The wins, permitted by the house, are calculated to prompt the masses to think they, too, can win. From our perspective, we win only episodically and without rhyme or reason. The latest and greatest “process” from the Remedy Rock Stars is never any better or worse than what we have already tried. Each is likely somewhat theoretically accurate, but that is moot when, in practice, there is no win. The house/court always wins, even when we also do. It is solely a numbers game and the results of each case are arbitrary except for our competence and conduct. Again, the only reason for the very few wins at the casino/court is to convince the masses to “come on down” and TRY to win. This grants the casino/court the opportunity to fleece us out of our cash.

There is NO reason to accept an invitation to court. What causes us to think we must? The invitation is for them to entrap us via their trickery, deceit, threat, and coercion.  These courts have nothing to do with us; they are public servants’ conventions. Every officer of the court––judge, prosecutor, clerk, attorney, bailiff, sheriff, cop, works for the same employer. The situation is at least 5 against one. Our attending court suggests that we do not know this and that alone tells them that we are incompetent. How stupid do we have to be to jeopardize our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual safety?  Just as “there is NO money” and “there is NO justice” and “there are NO facts”, so there is NO win against the banks/courts/casinos. So, don’t bother to listen to someone describe “how” he won a court case unless it includes his comprehension, conduct, competence, and his absence, none of which we can obtain from another. “Processes”, by which some have claimed to have won, are outside ourselves.

My suggestions:
What’s the best way to put anything out of commission?  Quit giving it our attention. We MUST quit going to court. Courts are NOT for executors and beneficiaries (us); courts are for public servants and trustees (not us). But, I’d be sure to tell them, before the date, why I won’t be going to court and I’d be sure to default them when they admit (by failing to deny or provide proof) that not only do I not belong there but also I have no contract with the Crown (or state). Since the Attorney General oversees the provincial/state attorneys, it would be prudent to apprise him also.

I do not believe “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”.  I do not think that we can beat those who control the world, for just that reason––they control the world––ALL of it, but particularly the courts/banks. I do think something or someone can and will stop the insanity but that is not we. There must be some underground group, about which we couldn’t possibly know (we know about Anonymous), which is doing, on our behalf, work we can’t even imagine.  They must be highly brilliant, highly funded, and highly secretive. Likely, they hardly even know who they all are, themselves. How could we possibly know?  They might be off-planet entities, or renegades from top corporations/agencies, or powerful grass-rooters, or just a computer program with more AI than we have. Who knows?  We most certainly do not know because if we think we know who they are, then that is not they.

From a pragmatic perspective, all we can do is decline to contract with thugs, demand they prove a contract exists, state our role as occupant of the office of general executor, and continue to ask questions, even though they are never answered.  If we recall the most important aspects of their unlimited trickery:  to get us into contract; to cause us to forget who we are and who we are not, to confuse us about our role, to scoff at our knowledge, to intimidate, threaten, coerce, deceive, etc., we will be able to handle their confrontations.

I have nearly completed a letter to the Crown corporation, rejecting their lies, and ending with the warning that they will be destroyed––not by us but by their handlers. The very ones who write their pay-cheques will punish them for betraying their fellows. Hard to believe, isn’t it? But, remember that within the overall dishonour of the controllers, there exists honour, and anyone who violates that honour will be punished. The violators are not we, but the ones who deceived us––not the fat cats at the top but the whores at the bottom who, for a pay-cheque, deceived their fellow man. Remember #4 of the Nuremberg Principles.

From a spiritual perspective, our role is tantamount to:  “They also serve who only stand and wait.”  It is our inward action, not our outward action, which will stop the insanity. We must remain vigilant of what goes on within our minds. We are being controlled and attacked from angles of which we are not even aware, so we must continue to monitor our thoughts and that which grabs our attention. “The secret to life is mind management.”  We must think like George Sanders and Christopher Reeve of the original and remake, respectively, of the movie, “Village of the Damned”.  They held off the children’s attempt to control their minds, by envisioning a brick wall.  We must re-focus our time, energy, attention, and emotion, from their antics to our mind-management. I do not think we will have to endure the insanity of this world for much longer. Where we ought to be spending our time is doing what we love to do with those whose company we enjoy, simplifying our lives, and gazing inward.  We must ignore their demands for our attention. It is our minds which can allow us to feel joy, but also can ruin our joy. Remain extremely vigilant. Pay attention to intuition. Stay out of the casinos.

