Feb 28, 2013 1:22 AM

Very Nice.

Yah, I remember reading the "good faith" part... wondering what that's all about. Does he send it registered mail? Did he not send any previous documents?

Yes, registered-mail. Like Scott said in the NOTICE thread- Canada POST.. POST-no-BILLS.. BILLS of Exchange.. a BILL is attempt at making law(or something like that)...

Like Scott has said, LAW is about INTENT.. MENS REA.. the GOOD FAITH section in the Bills of Exchange Act is their remedy they are giving you that- "We recognize we havent done a very good job at explaining this all to you, so we wont really hold it against you if you dont in deed do it properly, you just didnt know any better - due to us of course"...

ANY bill or one from CANADA Corp.(GOVT)?

In theory, any bill...but i think it'd be more likely for a private-corporation to be a dick with you over it

If a business man walks into a bank with one of those, bills of exchange that a bank would let him exchange it for Canadian Currency? Or really let it be desposited? We could write bills to each other for services...

A bill with a remittance portion

remittance (noun) acquittal, defrayal, defrayment, disbursement, expenditure, money sent, payment, pecunia, quittance, recompense, reimbursement, remuneration, reparation, transmittal

law dictionary

"money sent" pretty much covers it, eh - REMITTANCE, comm. law. Money sent by one merchant to another, either in specie, bill of exchange, draft or otherwise

Scott would say payment is ILLEGAL, but id say that more specifically payment is just flat-out an IMPOSSIBILITY, since money is really GOLD, but, that they've effectively made GOLD as payment illegal every year since 1933... Maxim-of-Law- Nemo tenetur ad impossibile: "No one is bound to an impossibility"

Winston Shrout teaches this exact way !

Non est reus nisi mens sit rea- "a person is not guilty unless his MIND is guilty." i.e. something done in GOOD FAITH

Derek did you watch that part 3 thing Scott posted a few days ago. Money can be anything (almost)

JOEL- what popped-out at me about MoneyAsDebt III, was where he said around minute 37:00 how we havent CLAIMED the right to use real money..in this day-and-age, negotiable instruments

“money” includes negotiable instruments;

“negotiable instrument” includes any cheque, draft, traveller’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-1.html#h-2

http://www.google.com/m?q=accepted%20for%20value%20taken%20for%20value%20pdf&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new

I think it was the 3rd down but sure no harm in reading them all :)

GAIL..i have taken Scott's advice on this and are currently working on a Claim-of-Right to submit to the biller before i do anything regarding this, in fact ive titled it- CLAIM OF NATURAL LAW AND COMMON LAW INHERITANCE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOTICE, so no public-servant can say back to me- "Umm, we are unclear as to what it is you're asking. Can you please provide for us more details?" - like they usually do. I think the title pretty much speaks for itself. The NOTICE is acting as a 'heads-up,' cuz they've become accustomed to you sending them LEGAL TENDER, right?

But if Scott says ultimately, that LEGAL TENDER = a TENDER FOR LAW.. and that a BILL = OFFERS LAW.. 'a fortiori' (latin-law-phrase) by even greater force of logic, wouldnt a BILL-payment-remittance be OFFERing you a TENDER FOR LAW? (look-up OFFER and TENDER in a thesaurus)....but they dont want you to know that, hence, why i imagine they codefied it being a BILL with the use of the '96' in the bottom-right-hand-corner

thanks Derek, did I miss that post where Scott suggested that?

..one of the other threads one here somewhere, we were talking about PART V. of the Bills of Exchange Act

k thanks Derek, I've been going through each post from the beginning making notes...haven't come to that one yet

Derek, I think also you have to Accept your Birth Certificate...

This gives you the right to be a creditor?

"By the common law no person is required to pay a negotiable instrument unless the instrument is delivered [Page 145] up to him at the time of payment. See Hansard v. Robinson ([10]); Byles on Bills ([11])."

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=+The+Common+Law+Procedure+Act+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1884/1884canlii31/1884canlii31.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeIFRoZSBDb21tb24gTGF3IFByb2NlZHVyZSBBY3QgAAAAAAAAAQ

Yeah- from what i can tell, your BC is supposed to be considered a negotiable instrument.. ive heard varying reports on who you should send it back too though, The Queen, Governor General, Receiver General..... :/

Finance Minister controls finances

That's where I sent mine :D

..we should really be talking about this on the BILL OF LADING thread i started

Well, this is an Accepting thread... so to Accept for "value" (which is what we are), we would be accepting "rights" for "value"

*sigh*.. you're incorrigible. Have you seen this video Fiona reminded me of? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk9hmrNk98Y

Derek Moran, you are experiencing the futile effort of combatting the crippling affliction known as "girl-brain". You have my sympathies.

