Saturday 23 February 2013

OPPT IN Radio show transcription Feb 18

Freedom Reigns/OPPT-IN
Monday, February 18, 2013 7:00 pm EST (USA)
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 (Australia)

Lisa: Welcome everybody to one of the most anticipated two hours and possibly the most pleasant two hours of our whole week. My name's Lisa Harrison. This is the OPPT-IN show on the Freedom Reigns channel at Blogtalk. Wow! It's been a big week at OPPT-IN for The People's Trust. The Courtesy Notice did go out and that will be the focus of our conversation today. There are a lot of questions. There's a bit of confusion and we have to clear all of that up today. The OPPT-IN website currently has the initial version of the Courtesy Notice and its guidelines. By the end of the show, if not by now, if it didn't take (inaudible) seconds before we went live, an updated version will go on. That's just a couple of typos and spelling mistakes essentially.

There will also be a two-hour audio discussion between the primary authors, being Scott and Ken Bartles and Chris Hales, talking about the Courtesy Notice. So, if you listen to that and we want you to share that as well for people who don't join in today. That will give you a very well-grounded understanding of what it is, why it is, how it works, the situations in which to use it and all of that. Now, we will be going over a lot of that today as well. But there is a permanent record there, or there will be.

Without any further ado, we'll bring out some of the co-hosts we have here, which is Bob Wright. Are you with us Bob?

Bob: Hello, hello everyone. Welcome to the show. Glad to be here Lisa.

Lisa: Yes, glad to have you. And we have Chris Hales.

Chris: Hi, everybody. Also welcome to the show. Also great to be here. We've got lots to talk about today.

Lisa: And, of course, we have Brian Kelly.   

Brian: Hello. gosh, I would be remiss if I didn't say welcome to the show and I'm very glad to be here. (chuckles) Thanks, Lisa.

(general laughter)

Lisa: (laughter) Nice. We've also got Scott and Ken Bartle. Now, I'm just trying to find out if they've actually called in via Blogtalk or if they want me to bring them in...what's here? Is this Mr. Scotty perhaps?

Chris: (affirmative response) That's him.

Lisa: That's him? That would make sense. Okay, Scott, you're unmuted.

Scott: Hello, good morning.

Lisa: Good morning. And is Ken with you?

Scott: He is. He's wrangling with Blogtalk.

Lisa: (chuckle) Is he? Well. Hi, Ken. (chuckle) Okay, let's kick this off, because I know we only have the two of you for a little while today. So, can you just give us a brief background on what the Courtesy Notice is, in terms of how it evolved out of your process that you already had?

Scott: Sure. I suppose the methodology I was using was to write to individuals...let's just say, back then it was in the context of people working at these corporations, departments, banks, whatever, at the lowest possible level I could find. So, we're writing to them, asking for validation of...say for example, of a bank, reduction of a debt or with regard to so-called government…whether they had lawful authority. The reason I was doing that was going right in at the bottom, such that the theory was they may not be able to answer that question. So they're going to ask their manager and it's going to be reverberated around the coffee machine or the water cooler in the morning. And it's slowly going to escalate it's way up through until someone who can answer that question. So along the way, there's going to be various people who are actually being exposed to those questions of "Hang on, is there real debt? Or are we real government?" 

I thought that's an educational kind of tool for those who I'm dealing with. That was where I think a lot of the old processes of going into your local council, your government, and telling them and saying "You're this. You're just a corporation. You're just that."... was just the roller shutter coming down across their eyes and they stop thinking about beer and football. So, we'll go in that bottom way. We'll let it escalate up. We'll educate as many people along the way as we possibly can. Now, over time that took so much effort going to the individuals asking each one of them for the three step process to get to the point where they couldn't provide the evidence they were legitimate or there was a debt, that we slowly started saying "Well, okay, why don't we just go to the top?" Once we've found that there's no debt or there's no evidence of lawful government authority, why don't we just point to that. Then we'll get it back to these people at the bottom and say "Here's the judgment we got from your boss. Until that's invalidated, will it stand as the ultimate statement of facts that there is either no debt or you're not real government? " So, at that point, it was like a streamlining of the process. We could point at that judgment that we'd reached through an administrative process, just like the UCC filings had done.

When the UCC filings came out through The One People's Public Trust, we were faced with the possibility of going, well, okay, we can either do our own filings and some filings were starting to come out. They're a bit perplexing, really, and think talking with Chris and others, we're going, nah, this is going to be a struggle for a lot of people. I admit I was struggling with some of those filings as well in the process. It's a bit boggling. We thought, well, this has already been done. We've got the judgment. It's game over. They've been foreclosed on. Why don't we do the same as what we're doing to the CEO of the bank or the head of the department and point to the judgment that was reached with them and say, "Until that's invalidated, it stands."  That's where the Courtesy (Notice) came from. We basically pointed at those UCC filings and said "Well, sorry fellas. It's already been done. Game over. In that sense, let's work our way through this Courtesy Notice." Does that help, Lisa?

Lisa: Yeah, it does. You're informing them. You're educating them. Not just in the way you were doing it, that their corporation is invalid or their standing in authority isn't valid, now you're actually pointing out to them and saying "The whole structure that you believe surrounds you and protects you, the corporation, is not there. You're actually standing there naked as an individual. Now, person to person, let's talk."

Scott: Exactly, yeah.

Bob: Scott?

Scott: Hey, Bob.

Bob: Hey. One question. Can you explain what kind of reaction you got when you started asking those questions? 

Scott: Oh, good question. At all levels, whether it be right down the bottom of an organization or the top...and when I say the top, I'm thinking the top of a branch of a much higher pyramid...the reaction ranged from absolute rejection. So you get a letter that comes back from the legal department that says "Your claims have no legal authority." and most of the time it wasn't a claim, it was a question. So, here's a really bright lawyer who can't distinguish between a claim and a question. That was hilarious itself. The other thing would happen, would be that they were trying to label your document as a letter. I'm putting a demand to them for validation of authority or the substantiation of a debt. So, I'm not writing a "Dear Grandmother" letter, signed "Love and Kisses, Scott". I'm writing a demand for validation. You get a response that comes back that tries to belittle your demands and label it as a letter. So, you get the "your claims are baseless" or the other one would be that they would point out a document that they believed gave them the authority to do what they're doing.

A perfect example is local government. They would go to the local government Act of whatever State created it, point at that and use that to steamroll you. Now, the fact that I was asking for the origin of that Act and going all the way back to it's inception didn't seem to phase them. They would focus on one little bit that gave them their security blanket and that was what they were taught. They were taught, "There's the Act and you can rely on that."  So, there was a lot of people holding on to an interim or mid-level document. Translating that to banks, the first thing that banks did was to point to the mortgage contract or a loan agreement and point to your signature and say "Look, you signed the document. There's the contract." The fact that you're trying to go back to before that, to whether there really is a debt that a contract could enforce, was irrelevant to them. They were seeing like an interim document that they believed was their basis for their authority or pay debt(?) and they would throw that at you. Does that help, Bob?

Bob: Yes, yes, very much. Thank you. 

Scott: No worries(?).

Lisa: So now, just explain the evolution of that a little bit more, with what the Courtesy Notice is now doing.

Scott: Okay. Basically what we're doing is we're saying "Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. Here are these filings that are saying that the banks and governments have been foreclosed upon. In that event, you're acting as an individual in full, unlimited liability. Now, unless you have a contract between me and you, individual to individual, that would compel performance, that would compel me to pay you or do something, then you don't have anything to do so. You don't have anything to compel me to do something. There is no agreement or arrangement between us. So, in that event, I'm going to offer you my terms should you wish to interact and deal with me."

So, it's quite a logical sort of process. Your banks and governments are foreclosed. Unless there's a contract that governs the relationship between the two of you, you offer your terms and conditions and you go from that point there. Then that individual has the choice of saying "Well, yeah, I choose to interact" and in interacting, they're accepting your terms and conditions. They also have the choice to go "Actually, no. Don't really like that. Now I'm going to go away and leave this guy alone."  In that action, they have rejected those terms and conditions and off they go on their merry way. Which for most people, I think would be the outcome they'd be very happy with. Is that where you're headed, Lisa?

Lisa: Lovely, yes, thank you. Let's move into the how and the why of what to do with this Courtesy Notice now that it's available to us. Firstly, before I move on any further, if you're at Blogtalk radio and you want to get involved in the chat, please go to and click on chat. There is a chat room over there for everybody, so got that out of the way. We've got close to 200, maybe even more, 200,000 people this week listening to this show.

