+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Kerry Kicking Some Butt... Interesting Interview with a Freemason

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: Kerry Kicking Some Butt... Interesting Interview with a Freemason

    Quote Posted by Zanshin (here)
    Excellent post sigma,

    Will Hughe obviously knows his stuff - unfortunately this will be difficult to follow for most, as his style presumes
    an adequate working knowledge of contract, specifically trust law, amongst his readership.

    His breakdown of film, for the commercial message therein, reminds me of Jack Smith.
    Jack Smith has some good analysis' ... and metaphors should have a solid correspondence to what they are trying to explain... they are meant to be explanatory and a simplification of much more complicated or technical information, by now everyone has heard of the Matrix Movie metaphor, one of the most powerful interpretations of the whole model of government corporation proliferation and control of the "system".... If you can understand that "Corporations" are man made legal devices, machines, considered legally dead entities, their purpose to provide some function to serve man, etc... and the dozens and dozens and dozens of other layers, historical references...


    there is a more technical side...
    Quote (Proceeding Against The Crown Act - Definition)
    Property vesting in the Crown -
    (5) Where property vests in the Crown independent of the acts or the intentions of the Crown, the Crown is not, by virtue of this Act, subject to liability in tort by reason only of the property being so vested; but this subsection does not affect the liability of the Crown under this Act in respect of any period after the Crown, or any servant of the Crown, has in fact taken possession or control of the property.
    This takes some serious decoding, so convoluted (to me anyway) is the meaning... But essentially what I am getting out of the above is that the act of simply "HOLDING" the legal titles (which this definition would definitely apply to...) is in, of itself, not enough to subject the Crown to any liability... so let's just absorb that ONE aspect for a second... some of these subsections expose the incredible detail and logic games going on... 1) We can deduce a number of things here... for one they DO recognize the very real "possibility" of interpretation of "liability" in the first place!! ...which is a concept that for 95%+ people appears to be going right over their heads!!! So here you have it... in black and white...

    I think it is important that these concepts are pointed out, as I can clearly see from many other's comments, people are not grasping the implications of what is REGISTRATION. (Even though it has been with us for over 2000 years) REGISTRATION creates trust by definition) by splitting title (right to use of a thing) into two separate components... i.e. legal title (original signature paper document = record = legal title in trust) and "equitable title" the actual conceptual "right" to the physical object (res) that the "title" refers to, the title of which that was registered by the "registree", this establishes a claim of right to the "use" or registered PROPERTY RIGHT. Of course all this is now within the context of REGISTRATION... and why we are all here gathered today to understand the importance of WHAT REGISTRATION TRULY IS... beyond just a record in a record hall. ;D

    i.e. the authors (freemason lawyers in charge of the system) are "tipping their hat" by mentioning this (they can't avoid it...) So the one big takeaway here is one of simple observation and question and perhaps connecting it to the study of the BC as a form of property... and that big "IF"... when you do the follow through of all the definitions... you will find the Birth Certificate is a certificate to what can clearly be identified as "property" under their very own definitions.

    The State does recognize the "implications" of what this means... thus we have this wonderful, convoluted and very easy to "read over and completely miss the implications of"... type subsection...

    2) Ok, now the next part of their twisted use of English to supposedly "define" what they are saying... lol... is to give the "impression" that they are NOT liable!!... LOL!!! but let's read it a little more carefully. Think of it a psychological game of "hot potato" "Crown is not... subject to liability in tort by reason only of the property being so vested;" and this is within the context of property vested in the Crown "independent of [or separate from] the acts or the intentions of the Crown" ... This needs breaking down... but it begs the question, who's intention [very important] was it to create the REGISTRATION? This could be an interesting legal interpretation in it's own right... on the one hand you have the government "insisting" it MUST (means MAY) be done, and on the other they forever keep telling us we are filling out an "application" i.e. begging...??? If that doesn't beg any questions in your mind... (then you're missing out... and all I can say is start asking!...)

