Facebook

Margus MeigoBy Now we know, About Greeks also.

Margus MeigoAbout, Humble vessel(s). Government Tricks: http://www.natural-person.ca/govtricks.html This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site. First Trick: The first 'trick' of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to presume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are only two "persons" in law, a human being, and everything else: A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being. An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being. Comment from DetaxCanada: Both types of “person” are legal fictions. A natural person is a human in the false or fictional status of slave crewmember on a make-believe ship called a “body politic”. An “artificial person” is a make-believe ship called a body corporate or politic. The definition found in dictionaries states that a natural person is a human being. In legal terms, a human being refers to a human body without considering the mind - it being the captain of the vessel called the human body. A vessel at sea (equivalent to an ‘adult human’) is impervious to outside command , as the captain is the supreme commander. A human who is of “natural person status”, is as a captain of a vessel in ‘dry dock’ – he and his vessel being subservient to the vessel owner, the Crown.. The natural status of an (adult) human is “free will”, and thus sovereign over his own human body. Outside control is equivalent to some form of “piracy” - call it what you may. Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3): natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties. artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate ---- ---- You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws. Comment from DetaxCanada: “Capacity for” is not the same as “Having” rights and duties. The only ‘duties’ a free-will human has are those found in the negative and positive form of the Golden Rule – Do (or, do not) unto others as you would have (not have) others do unto you. Thus, for the free-will human, rights and duties come from the Creator Father, not from government. The “created” cannot dictate to the “creator” – and as the Declaration of Independence says: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …” Alternative expressions for a "natural-person" are "real-person", "human-person", or "human-being". Since governments have recently become paranoid about the use of the term "natural-person" perhaps it is better to use the terms "human-person" or "human-being" instead. Other terms like "private-person" could be misleading because a "private legal entity" (such as a private corporation versus a public corporation) may be called a private-person, which should not be mistaken with a natural-person, human-person, or human-being. The trick is to get you to believe that "private" means "human", which is not necessarily true.

Margus MeigoSecond Trick: The second 'trick' of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows: from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that: individual means a natural person, from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition: individual means an artificial person. from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that: person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person), from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition: person means a corporation (an artificial- person), from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again: person means an artificial person (amongst other things). In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons. Comment from DetaxCanada: The definition of “individual” in the Income Tax Act says: “ "individual" means a person other than a corporation; ” The only other “person” besides the corporate person (artificial person) is the “natural person”. --- http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html

Margus MeigoThird Trick: The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein. Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes: Basic Form: subject means objects; Effect: 1. means implies a substitution of words. 2. means creates a new definition for the subject. 3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined. 4. the objects need to be pre-defined. 5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects. Example from the Bank Act: "person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative; Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act: Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person. Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes: Basic Form: subject includes players; Effect: 1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject. 2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject. 3. the subject needs to be pre-defined. 4. the players need to be pre-defined. 5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective. 6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject. 7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player. 8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa. Example from the Income Tax Act: "employee" includes officer; "corporation" includes an incorporated company; "insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy; "taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax; "person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity's taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends; Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act: An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means. An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company. A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy. A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person). A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation. Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes: Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players; Effect: 1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects. 2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined. 3. the objects need to be pre-defined. 4. the players need to be pre-defined. 5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects. 6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject. 7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject. 8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player. 9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa. Example from the Interpretation Act: "province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; Interpretation of the above Example from the Interpretation Act: Any pre-existing definition for "province" is substituted with "a province of Canada", and any of the players (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) may play the role of a province, but not vice versa. For example, any province may not play the role of Nunavut. The use of the word includes is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights. Now that includes is no longer believed to be restrictive, you have to look eslewhere in the statutes to find out where your rights, as a natural person, are preserved. Your rights will be upheld somewhere, you just have to find out where.