For every matter that is before you, whether it's to do with the local council, whether it's to do with the police parking fine, a court or a bank or whatever, there's probably half a dozen individuals that you've heard from. Especially if you've got, say a debt collector, you're dealing with a debt collector. You're dealing with the original bank. You're dealing with a few individuals. If we could get 100,000 or 200,000 of these Courtesy Notices in to the system, that's a huge wake-up call. I don't believe that there's anybody that probably can't find anyone to be a recipient of one of those. Let's move into why you would use it and under what circumstances. Who gets it? Who is the recipient? There seems to be some confusion about that. 
Scott: Okay. Well, I suppose what we're doing is we've drawn a line in the sand. We're not digging up past matters. We're looking at things that are being pursued in the Now and future. Let's just say, you get a demand in for some form of payment or a fine or you've got to apply for a license or whatever. It's been written on a nice, little corporate letterhead. Somewhere behind that is a living being who's authored that, put it into the envelope and sent it to you. Lawyers are brilliant at this, they hide behind the name of the company and they'll sign the documents in the same way, sign it as XYZ's lawyers. It's addressed to an individual. You're looking for the name of the person who's actually written to you and that's where you're going to write it to.

I think what you're asking, Lisa, was say there's more than one person involved in this matter that you're dealing with. It's likely there's someone who's originated the action way back. What's likely to have happened is perhaps you were unable to resolve that matter to their satisfaction and they engage someone else to try and compel some performance from you. They might have even engaged someone else to assist them. The typical one is where, say you get a parking ticket and they refer the matter to the Fines Enforcement Registry. The Fines Enforcement Registry goes and talks to the court. The court gets a process. There's a whole chain of people who got involved. Now, it's one matter and yet there's all these different players involved. Ideally, I would be looking at finding the names of the individuals that have been involved in that and addressing a Notice to them that gives them that Courtesy Notice. That's probably the way of who to send it to. Now you also mentioned about how it works. Is that something you wanted me to get into?

Lisa: Yeah, definitely.

Scott: Okay, the how is, essentially you’re sending it out there as a courtesy. I mentioned sometime before that there are two example energies that can be performed with this. You send out the Courtesy Notice thinking “Geez, I hope this works. I really don’t want to pay that parking fine. Geez, I hope it works.” The other one is “Well, okay, that’s the evidence that the banks and governments have been foreclosed. I’m letting this person know that is what has happened.  I expect that in the future the terms that I am offering is how this relationship will be governed by.” So, there’s two different intents that have gone behind that. I would say that if you’re in the camp of “oh, geez, I hope this works”, the outcome that you might receive, I suspect, will be entirely different from one who sends it from the point of view of “well, yeah, it’s game over, they’ve been foreclosed, it’s done and dusted, don’t need to worry about this, I’m just putting my terms up on the price list, almost like at the coffee shop, you post the price list”. So, the how is, there is a certain basis before I’d step in to do it. Does that assist with that, Lisa?

Lisa: Yeah, but I’m noticing in the chat we still have at least one individual who is quite confused about what this means and about why, or perhaps, how this works. Now, the easiest way to explain it, Michael in the chat room, is either you believe the UCC filings works and it’s done. Now, if you don’t believe it, then don’t move forward with the Courtesy Notice, would be my suggestion. But if you do believe it and you understand what’s been done by the Peoples Trust, then what you’re doing with this Courtesy Notice is, you are educating another human being, another individual, that the corporation that they believe they work for no longer exists and that the action that they’re taking against you is on them personally, because the whole corporate structure is based on limited liability. Nobody is responsible for their actions. Everybody can pass it up the line, “I’m only doing what I was told”. This changes the whole playing field. This puts that person in front of you, person to person.

You’re educating them on that fact. You’re also taking on the unlimited responsibility for your own actions as well. This is not a legal process. This piece of paper is not a legal document as such. It’s referring to legal documents. It‘s referring to a process that has already taken place. It’s referring to the foreclosure. You’re pointing it out to them. You’re letting them know that the whole landscape that they believe they work under and in has changed. If they want to pursue this matter with you, then they’re doing so as an individual, which is no different than some stranger coming up to you in the street and putting a gun to your head and saying “Give me your money. Give me your wallet”. Maybe you can look at the Courtesy Notice as poor Hogan saying, “That is not enough, this is enough”.

Chris: Lisa, if I could just take up on that point. This is very much a lawful and legal document. One of the things that’s a touch confusing is the term legal. Now legalese, the language used in statutory law, is something that has been removed from the landscape; it isn’t there anymore. The term legal appears in these documents, because it still has a context in UCC law which has been retained. So you’ll see the phrase “lawful and legal” in there. That’s because this document is built around universal law, common law and UCC law. Hence, the double-up phrase “lawful and legal” still is there. So, it is very much a lawful document, in the common law and universal law context, and a lawful and legal document in the UCC context. We’ve had people wanting to remove the word “legal” out of the Courtesy Notice; please do not do that. That was specifically put in there by Heather, who did the final review on this and corrected it to the standard that it needs to be at. I just needed to put that in there, Lisa, to make sure people aren’t confused about the terminology.

Bob: Another thing I wanted to point out. This is a notice and just so that people aren’t confused, you’re not arguing any points here. A notice is different, because you’re just pointing out an existing fact. So, don’t get the idea that you’re here arguing whether or not they’re foreclosed on. You’re pointing out the fact that they are. This where it’s very important. If you don’t believe it, if it’s not real to you, then you really shouldn’t be in any position to notice anyone, because it’s not real to you. So, people have to make a choice. They have to decide. Is this something that resonates? Is there anyone who stands between me and my Creator? You either believe that or you know that in your heart, or you’re still wavering, because a lot of people ask the question “Where does the authority come from?”

We’re moving beyond corporation, beyond corporate jurisdiction. We’re making a claim that “Look, you have no jurisdiction beyond this point. I didn’t have a contract with you. These are the facts.” It’s a completely different way of approaching than going into the courtroom and trying to argue your point. You’re just pointing to a fact.

Lisa: One of the questions that’s coming up in the chat room is “What about people who are already in prison?” Now, this is something that I’ve been asking about too, people who are in prison for victimless crimes. Because when I’ve brought it up in the past, people seemed to think I wanted to let every murderer and rapist out on the street. No, I don’t. We’re talking about victimless crimes here, paper crimes, for the most part. Yes, Scott.

Scott: Lisa, one thing that might be worth exploring with regards to that is the family of that person who’s in jail for a victimless crime. Would they be suffering harm as a result of not experiencing the company of being with their family member in jail?

Lisa: Absolutely.

Scott: And would that be a harm that one might be able to invoice for as a result of turning up at the prison and providing a Courtesy Notice to the gentleman maintaining that harm?

Lisa: Wouldn't you go to the person who signed off to the judge? Who signed off on the...

Scott: If that were my family in that jail, I'd be going to every individual who was blocking me from experiencing the company of the family member. Every single one of them.

Chris: Not only that, Scott, the immediate family would be suffering financially from that person being in jail instead of doing what they would normally do.

Scott: Yeah. So, you can translate that there’s a harm that’s being suffered, not necessarily by the individual inside who's unable to provide one of these Courtesy Notices, the family on the outside are also suffering the harm and so can serve those Courtesy Notices.

Lisa: I think we've got D with us too. D, are you there?

D:  I am here, hiding in the background.

Lisa: Lovely, lovely. D, is there anything you want to add in regards to the Courtesy Notice at this point?

D: No. I’m just sitting back here listening to you guys tell it like it is. This is awesome.

Lisa: (laughs) Cool. Well, your mic’s unmuted at my end, so anytime you want to join in just do so.

D:  Well, you know me, I can't keep my mouth shut. If I have something to say, you will all hear it.
Lisa: Exactly. Okay.

Chris: If I could just bring up a couple of questions and things that have popped up about the Courtesy Notice itself, how to suggest a change of providing a bit more area in the addressing of the top of page one, for longish names of claims and longish names of addresses and so forth, and so we will do that. We're not going to change anything else in the document itself at this point, except for there's one number which we have to add in there at the moment which will go in on the next update also very shortly. We've picked all of the little bits of grammar on the last page; all those two to three little grammatical things. The last page is in fact the description of the OPPT; the story of the OPPT. I just need to let everybody know that domicil is actually spelled correctly in this document. In the context it's used here, there’s no 'E' on the end.

There were a number of other people who had inquired about the meanings of various phrases. I'd just like to point you to the audio file that we put up there on the website where Ken, Scott and I have a conversation, where we actually go through the document paragraph by paragraph; the whole thing. Each paragraph discussed and it's context. On the way we talk about the logic behind how you address the document. The logic behind how you address the document. The logic behind how you actually distribute it, to whom and why. It's very comprehensive, so if anyone's got any questions, that is a great place to start.

Lisa: I just want to sort of back up what you’re saying. If you get the document from the OPPT-IN website, then that will be…I don't want to use the word official ‘cuz it's not right, but it will be the endorsed version. Because people do want to change things in it without understanding, like thinking that domicil is a spelling mistake, but it's not. It's very specific and wanting to take out words like legal or lawful, because they think they're not relevant now, they are in the context of that Courtesy Notice. So every word that’s in there is there for a reason.

If you get it from a different website, excluding of course Removing the Shackles, Kauilapele, and American Kabuki, because they are using the same version. But, if you get it from anywhere else, we can't be sure it hasn't been tampered with. If you do change it, everyone's entitled to do what they want here, but just know that you are stepping away from the very well thought-out, very well-considered process that went into those documents. Every word was very well-considered. Heather contributed to that as well. I certainly wouldn't want to be changing it myself.

