Registrant – Mutual Benefit

Hi Lovers

There is no proof, physical evidence, that delivery of the name recognized in law was made to you, that you accepted it as your name, or that it was secured for your benefit. Absent such proof there is no proof you own property in that name. If you not be the owner of property in that name, who should pay?

In addition, the name is, it exists. It appears it has a commercial or charitable purpose, therefore, it must be secure for the benefit of someone or thing.

Blacks 4th Ed. Registrant; one who registers, particularly one who registers anything (e.g. a trade mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration.

In the case of the registration of a trademark it would be registered in accordance with the trade mark act, the rights and privileges secured are as enumerated in that Act.

Anything is defined in the criminal code as anything. We may conclude then that ‘birth’ (event) falls within the meaning of anything.

In the case of the registration of a trade mark, the one causing the registration is securing a mark for the benefit of someone or entity.

In the case of a registration of a birth event (a happening, no mark), we did not play any part in it so although it can be said the government performed as registrant to secure a right or privilege, what we do not know is, for whose benefit?

To say the government registers people is to say, it secured our body as a right or privilege. Of course we know that is not accurate  because the government does not register people, and also, it is the name that is recognized in law. I do not see how cognizance can be taken of that what is not registered. To Register is to take cognizance of, memorize, memorialize.

That leaves only the name that cognizance can be taken of. B,VR, event name.

See, in the case of the registration of a ‘mark’, the mark (actual thing) is the event, or subject, thing recognized in law, but, the event of your birth being an event, an occurrence, extraction of a fetus, on its own cannot be recognized unless the event is given a name.

In fact, they won’t register the event of a birth without at least a surname.

If you cause a registration you are knowingly securing a right or privilege and aware of for who or what.

Unlike the Trade-Mark Act there is no stipulation in the Vital Statistics Act that indicates what the rights and privileges are that are secured on condition of registration. It may be that the government holds the birth record as proof the name was secured for our use. Thing is we are the one that decides the path we are on, its use, e.g. service to self (business, personal id) or service to other self (love, charity, volunteer, not personal id).

If there was a trade-mark use infringement the secure party can rely on the Trade-Mark Act but in the case of the Vital Statistics Act there is nothing in it what rights are established let alone in whose favor. Maybe because life events have freewill.

If the government did secure the name for our benefit it must in my view protect our interest, right or privilege, which should in my view include our choice to volunteer our time and services for mutual benefit, or whatever words you wish to put to it – spiritual values, changing the focus. Not in or benefiting from commercial activity, profit and gain.

The BC not being personal id but also that it may be used as personal id suggests strongly that we give it its purposes, either we use it for our personal benefit or for mutual benefit. Mutual is an interesting word; directed by each toward the other or others; shared in common; public. Read Acts 4:32ish, those who know they are of one mind and one heart thought not that what he possessed was his own but had all things in common. All are one and all things are of and belong to God so mutual fits.

A house divided cannot stand

I think our maker divine shows a good example of what mutual benefit is. I figure as divine beings made in the image of what created us that it is intended the spirit of our maker guide the body it occupies.

Any way we look at it, and I am not saying this is accurate, but any way we look at it, it seems the name was secured for mutual benefit and that we have the choice to give of ourselves via the name for mutual benefit. Perhaps that is the Wisdom. Maybe the way out because we sure did not take that course to get in where we are. If would seem to me that if the name is secured for mutual benefit purposes, no one has the right to cry fowl.

We volunteer to take on ownership and related burdens or we volunteer to serve; create and serve for mutual benefit. The latter choice may be protected, hence name is protected. No longer having to buy and sell to survive.

As I see it, the name is secured for mutual benefit but may be used for personal benefit; that we either exist in commerce as quasi owners of sole proprietorships or stand one with God or be godlike. Question is, do we have the heart? Quasi, having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent. In other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, be it a duck or not, for legal purposes, it is a duck.

Still we cannot say for sure the purpose of a BC except it is not intended to be used as personal identification so once again it seems we give the BC its purpose and that we may give it a mutual benefit purpose. If there is any challenge or question regarding that choice, then the registrant should be contacted by the challenger/doubter.

