Mar 23, 2013 7:56 PM

Joseph Pierre Gilles, I believe that the judge is accurate in that you are a citizen. I suspect you were in a court having only statutory jurisdiction and that the only two parties having standing in that statutory matter were the Crown and the fiction(taxpayer/citizen). A Man cannot be recognized in a statutory court. That is why any submissions you made had to be deemed as coming from one of the parties having standing in the matter. And you clearly werent the Crown so the judge can only reasonably deduce that you must be the other named party - the taxpayer/citizen.

et voila......that whats happen when you have to file a petition...lol...

file as a man in the court having jurisdiction over common law and equity.

there is no remedy for a man in statutory courts

got it....but filed that petition a year ago without REALLY knowing anything.....so I honoured it and did my best...:D

I hear ya my friend!

Don't RESPOND (Respondent=Identification/address) to YOU!

If they try, serve the "You" back with a QUESTION; "Are YOU addressing, ME"?

"By what authority do YOU address ME as ANY name or Title derived fro a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, including CITIZEN"?

"Are YOU a CITIZEN"? ;) That one always drives them nuts. :D

James Allan: file as a man in the court having jurisdiction over common law and equity.: Im not even sure we have this in Québec...lol...

Quebec law is unique in Canada because Quebec is the only province in Canada to have a juridical legal system (pertaining to the administration of justice) under which civil matters are regulated by French-heritage civil law. Public law, criminal law and other federal law operate according to Canadian common law.

Civil law and common law occasionally overlap or contradict each other. For instance, under section 91 (26) of the British North America, 1867, marriage and divorce fall under federal jurisdiction. However, marriage ceremonies are solemnized according to the Quebec civil code, while divorce proceedings may apply federal laws and regulations and common law concepts such as in loco parentis which has no equivalent at civil law according to which only the biological or legally adoptive relationship with offspring are recognized.

Criminal law is, however, based on the common law system. See Law of Canada.

Yes, I understand it is different there...... maybe John Spirit would have some info.....

Civil Code of Quebec

Quebec's current civil code, the Civil Code of Quebec,[9] was the product of a lengthy review of the civil law, beginning with the establishment of the Civil Code Revision Office in 1955. The new Civil Code of Quebec was enacted in 1991, and came into force in 1994. This Code repealed both the Civil Code of Lower Canada and the Civil Code of Quebec of 1980.

The current Code consists of ten books: 1.Persons 2.The Family 3.Successions 4.Property 5.Obligations 6.Prior Claims and Hypothecs 7.Evidence 8.Prescription 9.Publication of Rights 10.Private International Law

Petition = Request. Obviously you know better know Pierre :)

Yes I do....but too late....:D

cant back time..:(

Lawyers, be they attorneys or notaries, in Quebec are required to hold a degree in civil law. There are various names for the degree, depending on the university which grants it. McGill University and Université d'Ottawa grant a Bachelor of Civil Law degree, while other universities, such as Université Laval, grant a Bachelor of Laws degree (LL.B.). Candidates must then complete an articled clerkship, pass the professional bar course and be called to the Barreau du Québec (Bar of Quebec) before being able to practise law.

MOTION = REQUEST, PETITION = REQUEST.. i suppose in hindsight, Pierre should have filed a PREROGATIVE WRIT, or, the much vaunted but little known (other than it is strictly written, and never orally delivered) PRAECIPE ?

not in that place Derek Moran.....

This matter has chances to be taken care of in Jan. 2010, when I received their FIRST LETTER ( or OFFER)

but back then...I was COMPLETLY ignorant of who I am...

They've made their OFFER to ME back in Jan. 2010, and I ACCEPTED their offer.....

btw, about being a citizen: THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP Marginal note:Persons who are citizens

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/FullText.html

What did they think of Scott's NOTICE OF MISTAKE when you gave it to them?

lol....I stated on the record, I have no idea whats a CITIZEN....

there was NO MISTAKES....cant be any MISTAKES....I signed an AFFIDAVIT as PIERRE DAOUST when I filed my PETITION a year ago....if there would be a mistake, well its MY mistake and that petition would be REJECTED....

Notice of Mistake seems to work when you are the DEFENDANT....not when you are the PLAINTIFF or PETITIONER

what would you say if I sue you as John Smith, and during the procedure, I tell you..oh, I've made a mistake, I' john Doe...sorry....

when I tried it....they just kicked me out of court...

and laughed at me...:(

You're liable for the "mistake". That is why you should not respond to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

here we are....:)

..you shoulda had this guy in court with you defending you, Joseph Pierre Gilles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ZI4uQNYxk

Not only I responded, I ACCEPTED their offer....

