HOW TO ESCAPE FROM THE " MATRIX" AND THE BIG LIE FOREVER!

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 4:13pm
bensgone
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
294
0

HOW TO ESCAPE FROM THE " MATRIX" AND THE BIG LIE FOREVER!

This is only for the advanced only! You must have or be able to question just about everything you were ever taught. You must want freedom more than any other creature comfort. You must have a mind that yearns to be free and be willing to take risk to get it. If you meet those criteria, and are ready to take the proper pill, then go here and read the most incredible sweeping mind blowing revelations I have ever read.

Go to silvergoldsilver at https://silvergoldsilver.blogspot.com/2011/06/mary-crofts-calls-from-200...

After you have done that, come back at make your comment, but more importantly anyone who has succeeded by using these escape techniques and methods, please tell the rest of us so that more might be encouraged to follow in your footsteps and escape too.

Please share the ways you have overcome the power of the EE over your life by using the legal system against itself using its own laws, regulations, and statutes. There are many systems out there using some of Mary's fundamental principles, but she puts it all together in a very sweeping all encompassing systematic approach.

Edited by: bensgone on Nov 8, 2014 - 5:24am
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 5:29pm
Laineyisat
Offline
-
OH
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
74
238

hey Benroberts13...

You are right. Mary Croft blows it all wide open....

I emailed her on her blog site earlier today with some how-to questions....

Have you been able to incorporate any of her "ideas"???? 

I am curious to see if she emails me back.... and to see if anyone has followed her down the rabbit hole!

Lainey

Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 7:04pm (Reply to #2)
bensgone
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
294
0

What is mary's blog url?

No I have not tried her legal techniques with respect to creditors, government agencies, or courts, however I will at the first opportunity. One of my main maxims in life is to avoid "Legal Land" at all costs. That's the purpose of this Topic, which is to report your successes using her method. To me, a systems value lies in its actual everyday usage and success. I hope there are others out there who have already tried and succeeded using her advice.

Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 7:06pm
bensgone
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
294
0

Another site to read and download Mary's book

https://www. scribd. com/doc/58203891/Mary-Croft

Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 9:18pm
bensgone
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
294
0

Some excerpts from Mary Croft's book

 Contract Law is the only law. There is no Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, by-laws, or anything else which most people think of as ‘law’ which applies to free, sovereign people. They all apply only to corporate entities. There is only one law which applies to us: the law which protects the life, liberty, rights, and property of all living souls. That which causes us to think that all these ‘laws’ apply to us is the contracts/ agreements we have made, either wittingly or unwittingly. If there is no contract there is no case. Contract is the law. Contractual Financial Liability is all that matters; and it must be proven .

The credit card banks think I owe them $40,000. I know that I don’ really owe them, I just don’t know how to prove it.

She then produced a series of letters, the drift of which was to request the bank to provide me with three things:

1. a validation of the debt (the actual accounting);

2. a verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice); and,

3. and a copy of the contract binding both parties.

 I was to write that I would be happy to pay any financial obligation I might lawfully owe as soon as I receipt these three documents. The banks can’t validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; they can’t verify any claim against me, because I am not the NAME they are billing – more on this later. They can’t produce a copy of the contract because one doesn’t exist. What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and

4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or

mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

Mon, Jun 20, 2011 - 9:26pm
bensgone
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
294
0

Everything you know in the world of finance and money is a lie

Until you understand this principle you will never grasp the truth and validity of Mary Croft's book. The paper in your pocket you call money is not money at all,, but a boldface lie. The debt system that is based upon that lie compounds it exponentially. Everything you do financially is essentially a built upon a sea of lies called the fiat debt based monetary and banking system. In such a system of complete and utter fraud and deceit, you cannot assume that there is morality, honesty, or truth in anything it touches. This system completely distorts reality, truth, and justice in ever way. It is the very heart and soul of the "Matrix". People, please start the process to extricate yourselves the best you can, as soon as you can. Time is very, very short !!!

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 1:07am
Bull
Offline
Joined: Jun 16, 2011
59
171

Wonderful Read

Wonderful. Clear thinking with freedom seeking. Liberty.

Bull
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 2:11am
silverbleve
Offline
-
Chico, CA
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
268
2217

Please Continue benroberts13

I am very interested on your thoughts here. Reading Croft as I go, but your commentary is very good as background, especially the refutation of credit card debts. Did you really do that or are you providing a hypothetical scenario as an example only? 

​More please? I will tip the hat on every post. 

​Sorry if my text formatting is larger than normal, I'm not sure what happened but as I type it looks huge here.

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 4:26am
silverbleve
Offline
-
Chico, CA
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
268
2217

favorite quote so far:

Since all the (government-educated) financial advisors suggest buying gold in order to survive the coming depression, I suggest that if you think precious metals will save your life ... then buy silver. 

