• Renee Ramos Yamagishi

Looking back a few years ...





Introduction by video (at left))


AUDIO (45 min) click image below




January 2017:

"I'm giving a one-minute introduction to the remainder of this quite long audio. The total is about 55 minutes but in this one-minute introduction, after reviewing, it's important to understand a couple definitions. What is a credit default swap? This was something certainly that the business model of residential mortgage-backed securities rolled out, enacted. Certainly everything regarding securitization and residential mortgage-backed securities was not disclosed to the borrower. And we maintain that it was a material breach and that the nondisclosure was both injurious and a failure to contract on the note. There is also failure to contract on the deed of trust with regards to a confession of judgment improperly executed (PDF used with permission). These things must be studied to understand our premise. (Audio transcript continues below).


Because it's more than just the fact of the egregious loan mod denials and the bait and switch. It's why. Why the business model was set up not to modify and to beat us down and get us to give up and get us to get sick and get us to go away. It's because of credit default swaps and the fact that everybody after that were rogue. Everybody after that were in violation of just about everything. All the UCC [Negotiable Instrument] laws as well as just basic contract law. And so we need to plead that and talk about, well, the boss of the note concept. Because if we don't then all we're doing is saying, you did this terrible thing and I want damages. Yeah, that's not enough.

There's got to be a dissection, an analysis of the bigger business model that they were operating under or are operating under. That's the only way that it even points to what we're looking at. Otherwise we're just flailing our arms going, they were so terrible, they were so bad. Five years since 60 Minutes did robo-signing. Where the hell are we? Time. It's time for us to show up in the public and say .. we're not just going, “Oh, woe is me, they did this bad thing.” We're actually parsing out the analysis.

And in fact many of us have, it's just that part and parcel of this debacle that's rolled across America is that people have been made to scramble individually. Separated, doing their own lawsuits, scrambling around trying to find an attorney who gets it. Now, together however, we have combined our knowledge and clearly we are upholding law. Governing law. And we are finding that things that are called statutes are actually perhaps legal, but apparently wholly unlawful, challengeable, and items to which we do not consent.

The lawsuit will parse out and define what those specific distinctions are and why it would be both lawful, prudent, reasonable and logical to uphold true governing law and not a farce. And even then, if it goes to UD, it's like, really? Okay, so now I have to attack UD court as a non-jurisdiction, as the improper venue, as not having jurisdiction, as being landlord tenant? As being, if you're not going to adjudicate based on Yvanova in the state of California, then you're the wrong venue. That gets to be adjudicated. That's what I'm suing for. Yvanova established that in the Supreme Court of the State of California.The right to sue when the assignments point to a non-owner of the debt. (1/3 down the page linked ANALYSIS page of this site.)


So I'm suing. So what are you doing? You're going to go against the California State Supreme Court in this … I don't know, can't even think of the word. Mockery of a judicial process called unlawful detainer for tenants? Really? I'm not a tenant. You and J.P. Morgan might disagree. I didn't ask your opinion. I'm telling you I'm not a tenant. I'm a party in contract. The contract is being adjudicated right now in a higher court than this improper one. Okay? Do we need to set precedence that this is improper and this is not an adjudication of the merits, a consideration of the merits? Well, I guess I'll have to do that then.

But it says “landlord-tenant.” If you're calling me in as tenant, then I cry “Contract Void Ab Initio -- Unconscionable Adhesion Contract: the deed of trust made me a tenant.” And it didn't tell me, please sign here that you will be a tenant for the performance of this promissory note which we are going to unconscionably adhere you to in violation of UCC 3 such that there will be no and there is not one identifiable party that you can negotiate with in the event of a global financial crisis… which is on the horizon because our people are already rolling it forward.”

“Could you just sign here that you're a tenant? Because you'll be ending up in UD court. So that the UD magistrate can rubberstamp an eviction notice for your county sheriff. So since that's already what your deed of trust is adhering you to as a tenant, which means that you're not going to be able to challenge that a landlord-tenant venue is improper because you are a tenant? …”

Now at least you're disclosing it. And I'll say, gee, you sure used a lot of paper to make these photocopies to bring your flunky notary without you yourself, Aegis, to my kitchen table. But you're going to have to just don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. No, I'm not a tenant. Obviously I can't do business with you. Bye-bye!” Nondisclosure. “Contract Void Ab Initio. I am not a tenant, UD court.” There you go. If I'm a tenant then the deed of trust is void Ab Initio. Period. Oh, you don't like that? Even though it would be simpler for me to just claim tenant status so everybody goes home, I say, let's just meet in a higher court for some due process.”



