Feb 22, 2013 5:49 PM

Scott Duncan: THIS is what money offers.

Offers? YES! Law is being OFFERED (This note offers law = this note is legal tender).

We do a LOT of editing (Under NO ID you'd recognize) here, so you may see some familiar stuff. So let's just see the basics of what's being offered, shall we? :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law

Scott Duncan while i'm not suggesting for one moment that the Euro is not a tender for law does the fact it does not say legal tender anywhere on it hold any kind of significance ?

...Scott has mentioned about this very topic on one of the LEGAL TENDER threads somewhere throughout the page

Must of missed it i'l keep digging thanks Derek

The presumption is that we know it's a tender for law... Our ignorance is no excuse...

OK....so WHY this medium of exchange has been created that way ? .....what is the REAL purpose of it ? ...the first word that come to me is SLAVERY, but you know me. Sometimes I have this freaking white noise thing all over me...

How is trust law the "highest law"? Every filthy justice has never accepted me as the grantor, sole shareholder, sole equitable title owner, and sole living beneficiary to the NAME in trust. As evidenced in the civil code of Quebec articles 298,299,300 and 305 as jus common? I realize the purpose is to steal from my security/trust. How de we enforce this upon the pretend justice in a foreign de facto court?

Cory, you are not Grantor your parents were. You are not a shareholder of the name as the name is not a corporation.

You are the lawful holder in due course of a security...

Cory Black, you are in Quebec ?....Montreal ?....

Title was split to create a trust. The birth certificate is the receit for the security. You are the sole share holder of your person/corporation. No one can have an equitable claim upon your person as u r the sole share holder! Shareholders are not trustees of the person/corporation.i understand the notice of mistake without question. The notice of mistake originated from a maxim of law regarding the "error" in the NAME. I live in BC, interpretation act section 8. Every enactment applies to the whole of Canada. Common law is hidden within Quebec civil code, read the preamble. If we need to file a claim against another party, we cannot file the "notice of mistake"??? So besides propria persona and private capacity, one has no standing in court, yet equity is king, so how do we identify ourselves with standing without the NAME????

The PERSON is NOT a corporation...

A corporation can be legally recognised as a person, but a person is not necessarily a corporation...

You present yourself to the court as making a special appearance. As lawful holder of the BC you are the only one with standing as you are the only one who can give value to the security...

If we need to file a claim against another party, we cannot file the "notice of mistake"??? : NO

If you FILE A CLAIM, you have to play within their rules....same as if you show up in a gym...you have to OBEY this gym's rules, terms and conditions.

If you are FORCED to go in their ARENA....NOTICE OF MISTAKE comes to play

Whoever wrote the "presumptions of law", thank you very much!!!! This completes it for me on how to attack the cocksucker on the Bench with evidence! Woo hoo. I'm in a civil matter concerning auto insurance with ICBC Cocksuckers! Thanks again much appreciated!!!

Auto insurance?...in Ontario, if you break it down, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, ONLY applies to vehicles that are powered by steam or electricity and/or run on a 'railway' ;)

There are mumblings of this United Kingdom leaving Europe. And as for the possibility of an (my beloved) Independent Alba, fuck me I don't know what to think !

Thank u all for your tips. Thanks Derek Moran, as for the automobile I don't care, the gov has the certificate of title of the vehicle, the gov has legal title to the vehicle which are fully liable at law as the legal owner. They cannot deny this as they will not insure the vehicle without that certificate which comes from the vehicle manufacturer. I only have the right of use as the beneficial owner. In the motor vehicle act under "owner" it does not clarify what type of owner and it states this: owner includes a person in possession of a motor vehicle under a contract which he or she MAY become its (legal) owner on full compliance with the con-tract." It's saying u MAY become liable as the legal title owner if u dont say other wise to the unlawful unilateral con-tract. Notice it also contradicts its meaning. The insurance corporation act literally states only the legal person can con-tract. Not my problem they misconstrued my autograph.

In the past three hearings I have had the justice run from the court room from the first 30 seconds from the time i approach the front with the three lawyers. Haven't heard anything from any of them for over three months now. They have not attempted to reset any more hearing in the de facto Supreme Court. I always have 10 to 15 sheriffs escorting me like a king every where I go inside the court house. They even have the elevator open and waiting for me. I thanked them for being great public servants. :)

No worries outcast I understand where u r coming from and I thank u for ur concern.

I fired her as a public servant and she remained silent when I asked if this was a lawfully convened dejure court or if this was a foreign de facto court operating on the waters by paid actors. 3x ; as you are in fact a public servant who will not recognize the truth or tell the truth u r fired as I am the only here with the highest authority on this land. She flew out of chair and said case is adjourned, I said u have no say here so get out go here now. She left. The plaintiff lawyer was cursing and I started laughing and said it just keeps getting easier. I was escorted out and I waited till I seen all three lawyers leave the parking lot. I tried the "this case is dismissed before. Didn't work for me.