Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
What follows is a series of emails sent to those on my email list

Our court clerk friend has been quite helpful revealing some info.

3 parties to every transaction, the creditor, debtor, and you.

HM is responsible for the BC

BC is an indemnity security. But events have to take place to bring that to fruition.

Also, all fines paid into a court are still in that court? There is a reason.  These payments are voluntary. We never had to pay. It is not their money. Also, equity does not assist a volunteer.

Everything is estates. Revocation of power of attorney is more power than a power of attorney. It is also how one gets his power back. A lawyer was disbarred for one year after telling my friend that.

Chowski

I AM


Good morning

The court clerk told of a situation of an 80 yr old woman who had returned to her 60 years worth of property taxes she had paid.

The SoB represents our estate, our interest. We have to hone in on that, the reason we do not own property. We do but we do not. Tilted has to be re-vested.

They are, or we are allowing them, to take from our inheritance/estates and give us tid bits thru the legal person (no life). I sent a letter recently to the effect, fraudulent attempts to attach liability to man via a legal person. Seems to have had the desired effect. That may stop them from trying to collect but will not re-vest the title.

Hence, as per the court clerk; there has to be a Declaration of Life. Here I am, I am Alive. No longer lost at sea or an absentee.

So, SoB = our interest, inheritance/estate, and we get tid bits via legal person thru the BC. Is this you?

As I wrote yesterday, there are 3 parties to every transaction. Debtor, creditor, and you, surety. The surety is the guarantor but not obligated to pay, the holder of our estate/trust account is to pay. But we have been paying; hence the voluntary aspect and why there is no assistance in equity. Knowing you are the 3rd party surety and if you are being compelled or pressured to perform, pay or else, then is when you can get into equity. If you pay, once again you volunteered. Coming to you for payment will cease once you claim your Estate.

All that money we paid since day one is there for us to claim. See Cestui Que Vie Act. Our estate/inheritance is what backs everything and why we need to hone in on that as well as a full accounting. The creditor/debtor is really HM in that all business is done in her name (be it between General Motors and NAME on BC). Exactly as Marcus said and I spoke about during the RtKoG talkshoe calls. It is also why man has to show up alive and lay his claim. Here I AM. I AM alive. You need to know which name identifies you and which identifies your Estate

If you look on the app. for a Birth Certificate a BC may be requested by/for one who is alive but not if physically dead. So they know when an app. is made for a BC that we are alive but then we use the BC as personal id, thus, enter into the land of the dead. "Let the dead do business with the dead". But we are not dead but as if dead, or, lost at sea, an absentee. If you were considered lost at sea for 20 years and then come to shore alive, how would you go about claiming your property/estate?

I love thee

I AM


According to the clerk we are not agents. He specifically stated that. If you hold my estate I am no agent and why would I claim to be an agent?

The clerk said our estates, us, our energy, backs everything, but the estates belong to us; hence, surety. As the title to our estates is held by HM it is HM that should pay out of our Estates. It is your Estate and you are entitled to the rents and profits etc. It is why the woman had 60 yrs of property taxes returned.

The clerk said we are surety and the surety does not pay. According to the clerk we do not have to pay, never did, and is why the woman got 60 yrs of property taxes returned. The clerk said all the money paid into court is sitting there. Why????? Is this the CAFR Account?

The clerk is a head clerk and he has seen a lot of paperwork and so I place more faith in what he offers than others. Unknown to my friend until yesterday, who when involved in a bankruptcy proceeding (10 yrs ago), he revoked power of attorney and fired the judge. The clerk said the judge was fired, gone bye bye  no longer a judge. So who then employs who?

We have to get it in us we are the top dogs here, the employer if you will. We are so used to being the underdog, told what to do, that we do not take seriously the gov holds our estates. Escheat, noun, (law) a reversion to the state (as the ultimate owner of property) in the absence of legal heirs. The property that reverts to the state.

So since the gov holds the SoB, as well as retains or holds legal title in the BC, and we have not claimed our estates, property reverts to, or continues to belong to or under the control of the state. Now when we cause the merger of estates, which we do when we claim it, HM is on the hook to perform. Our estate she is holding is backing the BC estate; hence, surety. "Merge, verb; to become one" (Mark 10:8-9 and the two shall become one flesh: so they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate) "Merger, noun, (law) an absorption of one estate, or one contract, into another, both being held by the same person".

