Jun 13, 2013 8:35 PM

Even though this thread uses the bills of exchange act from Canada ect the concept is sound and the only place I can find the remedy for maritime lien is in UCC -1 filling then placing the surety in trust to the holding company a subsidiary of of the CORP H.I.V.E.

Maritime is ALL U.C.C.

So that is saying UCC is Maritime also?

No, it's law on LAND. Read my UCC article.

From now on, do not ask a question starting with "are you saying".

"Maritime is ALL U.C.C.", that is what I am saying. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop making shit up. When you do, I have to clean up the shit by answering it. Around here, we call that a "shit stain on the thread". When people leave too many, I ban them. It saves a LOT of time and I can focus on the master plan here.

I came across an old-post of Scott's where he simply said- "UCC is ONLY useful to you if you have a fleet-of-ships," if that helps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDbedjFJFf0

liening the fucker tomorrow.

fuck shit piss... what about The registration of live birth that the security is drawn from do I lien that fucker as well?

What number out the 3 on the BC is the proper account to lien? Heading to land titles soon to lien the fuck out the SIN and BC... plus test case. Real soon. Scott Duncan

Am I way off the mark here....Since we can't get our original BC, and, only have access to a certified copy, could we stamp New Original, on our BC and float massive bonds in international monetary markets which are endorsed/backed only by our signature?

Thats just a meme....what is the other half and what is your full point with a conclusion? :-)

Everyone in here (well, almost) knows we are NOT a person ! Everyone in here (well, almost) knows that we have a person ! Everyone in here (well, almost) knows we are NOT the SURETY of the person!

Yeah !....you want to see it ?

I haven't created it, the government created it...and I usually keep it in the pick-up truck's box

Can you be clear and precise Lege Unum ?

What privileges conferred for my benifit ? :D

Me neither !

What is a thee ?

ha, ok, can you stay non-elaborate here please ? :/

Are you thee LAW ?

certificate of origin, my mother the car. (that was a tv show from way back)

I went into the new courthouse in Kitchener. It's one of the newer court houses. It's like an airport. I had to empty all my pockets and put all my papers in a bin for them to inspect.

Scott Duncan- does the Birth Certificate, also double as an ESTOPPEL CERTFICATE?

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: 1. A SIGNED statement by a party (such as a tenant or a mortgagee) certifying for ANOTHER'S BENEFIT that certain facts are correct, such as that a lease exists, that there are NO DEFAULTS, and that rent is paid to a certain date. - A party's DELIVERY of this statement estops that party from later claiming a different state of facts. 2. See WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES. Black's 9th

Is there such a thing as the 'FED BLACK CARD,' Scott Duncan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcYI2lhVz6M

The Birth Certificate is nothing more than an OFFER TO CONTRACT...its a fucking- TENDER FOR LAW!

"You can get with THIS- or you can get with THAT...the choice is YOURS".....of course- this has always been my favourite hip-hop-song since University

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9F5xcpjDMU

Dean Clifford: The BC was valuable consideration for something of value you deposited, period. They are bankrupt, and your deposit technically has no dollar value because it is entirely dependent upon how many worthless notes are in circulation. So, they had to give you something, a note, that did not have a face value. A token, redeemable for......something.......sooooo close Derek, keep going. You're dancing on it, but looking up. hahahaha

That youtube black visa card is the biggest load of shit I've heard in a while lol.

something you deposited = full faith and credit?

or something you deposited = freedom? or does freedom = full faith and credit?

Like I said to this MAN the other day....Analogy: I have a box of parts in front of me and I think I can make a car. But it looks like I have too many spark plugs and not enough tires....seem to be missing the headlights too.

Whats the difference between a Bill of Lading, and a WAYBILL, Scott?

the description of goods sent with a common carrier by land; when the goods are carried by water, the instrument is called a bill of lading

once you look at this, ask yourself... "a receipt for what?"

http://s752.beta.photobucket.com/user/mrmitee/media/BirthCertificate.jpg.html

Is the Birth Certificate a 'PLEDGE,' Scott?

Presumed to be :D

presumably would be a better word to use I guess

Does the Birth Certificate represent a VESTED ESTATE, Scott?

The nature of a suretyship is one of strictest law and cannot endure or be extended from one thing to another, from one person to another, or from one time to another.

Anyone can explaine this to me ? ^^

where did u get thst!

Surety legal definition

Kirsten

What does that mean Chris Schulte ?

It means that no person can take surety for another and each "occurance" equals a single surert

Its why insurance is a scam and why the NoM works

Scott Duncan, said that a few months ago....fuck I have to dig that in here.....about creating a new person for each EVENT .....aaaarrggg..!!!

Thanks Chris..!! :)

I think u do so by sending in a new BC....Scott?

each BC = person

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????

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)

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: 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.

Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = BILL OF LADING

Glad I could help

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".

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.

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.

Gold!

Maximiliano > 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.

I infer from what Scott was saying, was that the BC should be thought of the same as your coat-check-ticket. If you're done clubbing, or finished your meal at the restaurant where you checked-your-coat, how do you get it back? The establishment just isnt going to give it to ANYBODY. But they will give it back to YOU, once you show them your half of the coat-check-ticket they originally gave you. Im assuming, the Registrar General is sitting around, tapping-his-toe, looking at his watch, wondering exactly when we are going to show him our part of the coat-check-ticket. Remember- they initially tore it in two along the perforated-edging, and stuck their half in the pocket of YOUR coat (the GOODS they're storing.) Except the coat-check-ticket in this example is made out to BEARER, ours...is made out to ORDER/the person named

<<A sworn affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation.>>

If this pretty much covers MY/YOUR OBLIGATION, what would be THEIR OBLIGATION?

I think the next step would be after you have put the ball-back-into-their-court, is that their next OBLIGATION, is to VERIFY that you are who you say you are- but really, does anyone think its going to be as easy as that?...this is where i see parallels between the process Scott coached Kate Butler on, and this- and as i think ChiefRock would say: "It's all contract, its ALL, contract..."