…

Good grief!  Am I tired of hearing that! –– from ALL the gurus. They are wont to reveal their ‘solution to everything’.  “Here’s what to say, what to write, what to do, how to behave –– we’ve done it; this WORKS!  This “process” will work for you, too, unless, of course, there is an injured party.”  There is NEVER an ‘injured party’!

To whom could they possibly be referring?!?!  The court system operates in commercial, equity, contract, trust, maritime, probate, admiralty …. law and there is NO other “law”, in a fraudulent “justice system”. It is ALL about money and there exist only codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, acts, bills, legislations, constitutions, policies, customs, treaties, and charters to support this fraud. There is NO “law” other than the dog and pony show they put on in court for the entertainment of the public servants and for the deceit of the rest of us.

I continue to hear about “the common law”, meaning that we must not harm another or his property. But this is just one more of THEIR ‘laws’. So, if we do harm another, then the matter goes to court. What kind of court?  There is ultimately only one kind of court––the kind that is ALL about MONEY!  There is never anything to do with human rights, common law rights, civil rights, etc., unless it has something to do with money. The mere fact that money is the form of compensation which is offered to an alleged ‘injured party’ tells us that we cannot UNDO any harm done to anyone. Court is ALL about punishment which is all about ‘money’. Sure, sometimes a man will win, but this is only to maintain the facade that “justice has prevailed”. It is only to keep us coming back in hopes of a win (think Las Vegas).

Yes, ‘common law’ is how we can file a civil suit where a man can exact damages from another man, but, again, this, also, is to the court’s advantage.  A contract must exist, in order to prove a breach in all marriage, business, and professional contracts.  The state demands we obtain a licence for everything because the licence is what deems us to be public servants whom the state controls.  Most of us do not want to harm our fellows but, unless the court system can prove that we were involved in the function of government at the time of an incident, i.e.: acting as public servants (the only entities over whom the state has jurisdiction) then, the courts have no authority. Our possession of a licence makes their job of proving that we are, indeed, public servants easier, even though they must prove that we were behaving as such, at the time of the incident. It would be easier not to have a licence and, thus, not be a public servant, so that the matter of their jurisdiction is not even a possibility. As always, the only way anyone has authority over us is via our consent. Licensure suggests consent and we must remain very vigilant not to fall into the trap of believing that the courts have jurisdiction over us when we do not have them.

The instant that an alleged injured party is “injured”, he complains to someone who files the complaint into the court which creates a case matter between two corporate entities, i.e.:  legal fictions.  Neither the court nor the agents of the court, which includes both the alleged plaintiff and the alleged defendant, can be a living man or woman because living men and women cannot operate in court or in commerce or in the public. We require a title or role in their fiction, in order to do so. The title of that role IS a legal fiction. Court is for legal fictions, public trustees, and employees of the government, and no man has any right or any obligation to be in court, for any reason.  Court is merely the forum where legal fictions occasionally compensate the alleged victim with ‘money’ or punish the alleged victimizer via confiscation of his ‘money’, and for the monetary enrichment of the court employees; no other reason.

But all parties to any court action are legal fictions, not men and women. This is just another way we are tricked into believing in their illusion. No one can harm a legal fiction/corporation/illusion/name. I am reminded of when I asked a cop in NM, “Who’s the injured party?”  He answered, “The State of New Mexico.”  I laughed out loud and the look on his face indicated that he realized how idiotic he sounded.