Chris: One of the aspects that Scott has touched upon is the effect these documents have when they're circulating around inside organizations and being discussed inside an organization. There's an energetic injection that we're making into them at that point. That is actually one of the key things that's going on here, because you'll find that the system at this point will initially push you back. But the energy in these documents...Heather's described them as 4D documents. The reason she describes them that way is that they're built around an I AM statement and free-will choices. These things have actually...the rights to actually do that...are one of the things that are bound up in the UCC filings. The One People have guaranteed right to actually BE who they are. That is the actual person and not some statutory fiction and they have free will choice. That’s actually in the statutes and clearly written into the CVAC's specifications. So if you want to, say, summarize what the energetic situation is, you’re injecting a 4D document into a 3D environment. It'll be bouncing around having energetic effects and that is one of the most important things that are going on at this stage.

Lisa: We do have Ron Van Dyke on the line and he's in the queue. He's dealing with an issue right now that is gonna relate to a lot of people. So, I'd like to bring him out while I've still got Scott here as well. Ron, you're unmuted.

Ron: I'm here. I'm glad to be on, Lisa. Good to talk to you and everyone else. You listened to my video from yesterday; you know a little bit where I'm coming from. I did get some clarification on those documents that were received on Saturday. I interpreted it incorrectly looking at the heading. As I looked at it more closely, they didn't actually dismiss my complaint, they gave me 14 more days. They’re recommending dismissing my complaint, which is a Title 42 action in Federal court, because the local court has been trying to steal my house for several years. I've held them off with various legal things, including filing my own UCC 1 in 2010. Then I held them off for almost a whole year with an appeal, which ultimately the respondent never responded. It was dismissed without a response from the respondent following my initial brief. Then I brought forth my land patent on the property.

I've just done a whole lot of things. It's in a common law...the property is held in a common law trust, so I don't even own it. Just a week before Christmas they sent me a notice that they own my house, the bank. That’s when I filed the Title 42 claim and they keep finding little technical issues that I'm not addressing something exactly according to their rules and codes. I have noticed them in the last two submissions about the One People’s Public Trust ruling. I've sent them actual documents as attachments in my case. They have not responded to those at all. I have not sent a Courtesy Notice yet, but that is I believe to be my next step.

I'm feeling much more confident because of what spirit showed me since I did the video yesterday. There’s energies involved here that are beyond what meets the eye. It's sweeping things away and sweeping things clean. I just felt such peace when I was seeing those images this morning in meditation. I talked about that on my video today, but my concern yesterday was who's going to enforce it. And, it almost became a moot question to me today, because I really am feeling much more confident that this is part of a divine plan. What you're saying about believing in it is absolutely essential. If you don't believe in it, then obviously you shouldn't use it. You need to be guided within your own spirit, within your own heart and trust your own gut in order for it to actually do what it's designed to do.

Lisa: (Lisa and Ron talking at same time) ...has come from has been loud and clear for weeks. You have to bring it back to the individuals. We are the enforcement. No one else is coming to your/our rescue to enforce this, in some respects. In other respects, I agree with you completely. This is a grander, spiritual, multi-dimensional endeavor/adventure that we are in right now. But we’re so used to and we have all grown up in this limited liability corporate structure and we are not used to being our own enforcement.  Whether it’s call the cops, whether it’s call somebody else to come and do the dirty work, we’ve so disassociated from our own power that we don’t understand that we are the enforcement.  Because that’s all there is left, it’s just us. There’s us, there’s the Creator and the planet. So who else is going to enforce it?

Scott: Lisa, if I could jump in there?

Lisa: Yes.

Scott: One of the things that I am finding when people ask the question of who’s going to enforce it, is it appears that it’s an externalization of that enforcement. The analogy is, if you’re standing around the coffee machine at work and someone drops a cup on the floor and it just shatters into a thousand pieces. Someone stands there and asks “well who’s going to clean that up”? The inference is, that person has asked who’s going to clean that up, because they don’t want to. The same thing pretty much applies here, when there’s the “Who’s going to enforce it?”, because I don’t want to, or at least there is the possibility of that. What I’m saying is, what we’re doing by sending these Courtesy Notices, we are doing the enforcement. I gave the analogy just recently, say one person wrote to an individual at the local council, you get an effect.  Ten people write to one individual at the local council, you get a different effect. Ten people write to ten individuals at the local council, I’d suggest that you get an even varied effect. You can see where that compounding process goes on. If we are the ones doing the enforcement and we focus on one individual who is maintaining the slavery system, I suspect that we’ll start getting results.

Chris: I have a suggestion here. I’m sitting listening to this and I’ve seen a couple of examples of the foreclosed legal system, saying back to people sending Courtesy Notices, “Well, this is just meaningless. What is this?” That is just a complete deflection and in and of itself is the only response they can actually take at this point. The fact that they’re responding in this fashion means they’re bothered. It means we are getting flack, we are over the target. What I would suggest is this. There are people around you and people that you have contact with who actually are doing the same thing with their own problems. What Scott is suggesting is that you engage those people to support you by sending copies of the Courtesy Notice to the people who are trying to say this is not real and saying you’re obliged. This is part of the legal landscape. Whether you think you have been foreclosed on or not, you are obliged to actually check these filings out. If you want to argue against them, you better actually rebut them with particularity and specificity. Otherwise, you will ultimately be personally liened.

Bob:  Another thing I want to point out is, we also have to change the energy of the situation. Open up your awareness a little bit more. If you have a beloved pet, how many of you look at that pet and say “I own him” or is he more like a friend?  You have a relationship. You don’t feel as though you own that pet. Most of the people that are pet lovers, they look at that pet as a friend, as a member of the family. Everything around you and everything that you believe that you’re fighting for…are you fighting to be another slave owner? This fighting over titles and ownership or maybe you can change that energy because you have a relationship with your home. Because it has a consciousness of its own, it has a spirit of its’ own. The Native Americans would say “the spirit of my grandfathers lives in this land”. This is something we need to start to have a different relationship. Are you fighting to hold title of ownership or do you want to continue in your relationship and invite the home to that type of relationship? Free them and then you’ll find that the energy shifts, you will feel the winds change. Because this is the direction that the current is going, this is the direction that the energy is flowing and they know this.  Get in line with that and there are multidimensional things that go on in every experience, in every situation that anyone is facing and you’ve got to look at all of the aspects.

Chris: Indeed. As an example, there’s actually a Facebook piece that has been posted by a Judge Leighton. Now, Judge Leighton has given exactly what I thought we would see. I expected this to appear. Basically saying this is meaningless stuff from the delusionary sovereign citizen group. He has not actually deflected the filings in anyway, shape or form from a legal stand point. In fact, it is the only push-back they can do. Our response to that should be as a group. If people are going to distribute deflections from the system like this, what I would ask you to do is this. Put in a contact point for the person who is the source of the deflection. In this case it is a judge, he’ll have an email address or a fax number or a mail address. If you are going to put out material like this, put up a contact point. So that We the People can actually support our brothers by either just a direct contact saying “You’re obliged under the laws of the United States to actually deflect these filings or stand down, because you’ve been foreclosed. You don’t have a choice in this manner. You’re actually obliged to do it. You are failing in your fiduciary duty to do it.”

If that person received, as Scott said, 10 such emails, faxes or letters; or 50 or 100 or maybe 5000 or 10,000. We’ve done a couple of Facebook blasts for various media outlets. We‘ve had 15 to 20 thousand people dump their opinion in one spot. That has to have an effect and I think we need to do that. This is part of us being the enforcement. I don’t want people to feel like they’re actually enforcing alone. Everyone around us in this movement came to participate. We just need to get the information out there, so that we know where we can put that energy. As Bob said, we actually have to put it in the right energy. It is a case of saying “No, no, we are not going to take that, because we know you have been foreclosed. We know that you know that you have been foreclosed.  This is just a dance you are doing to maintain a pretense and we are not going to accept that.” We have to do it with as many voices as possible. It’s all about the voices folks. If they can hear the energy from us, there is no way that ultimately they can hide behind essentially what is bluster.

Scott: Chris, nice work. I’d say to add to that post by that judge, look for what wasn’t said by him. Like you said, he did not deflect any of the filings of the UCC. It seems the common thread through any letter that’s come back in response of a Courtesy Notice. You’ll find that there’s no rebuttal with specificity, etc. Look for what isn’t there. You’ll find that they lack completely any evidence, any rebuttal. They’ll be citing various little acts or statutes in the interim and there will be a complete lack of any sort of evidence that will rebut the UCC filings.

Lisa: Guys, there’s somebody in the chat room who just wants to understand. They get that it refers to governments, corporations masquerading as governments. They get that it applies to banks, but does it apply to all other corporations? My understanding is this and if I am wrong, somebody will correct me. Corporations get their corporate charter from government. Now, if the government is invalid, if the government itself is a corporation pretending to be a government and has been foreclosed on and is no longer. Then everything below that…so yes, all corporations, whether they’re operating as a hospital, a private hospital, whether they’re operating as a loan company…anything that is a corporation, its corporate charter was canceled, was deemed invalid.

