Volume 2

Where it gets weird is that EVERYONE I talk to....I mean 100% of them...They agree on these: 1). Our government is corrupt 2). Our government is stealing from US 3). Our government is lying to US And when I ask, what should we do..???...they all have that same answer...NOTHING, its like that they say....we have to ACCEPT it... Now my question: How in the world people got so DOCILE...????....the most ACCURATE answer I've found so far to that question is FEAR....I'm I right here ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx6W7FDcL60

Oh dear... How not to do it.... "I thought this was 'Merica!"

Hey..!!!...Tax Man, yeah you Tax Man....Where is the LAW that oblige me to pay income taxes...???? :D

ALREADY HERE IN CANADA

So Scott, if one has an incorporated business, to protect that name, and a much needed BN number (for import purposes), how do you protect that? Have the business name owned by a private trust? Then could you keep your registered name/BN? I thought to let them know I don't need the BN anymore but I am still importing though it... How do you keep the business name "taken" within Canada without implying joinder?

I haven't been here long so I don't know if anyone has addressed this yet:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/toc-tdm-eng.html

Download the pdf. And check page 155. I like how they come right out and call it what it is... A Reich...a regime.

"legal tender"..."bank notes"...the more of them you have...the more fucked you're gonna be. First Cyprus...next the EU, the IMF...and of course....us.

So Scott, I am really grateful for your knowledge and willingness to give your time to us. Being here has set many things straight for me and you are right, this will save my/our lives. You have pushed me to research/think more and more and as I re-read some of these threads all of your verification is rerouting to everyday thoughts/knowledge. Is there any way we can contribute back? I'm sorry I do not know any hookers... although I do know some ganga experts in your area... :D

If I can offer something of my expertise, go to www.reemkaimports.com and whatever you and/or Tara wants, I will let them know you will be picking up... they are in Mississauga, ON... nice stuff...

Now... I don't want to break the LAW or anything.... Buy I swear Im gonna do it just for the fuck of it. Here's ny idea...

When Im done school, sooner or later I will be an "independent contractor" for my TRADE in HVAC. As in...self employed.

So yeah.... One day I will be up north or some shit....changing replacing and repairing furnaces....maybe a farmer...who can't pay me...but can give me half a cow...as payment....which I would gladly accept. Now, depending on what (if any) income I report....I will cut off the percentage of beef that I would normal be taxes, cut it off the cow, and go slap it on someones desk at Revenue Canada....

I mean.... I wanna be a good "law" abiding citizen....riiiight? Say my prayers, eat my vitamins...and pay my taxes, riiiight?

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/man-questions-district-court-but-is-jailed-1-1940175#.UVw0gC4bKJk.facebook

Oh dear....

Scott.... this is a bounce off Dean's work. It's very valuable info for those in the U.S. I don't know how many members you have outside Canada, but thought this vid may be appropriate for this group. ...

Of note...

The How-and-Why the WORKPLACE SAFETY and INSURANCE BOARD of Ontario manage to get away with treating INJURED-workers-who-are-deemed-PERSONS (not PEOPLE mind you) constantly like SHIT-thread.....

Even a chick will get it!

"We want these to be notes that Canadians can use with pride."

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/new-era-of-plastic-money-to-start-with-100-bills-1.617237#ixzz2PdGHuead

The NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT-thread.....

Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition 1991- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT: a writing which is SIGNED by the maker or drawer, contains an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money, is payable on demand at a definite time, and is payable to order or to BEARER. A draft, check, CERTIFICATE of deposit, and NOTE may or may not be a negotiable instrument depending upon whether the above elements of negotiability are satisfied. A TRANSFEREE of a negotiable instrument may have rights superior to to the ASSIGNEE of other obligations if the transferee qualifies as a holder in due course.

BEARER: the person in possession of an instrument, document of title, or security payable to bearer or endorsed in blank. A note payable to bearer is payable to any person who successively holds the note BONA FIDE, not by virtue of any assignment of promise, but by an original and direct promise moving from the maker to the bearer.

BONA FIDE (latin): in good faith; without fraud or deceit.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT: an acknowledgment by a bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it. The writing may or may not be a negotiable instrument depending on whether it meets the requirements for negotiability.

NOTE: a writing acknowledging a debt and promising payment. For the instrument to be negotiable it must be signed by the maker and contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money on demand or at a definite time to order or to bearer. A note is not payment but only a promise to pay. The term note is synonomous with the term promissory note. The term may be qualified by its unique characteristics. For example, a note that is backed by a pledge of collateral such as real or personal property is called a SECURED NOTE; when no such collateral is behind the promise it is called an UNSECURED NOTE. If the note is payable at any time it is called a DEMAND NOTE. If the note is payable over a specified period of time in more than one payment, it is called an INSTALLMENT NOTE. If the note evidences a loan for which real estate has been encumbered it is called a MORTGAGE NOTE. If the note is negotiable it is called a NEGOTIABLE NOTE. These various terms can also be combined so that a note that is payable at any time, secured by collateral may be called a "negotiable secured promissory demand note," and so forth. See also treasury note.

TREASURY NOTE: an intermediate term (one-to-five years) obligation of the (U.S.) government that bears interest paid by COUPON. Like all direct (U.S.) government obligations, Treasury notes carry the highest domestic credit standing and, thus, have the lowest taxable yield available at equivalent maturity.

COUPONS: certificates, usually attached to an instrument evidencing a loan, which may be detached (clipped) and presented separately for payment of a specific sum of money representing interest on the main instrument. See bond [Bearer Bonds] Bonds are available in two forms.

BEARER BONDS: are negotiable instruments that must be SAFEGUARDED (think Registrar GENERAL) by the owner to prevent loss. Interest is paid by COUPON redemptions.

REGISTERED (think REGISTRAR General) BONDS: are recorded on the books of the issuer by the TRUSTEE, and interest is paid BY MAIL to the HOLDER of record. See security [Bond]; treasury bond.

HOLDER OF RECORD (Black's 8th-edition): See STOCKHOLDER OF RECORD.

STOCKHOLDER OF RECORD: the person who is listed in the issuer's books as the owner of stock on the RECORD DATE.

RECORD OWNER: 1. a property owner in whose name the title appears in the public records. 2. Stockholder of Record.

DATE OF ISSUE: 1. Commercial law. an arbitrary date (for notes, bonds, and other documents in a series) fixed as the beginning of the term for which they run; the date that a stock or bond bears on its face, not the date on which it is actually signed, delivered, or put into circulation. When a bond is delivered to a purchaser, it is considered ISSUED. But this concept is distinguishable from the "date of issue," which remains fixed, regardless of the date of sale or delivery. 2. Insurance. The date specified in the policy as the "date of issue," not the date on which the policy is executed or delivered, and regardless of other dates that may be specified in the policy or elsewhere, such as the date that the policy is to "take effect."

RECORD DATE: Corporations. The date on which a stockholder must own shares to be entitled to vote or receive a DIVIDEND. See Ex-Dividend Date.

EX-DIVIDEND (Barron's): without a RIGHT to a declared dividend. When a stock trades ex-dividend the buyer does not receive the declared dividend because the date on which he will officially own the stock will occur after the record date of ownership for purposes of receiving same. A stock will trade ex-dividend during the settlement period, usually five business days, between the execution of an order to buy or sell the SECURITY by a broker and the date of settlement when the CERTIFICATE and funds change hands. The Payment Date refers to when the dividend is actually paid and is usually sometime after the ex-dividend date (sometimes called simply EX-DATE) and the record date.

BOND: Security. written instrument with SURETIES, guaranteeing faithful performance of acts or duties contemplated; evidence of a debt; a binding agreement, a COVENANT between two or more persons, or an instrument under SEAL by which the maker binds himself, and usually also his heirs, executors and administrators or, if a corporation, their successors, to do or not to do a specified act. A bond may thus be the obligation of a state, its subdivision, or a private corporation, represented by certificate for principal, and by detachable coupons for current interest; includes all interest-bearing obligations of persons, firms, and corporations. The rights of the HOLDER are specified in the bond INDENTURE, which contains the legal terms and conditions under which the bond was issued. Bond debt is secured or guaranteed primarily by the ability of the issuer (borrower) to pay the interest when due and to repay the principal at maturity. See Certificate of Indebtedness or Security.

CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS (Black's 8th): 1. Debenture 2. Treasury Bill 3. Certificate of Deposit

DEBENTURE (Barron's): a written acknowledgment of a debt with a promise to pay; financial obligation of corporations often bought and sold as investments. Compare Certificate of Deposit; Note. Holders of debentures representing corporate indebtedness, as CREDITORS of the corporation, are ENTITLED to payment before stockholders [the owners of the corporation] upon dissolution of the corporation. To protect debenture holders who rank as general creditors, the debentures might limit borrowing, impose a current liabilities-assets-margin requirement, restrict dividend payments, limit share redemption or purchase, require the maintenance of certain reserves, or restrict additional issues of securities. See Indenture.

INDENTURE: a DEED between two parties conveying real estate by which both parties assume obligations. "Indenture" implies a SEALED instrument. Historically, Indenture referred to a crease or wavy cut that was made in duplicates of the deed so their authenticity could be verified later. In a business context, an indenture is a lengthy written agreement which sets forth the terms under which bonds or debentures may be issued. Terms include the amount of the issue, the interest rate, the maturity, the property pledged as collateral (if any), and the so-called "protective covenants." An independent trustee, usually a BANK (BANK OF CANADA?) or trust company, is named to oversee the issuance of the bonds, to COLLECT and PAY interest and principal, and to protect the bondholder's RIGHTS as specified in the indenture.

DEED OF TRUST: a TRANSFER of LEGAL TITLE to property from the TRUSTOR [SETTLOR] to the trustee (now US), for the purpose of placing the legal title with the trustee as SECURITY for the performance of certain obligations, monetary or otherwise.

TRUSTOR: one who creates a trust; more often called the settlor.

SETTLOR [DONOR; TRUSTOR]: one who creates a trust by giving real or personal property "in trust" to another (the trustee) for the benefit of a third person (the beneficiary). One who gives such money is said to "settle" it on, or bring title to rest with, the trustee, and is also called the "donor" or "trustor."

DONOR: one who gives or makes a GIFT; creator of a trust; the party conferring a power e.g. the grantor of a power of appointment.

GIFT: a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, that is, for which no value is received in return. The essential components of a valid completed gift of personal property are: competency of the donor to understand the nature of his act; voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift (called DONATIVE INTENT); DELIVERY either actual or symbolic; ACCEPTANCE, actual or imputed; complete divestment of all control by the donor; and a lack of consideration for the gift. A transfer that constitutes a gift may be of significance in several TAX contexts. For example, RECEIPT of a gift is excluded from the GROSS INCOME of the recipient, but the transferor may be subject to the unified estate and gift tax.

DONATIVE INTENT (Black's 8th): the intent to surrender DOMINION and control over the GIFT that is being made.

DOMINION: having BOTH title to AND possession of property; having CONTROL of both ownership and use.

POWER OF APPOINTMENT (Black's 8th): a power created or reserved by a person having property subject to DISPOSITION, enabling the donee of the power to designate transferees of the property or shares in which it will be received; especially a power conferred on a donee by will or DEED to select and determine one or more recipients of the donor's estate or income. If the power is exercisable before the donee's death, it is exercisable WHOLLY in favour of the donee. If the power is testamentary, it is exercisable wholly in favour of the donee's estate.

GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT: a power of appointment by which the donee can appoint - that is, DISPOSE of the donor's property - in favour of ANYONE at all, including oneself or one's own estate; especially a power that authorizes the ALIENATION of a fee to any ALIENEE. Often shortened to general power.

I was very naive about the level of corruption in Canada. My eyes started to open when I got involved with child welfare, NS. My last discovery has just about made me want to quit learning, but I need to learn in balance, not just about the corruption but how to effectively fight it. I was flabergasted when I discovered that Child welfare agency was able to get privacy protected criminal records from the RCMP all for the asking. Usually, you have to be border patrol, or interpol to get access or other law enforcement agencies, Privacy Act section 8....unless you are given provincial authority through an ACT to carry out an investigation (civil) child protection. Not sure if these are the types of questions you all can address, but my brain is hurting so good night, shout out to dean clifford...really appreciate you tube videos.....BUT I CAN'T GET HOW PROVINCIAL LAWS ARE ONLY FOR GOV. EMPLOYEES....

The POWER OF APPOINTMENT- thread.....

Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition 1991- POWER OF APPOINTMENT: a power or authority given by a DONOR to a DONEE to appoint the beneficiaries of the donor's property, or any interest therein, which is vested in a person other than the donee of the power. The power may be created by DEED or will, id., and it may be reserved by the donor for him or herself. The instrument creating the power delineates the extent to which the donee may choose the beneficiaries of the donor's property. Under a GENERAL POWER, the power may be exercised in favour of any person, including the donee. Under a SPECIAL POWER, the power may be exercised only in favour of a limited group, not including the donee or his or her estate. Present day powers of appointments are more flexible in determining beneficiaries than if a DISPOSITION irrevocably named all takers, a flexibility that allows for unforeseen future events. For example, a father's will may give his daughter the power of appointment over the principal of a trust, with the result that the daughter can allocat e the principal as needed when she exercises the power. Under a more inflexible procedure whereby the father names all the beneficiaries and the amount to which they are entitled, adjustments could not be made for differing needs. If the father wants to insure that only the daughter's children are the beneficiaries, he can so provide by giving a "special power of appointment" to the daughter. The instrument creating the power usually will include a provision disposing of the property if the power is not effectively exercised. TITLE to the property or interest passes directly from the donor of the power to the beneficiary; the donee is merely the conduit through which title passes. Moreover, since a power of appointment does not constitute an ESTATE or interest, it is termed a NAKED POWER. If in the same instrument creating the power of appointment the donee is granted a present or future interest in the property over which the power is to be exercised, the donee is said to have a power coupled with an interest. A general power of appointment for tax purposes (subject to exceptions) is "a power which is exercisable in favour of the DECEDENT, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate." If that definition is met, the value of the underlying property is includable in the value of the decedent's taxable gross estate. Therefore, special powers of appointment are generally better from a tax viewpoint.

POWER OF APPOINTMENT (Black's 8th)- a power created or reserved by a person having property subject to DISPOSITION, enabling the donee of the power to designate transferees of the property or shares in which it will be received; especially, a power conferred on a donee by will or deed to select and determine one or more recipients of the donor's estate or income. If the power is exercisable before the donee's death, it is exercisable wholly in favour of the donee. If the power is TESTAMENTARY, it is exercisable wholly in favour of the donee's estate. Often shortened to POWER. Also termed ENABLING POWER.

POWER OF APPOINTMENT (The Dictionary of Canadian Law 3rd-edition): 1. the power of a DONEE or APPOINTOR to appoint by will the PEOPLE who will succeed to property after the person to whom the power is given dies. This power is given by a DONOR using an instrument such as a trust INTER VIVOS, marriage settlement or will. (J.G. McLeod, The Conflict of Laws: Carswell) 2. Includes any discretionary power to transfer a beneficial interest in property without the furnishing of valuable consideration.

DONEE: 1. any person who receives or has received the benefit of a GIFT, including a gift deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been made. GIFT TAX acts. 2. One to whom a gift is made. 3. a person to whom a power of appointment is given is sometimes called the donee of the power.

APPOINTOR: One given a power; a person who names someone else for an office.

DONOR: 1. One who gives. 2. Any individual who makes or who has made a gift, including a gift deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been made. GIFT TAX acts.

INTER VIVOS TRUST: created by writing, a DEED or oral declaration, a trust which is to take effect during the lifetime of the trust's creator. (Waters, The Law of Trusts in Canada: Carswell)

INTER VIVOS GIFT: a GRATUITOUS transfer of property from the owner (donor) to another person (donee) with the intention that the transfer will take effect immediately and the title to the property will rest in the donee.

INTER VIVOS: Between living people. See GIFT INTER VIVOS.

GRATUITOUS: without reward or recompense.

RECOMPENSE (Black's 8th): repayment, compensation, or retribution for something, especially an injury or loss.

GIFT INTER VIVOS (Dictionary of Canadian Law): a gift made by a living person to another living person.

GIFT INTER VIVOS (Black's 8th): See inter vivos gift under GIFT. a gift of personal property made during the donor's lifetime and delivered to the donee with the intention of IRREVOCABLY surrendering control over the property.

IRREVOCABLE: committed beyond recall; unalterable; not able to be revoked.

GIFT INTER VIVOS (Barron's): see inter vivos. Between the living; transactions made "inter vivos" are those made while the parties are living, and not upon death (such as in the case of inheritance) or upon contemplation of death [causa mortis]. A DEED, therefore, is an instrument that CONVEYS inter vivos a present interest in land, or which conveys the CORPUS of a trust to the trustees [a deed of trust]. Gifts are transferred inter vivos, by will, or causa mortis. See also trust [ INTER VIVOS TRUST].

I haven't gone through much of threads yet but I might as well say that (at least for now) I don't buy, get it buy, that canada is a corporation...that seems to be fine for now to me. Reading Scotts "proper notice" thread was easy for me to understand. As soon as he talked about a courtesy, I got it. My son and I got screwed but good by children's aid and NS gov. and I am ready to get paid for that service. of allowing them to do it.. I just decided that I can't wait until I learn and understand everything before I give public notice, or my bill, to all those sons' of ignorant beeps. (Funny I still get hostile when I think about this). Hopefully, someone can lay out the process for me to let them know they used me for my services as a victim but I am not playing that game of victim anymore and I want my compensation and this is how much I am charging. Pay up, final notice. That is going to be my main goal for however long it takes. I believe this country has produced a population of victims and what are victims? people who need to be victimized. SO; I would be ever so grateful if someone could tell me the name of a process to use and give me step by step instructions. I am not stupid, but my brain takes ages to put pieces together, I really need order for this so I can be confident. If I know I am in the right I will not give up no matter what S**t they throw at me and I know they will. I am asking because i had started studying tort law and stuff like that..but gov. writes their own laws and excuse themselves from any liability...so that is no excuse for me to give up. My son and I will get compensated.

unilateral/bilateral contracts: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

ok, so then i take it the birth certificate is the unilateral contract which becomes a bilateral contract upon some action of performance by the named party, which is either (or both) the SIN # and/or the license to drive.

Am I obliged to follow any order of yours for free?!...No Am I free to go due to the lack of there being any actual crime?!...Yes, any other answer is criminal. We are free when we say we are.

ok, Brenda has some questions about your guys take on this, but I don't remember what they are. she can ask later. I made this document, wasn't sure I wanted to admit that publicly, but oh well, and This is NS point of view, but I think it still applies well everywhere in canada. this document is how I make sense of how cas can get away with so much obvious contradictions in law and jurisdictions....they are giving parents a penal sentence of sorts, but they do not have to use federal standards of proof to impose these restrictions of parental rights...they claim legal investigative powers that have no true legal standing.....The federal gov. allows provincial agencies that claim legal investigative powers to request individuals criminal records and the RCMP give them the records. well, if cas has legal investigative powers, why cant they lay charges? they have civil investigative powers and that is administrative law. the SPCA can't investigate or even take your dog unless it is a duly appointed special constable under the police act. so what gives. To me, the scam child protection is running has been to treat parents authority to protect their children from harm as if it were a gov. duty and that can be regulated. the cfsa proclaimed it in the preamble, we the gov. declare that parents and guardians have a responsibility to protect their childs rights. and if they don't we will step in with all authority we have given ourselves...???I am just rambling now. http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/childfam.htm

Habeas Corpus by Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes

FYI:

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Also... Pay attention to these writs in particular:

Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") they claim to hold.

A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. In practice, the Court directs the Clerk to issue the Writ, and directs the Sheriff to serve it on the subordinate, and the Clerk prepares the Writ and gives it to the Sheriff, who serves it. This writ is normally issued by a superior court to the lower court asking it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.These Writs are issued as "alternative" or "peremptory." An alternative Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and "Show Cause" why the directive should not be made permanent. A peremptory Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and "return" the Writ, with certification of its compliance, within a certain time.When an agency of an official body is the target of the Writ of Prohibition, the Writ is directed to the official body over which the court has direct jurisdiction, ordering the official body to cause the agency to desist.Although the rest of this article speaks to judicial processes, a writ of prohibition may be directed by any court of record (i.e., higher than a misdemeanor court) toward any official body, whether a court or a county, city or town government, that is within the court's jurisdiction.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing.

Interesting terms one should also familiarize oneself with these as well:

aggrieve[ uh-greev ]verb (used with object) aggrieved, ag·griev·ing.1. to oppress or wrong grievously; injure by injustice.2. to afflict with pain, anxiety, etc.

Franchise[ fran-chahyz ]noun1. a privilege of a public nature conferred on an individual, group, or company by a government: a franchise to operate a bus system.2. the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.3. a store, restaurant, or other business operating under such a license.4. the territory over which such a license extends.5. the right to vote: to guarantee the franchise of every citizen.6. a privilege arising from the grant of a sovereign or government, or from prescription, which presupposes a grant.7. a player of great talent or popular appeal, considered vitally important to a team's success or future.8. a legal immunity or exemption from a particular burden, exaction, or the like.9. freedom, especially from imprisonment, servitude, or moral restraint.

Scott Duncan, is this you?

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.

the definition of TRUST (as in law)- thread.....

(Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition, 1991) TRUST: property, REAL or PERSONAL, held by one party for the benefit of another. It implies two interests; one legal, and the other EQUITABLE; the TRUSTEE holding the legal title or interest; and the CESTUI QUE trust or BENEFICIARY holding the equitable title or interest. The one who supplies the property or consideration [RES] for the trust is the SETTLOR [also called TRUSTOR or DONOR]. Trust also applies generally to any relationship in which one acts as a GUARDIAN or FIDUCIARY in relation to another's property. Thus a deposit of money in a bank is a "trust", or the RECEIPT(think REVENUE RECEIPT) of money to be applied to a particular purpose or to be paid to another is a "trust."

RES (latin): the thing; the subject matter of actions that are primarily IN REM i.e. actions that establish rights in relation to an object, as opposed to a person, or IN PERSONAM. For example, in an action that resolves a conflict over title to real property, the land in question is the RES. Tangible PERSONAL PROPERTY can also be a "res," as in the CORPUS of a trust. In a QUASI in rem proceeding, land or chattels that are seized and attached at the beginning of the action, in order that they may later be used to satisfy a personal claim, are the res of such suits. The term refers as well to the status of individuals. Thus, in a divorce suit, the marital status is the res. The purpose of a res is to establish a court's JURISDICTION, i.e. if the property lies within the state where the action is brought, or an individual in a divorce action is a DOMICILLARY of the state, then jurisdiction is established.

CORPUS (latin): body. The principal mass of a physical substance. It is the principal or res of an ESTATE, DEVISE or BEQUEST from which income is derived. In the law of trusts, any valid trust must have a valid subject matter or corpus; the corpus can consist of any transferable interest, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, real or personal, tangible or intangible, as long as the subject matter is "certain." Intangible things such as a copyright or the good will of a business or a trade secret, if transferable by gift, inter vivos or by will, can constitute the corpus of a trust. In the law of real property, the term refers to all tangible objects; thus, the roadway, embankment and equipment constitute the corpus of railroad property. ROYALTIES from oil and gas in a well also constitute the corpus of the land. The term generally is found in civil law denoting a positive fact as distinguished from a possibility. See corpus delecti. It also refers to an aggregate of a substance such as the law. See corpus juris.

AGGREGATE: a total of all the parts; the whole, the complete amount; also, to combine, as to aggregate several causes of action in a single suit; similarly, to aggregate many persons whose causes of actions are closely related into a class action.

ESTATE: interest, right or ownership in land; technically, the degree, quantity, nature and extent of a person's interest or ownership of land. In its broad sense, "estate" applies to all that a person owns, whether REAL or PERSONAL property. See also PRIVITY [privity of estate]

PRIVITY OF ESTATE: denotes mutual or successive relation to the same right in property. A privy in estate is one who derives from another TITLE to property, by contract (grant, will, or other voluntary transfer of possession), or law (descent, judgment, etc.)

DEVISE: traditionally a GIFT of real property made by will. A testamentary act by which a now-deceased person manifested his intent to create one or more interests in land or in a thing other than land, irrespective of whether such act is effective to create such interest. Simplicity of statement requires that a single word be available to describe a testamentary act intended to dispose of interests in land, interests in things other than land or both these types of interests. The employment of two words, such as DEVISE and BEQUEATH is awkward.

BEQUEATH: the appropriate term for making a GIFT of personalty by means of a will. Strictly, it signifies a gift of personal property, which distinguishes it from a DEVISE, which is a gift of real property. A DISPOSITION is the generic name encompassing both a bequest of personalty and a devise of realty. However, when a testator's intention is obvious, "bequeath" is considered synonymous with "devise."

LEGACY: GIFT, or BEQUEST by will of personal property. The term is frequently confused with devise, which refers to a disposition of real property, but the technical distinction between "legacy" and "devise" will not defeat a testator's intention, so that either term may be used to dispose of real or personal property. It is regarded as synonymous with bequest. Compare to devise.

for all the smart people

Hint The SSN is owned by the IRS something they don’t want the public to know. That’s why the CRA hates me . I asked them to prove that I was the owner of the SIN. I called their bluff. Now since we cannot use someone else’s property without conditions of use, therefore we must incorporate but not normally done with the legal name Smart people choose to a numbered company its easier to hide behind. So now you genius who has incorporated so they don’t have use the SIN for tax reporting?

In order to make this straight in my head, I received a letter from the family support division stating: the director of family support division finds that the above named person: responded by entering a payment agreement but failed to comply with the agreement. pursuant to sections 454.1000 and 454.1025 rsmo, the director orders the suspension of the above named person's driver's license and orders the person to refrain from the licensed activity.

As i read this 454.1025 it states a law license. second, i have sent to family sent to family support, a letter that stated that I believed that there attempt to suspend my license was a fraud and extortion based on a fraud by my ex-wife to collect money for a child I had in my posession for 3 years in june. Also that as i understand it a contract(divorce papers with child custody agreement) is between the two people that signed those papers. since she broke that contract continually and was the first to break it by refusing to allow the court ordered visitation among many other things that i listed, the contract becomes void and therefore there is no arearage. i accepted the offer to continue the agreement with them to pay if they could provide me proof that the contract between her and I was still in effect, that they had a right to enforce a contract based on fraud, proof that they are allowed to harm a child that the enforcement order is for,proof that they have no responsibility to to notify that a fraud was being committed.

I don't know where I went wrong in this letter but now with there response to order the suspension and orders me to stop driving, I could use some help figuring out where i went wrong and how to correct this. i am a chauffeur and that is how i make my money to support all of my family. If, hypothetically, you were in these shoes what would you do to prevent this. As I have not much money, i would be willing to donate what I can afford to prevent this.

Scott Duncan, this is what i did in court today. April 9, 2013 Family Court

All rise please Please be seated. A minute or two pause. I said POINT OF ORDER I believe I am the only one with standing , so barring objection from the court I wish to reserve all rights now, and henceforth, are there any objections from the court? You wish to — reserve my rights, all rights Well you can certainly, whatever those rights may be, I uh terms of appealing or whatever, I uh that’s (something) the record to make decisions I guess. I wish to reserve all rights now and henceforth, and are there any objections from the court? Let the record show that the court that I have reserved all rights and the court has not objected I know,it, of no motion at this stage that, your motion doesn’t make any sense to me quite frankly.

Did I have it nor not? I realized that they had gotten over me and I just sat down but eveytime they addressed me in court I asked by what authority did they address me as you and by what authority did they assume that I was a Party of Surety? Judge claimed not to understand. And when the cps lawyer stated that he needed me acknowledge something I didn't even answer any more. So the lawyer told the judge that that was border line contempt of court. In the end the hearing we were supposed to have next week got cancelled, and the notice of mistakes and affidavits that I had sent in and with the cps's lawyer I had a notice of default and affidavit for him that all got sealed into an envelope. He defaulted on all of the questions in the notice of mistakes. Do I re-enter the notice of mistakes cause they will be sending out another Temporary Care and Custody Order. At this hearing today there was the two pit bull lawyers, the broad is scarry(make you cringe, not even doable with a bag over her head) kids lawyer who never said two words and wanted scotty to beam her up, and three social workers in the room and 2 Sheriffs. Can you tell me what the next best move would be, I'm thinking entering the notices of mistake again. Court is not till June again and i think it is only docket review

good bad or irrelevant.....from USA

good bad or irrelevant to canada...

Did you know that you can file a UCC in Canada? Okay, so it’s technically not a UCC since the Uniform Commercial Code system is an American one, but Canada does have a system called the Personal Property Security Registration System which is analogous to and based upon our UCC system.

Cheryl Watson drew my attention to this.

I'm drawing YOUR attention to it.

the DOCUMENT OF TITLE- thread.....

(Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition, 1991) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a BILL OF LADING, dock WARRANT, warehouse RECEIPT, or order for the DELIVERY of GOODS, or any other document which in the regular course of business or financing is treated as adequate EVIDENCE that the PERSON in POSSESSION of it is ENTITLED to RECEIVE, hold, and DISPOSE of the document and the goods it covers.

(Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd-edition) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: 1. Includes any bill of lading, dock warrant, warehousekeeper's certificate and warrant or order for the delivery of goods and any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods, or authorizing or purporting to authorize, either by endorsement or by delivery (sounds like a CHEQUE you would bring to the bank), the possessor of the document to TRANSFER or RECEIVE goods thereby represented 2. any writing that purports to be issued by or addressed to a BAILEE and purports to cover such goods in the bailee's possession as are identified or FUNGIBLE portions of an identified mass, and that in the ordinary course of business is treated as establishing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. Personal Property Security Act.

(Black's Law 8th-edition) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a written description, identification, or declaration of goods authorizing the holder (usually a BAILEE) to receive, hold, and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. See BAILMENT. Carriers. Warehousemen. Safe Depositaries. NEGOTIABLE DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a document of title that actually stands for the goods it covers, so that any transfer of the goods requires a surrender of the document. See Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit. NONNEGOTIABLE DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a document of title that merely serves as evidence of the goods it covers.

DOCK WARRANT (Dictionary of Canadian Law): a document resembling a bill of lading and issued by a dock owner or dock company authorizing delivery of certain goods to a named person or to that person's ASSIGNS by ENDORSEMENT.

DOCK WARRANT (Black's Law 8th): See DOCK RECEIPT. DOCK RECEIPT: Maritime Law. an INTERIM document issued by a maritime carrier to evidence the delivery of goods at the dock. Generally, a dock receipt ENTITLES the designated person to receive a bill of lading, waybill, or other transport document. Also termed dock warrant. See DOCUMENT OF TITLE.

INTERIM: In the meantime; for the time being; not permanent or final; temporary or provisional.

INTERIM RECEIPT: the written acknowledgment of a premium paid on an insurance policy that is pending final approval.

INTERIM TRUSTEE: a BANKRUPTCY trustee appointed to perform all the functions and DUTIES of a trustee until the regular trustee is selected and qualified. Before the meeting of creditors, the interim trustee often preliminarily investigates the debtor's assets and financial affairs.

TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY (Dictionary of Canadian Law): the person in whom a bankrupt's property is vested in trust for creditors.

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE (Barron's Law): refers to the person who takes LEGAL TITLE to the property of the debtor and holds it "in trust" for equitable distribution among the creditors. In most districts, the trustee is appointed by the bankruptcy judge or selected by the creditors and approved by the judge. In a limited number of "pilot districts," a United States (Canadian) trustee, appointed by the Attorney General (our Registrar General/Receiver General?), served as or supervised the trustee.

LEGAL TITLE (Black's Law 8th): a title that evidences apparent ownership but does not necessarily signify full and complete title or a BENEFICIAL INTEREST. Before 1536, a legal title was enforceable only in a court of law, not chancery.

EQUITABLE TITLE: a title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the RIGHT to acquire formal legal title. Before 1536, an equitable title was enforceable only in a court of chancery, not of law.

mmmmmm thoughts ?

Derek, this could be the Praecipe thread...

Ok so Scott, from Brenda's post (and some others)... A Preacipe is regarding a Trust, to create and "order"... A Petition would be in the case where there is no Trust Authority “but is also used to create an "order" (rather than a motion which would only be ASKING)

Anybody have an idea whether I'm close or not? Petition for court

Petition NON-NEGOTIABLE All Rights Reserved

April 9, 2013

I, Brenda Larson as Grantor and Petitioner, therefore petition Family Court, Antigonish, Nova Scoita to execute my right to non-payment of the names CD and CD being of a negotiable security TRUST from the Canada Corporation to the Minister of Community Services of Nova Scotia.

First Bitcoin, Now Gold: All Alternative Currencies Must Be Crushed

Regarding my earlier comments in an earlier thread:

Do you ever wonder where all the jerks come from who disrupt Internet discussion boards?

Some are volunteers.

But a whole lot of them are paid.

