"Necessity" claim.
Not what my name is or is not or the format it may be used. It is my opinion that if I give a name as my name it is ego speaking. It is legal names that appear on contracts, and either it came from your head if the BC is not in evidence, or it came from the BC if it is in evidence. If the latter then your claim of necessity is valid and you are not party to the contract, and if not party to a contract, then there is no reason for anyone to know your name, if any, or for you to give one.
If you are not using the legal name of necessity, involuntarily, then you are using it voluntarily and is that person before the law.
At it is now, you own nothing, and so all you do not own is already in trust for you; but, who are you? A person or a man? If using the BC of necessity, then you cannot be the person, nor on the hook to pay.
The idea of putting what you do not own into other trusts makes what is not yours appear to be yours, ergo, whereas if you recognize the truth that nothing is yours and raise the necessity aspect, what is not yours is yours in trust to use. CANADA is that trust and its agents the
trustees. Those trustees do what they do against persons (executions) so as to protect the assets in trust belonging to the people, that, until they stop acting like persons, do not exist.
It is the ego that requires and feels the need to secure and protect stuff and itself. The act of seeking greater security serves only the ego. Victim-hood serves the ego and this world is created by egos to serve egos, thus to vibrate out, one must let go of what serves the ego.
I am going out on a limb here to suggest to you that until you die as a person and repent, you cannot be reborn as man and woman, or whatever it is the laws say you are, as before you adopted the status of person. In other words, when we became a person is when we died, and the undoing of that is the rebirth of your sovereignty. And when you officially die as a person, then as man you are heir of the largest trust/estate of all.
I know there are a lot of concepts of what sovereignty is, and to me, partaking in any legal process, other than to never be involved in any legal process ever again, is not it.
Sure, fight fire (law) with fire (law) seems logical, but either way you may get burned, so best perhaps is to look in another direction. Further to my last comment, it is stated over and over, and over and over, to not be a surety and signing your name to any promise, bond, note, of any kind is doing just that. It may seem to have the effect of freeing you in the short term, but in my view is an immediate selling of the soul, and you are still on the hook for some future event.
Anyhow, the main point here is for any that missed the main point Saturday, it is the necessity to use and contract in a legal name that is the focal point. It is a fact.
-- Eldon Warman
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