BC > under seal > Formal Contract > Deed > Covenant = i really, really, REALLY, intend to keep my PROMISE ;)

Buck-o-Five check mate :D

I cant help but feel this too applies, in this situation...

Kate Butler: I had previously submitted an AFFIDAVIT OF STATUS, and NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT which I required answers to in order to proceed, and gave them ten days to respond. When they didn't, I served a NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, with an additional five days to respond. When that time elapsed, I served a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE (attaching ALL previous submissions to each new document as EXHIBITS).

OPPORTUNITY TO CURE: How do you do this ? :/

CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE: How do you do this ? :/

"Buck-o-Five check mate"... you bring up an interesting point Pierre, but, i dunno if anyone wants to be putting postage-stamps on their Birth Certificate until you absolutely know it would eventually have some effect in the end- they're kinda hard to take off once you lick them ;)

Buck-o-Five, A4V, Set-off, Discharge... it's ALL FROM THE PAST. That's why Scott doesn't even touch that with a long stick. He taught us to think in the FUTURE!

<<You are BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES when you use MONEY. >> Scott Duncan

Money is a TECHNOLOGY. I am will become VERY technologically advanced. :D

The future has been all along at The T4L!

I may be from the past Maximiliano Pérez, but I AM doing this as we speak, and man it gets interesting :D

Like Jay Le B mentioned in-passing i noticed in one of his posts recently: "...a King/Sovereign has the ability to create CREDIT..."

Scott Duncan: You must PROVE THE CLAIM. September 14 at 4:27pm

Scott Duncan: PROOF=RECEIPT September 14 at 4:28pm

Scott Duncan: Proof of the claim must be provided on demand September 14 at 4:30pm

Gail Blackman: you would have to sue them and present your proof ? September 14 at 4:35pm

Derek Moran: Bill of Lading = Receipt September 14 at 4:38pm

Scott Duncan: No. The may sue YOU to DEMAND proof.

This is what Carlton Weiss had to say about "sovereigns."

<<The "sovereigns" I studied with during my research initially had a good point, and the good case law to back up the point. However, as I siced my investigative dogs on the case, I peeled back one layer after another of confusion. I saw the truth about the strict confines of any sovereign’s role in the nation or kingdom of which he is the head. I was somewhat transplanted into the mind of the judges who had decided the cases most "sovereigns" rely on today. It became apparent that the case law actually shot sovereigns in the foot by holding over their head an internationally recognized standard they couldn’t practically live up to with their limited financial and natural resources in today’s commercial arena.

In the end, I didn’t even need to cite legal authorities to prove this to them, though articles like George Mercier’s Invisible Contracts, Richard Lancial’s Benefits Accepted Equals Jurisdiction, James Montgomery’s The United States is Still a British Colony, the Informer’s Fallacy & Myth of the People Being the Sovereign, and timeless classics like William Whiting’s War Powers certainly hit home. The problem most of them face is they invested a lot of time and funds into something that turns out to be false. They thought they held sovereignty but they could now see they voluntarily contracted themselves under suzerainty at best.

To be truly sovereign in olden times you needed nothing less than” A plot of land that you have absolute dominion over; A fortified castle strategically placed on the land so as to protect you, the sovereign; A military to protect the castle and land; Workers to do maintenance on the castle and land; A stockpile of weapons high powered enough to wipe out any threat inside or outside your castle and plot of land; A stockpile of gold and silver or material or natural resources to pay the militia, workers and sustain the economy that develops out of daily needs people have when living in self-sustaining communities. This includes a stockpile of financial or natural resources to build up your reserves for tough times; and to top it all off

A full sense of how to negotiate with other people who are in the same position as you (sovereigns), especially those who have bigger weapons than yours and might want to take your castle by force or fraud to consolidate their own empire. Today, not much has changed except for what electronic technology has made possible.

To be truly sovereign nowadays you need nothing less than”

A plot of land that you have absolute title to, even stronger than the protections granted under the castle doctrine in Texas. It has to be a title so strong that it is recognized all over the world, not just in one state or country, because real sovereignty is an international quality; A fortified compound; A militia to protect the compound and land. It has to be more than just guard dogs. It must be an actual military presence that sends a clear message to all within earshot of your land not to invade, much less trespass; Workers to maintain the compound and land; A stockpile of weapons or technology powerful enough to stop a modern military offensive against you; A stockpile of coined gold and silver to keep you from having to use Federal Reserve Notes or Ameros. You need sufficient natural resources to live on and pay your people with so as to not have to engage in commerce as a sovereign, otherwise you reduce yourself to the status of a merchant and your sovereignty is lost; and to top it all off A full understanding of trust law as it pertains to sovereigns as trustees and merchants as beneficiaries, contract law, national security law and negotiable instruments law, as well as the laws of power relating to sovereigns and other heads of state so that you can negotiate with the United States and State governments in a way that doesn’t get you dead, conquered or in prison because those sovereigns had more powerful weapons than yours.

Otherwise, you’ll end up like the Native American nations, many of which gave up their sovereignty to engage in commerce via gambling halls and casinos. The problems you immediately face are all issues of practicality, such as’ While you can remove land from the incorporated city or county, your title is not absolute. You cannot effectively exercise absolute title to land as an individual, at least not land that isn’t in the middle of nowhere. This kind of isolation leaves you at risk of invasion and limits your flexibility in the information age. In isolation you have no "eyes & ears" out in the rest of the world to stay ahead of other sovereigns looking to expand or consolidate their empire. "Eyes & ears" are what give you intelligence to avoid being checkmated; A compound is very expensive to build and difficult to maintain. Independent power, utilities and services need to be installed off-the-grid. For internet access you would need to build your own satellite, maintain your own servers, etc. Regardless, however, if the fort goes so do you because the eggs are all in one basket;

Having a private military is a direct threat to the United States and State governments who are far too corrupted to appreciate the absolute right of self-defense, much less the right to bear arms on a individual or nationalistic level; A stockpile of weapons will attract some unwanted attention. It will deter other sovereign men, but sovereigns like the United States who stockpile tanks and missiles might not deter so easily. Though stockpiling can be done with prudence, especially with some ingenuity, the more firearms you have, the more suspicious other sovereigns will be of your motives behind stockpiling. An arms race then ensues and you face the likelihood of invasion or preemptive strike; Using gold and silver as money with third-parties is very difficult at this point because most third-parties are still under the misconception that Federal Reserve Notes are worth something. You would have to wait until the US economy collapsed, at which time you could use commerce to conquer by buying up property for a fraction of the cost in gold. Even so, when you do so you are technically acting as a merchant, and you are no longer sovereign.