We are also tricked into believing that God told us, in the Bible, to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Fiction!  In Luke 6:31, Jesus says something to that effect which refers back to Matthew 7:12 which refers back to Leviticus 19:18 which ends with “I am the LORD”.  Even Jesus admits, “….which is the law and the prophets”; what does that mean?  Is Jesus an agent of LORD God or Creator God?  The alleged “golden rule” was not God’s law, as everyone thinks, because God made NO laws. All the “laws” in the Bible were made by LORD God––yes, the egotistical, angry, vengeful, jealous, and insane God about whom the entire Bible is written, except for the first chapter of Genesis.

Another way to look at that absurd piece of propaganda is that perverts, masochists, and severely-indoctrinated Roman Catholics, with their notions of self-flagellation (not to mention all the other rituals to which these automatons adhere), would agree with that. They would love to be able to do unto others as they would, no doubt, just love to have another do unto them.  What insanity!  The point of that quotation––or, for that matter, any of the Ten Commandments given by LORD God–– is NOT to have us treat one another kindly; otherwise it would say so. That point is for the controllers–– in their allegiance to LORD God, not Creator God–– to have yet one more ‘law’ by which to control us.  Remember it was they who edited the Bible for their agenda which was and still is all about controlling us.

So, there can never be an “injured party”, in any court case, even when an injured party (man/woman) really does exist. Proof of this is when we truly have been injured by the public and so we file a suit against them. Do we prevail in court?  They also know that their injury to a man has nothing to do with the court matter––the legal fiction name bringing the suit–– and the reason, for the very rare occasion when we might prevail, is only to prove the exception which is meant to confuse us into believing that there is some justice in the fraudulent justice system. The courts do not work for us; they work for ‘money’.  They will never work for us until we find a way to force them to do their jobs as Public Servants.  I feel certain that Dean Clifford has found a way to do so and this is by our knowing “who we are and who we are not”.  Yes, what a tired-out cliché!  Yet, his take on this is brilliant and he offers an innovative solution.  Don’t miss him.

Go to:  http://www.freemanitoba.com/   and hear all episodes of his lectures (about 1/4 hour each). Also, hear his interview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaN3MpWnAFk     He is a brave and brilliant young man.  I’ll be posting summaries of his information.

PS:  For those of you who like to go to court to observe from the gallery, either to hear the deceit from a safe position or to support a friend in the hot seat, I have learned that even you in the gallery are “agents” of the matter because you are witnesses to the proceeding.  Accordingly, you are in a position to protest the manner in which a proceeding is being carried out. When you hear a lie from the judge or the prosecutor (which is inevitable) you have the right––not to mention the DUTY––to stand up and say that you cannot witness any more of this Breach of Trust as you do not want to be held liable as a party to a Breach of Trust, so you will now be leaving. “Don’t say another word until I am gone as I do not want to be held liable as an acquiescing witness to the Breach of Trust being demonstrated in this proceeding.”  Then, leave. Let me know what your friends report to you about what happens next.  (smile)

.

A friend sent me Diane Finley’s comments opposing Bill C-428 and wanted his email circulated.

Different circumstances — same propaganda, so this is for everyone who still doesn’t understand the concept of the prepaid account.

Here is my response to his email:

I am stunned that those who ought to know better STILL believe that any funds paid to anyone come from the taxes or earnings of their fellow man.  They do NOT. Please read my article entitled, “Two completely different, entirely separate, wholly distinct forms of accounting” (or something like that) and also my explanation of why the DA of California said, “Anything short of murder we won’t prosecute.” (see excerpt below)

THERE IS NO MONEY. THERE IS NO MONEY.  THERE IS NO MONEY.

There is only credit which comes from our signature, i.e.: our authorization for the public to access the credit of the estate.

