The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 2

Jun 15, 2013 10:35 PM

Phillip PraterPhillip Prater Theprisonersix

In an effort to ""modify" the notice of mistake to fit my needs (US), is the name change act listed only to prevent them giving me the benefit of changing to THE NAME and joinder or is there something else in it that i should be aware of to make sure i have the correct information listed?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 245
Printed copy of this post
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 245 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Read Comments 37

Scott Duncan

If you waive the benefit of the ACT, the name is "abandoned" but has a claim... except the government is not a PERSON. They have NO authority to claim. They can only have custody. Custody - Custodian. Simple huh? :D

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 246
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 246 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Derek Hill

custodian means trustee?

assuming its this...

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c07_e.htm

i am missing a connection as to where the benefit is waived.

Benefit is the recognition of that person?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 246
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 246 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

David Johansen

backing up to his original question part and modifying it. [I]s it possible that we in america can use your canadian authored document without altering the cite to the canadian law (act) to the U.S. act?

would that aspect be a point of valid argument against it for 'them', or is it possible that we (in america) can cite a simple statement that says they are obligated to honor neighboring state law?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 246
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 246 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

David Johansen

ok then so would I simply remove your reference to the canadian act within the document and use it as it is? (i know not to change anything within your documents). as i see it if i used it with, they would argue 'canada law' is not applicable!

we are getting the jist of this. citing any act itself creates a presumption of joinder? doesnt matter where it is, canada, america, etc...

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 247
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 247 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Phillip PraterPhillip Prater Theprisonersix

Yes, Who-are You Frisbey, i get that it separates. Quoting a Canadian law if you are in the U.S. doesnt seem to make much sense. It would be no different than quoting a law that says stealing will get your hands cut off and trying to enforce it here. Siting the correct, applicable laws would seem relevant.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 248
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 248 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Sirwade FirsbeyWho-are You Frisbey

you are not part of the club and you don't want to be part of the club thanks but no thanks

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 248 · cut by a page break
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 248 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export. A page break in the printout cut off the end of this comment.

Sirwade Firsbey

hey back when I was born that name you gave me and made of them and u joint with my name hey that was a mistake and I'm sorry but uh I don't agree to that

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 249 · cut by a page break
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 249 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export. A page break in the printout cut off the beginning of this comment, with its name.

Phillip PraterPhillip Prater Theprisonersix

Thank you Who-are You Frisbey. I did read this early on and did not absorb it. I appreciate your pointing it out again. I must go read all this again.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 249
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 249 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Derek Moran

Scott Duncan: If you waive the benefit of the ACT, the name is "abandoned" but has a claim... except the government is not a PERSON. They have NO authority to claim. They can only have custody. Custody - Custodian. Simple huh?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 249
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 249 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Back to top