Comment removed From Gord Duff's site...

[sigma6]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/15/fischer-appointment-to-fed-inconsistent-with-us-interests/?fb_comment_id=fbc_581484588591173_4593658_581868011886164#f1ce01f638



THE CERTIFICATED SECURITY


Otherwise known in Canada as the "Security of the PERSON"

I posted to this page because of a facebook link... damn, I wished I would have kept a copy of the post. Went back to get it because I thought it was so well written (lol) and wanted to use it for reference... and it was GONE!.. (in 20 minutes????)

Will have to paraphrase, but it was in response to a post about Karen's call for a constitutional convention for our freedom and rights, etc.

I posted that people don't know what their rights are anymore, that they signed away their rights when they put an unauthorized signature on the SS5 document. They entered into a Corporate Contract, and in this context, legal means nothing more then corporate commercial contract. i.e. this creates the potential for them to offer corporate benefits and privileges in exchange for your consent to their terms of contract i.e. implies giving up some of your previous inalienable rights and freedoms in exchange for "privileges and benefits"... (see the line slowly blurring from commerce to trust... :) ) ...

Allen West: President is CEO Of A Corporation

B8aWGweXoCk

Now on a parallel running theme...
There is a place in here, where people can hit back where it counts. Everyone has an equitable interest in a "security interest". They hold the certificate to that security in their hands in the form of a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" Because it is registered, the title has been split into a legal title and an equitable title. You fundamentally have an equitable interest, but most people act like they have legal interest, or legal title, which they do not. This is the first secret (and mistake) This is caused because most people mistakenly treat it like some kind of "identification". They "identify" themselves with it. Which I absolutely would NOT!

It absolutely is NOT an identification (but you create "identification" when you do a whole bunch of things you shouldn't. We put unqualified signatures, where it says "Owner", this action causes us to take on the "beneficial ownership" (liability of the NAME) according to my interpretation. We claim "ownership" to things that are in fact registered to the NAME. We say "that is my house" "my car" "my boat" "my trailer" etc, but all these things were registered to the NAME, a separate legal entity, recognized in the public (with or without YOU, just as the DOE, JOHN Estate exists, with or without you!) It has the capacity to take on the liability and was designed to do just that. But this can only happen in private, in trust (that's the tricky part... understanding trust!) All I can suggest here, for now, is to understand this, at least in principle, for now, contemplate what it is not, and what you shouldn't be doing (because the other side is far more subtle and difficult to explain! i.e. need trust defintions)

In any event, I share this because one person operating in this manner, although making a difference, isn't the solution. But tens of thousands could make a difference; if we could understand the trust interpretation that governs the rules which would allow us to operate the trust as the sole recipient holder of the Certificate to the NAME Estate/Security, BEFORE going into any court, etc (and we really don't even want to go into a court anymore, but that's another story...) This is where we could take control and MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

This is the locus, the focus, where the game changes. This effectively takes away their unlimited, unwanted control over what is rightfully ours to control. This will hit them where it counts, right at the source of the funds... (now you know why you have been conditioned to fear and dread that place! It's all part of their psychological control strategy. The court is a bank that deals in security interests, take a closer look, next time you are there. Each "court" (The English Bench = The Bank in German!) (the "British Monarchy" is German! The name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha came to the British Royal Family in 1840) has access to the Treasury, via a government treasury account.

They are charging us by creating debt notes (or security interests?) in the public and then creating bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds against that NAME Estate/security in the private, (if they can get you into court, charge "YOU" which is plural... hint, hint) and warehouse the physical body (who unknowingly "stepped into it") in one of their jails (as one option) Many claim this amounts to double dipping (not 100% but it appears that way) But they are largely controlling all this because we are NOT (we are not competent enough to even be aware of it!) They are getting access to our "security interest", via an interpretation of "consent"

There is some value attached to it based on an actuarial calculation of one's lifetime of labour, or the wealth of the country divided by the population etc. which is then 'associated' with that particular account, which in turn is associated to the corporate Person (NAME) that was created and derived from a record of an event corresponding to your entrance into this world, ("related" but NOT the "same") i.e. the BIRTH event/Berth Event (and yes, this is part of the origin and reference to why and how they apply Admiralty Law onto this event - sneaky lawyers...)

There is a physical event, record(s) are created, and those records in turn create (a BERTH) for the creation of a Fictional Corporate Person (Master Account) which the issuance of Birth Certificate is proof of. The record become a form of property and title (the long form BC has all the features of a Trust Deed). It is a complex entity (to say the least!) with all kinds of attributes and functions.

Ultimately it is THE MASTER ACCOUNT, one of it's attributes being that it was, through a financial (private commercial?) process, bonded and securitized (or vice versa?) The end result being the issuance of a CERTIFICATE. WE hold the certificate to that security (a certificated security by definition) It was set up in this manner AND held in trust for various purposes; one of them being to "settle" any liabilities in the public, that may be charged to that account. As one of its functions.