Margus MeigoFourth Trick: The fourth 'trick' is directly attributable to a defect in the English language in respect of the verb 'to be'. In the English language there are many different meanings of the verb 'to be' and the reader/listener may misinterpret the intended (or 'trick') meaning and thereby draw the wrong conclusion from its use. The two different and distinct meanings of the verb 'to be' which concern us are: the one meaning which relates to the essence of the subject (such as the table is made of wood; he is strong) and the other meaning which relates to a temporary location or position (such as the table is over there; he is a swimmer). To be succinct, the two relevant meanings of interest, in this 'trick', may be summarized by the following simple definition: to be, means 'to have the essence of, to exist or live' (in the sense of essence), or 'to occupy a place or position' (in the sense of location or position). By the way, the noun 'essence' requires the helper verb 'to have'. Be careful with 'exist' because an artificial person can 'exist' on a piece of paper somewhere in a file, but an artifical person cannot exist as 'living'. Now to utilize the Fourth Trick associated with 'to be', a judge may make a ruling as follows: "a natural person is a taxpayer", or "a natural person is a driver" which immediately translates into the valid conclusion, with regard to occupying a position (because someone has to do the paperwork), that: "a natural person occupies the position of a taxpayer" However, a judge cannot make a ruling that: 'a natural person has the essence of a taxpayer' 'a natural person lives as a taxpayer' because human rights are immediately violated and slavery woud be condoned by the judge. The conclusion, in respect of the Fourth Trick, is to be careful when reading the word "is" and check for 'essence' or 'location'. What you think you read may not be in fact what you really read. You can very quickly get clarification by asking: "When you say is, do you mean occupies a position, or do you mean has the essence of (lives as)?" With this question you will immediately expose any 'trick' which is being utilized. Spanish is one of the few languages which has maintained a distinction by having two separate verbs; the verb 'ser', derived from the Latin 'esse' (English 'essence'), is used 'to have essence'; and the verb 'estar', derived from the Latin 'stare' (English 'state'), is used for a 'temporary location or position'.

Margus MeigoFifth Trick: The fifth 'trick' is the use of the word 'you' to create joinder between the one who speaks, and the artificial-person. See the PDF document Who Is You? for additional insight. --- Achilles’ Heel, is “You” Who “you” are, is no longer the question. The question is, who “IS” you. The word “you” gets more people into trouble than any other word currently utilized within our legal and financial systems. It is virtually impossible to fully explain the proper grammatical usage of the word “you”, insofar as proper English is concerned. Wikipedia: You (stressed /ˈjuː/; unstressed /jə/) is the second-person personal pronoun in Modern English. Ye was the original nominative form; the oblique/objective form is you (functioning originally as both accusative and dative), and the possessive is your or yours. YourDictionary.com: you (yo ̅ ̵ o ̅ ) pronoun pl. you 1. the person to whom one is speaking or writing: personal pronoun in the second person (sing. & pl.): you is the nominative and objective form (sing. & pl.), yours the possessive (sing. & pl.), and yourself (sing.) and yourselves (pl.) the reflexive and intensive; your is the possessive pronominal adjective 2. any person: equivalent in sense to indefinite one: you can never be sure! Note: Though you is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in addressing a single person, yet properly always with a plural verb. (No confusion here!) Loosely, the word “you” is a pronoun, that cannot be properly grammatically used according to English language rules. When spoken, “you” is commonly heard by everyone present, as if it were being addressed to each of them, individually, in a singular sense. We erroneously hear a singular inclination of the properly plural expression, as in one speaking to a group and saying; “I’m happy to share this with you.” Properly, “you” is indeed “plural”, yet the word “you” is often spoken as if it were in reference to a singular man or woman. In such instances, the word “you” induces anatural inclination for everyone in an audience to hear it as being addressed singularly to a specific individual within that audience, particularly if the word “you” follows an antecedent noun; as in one speaking to that same group, and saying; “Yes George, I’m happy to share this with you.” In “law”, this word “you”, is properly utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when addressing the singular mind (or the single party with volition) within the plural-nature- construct of a PERSON. The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity that IS that PERSON. In this sense, addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper use of the word “you”, as anyone could imagine. Thus the personal pronoun “you”, being both singular and plural, properly addresses the essential plural nature of the single PERSON entity. The key to benefiting from this, is to grasp who the correct (plural) components are within that single PERSON entity. So here are some thought provoking examples: http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Who_Is_You.pdf

