Traction and Distraction
#13.1 ~ When the rubber, or your cheek (!), hits the road
Preamble
What follows, is something that happened to Cynthia and I that represents a horrid reality. In 2018, the Canadian Government passed Bill C46, which strips away rights of the persons being governed. To be found guilty and charged without trial, property seized and financial penalty assigned, all without appearing before a Judge! Enter the term Mandatory. Where did we hear that one recently. Bill C46 gave the Police the power to stop anyone without cause, anytime, for no reason whatsoever, and demand compliance to the Criminal Code of Canada. Refusal to comply became an automatic guilty as charged. Some wonder why I make such a big deal about these ramblings I put down here and attempt to live by everyday. I am not a slave, and I refuse to live like one. I will do everything in my power to learn and comprehend how I/we have come to this point and thus act in a way that will take me to a better place, as a child of God living a free self directed existence.
An interesting thing happened on the way home from a nine year olds birthday party. The Birthday being referenced was for one of those boys I mentioned in a previous post, the ones that don’t exist — on paper anyways. It had been a pleasant afternoon in late April of ‘22, the “Covid times” were still fresh in our minds and hearts and it was so nice to get together with some friends, have a laugh and some cake, and celebrate this boys life. It was on the way home, at about 6pm, cresting the hill just before town that suddenly there were blue and red flashing lights everywhere. There was an officer standing in the road stopping cars, waving some on and directing some into the adjacent parking lot of the Ford dealership. I happened to be so fortunate as to have been chosen as one of the '“special” ones for further interactions. In the Province of Alberta there are “Check Stops”, where a cluster of Police Officers stop vehicles and “check” if the Driver had been drinking. So when an Officer appeared at my window with some kind of medical looking contraption hanging around his neck with a hose connected to it and shoved it toward my face, the hose that is, and then directed me to “blow” into it, I said no. He informed me that it was a “Mandatory Blow” and that if I didn’t blow I would be charged with a “DUI”, my car impounded, my license suspended etc. An automatic guilty verdict for not complying with the statute, a step along the way to “you have no Rights”.
It had been over 10 years at this point, since Cynthia and I had left LA and our fight against the Banks. In 2010, we had headed south to LA (Los Angeles, California) for a course that we had been accepted to, that was held once a month for 6 sessions beginning in June of that year. We were knowledgable enough at that point to really get ourselves into trouble, so of course, we jumped in with both feet (all four I suppose). Thus began our 14 month sojourn into Banking, mortgage fraud, administrative process, property and promissory note acquisition, traveling and living in the Southwest US, and really pissing the Banksters off. I bring this up only to relate, that upon our exhausted return to our farm in Canada, just before Christmas 2011, for the most part, we took a break from poking the bear. I will in future, return to our LA Story as we learned so so much, and indeed, the whole experience changed not only our lives, but the lives of our whole family and community.
Now, back to our feature presentation. As I confirmed with the Officer, that I was declining his offer, he reminded me again, that it would result with many, in his mind, negative consequences. With my third declination, “no”, the Officer stepped back in disbelief and called to his compatriots that “I’m gonna need some help here”. With two large men in uniforms with flak jackets and 9mm Smith and Wessons upon their hips, the offers began. I offered, that if they could prove that they had jurisdiction over me, I would comply. They stated that I was within their jurisdiction as I had just been driving on the highway. I stated that I was not driving and that I was not in Alberta and again offered that if they could prove their position, then I would comply. After some back and forth, the bigger Officer said, “I don’t care what your beliefs are, I’m placing you under arrest”. To which again, I declined his offer. They did not like it when I didn’t submit to them and cower in compliance. I had forgotten to lock my door with all of this questioning and offering, so the Officer then whipped open my door and said “get out”. Yet another offer which I declined. He tried to pull me out by my arm to which I declined the offer and attempted to stay within my vehicle. I told them that I did not agree, to let go of my arm, and that I would not contract with them. He let go of my arm, only to wind up for the big offensive, whereupon two of them physically manhandled me out of my truck, and surprise, cheek placed firmly on the tarmac, knee in my back, and arm twisted behind me. I suppose on reflection, my attempt to stay in my truck could have been deemed as resisting arrest. At no time was I violent, name calling, cursing, nor anything but respectful. Now with my face down on the ground, the Officer said, “give me your hand”, for the jewelry, and I said “I do not agree”. They rather violently grabbed my hand, yanked it behind my back and said “give me your other hand”. I think you know where this is going by now, my answer, “I do not agree”. They grabbed my other hand and click went the second cuff. They now both stood up, off of my prostrate body and said, “Get up”. “I do not agree” said I. They, with increasing frustration expressed by an increased level of violence, wrenched me up to standing directly beside the open door of their cruiser, after a pat down and stealing whatever contents I had in my pockets, they continued, “Get in”. With the answer presumed, by the Officers, and when stated by myself, “I do not agree”, they heaved me into the back seat of the cruiser and closed the door.