It's really sad that our educational system has, I don't know, did you demonize logic? Did you decide … Oh, you mis-taught logic. Oh I see, you taught authoritarianism instead of logic. You sort of scratched logic as a subject matter for study and you put authoritarianism, why we must. Starting in like …first grade. That's sad. That's your problem, I didn't do that. I didn't go to that class, okay? I'm going to apply logic. And my job is not to teach you, my job is to tell you: This is what's logical. Your logic fails. I am not a tenant. If I am a tenant, let's just pack up and go home. Nobody should be even doing a peep of attacking to me because that's Contract Void Ab Initio, non-meeting of the minds. Failure to contract.

I didn't contract to be a tenant so why are we in UD court? Oh, that's right, the deed of trust is something that people want to keep waving around. Rogue criminals want to keep waving around the deed of trust. You'd better take me out of this UD court. Or let me put it this way, take my matter to the proper venue then since the deed of trust is being waived around as a valid document. I'd like to challenge that. I can't challenge it if I'm a tenant because if I'm a tenant I've already won. If you're saying I'm a tenant, I've already won my case: deed of trust -- Contract Void Ab Initio. I never consented to be a tenant, it was not disclosed.

If you're calling me into UD court as a tenant then all you have is a tenant who has signed a lease for rent contract. Bye-bye. Failure to meeting of the minds, nondisclosure. Failure to contract. But it's specifically a confession of judgment improperly executed. If you're going to drag me into UD court then you've proven it was a confession of judgment improperly executed, unconscionable adhesion contract, failure to contract. You've proven your own failing.

And you have a signature of a person who had no standing to so sign. Oh, I'm in UD court. This proves that the deed of trust is Contract Void Ab Initio treating me as a tenant. Now that I realize the deed of trust was making me a tenant in my own home and that you stole my signature so that you could take title by my signature! See, you couldn't take title just by signing it yourself! You needed me to sign over … so you had somebody to steal from…

And yet you used my signature to your advantage, but you don't use my signature for what it is, which is mine, my property. I'm the other party of interest, remember you dumb ? You don't get to adhere me unless there's a person to adhere, and that person signed your adhesion contract. In which you stole my signatory credit by my signature so that you could adhere me, to your deplorable, abominable theft of homes and land. You couldn't do it without my signature. You twisted, disgusting, illogical …I mean, the ... It's not retarded, it's not retardation, it's mental illness. It's complete and total breakdown of all logic:

You needed my signature to adhere me to a process by which you could steal my home. Without my signature you could not roll out your nonjudicial foreclosure process, gag, puke, to steal my home. And yet you take my signature and say, “This is how we are going to adhere you. But it's not how you can claim your rights. We're going to put you in UD court, but you can't say that now that you're being treated as a tenant that we didn't adhere you as a tenant when we stole your signature. No.

You got to be the quote borrower when we adhered you by signature at signing. But now that we're rolling it on out here, our grand theft illegal, criminal, disgusting, unlawful practice, now we've got you in UD court as a tenant. We get to have our cake and eat it too and they we'll vomit it all over our fiat currency so we can eat that up again.”



That's the kind of people you are. You're not even people. You must be possessed. You must be possessed. You make a mockery of your own intelligence. I'm sure there's a certain amount of intelligence and cleverness and brain functioning, but you make a mockery of the logic process that your brain is capable of. This is illogical. I'm not even talking about unjust. See, illogical and unjust go hand-in-hand. If something doesn't make sense, if it isn't, like … If A then B and if B then C, then from A we get C. If you can't do that kind of logical analysis, you're insulting your own intelligence in front of everybody to see.

I mean, come on, do you have enough honor for your own capacity? It all comes down to that we, the quote borrower. Quote … Remember your little quotation marks Fannie/Freddie? Quote borrower, quote lender. The quote borrower, the person who's signature you stole, you would've had to start with the premise that, not only did we … Even though we are the other party in contract, which is how you stole the signature that would mean something … Our stolen signature would have to mean something in your business model. So therefore, in that little tiny instance … From the time I picked up the pen, started my signature and ended my signature I was a real party in interest. Because you had my signature then. And stole it.