When I began to read your email, my first thought was, “Oh, darn, Richard – having been here from the USA for 10 years – just recently applied for his OAS. Gee; he missed out on 7 years of cheques.”  Now that he has applied, the estate’s account––backed by the BC bond in NM, yet now under the control of Alberta due to his Permanent Resident card––has been debited by the public, based upon his authorization for them to do so via his signature on the application form.  AB opted to give him a very small percentage of the credit they obtained which will become monetized upon yet another of his signatures (read: further authorization for them to ledger against the estate) –– the endorsement of the cheque. But it will come from the estate’s unlimited credit, not from anyone else, based upon the value of his just being alive and possessing a birth certificate.

Please let everyone know that:

#1  Anything said by ANY politician is a lie, so Finley’s comments have to be contrary to what’s true; and,

#2  You KNOW that either she does not know what is true about the estate’s pre-paid account and its unlimited credit  OR she does know and isn’t saying; and,

#3  the sole function of politicians is to make people resent their fellow man.  My guess is that, with your present thinking, if Richard had been here only 4 years and then applied for OAS, you would resent him for getting a cheque. This is PRECISELY what they want from YOU - your anger, resentment, and fear of someone taking what you believe to be yours.

What Finley is actually saying is, “We are directing your attention to your being fleeced by your new (foreign) neighbour, so that you do not see that it is WE who continue to steal from you.

We must foil their ongoing intent to get us to hate each other. This is how they survive - by pitting us against one another, not only in order to obtain our emotional energy but also in order that we do not recognize THEM as the ones who are causing ALL the trouble.

Here is the excerpt from my article:

In California, the people complained that the “undocumented Mexican immigrants”, aka “illegal aliens”,  were causing violence, crimes, vandalism, etc. and the cops and the courts were doing nothing about it. It seemed as if “illegal aliens” were the problem. But, the District Attorney said, “Anything short of murder we won’t prosecute.”  If only the people knew what he meant, they would shift their rage from the “illegal aliens” to the DA and his ilk.

“Undocumented” means there is no trust account to charge, which is why the government wants them all to have driver licences. The DA won’t prosecute because he can’t; there is nothing and no one to charge. Men and women cannot be charged; only trust accounts can be charged and, since there is no account, due to no documents to create them, there is no way to make money off these “immigrants”. Murder is a different story. This means the “illegals” took out of the commerce game someone with an account and so, in that case, the DA will prosecute. Wait until the people of California figure out that the real “problem” of the “undocumented Mexican immigrants” is, as always, “ALL ABOUT MONEY”.

What about the cost to repair and compensate?  Well, it comes from the Public Trust, as does everything else which requires public funding. They want us connected to ‘Named’ trust accounts which make up the Public Trust, solely to confiscate our cash. This is tantamount to “uninsured” drivers or people without passports. We don’t really require car insurance or passports because all payments for damages come from the public trust which WE have ALREADY funded. Causing us to believe that we are “personally liable” is how they steal our cash.

The job of government is to convince us that we have to pay, when everything is already ‘paid’. The sole purpose of government is cash-confiscation (demanded by the IMF/WB/BIS as ‘interest’).  The means by which they accomplish this is to sell us their public benefits which not only are prepaid but also cost us vastly more than their inherent value to us.

.

College education is the largest scam in American history!

I usually balk at long videos but this one is worth every minute!
Students, please watch this and put it on your Facebook.
Adults, please direct this to students’ parents/grandparents.

College conspiracy: college education is the largest scam in American history!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE&feature=pyv&ad=6739540474&kw=higher

“Student Loan debt” now exceeds “Credit Card debt” !!!
The banking scam is no longer about “living beyond one’s means”; the alleged “debt” is now about the scam against kids (not to mention the scam of ‘advertising and marketing’ to kids).

We ALL now know that there is NO “debt” because the alleged ‘loan’ was funded AND PAID the instant the student signed the ‘loan application’.

Do NOT miss:  “How worthless is higher education?” at the 30-minute mark.

