Apr 26, 2013 1:17 AM

OK, who's awake here.

Can anyone tell me the GLARING flaw here?

...and if you can, can anyone predict what will happen here?

NOTHING ???

Do tell what is glaring about it.

mmhhh....someone in this sounds like he has a dick in his mouth.....thats for sure..... :/

The Government is not a PERSON

Who can file lawsuits ???....PERSONS ??? :D

I see lots of HUMANS trying to file lawsuits these days :/

Freemen OFFERING a TENDER? I really DON'T want to listen. Must I?

we are human rights. not freeman.

i work for the government. and receive benefits.

depend what time of the day Leigh OftheHouseof Collins ...

up to you !!!!

but the laws do not apply to me

how's that ????

i have waived my human right to be recognized as a person before the law. UDHR article 6. if you do not waive , they assume you assert. thats how they get ya.

its a negative right

:D

what do YOU think Scott Duncan :D

any hopes ????

oh he thinks something. he approved the post. lol

i have a declaration of private law

I have a hitachi hammer drill

i could use of of those also

same for my drill, unrebutted

all dress my friend

Yup I have my letter from the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland applauding my hard work. :)

"A lawyer who is going to SURRENDER thier BAR card and RESIGN from the LAW SOCIETY"...

Yes as their first duty is to the courts and not the client.

Why is Beverly May Braaksma the only one who gets it?

I got it too :/

Seriously people, look at how you all prattle on about made-up mythology and you miss what's staring you in the face. You people DARE call yourself AWAKE?

Belligerent....not awake please no confusion

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

..Wally Dove should just send in a tailored NOTICE OF MISTAKE to his perceived rapist?

FOR THE EXTRA RETARDED:

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON.

Ooh-Ooh, i know this one...the GOVERNMENT is a TRUST

owned by no one

can't sue NO ONE

especially a Human sueing no one

Would that be same as a corporation is not a PERSON, only the one who states they "own" it becomes the liable PERSON?

Wally Dove will first need to be WALLY DOVE if she/he wants to try to sue NO ONE

OK, PIERRE GETS IT, IF THE REST OF YOU DON'T YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO LIVE, AND PLEASE (For my own mental health) KILL YOURSELVES!

IT'S PIERRE! SERIOUSLY!

Don't get it? Kill yourself. Thanks! :D

scott, wtf? does the govt have to be a person in order to sue? there is a reason i aint getting your teachings...extra retarded now goes on my resume

A Corporation IS a person.

and then, will try to explaine to SOMEONE who is this NO ONE she / he wants to sue

it might take 10 to 15 years to figure that out

thts what i thought u can not file a motion as a human being

the government is what?

unless at Queens bench...

And any lawyer who says they "resigned" from the law society is a lying sack of shit.

there are NO HUMANS in court filing motions...

I tried it....file as a person, and became a human in the process.....got kicked out of court :D

it took them 90 seconds to kick me out :D

me too, pierre. thats what i have discovered

but that doesnt explain how we made case law earlier

so now what? i can not take it to supreme court either? can i?

"it took them 90 seconds to kick me out"...... did this turn out to be GOOD, or BAD for you Pierre?

What "case law" are you speaking of, Leigh?

when they asked: Where is PIERRE DAOUST ???....I said in my suitcase, you want me to pull him out ????.....they said...ok...get the fuk out of here :/

Supreme court is ONLY for constitutional issues and appeals.

CYFS Win, St. John’s NL admin : April 16, 2013 9:57 am : Court Win, News In this particular case my friend did not contract. Agents for CYFS (Child Youth and Family Services) showed up at his house over an unsubstantiated allegation of child abuse made by a neighbour. The answer was “I am not contracting with you, go away.”

When the agents were denied entry to his house, the CYFS agents went to the school and removed his child. When he went to pick her up after school” NO KID! Taken” based upon accusations of the neighbour.