Margus MeigoSixth Trick: (Hardcore) The sixth 'trick' is the use of the Birth Certificate to create a bunch of legal entities with NAMEs derived from the Birth Certificate, and to get you to agree that you are the same as the NAME on the Birth Certificate. For a starter, here is a document which discusses this topic. ____ ____ Unraveling a little of the TRUTH that shall help to set you Free: You are a natural being, born of natural parents. Your parents "gave" you a natural name, then they unwittingly "granted" by means of commercial exchange (a legal contract), a duplicate version of that same name to the province. This duplicate “name” was also created by your parents, thus it was their private property, to do with as they desired. Subsequently, because they did not know of exactly what they had done, and because therefore they were unable to properly explain to you what they had done (because much of what they had done was induced upon them by trickery), you unwittingly pretended to be that duplicate name, or pretended that you could be identified by that duplicate name, every time you allowed yourself to be identified by it, and or every time you effectively operated as it, by acting or behaving as if you were it, or could be identified by it. Your copy of the birth certificate is not a contract, it is merely a copy of a receipt, evidencing the irrevocable gift (grant) of THEIR name made by your parents. They created/made that duplicate name, thus they had the right to grant it to whoever, or whatever "state" they desired. You do not qualify to hold an original receipt, because you were not a party to the original contract, nor did you make the original grant – they did. They willingly made a legal transaction and reversing any legal transaction is subject to statute limitations – in other words, just because I have a receipt for my car, does not entitle me to go back to the dealer after 30 years and say, “I made a mistake, here is your car, give me my money back.” Such a notion surely is even less realistic, if I were thinking of trying to undo a contract that I was not even a party to. Likewise with the name. In order to even attempt to reverse that apparent mistaken transaction, your parents (and only your parents – not you) would have to assemble evidence that they have the ability to return all previously claimed benefits – benefits they arguably “accepted”, thus ratifying the subject contract, but even if they could prove what those benefits were (which we doubt), and then if they could establish capacity to return them, the other side is not under any obligation to accept a return of those benefits that have been paid in good faith, nor are they obligated to return that which they have legally purchased and paid for in good faith, – the duplicate corporate name. Alternatively, your parents would have to prove that they had been tricked, or fraudulently induced into exchanging their duplicate artificial name for the alleged state benefits. The problem with this approach is simple. The duplicate name was created by your parents at no actual or contingent cost to them. Your 1parents exchanged that “free” duplicate name for good and valuable consideration, which they actually received, and benefited from, perhaps one might even argue, unjustly. Subsequently, your parents have never been obligated directly or indirectly to give, or to to provide anything further in consideration of the actual benefits they have received, and perhaps continue to receive, thus technically, “they” have not been defrauded of anything. In fact it could be argued that they received significant real value for something that actually cost them nothing. Therefore the birth certificate that you hold does not constitute a trust, nor did the prior gift made by your parents by the registration of your birth, create one. You, by your active behavior, create a de facto trust, in and of the name that never was, or never has been yours. They do not orchestrate your behavior, you alone do that – voluntarily, albeit, unwittingly. Remember, you are exercising your right of self-determination. Fortunately, there is always a way to correct a mistake, but first everyone must recognize, accept, and comprehend what the mistake was, how it happened, who committed it, why it has gone unnoticed until now, who benefited, and how the mistake can be repaired, or at least prevented from recurring. We were created to govern ourselves, and we were appointed a lineage of kings & queens that acknowledge that aspect of our creation. Apparently we have an inherent right to “self-determination”. What this really means, is that whatever we determine to do, is perceived by others, as being done by our own free will. This perception also applies to those things that we mistakenly do, or that we have been tricked into doing. Mistake number one, performed within the parameters of self-determination, was made by your parents, when they were tricked into creating a duplicate of your natural name. Yet even that trick did not directly defraud them of anything, because as we have previously said, they received significant benefits for having freely created and given up that duplicate name. This duplicate version of your name is interesting, inasmuch as it is not directly associated with any natural or living being, and must therefore by process of elimination and simple deduction, then be limited to being an artificial creation, or at best, an actual paper creation, that exists on paper as a corporate entity only. Here is where mistake number two originates. Because of your parents' misunderstanding of what they had done, you also misunderstood their actions. You also mistakenly believed that the duplicate name they sold to the state, was actually somehow still “your” name. 2Thus by this mistake of yours, you have committed two serious offenses. First: http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/A_Little_TRUTH_shall_set_free.pdf