After that, before that and after that, for the time it took me to literally have ink flow out of my pen onto your deplorable, patented instrument, I was a real party in contract giving over my signature to you to steal and adhere me, to damage me, injuriously. But before the ink started flowing on your deplorable form, and immediately after, I lifted the pen and the ink stopped flowing from my signature on your deplorable form, I was considered in your mind, a mark. An entity whom we have duped and [have been] given license to absolutely materially, financially and emotionally destroy. Not only that person, whose signature appears there, but their children and their parents and their community and everybody that depends on them and the dwelling, the actual physical dwelling/shelter of the home that we are about to steal, that we are already rolling out the theft of. That's not a human being that signed. Oh, they were human being just from the time the ink flowed, but not before that and not after that. Thank you.


Okay, so UD court, no, that doesn't work. If anyone calls me in UD court, just realize that, for me, you just voided the deed of trust in its entirety to call me into UD court. It's not a court. It's some kind of a torture chamber that you guys devised irrespective of all logic that exists. And certainly, if it's irrespective of logic, it's irrespective of what's fair and just because it makes no sense on the face of the earth.



So I'm actually evaluating, after hearing that, this is a very angry person I am right now about the atrocity and abomination. Y'know it's ugly. It's like injustice and illogic. Nonlogic harm. Illogical harm is ugly. It mean it's ugly but I'm really angry so I need to take a look at that. Yeah, I'm angry, I'm outraged. You know there is a difference between … There is righteous indignation and outrage at just atrocious conduct, misconduct. And that's healthy. I just want to channel what I … the anger specific to the content. It's contextual anger. It's anger in context. It's outrage with a context, with a reason. There's a reason, very logical reason why there's outrage here. So I want to own that. And I want to say that that's healthy because that's about parsing out and analyzing and adding the dots up and going, no, I don't consent. You didn't obtain my consent. And I do not consent to your program, to your business model that you wholly and completely misrepresented fraudulently.

So there's so many ways to describe it. Y’know right? Okay, so we're describing it as unconscionable adhesion, meaning it's absolutely unjust. It was false, it was fraud, misrepresentation, lying, nondisclosure. Harmful. Very, very injurious to steal someone's signature and then say later, “Oh, this is what you actually signed. We didn't have to tell you that's what you were signing over, ha. You signed it. Ha ha. Dupe on you. That's unconscionable, ok.

Adhesion means take it or leave it: “Oh you want a loan? This is a standard uniform instrument. I mean this is Fannie and Freddie by God. This is the government. You live in America? Oh, you get your roads fixed and y'know you get your public utility commission programs and you get your schools and you get your county hospitals and stuff like that? Oh, you're part of America right? You have a Social Security card, driver’s license and citizenship papers. Okay, fine. Well, you're in America, this is the Fannie and Freddie standard uniform instrument, you fool. Of course we get to adhere you to this, this is how you get a home loan so that you can actually live somewhere in a dwelling and participate and work and pay your taxes. I mean, come on, you don't have a choice. This is our instrument. This is our contract. It says Fannie and Freddie right there. Oh, it also says, as modified by this law firm, what is it? Middleburg, Riddle & Gianna. Okay, we don't know who they are but obviously they're vetted by this wonderful institution called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

“Private corporation!”

“Oh, no, government-sponsored entity.”

“Oh THAT'S scary. The government sponsored you? Look out! Now we know that that's bad. We didn't know that then though. We were told, oh, this is a government-sponsored entity, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it has the word ‘federal’ in the front of it .. just like Federal Reserve. Oh, boy do I feel secure!”

But anyway, it's an adhesion meaning it adhered you, it adhered us. It was a take-it-or-leave-it contract, one-sided, with the bargaining power lopsided, to our detriment. Along with nondisclosures. It was unconscionable. So when we realized the terrible, terrible injury that has been perpetrated on us and we go, foul, cried foul, and we said I did not consent to that, I was not given an opportunity to consent to that because it was not disclosed and it was your duty to disclose. Duty to disclose. Duty to disclose.

Under what law? How about universal natural law and how about a host of other laws that are still on the books? Not the least of which are contract law. Uniform Commercial Code commercial law and the fact that, no, I do not waive my status over to you criminals and strip myself of my rights as a party in contract as a real party in interest. You didn't say, oh, now that you've signed your deed of trust, could you sign on this other little section of it and on the note as well that says, I give up my rights as a real party of interest and party in contract. I consent to be unconscionably adhered and I confess judgment against myself to my detriment prior to even entering this contract. And I sign over title to this property by my signature.