HM holds title to our estate evidenced by the SoB and holds or retains title in the BC = the same person, but it is our estates. As of now based on how we used the BC there are two estates or a separation, no surety, just a bunch of people volunteering payment. When the estates are merged based on our claim then HM has everything HM needs to take care of the accounting.

Obviously they are doing a great job of accounting for the payments we make. They knew how much that woman paid over 60 yrs to return same to her. A volunteer payment is not as gift or donation. That is why the money paid into court is sitting there.

I AM


The clerk said, I am not lost at sea. Where did he get that from? Why did he say that?

See, we are not dead, we are considered lost at sea, no dead body, or why then have you not claimed your estate???????

I AM


This from the Cestui Que Vie Act.

"recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawful Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements".

The one lost at sea but that has returned has right to the profits and damages. Why? Because it is his lawful estate.

CESTUI QUE TRUST He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate, the legal title to which is vest in another. The person who holds the equitable right to property and who receives the rents, issues, and profits thereof, the legal estate of which is vest in a trustee.

CESTUI QUE USE He for who use and benefit land or tenements are held by another. He has the right to receive the profits and benefit of the estate, but the legal title and possession (as well as the duty of defending the same) resides in another.

Part IV of the Cestui Que Vie Act: If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested

The Absentee Act covers the - we do not know if he is dead or alive. Until an actual death certificate is issued, we are considered lost at sea or an absentee.

I AM


We know the government does not register people it registers live events.

Tom shared a while back what a lawyer friend of his said to him; oh, you know about the registration of an Estate upon the registration of the birth of an infant.

Now read the preamble to the Cestui Que Vie Act "upon whose Lives Estate doe depend".

Tom shared with me this fine day what he did to stop the prosecution of a traffic charge; "When I went to court 2yrs ago over a traffic ticket I sent the Crown a written notice of dispute within 3day along with asserting that the RCMP including the Crown were committing fraud by trying to collect twice on a debt. What I stated was Their trying to get paid twice, Once from the birth estate/trust account as the cop failed to give me the original violation ticket and the second payment if I pleaded guilty to the charges. I also said in my notice that I didn't consent to contract or to be recognized as a legal person before the law".

Are you seeing it. They get paid from our metaphorical pot of gold account (Estates) and us if we volunteer payment. They need to get us, the Life, on the hook, or to claim our Estates, so they can access our Estate/Trust Account. Well, if they can access it so can we. They should be charging the Estate the government (HM) holds title to, not us.

Here is the proof of that;
Absentees Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter A.3 (modern version of Cestui Que Vie Act)

Powers of committee to expend money out of estate
7 The committee, subject to the direction of the court, has authority to expend moneys out of the estate of an absentee for the purpose of endeavouring to trace the absentee and in endeavouring to ascertain whether he or she is alive or dead.  R.S.O. 1990, c. A.3, s. 7.

If you have read legislation where they speak of Estates, all charges/costs, with exception as per Statute of Frauds, are charged to or borne by the Estate. Well in Canada Her Majesty (HM) holds our Estates/trust Account; therefore, has the duty to perform for us.

By the way, the prosecutor, as did the RCMP officer, told Tom they would not prosecute.

Adam
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

idiot
SoB= statement of birth?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
This post was updated on .
In deed you are a smart idiot.........respectfully

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Tony
In reply to this post by Hallow
Thank you for posting this info, it is very helpful.  

A couple of comments - as far as agent, it is my understanding there are "types of agency", one being liable and the other not being liable.  For example, I can be an employee for a company and sign FOR the company without liability as agent for the principal.  Of course, the other type is signing as agent is for the person, ie service of process, signature on a traffic ticket, tax return, etc, as consenting surety/principal.  

I am enclosing something I had in my files for some time, specifically relating to taxes, an "affidavit of revocation".  I hope the info may be of some help to others.  Again, I do not say the info as accurate or not accurate, it is just a sample of an affidavit of recession I had in my files.  Yes, I do get it is not about paperwork, but too, it is about understanding the concept.  And Yes, the main and basis concept IS the Cestui Que Vi and I am alive [which I am, an incarnate living soul having a human experience]

AFFIDAVIT_of_revocation.doc

To be clear, [and I admit my potential misunderstanding based upon what I studied where the courts have agreed that there is no difference between the all caps NAME, JOHN DOE or upper and lower, John Doe], when you mention -" You need to know which name identifies you and which identifies your Estate", THUS would this be a correct example:  "John Doe" = surety/Estate, However, "John Doe, Incarnate Living Soul" would equate to  identifying me, the man with beneficial interest to the John Doe estate?

