Three Ways to Play the Commerce Game

Three Ways to Play the Commerce Game
Published by admin under Knowing Who You Are

I haven’t posted anything for a few months because I was determined to make sense of what to do about the trust accounts. I don’t think that day will ever dawn or, if it does, we will likely be thwarted from implementing it. So I’m going to post what I have gathered so far.

I realized, recently, that there are three ways to handle the various aspects of the commerce game and it is our confusing them which is causing the ping pong balls to jump around in our heads.

I’ll begin with the most complicated which I’ll admit, up front, that I don’t understand, doubt I was ever meant to understand, and, most days, don’t want to spend my time trying to understand. This is for people who are determined to access the treasury direct account, DTC (Depository Trust Company), trust account, BC bond, etc. whatever. They believe they can, and even might, procure land, houses, cars, etc. solely on their signature. Not only do I wish them well, I invite someone to prove me wrong by telling me how to do so, only I don’t see it happening because, in order for us to prevail in this manner, we would have to be operating at the frequency of the bankers and I just don’t think that this is where we want to be. Continuing along this vein only further energizes the very thing we claim we are intending to rid. We are perpetuating an illusion which we are doing our damnedest to escape. How can we possibly create what we claim we want, when we are spending our resources avoiding the very thing we do NOT want?! We become that against which we fight, so what we resist persists. What might we create if we directed our time, energy, and emotion towards our desire for better circumstances for us all?

It involves the following: Since the public cannot recognize anything but fictions, we must deal with them from and as a fiction, i.e.: a trust. In order to develop a secondary trust, into which to put the first trust (NAME/SIN), so that we are removed from that, we must do several procedures which I contend are complicated: a claim, deed of trust (indentures etc.), a security agreement, an EIN, a POA, a PPSA/UCC-1 in the province/state of birth, and a UCC-1 in the triplicate form which can be obtained only from Washington, DC. This involves our being the trustee of the secondary trust which supposedly gives us control over not only that trust but also the foundation trust. I grasp the concept, it all makes sense, yet, I do not want to become entangled in the affairs of commerce to that degree. Business is none of my business. Do not ask me about the details of all this because I don’t know and only on the odd day do I feel like wanting to know. Most days I prefer a less complicated solution.

What I continue to notice is that most of the “all one of us” will not be able, for one reason or another, to implement any of this. Does this mean that those who can will create a replacement for the lost middle class? This class would know how to access the unlimited credit of the trust account, but continue to remain under those who control the entire game. They would have more cash than the masses but less than the elitists because the elitists allow into their club only those whom they keep under strict control. (see the movie: The Skulls. This might give you pause about continuing your search for the “remedy” because once you know, you can never un-know.)???Another way to play the Commerce Game makes much more sense, as it is less complicated:

Months ago, I wrote an article wherein I was adamant that we must not identify with the name. In fact, to those who write asking me if they ought to get a birth certificate for their baby, I suggest that whatever they opt to call their baby, they ought to tell the province/state something a little bit different so that the child himself recognizes that he is somehow connected to the trust, but certainly no trust account name could possibly be confused with his. In fact, when we are asked, by one with whom we do not want to do business, “What’s your name?” I think the only answer is, “Are you asking how to address me or are you looking for an account to charge? If it is the latter, I do not consent to do business with you.”

But, no doubt for all of us, the name/trust will be “charged” in one form or another, whether it is utility statements, loans, mortgages, credit card statements, traffic citations, or ostensible criminal charges. As all crime is commercial (equity law under admiralty/maritime jurisdiction), we all become criminals when the name is charged. Since what most of us want is just to get these twits our of our hair, there has to be a simple solution without going into the interminable search of those who seek the above circumstances, however, I have yet to find one.

I have just deleted the information on AFV because I have yet to receive any reports of success for those of us who are not one of the privileged elitists. I’m sure AFV works for them; it does not work for us.

