#HATJ: Bill’s Comment on IUV for ALL- Feeling Into The Unbinding Unwinding…

by / Wednesday, 24 January 2018 / Published in Abilities, HATJ, Quantum Playground




#HATJ: Bill’s Comment on IUV for ALL- Feeling Into The Unbinding Unwinding…





Bill is wrestling with all that is unfolding. The comment was prompted by an MSM story about the alleged trial taking place in the Eastern District Court in Tennessee.

This is a beautiful illustration of coordinated cooperation. Of each of us, all of us unifying to bring down all of the old and co-create the new.

I felt it would be more expansive to reply to the comment with a video then text.

Much Love, BZ

by Bill: 2018/01/24 at 12:58 pm 

BZ, you say “Another beautiful example of all unfolding and Unbinding/unwinding for all to see.”

I don’t understand much about all this BEing and DOing that you talk about in your other posts. Could you help me understand more about what “unbinding” and “unwinding” means?

When I read what you wrote, it seems to me that you’re saying that this news story is a good thing, but it certainly does not put Heather and Randy in a very good light. A lot of people are going to read this story and think that Heather and Randy are just another pair of bank robbers or common criminals. That doesn’t sound like an example of the old order unwinding and opening up so that the new order can be established. It sounds like the powers that be think the old order is hanging together just fine in this case. And if the establishment isn’t worried, then doesn’t that mean we should be a little bit concerned about how this is going?

Thank you for your help in understanding what’s going on. I keep trying, so that I can send hope for the right thing to happen, but it’s harder than I thought.




10 Responses to “#HATJ: Bill’s Comment on IUV for ALL- Feeling Into The Unbinding Unwinding…”

  1. Reuben Emmanual Bailey says : Reply

    My reactions to the original comment:

    The news story brings more general exposure to the case – this is not a bad thing at all. If any of the people become at all curious about what is going on, they will start digging.

    The perspective shared is going to be the “Establishment is doing the right thing and has no worries about the case” because it is written by them, and they are going to project confidence whether they actually feel it or not. Just because they do not say they are worried does not mean they are not…

    If the original article included the hashtag, it is going to bring people straight to the “back story” if they follow it. 🙂 And the use of the oxymoron of “Sovereign Citizen” in the headline sticks out like a sore thumb.

  2. Cynthia says : Reply

    I really really appreciated this. I have been listening to the BZ, Heather, Sheila, Danny, culture/language (for lack of a better word) for 7 months and I am always hoping I am interpreting what is being said correctly, because… we have 22 beings in our little fan club and they are always looking to me to help them interpret, I do my best… so this is just great!! Thank you BZ

  3. Nells says : Reply

    BZ, you helped more than just Bill.

  4. Thank you so much BZ and thank you so much Bill. I am so touched by all the love and caring and sharing and authenticity feel all the connections between us overflowing….this is the energy of the new earth for me!.

  5. Bill T. says : Reply

    BZ, thank you very much. It sure was nice of you to take all the time to make a video and answer everything. I had to listen to it twice to make sure I got everything because there are a lot of new ideas in there. And of course when you’re talking about complicated stuff, even if you made a lot of sense explaining it, you are going to get some more questions.

    So I think I understand BEing and DOing now. It’s just what you do naturally when you’re alive, not some mystery thing that you have to do with funny stuff like yoga or meditation. So maybe even somebody like me could get BEing and DOing right.

    But it sounds like most of what you talk about is that we can invent a new reality whenever we want, and unbinding and unwinding the old reality is the first part of that. And then you can invent a new reality that takes its place. I can see that might work but not always. I sure want to unbind and unwind the reality of my second ex-wife, and if I could create a new reality of being better at dealing with her, I would for sure be happier. But some reality I don’t think is good to try to unwind. If I am standing on the train tracks and see a train, I am not going to take a chance that I can unwind the reality of the train and create a new reality without a train because I get killed if I’m wrong. And I don’t even know I’m wrong until the locomotive hits me.