Also I have a question based upon this:  "So since the gov holds the SoB, as well as retains or holds legal title in the BC, and we have not claimed our estates, property reverts to, or continues to belong to or under the control of the state. Now when we cause the merger of estates, which we do when we claim it, HM is on the hook to perform."

OK, once we claim our estate as beneficial entitlement/interest holder [equitable interest/naked ownership], you are forcing the title holder or state to perform its duty to acquit and discharge the "obligations".  Have you found this to be the case with all past payments made by JOHN DOE [man consenting as surety] of all obligations, ie, as you mentioned all property taxes were return?  If you go into court and provide this "affidavit of life" plus the BC, does the court actually then ACT to the mandate of the CQV trust by "If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest........since [from] the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.]"?    

Thanks






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
This post was updated on .
Hi Tony

What you say about the name is true for legal purposes such as appearances in Court. They will summons man via his lawful or proper name, proper noun, but then the charges are accounted under a legal ALL CAP name.

The main thing to distinguish is that man is the Life upon which the JOHN DOE estate does depend. Knowing that and how to articulate it is the basis of our right and remedy in equity. But if man claim himself to be or appears as, has not rebutted the presumption he is a legal person, citizen, resident, incorporated inhabitant, subject etc., creatures of the state, no Life, he is doomed.

Man is identified by a proper noun whereas ALL CAPS identifies something else. We have several letters from the deputy registrar that a Birth Certificate, BC, may be used as a foundation document. May is not must and therefore the BC has another purpose. The SoB is the foundation document, or, legal title to the Estate identified by the name given on it to register a birth. It is stated here that name is a legal name. So we see a distinguishment between lawful or proper and legal names.

Legal title in a BC does not pass to the recipient; therefore, the government holds or retain legal title in birth certificates. Therefore legal title to the Estate does not pass to the recipient. But, as we are the Life upon which the Estates do depend, we hold equitable right, title and interest, or right to call upon the legal title holder, trustee, for performance. The government does not register people when it registers births, it registers, now get this and things may fall into place for you; they register Life events. BC is not and was never intended to be used as personal id.

Aside from identifying an Estate, your interest, the BC in Canada is proof of Life; that the holder of a BC is the Life upon which the Estate, registered at birth, does depend. Here they will only issue a BC to a person who is alive, not physically dead. So the BC is not a death certificate as some claim. It seems that way because we either identified ourselves a legal/artificial persons, creatures of the state, no Life, or allowed someone else to. It began when we used the BC as a foundation document. Big mistake.

Now how the public and or the country benefits from this is in allowing the trustee to do their duty. As the government, a public office/officer, holds legal title to our Estates and the property belongs to the Estates, we have nothing to give. Or if one did want to give he has to disclaim the Estate. That is not the subject or path but my point is the nation is served when we allow the legal title holder to do their job as trustee.

So we, man, upon whose lives the Estates depend, can say we are the grantor. I stick with I AM the Life upon which the Estate does depend because the government does register life events, not grantors. Not in so many words.

Bottom line, by not taking, claiming ownership, and operating in accordance with that as predestined, all is fore or previously given. The predestined thing as it pertains to this world is because the Vital Statistics Act, the authority to register the estate upon the birth of a child, for the government to take and hold legal title, was enacted before we were born into this world.

How one interprets the Bible has much to play in this. For example, Jesus said ye cannot serve two masters. Some interpret that to mean you cannot serve God and mammon. But what is really meant is you cannot serve God, the inner mind, and the human, or outer mind. Two completely different states of being two completely differing perspectives. The inner or God mind knows its life comes from God whereas the human or outer mind believes it is sustained from the outer appearance world. For that it has given power to the outer world in the stead of God first and foremost. Love God with all thine Heart.