I love you

The Beaver

Hi Lovers

Mel Gibson was in a recent movie titled The Beaver where he wore a puppet beaver on his arm.

The longer Mel wore the beaver the more Mel empowered the beaver puppet to the point the beaver puppet ruled over Mel to the extent that Mel cut his arm off to get rid of the beaver, yet, all he had to do was see it for what it is and pull it off.

Sort of like in the Wizard of Oz when the dog pulled back the curtain (veil) and exposed the game is smoke and mirrors, lots of noise but nothing to fear.

At no time did the beaver empower itself, nor does rome or the vatican or any of those other huge and powerful things (beavers) that rule those who believe so.

The moral of the story may be, only that what you empower to or believe or recognize has power over you does.

Mel was arguing with a puppet beaver like so many seek to understand to better argue the law of the dead gods.

If you watch that movie you may feel as I which at first was bewilderment and wondering and then comes the realization that Mel is not joking. Wholly cow, he actually thinks this beaver is in control or has a say in his destiny.

I see this is where many are, trying to make sense of no sense in the stead of seeing and calling things as they is. Empowering the weak and dead as if they are alive and powerful.

YOUR CREATOR LIVES – YOU LIVE – YOU ARE THE POWER!

Ignorance of the law that does apply to you, the living law, the foundation of all that is, is no excuse.

Gee beev

With beaver love……….

Ignorance of which law

Hi Lovers

Funny how folks blame others for their oppression. How they claim fraud and theft and slavery, conspiracy. How they charge for their time and services and do not comprehend why they themselves are charged. They focus on the foundation of the laws of this world as the root of all law but, we are not of this world. They do not see the goings on in the energy field, nor are they cognizant of the laws of the universe such as, the law of free will and cause and effect. These laws are unchanging, they are part of the makeup of the universe, the foundation, us, what holds everything together and in its place and space.

This law of cause and effect may be known as, what goes around comes around, or, you reap what you sew. So let us all consider this law and the effects on those who charge for their time and services. But one of countless causes. In law they call it the BUT 4 TEST. But for the action of the defendant……….In the universe sense it would be, if not for the actions of a spiritual being charging for his time and services, he would not be taxed. You see, the law is the law and unlike laws of men, the law of the universe do not change nor do they know forgiveness. So, one may ask himself, which laws should I obey or not offend or acknowledge as my law, or what are called laws of God, or laws of the Universe. The universe knows no jokes; it reacts to thought and goes into action. Those who see negativity are the very source of the negativity, not because i say so, but as a fact of the laws of the universe, or, cause and effect. Go ahead and resist these statements for ye not resist me but the law. So we see we need look no further than the cause to know where the correction must take place for what is wanted to be reaped to be reaped. In short, if one does not like what he sees, he need but change what he projects.

These laws and other of the universe are inescapable. As they say, ignorance of the law is not excuse but the question for us may be, which law?

It is in my prayers that we have peace. It is in my prayers that we have it within ourselves that we will see it.

Ruled by God

Hi Lovers

Just got this from Bruce. Love God with all thy heart and thy brother as thyself = charity = governed by God in my mind.

This says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those people who will not be  governed  by God will be ruled by tyrants

William Penn

There was a graphic emblem – ‘United States Navy’ – immediately below THIS SAYS IT ALL but it disappeared.

Fresh air

Hi Lovers

It is not often I post someone elses perspectives but this guy, John Stuart, is right on with regard to bullshit people buy into. He says what has to be said and he says it well. Please listen to Episode 136

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=39904&pageNumber=0&pageSize=15

An alternative to legal stuff is to get out of legal land by being a full time volunteer.