An outstanding presentation on this topic.

The HOW TO DEAL WITH A BAILIFF AT YOUR FRONT DOOR- thread.....

I offer the gift of curiosity ;-)

In an earlier thread I mentioned something about using stamps on legal documents. This is a synopsis as to why:

The UPU, Universal Postal Union, in Berne, Switzerland, is an extremely significant organization in today’s world. It is formulated by treaty. No nation can be recognized as a nation without being in international admiralty in order to have a forum common to all nations for engaging in commerce and resolving disputes. That is why the USA under the Articles of Confederation could not be recognized as a country. Every state (colony) was sovereign, with its own common law, which foreclosed other countries from interacting with the USA as a nation in international commerce. Today, international admiralty is the private jurisdiction of the IMF,et al., the creditor in the bankruptcy of essentially every government on Earth.

The UPU operates under the authority of treaties with every country in the world. It is, as it were, the overlord or overseer over the common interaction of all countries in international commerce. Every nation has a postal system, and also has reciprocal banking and commercial relationships, whereby all are within and under the UPU. The UPU is the number one military (international admiralty is also military) contract mover on the planet. For this reason one should send all important legal and commercial documents through the post office rather than private carriers, which are firewalls. We want direct access to the authority—and corresponding availability of remedy and recourse—of the UPU.

For instance, if you post through the US Post Office and the US Postmaster does not provide you with the remedy you request within twenty-one (21) days, you can take the matter to the UPU. Involving the authority of the UPU is automatically invoked by the use of postage stamps.Utilization of stamps includes putting stamps on any documents (for clout purposes, not mailing) we wish to introduce into the system. As long as you use a stamp (of any kind) you are in the game. If you have time, resources, and the luxury of dealing with something well before expiration of a given time frame, you can use stamps that you consider ideal. The most preferable stamps are ones that are both large and contain the most colors. In an emergency situation, or simply if economy is a consideration, any stamp will do.

Using a postage stamp and your autograph on it makes you the postmaster for that contract. Whenever you put a stamp on a document, inscribe your full name over the stamp at an angle. The color ink you use for this is a function of what color will show up best against the colors in the stamp. Ideal colors for doing this are purple (royalty), blue (origin of the bond, the one holding the contract), and gold (king’s edict). Avoid red at all cost. Obviously, if you have a dark, multi-colored stamp you do not want to use purple or blue ink, since yourautograph on it would not stand out as well if you used lighter color ink. Ideally one could decide on the best color for his autograph and then obtain stamps that best suit one’s criteria and taste.

Although a dollar stamp is best, it is a luxury unless one is well off financially. Otherwise, reserve the use of dollar stamps for crucial instruments, such as travel documents. The rationale for using two-cent stamps is that in the 19th Century the official postage rate for the de jure Post Office of the United States of America was fixed at two (2) cents. Remember the old expression “add your two cents worth”. This denomination should be ideal in most situations. Use stamps on important documents, such as a check, travel documents, paperwork you put in court, etc. Where to put the stamp and how many stamps to use depend on the document. On foundational documents and checks, for instance, put a stamp on the right hand corner of the instrument, both on the front and on the back. The bottom right hand corner of the face of a check, note, or bill of exchange signifies the liability. Furthermore, the bottom right hand corner of the reverse of the document is the final position on the page, so no one can endorse anything (using a restricted endorsement or otherwise) after that. You want to have the last word. If you have only one stamp, put it where you are expected to sign and autograph over it cross-wise. In the case of a traffic ticket, for instance, put a stamp on the lower right hand corner where you are supposed to sign and autograph across the stamp at an angle from upper left to lower right.

I don't care what this particular Scientist says. Facebook does not, and never will have "value". :P

found this in my documents today.

Presumptions of At Law/Statutory/Commercial/Maritime Courts Canon 3228 A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds that if left unchallenged, they stand true. Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt : (i) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Court is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and (ii) The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and (iii) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartiality and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and ???? (iv) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and (v) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands; and (vi) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and (vii) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court); ???? (viii) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and (ix) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate); and (x) The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort is the presumption that if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by not only asserting one's position as Executor as well as questioning if the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim; and ??? (xi) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient; and (xii) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.

Derek Moran, a form for your bailiff:

TAXES: TRIBUTE tribute (trib-yoot), n.1. An acknowledgment of gratitude or respect. 2. A contribution that a sovereign raises from its subjects to defray the expenses of state. 3. Money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior one to secure the latter's friendship and protection.

The questions asked was: If Québec is part of Canada If the Queen is also the Queen in Québec If the Canadian charter apply for Quebecers.... Here is the Answers from James P. Moore....

The story about the man who was killed for refusing to pay for his Seatbelt Ticket.

4/14/2013

It all started as a routine traffic stop near gallatin road in Nashville,Tn on the corner of Greenfield and Riverside Drive. Officer Jeff Brown noticed that a man driving a violet 1998 Honda Accord wasn’t wearing his seatbelt around 8:30 AM in February of 2012. The officer flashed his emergency lights and issued Jon Culter, 31, a citation for the offense. Culter, signed the ticket “under duress”, and stated that he was not hurting anyone by choosing to not wear the seat-belt and that he had a god given “free-will” to choose his own actions and that the government has no right to get involved in matters where there are no victims.

Culter fought the ticket in traffic court and went on a lengthy tirade stating that,

“If there is no victim, there is no crime. Show me whose rights I have violated and I will gladly pay them.”

The courts ignored his conjecture, and he was issued a fine of 50$ plus court costs. However, Mr.Culter, never paid the fine. After months of delinquencies and ignored notices, his license was revoked for his failure to pay the original citation. Just a few weeks after the suspension, Mr.Culter was apprehended and arrested after being pulled over for a faulty brake light on September 20th, 2012 around 8pm. When the officer learned that his license had been suspended, he informed Mr.Culter that he was being arresting. Culter cried out stating,

— I’m just picking up my daughter from a sleepover at her friend’s house, I am not hurting anyone. I have a right to travel. The taxes on my gasoline purchases pay for these roads, I have a right to use these roads.”

Culter’s story was indeed true. He was picking up his daughter from a sleepover with her classmates. Apparently she had gotten ill and called her father to pick her up. Culter’s wife was also recently diagnosed with a pulmonary disorder limiting her ability to exert physical activity, leaving Mr.Culter to take on a lead role in his family affairs.

After being processed, Culter was given a trial hearing. Upon the trial date, When the Judge asked why Mr.Culter hadn’t paid his seatbelt citation or obeyed his suspended license status, he answered,

— Because, it’s against the law to operate as a mafia. You canât just go around demanding people to pay your protection money. Just because I didn’t wear my seatbelt, doesn’t mean I owe someone money! And sure, you may have revoked that piece of plastic you call my “privilege”, however, a piece of plastic isn’t going to stop me from going to work and taking care of my daughter, I have to work, pay bills, and feed my family…I am a free man on this land and I don’t need your piece of plastic, dismiss this cause your honor….”

Judge Marsha Blackburn did not share his sentiments. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail. Culter, was described as an insubordinate inmate. A prison guard, who wants to remain anonymous, stated that Culter frequently had hysterical bouts of manic depression and would constantly shout,

— Why are you kidnapping me! I just want to be with my family. You sick bastards! Let me go!”

These outbursts often resulted in Mr.Culter being put in solitary confinement and was later ordered to be administered psychoactive prescription drugs to help alleviate his episodes of emotional distress. Over time, Culter’s attitude began to change. He started to attend classes, interacted with other inmates, and ceased his outbursts. Metro Nashville Judge Marsha Blackburn personally visited him while in custody and remarked on his changed attitude.

“I had heard about the antics he was pulling during his initial few weeks in lockdown. He was always yelling, and refusing to eat his meals, and would kick the bars in his cell for hours. However, after being prescribed Zoloft, we really thought he had changed into a model inmate….”

However, Culter’s docile demeanor would soon change. In late March of 2013, Culter was visited by his daugher, Angela Culter, 12, in the Davidson county jail. She informed Culter that his wife, Susan, had taken a turn for the worst, and was admitted into the hospital the previous day. His daughter also informed him that the Department of Child services had sent a notice letter requesting a meeting with Susan about placing her in adoptive care.

After hearing this news, Culter stood up and grabbed his daughter and began to proceed towards the exit. The doors leaving the visitation area were blocked by two armed guards, Terry Shavers, and Joseph Cuzniak. Both guards ordered culter to stop immediately while having their guns drawn. Terry Shavers recalled,

— He kept saying, “Let us leave”. My family needs me. My wife is sick. Y’all canât keep me locked up like an animal. I will pay your stupid extortion fees. Just let me go. My wife is gonna die, and you guys are threatening to take my baby girl away. I’m not staying here no more, man, get the hell out of the way…..”

Culter let go of his daughters hand and and ran towards the two guards knocking one down. Culter was heading towards the exit doors,however, they were locked. He began kicking the doors trying to force them open. That’s when Joseph Cuzniak grabbed Culter in a bear-hug like wrestling move. Culter was able shake Cuzniak off, while officer shavers grabbed culters daughter in an attempt to lead her away from the conflict. Culter saw that Shavers was taking his daughter away and began to run towards shavers yelling, “Please give my daughter back, she isn’t your child!” , and that’s when Officer Cuzniak shot Culter with his .40 caliber Beretta, hitting him in the base of his skull.

Culter fell to the floor laying motionless. Shavers ran to culter and flipped his body over, asking him if he knew where he was. Culter uttered, “My wife needs me, Angela needs me.” Seconds later he began to convulse, and within minutes, he died on the scene approximately at 2:35 pm Saturday afternoon with his daughter looking on.

Officer Cuzniak could not be reached for comment, however officer Shavers commented by saying,

— I don’t know who the bad guy is anymore. We were just doing our job, but then again, maybe the system is set up this way. They give officers quotas, and we have to justify our jobs. Maybe the law has become too broad and bureaucratic. I just don’t know what I am going to do now, now that I have this on my conscious. The look on his daughter’s face will forever be burned in my mind, and that scream….”

Officer Shavers began to break down in tears and requested the interview to be stopped.

It has come to the attention to our network that Culter’s wife Susan, died of heart complications monday morning around midnight on 4/15/2013. It is unsure at this point on where Culter’s daughter Angela will be placed. Culter did have a sister, however, she could not be reached for contact.

Currently, Angela Culter is in State Custody awaiting further instructions until a full investigation can be done into her family history, to make sure any remaining family members are qualified, as deemed by the state of Tennessee, to be legally qualified to take her into custody.

News channel 12 RSPCT did catch up with Culter’s next door neighbor, Ron Balicki, 83, whom weighed in on the situation,

— I think the state should be sued. He never hurt nobody. All that man did was work at his construction job day and night. Trying to take care of that sick wife. It’s all because of that damn seatbelt ticket. Jon was always talking about the constitution, and the government, he was real big on freedom and talking about politics and stuff like that…..it’s a real shame what happened, he was a good man. He always changed my oil for me and my wife, because we are so old, we canât do it ourselves.”

As of now, there is a full investigation on the matter. Both of the guards who were present during the incident are on administrative leave until further notice. No lawsuits have been filed at this point, however, investigations are still too early to determine whether or not the guards were at fault. Jon Culter’s house was searched this morning, and police discovered books on Anarchism, and constitutional essays. President Obama gave us all a grim reminder in his speech earlier today regarding the news about Jon Culter,

— It’s never a good thing when human life is ended. I am sure Jon loved his family, and his story is a complex one. However, we cannot jump to conclusions until a full investigation has taken place. It has come to my attention that Mr.Culter was some type of anti-government advocate. This is a grim reminder to us all, that those who preach about freedom, the constitution, and abolishing the government may sound like romantic heroes, but can actually turn out to be a fearsome combatant just as dangerous as any Al-Qaeda member. We cannot take anti-government statements lightly. People who subscribe to these ideologies of “extreme” freedom, are really just advocates of chaos.”

- President Obama

4/15/203

In the age of information, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE.

Judge Dale says utilities, insurance, etc is already paid via our BC Trust:

You may receive a monthly statement from a Mortgage Company; Loan Company or Utility Company, which usually has already been paid by the TRUST. Almost all of these corporate businesses double dip and hope that you have been conditioned well enough by their Credit Scams, to pay them a second time. Instead of paying that Statement next time, sign it approved and mail it back to them. If they then contact you about payment, ask them to send you a TRUE BILL instead of a Statement and you will be glad to pay it? A Statement documents what was due and paid, whereas a TRUE BILL represents only what is due. Banks and Utility Companies have direct access into these Cesta Que Trusts and all they needed was your name; social security number and signature.

How do you prove this?

I can confirm this. :D

Forbes tries to F.U.D. BITCOIN!

Time to get the REAL Crypto-currency network going. You know it's good when F.U.D. tactics are used against it! :D

Victory!

All NX2000 readers: You know what to do. (Make note of the date this time PLEASE? It's essential for bragging rights, in a year)

Today, April the 16th 2013, Prime Minister Pauline Marois went out publicly asking Stephen Harper to pull out the 1982 Constitution Archieves and give a FULL DISCLOSURE of what REALLY happened, what’s had been hidden…..????....apparently there is some sneeky dirty things behind closed doors about this 1982 constitution rapatriment…..ANY HINTS you guys could add to this ???

I got another letter from the Dept. of Justice today, (We have quite the relationship going on, this is the 4th letter that I have received from them, one was even registered mail, telling me that my process of sending affidavits to social workers at their office was not proper procedure.) Any ways todays letter was about my Notice of Understanding and claim of right. It was short and sweet and to the point. "Be advised that the Attorney General of Nova Scotia does not accept your notice of understanding as set out in your letter of March 18, 2013. That's too bad because it has already been defaulted.

This is the court appearance the day before this one. I feel , he was on the right track here but either way we will see how it goes.

Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes posted this in a comment and I think it needs a bit more exposure.

Think about this the next time you THINK I', "arrogant" and "closed minded"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

THE BANKS ARE NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU THINK.

THE BANKS ALWAYS TRY TO CATCH YOU WITH THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS. IF YOU BREAK ONE OF THEIR RULES THEY ARE QUICK TO COME AFTER YOU AND POINT OUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO TRANSGRESS. THIS VIDEO BELOW WILL HELP YOU SEE THAT THE BANKS ALSO HAVE BROKEN THEIR OWN RULES , BUT THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW. THE RULES THEY BROKE WILL PRODUCE FREEDOM FOR YOU FROM YOUR DEBT ACCOUNTS. WATCH TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY DID WRONG ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN PLAY BOOKS.

They are operating with electronic accounts and creating money through the computer by hitting some keys on a keyboard. Watch the below video to see that banks create money out of thin air and then try to obligate you to THEIR CREATION.

Bank Act Bills of Exchange Act Financial Administration Act All the information shared here on this page and all other pages on this website are for your own personal growth and information. My work should not be copied and used in a commercial capacity without my express consent. All those who engage in such actions have been placed on public notice.

There are so many myths out there concerning the commercial system and the structure of the banks. The number of opinions out there are vast and the majority of them make no sense at all. For example there is a man teaching that you must forgive your debts then you will escape the liability. This understanding is taken from a bible passage and has no force of effect in the real commercial world. It is sad to see those who teach such falsehood.

When you went into the bank and opened up an account you agreed to many terms and conditions or at least the bank claims you did. Below are some of the terms and conditions that you agreed to. You will see that they are claiming that by agreeing with them you have bound you heirs to these terms and conditions.

I just want to point out that I said this 5 years ago. It's why crypto-currencies were invented :P

Ladies, Gentlemen, and other assorted clueless morons...

In my duty-bound (and quite frankly, ethical) obligation to put an end to this ugly trend of the Free-Dumb movement, to attempt to monetize knowledge, I present, my latest project.

No "believers". No politics No restrictions (for ME, of course. You on the other hand, will be muzzled unless I say otherwise, but you'll never be prevented from READING) No rules dictated by third parties No censored posts...because I control it, not a third party

But above all, NO FUCKING CHARGE! Not even a "manditory donation" like other places I could mention...

The shovel goes into the ground on this construction project.

TheTenderForLaw.com - Enough said.

Is it possible to do something (collect the lein'd property of the trust) about/for a party after the fact? can someone found guilty as in the case of Rich Paul <see> http://freekeene.com/ or perhaps someone allready incarcerated (my friends 64yr old aunt who's doing 16yrs for drunken manslaughter of a drunk)?

seems to me i remember a while ago, some 10yrs or more i remember reading about a guy in jail who read all the lawbooks and had this stuff figured out back in the 70's or 80's, ie; how to get the property held by the sherriff released...

Scott shared something earlier today that is my PRIME motivation in relation to everything about "the law". If an AGENT sticks even so much as a pinky toe outside of their station to violate me or mine, I will cut it off, bag it, tag it and submit it as evidence for the designated offence commited by said agent.

AGENTS sure do love to ignore NOTICES, but watch how they pay attention when you speak of DESIGNATED OFFENCES.

I have an experience to share! I am disputing with cra right now and they get a court order to go into my bank accounts. Only the account with rbc has been effected,,, my credit union bank ( which I denied the use of my sin ) is not effected,,,, yes cra has made several constituanal violations! Starting with 1950 Supreme Court order!

hey guys first time poster. english is not my first language so excuse any spelling and/or gramar errors.

i have a little problem.

I received a couple of months ago a letter from a bailiff claiming i owed road tax for 2011 and 2012. i send a letter back to show me how this law is applicable to me since i don't have a car since 2010.

they ignored my first letter. so i tought i just go to their office to settele this matter. when i arrived at their office (1 hour biking trip :( ) i saw their office was open from 9.30 until 10.00 am (...)

so i said fuck it i'll write them a email now.

i sent them the email and still they ignored me.

now today they broke into my place to write down what they are going to seize (not much as i don't owe much :D )

my question is what actions can i take now?

cheers

laurent

I WISH you could comment on this Scott Duncan, this man dosen't look stupid at all to me....but I really wish to have your toughts and others too....if its NOT to dangerous of cours...lol... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yWUB4MCLsHg#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OXCwlonYy60#!

More reasons to support my petition to our government for a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face day!

I would like to hear about what happened when you filed charges (Common, Civil or Criminal) on someone.

What steps did you use and how were you treated by the courts?

Did you gain a conviction or was it dismissed and if so then why?

Wifes snazzy laptop loan - last payment. Im gonna whip up a notice & demand for 'return of principal' or the like for the purpose of collecting on the original promissory note (title/reciept) stamped paid in full or the cash equivilent. Any additional thoughts or inclusions in or on such a notice!

Went before the board today to assist a friend. What a fucking gong show! The board ACCEPTS and ACTS on applications for CLAIMS backed by ZERO evidence, and as stated by the "adjudicator" at the begining of todays session "the board accepts hearsay as evidence." *sigh*

I can say, without a doubt, that this is THE MOST USEFUL Internet page in these times, if you live in the western world. The Internet, for ME, has now become a tool for research of topics/threads from this group.

PS: Stay away from all the "sovereign/freeman" crap (it's dangerous)! It will make your useless brain, and body, rot in a world of unproven imaginary theories.

Does anyone know who underwrites the bonds of the o.p.p. Crowns and Judges?

The HOW does one aquire a TAKEN NAME thread...

These are a compilation of comments made in TTFL group, mostly by Scott, but many supporting comments from Derek, Chad, Stuart, Gail, Beverly, Pierre, and some others. I did not organized the info, so you could do that at your convenience. Is everything that caught my attention for the VALUE that was presented in the posts and comments of the group.

I hope it comes handy, I know it certainly will for some. Thank you, Scott, and everyone!

Deposits as unsecured loans

If whoever puts the signature is the SURETY/LIABILITY, what about people who sign contracts, or negotiable instruments with "All Rights Reserved" "Without Recourse" "Without Prejudice"; does it change anything, really? Do people deflect SURETY by way of a particular signature?

I know Scott has mentioned to sign:" Authorized BY: _________________________ Non Assumpsit All Rights Reserved " What would be the difference? How does signing like that relates/affects the SURETY?

The general consensus of what you should read. I now know why you are all clueless.

Remember, if you don't assert YOUR rights, others will decide FOR you, what those rights are.

..you see the problem.

Hi folks, I have a question for whom ever can answer. A County Council was awarded nearly £8k by a Circuit Court Judge against a woman (she was not present in the Court and had no Legal Rep. their for her), I wrote to the Law Firm after the County Council was awarded the Cash and demanded that they provide factual evidence and gave 10 working days. Now, 3 months later have got back to us and have sent a Notice of Discontinuance for the claim, so I take it they abandoned their claim, right? But, they are now saying that they are going to start fresh legal proceedings, if the £8k is not paid in 7 days, what will we do??

I am considering renouncing my canadian citizenship with the goal of returning myself to honourable standing and hints on the wording of the letter?My plan wasto send it to the governer general and the corporation of canada should it be a viable option

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfactradio/2013/04/26/conscious-living-wally-dove-action-lawsuit-against-canada

Here we go...

PAY ATTENTION:

NEW RULE - IF YOU ASK A QUESTION BASED ON BULLSHIT YOU MAKE UP, AND NOT WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND BAN YOUR ASS SO YOU NEVER WASTE MY TIME WITH YOUR MADE-UP BULLSHIT AGAIN!

I WILL weed your kind out. If you waste my time with made-up bullshit concepts, then you mean me harm, and I ban you on that basis. I WILL weed your kind out, make an example of you and use your banned ass as a teaching tool.

Derek Moran spent the last "made up bullshit" freebie question. NOW THEY COST!

Non-Citizen National, is this what we're seeking?

At the risk of being banned....you have written not to initiate contact through notices but would one consider a letter from elections bc being some form of contact from them. Would one then send them instruction to remove the name from the voter registry? Also is there any significance as to whether or not there is a lien on the name?

"Instead, the government puts the asset itself on trial."

Think OUR legal system is fucked? Try Islamic law!

Further evidence that we need a NATIONAL KICK-A-COP-IN-THE-FACE DAY!

I'm telling you, it would me better than Christmas! Personally, I'd rather kick a cop in the face than receive a gift. You might feel different...

BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF PPSA REGISTRATION

I forget where I got the link from, but I re-discovered this while I was sorting documents. I think a few in this group will find it to be very informative.

SCALPEL!

...here's another rule that is NOT new, but you people CLEARLY need reminding of:

DO NOT "FRIEND" ME, AND THEN GET UPSET WHEN I COMMENT ON YOUR DRIVEL THAT SHOWS UP ON MY NEWSFEED!

I ONLY ALLOW A SELECT FEW PEOPLE IN THE "FRIENDS" LIST AND IT IS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1: YOU ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. 2: AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD SEX. 3: AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE YOU INTEND TO HAVE SEX WITH ME

THOSE ARE THE ONLY REASONS YOU EVEN END UP ON THAT LIST, AND WHY MOST "FRIEND" REQUESTS ARE IGNORED!

You will find this at the beginning of most, if not ALL Acts "it has no legislative sanction" Note All persons making use of this consolidation are reminded that it has no legislative sanction, that amendments have been embodied for convenience of reference only. The official Statutes and Regulations should be consulted for all purposes of interpreting and applying the law.

Do you understand the MOTION?

Mortgage broker quits and spills his beans...

What isSURETY?

A promise to fulfull a contract. Or a party who will take the liability for the original party in a bond.Law Dictionary: What is SURETY? definition of SURETY (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/surety-2/#ixzz2Rt0ZO300

What isSURETY?

A surety is one who at the request of another, and for the purpose or se- curing to him a benefit, becomes responsible for the performance by the latter of some act in favor of a third person, or hypothecates property as security therefor. Civ. Code Cal.Law Dictionary: What is SURETY? definition of SURETY (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/surety/#ixzz2Rt1HQAwc

What isHYPOTHECATE?

To pledge a thing without delivering the possession of it to thepledgee. “The master, when abroad, and in the absence of the owner, mayhypothecate the ship, freight, and cargo, to raise money requisite for thecompletion ofthe voyage.” 3 Kent, Comm. 171. See Spect v. Spect, 88 Cal. 437, 20 Pac. 203, 13 L. It.A. 137, 22 Am. St. Itep. 314; Ogden v. Lathrop, 31 N. Y. Super. Ct. 051.Law Dictionary: What is HYPOTHECATE? definition of HYPOTHECATE (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/hypothecate/#ixzz2Rt1mCnvz

I find this interesting, I'm assuming its a group of people who have taken it on their own to do this, but it sounds like double speak to me what they have on their home page...or is this an attempt to take some control of something that no one claims as their own? Freeing People to Transact on Their Own Terms.

Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide. https://bitcoinfoundation.wordpress.com/

The Tax Collector’s Bargain In a time not so long ago the tax collector would make his yearly round of the King’s villages, staying a while in each. During every visit he promised the villagers’ riches and happiness if they would but pay their taxes. And the people, well, the people hoped that he would make their lives better. But, sadly, he always made trouble. The villagers made money but then the tax collector would arrive and take more than his due. “There’s no outwitting him,” the people complained again during his latest visit. “He always takes more than we can afford to pay.” “I can outwit the tax collector,” a clever farmer replied one day, tired of hearing such talk. “No one can do the impossible,” some villagers cautioned him. But others laughed behind his back. “He’ll learn his lesson,” they said. Though many wished that someone would do just that and outwit the tax collector. The next year the tax collector arrived in the little village, as usual, and, on one very cold spring day, finally made his way to the boastful farmer’s door, demanding loudly, “This year I must have half of your fields production, after all the king needs to feed his soldiers.” “Fair enough,” the farmer answered confidently, “Half of my fields” production shall be yours. Everything that grows above the ground will be reserved for you while all that lies beneath will remain mine.” “Agreed,” said the tax collector quickly and with a smirk. “I will return come harvest time to collect the king’s levy,” and, after writing down their pact, the two shook on their bargain. Come harvest time the tax collector returned to the village and began to collect levies in the name of the crown. In good time his collection wagons were filled to overflowing but he kept on and, eventually, he ended up once again at the home of the clever farmer. Rapping loudly on the door he exclaimed, “Come, come my dear man it is time to complete our agreement. All that you have grown is taxed in the name of the king.” “Yes, yes good sir,” the clever farmer agreed as he opened his door and led the tax collector to the barn where he stored his crops. Pulling open the heavy barn doors the two marched inside and the tax collector began to salivate for the barn was fulled to overflowing with turnips. “Here you go,” the clever farmer said walking through to the back of his barn and pointing towards stacks and bales of turnip leaves. “What has been grown above ground is yours to the penny.” “Unfair,” screamed the tax collector. “We made a bargain,” the clever farmer said producing their written agreement. And the tax collector was forced to accept the withering turnip leaves as payment in full. “I won’t be fooled again,” the tax collector cried, “Next year I demand everything that grows beneath the ground of your fields.” And with that final threat he marched angrily away. “That will be fine by me,” the farmer said after the tax collector fell out of earshot, “For next year I plan to grow wheat.” “You see,” the clever farmer told the villagers, “You can outwit the tax collector if you are wise, if you are patient and if you think ahead.”

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151434923778477&set=a.10150228273628477.321507.609148476&type=1&theater

WHICH CROWN DOES THIS — ULTIMATE HEIR ACT — TRULY MAKING REFERENCE TOO ???? THIS TOP PART IS INFORMATION ON THE TWO CROWNS,hope link works ....

THE TEMPLARS OF THE CROWN

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the "CROWN," which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the QUEEN OF ENGLAND OR THE ROYAL FAMILIES OF BRITAIN owning the U.S.A., this is a different "Crown" and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established TEMPLAR CHURCH, KNOWN FOR CENTURIES BY THE WORLD AS THE "CROWN." From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.

First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple "Church" is outside any canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution.

All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) - in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.

http://nesara.insights2.org/CrownTemplars.html

ULTIMATE HEIR ACT

Chapter U-1

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

Definition

1 In this Act, “ultimate heir” means the person entitled to take by descent or distribution the property of whatsoever nature of an intestate in the event of failure of heirs or next of kin entitled to take that property by the law in force before July 1, 1929.

RSA 1980 cU-1 s1

The ultimate heir

2 The Crown in right of Alberta is the ultimate heir

a) of any person dying intestate in fact with regard to any property situated in Alberta, and

b) of any person domiciled in Alberta and dying intestate with regard to any movable property or chose in action wherever situated.

RSA 1980 cU-1 s2

“Heir”, etc. to include Crown

3 The words “heir”, “heirs”, or “next of kin” in any document transferring land situated in Alberta, or giving or evidencing title to land, are to be construed by all courts and judges in Alberta as including the Crown in right of Alberta, but only after all other heirs or next of kin.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-u-1/latest/rsa-2000-c-u-1.html

...and so it starts.

VERY GOOD BOOK..... THE BILL OF RIGHTS: a documentary history BY BERNARD SCHWARTZ

Reason lost in emotion...

Apply for a BIN number from the CRA or EIN number from the IRS. Should be a good discussion for later. Enjoy The last time I e-—-mailed Eldon about his method he did not know about a T5008 or how to use them? He told me to try my own methods and was not interested in discussing it. Most do not understand that you have to apply for a BIN number to make it work. That number ties the Living human as a labor for the strawman. The human has expenses to pass along to the strawman for just living. With out the BIN number you have no connection between the two identities and therefore the CRA can not see them as employee working for the employer. The government issues the T5 for benefits paid to you from your SIN trust Account because you asked for a dividend payment as a beneficiary. A T4 is for earned income only. You are issued a T5 for bank interest over $50.00 ,this is not a one way street. You are to issue a T5 to the bank for interest payments (dividends) for a loan but you have to use your BIN number to do this. Am I correct in my assumption that... SIN (employee) = Registered & controlled by the Crown in right of Canada BIN (employer)= Registered & controlled by man\woman in their own right??? YES Somebody is starting to see the picture. Congratulations MAGPIE369 SIN= lower caps name register as employee BIN= UPPER CAPS NAME Register as employer Everything is simpler than you think and yet more complex than you imagine. You asked for freedom, you now have the knowledge on how to receive freedom from the world of commerce. How you conduct your business using the BIN is by your own due diligence. If you cannot handle freedom then do not register and let the nanny in charge of the SIN number look after you. One has to be careful of what they ask for. You are now on your own! I do not understand what you mean “How do I verify the BIN”. The BIN is applied for the same as a SIN number. The SIN number is for the living man to receive benefits from the feds. You are to APPLY for a BIN number to survive in the world of commerce. You apply for one of these when you turn 18. You have to notify the CRA that you want to use your strawman name. If you do not they will only see the SIN being used and you are liable for its use as a beneficiary. The corporation (yours) is already set up now apply to use it and all of its benefits. This is a simple corporate merger. You can apply for the BIN via internet , phone or by mail. I suggest downloading a copy to read and understand the application. Phone if you 32 do not understand. The BIN number is the get out of corporate slavery jail free card! Do you want to be a corporate slave for all of your life? After you receive your BIN number, order T7DR vouchers with your BIN number on them, to pay your bills. You have to think like you are running a business. The SIN number belongs to the feds and is their property; you cannot order them what to do. Can a slave order its master what to do? Become the master of your own affairs. Peace and enjoy Have fun playing! Taken from MASTER TRUST CONVERSATION

Scott Duncan Once you have established a TRUST wouldn't it just make sense instead of creating a big stink about going to court to pay a fine. Couldn't you pay the fine and then collect it back by filling a T3 for that would be considered paying a tax would it not because you are paying for something you've pre funded like paying a bill?

Evolution of the no mans land jurisdiction...

So for those who can make it, Again round 3, MR Green is going into the Court, i feel this is one of his last times to do his verbal contracting correctly or affirm his status. So, 1pm North Vancouver Provincial Court house. I hope many of you can come as, they try to clear the room for this man, as they done last few times, it would be good if we can have many there to show a presence. Comment if you are able to come, men and ladies. Come witness contract law live and direct :P

Can we call him "Black Hitler" yet?

Seriously. LOYALTY DAY?

So... someone else besides us sees something wrong.

How much debt is there on Earth?

PRIVATE....this word REALLY attrack me, I think we should DISCUSS this word and see what we CAN or CAN'T do with it private law n. The branch of law that deals with the legal rights and relationships of private individuals

Body of law governing private persons, their properties, and relations (with other private persons) which do not directly concern the state. That which affects, characterizes, or belongs to an individual person, as opposed to the general public private (Not public), adjective closed, confined, individual, individualized, limited, nonofficial, not open, personalized, privatus, reserved, select, unofficial Associated concepts: private action, private agreement, priiate bill, private carrier, private corporation, private deteccive, private dwelling, private employment, private enterrrise, private grant, private institution, private investigator, private nuissance, private property, private purposes, priiate sale, private statute, private trust, private use Foreign phrases: Privatum incommodum publico bono pensatur.Private inconvenience is compensated for by public benefit. Pactis privatorum juri publico non derooatur. Private contracts do not derogate from public law. Jura publica anteferenda privatis. Public rights are to be preferred to private rights.