Oh!  Here’s one for you!  Law schools boast that 90% of their graduates are employed within one year of graduation. What they fail to mention is that this percentage INCLUDES all those “grads” who are employed at Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.  Yes!  “Do you want LEGAL fries with that?”    Lawyers lie.  Go to:  44:50

FOOD:  Be sure to see what is listed as having vastly inflated prices - NONE of which we need. (Yes, even the last one - think hemp)  see:  49:47

“The future of education is over the internet.” - NIA (National Inflation Association)

War is a racket. College is a racket.
Do not be fooled into thinking that this video is about only the states. ALL college and university is to program kids to be slaves and for the banks to continue to grab the almighty buck - nothing else!

I paid $500 for 2 years of nurse’s training in 1975, in Toronto. I paid it in advance, in full––peanuts! and I went on to make $22 an hour, in California, 3 years after graduation.

Let’s get back to “apprenticeship”.
.

“unalienable” and “inalienable”
Both are pronounced with the word “alien” pronounced the same way as we think of off-planet entities––ETs. The reason ETs are called aliens is because they are considered alien to or separate from our planet (even though we all know they are not because they have always been here, but, the programming is that they are separate from us).  So, ‘unalienable’ means ‘inseparable’ and ‘not to be taken away’.  A similar word, ‘inalienable’ means ‘non-transferable’.  So, when the founding fathers used the term, “unalienable rights”, they meant that we had God-given rights which could not be taken away from us. Neither word has anything to do with commercial liens; so, neither word is pronounced with ‘lien’ accented.  There is no word with that pronunciation. Even if there were a word which meant that something cannot be ‘liened’, then the word would be ‘un-lienable’, not ‘un-a-lienable’. The ‘a’ in that word makes it meaningless. In order for people to believe that you know what you are talking about, I suggest that you never say, “un-a-lien´-able”. That word is fiction.

“most importantly”
“Most importantly, send it via registered mail.” (btw, ‘via’ is pronounced ‘via’, not ‘veeah’. It is a Latin word.) Since adverbs modify verbs, then, in this case, ‘importantly’ modifies ‘send’ but ‘send’ has no capacity to be important. The meaning of that sentence is, “What is most important is that you send it via registered mail.”  This can simply be shortened to “Most important, send it via …”  “important” has nothing to do with the verb; it is an adjective describing the rest of the sentence. It is the message of that sentence which is “important”, not “importantly”.

“I could care less”
There is a scale of ‘caring’. When one cares about something, then the degree to which one cares is somewhere on that scale. Then, there exists a range of points, on that scale, where “I could care more (than I do) and I could care less (than I do). So, let’s say that, on a scale of 1 to 10, I care about something at 4. Then, this shows that I could care either more or less––less being 3, 2 or 1.  But, if “I could NOT care less” that would mean that my degree of caring is as low as it can be which is a 1.  Saying, “I could care less” suggests I care to some degree because “less” still exists. Saying, “I couldn’t care less” means that I have hit rock bottom and I don’t care at all. So, when one says to me, “I could care less”, I am wont to ask, “then, to what degree do you care?”  Her answer is, “not at all”, but that is not the meaning of what she said. “Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

“firstly, nextly, lastly”
‘first’, ‘next’, and ‘last’ are both adjectives and adverbs so in order to make the adjective into the adverb, we do NOTHING. The word serves two purposes. There is no “ly” on a word which is already an adverb.  Adjective:  “He was the first one to tell the story. The next step was to write the story.  The last chapter was the best”.  The adjectives describe or modify the subjects:  “he”, “step”,  “chapter”.  Adverb:  “First, tell the story, next, show the pictures, and, last, distribute the books.”  The adverbs answer “when” by modifying the verbs, “tell”, “show”, and “distribute”.

.

Yes, I am a Linguistic Pain-in-the-Ass

Our language is absurd but, as it stands and until we can communicate telepathically––which I contend will be soon––we ought to do our best to communicate with this limited, backwards, difficult, dominating, barbaric, commercial, mathematically-inaccurate, language called English.  I suspect that before we can graduate to the higher frequency of telepathy, we might have to get our present form of communication accurate. So, here I write about the miscommunications that I continue to hear. I have been putting off writing this for a long time but now we know that English truly is the masters’ language over the slaves. There exists deliberate design to keep us from understanding what we are saying to one another.