Enjoy

I love you

The law favors charity

Hi Lovers

I got this from Just-A- man; On the face of the Indiana Court House

Along those lines, look at the courthouse pictured at the link below and read the words just above the columns and below the elongated pyramid.

http://www.tysto.com/articles05/pics/courthouses/fort-wayne-indiana-courthouse-detail.jpg

The Court from an angle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fort-wayne-indiana-courthouse.jpg

With love

Meeting

Hi Lovers

I was asked if I would like to speak and said yes. That is the extent of my involvement. I speak for myself and I am not party to or with the other speakers nor is my participation signification that I agree with what the other speakers may say or their reason for saying it.

EMERGENCY_MATRIX_AND_LAW_UPDATE,_December_3,_2011

I love you

Speechless

Hi Lovers

Hi Vic.
Just got back from Citizenship and Immigration Services, ceremony and the main theme here is…’Volunteer’ your time. Thought to let you know, in keeping with your emails.
Thanks,
Angelo

I received this from D. Thank you D.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/44411-one-tin-soldier

This from nad, thanx nad

When you get a grip on the volunteer thing and make your intention known, you are free of all legal entanglements, so money and tri-lateral commissions, councils, free trade agreements, and the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah things they do, mean nothing. You want free energy and free this and that, then volunteer. If we all do, there is no money master.

I love you

by: volunteer

Volunteerism

Hi Lovers, aka, volunteers

It is beginning to look like the word ‘volunteer’ is quite significant, in fact may be a code type word but not a secret code.

As I know it and many of you agree, there are basically two path choices we have in life, service to self, and service to other self.

Another way to say that may be, we can choose a path of service to self, contracting, or a path of service to other self, volunteer.

The word volunteer seems to cover the intention of what we say love is, unconditional giving. Not doing anything for a consideration of any kind. We can call it love, or we can say I volunteer. A volunteer you see does not do something but for to help. When one is volunteering or a volunteer he is not expecting anything what so ever for his service.

Interestingly enough volunteers do get paid but there is no tax liability. Why, no INTENT to profit or gain. CRA recognizes what volunteer means.

That is the basis of pay it forward to establish an intention. Our intention is love, to give freely, but, there is no need to offer 100% of the monies back. We were offering a 100% return of tax to demonstrate our love and that we serve other self but, one it seems, I am not saying for sure, but it seems, we demonstrate our love, our intention to serve freely, by being a volunteer.

There is a bunch of information I can share here that supports this but until tried no one knows. For you in pay it forward your intention has been expressed but we did not employ the word volunteer. I think all that need be done though, and this has to come from you because it has to come from the heart, we just have to inform them we are volunteer.

Your intention for working is either profit and gain (contract, what am I getting out of this) or to help as a volunteer (Love, no specific reason other than to help). Recently I shared a labour board got involved in a case where friends were helping a friend re-tile a roof. A guy fell and died and the board got involved and the first question was; was any money offered and someone said beer. Right then and there the board guy said that is a consideration (contract) and the board has jurisdiction. Now what if the guys said, we volunteered? I say this, the consideration would have been love and love is not regulated.

So it may be our right to contract equates to we are in it for the money, out of love and in commerce and regulated.

So what is to stop anyone from saying on their tax return, I am Volunteer. Just because a pay cheque is issued does not mean you are in it for the money. It may be all they need to hear or see is you are a volunteer which may remove a presumption your in it for the money, profit, gain. As i said above, volunteers can get paid and there is no tax liability. No requirement to file. You are not a tax payer as a volunteer.

It is what the intention is. We covered all that last year about this time. I do not think anyone can prevent you from being a volunteer. That would be to say you are in it for the money but who but you can make such a determination. But this is why i say, it has to come from the heart. In fact it already is.

If you are in it for the money, that comes from your heart, and, if you’re a volunteer, that too comes from the heart but you have to express it or how do they know?

Who can dictate to you what your heart says? Regardless that money is flowing, if your intention is not profit and gain but expressed as volunteer, from your heart, be true to yourself, then as far as I can tell, it is done. Your will is being done now one way so how can you be prevented from changing your mind?

Since the intention of those in PIF has already been expressed, as I see it, all that need be done is clarify, when i said I wanted 100% of money returned to Receiver General etc, i meant, my intention is not profit or gain, I do not work for money, I work to help, I am volunteer.