Well why dod YOU do that?

I was not DEFENDING me Derek

You mean, why did you did that Scott

Because I had no IDEA what I was doing....

I TOUGHT or BELIEVED that this what has to be DONE

I acted like a fukin MORON slaves de tabarnac d'estie de calisse de cave de soucoupe d'imbecile

One thing im fuzzy on is the whole Pierre Daoust/Joseph Pierre Gilles dual-name-thing... ? :/

Pierre Daoust seems like my PERSON'S name......Joseph Pierre Gilles seems to be my name....or pete or peter or....whatever you want to call me....

..maybe you should just withdraw your consent during any ALLOCUTION they give you

I did that....I dont conscent to pay $0 or/and more to them, because I dont owe NOTHING to them....the judge havent made any decision so far.....

I also told them : if I commited a crime, I want to be arrested for that crime....apparently, not paying their income taxes is a crime...

Allocution is for DEFENDANT Derek Moran

1.The procedure during sentencing when a judge gives a convicted defendant the opportunity to make a personal statement on his own behalf to mitigate the punishment that is about to be imposed.

..you TOLD THEM to arrest you? :/

yes...if I commited a crime...yes for sure

by being arrested, I become a DEFENDANT

12. No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html

..Scott's favourite historical-document ;)

Scutage, Aids, Prises, TASKS = TAXES, back in tha day

Here is my favorite historical doccument IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun. 2. 2. It is an imbecility or sterility of mind, and not a perversion of the understanding. Chit. Med. Jur. 345, 327, note s; 1 Russ. on Cr. 6; Bac. Ab. h.t. A; Bro. Ab. h.t.; Co. Litt. 246, 247; 3 Mod. 44; 1 Vern. 16; 4 Rep. 126; 1 Bl. Com. 302. When a man cannot count or number twenty, nor tell his father's or mother's name, nor how old he is, having been frequently told of it, it is a fair presumption that, he is devoid of understanding. F. N. B. 233. Vide 1 Dow, P. C. now series, 392; S. C. 3 Bligh, R. new series, 1. Persons born deaf, dumb, and blind, are, presumed to be idiots, for the senses being the only inlets of knowledge, and these, the most important of them, being closed, all ideas and associations belonging to them are totally excluded from their minds. Co. Litt. 42 Shelf. on Lun. 3. But this is a mere presumption, which, like most others, may be rebutted; and doubtless a person born deaf, dumb, and blind, who could be taught to read and write, would not be considered an idiot. A remarkable instance of such an one may be found in the person of Laura Bridgman, who has been taught how to converse and even to write. This young woman was, in the year 1848, at school at South Boston. Vide Locke on Human Understanding, B. 2 c. 11, Sec. 12, 13; Ayliffe's Pand. 234; 4 Com. Dig. 610; 8 Com. Dig. 644. 3. Idiots are incapable of committing crimes, or entering into contracts. They cannot of course make a will; but they may acquire property by descent. Vide, generally, 1 Dow's Parl. Cas. new series, 392; 3 Bligh's R. 1; 19 Ves. 286, 352, 353; Stock on the Law of Non Compotes Mentis; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

IDIOT 3. Idiots are incapable of committing crimes, or entering into contracts. They cannot of course make a will; but they may acquire property by descent.

Pierre, you are NOT a "defendant" if you are a kidnap victim.

So by sending an AFFIDAVIT to them saying...Hey...I'm an IDIOT....

ok..Scott Duncan....and Im SURELY not a PLAINTIFF as well....

..and i seem to recall from Dean's case, that Kidnapping is a Federal Court offence?

I get it Scott Duncan....:)

do you plea guilty MR.DAOUST or NOT Guilty..??? ME: I have no idea what you are talking about....I havent done ANYTHING wrong....I've been KIDNAPPED...

and WHO IS MR.DAOUST and WHO ARE YOU ???

and WHERE THE FUK I'M I..????

"I DO NOT consent to any Acts-or-statutes that were designed with the intention to harm-or-damage me in any way"..... this just popped into my head :)

yeah...if ever they tell me who is MR.DAOUST and who are THEY and where I AM....

at this point, I dont see NOTHING to conscent or to NOT conscent to....

or maybe I'm too LOGICAL in my approach..?? :D

Hey Joseph Pierre Gilles, how did this turn out anyways?

Im waiting for judge decision....it may take a few weeks he said.....

I'll let you know....

Its been a month and no judgement yet in the mailbox :/ ??