Mrs., Miss, and Ms
People occasionally write to me as “Mrs. Croft”. When I question this, they justify it with the word, “respect”.  The title Mrs., as in the case of a woman called ‘Jane’, but whose NAME is Mrs. Doe or Mrs. John Doe, would mean that Jane is married to John Doe.  “Mrs. Jane Doe” indicates that Jane was married to John, but is now divorced. None of this is capricious or arbitrary. It is just more of the elite’s way of categorizing us.  For decades, married women were not on the slave roll and so titles were to distinguish them from women who were not financially supported by a man who was on the slave roll. These titles are all about taxation.

Aside from taxation, any presumption about anyone is a dishonour and so is presuming that a woman is married or unmarried which is why, decades ago, the term, “Ms” came into common usage.  It is considered proper, lawful, and non-discriminating.  No one has the right to know about the private life of any woman OR man, unless the situation requires it; hence, the reason for completely eliminating the use of Miss and Mrs.  Those terms suggest women are chattel or, at the very least, they suggest some form of discrimination based upon whether or not she “belongs to” a man.  Again, keep in mind that this is for tax purposes but infusing one’s private life with public protocol is simply insulting.

So, if one insists upon addressing a woman, by using a “title”, then he ought to use the now-proper ‘title’, “Ms.” as then he can’t go wrong if presuming marital “status” which is something only the public cares about; e.g: tax agencies all want our “marital status”. How invasive!

I make it abundantly clear that I am called, “mary”. It is the author of my book, it is how I end my emails, etc. so, calling me something other than what I have already indicated as my desire is disrespectful.  It would be no different from a man  telling me to call him Tom and then I call him “Fritz”.  Wouldn’t he feel as if I had disrespected his feelings and ignored what he told me?

“Everything happens for a reason”  - and/or - “It’s all good”.
We all just do what we do. It is only afterwards that the ego mind, in an attempt to justify either what we have done or what we are about to do, makes up “reasons”.  So, yes, we garner reasons for what we have done and, yes, we give reasons for what we are about to do, but reasoning, pre or post, only indicates the ego’s desperate need to defend against the truth.

Since everything that happens, in our experience, is a result of our projected beliefs, then, all reasoning is simply justification, due to our inability to accept what is.  So, although the cliché suggests that we ought to accept everything that happens because we can never acquire all the necessary information to draw any conclusions about an incident, then, the ludicrous rationale, as it is stated, only adds to the rampant insanity.

When people try to assuage my feelings by saying, “everything happens for a reason”, I ask, “what’s the reason?”  They don’t know. So, if they don’t know the reason, how can they know that one exists?  Just as when people recite the common cliché, “It’s all good”, it evidences they have made a judgement which includes, “it’s all bad”…. same coin (judgement), different sides (assessment). What is true about every situation is, “it all just IS”. When we can accept that, we can quit the need to “believe” and we can quit the need to “reason”.

“To be perfectly honest”
Oh, great! This entire conversation is vitiated because up until right now, he has NOT been honest.  Do we have to start over?

“Absolutely”
Oh, GRRRRR!   So often, after asking someone a very benign question, the answer to which is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, all I hear is “absolutely”. So, then I am obliged to ask, “Is this absolute (meaning: complete, unconditional, unquestionable) an ‘absolute yes’ or an ‘absolute no’?   “Absolutely” is not an answer to any question; it is a degree of an answer which we have yet to discover.

Hand-shaking
A couple of years ago, my son introduced me to his music teacher who offered his hand for me to shake. I declined to do so and my son was embarrassed and told me so. I explained to him that I am free to reject a ludicrous tradition. He accused me of being ill-mannered for not accepting the man’s polite gesture. I told him that if he wants to talk “manners”, then he ought to know that ladies are not required to shake hands and only an ill-mannered man would initiate such a imposition upon a lady.