Even if the gold is pre-1933 lightly circulated coin, or the silver is pre-1965 ninety-percent ("junk") monetary silver, the sovereign is whoever minted the coin, which would be the United States of America in this case; and If you truly understand trust law as it pertains to sovereigns and merchants, contract law, national security law and negotiable instruments law, as well as the laws of power relating to sovereigns and other heads of state, you will quickly realize that the people’s sovereignty never truly existed.

What’s more, times have changed even more since the idea was first entertained. Our times now make sovereignty a disadvantage in commerce because the moment any sovereign sets foot into the rest of the world to get things done, unless you do business by the barrel of a gun or barter using no currency or coin at all, you automatically give up whatever sovereignty you had by acting as a merchant. This includes use of a license, social security number, registration of an automobile or weapon, etc. >>

"A sworn affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation."

..i suppose we would only be helping our own cause, by sending at least a CERTIFIED COPY of the Birth Certificate we have, along with the AFFIRMATION Scott talks about here

Is this in his Weiss-on-Trusts book, Maximiliano?

Trustees in Commerce, by Carlton Weiss. https://www.facebook.com/download/234177406740173/Trustees%20in%20Commerce.pdf

Is this an excerpt from his 'Concise Trustee Handbook'...or is this a standalone document from him, Max?

I have a pdf, which I just shared. That's what I have, it's short, awesome, and the title is "Trustees in Commerce" by Carlton Weiss.

it is really good thanks Maximiliano Pérez

Yes Maximiliano Pérez, thank you for sharing with me something today, that i didnt know yesterday...

Thanks, Derek, for you've ask many questions that resulted in great information shared by Scott. Plus, you've taken some heat, for some of us, for doing so.

Both Pierre, and now you Max have mentioned that and thanks, your sentiments are not lost on me..

I want to publicly apologize and say I'm sorry for threatening Pete

each time all caps name is used for any form of the person name is used on a document a surety is created.

a payment coupon with your name on it is a surety bond created

the bill payment coupon remittances are bundled together and then they get a loan from them

which creates more money equals debt

with the bill of exchange how it works this is your redirecting the people that are elected instead of getting a loan in your name they are directed to discharge said debt instead of making more money debt

remember it's all accounting and surety

if you do not handle your affairs correctly someone else well. whether or not you're in agreement are not they will still do it unless you tell them otherwise

we are the executor of the benefit account. judges are just supernumerary fidicereyd doing what we tell them to do it is our bidding not theirs

remember the government can not act as a person because they're trustees.

everybody's enemy is the Federal Reserve banking system

and bills of exchange kills the banking system

it is each one of you individuals own responsibility to do their own due diligence in this matter

Blocking makes my facebook experience SO MUCH BETTER! :D Thanks, Pete Daoust it's true we should at least try it.

http://kateofgaia.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/birth-certificate-explained.jpg

OMFG, I just finished responding to this very same crap!

It is NOT "worth billions" because YOU ARE A WORTHLESS EATER! Do you ever see Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet shop for worthless eaters? Have YOU ever shopped for a worthless eater? No? THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU IDIOTS THINK THERE IS A MARKET FOR WORTHLESS EATERS?

Why do you, a worthless eater think ANYBODY would "pay billions" (If it's WORTH that much, then somebody PAID that much)?

Seriously, Derek. You're a millimeter from a tingly sensation.

Oh, and the E that is cited indicates WHICH REGION THE FUCKING BILL WAS PRINTED.

I won't even bother correcting next time. I'll just ban your ass.

:D

Minus 56,874.00 would be more appropriate :D

Listen carefully:

NO MORE SHITSTAINS!

Scott, I have to ask......

If I take the public debt, and divide it by the appx amount of PERSONS (BC), last time I have done that, it gave me $56,874.00 in the RED (minus) for each person, is it make sense if I say that the BC I have in my pocket's worth is MINUS $56,874.00 ? :/

No.

That debt is there, but the BOND is attached to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to account for, and PAY that debt. It is a stand-alone document that acts as FOUNDATION for contracting a tender.

It's no different than a share in a corporation, only it's a TRUST.

A permanent fund established and maintained by contributions :)

Scott, if what i posted was bullshit, just tell me to delete it...

No. I have to clean the shit-stain so others don't post it.

:) .....interesting

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contribution

so when a lien is placed against the birth certificate, that act cuts the ($56,874) from them having access to it.

if we cant have it then why should we allow them to. or can we?

Sativa....please David Johansen :D

can an individual lein that item (and/or other items) without the use of (creating) a corporation?

My intent was not to post a shit-stain.

Is the BC a SPECIALTY/SPECIALTY CONTRACT, Scott?

just testing my comprehension here, if incorrect I'm happy to delete before too many see it....when the corporation liens the legal name.....the value of the lien then becomes an asset on the corporations books?

YES....and the corp can get a freaking HIGH amount of CREDIT :D

any credit used by the corporation still needs to be paid back though to the bank?

That's nothing to do with YOU.

its the corporations responsibility?

which is not me :)

OF COURSE. Why would it be anybody else's?

makes perfect sense...am still working on separating myself, thank you for that

Buy a chain saw....it does separate fast...Scott has a nice video of it :-D

hehe..you'd be proud of me Pete, I did separate myself the other day on the phone with the bank..she was looking for the person and needing all this ID to prove it was me

I giggled as I was speaking with her, thinking of you and your pocket lol

I notice Derek deleted his shit stain... This just makes me appear to speak without context.

