Aug 03, 2013 4:23 PM

The Plaintiff appears to want to live independent of any obligations to the state and free from any interference as a matter of his international human rights.

As CRA pursued the matter, the Plaintiff returned with his claim of right and fee schedule, relying upon any and all of: the Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Proceedings Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Interpretation Act, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — the International Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Individuals — and arguing that CRA was attempting to intimidate him “back into servitude under the Income Tax Act”.

To the extent the Plaintiff can in future frame his action and plead material facts that do give rise to a known cause of action and issues upon which the Court can adjudicate, he is free to bring his claim at that time.

Having regard to the Plaintiff being an individual, and not represented, the motion shall be granted without costs.

Hey..!!!....what the fuck is wrong with you wanting to live independent of any obligations to the state and free from any interference as a matter of his international human rights, WHO THE FUCK YOU THINK YOU ARE ?????

:D :D :D :D

Your equal

I think you are a crazy terrorist :D

I am more honorable that those with the title.

I'm sure the CSIS agent that read this group agree with me, HEY YOU....AGENTS, yes you sacks of shit, this David guy thinks he is FREE, you should watch him, 24/7, he might persuade someone else, and then you'll have to deal with two of these terrorist... :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

CSIS morons have no arrest powers in Canada, enter the CIA, NSA, Bla Bla Bla

I have lawful excuse, not excuse from the law

my only weapon are the words they write

You figured out I was sarcastic there I guess David... :D

too obvious Pete, try a other persona, then another, then try this hat and these shoes on for size. Walk this way

talk this way

Interesting read. But how were you claiming that CRA had damaged you?

Any comments on the Court order, anyone, everyone? can you see what transpired?

in court I equated the CRA to a pedophile ring

soliciting contract on to minors without diclosure altered my status preventing me from operating at my full and proper capacity

Are you still in possession of the Birth Certificate that was given to your parents to hold onto, soon after you were born?

The CRA in collusion with Human Resources and Development Canada, offer (the trick) unilateral contract, which can be voided

The Birth Certificate is a reciept

Yes. Are you still in possession of it?

I hold my security, devolved by operation of law

no

Who has it?

I use the long form

I hold true certified copy, statement of birth

AKA, security instument

But who is in possession of your BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

lost long ago, I could apply for another, unless you are asking who is the surety, that would be ONTARIO

But who is in possession of your BIRTH CERTIFICATE?: Bank of Canada :D

ahh, I see, must be issued by a bank.

Okay, so you lost it. But THEY have DEEMED, you are still in POSSESSION of it. Which in their eyes, makes you a TRUSTEE. That is why you/us/we ALL are expected to pay taxes, because we are the DEEMED TRUSTEE of the Birth Certificate.

Have you FOIA the Bank of Canada for your file?

I am the secured party. they wont reconize it

You've had experience going to court with the Crown, David. I suggest you go to a Court of Equity with the Superior Court of Ontario, so you can DELIVER the Birth Certificate you were given to the Registrar General of Ontario himself and/or his representative. However.....you're going to have to get one FIRST.

There is no evidence I hold a birth certificate

Have you DELIVERED your BC back to the Registrar General of Ontario? No. So then you are still REGISTERED on their books as having one.

I hold a security held in trust by the registrar, Its certificated, has the mechcanical reproduction of the sureties signature, I am the construct

principle and beneficiary

Pierre- remember, Scott said the BC is PROOF of the SECURITY OF THE PERSON. The actual security ITSELF, is being held at the Bank of Canada. What TYPE of security it EXACTLY is, is another question...

The PERSON is still alive,

I have a letter from the Receiver General, that They changed the books

the game is under the financial admin act

instruction for payment and the destruction of evidence

the 3rd party is the bank

the 3rd party is the CPA

Good question, Derek- why thank you.....what kind-type-or-form of security IS, the SECURITY-of-the-person in exactly, Scott Duncan?

its a trust and can only be security of the person as all entities are legal fictions

Collateral security.... :D

correct, to offset

the set up ties back to international law

and its domestic implementation

COLLATERAL SECURITY, contracts. A separate obligation attached to another contract, to guaranty its performance. By this term is also meant the transfer of property or of other contracts to insure the performance of a principal engagement. The property or securities thus conveyed are also called collateral securities.

The property or securities thus conveyed are also called collateral securities. :D

SECURITY-of-the-PERSON is being HELD in TRUST. But the actual SECURITY itself...securities come in more than one form

the TRUST also indemnifies them in the form of surety. what hat do you wear?, its your choice

The PERSON is a fucking COLLATERAL SECURITY over the fucking PUBLIC debt :D

Created by the PUBLIC

did you read the order, I'm not a person.