In cases where we authorize the public over the phone, e.g.: for a credit card or telephone service, they immediately access the trust account. This is why they require a DOB (date of birth) because they know that we no longer like to hand out a SIN/SSN, but the DOB and Name is all the information they need to access the account. Then they send us a statement of an account and expect us to send them cash. This is ludicrous since their entire system of accounting does not use cash; rather, they require signed paper––debit paper and credit paper. It just so happens that they moonlight as cash-confiscators. So, in those cases, we simply do an AFV of their request for the signed paper to offset the debt they have already created. It is a rather simplistic process; ergo, it is likely to be accurate. Where we were erring before is that we were sending the acceptances back to the bank or utility company or court or cop shop. No one at any of these places has a clue, so don’t bother sending it to them. This is not to be confused with returning something to its source stating that there is no contract. Circumstances alter cases. If there is a contract, then the charge must be AFV.

Foreclosure

I have heard that bankers must prove that the bank owns the land they intend to sell, after having stolen it. If the land is native land which was never sold or ceded to the bank, then they are trying to sell land which is not theirs. My position is that, since we have dominion over all the earth, then any land (under the commercial pseudonym of “property”) which appears to be “owned”, couldn’t possibly be “owned” by anyone, so the bankers can never prove that the bank has legal title to any land. This principle would not translate to a house, which is man-made but, when a bank steals a house, it steals the land, too, as house and land tend to get bought and sold together, as “property”, so these cases translate as a “false claim” which is in violation of the code, specifically, constructive fraud, so, have some fun with the bank on this. The bank states that it has a claim against the house, which they can never produce, anyway, but when they steal a house, they get the land which is really what they were after in the first place. Well, just reverse it on them. No one can own land so no one produce a claim to that and, since the house is on the land, they cannot have it either.

Legalities

I notice people continue to talk about “legalities” which apply only to legal fictions such as corporations and trusts. I also hear, “It’s the law”, yet, no one has ever shown me any alleged “law”. I’ve seen codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, constitutions, acts, bills, legislation, policies, and treaties, none of which applies to men and women, but I’ve never seen any law.” I suppose that is because no law can exist without the consent of the people and no one could ever agree to any of the nonsense they try to pass off as “law”. My favourite is when I hear people say that they want marijuana “legalized”. It is already “legalized” as it is under the jurisdiction of the statutes, codes, acts, etc. because it has been named. What these people really want is to get the plant, known as cannabis, OUT from under that jurisdiction. So they want it DE-legalized. The way to do that is to quit acknowledging NAMES! Again, there is nothing wrong with a man growing, possessing, smoking a plant created by God, as man has dominion over all the earth and every living thing upon the earth. But, as soon as one puts a “name” to either the man or the plant, he has just “legalized” it.

Court

Here is something to think about if you are considering going to court. In most cases, generally speaking, going to court is lose/lose and not going to court gives you at least a 50% chance of staying out of trouble. The main reasons never to go to court are: well …. there is no “court”, you were never invited, you were never charged, there is no claim against you, etc. If there is no “court”, then there is no “law”; there is only “procedure”. Since 1933, there is no Common Law and, therefore, no common law courts – only courts of equity, under admiralty/maritime jurisdiction and statute law. Since all crime is now commercial and we are exempt from levy––because we cannot be IN the commerce game, we can only PLAY the commerce game––ergo, we cannot be held liable for any “crime”.

Policy Enforcement Officers (PEOs) contract with people under the common law, as this is what we have been programmed to believe still exists, yet, in a masterful “bait and switch”, the courts carry on the pretense of common law, but actually operate in commerce. It’s all about “money”. This is why those hired as Peace Officers yet, operating as PEOs, want a NAME and DOB (date of birth), so they can locate the registered trust, in order to credit their accounts.

The proceeding called “Discovery” cannot produce any results because the “facts of the case” are immaterial and irrelevant outside a common law jurisdiction. Often judges allow cops to swear in as Peace Officers but, in another scathing operation of “bait and switch”, they testify as PEOs, when, unless they had actually witnessed a crime, they have no first-hand knowledge and so what they have to say is only hearsay and “hearsay is not permitted in court”.

One (and only one) Reason to Hire an Attorney

If one opts for the typical route and hires an attorney, then, at “sentencing”, when the judge asks, “Will the defendant please rise?”, the man, being held as collateral and surety for the charge, can tell his attorney, “HEY! Buster! That’s you. This is why I hired you …. to represent the accused …. so that YOU take the hit, not me. Now, do your job; YOU are the one representing the defendant and so it is YOU who must stand to receive sentencing. I am not a party to this proceeding. Dig out your cheque-book!”

Attorneys represent the “accused” which becomes the “defendant” which is only and always the name of a trust account, never a man. So, why go to court? If they try to tell you that there is an arrest warrant for FTA (failure to appear), remind them that the name called must have been present in order for them to call the case. So, the accused/defendant most certainly did appear. Again, we are not a party to their proceedings.

If the judge works for the Crown/Province and the Plaintiff, also, works for the Crown/Province, then, there is a “conflict of interest” which vitiates the validity of all court proceedings.

I am not in possession of any charging instrument or document bearing a blue-ink signature. Not only has the court been unable to provide a valid claim for me to believe that I, a man, have been charged, but also no corroborating entity (state, province, DTC, DTCC, etc.), has any record of any alleged claim. Proceeding on a “false claim” is constructive fraud.

CANADA, Inc./USA, Inc. is in receivership; so its creation, the province/state, also, is in receivership, has no standing in law, and, hence, has no jurisdiction over man. I never authorized the Crown/province/state to charge the trust. The one who created the liability must bring the remedy. Since the Crown/province/state has no value to give, then its agents have no right or standing to demand value from me. I did not, because I could not, ever create any liability. I own nothing; the Crown, province, state, DTC, et al own legal title to everything. I am the only one with any value, in this or any matter; only I can settle any accounting, via my “qualified signature” (autograph, agent for NAME). But, the only way for me to do so is to be presented with a blue-ink signed instrument, for my acceptance and authorization for the public to offset the liability. If the court cannot provide a valid claim, then, whoever charged the trust account, is liable for the debt and, until he comes up with the remedy to this conundrum, he is in breach of trust––the only reason anyone ever goes to jail.

The registered owner of the birth certificate is the province/state. The bonds issued, upon the registration of the trust, via the Statement of Live Birth, are in the name of the province/state. As owner always functions as trustee, then, the state/province, not a man, is trustee. However, since the court system hopes that the man will act as trustee, thereby making him liable for their charges against the trust, then, they pull every stunt in the book to get him to admit to being the Name/trust/accused/defendant that has been charged, thereby tricking him into trusteeship. They do this by stating the name of the charged account, getting him to stand for that case, and then asking his name. If he states the name of the trust, then not only is he presumed to be the owner of the trust but also the trustee, as all owners are trustees.

Since the first duty of any trustee is to protect the corpus of the trust, then, it is the trustee who must discern whether there is a valid claim against the trust. Since all claimants must first give value, prior to producing a claim for the return of value, and we know that the state/province (being insolvent) has no value to give, then, we can see why they are trying to get us to act as trustee. But, either way, a valid claim is impossible to produce; ergo, no valid claim has even been issued; only the trust account has been charged. The claim does not exist. Until the court produces it, there can be no “case” because the entire case rests on the plaintiff’s burden to produce a valid claim but there couldn’t possibly be one. ALL claims are false claims. All plaintiffs are operating via constructive fraud, pretending to have a claim when none exists, unless the plaintiff had already given value to the one against whom he has the alleged claim.

Even in civil cases which appear to be man vs. man, the man is not a party to the proceeding, if he uses the name of the trust in order to file the alleged claim. There is no crime, no charge to be offset, no defendant, … nothing. ALL court cases are null and void. The ENTIRE dog and pony show is a charade. Next time it crosses your mind to go to court, please bear all this in mind, along with the fact that the entire matter is about “cash-confiscation”––NEVER about what appears to be the “facts” of the case” and certainly not about “justice”.

“The Legal title owner can set up as many asset trusts, holding trusts, and account corporations as they please. They own the name. We have no access to these accounts and I suspect we never will because we do not own them. Why would anyone want to assume the liabilities of the corporation/province/state? This desire must be ego-driven. We have “dominion”, on this earth, not “ownership”. Hand over all charges to the Legal Title OWNER. The world of the ego, not man, operates on legalities. We have to make the creator of the corporation responsible for their liabilities.

“Judy Hartman is the Attorney General’s contact, for Ontario. She said that everything we have been led to believe about the BC is false. She admits that the BC created a small corporation so that the province could trace our location and create funds for us. Government agents have been programmed to insist that we use the BC for identification when it was never, ever, intended to be used as such. The BC is equivalent to the title to one’s car. We do not ‘own’ the car; the owner of the title owns the car. The province cannot register human bodies. It is we who inaccurately and unfortunately opt to identify with the entity they created. She said that Ontario is the legal title holder but we pretend to be and this is the illusion of the game. We opt to believe we are the token as opposed to the one using the token. Isn’t this how we play the game of life? We like to think we “own” things. We forget that we, in spirit, want only the experience of life (the game), and we are only using the body/token in order to play. We get so caught up in the game and begin to believe that we ARE the token/body.” –– Bill W.

The desire to “own” is based upon our ego’s belief in separation. In my February article, I wrote how slavery came about. The masters knew that the slaves would soon discover that they could over-power the masters, in numbers alone, so the masters opted to “free” the slaves by compensating them for their labour, with coins. The more they worked, the more coins they could get and the better house, clothing, and food they could have. What this accomplished for the masters was not only more labour from the slaves but also each slave was now competing with his fellows and his attention was no longer on loathing the master. Consequently, most people see their fellows, rather than the government, as their rivals. Hence, we now have “business”; the entire premise of which is “competition”.

To Summarize This Part

All court cases are fraudulent, for the following reasons:

Insufficiency of complaint: There is no true plaintiff; no verified statement; no swearing, by the cop or attorney, before a magistrate; no review and affirmation under oath and bond of the prosecutor; so the complaint is not certified and so it is not a charging instrument. Someone must be at risk to prevent frivolous complaints from being filed and no one is.

Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: The court cannot provide a valid claim as the province/state is insolvent and has no value to give, ergo no value to recover. Due to insufficiency of complaint, there is no verified document to be presented for set-off.

Failure to state a cause of action: There is no affidavit with a statement of damages. Who swears that a crime has been committed? Who can bring forth the law which states that a man is in violation? Since no “law” exists and what is pretended to be “law” applies only to legal fictions, then no one can swear to any grounds for legal action. Since damages are not stated in an affidavit and signed under penalty of perjury, then there is no case.

Lack of standing: No agent who files an alleged claim has any standing “in law” to do so. Neither prosecutor nor cop has any first-hand knowledge; neither prosecutor nor cop is a party of interest. If no man comes forward as a party of interest with first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case, who is eligible to state a claim? Who is the plaintiff?

Lack of justiciable issue: If there is no response or rebuttal to our affidavits and counterclaims, then the court agrees to and accepts the points presented therein. They have stipulated to our position. Since, now, we are all in agreement, there is nothing to adjudicate.

The final way to play the commerce game is not to play at all. I’m not talking about never again using bank notes; I’m talking about no longer charging our fellow man and treating one another the way the banks treat all of us. Again, we are to do what we love to do and serve our fellow man by doing it. This link demonstrates that this concept not only works but also is our natural inclination: http://daily.finerminds.com/mind/motivation/career-work-motivation-rsa/

In my previous article, I mentioned my friend, Nick, who has not received a paycheque in nearly 5 years. Every now and then I ask him how he is doing. If ever there were a man who lives in the “here and now”, it is Nick. One time he answered, “Fine; oh, the insurance is due on Friday.” I laughed and asked, “Do you have the funds?” “Not yet.” “Nick, today is Thursday.” “Mary, it isn’t due until tomorrow.” I checked with him a few days later and discovered that he had, indeed, somehow, received the cash he needed, on Friday, just as he had anticipated.

This is all about “indirect compensation”. E.g.: if you do something for me, and I compensate you directly, then that is where the possibility of expansion ends. However, if you do something for me and then I do for others and they continue to do for others, etc., the power of that energy grows exponentially and, when it returns to you, as it must, since “all thought (energy) returns to source” (– A Course In Miracles), it has increased dramatically. This is why, when we give first, without expectation of return, we get back more than we gave. It is an “energy/frequency” phenomenon. In order to accept this concept, we must experience it.

At the dense, physical level of slow frequency, we are not in control. At the spiritual level of light frequency we have ALL control. Ergo, we do not need to DO anything about anything; we must change how we perceive what we think we are experiencing. “Seek not to change the world; seek only to change your mind about the world”. – ACIM

http://time-to-choose.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-to-defeat-our-controllers-without_22.html

Scientists began to look for “God”. They searched the earth and the universe, to the extent of their ability, for the ultimate frequency, energy, light, sound, consciousness, awareness, and love. In all of existence, the scientists found the best of it …. within us.

http://youtu.be/cVQJPeRwKek

http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/