Page 1 of 1

This Forum is locked at the moment ...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:04 pm
by Veronica
... but will be opened once an announcement as to how it is to be used has been created.

The subject matter is 'tricky' (to say the least!) ... and the last thing we want is for Members to get the wrong ideas ... and then blame FMOTL.

So stand by ... at the moment.

Forum Status

PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:20 pm
by Veronica
For the benefit of those who were expecting this Forum to be used, I will explain the situation.

I freely admit, I didn't like the idea. But the request was made, from several Moderators, and I did the necessary "admin" to bring it into existence.

It was started as locked Forum because I said that it needed some sort of guidance notes before it could be made available to everyone.

This was agreed, and one of the Moderators agreed to create that Posting, and unlock this Forum.

I dusted my hands, conscience clear (no-one "censored" or prevented from expressing their views), and forgot all about it … letting them get on with it.

And what happened? Well … as you can see … this Forum was created mid-March (18th), 2010 … and the date on this Posting is 23rd April. And the only Postings are the ones I have made (including this one).

On March 30th, 2010 I started a Posting of - what I consider to be - REAL information for "Newbies … as much as anybody"

This went reasonably well, but got hijacked (as these things do), and tried to get back on track. It partially succeeded in doing that.

Unfortunately it got hijacked a second time (accidentally - no-one is accused of malice), into a couple of Postings about "Trusts", on the 18th April.

I must admit that my exasperation got the better of me, and - perhaps not in the most genteel manner possible - pointed out that I didn't want MY Topic (especially for Newbies) diverted YET AGAIN … and certainly not in that direction.

The Members who had accidentally strayed the boundaries apologised … and that was that. (I even later Posted to one on them not to take all the blame on his own shoulders).

But … that wasn't good enough for the "Trusts Brigade". Oh no. Having been warned not to discuss the bollox of Trusts on MY Topic … it is discussed all over the place elsewhere on FMOTL … and this EMPTY FORUM had been created SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE … no … that wasn't good enough!

Oh no! On the 21st April we get this.

Lot of criticisms of me there (et seq.). (And some supporters with functioning brain-cells).

So let's set the record straight on all this Double-think.

There are 3 components to a Trust.

The eyes of the "Trusts Brigade" light-up bright at the thought of being a "Beneficiary"! Ooooow yes … TO BE THE BENEFICIARY! THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!

And another component is a "Trustee". Someone who administers the Trust.

Problem: Who is sufficiently trustworthy? So as to be able to take that role? The Government thinks they are … but I don't. The "Trust Brigade" don't think the Government is trustworthy either. That's about the only thing they & I agree on.

The third component is a "Grantor".

And the "Trusts Brigade" have decided that WE are the Grantors AND the Beneficiaries. And that, according to the rules, a Trust cannot exist if ALL THREE COMPONENTS are the same thing.

Whether or not they are right in the assumption remains to be seen. It is perfectly possible that the Government see themselves as the "Grantors". The New World Order certainly does, which is why they think it is fine to kill 80% of us.

However, undeterred, their brilliant idea is to wrest "Trusteeship" from the Government, claim it for themselves, then ALL THREE COMPONENTS ARE THE SAME THING, and the "Trust" is thereby dissolved.

"Somehow" to their benefit.

The problem with this logic is a little phrase which goes "Refused for cause".

If I don't acknowledge that I am a Beneficiary, and don't acknowledge that I am a Grantor, or that I am a Trustee … then the "Trust" can go fuck itself.

"Refused for cause".

And that way I don't have to delve into any of the bollox, nor engage in any kind of DOUBLE-THINK.

I can simply stand on the SOLID ROCK of HONOUR: I AM BOUND SOLEY BY MY OWN PROMISES … I AM -NOT- BOUND IN ANY WAY BY PROMISES MADE BY OTHERS … and I certainly DO NOT acknowledge any possible "granting status" to anyone else. Which the "Trusts Brigade" would need to do by filling in the appropriate forms. By doing so they are "granting" the fact that someone else can determine their lives. Which is NOT "freedom".


Well, the result of that "interchange" is that some of the "Trusts Brigade" have thrown all toys out of prams & flounced off.