And THAT is why we can use it to settle THEIR liabilities in the public. (true and logical outcome when you follow through logic and definitions, i.e. "the big picture") We were then issued the certificate (original issue) and we accepted the option of entitlement to use that "account/Corporate Person/NAME..."

Now there are many different ways to use it. One interpretation is that we were "entitled (authorized) to be recognized (enter into contracts) by the NAME" (Estate/security instrument). Since that is publicly stated in the Vital Statistics Act of Ontario I probably don't want to use that specific option! Another option is that we can express our awareness and knowledge of the existing trust relationship, and operate it accordingly. Key WORD ("accordingly" - He who claims trust must prove trust, and then operate in trust!) And that's the point, the potential of trust operation IS there, and if we don't even recognize that (incompetent, implied wardship?) then someone else will do it for us... (and not necessarily how we'd like) ...THAT's how Trust works (a trust can never fail)

Reference to classic Bill Foust video:
William "Bill" Foust - Executor, Advocate & Revocate
uZK4r5oyiKY at 53:00 minutes Bill let's the cat out of the bag!

We can use this security to settle liabilities in the public. Think about it, they create a liability in the public, against a NAME in the public, which, via the registration process, they are holding the "legal title" to. In the public, this is all hidden under the "authority of statutory codes and regulations" This now creates the means to create a security interests, which can then be monetized. In essence they are creating "money" by drawing from your "energy/labour/actuarial value" from the security interest which they can access through the account associated with the NAME you were issued, which they are holding in trust for you. All they need is an interpretation of "consent".

i.e. They have "CHARGED" the NAME, and they now need to draw on our energy to create the funds to "account for", and "settle" it. Those funds help run the government. This is one of the ways the government funds itself, how they survive. This needs to be understood on some level to appreciate what is going on!) ...And this is also when they go on a fishing expedition. It starts with a NOTICE sent to YOU, the party with first claim as the original recipient whom was issued the Certificate to the Security they are trying to create/and/or draw funds from. It would appear that they "inviting you to their court" In fact they are summoning the PERSON, a "legally" DEAD fictional (contrived for some purpose) Corporate Person... Don't forget, even in trust, especially because of trust, they require the "interpretation" of your consent, before they can proceed with the drawing of any funds. They need our authorization to extract those funds. (And they are going to get it ONE WAY or ANOTHER.... all according to proper trust interpretation)

One part of the this model, that explains part of this matrix is Winston's Webinar on A4V, where he explains the fundamental mechanism of how this set up. I didn't go into in it in this post... but I have mentioned a few time before (i.e. Bankruptcy, Ch 13, makes the State the Debtor or Debtor in Possession, which is really a Trustee with obligation position, which various people in court are presuming to be representative of. This 'Trustee with Obligation' has the fiduciary obligation to restructure the debt and collect funds by ALL MEANS to "furnish" said debt...)

But I did stating if the people understood, that their lifetime of labour was calculated and securitized and then pledged for the use of the government, then they would understand they are the creditors of the ENTIRE system. WE are the principals. IT's OUR ENERGY/WEALTH/VALUE/MONEY/FUNDS/whatever. That is why I say that Governments and Banks don't pay for anything, they are trustees managing what is OURS! THE PEOPLE... If the people truly understood this, the people would have a huge burden lifted from them, when they find out the NAME which was securitized, and pledged for the use of the government. Which we hold the certificate to ...(it's a certificated security!) IS AVAILABLE for their use if they ONLY KNEW!

We are allowed to use it to settle all liabilities in the public including income tax. That's our trust, Even though they hold the legal title that was set up that way so that we could POTENTIALLY use it within the context of a trust arrangement. The trust controls it's use so that it is there for them as well, when we are NOT using it... Trust is really a CONTROL mechanism. That determines who has control within different given contexts, so that no matter what happens there is ALWAYS someone who can step in to CONTROL the situation (A trust can NEVER fail)

That is why we have to go to trust to access it! We have to come in as the party that has SUPERIOR interest. That certificate is the PROOF! (not evidence, but PROOF) We merely have to know how to express it as such...

And when you use it to help them collect some of that energy... by NOT claiming ownership, you are being the CREDITOR, you are taking CONTROL, You are doing the honourable thing. You are helping the parasite feed itself. Hey not all parasites are bad! We need some to run a complex eco system.

FOR EXAMPLE!... You get a ticket (liability in the public) against the NAME (certificated Security, that you are holding the certificate to) That NAME is in the public, and the State/Province is holding the Title to that (keyword HOLDING) But this is REALLY yours. Nonetheless, in the PUBLIC, they are seen as the "legal Title holder"... Fine and dandy... that is the public. But we are in the private, and we use that NAME in the public to PROTECT our privacy! (should be some ahas in there...)

So you walk into court (this is metaphorical, you should really do this administratively and NOT walk into court!...) you present the ticket, tell them that as the Creditor, because that is what we are remember? the Creditors, the Principals, remember what is funding the entire system? Our energy as expressed as an actuarial value of our lifetime of labour i.e. an unlimited credit for all practical intents and purposes... all distilled into that bond paper document you keep thinking is your identity... (haha)

You present the ticket (liability in the public) and the B.C. (the certificate of proof of your SUPERIOR interest (as opposed to ownership/legal title) in said security) and you INSTRUCT (not ask... we do not use precatory language... "Precatory" language expresses a wish or desire but does not create a legal obligation or affirmative duty. )
We instruct that they settle this matter, this may have to be presented to the superior clerk of the court or I think to the Judge in private or in his private capacity.