Bob: There’s a reason, understand that this was part of the slavery system. There’s a reason why everything is centralized. They’re all going to the same place, because they’re all feeding the same entity. So it had to be structured that way.

Ron: We’re just taking out the structure.

Chris: Yeah. If you listen to Heather’s interviews, and Ron is absolutely right, listen to Heather’s interviews speaking about the processes they actually undertook, they found two nexus points in the system. They confirmed that if they cut the head of the beast off at that point, the rest of the body would die, because that is what it was attached to. It was the BIS and I think the second one was the United Nations, but don’t quote me on that. But they appear to be the two points where the snip-snip was done and that the rest of the structure underneath it was at that point terminated as well. I think that is effectively what they did. So yes, all corporations, it doesn’t mean they’re not running anymore, because folks the thing that makes a corporation a corporation is the energy of the employees in it. Take that out and it isn’t one. Now, that’s all still in there. They’re our brethren in the One People. They’re energizing those things. The message we’ve got to get to them is that first of all, that the old structure is going and secondly, that there is a real alternative under the CVAC system, which is going to completely change their lives.

Lisa: Okay, we’re still asking for more clarification. I don’t know what you mean as a medical facility as such. If you’re talking a private hospital, but operates as a corporation, then yes; loan companies, yes; utility companies even. However, I wouldn’t go not paying your utility bills just yet. We’re not there yet.  Personally I wouldn’t go there. Now, the other question was what about credit cards and loans, where I have actually gotten money from them and I’ve used it? Don’t I have a moral obligation to pay it back? Let’s talk about a moral obligation for a second, because when you applied for that loan, your signature on the dotted line created the funds and they gave them to you.  That should have been the end of it. That should have been the end of the transaction. You went to the bank, you signed for it, and the money was essentially created at that point and given to you. The bank unfortunately, Bob, can clarify all of this in a much better way; in fact, I’ll give it to you now Bob. You can do it from here.

Bob: You are the source of all value. The whole system is built on your energy. They require your signature, so you’re the one that is giving the value. They’re essentially creating money out of thin air. It’s just the value that you give it. So, you’ve given the value, they create the money and you spent it. Now who owes what? It is a done deal.

Chris: Could I actually throw something else into the mix there, Bob, that’ll clarify, actually, the inequity of the situation? What we need to remember and we all know this but we tend to forget how it works, is that every time we sign something it gets monetized.  So, let’s say you apply for a $50,000 loan of some kind. Your signature goes on a piece of paper and they process it in inverted commas and they say that they put the money in your account. What they don’t tell you is that they turn around and re-sell that signature as a derivative. In fact, what they do is group them together in large numbers and create bonds out of them and resell the bonds. This is your mortgage-backed securities as an example. Let’s look at two weeks after you take out that loan. They give you that money. It doesn’t really matter if it is for a house or anything. If you sign something, that is the important act in the whole thing.

Two weeks later, they will have taken your signature and monetized it for a minimum of ten times the amount that you signed for that they gave you. They will have that money sitting in their bank accounts, so the balance two weeks later is…say you borrowed $50,000, that probably turned around and made $500,000…and you’ve still got a debt. They don’t ring you up and say “Hey Fred, we did really well. We monetized your signature and we sold it off and we made $500,000 off of it, so we’ve got plenty of money. Don’t worry about paying us back.” But, no, you don’t get that phone call. They still expect you to pay the money and if you don’t, they will come after your assets. You have to look at how far ahead of you they are, simply by the fact that they stole your signature from you and made money from it. This is how they make phenomenal profits. In this country here, we’ve got four major banks. Every year they post some total between them of 16 billion dollars profit out of 22 million people. Just how do they work? Just how does that work? This is a rampant profiteering.

Bob: Then they ask for interest on top of it.

Chris: Yeah. And when they come and take your house off of you, they also get insurance, because they insure the whole transaction to make sure they can double dip. They want to extract your assets from you and collect money from the insurance company and they end up making an absolute fortune. They make it out of one simple act. You put your signature, your value, on paper for them. They’ve tricked you and lied to you. They take it out and make a fortune on it. That’s how the system works. That‘s inequity.

Scott: Chris, could I add to that with a brief example? If you go back to the original treasuries that used to bring the money into existence and spend it on the bridges, roads and infrastructure and that sort of thing, you think, oh yeah, that money that came out of thin air. Now, the actual effort that was expended in building the bridge, I would say, is the real value that comes from the people. So the money was just a piece of paper, a representation of the value and effort that went into building that bridge. So when the treasuries created that money, it was just representative of the energy. Now, if that was stolen from the people by the private banks and then you have to go and borrow that back when you were the original source of that value, then that’s probably giving you a better idea as to where the fraud is coming from. If you’re the original source of that value and those funds from the effort that’s been created and put out into the community; you’re the source; borrowing it from them is criminal.

Lisa: I just want to direct people. I did put a link in the chat room to the “Wake Up World” article. That’ll answer a lot of your questions too, because it explains the corporate structure, it explains the birth certificate. It explains quite a few things and then how and what The One Peoples Trust is and what it did in a really nice and concise article. Something for you to share with others as well. It’s a brilliant description, so I have put the link in the chat room. I’ll put it again now, because it’s a very busy chat room. So, it is at and you will find an article called “All Corporations Banks and Governments Lawfully Foreclosed by OPPT”. Please go and read that if your understanding about the banking process isn’t clear and if your understanding about what your birth certificate is actually isn’t clear. Bob, do you remember on a radio show we did last year I gave the Monopoly analogy when you come to my house?

Bob: Yes, I do.

Lisa: Should I repeat it now?

Bob: Yes, it was perfect.

Lisa: Okay, my house represents the planet and I would say represent the cabal. I invite you and you make your own free will choice to come to my house. When you walk in the door, I shut the door and lock the door behind you. There is no escape and I say “Welcome, as long as you’re here, you’re going to play Monopoly”.  And you say, “I wasn’t told I was going to play Monopoly. Why do I have to play Monopoly? I don’t want to play Monopoly.” If I’m going to insist that you have to play Monopoly, I have to do two things. I have to give you a token so you can play on the board and that token is your birth certificate. I have to give you some bank money to start you off. From that birth certificate, in fact, a trust account is established. So, you’ve got your two things. But what I don’t tell you is, firstly I don’t give you the rules to the game. You’ll have to figure it out as you go. I don’t tell you that every time you pass Go, you collect $200.  I keep it for myself. I don’t tell you you’ve got a get out of jail free card. You’re playing this game of Monopoly based on the rules that you figure out as you go. I’m the one with the instruction manual. I know exactly how it works. You will not leave that board until you’re bankrupt, as is everybody who happens to walk into my house.

So, it just goes back to the question of what happens when you apply for a loan or whatever. What you’re really doing with that signature is you’re authorizing them to take it out of that fund, that trust that was established for you with your birth certificate. Now, if all being goodwill when you were born and that trust account was established, you would have been named as a beneficiary and your needs would be met by that trust. That didn’t happen, because by the time you were seven years old…just like when anybody goes to (inaudible), once they’re gone for seven years, they’re declared dead. When you’re seven, they declare you dead, unless you step forward and make that claim. I’m here. I’m alive. I’d like access to my funds to cover my needs and desires while I’m here. That doesn’t happen. So, they turn around and they nominate themselves as the beneficiary.  So, every time you do something with a signature, you’re granting them access to that fund, that account, that trust. Is that accurate? Am I explaining this well?               

Bob: This is the system that has collapsed. There's lots of information about how the whole system works, but it's collapsed. It's done. It's over.

Lisa: I want to bring D out. D, the intel about what may or may not happen this week.

D: Sorry, say that again, love, you're breaking up a little bit. I didn't hear the question.

Lisa: The intel you've been getting of late that may or may not happen this week and what the implications are for the powers that were.

D: (chuckle) Wow. There's been a lot of interesting stuff coming out this week. Most sources seem to be pointing to the fact that the powers-that-were are going to push the new financial system through this week. 

Lisa: Now, this means NESARA and etal, yes?