No news is good news! ;)

oh..:/ I tought no nrews was no news :/

:D

Just stumbled across this & it may be useful in your situation Joseph Pierre Gilles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCJnmqQJL5s&list=PLF-RakV5SlVGsuDESdzNVzNIl1VGOrN89

lol... nice one Stuart Stone :)

I love the way he ties them in knots with questions ;) just reading his book now

7 weeks and no news from the justice yet !!! :/

And I am still waiting :D I can't wait to see that envelop, today, I have SOOOO many OPTIONS :D

Do you guys think they've forgot me ? :/

only if they are from mars... ;-)

Fuck. Where was this thread hiding? It's good.

It's four months ago, when I went to court for income tax bullshit

the french guy does have his moments... ;-)

Some how I missed it. Sorry Pete Daoust.

Why is it so long to receive the verdict ? :D

It may have something to do with surety and accounting... ;-)

No problem....

no big deal

No verdict. They no want to talk to you any more. You winning and they do not like that. Makes them feel impotent. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGjwGZbdqlk&list=PLFA45216FD60543ED]

SPEAK Barbelldoo! They don't UNDERSTAND it.

no meeting of the minds... no contract... and a complete waste of time...

Regarding Affidavits, i would say there's a couple Maxims-of-law:

"First in time, first in line". . . .and, "First in line, stronger in RIGHT" - or something to those affects

so what happened? did you get the paperwork yet?

NOTHING so far :(

i was on the hook for 20g, I got my ducks together and proceeded with a statement of claim in the FEDERAL REGISTRY. I messed up my form and the Crown received a motion to dismiss my claim. No known cause of action. Interesting thing, in the judgement they recognized my claim of right, that I am an individual and self presented, the Crown won motion to strike but the judgement stated i clearly has issues with the government and if I could formulate a proper claim, I was free to do so.

Hey David Smile !!...nice to meet you, what brings you here ? :)

"ME", I meesed up on the start, but I recovered and did a FAIR appearance and told EVERYTHING about my new discoveries on WHO I AM :D

" i was on the hook for 20g" - No. A Secured Party was seeking remittance for $20,000. There is a HUGE Difference. The SURETY ADVISES. REMITTANCE IS ADVICE.

That is the definition of REMITTANCE. ADVICE ON HOW TO DISCHARGE. Only the SURETY has the AUTHORITY to do that.

ALL financial transactions work this way.

And David Smile, you've NEVER been on the hook

oppss....sorry Scott Duncan, I was going to tell him :D

Breach of the trust

This I know, that is why I placed the onus on the court to provide remedy

I'll upload the Judgement

In HOW much time you received your judgement ?

It's a good chuckle, they claim I made up the law then provide relief

from start to finish 90 days

Shit is this fucking fast :/

HOLD ON!!!!! Scott, that finally makes sense to me. I am sure Pete Daoust and Adam Thomas can tell how this does not make sense to me.

So, if I need ADVICE on the discharge of debt, I need to find the SURETY and ask them. Is this correct?? So, asking the Secured Party is incorrect then. Do I finally have this correct?

I have started that shit January 6th 2010 :(

Pete...stop. I think I am about to get this......

LOL....I am asking the PAYEE for advices,

STOP!!!!!

July 18, 2012 to order October 30th 2012

Scott, is this correct?

l :/

cant upload the court order, gonna refresh

Why was it so fast ?

David

need permit to upload. lol

pete, I self presented a human rights case in the face of duty to the Crown. My ducks were the secured claim of right, standing undisputed. The time frame is under the rules

Hey the file is there, enjoy. I also have audio recording of the session.

"David recommends Toronto Police Service." LMAO!!!!!

Only so I can post suggestions on how to handle the public trust

The more I read and learn, the less I see that in America the Police have anything to do with the Public Trust! The Sheriffs, yes, the Police, no. They seem to be more like Pirates flying under the foreign flag of the United States.

Yep.....and priveteers knows how to handle pirates :D

A City of Toronto property-tax Bill has THE NAME, and the address on it - however....

..on the REMITTANCE/Coupon at the bottom of it, there is only the address, there is no NAME as given up-top on the BILL portion

You definitely need some remittance ADVICES for these suckers Derek Moran :D

BUT, the City of Toronto didnt create THE NAME (whomever's it is listed)...the PROVINCE/GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO did, so.....

..who needs to ASKED, for ADVICE, on how to DISCHARGE, any REMITTANCE, that is sent with THE NAME on it, is the one/the SURETY who CREATED it

So Scott Duncan, would one in Ontario be asking the Registrar General, or the Minister of Finance, on how to properly DISCHARGE any debt with the use of a REMITTANCE with THE NAME on it?

I would ask the City, they've started the bill of exchange for DEREK, and they are the PAYEE....why not ask them ?

Chris Schulte- at least you guys GOT a Sheriff! I just found out the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO here got rid of ours in the 90's - wtf?!...no Sheriff with fucking powers-and-duties ascribed to him at common law?? = BULLSHIT

Pierre, i did. The head of Revenue Services here for the City of Toronto is a MISTER Casey Brendon- and yes, i do refer to him as that in any NOTICE i have sent him. HE DOESNT KNOW. He wanted to pass me DOWN to someone in CUSTOMER SERVICES. I told him- "...we're going backwards here. Pass me UP to the one person with the greatest knowledge of bills-of-exchange and negotiable instruments. Gave me to a lawyer with the City, MS. Christina Hueniken. She claimed not to know what i was talking about, either.

Derek Moran, I've been asking Hydro-Quebec for 13 months now on REMITTANCE ADVICES, without knowing what I was doing :-D

OK, and is it your fault if they are incompetent ? :/

I remember the first time I had post what I was doing with HQ in here, Scott Duncan told me: Pierre, you have no idea how funny this is, and he laughed....I told him, you are right, I have no idea.... :D

But i think what Scott is saying, is that they arent the SURETY for that name. They are the MAKER of the BILL. But they are not the SURETY for THE NAME on it. That would be the PROVINCE. So who do we ask exactly at the PROVINCE on how to DISCHARGE a REMITTANCE TENDERED to THE NAME, Scott Duncan?

Derek MoranThe remittance is to be offset on the constructive registered holder's security. You must devolve the registered owners control.

get MS. Christina Hueniken to swear by it

That doesnt answer my question. Ill post it again:

"So who do we ask exactly at the PROVINCE on how to DISCHARGE a REMITTANCE TENDERED to THE NAME, Scott Duncan?"

The Bank of Canada :D, or your Finance Minister of Ontario..

there is no discharge, offset the instument on your security. If you hold the security by due course of law, they must offset it on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All money in Canada is public money, those with the benefit are indemnified, saved from harm.

I've sent one ACCEPTED BoE to the Bank of Canada.....can't wait to see what's going to happen.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Ministre des Finance du Quebec....no answer.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Quebec Revenu Agency....no answer.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Hydro-Quebec.....no answer....so I guess they ALL waiting on "ME" to act.. :D

What blows me away is that I take TIME to request ADVICES and act HONORABLY, with respect, dignity and integrity via registered mail to PUBLIC SERVANTS.......and they don't even dare answering me....

catch 22

Yes....for them :D

hummmm.....5 months has passed and no news from the court ! / ?

Silence=Consent

Here's one that will melt your melon... Honor, Dignity, Respect, integrity... All part of the Noble Lie... Honesty is punished... Deceit is rewarded (THE BAR)

Well, they may have a time limit for doing their job....I've tried to have an answer on this.....no can do :(

No answer is an answer...

Now, I received yesterday a letter from QRA asking for PIERRE DAOUST's bank account info in order to deposit MONEY in it.....these idiots wanted to collect 45k from me 5 months ago....they should know by now that I KNOW that this is a fucking trap shot.....

THEY WANT ME TO BE ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEE.....to destroy everything I'v said in court.....they want to fucking BUY ME with MONEY

FUCK YOU QRA....I will send a nice fucking letter to them ....fuck...!!!

Just send it back...

ABSOLUTLY Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma, with a side note :D

The letter starts with:

Beneficiary name: Pierre Daoust.

I wonder WHO is this Pierre Daoust they call BENEFICIARY ? :D So this is my first question regarding this letter.

They asking: YOU have to supply valids bank account infor. I want to know who is this YOU that have to supply this info.

Send them a copy of your birth certificate and tell them to ask "the legal title owner" for their account number...

There is so many shit I can do with this 1 page letter :D

How can he claim you are a "citizen"? If you do not rebut, you must agree ;) He says "YOU ARE A CITIZEN", and you should have said "that's a strong presumption, can you prove your claim?"

You should have said "Since presumptions seem to be the flavor of the day in here, I'm also going to presume you are a public servant, which makes you a public trustee, therefor, I, as the sole beneficiary of this estate you are attempting to hold a shareholders meeting against, would like to see the letter have, with my handwriting and signature, that gives you or anyone else in this courtroom permission to hold this meeting.

"Surely you wouldn't have a shareholders meeting without my written-authorized consent, would you?"

I asked for the meeting Dwaine Carrillo :D

I brought them to court....

Yep, just read that ... lol

But why? ...... picking fights? .... I wonder if you really had to go to court at all?

I didn't knew any better 3 years ago :D

This hole thing started in Jan. 2010 Dwaine Carrillo

And I HAVE WON !!!!!