Hi Guy"s miss you all <3

A few words on language

As I peruse the hallowed forums of people struggling to comprehend what they view as complex concepts and truths I read your comments and questions...and it hurts. I frequently can't even get past the misuse of words and grammar to evaluate the message you are attempting to convey.

There is right and wrong, up and down, on and off. How can you hope to master the complex when you are working with the comprehension and writing skills of gerbils? Why do so few know the difference between "there", and "their", and "they're"? These are completely different words and concepts. There are applications which offer grammatical advice, and most applications automatically check your spelling. When the helpful suggestions appear on your screen do you automatically think to yourself, "Screw this, my writing is too unique and special to be subjected to grammatical scrutiny? Don't bother to blame anything on "typing too fast". It takes the same amount of time to type something incorrectly as it does to get it right. Unless you're willing to blame the post on the interference of children or unruly pets, you pressed the "send" button.

Assuming you're not all disciples of ee cummings, what is your philosophical objection to starting a sentence with a capital letter, or ending it with punctuation? Why do you use an apostrophe only when it is absolutely the wrong place to put it? "Its" is possessive, "it's" takes two words and contracts them. People should be described in numbers and not amounts (unless you're making some seriously fucked-up soufflé). If you understand how something can be ruled out, explain to me how you can "rule it in"? Context is important. "I read your email" is not necessarily the same as "I read your email yesterday". How can you hope to understand complex concepts when you are building on a foundation devoid of the basic building blocks of language?

If you think the snotty bitch is ridiculing your typographical errors you may be thinking, "What makes her think she's better than me"? I'll save you the trouble by finishing your sentence which could also read, "What makes her think she's better than me am"?

I don't take offence when people correct my grammar - I sometimes make mistakes and I prefer to be as accurate as possible in my communication. This doesn't mean I don't occasionally feel stupid as a result; I just try not to take it too personally. You may not feel this way. You may think having attention drawn to your errors is rude or mean-spirited. Your position is invariably, "Don't be an ass...you know what I mean." Actually I don't.

In order to communicate with you in writing I must first read the sentence, mentally correct the spelling mistakes, attempt to determine if the simple and complex words you are using actually mean what you think they mean. Along the way there may be a requirement to attempt to determine the overlay of gender-bias, humour or lack thereof, or cultural nuance. On occasion I must ask for clarification regarding the question or point you pose; and from time-to-time mentally deal with my annoyance at your response of, "Your an idiot". To add insult to injury, you are the very people who deem my writing inaccessible.

You make me laugh when you ponder learning another language, when you demonstrably can't correctly use the one you have. While we in Canada embrace multiculturalism and find people with bad communication skills charming, or deserving of our pity, the misuse of words in other languages, in other parts of the world, could actually get you killed.

In a not-too-clever segway, I remind you that wars have been fought over the misuse, or misunderstanding, of words. If you think precision in communication is unimportant, I strongly suggest you avoid careers in the field of science, law, engineering, anything involving electricity.

"If I don't like it go somewhere else?" Well, let's see. These are our forums...and where else is there to go if you are the best the Internet has to offer?

Feel free to comment on this if you feel you are being unfairly evaluated. If you respond carefully you might just learn something. If you choose to comment be advised your responses will be graded for content and correctness. There will be bonus points for anyone who can find errors in this post.

The abuse will continue until the cheese is returned.

The 17th round of negotiations for the TPP, a secretive and extreme trade agreement that would criminalize your daily activities on the Internet, are fast approaching. More info: http://bit.ly/112TiNG

...more support for a "National Kick-a-Justice-in-the-face Day"!

We are here BECAUSE of these things. We are doing it with intent, for our own agenda. We KNOW why we are here.

Why are you?

BIG WELCOME TO Julia Domna Domna, our 200th member.

Sorry there is no prize. I blew the prize budget on weed and hookers. :(

This guy is taking the bait “hook, line and sinker...

After one has incorporated, what kind of trust holds the PERSON? Is this the same trust that would hold all property? Or, once the PERSON is in trust, does all the property registered to the PERSON fall into the same trust automatically?

Here's some court-room humour to share :-)

HOW DO COURT RECORDERS KEEP STRAIGHT FACES???? These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place. ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning? WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?' ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you? WITNESS: My name is Susan! _______________________________ ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active? WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth? WITNESS: July 18th. ATTORNEY: What year? WITNESS: Every year. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you? WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you? WITNESS: Forty-five years. _________________________________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget.. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ____________________________________ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he? WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you shitting me? _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Getting laid ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: She had three children , right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death.. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Take a guess. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight. _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral... _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question? ______________________________________ and last.... ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No.. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

THE TENDER FOR LAW - GET A FUCKING CLUE, PLEASE! I can only put up with your deliberate ignorance for so long. To avoid various retards telling me they weren't told, I'll tell you now:

LEGAL TENDER = A FUCKING TENDER FOR LAW! GET IT?

LEGAL = "MONEY LAW" (Accounting) It's all accounting. If you pose a STATEMENT or a QUESTION that contradicts this, you will be banned. No appeal. No discussion. I'm tired of wasting time with your stupidity. Either you ACTUALLY READ what I write, or you shut up...

...or this group becomes VERY empty/quiet.

WHAT IS LAW

This is why I NEVER release 0-day exploits to the software vendor/institution. USE AN ALIAS NOBODY YOU KNOW IS AWARE OF, AND RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/canadian-student-expelled-for-playing-security-white-hat/

Childrens Aid Society Meetings nothing more than propaganda to misinform the pubic. A Justice Advocate Sets the record straight.

http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/files/all/2013May06%20-%20Childrens%20Aid%20Society%20meetings,%20nothing%20more%20than%20propaganda%20to%20misinform%20the%20public..pdf

best one yet all the facts,scientists/biologists etc and tests done right on film as well as whitch products contain it and the destruction it does to health as well as the history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3KgTeZ-h4 SPREAD IT LETS GET IT TOO 50K VIEWS BY NEXT WEEK!

Scott on setting-up a CORPORATION/TRUST-thread.....

Scott Duncan It's REALLY not as as hard as you make out.

1: Establish a trust 2: Establish a corporation - In the Charter, assign the role of the corporation to HOLD the trust, and establish the "Law" guidelines (You get to make your own up) as regards keeping the trust. 3: Get ANY accountant to manage the books of the corporation. You direct the corporation as FIRST DIRECTOR, and establish roles (President/CEO Vice President, etc) which is how the UNITED STATES was formed.

Side Note: EVER NOTICE that when the US "Liberates" a country, they NEVER install their form of government? It's always a PARLIAMENT they install. Figure out why that is, and things will be clearer. USE THE U.S. AS A MODEL FOR YOUR CORPORATION.

The accountant EXECUTES YOUR TASKS within the framework. To establish a trust, write it down, and have it witnessed and notarized. The end. Only shareholders of your corporation are recognized by the trust.

These are just pretend names. Officially Mine is AQUILAE trust.

Stop letting OTHERS define YOUR trust/claim. Call it Le Trust Du Pierre, for all I care. IT'S YOURS and your CORPORATION'S.

Using GOVERNMENT terms is an INVITATION FOR STANDING.

Well, if you really NEED me to draw up a Trust declaration I could be hired to do it.

I don't accept MONEY as payment for my skill. It's illegal, and unlawful (I receive benefit while ignoring the legal framework it offers), but I do have many other payment options!

You can pay money to Roguesupport Inc (in trust). You can pay me directly!

I accept: 1: Severed body parts from Cops/lawyers/judges. 2: The bound and gagged (But Not raped! I don't do sloppy seconds) wife/daughter/mother, of a SENIOR Judge/Lawyer/Cop delivered to a venue of my choosing (PREMIUM service for this payment) 3: Various technologies (Changes constantly. CONFIRM hardware before attempting to retain me) 4: The corpse of any Judge/Lawyer/Cop who has harmed me previously

I also require payment up front.

Or you may present your draft 22 years hence

So you "Marriage Equality" whiners need to shut your fucking pie-holes, lest I point out your hypocrisy! :D

Scott on how to deal with a BILL-COLLECTOR, and how to SIGN/or NOT sign the RESPONSE with NOTICE-thread.....

Scott Duncan: 1: Demand PROOF that you owe. A BILL or a SIGNED INVOICE will do. They never produce one

2: SET THE TERMS THROUGH NOTICE (Do not sign it! A notice of NO PARKING or KEEP OFF THE GRASS is not signed; neither should yours be)

Return ALL paper to them REGISTERED MAIL, along with NOTICE.

Make notices STANDALONE. They don't include other things with "No parking" and "keep off the grass", so you shouldn't either.

Send a bill back with the next thing they send you (and you return)

Eamonn O Brien: Scott Duncan why shouldn't we sign a reply to their notices?

Scott Duncan: Signing attaches a NAME to the RESPONSE. Surety is assumed.

No Name No signature No Surety

You want to send a "keep off the grass" notice, not write a love letter and/or become pen pals.

Eamonn O Brien: I signed my name after stating my capacity in relation tot he name...

Signed_____________________(Authorised rep./Administratot/beneficiary)

Anything but surety/trustee

That any good?

Scott Duncan: NO BRACKETS! You exclude the contained from the document.

BY:________________NON ASSUMPSIT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

To the reading parties working for/reporting to the Government fraud gangs:

You are breaking promises made to me decades ago. You really want to find out NOW:

A: What those promises were and correct your current breach of said contracts (I don't fucking CARE if the persons in question are dead; So are the douches who signed my birth certificate.

Or

B: I SHOW EVERYONE HOW TO DO THIS...

You have 10 days.

So i appeared today in court and when the judge asked me if i was DEAN KORY i answered that i was the bennificiary to the trust being called by the court....he issued a warrant for the arrest of DEAN KORY for fail to appear! I recorded our exchange and ill post it asap!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQps0FWP86g

the MONEY is actually GOLD threads all consolidated into one featuring lots of gold from one SCOTT DUNCAN.....

Money is GOLD.. thats why Chief Justice Bora Laskin mentioned it 27 times in this case: Supreme Court of Canada, Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1148

[Page 1169]

It is not so with notes of the Bank of Canada; assuming that gold IS money, notes of the Bank of Canada cannot and could never have been paid in gold and, since such notes are and were the only legal tender, they could not be discharged by the payment of anything which is different from themselves. If the holder of a $5 note of the Bank of Canada were to present it to the Bank for payment he could be dismissed or he could be told: “You already have $5”.

https://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=gold&language=en&searchTitle=Canada+%28Federal%29+-+Supreme+Court+of+Canada&path=%2Fen%2Fca%2Fscc%2Fdoc%2F1977%2F1977canlii36%2F1977canlii36.html

Scott Duncan: THIS is GOLD, and I am beginning to suspect Derek Moran spends a little more time than is healthy, on CanLII.

Money IS Gold.. so how come nobody knows about that? Because Gold was effectively made illegal by the U.S. and Canada in 1933.. the U.S. proof is HJR 192, and Canada's is Order-in-Council No.16 April 10, 1933, and here are copies of that from:

http://www.stoptherobbery.com/Order%20in%20council%2016%20-%20page%201.jpg, and, http://www.stoptherobbery.com/Order%20in%20council%2016%20-%20page%202.jpg

So if money is GOLD.. and GOLD/money has effectively been made illegal since April 10, 1933 with Order-in-Council No.16.....what is considered in lieu of, to be 'money' now in its place? see FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-1.html#h-2

Scott Duncan: "What is considered in lieu of, to be 'money' now in its place"? - THAT was the question.

Now the ACTUAL answer. You can read the Bills Of Exchange act...then the interpretation act (assuming you know what the words MEAN, and most of you don't) because there's a few things they need to shuffle around, so nobody clues in...

...or you can cheat, and just read what I say: On April 10, 1933, PAYMENT became illegal, NOT MONEY.

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

“money” includes negotiable instruments;

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

so if the Financial Administration Act says that “money” includes(means and means only) negotiable instruments; then whats considered a 'negotiable instrument' in the Financial Administration Act?

“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

Derek Moran: its like the film INCEPTION, there's always another level.. money = negotiable instruments.. negotiable instruments = any cheque, draft, traveller’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument.. HENCE, money = any cheque, draft, traveller’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument.......this is a PUZZLE, and our public-servants like to keep the pieces spread out from us

Scott Duncan: The moral of the movie Inception:

If you run a virtual machine, inside a virtual machine, inside a virtual machine, inside a virtual machine, ...it runs very, very slowly.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT: “money” includes negotiable instruments;

But what does "includes" - the trickiest word in the 'illegal-system,' really mean?

Martin's Criminal Code: section 379. "Trading stamps," Annotations - The definition of "trading stamps" in this section is EXHAUSTIVE notwithstanding the use of the word "includes": R. v. Loblaw Groceterias Co. (Man.) Ltd. ; R. v. Thomson (Niagara IGA Grocery), [1961] S.C.R. 138, 129 C.C.C. 223 (5:0).

This simply means.. "money" includes negotiable instruments = "money" means negotiable instruments = "money" is negotiable instruments = "money" means and only is, negotiable instruments.......... the fact that they didnt just use 'means' in place of 'includes' to begin with, is just clear evidence of their intent to try and mislead-and-deceive us through the use of this obfuscating-language meant only to keep us confused

Andrew Langevin: The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/include include legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Definition of include in the Legal Dictionary by TheFreeDictionary.com

Scott Duncan: All promissory notes buy...is other promissory notes. The title, and associated LEGAL status are part of the CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF THAT PROMISE.

No "payment" is ever made. You simply make enough promises to cancel any debt.

Derek Moran: Now-now Scott, you've misrepresented my words, you need to go back and see that what i said was- "..GOLD/money has effectively been made illegal since April 10, 1933 with Order-in-Council No.16.." - and if i had to write that over again i suppose to be clearer i would've put- "GOLD-as-money"....this is all technical anyways so this hair-splitting is just good practice

Scott Duncan: I concede the point. As you were the author of the post, your intent trumps any ambiguity.

PAYMENT, is what is actually illegal, so as soon as it's legal again, I will gladly pay you for any damages my misquote may have caused.

Hmm - well look at that..one of the examples given for the definition of a "negotiable instrument," is a bill of exchange - well how many different examples of a bill of exchange are there? Wait a second, in this part of the Bills of Exchange Act 1985 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-36.html#h-27, it says one of the examples of a bill of exchange - are PROMISSORY NOTES...but when you look at a dollar-bill/legal-tender, it says on it - 'This Note is Legal Tender'..then, you look at the definition of a Note in the Bills of Exchange Act it says- “note” means promissory note; hmmmmmm.......so i guess that just means then, that if a legal-tender-note, is considered to be a promissory note, and a promissory note is considered to be a bill of exchange, and bill of exchange is considered to be a negotiable instrument, and a negotiable instrument is considered as whats left to be known as money in lieu of Gold being made illegal for payment back in 1933, then...i guess that just means...a legal-tender-promissory-note just constitutes part of what is considered to be 'lawful-money' these days, also.....................................................or IS IT?? ;)

Scott Duncan: LEGAL TENDER = TENDER FOR LAW

Free bonus, It's also a promissory note!

Why has nobody asked WHICH law?

Scott Duncan: Seriously people, you're awake, and it's time to get out of bed.

I can't be the oracle giving google-like snippets when a question is asked. You need to ask the right questions. I can't just "tell you".

Scott Duncan: Derek Moran: You see a bit clearer then the rest here, but you are focused on the WRONG THING.

Derek Moran: ..yes, there is another shoe yet-to-drop regarding THIS type of promissory-note

Joseph Pierre Gilles: got a question here Scott ...what LAw are we talking about ????

Scott Duncan: Whatever law governs the trustee, of course!

Derek Moran: this is why the Bills of Exchange Act 1985 is probably the best Act they have: Common law of England - 9. The rules of the common law of England, including the law merchant, save in so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, apply to bills, notes and cheques.

Scott Duncan: If you want to buy shit with AQUILAE currency, you can; but the tender for law will be governed by AQUILAE.

Scott Duncan: Governed...like the GOVERNER of the Bank of Canada?

Scott Duncan: Yes Scott. That is why the Bank of Canada has a GOVERNOR.

So a legal-tender-promissory-note just constitutes part of what is considered to be 'lawful-money' these days also? I had resigned myself to accept this to be fact for awhile there, until, i stumbled-upon going through Detax-Canada's website again: http://www.detaxcanada.org/ - where he also includes a link to the CanLII Bank of Canada Act: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-b-2/latest/rsc-1985-c-b-2.html - regarding section 25.6: NOTE ISSUE - Distinction

(6) Notes of the Bank are neither promissory notes nor bills of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Scott Duncan: A bank cannot promise what it does not have. The thing about banking is that BOTH parties come to the table with NOTHING, so they therefore can offer NOTHING.

Bank notes are SURETY for "money". Yes, they promise, to deliver...a promise.

Scott is this you? lmao

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

To further my position that we need a national Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day:

Also, keeping with today's topic... I've recently heard of statistics that "say" only 2% of the population are even CAPABLE of CRITICAL THINKING... So this must be the variance of how they choose police officers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GEcKY6uLso&feature=share...and there is still yet another part yet to come...stay tuned!

Copyrights??? I have heard and seen this mentioned before, but I could not find a thread on the topic. Should one copyright the name, for instance, CHRISTOPHER SCHULTE, to claim it? Or does that bind the human to the fiction? And if so, should the name be put into trust?

So, I made a 'special appearance' at a court in Newmarket yesterday. Trial for suspended driving and running red light. (I didn't see the blushing red light in the room so I would have gotten off by 'pleading' not guilty anyway.) I slapped down the two packets of 'disclosure' in front of the persecutor. I said I looked at all this and don't wish to contract with you. I also gave a copy of Scott Duncan's (thank you for posting it here!!!) Notice of Mistake. And my unique Birth Cetificate...more about that another time.

The calling of the name of course happened after all other entities had been dealt with. Funny enough...the two ladies called my given name. To which I replied hesitantly...yes....? Then they repeated with the surname to which I quickly replied no....but I'm here for that matter. Then I was invited to 'come aboard'...(matey). I declined respectfully....and was invited again. The Goddess...the judge must have been a goddess since all were calling her 'your worship'...said I was disrespecting her and the court. I had of course already informed her that I was claiming commonlaw jurisdiction, all rights reserved, waive all benefits and privileges....so it was my court, yes? In any case she then asked if I was a 'freeman on the land'. Sheesh! What's that I asked?...yuk, yuk. Then she insisted again to entice me onto her ship...Oh...let me add...what is the union jack...the British flag doing in the corner?!...Is this an embassy or ship in dry dock...I wanted to ask but we couldn't get past the railing issue. She warned me she would have me removed.....she did...had me escorted from the room...she said my 'papers' are on the last row of seats by the door...lol. I removed my bc and Notice of Mistake...and left their 'defendant' solicitations...and walked out.

But...I had a spy who remained. He heard them talk in secret like cowardly conspirator in dishonour. They sent one of the armed thugs to retrieve the 'papers'. She asked him if there was anything 'interesting' among them. No....yuk, yuk...their own stuff is of course not interesting. Then they decided to arrange for 'ex parte' hearing for next year in or for my name. Are they obligated to tell me this?

just returned from the accountants. I gain livelihood as a trades man, would like to protect assets in one corp. and operated through another, It was recommended to form a holding company, in which a trust also could be held. I have not heard this come up on TFL and curious about thoughts on the advise. part 2. is a lien held in accounts receivable? what would be a proper t-account name? obviously im an amatuer, but a curious one.

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

Stop learning and start thinking

Something i came across while researching some warrants....

BOE Act

Crossing dividend warrants

7. The provisions of this Act relating to crossed cheques apply to a warrant for payment of dividend.

CCoC

“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;

Warrant by definition is a seizure.

It would lead me to believe that a warrant is to seize the bond...Just satisfy the obligation?

ideo on the Fictitious Name, and claiming it.. best described in the audio I did with Juan today.. found on Talkshoe.. Call ID: 122402 May 9th call

Video shows similarities between the Original Registration of your ownership” compared to what the completed instrument for claiming the name will look like as far as witnesses, and seals..

Also where it says in the Act for Fictitious Names.. that .. if you are doing business with an assumed name (ALL CAPS)” and have not registered it” you are guilty of a misdemeanor….. right now.. today” as you sit reading this’ you are a criminal” because you have not registered your ownership in your “corporation”

This is why “unknown owners” is used” The Estate exist.. you at one time were the registered owner.. but did not renew the registration.. and the Estate is considered abandoned”

Further.. you cannot bring a suit of any kind in the state court unless you have registered your ownership” and you can listen to me read it .. right out of their law”.

So claim the NAME” before they do”

Its truly profound.. if you just think about it for a minute” by doing this.. you have separated the man from the NAME.. and the STATE is going to Certify it.. you now have a registered corporation.. doing business as ALL CAPS”

And in Commerce.. there is only one type of contract.. BILATERAL.. officers of both corporations sign the contract” We did our part.. signed the contract and put up collateral” but the other party has refused to sign the contract” now its just contract law” UCC” Court of Equity (in the Manner of DELEWARE).. lets call it Corporate Equity” no matter”

What matters.. is THEY now have a BIG.. BIG .. PROBLEM…..

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL/DRIVERS LICENCE- thread.....

Scott Duncan: the decision of Justice Egbert of the Supreme Court of Alberta,1959 {28 WWR, 36 R v Minister of Highways} who eloquently and succinctly puts to rest any outstanding ambiguities, with a defensible and principled balance between our long-standing, historical, and “Sovereign protected” Right to travel the Kings/Queen’s highways in peace, versus the “duty” of Crown to reasonably regulate highways for issues of demonstrable safety, in protecting the RIGHTS of other travellers.

"At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver’s licence—and consequently to drive upon the highways of Alberta—is a privilege and not a right.

Since time immemorial the Queen’s subjects have been free to move along the Queen’s highway provided only they kept the Queen’s peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive — and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a “right” to a “privilege.” Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen’s peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty’s subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen’s highway remains intact and unimpaired."

The phrase "since time immemorial" is particularly noteworthy, since it is through the common law Right established during the reign of King Alfred the Great (if not before) that all of us "have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only [they] kept the Queen's peace."

Malek: show me the transcript please, i cant find it online...........

Scott Duncan: No. It's mine. I own it, and it's my PERSONAL library.

I can point you in the right direction, but I'm not your law library. I had to research this 20 years before Google.

I can show you what to read. That's it. Anything ELSE is ACTING AS A SOLICITOR. I'm sorry I am not leaping up to accommodate your sloth-like interest in the subject matter, but I actually had to WORK for my knowledge, and so will you.

And you got the ANSWER. TRANSCRIPTS COST MONEY. Sorry I'm not willing to spend MY equity on your hurt feelings.

You have more information than you came with. THAT should be good enough! If you READ you will see I GAVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, YOU STUPID UNGRATEFUL FUCK!

Highway v. highway - Consumers Gas Co. v. Toronto [1941] - Unless its meaning is affected by context or association or definition, "highway" means, in its common uses, a public road or way open EQUALLY to EVERYONE for TRAVEL.

Prov. Sec. of PEI v. Egan [1941] - The regulation and control of traffic on a highway, as well as the regulation and control of motor vehicles operating in the province, come under the heading of the BNA 1867[now Constitution Act 1867] of Property and Civil Rights, in respect of which the province has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction. The fact that a violation of the Act is punishable by fine or imprisonment does not not make it criminal law and thus, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROVINCE.

Derek Moran: why is the definition for "traffic" from the Ontario Highway Traffic Act hidden in The Railway Act?.. and why is The Railway Act hidden in the archived Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1950?...........hmmmmmmmm

http://archive.org/stream/v04revisedstat1950ontauoft#page/214/mode/2up

Scott Duncan: Car(riage) is a commercial vehicle, not a vessel.

Roguesupport Nx: Car is short for "carriage"?

Scott Duncan: I'm afraid so!

Scott Duncan: Is your body a vehicle or vessel (for your "soul")

What part of NAVAL VESSEL did you miss? Boat - Water - Carries SOULS in the manifest, and has a crew.

Car - Carriage - Land -COMMERCE.

Justin Moule: Vehicle vessel i was talking about the automobile

Justin Moule: http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/forms/btr/85054.pdf

Scott Duncan: It seems you register your BOAT there too! GOOD SCAM!

Justin Moule: and the highways are shipping lanes

Scott Duncan: yup!

Justin Moule: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/station STATION, civil law. A place where ships may ride in safety. Dig. 49, 12, 1, 13; id. 50, 15, 59. station legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Definition of station in the Legal Dictionary by TheFreeDictionary.com

Rainhard Pitschke: So, I made a 'special appearance' at a court in Newmarket yesterday. Trial for suspended driving and running red light. (I didn't see the blushing red light in the room so I would have gotten off by 'pleading' not guilty anyway.) I slapped down the two packets of 'disclosure' in front of the persecutor. I said I looked at all this and don't wish to contract with you. I also gave a copy of Scott Duncan's (thank you for posting it here!!!) Notice of Mistake. And my unique Birth Cetificate...more about that another time.

The calling of the name of course happened after all other entities had been dealt with. Funny enough...the two ladies called my given name. To which I replied hesitantly...yes....? Then they repeated with the surname to which I quickly replied no....but I'm here for that matter. Then I was invited to 'come aboard'...(matey). I declined respectfully....and was invited again. The Goddess...the judge must have been a goddess since all were calling her 'your worship'...said I was disrespecting her and the court. I had of course already informed her that I was claiming commonlaw jurisdiction, all rights reserved, waive all benefits and privileges....so it was my court, yes? In any case she then asked if I was a 'freeman on the land'. Sheesh! What's that I asked?...yuk, yuk. Then she insisted again to entice me onto her ship...Oh...let me add...what is the union jack...the British flag doing in the corner?!...Is this an embassy or ship in dry dock...I wanted to ask but we couldn't get past the railing issue. She warned me she would have me removed.....she did...had me escorted from the room...she said my 'papers' are on the last row of seats by the door...lol. I removed my bc and Notice of Mistake...and left their 'defendant' solicitations...and walked out.

But...I had a spy who remained. He heard them talk in secret like cowardly conspirator in dishonour. They sent one of the armed thugs to retrieve the 'papers'. She asked him if there was anything 'interesting' among them. No....yuk, yuk...their own stuff is of course not interesting. Then they decided to arrange for 'ex parte' hearing for next year in or for my name. Are they obligated to tell me this?

I received a ticket for not having a sticker up to date on my plate, I sent the ticket in marked not guilty, with a note asking them to prove I worked for them , show pay stubs. registered letter, I only received the notice to appear in court. I found that the name on the ticket was not mine, so I sent it back., with a second letter asking again for records to show I work for them, but they sent back the ticket with the proper capitalized name, so I sent them a third letter asking them to reply to my request for pay stubs, they gave me a date in aug to go to court, (which is in a city 3 hours away) I replied all letters, "without prejudice" but am wondering, sending them three letters, do I have a right to my answer from them? should I have stated after my name, "grantor" ? if you have any answers to what might be the next step it would be greatly appreciated. thanks Bruce

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY...

SPOILER ALERT !!!!!!!...is this can be considered a NOTICE ??? :/

I think I just found a happy ending for collecting on default judgments/ ex parte orders...on sell it to a bank or other financial institution for a percentage of face value & let them collect as the holder in due course of the note...

First send a bill,

Then a statement,

Then a notice,

Then a fault/default,

Then get an ex parte order,

Then sell the order to a financial institution & use the cash to buy bitcoins...

Useful for all credit agreements/mortgages etc that have been paid back & the note has not been returned...thoughts?

FUCK! They just never stop.

Scott Duncan's "NOTICE OF MISTAKE" does it again! First, a criminal case in the State of Florida; Nolle Prosecui, trial canceled, case closed. Now, a civil case in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; order to close case. Scott it's right, it's ALL about SURETY and ACCOUNTING!

Don't waste your time with people that talk like they have stuff in their mouth, and come to Admiral's Scott Cluster Bomb Squad!

Lawyers Oath in Ontario!

I accept the honour and privilege, duty and responsibility of practising law as a barrister and solicitor in the Province of Ontario. I shall protect and defend the rights and interests of such persons as may employ me. I shall conduct all cases faithfully and to the best of my ability. I shall neglect no one’s interest and shall faithfully serve and diligently represent the best interests of my client. I shall not refuse causes of complaint reasonably founded, nor shall I promote suits upon frivolous pretences. I shall not pervert the law to favour or prejudice any one, but in all things I shall conduct myself honestly and with integrity and civility. I shall seek to ensure access to justice and access to legal services. I shall seek to improve the administration of justice. I shall champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons. I shall strictly observe and uphold the ethical standards that govern my profession. All this I do swear or affirm to observe and perform to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Notice to whom it may concern. [U]nless YOU wish to contract with ME AND/OR inforce one (1, I, IIIIVXXXLCCCCDM) pre existing contract, well, YOU are cordially invited to ..|., &tm; &copy; (go fuck YOUrself) otherwise take a number and wait like the rest of them, OR begin handing me some of those (ooh shiny) Fifty $ .9999 Fine Gold coins for consideration (which means I will Think about it). AT witch point YOU are Still Invited, to ..|.,

ThankYou, Sincerely, with clean hands. [no shit, must be the king!]

TERRORISM 2011

COUNTERING RADICALIZATION AND VIOLENT EXTREMISM:

The RCMP's National Security Community Outreach program promoted interaction and relationship-building with communities at risk of radicalization.

The Department of Public Safety's (DPS) Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security fostered dialogue on national security issues between the government and community leaders.

In its 2011-2012 priorities, the DPS articulated its intention to work with other government departments to develop policy responses to strengthen Canada's domestic capacity to counter violent extremism.

The government al so worked with non-governmental partners and concerned communities to deter violent extremism through preventative programming and community outreach.

Notice of Confidentiality:

VIDEO: THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTY CLARK'S POSITION ON PIPELINES, TANKERS Written by Kevin Logan Friday, 10 May 2013 17:37

From Common Sense Canadian contributor Kevin Logan comes this multimedia examination of where Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberal Party really stand on proposed oil pipelines and tankers in BC.

Christy Clark and the BC Liberals have made a lot of bold claims about their position on pipelines proposed for British Columbia.

HOWEVER, WHAT THEY HAVE NEGLECTED TO TELL BRITISH COLUMBIANS IS THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED INTO BINDING AGREEMENTS THAT ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF PIPELINES FROM ALBERTA TO THE BC COAST.

Everyone knows there has been a lot of politics surrounding pipeline developments in British Columbia, but very few are aware of the longstanding agreements, established by the BC Liberals, that ensure the success of the proposed pipelines and have thoroughly tied the hands of all BC Stakeholders leaving them with no capacity to actually impact the processes that will ensure the success of these developments.

FOR ALL MY NEIGHBORS:

I, SCOTT DUNCAN, DO IN FACT, PIRATE PORN. LOTS of it. You wouldn't believe the volumes of porn I pirate! I'm pirating porn right now! REALLY FUCKED UP porn too! MAX HARDCORE PUKESEX porn!

I'm doing it now. I'm GLAD I'm doing it I'm PROUD to be doing it, and if my neighbors are concerned, I will gladly put my pirated porn on a thumb drive for them to watch/pirate/enjoy later.

That is all. Carry on.

I totally loved this book as a kid!

We would like to share the following with everyone:

“SOVEREIGNTY” 21 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE DECLARATION

The Murrawarri Republic may be the world’s newest country, but for locals it’s been around for tens of thousands of years.

The Republic’s boundaries cross over northern New South Wales and Queensland — covering about 81,000 square kilometres.

Key leaders including Fred Hooper say the push for independence follows many frustrating years of inaction and broken promises.

CLAN GROUPS SAY THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND, THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE PREMIERS OF QUEENSLAND AND NEW SOUTH WALES HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE AND GIVEN 21 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE DECLARATION.

The Police OI solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.

So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) fficers of Ontario Oath:

The Police Officer's Oath:

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.

So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)

Any of you seen one if THESE before? I have NO birth certificate but I DO have this...of course this manifest includes my weight! Dont see that on a BC!

Something useful actually came from Global C.R.A.P. Radio! Well, not USEFUL, really. More... Interesting.

It turns out, a couple of centuries ago, we were all "INMATES". I love the titles "Idiot OR Lunatic". :D Yes, there was a "Legal Idiot" and "Legal Lunatic.

Handy as PROOF you are PRESUMED to be an inmate.

http://cdd.com/files/legal/canada-1861-census.jpg

THE TENDER FOR LAW is an examination of what you need to know to fight Judicial corruption, by examining the stuff you are LIED TO about.

SPOILERS: IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER=THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW

This forum is where you can ask all your questions, and we don't have to keep typing the same answers over and over.

Post your question, we will do our best to answer. OFF TOPIC POSTS WILL BE PURGED. We want people to be able to use this as a central reference and a place to go for help, where people will take the time to do so.

Post any questions on LAW, MONEY, CONTRACTS, and JURISDICTIONS and how they are connected.