I know, I was just trying to answer Derek Moran on what TYPE of security....

the person is form, the man is present

Scott's mentioned, that the PERSON, is a legal term for EQUITY

equity is equality

its playing by the rules not opinion

No HUMAN can be view in LEGAL world :(

We were never intended to get the Birth Certificate. Its a mistake that needs to be corrected - BY DELIVERY.

Nuke delivered to "ME" by mistake :D

..i think you're the only other fucking person on this page who has picked-up on that, Pierre

your equity is bound to the state via the shared principle of mutual benefit. there is a private side for offset and the public side for liability and or surety

95% of what's in the mail box is addressed to PIERRE DAOUST, the PERSON

I pick stuff sometimes :D

just keep bashing me over the head, i like it

Ok- so me, Pierre, and maybe Dean Clifford understand - "the nuke that was delivered by the POST-office by mistake analogy and how it needs to be corrected, BY DELIVERY (get it, POST)..."

Lol....

send it to the bank of Canada, notice of mistake?

who signs the credit-side of the BC in Ontario?

Minister of natural resources

AKA Registrar

I am NOT a $20 bill, I HAVE a $20 bill I am NOT a PERSON, I have a PERSON

I will BENEFIT from BOTH.....because it's LEGAL to do so.... :D

That is FUCKING deep :/

*whew* There is a Scott Duncan sighting. I think David, Scott would say regarding your court action- that you took a DENTIST to court, and complained about how he didnt fix your CAR properly

"AKA Registrar". . . .im assuming you meant REGISTRAR GENERAL, and Minister of Natural Resources

cant be so, No costs, I'd still have to give the dentist money 4 time right, solicitor client basis

Pierre, you will be BENEFICIARY, you will see to that :D

Signed Scott Duncan

I was the beneficiary and so was the crown, 2 oaths upheld in one ruling, no 2 mil for me, no bill for them

public/private

They could not cause me harm, not public nor private

Just to play Devils Advocate: why would you expect the court to award you $2 million in damages?

Because he felt that his HUMAN rights has that value ?

Problem is, there is no HUMAN in court :(

Its in the form, Statement of claim

Unless you address your claim to the HUMAN RIGHTS court ? :D

"There is no claim in tort, no claim in contract and no claim based on any federal statute or regulation"

human rights are a jurisdiction issue

Can claim human rights by advocate. Your rights are based on your knowledge

If you are claiming you have HUMAN rights, then they let you off easy. You created joinder with them the moment you ever said- "I am a HUMAN/HUMAN BEING"...those terms are a TRAP

Derek Moran Like i said, I fucked up my Claim in form, but that did not negate the duty of the court to provide relief

Relief of WHAT ?

I should post the audio

Just say EXACTLY what do you want, in simple terms....WHAT IS IT DO YOU WANT and WHY ?

RELIEF = REMEDY = REDRESS

a court will ONLY provide you with that if you can show how you have been DAMAGED

I created no joinder as I never entered the court willfully

You were the PLAINTIFF...how could you NOT enter the court WILFULLY? :/

I have been there, done that David Smile :D

I crossed the BAR under protest and duress to defend my honor, dignity and worth

I FILED as a PERSON a CLAIM against REVENU QUEBEC...

And then I tried to be there AS A HUMAN....they kicked me out, I came back as a PERSON and told them EVERYTHING for 5 hours....

Which jurisdiction did you claim when you went to Federal Court: common law...equity...or admiralty?

You can NOT be a plaintiff, swear to be a person, and tell them you are NOT a person....

"Your Honour, i dont know who Scott Duncan is yet- but im a HUMAN BEING, and i have RIGHTS - TABERNAC!" ;)

competent jurisdiction, is where you apply your human rights. Think of what is singularly human?

I just TOLD THEM everything I had discovered, and HOW ignorant I was....I told them the fucking thruth...what the heck...

persons cannot enjoy....

I explained them HOW they were fucking rats :D

and WHY

Competent jurisdiction?.....thats a new one :/

LOL....

You don't know what COMPETENT JURISDICTION is?!?

from my notice to the Commish CRA ... Do you think that I do not know, you are the lowest of the low, a coward with no other to compare? I have no obligation to assist you in your duty to collect my dignity and worth, energy and the fruits of my labor in support of your War Crimes, First Nations Genocide, Criminal Breach of Trust, Criminal Extortion and the willful breach in your binding obligation to International Human Rights Law. You ANDREW TREUSCH, are part and party to the crimes claimed above, I claim your willful participation is for the purpose of personal gain derived from public monies without regard to the shared principles of mutual benefit.