Now what have you done?, you have just settled THEIR public liability by using your authorization by accepting their claim which creates the security order against the NAME you were issued and entitled to use. By doing this you are using the NAME for a public purpose only (this is not for your benefit, but theirs) Nonetheless, you are helping them settle their liability that they created against the NAME that they hold legal title to in the public, by taking some of that unlimited (for all practical intents and purposes) credit (in a manner of speaking, because this is really about securities) and to converting that into funds to extinguish the liability. That is what a creditor does to help the Trustee who is trying to collect funds to pay the debt.

This is the honourable thing to do. This is the way the system was set up in fact. This works because there really is a huge global trust, probably hidden in all the CAFR funds (might be one of the vehicles) That is why to fight the "charge" according to Winston Shrout is dishonourable, you are now considered a "delinquent Creditor" among many other things... (de son tort trustee, etc, etc...)

BUT! the trick to this whole thing is you have to have the insight, the understanding, the comprehension that when you do this entire process... YOU must not at any point, in any way shape or form. CLAIM ownership to the NAME or "identify" yourself as the NAME. That would destroy the interpretation of using it for public purpose...



Update:

If you claim ownership that is construed as benefit and use of the person. (you are insinuating yourself into the transaction, claiming to be the corporation, now the liabilities attach to you. When you operate outside of it, (such as Settlor) by the definition in the CC, the only party left is "Her Majesty & an organization" i.e. the public.

Full circuit, they charge the NAME, you authorize and instruct for THEIR use, for settlement of THEIR liability... By not claiming ownership, you avoid beneficial ownership, and thus avoid a constructive trust interpretation. Instead you are invoking the expressed trust, the one where the title which they are holding STAYS with them. They remain the trustee... And through the NAME, they now also act as the public beneficial owner. (Left arm, Right arm) they are accessing the public funds through your "transmitting utility" (as Winston called it) Your energy pledged into the public trust fund.

I can show where it states we can hold property collectively for a public purpose... or something like that... some municipality act.

And also the CC s336 interpretation of "use and benefit of another person" OR "public purpose" The difference is mostly in interpretation of who is taking on beneficial ownership!!! And this is confirmed by the definition of PERSON in the Criminal Code (CC) "...include Her Majesty and an organization;" ...the public, this fits the definition of the Cestui Que trust interpretation, the State/Province/Crown is the Trustee, the NAME is the beneficiary!

Then you in turn, have a similar relation to the NAME with the Crown! It's nested.


"...All that was required to create an enforceable right for the beneficiary in equity was that the land [NAME] be conveyed unto and to the use of the trustee in fee simple, in trust for the cestui que trust. The trustee’s role in this situation was straightforward: to hold the fee simple (legal title) to the land [NAME], 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 [NAME].

When one considers the simplicity 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. "

And who controls, or "speaks for" the Beneficiary???? WE DO! (when we act as the Settlor and appoint ourselves whatever we need to accomplish whatever it is that we need to accomplish, (must have manifestation of specific intent, one of the elements of trust required)


the end...

my post btw was only about 4 paragraphs it was very succinct but no where close to as detailed as this was, but it was really well put together, one of my more eloquent and well thought out posts! It was perfect for the general public, enough to provoke some serious questions, which is why I wanted to go back and copy it!

And SOMEBODY took it down not 20 minutes after I put it up!!!!!?????

Thanks Gordon, didn't know a comment was so hot it had to be removed ... or did he have a "duty and obligation" to remove it (as if he worked for the Government, because they would! - since they do have some kind of "fiduciary obligation" not to talk about it! I have heard them say this! For them "not to talk about it" ...(it's in the private) Just like the CAFR funds, it's in trust, with an indenture to maintain it private, i.e. they will lie if they HAVE TO! (it's is heir interpretation of maintaining the private requirement of the trust obligation)

Is this another cat out of the bag? Did he just give something away there?... 20 MINUTES!? huh? and I know I posted it, cause I had to correct it a couple of times... it was a thing of beauty... damn!





Links for my own reference:


Previous:
Natural Law Trumps Maritime Law Montana Courtroom
EQUITY in TRUST But Where To Find It... (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65795-Nautural-law-Trumps-Maritime-Law-Montana-Courtroom&p=767074&viewfull=1#post767074)

Following:
Nautural law Trumps Maritime Law Montana Courtroom
Martha's Vineyard (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65795-Nautural-law-Trumps-Maritime-Law-Montana-Courtroom&p=779413&viewfull=1#post779413)

[Billy]

Sorry to hear about your lost comment sigma, But because you are passionate and your expressions come from the heart, I am sure you can search inside and as eloquent as ever then re post the comment. With an additional, Why was my previous comment removed? You may be blocked from commenting in the future, But hey, That lets you know who's who in the bigger picture.

