Taken from a recent email directed to “Bill”

Feel free to share this as is with Stacy et al.

From section 2 of the Bank Act,

“debt obligation” means a bond, debenture, note or other evidence of indebtedness of an entity, whether secured or unsecured.

 “entity” means a body corporate, trust, partnership, fund, an unincorporated association, or organization, Her Majesty in right of Canada or of a province, an agency of Her Majesty in either of such rights and the government of a foreign country or political subdivision thereof and any agency thereof.

 It seems safe to deduce that the Parliament under the authority of the Constitution indicates the capacity of ‘entity’ is that of artificial non-living entities and that same have the capacity of a debtor. In addition, no where in the Bank Act is it indicated that men or women or human beings issue debt obligation, evidence of indebtedness.

I know that people sign debt obligations, such as promissory notes and recognizance’s, which if I am not mistaken, the latter is an admission of an obligation or indebtedness to Her Majesty, however, I will say and have no doubt that is done because it is the credit of the people that is actually backing the obligation of the Crown and the registered artificial person, e.g. the name appearing on or derived from a birth registration/birth certificate. It is how they get money. See Supreme Court stuff below.

In other words, although I am not a rocket scientist, I do not believe one must be a rocket scientist to deduce that with respect to debt obligations, there must be something backing the obligation and a means to pay off the obligation, and furthermore, if not the people, then from where does that ability come from? See Supreme Court stuff below.

Furthermore, to show that Her Majesty is in capacity as a debtor or relies on the credit of the people is section 321 of the Criminal Code of Canada under “exchequer bill”.

Stacy likely has a copy of that Code and can see for herself what is written.

The bottom line of this regardless of what people are told or believe, artificial entities rely on the creators of credit, the energy/labour of the men and women to make their debt obligations good. We back their obligations and we are tricked into accepting the liability.

This is a reason I will say that the Bank of Canada, as acknowledged on its web site,  ‘Ultimately, the Bank (Bank of Canada) is owned by the people of Canada.’.

See: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/about/who-we-are/

It is interesting too that the term “man” and the term “woman” are not used in any legislation. The term used that is applied to and imposed on men and a woman is “natural person”. I would guess that Stacy is familiar with that term.

I found this on the net,


Artificial person………

A legal entity that is not a human being but for certain purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.

I guess if statutes are meant to apply to men and women, then why is the term man or woman not employed by the legislatures or Parliament of Canada in their statutes and codes etc. In R. V. McIntosh the Court made it clear to the Crown prosecutor that the legislature says what it means and words are not to be added unto or taken from that will alter the INTENT of Parliament or the legislature of provinces. In other words, and again, I am not rocket scientist, but if the Parliament and legislature intended that legislation applies to men and women, why do they not use the term “man” or “woman”?

Again, I am no rocket scientist but it seems to me that if the terms man and woman were included in legislation, statues etc., it would be akin to making the creator of credit (the creditor) a debtor which coupled with artificial entities being debtors, who in the heck would the creditor be and where in the heck would credit come from? Furthermore, from where would artificial entities get the authority to convert men and women into lesser status than artificial entities have?

There was a time that Canada had its own gold to meet its obligations but that ran out long ago, hence why it and other countries went off the gold standard.

Gold is not required to back money, labour is.

Supreme Court of Canada, Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal

 [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1148

Supreme Court of Canada

1977: January 27 / 1977: June 14.

At page 19 of the copy I have is this;

It would appear that the Bank of Canada does have assets, apart from its use of the printing press. Under s. 30 of the Act, it must report these assets weekly to the Minister of Finance, together with its liabilities, in the form of Schedule B. Not only did Schedule B mention “notes in circulation” among the liabilities of the Bank but it also gave some idea of the assets upon which the notes of the Bank were a first charge, such for instance as bullion, [see page 14] foreign exchange and bank premises; many other assets, it is true, are themselves debts of governments in the form of treasury bills, advances to the Government of Canada, etc. But one would like to think  that the latter are not devoid of substance, backed as they are by the resources of the country and the industry of its people.

 So if that is not the icing on the cake admission right there who the real creditors are, shoot me.

Now, as we are backing their liabilities, their obligations, we must be by right, owed. The artificial are indebted to the men and women, not the other way around as it appears or we are led to believe.

Now the answer or solution to correct this glitch peacefully is to forgive their debts to us that are otherwise, by virtue of the facts, un-payable. In other words, if those artificial entities such as Her Majesty can pay their debts without the people, why do they have us on the hook? See the letter titled “Time To Finish It” that is under the tab called The Scam.

That letter or the intent is to make clear, we forgive the past and we will continue to give our energy/labour/CREDIT freely by and through their artificial persons such as the name appearing on or derived from a birth registration/birth certificate, but you pay the obligations of your artificial persons.

Either that or inform the banks that we men and women are the creditor and so when we sign a note whereon the name appearing on or derived from a birth registration/birth certificate is the named debtor, our man woman credit pays that debt obligation right then and there. In other words, there would be no debt and no un-payable interest obligation.

I assume that Stacy is aware that when a loan is made that the principal amount is created and goes into circulation but that the interest obligation is not but must be paid back. (Example, $100.00 is borrowed but $105.00 must be paid back. From where will the $5.00 come from?)

This is why all debts in the world are un-payble. In other words, if all money in circulation was recalled it would pay off the principal sum but not the interest portion. That principle is what is destroying the world economies with ever increasing debt. The only way to get rid of that interest debt is to forgive the initial principal debt.

The only alternative I am aware of, if they do not accept our forgiveness, is to launch one big mothering criminal and civil lawsuit or rebellion.

The people are being held as debt slaves (See Post: Human Trafficking) and this in my view is a major cause of hopelessness and crime and ill health due the constant ongoing financial stress. It is for a lack of better word, insidious.

I realize not everyone is at the level of consciousness to be part of this but some are in that, and I know I speak for you and others Bill; this is not about greed or accumulating stuff and sitting back and watching TV or doing nothing, but to free those who choose to be free and are ready so they may go forth and do what they like to do in a productive way that is beneficial for all including the artificial entities. As we are the ones doing the work, we are by no means getting anything for nothing except what God, the one infinite creator, has conferred on us all free of fee or charge.

This here from the Canadian Bill of Rights says what I mean perfectly;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law…………

 Further is Acts 4:32 in the Bible. This is not verbatim but read it; those who know they are of one mind and one heart know what he possess is not his own, but that we share all things in common.

 God created this world for we his children to enjoy and not artificial entities to rule over us. But I get it that not all people are in harmony with that concept and so in that sense, yes we need the rule of law and a justice system to keep things in check. That is, until the consciousness of the people has shifted that we love one another as we would love to be loved.

We are one.

I pray that someone other than you and I and a few others Bill are willing to sacrifice themselves and time and stuff that we can, together, help shift the consciousness, help make things right, and bring about a new way.

No doubt lawyers and crown prosecutors are as stressed as the rest of us so this in my view helps begin to relieve all of the burdens.

If Stacy is unclear on any subject here, We are more than happy to assist in any way we may be able to.

Category: Human Rights Defenders

Comments are closed.