Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Is 96 Really Your Fix?

Freeman-on-the-land Robert of the Menard Family claims that any Canadian with a birth certificate can discharge debts by accessing the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Although I don't disagree with his general thesis, I find it unbelievable that this process would ever work. But apparently some people have had success with this method. Interested in discharging your debt? Well then, 96 could be your fix.



First a little background: According to the Freeman doctrine, by going off the gold standard our government effectively declared bankruptcy. By doing so, the productive output of the populace became the collateral on the debt. Thus the birth certificate was introduced to keep track of the individual. Or rather, the statement of birth. The certificate is more like a share, and the number on the back is the CUSIP number. Every government document, like our SIN, driver's license, passport, etc. is based off this birth certificate. The number on the back is our very own human barcode.

Robert has two videos on the subject. The first explains his method of using a birth certificate to pay off your bills. The second video is an update, as some people had tried this and found no luck. The problem, according to Rob, was that the birth certificate number doesn't represent a personal account, but rather, allows access to a certain account. In this case, the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Now this CRF is a real thing. This is the depository where all our taxes go. Whenever politicians dream up some socialist scheme, or decide to book a hotel and eat dinner – they fund it by withdrawing from the CRF. To my knowledge only the Receiver General for Canada has the ability to withdrawal from this account. Yet, in Rob's videos I don't recall him ever bringing up this fact.

Instead, Rob concentrates on the Minister of Finance. The people who tried this process based on Rob's first version of these videos had no luck because the Minister's “mandate doesn't allow it.” Rob has a cunning solution to this pesky problem: increase the Minister's mandate by sending him a letter. “We the people” can, apparently, increase the Minister's mandate at will. This is where I give up, as I still maintain that the State is going to do what it wants to do. But for the sake of argument, let's keep exploring this issue.

We're all familiar with money that isn't cash. Debit cards, credit cards, even postage stamps. According to some legislation and bureaucratic mandates, a remittance is also a form of money. This is where the “96” title comes from. A bill with the number 96 in the bottom right hand corner is considered a remittance.* As the electric and gas companies are using "public land" to operate their business, whatever they bill you can be paid for through the CRF.

As long as it's a consumer purchase with the number 96 at the bottom, then we can act as “bank tellers for the Bank of Canada” and discharge our debts. Here's how to go about it (and my opinions in the brackets):

1. Send off a notice to the Bank of Canada Governor that explains that you are acting as a teller. (Mark Carney is a Goldman Sachs terrorist, he won't give two shits what kind of notice you send off to him. Again, Rob may be theoretically correct, but the State is going to do what it wants to do).

2. Send off a notice to the Minister of Finance that increases his mandate so he can draw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. (A similar notice to the Receiver General may help as well, but like I said above: The State is going to do what it wants to do. Flaherty won't understand, nor will he care, about what you're trying to do).

3. Sending off a Claim of Right to the above mentioned is required as well. This claim allows your right to draw from the CRF to use the remittance. (Considering Canada is under Common Law jurisdiction, I suppose you could go to court arguing over this and different Freeman issues. But the Crown's resources are infinite, the individual is bound by his or her own wallet. The odds are against you).

4. The Remittance. Sign it, date it, stamp it, along with your birth certificate info and send it off to whomever you're supposed to paying. (I'll explain below).

5. Rob suggests sending off a courtesy letter to the people expecting a normal payment. They're not going to understand any of this and it helps to explain what you're trying to accomplish. Unlike the notices or claim of right, this letter can be casual.

6. Send it off and post you're findings on the internet. (I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in seeing if this process actually works).

Pretty simple, eh?

Regarding number 4, the remittance itself. Putting it together is relatively simple. First off, get your 96 consumer purchase invoice and cut. You're only using the bottom half for this payment. Buy a $1 Canadian stamp, and then sign across it, the Post Master General acts as your witness. Write across the remittance: “consumer purchase” then sign your name (birth certificate name) as well as the amount you're going to be withdrawing from the CRF (usually the amount owed). Finally, underneath the stamp (or “teller stamp”) write your birth certificate CUSIP number in blue ink (why blue? It beats the fuck out of me).

And that's it. Whenever you hear that a politician is spending your money on lavish vacations or expensive social programs, no worries. Because according to Rob, we have the ability to draw from the same account as those parasitic statists.


*This is what Rule H6 from the CPA says:

"Code 96, to indicate it is a Remittance, shall be
located anywhere within the four positions of the
Transaction Code Section. The remaining two
positions shall be blank."


Taken out of context, it tends to prove Rob's theory correct. Taken in context... well I'm not a lawyer. There are a large set of rules and regulations written in legal jargon. You can find this statement on page 41 of the pdf. I'd read the whole document (as well as rule A1 and the other pdfs) and come to your own conclusions.

12 comments:

  1. Thanks for the info

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank You, equally interested views.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CPA just sent me an e-mail..."96 is your fix" is a internet myth? Not paying for goods or services can have serious legal consequences, which fall outside the CPS's jurisdiction? I am so disappointed I was working on it since last November.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Caleb983, Thank you for your excellent work, looks like they are denying our access to remedies. They are bankrupt since 1933. Everything works here on Contracts and Bills of Exchange, section 57,58,59...Signature&Negotiation...
    Every Ticket is a Money Order issued by the Crown to steal the Property from us without full disclosure to us through our's TRADE NAMES in CAPITAL LETTERS
    Please, tell me did you have any success with code 96?
    CPA is stealing our original cheques and issuing private placements or flow-through shares...(CRA)paper money its a debt instrument or commercial paper aka The ledger-entry accounting " CREDIT" transaction...pure FRAUD
    Good Luck, Love and Peace

    ReplyDelete
  5. Question: Is Rob doing this himself? If so, there should be poof this works....if not, WHY isn't'he ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, the CRF is available if you know to set up a contract using your BC, your SIN, the law governing the CRF and the CRA which administers the fund on behalf of the Receiver General. It all goes through the CRA Technology Centre.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Has anyone done this - does anyone know a site that talks about success with this? Any more information you find relevent to this? I am interested!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seems like we are all looking for the same thing.. ' a remedy'. I never took law, but I guess I should have..LOL Everything is in legal jargon and it's very likely that some of us who are trying / or are going to try.. can easily make a mistake and have it come back at us.
    What would be nice..since we are all loving people.. is that there be a chat site or some sort of support for us who have questions BEFORE we send our paper out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rob said something about the fund being $5B,and that it had to have a certain amount of funds in it @ all times in case, by chance, all remittances were sent to the CRF @ one time, say on a month to month basis. The fund was also set up July 1, 1867. So it has had a long time to accumulate funds, where ever they actually come from. The CRF actually has over $500B in it the last time I checked in February, 2013. How could a govt. account have such a huge surplus, when all other govt. accounts are tapped out and we have over $500B in Nat. Debt, $600B in CPP debt, over $300B in foreign debt, most of our provinces and city governments are in debt, but this CRF is an over flowing bowl of cash? There is something just too weird about all this not to have some validity. If the politicians can access it, to use the funds for their expenses,then... ???

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am interested in the further discussion of this issue. However, is there any relevant information regarding this matter online?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not a lawyer as well, but nevertheless there are a large set of particular rules and regulations written in legal jargon, which means that it's too hard to comprehend this material.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for posting this information! The provided materials will be vital for my next project, since I am working on finishing touches of my ongoing academic project.

    ReplyDelete