D: Supposedly, yes. That opens the door to a whole slew set of questions though. With other stuff that is going on right now, when I jumped off the air there, I had to take a couple of intel calls. There are things going on in the background that are, as I’ve been saying for the last several weeks that are serious red flags for me, because we’ve always been told that when the new system goes online that will go hand in hand with the rollout of NESARA. Now, granted there’s a lot of questions about NESARA. Because the reality of it is, as I’ve said before, the true absolute details of NESARA are locked tight. We have certain details, certain things we’ve been told that are part of NESARA. But in actual fact, we don’t have the list written out there from A to Zed of exactly what it will mean. Having said that, there’s certain things that are supposed to be involved in NESARA that make me question what we are hearing, like I said, in the way of intel. It’s going to be very interesting. I will have a lot more to say once they roll that system out. Because once I watch and see what rolls out, I’ll be able to look and see what it is and say “Okay, we have a problem.” They’ve said this in their so-called announcements, but that’s not true. Or it is true and that’s not the way it’s supposed to be according to the information we have to do with NESARA.
I’ll give you an example. The Supreme Court met last week to rule on Obama’s birth certificate and several other things. That ruling is supposed to be announced tomorrow.  If that announcement comes out and they say “Oh, umm, Obama could never have been President, because we’ve ruled that his birth certificate is illegitimate and Social Security card, etc”…then you have to sit there and go “Wait a second. If they’re using this as an excuse to pull him out of the Presidency, that doesn’t sit with me.” That right there doesn’t sit with NESARA. It’s kind of a “red herring”, right? It’s, okay, we’ll use this right over here to distract the people and then we’ll set up a new government. That’s not the way it should be. My understanding is that the announcements should include the fact that there is a new interim government and the reasons why. If the system rolls out and we don’t get that, then it goes back to what I’ve been saying last week and a couple weeks before that as well. We have a problem. Chris, you and I were talking about it on the call and Lisa the other night. 

Chris: Yes, the impression I’m getting of this, D, is that the view of NESARA has been massaged for the current agenda. They’ll pick and choose bits and pieces, because NESARA looms so large in some people’s mind, provided they revalue the dinar, everyone will go “Ooh, they revalued the dinar”, because there’s so many people waiting for that. They will say “Yes, this is NESARA”, when actually it isn’t. It’s basically them, their last gasp attempt. (Brian talking elsewhere) Yep, we can hear you, Brian; yep, you’re there man. It’s an attempt by them to regain the leading hand. In martial arts terms, what happens during an exchange is that one person is always slightly ahead of the other and has a slight advantage in timing. It’s called “window”; you have a slight window over your opponent. I think it’s a play to get a “window”, because they know time is up. They’ve got no other options, because if this fails, which it probably will, they’re stuffed. If they wait, they know the OPPT will ultimately launch the CVACs and they are stuffed again. So, they are in a checkmate position. This is my opinion, based on our discussion of the other day and if anything has come up to kind of change that in the interim, please let us know. That’s kind of the way I’m feeling about it and it really is a last play for them that they’ve decided to try to do this. We’ll have to see how this pans out for them, but if the lightworkers out there recognize it for what it is which is a stuffed-up, manipulated version of the original NESARA. When was it, D, 20 years ago? NESARA?

D: Hold on…you asked me to do math. That’s not fair, Chris.

Chris: Just give a year. (chuckles)

D: In the 90’s.

Chris: So, even in the mid-90’s. So, it’s at least 15years ago, 17 years ago. They’ve had plenty of time to play with it and make it their own.

Bob:  You know this goes to like, how quickly was the whole Kona thing in Africa debunked? Even faster, the Sandy Hook? Now, we're debunking it before it happens.

D: Well, this is the thing, Bob. I was actually talking about this with a couple of people today. You have a whole slew of people, and I'm talking probably hundreds of thousands of people, who are following the Iraqi dinar revaluation, the prosperity programs, the prosperity packages and the various things like the St. Germain Trust and the World Global Settlements, etc, the Collateral Accounts. If any one of them, they could be the most complete, right-wing conservative person, if they're looking at information on the Iraqi dinar revaluation for example, if you spent any amount of time researching that over the last few years, you are going to come across tons and tons of sites that talk not only about the RV, they're also talking about NESARA. They're also talking about prosperity packages, etc and all these global funds. So, even if they didn't want it to become educated on these things, they have been. They have an understanding, even if they don't want to believe it, they have a knowledge in the backs of their mind of the various things they're supposed to have. And I said this yesterday.

Let's say that the new system rolls out tomorrow. Everyone cheers, of course. There's going to be people cheering and crying in the streets; the whole bit. "Oh my goodness. NESARA. We've been saved. The evil cabal is gone. We're going to have money now." ...all of this. Say that the announcements come out and they say "We've done this and this is the reason why." , but let's face it, it's pretty white-washed. If the day after that, people walk out of their home and they see chemtrails in the sky, what are you going to think? "Wait a second. Why are there chemtrails in the sky? Why is the GMO foods still in the stores? Why is the FDA still doing everything they can to stop every natural health food, natural medicine for all these diseases like cancer and AIDS, etc? Why is there still commercials on tv advertising vaccines? Wait a second." Because these people, whether they wanted to or not, have been educated at least to a certain extent.

All these people in the Patriot movement, same thing. They've been reading all these other sites. They have absorbed this information. Quite frankly, if the cabal thinks that they can pull the wool over people's eyes, they're about to be severely shocked. You might get people dancing in the streets and cheering and going off to the bank to cash in their Iraqi dinar, their Vietnamese dong and their Indian rupees, etc. But once that high comes down, I give it less than three or four days. People are immediately going to go "Well, wait a second. They didn't say anything about this. They didn't say anything about 911. They didn't say anything about the strawman accounts. They didn't say anything about the fact that the government's a corporation. They didn't say anything about the fact that these big, mega pharmacies, big oils; all these lobbyists have been buying out everyone. Well, wait a second. what the...?"

Lisa: It's like we said in previous shows. It's Slavery 2.0; just wrapped up in prettier packaging and the lease they've got on you is a little bit longer than it is now. It's a distraction. Hopefully too many people will not fall for it.

(several talking at once)

Chris: Sorry, D, I just wanted to throw in something that you said the other day. That there's almost a bullet-pointed checklist. If this is really NESARA, what should I be seeing? And what you should be seeing is that the people running the banks the previous day shouldn't be there anymore...tick or across. No, they're still there. The same politicians are still there? Yes. Are we still seeing chemtrails? Yes. Have they fully disclosed all of the skullduggery and scumbaggery that's gone on over the last 20-30 years even? Forget about the previous several hundred. Even in the last 10 years. Have they disclosed any of that? Yes or no. If you're not seeing these things, then you're not seeing NESARA. You're seeing a polished-up version to give us the same cage, the same cell, shinier bars, bigger screen tv and colder beer, but it's the same cell and run by the same gangsters.

D: Yep.

Lisa: Guys, we do have a caller with a lot of questions and I want to see if I can find him. Michael, is that you?

Michael (caller): Can you hear me? 

Lisa: Yes, I can.

Michael (caller): Can you guys hear me?

Lisa: Yes, I can hear you.

Michael (caller): Yes, okay, all right. Hey, thanks a lot for taking my call. Thanks for having this radio show; it's a pleasure to listen so far. I'm glad you took my call, because I've only recently become aware of the One People's Public Trust. So, I've only done my research for about 24 hours now, but I've spent a considerable amount of time learning about it. When I hear you guys talk, I guess have a basic understanding of it, but I can't really keep up with the conversation too well. So, I wanted to ask maybe a more basic question, with a simpler premise, if you don't mind?

Lisa: Okay. Sure, I'm sure it will help others. Go for it.

Michael (caller): All right. Well, just to give a little background, I've spent the majority of my professional career in the military. That was up until the middle of last year and then I got out. Ever since I got out, I've really started to expand and elevate my awareness, my consciousness and just become aware of just what an illusion the world is. What that's led me to do is kind of go down the rabbit hole, pretty much like Alice in Wonderland. There's no end to it. There's so many different things to research and to learn about and this is another one of them.

Lisa: (laughter) Everybody on this call has got their middle name "Alice", so don't worry. You're in good company. 

(general laughter)

Michael (caller): You don't know where to get your information. You don't know what to believe. I know that that's fear-based and paranoia-based and all that. I know people say listen to your Higher Self and try to tune into the information that way. It's really difficult for me to do that. Can you just maybe explain to me and some other people who might be having the same questions out there, why should we really buy into this idea in such a way that we kind of sacrifice our reputations? Because what you're really asking people to do is really...and what you've done and I commend you for really stepped out on a limb with this faith and this belief that this is how we are going to realize our full potential.

Lisa: There's a lot of reasons for that; there's a lot of reasons for that. I spent the last 15 years focused on this 2012 phenomenon and wondering what was going to happen after that. Wondering what the world would look like post 2012. I deeply believed we were at the end of an era, the end of an age. I wasn't at the fear point; I didn't believe that the world was going to end. I did believe it was the end of a paradigm. There's so much about what the One People's Public Trust has done, whether it's from that legal framework that's dealing with the UCC, whether it's from a more energetic framework, that just rings true to me completely. Like you, I've spent years going down many different rabbit holes, trying different techniques and technologies, processes, paperwork, the whole shebang...ultimately at a dead-end. I had my moments of "Can this be true? Can this be real?" My gut and my heart were saying "Yes" and my head was going "Sit on the fence. Don't commit."  But I can't deny how this feels...ultimately. Everybody that I trust with their intellectual understanding of this, with their legal understanding of this, with their heart-based understanding of this, feels the same way.

Brian: The thing is about that too, Lisa. What's the caller's name?