Now if there is more to add to that I am pondering or, it may suffice come tax time, I don’t know this to be true, but, indicate on the tax return you are a volunteer and claim back all income tax deductions.

See, if money comes to you as a result of your volunteering you are not in it for the money but love, so taking is not the issue, your INTENTION is.

Money is a gift to you and not taxable because it has nothing to do with services volunteered. When a gift is offered, we should accept. If you do not want the money, pay it forward then.

Now I am thinking on how to apply this to the BC that is not INTENDED to be personal id. Wink wink. I think I know why, when we ask the government what the intention is for a BC if not personal id, they do not answer.

I think we decide the purpose and it comes from……………..your………………….HEART.

To fix the recent blog problem James hit the reset button. haha. That took the site back to its original virgin state or natural state. Like a system restore except going all the way back to the core source program. For people that equates in my mind to just prior to the so called big bang. Everything was in its pristine state prior to the big bang but events after the big bang had no choice but to cause distortion.

Distortion is talked about by Ra in the law of one and I get it now. Ye haw. It is not a bad thing it just means everything has a beginning, that instant in time, and events after that alter the appearance of the beginning. Not sure if I am making my point here. Let me say it like this. A rock is. It is sitting in sand. It is picked up and painted. The rock is still there and is still a rock and the paint is the distortion is what i mean by distortion. More paint can be added and baking and sand blasting of the paint all of which are distortions. In us that can include memories. When the paint is removed the rock is back to its original state or has been reset.

Everything that happens after that moment is a distortion, an alteration of the original foundation, or as the natives refer to it, the original instructions. So we too then maybe we have to press an internal reset button to get back to our original state, natural state, who and what we really are. We get there by removing distortions, that what has been added unto or covered over who and what we really are. Distorting our view of ourselves, each other and reality.

What I am getting at is the biggest if not THE primary distortion is, we do what we do for a consideration other than as creator intended, who and what we are. SERVERS, source. In this world it is either love of others or love of money. Either way money can flow but it seems one is taxable the other not. Fits perfectly with the love thing and what we’ve covered here in respect of it.

By not being who we are, and i say the word in this world is volunteers, we have entered another reality. Government reality and all its powerhouse corporations and regulations. Land of contract, “what am i getting out of this”, “what is in it for me”, and since that is I would say a distortion, there must be a consequence and that in this world seems to be heavy burdens. TAXED.

We cannot be other than who we really are and experience the freedom of who we really are. The truth is though, I do not know the truth.

The word volunteer is cognized in law whereas to say I work or serve of love does not seem to compute. Saying the same thing but one computes and the other it seems does not.

Anyhoo, it is looking like the word volunteer means love but the word volunteer is cognized to mean, not in it for the money. Volunteer means, SERVER of love.

I believe that we have the choice to say we volunteer, and regardless whether or not money is flowing, because the intention is to help there is no tax liability, no burden and i do not believe they can say you cannot do that. I am not saying any of this is correct.

With love

Over view

Hi Lovers

While the blog was down I drafted some thoughts and they are here as an attachment.

Hi Lovers

As usual this information is shared for your discernment only.

Recently we did a post here Ask and it is Given or Ask and you Receive. Well, we can use that same principle to get the truth as Christ says to reveal the truth.

I love you

Round and Round

Hi Lovers

This is for consideration. I am not saying it is correct.

The Queen took an oath to the people. Government folks take an oath to the Queen, oath of Allegiance, and an oath of office.

So let us say the Queen has promised to serve the people but as the head of state the service is provided through that what she is head of. In right of Ontario, Canada, etc. The head of general motors is not liable for general motors, general motors is.

Would it make sense that I promise to serve you in a name I issue you but you not serve me in kind? What standing would you have to claim breach of promise if you are asking the court to order me that I honour my promise to you while you use the name to serve you? Good luck to you.

However, the opposite occurs the instant you use the name I issue you to serve me, at that point I am bound to my promise. See the post Subscription. If the subscription, promise, is not used as intended, the subscriber, Ontario/Canada in my case, is not liable.