To this point, I had not given a name, made any agreement that I was aware of, and did my best to not contract by any performance on my part. I further spiced the exchanges with an “I am co-operating with you out of threat, intimidation, and duress. As you are carrying a gun and I am in a state of duress as a result, in no way am I: in agreement with you, submitting to your authority, or accepting any of your offers”. When the officer had dug out the Passport that I carry in the glove box of my vehicle (unlawful search and seizure by the way), he figured he had me, with name, address, identity, Citizenship, etc. When he pulled up the name on his computer, the game changed. Now I would love to say that there was a “DO NOT DETAIN” associated with the name, I have not cracked that one just yet. But what there was not attached to “NAME”, was a “Driver’s License”, thus corroborating my statement that I had no agreement or contract around the whole “Driving” issue. In 2012, upon our return from California, I had prepared a document which I sent and gave Notice to the Minister of Service Alberta, acting as the Solicitor General for the Province of Alberta.
In review of this document, today I would do things a little bit differently, but the gist of it remains clear. So, the Officer, not being able to charge a “Driver” with the offences outlined in the Criminal Code for DUI, suspension of license, etc. etc. was left with the charge of Driving without a License, and failure to produce Vehicle Registration, for which he scheduled a court appearance for me, or “NAME”, to enter a plea. I went home that same afternoon. Cynthia commented that once again, Arlen who was locked in the back of a cruiser for a time, or put behind bars (for only an hour), comes walking calmly and smiling towards her, to rejoin and embrace.
In preparation for the plea hearing, I did the following:
inquired as to how to enter evidence into the Court file
sent a copy of my evidence to the Prosecutor’s office by email
got to the Courthouse early to enter the documents into the file
the Clerk of the Court refused to stamp my documents as received by the Court as they did not adhere to the “samples online”, nor were they prepared by a Lawyer (Member of the Bar), but that they would be put into the file and the Judge could look at them
prior to the plea hearing, when I asked the Prosecutor if he had received my documents, he gruffly and irritatedly said that he had and that he had not looked at them and that he did not have to look at them
in the hearing, when I asked the Judge if he had the documents, he replied with the same answer
I had initially prepared virtually the same document titled “Testimony in the form of an Affidavit”. I had recently listened to an interview with Anna von Reitz, where she had addressed the issue of Affidavits and entering evidence and how to not surrender One’s self and sovereignty to the authority of the Corporate Court. In consultation with minister Edward, he recommended that I not file anything with the word Affidavit, as he felt that was potentially a submission to the Bar’s procedure and form, thus rendering oneself under their jurisdiction. I do not have my head wrapped fully around the word meaning and origin of “asseveration”, other than to say it is the word of a man (or woman) before God, with him, God, as the receiver and Judge of those words. Can’t get much higher than that, I’d say.