See, that's why it's such a twisted logic. If by my signature on the deed of trust, I could actually sign over title ownership ... I was adhered to the promissory note to pay every month for 30 years. But the trustee got free and clear title ownership and they weren't adhered to my promissory note? I have already confessed judgment against myself – they have already taken my house at signing! But I'm obligated to perform on an unconscionable adhesion contract, i.e., the note, in which my signature was stolen and entered into a business model that was deplorably injurious to me! Against my consent.

So, I withdraw my consent on all counts. Failure to contract with the real party of interest. The signature actually granted you what you claim, or it did not grant you what it claimed. You can't have it both ways. My signature is mine, and if I had the power through the deed of trust at signing to sign over title to the trustee, and then to have all of these other non-disclosed adhesions adhered to me, and my home? And my financial and family's financial and economic and material well-being? If I had that much power by my signature, well guess what? I claim every shred of that power.

That's right. I claim every jot and tittle, every tiny little ink mark that flowed from my pen of that power. It's mine. Not yours. You might have stolen it for a time, like about eight years of anguish here, where I just wanted to pay, get on with my life. I have a very rich life. But you see, the adhesion had already occurred and the only people that I was even sending, emailing and mailing my applications for loan mods to, were parties that had … We already went over this. They were already in the business of dispossessing me of my home.

See, there's another subtlety here I want to talk about, that dispossession of the home. When you have a credit default swap that already occurred after 90 days of payment stoppage, boom, credit default is what happened. It's done. Some insiders already got the face value of the original note in cash. Plus, if they did even more dirty business and they just made multiple electronic copies of the note, then they got several times over. That was one of the reasons … they called it a derivative. But it's actually just a criminal enterprise.

They sold and resold the same promissory note in the form of a residential mortgage-backed security is probably what they did. But anyway, the point I'm saying is, credit default swaps kicked in 90 days after payment stoppage. After that, those parties went happily along their greed-addicted way. They didn't want anything to do with Renee Shizue Ramos Yamagishi because they didn't want their name anywhere near any litigation.

They threw it to the BAC Home Loan Servicing LP-- the mortgage servicers and say: “You guys try to figure out how you steal the house, it's not my problem. Here, I got some really ruthless people. You can set up an Aztec Foreclosure Corporation, you guys can be a franchise of the LOGS network… You guys can set up your little foreclosure mill law firm (FMLF) business models. Here, I've got a template for how you do that. You gotta get some really, really ruthless, kinda brain-dead people, that hate logic. They love criminality. You gotta staff it with the right folks. And then you roll it on out. Good luck mortgage servicers, you rogue disgusting ones. I'm so glad I got my credit default swap. You guys figure out how to steal the homes. Some of them are going to put up a fight, you're gonna have to have some lawyers y'know ... “

But let me tell you something, these mortgage servicers, they're looking at the insiders that already got their credit default swaps and they're setting up their little Nationstar headquarters and their little Ocwen, little Aurora, Greentree. They're setting up their little rogue mortgage servicing enterprises. And they're going, “Gee, let's take a hint. The business model here of theft of homes appears prudent for us to not be named opposite these borrowers in litigation, because if we are then we could possibly lose a lot. We could lose a lot. We could be fined, it could cost us our business. Well, clearly that means we don't want to have our name opposite any of these borrowers on a loan modification contract. My God, that's 30 years. I'm sure within a few years with these 60 Minutes coming out with robo-signing and stuff, it's not going to be long before they cry foul and then we're on the other end of the stick waiting for these trickling monthly payments for 30 years. We don't want that. We need to flip the property to these mafiosos that have wads of cash or to whoever has the money to buy these properties.” Maybe they're unwary investors that don't realize that they are only buying a lien interest and not the property itself. Hint: read carefully the notice of trustee sale.