In my mind, and I am not saying it is correct for you but it is for me, by taking the initiative to have the address changed as per previous posts and comments, one is bringing things about face, correcting a mistake, and the promise becomes binding and they know it. They are probably waiting for us, God is.

The address of course we are talking about is not ‘your’ address but that of the name from the foundation document, the document the extract that may be used as a foundation document but is not a foundation document (fiction of law) points to. So you have to have it clear in your mind who is who and what is what and the relations.

So, if this is correct then it has to be that Ontario/Canada benefit from my use of the legal name of the BC because until one or the other or both do, the promise does not kick in for want of consideration, the consideration as stated above but with modification, why would I pay your bills when you do nothing for me? But they are not my bills, and you are correct, but, the address thing indicates you are the beneficiary but not in truth but they play the game on your ignorance which is no excuse but in any case, as I see it, so long as the truth is not brought to light (I see the address change as a way to the means) you must like things the way they are.

The address change focus is not so you get your bills paid but so the promise kicks in and in my case B, VR or vendor is covered. I serve through B, VR but no one knows who I am or rather, I am not recognized in law, BVR is. The law does not care who you are, man or woman, it cares who is on the hook, unless of course harm was done; it may take a different view.

If you see yourself as a slave you know you own nothing and have no money so any claims against you or your name however you wish to look at it must be settled by the master so by making the address change thing with the additional information e.g. contact that office for the address of the B,VR; although you are a slave but in a good way because your doing it voluntarily, you are causing the invoking of the promise and are we not children of the promise? I mean if you say and believe the name is not your name, not you or who you are, then are you not more or less saying, I am a slave, especially if you say, I use the BC of necessity because I have to? (Servants can own slaves do not)

The Queen I beleive has taken oath to serve the people and without trespassing against your free will, maybe you can figure out how to complete the circuit that the promise kicks in. If you do not beleive in some kind of promise then I do not know what other process will work that is binding.

I accept that God did not create this world that we divide it among us like executors of our wee pieces of heaven but that we share in it all. For that to happen we have to be of one mind and one heart and collectively we are the heart of Canada. It, as Harper said, must reflect the character of the people and we know the condition of ones heart is reflected in his character, his walk and talk.

The reason I do not get real specific here with regard to a letter writing approach or content (how and to whom etc) is that I know no more than you the answer to say, this is it do it this way. So rather than influence I choose to let you go your way because your way may be the right way and mine wrong if you get the point?

If there is a scam going on I say it is those who know the truth and take advantage of it, being our ignorance. I believe that when we make our intent clear that Ontario/Canada/subscriber is recognized as the beneficiary, the scam will stop because the scam exists because we used the BC as a foundation document when we provided the address where our ass is, thus the subscriber is not liable and we are fair game. The oath, A PROMISE, (a subscription is a promise) rendered not applicable.

I am not saying any of this is correct but put up for consideration. What I see is this and it is free energy machine.

Queen made a promise to us  = service and when we are known to serve through the name recognized in law, the one from a birth reg/BC, the promise kicks in and round and round it goes. Everyone wins

I love you

Back to Kansas (land)

Hi Lovers,

The Deputy Registrar General has indicated in several letters (I have one) in one sentence that a birth certificate is an abstract of a birth registration and that a birth certificate ‘may’ be used as a foundation document for identification purposes for people born in Ontario, but, as an extract the BC is not that but points to the real foundation document (historical facts/1958) that is not and cannot be evidence of current identity of this man.

It is like until we inject new information, we are stuck in the age of current identity. A different dimension. We are not stuck in the past, Kansas, we are in OZ and the address change gets us back to Kansas, the state we were in at birth, 1958; totally free…………NOT CURRENT IDENTITY.

Anyhow, the writing it seems is on the wall. A BC is an extract of a foundation document, it is not a foundation document, but as she says, may be used as a foundation document, current identity, to serve yourself. hahahaha!