I AM not here to serve or give to the nation, not directly. I AM here by the grace of God to Love God and serve God, do as he wants me to. A by-product of that, as per the above, allowing the trustee to do their job, is how the nation is served. We are here, we do what we do, make what we make, and it, the Estates/property, fruits of Life, remains here after the life leaves the body. That is my contribution. No one can lead a constructive life, be in harmony with all life, or a destructive life, out of harmony or out of sync with that as predestined. We got out of sync when we used the BC as personal id, thereby making it appear we are the legal title holders when in fact we are not.


Sorry for the long winded reply.

Adam
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Tony
Adam, thank you, we are in agreement mostly.  Just the basic concepts:  As legal title holder, the State of XX is the trustee, as man has been left spoliated.  Based upon the spoliation of the owner [of his Natural Rights] where the State receives benefit, under the rule of usufruct, the State too is subject to the liability.  So simple, how can one disagree?  I would be delighted to help the US during its bankruptcy by providing to the US all checks made payable to the name I use.  But this too was ignored.  READ into this - I was willing to give more than take out.  My needs are minimal.  If everyone put into the pot everything and took out of that same pot what they need, good golly Miss Molly, we'd be surely well on our way to "Heaven here on Earth" -- as intended by the One who created and is the owner of the earth.  I can not understand why SO many people hoard.  It makes no sense.  I would say my most frustration in life is not just this study, it is trying to understand what are people's ultimate goals and motivations?  Do we not all want the same thing, in essence?  Security, shelter, food, friends, partner, peace, love, etc?  When I finally GOT, gee I can not take any THING with me once I take my last breath and really GOT that, wow, this so does not fit in with the illusion.  But the illusion is present for OUR good.  This too is certain.          

Up to today and this may change tomorrow, I do not agree that the government registers "Life Events", it registers an "Event". the event being a certificate of title that was created by [using loose terms here] a Doctor who granted or attested [testor] or attended the birth of a child [a person under the age of majority] by his signature, thus started off the process of a common form estate.    

Point in reference

Common and Solemn Form of Probate

In English law, there are two kinds of probate, namely, probate in common form, and probate in solemn form.  Probate in common form is granted in the registry, without any formal procedure in court, upon an ex parte application made by the executor. Probate in solemn form is in the nature of a final decree pronounced in open court, all parties interested having been duly cited. The difference between the effect of probate in common form and probate in solemn form is that probate in solemn form is irrevocable, as against all persons who have been cited to see the proceedings, or who can be proved to have been privy to those proceedings, except in the case where a will of subsequent date is discovered, in which case probate of an earlier will, though granted in solemn form, would be revoked. Coote, Prob. Pr. (5th Ed.) 237-239; Mozley & Whitley. And see Luther v. Luther, 122 Ill. 558, 13 N. E. 166

Is the Doctor the Grantor and Executor?  I do not know.  Maybe until the State takes over the executorship?  What I do surmise is that the legal person is not man.  It is a fiction.  

Check this out in Florida

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2017-04-27/florida-passes-bill-to-issue-certificates-for-miscarriages

Seriously, why do you think the State of Florida wants a "certificate of miscarriage"?  LOL

I agree - how one interprets the bible IS most important.  I love Christian Science, but this to me is a little tough 100% of the time.  I too love Spiritism, as this explains so much in life, [which I have first hand experience to witness miracles] so I kinda put the two together and I find it for me to be a good balance.  Scripture is abundant in both.  I just resonate with these two ideas the best.  And me too, sorry for long winded.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

PaperCut
In reply to this post by Hallow
What is the Talkshoe ID for the RtKoG Talkshoe Calls, is the Restore Kingdom of God Call ID: 135632 or is it something else.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
In reply to this post by Tony
Hi Tony

I shant challenge your beliefs.

This is Canada defined by the Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54: 1979-12-21: “Further, although s. 91(1) gave the Queen the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to alter the “Constitution of Canada” except in certain expressly designated areas, it does not confer a power to amend the B.N.A. Act. The word “Canada” in s. 91(1) does not refer to Canada as a geographical unit but refers to the juristic federal unit”.

Now if citizenship has not been rebutted properly then essentially one is in agreement he or she was born in and is of Wonderland. As a Wonderlandian one has very limited rights. A woman had 60 years of property taxes returned. She did not offer up to bail out Canada.