SO, to review: Not only has Derek Moran posted a shit stain, revealing that every word I have ever written, has somehow been integrated into the Great Library of his ass, but he also deletes the offending post, thus invalidating any writing I have done to clean the shit-stain.

This has result of a sharp tingling sensation...

...you guys can fill in the rest.

Wow !!!!....that is one heck of a tingling :O

<speechless>

I usually like these, but I don't like this one.

Reminds me when Patrick Roy left the Montreal Canadians :-D

who?

Fuck off :-D

Here is the deleted shit-stain.

REMEMBER: This is a shit-stain. Nothing here is true.

@Chris Evan: I don't like warning people about shit stains repeatedly...ESPECIALLY FROM ADMINISTRATORS

I don't like wasting my time. It hurts me to dumb myself down to your level. Seriously. I'm sorry that hurts your feelings, but it's true. This is REAL EFFORT here. I will only abide its sabotage for so long...

...you see I don't like wasting effort, and cleaning shit-stains off of MY INITIATIVE.

Now, compare what YOU "don't like" and what I "don't like" and see if you can guess who's "likes" I'm going to give primary consideration to... :P

http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/2010/02/yes-your-birth-certificate-is-wolth.html

*Jeopardy Music*

there is so much disinfo out there, I'm appreciative of you Scott and the TFL to be able to get the facts

Remember: You're all worthless eaters and are NOT worth "billions"

The other night, Dean mentioned something about expressing the trust that exists already (that isnt a quote, I'm having trouble finding the thread now), my question is, would having a corporation lien the legal name not be more effective for us as far as liability and an option to use tender of our own choosing...allowing us a further separation from the legal name...or is there something I'm missing?

Lucky me I am not in the stain shit business :-D

"http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/..." You can tell the link is disinfo by the "DONATE" button front and center on the page! Its really nice that they accept all forms of Credit Cards!!!

Gail: That's pretty much it.

Derek has you doubting yourself. :P

Thanks

I have too many balls in the air, need to focus...that confirmation helps ty

Balls in the air ? ....grab these fuckers :-D

Are these balls attached to anyone in particular?

haha you crazy kids...my bad

David Johansen; "can an individual lein that item (and/or other items) without the use of (creating) a corporation"?

There are so many things wrong with this question, my finger is on the edge of firing up the SuperColliding SuperButton that causes the tingly carnage the group is so rife with.

the reason the corporation liens it is because we don't want the joinder of the surety

GAIL cannot lien GAIL....Gail (isn't in commerce) so cant lien?

proxy

WTF is "An Individual"? An "individual" (Which means it can no longer be divided...meaning ONE, meaning SURETY) has some nasty legal liabilities by default!

NEVER EVER use the term "an individual" again. EVER.

So NO, the surety for the name can't lien the name. The claim is already public record. Why would you lien that for which you have surety? The GRANTOR liens the asset, not the debtor (surety).

only a person corporation can act in law

The corporation is the proxy?

proxy, n. (ISc) 1. One who is authorized to act as a substitute for another; esp., in corporate law, a person who is authorized to vote another's stock shares. Cf

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proxy

Seriously.

Just kill yourselves.

I know you are getting really frustrated Scott..and forgive me if I'm contributing to it...it really is helping to get clarification

WHY IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY? SOMEBODY TELL ME!

WHY THE FUCK DO I NEED TO TELL YOU IDIOTS THAT "INDIVIDUAL" MEANS "CAN NO LONGER BE DIVIDED"?

WHEN DO I GET TO CALL YOU STUPID AND YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE ME?

WHY DO YOU NOT KNOW THE MOST BASIC THINGS?

WHAT THE FUCK US WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

I DON'T POSSESS ANY MENTAL POWERS THAT YOU DON'T!

WHO TOLD YOU THE CRAP YOU THINK?

CAN ANY OF YOU GRASP THIS?

the ego told me most the crap I used to think about

Surety aside...

INDIVIDUAL WHAT?

Individual coins? Lemurs? rocks? Chickens? Ferns? Hookers? Pot seeds?

NOTE: Only the hookers have ANY potential to lien ANYTHING. I thought that was obvious, but with you lot, I can never be too sure...

Scott, did you notice the link accepts Bitcoin?

Hookers are in the business of getting ^%$#*& in the pursuit of money...just like us...thanks Scott Duncan for reminding me i prostitute myself all the time.

and they don't even leave me a cookie on the pillow

So?

for what it's worth I like to thank you Scott for helping me confront my ego I appreciate all your time and effort on the page

This reminds me of Scott Duncan. I say this with much gratitude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Lft6EQh-Y

Did you notice Wal-Mart accepts US Dollars?

Sorry. I thought we were having a "Say an irrelevant thing about a currency" contest.

I'm competitive by nature, you see...

f*** I don't know I woke up with a f****** headache I must have felt a disturbance in the force from the banning of Derek Moran wow that feels nice now that I can say that name without feeling tingly sensation

the thing is I won't have to dodge any more of his s*** stain posts

Robert Cormier: As I recall, he got shot by a spineless coward who missed the point.

Scott Duncan...I will do my best to protect you. I see no evil in you. Trained in the CAF and ready to serve SIR.

Giggity...

http://youtu.be/12tce-THLUE

http://youtu.be/EgFgEqm3o60

Hahahah. shouldnt have clicked Roberts link...now i'm watching the Final miss table dance VIP 2010 avi. woohoo!

we had a guy bug out like that in boot camp but my drill sergeant was smart enough to go get a weapon and put a bullet in his f****** head

Oddly, I look forward to being a drone.

They are also renowned Computer Scientists. So is Thomas Dolby. All three I consider colleagues.

well I think part of it is we have to learn how to do code

I also have to learn the Linux system cause I've never been on that

It may be off topic...are we all victims of mass hypnosis?

Yes.

I can even show you how to do it.

Does it have to do with the flicker rate of tv's and incandescent lights? or am i a conspiracy nut?