    There is another interpretation (I don't have immediately handy) that the whole process of the Birth Certificate registration was required at the "behest" of the Crown.
    be·hest
    bəˈhest/
    nounliterary
    a person's orders or command.
    "they had assembled at his behest"

    In any event, we can see they are already trying to "wiggle" out of liability from the first sentence... convoluted language is already being employed, they are already positioning themselves with technicalities... yeah? (which begs the question why?...)

    btw... I'm not trying to be tricky dicky here... I am just calling a spade a spade... I am just looking at one subsection, that happens to interest me as it pertains to the focus of a subject I am trying to understand and thus it directly relates to... If this seem complicated to others, it's because they don't have the frame of reference I always try to hammer home. Pick your frame of reference... I have stated from day one... There is only one frame of reference I use as my ultimate starting point... and that IS the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Without a frame of reference you will lose your bearings... confuse yourself... wander without purpose, in endless circles... (ok, back to topic...)

    The second part of this subsection goes...

    but..... BUT.... !!! BUT!!! There is always a but... lol...

    this subsection does not affect the liability of the Crown under this Act in respect of any period after the Crown [or representative of the Crown] or ANY servant of the Crown, has in fact TAKEN POSSESSION or CONTROL of the property.

    Gee whiz... now who has generated a question or two from that particular sentence? Did they just go through all that first part to just come out and say that last part? huh? whaaa!? I am half laughing because I am thinking about a number of events, that could fit this definition... but one of the more "obscure" examples in my head right now is that classic scene everyone goes through in any courthouse... no matter what the incident, event, charge, from murder to a parking ticket... what is the FIRST THING they ALWAYS try to establish...

    "What is your NAME?" "Are you JOHN DOE?" "Come forward..." and "...Who are YOU?" (the exact words out of the Wizard of Oz, btw...) and exactly what I have heard in court... i.e. GIVE US your NAME... (preferably without any qualifications)... as they need your consent, when they look up the records and securitize the signatures to extract funds via treasury accounts established for just such purposes... I also got information from a friend seeing them deliver documents to an insurance company that deals in securities right across the street from the courthouse back door on Bay Street in Toronto!...

    or how about when you get pulled over... if you understand the SSN, and driver's license were contracts which CREATED an "interpretation" of "identity" with the Birth Certificate Name (which is NOT identity by itself) What do they always ask you to do?... physically hand over those documents! Which of course you're NOT legally required... (warning: there is knowledge and technique involved...)

    perfectly legal in Florida!? (shock... awe!...)


    Also, as a follow up to video,
    note: the Highway Traffic Act Of Ontario, Section 33. ss 3 (interesting numbers)
    Identification On Failure To Surrender Licence
    (3) Every person who is unable or refuses to surrender his or her licence in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) shall, when requested by a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, give reasonable identification of himself or herself and, for the purposes of this subsection, the correct name and address of the person shall be deemed to be reasonable identification. 1993, c. 40, s. 3.

    The truth is the the "correct name and address of the Person can be given in such a way as to not "identify" yourself... i.e. "the Registered Name is..." "The Registered Address for the Name is..." I don't claim to be the "owner" (which is really the "beneficial owner") and an enticement to commit a criminal act, or a breach of the trust. Also think about the "hidden" implication exposed... in the phrase "...or refuses..." this implies there is something else going on here... why statutory codes are limited to misleading, in helping you understand what your REAL RIGHTS are... they are quite the opposite... Corporate Policy suggestions and an invitation to be a presumed slave (also called officer, employee or citizen) by your own consent... 'giving up your birthright for a bowl of stew'... through trickery, deceit...(let he who would be deceived...)