That said, a friend settled tax fines via a bill of exchange $4000.00. He has the proof of payment from the Department of Justice. Now before people go thinking to do that sort of thing let me be clear here that he had his day in tax court and some things he said in there got the judges attention. I shant get into the full specifics but will say, the judge said "ok Dan I am giving you some leeway". The judge also asked Dan if he would be willing to file for DAN? To which Dan replied, sure I will do that on your behalf. As a result of that he and his family had several thousand dollars returned to them. His yearly tax liability is zero.

No country is authored by God and yet people want to support these juristic units. These units are run by lawyers, pirates.

The treasury mentioned in the Bible is not what people think.

Matthew 6:19-21
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Nuff said.........
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
In reply to this post by PaperCut
Yes PaperCut
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
In reply to this post by Hallow
The government registers life events,

Vital Statistics Act,

“birth” means the complete expulsion or extraction from a person of a fetus that did at any time after being completely expelled or extracted from the person breathe or show any other sign of life, whether or not the umbilical cord was cut or the placenta attached; (“naissance”)

The event then is an extraction.

We met the Deputy Registrar General and she said some things during that private face to face meeting. Her government appointed attorney was present as were two of my friends.

"The government does not register people, it registers events. A birth certificate is not and was never intended to be personal identification, it evolved. A birth certificate is a valuable token".

We knew from the get go of that meeting there was no attempt to jerk us around.

In the beginning it is true America was founded on the principles of God but things have since changed. It is true the Declaration of Independence is a divine document but now lawyers run the countries.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Let the dead [legal persons] do business with the dead [legal persons].

Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal - R. v. Hynes, 1999-07-02, [84] “A primary purpose of the Charter was to change this relationship of the individual with the state and its laws by endowing individuals with an effective means of challenging acts of the state in courts on the ground of violation of their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms”.

These rights and freedoms are binding on all levels of government. From municipalities on up. Citizens have rights but so to does a man who is a man, meaning, not a legal or artificial person.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) [1990] 1 SCR 425 my pg. 167 and 168 “While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities”. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen (N/A, my emphasis).  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business………… He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution”.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) [1990] 1 SCR 425 [my page 149] "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings”.

Meaning of citizen, driver, tenant, joint tenant, lessee, incorporated inhabitant, owner, beneficial owner, taxpayer, employee, officer, resident, ratepayer, voter, subject, purchaser, buyer, etc., etc. Each and every one fall under the category of “and other artificial entities”; are legal persons, creatures of the state that enjoy rights and powers upon approval of statutory authorities. [who is your god now?]

Until certain presumptions are nipped in the bud, one is considered a legal or artificial person. There is no authority to designate a man as a legal or artificial person except man himself. Therefore it is he and only he that can prevent such things. These same rights and freedoms exist in America, and man who does not claim these rights has none.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
I should have had this is the foregoing post.

As per Canada (The Minister of National Revenue) v. Stanchfield “Persons are of two classes only – natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties”.

One must be cognizance of the context in which the word person is used. In other words, which person are you? A natural person with full legal capacity, not under legal constraint, or a creature of the state, most certainly under legal constraint?

Just because one possess a driver license does not mean he or she is a "driver" [legal person] within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). If one accepts the designation then he or she is a driver, a legal person, a thing, and subject to the HTA. You can apply the exact same principles to all other enactments.

Once one liberates himself from such designations he can go forth and reclaim his Estate, his birthright, his inheritance, rights, power, property. This birthright was not granted us by God to use to bail out anything. Your first duty is to God then you and your family.

Citizenship Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29

Persons who are citizens
3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Rights and obligations
6 A citizen, whether or not born in Canada, is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a person who is a citizen under paragraph 3(1)(a) is entitled or subject and has a like status to that of such person. 1974-75-76, c. 108, s. 5.

I have zero allegiance to Her Majesty. See oath of allegiance.

I am an ally of Her Majesty and allies do not plunder the property of allies.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Tony
In reply to this post by Hallow
Adam, please know I do not disagree with you.  I get what you are saying.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Tony
In reply to this post by Hallow
Thank you for sharing - again, I get what you are saying and I appreciate your thoughts.  It is clear to me that all the "stuff" I did including speaking to vital records director, after much correspondence, just did not work.  Maybe my paperwork was not correct?  Maybe it is me?  All I can do is be willing and try.  

At least you were able to have a meeting with some official and there was a willingness there.  All I got from the director was the BC was NY property, which I said to him, that is exactly my point, then he skirted what I had said.  If the birth name/title is property of the state, then under the rule of usufruct, the state is liable.  Toward the end of the conversation, I said, I do not understand how people can do this to others and future generations, as the director had told me he was a new grandfather.  I do not understand why there is this NEED to protect a system where there is a "false" profit motive behind it, to everyone's own detriment?  One could say, it is there to protect.  OK, I could agree up to a point.  If everyone worked together for the good of everyone, maybe 80% of the people would see heaven on earth.  For the other 20%, this type of "living" would not work for them.  There is enough room on the planet to give everyone what they really want.  I want to and CAN live in peace with people.  

moving on --

If I need to "rebut the presumption of lost at sea or property is abandoned", I too am ok with this as well.  Either way, the outcome is the same thing, some public official must step up to the plate.  I did not write their rules, they wrote their rules and they must honor their rules because they "are paid to do so, under their 'contract" whatever all that means in the land of fiction.  

Just to cover any presumptions in my response.  NO, I am not looking to "get away with something".  NO, I am not looking to rub in their faces this stuff.  All I want is the return to Shangri-La.  If you all have not seen the 1937 very dated movie, Lost Horizon, do watch a few times.  Once you get past the "datedness" there are many truths inside of there.  Some folks are not ready for Heaven on earth, and maybe I have some ways to go, but my overall intent is what can I do, say, pray, or whatever to get us - those that want this - back to Eden.  Sorry for long response.  

May God Bless everyone.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
This post was updated on .
Ok folks.

If you see it.

Hi Lovers,

The court clerk said, there are 3 parties to every transaction. The creditor, the debtor, and you, the life.

After our wonderful call last night I was hit with a revelation. Helps to talk to my Mighty I AM Presence.

So, we are neither the creditor nor the debtor. As such we have no obligation to pay but we paid. That is the voluntary aspect our clerk friend spoke of. As such we have no standing in equity. Equity does not assist a volunteer.

Now here is the big revelation. The BC is evidence of Her Majesty's business or [mini] estate and we are the Life upon which the business/estate depends, the third party. It is Her birth certificate; can be recalled, cancelled, or invalidated.

A BC is not and was never intended to be used as personal id. When we used it as such all we did was volunteer to be the debtor as evidenced by the payments we made. Each of us, the Life, the source of energy, the gold, was granted a business to operate for and on behalf of HM. She is the creditor and the debtor.

All names business is done in are registered, thus receive Her blessing. We have been blessed beyond comprehension here people. So the estate is not the SoB, that is the plug in of the Life upon which the business/estate, evidenced by the BC, depends. The BC is the estate, call it a crown estate or business matters not.

The only reason creditors come to us for payment is because up to now we have volunteered payment. A consequence of selfishness, my house my car, but it is not your house or car. That property belongs to Her Majesty's business you are operating. It is Her business and she has the obligation to pay, if you let her.

I told of Adam up north who was told by the Deputy Registrar General ( D.R.G.) they can't do that. They, the crown agents, used the name on BC to id the man but a BC is not personal id it is evidence of Her Majesty's business, and that the holder, the natural person named on the BC, is the Life, which without, nothing happens. There is no business there is no Canada.  

As the Life upon which the Estate/Business depends, in the stead of acting as the debtor, we have standing in equity.

So the Declaration of Life here has more to do with, I am here, I am Alive. I am the Life (surety) upon which the crown business/estate depends. I am not the debt beat debtor, a legal person.

Are you getting this.

The grantor is the one that has to put up the funds. An application is made for a BC and if you have one it was granted.

When Neo went to the machine city the machine said, we do not need you. Neo said, if that is true kill me now. To kill Neo would be to deprive HM of the Life her business depends on. Without out us, Life, there is no business, no money, and in that sense we are the gold; hence, physicians notification of birth document is known as the GOLD STANDARD form.

In Canada they will only issue a birth certificate to a natural person who is Alive. They know from the the application for a BC that you are the Life upon which HM's business/estate depends. The unknown is, do you know that or are you going to use a BC as personal id?

The clerk said the surety does not pay. That is because HM is the creditor and the debtor, and that is because HM grants birth certificates and holds or retains legal title in the birth certificate. You can see the consequence of using a BC as personal id. You are saying HM owns me and you did it to yourself. That is why when Adam called the DRG and said, what if they ID me by that name, he was told they cannot do that and he ended up having his marijuana returned to him in court.

Once we get on board with this and use the BC as intended, if an agent of the crown/HM was to attack you he or she is attacking HM. It is Her business, evidenced by the BC, and she needs us, the Life, to operate it. It would be an act of piracy or treason/sedition. You could look at it that you are captain of Her Majesty's vessel and anyone that attacks that vessel is a pirate.

My friend up north is involved with a bad landlord. My friend was a former tenant. The landlord, being an agent of HM, was in contempt of court 3 times and the government agent said, don't worry, we take care of our own, meaning, this guy may end up in jail for the things he did as HM's landlord. Furthermore, my same friend was involved in a bankruptcy matter, the alleged bankrupt. Well, they took the house and sold it even though there are caveats noted on the title in the land registry office. It was sold to a guy for cash and it looks like 3 lawyer absconded with the cash. In so doing they stole from HM and one of them has several charges hanging over him, one of which is breach of trust.

My point here is one is either with or against HM and when we used HM's BC as personal id, we became pirates. As per the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean movies, all pirates must die. Meaning, stop being a pirate. Stop using a BC as personal id and operate with it as if captain of her vessel, allowing her, the grantor of the BC, to pay. Pirates are not allies of HM.

So to correct the problem we created we have to, and this is for your discernment, use the BC as intended. Not as personal id but as evidence of HM's business and we the life upon which that business depends, the surety. 3 parties to every transaction, creditor, debtor, and you, man. We are not the creditor. We are not the debtor. We are to be the third party man operating HM's business.  

We met with a lawyer for the Minister of Finance. He told us that promissory notes issued by the government, in the name of the Crown, e.g. to a contractor who does work for the province, have no fixed date of maturity. The contractor takes that note to the bank and deposits it. The account is credited thank you very much. If you know what no fixed dated of maturity means, then you see how HM can fund the vessel you operate as intended, with no debt outstanding. That contrary to working for a living.  

There it is people. If you see it

Peace be in you

Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

iamsomedude
Administrator
 
 
Creditor / Debtor = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

The third party = Tree of Life


The LORD (earthly government (HM for purposes of this topic)) enforces the usufruct

all that is left: from which tree does one eat?


How much more simple can this be?
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
If one uses the birth certificate that belongs to her majesty as a business belonging to her majesty, the grantor of the birth certificate, then her majesty has to pay for property. In that sense the BC is an indemnity security. In other words, if one is captain of her majesty's vessel evidenced by a birth certificate, then HM, not the captain pays.

3 parties to every transaction. A creditor, a debtor, and you, the Life upon which her majesty's business depends. So we either captain her majesty's vessel for and on behalf of HM or for self and if the latter, one is in essence a pirate.Now you know why you get charged and are under attack.

That is where everyone is at. Whereas if one is a good captain, operating her majesty's vessel/business for and on behalf of HM, he is protected from attack by other vessels piloted by representatives of her majesty. For if a representative of her majesty was to attack a captain of her majesty's vessel who is operating the vessel/business for and on behalf of HM, then he or she is attacking her majesty and that is treason.

Now we each were given a BC that evidence a business. This business cannot be taken from one. The question is then, is the man operating the business doing so for self or for HM? A BC is not and was never intended by HM to be used as personal id, your business, but that is what we all did. For that were bear the burdens. If we not see the light and correct the error of our selfish ways, we feel we have a fight on our hands and in the end make things worse for thyself.

True story. Man walks into court flashing the BC saying, I am an agent of HM. Case dismissed right then and there. For them to proceed would have been to attack a captain of HM's vessel/business. So to avoid that they did the right thing and dropped the charges. Simple eh.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

idiot
.....Being an agent of HM (or United States), you are potentially able to receive diplomatic immunity (diplomatic agent status) and corresponding passport/dl/tax exempt card.
Obviously if the above mentioned are received through the proper channels, then ones status will be easily verifiable by any branch of government simply by calling the state dept hotline.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Tony
Thank you all for posting the info.  However, and to me it is 6 of one or half dozen of the other, this is basically consistent with Article 38 of the Lieber Code.  