In fact I will, on THETENDERFORLAW.COM! That is coming along smartly...

...however this Rob Menard article is getting pretty fucking big. All these things take time, but it will be worth it.

No Robert. It's simpler than that. Just get other hypnotized people to train their children.

like the dept. of edumacashun do..derka derka..

Babies are born with more than 200 toxic chemicals that pass the placenta barrier.

Scott what will I need for the class?

Rick Carne gets it.

I only have a cell phone I don't have a printer attached to it

i'm home schooling against all the hate and adversity that it brings....fuck it's hard to rewire my brain...i stumble and trip all the time

Robert have you watched the movie revolver?

durka durka laugh my ass off

I would love to see a Scott Duncan educational video series for kids. I would produce it and finance it. The world needs it!

blink did I just read that correctly

Jeff Rogers....read what correcttly?

I'm sorry Scott if I was able to have kids I would not want you to be teaching them I think it's my responsibility to do that I'm just saying

Pfffft. Like you're qualified :P

I'm not done with the class what do you expect?

"INDIVIDUAL" MEANS "CAN NO LONGER BE DIVIDED"? " and here i thought all along that was INDIVISIBLE.

"Surety aside...

INDIVIDUAL WHAT?

Individual coins? Lemurs? rocks? Chickens? Ferns? Hookers? Pot seeds?"

MAN. just one man, out of all the rest. to divide me further would require my being schizophrenic.

I would PAY Scott to teach my mouth breathing hoaard!!..they dont listen to me think i'm crazy...but they have the $ problems not me...

Did you want to take over the group then? If you are better qualified to tell the difference between what's TRUE and what FEELS GOOD, please relieve me of this burden and let me live my life, which is, in EVERY measurable way, better than yours.

I'd really like that. :)

INDIVIDUAL IS A FUCKING LEGAL TERM AS WELL AS AN ENGLISH WORD. YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT THE LEGAL MEANING, BECAUSE THAT IS THE TENDER FOR LAW YOU ARE GOING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR.

Kudos on your efforts to:

1) Miss the fucking point.

and

2) distract from the point by raising an irrelevancy.

Scott Duncan reviewing our posts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NP8y63Ms4o#t=70

no I didn't mean it the way it sounded I'm sorry

"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity..... hahahahaaa!!!

[Citation Needed]

*drumming fingers*

Looks like 26 USC to me...yes Rick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Komi7wnAw

it's Scotts class...I'm going to bed Hahahaha!...maybe....UCC1-201 B,27...or 26 USC — 7701 hahaha!!

"My name is Forrest Gump. People call me a Fucking Idiot".

Seriously. I fucking hated that movie.

me too BUT i loved that line

Please don't. You're just the wrong gender.

i meant with my heart not my parts

Pfft. Well good luck with that then :D

Should I do "thetenderforlaw.com in Video format?

Hmmmm. I am one ugly motherfucker on camera... you might all pay good money to get me one of thos "extreme makeovers" so you can watch my videos without having to look at me :D

Scott Duncan...i studied fine art at wlu...i will MAKE the camera serve you!

http://hotshotstudios.net/

I like your grit, kid! Alas cameras and I are at odds. We get along fine if I am behind them. If I step in front, the camera sees it, and instinctively enhances the ambient uglifying feature, hidden in most of the cameras on the market.

We have an uneasy truce at the moment, and I'm not sure I want to rock the boat.

I need to ask myself when kids are talked about why is my ego hurt and then I strike out at the wrong

I beg to differ Sir...the light and angle employed by untrained hands may have ignored your real beauty in the past...that doesn't mean it has to stay that way...and perhaps it has to do with the person at the HELM of the camera. (both cameras and ships need someone with talent at the helm to plot a course to success)

I'm afraid you are dealing with forces far greater than an arts degree can prevail against.

Scott Duncan, PhD., M.Sc., LLB, BMW, M&M's.

M&M's...lol

That M.Sc. (Computer Science) allows me to skillfully post-process the shit out of this stuff.

Tara said it...so I have authority to say ...you are "striking"

That would be a biased position that conflicts with reality.

...don't get me wrong; I'm really glad Tara Duncan holds this flawed position, and her eyesight won't get any better, so I figure I'm good for a few years...

but you really should heed my warning. You are doomed to failure.

I know we are confuscating...and I apologize and ask to be forgiven for my role in all of this...nevertheless...I enjoyed these moments...thanks Scott Duncan.

challenge me and I will be up for the challenge....touche

Stating reality is in no way a "challenge". You think wrong, and value the wrong things. :P

...must have been something I said.

Holy shit, this thread went into the crapper quickly! :D

i love "intelligent " documentaries because a good director has the ability to demonstrate the beauty of what may be labelled "ugly"

Something Scott Duncan would never say...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF19L00KbAI

Since I am the SOLE executor over what I choose to say...why do we need to discuss what I Wouldn't SAY? I think I've got that one covered. :P

Sorry...I was guessing...which is based on beliefs and I apologize...see... I am learning

The only way I can learn is to ASK.

Scott Duncan Stating reality is in no way a "challenge". You think wrong, and value the wrong things. Scott - I value the idea of making educational films of you teaching generations to come...it could go viral..."Scott opens children's minds"...wake up the marketing director because that title won't sell...but you get the idea.

sorry but I thought the part of becoming a Scott Duncan drone was that we learn from you Scott and then we share with other people is how I meant it.

I do claim a migraine headache.

Well i certainly won't turn my nose up as skills that help my initiative.

Go nuts, kid. Let's see what you can do. :D

416-994-1700

Scott Duncan if I remember correctly, your perspective of your looks doesn't match Tara Duncan's I've only seen pictures, so it's hard to comment on that one moment in time, but I think you are being undeservedly hard on yourself :)

I am totally unbiased.

having the tenderforlaw.com written or video taped, either is very much appreciated...if people are serious about learning, and get stuck on your supposed challenged look on camera...then they are missing a whole lot of valuable info.