    And if you understand the nature of the NAME as a property, an appellation, are you not being asked to give them something? but again there are MULTIPLE interpretations here, and that is because there are multiple things going on here. Why they can lie and deny all day here... (unless you ask the right questions... like "Are you asking me to engage in a legally binding contractual obligation?" to which you will never get a SIMPLE YES or NO... ever...) Words here and how this is responded to (not that this is the ONLY trap, but it should be something that is UNIVERSALLY understood by everyone... since it happens millions of time every day...) Point is in one of these interpretation you are seen as giving them the REGISTERED NAME... without qualification... and there is a whole slew of interpretation that follows with everything else that follows...

    The point is THERE ARE IMPORTANT issues at hand here... It is not simple black and white... They do NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE complete control from beginning to end... or you wouldn't be "invited" to any court, and then set up to be entrapped in the first place would you??? (you would just be mailed a "charge" and told to pay, end of story)

    So I can't get into all the ways to respond to this here in this single post... I have dozens of other posts that deal with that, I will try to link them in later... just showing these are the kinds of observations I make, the detail I go into, before I make reference to a metaphor that appears to make reference to something going on in the legal world.

    Another that makes reference to the idea of transfer of BENEFIT which I make reference to... comes from Section 336 of the Criminal Code... (Canada, although it doesn't specifically say Canada... just "Pocket Criminal Code 2009"... and the preface seem to indicate this is a UN mandated publication! o.O!!

    Quote Criminal breach of trust: (Section 336)
    s.336 Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 296.

    [the CC (Crown) recognizes two ways of holding property. (1) they are holding it for the use or benefit of another PERSON (see CC definition) or (2) for a public or charitable purpose. There are two potential options described how Trustees can HOLD PROPERTY..." use" with and without benefit. "Use" for public purpose appears to transfer this "benefit". That is what THEY are TELLING US... and once again it begs a few questions... what are these differences in more detail and what do they signify? what are the implications?...

    In comes the concept of "Beneficial Ownership" This is what everyone who thinks they are the "owner" of anything really are claiming to be... I don't claim to understand all the definitions of "owner" (just too convoluted for me...lol) but "Beneficial Owner" I had the good fortune to find some decent, simple to the point articles on... The long and short of it... like "taxpayer" it is a reference to the Corporate Juristic Person... which is the Corporation which is legal entity that applies when making reference to the JOHN DOE Estate...

    Which means there is an interpretation of HOW we can choose to operate it... In trust it is already under the trusteeship of the State, you are simply using it, and in the event of exigent circumstances, such as a violation of the code under which that Corporation is under the jurisdiction of, there is equitable relief, (or what would be a remedy in the public) or... you can choose to take on that liability yourself... It's UP TO YOU!

    The taxpayer, the "Owner" on the license certificate, the beneficial owner are all pointing to the Corporation... When you claim to be that corporation, there is an interpretation that you are claiming the benefit of the PERSON for yourself...

    What if instead, like James Bond, you recognized that you in fact, having pledged your lifetime of labour to the State, are in fact now using the PERSON on behalf of the STATE? So when you get hauled into the public court, instead of acting like you are the trustee, you simply present your "status" as the certificate holder to an Estate that was pledged, as a result since you are not the "owner" of anything, that any liability in the public, must be settled by the trustees that have access to the treasury, that your pledge is a part of and that they can use your particular Estate to make any record of this transaction under. Thus using your JOHN DOE account as the conduit for that particular transaction.

    It's all controlled, no one is going to be given a free million dollar bank account to do as they please... that's why they have trusts in the first place...

    Now I know that was a big leap... from S.336 to trust... and I skipped over a lot... but I wanted to point up some basic observations... I can't simply give straight answers because they are tied into logical step by step analysis... (another control mechanism? a protection? against non analytical people? one of those "knowledge is power" things?...)