"Finance Minister controls finances".......hmmm, how long ago did you send your BC to him, and, have you heard back from him yet?...i will not be sending/delivering my BC to anyone til i know absolutely sure who it is to be sent to...if i only have ONE bullet, i better know damm sure when to use it :/

Don't. Seriously. DON'T SEND IT TO ANYONE! It is a "valuable instrument". Make a PERSON with LIMITED LIABILITY, and HAVE that "PERSON" LIEN IT!

CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS UNDER THE LAW!

I sent a photocopy of it

Photocopy, eh? Interestiing...

Can I pay for cifgarettes with a photocopy of a $10 bill?

" Make a PERSON with LIMITED LIABILITY, and HAVE that "PERSON" LIEN IT! CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS UNDER THE LAW!"..... ok - i hear you on this, but after that, i am now heading down the slippery-slope of TRUST LAW once i set that corporation up am i not?...which i have no shame in admitting i dont know much about

Are you sure? Perhaps Brad can help?

He knows that "Stephen Harper" is doing all the evil stuf and "Anarchists" are bad.... oh and I have a "God" complex.

Surely he knows better!

*sarcasm self-test complete*

OK, so here in REALITY you need help with the TRUST aspects.

When you create a LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, you and the Governmaent are acting as GRANTORS - This ends upon creation and the GRANTORS have no further say.

1: A coprpration has SHAREHOLDERS who are the BENEFICIARIES. You determine the number of shares when the corporation is chartered, ans YES you can have ONE SHARE in a corporation. Ammendments to the charter can change this.

2: A corporation has DIRECTORS with titles (TRUSTEES), and you can be one. You have surely seen "Voting Shares" when examining share purchases of a corporation. If not, you need to invest more.

3: Since YOU (Or rather your PERSON) are the only VALUE in this corporation, you should be SECURED.

THIS TRUST TRUMPS ALL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS.

As part of my "God Complex" I shall now grant you permission to ask about what I just wrote. :P

Why thank you God-err, SCOTT - that was very informative. I appreciate the information. Unfortunately, any God-Complex you might have is trumped by THIS GUY's below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svhRi_6dUfs

VOTING SHARES = PREFERRED SHARES ?

VOTING SHARES = NOT Common Shares ?

No. Different things.

No they aren't.

So even though there are many various types of Trusts you can set up, simply put.. in setting-up a LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, you are ALSO setting-up a TRUST at the same time?

...but he IS god in that context. THIS is EXACTLY why I didn't become a Doctor. Inept, unqualified people will "judge" my work, and attach labels. More ignorance taking the same status of ACTUAL SKILL/KNOWLEDGE.

I'm pretty sure I just explained that ALL CORPORATIONS are trusts. Perhaps the evil Stephen Harper has tainted your critical faculties and my "god complex" has frightened you... and you're going to be an "Anarchist"... AND DON'T GIVE ME THE ACTUAL meaning of the word! Brad and I dislike those "Facts" and "Knowledge"... I'm trying to squeeze "fremasons" in here too...

...I've got nothing. Sorry :/

http://youtu.be/3bVGPya-r8M

hehe..!!!!!...

All corporation are trust......fuk...oouuffff....

Is it better to have a federal or provincial type corporation/trust, my 1st guess would be federal, and my second guess would be dosent matter....

so I guess the answer is PROVINCIAL...???

shit Im getting hot man in that shit....

ok...I already have a freaking trust.....fuk....6 years ago I established this trust..I didnt even know....This trust is called a COMPAGNIE DE GESTION, its a numbered company that had been established to hold 50% of another company's shares...

it is a provincial chart, and I transfer DIVIDENDES from the company that this trust holds 50% of the shares.....when there is dividendes of course.....

now....can this CORPORATION lien PIERRE DAOUST...???...rigth now PIERRE DAOUST is the sole share holder of this company......and the Director/Administrator....should I change this before I do anything ???

I need to find someone I TRUST to be the ADMINISTRATOR of this Corporation I guess....ooppsss...I feel skull cracking again.....mmhhhhh

Scott....???????????????.....where are you ??????????

You should start a new thread: Pierre is establishing a trust: I promess I wont go wild like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvigcyAgdT4

That is what judge dale says. sign it, accept it and send it back.

Whos Judge Dale.....?

He can't, because he's banned.

http://mail.cdd.com/so-very-private-002.png

Wow.....that went south all rather quick :/

so geoffrey wanted to bring oxygen in here ???...

he wanted to SAVE this goup....

scary stuff...:\

How does this Rob Menard video - 96 is your "fix" fit into all this? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZK0CE35G6s

I'd like to hear what Scott has to say about Rob's strategy on using signatures to balance out accounts... ;)

Anyone here pulling off any of this stuff effectively? Speak now or forever hold your cunt

It fits on consumables that are DEEMED a right. As i always say, Robert Menard does not lie about the law, he lies through omission. The more MONEY OF EXCHANGE you give him, the fewer omissions he makes.

Like my ex-lawyer ??

"...deemed a right" by whom?, us or the government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bOMllJe6SC0