    So that got me thinking, how do you know which reality you can unwind? And how can you tell if it’s unwinding properly without getting hit by the train? Like this trial. Is Heather so good at all this stuff that she really knows for sure that the vibrations she puts out are really having an effect? What if she thinks she’s doing all that signature vibrational frequencies stuff but she’s mistake. I am sorry to be a worried old fart about this but I would really want to make sure that whatever I’m doing is working if I were maybe going to go to jail if I’m wrong.

    Like you said in the video, I’ll try to send out some of that energy that you talked about to the people in the trial. But I hope that I can learn to make sure I’m doing it right. I would hate to somehow get the wrong energy out there and have it make things worse. Is there some sort of training for this or do I just go out and do stuff and hope somehow I will be able to figure out whether I’m sending out the right stuff?

  6. Suzie aka Marie Wasilik says : Reply

    All is well folks. I was there! Everyone in the Courtroom besides a the 9 of us with Heather, is thinking to themselves, “Wow, is it possible I have one of these “secret accounts” too?? Even the FBI guys, or do they know already? It’s very obvious that Heather is in her area of expertise! She has all her ducks in a row, in spite of the fact that she dismissed the case (to no avail?) It’s wonderful to watch her cross examine these folks. And the jury are taking it all in, even the long boring and amazing accounts of Randy transferring 31 million dollars! One thing for sure, there is absolutely NO criminal intent in Randy or Heather. Randy is keeping his cool better than yesterday,(remember he’s been beat up and imprisoned since July) and only speaks briefly. The 2 prosecutors take up hours of time. The highlight of today was screenshots of facebook OOO LALA! Randy bragging that he paid his debts with his Trust and Heather answering ALL ON. Even better (?) was a video of H answering talking on the phone to the a Buddy Griggs employee regarding the reversal. And her very determined reply to find out just where the reversal came from. Court ended before Heather had a chance to cross examine the employee on the stand, who seemed quite apologetic. So it goes. Keep the Love n Light coming guys! This IS ground breaking but so quiet too. I didn’t see the article that Bill refers to yet but I can tell you one thing, the jury is THINKING! Praise God! Halleluia! All IS WELL! COSMIC HUGS!

  7. alan page says : Reply

    Hi BZ, It may be important for things to flow the way they are but Heather and Randy are where they are because of the continued success of the greed based system at denying people the truth and the inability of the structure that was funded by the 2013 OPPT and the unrebutted UCC filings to be communicated to normal folk. Unfortunately, like most of what I hear about the growth is money, be it paper or electronic stock or crypto, there are few examples of folk using the new access to resources that funding allows to put together the local governance that can hold the variety of other folk within the communities that they either struggle within or end up leaving for economic reasons.So we are where we are beacuse the ball got dropped in 2014 through no fault of Heather but rather all of us making normal choices. In our choices of BEING and Doing that we make from this point forward we need to think of what Heather is going through because we were not on board enough to DO and BE those beings who put the EVIl in its proper place. I pray that Heather gets to go home and be a mom for her family because we and the other forces of good will can and have come together and tell the OPTW that we all are willing to govern ourselves without compromising anyone. This will require our being cable to put psychopaths out of the power structures and call out greed as an inappropriate goal. Good luck! Maybe this is what Ascension is?

  8. Pamela says : Reply

    Thank you for that clarity BZ. Awesome.

  9. I AM says : Reply


    In Carlisle v. United States,’the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court
    lacked the authority to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day after the
    expiration of the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 (c). Rule

    517 U.S. 416 (S.Ct. 1996)
    No. 94-9247.
    Supreme Court of United States.

    Argued January 16, 1996.
    Decided April 29, 1996.
    417*417 James A. Christopherson argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joel R. Myler.

    Paul A. Engelmayer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and David S. Kris.

    JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case presents the question whether a district court has authority to grant a postverdict motion for judgment of 418*418 acquittal filed one day outside the time limit prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c).