So with “Asseveration” filed with the Clerk, if not stamped, I, the man, appeared before the Judge to make my plea. After some wrangling about the NAME and who was who, and who was “you”, I offered to the Judge that I was guilty to the facts. As I had made the facts known within my documents. Twice I said, “I am guilty to the facts!” The Judge turned to the Clerk and said, “enter a plea of Not Guilty and schedule a trial date”. I asked the Judge whom he wished to see at the upcoming trial: NAME, the Birth Certificate, or the man, myself, Arlen Paul? He then appeared to lose his temper and yelled, looking directly at me: “MISTER - my family name - , YOU are to be here at the upcoming date or a warrant will be issued for your arrest! And with that he hammered his gavel and said, “next”. To some, it may seem unbelievable that this was the way it went on that day, I was fortunate enough to have witnesses with me, beyond my dearest Cynthia/co - truthwarrior. I also got the official transcript, so that I might be assured that my memory served.
In review of what had happened during that plea hearing I surmise the following:
the refusal by the Clerk to officially receive and stamp my documents, further confirms that the court/game field has a secret rule book that is not one of simple truth, guilt, and punishment, how my document was inappropriate is beyond me
Sandra, the individual Crown Prosecutor did not act upon my “Notice of Duty to Accommodate”, she was nowhere to be seen or heard from and it was a different gentleman who was acting as the “Crown Prosecutor” against me, that day anyway
at some point, the Judge felt he was able to bring me under his authority/jurisdiction, as he scheduled the trial based on his plea entry of “Not Guilty” (now I suppose if I had not been there at all, which the party volunteering to act as and for NAME was in fact not there, a not guilty plea may have been entered by the Judge acting as Trustee, and thus a trial scheduled, again more complicated stuff we can get into in future)
when the Judge, raised his voice and looked directly at me, calling me “MISTER - my family name - ”, and by my lack of response or protest to the use of that specific term/title, I performed in acceptance of the term, which attached me to NAME (this subtle technique, which he knew exactly what he was doing, brought me as volunteer into his jurisdiction, more on this in future)
Asseveration
Above I have images showing what I attempted to file into the Court. I feel that the Clerk had been warned that I might make such an attempt as I had already sent them to the Prosecutor. She, the Clerk, at first tried to dissuade me from even entering the papers as “it was the inappropriate time”, “this is just a plea hearing” she said. “It’s not normal to make filings at this point”. I insisted and so as mentioned, they were not stamped but “placed” into the file.
The form of my “Asseveration” is very much in keeping with an Affidavit. Although I did use the technique of presenting the facts in “negative averment”, where to refute/rebut the fact, one must present evidence, not just a statement or as(pre)sumption.
In documents now, I present my name in the manner of the “Quantum Language” crowd; Arlen-Paul: (family name here), as opposed to how I rendered it in this document, “Arlen Paul Family name here”. Using upper and lower case lettering is not enough to separate One’s self from the assumed NAME. I am not fully on board with all things “Quantum”, though I see some merit, I feel it does accurately convey the “name” that describes myself.
In VANCOUVER v. BURCHILL, a Supreme Court of Canada decision from back in the 1930’s, the Court clarified the distinction between “Operating a vehicle for hire” as opposed to “private conveyance”. Wherein, the operations in commercial trade are under the jurisdiction of the Bylaws and Statute Code. I do not feel that One can stand on this decision alone when dealing with Driving vs. traveling etc., but to use it for clarity to describe the separation between “public - commercial” and “private” use of One’s property. To be clear. Public = the domain of NAME, PERSON, all things CORPORATE, THE CORPORATION, THE CROWN, all COURTS as we presently know them, STATUTE CODE (not law but legal), paper “REGISTRATIONS AND TITLES”, etc. As opposed to Private = the domain of men women and peoples, Natural and God’s Law, where Truth is Truth and Lies are Lies, flesh and blood and dirt and water, etc. One could also quantify as “real” and “not real”.
Duty to Accommodate
In the above Notice, the purpose for the short period for a response from the Prosecutor was that the plea hearing, which I was hoping to avoid, was on June 8. In this court, in Athabasca, there is not a specific appointed Crown Prosecutor, it alternates to whom is available to come from a nearby larger centre and Provincial Courthouse on each scheduled day for Court. I feel that as this communication was to an individual woman, they, the Prosecutor’s Office, may have been able to skate around it as this Prosecutor, Sandra, had nothing to do with my issue as things moved forward. I communicated with her as I was told that Sandra was the one dealing with this issue. In the ensuing communications I cast a much larger net.