Margus MeigoSeventh Trick: The seventh 'trick' is to have you affix your "signature" to documents, thereby creating joinder with Artificial Person represented by the "signature" in some official capacity. Human beings use an "autograph" not a "signature". "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law," (Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights) -- Live People seal documents with autograph; Corporations use signatures Strictly speaking, they aren’t allowed to address you—- you are a foreign state operating in a foreign jurisdiction, utterly immune and separate from them. If they speak to you they also have a hard time keeping up the pretension that you are “dead”. The proper way to close all correspondence is with the word “Sincerely” and with your sealed autograph. -- Living people have autographs, not signatures. Signatures are made by corporate officers when they are acting in corporate office. So you would autograph your full given “official” name first middle last and add the following disclaimer: “non-negotiable autograph, all rights reserved”. To be completely proper, you would write this is RED ink (red is for blood and land jurisdiction, blue is for water and maritime jurisdictions—which they have been using exclusively) and you would seal the document near your autograph with your right thumbprint also in red ink. Last but not least, you would affix a small stamp-sized color copy of your family crest at the bottom right hand corner of the last page of the document. This completely seals a document—- the thumbprint stands for you the individual, the crest for your family name.

Margus MeigoAnd some other notes from old times when some (at time's confusing sounding) people managed to pull these topics up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD8ISiJfgW4 Person - The Revised Co de of Was hing ton, RCW 1.16... 080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual." Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). - Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. - Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions? Well..... I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition

Margus MeigoGTEN Association of Community College Trustees Having trouble standing on natural rights? Stop using Black's Law Dictionary! Black's is creature of the statutes and code. It's a mouse trap, and you're the mouse. Black's is a book of legal terms (legalese), not a book of English word meanings. Its "definitions" are largely the defined terms of the contract established within the United States jurisdiction (and others). Therefore, every time you rely on Black's to try to define, establish or maintain your freedom as a man or woman, you are mistakenly relying on legalese that defines the very nature of your status as that of a citizen subject in the land of legal fiction. The Supreme Court uses Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary for its primary dictionaries, not Black's. Why? Because the Supreme Court has the obligation to compare its cases against the Organic Laws and natural law to ensure the statutes and code do not interfere with the inalienable rights of the people which were declared and protected in the Organic Laws. The only way to do that is to look outside the realm of today's overreaching statutes and code for the true meanings of words as they were intended before the legislated statutes and code displaced the common law. Note that when the Supreme Court does use Black's Law at all, it is usually as a 3rd or 4th definition, or it is when there are no rights of a people at issue in the case before the court. Black's can also be useful to you for the same purpose, as a 3rd or 4th reference, as long as you understand what it is. This video clip is a brief excerpt from the GTEN course Living Free of the System, A Guide to Private Banking in Lawful Money (aka: the permanent solution to the personal income tax). For the full course and all GTEN offerings, visit http://GTEN.org/webinars. Also, don't miss the free GTEN Forum at http://GTEN.org/forum, a great community resource, open and free to everyone. http://GTEN.org http://GTEN.org/forum http://GTEN.org/webinars More clips from Living Free of the System and other GTEN courses are also available on the GTEN Trustees Youtube channel: http://youtube/GTENwebinars "The world is still a weird place, despite my efforts to make clear and perfect sense of it." - Hunter S. Thompson [DISCLAIMER] GTEN always strives to uphold and honor all forms of private and public interests. Under no circumstances should you rely on the content of any information given from GTEN in determining any entity's tax or other liability, whether that entity presently exists or is to be created in the future. For all such matters, you should seek appropriate professional assistance from an attorney, certified public accountant or other professional. GTEN does not give legal advice, nor does it prepare taxes. Void where prohibited by law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqoKtFW8COg