Keep it civil, even if Scott doesn't. (It's Scott after all. Seriously, it's better than paying him) Remember that Scott chooses his words carefully. LEARN WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN.

Would like to start a thread about silver and other metals. I have been buying a lot of silver bullion and junk silver lately. I have done this in the past when silver dropped I believe the gold is over valued. Maybe others have thoughts on copper bullion and others. Scott Duncan do you buy silver maple leafs?

More proof that we need a national kick-a-cop-in-the-face day.

More proof for Scott that we need a national "Kick-a-cop-in-the-head-day":

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/father-beaten-to-death-by-9-sheriffs-bystanders-captured-on-camera/

The US Government starts a war based on ignorance. According to Homeland Security, you need a LICENCE to use BitCoin...

...even though they had NOTHING to do with its creation/operation. THIS is the beginning of civil war. Remember I said it.

hmmm

Mortgage enquiry...

If a house is re-mortgaged with a new bank does the new mortgage agreement become the valuable instrument?

And if the new bank offers the customer to make a full and final payment which is, say, 30% less than that which remains on the balance, is the full value of the new note obtainable once the contract is complete?

When one is drafting a charter, and uses a word like "community", should one be concerned about clarifying definitions.

OK, so now, if you are on a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS and someone FEELS like you are sexually harassing them... you're a rapist.

No, really!

I'm thankful the United States always gives us a glimpse into what's coming to Canada.

Seriously. I'm so tired of ass-hats joining this group, and NOT following the REQUIRED VIEWING.

Yesterday, for example, some Fuck-Tard joined and said this gem:

Bruce Botchar: "what am I talking about, I am talking about having something in your hand that is not imaginary , yes I know money is debt, but silver is not"

This reveals a PROFOUND ignorance as to what money IS, and that he hadn't bothered watching the required viewing. Needless to say, he's banned.

THIS was added to the group description. YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!

"This forum is where you can ask all your questions, and we don't have to keep typing the same answers over and over. To that end, I am telling you to WATCH THIS FIRST"

NO EXCUSES. TAKE THE FUCKING TIME TO WATCH IT, SO YOU DON'T WASTE ANY MORE OF MY FUCKING TIME!

Or, there's this...

The drums of war are beating... ...can you hear them?

Am I the ONLY one who can see what's coming?

WAKE UP!

http://www.alternet.org/economy/cornel-west-warns-rising-authoritarianism-you-can-get-killed-out-here-trying-tell-truth

So group, I have used the notice of mistake and the point of order, they just ignore me. Someone suggested putting a lien on the charges, I can do that easily. Any other suggestions. After that article in the paper, they really have it in for me!! GULP!!

Being a "Domestic Terrorist" is NOT an easy gig. It requires knowledge, discipline and training. That's why I look to the GOVERNMENT for all my espionage training.

Little known law enabled Australia's Gillard Govt to block websites with web filter. That will just be the start.

OK...Je feel Belligerent ce matin, donc, je vais vous dévoiler quelques vérités HAHAHAHA!!!!!

1). Il ny a PAS de loi qui vous oblige a produire une déclaration d'impot. J'ai lu a peu prés 20 fois ce doccument, et ce n'est pas une LOI. D'ailleurs c'est écrit dans le doccument lui même que cette LOI n'est pas une loi. ;/ , voici mot pour mot ce qui est écrit: Le mot LOI utilisé dans ce doccument, comprend une loi AUTRE qu'une loi du parlement du QUebec.

2). Ca veut dire tout simplement et naivement qu'il n'existe AUCUNE loi sur les impot :D

3). La loi sur les impot est un RÈGLEMENT qui s'adresse aux employés du Gouvernement du Quebec Inc. Donc, si vous travaillez pour eux, vous devez vous soumettre a ce règlement, mais si vous ne travaillez PAS pour eux, vous n'avez PAS a vous soumettre a ce règlement, pas plus que vous avez a vous soumettre aux règlement de Coca Cola ou Walt-Mart.

4). Sachez que je ne sors pas cet information de mes CROYANCES ou je ne sais pas trop.....cet info est vérifié et VRAI. Si vous ne me croyez pas, APPELEZ a revenu quebec, et demandez leurs :D, Demandez leurs de vous ENVOYER une copie certifiée et signée d'une loi quelconque qui VOUS oblige a payer de L'Impot. et Bonne chance !!!... :D ouppsss...et demandez leurs de vous envoyer par écrit ce qu'il font avec vos impot.

5). JE NE SUIS PAS CONTRE LE SYSTEME. Je veux tout simplement OBÉIR a la LOI, car tous, devont OBÉIR a la loi, Moi, VOUS et le SYSTÈME.....TOUS sommes EGAUX devant la loi, Policier, Plombier, Juges, Avocats, MAIRE, Moi et VOUS.

To, our `Tarded `Merican neighbors:

I think you missed this one.

A bit of comic relief?

"Armaments, Universal Debt and Planned Obsolescence - Those are the three pillars of Western Prosperity" - Aldous Huxley

For all the Kick-a-cop-in-the-face day supporters (don't watch this if you have a boiling blood issue) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dxaxd8MNjQo#!

It is a special day here on THE TENDER FOR LAW, as Pierre has made his first post that wasn't completely and utterly content free. In one of our many exciting and engaging threads, Pierre asked the following questions:

1). Do you really think some government agents are following this group?

and

2). If some do, are they NOT just going to quit their stupid jobs and figure out that they are really missing the boat ?

This is a complex issue and deserved an article on its own.

I am currently resurfacing the upper deck of the Tycho-Brahe and you should all feel really guilty that this, writing endeavour, is interrupting my hot, back-breaking manual labour which involves necessary but otherwise pointless suffering...so you'd better appreciate everything this has to offer.

1st question: “Do you really think some government agents are following this group?”

Answering this one is really easy: Yes. In fact they've said so.

To think otherwise would imply a level of self-deception that would probably render you catatonic. In fact, the only reason this group exists is because I KNOW the GOVERNMENT is reading it. Everything I type here I type ON PURPOSE.

As often as they try to insert a voice, their efforts get rendered futile by the rules of my little autocracy here. Jimmy Carter once commented that the reason he was such an effective diplomat was that he always dealt with dictatorships...and shit gets done under dictatorships.

My policy eliminates the flawed notion that your ignorance is equal to my knowledge. There's no “fair and balanced” here, there's right and wrong. The only freedom you have here is to get the fuck out and never come back — you're free to do that at any time. It is MY autocracy. I made it, and I shall rule it as long as I deem necessary.

Why?

Because “FUCK OFF” that's why!

With every word I type (or dictate ;)) my goal for THE TENDER FOR LAW is being fulfilled. As far as you should be concerned it serves no other purpose.

2nd question: “If some do, are they NOT just going to quit their stupid jobs and figure out that they are really missing the boat?” The short answer is, “No”, and the reasons why, are systemic.

Ask yourself, “What is a government worker?”

When you, ACTUALLY LOOK, and realize that they don't actually do anything; they don't make anything, and any benefit they get (including their salaries) was taken from someone else, this becomes PAINFULLY clear, and you wonder how you thought they were anything else.

If you try to get a government job, it's very difficult...unless you are related-to, and/or know someone, who already works for the government.

Every once in a while the issues of nepotism and crony-ism crops up by vocal members of the public, and the expensive, time-consuming and inevitably pointless “public hearing” on the issue will make a £500-page legal ruling” which essentially says “We agree that nepotism and crony-ism is a bad thing”, and the issue is considered closed (..except for the collection of tax dollars that will be needed to fund this "fair and balanced" report, of course!).

Such cancers on the PUBLIC TRUST aren't terminal in a healthy government, especially if policies exist to expel them; and to destroy the problem before it becomes a problem.

Every government in the Commonwealth has such a legal mechanism — referendums being the most familiar. Even with those protections, you will find that everyone, in every Commonwealth county, will feel the same way about government workers!

They have gone from being “holders of the PUBLIC TRUST” to “worthless eaters at the trough”. Though it's hard to imagine; I want you to picture yourself at a point in life (say, in your 40's or 50's) where you know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you can't actually do anything, don't actually know anything, and can provide nothing that anybody wants. This makes you perfect for government work!

Do you honestly think a government worker doesn't know he/she is a worthless sack of shit?

Do you really think the fat, useless old man who holds the Senior Government position, once bounced on his father's lap and said, “Daddy, can I push paper for the Attorney General when I grow up?”

And do you think his daddy looked at him with hope and pride, exclaiming, “You can be anything you want son”!

What about Children's Aid Society workers (CAS)? Do you really think the fat, ugly, tub-of-shit that no man would fuck on a dare, muchless have a baby with, once crushed her mother's lap, and said, “Mommy, can I steal other people's children when I grow up?”

NO!

That ugly sack of shit, sees herself in the mirror in the morning, and knows, absolutely and categorically, that she's an ugly sack-of-shit, who's bitter, and harms those who have what she wants, and calling it "important work".

That fat, middle-aged man pushing paper for the Attorney General, also knows he's a useless sack-of-shit who couldn't make a living in the real world.

Not only do they read what I'm writing, they know, FOR A FACT, that what I'm saying is true!

Unfortunately for all of US; for them to acknowledge that, would be to cut off the revenue stream, that feeds their families, at other people's expense.

So yes, Pierre, they do watch, and they do know what I'm saying is true.

It just doesn't matter to them; because the only way they can have the illusion of self-actualization and worth, and to feed their families, is to be worthless, useless, child-stealing sacks-of-shit. Would you let your family starve?

If the only way you could feed your family would be to assume the role of paper-pushing/child-stealing/citizen-beating/home-invading, worthless sack-of-shit...wouldn't you do it?

The infrastructure of the government consists of middle-aged, stupid/incapable people, who where brought into the position, by a previous generation of middle-aged/stupid people, who were brought in by a previous generation of people who fought in a bloody, pointless war and chose to avail themselves of the benefits of “Civil Service”.

There was a time, right here in Canada, that you weren't paid to work for the government. You did it as “service”, and you were rightfully revered for the position, for it was a position of TRUST. Only after 1933, was government ever a way to “make a living”. Here in reality, government workers make YOUR LIVING. They take from you, to breed another generation of stupid/incapable people that the real world doesn't want.

The “real world” doesn't want me either, but I am not responsible for the wants and desires of others (although Tara will tell you I am in fact responsible for every want and desire she has...and I'd best make sure she has them if I know what's good for me...I digress).

So...just remember that Pierre, every worthless, sack-of-shit in government already knows they're a worthless, sack-of-shit.

One of my larger goals in my public initiatives (THE TENDER FOR LAW being but one of them), is to eventually provide absolute, conclusive, irrefutable proof, so when you try to wake up your friends and neighbours, you won't have to say, “I know a guy who knows a guy”...you will be able to point to it and to say, “Here's the proof.”

Remember I'm the guy who pays all his taxes, who PAID OFF his mortgage, and had guns pointed at him and his home stolen, because he would not cede jurisdiction, and would not have his UNALIENABLE RIGHT not to contract ignored.

Everything has been meticulously documented, and the corruption of the system will become self-evident. When they question the “authorities” about what I say, the response will only reinforce my position.

I want the government the way it SHOULD be; TERRIFIED of its citizens. Those with authority in the PUBLIC TRUST should have sleepless nights worrying about what the citizenry might do to them if they step out of line.

PUBLIC TRUST and PRIVATE TRUST is no different. You will have no problem seeing the nature and depth of the offence, when somebody betrays your trust, and I'm sure you have no problem expressing it when it happens. Yet people in the PUBLIC TRUST, when they do the same, get away with saying, “Ya, well...that's just the way it is. C'est la vie.”

Why is that?

Why is one breach of trust unforgivable, but the other is “just the way it is”?

EVERYTHING IN GOVERNMENT IS ENGINEERED TO MAINTAIN THAT “JUST THE WAY IT IS” MENTALITY IN THE PUBLIC. IT SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE.

...and to counter the inevitable, “we need government for hospitals, roads and schools”, as if these things don't occur as a matter of course: Even the most backward, primitive villages in Tzshitholeistan, will have a road coming into the village, and executive to administer policy, and minimal “public services” to accommodate the village.

All we have left now is worthless people who contribute nothing, implementing “Might makes right” policies, if you dare say ANYTHING against the cry “Respect MA ATHORITAH”!

You have but to look over at Dean Clifford to see this mentality in play. Those very same government workers who know that they're worthless sacks-of-shit living off your labour to feed their worthless sack-of-shit families [hereafter: Worthless breeder], look at people like me publishing what I do, and people like Dean, publishing what he does, and even the Grand Poobah of the FREE-DUMB Movement, Robert Menard, and you can imagine the pressure they are feeling. For anyone examining the issue, at bare minimum will conclude, that ONE of us is right; and that what exists right now, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "RIGHT".

Like a cornered animal, I feel these worthless breeders will actually harm Dean Clifford, and that's a bell that can't be un-rung. Too many people will see this happen. I'll make sure of that.

So to conclude,

1: Thank you Pierre, for finally asking something relevant; and I no longer think you're a waste of oxygen that should be ground up for filler, in pet food.

2: It is unlikely that anyone observing these pages for, or on behalf of, any government entity will assimilate the message, change their opinions, or become a force for public good. Those who live fantasy existences, whether inspired by religion, wealth, or a job in the public sector, cannot afford to let even the smallest amount of doubt seep into their “realities”. They can't, without questioning every facet of who, and what, they are.

In seeking to maintain their view of the status quo, they will fight, by whatever means necessary, to maintain their rose-coloured illusions that everything is fine and nothing is broken.

Ultimately if they cannot stem the tide of public opinion by sticking their fingers in their ears, they will even seek to silence those with dissenting opinions. To do otherwise would force them to acknowledge themselves as dysfunctional and an integral part of a broken system.

BULLSHIT! IT TAKES MANY FORMS!

My life...

Here's something that might interest some of you. If you'd like to know how this system was created; why it was created, and how the foreign corporation known as the United States has attempted to enslave you, these are the four foundational issues that will answer your questions:

1. Federal Reserve Act 1913 2. The State of Emergency 1933 3. Social Security Act 1935 4. Alien Registration Act 1940 (where your birth certificate was brought into play)

And the Lieber Code: Government rules for the military 1863.

You can listen to Rod Class explain it in this one hour Cliff Notes version if you feel so inclined to understand each step that led us to where we are today in the united States of America. This may be very similar in Canada as well, but I'm not as familiar with your laws and statutes.

Direct mp3 link .... http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-739563.mp3

Or you can go to Rod's talkshoe page and scroll down to episode #723 on April 19, 2013. Click on the orange "listen" icon and a pop up player will appear.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

This post brings to mind when Scott made us all aware of the definition of "Order" in the FAMILY and CHILD PROTECTION ACT as"The refusal to make an order"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8363499/Ombudsman-could-investigate-child-snatching-by-courts.html

http://www.durhamregion.com/DurhamRegion/Article/1140202#.TyHCjHO0LHA.facebook

Wonder how this is gonna go... :/

How bout these guys?

To further my position that we REALLY need a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day...

GOOGLE GLASS when I'm done with it :D

YOU ARE A TERRORIST!

CSIS says so...

OPPT courtesy notices set precedent in Victorian court

We've all heard the term, "With great power comes great responsibility".

I don't know if you equate that with one, or all, of the concepts of political power, financial power, or the power derived from possessing knowledge. Suffice it to say there's an unwritten rule that people who possess any of these things should return something back to the community.

Scott, and to a lesser extent, the people who work for and with him, are attempting to do just that.

I'm not clear regarding what value people give to freely offered information. I will tell you that in making this knowledge available, day-in and day-out, it has taken a great toll on Scott's resources, and his time.

I read a recent comment that said, paraphrased, "if you are willing to wade through the crap and debris of other people's useless comments, there is real value to be had in these pages". Why did this comment even have to be made? Why do you feel it necessary to insert useless comments and suggestions into a thread until it is barely recognisable for the purpose for which it is intended?

I am asking you politely to please stop polluting the thread with your unrelated personal comments, witticisms, date-night crap, and whatever other written debris you find so compelling.

THE TENDER FOR LAW is about law and finance. It is not an advice forum; it is a place where people can come to freely share information and ideas.

I don't want to start censoring comments; but I implore you to try to focus on the subjects at hand.

This is not a dating site. There is no room for discussions about your imaginary friends. This is not the place for petty bickering, posturing, or jokes about your reproductive organs.

Please read everything there is to offer before you post a comment. While there may be the occasional overlap of questions, I'm tired of seeing the same bullshit comments and questions that have been ignored, addressed, asked and answered, again, and again, and again.

We are running out of time. Please don't waste any more of it. While this may mean nothing to you, it is agonizingly clear to me.

Please read the warnings about the DANGERS OF CORPORATIONS revealed by William W. Cook; the University of Michigan Law school is named after him; I live near it and directly observed this information.

But in a letter to the Canadian exchanges, FINTRAC confirmed the exchanges were not actually money service businesses and were therefore exempt from laws governing this type of firm. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/20/canada_welcomes_bitcoin_traders_fintrac_letter/

LOOK EVERYONE! CANADA SUCKS LESS!

We head-off to Court shortly, armed with: an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL RESTRICTED APPEARANCE, a NOTICE OF AMICUS CURIAE and an AFFIDAVIT FOR AN AMENDED NOTICE OF MISTAKE (the AMENDED NOTICE OF MISTAKE is attached as an EXHIBIT to the AFFIDAVIT). As nervous and shit-scared as we are, hopefully we can 'kick-ass' and walk out.

Ok FUN THREAD... HOW/WHY ARE YOU HERE?

I was driving my shitty work van in the winter-slothed evening hoping to get home from work in one piece, my ABS breaks were screwing up ie. pushing the brake petal back whilst braking, and came upon a red light. Proceeding to go through a red light instead of swerving the vehicle around on the ice, policy enforcement followed me and gave me a $285 ticket for running a red light. If it were only say $50 I likely would just pay, but found that increasing 'EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING' tends to cost too much, I needed to figure out WHY? This may sound trivial but really just WHY?

Lets keep this simple people. One paragraph resembling why you found your way here...

CAS ONTARIO CANADA HAS THIS LITTLE BABY AS HIS PROFILE PICTURE !!! WHERE IS THE JUSTICE FOR THIS BABY???

Why? BECAUSE, FUCK OFF, THAT'S WHY! :D

David Johansen mentioned a list request of Scott Duncan. It would be nice to save Scott some time that is so precious. Please add at random, members, "trick" words. Definitions optional. Let this thread be TRICK WORDS.

WHO COULD IT BE?

I want to meet him/her. They sound really cool! :D

One word alone here that starts with "B" and is a noun dismisses this case for me, not to mention the pathetically obvious lack of evidence or probable cause etc...

http://theweek.com/article/index/229167/the-indiana-law-that-lets-citizens-shoot-cops This is better than "kick a cop in the face day!"

Greetings Scott, As someone with about 2 year experience following and devouring positions offered by the "FREE-DUMB" movement, I have slowly come to realize that I have a fair bit of unlearning to do. Having said that, I assert that may of us, and others who will come along, will be in the same predicament I find myself in. It seems that in the interest of clearing our heads of worthless information, would you please consider making a list of THE TOP TEN THINGS THE "FREE-DUMB MOVEMENT" HAS MISINFORMED YOU ABOUT. It would be invaluable to me and others to dispense with myths still rumbling around in our minds. Thank you kindly for considering this proposal.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201028218645107&set=a.2010698744568.2121434.1156720978&type=1&relevant_count=1

Why my plans always work.

When we make an appointment, does this not contract both of us at the time agreed? So legally this should work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZjoFoMESzY Scott?...dont even say this is off topic!lol!

What are your thoughts on this Scott Duncan? http://www.dgcmagazine.com/bitcoin-selling-out/

The US news media has a tough time telling tough truths.

And nothing is harder to admit than the fact that the basic mechanics of government have been highjacked.

The evidence is overwhelming, but they just don't want to talk about it.

Truly shocking whistleblower testimony about election fraud directed from the top.

Video:

The PERSON/INDIVIDUAL/Having, or NOT having, to IDENTIFY yourself to a Police Officer- thread.....

The Police Officers Manual of Criminal Law and Criminal Offences 2000's definition of PERSON, is a tad different than the one they provide for US in the Criminal Code, as you'll see here:

PERSON. 1. The scope of "person" as set out in s.2 of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 extends somewhat beyond the individual, covering additionally public bodies, corporations, societies and companies, but, groups having common characteristics such as race, religion, colour and ethnic origin ARE NOT included in the definition (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697) 2. The term, as used in s. 203 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 is SYNONOMOUS with the term "human being" (R. v. Sullivan, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 3. In the context of s. 11(b) of the Charter includes CORPORATIONS (R. v. *photocopy blurs here* Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843) 4. "Persons are of two classes only - natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being, that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties. The ONLY legal person known to our law is the CORPORATION - the BODY CORPORATE" (Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 D.L.?*blurry* (Man. K.B.)).

Derek Moran: Maxim-of-Law: Man(homo) is a term of nature; person(persona) is a CIVIL term.

Scott Duncan: ONLY A "PERSON" CAN BUY ANYTHING.

Scott Duncan: The group is called THE TENDER FOR LAW, not THE TENDER FOR BULLSHIT. That's Robert Menard's group.

PERSON is a LEGAL term for EQUITY. No "sea monsters" and no bullshit.

YOU ARE NOT A PERSON, you HAVE a person.

Derek Moran: ..wheres Fukyiro when'ya need her

Scott Duncan: OMFG..I was drinking coffee when I read that

Derek Moran: LMAO.. did it go out your nose?

Scott Duncan: ...now I have to clean up.

Derek Moran: Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Eamonn O Brien: To understand the PERSON better one should probably equate it to one's penis... I don't want to use it until I want to use it... etc...

Derek Moran: ..and i suspect if you have the RIGHT to recognition as a person before the law, then; you would also have the right to WAIVE that right if the legal-system is trying to use the term PERSON to screw you with it ?

Eamonn O Brien: DC touched on that subject... It's not a question of being recognised as the person though... Transfer the right to them, let them use it if they want...

Scott Duncan: In ONTARIO? I gotcha covered!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-duncan/give-in-lieu-of-identification/513494008717076

Derek Moran: Scott mentioned in another thread about PERSON in the Criminal Code: its either "Her Majesty," or an "organization"...which one AM I??

Daslow Aizelasi: In the CCC EVERY ONE is "her majesty" or an organization the Interpretation Act defines a “PERSON” “(ncludes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators, or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law.” The Interpretation act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 11, s. 29(1) the Canadian Law Dictionary defines an "artificial person" as is not a human being but is known as a person by law to whom rights and duties may attach

This passage is from SALHANYS Police Manual about having to IDENTIFY yourself...

"The common law does not require a citizen to identify oneself or carry identification of any sort..." Koechlin v. Waugh, (1957), 118 C.C.C. 24 (Ont C.A.).... and ...."...the common law has never considered it an offence of obstruction for a person to refuse to identify oneself and thus prevent a police officer from carrying out his or her general duties to investigate crimes." As was noted by Lord Parker, Chief Justice of England in Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 Q.B. 414 (Eng. Div. Ct.) at pg. 419:

http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/salhanys-police-manual-of-arrest-seizure-and-interrogation-tenth-edition-formerly-the-police-manual-of-arrest-seizure-and-interrogation/

check page/section 610 of this case from 1960, Supreme Court defines what exactly is meant by the designation our public-servants give us when using the term 'INDIVIDUAL'

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=definition+of+individual&language=en&searchTitle=Canada+%28Federal%29+-+Supreme+Court+of+Canada&path=%2Fen%2Fca%2Fscc%2Fdoc%2F1960%2F1960canlii62%2F1960canlii62.html

Scott Duncan: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

OH FUCK THE LAW SLAYS ME!

LMAO!

...i think I just hurt myself laughing.

Derek Moran: Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Offences: "There are three different types of Provincial Offence Notices. A Part I is commonly referred to as a ticket that is issued to an INDIVIDUAL..."

http://www.elgincounty.ca/main-menu/departments/ontario-court-justice-provincial-offences

Does a NOTARY really wield THAT much POWER.....? :/

holly shit!...I got raided by 7 or 8 officers only min. after you drove off,they had a warrant to seize all y computer equiptment and digital voice recorders claiming its against the law for me to have recorded my court proceedings and post them on the internet! im waiting for them to search the contents and get back to me to arrest me on it and ill have to have another bail hearing...so im fail to appear at the hearing but they accuse me of an offence at the hearing I failed to appear at! lo! wow!

Posted outside each court room entrance!

I love Vegans, because I hate babies! :D

For all you idiot "Vegans" out there:

One of the key components of the Noble Lie, is the useful imaginary friend they make to give "chosen" people, all the rights. (She's the Queen, because GOD said so!) This is why I seem particularly aggressive to the religious (Especially "Christians"). It's embarrassing when I see people say "All of it is a constructed lie" and then refuse to believe that the religious part is NOT part of the Noble Lie.

Follow the flow chart:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316194_627431443950823_841220005_n.jpg

FW: PRO-SE WINNERS is a NEW BLOG TALK RADIO SHOW AT 1 - (347) 215-9477 or http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners - EVERY FRIDAY & SATURDAY EVENING at 6:00 PM on PACIFIC STANDARD TIME or 9:00 PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME! - LEARN ABOUT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!! -- WE ARE REAL PATRIOTS & CONSTITUTIONALIST’S WHO ALL DRIVE WITHOUT DRIVERS LICENSES AND BEAT ALL OF OUR TICKETS!!!!

"property standards" officer, calls to inform me that my yard has "car parts" in it, contrary to some by-law, and he will be coming to take pictures, i tell him to stay the fuck off the property, he can take pictures from the fence line if he likes, but DO NOT TRESPASS!...He informs me that he has a badge that says he can come onto the property when ever he feels like it...I tell him again to stay the fuck of the property, he says "I'll bring police, I say good you will have to, he says fine .....I'm out, he apparently not only comes onto the property, he also goes into my enclosed trailer as well, and placards my house with an "order to remedy"....I have rough drafted a notice to send with his "order to remedy" ...for class review, and commentary...and of course to point out "and/or" remove stupid "pulled out of ass" stuff:NOTICE

re:"ORDER TO REMEDY NON-CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS FOR MAINTANANCE AND OCCUPANCY" DATED:inspection MAY 14,2013

To, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer, and all agents of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX

Regarding your offer of May 16, 2013 (original attached).

RETURNED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

I am unable to "COMPLY" with your "ORDER" at this time, as I do NOT understand how I as a MAN, with a COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT to ALL the property at the location known as 9577 Walker rd Mcgregor, have ANY obligation to, and/or contracts with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX. I have read the cited by-laws, and all references are for "PERSONS". The defintition section of the by-law and/or codes cited, does NOT properly identify "PERSON" as a man, woman, human being, nor does it even mention "NATURAL PERSON" for that matter!

PERSON. 1. The scope of "person" as set out in s.2 of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 extends somewhat beyond the individual, covering additionally public bodies, corporations, societies and companies, but, groups having common characteristics such as race, religion, colour and ethnic origin ARE NOT included in the definition (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697)

"Persons are of two classes only - natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being, that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties. The ONLY legal person known to our law is the CORPORATION - the BODY CORPORATE" (Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 D.L.?*blurry* (Man. K.B.)).

The phone conversation on or about May 10, 2013, with xxxx xxxxx, I was very clear with regard to "TRESPASSING"and "PRIVATE PROPERTY" (the signs posted should have also been sufficient notice), and you xxxx xxxxx, arrogantly referred to your BADGE as allowing you to do whatever you wanted,and it appears, trespassed on TWO occasions, LEGALLY, you may be correct, however, I LIVE in a COMMON LAW jurisdiction, I do NOT RESIDE in the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, nor am I a PERSON within the defintion of the "codes" or "by-laws" you have cited. Therefore I am unclear, and do NOT understand how I or the man known as Grant xxxx, have ANY obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX and/or to it's agents/officers, as we are unaware of any SIGNED contracts that suggest we are.

Please provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as Grant xxxx are in fact obligated to COMPLY with ANY codes or by-laws of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, as we are of the understanding that none exist.

What EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? What EVIDENCE do you have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the PRINCIPAL? What EVIDENCE do you have that there has been any MEETING OF THE MINDS, any PROPER NOTICE GIVEN, any CONSIDERATION OFFERED, or that I have ANY INTENT TO CONTRACT with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX in this matter? As such, I am returning your offer, DECLINED, for IMMEDIATE discharge and closure.

NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O 1990, CHAPTER C.7] WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME and/or JOINDER to ME , and

WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact waive ALL benefits of the ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.

If Iand/or such other parties who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.~end

I have used some "in lieu of ID" with "notice of mistake", and a few snippets from Derek Morans police manual post on "person" ... the definition of "person" in the essex by-law begins "PERSON, means a person," a corporation etc, etc...I thought it funny they would use the very word they are defining, to define the word to be defined. ok Scott ...I asked for it ...*holding breath*.....

WHO'S TO SAY? :D

...and then there's this.

...and then there's this. Just in case you thought I was too cheerful this week, here's more depressing news from the Southern Idiocracy (That's The United States).

Where do you lien the Bill of Laden (BC)? It cannot be done within our national registries,-according to what i have found so far.

First look at the date of the custody and access order,July16 2007...(reasonable access with reasonable notification to the mother! Now look at the date of the private contract made between the mother and I...Sept 6 2008...and the police still remover her from my care baced on a false accusation from the mother! Keep in mind the mother has refused to allow me access for over 2 years now without any action taken by the family court despite all my efforts trying to bring this info to the police and courts!

LEGALLY CORRUPTED....I like that :D

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who spent time in prison after pleading guilty to corrupting public officials) exposed how the U.S. government is legally corrupted.

The Young Turks Cenk Uygur breaks down clips from Abramoff's 60 Minutes interview.

Call it 'How To Buy a Congressman 101'...

Video:

Sorry Scott Duncan, I just can't resist, I'm contemplig this post I've made for an hour now, and I think it's so beautiful....please pass it, and PLEASE correct any stupidity I may had wrote. Thanks in advance,

FUCKS THE PUPPY. XXX

So, if I get arrested and bring to jail, of course, I have no INTENTIONS on doing this, but, we never know what can happen”

If I REALLY have done something UNLAWFUL and I REALLY know it, I may plea guilty…..

in ANY other circumstances—I will shut up and keep my HANDS away from ANY pen or pencils

I will eventually have to tell them WHO I AM, and I will wait until I’m in front of a guy/woman with a balck robe, who is suppose to be competent and fair.

1). Who is ME ? I’m the lawful Holder in due course of the accused PERSON, I’m the SOLE beneficiary of this PERSON, I reserve all rights.

They will have to tell me WHO THEY ARE 2). Who are they ? So far, I see NOBODY, or maybe a Corporation of some types Where is the INJURED party ? Which CONTRACT that I breached ?

They may want to ask me if I am a belligerent ? , if they ask this question 3 times, they are offering me FULL sovereignty ?, so by what authority they declare war on MY person ?

They will have to tell me what they want” 3). What do they want. They seems to want to fuck around with MY person’s surety, and since I’m the SOLE beneficiary of this PERSON, I may want to set things straight, maybe a NOTICE OF MISTAKE will help, or, they will have to point me WHERE is the SURETY of my PERSON. Without surety, what do we have ? NOTHING ?

Oh, and everything they may say that seems to be some STRANGERS’s rules or regulations, I will ALAWAYS say the same thing: I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT.

4). What is this place where they OBLIGE ME to be in. A BUNKER ?

I will definitely AVOID any freeman-on-the-brainjam-bullshit, and I won’t speak ANYTHING about god or other imaginary friends. And I will NEVER use such stupid terms as STRAWMAN or STARWARS or CAPTAIN AMERICA idiocy.

OK, CAN I GO HOME NOW ?

But then again, verify ALL this with someone COMPETANT

well I got a like from Gail to post the revised Notice, it's word for word with names with held, so thank you in advance everyone that helped as you read it I'm sure you will see your contributions, lol...if it is approved...it is quite lengthy

NOTICE WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, AT ALL TIMES, for the man, Kelleran Holman, referred below as "I", "me", myself", "man"

re:"ORDER TO REMEDY NON-CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS FOR MAINTANANCE AND OCCUPANCY" Reference Number 5-14-2013 DATED:inspection MAY 14,2013

To, PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, Wxx Mxxx: Property Standards Officer, and all agents of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX

Regarding your offer of May 16, 2013 (original attached).