Keep Going my friend.

Peace

[Christine]

Hi Sigma… a thing of beauty lives in the heart and is being transmitted as we speak. Damn, well good catch and as always VT is to be viewed with great discernment. Makes one wonder doesn't it? And that my friend is a good thing, so well done.

[sigma6]

Thank you my prettys! (haha! ) it WAS a well written post! I go through these phases of clarity, I'm sure everyone has those moments, when you write, and the words are chipping away at what you are trying to express, then you stand back and admire your work (lol) it just feels right, it fits, and says what you wanted it to, in nice tight paragraphs. It was pretty much what I said above, but not all the jalopy detail. I did include the two videos because they are self explanatory and right on point as confirmations of was saying. It also had a nice succinct self evident logic. It was just clean and well written, which for me is a challenge (haha)

Lately I've had a real breakthrough in this ongoing extrapolation of this interpretation, and I AM kind of excited about it. This model is conservative (not new) it fits with so many things I was looking at in the past, I am stunned at the insight and understanding it is bringing to previously isolated concepts and ideas. You just know when you have hit a powerful insight. A common denominator. This is so damn subtle, when you see it, you just can't help but get a little tickled. It fits with my case in July 2009, that Sam Kennedy did an hour long episode on July 16th I think. I STILL to this day go back and RETROSPECT that entire experience. And I am realizing that there WAS a KARMA, it was the first time I allowed someone to use me as the guinea pig. But it sounded right and it was based on an interpretation by Jean Keating that my friend pulled out of who knows where. And we have maintained correspondence ever since. Sam Kennedy did have a lot of insight. (but he didn't understand it in terms of trust!) He didn't realize what he was seeing was actually trust lying underneath statutory codes. But he saw it. Looking back he was on point and talking about ALL the same things. i.e. taking control of the court, the first to mention the "certificated security" And NOW I know where he got that from!

Was it Abraham Lincoln who said "I'd rather spend 4 hours sharpening the blade and a half an hour cutting the tree down?
I am now comfortable taking on some of the CW crowd, they spend a disproportionate amount of time copying and pasting quotes from Gibson's all day long! And some of it is useful. But NONE of them can maintain a conversation on the topic of the BC before they get into these hairy convoluted esoteric interpretations. Then they start contradicting themselves. And no two presentations are ever the same!? and in a true almost classic Greco Roman fashion, each apparently eulogize about the virtues of Equity. Preaching to the Choir (because i don't see anyone in that crowd disputing it?) I saw this as a huge HOLE! This shouldn't be. This is the MOST IMPORTANT concept. This is the CORNERSTONE, the FOUNDATION, THE FOCAL POINT! THE SECRET! This actually ties back to Edward Mandell House and his famous speech about making the people chattel (it didn't turn out EXACTLY that way, but I believe they used trust to make it fit that agenda, without actually committing the treason!... which shows how powerful trust is in bringing justice and balancing power! but yes it is also a two edge sword... )

Ever since I have been treating it as my own POINT of REFERENCE by which ALL other information must connect into. I just went on my own (since no one really wants to talk about it! Which is completely INSANE in my opinion!! LOL!!) Just looking and listening for what caught my ear. Anyhow I have finally stopped running round and round in circles. Where their solution has been instead to believe if they just paste enough of these quotes about Gibson, that one will crack open the piece, they know in their hearts they are missing. And the joke is they stepped right over it in their haste to reach for the golden apple. Their hypocrisy and shallow approach, belies them (imo) They have probably studied 10 times more Gibson and Lewins and Pomeroy then I have. That is all good, as they can answer the more technical questions I will need. (not completely knocking it! :)

Another huge criticism is the principle that just reading text is NOT the same as interpreting. Seeing is one thing. Perception is something totally different. Related but a quantum leap difference. Seeing can be literal or implied to actually mean perceiving, understanding, computing meaning, discerning. Coming away with an INTERPRETATION!

One of my premises is that EVERYTHING you see written especially about laws, or codes or definitions, or religious text. Is all slanted by these Secret Society authors. For they are the authors (is that still a secret?) ALL the books, dictionaries and texts ARE SLANTED. btw, it doesn't mean I am making up my own definitions, rationalizing, fitting square pegs into round holes... This is very important, so here is an example that brought me this insight. ...Once I got some information from a trusted source. (Winston) that SLAVERY doesn't necessarily mean "involuntary servitude" It does in some cases, but it's true etymological meaning was actually "Voluntary Servitude". Now keeping that in mind I would go to the dictionaries and various sources and look at what they had to say. Would there be confirmation or contradiction? Well, lo and behold, it was far, far more subtle then that! At first I couldn't get a clear fix, it was like the definition was almost avoiding my question! This really opened my eyes. Definitions supposedly give you the fundamental definition, but English being what it is, there may still be many ways of saying it. So which do they choose? especially as you get into progressively more complex definitions. What I saw was an attempt to hide what Winston said, but without DIRECTLY contradicting it. It was very obvious. And when you start looking you will see this. I may have more proclivity to see this, because I have known similar personalities who operate this way. They are sneaky in my opinion, but because of certain peculiarities, (like they are obsessed about projecting an image of "perfection" unto everyone. They are incredibly calculated in everything they say. So when they lie, it becomes in their mind a technically rationalized obfuscation of the fact. So that IF... IF they get called on it, they have their excuse already in place. I am sure there will be many who know exactly the personality type I am talking about. In fact it is becoming a bit of an epidemic. Especially as more and more people start to worship and look up to all the media and television that purports to put the legal system (Law of Corporate Contracts) on a pedestal. People subconsciously believe that their ideas of law and justice are somehow superior. There is no greater deception in my mind. It is all carefully concocted to 100% mislead you away from what is the real truth of the matter. Such is their way.