I expand much further into the issue of “Duty to Accommodate” in the private agreements which are forthcoming in #13.2, part 2, a continuation of this post.
Getting a Grip
As I have layed out in previous posts, #3 Persona non Grata, #10 Terms and Conditions, and most recently in #12 Can a lie be un - lied, One has a choice, described explicitly within the ICCPR and many other documents, to be attached to NAME/PERSON or not. It is calling upon the “Public Service Providers” that are attached to not only NAME (that sounds like their own) but also attached to the Office or Title that they are volunteering to act as and for. In other words, the man or woman that is acting as and for “Crown Prosecutor”, or “Mister Police Officer”, or indeed “Manager” of the local McDonald’s is acting in the capacity of a “Public Service Provider”. Not only that, but they, the men and women, are all also working for the same Boss, THE CORPORATION or THE CROWN, as all Corporate Registries connect back to THE CITY OF LONDON/CROWN. And in such capacity, they, any and all Public Service Providers, have a “Duty to Accommodate”! To accommodate any One who stands as a man or women making declaration and standing as “not” PERSON, or “not” CITIZEN, or “not” DRIVER, etc.
Citizen is a bit of a slippery slope. When I was being held behind bars (for one hour), back in spring of 2013, my release became reliant on my answer to a question. I did not know it at the time, but the Officer that stood in the open doorway of the cell holding a clip board and referencing some kind of document said, “… oh, and one more thing. It says here that you were born in Minneapolis, Minnesota? So are you an American Citizen?” to which I answered “no”. He continued, “Oh right — , you carry a Canadian Passport, so you are a Canadian Citizen?” Again, I answered “no”. “So where are you a Citizen” he asked confusedly? I sat back down on the bed, asking for the answer from the Holy Ghost. Out of my mouth spilled, “I am a Citizen of God’s Creation”! The Officer stepped aside and said “you are free to go”. At the time, the FBI had been making inquiries to the RCMP about my whereabouts. I cannot be sure, but I think if I had agreed to Citizenship in either country, I would have been on a plane to Montana.
The traction that we have at our disposal, is the truth. The truth is that One is God’s child, an inheritor of his kingdom, which includes your soul (he created your soul for you and no one else) and your right to live and believe what One will. It is only, ONLY, One’s will that is voluntarily subverted, to act in the capacity of a PERSON, NAME, or CORPORATE CITIZEN and to give up One’s status as a man/woman/people. So too, it is with the “STATE”. We, by our performance, have agreed to a Corporatocracy by which it is assumed that as Citizens of said STATE we have sold ourselves to our creditor as slaves and we stand as surety securing the paper debt. The paper, that is the Registration of Live Birth, creating the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which is borrowed against for the “paper” financial system, creates the debt note, that is every dollar in circulation. Digital or printed, all dollars and notes are a fiction that each such an One agrees to stand as surety for by their performance, thus becoming a slave to the creditor. The creditor is THE CORPORATION/CROWN! THE CITY OF LONDON, where ALL Financial institutions originate. You are your own redeemer for this debt and slavery. The gift has been given by your creator, endowing Oneself with the birthright that is yours as an inheritor of this creation, made for you. No one else can save you from this one.
The dis-traction is the lie. That any of these papers or Registrations have authority over One’s self. Authority?! Who is the author of One’s life and self? Is it your parents, your teachers, Professors, the Policy Enforcer’s of THE CORPORATION, the Judges in magical Black Robes, how about Politicians who make decisions as directed by those who have Authority over them (WEF, WHO, World Bank, etc.). No matter how One slices it, it can only be Ones self that has authority. If One volunteers to hand it over to any “other”, then One has subjected themself, to what that “other” directs.
I have said this before, and I suppose it really is the whole ball of wax of what and why I am writing in these posts; you will serve a master, whether with intentional conscious action, or with blind purposeless detachment and denial.
A master will be chosen, choose wisely.
It became clear as I was putting this post together that the content of the documents and even the story of my recent Court appearances would have to extend beyond one post. Stay tuned for part 2, coming soon to your email or a computer near you ;-)
Have it good,
Arlen