In court, the first thing I did was I read The Declaration of Human Rights. Then I established who everyone in the courtroom was. I told them the judge was the Executor, the court clerk was the Trustee, and the client was the Beneficiary.

Then I asked the Crown Lawyer who he was. The response was “I’m the Crown Lawyer”.

I responded “Wrong Answer! That is a legal fiction. Would you agree to the fact that you are also a Trustee?

The lawyer responded “Yes I would agree with that.”.

The next thing we did was to argue Institutional Bias and Double Jeopardy (they had laid this charge before already). We then came back to the fact that there was no contract and no claim since it was based purely on hearsay.

After much arguing with the crown, (the trustee) I got them to admit that in fact there was no contract, no claim, no cause of action and no jurisdiction, since this was St. John’s and the client lived elsewhere, in short” they had NO power over his “ESTATE”.

The final ruling was he got his kid back. The Judge (the executor) had no other option. That poor guy had had every right violated.

Happy we got a good RESULT!

Pierre...are we talking about your QRA issue?

A "Name" registered is a PERSON, be it humans or corporations, but when a corporation is brought to court being sued, who STANDS for that corporation?

yes...I filed a motion to postpon the date of the hearing because QRA did not answer all of my questions so I could not proceed....Derek Moran.....good thing I did that so I could experiment this before the hearing

Anyone AUTHORIZED (DuuuuH!)

like the owner...

EXECUTOR = Estate Trustee WITH a will..... ADMINISTRATOR = Estate Trustee WITHOUT a will

ADMINISTRATORS

I am going Supreme to appeal Provincal . But how?

there are NO owners Beverly May Braaksma

"who STANDS for that corporation?" = AMICUS CURIAE

shareholders, administrators, and clowns

Scott- what does the LLP at the end of a lawyers name exactly mean? :/

NO! THERE IS NO FUCKING OWNER!

PLEASE PEOPLE! STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT A CORPORATION IS, ANND ACTUALLY LEARN! FUCK! STUPID IDIOTS!

NOBODY OWNS A FUCKING PERSON! THAT IS ILLEGAL! IT'S CALLED SLAVERY!

LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Scott Duncan, I have concluded...you can not teach. :P

I don't recall Scott ever making such an OFFER.

come on Leigh OftheHouseof Collins, he just have a little tolerence reapeting 200 times the same shit :D

well pierre, theres only 2 smart cookies , you and bev. lol

No, i teach just fine. I have students that learned law from me in six months. No, I can teach people who can think and actually LISTEN.

I CAN teach VERY well and I'm thrilled when my students learn. It's one of my few joys in life.

ALL of them are living proof that your conclusion that I CAN'T teach is simply your unwillingness to accept that you don't know what the simplest words in law, mean.

I'm a dumb ass smart french dude.....not a cookie

2/195

"NOBODY OWNS A FUCKING PERSON! THAT IS ILLEGAL! IT'S CALLED SLAVERY!"....... ummm, i think you just gave us a remedy with that statement Scott

Signed, the two signatures on the Birth Certificate the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO owns?? :/

IN TRUST

:D

LAW is all about INTENT.

YOU are the one CLAIMING it. It was "given" to you.

Either return it and NEVER use it again, or SECURE/PERFECT YOUR CLAIM. One or the other.

you must be thrilled I'm part of this group Scott Duncan ???.. (no respond is oblige)

..i imagine a NOTICE OF INTENT then, can be quite a powerful document when effectively written

Scott can teach, this stuff takes a few beatings to get through your head... You have to admit, most of us aren't even remotelly skilled at learning

notice = Response :/

Yes Pierre, you are an excellent delimiter on the bell-curve; anyone to the left of you are too stupid to live. VERY useful :D

speaks for you Beverly May Braaksma....I'm skilles

Pierre's sure getting it though...

:D

i remembered today i am a shareholder with absolutely no clue.

