Archive for April 12th, 2012

Apr 12 2012

Beating Them at Their Own Game

Published by under Knowing Who You Are

Since it seems –at least so far– as if we are unable to remove ourselves from this insidious Commerce Game, we might as well play it so that it hurts ‘them’.  We live in a world of commerce and, if there is no getting out of it, then, the only way to survive this is to do to them what they do to us:  charge them up the yin-yang.

Dean Clifford has given his final lecture on his “game-ending” information:

The Three Entities: the man; the Trust; and the Officer of the Trust who can authorize and off-set charges, i.e.: handle the accounting, and he has an residence, aka address of a branch-office of the corporation, e.g.: CRA. The Officer has no rights whilst he performs a function of government, for which he ought to be paid. Any charges against the trust would be handled by the officer but he is not personally liable for any fees, fines, etc.  So, occupying the position of officer, as long as we are not held personally liable and as long as we get paid to do the job, which they intend us to contract to perform, is alright. The same man can hold different capacities.  They want the all-cap last name, John Henry DOE, to show up as officer, but we can’t mix jurisdictions, i.e.: we can be either the man OR the officer, but not both at the same time.

What seems to have some clout is a Fee Schedule –itemizing all the things which they might want us to do for the trust and the costs, along with a mention that failure to settle promptly may result in Civil Court action / Commercial Lien, along with a note:  “You can force me to do anything, but you can’t force me to do it for free, as that would be slavery, which has been outlawed internationally, via Article 4 of the UDHR. Since all this is about commerce, and not justice, then, before I, John Henry Doe, perform as the officer/trustee, John Henry DOE, of the DOE, JOHN HENRY Trust, there is the matter of my fee which is $50,000 an hour, or any part thereof, and, if I am required to go to court in order to handle the accounting, then, the fee is $100,000 an hour, in advance. Upon my receipt of said payment, I shall (pay a fine/appear in court/file for a tax return, whatever).  If you don’t like my terms, then hire someone else for the job.  Please send payment to: Name ? address.”

We ARE in ‘their’ system and so, if they want to force us to do something, then it will cost them and, just like any other contract, there are terms and, if the terms are too steep for them, they are free to end the negotiations and renege on the contract. In other words, we ought to make it so that THEY do not want to contract with US, rather than vice versa.  Since the only language they speak is force, contract, and money, this might be the best way to handle them: treat them as they treat us.

Dean told the story of his brother who was pursued by police, but didn’t stop. Since he had a “Fee Schedule” in place; i.e.: he had sent it to the cop shop, suddenly, the cop came to a screeching halt and turned around. Clearly, the cop had ‘googled’ the plate, as they do, and read the warning, “DO NOT STOP”. When our hero got home, he called the sergeant and told him, “One of your goons tried to stop me. You DO know that if I had stopped, it would have cost you $200,000.”  After some muffled comments, the sergeant said, “I don’t want to continue this conversation.”

I carry my fee schedule in the car and figure if a cop stops me, I’ll just tape it to the window so this is ALL he sees. The threat of Commercial Lien ought to get their attention, if the “Fee for being stopped”, in the amount of $250,000, doesn’t.

Dean claims that, on the back of the BC, it reads, “For Treasury Use Only”, so if we use the BC, either we ARE the Treasury and so we are liable as surety, or we are NOT the Treasury and so we are acting in fraud.  Use of the BC is only to prove the existence of the bond, the value of which will handle all liability for that Trust. Our use of the BC as ID for anything, such as application for DL, passport, etc., would be relinquishing our rights –particularly, our right not to contract.

One might want to warn the Court, in advance of any hearing, “If I am dragged to Court, I’ll hand the order to the Crown and I’ll charge you $100,000 to do it”, so that if one were to find himself in front of a judge/administrator, against his will, then he can say, “This court cannot proceed, as there is an outstanding bill before the court.”

Dean’s approach in response to a judge’s order is,  ”Is this an order?  Well, as soon as I get paid –because I don’t work for free any more than you do– I’ll be sure that it gets carried out.”  After getting the cheque (do not allow the court to proceed until the matter of payment is settled), we can hand the order to the prosecutor and say, “You hold legal title to the name of the trust; you’re the trustee; here; handle this.”  Then we can say to everyone present, “I just got paid $100,000 to walk over to the Crown attorney and hand him his order.”

Conclusion: For so long we made a distinction between only two names.  The distinction must now be made among three names.  Keep that in mind.

No responses yet