Spiritual Economics Now

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.

.