    Petitioner Charles Carlisle, along with several co-defendants, was tried by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841, 846, 84 Stat. 1260, 1265. He did not move during the trial for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). On July 13, 1993, the jury returned a guilty verdict and was discharged. On July 23, 1993, Carlisle filed a “Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c),” arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. App. 6-9. Rule 29(c) provides that “a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period.” Excluding the intermediate Saturday and Sunday (as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(a) requires), the 7-day period in this case ended on July 22, 1993. The United States’ response to Carlisle’s motion argued that it should be denied as untimely and, alternatively, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The District Court denied Carlisle’s motion on August 19, 1993. Its written opinion did not address the timeliness issue, but concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlisle knew about, and knowingly and voluntarily joined, the charged conspiracy.

    When Carlisle appeared for sentencing on October 14, 1993, the District Court announced that it was reversing its ruling. When it made its decision in August, the court said, it had prepared two opinions, one granting and one denying the motion, and it had now decided to substitute the former for the latter. The court subsequently entered an order that 419*419 (i) withdrew the opinion and order denying the motion to acquit and (ii) granted “Carlisle’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(c), filed July 23, 1993.” App. 45. An opinion accompanying the order concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Carlisle knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana. In a footnote, the opinion acknowledged that the motion for judgment of acquittal was filed one day late, but concluded:

    “… I can conceive of no prejudice to the United States which will result from consideration of a motion that is one day lat[e] in this case. Because I believe that refusal to hear this motion would result in grave injustice, and because [Rule 29(c)] permits the Court to extend the deadline, I will consider this motion as if it were filed in a timely manner.” Id., at 37.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal and remanded to the District Court for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict and for sentencing. It held that under Rule 29 a district court has no jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal, and that a district court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment of acquittal sua sponte after the case has been submitted to the jury. 48 F. 3d 190, 192 (1995). We granted certiorari. 515 U. S. 1191 (1995).

    Petitioner argues that district courts “should be given the power to go outside the strict time limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c)” when (1) there is a claim that the defendant was legally innocent, (2) the motion is filed prior to sentencing, and (3) the motion was not timely filed because of attorney error. Brief for Petitioner 8. Petitioner seeks to root this argument in, among other places, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    420*420 Rule 29 is reproduced in its entirety below.[1] Subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the jury returns a verdict of guilty …, a motion for judgment of acquittal may 421*421 be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period.” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b) provides that whereas certain untimely acts may be accorded validity upon a showing of excusable neglect, “the court may not extend the time for taking any action under Rul[e] 29 … except to the extent and under the conditions stated in [the Rule].” These Rules are plain and unambiguous. If, as in this case, a guilty verdict is returned, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be filed, either within seven days of the jury’s discharge, or within an extended period fixed by the court during that 7-day period. There is simply no room in the text of Rules 29 and 45(b) for the granting of an untimely postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal, regardless of whether the motion is accompanied by a claim of legal innocence, is filed before sentencing, or was filed late because of attorney error.

    Unable to offer any reading of Rule 29(c) that would permit an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal to be granted, Carlisle contends that Rule 29(a) gives a district court authority to enter a judgment of acquittal sua sponte at any time before sentencing. Rule 29(a), entitled “Motion Before Submission to Jury,” provides in relevant part:

    “The court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.”
    It would be quite a surprise to find a district court’s sua sponte power to grant judgment of acquittal after submission of the case to the jury hidden away in a provision entitled “Motion Before Submission to Jury.” We are not inclined to adopt an interpretation that creates such a surprise unless the intent that the text exceed its caption is clear. 422*422 Here, to the contrary, the structure of Rule 29 indicates that subdivision (a) is limited as its caption says.

