Over the past few days, I have become aware of the work of Kate — formerly Keith Thompson of the “Judge Bows to Sovereign” video. I always thought that video was questionable, until I learned all about the 7.5 hours which preceded it.
Kate’s document, Denique Ultimatum, exposes the fraud of the thugs and, so far, they have been stopped by it. Only a few of the docs have gone out, so we won’t know the full impact for awhile.
Kate, along with Santo Bonacci (of “Know Thyself”, etc. videos), has caused me to return to my original position of: if we want freedom, we must LOSE THE NAME.
Dean’s position is that if we demand that the thugs use the name in the proper ”inherent rights jurisdiction” jurisdiction, then they must protect our inherent rights, but not only is the system designed for them and NOT us but also they are thugs and never did, never would, and never will intend to protect our rights. They are frauds and they have instructed their minions to treat us as if we are the servants. Remember everything is mirror image, so, those whom we call “public servants” are not OUR servants; rather, they are servants to their superior thugs.
Dean contends that we can “correct” the present system and Kate and I agree that we must dismantle a system which has methodically, viciously, and intentionally ruined us, by brilliant design. We can never alter the vicious nature of deliberate frauds but, somehow, we must put the courts out of commission. It seems Kate has found a way.
Kate claims that our parents sold the name and, ergo, us, into slavery. I would have thought this was a reach, for a few reasons, had I not known the history of the Roman Church/Vatican. Thanks, to Frank, we do. True, on the Statement of Birth (SoB/NoLB/RoB, etc.), we read “Given Names” and, yes, our parents ‘gave’ us a name, but the instant that this document was handed over to the public, our ‘name’ was no longer private. What the thugs did with the name is barbaric and this is why we must remove ourselves from it, completely. The instant that our parents cashed the first baby bonus cheque, the contract was deemed ‘accepted’.
One might argue that the contract was between the province and our parents –not us, however, we simply assumed it and carried on, not only by signing the Name but also by making use of a Name which, for only a few hours, had been solely ours. The fact that the Crown, via the Province, owns the Name means that our using someone else’s property, without permission and for profit, is FRAUD. It is not ours to use and, if we do, we can be fined, charged, and arrested for ‘fraud’. I admit that another tactic would be to force them to prove that we ARE a name, yet, I’ve noticed that we seem unable to get anything from them, including the courtesy of a response.
It now seems as if ‘fraud’ is the only ‘charge’ there is, yet, no one ever says so. Had anyone ever charged us with ‘fraud’ we would have asked, “Where’s the fraud? Whom did I deceive?” and, as usual, the thugs are not about to tell us. Remember, we are never, ever charged with any ‘crime’, UNTIL we admit to being the Name. Where we thought that this was simply the mechanics of their ability, i.e.: the means by which to charge us, we now know that this is, ITSELF, the crime. Anyone in court who admits, albeit via coercion, threat, deceit, intimidation, trickery, force, etc. to the name is admitting to ‘fraud’ and at this point —and ONLY at this point— do they have a legitimate crime by which to charge us. So, this is why I have maintained my position on NEVER GO TO COURT ! Our mere ‘appearance’ means that we believe ourselves to BE the Name or, at the very least, to have USED it in circumstances under which we had no right to do so, which has led to our self-incrimination.
I suspect that Dean, as cute as he is, might be a bit naive on presuming that when we do something correctly, the thugs will show some respect for us and possibly comply, but we all know that’s not going to occur until we hit the nail on the head and it seems as if ‘fraud’ is THE issue. We have all heard and even said: ”All crime is commercial; all law is contract; contract makes the law”. Well, “fraud” fits this description, perfectly. Fraud is always about commerce, specifically, profit via deception; and there must be a contract in order to prove it.
The driver licence is the best example of a contract proving we are fraudulently using the name, after being asked to show it. What is the first thing a cops says? “Driver licence, insurance, and registration.” (I like Rob Menard’s response to that: “Milk shake, hamburger, and French fries.”) What the cop is saying is, “Prove your fraud, so I can fine, charge, or arrest you; and, I’ll make up a reason for doing so because I’m certainly not going to tell you that the real reason is: YOU COMPLIED with my demand to prove your fraud !”
I am reminded of the story of the woman who was taken from jail to prison and, at the prison, during booking, she was asked for her Name. She knew that the Name was germane to the entire fraud and so she adroitly answered, “So, you are incarcerating me and you don’t even know who I am ?!” As I recall, she held her ground and they were forced to free her.
So, we must stop behaving fraudulently. ANY use of the name, for whatever reason, will land us in their jurisdiction. Our lives could turn upside down if we forget that, via THEIR fraud, we have no option but to use the name in certain circumstances, however, “bank accounts” is the only one I can think of which might be deemed “of necessity”. This also might be the best reason for an interest-free account, as then, there is no profit and, by definition, fraud is “deceptive profit”. Maybe once we let the bank know that they are complicit in this fraud, we can have accounts without the Name, just a photograph. (For years, I have carried a card which has only my pic and is signed by a retired California MVD agent. It reads: “Since 1966, the one pictured rides motorcycles, cars, vans without mishap”, etc.)
Licences, passports, etc. —documents which we think are for our advantage, are actually incriminating us. I told my son, “the driver licence is not what keeps you out of trouble; it is what CAUSES your trouble.”
Kate says, and I agree, “Do not carry ANY paper which has the Name on it.” I even complained to a bank that the debit card has a Name on it, and I complimented another bank for NOT having the Name on its debit card. Credit cards are different.
I had a friend (no longer with us, I’m sorry to say) who insisted that her credit card have just her picture. “After all”, she explained to the bankster, “isn’t my appearance the best identifier of all? A signature can be forged, but when you see my face, you’ll know that I am the rightful holder.” NOW we know why a photograph is not permissible even though we know it is more efficient. I also requested of a bank, over a decade ago, to put my picture on one of their cards so I could use it as ID. Wouldn’t a card with the authorization of a bank have some clout? Again, now we know why I was declined. It is the Name by which they entrap us and, clearly, NOT the body. We’ve all heard of cops who say, “Well, we have reason to believe that you are John Doe.” In other words, they might well recognize the man, but they MUST get him to BE the Name. True, they are required to prove their claim that we are a name, but our demand for such seems to be to no avail.
Kate is adamant about this subject, saying, “Even encouraging someone else to use what they believe to be THEIR name is “enticing fraud” and this includes the thugs; so, do not ask a cop, judge, attorney for his name. Now, this is something to consider, eh? —just when we thought that we could use that information to our advantage.
NB: None of this is to discount Dean’s magnificent work in proving that no “statutory laws” apply to us, based upon § 52 of the Constitution and §32 of the Charter (See article, below) Since “fraud” falls under Statutory Law, we ought not to have to worry about any of this, however, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why ask for trouble? “Lose the Name; Win the Game.”