Hi Lovers
A year or so ago i was told of a guy who went into court and said, I am authorized and bonded by her majesty to use that name. I am told that was the end of the matter.
If a BC is scrip and scrip is a replacement for money (to obtain actual substance direct), then the BC is the real money (not the type that circulates) because the bank of canada notes are redeemable for the same kind of note. Paper for paper, IOU for IOU.
This all makes sense given it is us that is the basis of government, the family, credit. I see government as upper management of the family enterprise. They get paid to do the things that have to be done to keep the family together. Hmmm, what have we done to assist in that regard?
So, making the connections from source and the return, or, the beginning and end. You can only see this in your mind.
Starts with the registration of birth. Gets your existence registered. They make it such that you need a BC, actually, holder of a share, contributor, source of energy.
When we use the BC a connection is made to the original registration which acknowledges (confirms) your energetic existence and that it is registered with the system/Information BANK. Good, we have a source of energy online. By acknowledging the BC as proof you have an interest in Canada, Canada authorizes the release of your energy in the form of payment. The return to you is the release to your use the thing obtained by payment. Balance, ZERO. The tax liability is with the vendors registered. Said vendors are funded by the family jewels, credit.
Of course I am not saying you go to Walmart and use the BC to make a purchase, that is not the point here. I am showing the connections so you can see the one that is missing. It is of course, acknowledgment of the BC as proof you have an interest in Canada and if your messing with me your messing with Canada, so, how can I help you? If I had a court matter on the table, that is an idea how I may speak recognizing that I when I am speaking, to whomever I am speaking I am speaking to me. I would surely make no excuse and accept full responsibility for what ever it is i did to release it; no controversy no mens rea, whereas avoidance is or appears to be. I am the causality in my reality.
The bigger picture is not about court matters but acknowledging the BC for what you know it to be. If, and I say if on your account, if you beleive you have an interest (investment, stake) in Canada then the BC is the proof of that interest end of story.
But, the claim has to be established meaning, you know what your rights and options are so you can choose whats next whatever it may be.
Treat this like a stock in General Motors. You do not go in saying, I did this and i did that in this name and and and is irreverent. In my view the KISS method is best in that nothing more need be said than, this BC proves I have an interest in Canada and i want to know what my rights and options are. That in my view is step one. If you beleive Canada or the province is screwing you, then you are correct, there is no family situation but do remember what Hidden-Hand, the so called dark side representative said, FAMILY FIRST. He did not come across to me that he meant his immediate family in terms like we do. There is only the one thus only one family.
It is up to you to acknowledge first to yourself whether or not you have an interest in Canada. God gave you the land known as Canada, then you have an interest in Canada.
If you say, everything I do in the name is for the owner of it and like jazz or who has the liability for that name, knowing the other facts, then you are saying I have an interest in Canada, or, you can hold the view, Canada is screwing me and this is not my name and all that jazz. Can you not sense the resistance in that?
What proof has anyone of a trust or estate? They dropped the ‘E’ in state or purposely did not add the word Estate after the name on the BC. Where is the proof of those allegations? Be not justified by the law and is not law of trust and reliance on it just that? How about plain old trust without law to regulate it and stipulate the rights and obligations of the parties to me is based on no trust.
Notice when you are resisting and consider a non resistive response or viewpoint in the stead.
With love