Lisa: Michael.

Michael (caller): Michael.

Brian: Michael. Everybody that's on this call and the great majority of people that are listening to it, have been in the exact same shoes you're in. Some of us have just recently stumbled on to the One People's Public Trust. Some people have been following alternative media for 15-20 years, like Lisa. We all know how you're feeling. One big thing that we've done ever since we started these shows, ever since we've been putting this information out there, we're not looking to force anybody to believe it. It's everybody's personal free will choice to decide for themselves what they want to and what they do not want to believe.

For anybody that's a dedicated truth seeker, there's enough information out there regarding the One People's Public Trust and all of the work that they've put out and they've done and all that the trustees have done and all of us have done since then to go back and do a significant amount of due diligence for you to say "Okay, I've gathered the data. Here's what it says to me. This is now the conclusion that I'm drawing." So, when you say "Is this something that I'm willing to put my reputation on?" … no one’s reputations are at stake here. If you believe in something and ultimately it doesn't end up being exactly the way that you thought it was, no one's pointing a finger. If you're not worried about anybody pointing a finger at you and saying "Well, you're wrong.", then you really have nothing to lose.

I'm now coming to a point where I'm announcing my involvement in all this to all my friends on Facebook that I've known for years and to my family. I'm doing it from a place of not being worried about what anybody has to say in regards to whether or not they believe it. I'm not trying to force it down anybody's throat. I'm just letting people know what I'm doing. If they decide to do their own homework and do their own research and if they ever want to come to me and ask questions, I'm there. If they're not interested whatsoever, that's okay too. It's an individual journey for everybody. The only person that can make the determination as to how it resonates for you, is you. You just being on this call and listening and wanting to dive in and find out what rings true, that's that little glimmer of all that you need in order to pursue it further, in order to figure out if this is something that's ultimately something that you're going to believe or not. It's your own free will choice. 

Bob: Michael? It's going to force you to ask a couple questions about yourself. About what is true for you. Does it seem right that you should have to pay to live on Earth? Does that seem right to you? If it does, then fine. That's what resonates with you. Does it seem right that another human can say that I have authority to tell you how you should eat, think, drink, when you're not harming anyone? Does that seem right to you? What resonates with you? All we're saying is, this is who I AM. I AM free. I AM complete and absolute. Nothing stands between me and my Source.

Chris: Indeed. Michael, Chris here. How are you? 

Michael (caller): Hey, Chris. How are you man?

Chris: Good. You're hearing a really good range of views here, from sort of spiritual to social. I was just going to add in my two pence. If you analyze what's happened to you, is it clear to say that your experiences in the military deconstructed your beliefs about how the world actually works? Is that true?

Michael (caller): Oh, yes. Everyone gets that same process of indoctrination. 

Chris: Yeah, but you actually rejected that. You found that that wasn't the explanation, because you looked around you and the doctrine that you were fed didn’t match what you could see around you. That's usually where this begins. Is that what happened to you?

Michael (caller): That is precisely what happened. 

Chris: Okay. So the difference between you at the moment and the people that surround you, your family and friends, is two things. Your paradigm compared to theirs has been deconstructed. You're seeking to fill that vacuum with some truth. Now, they're not in that position at the moment. Secondly, the information you've been gaining to fill that void inside you, they don't have that either. It's almost impossible to go to someone and (loud music noise)...interesting.

D: Sorry, guys, that was me.

Chris: It's almost impossible if you go to a member of your family and you dump that on them, to them their paradigm is completely intact. It gives them cognitive dissonance. It actually makes them really uncomfortable and actually fearful. The greatest mistake that we make...we've all made to get really excited about something and start really trying to sell it to your family and friends. You just can't do that. If they're not ready, they won't even look down the telescope. Like the bishops who wouldn't look down Galileo's telescope and just put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. You just don't do that to yourself. As Brian suggested, you can present the information to them and casually suggest it would be worth their while to actually look into it themselves. If they really want to argue the point and try and talk you down from what they consider to be a high ledge on the edge of a building somewhere...and they only have to say to them is "Look, I've had a lot more exposure to really alter the kinds of information compared to you. You want to take a look at it, a serious look at it and we'll have a serious conversation about it. Don't, from your position where you currently are, tell me that I'm wrong, because you and I aren't in the same place. We have to agree to disagree."

I have a couple of relatives with whom I won't discuss this. We clashed when it came to the point and I just said "Okay, we just won't discuss this anymore." And I haven't and I won't until disclosure takes place and they realize that in fact there was something going on. That's unfortunate, but true. That's the kind of position you need to take. But it doesn't mean you can't communicate things to them and try to introduce little things that might introduce them to an alternative way of thinking. It might not be the One People's Public Trust. It may be something completely different. Chemtrails attracts people's attention, because you can point up in the sky and say "That doesn't look like condensation to me. It's been hanging there for four hours dissipating. That can't be water vapor." You say that to a mechanic and he'll say "Yeah, probably not water vapor out of the exhaust of an aircraft."

There is a whole variety of techniques, if you like, strategies for introducing this material to people. You're taking a very short, sharp trip. I've had about a three-four year trip. Lisa's been on a 20-30 year trip. The short, sharp trip is a wild ride...emotionally and in every other way. Welcome and have fun with it.

Lisa: You know what the good news is, though? There's a lot of rabbit holes you won't have to go down. There's a lot of rabbit holes that the people around you who wake up tomorrow or next week or next month won't even have to go down, because they will be irrelevant now. So the learning curve is not as great, because people who wake up from now hereon in are waking up in a new paradigm. They're waking up in the old paradigm and trying to figure out how the hell to get out of it. They just have to orientate themselves to the new one. That's a good thing. That's good news. There's a lot that they will just not have to deal with and go through and try to get their head around. It will be told to them in past tense.

Michael (caller): Is that part of the tipping point that you guys have been talking about on your previous shows? 

Lisa: Yes, definitely.

Chris: One of the things that appears to be somewhere in our nearer future, and I can't be any more specific than that because I will not be putting any dates or specific time frames out there, is when The One People's Trust commissioned the first CVAC, which is the replacement assistance organization for the people, with that comes disclosure, if it already hasn't happened. By disclosure, that's the information tipping point we're talking about where Absolute Truth is laid on the table for everybody to see. That means everything that's gone on. One of the differences between what the cabal may try and roll out even in the next few days possibly compared to full disclosure, is that it won't be full disclosure. It will be just disclosing certain things, which will be very startling and have a big impact, but not the whole truth.

Michael (caller): UFOs.

Chris: Exactly. You won't hear a mention of those guys. You won't hear a mention of ...

D: I (inaudible) you won't hear that.

Chris: Beg pardon?

D: I guarantee you won't hear that. I just don't see them rolling that out.

Chris: No, they will never admit to that. So again, we're back to that checklist of what you won't see. Just to guarantee to yourself that this is not the real tipping point. The real tipping point is yet to come. One of the things that Heather has consistently said since the very first time she went public, is that when this event happens, when there's Absolute Disclosure, it will be everything. Everything for the human race to decide its' future...on the table. You won't miss that one.

D: Absolute Data.

Lisa: Now, there also has been a call out, quite a bit during today’s show and in the chat room as well, for information on the CVACs. We’re not going to have time to go into them again today, so what I suggest you do if you’re interested in more information on the CVACs, is go back and listen to last week’s show. Did we do that on the Collective Imagination or did we do it on OPPT-IN? We did a meditation actually; a bit of a meditation with Bob describing a visualization of what the CVACs could look like based on Chris’ understanding of them.

Caller: Hey, Lisa, before I get off, can I just say one quick thing?

Lisa: Sure.

Caller: I just want to say thank you guys for taking my call and thank you for putting this information out there. I know it’s very overwhelming and I didn’t mean to make this a long conversation about me. I hope that there’s a lot of other people out there who are feeling like I am, who really just really experienced the same benefit that I did. Thank you all so much for your perspective and for what you’re doing. Love and grace in everybody’s direction and everybody in the world and just thanks. I’m grateful. I’m grateful for all of this.

Lisa: You’re welcome! You’re welcome.

Brian: I got you man.

Lisa: I suggest you go back and listen to, if you haven’t heard them already, this is our third OPPT-IN radio show. So go back and listen to the last two, and have a look for the Collective Imagination, which is also on Blogtalk. All the shows from this year. We started it back up, I think, on the 8th of January. So that, D’s been a part of, has been popping into that show, Heather’s popped into that show. On the Collective Imagination show, we tend to talk more about the spiritual aspects of it, the multi-dimensional aspects, and the questions that arise out of the legalities that have gone on. So the OPPT-IN show, we tend to focus on paperwork, procedure, the CVACs, the Courtesy Notice, the nuts and bolts of it. On the following night, or following day, we open up to the bigger questions. We’ve covered a lot of this in various conversations as well, so I suggest you go back and listen to those recordings as well.

Caller: I’ll do that for sure. Thank you so much.

