Jul 08, 2013 9:14 PM

I know this won't stump you, but here goes...how do you address the justice..rather than calling them "your honour"

Mister Supernumerary is my personal favourite. Dean Clifford is fond of the very accurate "Mister Unauthorized Administrator".

When I am feeling particularly hostile I'll reverse the Gender designation. If it is a woman, I will use Mister, and if it's a Man, I'll use "Miss". :D

Derek Hill said it best (I Still can't believe I'm typing that); Drop the "Your Honour". They are simply "YOU".

Is that your signature on the instrument? (I Managed to wrangle around this one, but it did throw me somewhat on my first visit to court).

No, it is the DOCUMENT'S SIGNATURE! :D

Can you not see that? Hell, you're pointing at it!

I like that one...'YOU" , it reconfirms the fact that they are YOU when you ask who is YOU.

Oh that one is good too...we tend to take possession/claim of things that aren't really a part of us

With finger pointed at me , "YOU sit down right now or I will give you a week to think about asking this court questions not coming from your appointed representative. ONE (shouting) more SOUND and you will have a new change of clothes for a week! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? I just nodded scared shitless. Long time ago.

Any statement from a Justice where they say "YOU", should be responded to with the question, "Are YOU addressing ME"?

Are you Mister Scott Duncan SIR ?

If YOU wish to address me, YOU may address me as ADMIRAL, YOUR GRACE, or SIR!

And what makes you think you are ADMIRAL in here SIR ?

SIR!

SIR is the highest standing. It acknowledges authority.

Mister, sorry for the sir....what makes you think you are ADMIRAL in here Mister ?

An Admiral does NOT call an Ensign or a Lieutenant "Sir". An Admiral addresses them as MISTER (Lower rank)

Who could have guessed That the proverbial "hot potato" of "surety" could be literally packaged into so many silly court room verbal offers... And once that is perceived the plethora of equally silly counter offers at once unravel themselves to carry that burning spud right on back to whence it came:) Cheers!

SIR...fuck thought that was a pleasantry .... actually should'a known better

A Cop will address you as SIR as long as you do not IDENTIFY yourself, then he addresses you as MISTER.

That is a definite value in this thread Súil Eile, we just say words thinking we know their meaning, not realizing our pleasantry is actually causing harm to ourselves

"Mr Duncan shut up, YOU have no say in jurisdiction"

In French, there is only Monsieur :(

Are you addressing ME?

that is the best one ^^^ 4 words ...easy to remember....useful a large percentage of the time

My last conversation with cops, I stated that I did not consent to, well, pretty much everything, to which she responded: "Well, you're being detained."

...because if you wish to address ME, you will address me as ADMIRAL, YOUR GRACE, OR SIR! Do you UNDERSTAND?

Why am I being detained?

...still wondering why I'm being detained. Am I free to go?

would asking if you are under arrest be a response to you are being detained? pushing them to either arrest or let go?

This is my favorite. If you have done nothing wrong what is there to hide.

Cops abuse this in windsor.

No. They have already said you are being detained.

"If you have done nothing wrong what is there to hide.If you have done nothing wrong what is there to hide." - Really? So you have no curtains on your windows? You clearly have nothing to hide, why would you need curtains. Why is your female partner wearing clothes? Has she got something to hide? :D

Does that give them adequate reason to "detain" me while investigating, or is there a correct response that would have allowed me to exit the situation?

Being detained is the same as arrest (if but temporarily). You is a funky word. Only means something if you respond to it. How about a reply of "Who are YOU addressing? Followed with "Is that an ORDER? If so I will need your personal information so I may invoice you later." Is good?

WRONG!

Being detained is a civil process to allow a PEACE OFFICER to collect information necessary for the execution of their duties. It is NOT ARREST.

They cannot MOVE you from that location, unless they ARREST you.

If you are DETAINED and then arrested, they MUST get you before a Justice of the Peace, FORTHWITH.

Judge:Look we are not here for that , will get a chance to speak after the prosecutor finishes

Justice : what is your excuse for not showing up to your probation appointment ?

WHO is the PROSECUTOR?

Justice: is this your only copy of the BC ?

I don't HAVE a probation appointment.

It's none of your business how I manage my estate.

Justice with Dean Kory: "You know what, im not going to play that GAME with you here today"

Judges do not exist in CANADA after1982 or any PROVINCE. Judges can only exist in a special type of government.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO only have JUSTICES to conduct and operate as the PROVINCE.

Judges are voted in. JUSTICES are NOT. Judges are simply for show. That is all.

Now perhaps Scott can share some insight on what MASTERS are.

Justice: are you Scott Duncan or not ? If your not Scott Duncan than you can leave my court room and a bench warrant will be issued for the arrest of Scott Duncan for failure to appear.

Am I to understand that the court regards my personal liberties, A GAME?

I wasn't worried about arrest, but the detainment ate up two hours of my time, and caused me to miss part of a very important appointment. I was just curious if there was something I could have said to get out of the detainment itself.

Which question did you want me to answer? Are you Scott Duncan? Or not. That's TWO questions that seem to contradict each other. Which one did you want an answer to?

Re Detaining: Am I free to go? Just keep asking.

justice: are you Scott Duncan yes or no ?

I already told your that you may address me as ADMIRAL, YOUR GRACE, OR SIR. Any other titles I may or may not be addressed as, is quite frankly, none of your business.

Justice: Look Mr Duncan We are not here for that right now, sit down before i charge you with contempt of court

Civil or Criminal?

Would that be criminal contempt(who is the victim) civil contempt(where is the contract)?

Is it a CRIME to have contempt for this court?

sir do you go by the name Scott Duncan

None of your business.

Justice: Bailiff if Mr Duncan Speak again arrest him

Justice: Mr Duncan please provide me some proof that the title your wishing to be called is valid

Why would you arrest Mr Duncan for speaking?

judges replaced with justices, does this essentially void the ability to privately prosecute when cops prove their ignorance?

Justice: Well thank you MR Duncan, we may not proceed, Prosecutor you may go ahead now

No.

Cops are a spearate company.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO is a business. Treat it as such.

If they see evidence that they can prosecute on a cop they will.

when you go into court, you reserve all rights...do you have to continuously do that, or just reconfirm when there may be a possibility that your response may be taken as agreement to their jurisdiction? Looking at that question, I'm seeing why As King rather then answering is important :P

Justice: Mr Duncan, can you provide me an authenticated record which shows you manage your own estate ? if not sit down and wait your turn to speak

i believe SD refered to raising "a point of order" to confirm your rights & court offered ability to object on the record.

I know the justice system is about surety and individual oaths stem from that..but do they ALL really want to take people down, or is it that their hands are tied, and some may find some pleasure in having a knowledgeable person in front of them...even if they can't really say so?

Justice: I take it you refuse to speak or see with duty council while your in custody such as yourself. So, the matter at hand, of whether or not your pleading guilty or not guilty ? So how do you plea ?

Scott Duncan It's none of your business how I manage my estate. 20 minutes ago · Like · 3

Justice: I take it you don't accept your Scott Duncan? I dont care how you choose to describe yourself to the court, you will always be Mr Scott Duncan.

Justice: I will be entering a plea for you of Not Guilty on all charges

Crown prosecutor, you gonna take care of that on behalf of PROVINCE OF ONTARIO as the legal owner of the SURETY BOND?

All these tricks of their trade the common man is toast from the get go. Can not a simple question such as "By what authority has the Crown brought me before this court?" And then keep following up with "There is a question before the court that needs to be addressed prior to continuing." This is in another thread I know however it is directly related to this in the aspect of; Trying to ask a question that they might throw at you comes after the point of NOT letting them get to that stage of the game at all.

Crown: Mr Hill i dont understand your mumbo jumbo, i think you should seek legal council before you harm yourself Mr Hill..