What these television shows are doing is pretending they are making reference to "the law" and the "constitution" but in fact they are mixing it up with corporate policies, codes and regulations, where cops can bust down your door and arrest you and demand you sit across a table from them in a room with a mirror. This is all NAZI Germany Gestappo BULLSH** and has absolutely nothing to do with the LAW, your rights and the truth. Same thing with all the LAW and ORDER shows... If people could only see.

Now compare that to the Matrix scene... i.e. "this is where I give you the finger and tell you I know what my rights are..." That was actually pivotal. That whole scene was literally the battle between your rights and their corporate contract laws, and where were they nailing him? At his workplace (in a large corporation)

That is another reason why Trust law is so important. It is about duty, obligation, trust, responsibility, distribution of power. And it's principles are morally based (yep the bible sneaks in there). Of course if you understand that the Bible is NOT set in stone. The Sumerian historical records were! But the Bible was not, with the exception of Moses' Tablets which were subconsciously programmed into your psyche, to "direct you away" from the true origin of the original term "written in stone" The principles it espouses may be 'metaphorically' since they are universal... but the book itself... haha...

In any event, it was just the oddness of it's disappearance so QUICKLY. It wasn't like it was profane, or absurd, or insulting. At the very least someone might have claimed it was only a theory and posed a challenging question ... Nope, it was just a clean clear 4 paragraphs, that talked about people's complete lack of differentiating between rights and benefits and privileges and the example why (because we all signed onto a corporate contract for benefits we don't need, BECAUSE WE ALREADY GOT the BC!!! ie. where do you think they get the money to give those drips and draps of benefits!!!??? While they keep the lionshare for themselves!)

And then it explained the basic model of the BC as a certificated security... It could have been an extrapolation of a business process (Securities) So why someone would REMOVE a comment like that within 20 minutes... really begs some questions!!!! ???? (in my mind)

Anyhow I know that I have creativity. And you know the old saying, if you can do it once, you can do it again... the advantage of the creative over the parrots, is that we can take something they have looked at a million times, and we will look and see something unique. It is about letting go, about being free... to think, ask questions, to play with things in ones mind. That especially, I picked up from John Lashes thing which I am hot on... the freedom to play... playfulness of spirit... almost forgot that one.

I was being a little 'playful' perhaps. It looked like a grand opportunity. Karen Hudes commenting on Gordon Duff's site, come to me through a facebook link? So I wanted to put a new found idea on the table. See if I got any bites. It looks like one of the fish came up and stole my bait, before I could come back to check my hook!!! LOLOL

But here's the karma, I am now sharing this with a wider more focused audience, And who reads the above is getting the meat and the potatoes and the gravy with some extra cranberry sauce... not quite as tasty as the real thing, but it will have to do for now... the only thing left the way I am looking at it now is to fill in the gaps... because each time I lay it out, the more clearly I see where to focus... and then to finally get to actual processes, paperwork, and correspondences.

In fact the other day I applied for the passport. Actually it was my authorization to passport Canada to use the NAME to make a passport so that I can maintain my private status and use it in the public. They have been jerking me around for months through the mail, and I kept checking my logic to see where I was wrong, it just turns that is all they were doing "jerking me around". When I went in person and was prepared to explain and justify why I now "authorize" documents as

"without prejudice"
for: The girl at the counter looked at it, asked for some other "ID" which I knew was going to happen (which is a laugh when you think about it) compared it (I made sure it was the same) then went to a supervisor, came back and said it was ok. Actually the first time, I had one piece of ID that was "without prejudice" for: and she balked at that and said I had to sign like that... This is VERY interesting to me... that [I]they will delineate that much. So I went home and changed it and came back. When I brought it back all conforming, it sailed right through.

BUT based on advice and my understanding IF they asked "...Is that your signature" [U]My answer would have been a clear and unequivocal "... NO..." That is my authorization for Passport Canada to use the NAME to make a passport for my private use, so that I can operate in the public. (I choose to remain in the private, and use the NAME to operate in the public, without claiming ownership or violating any codes (under trust) I know someone who has worked for the government for many decades, has come into his own interpretation (he sees contract, but he sees it so well, it fits my trust interpretation, and I can easily point out a few gaps, that he can't explain.... ;O But when when he gets pulled over and they ask him if he is the NAME. He will ask them if they are encouraging him to commit a criminal act, they will reply no, then he will carefully explain he is not the NAME that he uses them in the public, and remind the of certain Criminal code sections s19, s403d, s337, (ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for public servants, impersonation is a criminal act, and failure to return property) Then he usually gives them his passport! they check it out and off he goes!!!!