.... [foreign cash holders] Taking cash from all of the surplus goods that they've been selling consumer-mad Americans, so they have all this cash and they need to launder it. I mean this is connected to the bigger picture of … Where do we start? We could start with NAFTA. That would've been Bill, Billary Clinton. And how all the manufacturing just left this country and went overseas. And then there was a whole entire China sweatshop deal that went along with that. And then America became consumer-mad. And so all these other countries were trading in dollars, US dollars. And now they're like,

"Oh my God, these US dollars are just really depreciating in value. We should probably just go ahead and start buying up American property and becoming landlords. How else are we going to get this money? They're still trading dollars over there? Yeah. We'd better set up a foreclosure machine and get this straight!"

To launder it, is to become landlords and own properties because there is a high rental market here…. “So this Renee Ramos' house and her stupid ass idea of putting blood, sweat and tears and creating actual studios in the back, that's a perfect … Let's wait till she finishes all her studios, then we'll come in for the kill. Because she's stupid … We adhered her pretty darn good. She actually thinks we're going to modify the loan. Ha ha. Let's not steal it too soon, let's wait till she gets sicker.”

All right. And so you have that going on. But meanwhile, look at this logical breakdown. So the logical breakdown goes something like this: “We don't want to modify loans because some company's name is going to be opposite that borrower who is in a modified loan. And that's usually 30 years. And it's usually less than what they were paying before they went into hardship, right? So it's really trickling in real slow here for us. And meanwhile, we're wondering month after month, when is this borrower going to wake up and sue the pants off of our company? When they find out there was a credit default swap and we're just rogue and they learn and they research the assignments and they understand the pooling and servicing agreement and they know that all of this is fraud, they're going to stop their payments! We need to quickly flip these houses to these cash holder criminal gangs and get out of the way of litigation! We can't modify. Why do you think we even set up a business? We set up Nationstar because Bank of America didn't want to be opposite a loan mod. Nobody with their right mind wants to be on the other end of a modified loan of absolute fraud at the gate!”

That's what's really, really wrong here. That's what's really, really wrong. It's kind of like you can't correct what started off at its core at the very get-go as … It started off … The algorithm started off structured to … I'm not even going to use the word ‘steal’ just to make it … Okay-- structured to dispossess the home dweller/borrower from their dwelling and property.

It was structured that way on the backend. There's no way you can continue to wave around any of the original documents, such as the deed of trust and even talk about the note and the deed of trust and talk about securitization and prop up these so-called REMIC trusts as a bona fide, somehow they're being used in the name of the bona fide creditor. You can't even pull out these elements in the original structure.

It's like … Let me think of an analogy. It's kind of like there is an animal, and its .. I'll just call it a monster, because I like animals. I'm not going to say rhinoceros or anything like that. There is an animal, it's a monster animal, some kind of creature. Jabba the Hutt or something. Some … They eat people. It's just a monster. And you say, well, we need to keep the monster alive and fed, but we're going to make some corrective measures that don't kill the monster because we need to keep the monster alive and fed. So we're going to kind of decorate the monster and put on some ear rings and some lipstick and we're going to teach it how to speak a little bit softer and we're going to paint it's toenails, put on a nice little hula skirt and flower lei and say, well, it's not really a monster. Come on people. It's not really a monster…. But oh no, don't kill the monster you homeowners you, borrowers you! Don't start asserting your rights and start having logic. Oh my God, logic kills the monster. Oh, laws? You mean laws that we were hoping you guys would never find? Oh, that's really toxic to the monster. We really need to keep this monster going and alive.

You can't do it. You can't do it. There is no loan modification with criminals and fraud. There is no contract when there is no contract. You can't have me the borrower or the borrower be a party that has the authority to deed over title ownership of my property only for the 5 1/2 seconds that it took while the ink was flowing out of my pen onto your deed of trust instrument, but not before those 5 1/2 seconds and not after those 5 1/2 seconds do I continue to have that authority. You can't have it both ways. The monster is dead. The monster is a phantom. It's a very evil, ugly phantom but it has no life.

It's just that there are too many people on the inside, the inside players of this abomination business model that would point to the monster and say, “This is just the way business runs. It's kind of ugly. I know we tried to put a little bit of lipstick, a wig on it, but I know it's not all that pretty, is it? Well, it's what's paying the bills. Ha. How else am I going to pay back my student loans and whatever? Plus, so-and-so paid for my Stanford law degree so that I could work for them. Or I could jump out of the 26th floor of this window. I think I'll just keep going to work and pretend that the monster really isn't all that bad. Or maybe I'll jump out the 26th floor. I'm not sure yet. ….”