The only way I can see that being the case is the address that points to where our ass is, where we work, vacation, bank. We own nothing but the address indicates differently to those who see the information which includes two critical pieces of data, name and address for service, domicile.

But we can also apply the BC as an extract, let them know we know, which now alters the scope of things. Correct me if I am wrong but an extract is not a foundation document it points to the foundation document.

Judy said the extract may be used as a foundation document for id purposes for people born in Ontario. Id for people.

In this case the foundations document is the information certified true and correct (SOB). A certification cannot be of something in the future (has not happened yet) thus the SOB is a historical facts and not current identity of the recipient of a birth certificate.

I think we have ample grounds to justify the address change request and that it will be accepted. 

It seems to me they see us took the may option but that only means we are idiots (owners, taxpayers, persons) and by making the address change are saying, no more may going on here…….hahaha!

So the event of Dorothy returning to Kansas may be a metaphor in this day, loose that current identity tag, the external address of VRB. In other words, when the address for legal matters is changed, you are in Kansas, on the soil, the land, and the name I would say is berthed, domiciled in the harbor (til death/scuttled), sea, Port of Thunder Bay. By taking the ‘may’ use the BC as a foundation document option we took on the identify of the vessel where the laws of the sea (admiralty) apply to us. Kansas is land.

I love us!

Address correction

Hi Lovers

Let us go forth to the next level of this new thought process.

When a process server knocks on your door and asks are you so and so, does he know you have the BC with the particular legal name on it? Not unless you show it to him which if you do will verify for him he is knocking on the correct door.

So what it is that got it that the server is knocking on your door and not someone elses door? Was it because you used the BC as personal id and if so, what the proof is of that?

To make a long story short and in conjunction with the post yesterday in the comments to the most recent post, Nov 6th, it is the address you gave that they come knocking on your door. As i said last summer, all agents act on information and the information comes from some database. They see VRB and they see and address and it is to that address they direct their attention and will keep doing so until they see a different address is the point.

So the address is THE or a big problem. By giving an address associated with BC name or name contracts etc are in you are saying send the legal matters to where my ass is.

I said last summer the information in the system must be changed and the only information that need be changed in keeping with no information in the system is about you but the legal name, name recognized in law, is the address.

Change that and regardless of what information is under the name they will not knock on your door with regard to legal claims.

Here it is again the type of legal issues, claims, that you may receive service of now (from a government web site);

• Law enforcement

• For use by lawyers, process servers, bailiffs and private investigators for legal purposes related to the justice system including:

o Service of legal documents
o Investigations which may give rise to legal proceedings
o Locating persons in connection with claims/litigation/motor vehicle collisions
o Repossession of assets
• Verification of information by financial institutions (banks fall under justice system, hmmmm)
• Collection of debts resulting from failure to pay amounts owing to:
o Road toll authorities
o Financial institutions
o Government (including courts)
o Municipal and private parking authorities
• Toll collection (e.g. 407-ETR)
• Key tag service (War Amps)
• Automobile insurance purposes (e.g. claims and underwriting)
• Parking violations (private, municipal and government parking)
• Government use for program delivery where authorized by statute

By changing the address via that one place none of the above can come to you. Now, many do not use their head because at no time have I said or suggested to change the address to that of the Office of the Registrar General. I did say something about verification of domicile which you’ve seen if you actually read these posts. Further, that because a BC is an extract the truth of the domicile for the VRB of interest (not the man) is where the registration is held but it does no good for me to tell a third party that because they as you know will not accept that. They are acting on what was got from the information system which includes an address so we have to get into the system at a point we can have the address changes so no more of that legal claims are delivered to where you are located.

So we can use the BC to effect the change of address because the BC is an extract and can be used to guide the change of address folks to the ORG or government, source of extract, holder of the facts, truth, proof, for verification of the domicile of in my case VRB.

When we met the Deputy she said we do not know who gets these birth certificates to me is very significant and I will leave for you to ponder but will say, it is my belief that via the process of effecting this address change/correction, your connection with all account will change. The system will know and accept that VRB is domiciled within and is not any man out there…………..and it will act on the promise it issued that you know as a BC and that I have suggested is a subscription.