DOES THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO NOT the owner of THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Show me the injured party, show me the charges, and show me where is the surety please, I think we will need it :D

again the idea of detachment from those things that we've always thought were ours but we have no ownership of..good one Derek

Justice: Mr Daoust the court is not here for that please sit down and wait your turn, stop disrupting the court or i will have you removed

Justice: Mr Hill, we are not here for that, a plea of not guilty has been entered on behalf of the defendant, the court will stand down until after lunch break and bring for the next case, thank you Crown

i made a mistake, court cannot proceed until questions before the court is answers.

Justice : Mr Daoust, either be silent or leave the court, bailiff if he speaks again remove him from my court.

Justice: the court can enter a plea on your behalf

when you reserve all rights at the start, does that not take away their right or ability to enter a plea on your behalf?

Justice: Well, Mr Hill, we will just remove you from the court, bailiff if you would take Mr Hill, until he is summoned again at the end of the day.

objection, by what authority do you have that you can even address me as YOU.

YOU implies that i accepted surety, the notice of mistake is not in the record is it?

If not, then i require to make an oral affidavit to that effect.

would you also ensure that is recorded on the public record too Derek Hill?

on and for the public record SURE!!!

Justice: i will not entertain any more further communications on this issue, we are going to stand it down and the judicial case manager will arrange the dates, bring you back in and we will tell you those things.

Court has been a real learning curve once you have a resource like this to fall back on but i believe notice of mistake ends the argument :)

That seems likely. Why are people "allowing" the Justice to make a legal determination?

ChiefRock Sino General , not 'a practical exercise'...many many many exercises. Yes it is difficult to assimilate a response when things move fast. Most answer before formulating a PROPER response. Namely me :(

I think the Notice of Mistake is a KEY tool...it can ensure that you don't fall into the legal trap

Notice of mistake is not a key unless you know how to hold it. If you dont know how to hold it dont bother. Especially if you do not understand the fundamentals of the whole thing. Keep in mind, contract are dynamic, which means they can move, so if you feel a piece a paper is your win, try again, it only got you past the front door, now your oral skills will have to come into play and you can verbally kill a notice of mistake by your own oral mistakes ...dont be so confident in a piece of paper.

I dont mean the piece of paper itself....I'm with you on the knowing part, that is like anything powerful, we give it the real power through our awareness

But once the notice of mistake is entered your not supposed to speak except to refer to them answering/acknowledging it. Or is that wrong?

The paper is going to place questions out there but they will just over look it and move on and process the case. Unless you orally speak the question they wont bother addressing the question within it. Now once you do ask, its on you to hold them to it by not allowing them to move further but not alot of folks know how or can do such a task as alot of justices intimidate ppl for some reason.

Last time I went to court, everytime I speaded out some stuff I've learned, I could feel it in the room, I knew I was right and they knew it to....I could feel it, it was a weird feeling...

The court need your understanding to continue to proceed if you ask a question about the proceedings because you don't understand they cannot move past the notice of mistake

wouldn't you respond to that by asking " Are you suggesting that my lack of understanding is of no substance or importance to this issue at hand?"

Those fuckers don't intimidate me one bit. I intimidate them.Holy shit does it feel good when everyone in the room is on their knees and I am standing tall.

yes I need understanding of the proceedings to proceed

To reiterate, all these messages can, and should be deleted later.

Re: ChiefRock Sino General's Questions:

Objection, point of order: How can I be expected to respond when I am unable to understand the nature and cause of these proceedings?

Isn't it true that there are questions before the court that MUST be answered before it can determined if a defendant exists, who the defendant is and if they are capable of making any sort of plea or if anyone else here is even capable of making a plea on their behalf?

Do you need me to read these questions into the public record so they can be dealt with or will you accept the Notice of Mistake as sufficient notice of the questions that need resolving?

PS: Remember Captain Scott Duncan, one hand for you, one for the boat...stay safe.

Tara, What are your thoughts on "witnessing" court procedure? Anyone's thoughts or experiences please.

It's your task to ensure all questions before the court are answered before proceeding.

I don't understand the question Cara Small Atherton.

Let's say for the sake of argument you ask a question that cannot, or should not, be answered. However you "require" the question to be answered before you proceed.

Anything that is not answering the question is just white noise. Your focus then becomes, "Was the question answered?" If yes, impossible. If no, reiterate the question.

Say one was to decide to be nosey and watch court in their district, or start to ask questions (not during court) as a non-party to any proceedings.

again i feel the need to really drive this home.

QUESTIONING negates UNDERSTANDING.

No UNDERSTANDING negates SURETY.

No SURETY negates PROCEEDINGS.

Why should it be "nosey" to watch court proceedings? They are advertised as the PUBLIC RECORD. As for asking questions, I'm not sure whom you would ask, or what the value of such an activity would be.

Scott, can you pm me, i got some burning questions in private.

What's wrong with you ? :/

Scott Duncan so bridging from my old pinned topic.

JUSTICE : What gives you the right or believe that an order is a contract?

Me : Is an order NOT a contract?

If they try to lie, state that For and ON the record, that you currently DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

public record!?

ANY record. THEIR record. You just want proof that you DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

their record they can alter and make it APPEAR you understood, hence more bullshit to deal with at a later date.

they told me its not there problem i dont UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Are you claiming that you have the LEGAL RIGHT to PROCEED when there is NO UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

Mister Scott Duncan, if you say one more word, I will declare you a vexatious litigant

in my recent case i backed one justice into a jurisdiction hearing with questions, he recused himself & next justice decided it would be handier to skip the plea & begin the hearing. i've learned from you that there are no judges so private prosecution is pointless? you did mention he accepted surety upon doing so but how do we enforce?

Justice; Mr. Duncan can you please produce this......person you speak of or we will hear no more of it in this court.

Are you addressing ME? Because if you wish to ADDRESS me, you MAY ADDRESS ME AS SIR...

...bitches.

How come everyone has all these court cases? I have no lic, I pay no taxes....actually, I am not sure if they know I exist besides my mortgage.

Whatever who your are, if you say one more word, I will declare you a vexatious litigant

Are you ADDRESSING ME? Because if you wish to address me, you WILL (The, "Of your own free", variety) ADDRESS me as ADMIRAL,or YOUR GRACE or SIR

NO i will not address YOU as ADMIRAL,YOUR GRACE or SIR MISTER?

Attorning is MINE to GIVE. It is not yours to REFUSE. Are you PRACTISING LAW FROM BEHIND THE BENCH?

Do you chose to be BELLIGERENT SIR ?

Why are you asking? My intent is NONE of the COURT'S BUSINESS.

WHO ARE you to declare war on my person

I was getting to that :D

By what authority you declare war on my person ?

They still have not answered WHY they are asking.

HAHAA! Pierre, you are dying to use that!

FUCK fuck fuck. Your a sneaky teacher Scott Duncan Your just ignoring anything they say until they address you in a certain capacity thereby negating there claim against you.

Scott, have you ever been arrested?

MANY times.

hmmmmm......good thing I am learning all this shit BEFORE I get arrested....

My first was when I was 13. I took the bus home. That's ALL I DID.

And what were the charges?

...OK I actually drove the unattended, yet foolishly running bus, home.

When I take the bus, I TAKE THE BUS!

Were you DRIVING or TRAVELLING?

Neither. I TOOK THE BUS!

Clash of the titans! The native and the Noble in a head-to-hed grudge match that's ACTUALLY VALUABLE BITCHES! WATCH AND LEARN FROM THE MASTERS! :D

Exact opposite ends of the scale. Think about it. I'm so fucking NOBLE that THE FUCKING NOBILITY FROZE ME OUT!

ChiefRock Sino General is exactly NOT the Nobility...IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY. A man of NATURE, is far more NOBLE than the Nobility could ever dream of.

And we're both right.

So pay attention. this is USEFUL combat.

Court Clerk: All Rise, court is now in session.... (got 20mins to play before i travel back to her moms..) Everyone in the court rises , Scott Duncan rises while the justice walks in....

I do not, either. I'm SITTING :P

I'd stand for someone as awesome as ME, but not for a "JUSTICE" :P

Clerk: Case no 235435 is now being called, Scott Duncan please come before the court, Crown: Your honor, Mr Duncan charged with trafficking marijuana and failure to appear on two accounts, Mr Duncan also , failed to appear to the probation on April 12, May 12 and June 12, we are looking for a suspension of bail and to be held until his trial...