Who the fuck cares about looks ??..:/ Seriously, I don't give a shit about looks.....except for my WIFE :D....all the rest of you can look ugly and I really don't care :D

Women want to fuck Sean Connery, still. I think the whole "ugly motherfucker" thing is not the liability it's cracked up to be.

Hein ? :/

Everything old sucks!

Scott by giving you one share does this make you proxy of hive Corp?

Hey, who will annotate threads from now on ? :/

ahem... cameras depend on light " writing with light"... ees not the cameras its lighting... just saying...

bingo Jay

shadows are erased by illuminating light.

"The Bank was founded in 1934 as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, it became a Crown corporation belonging to the federal government. "

a who federal government? i thought the U.S. corporation was the ONLY federal government.

Anybody ever remember Scott discuss a "LETTER OF ALLOTMENT" and/or "ALLOTMENT LETTER" ?

Document that details and confirms the amount or number of securities allotted to an applicant for a new issue or a rights issue. Presented usually as a certificate, it is renounceable up to a stated date. The allottee stockholder (shareholder) may renounce it in favor of another stockholder, or may sell his or her rights. If accepted by the allottee, it becomes the evidence of title to the stockholding. Also called letter of allotment, it may be traded on a stock exchange like the security it represents.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/allotment-letter.html#ixzz2n0rt5mGx

No, Derek. What do you have from Scott on Allotment?

We are ALL listening Derek Moran :)

Accounting: Using the Person, I signed 2 mortgages totaling $222,000. I signed 4 auto loans totaling $114,000. I signed 7 equipment loans totaling $89,000. I have signed $600,000 (est) worth of checks. I have created over $25,000 worth of unsecured credit. This totals about $950,000. As I see it, they can leverage this money I have created into 10x as much….almost $10 million. Plus, using the NAME, I have made a living and I could possibly do this going forward too—I have paid a shitload of taxes. So Pierre….although you may have evidence that the PERSON in your pocket is +/- $60k on debt, I have evidence that I have created over $10 million signing for that PERSON. I think my lien should start somewhere around $10 million and I should keep track of the money I create and going forward and lien the new money creation maybe once a year. Does this look good? What does everyone think of this?

Fuck....I meant to put that on the Trust thread

As I see it, they can leverage this money I have created into 10x as much:

Do you have proof of this ??

Don't want to be a pain here Chris Evan, but liening is a very serious thing to do......I just don't want to see you caught in some shit !! :D ...well, almost not... :P

:-D That is why I posted this before I did something stupid. You posted it the other day somewhere....the fractional reserve banking numbers for both Canada and the US.

If I create money by signing a Promissory Note (Mortgage), can they not borrow 10x on that?

I have no solid proof in my hands about that !! :/

there is proof im looking for it...its a banking treaty but I can't remember the name of it

ok....I am pretty sure this is true. Damn...this is where we need Scott!

LOL.. :D

Nothing on ALLOTMENT. Came across that term while coming across "SCRIP".....anyone remember Scott saying anything about "SCRIP?"

NO.. :P

The thing Chris Evan is, when you register a LIEN on something, you need ALL the document that will back it up..!!!....if you don't have them, it could be considered as fraud.....

That is why I am saying, let's say you register a lien on the person January the 1st 2014, and lien it for $114.54 / hour for the whole 2014 year, which will give 1 million dollar lien......

Before ANYTHING gets paid, a 1 million dollar lien needs to get paid.... NO ???

So that way, the person is killed for the whole year...NO ??? :/

I see what you are saying. But what about ALL the previous creations I have made? All the legal tender I have created? and then lien all the new creations plus time value going forward until it is dead. And didn't Scott say something about future value?

But what about ALL the previous creations I have made? PAST GONE :D

Plus, I want to lien the bank accounts because they are only giving me back "LEGAL COPIES" of the checks I am creating. I have good reasons to believe that they are keeping "EQUITABLE COPIES" that belong to me

NOPE!!! I disagree! That is the VALUE that I have contributed to the PERSON. This is what Scott was saying before!

^^^^mmmhhh^^^^ The person I happen to have in my pocket, dosen't have any of these bank accounts :D

But when you sign a check as President of a corporation, you are STILL creating money that should be claimed!

OK..Chris Evan, I really don't recall that part....you may be right ..!! ?? :/

Remember how Scott said to lien a Mortgage? Its the same as a check!

You are a fucking greedy type of a Bostonian Chris Evan :D

He said lien ALL accounts. A bank account is a TOTTEN TRUST (as Derek will tell you). Therefore, they are leveraging the deposits they are holding against creating new money. Just like we can do once we get it down pat! But, if we CLAIMED the account through a lien, it would stop them from "creating money out of nothing" (as the Freemen like to say).

This has nothing to do with greed...only FREEDOM! errr....and control :-D

FFFRREEEEDDDDUUMMMBB !!!! :D

Legal tender = 2 signatures and a trustee. A check! If I create them, I am creating legal tender.

Therefore, I should claim them as the CREATOR!

NO! Pete, you are mistaken here! This isn't FREEDUMB, this is correct. Fuck....where is Scott? Andrew Lawrence, is this correct? If I create money, shouldn't I let everyone know who the Creditor is?

:D

And the proof is the "LEGAL COPY" of the checks, the copy of the Mortgage, the copy of the Promissory Notes, etc

hmmmm.....I sent a parking clerk a legal tender I made. I should probably claim that too!

NO! Pete, you are mistaken here!: I would not be very surprised !! :D

Why don't you fucking lien MASSACHUSSETTES all over :D

And I will do the same with the Quebec state :P

I didn't create MASSACHUSETTS

How can I claim that which I did not create?

Look what I found: :-D

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

Idiots are incapable of commiting crimes. :-)

An idiot is devoid of UNDERSTANDING, legally and lawfully speaking.

<<devoid [d??v??d] adj (postpositive; foll by of) destitute or void (of); free (from)>>

"- Are YOU MR. ABOUTTOGETFUCKED?" - "Are YOU, addressing ME? You may address me as Sir, your Majesty, or, an Idiot. Do YOU understand?" - "... Case dismissed!"