By having the address changed you are saying I serve, do not use this BC or anything as personal id, have no personal income, owe no money, own no property, have no debts.

Bottom line, so long as the address points to where you are they will not go to any place else but that address………..Think about it.

I love you

Two names

Hi Lovers

In addition to the last post is this. The name in records can only be of your head or the BC.

So a question to a court and yourself may be, is the name on that paper, in the information system, of my head or this birth certificate?

It is not but if they say it is of your head then in the information system then they are saying they are using your proprietary property and I may say something like; ok, you have just said you are using my proprietary property for commercial purposes without my consent and so you already owe me a grand and a grand a minute.

Are you sure the name is not of this certified extract from a birth registration?

That gives them an out if they choose to take it which I think is the best way.

Point here is simple, the subject name is either of your head, your property that you and only you can authorize or restrict use of, or the BC.

Now I have no intention of applying this knowledge in a court because that is dealing with things on a case by case basis whereas I want the record properly corrected once and for all to the extent when I present the BC no one says I am VRB.

I see by comments relating to the last post that most are stuck in yesterday.

I said before and say again, and this is my take; the best way to have it that those working on the outside do not see you as the BC name is to go deep within the system, to its heart and from there as in us, the changes are reflected outwardly.

In other words, if you want to change the world change yourself and the same goes for the system in that if you want it to see you differently, it has to be changed on the inside to reflect the change on the outside world.

From where i sit, all this conspiracy crap and banks screwing us crap is not true. You signed up and no gun was put to your head to justify you blaming them for your choices. Ignorance of what you do and why is no excuse.

You have the tools and it is up to you oh no longer a baby to grow up and use it properly. I see pain bodies everywhere, they this they that, fiction this fiction that, yet not one of those people is themselves being real.

Like a bunch of out of control children. Listen to yourselves.

With love

I think you will love this true…….Got it!

Hi Lovers

Alrighty then. Just as we have suspected, the truth is in our face, the face of the birth certificate.

It says right on it what it is and the related legislation says the same, and that is, a BC is CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION.

That means this, the BC points to the original registration, foundation document, patent, SOB which is not personal identification either BUT, a historical fact and nothing more. The BC points to the SOB because the BC is an extract of that historical fact just like you’d end up with if you got a certified extract of a record on file at a land registry office. That extract points to the land registry office in which the particular parcel of land is located but the land is not located in that office but outside of it.

Now relate that to the SOB. It being the original foundation document it is a like a patent, proof of the existence of something new and when. The difference between where that record is held and land records are held is that there is no out there. VRB IS domiciled where the record, SOB, is held.

There is an exception to that and that is, you do something that attracts the information back to you, such as, write letters with a name with the sender name similar enough to the one on the SOB, where the BC, the extract in your hand points.

Rather than do that you must quickly point out, this BC is an extract from a birth registration not personal id. I see now why it is criminal to treat it as personal id, certainly after you say that and draw there attention what it says right under the registrars seal on BC’s issued in Ontario.

In short, the BC does not and is not pointing at you but where the record is held but we keep doing things that attract the attention back to us, e.g. I am VB or VB 123 Main St. Somewhere………in the stead of immediately pointing out, this is a CERTIFIED EXTRACT admissible in court as proof of the facts certified 53 fucking years ago which has nothing to do with now hence, BC nor SOB, are evidence of the identity of the one telling you, this is a CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION (held or under control of office of ORG) and if you proceed on the basis I am VRB you will be apologizing.

Are you getting this?

The BC is an extract of a record not personal id means whoever sees the BC must look to the office that holds the record for further instruction and that office knows full well neither the SOB or BC are personal id. Oh yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

This, is the return to source. Everything is already certified and the signatures are not to be questions and both documents are admissible in court as prooooooooooooooooooof, so there is no need to acknowledge this or that as a deed, you already have it in the form of a subscription but you cannot do anything whatsoever that may draw the attention back to you is fatal.

