Jan 31 2012
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.