I will be changing it even more in the future I believe. I now believe it should be "without prejudice" for [NAME exactly as it is laid out on BC] and there may even be variation in interpretation between how it is on the long form and the short form possibly...


2nd UPDATE: I should add if anyone read this... and is scratching their head, i.e. about it NOT being my name, it isn't just because it is more an authorization then a signature. A signature connotates something (negative, that eludes me right now!~) But it is also that the signature, if properly understood legally, is not mine but the NAME's I am signing on behalf of!

This is part of the logic and understanding of what it means to operate in trust. I am not claiming to be the NAME. and think of it like a corporation. If you are signing on behalf of Corporation, it would not be your signature. It is understood that someone has to operate it. But it is still a legal entity onto itself. That signature is the NAME and I am entitled to "use" it. And that is HOW I choose to use it. That subtle differentiation of "use" makes all the difference in the world. There may be other requirements as well. Comingling for example and how that might play in... all in good time... I can clearly see the fundamental idea

[Gardener]

That event has released a LOT of energy for you, great!

PS, How about writing the comment again and taking a screen shot, post it back here with a comentary of what happened. I agree with Christine re VT, controlled opposition moulding thinking.

[sigma6]

lol, I am sort of "spent" now... but yes, I could write up a summary, and post it back on there again, just to to be scientific about it... because technically I can't rule out a glitch... ( although that doesn't sound like the facebook I know... but I don't like feeling like I am hallucinating... and I should see if I get blocked again and see if and when they would do it again... and if it does maybe I should keep posting it repeatedly ...haha! yes! ... one good juvenile cheap shot deserves another!...

I have to admit, it was psychologically stinging, just because of the ambiguity of it... I know I put it up, but I also know that many would suggest I just didn't post it right, or I lost track of it, cause that does happen on facebook posts...

Too bad facebook doesn't have a function where I could just pull up all my last posts like the Avalon forum does... (or correct me if I am wrong, cause facebook totally befuddles me... the idea of putting all your personal information is insanely retarded to my mind, so it is difficult for me to "get into it"

[Flash]

I find your new findings quite interesting Sigma 6. I would need a bit more information on what is a private individual and how you came to the trust functions, in fact how you came to not play the game. I have a lawyer friend specialising in trusts, that I can trust (pun intended) and i would love to show your logic to her and come back with comments. As she is used to see legal documents and search for the nitty gritty little derogation, we may have some Ha Ha moments. She used to work for a huge accounting firm and is now retired, but teaches part time ar University - she was considered top notch.

Just a thought

[Flash]

I know most of you know what is in the video, but I still thought it coud be worthwile are a resume and for newbies


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO29hKDtMj0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUHxX3o3_gE

[sigma6]

cat is out of the bag, it will take years for the "masses" to sort it, and that is just what they are counting on. When the elites see the writing on the wall (and I think they are clearly saying they do...) Everything is going into overdrive to block it. Remember they can't take your birthright existence, only through your consenting to live and work in the matrix. i.e. to sign with unqualified signatures, (which you don't need to, that's why you got the certificate! for...) But again if you think you can go to a lawyer and ask what your rights are, it will be the biggest eye opening experience you can have. By definition, if you have to go to a lawyer and ask you don't deserve them, and you are incompetent. By definition (in their eyes) that is how they make their money. People who don't understand how their system works.

They aren't going to teach you how to become independent and free of the need for them. That said I have had numerous conversations with many lawyers and IF you ask the right questions in the right context they can give out (accidentally or otherwise) all kinds of secrets. I expressly asked one lawyer point blank after an hour of discussion, that I knew about the NAME, then I got him to acknowledge what I was saying, then said "I KNOW you can't talk about it, but I just want to know WHY?" This guy was only 6 months accepted to the bar. And he said point blank in response "... we can't talk about it because we have a fiduciary responsibility to NOT talk about it..." Notice he didn't deny the existence of the subject matter... I have shared many other stories like this in other posts... So when more seasoned lawyers pretend they don't understand what you are talking about, it's pure BS. when someone 6 months out, knows EXACTLY?... yeah right...

People have to stop using their ignorance as the baseline of reality. I operate on the principle I essentially know nothing until I can have an influence on that particular subject. Til then, let reality be your guide.

Another confirmation is this group in Manitoba called http://www.peacemakersociety.com . Now I don't endorse their sales and marketing approach AT ALL! This could only have been cooked up by a self professed ex gas account reseller and a lawyer. But they say they have a UN-registered UN-incorporated law firm, that is NOW able to speak about many things, basically they will explain the whole deal to you (for $1000... surprise!!) starting with how LEGAL means CORPORATE CONTRACT. I would love to take what they are doing and apply it to what I know... ha ha...

Another girl told me her ex-fiance, a lawyer, one drunken night confided to her that everyone was paying fines and going to jail by their own consent (as DEEMED by the court of course...)

the truth is out there... you just have to be willing to wade up to your waist in pure bullsh** and dig in deep with both hands... but you will find it, it's everywhere... the jig is up... it's just a matter how fast it will transfer to the general public... and how fast they are trying to change the system. I was accepting a drug subscription delivery for a family member and the lady insisted I had to show government id, have the number on it recorded and then I had to sign!.... I told her to go to hell...

her response ... "I'm just doing my job... blah, blah, .... I can show you all the paperwork... " what a crock! This knowledge isn't a side issue any longer folks, the next phase of living is everyone has to become cognizant of the SYSTEM, and if you are taking your queue from television, you are actually starting by going in the wrong direction!

[gripreaper]

Sigma, those who want to be who they are and step away from the fiction, have ample resources to do their own due diligence. In Canada, they have their predecessors such as Robert Menard, Mary Croft, Winston Shrout, Dean Clifford to name just a few. Our forefathers, such as Eustice Mullens and Jordan Maxwell opened the door, Billy Faust and others followed.

[Hip Hipnotist]

As I've stated before in earlier posts this entire 'Straw Man' 'Fictitious Person' 'Birth Certificate' 'Name in all CAPS' scam/sham is most likely the deepest rabbit hole one could descend. And it isn't for the squeamish. But the truth shall set you free. ;-)

Some years ago I performed notary services ( no one else would touch this subject ) for an individual who educated me on this 'scam' that has been perpetrated on the people of the WORLD without the majority ever suspecting the slightest, well... slightest slight of hand. I didn't realize how much power a notary public actually yielded until I started getting threats from the district attorney's office to 'cease and desist' any further notary services to this 'individual' or face having my notary commision revoked.

Long story short my client finally caved in. Too much stress for him and his family. I don't blame him. I was close to 'caving' myself.

This 'scam' needs to be understood by all. Thing is it's probably the most challenging to explain.

Signa is doing a great job.

Pay attention, class! ;-)

-----------

BTW: I'm still a notary. ;-))

[Carmody]

Sooooo....."In God We Trust" on the note.....actually means "We Are God's Trust"?

And that, tacitly... 'acceptance and use of this note is verification/validation of this contract by both parties'?

That..dimensionally speaking, spiritually speaking, one agrees that the other party speaks and stands in place of 'god', if the note is accepted, touched.... or used at all, in any form?

And, by extension, that one might find that this same group is trying to find a 'universally legal' method of getting, or driving into the planet.. enough of a control wedge, that overt takeover would be a slowly evolving legal thing, with a legal trail?

~~~~~~~~~~

America, in some circles of thought, is considered to be 'A giant experiment in contract law'.

[Carmody]

Oh yes, mothers and fathers.... stop baptizing your children, as legally, in that moment....you've sold them off to the church.

[Gardener]

That's interesting C, my son was baptised at his own volition, the 'vicar' came to see me (uninvited), chit chat ensued during which I advised him we got a direct account lol. God knows my son is here without a middleman's intervention, and a batism isn't going to change that one jot. At least he knew where I stood.


Oh yes, mothers and fathers.... stop baptizing your children, as legally, in that moment....you've sold them off to the church.

[Flash]

Oh yes, mothers and fathers.... stop baptizing your children, as legally, in that moment....you've sold them off to the church.

Mine was not baptised in any religion. But she was registered at the government. I bet this means I sold her to the government. Yeerk.

As for the money, In Canada, with the Queen on every dollar, I bet it means we agree to give our énergies to the queen of england! At the energetic level.

[thunder24]

is the 'universally legal' method not also a box of sorts??? and if so then, is also ment to be broke free from... what makes legal, legal... majority rules?


And, by extension, that one might find that this same group is trying to find a 'universally legal' method of getting, or driving into the planet.. enough of a control wedge, that overt takeover would be a slowly evolving legal thing, with a legal trail?

...only allowed through twisting of others understanding and ignorance of others???
peace

[sigma6]

legal is reference to corporate contract. Rob Menard is correct when he states there is a HUGE difference between legal and lawful. (yet the Courts, cop shows, main stream NEVER talk about it... (and why should they, that's their control game)

To be registered or not to be registered is another issue with pluses and minuses on both sides. The point is that if something is registered and if a "splitting of title does occur" (legal title and equitable title) then it creates the potential for trust interpretation. If you don't understand trust. You have just given your power away. That is the same thing as "not knowing how to exercise your rights" (which is pandemic today.)

We are being set up. Nobody else holds the public hostage because of their specialized knowledge (except these a**holes) It would be a breach. So why do these secret society members do it? (Pure unadulterated greed) Who gave them the right? (no one) But no one is speaking up about it? To not question this is to agree to it. (acquiescence)

[sigma6]

Winston's has a US centric view, although his principles are universal, and I agree, he was good to study if you wanted to fill out your knowledge and take the wider perspective. In the long term, alot of what he taught has come back again and again. But when I retrospect how he said it, I get the impression he is being way to cryptic sometimes. His group is undermining the quality of his work, especially on the webinars of late. Their marketing and customer service is wanting imo. They are making money so they will just keep milking the cow. But I have caught him where he being too cryptic... (and you can't catch how cryptic he can be unless you know what it is he is NOT saying! ...)

I also correspond with Mary on a regular and informal basis... and I was there when Dean got picked up by the Police in December. What they did to him was a criminal violation of his rights (in one interpretation) There were two cops during the whole event. The were noticed, they had infiltrated and called the under-covers to come in at the end of the seminar, on a supposed Canada wide warrant. They have yet to properly explained any of their actions. They are just showing Dean they can and will cheat if and when they want to. They are taunting him. Letting him know he is still missing a piece somewhere.

I did get a few moments to talk with him. I think he is just coming into the trust interpretation of things, He did post two definitions on the second day of his presentation. They were trust terms (can't recall them right now... will have to update here) His presentation and discussion was interesting. But I remember I didn't completely agree. His attitude was that it was very straight forward and simple... I don't see trust like that at all. I find I it more like two mirrors in a barbershop. I keep finding another context within a context... I think it can be simple, but not until after you have really gone through a lot of examples to get what is going on. I see it as a very complex game they are playing. And they are not sharing the rule book...

Then there was Jordan and his friend who came out with Cracking the Code. That was a huge move forward. But when people come across that book, they take it too literally. I don't think any one book can encompass this whole concept. But it was a massively brilliant undertaking that woke up millions... That blew me away when I found out Jordan was behind that... talk about full circle... I wonder if he found my secret chain linked posts hidden on this site and read them yet? LOL...

[sigma6]

As I've stated before in earlier posts this entire 'Straw Man' 'Fictitious Person' 'Birth Certificate' 'Name in all CAPS' scam/sham is most likely the deepest rabbit hole one could descend. And it isn't for the squeamish. But the truth shall set you free. ;-)

Some years ago I performed notary services ( no one else would touch this subject ) for an individual who educated me on this 'scam' that has been perpetrated on the people of the WORLD without the majority ever suspecting the slightest, well... slightest slight of hand. I didn't realize how much power a notary public actually yielded until I started getting threats from the district attorney's office to 'cease and desist' any further notary services to this 'individual' or face having my notary commision revoked.

Long story short my client finally caved in. Too much stress for him and his family. I don't blame him. I was close to 'caving' myself.

This 'scam' needs to be understood by all. Thing is it's probably the most challenging to explain.

Signa is doing a great job.

Pay attention, class! ;-)

-----------

BTW: I'm still a notary. ;-))


amen to that!!! LOL... thanks for the nod Hypnotist ;) And that is interesting to know, thanks for sharing that! this thing is all about sharing and massaging information... so hmm.... we could have some very interesting conversations I am sure... still trying to figure out all the angles on the notary process, say for example... vs the "authorizations of two or three witnesses"

It is totally different in the US, where you can walk into a bank and get anything notarized, whereas in Canada it's a big secretive thing, the lawyers try and charge outrageous prices. And yet, based on my experience I got a bank employee to notarize some documents for me, by tricking her into admitting that she had the ability. She even instinctively reached for her stamp, and caught herself!! Denied it, then conceded when I pushed her!? (haha caught her red handed, which tells me that she must do it "instinctively" for 'someone' else?

I am still trying to figure out why in Canada it is so secretive... it begs a question. My feeling is, (and according to Sam Kennedy) the Canadian laws are way more powerful in helping us exercise our right! And yet we seem more in the dark, there is more ignorance about all things "legal". The system is way more sneaky. I think precisely because that is their only way of keeping this under wraps.

And it does have a way of growing on you, crawling into your head... I agree totally... It IS THE RABBIT HOLE, that spawned all the other rabbit holes. In many ways it is the legal equivalent of "free energy" ("unlimited" credit of the living soul) And just like in the quantum physics model. It's a bad use of the term. Because it's not necessarily free at all. ie. in the sense it is practically infinite, but it is not comiong from nothing it is coming from our "lifetime" of labour. That is NOT Nothing! (lol)

Until robots can think, or tele-creation devices are built. Everything is created by the hand of man. Man is the source of all creation in the commercial and intellectual world. The people are literally the creditors of society. Which is why the state was always supposed to be the servant. And technically they still are and can never escape that. (They are just damned sneaky, conniving, overly sophisticated self serving servants... is all!)

In one of my posts, (I think here) I said we are both the employees of the restaurant and the owners. We have a stake in this. One has to be careful of their "behaviour" when they are "working in the capacity of an "employee"... there has to be a protocol.

I am now seeing the trust as a very complex "control mechanism" an "operating system"... that creates a system and balance of power between man and the state. The state got scared and greedy and with the help of the lawyers turned the tables on any "man" not within their ranks.

Learning trust would turn the tables back. I felt this the first time I came across this (Nov 2009) and have never thought otherwise since. This IS a war of words. Very powerful words... and ideas.