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 4:57am (Reply to #9)
maravich44
Offline
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
1077
0

Thoughts

Why? Are we being crushed? What is the end game? What is the score here?

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 10:23am
Guy Fawkes
Offline
-
ON
Canada
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
3
11

It's an extremely interesting

It's an extremely interesting read and it takes a while to wrap your mind around the concepts but the lightbulbs are going off as I complete my first read through. It certainly seems to make sense, a second read will be very enlightening.

Oddly enough the other day I got a speeding ticket and the cop was very adament to make sure that I choose one of the three options and made a point of saying don't just do nothing. Obviously he wanted to make sure my signature ended up on that ticket! I suspect if I don't sign it and they find me guilty they would be some way out of it since I did not contract with them.

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 10:37am (Reply to #11)
kenklave
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
82
574

I posted this on another thread but since it popped up here

None of that Croft story passes the smell test, sorry. If the banks haven't come to collect it is little wonder. It costs money to collect. The bank has to pay the lawyers who work on an hourly basis or get a percentage of the recovery. If there is nothing to collect, there is little reason to chase her down. It is difficult to collect from a transient, dead beat. She moved all across the country and from the US to Canada. She owned no real estate, didn't hold down a regular job and didn't register her car. People who don't want to be found can be hard to find. 

Her legal theories are more nonsense. All that is needed to form a contract was her signature or her accepting the money. I'm sure there are all kinds of judgments against her. The reason the banks haven't collected is because she is on the run, not because she isn't liable. And just to give her the benefit of the doubt and admit that she is right, do you think any jury or judge is going to buy that argument? Sorry.

The last piece of nonsense I came across before putting the piece down was about the ID and car. Had she been pulled over in my state, she would have received at least three tickets and had her vehicle impounded. I'm not buying it, I dont' find the author credible in the least.

Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 11:59am (Reply to #12)
Bull
Offline
Joined: Jun 16, 2011
59
171

Smell

Agree with your smell testing and withdraw my previous approving post. Hadn't finished the entire read.

If the solution to every problem is not working nor trying... I'll pass. 

Living on the edge and somehow knowing that money will come from the mysterious universe is ridiculous. I think the term for all this is "scofflaw" which I suppose is a revolutionary lifestyle and does, in a passive way, fight the EE but I'll pass on the lifestyle advocated here.

Mary is an RN who didn't want to slave away in hospitals nor recognize the state's power to license. Me too. As a seasoned RN I agree completely but..... it's a fine profession and I need a license to practice. My family needs me to consistently make money and to generate a sense of security. Duh!?!

This material ends up a rant and it's too bad because I liked the spirit of the first 2/3.

Bull
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 - 6:43pm (Reply to #13)
HappyNow
Offline
-
Canada
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
1362
3138

Bull I had a similar

Bull I had a similar reaction. I doubt that many would find the result they expected by following Mary's path.

On the other hand I have known some deadbeats who managed a surprisingly decent lifestyle using many of the same techniques (without the idealism). I estimate one could get 10-20 yrs of living well while living on the lam.

In the end Mary is not actively working to change the system. Merely gaming it.

Swing trade indexed ETFs. Long physical gold, silver, and 1 miner.
Tue, Jun 28, 2011 - 11:08am (Reply to #12)
OC15
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
395
2159

I largely agree with kenklave

Some of what she is saying is true. We know the banking system is a fraud. We know they create money from nothing. We know the whole system is a lie. We know the banksters stole all the money and created a fraud debt system for everyone to use. Charging interest is usury. The system is indeed designed to fail. We have exchanged our rights for benefits. However, just a few points.

1. As mentioned, I'd like to see her pull that international drivers license crap, no insurance, and have no (or some hand crafted) plate on her car and get pull over in PA. Ass in jail, that's what. And they will gladly let you pontificate about the differences between legally and lawfully in your cozy cell. Try telling a state trooper "why would I want one of those?" when he asks for your DL and see how fast your ass ends up in cuffs. And she is self insured by the pledging of a surety bond. I love how she say she has "tacit admission" from the Minister of Transport. Haha, so she writes a letter to the Ministers of various Departments proposing a contract and then claims she has a valid one by their silence in not replying to her. This is even more preposterous than what the banks are doing with fractional lending.

2. She has it wrong, child support receipts are actually not taxed as income and payments are not deductible.

3. If someone has the balls to ring up 40k in credit card debt and then go through those steps and get out of it, I'd love to hear about the story. But think about the other side, SOMEBODY LOSES. She took her 40k of "nothing" and bought real tangible goods with it. If the banks didn't lose then the vendor of the goods did. Mary was transferred "real stuff" for no consideration. So Mary is perpetuating the fraud of the banks by taking their "nothing" and passing it along to someone else for real stuff.