#38  Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States.  If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Whether one uses the Lieber Code version or the Cestui Que version, the issue comes down to a false claim of property that one does not own, thus consenting to be surety.  It makes sense there is a penalty for making such claim.  With that said, the name or property itself is part of an "internal system" call it HM or the United States.  The debtor and creditor is one of the same, which makes sense because in accounting, the debits must equal the credits.  It is our "intermeddling in the infant's estate" OR the INTERNAL business without specific [as opposed to general] authority to screw up the "accounting" which forces the system to hold us liable for the system's property.  As man is a conduit to operate the "internal system" for the benefit of HM or the United States, and here is the $100 question, when ONE steps up to the plate and says to the public official, "I have not fled, I am here alive and well AND I AM WILLING to honor:  "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor", WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO FULFILL MY WILL AND DISIRE TO HELP YOU AND YOUR INTERNAL SYSTEM OUT, JUST DO NOT ASK ME TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN IT,

And still we get no response?



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
This post was updated on .
Hi Tony

Perhaps the reason you get no response is because the perspective is wrong or how you are going about things?  

I shared what the top court clerk said. I see it clear as the blue sky outside the window.

As I see it the property is not forfeited but seized. Our remedy lays in operating the vessel as a captain. I use that term in a metaphorical sense to mean in control.

Being I am in possession of the grantor's birth certificate, Her Majesty, I am commissioned to operate her vessel/business.

Another very significant thing here for people is when one is resurrected from presumed dead, no longer absent, one will need credible witness acceptable by government to verify the man is who he claims and that he is the proper holder of a particular BC (captain of this particular ship). The government does not know you from Adam. 

To apply for a birth certificate, as per the Ontario application form, the registrar requires a guarantor. They have an approved list. This guarantor has to say he has known the applicant for at least 2 yrs or thereabouts. So I am going to use the approved guarantor, he that was indicated on the app. for a BC, and have him attest that it was he that signed on as guarantor so I could get a BC, and that it was I, the same man, who was before him, alive and well. Everyone should know self serving testimony is worthless.

Think about it. A guy was lost at sea for 25 yrs. His estate handed over to another in his absence. That other may or may not know him and if not, what may he have to do to prove he is has the AUTHORITY to claim back the estate? In these times since we have a government issued BC it is the government we have to satisfy.

Title means authority so when I say re-vest title I mean authority. The authority is that I am the one commissioned to operate the vessel. In my absence the Crown acted in my stead. So by re-vesting of title I take the authority from the Crown to control the vessel back to me.

When we acted as the debtor we in fact were the surety. So the surety thing here comes into play as part of the resurrection and re-vesting of title in that, if I was in fact the surety, and I was, then the principal, HM, has to refund all monies that were paid by me as alleged debtor but really the surety. In other words, the principal, HM, should have paid but I did but that does not relieve the principal of responsibility. This is why the woman has 60 yrs of property tax payments returned. It is based in equity.

Don't get caught up in the marital thing here but notice what this lawyers says about ships bumping into one another.

"Presumption of Death From Absence

The law becomes confused when an individual disappears for a long time and no other person knows where the absentee is, dead or alive.

 Until death has been confirmed, the law continues to deal with the absentee's property in absentia, governed only by any delegation of powers the absentee may have signed before disappearing, such as a power of attorney.
 
 It is a disagreeable state of affairs that the law cannot tolerate for long as without a directing mind, property, assets and things are rudderless and as such, start bumping into other ships nearby, such as the legal rights of a husband or wife, marital status, or the rights of property held jointly with the absentee, or the absentee's estate or an estate in which he might have an interest were his status ascertained in law".

That is exactly what I am saying. We abandon ship, are lost at sea, and in our absence, there is no captain of the vessel so Her Majesty's representatives stepped in as captain. While that was going on we made payments we never had to make, and were governed.  

There are multiple things to consider here. It would take a book to list them all out and as Boris has said many times, people will have to use their brain and work it out to have the inner knowingness.

Although I shared in a previous post here what a guy did in court, "I am HM's agent", I would not say that. I am the captain or the one commissioned.

It helped me to let go of most of what I thought I knew, look the cold hard facts, and assemble a clear and concise picture.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info from Top Court Clerk/Registrar

Hallow
This post was updated on .


12