:D

But they are PERSONS

Chris Evan, If I create money, shouldn't I let everyone know who the Creditor is?

Of course !!! why not ?? :D

That's why I'm an IDIOT, Chris. You can clearly see, I do not understand. :D

But why don't you just go and take back what's YOUR's ? :D

And how does one express who the Creditor is?

I used to get pissed when Pierre called me an idiot, now I think of it like a compliment!!!!

You just have to say: HEY, IT'S me who created this :P

Exactly! then when no one counters the claim, I lien it!!! :-D

The government is not a PERSON/PARTY. Slap them with your cock, and smile afterwards.

Lien A right given to another by the owner of property to secure a debt, or one created by law in favor of certain creditors.

You don't LIEN it, you TAKE it... :/

I do like slapping things with my cock, thats for sure

Take what?

The fucking creation... !!! :/

Do you have a LOAN that you've respected the CONTRACT until the end ?

ok....I write a check. It clears. The banks sends me a LEGAL COPY while retaining the EQUITABLE COPY. How the fuck do i take it?

Yeah, a few

OK, go back to that bank, and ask for the capital that was created by you...

mmhhhmmmh

Why not ?? :/

Exactly!

They pushed a button, and BOOM, a creation appeared because YOU have signed something.....they've got paid for their part (interest) and now the contract is over.....you go back there to TAKE what's your's, the capital...

You are correct! Fuck! Nice thinking!

If you ask, they have to give it to you......or show you a proof, that they took it somewhere else to LEND it to you

They have two choices Chris Evan

1). show you a proof of disbursement 2). cut you a check

Period. ;)

And they don't have a fucking proof of disbursement.... :D

So guess what ?? :D , oh, there will be a little resistant, but you keep calm and stick to your point.....

No fucking lien is needed :D

Anything else I can do for you today Sir... :D

Muhahahahahahahaha!!!!!

FFFRREEEDDDDUUMMBBBB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DISBURSEMENT. Literally, to take money out of a purse. Figuratively, to pay out money; to expend money; and sometimes it signifies to advance money. 2. A master of a ship makes disbursements, whether with his own money or that of the owner, when he defrays expenses for the ship. 3. An executor, guardian, trustee, or other accountant, is said to have made disbursements when he expended money on account of the estate which he holds. These, when properly made, are always allowed in the settlement of the accounts.

Great points. But NEW to the conversation. I wasn't talking about liening THOSE. What about checking accounts?

Or ANY ACCOUNTS!!!!

You see ???....

They took the money from a purse, or you have created it.....no other options exists...

What about checking accounts?....I dunno, I would close them :/

Look at #3 of that definition.....that looks VERY interesting!!!

WHEN PROPERLY MADE!!!! hmmmmm.....looks like "set-off" or Bills of Exchange

Anything with the NAME/ACCOUNT we can claim as matter of trust property, matters of private trust. Why? Because FUCK OFF, that's why!

"I signed 2 mortgages totaling $222,000." - I think I should lien the instrument on these without notification.

"I signed 4 auto loans totaling $114,000." All were satisfied, so I should look up where they were issued from and Notify them that I would like a check.

"I signed 7 equipment loans totaling $89,000." - Same thing

"I have signed $600,000 (est) worth of checks." - hmmmm.....Should I notify the banks which they were drawn from? This seems like a lot of work.... :-/ ahhh....new though....Notify the Federal Reserve!! and default them when they can't counter my claim!

"I have created over $25,000 worth of unsecured credit." - Already collapsed these. But now that I think of it, I had that much of a line, but I probably created a shit ton more than that. oooppps

"This totals about $950,000." - hmmmm.....I am wondering if I should notify the Secretary of State and see if he has any objection to me liening the NAME for this. I think proper defaulted notice will be the claim I need to back up the lien.

"As I see it, they can leverage this money I have created into 10x as much….almost $10 million." - I don't know about this really.....If I have the potential to create $10 mil, shouldn't I lien the account for the MAXIMUM potential? I would think so, but I am not entirely sure....<thinking on it>

I think most of this is proper notice. If I have defaulted (or possibly answered) questions, my obligation should be done. Does anyone see anything incorrect here?

Do you have a contract still going with the two mortgages ?? :/

yes

You need to fullfil these contracts...

And the day after it's over, you go and get the capital....

I understand, but it is an expressed trust in which I have deposited value. As the Creditor, I think I should lien what I put into trust! THEN, when it is fulfilled, get the capital!

Are these mortgages under the NAME of the person you happen to have in your pocket ?? :/

yup

OK, well, if you lien the person......don't you lien everything that comes with it ??? :/

I think there is 2 aspects to this. I think one is what the PERSON is worth to the ones who created it, and that is about $60k. So in that case, we are the Creditor to the government for +/- $60k. But, through the PERSON, we have created more money....and that is where I am confused. Do we lien the person for ...well say $10mil...or the instruments that were created or both, or plus future value.....

The PERSON is an account, but it has teamed up with banks to create new accounts.....

mmhhh....

So, I think by liening the PERSON, it doesn't claim ALL the accounts. I think those have to be done individually. Plus, if I can justify a huge future dollar value, i should be able to lien it up the wazzou and kill it. This is my thought anyhow....

mmhhh....I am not sure....... :(

yeah....I am thinking out loud here. hmmmm...

Also, would this person need a will before we do this?

It's not hmmmmm, it's mmmhhhhh .....idiot :D

I think the person needs to get EMPTIED of everything it has before we do this...... :P

Yup!!! I am an idiot as I have no capacity to contract with you!

Agreed....I started looking into how to transfer the Deed to a Trust while it is still encumbered by a mortgage. :-) I have a couple more small items to attend to as well and then the NAME won't have anything left....almost there!

It already has a lien on it, but you can transfer the EQUITY :D

Did I just said equity ? :/

Sue, what do you think about this transferring the deed idea?