Chris: Plus Lisa, there is a discussion which I think is on the website, which we need to keep people pointing at. Our initial discussion that we had about the structure of the structure of the CVACs between you, Bob and I, it’s a longer recording with more detail about how that structure, or how I see that structure anyway, and I think it’s pretty close to the way that it works.

Lisa: Where is that? Is that up anywhere?

Chris: Well, I’ve passed it to various people. I’ll check this afternoon to see who’s put it up and if it’s not up, I’ll follow through and make sure it gets there, because it has got more detail and it will be quite useful for people. Look if there’s one thing, one thing I’d like to put out there, because the next time we discuss CVACs, I want to really discuss this point. Most people recoil from the idea of these massive amounts of proposed resources becoming available to everybody freely. They think “Oh my God, everyone will party, party, party.” It’s a fear reaction that virtually everyone that I’ve talked about it has. There will probably be some in this audience who have sort of had that and passed it and some like Michael who are just coming into this and probably thinking the same thing.

The CVAC funding will be available past the point of disclosure, where we’ve had the big wake-up call. This will shift people’s thinking, that’s point number 1. Point number 2, what I really think we should focus on is “Okay, there’ll be a few train wrecks, fine, we can sort that out. What about the things we can do with those resources?” If you’re in, say, a town in America somewhere and there’s 30% unemployment, and maybe three people sign up for the CVAC and have resources available, they could fix that in a couple of months just by starting up public service projects, just by funding community centers, or farms, or buildings for the homeless. That is absolutely the things we should be thinking about. So, keep that thought in mind. We’ll take it a bit further next time we talk about the CVACs. There’s the end of my rant Lisa.


D: Well, you know the other thing that this is kind of going back to what were talking about earlier Chris, is exactly that. If it’s going to be this amazing thing to see, to build this, I’m looking forward to sitting back and watching this happening. The cabal, whichever face it wants to wear, pushes out their new shiny, faux-covered, sparkly system. Here’s 2% of the truth to go with it as far as announcements. Then the CVACs get launched with absolute disclosure. If you’re sitting back and going “Okay, on this hand, I’ll get all my income taxes back. I won’t have pay income tax anymore, but on this hand, I have the CVACs. On this hand over here I get all these drips and drabs, bits of information, which are obviously not complete. On the other hand, I have full and complete data. Hmmm. Which one am I going to choose?”

Chris: Exactly.

Lisa: Well, I know which one I’m going to choose. It’s a no-brainer for me.

Chris: Now, if you’re new to this and you haven’t heard any reference to CVACs at all, it stands for Creation Value Assets Centers, which a bit of an esoteric term which we’ll discuss the next time we go over the CVAC information. It’s a new form of governance. We won’t use the word “government”, because it’s not. It’s one where the people are interacting with a group of public service servants who are actually entirely committed and restricted to doing nothing but serving the people. No politicians, just public servants committed to serving value to the people and making sure that any part of a community that needs development for the people is organized and carried out. That’s not sort of government that we have ever seen on this planet with governments here. Fall into that old trap, old language, that’s not the sort of structure we’ve ever seen on this planet before. We’re going to be talking about it regularly. There’s a nice article on “Wake Up World” which I think that Lisa mentioned earlier. That is “Wake Up…I don’t know the website’s name, so I won’t even attempt to try it.

Lisa: It’s

Chris: Okay. Good article there that actually covers the whole range of the whole, sort of, scope of what the People’s Trust is doing, including the CVACs. Now, it’s not hugely detailed, but there’s enough principle there that you’ll get the hang of it. It’s not something that we’re going to have to completely decide the structure of immediately. It’s designed to be a rapidly evolvable system which the people will direct. We won’t elect an authority, like the governments we’re used to, who will then tell us what to do. We’ll be able to continually direct its progress and its development in perpetuity. That means “forever”, folks. We like that.

Lisa: Yes, we do. Just got a couple of things to cover off. We normally do a flash-mob. Honestly, we’ve been so busy we haven’t even come up with a particular target for a flash-mob today. But one of the things I’d like to put out there is, everybody who’s on Facebook, if you go and change your profile picture to the “In” logo, then what we’ll be seeing is those little “In” logos everywhere, all over Facebook. You can get it and embed it in your emails and have it as your signature on your emails, with a link to the Oppt-in website or the peoplestrust1776 website. Just get it out up there. Change your avatars on whatever forums or any groups that you’re involved in. Make it the “In” logo. Now the other idea that’s come up today is that article that is from Facebook that is from that judge… is he a judge? Or a lawyer?

Chris: Apparently a judge.

Lisa: Apparently a judge? As we said, he didn’t actually rebut anything. He just said “Oh I think this is rubbish” and came back with nothing of any real value.

Chris: Exactly.

Lisa: I’m trying to put the link back in again, if I can find it, and into the chat room. And asking to be specific, not just “Is it all just general rubbish?” Just hit us with why and give us real understanding about why.

D: The truth that the government is not a corporation. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Lisa: Yes.

Chris: Exactly. Now look, what I’m sitting here thinking “Well, we need to get the people’s voices to bear on these amateurish attempts at deflecting” and the best way I can think of is this; Ken and Scott and I, one of the things we’re doing later in the week is going to be setting up an email address where people can send questions to. Also what we’ll get you to do is send samples, examples of deflections like this that you’re getting, but with the contact details of people involved. The contact details you put on the original Courtesy Notice for instance. That’s something where we can get to them an email, or a fax or something, and that could be part of our flash-mobbing. We will actually do some of those and also independently you could do them any time you like. If they get tens of thousands of communications of people saying “You better rebut this with specificity and particularity, or you are in breach of trust”.

Bob: Ron, if you feel comfortable and you want to share your details that way, we can certainly let whoever it is that’s antagonizing know where we stand.

Ron: Yes. I do have the privilege of having a wide audience of my own videos, so that if I make a video on it and post it on my Facebook and my YouTube channel and everything, it will get pretty good exposure. Plus added exposure of those that aren’t direct subscribers on Facebook friends.

Chris: Yeah. I’d just like to say people keep saying “What’s the enforcement?” At the moment, we are. We have to get ourselves organized in the fashion we’re describing here, and the sooner we do it, the better it will actually work for us. I’d also like to say this; Michael who just phoned in, as an ex-military person, if you take a look at the filing on the One People’s Trust website called “Military Orders”, you will see that there is an opportunity for military to actually bond into the CVAC as public servants and serve in that capacity when the CVACs are actually running. I’d like to also bring that to the attention of any military people listening, or ex-military listening, that when we go into that phase, that opportunity will exist for you. Just how that will play out, we can’t tell you just yet, but I want you to bear that in mind, because that’s written into the filings.

The other thing that is written into the filings is this, and this is in the Declaration and Order, that the public trustees have actually ordered that all of the One People assist them…the trustee and any other public servants involved in the trust…in assisting on carrying out the orders to close down the old system. So if you like, you can actually take that on board. We’ve actually been officially requested to assist the shut-down of the old system. That is what the Courtesy Notice is doing.

Bob: That’s not just military, that’s also police officers, any law enforcement, even sheriffs, all of them; the whole bunch.

Chris: Exactly. So, we are going to be our own enforcement. It’s a matter of gathering our voices, getting organized, and if some lawyers come back with the kind of ridiculous deflections we saw today on Facebook, they’re going to hear the voices of the People. That energy will send ripples up and down their system and they will ultimately fall silent, which is what we require of them; to fall silent and stand down.

Bob: Another thing I wanted to say is; I agree with D wholeheartedly, the time for secrecy is over. The time for transparency has arrived. So, any of you who are out there and listening, and you have information, come forward. This is the time for absolute disclosure, because it’s going to get disclosed anyway.

Chris: One thing to remember is disclosure is never going to come from the government. I’m sure D would agree with that.

D: Not full disclosure. Nope.

Chris: Exactly. It’ll be what’s convenient at the time for them. So it’s going to actually come from us. It’s time to think about how you might go about that.

Lisa: I just want to briefly, because we’re running out of time, I want to talk a little bit about tomorrow’s show because it’s going to be big, people. A document, which I’m not sure if it’s gone public yet or not…

D: No, it hasn’t been publicized yet.

Lisa: It hasn’t, it hasn’t. But we can talk about it. It is another one of the filings, UCC filings by the One People’s Public Trust. What it means for us, not just 3D boots on the ground, but what it means for us spiritually, I’m still finding the words to express because words are so inadequate. If through this chat room in particular, we’ve been asked a lot questions about the multi-dimensional aspect of all of this. Could I explain the multi-dimensional aspect of the UCC? Could I explain the multi-dimensional aspect of the Courtesy Notice? For those who didn’t hear last week, on last week’s Collective Imagination show, I shared a vision that I had a couple of days before that about, I called it my “beast” vision. If you get the chance, I would recommend you go and listen to that before tomorrow’s show, because I think it will add a great deal of context for what we’re going to talk about. So if you go to Blogtalk radio, look up the Collective Imagination, and look for last week’s show. I think that’s where I shared it, wasn’t it?

