Jun 13, 2013 8:48 PM

that is why they killed the originals here in the usa. This is also why Original can open a casino's on their reservations without it being subject to Admiralty/Maritime De-facto law of the land.

Yes.

Chris Schulte: legal? Shouldn't they be challenging the lawfulness?

Scott Duncan: I see. Who do you go to for that, again?

The courts can only "see" legal. Lawful is outside their jurisdiction.

Chris Schulte: Yeah, right....the Supreme Court. And they don't do Common Law....State Supreme Court and they can't do anything....Fuck, now what

http://youtu.be/9f0sBA61L0Y

Chris Schulte: So.....how do we hold them accountable to the trust document that allows their existance?

They are clearly operating outside their intended boundaries

Scott Duncan: Good Idea! I LIKE it!

Um... how do we do that, then?

Well let's look at history. Surely we can find some ancient wisdom there...

What did Italy do to THEIR fascist leaders? Hmmm...

Unless you are prepared to drag them into the street and behead them, and hang their lifeless carcasses outside the court as a warning to others, I'm not sure what you can do.

Chris Schulte: Yeah, so what are we discussing on this thread? Beheadings?

Scott Duncan: It may come to that.

The general ignorance/faith/apathy of the MAJORITY (who are ALWAYS wrong) is what allows this to happen.

History is repeating itself.

Antonio Piercy: we are their enemy , as scott said !The general ignorance/faith/apathy of the MAJORITY (who are ALWAYS wrong) is what allows this to happen."

Scott Duncan: ...and of course we're "bad" for pointing it out.

We don't "respect the beliefs of others" so we get "fewer rights" (That is going to be policy this year).

As expected. It's the LACK of response that encourages this push.

Antonio Piercy: isnt silence - tacit consent

Jason F. LeBlanc: Outrage has re surfaced. the options seem to be getting smaller and smaller....

Scott Duncan: Well if you try to corral the cattle too quickly, they tend to stampede. They want it nice and quiet...fast, but quiet.

By the time the majority snap out of their haze, it will be too late.

...and they ALWAYS go running to the people who first saw it coming, for answers.

I have a ONE WORD answer waiting for them, when they do; DIE.

Thank GOD for this link then- i know now everything will be allright: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/mandat.html Mandate, Mission and Values www.justice.gc.ca Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

LMAO - they fucking DELETED this shit TOO!

Scott Duncan: Gee Derek, I feel so much better now. We're saved!

Integrity and fairness

As PUBLIC SERVANTS supporting the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, we are committed to respecting and obeying the law and upholding the highest standards of integrity and fairness

..and for the record- we have no clue what the fuck Scott Duncan is talking about

Scott Duncan: LOL...YUP that's what it says!

...and for 90% of people, that's is enough to convince them.

Derek Moran: So if the courts are only able to see LEGAL.. who sees LAWFUL then?

Scott Duncan: YOU DO, DIPSHIT! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SCREAMING THESE PAST MONTHS!

We are all acting as PASSENGERS on a ship, and we FORGOT WE WERE THE CAPTAINS! The "crew" has taken over and when they change course, they tell you that it's done with the "captain's approval" and they tinker with the "autopilot" to change the course.

Do you get what I'm saying here?

Yeah- everything except the DIPSHIT part(ahem).. but its one thing for US to be the LAWFUL, its completely another entirely different thing, to get THEM to recognize and respect us as being the LAWFUL i.e. I dont own a gun..

I know- this is all about changing mindsets from THEY are above and we are BELOW, to WE are above and THEY are below - however.....this is all news to them

I'm not sure what you quote more: Me or case law. :D

Scott Duncan: Yes Derek. That's what makes them "bad guys".

..credit where credit is due? :P

Pete Daoust: I've learned some great stuff in here...like this one: BELEIFS wont help me, KNOWING will do....

An honourable intent. Not necessary.

Everything I say here will eventually be accredited to someone else. It always does.

Cara Small Atherton: If lawful only exists outside the courts then who gives a crap what they piss as legal

good info to pass to ones who still "believe" in legal being law

In your 60's you'll be shaking your cane at the TV shouting "LIAR! Scott Duncan said that", and nobody will believe you.

..they will have TV's at my FEMA Camp?? :)

I said 60. By then you'll be a "FEMA CAMP Survivor". :D

Scott Duncan: NOW you get it Cara Small Atherton!

Remember that. THAT is the fraud the Noble Lie sells. It's not what the "freeloaders-on-the-land" mean...even though they are right... they are just right for the wrong reasons.

Cara Small Atherton: duh, especially if you aren't willing to "strike" back

Scott Duncan: Now. if the more astute among you realize that I am generating "dependant" viewers, you will see how to kill "the system".

Make the system DEPEND on you.

No "striking back"...just infiltration through tender.

Cara Small Atherton: i see. but that is where i get lost

Scott Duncan: Cara I'm sure you got lost at a point farther back, but then you started reading stuff, and by people who won't lie to you.

You know more now. The "getting lost" part is the GOOD part. You are objective, and can absorb new concepts. "Getting Lost" is a state I long for, which is why I seek out new things to learn CONSTANTLY.

...it's why I know as much about horses as I do.

Cara Small Atherton: what would you suggest I learn next?

Scott Duncan: The thing about "remedy" is that there is already a transaction in progress, and it's up the the parties involved.

Since the government CAN'T be a "party" they can't be an INJURED PARTY, so it's THEY who have no "remedy".

Stop accepting surety in transactions IF YOU HAVE transactions.

Chris Schulte: Scott....explain further "Stop accepting surety in transactions IF YOU HAVE transactions" please

Joel Kinmond: This might be stupid, but why is it on us to notify them or correct them that we know who we are? They are the ones who started the scam. So as soon as they try to continue with their scam can't it just be pointed out then that they must provide proof of what they say? Make sense or do I need another one?

Jason F. LeBlanc: Surety= liability

Before the white-man came to North America and ruined everything.. who were the sovereigns if not the Natives?

Hell- Canada wasnt even 'claimed' by the British first..it was a King of France if i recall.....operative-word, 'CLAIM'

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: lol, there is no fiction in sovereignty... there is other fictions, which you are led to believe you are... Jesse, there are many threads to read here and disregard some of the "other" blather... if you have a particular question just post it as a new thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk9hmrNk98Y

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: You are bound in a trust with your govt... but they create the impression on you as trustee, and you are the beneficiary, that's where sovereignty comes in...

Authority which you are your own of...

"Excuse me but i think you've overstepped your boundaries- i conditionally-accept your presumed-jurisdiction over me upon proof-of-claim that you actually do have it?"

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqyfY7cZPk