This idiocy began when men who suspected one another of carrying weapons would show their right hands, proving they were unarmed. Grasping hands then proved it. Women were never a party to this madness and so, in fact, it is ill-mannered for a man to present his hand to a lady, as the suggestion is that she might be armed and harm him. (Men should know, by now, that women have vastly better tactics, on how to harm a man, than with weapons.)  If, on the insane notion that a woman wants to shake hands with a man (and why would she?), then she is free to offer her hand first and, ergo, a well-mannered gentleman is expected to receive it. Call me old-fashioned, but my explanation smartened-up my son.

You might well ask, “so what does a lady do when someone puts his paw in front of her face?  I have been known to keep my hands in my pockets, or put them into prayer position and bow, saying, “Enchanté”, but my latest is I just say, “How do you do?”  and completely ignore their gesture.  If I am asked why I don’t shake hands, I tell people one of two things, depending upon  my potential relationship with him, which I’ve already determined is likely worthless because a gentleman would never ask that. I say either, “I don’t know where your hands have been”  or  “Do you suspect I am armed?”  I have been known to shake hands with someone ONLY if I sense that something serious, to all involved, will be lost by my not doing so. All that said, the best way to get out of shaking hands with someone is to hug him/her ….. unless s/he is wearing synthetic fragrance. Living with toxic chemicals and their scent on my clothing for the rest of the evening is vastly worse than shaking hands, no matter where those paws have been.

“for me”
I notice that people are frightened of expressing themselves. They suffix their remarks with “for me”, as if I might question that they were giving me someone else’s opinion.  “This is a book everyone ought to read; I thought it was excellent, well, for me, anyway.”  Did he think that I thought he was talking about his neighbour?  I figure when someone tells me that a book is excellent, he means HE thought it was excellent, not the fellow down the street thought it was excellent because if it had been the fellow down the street, he would have said so. When ANYone speaks it can be ONLY about himself. It can’t be about anyone else unless and until he prefaces his statement with that information.  “That is an excellent book––for my sister’s boyfriend.”  No one would say that. One would say, “My sister’s boyfriend says it’s an excellent book.”  But this feeble, annoying attempt at not offending anyone whose tastes might  slightly differ shows only a weak personality.  You are free to disagree with me but I’m not going to say, here, “…. shows only a weak personality; well, to me, anyway.”  In that phrase, did you hear me weasel out of speaking my mind?  Aren’t you tired of hearing that?

“myself”
Several years ago, a friend said, “Myself and Dave are going out for dinner; do you want to join us?”  It was all I could do to restrain myself from racing across the room and grabbing him by the throat.  Did his mother teach him to say, “Myself wants a cookie”?  I doubt it, so where did the insanity of this use of the word appear?  It seems as if this is another example of people disclaiming what they are saying. I notice so often that people are loathe to use the words, ‘I’ and ‘me’.  What is this all about, other than it shows some sort of gumption to talk about oneself.  One time a friend emailed me this: ‘Send the documents to ….” I couldn’t figure out why she was telling me to do something, among other things, which I had already instructed her to do. Then I wondered if I had said I would do it for her and I became quite upset by the fact that I might have failed her. So, I wrote her back asking about this. What she had done is just omitted the word “I” and wrote “send” instead of “sent”. She was telling me she had already done this but because people seem frightened to write “I” (which takes a long time and much effort to do), the entire meaning is lost. Is this left over from an era when we were taught not to talk about ourselves or to avoid writing letters with sentences beginning with the word “I”?  My emails contain sentences which almost ALL begin with “I” because I can talk about no one OTHER than myself. (yes, this is the correct use of ‘myself’.)