So it isn't likely that this Forum will get much use.

The fact STILL remains. I have NEVER censored anyone on this subject.


Re: Forum Status

PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:29 pm
by Veronica
Oh ... I nearly forgot ... one final thing that no-one seems to appreciate.

This "bond"? The "subject" of these "Trusts"?

There is evidence to suggest that ... if you "upset" TPTB ... they can CANCEL THE BOND.


(One of the Members here thinks that may have happened in their case).

After all ... TPTB have done their level best to keep this "secret" from us. If they think there is any likelihood of exposure, then cancelling it - in specific cases - would be easy-peasy. After all ... it never existed anyway ... did it?

Or even "partially cancel". Stop A4V, stop and Loan Applications (maybe), but still pay your Doctor and so on.

You want to play on a playing field that is tilted VERTICALLY against you? Fucking bloody hell!

Re: This Forum is locked at the moment ...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:00 pm
by Phil: C
Locked, unlocked? Testing, testing ...

Re: Forum Status

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:19 pm
by gepisar
Hi V,

Just wanted to add a bit of info....

This "bond"? The "subject" of these "Trusts"?

Far as i cant tell, there is only one trust that may be linked to the so called birth bond. Personally, im not convinced. There's no evidence of a bond. And i dont think one needs bond instruments to create a trust.

There is evidence to suggest that ... if you "upset" TPTB ... they can CANCEL THE BOND.

I'd be very interested to know more about that, since that would unequivocally prove the existence of said bond!!!

As regards cancelling something that never existed...well, "prove you dont have WMD" springs to mind. Impossible of course.

I appreciate the fact that you're hosting and 'paying' for a forum dedicated to FREEMAN stuff (in the purest sense) and all anyone wants to talk about is so-called commercial redemption processes.

Seems, though, at the end of the day, which ever is ones preferred route, the issue is always enforcement? How do you enforce the rights one claims?

In jail for breaching trust or in jail for getting arrested for 'driving' whilst not having a licence or whatever...either way, its enforcing ones freedom. Its not really freedom if one constantly has to enforce it - is it?

Either way...

Is there more merit in tackling this in their world, where they are at least agreed to the rules, or in our own world,where we even disagree on the engagement process. They will still come with handcuffs...

Which is the better route?

Best Regards

Re: This Forum is locked at the moment ...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:35 pm
by the_common_law_reverend_kenny
To be fair, V has made her position quite clear in many posts and in the radio link above, and I for one don't expect her to comment here..

For me the better route is to protect each other from nefarious information, by that I mean between us we can make clear what is unclear. Essentially though we needn't go play on their field, by their rules with their choice of referee.

They will still come with handcuffs..

Re: This Forum is locked at the moment ...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:43 pm
by BaldBeardyDude
Have you ever GIVEN your name to the authorities?

GIVE (GRANT, YIELD)- To transfer(trust term) property(res - trust term) without compensation(benefit - trust term).

Ergo, when you GIVE them anything, it is RES (trust property)they can use it as they wish, especially your unqualified signature - this is how they do it all to us.

By implying a trust relationship with us having fiduciary responsibility, we are tied to thier laws by our promise - we pay.

The real man must sign - he is and only he can ever be grantor, simply because only we have the capacity to sign in the real world - the private world. The strawman can be construed as either a trustee or a beneficiary, as in the commercial world, only fictions exist, as we know.

Now, given a choice, I would rather my SM be beneficiary than trustee any day of the week, but that is not what we see in the situation is it? So, we must correct it, or continue paying in sweat equity, as our realman signed his bond/promise, didn't he? This is the situation a judge sees in court - an errant trustee, who is failing his fiduciary duties and is in breach of trust. We lose every time.

Should you read the attached pdf to page 5, you will see the whole trick - they use credit (we know where this comes from) titles (trusts) securites, bonds to achieve thier ends. Whenever a thing/property has split titles, there IS a trust.

The pdf also explains a great deal about our common law, equity and statute laws and thier interactions if any - mainly you will learn of the Law Merchant, this is the one which has wrought so much damage worldwide, form Sumer to today.