RETURNED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

I am unable to "COMPLY" with your "ORDER" at this time, as I do NOT understand how I as a MAN, with a COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT to ALL the property at the location known as 9577 Walker rd Mcgregor, have ANY obligation to, and/or contracts with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX. I have read the cited by-laws, and all references are for "PERSONS". The defintition section of the by-law and/or codes cited, does NOT properly identify "PERSON" as a man, woman, human being, nor does it even mention "NATURAL PERSON" for that matter! ANY use of the "person" past, present, or future, is PURELY, and ONLY, out of PRIVATE NECESSITY eg: PERSON. 1. The scope of "person" as set out in s.2 of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 extends somewhat beyond the individual, covering additionally public bodies, corporations, societies and companies, but, groups having common characteristics such as race, religion, colour and ethnic origin ARE NOT included in the definition (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697)

"Persons are of two classes only - natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being, that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties. The ONLY legal person known to our law is the CORPORATION - the BODY CORPORATE" (Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 D.L.?*blurry* (Man. K.B.)).

The phone conversation on or about May 10, 2013, with Wxx Mxxx, I was very clear, with regards to "TRESPASSING"and "PRIVATE PROPERTY" (the signs posted should have also been sufficient notice), and WxxMxxx, arrogantly referred to his BADGE as allowing him to do whatever he wanted, and it appears, trespassed, on TWO occasions. LEGALLY, WxxMxxx may be correct, however, I LIVE in, and claim COMMON LAW jurisdiction, with ALL my inherent rights, I do NOT RESIDE in the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, nor am I a "PERSON" within the defintion of the "codes" or "by-laws" you have cited. Therefore I am unclear, and do NOT understand how I or the man known as xxx xxxx, have ANY obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX and/or to it's agents/officers, as we are unaware of any SIGNED contracts that suggest we are.

Please provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as xxx xxxx, are in fact obligated to COMPLY with ANY codes or by-laws of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, as we are of the understanding that none exist.

What EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN, and/or THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX? What EVIDENCE do you have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the PRINCIPAL? What EVIDENCE do you have that there has been any MEETING OF THE MINDS, any PROPER NOTICE GIVEN, any CONSIDERATION OFFERED, or that I have ANY INTENT TO CONTRACT with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX in this matter? As such, I am returning your offer, DECLINED, for IMMEDIATE discharge and closure.

NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O 1990, CHAPTER C.7] WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME and/or JOINDER to ME , and

WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact waive ALL benefits of the ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.

If I, and/or such other parties who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.

Here are some more points of interest you may want to have a look at before you consider any more attempts at harming me unlawfully.

BY-LAWS are simply put, whether defined in Bouviers, or Blacks law dictionaries as; "Rules of a corporation for THEIR OWN internal governance." ...Therefore, I would have to have consented to, or be employed with, your "CORPORATION", to the best of my knowledge, I AM NEITHER.

FEE SCHEDULE: All "ORDERS", issued by, or brought forth by, the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, to ME, WILL BE BILLED ACCORDINGLY. I do NOT work for free (involuntary servitude), and it is UNLAWFUL to COMPEL me to. I can, however fairly base the fees, by the numbers found on the lower portion of your "ORDER" [meant to intimidate I'm sure] "not more than $25,000...", and "not more than $50,000...".

TRESPASSING: $25,000 per occurance Wxx Mxxx was told verbally, via the phone conversation, and presuming Wxx Mxxx can in fact read, could not miss the posted signs on the PRIVATE PROPERTY, That read as follows: PRIVATE PROPERTY/NO TRESPASSING. Wxx Mxxx elected to willfully ignore my verbal warnings, and also chose to ignore the postings, and I must presume, deliberately waited for me to be away from my home to commit the trespass...twice, according to the dates on record. Had Wxx Mxxx been in anyway competant and honourable, I would think he would have made it known, WHEN he would be arriving, so as to avoid any confusion about his magical super badge, and it's apparent supreme power! Clearly Wxx Mxxx has mistaken me, a man, for a person from his ficticious by-law/codes.

As I have taken the time to take a look through a bit of both the by-law, and the building code act cited, and was unclear how either applied to a real live man, and further, looking to the definition section for clarification, and still found no evidence to that effect, I am not surprised that Wxx Mxxx opted to disregard my wishes, to first provide some first hand knowledge, and/or facts, that I should be compelled to do anything, as I requested from the start. Rather, Wxx Mxxx thought that his magical super badge exempted him from any sort of due process liability, and said as much to me on the phone, his actions of trespass, without first providing me with said evidence, is clear verification, that he is either completely incompetant, and truly has no clue, HOW the by-law/code applies to me, without my CONSENT, and has never bothered to actually read, and/or understand the definition section of the by-law/codes he enforces, and thinks that his imaginary authority, and his magical super badge, really does offer Wxx Mxxx immunity from being even personally liable for his actions, and trespasses! Or he was just to lazy to provide the binding contract, or evidence I required, that would compel me to go along with his "order", thus causing THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, a certain amount of liability on his behalf. Whatever the reason, in the spirit of being honourable I will allow Wxx Mxxx, and/or ANYONE from THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, that can provide a better answer than "because I have a badge" magical and super as it must be (the local police force doesn't even spew that kind of nonesense!), 14 days from receipt of this NOTICE, to rebut everything I have claimed, understand, etcetera, under penalty of perjury, and full commercial liability.

NOTICE: "TORT- a BY-LAW-OFFICER is guilty of a Tort, if the By-Law-Officer violates an Anglo-Saxon-Jute Common Law and/or Natural Law Inherited rights. A By-Law-Officer who is CONSIDERED to be a Tortfeasor is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for the first Tortious act and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent Tortious act" subsection #becauseifuckingsaidso..sound familiar, but, somehow different the way I say it, right?

Or you can kindly send me an apology letter, and I in turn will forgive Wxx Mxxx for his misguided blind faith in his magical super badge.

CLAIM OF RIGHT: NOTICE! ALL PROPERTY at the location known as 9577 Walker Road, Mcgregor is held under A COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT.

From the Criminal Code: 39. Defence with claim of right 39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

So, to conclude, your options are relatively simple, and are as follows:

1)Provide the dually signed contract I or the man Known as xxx xxx has with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and,

2)Provide verified signed complaint by an injured and/or damaged human being, an affirmation, that they have in fact been injured and/or damaged, and,

3)Provide proof, and/or first hand knowledge that I, and/or the man known as xxx xxx have been given full disclosure to the terms of the relationship with, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and have thus given consent to be governed by, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and,

4)Ignore due process entirely, Roll the dice, and come and harm an otherwise peaceful man, with threats of trespass and seizure, with hopes that the magical super badge is in fact all powerful, and will offer immunity at the queens bench if need be, as I consider Wxx Mxxxs' actions a willful attack on my rights, and a human rights violation in general, I could not in good conscience waive my rights, to satisfy an office/corporation, that I have NO known relation with, regardless of the inconvenience it may cause me, or,

5)Send an apology letter.

I would like to also mention, due in part to Wxx Mxxx informing me that I, "did not know what I was talking about", I would venture, that as far as the "club rules" of the CORPORATION OF ESSEX is concerned, since I am not a member, nor an employee (kind of like I am not a member or employee of walmart either), therefore I have no great amount of knowledge of said club rules, as I understand I have no need to know them, but,

The saying goes "ignorance of the LAW is no excuse" ,I don't recall it being ingnorance of the by-law/code is no excuse, or, "All are equal before the law", is also quite popular, but I can't for the life of me, find, "the magical super badge nulifies all equality before the law" clause...please forward the reference to that one, along with how orders from THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX imply people are charities...maybe they should get in touch with UNICEF if they expect things/"orders" done for free.

Again, the office/agents of the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, AND/OR Wxx Mxxx have 14 days to respond, and/or rebut in writing, with FACTS, to the above notice, claims, and understanding, under penalty of perjury, and full commercial liability, or use the apology letter, I'm flexible like that.

All rights reserved for Kelleran Holman

witnessed by:

witnessed by: ~end feel free to bash it, like it and/or add crucial points, or suggest removing unnecessary points of interest...I'm off to bed, my eyes are bugging out...and I squint ;)

So Scott, there seems to be many levels of the "law", such as Admirality (statues=lowest?), Roman, Civil, Criminal, Trust (Equity?) Law. It seems like a game, as in "what trumps what". Trust Law (as you've stated) is the highest law. So my question is, there seems to be an enforcement on our part to show this? You say Derek shouldn't study the Clubhouse Rules, but then how else can we define them to show/seek remedy from them?

See if anyone can guess where Alex Jones lost me. :D

Adam Kokesh released.

...but he shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

Here is my life in Bunnies.

All of you "trust the box".

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GEcKY6uLso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQps0FWP86g

If you know why you are going, it's useful. It's not worth the debt, otherwise.

REQUIRED VIEWING, KIDS!

take 3 ? I see Scott is about, no need to beat me up over take two, it has been agreed that my rude sarcasm and format was not going to fly...swing away on this one though, if you have time, i think I have it right, sorry for sucking up so much space, hopefully it helps with other endeavors some are going through: NOTICE WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, AT ALL TIMES, for the man, Kelleran Holman, referred below as "I", "me", myself", and "man"

re:"ORDER TO REMEDY NON-CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY" Reference Number 5-14-2013 DATED:inspection MAY 14,2013

To, PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer, and all agents of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX

Regarding your offer of May 16, 2013 (original attached).

RETURNED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

REQUIRED ACTION:

1)Provide the dually signed contract and/or current employment records, that show I, and/or the man known as xxx xx has an obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and,

2)Provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as xxx xx, have harmed, damaged or infringed on another human beings rights or property, as we are of the understanding that none exist, please provide the verified sworn/affirmed complaint, as I have not had an opportunity to hear or see a verified complaint. Who am I harming exactly, and how?

3)Provide proof, and/or first hand knowledge that I, and/or the man known as xxx xx have been given full disclosure to the terms of our alleged relationship with, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and had thus given consent to be governed by, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, or,

4)Send an apology letter, and/or never contact me again.

I am unable to "COMPLY" with your "ORDER" at this time, as I do NOT UNDERSTAND the nature of the order, or how I as a MAN, with a COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT to ALL the property at the location known as 9577 Walker rd Mcgregor, have ANY obligation to, and/or contracts with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, do any exist?

BY-LAWS are simply put, whether defined in Bouviers, or Blacks law dictionaries as; "Rules of a corporation for THEIR OWN internal governance." ...Therefore, I would have to have consented to, or be employed with, your "CORPORATION", to the best of my knowledge, I AM NEITHER, is there evidence to the contrary?

[I have read the cited by-laws, and all references are for "PERSONS". The definition section of the by-law and/or codes cited, does NOT properly identify "PERSON" as a man, woman, human being, nor does it even mention "NATURAL PERSON" for that matter, ANY use of the LEGAL person is PURELY, and ONLY, out of PRIVATE NECESSITY ,] What evidence do you have that I am in fact a "person" from the by-law/codes cited? eg: The Police Officers Manual of Criminal Law and Criminal Offences 2000's definition of PERSON

PERSON. 1. The scope of "person" as set out in s.2 of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 extends somewhat beyond the individual, covering additionally public bodies, corporations, societies and companies, but, groups having common characteristics such as race, religion, colour and ethnic origin ARE NOT included in the definition (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697)

"Persons are of two classes only - natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being, that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties. The ONLY legal person known to our law is the CORPORATION - the BODY CORPORATE" (Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 D.L.?*blurry* (Man. K.B.)).

The phone conversation on or about May 10, 2013, with xxx xxxx, I was very clear, with regards to "TRESPASSING" on "PRIVATE PROPERTY" (the signs posted should have also been sufficient notice), and xxx xxxx, referred to his BADGE as allowing him to do whatever he wanted, and it appears, trespassed, on TWO occasions. LEGALLY, xxx xxxx may be correct, however, LAWFULLY, I LIVE in, and claim natural COMMON LAW jurisdiction, with ALL my inherent rights, I do NOT RESIDE in the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, nor am I a PERSON within the definition of the "codes" or "by-laws" you have cited. Therefore I am unclear, and do NOT understand how I or the man known as xxx xx, have ANY obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX and/or to it's agents/officers, as we are unaware of any SIGNED contracts that have explicitly waived any rights. Is there a record that suggest we did?

Please provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as xxx xx, have harmed, damaged or infringed on another human beings rights or property, as we are of the understanding that none exist, please provide the verified sworn/affirmed complaint, as I have not had an opportunity to hear or see a verified complaint. Who am I harming exactly?

What EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN, and/or THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX? What EVIDENCE do you have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the PRINCIPAL? What EVIDENCE do you have that there has been any MEETING OF THE MINDS, any PROPER NOTICE GIVEN, any CONSIDERATION OFFERED, or that I have ANY INTENT TO CONTRACT with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX in this matter? As such, I am returning your offer, DECLINED, for IMMEDIATE discharge and closure.

NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O 1990, CHAPTER C.7] WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME and/or JOINDER to ME , and

WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact waive ALL benefits of the ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.

If I, and/or such other parties who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.

TAKE NOTICE THAT, Should THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX continue with attacks on my rights, thus harming me unlawfully, the following shall apply

1 (a) FEE SCHEDULE: All "ORDERS", issued by, or brought forth by, the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, to ME, WILL BE BILLED ACCORDINGLY. I do NOT work for free (involuntary servitude), and it is UNLAWFUL to COMPEL me to. I can, however prepare a bill, should THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX insist on placing an ORDER, with reference to the bills of exchange act, regarding orders.

(b) TRESPASSING: $25,000 per occurrence

xxx xxxx was told verbally, via the phone conversation, and presuming xxx xxxx can in fact read, could not miss the posted signs on the PRIVATE PROPERTY, That read as follows: PRIVATE PROPERTY/NO TRESPASSING. xxx xxxx elected to willfully ignore my verbal warnings, and also chose to ignore the postings, and I must presume, deliberately waited for me to be away from my home to commit the trespass...twice, according to the dates on record. Had xxx xxxx been in anyway honourable, I would think he would have made it known, WHEN exactly, he would be arriving, so as to provide the answers to my questions and thus, avoid any confusion, and/or conflict, clearly xxx xxxx has mistaken me, a man, for a "person" defined in the fictitious by-law/codes.

As I had taken the time to take a look through a bit of both the by-law, and the building code act cited, and was unclear how either applied to a real live man, and further, looked to the definition section for clarification, and still found no evidence to that effect, I am not surprised that xxx xxxx opted to disregard my wishes, to first provide some first hand knowledge, and/or facts, that I should be compelled to do anything, as I requested from the start. Rather, xxx xxxx thought that his "badge" exempted him from any sort of due process liability, and said as much to me on the phone, his actions of trespass, without first providing me with said evidence, is clear verification that, he either truly has no clue, HOW the by-law/code applies to me, without my CONSENT, Maybe he has never bothered to actually read, and understand the definition section of the by-law/codes he enforces, and thinks that his imaginary authority over a man, and his " badge", really does offer xxx xxxx immunity from being personally liable for his actions, and trespasses! Or he would have provided the binding contract, or evidence, that I had asked for from the start, that would compel me to go along with his "order". Whatever the reason, in the spirit of being honourable I will allow xxx xxxx, and/or ANYONE from THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, that can provide a better answer than "because I have a badge" (the local police force doesn't even spew that kind of nonsense!), 14 days from receipt of this NOTICE, to rebut everything I have claim to, noticed, and understand, under penalty of perjury, and full commercial liability.

Or you can kindly send me an apology letter, and I in turn will forgive xxx xxxx for his trespasses on my right to privacy, property, security, full disclosure, and also the stress that comes with answering this sort of attack.

CLAIM OF RIGHT: TAKE NOTICE THAT, ALL PROPERTY at the location known as 9577 Walker Road, Mcgregor is held under A COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT.

From the Criminal Code: 39. Defence with claim of right 39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

So, to conclude,once again:

1) Provide the dually signed contract and/or current employment records, that show I, and/or the man known as xx xxx has an obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and,

2)Provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as xxx xx, have harmed, damaged or infringed on another human beings rights or property, as we are of the understanding that none exist, please provide the verified sworn/affirmed complaint, as I have not had an opportunity to hear or see a verified complaint. Who am I harming exactly, and how?

3)Provide proof, and/or first hand knowledge that I, and/or the man known as xxx xx have been given full disclosure to the terms of our alleged relationship with, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, and had thus given consent to be governed by, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, or,

4)Send an apology letter, and/or never contact me again

Again, the office/agents of the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, AND/OR xxx xxxx, have 14 days to respond, and/or rebut in writing, with FACTS, to the above notice, claims, and understanding, under penalty of perjury, and full commercial liability.

All rights reserved for Kelleran Holman

witnessed by:

witnessed by: ~end shorter and hopefully "race ready".... for your consideration group, thanks again!

Hey guys, it’s FUCKS THE PUPPY here, with another gem thread that will BLOW your brain, I guarantee that if you read carefully, you will be mouthless.

OK, here we go, let’s say that I, FUCKS THE PUPPY, buy something with a undefined currency, from—let say..mmmhhh, oh yeah, FUCKS THE SLOOPY, and then, I turn around and sell this something, with still, undefined currency, to—mmhh, let say—ah yeah—FUCKS THE DUMPY, and in the mean time, I, FUCKS THE PUPPY, make a profit that, to stay logical, is an undefined currency.

Is this ILLEGAL and/or UNLAWFUL ?

Do we see ANY contract in here LEGALY speaking ?

WHO needs to know about it, LEGALY and/or LAWFULY ?

Do I really need to HIDE this or keep it secret ?

I am positively sure that government agents are reading this, so here is what I have to say to you: GO FUCK YOURSELF YOUR BUNCH OF FUCKING BASTARDS. You are killing families with your bullshit lies. And, on the other end, you wake up Deviant Bastards like me :D , and by doing so, you CONFIRM the fact that you have zero competence in anything. :D

And I will tell EVERYONE about your fucking lies.

Ok here is my rewrite, and my thinking behind it...

A notice of mistake to start to clarify that they are mistaken in thinking you are responsible for paying their fine.and because it commands discharge and closure. Then I think you should give public notice of who you are and claiming your property, so there will no longer be a question about surety. Also I removed the choices you gave to them because through the notice of mistake you are commanding discharge and closure.

WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, AT ALL TIMES, for the man, Kelleran Holman, referred below as "I", "me", myself", and "man"

Re:"ORDER TO REMEDY NON-CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY" Reference Number 5-14-2013 DATED:inspection MAY 14,2013

To, PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer, and all agents of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX

NOTICE OF MISTAKE

In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as the accused. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT to believe by responding to “You” and or “KELLERAN HOLMAN” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION YOU HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me.

As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “KELLERAN HOLMAN” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY ARE YOU ADDRESSING me as such? As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the TRUST have any SURETY in this matter?

As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE does the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?

As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

AUTHORISED By:____________NON ASSUMPSIT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ALL RIGHTS RESRVED Maximus Legis, Grantor, sole-living-Beneficiary, Lawful-Holder-In-Due-Course, de jure pro domino

______________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as KELLERAN HOLMAN is now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of A PRIVATE TRUST per the wishes of ***redacted shit here***'S CREATOR and GRANTOR.

Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING May 25, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS KELLERAN HOLMAN MUST BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED AND/OR IMPLIED.

TAKE NOTICE THAT, ALL PROPERTY at the location known as 9577 Walker Road, Mcgregor, in accordance with the Canadian Criminal Code sec 39. is held under A COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT.

PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE KELLERAN HOLMAN FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($25,000 PER DAY) OR ANY PART THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE.

Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

I'm not sure how Marc feels about it, but here's a reading of his ENTIRE book ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND.

I had such hope for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GEcKY6uLso Just a curious thing i have noticed about this (video #2 ONLY! ) has been taken down at all the places i have posted it! Why would that happen?

i was wondering. You guys over in the UK, Canada, US,... have acts and statutes. I live in Belgium and everything here is called law. "the Law on this ,... or that,...". Does that makes any difference? Are we also governed by consent?

What's the difference between your common law system and our "civil code" system.

I've looked into some of our "laws" and it also seem to be all about capacities.

Advocates pushing for justice reform say cases like these — particularly the legal bills — are driving INCREASING NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN COURT or avoid the courts altogether.

It's a problem Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has been raising for years, and it's led her to lament that access to justice is becoming a privilege of the rich. Fotsch and her disabled son stand to lose their home, north of Pemberton, B.C.Fotsch and her disabled son stand to lose their home, north of Pemberton, B.C. (CBC)

Every year, the B.C. Court of Appeal flags the number of cases where people show up for court without a lawyer. In 2011, the number of unrepresented litigants had reached one-quarter of all cases.

..any Nobles on this page who might just take an interest in this post? :/

William Goldwin Carrington Howland (March 17, 1915 — May 13, 1994) was a lawyer, judge and former Chief Justice of Ontario, Canada. Howland was born in Toronto and educated at Upper Canada College. He graduated from the University of Toronto in 1936, and afterwards enrolled at Osgoode Hall Law School. He was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1939. In 1975, Howland was appointed a Judge to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Ontario. Two years later, he was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario, and remained in this position until his retirement in 1992. Protecting the rights of individuals in Ontario [edit]

On April 10, 1989, Chief Justice Howland issued a historic Practice Directive to the Ontario Courts which reaffirmed the right of the citizens of Ontario to audio record their own court hearing under Section 136(2)(b) of Ontario's Courts of Justice Act. In his Practice Directive, Justice Howland stated that the rights of the citizens under section 136(2)(b) of the Act were to be respected by the courts without citizens having to make oral or written arguments. Many consider Justice Howland's directive to the courts as one of his most notable contributions to protecting the rights of self represented individuals before the courts. Even today, Justice Howland's practice directive continues to be used as a reference when audio recording equipment is used by self represented persons in their court hearings. Practice Directive (April 10, 1989) [edit] “Subject to any order made by the presiding judge as to non-publication of court proceedings, and to the right of the presiding judge to give such directions from time to time as he or she may see fit as to the manner in which an audio recording may be made at a court hearing pursuant to s. 146 [now s. 136] of the Courts of Justice Act, the unobtrusive use of a recording device from the body of the courtroom by a solicitor, a party acting in person, or a journalist for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes may be considered as being approved without an oral or written application to the presiding judge.” Chief Justice of Ontario W.G.C Howland

This is important to ME! JOIN MY CAUSE! SPREAD THE WORD!

Would one of the admins please put a link to Black's Law 9th edition on the about page. I know it's buried here somewhere in one of the posts, but, with posts being re-prioritized from time to time, and the page growing by leaps and bounds, it makes finding it a considerable amount of effort. It would be helpful to find it in the about section. Please also consider putting links to the most important and crucial threads/post on the about page as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one repeatedly searching for hours to find a post that deserves further study and consideration. I suggest that doing so would be invaluable to group members. As this page grows, navigating it is becoming increasingly difficult. Presently the above may take a few hours to accomplish. In six months or a year it may take several days of work or more to accomplish such a reference. Thanks :)

When you see as clearly as I do...

If you are in the U.S. and think that learning all that "complex money stuff" is not important, then you are going to be a statistic. You cannot break out until you learn what I tell you.

It is going to get worse quickly.

so does anyone want to hear my "I was briefly arrested yesterday" story, and help me dissect how it went , and why it went the way it did? ...oh yes and why cops lie?...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz5UMnFiWFg&feature=share

Hey, I certainly don't want to look ignorant ( :D ), but is there ANYONE in here that can explaine me what's that shit ?

Is our Birth Certificate IDENTIFICATION? If not, what is it?

Gee, I guess all these cameras are a GOOD thing after all...Coca Cola wouldn't lie to us, right??

OFF TOPIC RANT:

OK, I was trying to get into the head-space of those who think "race" is a real thing. It's not easy! We've MAPPED THE FUCKING HUMAN GENOME! WE FOUND OUT RACE WAS SOMETHING WE MADE UP! BLACK AND BLONDE ARE THE SAME THING!

...anyway, it's not easy. As near as i can tell, the thing that people call "race" is something to do with skin pigmentation. So I thought I'd look at the sources for Black stereotypes, Asian stereotypes, etc, to see if I could debunk the numbers. It turns out stereotypes are true, sadly.

,,,and that if you have a LIGHTER skin pigmentation, you are far more likely to exterminate an indigenous people. Stereotype?

Here's the numbers, in a nutshell:

The ADMIRALTY LAW- annotated thread.....

Ok, if this doesn't convince you that we need a national kick-a-cop-in-the-face day, nothing will.

This is ALWAYS happening on Whyte Ave... They push you down and shout, "Stop resisting" when you aren't...

I subscribe to this page for information, ideas and mentoring NOT to advocate violence on fellow humans. .. Yeah its terrible what we see happening in the world, but FFS -> are we the change or are we just perpetuating the same violence? AND i get the level of frustration that people are feeling. BUT why start the day with the thought of 'kicking someone in the face' ?????????? That is just plain STUPID & outdated.

This is my bail hearing for the "Fail to Appear!"https://www.dropbox.com/s/p44flsa9tnkkom1/130513_004.MP3

Blacks Law Dictionary 5th ed The information contained here might be of use for those who question which Ed of BLD to use. http://www.dankunlimited.com/uno_pound_sharing/Know_files/-Blacks-Law-Dictionary-5th-Edition-Information.pdf

OK, before I post my Dean Kory article, I need to get something out there. I think you have ALL missed something...

EVERY GOVERNMENT CHARGE is a NEW PERSON with SURETY ATTACHED TO YOU! The "DEAN KORY" on your driver's licence, is NOT THE "DEAN KORY" ON THAT WARRANT! THAT"S A NEW "DEAN KORY" THAT WAS CREATED, AND THAT "YOU" RESPONDED TO!

DO NONE OF YOU GET THAT????

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201071468766333&set=a.2010698744568.2121434.1156720978&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf This is the mentally unstable mother of my child Natasha Johnson! The Crown is trying to portray her as a victim and that she is in fear for her safety! you be the judge!...everything she is yelling at me is a lie meant to get me into a fight with the other men who live in the rooming house where this took place,it worked because i was attacked by a man with an axe handle only moments after she left! Who's the victim again?

The WOE UNTO YOU LAWYERS and the TEMPLES OF BAAL thread.....

http://www.fredrodell.com/pdf/Woe_Unto_You_Lawyers.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45886090/Temples-of-Baal-9th-Edition-by-Sir-David-Andrew

Scott Duncan: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING!

Again, I find myself THANKING YOU AGAIN, Tom(Davies)! I'd forgotten about "Woe Unto You Lawyers"! Thank you for posting this!

Pete Daoust: Always the same process...they want me to sign them a blank check and give them $5k in advance, and when I ask them to sign me a letter stating that they engage themself to reveale in court EVERYTHING I will ask the to reveale....they all refused...Some of those I asked to sign my letter, dont even want to talk to me anymore...lol...I pushed the questioning a little further with 2 of them Why you don’t want to sign this agreement with me ? Answer: I CANT

Why Cant you ? Answer: Because I cant.

And then—How will you be able to represent me fairly then..?...at that point, very evasive talking and clearly they have no intent on representing ME....and cant tell me the thruth on their real job....representing the justice....not me....

Scott Duncan: Yes, but look at YOU! YOU didn't waste YOUR time, you had an experience that frustrated and confused you, and instead of just venting to people who agree with you while smoking outside a bar, YOU INVESTIGATED WHY! I cannot over-express the profound RESPECT I have for that. It's a very positive character trait, that few people have.

Scott Duncan: I just do what works. Or use the method with the highest success rate. I know not to waste time with people who give ME such labels, I need only prevent others from "believing" them.

People who give me such labels, ALWAYS value the WRONG THINGS.

Scott Duncan: Maximus Legis, In what capacity are you attending?

Maximus Legis: Special attorney in fact for a friends fiction.

Scott Duncan: ACTING DULY AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR (DuuH!)

This video is actually MANDATORY VIEWING for ALL lawyers before they are ALLOWED to become a member of the B.A.R.: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5999248/60_minutes/?noFBRedirect=1#_=_

DEHUMANIZING STARES? This is really pathetic.

The history of SUMMARY JUDGMENT and/or SUMMARY CONVICTIONS courts explained by Dean Clifford on the Ben Lowrey show.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84TM19NZYlw

In this video with Ben Lowrey, Dean Clifford starts explaining at minute 2:10:

"I went back and started reading 200 year-old banking-manuals...and i discovered that what they called 'Summary Judgment,' or 'Summary Convictions,' back-in-the-day used to be called 'Summary Execution of Mercantile Instruments.' So they are SUMMARILY 'executing' what they claim are DEBT INSTRUMENTS against you. The problem is, the debt instruments dont exist and are not REAL because there is no DEBT. But we are not addressing this issue. We are going and pleading 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'...you can shut then "THE CROWN," DOWN, in a SECOND, by asking them to clarify who they ARE. Because as soon as you clarify that its NOT 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the House of Windsor,' NOW its a corporation and they can ONLY enforce contracts against you. Now you ask for THE CONTRACT. No CONTRACT, no OBLIGATION. This is all based upon an IMPLIED contract that they CANNOT produce. And if they DID produce it? They would admit to the FRAUD that is being carried-out. Then they would admit, for example, that the Drivers' Licence is CONTRACTUAL in nature. If you dont have one then they cant CHARGE you. Because, then it would be clear that this is all based on CONSENT. So now when you get a ticket or a CHARGE against you, you contact THE CROWN and you say- "Excuse me, i need to clarify exactly who YOU are. Are you representing Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the House of Windsor, or, are you representing HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND, which i believe to be a CROWN CORPORATION of the independant-nation of the inner-City of London, England? If that is the case, then i am sorry but i dont have a contract with you i believe you are mistaken. If you're claiming that there IS a contract in place, please produce it within the next 10 business days, otherwise we have NO further business together. Now, when they dont reply, you inform the courts of that. So, what are they going to say to that? They didnt reply, so you win by default-FUCK yeah, this corporation, THE CROWN CORPORATION known as HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND, has AGREED with me that we DONT have a contract. So they have NO jurisdiction to prosecute. So now your problem isnt with the COURTS, its with this entity called THE CROWN that you BELIEVED was an agent of Her Majesty The Queen, Elizabeth of the House of Windsor. If you look at ANY statute thats passed...does it EVER say, enacted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the House of Windsor? Fuck NO, it does not. Because thats not who it is. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND...they are a number of sub-corporations of THE corporation which is the inner-city of London, which is the COMMERCIAL centre of the PLANET for their criminal enterprise. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND, IS THE CORPORATION OF LONDON, that is the name they go by...the sovereign-independent-nation of London."

THE TENDER FOR LAW PRESENTS: ALL THE SHIT THAT DEAN KORY IS DOING WRONG!

...AND NAZIS!

Ok, that's a bit of an overly dramatic title, in as much as the courts don't actually follow their own rules any more.

Still though... You still get Nazis, so there's that.

Just because they don't feel like following the rules, doesn't mean we have to be “scumbags” like them. I listened to all the audio recordings that Dean Kory made of his hearings (time I'll never get back, so you fucking owe me, dude!), and I feel it's important for me to correct a few key points here.

I know all of you get your information from multiple sources, ranging from the Grand-Poobah of the Free-Dumb Movement, Robert Menard, to Dean Clifford, to Winston Strout; and maybe it's just self-aggrandizement, but I like to think I'm the only source that tells you the truth instead of just orbiting it. As with many things in life there's “more than one way to skin a cat”. However, one of the worst things you can do is “mix methods”.

Dean Clifford and I are at exact opposite ends of the scale. Dean's name is Trust property, thus giving the man that you know as Dean Clifford a great number of options the rest of you don't have. He doesn't use the Trust like a bank machine, he doesn't abuse any of the authority that any Trust title gives him, and he has the personal knowledge that he's not on his own if he has to “get the fuck out of Dodge”. That's where the consensus ends amoung us.

Dean's teachings on Trust Law are accurate, concise and accessible. For some reason it's worth it for him to give everything he teaches those qualities.

I'm not like that.

I'm not a super-genius, and I don't possess any mental powers that you don't. Any discussion and/or engagement with me starts off with the reality that you ALL THINK WRONG, and YOU ALL VALUE THE WRONG THINGS! This does not serve you when you are up against reality.

The sad part is that most of you are too old to change; and as I've demonstrated here in this little forum, none of you can tell the difference between what's true and what feels good. I know what you're experiencing. Whether from Dean, or from myself, the time always comes when you read something that one of us writes and you KNOW that it is true; but you take no further time to understand what is being told to you.

Fortunately Dean Kory has provided us a working/living example of what happens when all of the above factors are in play.

The first obvious mistake that Dean Kory is making is that he is combining what Dean Clifford teaches with what I teach. For the purposes of this article I'm going to dumb the two positions down so you can make the comparison.

Dean Clifford is all about being left alone, and when he's not left alone, he is about calling “them” to account.

I'm not like that.

I am descended from the very people that put all of this in place. Entire stereotypes about Scottish people exist to misdirect. Most will tell you that Scotsmen are “cheap”, when in reality we are conservative about when we engage in commerce. You have but to look at England's and Scotland's history to see why this is true.

The very name of this group, THE TENDER FOR LAW, is all about that mysterious phrase, “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER”.

I'll be the first to admit there are a great number of benefits to be enjoyed in commerce, when everybody plays by the rules. As I'm sure everyone is sadly aware of, by now; Nobody is playing by the rules anymore.