I think this is the kind of thinking we need to adopt to further our comprehension. I was thinking the other day, my mortgage has been renegotiated a few times over the years, when this happens, the original is paid out and a new one created right? Would this not mean that I could request the valuable instrument back from each bank that held my mortgage? The only one I wouldn't do this for is the present bank holding it because it has not been fulled 'paid' yet.

That is my comprehension of it......

Wait....renegotiated or paid off and re-pledged?

renegotiated with a new bank

So you had a mortgage with BANK1 and BANK2 paid BANK1 for the mortgage that you created. It would seem to me that BANK1 is satisfied and you can claim the monetary creation. Any objections????

that is my thinking

You just found nice DUTIES that needs to be administrate !! :-D

hahaha...now that I think about it, I had a bank send me back the original promissory note once about 4 or 5 years ago....at the time, I couldn't figure out why. LOL

Should this go out Registered Mail too?

I think everything should to keep it on the private side

Holy shit- i just realized...the CROWN, has given us the "MONEY," in which to BUY-BACK our own ESTATE, with the "ESTATE-DEED (Birth) Certificate" they gave us.....in essence, they've given us the ability, to be the UNDERWRITER for our OWN estate, and everything that goes along with it

that is your receipt to seek indemnity...hahahaaa

underwriter n. a company or person which/who underwrites an insurance policy, issue of corporate securities, business, or project.

Chris Evan, you cannot transfer the Deed if there is a mortgage. You can lien the equity. Not sure I would do that with the Express Trust, maybe lien it through your Corp instead. The Corp could also lien the checking account of the person.

I mean next to Scott- you seem to know the most about Trusts on here Rick, along with Blake.....Scott told me back in March- "You're on the right path...you're just learning everything in REVERSE".....ive WRACKED-my-brain trying to figure out by what he meant by that > "...in REVERSE..."

Chris, is your Trustee familiar with WHFIT???

What do you mean Derek Moran?

Only a little bit

Scott Duncan: Your parents SOLD you into SLAVERY when they registered you for a Birth Certificate

..buyer has to now indemnify SELLER?

SELLER = us

Scott has confirmed that the BC is also a FIDUCIARY CONTRACT

HA, Rick- i just typed that term out on ChiefRock's page the other day!

INDEMNIFY: Black's Law 1st

To save harmless; to SECURE against loss or damage; to give SECURITY for the reimbursement of a PERSON in case of an anticipated loss falling upon him. Also to make good; to compensate; to make reimbursement to one of a loss already incurred by him.

"...SECURITY...of a PERSON..."

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/I/i-0614.jpg

I suppose Rick, one then could call it the- 'INDEMNIFICATION-for-having-tricked-your-parents-into-selling-you-into-slavery-to-us-CERTIFICATE' ? :D

"He who brings the conflict must bring the remedy". It would seem to me that SLAVERY is a conflict. :-)

Just checking; are people really hypothetically speaking to Scott on this thread, or is he here under some alias I'm oblivious too?

I'm not aware of an alias, I think when you see Scott's name its posts he has made over the months past

Thanks Gail, I thought it might be a case of scottgonefever running amuck:-)

scott is not here, if he were you would KNOW it was him by the way he types. that and he would PROBABLY have mentioned shitstain in a sentance, more than once...

Scott may not be here, but I have ALL the good reasons to believe he must have a few pairs of "eyes" in here :D

Muhahahahahaha!!!!....Hey "EYES", tell Scott I am still fucked up please... :D maybe a little less than last year though :D

Scott Duncan Maritime is ALL U.C.C.

Who-are You Frisbey So that is saying UCC is Maritime also?

Scott Duncan No, it's law on LAND. Read my UCC article.

Derek Moran I came across an old-post of Scott's where he simply said- "UCC is ONLY useful to you if you have a fleet-of-ships," if that helps

Scott Duncan No.

That debt is there, but the BOND is attached to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to account for, and PAY that debt. It is a stand-alone document that acts as FOUNDATION for contracting a tender.

It's no different than a share in a corporation, only it's a TRUST.

Scott Duncan WTF is "An Individual"? An "individual" (Which means it can no longer be divided...meaning ONE, meaning SURETY) has some nasty legal liabilities by default!

NEVER EVER use the term "an individual" again. EVER.

So NO, the surety for the name can't lien the name. The claim is already public record. Why would you lien that for which you have surety? The GRANTOR liens the asset, not the debtor (surety).

Scott Duncan In fact I will, on THETENDERFORLAW.COM! That is coming along smartly...

...however this Rob Menard article is getting pretty fucking big. All these things take time, but it will be worth it.

Is the Birth Certificate a SCRIP CERTIFICATE too, Scott?

Can you translate what exactly IS a "SINKING FUND" being described here, Scott?

Sinking fund

53. The Governor in Council may provide for the creation and management of a sinking fund with respect to any issue of securities or with respect to all securities issued.

None of your business, Derek! :D

:-D

I think Scott's point here is.........haaa...never mind :-D

Here's what I found over at Investopedia, Derek: , Corporate Bonds, Fixed Income Dictionary Says Definition of 'Sinking Fund'

A means of repaying funds that were borrowed through a bond issue. The issuer makes periodic payments to a trustee who retires part of the issue by purchasing the bonds in the open market. Investopedia Says Investopedia explains 'Sinking Fund'

Rather than the issuer repaying the entire principal of a bond issue on the maturity date, another company buys back a portion of the issue annually and usually at a fixed par value or at the current market value of the bonds, whichever is less. Should interest rates decline following a bond issue, sinking-fund provisions allow a firm to lessen the interest rate risk of its bonds as it essentially replaces a portion of existing debt with lower-yielding bonds.

From the investor's point of view, a sinking fund adds safety to a corporate bond issue: with it, the issuing company is less likely to default on the repayment of the remaining principal upon maturity since the amount of the final repayment is substantially less. This added safety affects the interest rate at which the company is able to offer bonds in the marketplace.

Well from what ive heard, "SINKING FUNDS" are held completely OFF-the-books- example...the City of Toronto has TWO sets of books- the Consolidated Financial Statement, AND?.....the SINKING FUND ;)