I mean come on. I feel bad. They were real people, right? Those were real guys that jumped out of the windows and killed themselves or were they killed? Either way, my God, that's what the monster does. It doesn't matter if you're uneducated, senior citizen that got duped in a black neighborhood or you were a Stanford law graduate with a very, very beautiful corner office. This monster devours people! Do you see it? We've got to put the monster and bury it and start over. Come on, we've got to … Can we just tranquilize the monster so it just stops breathing and goes to sleep? We've got to reset this people!

I'm no better than Jamie Dimon. He's misinformed. I'm another human being. I'm hoping there's still a human heart there. I'm no better than what's his name? Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson. They're human beings, I hope there's still a human heart there, you know? Deplorable practices, you guys. But if you're human, what are we doing? What are we doing? What are we doing to our children's and grandchildren's generation? Do you not think? Where … do you actually have a spaceship or are you actually looking at some condos down underneath Antarctica? Where are you going to go? Where are your children and grandchildren going to go? Do you not see it yet?

We're in this together. No, that sounds too like, kumbaya. Sorry, it's the [Del*] truth. Do you have another planet? Cuz … maybe you do. Maybe some of you really are convinced by the hologram or whatever that the Pleiadians are going to come down and pick you up and take you somewhere else. You and your family. And your family dog. Or maybe you've got the Antarctica thing going on, you think. But you don't really 100% know who else lives down there.

Maybe they abhor your practices and the fact that you absconded and stole so much of the people's money that you can afford one of those underground Antarctica places. And they know that you're the same people that built FEMA camps with that idea: “If they're not going to be landless serfs and rent-paying tenants and taxpaying slaves, then we're going to just throw them in prison and they can work for free. They'll be prison labor….” If those are the kind of people … If you guys who have wielded, rolled that protocol, algorithm out are going to be down in Antarctica, what makes you think you're safe there? Isn't this one planet? Come on.

But like I was saying, it's just an idea. Maybe it came to me somehow, but how do you know that there aren't other advanced civilizations somewhere close in Antarctica or even deeper than where your little bunkers are that will come on up and go,

“Oh, we've been waiting for you guys. You guys are all here? Okay good. Listen, this is how it's going to go. You guys are going to report to deprogramming school. We're going to tell you how you've been duped by mind control evil people and you're going to have to be schooled by us because we're like between 10 and 20 times larger than you physically and we've been here about 1.7 million years longer than humanity. So we've been watching for quite a while. You guys are actually going to be the janitors and the cleanup crew of all the rivers that got polluted. And the people that you put in the FEMA camps and some of their other folks and stuff like that, they're going to be able to go ahead and roll out their free energy devices and actually set up nice couches under trees and talk about logic and justice. After you're done cleaning up the rivers we'll give you different reprieves so you can sit on the couches with them and get your head straight so that maybe your children and grandchildren have a chance to rejoin the chorus.”

How do you know that there aren't giants going to school you people? How do you know there aren't? That would be really good if all the geniuses with the free energy devices and the more advanced ways of growing organic, clean food and cleaning the water would be free to do that. That would be good for your children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great great grandchildren, wouldn't it?

Then why are you hurting humanity with all of our genius and creativity? It makes no sense. It's a heartbreak. This isn't just my heartbreak. Oh, my 50 years house. This is the heartbreak of humanity. Do you get it? My heart is breaking for the waste. The wasted gift that we've been given to be here. The bigotry. Just because you haven't spent enough time in nature to where you realize that animals are sentient and intelligent and have cultures and have values and communicate. Just because you haven't slowed your mental monkey mind, chatter, falsehood, quieted it enough to communicate with an animal. You can't speak dolphin or whale and you think that they're just making little grunts and clicks?

You're the one that is some kind of abominable grunt and click. You're not even speaking logic. You insult your own capacity of your own ability to think logically. These creatures have had eons to perfect certain ways of being that are actually in harmony with the way the universe works. Which is, do no harm. Encourage creative beautification. Expand conscious understanding. We have a source of all life on this planet and the universe. And that is not going away just because of how much … How clever you think you are and this monster that showed up one day and that you started decorating to try to make it look a little more presentable. But it's not. It's a monster.