    There is a trust... they mention it everywhere and if you start to think along these lines you WILL see it everywhere, in every code, application, court, hidden but in plain sight.... They do recognize according to their own code... they see TWO different ways of holding property AS THE TRUSTEE...
    There is a good definition of the concept of Beneficial Ownership... from a Tract from the government titled "Symposium: Beneficial Ownership And the Income Tax Act...By Catherine Brown (2003) it's about 53 pages, I got to page 45 until I realized all the "Beneficial Ownership" stuff is applying to the "taxpayer" and as usual the real meat and potatoes was in the first 5-10 pages, which I hurriedly "breezed through" and more or less completely skipped over... (and I was looking for Birth Certificate related material!!!)

    i.e. This pattern of hiding stuff when they have to cover "sensitive material" (i.e. stuff that get very close to exposing the Birth Certificate, registration, trust, etc... ) Is interesting how there is always a pattern to how they "spin" it... anyhow, the "good stuff" is right at the beginning and ALL you need ...this slight of hand technique, is how they sucker us... In the first 5-10 pages is a description of the history of common law and equity, trust, and how the concept of the Cestui Que was originally between the King and Serf, but today it is the State and the Person...

    Behold... some juicy niblets... ;D
    Quote "Equity provided the person intended to benefit with a means to enforce the right of enjoyment. This was a personal right, or right in personam, against the trustee. It was not a proprietary right [outright ownership], or right in rem [Admiralty], with respect to the trust property itself.5..." Therefore, it is not strictly accurate to refer to the beneficiary of a trust as the beneficial owner of trust property since this suggests that the beneficiary has a right in rem with respect to the trust property.
    - Beneficial Ownership & The Income Tax Act - Catherine Brown
    Wow... is all I can say... wow! Now just think about this for a second... if this is true... and if this applies to the Birth Certificate, which is in fact OUR INTERFACE to essentially EVERYTHING that is REGISTERED in the public... HOW on God's earth can anyone pretend to know what is going on "legally" if they don't have any f***ing clue what their relationship is to the INTERFACE!?? [swearing for emphasis] Everything discussed without this is ludicrous!!! And the real beauty is, the real trick of the tale here, is the corollary. IF we CAN understand the Nature of the Birth Certificate and HOW TO OPERATE it (TAKE CONTROL by right of our SUPERIOR INTEREST) Then that could be the "51%" we have been looking for all along? Every liability issue will be ONE PROCESS... Settle against the PERSON Mr Trustee, and yes you have my authorization!...

    Or to paraphrase Rob Menard "We aren't a "Slave", but we have a "Slave"...." ok, he didn't use Slave, he used "Person" There IS a system, and it does slowly begin to make sense... But like learning a computer OS (as the best metaphor, I can think of...) It is both simple and complex... if you take your time and do it step by step, the concepts can be broken down and analyzed and understood, but if you try to learn it all in one day, (or one weekend) it's will be overwhelming and impossible...

    REGISTRATION = Splitting title (into legal and equitable) = Components of trust = cardinal trust principle = trust comes into existence by definition/operation of law,
    Cestui Que Trust = State and Person in relation to any Property registered in the public (think of a right angle triangle Person at bottom left, State at top, Property on the right bottom of right angle... Person, State, Property)
    Now think of a special (or particular)
    Cestui Que re-iteration = State and YOU in relation to the Deed Trust (Long Form) Birth Certificate... In this case the (res) is your lifetime of labour pledged, which creates the energy that allows bonds and securities to be created against... (so it's not totally thin air... it's futures)
    anyhow... visualize right angle triangle again YOU (the living man/woman) in private at bottom left, State at top again, and the BC (this time as "Property" in the right bottom triangle. In this Cestui Que Trust the only property is that... (why it's special) If you put the two triangles side by side... you see that the BC as property (triangle #1) will be connecting to the BC as legal Person (triangle #2)... YOU will notice that YOU are not in triangle #2, your only connection to what goes on there is by virtue of triangle number one. Think of the "Person" in triangle #2 as the "short form" BC...

    This clearly shows (to me anyway) The only way to do anything in "triangle #2" is via trust interpretation, and the use of my position in triangle #1 as the holder of the
    certificate of the "deed" title (BC as Property in triangle #1) that is the basis of the creation of the "short form" (BC as Person in triangle #2) you will see the two BCs will essentially match up, this entire diagram can now be seen as one whole... the living man on one side in one triangle (in the private) with the trust deed (long form BC as property) connecting to the the short form BC (as Legal Person in triangle #2) with Property registered in the Public... That is the CONNECTION... And it is all evidence of proof I hold the superior claim... in a trust interpretation, among many other things...