Margus MeigoAnd one more help from fiction-side, as last definitions/explanations have not fully understood, included, the alien-witscraft-creation point of view, that all high up are familiar who have to be. Other high up next to them have to be soft/strong tools, who gotta newer know anything about it. To keep it so. As the ones who not humans are among up and low and between many of them is agreement not to try to explain, reveal that to humans most, as for few who have try, the results have been futile. So with movies and comic books people are educated instead, in soft way, these also support, act as seals, between realty and unreality, (and is easy to force person in to corner with "are you in to fiction / cartoons ?? Get "real?" !) So Vessel, more as higher explain on to what the seal of Law and interpretations, wordings fallow as mentioned before: http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/Vessel A vessel is a human that an angel possesses in order to manifest on Earth. The term vessel was first used by Castiel. Angels are in reality "multi-dimensional wavelength[s] of celestial intent" ] and can be the "size of...(the) Chrysler Building."[3] Vessels are the safest and most conventional way for angels to interact with humans on Earth, as their true voices and visages can kill, and in the very least severely harm. ] Vessels also appear necessary for an angel to use the full range of his abilities on Earth. A human must consent for an angel to use their body as a vessel. // after consent human agrees to not need to have memory of it but just an ordinary life play about what can explain the harm/benefit that come from it. --- Castiel: That was my mistake. Certain people, special people, can perceive my true visage. I thought you would be one of them. I was wrong. Dean: And what visage are you in now, huh? What, holy tax accountant? Castiel: This? This is... a vessel. Dean: You're possessing some poor bastard? Castiel: He's a devout man, he actually prayed for this. -- The suitability of a human to be a vessel is innate. Castiel makes reference to this while possessing Claire Novak, saying that it is "in her blood." It appears that angels are tied to certain human family lineages. Michael, when he is using the young John Winchester as his vessel, tells Dean: “You’re my true vessel, but not my only one. It’s a bloodline... stretching back to.. " ---- (As an anthropologist wonder, is natural for humans to talk in this: "Sex appears to be irrelevant for angels as Castiel, Hannah and Raphael have all used both male and female vessels. While angels do refer to each other with gendered terms such as "brother" and "sister" when interacting in vessels, it is unclear if angels have any concept of gender as humans would understand it in their natural state, and what influences their choice of vessel. " ) -- " After consent is obtained, it appears that an angel may occupy a vessel for as long as necessary, though it can be forcibly removed. Having left a vessel, it would appear that the angel requires new consent from the vessel to resume using it as a host // As my self also, i usually try to talk with in the vessel and in between the human last highest state in layman terms so ordinary mind if wills, can pick up and pick a side

Margus MeigoWhile occupying a vessel, the original consciousness of the human is suppressed, though it can come to the surface in rare instances; -- -- An angel in a vessel can withstand injuries that would harm a human, and can heal the vessel of almost any wound they receive, unlike darkones who merely suppress the damage their "meatsuits" sustain while they are in control. In the case of archangels, the human host takes on even greater risk, as the sheer power of an archangel can inflict permanent mental damage on a vessel (however, this does not seem to be something the archangel cannot control. --- An angel can be pulled from its vessel by other angels, or even powerful darkones --- Vessels possess the ability to expel the angel using them if they are strong enough and aware of the possession. -- Even if a vessel doesn't remember it, they are aware of everything the angel is aware of and can access their memories -- The term "true vessel" is used several times to described someone preordained to host an angel. It is particularly applied to the vessels of Ar ch Ang Els, but any vessel with the right bloodline can host the angel tied to it.