D: The other thing, I was just going to jump in is…and I still haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole thing, I’m so far behind on listening to all the different shows…is the interview that Heather did with Mel from Freedom Central. Even if you can only listen to the first 10 minutes of that, Heather has some very important information that she gives that is foundational to that filing, that UCC filing we’re talking about tomorrow.

Lisa: (confirmative response). So, to clarify, there is an interview with Freedom Central, with Mel Ve, and it’s just herself and Heather. It was only put online yesterday or the day before perhaps.

D: Yesterday.

Lisa: Yesterday. So listen to that. Those are the two things I would really recommend that you listen to before tomorrow’s Collective Imagination show, because it will give a great deal of understanding and context for what’s coming tomorrow.

(confirmations from Bob and Chris talking over each other)

Chris: It is a big one, folks. I have to say this; when the three of us realized what was going on, it left Lisa in tears, Bob speechless, and me blithering. (group laughter) It was like “da…da…da”.

D: But you blither so nicely, Chris.

Chris: Thank you, D, thank you.

Brian: Lisa…go ahead…go ahead, Chris.

Chris: No, I was just going to say, if you have existential questions “Why are we here? What are we doing here?”… you better listen to this show.

Brian: Hey, Lisa, just couple of quick announcements from me, because I know we’re coming up on the last 13 minutes. We’re looking for a few specific volunteer categories for the ground crew that we’re putting together. We now have a volunteer button on the OPPT-IN website. We’re looking for anybody that knows how to use Microsoft CRM (Custom Relationship Management). We’re using the Microsoft CRM to organize all of the volunteers, as well as organize all the various projects that we’re working on. So, if you have Microsoft CRM experience, go in to the site, click on the volunteer button and then the skill field, put CRM in there and send it over. We’re looking for people who know how to customize these Microsoft CRM, a very robust tool. Also, web developers that know Wordpress Development. 

One of the things I’m working on right now that’s going to go live on America Kabuki …and I know that D’s going to share it and Kauilapele blog is going to share it as well…is an open letter to the media, specifically radio. I just did the Morning Brew radio show last Wednesday, which is a syndicated talk radio show that’s every Wednesday at 9:AM Pacific time. I’m going to be going on again this Wednesday, with a host named Gwen Caldwell. We covered a lot of the OPPT basics there as well. We’re uploading the video to put on the blog tonight.  We’ve been invited back every week. There was over a million people listening, representing ten different countries. When I talked to Gwen after this show, she said that in listening through the live stream on her blog, she saw a couple of IP addresses for a few foreclosed banks. So, there’s a lot of people that aren’t too happy about what we’re doing, listening to this very call and that goes with the territory.   
What we’re going to be putting out here tonight is the open letter to the media, which is going to be basically a pledge to try to get on more radio shows with some of our radio team. Anybody can download this. It’s going to have links to the Courtesy Notice, as well as links to our original Press Release. Really what we want everybody to do is go download it and send it to all your local radio stations and media outlets and online media outlets and newspapers and blast it out there.  Our biggest piece of arsenal and ammunition right now is awareness.  The more people out there that we let them know about what’s going on with One People’s Public Trust, everybody sharing it, the faster we’ll be able to get this spread across the world. So, go to the or D’s blog, Right, D?

D: Well, actually the new site is now up (chuckle) … is the new site which we are now using, pretty much solely, except it just went down about a half an hour ago, and we’re trying to figure out why.

Brian: Okay, perfect. So there you go. There’s the site. So, in the meantime, she has her blog. Also, I just got a text from Aaron/Erin. If we want to do a flash mob to close up this call, PBS has 1.2 million Likes. You can click on the highlights; it’s  Click on the highlights filed in the middle of the page below their profile picture and change it to “posts by others”. We can blast PBS right now. It’s supposed to be “by the people for the people”, so what better place to go on Facebook to do a quick flash mob before we close this out.

Bob: Another thing I wanted to mention. Any musicians out there who want to sing about this whole thing? I love music, so get all the creative people out there who want to put  together some sort of song or tell us about who you BE. Put it out there.

Brian: Perfect.

Lisa: We can pick someone who’s been putting it in the chat room quite a bit. We can pick an OPPT-related video on YouTube next week and like it, comment on it, share it. We’ll pick one and everybody can just share that one video and make it go viral.

Brian: Perfect.

Lisa: There’s probably a couple hundred thousand people listening to this call right now, so that’s a lot of “likes” and it gets attention.

Chris: Yep, well, I’m sitting on the Facebook page talking in a message here on PBS, “I’ll see all you guys over here”.

Brian: (chuckle) Awesome. So……for anybody who wants to get in on the fun.
Lisa: Bob, Seraph just sent me a message saying that he’s written a song called “BE”.  (laughter) So, he’s a step ahead of you there.

Bob: Good job. I can’t wait to hear it.

Lisa: Excellent. Okay, last few minutes, guys. D, is there anything you want to say before we close out the show?

D: Not really, this has been a great show tonight. All I say is to everyone, keep your eyes open. Watch media, because there’s a lot of stuff coming out in the media right now. Keep your eyes peeled. Keep that open mind when you hear those announcements start rolling out, as to what they’re not saying.

(Mama Cat gives a feline affirmative “meow”)

Lisa: Exactly. Now this is something they have been trying push out since before Christmas. So, if they finally get it out this week, good luck to them. Bob?

Bob: Yes. (laughter)

Lisa: Any closing comments? 

Bob: I just wanted to thank everyone for their awareness and their BE’ing, because I have never seen anything move like this so quickly.  I’ve never seen the willingness of people come together in such a way. It’s profound. It’s awe inspiring. All of you are awesome, amazing, thank you.

Lisa: Agreed. Chris?

Chris: Well, I just I want to echo what Bob says. Thank you guys for being here. You’re here because you know that something is wrong with the world. You’ve got a gut feeling that this is the vehicle through which We the People can fix this place. That’s actually why I’m here. I didn’t get a chance to say that to Michael before, but that is the bigger picture. We have to stay the course. The resistance we’ll get from the system to the Courtesy Notice; it’s completely expected. We just stay the course. We’ll play them at this game. At some point, we’ll be stepping through the doorway…together.

Lisa: We are the ones that we’ve been waiting for. We always have been.  And Ron, I know you’re still there, so I want to thank you for calling in.

Ron: You’re welcome, Lisa.

Lisa: Thank you for your input. Keep us posted on your situation and we can certainly come together and support in this, sending Courtesy Notices to those relevant people.
Ron: I will let you know after tomorrow night’s meeting, about a week from tomorrow, for the show that night, as we discussed before.

Lisa: Yes. That will be lovely. Alright, thank you once again. Brian, I just wanted to make sure we covered all the updates on the OPPT-IN website. At the top of the page on the right hand side, you’ll find a volunteers’ button. That has all the fields necessary for you to fill in if you are in a position to volunteer some of your time and energy towards this cause. (laughter) We have the Courtesy Notice there on the front page. We have resources, documents, the audio description, which as I said is a two-hour discussion; Scott, Ken and Chris fully explaining the Courtesy Notice. If it’s not on the website yet, it will be shortly. Anything else?

Brian: I think that pretty much covers it. A good call to action is for people to go download this open letter to the media. There’s so many different media outlets. Our focus with the ground crew is to utilize the resources that we have to bring exposure to the story on a global scale. The momentum is already there. No one on this call is going to argue that the momentum isn’t there. We have over 200,000 people listening to this call. We had over a million people on Wednesday morning. We’re going back every Wednesday to discuss OPPT and that‘s just the start. 
So, if you’re compelled, I’ll echo something Heather always says in the chat room. She says “It’s all done. Everything is done. Checkmate. It’s over. But the people just don’t know it yet.”  The more volunteers and the more willingness people have to go out and share this information. It doesn’t take long to do a little bit of research, figure out who your local radio stations are and local newspapers are, put all the emails into a blast and fire it out. It’s already written. All the links are there, all the information is there, so the more support we have and the more people put this out there for all to see, the faster we get to where we want to go. Grab you popcorn and sodas, ladies and gentlemen, because the party is already started. It’s only going to get more fun from here. Halleluiah!

(Several people talking at once.)

D: Biding time.

Lisa: Absolutely. What a year this is going to be. Once you’ve got your head around these Courtesy Notices and you understand what you’re doing and you can stand in that space and you know who you are and you know who they are, start sending them out there. We want a couple hundred thousand of them in the system. This is about educating each other. That’s what this Courtesy Notice does. So the more police, the more bank employees, the more council employees, the more government employees, that get educated on where they really stand right now, the better.  The quicker the better.  Love you all. It’s been an amazing couple of hours. I look towards to having you back again tomorrow on the Collective Imagination Show. It’s at 12:00 PST time; it’s at 8:00 EST time. I think that’s right, isn’t Bob?

Bob: Yep.

Lisa: Please tune in, because we will be discussing that latest document and what that really means. So, thank you again everybody. See you tomorrow.

D, Bob, Chris, Brian: Goodnight.

Bob: Good night, John-boy.
(laughter all around)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.