I would remember NOTHING if I would be you :D

play safe

bell-curve ????.... :/

Article 3. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

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

Yes Pierre, you are an excellent .....just that part is fine with me....focus on majors....something like that

BELL CURVE = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function

thanks sad, pierre. :(

It would be better if they wrote it like: Everyone has the right to life,and/or liberty and/or security of person :D

ok Scott, I suspect you want to get rid of me for the next 3 years with this Gaussian thing :/

Article 9 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

yep....no LIFE implied in this covenamt

"...and security of person" - HAR! :D

person = nobody

Joseph Pierre Gilles, your NAME is a SECURITY. A STOCK is a SECURITY. A BOND is a SECURITY.

They are saying it's your right to monetize yourself.

ok....lets monetize..!!!!....where do I show up with my coupon ????

Scott, is it true that Canada is NOT a signatory to this International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

They agreed to it.....but No official treaties I think

That is true. Canada is not.

..how would that of changed things for us, if they had signed-on as a signatory? :/

Article 1 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In NO CASE may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Well, Canada Can.

If the LAW is all about INTENT, i think it speaks VOLUMES why Canada did not sign on as a signatory to this Covenant.

Article 9

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

Article 25

Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

sorry....just figured out this bell curve thing...

Wait a sec...what the fuck is stopping ME from being the signatory from Canada to this Covenant?

Signed, BY WHAT AUTHORITY...?

I must go out for a cigarette....leave Derek Moran let it rip for a few minutes....white noise ?????

ok, lets presume my IQ is 140, I would say it should be a good thing to invest in funerals homes business if people listen to Scott's suggestion???... Philip Laforet please, I think we shall need your help in here :D (sorry, was out for a cigarette and SUDDENLY, without NOTICE, white noise appeared inside my skull)

No, that's just leveraging a future market condition. :D

is it LEGAL to do that ??? :D

who cares anyway...

"LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP"..... i get the LIMITED LIABILITY part. What is the PARTNERSHIP-part in reference to? The lawyer has entered into a PARTNERSHIP with the BAR ASSOCIATION? :/

multiple shareholders

Is Canada a corporation/person and the Canadian government the trust and our persons the agents/trusties of that Trust?If we want to get remedy for breach of trust, our person would bring Canada the person to court?

No. The CORPORATION of CANADA holds the trust. YOU are the shareholder of the corporation. CANADA is a LEGAL PERSON granted by the Queen in 1982.(UK Canada Act)

excellent!

And the Government of Canada is a separate corporation, not a PERSON?

well YOU means SURETY!

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA has NOTHING to do with you...unless you WORK for them ;)

then Canada is the SETTLOR

Yes. It is a FACILITY for the trust to engage in commerce. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT engage in commerce. it is NOT a person.

facility and circumvention. Scots law. Conduct intended to persuade a person vulnerable to outside influence to act against his or her own interest. — Any contract brought under conditions offacility and circumvention would be void. ~. Sometimes shortened to facility

work, n. 1. Physical and mental exertion to attain an end, esp. as controlled by and for the benefit of an employer;labor.

NOTHING {}?

This comment may appear as off topic, but to me it's not. Scott, many, many, many times, has gotten frustrated that some "don't get it".

Before I came to meet this group, I have been studying Club Rules for about 4 years. Club Rules did/do not make sense to me. I knew something was very wrong. What was wrong, was there a big conspiracy hiding the truth, or was I/US the problem?

Dean Clifford gets arrested, and I end-up meeting TTFL group. I have been studying/researching the information being tendered at this group by Scott, and some others since. Scott studied computer science, among other things. He said something, about our brains been screwed-up, that is helping me out BIG TIME to CHANGE THE WAY I THINK.

THE PROBLEM IS ME/US! We have been uploaded a REALLY crappy software, that makes us think incorrectly. When we read Scott's answers, our messed-up program assigns VALUE TO THE WRONG THINGS (Club Rules, for example), and therefore we end-up with a wrong answer. We have been trained to assign VALUE to things that DON'T have it, and that is why our brain program it's still in DOS.