Margus MeigoApocrypha In the spin-off War of the Sons, Dean and Sam travel back in time to 1954 to recover the War Scroll, a scroll that supposedly contains a plan to thwart the apocalypse. However, although they recover the scroll with the aid of a father-and-daughter team of contemporary hunters, they learn that the Scroll's only information is a list of the bloodlines of the angelic vessels; the 'battle plan' consists of wiping out all known families capable of hosting angels so that the apocalypse can never take place. Details listed on the scroll include the information that the Novaks are of the line of Ishmael, and Jimmy's father and Claire's grandfather was named Gregory. In the spin-off Supernatural: Carved in Flesh, Dean and Sam face off against Hel, the Norse goddess of death, as her agent sets up a chain of events to create a suitable body for her to inhabit. Hel specifically refers to this body as her 'vessel', and her mythological ties to Loki suggest that she may have some ties to the angels,

Margus MeigoJewsih elementary knowledge : "While some religions believe angels can manifest in human form, this is not through actual possession of a person source. The closest concept is possibly that of the Ibbur in Jewish mythology, in which a righteous soul can taken possession of a human in order to perform a good deed or mitzvah. Usually the human must consent to this possession. The ibbur then departs when the task is complete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibbur ____ Ibbur (Hebrew: עיבור‬, "pregnancy" or "impregnation" or "incubation"), is one of the transmigration forms of the soul and has similarities with Gilgul neshamot. Ibbur is always good or positive, while dybbuk (Yiddish: דיבוק‬‎), is negative. Ibbur is the most positive form of possession, and the most complicated. It happens when a righteous soul decides to occupy a living person's body for a time, and joins, or spiritually "impregnates" the existing soul. Ibbur is always temporary, and the living person may or may not know that it has taken place. Often the living person has graciously given consent for the Ibbur. The reason for Ibbur is always benevolent—the departed soul wishes to complete an important task, to fulfil a promise, or to perform a mitzvah (a religious duty) that can only be accomplished in the flesh. In Lurianic Kabbalah, ibbur occurs when an incomplete soul which cannot achieve tikun is completed by the addition of the soul of a tzadik,[1] or spiritual master. Luria believed this to be possible even whilst the possessor was still alive. ___ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul Gilgul/Gilgul neshamot/Gilgulei Ha Neshamot (Heb. גלגול הנשמות, Plural: גלגולים Gilgulim) describes a Kabbalistic concept of reincarnation. In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle" or "wheel" and neshamot is the plural for "souls." Souls are seen to "cycle" through "lives" or "incarnations", being attached to different human bodies over time. Which body they associate with depends on their particular task in the physical world, spiritual levels of the bodies of predecessors and so on. The concept relates to the wider processes of history in Kabbalah, involving Cosmic Tikkun (Messianic rectification), and the historical dynamic of ascending Lights and descending Vessels from generation to generation. --- The esoteric explanations of gilgul were articulated in Jewish mysticism by Isaac Luria in the 16th century, as part of the metaphysical purpose of Creation. ______________ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dybbuk " In Jewish mythology, a dybbuk (Yiddish: דיבוק‎, from the Hebrew verb דָּבַק‬ dāḇaq meaning "adhere" or "cling") is a malicious possessing spirit believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person. It supposedly leaves the host body once it has accomplished its goal, sometimes after being helped " "Dybbuk" is an abbreviation of דיבוק מרוח רעה‬ dibbūq mē-rūaḥ rā‘ā ("a cleavage of an evil spirit"), or דיבוק מן החיצונים‬ dibbūq min ha-ḥīṣōnīm ("dibbuk from the outside"), which is found in man. "Dybbuk" comes from the Hebrew word דִּיבּוּק‬ dibbūq which means "the act of sticking" and is a nominal form derived from the verb דָּבַק‬ dāḇaq "to adhere" or "cling" __________________ The term first appears in a number of 16th century writings,[1][5] though it was ignored by mainstream scholarship until S. Ansky's play The Dybbuk popularised the concept in literary circles.[5] Earlier accounts of possession (such as that given by Josephus) were of Darkones possession rather than that by darkspirits. These accounts advocated orthodoxy among the populace[1] as a preventative measure. For example, it was suggested that a sloppily made mezuzah or entertaining doubt about Moses' crossing of the Red Sea opened one's household to dybbuk possession. Very precise details of names and locations have been included in accounts of dybbuk possession. Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar rebbe (1887–1979) is reported to have supposedly advised an individual said to be possessed to consult a psychiatrist. Ansky's play is a significant work of Yiddish theatre, and has been adapted a number of times by writers, composers and other creators including Jerome Robbins/Leonard Bernstein and Tony Kushner. In the play, a young bride is possessed by the ghost of the man she was meant to marry had her father not broken a marriage agreement. There are other forms of soul transmigration in Jewish mythology. In contrast to the dybbuk, the ibbur (meaning "impregnation") is a positive possession, which happens when a righteous soul temporarily possesses a body. This is always done with consent, so that the soul can perform a mitzvah. The gilgul (Hebrew: גלגול הנשמות‎, literally "rolling") puts forth the idea that a soul must live through many lives before it gains the wisdom to rejoin with God. In psychological literature the Dybbuk has been described as an hysterical syndrome ( :D about the last one )