Point of order! WHO is "MISTER DUNCAN"?

Justice: is Scott Duncan in the court now ?

Crown: yes Scott Duncan is sitting in the front row wearing the White shit with the funny hair cut and silly glasses your honor

I am here for that matter, MISTER Supernumerary.

OBJECTION, WHY is THE CROWN Speaking?

Justice: are you Scott Duncan ?

Justice: Yes or no sir ?

Are YOU addressing ME?

Justice: are you not the one in the white shirt with the funny hair cut with the silly glasses are you not ?

Are YOU addressing ME?

Justice: Well, your name was called and you stood up, your in my court in my jurisdiction, so are you Scott Duncan or not ? If your not Scott Duncan please reframe from continuing to speak

There is a QUESTION before the court, Mister Unauthorized Administrator. Are YOU addressing ME?

Justice: Bailiff, if he fails to identify himself as Scott Duncan please remove this man from my court, So now, are you Scott Duncan or not ?

Are YOU addressing ME?

Justice: This man can leave the court, bailiff remove this man, Crown: We move to for bench warrant for Scott Duncan

"this MAN can leave the court"...was that on purpose chief?

I am here for the matter of Scott Duncan. However there is STILL a question before the court. I'll say it slower and LOUDER:

ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME?

*jeopardy music - ChiefRock Sino General Hip-Hop Edition.*

Justice: did you not rise and answer to the name ?

Justice: Either your Scott Duncan or your not, if you keep wishing to play these games, we will remove you from the court, you been asked 3x now if your Scott Duncan, we are moving forward with a bench warrant unless you are going to let me know whether your Scott Duncan.

MISTER Criminal Supernumerary/Unauthorized administrator. You are asking questions as if you have the authority to do so. You do not. You are neither legally, nor are you Lawfully allowed to PROCEED, while there is a question before the court.

I'll ask again. ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME?

Justice: if we are going to consider any point of order the first question on the floor was whether or not you are Scott Duncan, until you answer that, your question is of no concern and this court will issue bench warrant for the arrest of Scott Duncan.

Arrest warrants are PROCESS. You do not have a LEGAL or LAWFUL right to proceed until the question before the court is answered. I'll ask again: ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME?

Justice: Bench warrant issued, Bailiff remove this gentlemen from my court, Crown what is the next case on the docket ?

Has the 'person' SCOTT DUNCAN (The BC) already been deposited with the court, so the 'person' they are seeking is already in their custody?

Let the record show that an unauthorized administrator did, without lawful excuse, Proceed in a matter where the court did in fact have a question before it. I hereby amend that warrant to INCLUDE the Government Supernumerary, as SURETY in this matter, and direct the arrest warrant by the authority Of Elizabeth Windsor, Sovereign of the COMMONWEALTH, and keeper of the faith. The charge is TREASON, and is underwritten by the AQUILAE TRUST.

This hearing is adjourned.

Have a nice day! :D

Can ANYBODY tell me why the scenario CAN'T happen? Remember SURETY and ACCOUNTING.

ChiefRock Sino General has been chugging the Peyote if he thinks it could EVER play out like that.

SURETY and ACCOUNTING. Follow the money.

Well, i witnessed it happen ...its a play by play of what a judge has done before

Oh... so your scenario was that a Queens warrant went on the record? Who's the surety?

The thing is, this is exactly how courts are run in bc, vancouver to be exact

Read it again.

no she didn't either, but she would not admit to the name...thus she was not there...for hours and fucking hours

So void the charging instrument. they have no right to attorn you and you have the right to void. The NAME of your PERSON is a PARTY. Go into the courthouse with a VOID stamp and go nuts.

Not so fast...I see a plan forming here. Every time someone we don't like must appear in court, wouldn't it be a swell idea to send someone in their place to piss the Justice off?

Scott, although i dont disbelieve you, what you are saying is stamping void on ANYTHING that is unfavourable to you.

What would happen lets say in a family case, where the other party can EASILY do everything you just did.

get yourself one its only like 12 bucks.

Red ink on the void stamp correct Scott

Courts need UNDERSTANDING between the parties. If you do not consent to the venue, IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO VOID ALL CHARGING INSTRUMENTS GENERATED!

IT IS YOUR RIGHT!

YOU decide when your PERSON engages commerce. NOT THEM!

yesterday...(and I fully expect a lashing), but he asked if i was "Kelleran Holman" and I said "yes, in the flesh"...twice I said that...

SO. LETS SAY, that you did not know the true understanding of oh lets say CUSTODY.

You take your stamp and you put VOID all over the order where CUSTODY was involved.

NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

Not everyone can void , only the holder of equity. The creditor always wins even though the debtor signs as well. That's the way I see it.

I want that CLEAR!

In case you missed it: NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

For those who are just joining us: NO. ONLY ON YOUR SIGNATURE. NOWHERE ELSE.

What if the order itself does not have your signature.

Like right on top of the signature are the name

Then stamp VOID where you are SUPPOSED to sign.

The result is the same. VOID

so lets say where it says

____________________________ Applicant

which is blank. You stamp that bitch on top of this?

It matters not if you signed it. Sign where they EXPECT your endorsement to be.

Yes Derek.

IN RED

Can it be done in red ink(pen)?

ALWAYS VOID IN RED

red ink or must it be stamp.

if you say ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME and the justice says YES what do you say next? Scott Duncan

"By what AUTHORITY are you addressing me as a YOU?"

Derek ALWAYS VOID IN RED

Yes. Red + Void = AWESOME

a red void is a red void, stamped or written..it's still void, I would think

The only right you have is to NOT contract. Accept the document and print / stamp VOID there by meaning NO BONA FIDE contract.

I also have the right to contract :D

As you're the only one with standing when the justice wont answer your questions he creates the conflict and keeps you in honor while at the same time deflecting surety at all times so no meeting of the minds can be established either.

also writing void on that shit, is near as "fuck you" as you can get...with out actually writing "fuck you" on the endorsement line

Write that in black. It becomes VOID with the document. :D

OK...now we need to learn colors ? :(

Yes Pierre. It comes with jurisdiction.

Pete Daoust yes but I see it this way. By NOT contracting is in it self a contract with the other party. By NOT contract they must AGREE that there is NO contract. Sounds convoluted but if you think about it.

While ChiefRock Sino General and Scott Duncan was in duty, I received a phone call from a person who I've sent a bill of exchange accepted by PIERRE DAOUST, :/ it was funny.... :) She haven't seen that in 10 years, and I'm a very complicated Man she said :(

I recorded the call and sent it to her via email, with some terms :D

Scott, would it be any different if an order was relying on an agreement woiuld you need to void that too?(Consent Order)

Yes.

If PIERRE DAOUST gets an unjustified negative credit mark, PIERRE DAOUST will send a $100,000.00 invoice to her and that company where she work

That means you'll have to *gasp* STAMP TWO DOCUMENTS!!!!

...better give up. :D

......was sarcastic.....dont ban me..lol

Have to get them first.

ahhh yes, getting them.

I have access to the agreement that the order relies on, i can void that no problem, but the order itself, fucxking clerk wont give it to me...somad.

It has to be the original order, too. Voiding file copies didn't help at all, the Court Clerk just replaced that page.

You simply ask to see the original charging instrument. It is your right to inspect it. If they give a "Certified Copy", accept it, write NEW ORIGINAL at the top ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE, IN RED... and VOID IT!

submit it to the court, and return the voided "new original". :D

so.

if theyg ive a cert of true copy

take it write on top of it NEW ORIGINAL

then void it as if it was the original. refile it into the record so the court knows its voided?

Your signature gives the document AUTHORITY. They won't give it to you but do give a CERTIFIED COPY. You say Okay this is it. Write NEW ORIGINAL at the very top. Then in RED , VOID your CERTIFIED SIGNATURE?

At the very least, doing that makes your intent clear Chad Brodgesell

And INTENT is everyting :)

the statement . void where prohibited by law. becomes clearer now

Just get a certified copy of that back though.

this is teaching us how to act for the person not as the person

this thread has joined a lot of dots for me, I wasn't capable of being the critic of my own actions because i didn't know any better... cheers (Y)

Protecting your person from FORCED contracts.

Which have no force or effect if you stand to it.

Yes Suil Eile, me too. My question page is now at 17 just for this thread tonight. Got a weeks worth of research coming up.

Alright.

Dealing with orders and a restraining order. Let me get this straight.

I go in, they refuse to give me originals, ok thats cool. Then i request they make certified true copies.

I take those and stamp VOID onto the placeholder of the signature regardless if its there or not. I take the agreement also and VOID that.

The restraining order i actually have a certified true copy of it so i stamp VOID on that.

I take the now voided orders back to the court clerk and i simply file it into the record...(Scott does it go in by itself? or in afffidavit and what is written in the affidavit?)...I obviously send notice or copies to the opposing party to notify them that it has been voided.

I take the restraining order to the police station to notify them that a restraining has been voided....you know...to avoid unneccesary arrests....

Scott Duncan did i get this right?

Scott Duncan, while going over SEALS and all the beautiful definitions of said, the red void be written and/or constitutes your SEAL correct?

You left out NEW ORIGINAL.

But yes, you have it.

Scott Duncan : "they have no right to attorn YOU"

at—torn /??t?rn/ Verb

Formally make or acknowledge a transfer of something. Transfer (something) to someone else.

attorn - for more information look at the servant king videos...required viewing :)

Scott Duncan when i file it back in the recordi attach it to an affidavit as exhibits or just file it by itself...I know the clerks have an issue if its not with an affidavit...I want to be sure and know everything when i do it tomorrow.

Are they transfering the PERSON from a STATE where you (the body) are not SURETYto a STATE where you are the SURETY? Is that the transfer taking place?

at—torn (-térn) intr.v. at—torned, at—torn—ing, at—torns To agree to remain as a tenant of property after the transfer of its ownership

NEW ORIGINAL, at the TOP above ALL OTHER WRITING ON THE CERTIFIED COPY.

They are CERTIFYING that this is EQUAL to the ORIGINAL, so you endorse that by making it the NEW Original... If it's as GOOD as the original, then it IS the ORIGINAL. Who's to contest?

thats true, they can only contest if there is a difference. if everything is the same then what would they bitch about.

Ahhhhh. So the NEW ORIGINAL written and/or stamped constitutes YOUR SEAL of AUTHORITY and the VOID in red written and/or stamped still constitutes your authority.

new original means exactly that new original

You have the concept generally correct, Robert Cormier.

Now does it matter if its stamped or can it be written in red pen?

An Attorney, acts as TRUSTEE for the ATTORNMENT.

*sigh*

Attorneys transfer your rights to the bar, to themselves somewhere else? What are attorn eys transferring?

Shut up Pierre.

Robert Cormier is exploring ATTORN, which is a VITAL CONCEPT, so pay attention!

...typing. stand by.

red ink is the point whether it's written are stamps doesn't matter

ORDER> Shut the fuck up, everyone! NOW!

Robert Cormier's subject is ESSENTIAL. PAY ATTENTION!

They have my power of attorney to transfer something somewhere. What and where?

In the United States, everyone is SOVEREIGN so to get you into the LEGAL jurisdiction, they must ATTORN you. That's why LAWYERS are called Attorneys there.

There is only ONE attorney, in the COMMONWEALTH. The CROWN attorney.

Everybody GET THAT?

Paraphrased from servant king:

Attorn: to turn or transfer homage from one lord to another—an act of vassals or tenants, acknowledging a new landlord….to be a traitor, an act of treason

They transfer me as SURETY at the whim of the guy who is acting as JUSTICE?

so what is the difference of a LAWYER and an ATTORNEY.

Then after they "FIND" me guilty (I guess my PERSON suddenly appears to them after it was transferred to their jurisdiction) The lawyer says sorry, i tried to help., i'll send you my bill" And HE's the BASTARD that transferred you so you could appear and they can "FIND" you in whatever place they want to put you?

Looking at Scott Duncan, the guy acting as an agent for the corporation called JUSTICE says "the court is requesting the presence of Scott Duncan. Are you or are you not Scott Duncan? If you are not Scott Duncan, the court will issue an arrest warrant for SCOTT DUNCAN.

Do you keep repeating "Are you addressing me?" and remind him that there is still a question before the court? What would you say if you really wanted to ream him out? If you really wanted to let him know you are up to his tricks?

why doesn't the justice say "yes" when asked ", "are you addressing me?"

then the judge / justice become surety. And the whole point of court is to make us surety

remember it's all about accounting and they want to make us accountable instead of themselves

The Attorney General of Canada is the highest-ranking prosecuting officer in Canada....Being the chief law officer of the Executive Council, the Attorney General is obliged to see that the public affairs are administered in accordance with the legal regulations in the country. In other words, his or her duties have been referred to as “judicial-like” and as the “guardian of the rule of law”. ....The Attorney General is also responsible for all lawcriminal prosecutions in the country. However, some prosecutions are conducted by the provincial Attorney General authorities under the Canadian Criminal Code....The Attorney General has a number of litigation responsibilities as well. They are based on the so called “Crown’s parens patriae authority”.

WAIT hold the phone.

Scott Duncan, are you saying that in the commonwealth there is only 1 attorney. that is the crown attorney.

So if we are not attorneys, or do not have an attorney, then we have not attorned. If we havent attorned then we are immune to their legal system unless a contract has been made?

http://www.canadafaq.ca/what+is+the+attorney+general+of+canada/

The Attorney General has Parens Patriae Authority!

[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

Reminds me of R Menard talking about our nanny's.

legally unable to act on their own behalf...because it isn't our clubhouse.

Let us rip it apart to the basics. 1) They keep asking because they can only deal with the TRUSTEE for the person. 2) You can be either the BENEFICIARY *or* the TRUSTEE. 3) They ONLY want to speak to the TRUSTEE so SURETY for the matter can be TRANSFERED *from* them to you. (Who wants to be surety for anything?) 4) The *ISSUE* at hand is to NOT ACCEPT becoming the TRUSTEE. 5) They can ONLY speak *with* authority to one of their own. The above 4 items are based on this. If you are not part of our organization then what the fuck are you doing here? They could if they wanted even Charge you with IMPERSONATING an OFFICER. . If the above is incorrect in anyway please correct. :)

We haven't crossed the bar into it? Nor have we pledged allegiance to the clubhouse rules.

Court is only for Trustes and Surety. Correct me if I am wrong. And of course friends......

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English Common Law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parens+Patriae

In US Law, the parens patriae doctrine is literally the 14th amendment....

The lawyers are acting as our parents because we are seen as children before the courts?

This is all based on PRESUMED JURISDICTION. Kill the assumption and it dies leaving only force.

legally incompetent to manage our affairs

do you all see how we are all coming together as a collective fighting force ever since the group was closed?

Yes...closing the group was the best idea ever

I see it more like , There seems to be a greater amount of focus regarding legal matters then before the group was closed. I just hope I can keep up with the cuts.

Attornment (from Fr. tourner, "to turn"), in English real property law, is the acknowledgment of a new lord by the tenant on the alienation of land. Under the feudal system, the relations of landlord and tenant were to a certain extent reciprocal. So it was considered unreasonable to the tenant to subject him to a new lord without his own approval, and it thus came about that alienation could not take place without the consent of the tenant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attornment

The consent of the tenant is required for them to gain jurisdiction.

Aspects of the parens patriae jurisdiction were given a statutory basis in the nineteenth century and a Court of Protection was established with the authority to protect the affairs of "adults lacking legal capacity". In Ireland, jurisdiction over the affairs of adults lacking legal capacity is still contained in a nineteenth century statute. The Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 provides that the wardship jurisdiction arises in relation to a person found to be “of unsound mind", and incapable of managing himself or his affairs.

ChiefRock Sino General had to "cheat" to "defeat" me. I will damage the security instrument and the Justice has to pay the balance out of his own pocket, and I live happily ever after.

That's how THAT shit works.

what were you referring to scott?

cheat to defeat...??

But it doesnt. Haul me out of the court, and I STILL have power of Attorney for the PERSON.

Eventually the accountant will show up.

The JUSTICE has to foot the bill.

the....fuck....beginning of what o.0 of this thread?

Scott Duncan: STILL have power of Attorney for the PERSON. This is because you your power of attorney wasn't attorned to them?

Seriously, you don't LOOK like a girl, Derek! How come you have Stupid Cunt Syndrome?

Sino had to cheat, but that method doesn't work because He (As Justice) will end up PAYING if they want to stay on the bench! :D

Power Of Attorney is YOURS to GRANT, and is NOT THEIRS TO REFUSE.

Scott, is your PERSON property of AQUILAE or is the PERSON in question a BC PERSON?

but what did sino say to cheat?

He "removed me from the courtroom"

Which I immediately LIEN! :D

We all have Power of Attorney over our Person until we give it to others..Willingly. We literally WILL it to some one else. By Hiring a Lawyer or granting it to the crown. Is this correct?

People are being sent to mental hospitals for an assessment if they say they are not the name on their birth certificates

When you ATTORN yourself, you become a WARD OF THE COURT. Look up what WARD OF THE COURT means. :D

LIEN through ppsa because the security instrument is a moveable item?

ward n. 1) a person (usually a minor) who has a guardian appointed by the court to care for and take responsibility for that person. A governmental agency may take temporary custody of a minor for his/her protection and care if the child is suffering from parental neglect or abuse, or has been in trouble with the law. Such a child is a "ward of the court" (if the custody is court-ordered) or a "ward of the state." 2) a political division of a city, much like a council district.

I do it ALL the time. They hate that shit :D

the court becomes your guardian.

hence why if you have a lawyer you CANNOT SPEAK. unless you are spoken too.

when i was in court and baby mamma tried to speak justice told her to shut up.

Scott, you trust me making a thread for liening case files and its power?

You can trust me to correct it. Try not to make a shit stain that I have to clean up... I hate that.

ill try not to...

afk typing shit up....

"Power Of Attorney is YOURS to GRANT" - are we transferring this POWER, whenever we APPLY for home insurance, car insurance, or a bank account, etc.?

Insurance would be a good topic to get into

I already posted the next topic :D

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wards+of+court

How about this: CAR Insurance. . .HOME Insurance. . .HEALTH Insurance. . .SOCIAL INSURANCE??....hmmmmmmmmm, i APPLIED for that when i was FOURTEEN, and theres something about MINORS contracting ;)

Dean Clifford has talked about getting any type of insurance. You are automatically in SUBROGATION of your rights when you do.

Re : Ward of the court. The court becomes the guardian. When you look up guardian....this is part of the explanation: Sadly enough, often a parent must petition to become the guardian of his/her child's "estate"

Must the parent petition to become the guardian of their child's estate because the child was (since the BC) a WARD OF THE COURT. So, we are all adult WARDS OF THE COURT?

you lost your child when you registered your child for the birth certificate.

..OH - i live in Councillor Karen Stintz's WARD, by the way - thats a real doozy of a presumption there too

Signed, Infant and/or Mental Incompetent which must have Karen Stintz as my GUARDIAN

A new thread might be: How to become the guardian of your children and their ESTATE and how to become the guardian of your own estate.

can this void stamp be added at any time or is there a time limit? Also, I too would like to know if your "new original" must be accompanied by anything else.

Power of attorney is power of will which means you have to be alive. So there is no time limit to the fact of power of attorney to change document and contract

Derek Moran Dean Clifford has talked about getting any type of insurance. You are automatically in SUBROGATION of your rights when you do. Winston Shrout says that often he wants to be the SURETY so that he can subrogate everyone rights and has full control over the matter.

Justice: I have read the police report which includes posts in which you say you would like to kill a cop...do you have anything to say before I pass judgement?

When ever you write anything like that always use the word 'IF' in front as it donates a condition must exist prior to you harming another.

As "would like to" only states a hypothetical desire, what evidence does this court have of any actual intent?

I WOULD LIKE to have a million dollars and sprout wings. Does this mean I actually intend for these things to happen? Well, the cash...give me time, it's still early ;D

1) Thinking something is not a crime. 2) Saying something 'as long as' there is no non-disclosure contract in effect is not a crime. 3) Actually harming some one IS a crime. the way I see it unless anyone can either correct it and/or add to it.

Their hypothetical desire is to enslave you. Flip the bird back at them. Me: So JUSTICE, are YOU attempting to enslave me against my wishes?

I wouldn't refer to then as "JUSTICE". "Mr." or "Ms." will suffice, if you're feeling polite...

"them", not "then"! Curse you, T9!

CROWN: "Your Worship, it is the Crowns wish for a Stay of Proceedings!" JUSTICE: "Granted."

I own nothing because I HAVE TENDERED (for) THEIR LAW. please excuse the caps, it's my way of emphasizing my main points

Scott Duncan, resuming this topic a bit.

Me "Are orders NOT contracts?"

JUSTICE "HAHA No they are not, you do not get to VOID things just because it does not agree with you, that is not how it works."

Is not an Order a Request for performance? Would not a simple "Not accepting any Orders at this time" Suffice?

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

JUSTICE "Where do you get this information"

Ok, it just hit me. An Order is a negotiable instrument same as us writing a cheque. Since Corporations cannot "create" money... they do it this way and drag us into it for Exchange...

Herein all tied to accounting...

Me : "Is an ORDER NOT a contract?"

JUSTICE : "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND where you are getting this information"

Me : "Do I have it that you are not denying?"

Mister Supernumerary, are you performing your duties,whilst being LEGALLY INCOMPETENT?

Me "I REQUIRE you to be RECUSED"

Dean Clifford likes the surprisingly accurate "Mister Unauthorized Administrator". :D So feel free to "mix it up" :D

JUSTICE "Well i see an application here so you granted me jurisdiction, so yes i am authorized."

Me "Oh im sorry, allow me to correct this on and for the record, i REVOKE the authorization for MR.JUSTICE to administrate over this estate. Better?"

If I have lead this court to believe that my signature constituted CONSENT, then that would be a mistake, and please forgive me.

Scott, how would you damage a security?

as per sino cheating and your respoinse was tlaking about it.

Lien it.

Find the ORIGINAL CHARGING INSTRUMENT, and VOID IT.

JUSTICE "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND what makes you think that you can LIEN this, this is nonsense, i am issuing an order to remove that lien."

LOTS of ways to damage a security.

Any examples on the page here of how an ORIGINAL CHARGING INSTRUMENT exactly looks like?

Either you are the name, or you have CONTROL over the name. Either way, it's your RIGHT to void the instruments. They didn't have your permission to use the name (OR ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT)

A NAME on a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, belongs to the PUBLIC, not you.

hence the waiving of change of namer act right?

Yes.

It's also why you cannot trademark a Proper Name.

what IS a PROPER NAME

One that does not belong to the public...?

Yeah, is 'In Propria Persona' a safe-term to use in court?

When a Native Clan blesses you with a name, it is the CLAN'S name, not yours. They GIVE the name "Fucks the Puppy", but only YOU give it value...

...or it can be shat upon in an epic tantrum, fueled by ignorance. :(

When you know who you are, YOU will choose your name.

So, its like "conventional life"

The government gives you this NAME, you dont own it, but you give it value by your "work" to it.

All of these are echoes of the truth. That's why they get mixed up with what you THINK is real.

Scott Duncan: They didn't have your permission to use the name...A NAME on a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, belongs to the PUBLIC, not you. These two sentiments seem to contradict each other. They can't use my name, but, my name is not mine and belongs to those who may not use it without my consent? Please help me reconcile the two statements.

They don't have permission to make you perform based on that name on a public document.

YOU only know yourself as Robert Cormier. The GOVERNMENT uses ROBERT CORMIER, and PRESUMES it is YOU, because your ignorant parents said they could.

But now its YOURS. You grew up with the name. You gave it VALUE, but it still belongs to them.

You simply have to claim it.

Or use your middle name all your life. Legally that becomes your TAKEN name.

You can claim it, because the GOVERNMENT gave no equity.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT lien something for which they have on value in. You have ALL THE VALUE, hence why you are able to lien and government cant do anything about it.

JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN is supposed to hold the clan equity and act in commerce. Scott Duncan is the Admiral of a fleet that stays afloat with tape and spit. Government has nothing to do with that.

If they own ROBERT CORMIER, why do they need my permission to use it? If I own something, am I ever required to ask someone if i can use it?

Sadly JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was killed by Justicw W. Low and a Douglas Levitt, even though he was handed over in good faith.

His death should be avenged. :D

Scott, could you elaborate a bit more on how they killed it.

IF its killed Then they COULD technically kill you, without accountability.

IS that why you made yourself admiral?

..speaking of LIENS

RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: Debt instrument issued by a Receiver, who uses the proceeds to finance continued operations or otherwise to protect assets in receivership. The certificates constitute a LIEN on the property, ranking ahead of all other secured or unsecured liabilities in liquidation. Barrons Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms.

...and some ugly Asian cunt who got the job because she was the was the mail-order bride of another "justice", killed JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN.

He died "in custody". Roguesupport is looking after his estate.

the court declared he was dead?

When you say those names out loud, are they any different?

Speak them both, and tell me which sounds different.

THEY make the claim to it...except they CAN'T be a PARTY.

Thats why you always ask WHO they are talking to. And bugger, my middle name is Thor.:)

ONLY a PERSON can be a PARTY.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT, AND CAN NOT BE, A PERSON!

Sure, if you want a position DEFENDED. If you are asked to DEFEND the name (honour its debts) then you have already consented to the process.

hence surety.

SO the important thing is, if you arent surety, who will be surety(for general debts such as utilities)

BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES THIS COURT ATTACH ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, TO ME?

Notice the NAME didn't actually come up.

It's REALLY CALM at the eye of the storm ;)

...except I can steer the storm ;)

You have equitable interest in this NAME as beneficiary by way of bringing VALUE to this name. This is to be claimed.

Scott Duncan: Pierre, when someone addresses you as "SIR" you are being addressed from a subordinate. ALL my trustees in a duty capacity MUST call me "sir".

Ever notice that when a COP doesn't know your name he calls you SIR, and when they HAVE your name they Call you "MISTER Daoust"? March at 5:21pm Daniel J Wentz: Only those I have fealty to, may call me "Mister Wenttz"

The Government holds legal title to your NAME, your car, your house, your land... but you have equitable interest in all those things as beneficiary. You are busy paying for, using, maintaining ie. taking care of THEIR stuff.

So, again, if they hold legal title then would they NOT be responsible for PAYING the bills, since they hold legal title for it?

Perhaps Scott can post a thread abnout this.

Unless you accept surety to do it, I would think.

I think these bills (remittances) are supposed to be signed by us to make sure the bill went to the correct ACCOUNT... then sent back so the corporations that have created the liability can adjust their accounting. Because yes, they are surety for that name.

but who is THEY.

THEY as in the one responsible to convert DOMESTIC CURRECY?

THEY as in the one who holds legal title?

THEY as in both of the above?

I see 2 options with bill of exchange address to PIERRE DAOUST I buy this thing and pay for it,

or I accept it, I sign it, i date it, I write PIERRE DAOUST'S account number on it, I refere to the Bill of Exchange Act, and send it registered mail to the TIREUR (the PERSON who sent it to PIERRE DAOUST)

I did it with one so far, and they've called me, I told them the call was recorded, they've tried to tricked me into their game, it did not work, and it's OVER :D

Heres another "obvious one"

JUSTICE "SURETY??WHAT SURETY?FOR WHAT?WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!"

Why not ask, are you using that name for identification purposes? If, yes well have a good gentleman and thanks for identifying yourself as the defendant lol ...

https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and-debt/mr-green-april-17-north

this audio is funny and the audio the day before..but listen carefully to what the judge is saying....

around the 3:30 is funny, actually the whole audio is funny...

Is this correct? The path of the remittance; 1) Resource held in Trust is used to create (water, hydro (anything taken from the land(or using space on/under) and/or inland waterways)) 2) They have it "delivered" to your door step. 3) You use it. 4) They send you a Remittance. 5) You fill in amount and put BC number on it and ACCEPTED BY: *signature* (not *Approved*). Edited here 6) You send it back from whence it came. 7) They send to Their Bank Account. 8) Bank converts the amount of the remittance of your portion of Trust into Their Notes. 9) Bank Debits your Trust and Credits Utilities Account. . Is this fcked? Am I fcked?

Not approved, ACCEPTED

1. Open the envelop 2. Ho, a Bill of Exchange :D 3. Turn it to have the back side facing my eyes 4. Wrote on it ACCEPTED BY: my signature 5. Wrote the date 6. Wrote ACCOUNT NO. the SIN or the BC number your choice, I chose the SIN 7.Wrote: Bill of Exchange Act (L.R.C.1985 cg. B-4) 8. Put that thing in a envelop 9. Sent it back to the issuer registered mail

That's ALL

Gail Blackman,https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and-debt/mr-green-april-17-north try that

5min 29 sec

Pete Daoust, you did not fill in amount? And I am trying to Path the Layers from start to finish of the utilities so I can see the book keeping in the process.

I see 3 sets of different layers just with 1 utility bill and each layer over7 steps each at least.

with my dentist bill, I'm going to try sending the signed bill directly to the bank of canada

Nope, they amount was already on it....not my job

just sending it to them wont work....

Re: using a middle name Scott Duncan. How long does it take for your name to be changed from their NAME to your TAKEN NAME?

Gail Blackman, Your dentist sent you a BILL OF EXCHANGE ?

was wondering that as my dentist say "Pay me upfront"

he gave me a bill for work done stamped with his logo

Derek Hill just sending it to them wont work.... question of instructing them what to do with it?

what KIND of bill Gail Blackman ?

Invoice or bill of exchange ?

They've tried that one on me Chad Brodgesell, it didn't worked for them....as an INSTRUCTOR, I charge $1000,00 an hour + Traveling time, which is costly, I hate traveling

looking at blacks law def'n of invoice and bill ...I'd say it was a bill Pierre

The DEBT has been created when your dentist fixed your teeth

Now the dentist need you to PAY for this because it's YOUR teeth

If you don't PAY, the dentist will SELL that debt to a collection agency

So now the debt belong to this COLLECTION agency

These fuckers will try to sell you the debt, but they CAN NOT send you an invoice, they haven't done ANYTHING for you

So they will send you a bill of exchange and wish you will buy the debt.

So you will have 2 choices

Ask them for an INVOICE with the description of goods they have sold to you, which they will never be able to do.

Or you ACCEPT the bill of exchange and send it back to them the way I have described a few posts up.

Their duty when they receive the bill as ACCEPTED is not clear, but I think they have to send it to the receveur general, and then the receveur general send it to the Bank of Canada, and then the bank of Canada send the fund to the collection agency....not too sure about that, but It dosen't seems to be my problem anyway....maybe Derek Moran can put his 2 cents on this...

Pete Daoust, yuppers, but did you fill in the amount?

NO Chad Brodgesell, the amount was ALready on the BoE

It's not my job to fill the amount, I did EXACTLY what I have described a few posts up....nothing more...

who have you done that with pierre?

Collection Agency regarding an Ambulance fees

My wife got an accident with the car, my daughter was in the car, and my wife took no chance and called an ambulance for her, because she was complaining having pain in the back

And then these fuckers sent me a BoE, and it did not made sense in my brain why paying for that :/

So I haven't paid, and this collection agency came in the picture after I had read several things about BoE :D

Pierre how is what the collection agency gave you different from a dentist bill?

If it make sense I pay right on the spot, if it dosen't makes sense, I just don't pay....I'm like that, always been :(

night Chad..Pierre...you said the collection agency sent you a bill of exchange.....I'm wondering how that is different from the bill the dentist gave me

The bill the dentist gave you is an INVOICE for services he did for YOU

You have to pay that :(

What is the amount Gail Blackman, I'll show you something

blacks law dictionary defines invoice as goods or merchandise What is INVOICE?

In commercial law. An account of goods or merchandise sent by mer- chants to their correspondents at home or abroad, in which the marks of each package, with other particulars, are set forth.

$1,500.00

I've got a good one. I heard a Judge tell a woman in family court that she couldn't have a boyfriend. Then the Judge replied "but I'm not saying get a girlfriend and be a lesbian either" then the court officials all laughed at her seemingly IDIOTIC joke. The woman who was actually the plaintiff in this custody battle ensuing in all silliness was dumbfounded. She had NO CLUE how to respond.

OK, if you don't pay your dentist, he will SELL the debt to what we call a fucking collection agency, who the debt belongs to at this point ? Gail Blackman

I've built a trust with him, I don't really want to have him go through that process

So pay the INVOICE...no other choices I see there...

Isn't the the collection agency a third party interloper without standing in the affairs (contracts) between Gail Blackman and her dentist?

But if he boost the invoice to $2500.00, he could easely find a collection agency that would buy this debt for $1500.00 :D, but that would be not a very nice thing to do :D

They become THE other party as soon as they BUY the debt, If I buy a chocolate bar at the store, the chocolate bar is mine, I can try to RE-SELL it to my neighbor but if he dosen't want it, I'm stuck with the fucking thing :D, unless we have a contract concerning chocolate bars

So even though i did t need to go to court i still want to know what would happen.

Me- My voids stands on those orders. It is non negotiable.

Justice- send him back to the jail cell.

Im thinking the only way you can deal with that is just file a writ of hab. I sit in some courts. And some of these justices are corrupt as hell.

Scott i must ask after the above scenario. Does justices know they are liable is that why they try to get you to sign sonething or convince you so hard to reconsider or whatever?

HEre is another one for you Scott Duncan that several people may face.

Me "Objection i do not understand the nature of these proceedings"

JUSTICE "Then i will assign a lawyer for your representation"

Then by what authority would you do that

Assigning a lawyer would constitute the Judge "proceeding"... There are questions before the court that need answering before any process can take place...

No process without understanding...

JUSTICE "Then you can talk to a lawyer to understand these proceedings"

By what authority do you address me as YOU? I do not require any assistance. I wish for my questions to be answered...

Are you implying that I MUST engage in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION to UNDERSTAND the Law?

If the LAW cannot be understood by all, then we are clearly not EQUAL before the Law.

Scott Duncan If the LAW cannot be understood by all, then we are clearly not EQUAL before the Law. I love that one. Seems like one of the best "comebacks", I've heard in a few hours.

As the duly appointed administrator in these proceedings, I would be remiss if I didn't assign Duty Council to assist you Mr. Duncan. This case will be remanded until such time as Mr. Duncan has Council assigned to represent him. I believe a week should be sufficient. Case remanded till July 20th, when Mr. Duncan can be represented by a competent attorney.

By what authority do you perform ANY act on ANYBODY'S behalf, muchless mine?

I do not consent to representation. Do you understand?

" I do not consent to representation. Do you understand?"

Have you not consented to being addressed as Mr.Duncan by responding to Robert's last post? :p

I am responsible to ensure that you are defended by a competent person. Are you claiming you are a certified member of the bar, and are therefore capable of representing yourself?

Based on what? Do you have PROOF of this responsibility? Because I know of NO ACT of LAW that would allow a SUPERNUMERARY to administer a PARTY'S ESTATE. ESPECIALLY WITHOUT CONSENT! Do you have PROOF of these "responsibilities" that you claim?

...and assigning a commercial transaction, is in fact. PRACTISING LAW. Are you PRACTISING LAW FROM BEHIND THE BENCH?

Mister Supernumerary, you have failed to answer my questions, and are unlawfully practising law from behind the bench. Given these extremely prejudicial acts, don't you think it would be a good idea to recuse yourself?

Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing Mr. Duncan. This is a founding principle of law. Your ignorance of this fact establishes your ignorance of the law. I would be remiss in my duties if I allowed these proceedings to continue without providing you with competent assistance in these matters. Case adjourned until July 20th, by which time Mr. Duncan will have an opportunity to meet with his assigned council and whereby he will return to this court with n accredited member of the bar association to assist him in these proceedings. Next Case Bailiff?

One moment Bailiff. Mr. Duncan, are you informing this court that you are are a member of the bar?

That question wasn't answered

Are you implying that ONLY MEMBERS OF THE BAR can ask questions?

Mister Unauthorized Administrator; You are being deliberately obtuse when questions are posed. You have unlawfully attempted to bind me to a commercial contract with a stranger named "Duty Counsel", and have not performed the proper diligence regarding the facts. As you have clearly refused the invitation to recuse yourself, I state for and on the record that I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.

Do you understand? :D

I'm not implying anything Mr. Duncan. I am stating that you have proven to the court's satisfaction that you are not competent to defend yourself in these matters. Until such time, as you can satisfy this court that your implied competency to represent yourself is qualified as a fact, and or, you have been recognized and certified by an accredited organization, educational institution or society, you fail to prove to the courts satisfaction that you are competent. Having read a few books on law doesn't qualify you. Do you possess a law degree Mr. Duncan, obtained from a government accredited and recognized institution?

I understand the law. You will receive a fair hearing. Do you understand that Mr. Duncan?

There are NO LESS than FOUR questions before the court. Unless they are answered, I do not and CAN not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings. Are you prepared to answer the questions before the court?

No justice will say "I understand the Law".

I am engaging a LOT of "suspension of disbelief" here, because none of these things are what a Justice would EVER say.

I have responded that you are not competent to defend yourself. This has been established by your refusal to answer in the affirmative to my question regarding your accreditation which would satisfy this court that you are capable of representing yourself. Anyone with standing may ask questions of this court, however, only competent persons can defend themselves. Competence is established in this court by providing proof of your abilities. This court does not recognize competency based on hearsay. I ask you again, do you have an accredited education in law, certified by a recognized educational institution?

When the name is called and one responds that they are here for that matter, how would one respond to the question "And who are you?"... Lawful holder in due course of the legal person this hearing is being held for?

By what authority, do YOU, an UNAUTHORIZED STRANGER make ANY legal determination for ANYBODY?

And that's 5 questions before the court. Unless they are answered, I do not and CAN not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings. Are you prepared to answer the questions before the court?

I require you to recuse yourself, as a legally incompetent Supernumerary is prejudicial to my rights (ALWAYS reserved) and the interests of my estate. Would you do that now please?

Yes. Case dismissed. SIGH :(

... i even let the silly ones slide. You even had a "handicap" advantage :D

Read carefully, ALL of my responses.

Look at the WORDS I use and UNDERSTAND them.

EVERY ONE of those is a knock-out punch.

I will. Thank you so much Scott.

stranger. (14c) 1. One who is not party to a given transaction; esp., someone other than a party or the party's employee, agent, tenant, or immediate family member.

unauthorized practice of law. (1928) The practice of law by a person, typically a non lawyer, who has not been licensed or admitted to practice law in a given jurisdiction.

practice oflaw. (l7c) The professional work of a duly licensed lawyer,

How do you "Practice" something, yet call it a "profession"?

A profession does not necessarily require any certified qualifications... Plenty of training and higher level education... (I may have peeked at Black's for that one)

So lawyers are licensed, professional trainees so to speak...

"Judge I do not wish to be represented, especially by someone who is only practicing law. I take my matters very seriously and any court appointed trainee of the law can practice somewhere else!" :p

I only act as a JAG Officer under the Legal realm. I hate it, and I'm REALLY good at it.

Oh, the Practice is the Limited Liability part?

I'd imagine so Beverly. They can't be held liable as they were only practicing law at the time. Once the judgment is passed the liability is also, back onto the unsuspecting layman... Attorneys transact business on our behalf...

"Case closed" = "Done deal"

How about a Doctor's Practice?

How stupid to not see a word for what it means...

That is why ALL you need to do is figure out WHY I am right, not IF I am right.

go see your western trained doctor and witness doctor USE YOU FOR PRACTICE, and some practice for years , and treat many with chemicals from the pharmaceutical corporations, also participate authorizing heavy metal and other toxins into your children's bodies to protect them from FEAR ....

So Scott, a lawyer is not a PARTY either... what would he be? Representative?

A representative would be a party as you have temporarily attorned the duties onto him/her... No?

Yes, Girl-Brain :P He REPRESENTS you.

No... you become a WARD OF THE COURT. It's out of your hands then.

Ok, let's say you wanted to represent someone else... I think the court would regard that as you taking on SURETY and becoming a PARTY?

Yes.

You would be AGENT.

With full liability because you haven't got a license to practice? :P

OK, let say my friend has to go to court, can I go there with him and HELP him ?

This is why I asked Tara about "witnessing" court procedures and possibly giving guidance NOT as an agent.

NO. I would not recommend it.

Cara has the right idea

You will be there to ADVISE.

Adviser

Could a witness even advise the court?

No. Only a "Friend of the court".

Friends give opinions etc...

Would a "friend of the court" have to be announced?

Only one accepted as a friend of the court may speak to the matter before the court and only on behalf of the court to bring forth a potential conflict or irregularity that may harm the integrity of the system.

this may benefit the one who is held as surety

Were you not talking about court cases in which you have no involvement or actual interest?

Yes

So an Agent has standing but a friend of the court only can advise?

I would think an agent has only the standing given by the court.

A friend of the court has no liability.

an agent has limited liability

They can only INFORM. ADVICE by its very nature is ASKED FOR. Nobody asked you... you aren't in the club.

An agent can hear a friend, a court cannot...

Can a "friend of the court" or a witness raise/challenge jurisdiction?

No.

Thnx

They can only INFORM. READ THE WORD.

So, back to Agent, this person would either have power of attorney or STANDING by way of family?

My thoughts would be that anyone can stand up and assume liability/surety for the person... The court just needs a donkey to pin the tail on...

Finally back home, ive been drilling this hypothetical situations in my head.

Scott Duncan at what point would they get your message?

They will get it shortly after you scroll back up, and read the last thing Maa Nathltaapaan typed. :D

"go see your western trained doctor and witness doctor USE YOU FOR PRACTICE, and some practice for years , and treat many with chemicals from the pharmaceutical corporations, also participate authorizing heavy metal and other toxins into your children's bodies to protect them from FEAR ...."

either im stoned and not seeing it or im not seeing it.

That's because you think wrong and value the wrong things. :P

I'm pointing to something you SHOULD focus on.

I think he is pointing to the fact that the health system is designed to not only make you sick but also simple monetizing sickness as long as there is money. When the money ends it means your dead. I posted in another thread regarding this. Just can't remember which one. Why does mobile only have post and like but search or any thing else?

Heres another possible situation.

Me "Objection i must ask questions as i do not understand"

JUSTICE "You can ask your questions to a lawyer"

Me "Objection is the court preventing me from asking questions and implying that i require duty council?"

JUSTICE "yes and yes"

Me "On and for the record the court/justice is preventing me from asking questions, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS!! I REQUIRE these questions to be answered.

so no matter what the judge say just keep asking about the notice of mistake correct? Point of order that the questions must be answered for the proceedings to go through under equal protection under the law I must have understanding these proceedings to proceed. and does not questions negate understanding

do oyu know whythe point of order is used?

to bring the attention back to the questions at hand?

Point of order is used at the beginning of the business meeting ( court In session ) to introduce the notice of mistake and the questions it pose's as well as reserving all rights as you are the only one with standing... everyone else is a trustee in some capacity and have no standing... It keeps you Master of your domain...

all rights reserved point of order? say like that when you cross the bar?

Point of order mister justice...

there are four questions. in the notice of mistake.

first... all rights reserved, second notice of mistake and the questions it poses... it negates understanding.

okay so once they open thier fucking trap I say point of order .to bring it back to the notice of mistake

You have reserved all rights they need your leave to speak... at all.

but WTF are you doing in court? everything to negate the proceedings should have been entered into the court file...

prior to the date...

WE HAVE ONE RIGHT.... NOT TO ENGAGE IN THE CONTRACT.... ( consent ).

NOT FOR HIRE

So Scott Duncan when you say they can only INFORM is that they can only introduce documentation to the court But NOT *Speak* to the matter before the court ?

Scott Duncan No justice will say "I understand the Law". <- Does this have anything to do with FML and STANDING UNDER? JUSTICE a) interprets the law b) decides c) applies d) none of the above?

What if the justice does something like... " SHUT UP, SHUT UP,SHUT UP, etc... " like I saw on a you tube vid recently...???

""Can ANYBODY tell me why the scenario CAN'T happen? Remember SURETY and ACCOUNTING."

This was when scott and chief was goin at it.

QUESTIONING NEGATES UNDERSTANDING.

NO UNDERSTANDING NEGATES SURETY

NO SURETY NEGATES PROCEEDINGS

PROCEEDINGS = ACCOUNTING

NO SURETY = NO ACCOUNTING

how do you plead?

Jason, that video is a member of the group, Súil Eile :D

my understanding of what happened in the court that day is that the man screaming accepted surety for his actions. he can do anything he likes but he cannot escape liability for his actions ..... if i realise that, he broke all the procedures which offered him protection. I now admit to myself there were underlying presumptions which he was willing to press(insert Notice of Mistake here) that the justice previous to him (who had ordered a jurisdiction hearing & recused himself.) wasn't willing to take the chance.

re Jo Xappie: how do you plead?

Response: Are you addressing me? It is my understanding that a legal entity known as a defendant pleas. You have been requested to address me as Sir. By what authority are you addressing me as a defendant?

Or any variation of Scott's responses from further up the thread where he & the Chief went toe to toe...all of that exchange is pure gold! :-)

my nephew was up in court this morning, he was waiting for 2nd call, the justice copped me walking in late & sitting beside him, the justice immediately called the case & struck out in the same breath, a garda followed us to the door & watched us walk away & into a coffee shop. Minutes later a well spoken man walked in, up to our table & inquired if we were "the freemen"which we denied & asked for definition (4 of us in unison :p ) was i the guy from YT, i asked who he was & told me he was the court reporter, he inquired about my intentions, i briefly explained liability & surety attached to those who'd attacked my rights. I went outside for a smoke & he followed me, I asked him who sent him that the video on YT didn't show my face, he asked me was i happy & why i was doing this, "I want the return of the proper function of law, i am far from spent & every encounter will only strengthen me... go back & tell the judge that" he dropped his sholulders & sloped off.... all i could do was strut haha

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/534408763261727/

Heres a new one that comes to mind. Scott Duncan, kill this one..

Me "Objection we cannot proceed until we addressed the questions before the court regarding the matter of surety for this case."

JUSTICE "Well Derek, you have to bring forth a motion for us to address this issue?"

Me "Objection, does that not constitute process? How can process be made without addressing SURETY for the matter?"

Scott whatcha think? I am trying to think of new ways JUSTICES would try to ding me.

http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/pirates-of-the-caribbean-2/ ....a link from Derek Moran if I remember correctly.

Tom Messer Practical application of what is learned here

Chris Schulte

FEAR

NO FEAR

Yup....that was the main point here. NO FEAR! :-)

lot of gems in this thread, i will attempt to weed through the post and get it back to us as a memo.

Bumping these to the top for the newbies.

This challenge would be best suited on Skype or live and direct. This forum gives to much time for consideration not how courts response would work

Court ? :/

Why would you go to court, ChiefRock ? :(

No this challenge ... and define court

Ok and Bunker

Sino is HYSTERICAL in court. :D

An office where a lots of business meetings happens everyday

Gets better & better with every read...as my comprehension has increased over time, I'm able to extract more gold...Thank you Admiral & everyone else :D

Love this thread... So much to learn from this post

:D

:)

*Bump