When that connection is made and your not in the loop CANADA is the beneficiary and you the holder of the promise.

This makes perfect sense now why it was G’s request that the registrar of a court settle a debt did. All she did was issue simple instructions on a post it note and stuck it to the SOB. No return address, no phone number, nothing to draw attention back to her but the flaw for others has been or inconsistency has been because we never said see it says right here – CERTIFIED EXTRACT FROM BIRTH REGISTRATION and just so you know folks in case you need to know, anyone who proceeds on the basis you are, in my case VRB, is subject to criminal charges and more and has no defense.

This EXTRACT is signed sealed and delivered and the signatures are not to be questioned and ignorance of the law is no excuse……..

I think you all can carry on with this now that you see right on the face of the BC what it is and how F%$^&^* blind have we been? haha!

Make the connection to the SOB by the BC (extract of it) as the connector and the office that holds that record is the office that told me, knows, a BC is not personal id so I suggest once you’ve made the obvious connection for them, one way or another sooner or later, depending on your circumstance, the truth will prevail and you shall be set free.

But, I say again, making the connection for them is the objective and do not say or do or write anything by word or mouth that may cause them to look to you as so and so. If they say you are trying to commit fraud you say no you are. If they say I know you as VRB I say, that may be but I assure you you cannot prove I am that VRB or that any information anywhere in any system in the name VRB has anything whatsoever to do with this guy right here mam. It says right here, certified extract and if you do not know what that is under the registrars seal, you’d best get legal advice and quickly.

If I sound harsh it is to empower that there is nothing to fear here. The truth is the truth in this case proof and it is on the face of the BC. I may be VRB but I assure you as does this BC, I am not that VRB. hahahahahahaha!

Ta daa

I love you

Entitle

Hi Lovers

The attachment here is for your review and is not meant you act on it like folks always do. Just because it sounds good does not make it right so please, do your diligence and share your findings that either support the conclusion or tear it down.

Entitle-authorize

I love you

Sharing

Hi Lovers

19:15:05 ‹Hallow› Can’t build a foundations on water……Once again, get out the dictionaries and on the net and study the meaning of words and how they apply in the context used.

19:17:43 ‹Hallow› For example, the word ‘entitled’ as used in the change of name act as far as I can tell means authorized to be recognized by the name on the BC.

19:18:58 ‹Hallow› The entitlement is to be recognized by said name. So we have to look at the word ‘entitle’ in that context.

19:22:40 ‹Hallow› Blacks on entitle; “in its usual sense, to entitle is to give a right or title”, and title can be a name or authority but since the entitlement is to be recognized by the name, title cannot in this case mean is given a name to be recognized by the name on the BC, so it has to mean authority.

19:24:29 ‹Hallow› Authorized means to empower another with the legal right to perform an action and the heading of that section of the change of name act says, for all purposes of Ontario law.

19:26:27 ‹Hallow› Dictionary of Law says ‘entitle means to bestow a right, and so we see once again some sort of authorization thing going on.

19:27:46 ‹Hallow› So the word entitle seems to me to be an authorization in this case, we are empowered with the legal right to perform an action in the name appearing on the BC; whatever the action may be it is authorized by the authorizor, the principal.

19:28:37 ‹Hallow› This is why it is starting to make sense to say, I am authorized and bonded by Her Majesty to use that name. Bonded in this case means Her Majesty is responsible as the principal.

19:29:21 ‹Hallow› Bonded can mean insured in this case by Her Majesty.

19:32:10 ‹Hallow› This fits in with the idea that a BC is a subscription. The promise kicks in and is binding upon the subscriber, Her Majesty, Canada, Ontario, when the BC is used as intended, thus the eliment of consideration is made and Canada etc the beneficiary and we the holder of the promise, insurance. As user of the name we get use of property in the name that on the books does not belong to us but is under our control.

19:33:17 ‹Hallow› So, if I am authorized to be recognized by the name then I am merely a user of the name, thus, serving through the name thus I have an interest in Canada, in the country.