Trying to “fix the system”, or call them to account in their own system, is simply “appealing to your rapist”. It baffles me that anyone would think this is sound thinking.

...I digress.

As I'm in a unique position to “follow the money”, I can determine who needs to pay the price for the royal screw-over we've been given. As I type this, a team of system's engineers (and trained monkeys) are preparing for you, the reader, a step-by-step guide for cleaning out every financial institution that touches these shores. The only price that I ask for this knowledge is that you pass it on to others. Pay it forward...and get paid at the same time. Who else offers that shit?

I am many things. I am prorogued Nobility. I am a published author. I am a composer. Above all...the thing that forms the core of who and what I am, is that I am a computer scientist. Those who have taken the time to actually listen to me, will recognize many “Scott-isms”; and the phrase “COMPUTER SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING” is repeated almost as often as my Number 1 “Scott-ism”, “THE MAJORITY IS ALWAYS WRONG.” You ignore these two truths at your own peril.

...and reality does not care what you “believe”.

This lengthy preamble is to drive the next point home.

DO NOT TRY TO COMBINE DEAN'S METHODS WITH MINE.

There is no remedy in fraud. There simply isn't.

In many ways I long for the old days where those who breached the PUBLIC TRUST were hauled into the street and thrown into an angry mob. Authors have mistakenly used the term, “Hanging Judge” as a term for a judge imposing strict penalties; but if you look through actual history, and not the crap you were taught in the Public Fool System, “Hanging Judge” refers to a judge who has abused his power and has been hung for the abuse of that trust. He gives sentences he should be hung for; HANGING JUDGE. You never hear the phrase “hanging JUSTICE” ;) This is odd, as there are so many of them. :D ...I know. Digressing. I get it.

We don't have Judges any more, in Canada. A judge traditionally was a trusted individual who could uphold the PUBLIC TRUST. “We the people” no longer get to decide who is worthy of that trust. People confuse the role of “judge” with the current role of “JUSTICE”. It is important to know the distinction.

JUSTICE is actually a “doing-business-as” name for a Crown Corporation. It actually says, in the Dunn and Bradstreet listings “Government of Ontario Operating as JUSTICE”. It has been like that, IN VARIOUS FORMS, since 1982. . ..I'm sorry you missed it.

That is what you're dealing with, and you have ONE unalienable RIGHT; THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRACT.

My position is a lot closer to that held by Irene Gravenhorst, than it is to Dean Clifford's.

So, let's cover what Dean Kory is doing wrong! :D

I notice a lot of “Clifford-isms” in what Dean Kory is clearly attempting to say; but all of Dean Clifford's methods depend on what I like to refer to as “Clubhouse Rules”, and every time you do this you're pretending to “be in the club”. The natural response to somebody doing this is very similar to the response to somebody saying they know more than I. In case you haven't noticed I smack them down in the most humiliatingly, and public way possible. “Their” reaction is going to be much the same...we're all human after all.

NOTICE OF MISTAKE (like the cheese) stands alone.

It is the only issue you should be concerned about! NOTHING ELSE!

SERIOUSLY! Accepting discussion about anything else, is a FUCKING NEGOTIATION. All of you are not seeing the forest through the trees. This is why I say Dean Clifford's position is flawed. He believes the tree can be pruned to look pretty again, when in reality it needs it's roots burned out, and it's limbs chopped up for one of Sir-Mica's gassifiers! The fucking tree is dead!

UNDERSTAND?

The tree is dead!

It's filled with parasites and rot, and the parasites are trying to keep the illusion of a tree standing. For the past two years I have been feeding them the rope, at my own expense, and with violence inflicted upon me, so that any argument contrary to my position is immediately nullified. IT IS/WILL BE, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that you are NOT getting what you are entitled to, given the burden of surety you have carried!

Unlike THE MAJORITY of your “sources of truth”:

I'm not one of these people that wants to drive without a licence. I'm not one of these people that don't want to pay their mortgage. I'm not one of these people that don't want to pay their taxes. I DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE I FUCKING PROMISED TO! I am, however, someone that possesses knowledge and skills that the government finds/found essential to their expansion. In my youth I gave our erstwhile government a tool, which all of you pay the price for today; and I was rewarded handsomely. I patted myself on the back, and strutted around, knowing that I was smarter than everyone else, and never once paying attention to the harm I had caused.

In compliance with an oath I took a long time ago, I must atone for that; and that's the only reason you, the reader, even know that I exist.

I need to remind you again, that the only reason I'm here, is that I promised to be.

None of you have value to me. You're not qualified to.

I have a lot to teach you, and we are barely getting started; but I am not responsible for the shit that goes wrong when you try to take what I teach you (“REALITY”) and you try to jam it into your idiotic, unqualified, belief structure. As I write that sentence I wonder how many of you have actually pondered that other “Scott-ism” you frequently hear; “ALL BELIEF IS EVIL.” If you believe something, you will stop questioning it; you will stop investigating it, and you will never ponder if, and why, it's true.

Should you believe something, that just happens to be true, you won't look any further — and that's a problem.

So I want everyone to keep the following in mind. All the sources you are investigating tell the truth about the law, but there are pitfalls!

Everything Robert Menard says about the law is true. It's what he doesn't say that's the lie. If you want quick confirmation of this simply ask him what, “This note is legal tender” means. If he tells you the truth (he won't), ask him why he's constantly “begging” for that very same TENDER FOR LAW that contains the ACTS and STATUTES that he claims don't apply to him! THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER is a TENDER FOR LAW. If you BENEFIT, then you have OBLIGATION! Everything Dean Clifford says about the law is true, but how he chooses to apply it, is not; because there's still a lot of “belief” running around in his head. He still believes he can “beat them at their own game.” He will proudly point out their public and blatant violations... His evidence is irrefutable and conclusive. His rights are violated by those TRUSTEES of the PUBLIC, and then he tries to seek remedy from those same trustees! REALLY?

...and then says the remedy, is to go to those very same people and “sue” them..in the very same courts that violated his rights. (What?) ...Oh that's right, those are DIFFERENT courts, with DIFFERENT “Doing business as” JUSTICES. (WHAT?) ...well, I'll just let you work out the flaw from there. If you can't, then you are too stupid to be reading this, and you should kill yourself.

Feel free to try it this way. It's NOT “wrong”, but it ignores the fact that those who hold the PUBLIC TRUST, ARE wrong. Another “Scott-ism” is my position that NONE OF YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S TRUE AND WHAT FEELS GOOD! Following Dean Clifford's methods WILL drive this point home, so it's not a COMPLETE waste. ;)

Well then...back to Dean Kory.

Rumour has it, through the grape vine, that the erstwhile Mr. Kory has been and/or will be, a guest on Global C.R.A.P. Radio, hosted by the redoubtable Tony “guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth” Butros. This promises to be an exciting show, and I cannot wait to miss it. I eagerly anticipate the thrill of not consuming time I'll never get back.

Instead I'll put something useful here — advice for your next court room appearance, Mr. Kory.

When you're in the court room dealing with these babbling, sacks-of-shit, learn to use the breaks. Repeat after me, “I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS”. If they ignore your question, then your next response should be, “OBJECTION. If the court cannot answer my question, then I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.” Keep repeating that, and repeating that, and repeating that...until they answer your fucking question.

I listen to you in court, Dean Kory, and I picture a girl screaming rape while slipping the condom on the rapist. I notice the distinct lack of that phrase in ANY of your recordings, so repeat it in your head, “Objection. If you cannot answer my question, then I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.”

Apply THE TENDER FOR LAW Rule to this. I choose my words very, very carefully, because I know what they mean. You, the reader, seem to believe there's a library in your ass, because that's demonstrably where you keep pulling your answer out of. If you see me using a phrase that should be used in court, the very first thing you should do is follow my rules. Look up every single word, even, no scratch that, ESPECIALLY, if you THINK you know what the word means. As the regular reader for THE TENDER FOR LAW will tell you, you most certainly don't.

Dean Kory reserves his rights, and then doesn't know what the fuck to do with them; but that's ok, because there are plenty of other people in the court room that know what to do with Dean Kory's rights.

One thing Dean Kory should learn is that he is most certainly not Dean Clifford. Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if I disagree with Dean Clifford's methods. The fact is, I understand them. What Dean Clifford is doing is beyond your current level of comprehension. He is not joking when he says that everything he says and does, is part of a larger plan. I disagree with Dean Clifford's position and methods, because he pays too high a price for the sake of worthless people; but he's doing it for all of you, and not just for himself. I will admit statistically, this does skew the numbers in his favour; because in the end, Dean Clifford is like you. You all think wrong, and value the wrong things.

The only difference between you and Dean Clifford is that some of the things he values ARE the right things.

We are all doing this for different reasons.

Robert Menard will try to scam you out of every cent you have by telling you the truth...because he thinks you deserve it. You're the Mafia wife, the enabler, and he rationalizes that he's not taking anything of any value from you.

Dean Clifford sees that you're all asleep, and he values mankind as a whole; but like Mary Croft before him, he's beginning to realize that everyone prefers “lucid dreaming” to actually being awake. The time he takes pandering to that crowd robs him of time, and returns nothing.

My position is blatantly self-centered. I was born with a title I didn't choose. I was sold to the government, and warehoused for McMaster University because it turned out I was smarter than everybody...and apparently that's a crime. When I began to call all parties to account, they spared themselves by making certain promises and offering certain concessions and entitlements, which they no longer honour.

My aim is to misbehave.

Like Robert Menard, I want you to suffer for your ignorance, especially if you've come to me before. I want to wield what I know against those who would dare seek to harm me and those that I care about; because all of you are walking a path now, and none of you realize it's a one-way trip. You all want your freedom, and my position is, “Be careful what you wish for.”

As you all think wrong, and value the wrong things, so it is unlikely you could possibly know what to do with freedom. If you find yourself making that one-way trip, through that hole in the fence, remember that on the other side, are people just like me.

All of you are welcomed to believe whatever makes you feel good. Martin Sutton's belief, for instance, makes him feel good, and he identifies it as the core of who he is; and all I can think is, “This is what happens when evil has consumed an extraordinary man.”

ALL belief is evil. Martin Sutton is incapable of evil, so the belief sits there like a parasite, taking this man's good qualities and giving them to “Jesus”.

At this point I can classify Martin Sutton as belief's “best-case-scenario”.

Belief is taking not thinking and making a virtue out of it.

All of the people from whom you seek knowledge are extraordinary in their own way. However, reality doesn't care about these things.

I certainly hope this effort gets Mr. Kory focused on what's important, but the reality is, all of this is a symptom of a much larger problem.

We're all running out of time. I don't know if anyone has noticed the professional name-callers have been labeling people who point out the truth as “conspiracy theorists”, while at the same time publishing the inane babbling of actual conspiracy theorists. This method is much like Americans putting people who hire hookers on sex-offender registries, thus removing any distinction between a guy who indulges in a rent-a-fuck-toy experience, and the Scarborough rapist. Because none of you understand the exponential function, you couldn't see the bell-curve of your rights being whittled away.

Before I end this article, let's take a little walk through Canadian legal history.

At this point in legal history, the Criminal Code pretends to be the Common Law remedy, bestowed to an administrative zone of a sole proprietor CORPORATION called Canada...but this wasn't always the case.

I'm going to presume that you don't have knowledge of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I freely admit this is not a reasonable presumption as Dean Clifford never shuts up about it (I swear that guy jerks off reading it).

One of the most protected rights in that bill of rights was Freedom of Speech. Under the Bill of Rights “offences” like hate speech, blasphemous libel (yes, that's a criminal code offence — look it up), and “uttering a death threat”, would not be possible.

The UK Canada Act 1982, better known as “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, includes a “notwithstanding” clause. This gives the elected representatives of an administrative zone's constituency the power and authority to say, “Fuck off, that's just stupid,” to any Federal Statute. The closest a province has ever come to using this was on the “gay marriage” issue. Everyone's entire government had just been privatized, and their biggest concern appeared to be whether two dudes can marry.

I look at events like this and sometimes I can't help but think, “Maybe Menard's right. Maybe you do deserve it.”

Anyway, while you were all in a tizzy about whether a dude can wear a wedding dress and be taken seriously, other more sinister machinations were afoot.

His name is Ernst Zündel of Regina v. Zündel fame, and his story went something like this:

Ernst Zündel is one of those ideological pustules on society that invariably erupt when free speech is so vigorously protected. I've read what Mr. Zündel has to say, and he cites reliable sources to support his position. This ignores the reality, and other evidence, that counters his position.

What's more reasonable to accept?

That the holocaust didn't happen? Or that Roma (gypsies), the mentally ill, the handicapped, the Muslims, the Jews, the homosexuals, and the political dissidents, were all rounded up and exterminated; and the Jews just whined about it the most. People doing stupid things at “crime scenes” don't help, and support idiots like Mr. Zündel. With only a little, tiny bit of probing, you will discover this fun fact regarding the holocaust. Those smoke-stacks on Auschwitz were built in 1947 for “dramatic effect”; and when pressured on it, every holocaust memorial foundation grudgingly admits this is true.

But back to Mr. Zündel....

Ernst Zündel was doing the Streisand effect, before Barbara Streisand made it cool.

After the constitution was ratified, parliament quickly set about whittling away your free speech rights, and Ernst Zündel happened to be in the right place at the right time. No one knew it then.

Now Ernst Zündel is a hateful little man; and he wants the world to know it. So much so, he decided you could avail yourself of his opinion by calling up his £976 Hate Speech Hotline…...for the low, low charge of ten dollars appearing on your phone bill, you could injest all the hate-mongering that would fit on an answering machine tape (Yes, a fucking tape. That's how long ago this shit happened).

People called up and he actually profited from being a hateful little man...and if the story ended there, you could reasonably think, “Fuck this is Canada. You can do anything”, and we'd all live happily ever after.

After a couple of months of profiting from people with more money than brains, rumour of this great scam eventually fell on the ears of a Jew. See? Mel Gibson was right. Jews are always causing trouble. Well it came to pass, that this great scam did fall on the ear of a Jew, and attached to that ear of a Jew, was a Jew with a finger, which could dial a telephone; and for the bargain price of ten bucks...he could make history!

I freely admit that I wouldn't pass that shit up, so there's no way a Jew's going to. Remember the stereotypes kids, and be advised that Jews come to Scottish people to learn humility.

Do you guys see how many stereotypes I've managed to jam into here so far?

As the result of this hilarious chain of events, Mr. Zündel became the dubious winner of the “First Man to be Charged with Hate Speech” prize. Under this “code” Mr. Zündel's position was indefensible, but he had an “ace up his sleeve”. He had studied the constitution and believed he had the right to do what he did. His lawyer, probably another Jew, saw dollar signs rocketing all the way to the Supreme Court, so he grabbed onto the Law Society's tit and sucked as hard as he could. This case plodded through the courts relentlessly, and ended up at the Supreme Court where they freely admitted that all hate speech laws are, by their very nature, unconstitutional. However, Nazis are “bad” so they decided to remove that right and blatantly ignore anything the constitution has to say, with an addendum pointing out that each administrative zone (province) has the right to exercise that “notwithstanding” clause nobody's ever dared use.

They'll save it for something important...like dudes getting married to each other. I say dudes because I refuse to accept the proposition that hot girl-on-girl action is NOT a human right.

These events marked the beginning of the slippery slope of rights removal all of you are just discovering now. It has been happening for a very long time.

Much has happened since the Zündel case. The public is slowly spoon-fed ridiculous concepts. The United States slipped even faster using our “enlightened” hate-speech laws as an example. Now there is a perfectly “legal” “War on Terror”. Americans are so stupid that they don't even realise they're making war on something that's not even an noun. “War on Drugs” at least meets the “noun” criterion. If you had to defend the “War on Drugs”, it's only defense would be, “At least we're making war on a noun.”

I'll let that sink in.

How many stupid “Patriotic Americans” don't realize there's a war on something that's not even a fucking noun. If I think you don't deserve to live for not realizing that, imagine how low you rank in the eyes of those who created this policy — all "perfectly legal".

We need a Monarch dictator for a generation, to bitch-slap you back to reality. For, one of the other things that I don't hide, is the fact that I, and other privateers, commissioned the AQUILAE TRUST with the primary mandate: To assist in the restoration of executive power of the Monarchy, under the terms of the AQUILAE COVENANT.

Three generations ago, Princess Elizabeth called to the then recently-released slaves, to help her stop the Empire from being wiped-out by the Germans. And she is of German descent. That war left a legacy that is priceless. It formed the corner stone of civilization and brought us into a new Golden Age.

The laws of commerce work when everybody plays by the rules, and when everybody's rights are respected. For three decades I have screamed that this is not happening.

So I have set out to prove it to you. My goal is to show you all that there is no deception. They're just not playing by the rules any more. The people responsible for your chronic ignorance, jumped ship long ago. Now we're stuck with parrots and chimps, running a mighty, but decaying, infrastructure.

Just remember this is on an exponential curve too.

I am doing my utmost to construct a lifeboat, and to detach you from all this. What I am constructing (to paraphrase Q from Star Trek) has wonders to satiate all desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Here is my court room position in a nutshell.

You do not accept surety — EVER.

Step 1: Reserve all rights. (get Derek Moran to parrot how to do that...he loves that shit)

Step 2: Direct your case and do not let them proceed. Present NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and REMEMBER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS IT CONTAINS. If they do not answer these questions you object, and declare that unless the questions in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE are answered, you CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Anything outside of this supports their position that you are “playing” their game, and thus it is presumed that you understand the rules. The only way to counter this is to declare that you CANNOT UNDERSTAND the rules without these questions being answered.

Think very carefully about this. If you are a novice at chess, and did not know about castling and its rules, you might raise the obvious question, “Why do you get to move two pieces?” If I refuse to explain that rule to you, and even deny you the chance to present your understanding of the rules, would you continue playing chess with me?

If you attempt to stop the game for this reason, that's when you're going to “understand” that this was a chess game for money; and that I have big, burly thugs to enforce this game. You claimed to know the rules for the engagement, even if you later disclaimed being an expert.

Novice drivers and expert drivers all have to follow the same rules. You don't get to ignore rules because you suck at them. Just as my chess board is not a chess school, the court will not allow the presumption that you being a novice is a lawful excuse. The only method to extract yourself “with honour” is to accept responsibility for the mistake in presumption. They are presuming something wrong...and you are acknowledging it's your fault. The court must accept this MISTAKE, and your entreaty for forgiveness for the unintended debt created. The court MUST do this.

Your name should never come into it. Your name is but a piece of evidence in a much larger presumption that the court has the right to attach a name derived from a public document, to a living man. This, of course, is untrue. The court knows it's not their right. That's why in the Mary Croft days, the quote “living man” argument worked. But these are trimming at the branches of the poisonous tree in an attempt to make it look pretty. The only solution is to target the root. The root is accounting and surety; there's no farther to dig down.

You have all heard the quote, “I am not a number. I am a free man.” This came from the profoundly subversive British television series, The Prisoner, which exposes the Noble Lie in the most blunt and obvious way possible, without using the actual words. If you take the time and watch this series, you can see very clearly, knowing what you know so far, exactly how everything is. The protagonist, played by Patrick McGoohan, who truly supports the concept that acting is an art form, is only ever identified as “Number 6”. The highest ranking officer in the prison is only “Number 2”, whose character keeps changing; none of them ever answering the constantly-posed question, “Who is 'Number ONE'?”

And...because I fucking-love giving away the ending...

“Number ONE” turns out to be a delusion of the protagonist's own making, whom others around him exploited; all to answer the question, “Why did you resign?” I want you to think about that as you go down this path.

You will be pursued by the people you once served, and you will be asked, “Why did you resign?” To answer is to become “salvage”. You never learned why “Number 6” “resigned”, because his position is what your position should be as regards government.

NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

If you want to be even more hostile reach for a “Scott-ism”, FOR WHATEVER REASON OFFENDS YOU THE MOST!

So there's your homework. Read this article over, and over, and over again. Just so there's no confusion, I am communicating on several levels here. Whoever is reading this, pay close attention to what I say.

That's it. Scroll to the top, and read again.

Well i get what "THE TENDER FOR LAW" MEANS

It does not mean "THE TENDER FOR VALUES"

It does not mean "THE TENDER FOR CORRECT THINKING"

It means just what it says "THE TENDER FOR LAW"

I fuckin owned the court room!...They had to "Stay" the charge! i have a good recording of how it went ,(thanks to you Scott) I'll post it soon!

Here is a scene from Killing them softly , at the 2min mark, Brad Pitt tells it how it really is. Hollywood is trying to come clean but who is paying attention ...!!!!!!! America is a business, so fucking pay me !!!!!

Here is a win from a client her name is Brycie Klassen here is here posts from Facebook: Brycie Klassen well folks! i had a visa debt of 6000, and thanks to this magic man....one day i woke up and it just up and disappeared!!!

Brycie Klassen I confirm i have a 0 dollars owing on my visa...that two days ago read over 6k owing.... serious 58 minutes ago · Unlike · 3

Brycie Klassen you just contracted me out of 6 thousand dollars of debt....more to come, mad faith! about an hour ago · Like · 1

This was for a visa, so we did a contract process and here we are now at zero

The official custody/access family conflict thread.

Avoiding court is a since. But what is an alternative to going to court for custody/access for your children to which you love.

This is something that is rarely touched if any at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUAA-7i4mI&feature=share

To register or not to register. What is the significance/difference to a mother and/or father?

So, im sure plenty of folks are wanting to know what the hell was done. Its easy. We established a contract with a chq. See, i was getting frustrated with these companies who dont wanna acknowledge the remittance vouchers they keep stealing. So, i thought well how else can we can evidence of a contract. Hmmmm, ding, Chq, gets cashed a digital copy gets placed on your bank statement. So, writing a chq out to a company who says you owe xxx amount. The trick is holding the contract once its there. So once it was cashed a Notice of contract memorandum was drawn up by myself for my client. So, sent it right off and it was to acknowledge the agreement that was just established. So, 20days later she gets her update and its a zero balance as agreed. So, this might be a good win now. However, companies dont like to loose, so they will attempt to move the contract and try to get you to agree there is still an outstanding balance of 1000 even those your 20 dollar chq said it was to settle the account to zero.

So, what to do ? well, most get quite upset and angry and curse and say fuck, it didnt work.... :( , well im saying they are merely attempting to move the contract with a new offer. So what to do with that ? well, accept it fully on the condition that, ....the contract already agreed upon, doesnt already settle the account and it would appears as fraud if they wished to purse the alleged debt any further after we came to an agreement right ? Well, this is why its soooooooo important to know contract law and read the damn books. Fucking READ THE BOOKS , PDF AND ASK QUESTIONS.......dont be lazy and forgive me, if those of you who have read the damn books. Order your books at you can get plenty of cheap cheap contract law books

Batten down the hatches and shiver me timbers...even tele is spilling the beans...

Relevant...

Is anyone else noticing how scary local radio is becoming? My (very) Significant Other and I both like Classic Rock, so in our home the radio is ALWAYS on and tuned to Toronto's Q107. And over the past month I've noticed a change in the advertisements.

First, it was THIS one: http://whyiwenttolawschool.ca/Home.aspx These "heartwarming" and "feel-good" stories from local lawyers around Ontario, explaining their motivations for becoming lawyers. Things like "witnessing injustices in the neighborhood and wanting to make a difference" and other such nonsense.

Next, was the ad for MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers): http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/services/awareness_campaigns_campaign_911.html Which now, rather than promoting NOT drinking and driving, they're just pushing for people to call 911 if they SUSPECT they've seen someone ELSE driving while impaired. (Is it just me, or does that sound like the police have just given themselves permission to pull ANYONE over, ANY time they want, by just having an anonymous call made "reporting" you?!)

And now, it's THIS: https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us&ln=en-us pushing the promise of HUGE (potential) cash rewards for the anonymous reporting of Pirated Software! (Sure, cuz CLEARLY this is currently the greatest threat to public safety and should be of the utmost priority!)

Hey Scott Duncan, is this what you English NON-TOKEN people would call a Pigeon Chess Game ? :/

The original NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and, "POINT-OF-ORDER!..."- threads all into one.....

Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.

Quite possibly one of the most useful documents I have ever published is my NOTICE OF MISTAKE for Dean. This is a useful, powerful document that also instantly removes SURETY. I framed it in such a way that you can replace the name "Dean Clifford" with your name, and you can make a pad of these things. Have lots of copies to hand out to friends and opposing counsel. Hell the court clerk loves these things too...make sure the court clerk has one as well. Just make sure you UNDERSTAND what the document says. Read it carefully and understand what the words mean, because you will be challenged. And remember, the NOTICE by its very nature, presents several questions.

Do not permit the proceedings to move forward without these questions being answered!

Because so many people ask for it, transcribed here is the copy of THE ROGUESUPPORT NOTICE OF MISTAKE.

Scott Duncan: *Sigh*

Submit it as an EXHIBIT in an AFFIDAVIT. They can't refuse your SWORN TESTIMONY!

NOTICE OF MISTAKE

1. TAKE NOTICE THAT: In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as an "accused" and/or a "suspect". 2. FORGIVE ME: If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me. 3. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am, in ANY CAPACITY, a Pro Se litigant and/or a LEGAL PERSON in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, as I DO NOT CONSENT and WAIVE THE BENEFIT to such titles (Waiver of the CHANGE OF NAMES ACT OF ONTARIO). Please forgive me. 4. THEREFORE: As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION ANY COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies [HEREAFTER "YOU"], HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY ARE "YOU" ADDRESSING me as such? 5. As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT [In the custody of Justice Wailan Low, ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE: Court File Number CV-11-430464], WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as a MAN who is not lawfully entitled to the BENEFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE [PPSACA13078], have any SURETY in this matter? 6. As GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to ANY NAME? 7. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have, that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal? 8. WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?

As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

[ AUTHORISED BY: ] [ AQUILAE Trust Seal]

- "POINT-OF-ORDER!"..... (Scott has typed-out two versions of this so far...use some words at your own peril) :/

Here is my court room position in a nutshell.

You do not accept surety — EVER.

Step 1: Reserve all rights. (get Derek Moran [im honoured to be mentioned, by the way] to parrot how to do that...he loves that shit)

Step 2: Direct your case and do not let them proceed. Present NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and REMEMBER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS IT CONTAINS. If they do not answer these questions you object, and declare that unless the questions in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE are answered, you CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Anything outside of this supports their position that you are “playing” their game, and thus it is presumed that you understand the rules. The only way to counter this is to declare that you CANNOT UNDERSTAND the rules without these questions being answered.

Think very carefully about this. If you are a novice at chess, and did not know about castling and its rules, you might raise the obvious question, “Why do you get to move two pieces?” If I refuse to explain that rule to you, and even deny you the chance to present your understanding of the rules, would you continue playing chess with me?

If you attempt to stop the game for this reason, that's when you're going to “understand” that this was a chess game for money; and that I have big, burly thugs to enforce this game. You claimed to know the rules for the engagement, even if you later disclaimed being an expert.

If you UNDERSTAND, you accept SURETY.

As stated YOU=SURETY

If you're ever in a courtroom and do not wish to have the "benefit of SURETY", you have but to object to being addressed as "YOU". There are many ways to do this. Dean Clifford might say, in response to being addressed as "YOU", "If I have led the court to believe that I am SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me." (FUN FACT: A court MUST ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked and/or requested)

Others, like myself, are a lot more succinct. For example, I might respond, "FUCK YOU! You're a YOU, I'm a ME! By what AUTHORITY do YOU address ME as a "YOU"?", because I can get away with it. The reason I can get away with it is that I UNDERSTAND the UCC as opposed to ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD which spreads mythology and bullshit about the UCC.

Section 1, Subsection 308, of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE covers RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This is a well-known fact, and this is how you use it.

Version #1: On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS! Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only one with STANDING.

If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.

When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?"

Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their master's wish?

Version #2: *judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!" *judge goes silent* "BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at this time I WISH to reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the court?

*Jeopardy Music*

Any objections?

*Clock Ticking*

....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat second and third time)

As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent).

QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so:

"Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN?

As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights, ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY objections from the court).

First: You are not making MOTIONS. Do NOT allow them to say that they are. Re: "I don't understand", respond that you require the supernumerary to RECUSE HIM/HER SELF as they are on record as being LEGALLY INCOMPETENT to do their job.

You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste system and how they give instructions.

NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".

ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".

GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.

The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none, you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case to be dismissed.

If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not made my wishes clear?"

When you're in the court room dealing with these babbling, sacks-of-shit, learn to use the breaks. Repeat after me, “I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS”. If they ignore your question, then your next response should be, “OBJECTION. If the court cannot answer my question, then I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.” Keep repeating that, and repeating that, and repeating that...until they answer your fucking question.

Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is answered.

Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.

...A TERRIFYING TERRORIST!

So, I was in court on Wed, and I used the point of order, the Justice said they don't do the point of order. I had filed the notice of mistake, he said he didn't understand or comprehend it. I asked him to recuse himself, he wouldn't! These fucking people are out of hand!! So I sent him a notice of I am going to fucking lien your law licence!! He will be in front of ME on Wed. I will see if he has changed his tune!!

The law society is not amused http://www.lawyersweekly-digital.com/lawyersweekly/3244?pg=5&pm=2&fs=1#pg5

We need help fighting evil & getting the word out on this! We also need a good lawyers help! Does anyone know one? I’m not allowed to speak or show evidence in their courts. I have tons of evidence of many illegal & unconstitutional acts done by Troopers, DAs & Judges! They are after the 4th right now as in my case, but I can stop them if I can get this petition signed so evidence can be brought to light. It's about your right to defend yourself in your own home! Make this Petition to the Governor go viral & sign PLEASE!

so...I went out last night for drinks with friends and when i went outside for a smoke i was football tackled by a cop...They charged me with possession of a controlled substance (weed) hell! i dont even smoke weed,they set me up,i even have a ticket for drunk in a public place! lol! they have it out for me big time! I was held in the police station over night and signed "Beneficiary of the name DEAN KORY"

What is "ACTUAL MONEY" ? :)

This is ACTUAL MONEY. I accept these as payment. If you are a Jew or a Christian, you may pay me with this ACTUAL MONEY

Don't talk to police

Oath

I, _______, have entered the serious pursuit of new knowledge as a member of the community of graduate students at the University of Toronto.

I declare the following:

Pride: I solemnly declare my pride in belonging to the international community of research scholars. Integrity: I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness, or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. Pursuit: I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member. By pronouncing this Graduate Student Oath, I affirm my commitment to professional conduct and to abide by the principles of ethical conduct and research policies as set out by the University of Toronto.

This is why Scott is here teach us.

So If I understand right, Cop stop me, I say to him I have no intention of doing business with him, he insist, I tel him, Again, I have no intention of doing business with him, I ADVISE him that if he FORCE me to do business with him, I will charge him $1000.00 per minute, he still insist, I tell him, I will send you an invoice, then an account statement, then a Notice, then a Final Notice, then a default Notice, and then I will lien your house….do I get it right ? —. Of course he can decide to beat me and/or kill me to create this NEW packing slip, but I just want to know if I get it right….to me, it is complete sense” Thanks FTP

OK….so I receive this AVIS DE PAIEMENT or PAYMENT NOTICE or REMITTANCE VOUCHER from the SAAQ (Société de l’assurance Automobile du Quebec) for a Licence plate. I look at it, I think about what I see….the first thing I see is this freaking number 96 on it, and I, right away think, Robert Menard WITH THIS a4v THING

And then I see AVIS DE PAIEMENT, which mean PAYMENT NOTICE…..and ho fuck, my brain start the spinning thing..

They are NOTIFYING me about a payment ???...what fucking payment ???...did a payment was made about this.??...who made it ??...why are they NOTIFYING me about it ???..

And why they put this small rectangular case ??...should I put a number in that case ??...

WHAT THE FUCK SHOULD I DO WITH THIS FUCKING THING ?????

Should I return them saying OK, good, I ACCEPT the fact that you’ve done a payment ?

I see all these stamps rubber thing in here and I canât find the connection”

Thanks FTP

Can one assume that once DNA is in ANY government file it WILL: 1) Remain in their files permanently 2) Be used against the one to whom the DNA belongs 3) Will be shared amongst all governMENTAL departments?

My question for today is.

Does the 'NOTICE OF MISTAKE' Establish one's own sovereignty and thus by doing so give title of nobility.

having said that does this not also end the contract we had ? so I was thinking and if I do that I better have a boat to be living on because of the safe harbor. This brings me to my mane question.

I have also come to see that the notice is also a form of a resignation.?

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Sincerely your's

Outcast Frisbey

His response...Mr. Kory,

I appreciate your request, however as it pertains to a matter which is before the courts, any and all requests for disclosure should be made through the Crown's office.

Once made through the proper channels, I will be happy to provide whatever is required.

Sincerely,

PC Ryan Boutin #68 Canine Unit City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service 705-324-5252 www.kawarthalakespolice.com

----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Kory <dk.68@hotmail.com> To: Ryan Boutin Sent: Sun Jun 02 15:29:51 2013 Subject: Notice Kawartha Lakes Police Service www.kawarthalakespolice.com This is the official WebSite of the City Of Kawartha Lakes Police Service

NOTICE FOR FULL-DISCLOSURE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Dear PEACE OFFICER Boutin - hi, how are you?

Let me just first start-off by saying that i am writing this in good faith as i do not wish to create controversy as i wish to remain in peace-and-honour.

WHEREAS section 42.3 of the Police Services Act states: "The duties of a police officer include, Powers and duties of common law constable: (3) A police officer has the powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law;

I request that you please provide for me full-disclosure on just what exactly are, your powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law.

Thank you, and Happy-belated May-Two-Four Weekend to you and all in your office, By: (your signature) NON ASSUMPSIT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Dean Kory, Grantor, sole-living-Beneficiary, Lawful-Holder-In-Due-Course, de jure pro domino, NOT a body corporate and/or Trustee, tanquam bonus veer, probus et legalis homo, a people

BitCoins for Girls! (So simple, even a chick can understand it)

just got back from the JP's office...I tried to bring a private information and charge against the 2 police officers and the Crown but the JP was the one who did my bail hearing for the fail to appear and we both agreed that for him to take the sworn affidavit would or could be preceived as a conflict of interest...I have to go back tomorrow before a different JP!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151635141322044&set=p.10151635141322044&type=1&relevant_count=1

This is interesting, at 5:20 appx of the Video the cop gets ask: DO PEOPLE NEED TO FEAR YOU ?....Watch his answer :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6lcYTJx9Y1c#at=338

The UNALIENABLE and/or INALIENABLE RIGHTS- thread..... Black's Law Dictionary, 6th-edition

UNALIENABLE: Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, SOLD and TRANSFERRED.

INALIENABLE rights: rights which can NEVER be ABRIDGED because they are so FUNDAMENTAL.

ABRIDGE: to REDUCE or CONTRACT; to DIMINISH or CURTAIL. Usually spoken of written language. See Abridgment.

ABRIDGMENT: as used in First Amendment (U.S.), means neither more nor less than what it ordinarily means; abridgment occurs when legislative act either SUPPRESSES or substantially INTERFERES with FREE SPEECH. Keene v. Meese

Scott Duncan: LEGALLY you only have ONE "UNALIENABLE" right; The right NOT to CONTRACT.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS can be sold to the highest bidder.

If you can SELL it, it's YOURS. That's why Prostitution has NEVER been illegal in the Commonwealth.

Scott Duncan: No other PERSON may PRESUME that you have forfeited these rights. You can sell them.

Ed O'Brien: What is UNALIENABLE?

Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. Read more: What is UNALIENABLE? definition of UNALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

Ed O'Brien: What is INALIENABLE?

Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g. liberty. Read more: What is INALIENABLE? definition of INALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

Scott Duncan: Now, shush, woman! Typing about how to make an affidavit here!

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Scott Duncan, you owe me an affidavit... remember?

City of Toronto Financial Report / Comprehensive. Annual. Financial. Report.

Iplan on filing an appeal... Can anyone share how this procedure I'd done.?

I was told to file with my 7th district but was wondering if or when I will be at the supreme court levels.

I am defending my right to travel.

But more important is the fact that doe process was not afforded me.

Am i taking a risk in posting this?...I don't give a fuck! I'm arming myself and defending my god given rights!...Any government agent trying to do me harm again be for warned! YOU WILL BE SHOT IF YOU ARE A THREAT TO MY SAFETY! and you already have proven that you are based on the propaganda in the news media and your resent actions against me!I fear for my safety and life as a direct result of the attack against me by Kawartha Lakes Police Officers! Unless you personally witness me breach the peace or have a valid claim against me...Stay away from me or i will be forced to protect myself with the use of lethal force!

I'm new in this group but not new to what is going on. Very aware of Corp US. Spent 70 days in jail awaiting sentencing for "Simulating legal process" because I exercised Article 7 of the Bill of Rights. This all started with Discover Card dishonoring my instrument for discharge. At no time did I give them jurisdiction, they just took it their way all the way. Even brought in a sniper judge from another county. He had no problem violating his oath and breaking other laws during the whole thing. When I asked if he was a public trustee, 4 times, he said he didn't have to answer that. The whole thing was a farce. Now, I'm on probation for 3 1/2 years. Even that I didn't consent to except under duress as I need to support my family. Yeah, I know, lotsa luck getting a job with being a convicted felon.

We send men and woman to fight the terrorists. We put our men and woman in danger for the cause of freedom. We drop bombs, torture, and assassinate to ensure that freedom can be brought to the entire world so that the terrorist, which so very much hate our freedoms will fail, yet; we brand those at home who want freedom as the greatest terrorist threat to our country. Hmm? GO FIGURE!!!! Does anyone sense a snake that speaks out of both sides of it's mouth? When did lies become legal? Who wants to talk about the COLOUR OF LAW?

Thought you might like this Scott. http://rt.com/usa/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/

So I have just returned from court again!! Today was to set a trial date, for the charges against the crown and the cop. I used the notice of mistake as I had last week on the same justice. He said he wouldn't discuss it again! I said he was incompetent and he didn't mind and asked him to recuse himself, he said no!! These mother fuckers are pissing me off!! I have a trial in JUne 17/18 and another Oct 28/29. I am soooo pissed right now!! Who do these fuckers think they are? The next step I will do is lien the charges!! VERY FRUSTRATING!!

The WHAT is a TRUST explained, and almost as important, PARTNERSHIP, COMMUNITY OF INTEREST, and QUASI-CORPORATION (think, QUASI-CRIMINAL)- thread.....

a TRUST - a LEGAL ENTITY created by a GRANTOR for a BENEFICIARY whereby the grantor TRANSFERS property to a TRUSTEE to manage for the BENEFIT of the BENEFICIARY

GRANTOR - a person who makes a grant; one who conveys property to another.

BENEFICIARY - a person who is ENTITLED to the benefits of an agreement entered into between two or more other parties.

Under the basic rules of contracts, where a contract confers a BENEFIT on a THIRD-PARTY, and the parties to the agreement are unwilling to enforce it, the third-party is prohibited from enforcing the agreement. The law of trusts developed to deal with this situation.

a TRUST, is the result of a CONTRACT in which property is TRANSFERRED from one person to another for the BENEFIT of a THIRD-PARTY. The law of trusts allows the person who is to RECEIVE the benefit of a contract, the BENEFICIARY, to enforce the contract against the person who is to ADMINISTER the property for his or her benefit, the TRUSTEE. A trust that is DECLARED in clear and unequivocal terms, usually in writing, is called an EXPRESS TRUST.

EXPRESS TRUST - a trust that arises as a result of an agreement, usually in writing, that is created in EXPRESS terms.

EXAMPLE: Tony wants to create a trust for Scott, in case Tony passes away before Scott turns 18 years of age. In Tony's will, he directs that all of his estate is to be invested for the benefit of Scott until he is 18 years old, and Tony names his sister Cari-Lee as the TRUSTEE. After Tony passes away, the property is transferred to Cari-Lee. However, instead of ADMINISTERING the trust for the benefit of Scott, Cari-Lee spends the money on herself. Scott is NOT a party to the trust agreement - Tony and Cari-Lee are the only parties. However, the law of trusts allows Scott to enforce the agreement because he is the BENEFICIARY of the trust.

TRUSTEE - a person who holds property in trust for, or for the benefit of, another person

In other cases, the parties to a contract may create a benefit for a third-party without expressly calling it a trust or without using language in the contract that would allow the third-party to enforce the contract. In those cases, the third-party MUST argue that a trust was created by inference or implication. The courts will examine the terms of the contract and the acts of the parties to determine whether the true intent of the contract was to create a trust. This can be a difficult argument to make because the courts are reluctant to impose a trust unless there is clear evidence that the parties intended to create one. When the courts find that a trust can be inferred from the contract, it is called a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. The beneficiary of a constructive trust may ENFORCE the terms of the trust.

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST - a trust created by the OPERATION-of-LAW, as distinguished from an express trust.

EXAMPLE: Dean and Tony form a PARTNERSHIP. The partnership agreement states that if Tony should pass away, then Tony's share of the profits of the partnership should be paid to his wife, Cari-Lee. Tony passes away, and Dean refuses to pay the profits to Tony's wife, Cari-Lee. Cari-Lee is not a party to the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement did not set up an EXPRESS trust. Cari-Lee would have to argue that it is a CONSTRUCTIVE trust that had been created in her favour. If successful, Cari-Lee would be able to obtain a share of the profits.

PARTNERSHIP: 1. a contractual relationship, an agreement, between two or among more persons to run a BUSINESS together in order to make a PROFIT ("Doing-Business-As"). Only persons who INTEND to, or by their conduct can be seen to have INTENDED to, can become partners. 2. "...there should be some COMMON profit or gain to be derived from it (why Winston Shrout is always saying when he walks into court- "Wheres my cheque...?") Whether or not the element of division or distribution of the common PROFIT or GAIN among the members is an essential, need NOT BE DISCUSSED; but, there must be...a COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS in the BENEFITS accruing from the joint activity of the partners. If that community of interest is lacking, there is NO partnership..." Ottawa Lumbermen's Credit Bureau v. Swan, 1923. The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd-edition.

QUASI PARTNERSHIP: "...analogy with partnership...is convenient but certainly not legally determinative of the outcome...It expresses the reality of situations where shareholders in a company are not mere investors but are participants in its business and rightfully expect that they will continue to play a part in the management of its affairs." Mason v. Intercity Properties Ltd., 1987. The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd-edition.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST: 1. participation in a joint venture characterized by shared liability and shared OPPORTUNITY for PROFIT. See JOINT VENTURE. Black's Law, 9th.

JOINT VENTURE: a business undertaking by two or more persons engaged in a single defined project. The necessary elements are: (1) an EXPRESS or IMPLIED agreement; (2) a COMMON purpose that the group INTENDS to carry out; (3) SHARED profits and losses; and (4) each member's EQUAL VOICE in controlling the project. - also termed joint adventure; joint enterprise. "There is some difficulty in determining when the legal relationship of joint venture exists, with authorities disagreeing as to the essential elements...The joint venture is not as much of an entity as it is a PARTNERSHIP." Laws of Corporations, 1983.

JOINT-VENTURE CORPORATION: a corporation that has joined with one or more INDIVIDUALS, or corporations, to accomplish some specified project.

QUASI-CORPORATION: an entity that exercises some of the functions of a corporation but that has not been granted corporate status by statute (City of Toronto?); especially a public corporation with LIMITED authority and powers (such as a county or school district). - also sometimes termed QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.

Scott once someone files the "NOTICE OF MISTAKE" do they have to appear in court.? :)

If someone does appear in court after they have filled the "NOTICE OF MISTAKE" or they not giving consent and thous under the courts jurisdiction again?

So...What do ya think?

MAXIMS OF LAW ----------about IGNORANCE

1). Ignorance of those things which one is bound to know excuses not.

2). It is a rule, that every one is prejudiced by his ignorance of law, but NOT by his ignorance of fact.

3). Ignorance of law excuses no one.

4). Ignorance of fact excuses or is ground of relief. Acts done and contracts made under mistake or ignorance of a material fact are voidable and relievable in law and equity

5). IT IS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW OUR OWN RIGHTS.

6). Ignorant of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses NOT. EVERY MAN must be taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance may not be carried.

7). A MISTAKE in point of law is, in criminal cases, no sort of defense. And, in civil cases, ignorance of the law, with a full knowledge of the facts, furnishes no ground, either in law or equity. To rescind agreements, or reclaim money paid, or set aside solemn acts of the parties.

8). The law assists the ignorant

9). Ignorance, or want of skill, is considered a fault, i.e., a negligence, for which one who profess the skill is responsible.

10). Ignorance of one’s right does not prejudice the right.

Final draft!

i have a weird question.

Do animals have rights?

So a few years ago I was arrested and Charged with theft of a gas utility and mischief causing damage. At the first hearing I was ordered to go for a psychological evaluation. ( which I never did) the second hearing i presented this document. ALL CHARGES and conditions were dropped. Now I know you will rip apart as you say the imaginary person in the sky part ( so lets not waste time with that.) Why did this work?

Ecclesiastical Notice of Asservation

From: michael ryan of the jean-louis family 2011/07/20 calgary, Alberta, Canada, geographical location no code, non commercial

To Judges Qaarters 601 5 Street SWt6 CALGARY , AB T2P 5P7

NOTICE This is a Private Ecclesiastical, Non Commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant and understanding between michael ryan of the jean-louis family and the judges quarters the private man. Provided under protest and duress

Hello Judges Quarters, I am michael ryan of the family jean-louis, you will address me as minister daslow. I come here as a duty to God not to the courts to minister the office of the estate with the name RYAN JEAN-LOUIS. I am not the legal fiction you are seeking to contract with. "I am here because I have obeyed God rather than man. Your duty is to punish evil doers as God has defined evil. What evil have I done?” (Acts 5:29)

Declaration of private ministry under God and his Perpetual law. I am declaring that I am God created; My Christian given name is Michael ryan Arthur jerry of the jean-louis family and; I am a private ecclesiastical man man under God as my creator and no man or woman has a moral or lawful right to impose anything upon me without my informed consent and; That I do hereby renounce any fraudulent, corporate, assumptive contract and do honor the directive and obligation to respect the equal god given freedoms of other men and women under His law. To all those who set eyes on this Ecclesiastical Determination, I do hereby, officially performing the functions of my calling serve notice to all private men and women who receive this that any offer made herein, prior to, or on my part imply acceptance of intimidation, violence, or threats of violence against me and that no such offer implies that I will submit to any intimidation in the future. I as a bondservant of Christ, do henceforth offer the good faith of proclamation of my freeborn will to live in peace and declare that, by right of God, the de facto authorities edicts, codes, obligations, statutes, taxes, licenses, and prohibitions are not binding upon me, or applicable upon God’s ministers and his children

I am who my Father says I am, not who Caesar says I am. I love my God, I love my neighbor, I even love each and every one of you.

“Capitis Diminutio ( meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgement of personality, a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attribute and qualifications.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition. 1968

I am a man, a flesh and blood living being, not an “ARTIFICIAL PERSON” (A legal entity not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach)

To create joinder between the man and the PERSON will be considered fraud and is punishable under the Criminal Code of CANADA.

I do not grant the court jurisdiction over the man Michael Ryan Arthur Jerry of the house of Jean-Louis nor will I allow the court to fraudulently create joinder between the man and the PERSON. From this point forward and forever it is my will that the only way to create joinder between me and any legal PERSON is in writing and witnessed by a Notary Public provided with my consent.

that “inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and creature of the mind only , a government can interface only with artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p

Pope Pius XI wrote Divini redemptoris: "The human being ought to be put in the first rank of earthly realities." Pope Pius XII wrote July 14, 1946: "It is the human being that Yahweh put at the top of the visible universe, making him, in economics and politics as well, the measure of all things." It is not Government who is at the top; it is the human being. The human being therefore does not belong to Government; it is rather Government that must belong to the human being, who must serve him by exercising its function of guardian of human freedoms. Maurice Allard, the MP for Sherbrooke, Que., also said during this debate on the Bill of Rights: "The individual must not become a tool or a victim of the State; it is the State which, while making laws, must favour the numerous freedoms of man." is it the duty of Men, and therefore it our heartfelt desire, to ensure that all men recall their Maxim: “No man shall be ignorant of God”, lest we offend God by stating or acting as if any rule of man’s law is precedental or supercedent to His supreme Law.

"Is it not written in your law that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible (maxim), and, also, any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all (maxim)? I was exercising my duty of movement upon the common ways. My warrant for doing that is written in the Word of God, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), also, "To visit orphans and widows" (James 1:27). And it is also written, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). , "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" "It is also written in your law that an act does not make a man guilty unless the intention be guilty. Since my intention is to do God's Will, and God's Will is not evil, I could not possibly be guilty in this thing I am accused of." "I cannot accept any benefits offered by the court. And as a bondman of Christ Jesus, I cannot represent "myself," for that denotes self-will. I don't have any self-will. Jesus the Christ is my Advocate and Wonderful Counselor" (1 John 2:1, Isaiah 9:6). It is written in your law that "No man is ignorant of God’s Law" (Maxim). The Scripture saith, "There is one lawgiver (James 4:12). The Lord is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22)." It is also written in your law, "We are all bound to our lawgiver, regardless of our personal interpretation of reality (Maxim). Legality is not reality" (Maxim). The reality is what God says it is, not what your perception of it is. It is also written in your law, "There is no fiction without law. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions" (Maxim).

to remove any items from my possession will be immediately considered theft and is punishable under the Criminal Code of CANADA

I am protected from criminal responsibility for defending my possessions even against a person entitled by law to possession of it. Criminal Code of CANADA pt. 1 section 39. (1)

ATCO first broke the law acoording to article 51 Notwithstanding the terms of any contract, a person or company furnishing or supplying gas by retail or wholesale either directly or indirectly to or for the public or any member of the public shall not discontinue the furnishing or supplying of the gas by reason of or pursuant to any other contractual obligations in respect of the furnishing or supplying of gas. RSA 1980 cG-4 s42

Article 52 of the gas utlities act of Alberta states 52(1) A person who fails to comply with this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. (2) A person who advises, solicits, persuades, instructs, directs or orders a person (a) to do an act or thing prohibited by this Act or the regulations, or (b) to omit to do an act or thing required to be done by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $3,000,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues.

422. (1) Every one who wilfully breaks a contract, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of doing so, whether alone or in combination with others, will be (a) to endanger human life, (b) to cause serious bodily injury, (c) to expose valuable property, real or personal, to destruction or serious injury, (d) to deprive the inhabitants of a city or place, or part thereof, wholly or to a great extent, of their supply of light, power, gas or water, or (e) to delay or prevent the running of any locomotive engine, tender, freight or passenger train or car, on a railway that is a common carrier, is guilty of (f) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or (g) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

No police officer would respond to these complaints when brought forward to them including CST J.H HAMEL We wish for the case to be dismissed or to be given a void judgment based on

Charges were laid based on assumption the arresting officer CST. J.H HAMEL nor any other officer or an employee of ATCO GAS never entered the residence to verify the appliances were turned on and consuming gas.

There is no injured party to come forward . It is written in your law that corporations, such as ATCO GAS have no souls—they are dead, and the dead cannot be sued, and the dead cannot receive an injury. Can you show me any law that says the living must be joined to the dead? God's Law says that we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14), and it is also written in your law that “unequal things ought not to be joined” (maxim). Therefore, it is God's Will that I not be joined to the dead, for scripture says, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32) ."

All witness statements are hearsay

It is stated that the ACCUSED tampered with the meter, How is this possible if the meter was removed by ATCO GAS when DAVID SINCLAIR attested that the meter was removed 2010/06/29

The Chief Financial Officer JAMES SPENCE of DIRECT ENERGY and myself had a tacit agreement. That if he did not accept my payment I had sent in and if my meter was not returned within 10 days upon receiving the letter by registered mail. Or if I did not receive a response from him in writing I would reconnect the line myself. He did not respond or return my meter I remained in honor by following through with our agreement

Ok here is my new creation for you to rip up Scott again I know your thoughts on the imaginary thing in the sky.

My intention by corresponding through this document is to clarify what is occurring in my situation regarding having any relationship with the court and any concerns therewith. I come under peaceful means and therefore do not wish to or have any want or need to battle or war with the court whatsoever. If it is directly required by the court, I can produce a Peace Bond to that effect in order to demonstrate my good faith and merit in whatever matter exist. I'm simply asking for an explanation to which person of title you the court is summoning to speak to? Since it is impossible for myself to be a person of title and I have never created such a person then how can I be linked to such a person? It is my understanding that a person can only appear on a document and therefore I would be committing a fraudulent act by attempting to represent such a person that I had no involvement in creating in the first place or have no permission to do so on behalf of. If there is any confusion regarding this topic, then I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. That being said, I hope and pray that the court's purpose and intentions in these types of matters is to appropriately and truthfully guide people to make the proper decisions especially concerning the fact of trapping or entrapping themselves into unknowingly and falsely representing a person that they have no association with. I would think that nobody should be forced or threatened into an act that they have not committed or the intent to commit. Also I am not aware of the particular jurisdiction and/or law that the court conducts itself under, but for myself I can only recognize the law that was created and establish by God the Creator, which we as people are to follow by. It is my understanding that there is no law superior in standing then that of the Divine. If I am incorrect or uninformed in my analogy, then I would ask anyone to come forward and present and provide the truth to the contrary. The court in my estimations has taken the liberty of demanding from me that I provide my fingers for printing, which I feel is being conveyed to me under threat of reprisal where could lead to forcible confinement or worse if I choose not to follow the court's instructions. In good conscience it is very apparent that I cannot subdue any physical attributes that I possess in and on my body. By doing so I would be forfeiting that which I truly possess and that I must guard over for the sake of my health and welfare. So regrettably I obviously cannot submit to the court's demand. Where I may have stated before and wish to remind the court, I do not wish to have any sort of relationship with the court in any manner or shape whatsoever. I feel by doing so I would always be in fear that it would always fall one sided toward the court and I would be open to ridicule and eventually compromised in the end. I only believe in surrounding myself with those people who are truly righteous in faith and kindness. The court has not demonstrated to me that it is capable of conducting itself in such a manner at this time.

The MAXIM-OF-LAW, and ONLY, the MAXIM-OF-LAW- thread, in honour of Pierre receiving his 1600 Maxims Maxim-of-law book *trumpets herald*. . . . .

The BETA TEST, PROOF-OF-CONCEPT of the first practical crypto-currency... is a threat to the IMF?

Imagine what will happen when we make the real thing! :D

I receive these emails and I love it....just wanted to share it with you

Pierre

I miss Bill Hicks.

If you don't know who he was, this video will let you know.

If you knew him, I know you're clicking on this one now.

Were we smarter 20 years ago?

Hicks sure was.

You'll be shocked at how clearly he saw the whole game. With a few minor updates for today, he'd still be ahead of the cutting edge.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1121.html

I have come to realize that I don't know how to think. I just spent 45 minutes trying to delete cookies. just like a mantard to not stop and ask questions. programmed mind is very hard to un-program. I am so grateful that this group is here. Thank you Scott and all the other members. Sincerely your's outcast

There are no kitty's AND/OR titties to be seen in this series, hence hardly a hundred views for some parts of it. Canadian participants clearly have thier priorities in order.

ANTON PILLER ORDER

I need to know: What should happen in court, if I say, at a specific time

Hey, there is a maxim of law that says............

How the court and/or justice should react when one bring this ?

Thanks very Much ! FTP Master of PIERRE DAOUST

Dusty explains why I am smarter than you. He is smarter than you too, so he's qualified to do this.

The point being; Check your facts.

"Belief" strikes again, and everyone (ESPECIALLY the BELIEVERS) gets fucked!

The 'Your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is PROOF to your CLAIM that YOU are there in the role of BENEFICIARY in a courtroom'- thread. . . . .originally posted by Eamonn O Brien

Eamonn O Brien: So is the BC proof of one's claim to the role of BENEFICIARY in a courtroom scenario?

If we appoint the JP ADMINISTRATOR can't he re-assign the role of beneficiary to the state?

I may as well throw some questions out there that come to mind. The more I ask the clearer it will become, hopefully...

Scott Duncan: YES

Eamonn O Brien: So if there's a hearing set for a particular date and it's being held for the PERSON I'm authorised to represent, notification of the capacity/ies should be sent asap...? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Scott Duncan: Yes, and notify them that you are there as a "Friend of the Court". Not as Plaintiff or Defendant"

Eamonn O Brien: So we possess the PERSON (control it) and they own it (legal title).

When they conjure up offenses they try to place liability on us as surety/ ies.

Where does the SOLB come into play or is it necessary at all?

Scott Duncan: RE: "If we appoint the JP ADMINISTRATOR can't he re-assign the role of beneficiary to the state?" - No, because the STATE gave it no VALUE. YOU did. YOU get the benefit, not a state trust.

Eamonn O Brien: I give it value by acting as the living representative?

Scott Duncan: Ok, "statement of live birth"...is a statement.

"Fiona Munro want's to make porn with me" ...is a statement.

Scott Duncan was born on February 31st 1966 ...is a STATEMENT.

All have equal value.

...and have NOTHING to do with law.

Eamonn O Brien: Ok... Got ya. The BC is the only important document...

So registration of birth notifies the GOVERNMENT of another man/woman in the country. They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary, they are surety and administrator is us also unless we wish to appoint someone else... Like when we write up our last will and testament, we appoint an executor....

Pete Daoust: They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary: No, they want us to give it VALUE

Scott Duncan: THERE you go!

Scott Duncan: NAME attached to VESSEL. That's all it is.

YOUR "WILL" is something to research for clarity. Remember, there are NO HOMONYMS IN LAW.

Scott Duncan: The record is EXPUNGED when the bankruptcy occurred. That is the "protection" the law offers.

They can just run this cycle forever.

Scott Duncan: A bankruptcy trustee must accept it. They have no obligation to.

Scott Duncan: You are also in the U.S. You have a slightly different status than the commonwealth.

Derek Moran: bankruptcy trustee = Receiver General Rona Ambrose?

Scott Duncan: That's the one!

Tell her I said hi.

Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATES are NOT FEDERAL

Scott Duncan: In either country.

Scott Duncan: CITIZENSHIP is FEDERAL

Derek Moran: So who would've been 'THE COURT' that appointed Rona Ambrose as the Bankruptcy Trustee?

Scott Duncan: Derek, the government is who "The Court" appointed. The rest is just busy work..

Derek Moran: 'The Court' = IMF ? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Scott Duncan: Fun Fact. Those born in Washington are NOT considered valid certificates. The Birth CERTIFICATE for The DISTRICT of COLUMBIA is actually considered a "Coupon" like a Chuck-e-Cheese ticket.

Tom here, recently have been informed, or perhaps misinformed that the function of the governor general is to represent the creditors of Canada to the government of Canada. If this is so, would instructing the governor general to present the notice of mistake to the Government on our behalf not be an effective way of making the office of governor general a liable party for making sure that the notice is understood and enforced? Also, Cara is sick of me using her facebook, how close are you to having your website up, what is its link? saw it earlier but cant find it again.

In searching past posts for a particular thread, I reread many along the way...this is such an awesome group!

Scott

my question is. if I want to sail my own boat at sea but don't want to use say the red white and blue flag how do I go about the use of my own flag. how do I establish it and am I not a nation unto my self ? I know your the only source on how to do this.

REQUIRED READING:

Ayn Rand "There is no such thing as duty. If you know that a thing is right, you want to do it. If you don't want to do it—it isn't right. If it's right and you don't want to do it—you don't know what right is and you're not a man." | We The Living

This is awesome on SO many levels.

Can the valuable security held in trust be referred to as an account? As "it's all accounting" and it can be charged and discharged...?

Dean Wiebe shared The Anti-Media's photo. You don't need rights. You have inherent freedom. By claiming rights you also claim duties, and enslave yourself to the creator of the rights. You must be "not of the world," subscribing to no fiction, to be truly free.

...i think i just figured-out what Scott Duncan is planning on "taking" from all of us hiding-in-plain-sight - SHITTY internet, and replacing it with, GOOD internet?? :)

thetenderforlaw.com PROMO... Coincidentally, a Scotsman plays the lead role from the movie...

To all the "tax payers" out there giving away half their annual INCOME every year just to "fund" the infernal machine of "government"... you might wanna look up VOLUNTARY and do some digging. Who knows, maybe you'll figure out a way to keep your so-called MONEY... probably not...

Scott why would anyone want to live on a boat/ship at sea and not on land? as to it's legal/lawful reason's jurisdictions ect

There is a Notary Public in the Hamilton Area/Toronto/Niagara Falls area who does the full administrative process in order to get a private agreement that removes jurisdiction from any public court. If you know how to hold it and not argue. Contact me for details. chiefrockmusic@gmail.com , i know there is quite a few people who require a notary so please let me know asap. Unsure what the notary issues are here but if any here is one that is willing to seal documents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL4FCB9AE34B8E9814&v=eJvIgrVJdAE&feature=player_detailpage

HOW TO DEAL WITH THE TENDER FOR LAW'S VILLAGE-IDIOT

*Christopher Hitchens to The Tender For Law-member pissing everybody off*

"Hold it right there...dont bother...wasting your time...im not going to answer you...wasting your time...you can speak, im not bothering with you...i have no time to waste on people like you...i cant make you stop, but when you stop its all over...im not going to buy a pencil from your cup, either...this is a big WOW from a small mind...forget it, i have no time to waste on people like you...as long as he stays quiet, he had his turn...im not wasting my time on him, next question"

Basics for Idiots by an Idiot What 2 points best assist learning an Act (The core points)?

I have noticed that there are few main posters and many lurkers here. This is a good thing. To much crap floating around just stinks. From questions raised in every OP I see commenters stray from the basics of the OP. This is my method of approaching something I do not understand. Maybe others may post theirs as it may help others. I pick 2 points only, no matter how large the document. I have been going over the Bills of Exchange Act. POINT 1 ""Bills of Exchange Act"" (The title it self speaks volumes) many long hours have been invested into those 4 words. Fantastic learning! POINT 2 ""Section 30"" Perfecting bill

30. Where a simple signature on a blank paper is delivered by the signer in order that it may be converted into a bill, it operates, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as an authority to fill it up as a complete bill for any amount, using the signature for that of the drawer or acceptor, or an endorser, and, in like manner, when a bill is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession of it has, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the authority to fill up the omission in any way he thinks fit.

The point of a method such as this is that if the above is always used when reading this act there is always a base to referance to. To help stay on track so to speak. I use the above 2 points since I see the Entire act as having; 1) Everything is an Exchange of some nature and, 2) Every thing in this act starts from Just a signature and nothing else. So when ever studying portions of this act I always start with the above 2 items as a base.

Does anyone else use 'tricks' like this to help learn and what are they if you want to share. Ripping things apart is always fun as long as you have a referance.

Rock N Roll for christ sakes !!!!!!!!!

Mor I read, and more options are none….except this”

If I end up in court, it MUST be by force or by special appearance. And the ONLY thing that can get out of my mouth should be: Who are they ? What do they want.

Reserve ALL RIGHTS Notice of mistake. Asking what crime I have commited or what contract I have breached If there is NONE, I CANÂT understand the nature of these procedures. DO I miss something ?. Oh, and make sure I don’t CONTRACT with these cock suckers”.

Scott on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE- thread. . . . .(has been UPDATED towards bottom)

Eamonn O Brien: Ok... Got ya. The BC is the only important document...

So registration of birth notifies the GOVERNMENT of another man/woman in the country. They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary, they are surety and administrator is us also unless we wish to appoint someone else... Like when we write up our last will and testament, we appoint an executor....

Pete Daoust: They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary: No, they want us to give it VALUE

Scott Duncan: THERE you go!

Scott Duncan: NAME attached to VESSEL. That's all it is.

YOUR "WILL" is something to research for clarity. Remember, there are NO HOMONYMS IN LAW.

Scott Duncan: The record is EXPUNGED when the bankruptcy occurred. That is the "protection" the law offers.

They can just run this cycle forever.

Scott Duncan: A bankruptcy trustee must accept it. They have no obligation to.

Scott Duncan: You are also in the U.S. You have a slightly different status than the commonwealth.

Derek Moran: bankruptcy trustee = Receiver General Rona Ambrose?

Scott Duncan: That's the one!

Tell her I said hi.

Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATES are NOT FEDERAL

Scott Duncan: In either country.

Scott Duncan: CITIZENSHIP is FEDERAL

Derek Moran: So who would've been 'THE COURT' that appointed Rona Ambrose as the Bankruptcy Trustee?

Scott Duncan: Fun Fact. Those born in Washington are NOT considered valid certificates. The Birth CERTIFICATE for The DISTRICT of COLUMBIA is actually considered a "Coupon" like a Chuck-e-Cheese ticket.

Scott Duncan: Derek, the government is who "The Court" appointed. The rest is just busy work..

Derek Moran: 'The Court' = IMF ? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Derek Moran: So do i invite Rona Ambrose to a Federal/Admiralty, or a Court of Equity?

Scott Duncan: To do what? If you like her, just ask her out, dude.

Derek Moran: ..tired of being the CARRIER

Scott Duncan: Why?

Derek Moran: You mentioned it in a thread i think yesterday.. GOVERNMENT = current Beneficiary of DEREK MORAN

Scott Duncan: To your masters?

Scott Duncan: Are you going to APPLY?

Scott Duncan: Seriously, why do you need to ask them? LIEN THE FUCKER.

Derek Moran: PRAECIPE!

Scott Duncan: *sigh*

Pete Daoust: create a trust, swing everything you have in it, and go wild....

Scott Duncan: Yes...here's the catch...it can't be YOU.

Scott Duncan: TRUST. It has to be someone you TRUST.

Scott Duncan: It's in the NAME "TRUST" if you look real close.

Pete Daoust: mmmhhh...who left to be TRUST besides the government

Derek Moran: REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY: from hereon in, DEREK MORAN = Executor/Beneficiary.. GOVERNMENT = back-to-being-the-Trustee-they-were-meant-to-be-all-along ?

Derek Moran: You're right Charles.. id just be happy learning how to DISCHARGE my cash-receipts, per 1978 Supreme Court of Canada BANK OF CANADA v. BANK OF MONTREAL

Scott Duncan: Ask the government.

Derek Moran: CHIEF JUSTICE BORA LASKIN: "...there is no liquidation of the debt until it is DISCHARGED, and this may be by money or money’s worth or the debt may be forgiven."

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=discharged&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=%2Fen%2Fca%2Fscc%2Fdoc%2F1977%2F1977canlii36%2F1977canlii36.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKZGlzY2hhcmdlZAAAAAAAAAE CanLII - 1977 CanLII 36 (SCC) www.canlii.org Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Limited and Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Limited

Derek Moran: *Derek to Government* "Im not supposed to pay for things with cash."

*Government to Derek* "Oh, i see. You are a loony FREEMAN."

*Derek to Government* "Here is the case-law that backs me up - SCOREBOARD!"

Scott Duncan: *sigh*

Government to Derek: That's very impressive. You HONOUR us by being so KNOWLEDGEABLE of our CLUB RULES!

...except you aren't in the club. Fuck you and what are you gonna do about it?

Derek Moran: MARSHALL McLUHAN: "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”

Scott Duncan: Government to Derek Moran (About an hour later): Look we feel bad about the "fuck you" thing. You're right, it's not fair. How `bout we make it up to you by giving you the CHANCE to APPLY to be a CLUB PLEDGE!

Aren't we NICE?

Derek Moran: Well then fuck you right back and im gonna PRAECIPE yer ass in a Court-of-Equity then, my public-servants!

Scott Duncan: Dude, if you were who you say you were you wouldn't be in THIS jurisdiction. OUT! If you come back, we'll charge you with "trespassing".

Derek Moran: Well then fuck you right back Part II and im gonna MANDAMUS then yer ass in a Court-of-Equity, my public-servants!

Scott Duncan: RETURN TO SENDER

Scott Duncan: ...unless you are there in real life...and then you are "Arrested" and charged with "trespassing".

Scott Duncan: We warned you!

Derek Moran: ..PRAECIPE yer ass in Federal Court of Admiralty as im still deemed to be a VESSEL?

Scott Duncan: So you intend to wage war?

Scott Duncan: Where is this vessel? That's where the trial must be held.

Derek Moran: AG of Ontario considers this province to be a common-law-inheritance-jurisdiction...

Derek Moran: ..so - in an Inheritance-jurisdiction court?

Derek Moran: Trespass an offence

2.Colour of right as a defence

(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) in respect of premises that is land that the person charged reasonably believed that he or she had title to or an interest in the land that entitled him or her to do the act complained of.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-t21/latest/rso-1990-c-t21.html CanLII - Trespass to Property Act, RSO 1990, c T.21 www.canlii.org (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premis...See More

Scott Duncan: "in an Inheritance-jurisdiction court?" - Who ARE these mystery "Authorities" you are answering to?

Derek Moran: Hmmmm. lets see...the birth-certificate is printed on EXCHEQUER BILL PAPER

Derek Moran: FEDERAL Court.. is the old EXCHEQUER Court, also Admiralty Court.....

Derek Moran: "So you intend to wage war?".. YES I DO, why, do you consider me to be a BELLIGERENT DEFENDANT, your Honour??

Scott Duncan: At that point you are just the target of a sniper.

Scott Duncan: You'll never see the imaginary court of these people you love so much.

Derek Moran: You know what.....its like that guy Russ Rawlingson said in an earlier thread- ""Prove your claim I have to comply with Legislation"

Derek Moran: Christ- doesnt it say somewhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you have the right to the 'security of the person'..same as in the Charter..ok, thanks - im Claiming it!..now just lemme know how i access the account

Fiona Munro: Your B.C is an ADHESION CONTRACT

Scott Duncan: You DON'T. It's not YOURS.

Scott Duncan: LIEN IT so THEY get no value. You are free then... except you can't get credit.

Scott Duncan: ...but your corporation can!

Scott Duncan: And how will you enforce it?

Derek Moran: LOL.. my corporation??

Scott Duncan: They take 10 minutes to create. CHICKS do it. It's not hard.

Derek Moran: Wait a second - we talked about this the other night, about making an AFFIRMATION under oath..question is, who does it get sent to?

Scott Duncan: WHO was the affirmation made to?

Scott Duncan: START OVER. DO YOUR HOMEWORK

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/483743828328221/

Derek Moran: I forget.. but you agreed with the way i worded it

Scott Duncan: You can't FORGET UNDERSTANDING. You either get it or you don't.

Scott Duncan: DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Scott Duncan https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/483743828328221/

Scott Duncan: Seriously WORK ON THE FUTURE, not these idiots.

Derek Moran: UNDERSTANDING = "Do you agree to stand under our jurisdiction?"

Scott Duncan: https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/483743828328221/

Derek Moran: some people just took the board-game RISK a little-bit too more seriously than others growing-up...board-game RISK = section 57.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1985, and/or, the Birth(like a Stock)Certificate (Scott clicked Like on this)

Pete Daoust: 57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value.

Scott Duncan: Fun Canadian Legal Fact: DEEMED = CREATE LEGAL FICTION

Scott Duncan: Keep that in mind. It's done on purpose. Legalese is grammatically backwards in EVERY language when you try to translate.

Derek Moran: WHOA..... have i just figured-out that my/the Birth/Stock Certificate is waiting for me to claim as soon as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Derek Moran: DEEMED = prima facie in Latin?

Derek Moran DEEMED = 'in the absence of evidence to the contrary'...thats whats so funny about section 57.1, they mention DEEMED 'twice!'

Scott Duncan: Derek Moran RE:"...as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? " - It's even simpler than that. A sworn affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation.

Derek Moran: Not bound to execute trusts

59. Her Majesty and a fiscal agent or registrar acting as such are not bound to see to the execution of any express or implied trust to which any securities are subject.

Regulations

60. Form of register

(2) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) may be in a bound or loose-leaf form or in a photographic film form or may be maintained by any system of mechanical or electronic data processing or any other information storage device that is capable of reproducing any required information in intelligible written form within a reasonable time.

Canada Evidence Act

(3) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) is deemed to be a record for the purposes of the Canada Evidence Act and every employee of the Bank of Canada who supervises the inscription or registration of securities in the register is deemed to be a manager of the Bank of Canada for the purposes of that Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/FullText.html Financial Administration Act laws-lois.justice.gc.ca Federal laws of canada

Derek Moran: How much longer before Mark Carney becomes head of the Bank of England?...hmmmmmmm, maybe i should write him a letter before he goes

Derek Moran: A special type of Crown corporation

The Bank was founded in 1934 as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, it became a Crown corporation belonging to the federal government. Since that time, the Minister of Finance has held the entire share capital issued by the Bank. Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the (Belligerent-Defendants)/PEOPLE of Canada.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/about/who-we-are/ Bank of Canada www.bankofcanada.ca The Bank of Canada is the nation's central bank. We are not a commercial bank an...See More

Derek Moran: ..well he should bloody well see me - i AM one of the fucking owners, ya'know!

Derek Moran: AFFIRMATION OF Derek Moran

I am Derek Moran, and 42 years ago you guys gave my parents a Revenue Receipt for DEREK MORAN, to wit, i now claim it for Derek Moran.

..simple that simple?

Pete Daoust: what rigths should I claim ????

Scott Duncan: The PERSON (DuuuH!)

Scott Duncan: The government is not a PERSON. You have a PERSON and YOU are responsible. You contracted with a TRUST, not a PERSON. The signature PROVES you UNDERSTAND.

There's ONLY ONE PERSON INVOLVED, YOURS!

THE PERSON (There IS only one in the transaction) is ALWAYS responsible.

GOVERNMENT is a TRUST.

Stuart Stone: Black's magic 6: Securities. Stocks, bonds, notes, convertible debentures, warrants, or other documents that represent a share in a company or a debt owed by a company or government entity. Evidences of obligations to pay money or of rights to participate in earnings and distribution of corporate assets. Instruments giving to their legal holders rights to money or other property; they are therefore instruments which have intrinsic value and are recognized and used as such in the regular channels of commerce.... You have a person & according to the definition of securities, I'm willing to suggest that the birth certificate may fall into the category of, 'or other document that represent a share in a company or a debt owed by a company or government entity' and as we are the 'legal holder' of this document, then the right to life, liberty and... 'security of the person' may just mean that you have the right to collect on that trust/account But, again, as the grantor/beneficiary of that trust account, I'm guessing we need to instruct the trustees & not ask them...there's a certain amount of speculation here (what Scott Duncan would probably call talking out of my ass )

Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = BILL OF LADING

Glad I could help

Pete Daoust: Bill of Lading legal definition: A document signed by a carrier (a transporter of goods) or the carrier's representative and issued to a consignor (the shipper of goods) that evidences the receipt of goods for shipment to a specified designation and person.

Scott Duncan: Parents were the GRANTOR (one of the parties that created the bill of lading).

Listen up and pay attention.

YOU ARE THE CARRIER!

A Truck ACTING AS CARRIER is NOT "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"!

IT IS, IN FACT, A CARRIER THAT HAS "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"!

It's delivering it to YOU (The Beneficiary). It just hasn't arrived yet.

You don't know that YOU own the CARGO. If you OWN the cargo you are transporting you are no longer in commerce. You are transporting PROPERTY.

Derek Moran: OWN the cargo = TRANSPORTING, TRANSPORTING = no longer in commerce. . . . .CARRIERing cargo = engaged in commerce

Scott Duncan: The NAME is the CARGO, and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the BILL OF LADING. It's valueless on it's own. Hence the term "Sold a bill of goods".

Pete Daoust: Two basic types of bills of lading. A straight bill of lading is one in which the goods are consigned to a designated party. An order bill is one in which the goods are consigned to the order of a named party. This distinction is important in determining whether a bill of lading is negotiable (capable of transferring title to the goods covered under it by its delivery or endorsement). If its terms provide that the freight is to be delivered to the bearer (or possessor) of the bill, to the order of a named party, or, as recognized in overseas trade, to a named person or assigns, a bill, as a document of title, is negotiable. In contrast, a straight bill is not negotiable.

Pete Daoust: a straight bill is not negotiable

Stuart Stone: Ok, got it so far (I think)...so when you lien the name, are you doing it because you haven't been paid for transport/carriage of the goods?

Scott Duncan: You are letting the world know that the cargo is in fact YOURS. Nobody has the right to presume your cargo is for commerce now.

Scott Duncan: That is ALL a Lien is.

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: is this what I should be looking at? (Scott clicked Like on this) http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P07.pdf

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: A maritime lien is a lien on a vessel, given to secure the claim of a creditor who provided maritime services to the vessel or who suffered an injury from the vessel's use. Maritime liens are sometimes referred to as tacit hypothecation. Maritime liens have little in common with other liens under the laws of most jurisdictions.

The maritime lien has been described as "one of the most striking peculiarities of Admiralty law".[14] A maritime lien constitutes a security interest upon ships of a nature otherwise unknown to the common law or equity. It arises purely by operation of law and exists as a claim upon the property concerned, both secret and invisible, often given priority by statute over other forms of registered security interest.[15] Although characteristics vary under the laws of different countries, it can be described as:

a privileged claim, upon maritime property, for service to it or damage done by it, accruing from the moment that the claim attaches, travelling with the property unconditionally, enforced by an action in rem.[14]

Derek Moran: An action IN REM, versus, an action IN PERSONAM..... interesting stuff (Scott clicked Like on this)

*UPDATE STARTS HERE*

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: I have a question. I just received a new BC and my name is not all caps at all, has both parents names/origin and only one number on the front. The red number on the back is missing. It says, "This certificate is a valuable foundation identity document"

So are they trying to attach a legal fiction to my name in proper persona?

Scott Duncan: Manitoba?

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: No, Alberta

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: ...there's also a barcode *grumble Scott Duncan: What IS it with these wonky docs? Manitoba has ONE SIGNATURE as well. These are COUPONS.

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Yah, one signature, on the plastic money paper Scott Duncan: That isn't a "Certificate" any more than Canadian Tire money is. Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Its really a copy of LBR... mostly Derek Moran: I have no red-number on the back of mine, too. Its type-written on the front, starts with a Q. Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Yah but there's no all caps on any name on it... and some weird QR code thingy, beside the bar code Derek Moran: I know a guy in Vegas that has managed to get ahold of what he calls his Treasury Bond- this is what he had to say about all this.. "don't waste your time on fidelity. unless you have your 'original' BC. The info needed to see how many/and how much it's actual worth is you need the info off the very first one. Your Mom and dad got number 2.

The original one floating all over the place will have stamped on the back where/what/how/why from each trade/re insured and underwriting's and trade companies. But are we talking about born in the USA? Or 'Hey you hoser' land? LOL.." Scott Duncan: These are COUPONS. Our Fake Harper Government is making COUPONS for exchange.

FUCK. This is CREEPY. I'm seeing this EVERYWHERE. Scott Duncan: That's not a certificate Beverly May Braaksma! It's just NOT. Derek Moran: Dear Government, What exactly is the Birth Certificate you gave me a receipt FOR? (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) Joel Kinmond: I have a reissued (2004) ONTARIO BC has a red number starts with A. What is the deal with the old one? are there now TWO PERSONS floating around in DE FACTO land?

Scott Duncan: The other is pulled from circulation. Until it is pulled, then yes, there was 2 of you for a short time.

Derek Moran: My relative thought that it was neat when i held her new one up to the light and showed a WATERMARK

Derek Moran: Of course.. Canadian BANK NOTE Company Limited isnt TOO much of a tip-off.. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Joel Kinmond: WATERMARK = see BRAND (brand name) oh my.... look up every word. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) Derek Moran: WATERMARK = MARITIME ? (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Derek Moran: MARITIME = ADMIRALTY

Derek Moran: ADMIRALTY = FEDERAL COURT

Scott Duncan: Yup. A BRAND ON WATER - PRINCESS CRUISES = WATERMARK BRAND

Derek Moran: FEDERAL COURT = old EXCHEQUER COURT

Derek Moran: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = EXCHEQUER BILL

Derek Moran: BIRTH CERTIFICATE made of EXCHEQUER BILL PAPER

Derek Moran: EXCHEQUER BILL = EXCHEQUER ACQUITTANCE ? (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Derek Moran: Dictionary of Canadian Law, EXCHEQUER BILL: a bank-note, bond, note, debenture, or security that is issued or guaranteed by Her Majesty under the authority of Parliament or the legislature of a province.

Derek Moran: ACQUITTANCE: a written acknowledgment that a debt was paid.

Joel Kinmond: Before Dean Clifford disappeared he started talking about handling all matters through your living voice (There was a latin term). Once you know where and how to stand is he correct in saying that all the paper work in filing is unnecessary?

Derek Moran: EXCHEQUER ACQUIITANCE: a written acknowledgment that a debt was (pre-?)paid, that is issued or guaranteed by Her Majesty under the authority of Parliament or the legislature of a province, in the form of either a bank-note, bond, note, debenture, or security.........?

Derek Moran: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = receipt of/to the EXCHEQUER ACQUITTANCE ?

Scott Duncan: She's (The Queen) the KEEPER OF THE TRUST. She HAS TO OBEY ORDERS FROM THE TRUSTEES!

Scott Duncan: Joel Kinmond: YOU have it SO backwards.

ADMINISTRATORS ARE TRUSTEES.

The HOLDER/KEEPER ENABLES the trustees. The Keeper follows ALL legal orders of trustees. They HAVE to. THEY represent THE TRUST ITSELF as a TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: What do you think they are trying to do with this BC thing then Scott?

Scott Duncan: Beverly May Braaksma: The Austrians "Couponized" their money 9 months before Germany Invaded in the 30's.

NORTH AMERICAN UNION - These things are just "roubles" until there is a consolidated North American Currency.

This is WAY sooner than I'd hoped

Joel Kinmond: Germany didn't "invade" Austria!

Joel Kinmond: They welcomed them. So I am told...

Scott Duncan: Yes Joel, and they had a NICE disposable currency to be brushed aside while the REAL wealth is transferred by MONEY OF ACCOUNT to the invader.

Canada will welcome the US too.

Joel Kinmond: Must I join another Trust to remove myself as assumed Trustee of a Trust I wasn't even aware existed?

Scott Duncan: WE ARE AUSTRIA.

Joel Kinmond: Annexed - but not lovin it!

Joel Kinmond: The paper game is THIER game is it not? Sorry, I am struggling with " to what end" and I am going for a proper smoke break.

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Yes Joel, and they had a NICE disposable currency to be brushed aside while the REAL wealth is transferred by MONEY OF ACCOUNT to the invader.

Canada will welcome the US too.

Cara Small Atherton: this may be a good place to ask. how is a electronic signature actually an endorsement? I was told that was how they are registering all babies in British Columbia now (online). It can be done the old fashioned way still, I think. What is your experience and knowledge on this?

Scott Duncan: Cara Small Atherton hits on an interesting point that I shall cover in MASSIVE articles.

Short answer: IT ISN'T

Jason F. LeBlanc: I have a BC re issue from 2007. It is worn, accidently torn in half.

Has the director of vital stats signature on back with red No. On back with LB start to serial no.

States it is a certified extract from registration of birth. Has the Older dollar bill feel.

So when I lien my name. Form corp eatables a trust This legal tender goes into trust?

Jason F. LeBlanc: One is disturbed by the coupon aspect and Canada as Austria.

Confirmation of the americanization of Canada. Which I have been observing for years.

Time to get out of dodge. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Cara Small Atherton: has the queen taken on the protector of the trusts and must make sure they answer?

Scott Duncan: No. the keeper is just the placeholder "person" for the trust.

Scott on how there is NO LEGAL GOVERNMENT in Canada. . . . .

Derek Moran: Dear Government, What exactly is the Birth Certificate you gave me a receipt FOR? (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Scott Duncan: THERE'S NO LEGAL GOVERNMENT and NOBODY'S NOTICED

Derek Moran: *section 15. of the CRIMINAL CODE to Scott Duncan* "I have!" (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Derek Moran: ..think you meant, DE JURE Government?

Scott Duncan: Michelle Jean PROROGUED PARLIAMENT

The House of LORDS PROROGUED MY TITLE

SAME THING!

I don't get the full "NOBLE TITLE" and all the goodies until I'm told by The HOUSE OF LORDS or THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR, that it's OK.

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME! NO GOVERNOR GENERAL HAS REMOVED THIS!

Derek Moran: ..at least Adrienne Clarkson referred to herself as the DE FACTO GovernorGeneral (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Scott Duncan: DE JURE Government? When did we have THAT?

Derek Moran: Did we EVER have a DE JURE Government?

Scott Duncan No, we've never had a De Jure Government. ...But if it makes you feel any better, the natives we keep trying to wipe out, did.

Scott Duncan: Toss harper out... What would that do? The next Party member in line replaces him. There isn't even an election!

Harper is JUST THE PARTY LEADER. He has no power and "Harper" didn't do all this. He's just the mouthpiece in the House Of Commons who speaks for the Party!

Scott on THE QUEEN's role in Canada. . . . .

Scott Duncan: Do you know what The Queen's role in this is? ( This should be good )

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Queen's role in our BC's? Or going to jail?

Scott Duncan: Queen Going to Jail. Why? - I can make it happen tomorrow. There are methods to do just that. What is her crime?

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: She authorized government to do whatever they want?

Scott Duncan: No dear. YOU did,

Scott Duncan: She's the KEEPER OF THE TRUST. She HAS TO OBEY ORDERS FROM THE TRUSTEES!

Joel Kinmond: Keeper same as Custodian? YES

Scott Duncan: If she didn't, she'd be executed.

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Well then why can't I write her a letter to toss Harper out?

Scott Duncan: Same with the speaker of the House.

...and yes it's happened.

Scott Duncan: Imagine being BORN into that. They have NO money. NOT ONE CENT. It's all in the trust.

Joel Kinmond: It seems for something ( A TRUST ) that is supposed to have 3 "positions" admin / beneficary /trustee. So the KEEPER is Grantor or Admin? I am getting caught up with terms.

Scott Duncan: Toss harper out... What would that do? The next Party member in line replaces him. There isn't even an election!

Harper is JUST THE PARTY LEADER. He has no power and "Harper" didn't do all this. He's just the mouthpiece in the House Of Commons who speaks for the Party!

Joel Kinmond: But TRUSTEE are supposed to take orders from the ADMINSTRATOR? No wonder people are so confused. No HOMONYMNS - Just a million definitions!

Russ Rawlingson: Treason, thats the Queens crime. Sold us out to the EU in the 70's. I was christened C of E. One of the Charters in the Magna Carta that still stands says "The state must protect the church of england" and she has failed me big time so that's 2 crimes. Possably.

Scott Duncan: She is the HEAD of state. She has no more authority to do ANY of what you describe than The Governor General. Learn what that title MEANS.

If she did ANYTHING you say she failed to do, that would be treason.

I think you need to study her role here. She's not the "supreme Wealthy Leader. She is a PROP. Like Michelle Jean.

Michelle Jean couldn't "protect the church" or any of that other shit either.

Scott Duncan: Joel Kinmond: YOU have it SO backwards.

ADMINISTRATORS ARE TRUSTEES.

The HOLDER/KEEPER ENABLES the trustees. The Keeper follows ALL legal orders of trustees. They HAVE to. THEY represent THE TRUST ITSELF as a TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.

Cara Small Atherton: has the queen taken on the protector of the trusts and must make sure they answer?

Scott Duncan: No. the keeper is just the placeholder "person" for the trust.

Can I live without it ? ( Bank Note) :/ if yes, HOW ?

Thinking is now a crime. Now being opposed to imaginary friends is "hate speech".

Scott on what a PASSPORT really is. . . . .

Joel Kinmond: The only endorsement in my passport is digital. No one here seems to care that there is no ink signature of mine on it!

Cara Small Atherton: this may be a good place to ask. how is a electronic signature actually an endorsement? I was told that was how they are registering all babies in British Columbia now (online). It can be done the old fashioned way still, I think. What is your experience and knowledge on this?

Scott Duncan: Cara Small Atherton hits on an interesting point that I shall cover in MASSIVE articles.

Short answer: IT ISN'T

Cara Small Atherton: I would think a passport is an entirely different matter

Scott Duncan: Passport = MONEY. It's a "Bank Book" of the PERSON/GOVERNMENT credit you carry with you to foreign Jurisdiction. This is why a Passport from CANADA is worth more than a passport from Lebanon.

Joel Kinmond: what if I just want to explore... They didn't like that question and I had to show my passport or be denied entry. I guess I didn't speak the magic words...

Scott Duncan: EXPLORE implies the land is not occupied.

Joel Kinmond: Whats the magic word Scott?

Joel Kinmond: And, is there a way for me to access the credit and or use it as a medium of exchange - short of selling it - which I would not even consider, because it isn't "MINE"

Scott Duncan: There is none. Don't cross at checkpoints.

Scott Duncan: NO. Stop trying to access credit that has nothing to do with you.

Joel Kinmond: OK. Why does the passport say I must sign it for it to be valid. Yet this is not the case here. Who fucked up me, the immigration dude?

Scott Duncan: Joel Kinmond: YOU have it SO backwards.

ADMINISTRATORS ARE TRUSTEES.

The HOLDER/KEEPER ENABLES the trustees. The Keeper follows ALL legal orders of trustees. They HAVE to. THEY represent THE TRUST ITSELF as a TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.

Jason F. LeBlanc: Have expired passport that is signed. Any Value in this?

Joel Kinmond expired See: back, dead, defunct, lifeless, obsolete, outdated, outmoded. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this)

Scott on why NUMBERS/the number ZERO is the most powerful number. . . . .

Scott Duncan: Seriously? You REALLY think math is BELIEF?

Scott Duncan: "How do you know that two is a concept that exist outside your brain?" - because Fuck Off. That's why.

Numbers are observations, not creations like language. Threre are no Pakistani Prime Numbers. I know because I UNDERSTAND math, not conceptualize it, like you.

Scott Duncan: If aliens could visit Earth, they would test for intelligence with prime numbers.

Scott Duncan: Zero is the most powerful number.

The romans made THEIR numbers to HIDE it.

Scott Duncan: They made numbers that could do accounting...AND NOTHING ELSE!

Scott Duncan: That precious number zero. Hidden ON PURPOSE to keep the masses C***-Grade.

Scott Duncan: The "NAND Gate" and the "NOR Gate". Give me unlimited copies, and I can build ANYTHING. This is the first 20th century example of applied computer science. ALL electronics are based on these 2 concepts. That concept will NEVER die.

Scott Duncan: James Baal - You mis-apply the Socratic method.

I am on the 29th floor in a tower in downtown Toronto. I know if I take the FASTEST way down, I will die. I cannot be "flexible" on this position. Physics is working against my interests. NO amount of NEW knowledge will change that reality.

Scott Duncan: No, the debts are "forgiven" in canon law.

Scott Duncan...... have you seen this video?

NEWS BREAK - NEW NWO STATUTE ALLOWS QUEEN TO HUNT DOWN AND KILL FREEMAN TERRORISTS ON SITE!!

When Scott says, "You think wrong and value the wrong things" “what does that mean to you? Ok this question is for everyone, but as of late... to be directed at Mr. Frisbey. :D

http://youtu.be/5YPlmGDnOvE

The Official List — These words posted on Social Media, will make you a "suspect" for being "suspicious", so in need of "monitoring".

So don't use these words :P

Domestic Security

Assassination Attack Domestic security Drill Exercise Cops Law enforcement Authorities Disaster assistance Disaster management DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office) National preparedness Mitigation Prevention Response Recovery Dirty bomb Domestic nuclear detection Emergency management Emergency response First responder Homeland security Maritime domain awareness (MDA) National preparedness initiative Militia Shooting Shots fired Evacuation Deaths Hostage Explosion (explosive) Police Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT) Organized crime Gangs National security State of emergency Security Breach Threat Standoff SWAT Screening Lockdown Bomb (squad or threat) Crash Looting Riot Emergency Landing Pipe bomb Incident Facility

HAZMAT & Nuclear

Hazmat Nuclear Chemical spill Suspicious package/device Toxic National laboratory Nuclear facility Nuclear threat Cloud Plume Radiation Radioactive Leak Biological infection (or event) Chemical Chemical burn Biological Epidemic Hazardous Hazardous material incident Industrial spill Infection Powder (white) Gas Spillover Anthrax Blister agent Chemical agent Exposure Burn Nerve agent Ricin Sarin North Korea

Health Concern + H1N1

Outbreak Contamination Exposure Virus Evacuation Bacteria Recall Ebola Food Poisoning Foot and Mouth (FMD) H5N1 Avian Flu Strain Quarantine H1N1 Vaccine Salmonella Small Pox Plague Human to human Human to Animal Influenza Center for Disease Control (CDC) Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Toxic Agro Terror Tuberculosis (TB) Tamiflu Norvo Virus Epidemic Agriculture Listeria Symptoms Mutation Resistant Antiviral Wave Pandemic Infection Water/air borne Sick Swine Pork World Health Organization (WHO) (and components) Viral Hemorrhagic Fever E. Coli

Infrastructure Security

Infrastructure security Airport CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources) AMTRAK Collapse Computer infrastructure Communications infrastructure Telecommunications Critical infrastructure National infrastructure Metro WMATA Airplane (and derivatives) Chemical fire Subway BART MARTA Port Authority NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center) Transportation security Grid Power Smart Body scanner Electric Failure or outage Black out Brown out Port Dock Bridge Cancelled Delays Service disruption Power lines

Southwest Border Violence

Drug cartel Violence Gang Drug Narcotics Cocaine Marijuana Heroin Border Mexico Cartel Southwest Juarez Sinaloa Tijuana Torreon Yuma Tucson Decapitated U.S. Consulate Consular El Paso Fort Hancock San Diego Ciudad Juarez Nogales Sonora Colombia Mara salvatrucha MS13 or MS-13 Drug war Mexican army Methamphetamine Cartel de Golfo Gulf Cartel La Familia Reynosa Nuevo Leon Narcos Narco banners (Spanish equivalents) Los Zetas Shootout Execution Gunfight Trafficking Kidnap Calderon Reyosa Bust Tamaulipas Meth Lab Drug trade Illegal immigrants Smuggling (smugglers) Matamoros Michoacana Guzman Arellano-Felix Beltran-Leyva Barrio Azteca Artistic Assassins Mexicles New Federation

Terrorism

Terrorism Al Qaeda (all spellings) Terror Attack Iraq Afghanistan Iran Pakistan Agro Environmental terrorist Eco terrorism Conventional weapon Target Weapons grade Dirty bomb Enriched Nuclear Chemical weapon Biological weapon Ammonium nitrate Improvised explosive device IED (Improvised Explosive Device) Abu Sayyaf Hamas FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia) IRA (Irish Republican Army) ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) Basque Separatists Hezbollah Tamil Tigers PLF (Palestine Liberation Front) PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization Car bomb Jihad Taliban Weapons cache Suicide bomber Suicide attack Suspicious substance AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula) AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) Yemen Pirates Extremism Somalia Nigeria Radicals Al-Shabaab Home grown Plot Nationalist Recruitment Fundamentalism Islamist

Weather/Disaster/Emergency

Emergency Hurricane Tornado Twister Tsunami Earthquake Tremor Flood Storm Crest Temblor Extreme weather Forest fire Brush fire Ice Stranded/Stuck Help Hail Wildfire Tsunami Warning Center Magnitude Avalanche Typhoon Shelter-in-place Disaster Snow Blizzard Sleet Mud slide or Mudslide Erosion Power outage Brown out Warning Watch Lightening Aid Relief Closure Interstate Burst Emergency Broadcast System

Cyber Security

Cyber security Botnet DDOS (dedicated denial of service) Denial of service Malware Virus Trojan Keylogger Cyber Command 2600 Spammer Phishing Rootkit Phreaking Cain and abel Brute forcing Mysql injection Cyber attack Cyber terror Hacker China Conficker Worm Scammers Social media

More proof that we need a national "kick-a-cop-in-the-face" day.

Are you Free or are you a Slave?

A Free inhabitant can make choices outside the influence of another, do you have a choice to be a "Citizen" or Not?

We are Governed by our Consent, and if we WITHDRAW said Consent we have made the CHOICE NOT to be Governed as is the Free Choice of All inhabitants.

This is the bases of Our Freedom within this Society and if we Cant retract our Consent then we are Not Governed by our Consent, WE ARE SLAVES..

STATUTES are Only given force of law "by your Consent" and being thats the case then it only stands to reason that if we Retract our Consent then STATUTES are NOT given force of law by your Consent.

Slaves have No choices, they are Ordered what to do not requested..

Slaves are held to a Life under the Rule of another that they did Not Consent to and forced into labor and then made give up their earnings to those whom hold him captive.

We all live in this world together, but we do not all play part in the same "Society"..

Society being a collective of Free inhabitants coming together in a mutual Agreement to adhere to a certain set of "rules" previously "CONSENTED" to.

Each inhabitant does their part within said system because they have made the Free Choice to participate within said system.

At any time any Free inhabitant makes the "CHOICE" to Not be part of a system/Society and that system/Society Refused to recognize the Free inhabitants Choice and HONOR it, then that inhabitant is No longer Free.

I ask you now, ARE YOU FREE OR ARE YOU A SLAVE?

I am a Free inhabitant being treated as a Slave.. Are You?

I have retracted my consent to be governed by way of the sheriff using a Notice of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, Fee Schedule and Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence, defaulted apon.

My wife and I married Common Law, recognized by a judge in documentation (first time Ohio has recognized Common Law marriages since the early 90s ;)

I have documents from a government agency stating I no longer qualify for benefits do to the fact I am Not a U.S. citizen. (only took me 3 months to get them to see it my way after I pointed out their fraud).

I receive No benefits and I reserve All Rights.

I live openly in accordance with Common Law while applying a Sui Juris philosophy to my existence.

I do Not give STATUTES force of law by my consent.

I understand that my rights only end where anothers begin.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.

Now ask yourself, if a Free inhabitant retracts his Consent and lives openly as No part of said System and that System FORCES said Free inhabitant to live as a member of that Society, Would that Society/System not be forcing you into Slavery?

We have Choices and when any entity Strips us of those Choices then We are no longer Free.

We are prisoners and Slaves.

Please Honor all Free Choices made by the Free inhabitants of this world.

Heh, just discovered the "add file" button. Oh dopey me.