“Myself” cannot be a subject of a sentence because it is a pronoun which always reflects back to the subject. This is why it is called a “reflexive pronoun”.  “I bought a book for myself.”  I get emails which go something like this.  “Today a fellow came to the door with a summons for my wife and myself.”  What he is saying is that he issued the summons for himself because ‘myself’, in that sentence, suggests that “I” is the subject of the sentence, so the fact that “I” is not the subject makes the entire sentence nonsense. I am wont to question what he is talking about––particularly when we all know that there cannot exist a summons for a man, only for a person, i.e.: a legal fiction.

“Kilometre” (US:  kilometer)
This is a metric length. So, all portions of a metre have a prefix. Here are all the prefixes for the metric system and their symbols:  tera-T, giga-G, mega-M, kilo-k, hecto-h, deca-da, deci-d, centi-c, milli-m, micro-?,  nano-n, pico-p, femto-f.  We can put any word after the prefix, e.g.: “byte”, “metre”, “second”, etc. Let’s use the example, “metre” but, say them out loud so you can hear where the glitch is. You won’t know it until you hear it.  Start reciting:  femtometre, picometre, nanometre, micrometre, millimetre, centimetre, decimetre, decametre, hectometre, kilometre, megametre, gigametre, terametre.  Did you hear “kil´-o-metre”?  or “kil-o´-metre”?  Did you accent the “kil” or the “o”?

There is another word––a completely separate word with a completely different meaning, but which sounds the same as ‘metre’.  It is “meter”, the meaning of which is “measurement” or, in some cases, “gauge”.  Here are the ones we often use: thermometer, barometer, altimeter, diameter, speedometer, tachometer, odometer, and not so often: anemometer (wind), udometer or pluviometer (precipitation),  sphygmomanometer (blood pressure), etc.  In these words, the middle or least significant syllable is stressed or accented, for example: psychology.

I ask all Canadians to stop confusing the word ‘kilometre’, a thousand metres (as imaginary and abstract as the word ‘border’), with a concrete device used to measure various speeds, degrees, pressures, etc.  ‘Kilometer’  is pronounced “KIL´o metre”.

“Out of”
When people talk about someone I ought to know, I often ask where he lives so that I know about whom we’re talking. E.g.: Someone will mention “Tom” and I’ll ask, “Which Tom?” or “Tom who?” and the answer is, “He’s out of Florida.” That leaves me with guessing among 49 states and 10 provinces. “out of” only tells me where he isn’t, so IN what state/province IS he?

The commercial equivalent to this is, “He works out of his home”. Most people do, so where does he work?”  or “Her company is based out of Ontario”.  What happened to cause people to think that “out of” means “in”?  Her company is based IN Ontario and there are likely many branches which are “out of” Ontario, in other places.  I can’t help feeling as if we are being manipulated by the language police––think “Newspeak” –– deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public –– a language invented by George Orwell in the novel 1984] so that we can no longer “talk amongst ourselves”.

Dictionaries are for the purpose of being certain that we understand one another but, when the meanings of words are purposely distorted as they are in Legalese, we will be unable to do so. No one will ever really know what anyone means by what he says because everything is our personal interpretation based upon our programming, so it is so important that we take into consideration everything we know about the speaker. That said, the better one speaks by adhering to a generally-accepted meaning of words, the better he is understood and isn’t this what we all want?  For example, listening to Stephen Fry on Catholicism is wondrous.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk      I suggest everyone hear him.

Our language was, no doubt, created for the purpose of messing with us so that we cannot communicate. When I first heard, about a decade ago, young men saying, “That’s bad”, when they mean, “That’s good”, I knew we were in deep trouble. I’m not talking about words which are just in vogue, such as groovy, bitchin’, cool, dude, totally, etc. I’m talking about deliberate aberrations of meanings of words so that we can no longer communicate.

My son says, in response to one of my suggestions, “I’m down for that”. Since this sounds as if he is rejecting my suggestion, I am forced to ask.  What he means is, “I’m UP for that”–– “my state of mind is ‘up’, due to your suggestion.”  I don’t get into a row with him over this; I just let him know that this is an example of how clichés are generally designed to prevent us from communicating and we must do all we can to off-set that.