It doesn't matter how clever your technology is. There is a source of all things and it says, hey, humanity, knock knock, there's such a thing in operation in the universe. It is completely cohesive with the fundamental pattern of all matter, including the atoms in your body. Even the ones in your brain cells, believe it or not. A fundamental pattern is more than just physics of atoms and molecules. It is the physics and is the pattern dynamic at all scales including consciousness. Relational dynamics between beings in consciousness. I'm only pointing with words, okay, so forgive me. But I see it as a chorus. And chorus sound is patterned sound, it's patterned consciousness through sound and light. There is a relationship, a direct correlation of phonons and photons. In fact, phonon and photon is an inseparable phenomenon.

I know standard physics doesn't see it this way, but this is just information I'd like to just share in the way that I'm embodying it. It actually comes from a lot of communication with cetaceans, swimming wild with them in Hawaii. And I didn't really ask for it, I just opened myself to this. It's an interest of mine. But it has to do with light and sound. What first came was that phonon photon has a relationship. That every time there's light there's sound and every time there's sound there's light. What has come since then is that our bodies, specifically human beings, but also some other highly evolved sentient creatures, our bodies in our DNA molecule and in relation to information that's processed by the cell membrane of our cells, within our cellular structure we actually are the biological resolution in which light and sound become inseparable or become aspects of the same phenomenon. Instantaneous, spontaneous, nonlocal, ever present. It's kind of a mystery I don't purport to know at all but I know that this is a tremendous and amazing gift to have our biological expression of being.

And contained within us and within life actually is the greatest power that there is. And every other fabrication is really just a very poor substitute for that. So when we wake up truly to who we are, then we find the way to express who we really are as human beings and as sentient beings on the planet at this particular time. And therein lies our hope and our power.

Well because we are the many and the tyrants are the very few. And they are so few and they are bullies, hence they are weak. They come from a position of weakness and, as parasites, they draw from our power. So we withdraw it. And we do not consent. They fall. You know, really, I'm interested in so many things that even though this has befallen me with so much suffering, if I didn't combine it with my ongoing curiosity about my life and my world, what is apparent and what is not so obvious..

[As in the] tragic conditions and why? What are the roots of those conditions? And how can I show up into my life and into my world to be positive if I didn't combine my defense of home and hearth and justice with continuing this study, then none of this would really be worth it to me. So it's always been, for me, more than just standing my ground for our family home of 50 years and for showing up and scaling this steep learning curve. However, it has also given me great passion to hold my ground for this very issue because precisely it is connected to the greater issue: which is humanity's evolution. Great grandchildren will be moving into.

There is the foreclosure machine is listening. My understanding, my awareness, my parsing out a why I've been subject to these practices at the hands of the foreclosure machine have forced me to examine my suffering, my injuries and the causes and the possible corrections. Has forced me to. It's what I do now. At great cost, by the way. At great sacrifice. And I'm injured by it. I'm not functioning in my full … It is injurious. And it continues to be.

But my point is, for me to look at this, my consciousness is awake, my awareness … I'm consciously and deliberately choosing to apply my thinking processes, my analytics, my heart and mind to the study of what the [Del*] happened here in my country, in my household, in my world. And it opens up into studies of consciousness, studies of the human heart, studies of the physics of the universe, studies of history.

Who are these people? What did J.P. Morgan say a hundred-and-something years ago? What were the worldviews that have been rolling out in terms of algorithms and computer programs that they have basically enslaved a whole bunch of people to follow. A whole bunch of educated people, by the way, right? Lawyers and doctors and judges. Politicians. Educated in terms of propaganda education to roll on out. And I'm not saying that there isn't intelligence, I'm saying, but to what end? What is the worldview and aims to which that intelligence is applied? That's what I'm saying.

And it does appear that we have what's being called state capture. There is a very powerful, apparently, elite group. And of course they're in the minority, that's the concentration of power modality. But their power comes only from our consent. Their power comes only from our own life energy and our actions. So when we withdraw our consent, what we do is we claim our own power which we own. We claim our own life force and then they are nothing because they are so few and they are also parasitic. They're parasites. And this is really what our awakening is about is knowing who we are and knowing we have already won."

[END]


["Oceans - Where Feet May Fail"] Hawaii's ocean, cetacean cousins


counter added 6/1/2018

All Rights Reserved,  Renee Shizue Ramos Yamagishi, 2016

Nothing on this site is to be taken as "legal advice," and content here is presented by a non-BAR non-lawyer and researcher / writer, who is self-represented Sui Juris when seeking remedy from the judiciary.