4. The whole exchanging your signature for a receipt and just "claiming what is yours" is total bullshit. Someone "worked for a living" to produce the goods Mary went to claim. Even though we don't have "real money," you don't just get real goods for free.

She isn't really freeing herself from the system so much as she is gaming it and hurting others by furthering the banking scam on others who are giving her real goods. There is some truth in the book but alot of garbage in there.

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 - 5:42pm (Reply to #3)
HappyNow
Offline
-
Canada
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
1362
3138

benroberts13 wrote: No I have

benroberts13 wrote:

No I have not tried her legal techniques with respect to creditors, government agencies, or courts, however I will at the first opportunity. 

Benroberts13 I had posted in another thread without realizing you've answered the question in this thread already.

If you have obtained goods using your signature (eg credit card or loan) then you are in a position to act already. What is holding you back?

Swing trade indexed ETFs. Long physical gold, silver, and 1 miner.
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 - 1:33pm
Trader
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
27
268

One way to do it is max your

One way to do it is max your credit cards and stop paying, or better yet leave the country. 

Sat, Jul 2, 2011 - 10:32pm
Spencer
Offline
-
Newport Beach, CA
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
9
58

Found a good site about UCC, and how to use it in court

https://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/ucc%20connection.html

Scroll down to the "Uniform Commercial Code" Section, but the rest is still good to read IMO.

He explains how you can reserve your rights when signing any document, which states your intent to reserve your rights to whatever un-implied benefit you are receiving from the contract (the ability to drive a car, be part of the system). By rejecting their "benefits", you reserve your rights under common law, which is then invokable in court.

Since you do not receive the benefit, you are not subject to the statutes which you have been charged with (speeding or not wearing a seat beat). When you are bound to common law, you then request the court to present the injured parties if your speeding or whatever. They cannot produce this and you will win the case.

He even continues and writes what to do when the judge ignores you, and how to let him know that you know more than him about this subject.

Take a look and post what you think, i haven't completed the entire page yet, and I haven't followed any links, but from what I've read so far, it looks like something you would be interested in.

S

​UPDATE​: This is a rather interesting exchange that may work for almost any charge. Someone needs to try this and get it on tape:

COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

Question: How did you -box in' the Judge?

Answer: This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb. If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you. In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks, -Do you understand the charges?' Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not. Judge: Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't understand? Defendant: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this action. Judge: Well, what is that--what do you want to know? Always ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask: Defendant:Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action? Judge: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal) Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against (your name) is a criminal action, is that right? Judge: Yes. Defendant: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law. Judge: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law. Defendant: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charge against me even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely, this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. You just put the words in the judges mouth. Judge: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean somewhere--we're right here in the middle of the State of __(any state)___. No, this is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction.Defendant: Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this charge is not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty--and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution--what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating under? Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction. Defendant: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find those rules? There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get very angry at this point and say: Judge: If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney--I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench. Defendant:Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions to explain to me nature of this action, so that I may defend myself. Judge: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I'm going to find you in contempt of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court will provide you with one. But if you want those questions answered, you must get yourself a licensed attorney. Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend in my own person? He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on you shoulder and as a wolf in -black sheep' country. Remember Jesus' words, -I send you out as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.' Sheep do not attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand the charge, and remember--they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal.

Normalcy Biased
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 - 10:22am (Reply to #18)
kenklave
Offline
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
82
574

We are speaking of two

We are speaking of two different things. First statutory law replaces common law. The UCC has no application to drivers' licenses. And as much as I would agrr with the sentiment, the courts and the law have evolved to what they are today and the judges are a part of the system. They do not recognize these arguments. I am speaking of things as they are. You speak of things as how they should be.

Tue, Jul 5, 2011 - 9:36am (Reply to #19)
stalking wolf
Offline
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
103
580

winning in court against BS laws

I once had $1,500.00 in traffic violations. I postponed my court date once or twice until they would not let me do that anymore. Then I just did not show up, and got a warrant for my arrest. waited a year to deal with it. Turned myself in spent 1 hour in jail and $400.00 on bail(you need someone on the outside do this for you.) Then got a new court date. 3 THREE years later I'm in court. No cop is there to testify against me, I'm getting happy. I keep VOLLEYING questions back at the state prosecutor, through my COURT appointed Attorney $50.00. My court appointed attorney is comrades with the prosecutor, everyone wants to get to lunch on time. My attorney eventually whispers those sweet words into the prosecutors ears,"He seems well educated, I would not take it any further". I walk out of the court with my $400.00 from bail back in hand, no court charges, down $50.00 and a couple days off work, with my prestigious GED diploma;)

"A building's form should follow it's function", Howard Roarke.
randomness