    Further it goes on...
    Quote ...Fourth, many of the most significant Canadian decisions that address the nature of a trust beneficiary’s interest and whether a beneficiary has a specific interest in trust assets have been in the context of tax statutes for the purpose of revenue collection.6 Finally, different terminology is often used to describe the same concept; for example, one finds references to the “beneficial” or “equitable” owner or a “beneficial” or “equitable” interest.7 The words “beneficial” and “equitable” both express the concept that the claimant has a right that is recognized in equity and that will be enforced by the courts under its equitable jurisdiction...
    - Beneficial Ownership & The Income Tax Act - Catherine Brown
    Quote ...All that was required to create an enforceable right for the beneficiary in equity was that the land be conveyed unto and to the use of the trustee in fee simple, in trust for the cestui que trust. The The trustee’s role in this situation was straightforward: to hold the fee simple (legal title) to the land, to turn over the profits to the cestui que trust, to dispose of the land in accordance with conveyor’s instructions, and to undertake all necessary proceedings to protect or recover the land.13...
    - Beneficial Ownership & The Income Tax Act - Catherine Brown
    Quote ...When one considers the simplicity [NOT!] of this method of splitting legal title from beneficial enjoyment of property, it is not surprising that the cestui que trust, or beneficiary, came to be thought of as the real owner—or, as sometimes stated in modern terminology, the “beneficial owner”—of the property. However, the right of the beneficiary in equity was primarily a right against the trustee to enforce the terms of the trust.14...
    - Beneficial Ownership & The Income Tax Act - Catherine Brown
    remember the "beneficial owner" is the "taxpayer" is the "strawman" is "JOHN DOE" (or perhaps better "DOE, JOHN Estate") is the Juristic Corporate Person, the original signature legal title that is held by the State...

    go to 53 minutes... (this is still mind blowing in it's implications, and still one of THE BEST NUTSHELLS, that sums this whole thing up...)


    note the confusion and ambiguity of the scarecrow (strawman) in the Wizard Of Oz

    "...I can't make up my mind, because I don't have a brain [operator]..."

    ok I have to stop myself here... but I hope people are catching on... I'm not trying to "hold anything back necessarily" and this isn't just a bunch of made up stuff... and our ignorance is not the basis of making judgements... (it's the basis of enquiring into further knowledge...)

    metaphor example: In truth, computers are not hard to learn, (they take time and familiarity...) and the proof being, time and again, I have observed kids pick it amazingly quickly for two reasons... 1) they have a very small attention span, they focus on what is immediate, they learn simple relations between things that apply specifically to something they are trying to achieve in that moment... and they are persistent in their constant attention to anything they focus on that holds their fascination...

    The downside of this metaphor is the the courts and legal system will not allow us to so easily "play" with their LEGAL OS... (without trying to cut our fingers off)... so we must study it from afar... and be careful how we tread.. but fundamentally the principle is that it shouldn't be any different... which reminds me of the psychological metaphor (parable) "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven..." the metaphor of being "childlike" is universal, a psychological concept, like being "reborn" freeing yourself, free your perception, unburden your mind with "adult programming" be creative, take your perception back... be in awe, cultivate your sense of wonder, etc... (but that's another story! ';-D

    To be ... or not to be... That is the question! ';-{
    Last edited by sigma6; 13th June 2015 at 20:28.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  2. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member genevieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th May 2012
    Age
    74
    Posts
    533
    Thanks
    23,148
    Thanked 1,998 times in 449 posts

    Default Re: Kerry Kicking Some Butt... Interesting Interview with a Freemason

    WOW! Lots to think about.

    Thank you so much, Sigma.


    Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
    genevieve

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts