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

[sigma6]

Funny when I was listening to this one, I wanted to comment when he started talking about James Bond, and he was going gangbusters describing all the symbolism... However I found it odd, that being a lawyer, he never even got close to explaining the hidden meaning of Jame's own NAME i.e. his last NAME being BOND!

... that and his occasional stuttering (and various statements)... tells me he is picking and choosing, and right at the moment I was criticizing this, he gets cut off, as if to temper his passionate discourse. I would have loved to catch that live and told Kerry to ask him if he thought there was any symbolism in James' last NAME... LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

CipxVPgq8m0

[sigma6]

Just to share another post... re: the James Bond interpretation thing, some might find interesting... I have contemplated the symbolism as well, this is one comment from a thread in another forum discussing CR commerce in particular the Birth Certificate, whether it's a "scam" or not... lol... (see... we are not the only ones... )

Comment by Will Hughe (pseudonym) on May 18, 2015 at 4:51pm

Everyone is missing out on the fundamental equation regarding the power of trust interpretation... people are so locked into statutory and common law (which is another variant of statutory (especially if administered by a statutory court)... and even then, "true" common law doesn't operate without equity, otherwise you'd be severely punished, without equity ever present, waiting... as the "other side" of that same "administration" to fill in the gaps missing from common law... People can't [help but overlook] Trust "Law" side, can't "see" it ...which is not really "law" because it 'transcends' law, is the foundation of law... not the arbitrary rules it manifests.

Thus people can't fundamentally conceptualize it properly and end up trying to spin it like another form of code, or regulation, or policy or legal interpretation... it is none of these things... but is the basis of all of these things...

And notice that even though both are separate jurisdictions, ("true" common law and equity) they are administered in the same physical courthouse, by the same physical parties... (consider the reasons for doing this...(?) Point is the "lose the name" philosophy has a huge built-in fundamental flaw... and that is making the shallow assumption that ownership = control... if it were only this black and white...

First off, if anyone wants to check, there are over a dozen definitions of "own" "owner" and "ownership".... so to even use the word without qualifying it is insane, dangerous, and suicidal in any legal setting... and if you qualify it, you will inevitably come back to trust language terminology as the differentiating qualifiers in order to elucidate what you are intending to communicate. So why not cut to the chase?

In the case of "lose the name" speak... the idea that if you can't "own" it, then you might as well throw it in a waste bin... is almost juvenile, petulant, and even reeks of denial... a K.I.S.S solution for the masses (who gave up, and are "resigned" to the "fact" they will "never" understand it... (and so it shall be for them...)

the issue is about CONTROL... and ownership may or may not correlate with CONTROL... (that is a function of context, definition and intention of the parties... if properly understood)

Then there is the "world of free outright title"... again another illusory dream... not impossible, but again, if you can't understand the existing Cestui Que Trust interpretation re: the BC in particular, I don't think people are even ready to comprehend the full implication of pure allodium or "allodial title" (if that is even a correct term...?) or whatever it is called today... Great in theory... but who here can prove they have this?... I know one guy who has spent over a year to get his coat of arms, and has the letters patent to the NAME he uses (and it's the FULL UPPER CASE NAME btw... o.O!) he considers himself (with some pride) to be a "gentle-man" etc... all the statutory titles, etc... (with some "royal" guilding)) And yet he can't see how these are all clearly statutory status' by definition. And he is of the belief that he is now going to be allowed to have absolute title to all property, outright without any registration in the public whatsoever... and at the same time, has no idea how that is supposed to apply (and this is a very intelligent fellow in many ways...) because he is completely "hooked" on the idea that the ONLY way it can work is that he is going to have absolute title with no registration in the public!!??... which is just not practical in my mind at this stage for the reasons above...

Also there is a practical function (of protection) in public registration within the larger society of millions of people... i.e. evidence and proof of "property right" and that is, it just so happens if the Registrar is also the "HOLDER" of the original ink signature document which connotates "title" of the thing being registered. It is clear to me that many, do not understand the power and implication of this arrangement at all. Trustee's can take all the liability, I don't want or need it... I want control, and I want right to use... (property right) and I also want protection from liability in the event of an accident or emergency (exigent circumstances)



I was watching a James Bond movie the other night, and it struck me, how James (Bond) can always grab whatever is at hand [according to his own ability to do so, he is not given some free pass, and he doesn't flash a badge or ID, like a cop or FBI "in the public"... for him unfortunately, since he is operating undercover (in the private, or at least not in the "general public" it's still considered a "theft"... the scene where he stops the truck from colliding with the plane is exemplary, he is thrown to the ground and cuffed (he has to be "removed" from the public eye, before he is "released") since he is operating in a different "context" i.e. he is operating in the private... So yes, he does do whatever he needs to do, and he does "get away with it" Gee... how does he do that? ...the government steps in, indemnifies his actions and settles all liabilities...

So it suddenly hit me, this recurring message hitting me in the face... year after year out, how does this comply with I am researching... is there a connection? does it have predictive value? Then it struck me... of course... So I applied the interpretation... of BC and the trust principle... First, is he claiming anything he takes is his? No... But is there a "legal justification" or ["higher principle" interpretation"] Yes!... What is he actually doing in each instance? Is he not "using" it for a specific "mission" [I] (yes) for Her Majesty In Right of the Crown? (and yes...) Think about this clearly now... is he using it for his benefit or for Hers? (Hers! or the institution she is herself a trustee of (Protector of the Faith, etc)

In another scene he is being reprimanded... and told he will be "fed to the wolves" and that she was mistaken for giving him the "00 Status"... [zero accounting???] and his reply was equally to the point... "I understand the "00s" have very short life span... your "mistake" will be short lived..." i.e. Don't forget who I am doing all this for, it's not for me, it's for YOU (and Her Majesty) [B]i.e. transfer of BENEFIT (I don't operate for my own benefit, I use the authority granted to me for the Benefit of Her Majesty (the State)

There are themes of "CONTROL" and "right principle" (equity) that runs through the whole movie... i.e. it even starts out with him killing point blank, another agent... and the entire discussion revolves around this very issue... i.e."...M doesn't mind you making a little money on the side, she'd just prefer it wasn't selling secrets..." (possible allusion to exactly what CW mentioned i.e. Confidential Commercial Information and/or Trade Secrets... To expose what is supposed to be protected in private to the public is a punishable breach... i.e. Are you using the "things" made available to you for your OWN BENEFIT or for the Benefit of the PARTY that issued the authority to YOU?... This goes straight to the most original covenants... God didn't give man the planet... he made man a stewart with "dominion" over it... we come into this world with nothing, and that is how we leave... that is why the State holds all property (by title) in trust... it is supposed to reflect this reality...

Our hero James Bond is dedicated to service to M and Her Majesty (why he is the Hero) the other agent is not, and he gets a bullet to the head, end of story... then amazingly immediately following this same theme again [and thus laying the premise of his character...] James is now chasing down a "bomb maker" a potential lead to their arch nemesis (like they don't know it's the Freemason Secret Society of the Inner Temple of the City of London ....duhhhhhh) aka "the Organization" (the Illuminati, Freemasons, etc... "Mr. White".. to whom "trust is more important then money" (yes, this is exactly what he says in the movie!) ...Anyhow, at one point he chases this "bad dude" all the way into an embassy, then ends up in a final confrontation, where he shoots him and blows the whole place up (war) And gets away with it! ...again!... It is trying to demonstrate, higher principle again, this is not politically correct, not "legal" not diplomatic even... nor is it "might is right"... (he only kills to defend himself or his specific target as a last resort, very often to dramatic and chilling effect... (again that specific principle of engagement...) So although there is commerce and war operating... it is dictated (or supposed to be) by this higher trust principle... If you watch the scene with this perception I think the message is clear, example after example after example... POW!!!

This theme runs from beginning to the end... It's not about "rules" so much as the underlying "principles" or "maxims" (old ways) expressed by actions and "intentions" And the highest offense is breach, and the punishment WILL always be COMMENSURATE to the breach... On the flip side... when you are operating according to the principle of "service to another"... FOR HER MAJESTY (transfer of benefit) you have a "free" license, everything is "prepaid" "money" is NEVER an issue... In fact come to think of it... during the movie... Bond even meets up with a "representative of the Treasury" because he needs literal funds to play a high stakes poker game (wow! the more I think about this movie, it is just dripping... with trust interpretation symbolism!) The movie I am talking about btw is Casino Royale... (how fitting)

There a corollary to all this in our everyday world, secretly hinted at in the statutory (making hidden reference to this trust interpretation... Yep... it is based in the principle of subscriber/subscription, where someone (Subscriber) issues authority and power (entitlement) to another (Recipient) who must "use" it according to the principle of benefit of the Subscriber in order to receive the benefit of the "subscription" otherwise known as operating within the scope of their office, to step outside this negates the offer... there is a whole bunch of interpretation, here... offer of subscription, acceptance, operation, etc... but I am just throwing this out there, that this is not some concept I just made up, it has precedence...

Anyhow, to re-iterate, if he needs to "commandeer" a car he takes it ...in the pursuit of serving "Her Majesty" (the State) saving lives (human resources, source of all "energy") nothing is off limits, so long as it is "justified" according to this principle, he will always be indemnified later, after the fact, in private behind closed doors... Of course, this example is extreme, the situations are life and death matters. But all the better to more clearly illustrate a point. And to further the hidden storyline so clearly being told... he operates in the private, after he saves the lives of millions (and also the stockholders in one instance) by thwarting the sabotage of that new "private" jet plane (furtherance of Commerce) he is immediately "arrested, kicked, punched, thrown to the ground, shackled... by agents in the public...

Since he operates in the private, he has to go through the "process in the public" before he can get into a private "conversation" ...i.e. that he is NOT LIABLE for example... because he is an AGENT OF HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (Public Notice of Private Interest?) Obviously and with good reason this is all hidden from public view... It's private...

Anyhow... I will get off that track, but just thinking about it now, as I write this, I can see dozens and dozens of metaphors... this is no coincidence... this is beyond any random interpretation... even secret code words used in the movie, the hidden organization (again like they don't know who it is!...) their code word is ... are you ready? ... ELLIPSES... (I will leave that to those who know the implications of that, especially in relation to "qualifying" the NAME... ;-)

The recurring theme is always the same... people "don't like" trust because they don't understand it... there's a lot of terms bandied about... lots of complicated high falutin interpretations, but when I try to go to basic interpretation, I see many with no basic understanding, everyone wants to write a Shakespearean novel, but they only got Grade 3 spelling and grammar. Or yes/no answers (ie. no understanding, no context, no clear intention of what they are trying to achieve, more an avoidance, or trying to "get away" etc... )

It's clear we need basics... few and far between to find anyone who wants to move forward... (too boring for them... or no application... or don't see the point... or it's not a "sexy" enough topic matter... is it any surprise... no one comprehends it? no one wants to learn it? No one even truly "gets" it (all they think about is some "secret bank account" (which is a total misconception...) This is sad... and we are so close, there is so much information available today on this subject... we are so close, literally on the cusp of a new awakening... (literal 'barbarians' at the gate... after 2000 years of dark ages...)

TPTB must be sh**ting their pants, but not to worry, apparently all the Barbarians have thrown away their BC's and are all standing at the door running around in circles... and can't figure out why they can't get in... their ignorance (the prison for their mind) more powerful then any physical fortress that could be built, keeps them locked in their suffrage... what a brilliant strategy...

and when 5-10 years goes by, they will still be there, burying their dead, looking for the silver bullet weekend seminar, that will reveal the "secret"

I notice there is a quote from Mary Croft's book... (sadly even she has succumbed to this 2 dimensional "interpretationalism" selling some remedy (created with the help of lawyers???)

but here is the quote...
“...Of what use to reveal to men that which I have discovered at the price of laborious efforts? Why
should I do so? - This doctrine cannot be understood by those filled by desire and hatred .. it is mysterious, deep; hidden from the vulgar mind. If I proclaim it and men are unable to understand it, the
only result will be fatigue and annoyance for me...”
...you have yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.”
“Doubt is an incitement to research, and research is the path to true knowledge...”

“...Why are these teachings secret? Does that mean I can't write and tell about them?” “No, Alexandra, these teachings are not called ‘secret’ because it is forbidden to talk about them. They are ‘secret’ because so few who hear them understand...”
***
own nothing... control everything... people have heard this for over a hundred years and are still completely numb and blind to it's meaning... (because they have no concrete model or system (of modus operandi) to understand what it means or how that would operate... how could they? with no trust understanding? )






Comment by given-cynthia on May 18, 2015 at 5:09pm
Will - would greatly appreciate direct communication, from one that DOES grasp the "mysteries" to the "Grand Illusion" (Styx) given (dot) cynthia (at) his (dot) com
Comment by chioma del dios viviente on May 19, 2015 at 8:17am
Great definition: Legal Owner: One who is recognized and held responsible by the law as the owner of property. In a more particular sense, one in whom the legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust for the benefit of another, the latter being called the "equitable" owner (Black's 4th, 1951).







Comment by Will Hughe on May 19, 2015 at 5:01pm


Great definition: Legal Owner: One who is recognized and held responsible by the law as the owner of property. In a more particular sense, one in whom the legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust for the benefit of another, the latter being called the "equitable" owner (Black's 4th, 1951)
nice pull... (someone is speaking my language) that's what I mean by getting back to basics (thumbs up).
When I see a definition like that it fires my logic and imagination... Yogi Berra said you can never get enough of the Basics... and that is so profoundly true in my experience... thus your definition "compelled me to respond as follows...

- That is consistent with my interpretation, I think it highlights how we are mistaking the meanings of certain words every day... According to that... we're not the "true" legal owners... by definition, are we? (re: the Birth Certificate) i.e. if the Registrar is the holder of the original ink signature document which is the record, which now constitutes the title to the NAME (re: CW a record can be used as the title in trust, in this case the record of the Statement Of Live Birth... (a record of an event) and could that also be considered as Statement of INTEREST?... o.O!?)

And if the Birth Certificate NAME entity (Corporate Juristic Person /Account /Property /Legal entity, etc,etc) is the registered owner of other property registered in the public, which again creates another split title with the Registrar, (who is in turn holding the original ink signature once again... is anybody beginning to see the pattern here?) How the State via Registrars (representatives of the State) always end up holding our original signature documents (often times with NO qualifications and conditions from us... and thus is the "Legal Owner" every time... And this certainly sounds like a trustee function (of course again the context dictates what KIND of trustee)

Point is, the certificate in your wallet (or file cabinet) is not the legal title! It's a certificate.

Certificate: (Black’s Law 4th ed)
A ticket:
A warrant:
A written assurance: of official representation that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with
A written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge or officer.
A statement of some fact in writing signed by the party certifying.


A question may arise as to how do we internalize all this into our thinking, for the purpose of moving toward a practical implementation... how do we even begin to get a practical implementation?...
i.e. people may think about this intellectually, but I don't think they are grasping the practical implication. (said implication (not being the true "Legal Owner" may be just too overwhelming to their immediate 5 sense perception of reality and programming... and they are left hanging with too many questions and don't know where to start... so it falls to the wayside in their "everyday" thinking... (i.e. gotta pay "my" tickets, gotta pay "my" taxes, gotta pay my .... etc...)

Just saying this might be worthy of some real serious contemplation and memorization even... so bravo to your definition (it certainly inspired me to write this... ;-)

That definition also points up my other major premise... or it should at least beg the question in the mind of inquiring thinkers... If... we are NOT the "Legal Owner" (since we are the "beneficial owner") Then how did we get stuck with the liability at the end of the day?

And again I'm suggesting it is our "words and deeds" (which is an all encompassing phrase to cover everything you are thinking and doing...) i.e. actions taken as a result of your thinking and perception... i.e. it's about our perception and interpretation... i.e. by definition the potential is within OUR CONTROL.

For example: If I get my neighbour's electricity bill in the mail, am I going to court and fight it tooth and nail? and claim this, and claim that, and how the court is fraud, and there is a gold fringe flag and they are operating in admiralty and I refuse to be a part of it and argue "that's not me!" and I got common law rights, and blah blah, etc... (i.e. if it's not you... then why are you there fighting it?)

Or do I simply notify the appropriate party they have a liability and make sure they get it? Now this is a limited metaphor, not to show up the trust aspect so much, but to focus on the two "separate entities" aspect... To get you really thinking in practical terms... Why are we fighting for something that truly is not our liability? When the act alone (of taking up the cause and fighting it) would be enough to judge us as as de son tort trustee!?

But it does point up some trust (a tiny bit) For example: Do I have any obligation to send that bill to the appropriate party? To make sure they get it? and are aware of the liability? Again this is a limited metaphor, (i.e. the other party is a dum dum who is surety for their Name... lol)

Anyhow there's your two points from that example identity of two separate parties, and obligation to notify and deliver the "liability in the public" to the appropriate party...

Also I am suggesting, on a practical level, the first focus is understanding how the NAME is the Registered "Beneficial" Owner of property in a split title arrangement with the Registrar (State/Province/Representative of the Crown, etc) which creates a Cestu Que trust between the Registered NAME and the State... and the NAME itself acts in two capacities... In one sense it is a legal entity (like a corporation that needs someone to "operate it" but it itself is ALSO a property (in the form of a record) registered in the public. Thus is there not another Cestui Que Trust between YOU and the State in relation to the NAME (as property in this context)?

Just consider that for a bit... (until it makes sense in YOUR mind) Then ask where do YOU fit into that picture... (since technically you're not in the first Cestui Que Trust...) ...except one connecting point of course... that you are the certificate holder to the NAME... your connection is indirect, a [another] "special" Cestui Que Trust...

...Between YOU and the State in relation to the Registered NAME [as "property"]

[apart from...] the NAME [as corporate entity] and the State in relation to all other property registered in the public...

i.e. you [do] have SOME KIND relationship (why "Batman" is wrong) and you [absolutely] have some kind of INTEREST... (this is almost an understatement... lol...)

(Ok, I have to stop myself here, before I go too far afield... lol... thanks for definition... that was refreshing)

[cursichella1]

Funny when I was listening to this one, I wanted to comment when he started talking about James Bond, and he was going gangbusters describing all the symbolism... However I found it odd, that being a lawyer, he never even got close to explaining the hidden meaning of Jame's own NAME i.e. his last NAME being BOND!

... that and his occasional stuttering (and various statements)... tells me he is picking and choosing, and right at the moment I was criticizing this, he gets cut off, as if to temper his passionate discourse. I would have loved to catch that live and told Kerry to ask him if he thought there was any symbolism in James' last NAME... LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!



Interesting...Chandra posted a recent Simon Parkes interview vide (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82647-Simon-Parkes-may-17-interview&p=966187&viewfull=1#post966187)o the other day, and in it, Simon mentions that when he was a kid, he was told to watch The Avengers (Diana Rigg, Patrick Macnee - unrelated to the recent film) and a show called The Prisoner.

I'm not familiar with The Prisoner, but have seen some Avengers reruns...sort of Kubrick's Clockwork Orange meets MI5, MI6 and James Bond. And most of us know what Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut (the Tom Cruise EWS, not the Alan Rickman EWS) was all about.

Clockwork Orange trailer
G7fO3bzPeBQ

Eyes Wide Shut trailer
s_b-zpSnoHs

The Avengers (some better examples on you tube...but an idea)
o-GmH8eFJFU

[sigma6]

I wouldn't necessarily call it that (Clockwork Orange) although that's an interesting juxtaposition of concepts.... Prisoner, I forget the major premise, but he was some kind of agent, that wanted out? I think?... emphasizing a dark side, of involvement with a faceless organization... but I am just speculating off the top of my head... And in the Avengers, they were undercover agents as well.... interesting, and in that regard, I would agree there is something to it.

Also this idea that it is a serious business to be this type of agent... there will be certain special "freedoms and rewards", but also you take on big responsibility, duties and obligations... And these agents are usually portrayed as supposed to being of the highest moral standards and integrity... and they are also duty bound, fearless risk takers, intelligent problem solvers, with combat experience (military connotation?) able to mete out justice and protect themselves when necessary, etc... always the same cluster of characteristics...

[aranuk]

Unfortunately Kerry's guest got the better of Kerry in this interview. He sidestepped all her questioning and repeatedly plugged his books. He benefited more from this interview by being allowed to plug his book than her audience.

Stan

[cursichella1]

I wouldn't necessarily call it that (Clockwork Orange) although that's an interesting juxtaposition of concepts.... Prisoner, I forget the major premise, but he was some kind of agent, that wanted out? I think?... emphasizing a dark side, of involvement with a faceless organization... but I am just speculating off the top of my head... And in the Avengers, they were undercover agents as well.... interesting, and in that regard, I would agree there is something to it.

Also this idea that it is a serious business to be this type of agent... there will be certain special "freedoms and rewards", but also you take on big responsibility, duties and obligations... And these agents are usually portrayed as supposed to being of the highest moral standards and integrity... and they are also duty bound, fearless risk takers, intelligent problem solvers, with combat experience (military connotation?) able to mete out justice and protect themselves when necessary, etc... always the same cluster of characteristics...

He's an agent that suddenly quits, is kidnapped and taken to a prison island...where he is interrogated about why he quit by the "bad guys"...

tra3Zi5ZWa0

P.s. link to Wikipedia on The Prisoner (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner)

[Zanshin]

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.

[sigma6]

Unfortunately Kerry's guest got the better of Kerry in this interview. He sidestepped all her questioning and repeatedly plugged his books. He benefited more from this interview by being allowed to plug his book than her audience.

Stan

what do you expect... he's a (freemason) lawyer... lol... I still think she made him squirm in some parts, she was certainly making him work, and in the process, he gave away more then he led on, towards the end he starting owning up to a lot of "dark" knowledge that showed he did have way more understanding of that side then initially 'portrayed' at the beginning...

[Professor]

Everyone can benefit by watching The Prisoner series. Patrick McGoohan starred in it and it was pretty much his show from start to finish.

[Becky]

The story of how Ian Fleming chose the name James Bond I was told as a child.
Ian Fleming was a family friend, and there was a man in our family called James Bond who was a good friend of Ian Flemings. The real/original James Bond was actually a Botanist I think (or scientist of some sort), Ian really liked his name so asked if he could use it for his hero in his books he was writing. I've been shown the family tree but i don't have a copy of it.
So my understanding of it, from family lore is just that Ian really liked the name and asked if he could use it.

[sigma6]

Hmm... makes me wonder how they came up with Ms. Galore's name in Goldfinger... o.Q!

[Cardillac]

@Sigma6/Becky

if one has read Mike Sparks' monumental "James Bond is Real" Ian Fleming chose the name of an ornithologist who had published a book about Caribbean birds- I kid you not- Fleming simply wanted to choose a mundane name

Larry

[aranuk]

@Sigma6/Becky

if one has read Mike Sparks' monumental "James Bond is Real" Ian Fleming chose the name of an ornithologist who had published a book about Caribbean birds- I kid you not- Fleming simply wanted to choose a mundane name

Larry

Hi Larry, so the both Bonds were interested in birds? :p

Stan

[sigma6]

There's more than that to words... the sound and meaning reaches into the unlimited collective unconscious... Wasn't it a guy named Crapper who invented the toilet?... In fact I'd say all through history that type phenomena has been around... i.e. names associated with the livelihood of the "owner" of that name...) never say "never"... Somewhere there is a list... I'm sure (I have read it at least once, probably while I was even sitting down... ;-D )... Words have power, a life of their own, more than you are suggesting here. Although in this case, I am sure the name Bond 'stuck', because it WAS a perfect fit, for more reason than it was required to sound "boring"... o.O? In fact nothing ever happens for only one reason, that would be a reason for it not happening.

And I'm not suggesting his entire purpose was in secretly expressing my hidden trust interpretation, in his original books (not directly anyway) but it is not unrelated either... i.e. the principle of the law of "agency", the concept of granting authority, scope of office, licensing ("license to kill") I'm pretty sure Fleming knew his work would be scrutinized, for all posterity... It is blatantly obvious he DID carefully craft the name of each character (a literary technique as old as the Bible)

It's hard to be convinced therefore that in the naming of the main character, the star of the story, the hero/protagonist, this rule was exempted? and instead a particularly "boring" name was chosen!? o.O? Especially when he makes it obvious, in the extreme, that he packs meaning into every other character's name? Could Fleming have been that unimaginative and uncreative?... i.e. would it not make more sense that this 'botanist' had the name that Fleming was "looking for" in the first place? ("good fit" theory)

As far as I am concerned, the only possible reason that he would go for a "boring" name like "James Bond", is because "John Doe" would have been too obvious!... so if you mean "plain" in this sense, I'd be inclined to agree, the name "fits" for more than just being "boring" I won't disclude multiple factors operating and the context of the author's literary style clearly supports this... There is no reason to consider he violated his own rule or principle of literary technique when arriving at this particular name... regardless, how he arrived at it...

For example another hidden symbolism that the movie version is certainly honing in on (btw... this isn't just relegated to "Bond" Movies... Recall the classic Bond greeting, how he always identifies himself... remember?... BOND, JAMES BOND hidden in the dialogue, we get another bullseye, UPPERCASE LAST NAME, UPPERCASE FIRST NAME... which corresponds to our innocuous "hidden in plain sight" Birth Certificate. The metaphors and symbolisms are endless... watch the movies again with these ideas in mind...

Also consider the name of the secret code used in the movie... "ellipses" a very unusual and particular word again... and it just so happens (for those who know...) it has application for doing the very thing I mention all the time... i.e. that is, "qualifying the signature" a precursor to establishing trust interpretation, (non general) An ellipses (...) before the NAME does precisely that...



Ok (that was fun.. )
On another tangent...
Notice: Correction:

re: about 11-12 paragraphs from the bottom: caught a mistake...


"...Just saying this might be worthy of some real serious contemplation and memorization even... so bravo to your definition (it certainly inspired me to write this... ;-)

That definition also points up my other major premise... or it should at least beg the question in the mind of inquiring thinkers... If... we are NOT the "Legal Owner" ( since we are the "beneficial owner") Then how did we get stuck with the liability at the end of the day?

And again I'm suggesting it is our "words and deeds" (which is an all encompassing phrase to cover everything you are thinking and doing...) i.e. actions taken as a result of your thinking and perception... i.e. it's about our perception and interpretation... i.e. by definition the potential is within OUR CONTROL..."

rewrite:
"...Just saying this might be worthy of some real serious contemplation and memorization even... so bravo to your definition (it certainly inspired me to write this... ;-)

That definition also points up my other major premise... or it should at least beg the question in the mind of inquiring thinkers... If... we are NOT the "Legal Owner" ( since we only presumed to be the "beneficial owner", as the only way to assign liability via constructive trust interpretation, the presumption usually getting additional support by our words and actions (intentions) as determined by same court) i.e. we didn't originally start out with liability before we decided to go to court. And this is also not to say "don't go to court" just consider dealing with the matter (settlement) from an entirely different perspective. As a true creditor with security in hand. After all there is always some obligation and duty, even if it is only presenting your security for settlement... for example... Now of course I wouldn't have said this much the first time, but since this is a notice and correction, might is well add some more context to it... and it definitely needed correcting... To plainly state "we are the beneficial owner" goes completely against my entire meaning of how it should be properly understood... (and for that I don't apologize... :D

But seriously... the proper meaning is they presume us to be "beneficial owners", we presume ourselves to be "beneficial owners"... everything has been conveniently set up to treat us and interact with us as "beneficial owners" but... this is ONLY an option, a choice, that ultimately lies with us... (regardless, that we may be completely unaware.... just one more factor...)

We have to go back to the origin of the "creation" of identity (another action committed by us, of our own free will) Yes folks, in a manner of speaking we were conned into being treated like suckers (incompetents) and signing documents we didn't have to... (we were issued the BCs right from birth) we shouldn't be claiming to be owners of anything... (remember the "owner" of your car as listed on your certificate (aka "driver's license) is a "derivative", if not thee Birth Certificate Name... functioning essentially as a corporate entity in the public, with the State as an interested party, as the holder of the legal title held in the Registrar Office (Hall of Records) That very entity/property (understand it operates as both, and many other attributes) Now consider the implications. Does this sound like there is a possibility all this was designed in fact to have more than one possibility of operation/interpretation? if it can be shown the value behind that security is based on your life energy? Which ultimately makes you the Creditor, and the proof of your superior interest is in your hands. What more do you need? ';-{

Ok, and now the question: Then how did we get stuck with the liability at the end of the day?

I think I out did myself and just answered that! ...lol I think this commentary would serve equally well on my other thread "Governed By Consent" (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82673-By-The-Consent-of-the-Governed&p=966439&viewfull=1#post966439)

And again I'm suggesting it is our "words and deeds" (which is an all encompassing phrase to cover everything you are thinking and doing, saying, filing, signing, responding, etc, etc...) i.e. actions taken as a result of your thinking and perception... i.e. it's about our perception and interpretation... as if they are "presuming" to read your mind, regardless how accurately the may be, it is still presumption i.e. by definition the potential is still within OUR CONTROL..." we have always had the capacity to pre-empt that entire "mis-perception" on THEIR part... which is really evidence why they start with a presumptions in the first place. Presumptions work both ways... have you considered we can apply our own?

the "court" is going through a ritual... of "jockeying for position" from the moment you sign a document to be in court, to being asked "to give" the NAME, to claiming to be the "owner", to interfering and arguing on behalf of a trust for which you are not the original fiduciary trustee in the first place... how can they not determine we are choosing to take on the liability?... lol! who are we kidding?...

I still remember Winston saying... "the prosecutor always comes with a checkbook...just in case..." (now I know why) Back then he explained that there is a drawer and a drawee, and a payor and a payee, the payor is undetermined until all parties arrive (another clue) ...and why is that? Because they can't predict what YOUR behaviour is going to be, what you are understanding and what you will do... before you get there! There is always the potential to keep the liability on the proper fiduciary trustee. There is already a potential trust already in place if you only knew to accept it, express it... if you only knew how...

but how can this happen with no awareness, no conception, no understanding, again the principle is so powerful, some people have in fact through guessing, or "larking in the dark" (throwing spaghetti on the wall...) have stumbled upon it...


In the event of some notice of charge (liability in the public) against the Name, a discovery, which may or may not confirm or validate its justification (who even wants to argue their jurisdiction over the NAME? I don't, I see it as clearly set up as a beneficiary in a C'estui Que Trust with the State as Registrar) I just want to focus on my SPECIAL INTEREST... (the narrow path is trust...) So let's move straight to settlement.

No argument, no controversy... no dishonour and no contempt... understand there is NO DISHONOUR OR CONTEMPT that can be construed from YOU ASKING QUESTIONS!

You are the certificate holder, you may be called upon occasionally to help the state settle a liability, every once in a while. If you understood this properly, how would it change your understanding? your response? your approach in dealing with this matter? Once you understand that you can actively participate and help settle this matter and take control at the same time...

That in fact you have superior interest in said Name, regardless who's "property" it is... (this vague terminology without context....) "property" can mean many things... I stick to the simple definition of "right to use" (and "use" is a trust term) plain and simple... Both parties can rightfully claim some degree of "property right" (right to use)... the State as the legal title holder (trustee) and you as the certificate holder.