I am bound to my conscience, not the will of others. My duty is to the men, women and children within the Common Law Jurisdiction of Canada.

Ive heard of INHERITANCE, COMMON LAW, EQUITY, ADMIRALTY jurisdiction....and you've mentioned Scott you've claimed the jurisdiction of SUI JURIS before- but no, ive never heard of the term 'Competent Jurisdiction'

furthermore...You ANDREW TREUSCH, and your ilk are much like pedophiles, you solicit children into contracts of servitude via what constitutes false, misleading and deceptive representations

Right here, right now, I feel great in MY jurisdiction, and it looks preatty much competent :)

for now :D

You seems to be a bit BELLIGERENT David Smile :D

"If a government action is inconsistent with the Charter, s. 24 provides remedies for the inconsistency. Section 24(1) permits a “court of competent jurisdiction” to provide “such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances”. A “court of competent jurisdiction” is one that possesses (1) jurisdiction over the person; (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter; and (3) jurisdiction to grant the remedy."

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1922/index.do

Competent Jurisdiction is where one operates at their full and proper capacity. Anyone who cannot take care of their own affairs may be deemed incompetent. Hire a lawyer and your fucked, any who is competent knows where their remedy can be pointed to? what shoes do you have on, de facto by permit, surety shoes? Boots on the ground

section 24.1 is for suckers, section 26 is the ticket

2, 7 10 12, 15, 52. Your human rights

I would like to read an article from Scott Duncan on JURISDICTION.....oh fuck yes I would :D

who is Scott Duncan? can he help you?

K- competent jurisdiction, got it. The problem with that though is, is that im sure the City of Toronto feels they are providing for us a court of COMPETENT JURISDICTION, when you go to THEIR courts for a parking-ticket, too. To me then a court of competent jurisdiction, is the one that you CLAIM for yourself.

Who IS Scott Duncan? *whew* That is a question for the ages... where does one even begin :/

He HATE us ALL, and he is a bad bad bad bad bad guy....but he can help for free :/

BELLIGERENT? me? never, just suffering under the hostility and ill will of enactments that delimit my rights

What's BELLIGERENT ?...your definition of the word ?

should I challenge Scott Duncan to a phallis fight

YES...

:-D

those that would subvert the truth, is my definition

..he loves those who can challenge his knowledge of passages from The Bible

blacks law, who gives a shit, I control my status

OK, but the LEGAL definition would be more like:

When someone WAGE war on you, you have two options:

1). Bend over and get fucked 2). Be a BELLIGERENT and face the music

Here's a brief-clip that ive come across that i feel best describes Scott:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk

19.1 of the Financial Admin Act is outright belligerent to the public trust and equality

"...the sort of, general MALAISE that only the genius possess and the insane LAMENT..." - that, is the Scott Duncan I KNOW

Municipality, Public Stores, persons or classes of persons are contrary to the ground law, they are of no force and effect

Here's a brief clip that I feel best describe Scott....of course I'm the one with the chainsaw and Scott is the one helping me.. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5w7i0UNR8s

Thankfully that clip was in english...

Not my fault Derek Moran, I was born here....Quebec State....

Please forgive me :D

80 Costs awards have a long history as a traditional criminal law remedy. Although sparingly used prior to the advent of the Charter, superior courts have always possessed the inherent jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1922/index.do

In your own unique way, what does the term- "QUASI-CRIMINAL COURT" actually mean, Scott?

Signed, Chris Kattan

OK, David. Pay attention:

1:That's the last time you post "your definition" of ANYTHING. "Your definition" is a shit-stain on reality. I ban people for that.

2: If you are in commerce, you accept a TENDER FOR LAW. Learn what that means. You DON'T know more than me. You just don't. That's not "arrogance" or "ego". It's just a fact. Such accusations also get you banned, because they are UNTRUE.

3: NO imaginary friends. No Yaweh. No Jehova. No Jesus. No "Spirits". Attempting to introduce ANY of that stupidity will get you banned.

You are all caught up with the rules. As for who I am? I'm tired of typing it. Stop typing and start reading. These questions have been asked and answered.

Rogue Support.....just saying :)

http://www.roguesupport.com/

*If you are MALE, please inform your wife/mother/daughter that you intend to impose commerce on us.Tell them to be ready for some nasty shit.

:D :D

Scott Duncan I seem to be the only one to post a favourable ruling from a court of Competent Jurisdiction. I'm fine with the morons who run at the mouth, as long as they too are learning. My success is just a small victory with potent application. I'm reading, gold nuggets and such, I'm getting the disjointed picture, 1 puzzle piece at a time. Perhaps accesses to rogue support is in order, I do take verifiable action and you can take my word as my bond.