When I read Scott say it was all about SURETY and ACCOUNTING, that gave me the opportunity to realize I would use that information to BUILT ME a new program. I still did not fully understood WHY he said that, but knew I could TRUST that this MUST be the correct info to start that program. That has required to erase A LOT of useless information (that I had assign VALUE incorrectly) and avoiding my brain taking me to the Dark Ages again, and UPLOADING this new info with correct VALUE. I am not even close to thinking perfectly, but I have started assigning VALUE to the right things, and completely forgetting about VALUELESS crap I had memorized. It's helping BIG TIME!

Derek is one of Scott's best students here. But, he also has received a lot of flack from Scott. I can relate in some way to Derek, because many times I have processed the information given by Scott, the same way Derek has. We started processing Scott's info, and went into our brains to try to assign VALUE to the wrong info we have installed, and hence the questions.

Having all this in mind, I just wanted to share what has started to help me to "get" some things, and hopefully, one day I'll "get it".

I wish I was awake for this thread... I could have shown off a bit... :p

I am still awake you can show off for me lol

I am drawing triangles

" No. The CORPORATION of CANADA holds the trust. YOU are the shareholder of the corporation. CANADA is a LEGAL PERSON granted by the Queen in 1982.(UK Canada Act)"- Scott

I'm trying to translate the above for Ireland...

http://highcourtsearch.courts.ie/hcslive/case_search.show?sessionId=1347196342&yearNo=2010&recordNo=&processType=&plaintiffSurname=&plaintiffFirstName=&dependantSurname=government+of+ireland&dependantFirstName=&setDownType=&setDownNo=&setDownNoX=&setDownVenue=&courtListDate=&listType=&supremeCourtRef=&actionButton=Search

This is a link to a few cases in which GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND are a defendant.

THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND is also a registered entity on Dun & Bradstreet.

I'm assuming that just because it's called GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND doesn't necessarily mean it IS a government?

My question is what is the corporation I have shares in and what is the trust?

Call me crazy, but if a "person", which is a fiction, has made a promise/pledge not to harm a human being and does so (obviously via living men and women acting as it representatives), then why would would the human being not have a cause of action against that person, as well as those living men and women who exceeded the authority of their office in harming a human being?

That's like saying you have a "cause of action" against the knight on a chess board for not looking "Horsey" enough...so you sue chess!

No? Well your name is the same thing. It's a piece on a chess board. If you aren't playing chess, keep your grubby paws off the pieces! :P

ok Scott hows this for an analogy..I'm testing my own understanding...in the game of monopoly(playing due to a lack of understanding of the BC)...I get my money from the bank (owned by those whose signature is on it)...I choose to be the car (my person)....i play the "game" ...i don't own the money (money & privileges govt "gives" us)...I don't own the car (my person)..but while I'm playing I follow the rules of the game?

Government don't give money ??...they dont even have money....? Government is a trust...:-\

Okay, there is one significant distinction though Scott. The fucking knight on the chess board doesn't have goons representing it that will knock my door down and haul my human ass to jail for failing to perform some "duty". The common law applies to both the living, and the dead. But a common law court is the ONLY place the living can be heard and obtain remedy.

When you start a monopoly game Gail, each player receive a certain amount of MONEY to start the game.....where is this money come from ????....the way I see it, you start this monopoly game ALREADY in debt.....same as the LIFE game....

yes true about the debt

As soon as the BC is created, a debt seems to be created at the same time, and put IN TRUST (the big trust)

And then, 2 positions are left for Humans...Trustee of this Person or Beneficiary of this person.....

And I THINK I am the one who get to choose the position I want.... :/

I suspect some very special extremely well educated PERSONAGE put everything in place to make sure I choose the trustee spot :D

These PERSONAGE I think are part of some BARS sort of thing

I hope I'm not making shit up here for christ sakes....I have to remember about this new RULE......I hate RULES....

Alotta good SCOTTISMS in this one...

Haaa....shut your fucking mouth Pierre... :D

See now why I just don't go to protest ? :D

I'll get killed !!!!