Therefore I, the indemnified party (as the recipient of the certificate to the NAME Estate... if I can establish this right at the beginning beforehand, by using a few well placed questions, regarding, what their claims are based on... i.e. what capacity are they operating in? what is their presumed jurisdiction based on?, over whom (or WHAT are they exercising it over? What proof do you authority to administer the NAME. (Administrator sets the agenda...) I have the power to be Grantor, Settlor, Trustee, Beneficiary, Executor, Administrator, if I want or see fit... and they KNOW IT... Question is... do YOU!!??

So.. although they may have jurisdiction over the PERSON, HOW that is administered and by whom is open to more than one option. If you can stay out of breach (by not putting your foot in your mouth, which is what happens 98+% of the time... then you can settle the Name's liabilities, which is really helping the State with it's liability by figuring out how to properly present the BC... in order to effect what is a a private process... there lies the trick of the tale... But if you get it right, you are no longer the target they are trying to "fasten the constructive onto..." Now guess who's holding "the bag"? (of liability)

This is the basic concept ... based on sound principles of trust if you research it.

[sigma6]

Wow, might as well share this... just fell into my lap, during a conversation... it's great when people feed me something they are not sure of, but they know it has "something to do with it... in this case a "gang" of nurses (shock! horror!) have been arrested for "a massive privacy breach" what I got from the link below... he said in the paper another charge was "trading in securities without a license" Ladies and Gentleman... it is clear to see the "Government" (corporate or not) is coming down like the Avengers on these nurses with a litany of charges...


Rouge Valley Health System privacy breaches lead to 19 charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rouge-valley-health-system-privacy-breaches-lead-to-19-charges-1.3097374

A massive privacy breach at a Toronto hospital has led to 19 more charges, including six criminal counts against a nurse accused of selling the confidential records of new mothers as part of a scheme to peddle RESP investments.
I think the charges will continue mounting... i.e. these ones aren't getting away... folks this is what happens when you breach a trust... in this case, unlike just being 'stupid' (and claiming to be the "owner" or something equally dumb like that...;) when trust is being violated with intention by collusion and other means... watch out...


Also consider this when you look at the "interpretation"... if my friend is accurate in his reading (he told me he read it in a newspaper) the SEC "determined" (ie.. made the interpretation) that those nurses passing along the Names of the "Newborns" (which is really what? ... that's right the NAME on the the Original Birth Records... which are used to create the Birth Certificates, (being held in trust) Them simply passing the information WAS INTERPRETED TO BE TRADING SECURITIES!

and for the purpose of commercial gain for both parties (ouch) and to think the other party was trying to sell life insurance... (how ironic... )

That's what we used to call BINGO!!! ...lol

[Becky]

@Sigma6/Becky

if one has read Mike Sparks' monumental "James Bond is Real" Ian Fleming chose the name of an ornithologist who had published a book about Caribbean birds- I kid you not- Fleming simply wanted to choose a mundane name

Larry
Oh yes, he could have been an ornithologist, I knew he was interested in nature and travelled, but as I was told this story as a young child I didn't remember the facts clearly. Most members of that family line ( my dads) were / are scientists of some sort.

[Carmody]

Wow, might as well share this... just fell into my lap, during a conversation... it's great when people feed me something they are not sure of, but they know it has "something to do with it... in this case a "gang" of nurses (shock! horror!) have been arrested for "a massive privacy breach" what I got from the link below... he said in the paper another charge was "trading in securities without a license" Ladies and Gentleman... it is clear to see the "Government" (corporate or not) is coming down like the Avengers on these nurses with a litany of charges...


Rouge Valley Health System privacy breaches lead to 19 charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rouge-valley-health-system-privacy-breaches-lead-to-19-charges-1.3097374

A massive privacy breach at a Toronto hospital has led to 19 more charges, including six criminal counts against a nurse accused of selling the confidential records of new mothers as part of a scheme to peddle RESP investments.
I think the charges will continue mounting... i.e. these ones aren't getting away... folks this is what happens when you breach a trust... in this case, unlike just being 'stupid' (and claiming to be the "owner" or something equally dumb like that...;) when trust is being violated with intention by collusion and other means... watch out...


Also consider this when you look at the "interpretation"... if my friend is accurate in his reading (he told me he read it in a newspaper) the SEC "determined" (ie.. made the interpretation) that those nurses passing along the Names of the "Newborns" (which is really what? ... that's right the NAME on the the Original Birth Records... which are used to create the Birth Certificates, (being held in trust) Them simply passing the information WAS INTERPRETED TO BE TRADING SECURITIES!

and for the purpose of commercial gain for both parties (ouch) and to think the other party was trying to sell life insurance... (how ironic... )

That's what we used to call BINGO!!! ...lol

As the Author Charles Fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort) said, in conclusion:

"I think we are property."


From another thread:


My thanking is random and tied to nothing more than my will to take the time, or remember, in the given moment.

Heck, half the time, when I'm speaking with people, if not more than half the time, I never use names.

Name not important, person is. 'Tis a natural thing, not a consciousness directed thing.

Perhaps I don't like labeling people.

That labeling people is a form of denigration, a form of control. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82764-Kerry-Kicking-Some-Butt...-Interesting-Interview-with-a-Freemason&p=967675&viewfull=1#post967675)

That old saw..that if you know a demon's name.... then you have access to the control of that demon. That they CAN be summoned. No name --- no access, no summon, no potential for control.

And, for the sake of following the logic...if...in this place, that be true for the thing called a 'demon'....what does that mean for labelled human/avatar symbiotic systems that are called 'people'?

Perhaps that is why the use of formal names...always feels so inherently wrong and uncomfortable, to me.

[Mike]

Wow, might as well share this... just fell into my lap, during a conversation... it's great when people feed me something they are not sure of, but they know it has "something to do with it... in this case a "gang" of nurses (shock! horror!) have been arrested for "a massive privacy breach" what I got from the link below... he said in the paper another charge was "trading in securities without a license" Ladies and Gentleman... it is clear to see the "Government" (corporate or not) is coming down like the Avengers on these nurses with a litany of charges...


Rouge Valley Health System privacy breaches lead to 19 charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rouge-valley-health-system-privacy-breaches-lead-to-19-charges-1.3097374

A massive privacy breach at a Toronto hospital has led to 19 more charges, including six criminal counts against a nurse accused of selling the confidential records of new mothers as part of a scheme to peddle RESP investments.
I think the charges will continue mounting... i.e. these ones aren't getting away... folks this is what happens when you breach a trust... in this case, unlike just being 'stupid' (and claiming to be the "owner" or something equally dumb like that...;) when trust is being violated with intention by collusion and other means... watch out...


Also consider this when you look at the "interpretation"... if my friend is accurate in his reading (he told me he read it in a newspaper) the SEC "determined" (ie.. made the interpretation) that those nurses passing along the Names of the "Newborns" (which is really what? ... that's right the NAME on the the Original Birth Records... which are used to create the Birth Certificates, (being held in trust) Them simply passing the information WAS INTERPRETED TO BE TRADING SECURITIES!

and for the purpose of commercial gain for both parties (ouch) and to think the other party was trying to sell life insurance... (how ironic... )

That's what we used to call BINGO!!! ...lol

As the Author Charles Fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort) said, in conclusion:

"I think we are property."


From another thread:


My thanking is random and tied to nothing more than my will to take the time, or remember, in the given moment.

Heck, half the time, when I'm speaking with people, if not more than half the time, I never use names.

Name not important, person is. 'Tis a natural thing, not a consciousness directed thing.

Perhaps I don't like labeling people.

That labeling people is a form of denigration, a form of control. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?82764-Kerry-Kicking-Some-Butt...-Interesting-Interview-with-a-Freemason&p=967675&viewfull=1#post967675)

That old saw..that if you know a demon's name.... then you have access to the control of that demon. That they CAN be summoned. No name --- no access, no summon, no potential for control.

And, for the sake of following the logic...if...in this place, that be true for the thing called a 'demon'....what does that mean for labelled human/avatar symbiotic systems that are called 'people'?

Perhaps that is why the use of formal names...always feels so inherently wrong and uncomfortable, to me.



This is very interesting. I thought I was the only one!

For the longest time I never used people's names. I found it to be very awkward. I tended to use 'bud' or 'dude' or 'mate' etc, and I've always wondered about the psychology behind it. I have friends now that ive been friends with for 20 years or more, and till this day I still can't use their names. And the funny thing is, now I want to! But after 20 years of 'bud' and 'dude' its terribly awkward to start being formal.

So now I'm very name conscious. I probably overcompensate now and use names too much.

I always thought it was a fear of intimacy...or wanting to keep people at arms length. Still not sure. Its all pretty interesting

[sigma6]

That old saw..that if you know a demon's name.... then you have access to the control of that demon. That they CAN be summoned. No name --- no access, no summon, no potential for control.

And, for the sake of following the logic...if...in this place, that be true for the thing called a 'demon'....what does that mean for labelled human/avatar symbiotic systems that are called 'people'?

Perhaps that is why the use of formal names...always feels so inherently wrong and uncomfortable, to me.

Interesting... this idea does in fact have historical precedence and is the basis of the origin of Name as property, as a controlling instrument, etc... When the Normans overtook England (God knows when... I'd have to look it up...) definitely an area worth studying more critically, they brought along the legal concept of calling out someone's NAME as equivalent to "making contract"... this is where it began, it should be found somewhere in the etymology of the word "appellation"...

ap·pel·la·tion1
ˌapəˈlāSHən/
nounformal
a name or title.


appellation
/ˌæpɪˈleɪʃən/
noun
1. an identifying name or title
2. the act of naming or giving a title to

This is just what I dug up on first gander, but you can already see how it is laying the groundwork for legal interpretation... What's in a Name... so much more then most comprehend...

Word Origin and History for "appellation":
n.
late 15c., "action of appealing" (to a higher authority), from Old French apelacion (13c.), from Latin appellationem (nominative appellatio) "an addressing, accosting; an appeal; a name, title," noun of action from past participle stem of appellare (see appeal ). Meaning "designation, name given to a person, thing, or class" is from mid-15c., from a sense also found in Middle French appeler.

[sigma6]

"signature" Bond Trailer
sPMMRdbU5Og
note: mirror image symbolism, when he makes reference to the Birth Certificate Name... lots of detail for such a short clip, there is a limit to how many "coincidences" can keep lining up like this... o.O~

[sigma6]

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...

(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!...)
DTwHkXF9uPY

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!!


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

"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...

...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


...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


...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...

uZK4r5oyiKY 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
yejtZgzB5Ik
"...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! ';-{

[genevieve]

WOW! Lots to think about.

Thank you so much, Sigma.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve