Feb 22, 2013 5:56 PM

You have a very concise, but accurate, view of it.

I'll be honest, as soon as I see a notification that you "like" a post I feel untouchable, ha ha.... :p

You won't reach your goals, if you hang around patting yourself on the back. :P

People much dumber than you, but work for the "law society" and "government" can still take you out ;)

Oh I'm not congratulating myself yet, but, a little clarity on certain small topics can clear up alot of confusion on bigger ones...

Comprehending the concepts as DC says...

They don't own it BTW, I recently had a run with The DEPT SOCIAL PROTECTION IN IRELAND......Simply fucking around and trying things, the way I understood it was they SAVE GUARD it for SECURITY REASONS.... the PERSON is LOCKED within their PROPERTY (APPLICATION FORM) which they don't return to you because its theirs....

No, the TRUST owns it. The government are the ADMINISTRATORS of the trust (TRUSTEES).

The PERSON is property within the TRUST yes?

A trust is based on one party holding property for another afterall

As SETTLOR/ADMIN they set up the trust and hold the property (PERSON) as TRUSTEE for us, the BENEFICIARY...

I'm still just grasping the fundamentals of TRUSTS. Bear with me :p

Understanding it coupled with the fact that it's all fiction is like trying to describe a dream while it slowly disappears from memory...

Pierre Daoust, if you send that back to the government with ANY of THEIR correspondence (it's theirs, not yours), that will fuck them up! Just send it as RESPONSE. DO NOT SEND IT FIRST!

got it...:)

Just remember Eamonn. the past should contain GUIDEPOSTS, not HITCHING posts. ;)

Understood... :)

RESPONSE. DO NOT SEND IT FIRST! : Can I response an OLD correspondance with this ???....even if I did response to this specific correspondance with a shit load of bullshit..???

OK....for a Company now: My name is Pierre LBR no. xxxxxx, I'm the MASTER of PIERRE DAOUST, PIERRE DAOUST is the MASTER of ABC Inc., PIERRE DAOUST is the Beneficiaru of ABC Inc., PIERRE DAOUST is the CEO of ABC Inc., PIERRE DAOUST is the only one who can make business decisions for ABC Inc., PIERRE DAOUST is also the ADMINISTRATOR of ABC Inc., ABC Inc. requires a certified check of $350k for opening a file and $1000.00 / hour paid in advance for ANY business request from YOUR ENTERPRISES....

forget the ID with photo....sorry

The only thing Im saying there is YES...I want to do commerce with you but I have terms and conditions.....

But there are two trust's at work here i think because the trust is set up with the Government as administrators, Trustees....but they sent you something back something for you to hold in Trust the PLASTIC CARD with social security etc details on it! Is that PRIVATE and PUBLIC Trust?

Who owns the plastic card?

Well not me ITS Governemtn issued given to you to hold in TRUST

fuk the plastic card....its not mine...

Once activated YOU are PRESUMED SURETY at least thats how i understand it. Are there two trust's at work I wonder Private and PUBLIC?

Yes...you are PRESUMED one of their employees...

but guess what ???

I NEVER WORKED FOR THEM....NEVER....

No wait Once signed you are AGENT to this surety?????

you are PRESUMED one of their employees...

Well...If, indeed, I worked for them, I dont recall receiving any pay check..????....so my rate is $1000.00 / hour, 1 hour a day minimum, 250 days a year.....so 250k x 30 years would be ok....here is my address

and they can deduct their stupid income tax off the check if they want...

Ok trust is covered pierre??? how would you enforce this?

If YOU signed it, YES YOU ARE surety. YOU SIGNED.

nope...never signed my BC

I never signed it scott I am a ME

BC is different. That is a "Valuable Instrument".

so my rate is $1000.00 / hour, 1 hour a day minimum, 250 days a year.....so 250k x 30 years would be ok....here is my address

Why would I need to enforce that...

? why would you bother to state your rate???

Thats what it is....thats it....if you want me to work for you james, those are my terms

Well...I dont remember having worked for the government, but hey....just in case I loose memory...you know...

WHY ARE YOU NEGOTIATING IN THEIR CURRENCY? THEY DON'T CARE

Scott Duncan told me that the most powerful number is ZERO (0)....so I use it a lot

Yes i remember he said also that the Romans used hide things in it??????????

James Baal...please shut up about how much your "rate" is. They don't CARE. The SECOND YOU USE THEIR MONEY, you are in THEIR JURISDICTION!

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER

THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW which says none of your fucking RATES mean shit and you are committing FRAUD.

YOU DID NOT WATCH MONEY AS DEBT III. I TOLD YOU ALL TO SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLES UNTIL YOU WATCH IT!

Scott Duncan, if I dont use THEIR currency, means I have no obligations

PIERRE look what you did now ;-)

I know I'm asking for VALUABLE stuff...

"BC is different. That is a "Valuable Instrument"."..... can it also be considered a "Valuable Security," as defined in section 2. of the Criminal Code?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html#h-2

for criminal offense only ???

“valuable security” includes

(a) an order, exchequer acquittance or other security that entitles or evidences the title of any person

(i) to a share or interest in a public stock or fund or in any fund of a body corporate, company or society, or

(ii) to a deposit in a financial institution,

(b) any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order or other security for money or for payment of money,

(c) a document of title to lands or goods wherever situated,

(d) a stamp or writing that secures or evidences title to or an interest in a chattel personal, or that evidences delivery of a chattel personal, and

(e) a release, receipt, discharge or other instrument evidencing payment of money;

Yes, Derek. That is what it IS in that context.

*Bill Clinton to Scott Duncan* "What, exactly is, the definition, of Valuable INSTRUMENT?" ;)

Instrument with value attached to it

like my guitar

or piano

*Scott Duncan to 60 Minutes* "I, did not, have, sex, with Beverly and Fiona, at the same time...i had sex with them separately"

No... YOU FUCKING OWN it!

YA I FUCKED THEM!

I'D FUCK `EM AGAIN NOW!

LIVE! ON CAMERA! Get `em in here!

I'm lost.....sorry...well Im not really sorry bu lost yes I am...OWN WHAT...?????

"...just an attempt to engage a man/woman as surety for their benefit yes?"

Now......how, is that NOT fraud on their/supposed-to-be-our-PUBLIC SERVANTS part?.....to me, thats what the Birth Certificate represents- "WHOOPS..what??...ohhhhhh, we were GONNA tell you about all this at SOME point- honestly, we were..hey, we did'ya a FAVOUR - do you know how much this things worth??? Here ya'go..all better? Now *shhhhhhhhhh*.....just dont tell anybody else what we did for'ya - if you know whats good for you" ;)

If as long as we are in THEIR jurisdiction by using THEIR 'This Note Is Legal Tender,' then i think at minute 1:35 of this clip speaks i think to what we all have to do in returning THEIR currency first, in order to be free...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbfkAqd6MAk

Hidden in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies is the story of maritime admiralty law.

http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/pirates-of-the-caribbean-2/

I also think the part at 2 mins is significant where the act is done via a 'Will' ;-)

Those Metaphilm articles are very good... I haven't actually seen the movies but the amount of info in them is great.

Mary Croft spoke of the world being bankrupt but didn't I didn't hear her go into the details of bankruptcy... (Maybe she did)

So in bankruptcy the "person" is declared dead so an estate can be established and all goods that are then registered to the "estate" are divided amongst the creditors as debt payment rather than being divided amongst family as benefits to beneficiaries...

I remember Scott saying you don't own anything you register...

Is the article accurate in saying that the estate is created based on the death of the afterbirth Scott, as in order to declare one bankrupt they need to be first declared dead?

Extract from bankruptcy definition in Black's 9th -

"In a typical Chapter7 liquidation case, the trustee collects the nonexempt, property of the debtor, converts that property to cash, and distributes the cash to the creditors. The debtor gives up all the nonexempt property SHE owns at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, and hopes to obtain a discharge..."

Why is the debtor referred to as SHE? ;)

This might help Eamonn O Brien, it's New South Wales statute, but our parents inadvertently declared us dead at birth, they declared their marriage void, thus making us dead bastards, intestate at the time of our death & consequently unable to inherit an estate, so the state claims it...

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT 1995:

4 Definitions

(1) In this Act: "birth" includes a stillbirth. "child" includes a stillborn child.

Status of children Act 1996: "married" includes married under a void marriage and under a voidable marriage that has been annulled by a court.

If we apply the maxim: the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of the alternate, the mechanics of what has been done to us from a legal perspective starts to make sense...

Irish statute book here I come...

I'm still trying to grasp it in its' entirety, but it then goes on along these sorts of lines:

The Public Trust administers the estate (the consolidated revenue fund being the account I think) until we are 18, at which time we may administer the trust ourselves OR appoint a representative to administer the trust for us (which is why commonwealth governments have a house of representatives, to represent & administer the trust for us)

In other words, by enrolling to vote, we granted power of attorney to have someone else represent us.

The remedy (hidden in the clubhouse statutes) talk about how one can declare their will, but I'm still digging on that one...

I'll find the NZ link & let the video talk you through it because it all gets pretty overwhelming if you're trying to go it alone.

The original Irish Birth, Deaths, Marriages Act goes back to 1863... Not online obviously... Interpretation Act has no mention of the phrases like child etc...

Try this one Eamonn O Brien :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFykQwImGwM

I am loving the Admiralty aspect of it at the minute... So interesting...

Watchin the vid now Stuart...

Usually Scott doesn't comment unless we're going wrong somewhere so I'll take his silence as a good sign...

That said, coming back to the original post, by registering property we are "adding it to the estate" so to speak... Giving the security value...

When I think of registration I always ponder back to Dean Clifford's words, "registration transfers no interest in property"... Yet it clearly does...

Could someone explain titles a bit more clearly... Registration creates a title and it is then split etc... That one still confuses me somewhat...

My understanding is that you only ever hold the equitable title to your car house etc entitling you to the revenue of the transfer of ownership and through your licence plate and tax create a presumption you are the person. On your log book you must first fill in block capitols and then signing with your birth cert name adds more weight to this presumption as it now link's to the birth cert and the social security number. They hold the legal tittle which allows them to tax or inforce the policies upon you as that is the tittle of true ownership (as tittle and ownership are confused as being the same thing) people never rebut those presumptions they stand. In a trust, one person may own the legal title, such as the trustees. Another may own the equitable title such as the beneficiary. So it is quite similar to the whole "PERSON" thing if i have this right i am open to correction of course.

Yep Carl Dunne, unless you become the MASTER of your PERSON.... :D , I'm not sure if ANYONE can argue or object to this: I am the MASTER of PIERRE DAOUST,

I'm looking at this from the government/state's/clubhouse rules stance...the fact that you have used the BC/driver's licence/SIN etc fulfils their presumption that YOU are acting as a trustee & everything/anything of value you produce becomes trust property (their trust)...because from their point of view you are acting as a government employee/trustee of a trust of which they are the beneficiary (in their eyes)

So it would be correct in that context that registration transfers no interest because from their point of view, they held the interest all along...

With registration, you are the party who has added value and you hold equitable title, while legal title is retained by the state (or if the name has been liened into a private trust, the private trust would then become the legal title holder)

and don't forget, YOU are also the Master of FUCKS THE PUPPY :D

Maxim-of LAW...

What ever is acquired by the servant is aquired for the master.

So it's a good thing ME being the master of PIERRE DAOUST :)

My PERSON has been created to SERVE ME !

Unless someone OBJECT to it. :/

No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.

The government can not load a citizen with imposition against his will or consent.

These are MAXIMS of LAW, it is written and true.

Pete Daoust Who is going to object?...the government can't...

and your 10000000000000000000000000001 maxims, in one line of ' What ever is acquired by the servant is acquired for the master' just trumped my paragraph of verbal diarrhoea ;-)

This reminds me of a show Dean Clifford did where he said- "The government CANT give you anything, that YOU didnt give them FIRST"

Someone said to me: If it's hard, you're doing it wrong....this phrase says to me, keep it simple and true.... :)

This PERSON has been created for ME to serve ME, is that correct you GOVERNMENT AGENT ?

So, therefore, I am the MASTER of this PERSON, is that correct you GOVERNMENT AGENT ?

So, therefore, What ever is acquired by my PERSONt is acquired for the ME' is that correct you GOVERNMENT AGENT ?

So, what can I NOT do for you today you, GOVERNMENT AGENT ?

"If it's hard, you're doing it wrong" - this sounds familiar.

:D

I know it's in bad taste to marvel at your own awesomeness... but I still do. It's a character flaw that I really have no intention of working on.

...except in the bedroom :D

...fair enouh.

my last comment was in reference to "If it's hard, you're doing it wrong"

And I concede the point! :P

I'm taking a screenshot of this ;-)

You know what I meant...if it's tough, hard, not easy, difficile, dure, je sais pas moi criss, quelque chose de même tabernacle... :D

Hey, before you snap that screenshot, you might want to include this reminder:

Remember that whole "You think wrong and value the wrong things" thing I was mentioning? See if you can put that together.... Snap away :P

i noticed on my dads RRSP account, the bank has listed on the statement- 'Beneficiary: ESTATE'. . . .so i asked my dad- "When did you change your name to 'ESTATE??" ;)

I was working from the broken watch analogy & being right twice a day...unless it's a broken digital watch :/

If it's hard you're doing it wrong make's it seem ok to give up though. If it's hard you don't have the skill required would make more sense to me.

"You think wrong and value the wrong things" = "You dont know enough to be aware of your choices". . .?

No no no...the concept is that the remedy should be simple...if it's overcomplicated, then we are shrouding it in a cloak of bullshit ;-)

Or it's like washing the dishes in the bathroom sink.... never tried that ?... fuck me !

Now what was that question asked by Admiral Wentz & Name of the day Frisbey again? :D

Look at the big brain on Stuart Stone!

Stuart Stone has one heck of a big brain, almost as big as Derek Moran's :D Lucky guys !!!!!.....

hang on, I'm just googling how to take a screenshot! :P

Me, I am more in the COLLECTIVE brain's business :/

So as soon as Stuart Stone will find out how to do this screen shot thing, he will be kind enough to share it with me :)

DIFFICULT !!!....not hard, but difficult, that was the word I wanted to use....sorry about this horny stuff things...

teamwork ie: a collective trumps individual skill...unless you're Scott Duncan & supplement the individual brilliance with a support network of kick ass femme ninjas ;-)

The question posed to Daniel by who-are-you was effectively- "You presume i am incapable of holding-my-own?"...or something to that effect

I have no idea what that mean Stuart Stone, but fuck it looks great :D

On the top right of my keyboard I have a key that says: PRTSC...I click that and then paste it into word...works well Pete Daoust ;-)

Daniel's response was- "You dont know enough to be aware of your choices"...which i think would go for all of us

Except Fukyiro Pinion- i think she would tell Scott/Daniel, "The Right to Self-Determination...David Williams...Right to Self-Determination!..."

ad nauseum...

...trying to read acts-and-statutes were more easier to comprehend than what she was posting

There was ONE good thing of value that Fukyiro brought to my attention, however: the definition for SYSTEMATIZED DELUSION from Bouvier's 1914 dictionary, as i always automatically go to 'John's' 1856 version

Here you go Pete Daoust...Kick ass femme ninja...I don't know for sure but Hit girl may have been a tribute to Tara Duncan :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JfjO1PZxXc

Hmmmm...was/is Fukyiro a girl?!? my bad, I apologise Ms Pinion...I never figured that, more as a bitter man claiming diplomatic immunity...kinda like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwC_IaY3BmY

Some things I get quick and some things elude me till brain fucked. I now yes, only now have I come to understand something of Scott Duncan's mode of communication. Scott speaks from his oath, he cannot speak from any other direction. This is why there are no layman terms/words for us. If we are to learn from Scott it must be from his direction. Sry for the interruption back to reading for me.

Another idea might be simply to put on the hat and act as trustee and setoff some accounts when necessary with the enormous value that is evidenced by the BC...who's gonna rebut you.

Act as Executor and appoint a fiduciary [IRS Form 56] to set-off/discharge the debt.

IRS is apparently 13 months behind on set-offs, EFT's and discharges.

Prt Scr button copies the screen cache data to the clipboard (screen capture). or if you are retarded (like me) you can just use a camera!

Scott, or anyone, from the accounting point of view, which is the only view relevant really, when property is registered with a particular state dept. how is it accounted for? Is it recorded as an asset on their books?

It becomes part of their INVENTORY

The property is IN their warehouse

But verify that, you know how dumbass I can be :D

Inventory would generally be considered assets... The company holds them.

Surely you have inventory and an accountant Pierre?

Yep....

The INC. has to pay taxes on its INVENTORY, same as the PERSON have to pay taxes on its inventory....

So property that a company holds as an asset in inventory is taxed and the company are liable for the taxes...

The PERSON is liable for property taxes....who is liable for the PERSON ?

YOU :D

Not "ME" :-D

I suppose the question is, why register anything?

Who created the PERSON ?

The state are always liable for any debts created for the PERSON. I know that alright

The question is WHO IS LIABLE

Provided I don't enter any contracts that would shift liability onto me

WHO IS SURETY ?

Not me :)

So WHO needs to discharge this TAX-DEBT ?......I have a special ACCOUNT for that :D

Whoever created the debt...

And it's NOT MY FAULT :D

When the PERSON REGISTER the property, The PERSON swing that thing in the big warehouse as INVENTORY assets.

Then when the PERSON receives a BILL-OF-EXCHANGE concerning this thing, there is two options on how to deal this.

1). "ME" , can buy back this debt, and send some bank-notes to the THIRD PARTY who need to balance their books concerning this debt.

2). "ME", can accept this debt for the PERSON, write the PERSON'S account number on it, sign it, date it, and send the BoE to where this PERSON's account number is sitting, which in PIERRE DAOUST's case, the Bank of Canada, and the BOC, which is the Drawee, has to discharge that debt with the third party, so the third party can balance their books....

OUUFFFF!!!!!!!!!.....lots of stuff in my brain :D

From Pierre ALL RIGHTS RESERVED