    Petitioner’s proposed reading would create an odd system in which defense counsel could move for judgment of acquittal for only seven days after the jury’s discharge, but the court’s power to enter such a judgment would linger. In United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469 (1947), we declined to read former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which placed a 5-day limit on the making of a motion for new trial, as “permit[ting] the judge to order retrial without request and at any time,” 331 U. S., at 473. “[I]t would be a strange rule,” we said, “which deprived a judge of power to do what was asked when request was made by the person most concerned, and yet allowed him to act without petition,” and such an arrangement “would almost certainly subject trial judges to private appeals or application by counsel or friends of one convicted,” id., at 474, 475. The same is true here.[2] In addition, petitioner’s reading makes a farce of subdivision (b) of Rule 29, which provides that a court may reserve decision on the motion for judgment of acquittal and decide it after submission to the jury. There would be no need for this procedure if, even without reserving, the court had continuing power to grant judgment of acquittal on its own. In 423*423 sum, even without the captions (and a fortiori with them) it is clear that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Rule 29 pertain to motions made before submission, and subdivisions (c) and (d) to motions made after discharge.


    The following like are the self-defense truths, that HEATHER Heather HATJ, and form of and shape of the general military intelligence (GMI) officers/OPERATIVES/LIAISON. IT’S GOOGLE SEARCHABLE PUBLIC DATA: IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE DOCUMENT #98.

    M. Over the last 20 years….
    NOTE: twenty years ago was about the time of this publication from the JISTM Pub UP 2-01.


    JP 2-01 Joint Intelligence Support to Military Operations, 20 Nov 1996
    PDFHomeland Security Digital Library › view

    “indications and warning. Those intelligence
    activities intended to detect and report
    time-sensitive intelligence information on,
    foreign developments that could involve a
    threat to the United States or allied military,
    political, or economic interests or to US
    citizens abroad. It includes forewarning of
    enemy actions or intentions; the imminence
    of hostilities; insurgency; nuclear/
    non-nuclear attack on the United States, its
    overseas forces, or allied nations; hostile
    reactions to United States reconnaissance
    activities; terrorists’ attacks; and other
    similar events. (“Joint Pub 1-02 )

    What I AM realignment BE, truly IS, in THE ALL, seen as WE the People by the PEOPLE. WE, of these here Unu?uk?k
    YOU ARE Be Completely Controlled — You Are Wetware — Implanted Devices and Mind Control Hijack OF THE You
    Lionel Nation 151,476 views
    Published on Jan 21, 2018WARNING: THIS WILL BOGGLE YOUR MIND. Completely and permanently.

    Wetware is defined as “humorous: human brain cells or thought processes regarded as analogous to, or in contrast with, computer systems” and (chiefly in science fiction) “computer technology in which the brain is linked to artificial systems, or used as a model for artificial systems based on biochemical processes.” No. This is here and now. This is not science fiction.

    The front man for government Big Brother has been identified and he holds the most disruptive patent ever facing civilization and human evolution. I interview Thomas Paine who along with Betsy Ross explore the corrupt U.S. Patent Office and how it has laid the digital web over the entire planet. No one will be able to escape unless we act now to sever its hydra-head.

    These are critical pieces that accompany and supplement the items discussed and referred.



    Also ‘How Hillary Crashes Cars and Planes’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtcxO

    This was their most poignant video: Meet Big Brother — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIbq

    This isn’t over not trending by the way and by the way its there it was that SOURCE, Concerns of coN-TIN-U-ance

    CON, TIN, U, ANCE:


    persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
    “I conned him into giving me your home number”
    an instance of deceiving or tricking someone.
    “when depositors, realizing that the whole thing is a con, demand repayment”

    Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) – Investopedia
    Investopedia › terms › taxpayer-identific…
    A number that is assigned to a tax paying businesses for identification and record keeping purposes. The TIN number allows z IRS to keep track of all taxpaying entities and manage their accounts. Corporations, estates and trusts must file …

  10. hey there - we love your windows above and back of you ..Happy New year says : Reply

    I thought it was about TDA ect – unwinding unbinding ?
    this morphed into something else – the intent was initially was how to use the TREASURY DIRECT ACCOUNTS, old paradigm new its all the same, now we are into energy – I would think that the people that were relying on information on what to do NOW or the fees involved with using the TDA – sorry they were lied to and as of today no way out of the bank fees that was given because they thought it was all valid information
    best of luck Heather wishing you and Randy the verry best

Leave a Reply