Margus MeigoVessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohr "Ma'ohr" (luminary), "Kli" (vessel) and "Shefa" (pleanty) redirect here. For vessels in the Talmud, see Keilim For other uses, see Ohr (disambiguation) and KLI (disambiguation) -- "From God's perspective, Scripture states "For I, the Eternal, I have not changed". From the perspective of God's self-knowledge, the emanations remain completely united and nullified to their source. This answers early Rabbinic criticism of dualism in Kabbalah. The term in Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy for this nullification is Bittul. In daily spiritual life (Dveikus) it inspires the mystical humility of nullification of the ego. " --- Ohr ("Light" Hebrew: אור‬; plural: Ohros/Ohrot "Lights" אורות‬) is a central Kabbalistic term in the Jewish mystical tradition. The analogy of physical light is used as a way of describing metaphysical Divine emanations. Shefa ("Flow" שפע‬ and its derivative, Hashpoah "Influence" השפעה‬) is sometimes alternatively used in Kabbalah, a term also used in Medieval Jewish Philosophy to mean Divine influence, while the Kabbalists favour Ohr because its numerical value equals Raz ("mystery"). It is one of the two main metaphors in Kabbalah for understanding Divinity, along with the other metaphor of the human soul-body relationship for the Sephirot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot “Earth” is equivalent to the sefirah of Malkhut, which is associated with the earth. Therefore earth — like Malkhut — represents the Oral Law. And the Oral Law is the source of the spirit of every living being, as the verse states: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures, each according to its own kind” (Likutey Moharan I, 12: 1). Sefirot (/sfɪˈroʊt/, /ˈsfɪroʊt/; Hebrew: סְפִירוֹת‎ səphîrôṯ), meaning emanations, are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof (The Infinite) reveals Itself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms (Seder hishtalshelus). The term is alternatively transliterated into English as sephirot/sephiroth, singular sefirah/sephirah etc. ------ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_philosophy

Margus Meigoin more ways then we dare to ask for

Margus MeigoWhere in a fb this option is now where You can see the number of views on video ? This elementary missing info just irritates extreme ways And hey, should show WHO looks also.

Margus MeigoNormal world FULL statistic should be seen by people that is seen by platform

Margus MeigoSo we have to post it on to some place and then from there we can see.. https://www.facebook.com/angelica.westwind/posts/10156035606813935