Aug 13, 2013 7:00 PM

Authorised Representative ?...what's that ? :D

as my affidavit to the AG points out that i have no outstanding contracts with the state, so therefore no one can claim administrative rights to my person, he's mine.... free from contract

i cant make legal determinations so i stay away from the use of "legal"

we're not "qualified" to interpret legalities, you need a license from the law society lol

Come on, you are not interpreting, you just have GOOD REASONS TO BELIEVE....

Who can ARGUE with you on this....let them prove you that you are wrong, and then say: oh, sorry, now I don't have ANY reasons to believe anymore :D

And HOW can we ALL be equal under the LAW, and can't have the right to interprete the LAW ? :/

I stay away from the term, i believe SD refers to them as clubhouse rules, if something is unlawful it should stand to reason, even by their interpretation should be illegal, i often hear the example of Hitlers actions being legal but unlawful.

Law= clear & logical, Legal= long winded shakespearian interpretation in order to confuse the issue lol

So your documents has NO LEGAL effect ? :D

Law = clear & logical Legal = the world we live in :(

ah ok, i get you now, i couldn't enter into a conversation he was addressing Mr Roche (?) thats why i'm seeking clarification before undertaking an argument i wasn't addressed in yet.... if ye get me?

And who is Mr. Roche ?...seriously ? :/

i have a suspicion this is more than clerical error & clerk trying to give himself a layer of deniability

So you have good reasons to believe that this clerk is doing something ILLEGAL :D

Why would the court try to confuse us? .......because thats their business (legal) lol now we know :D

interesting that a few weeks ago when i applied for a couple of copies of my birth cert, it arrived out without a surname, i had previously identified myself as "just mick" upon arrest/imprisonment, am i being a conspiracy theorist Scott Duncan or is that something they can change for purpose??

*sigh*

You have no clue, do you?

This note is a HUGE win. Seriously.

please explain :/

Make as MANY notarized copies as you can.

They acknowledged receiving them. BY NAME. You now have PROPER NOTICE. They now have KNOWLEDGE of your position.

They are now SOLE SURETY in ANY LEGAL MATTER regarding your name.

ANY ? :/

ANY. The SIGNED NOTE is the PROOF.

Garda involved cruised by today upon my receipt & they have re issued the fines by post (time already expired) as URGENT, the PERSON is supposedly liable for 5 days imprisonment. should i send the fines to the clerk?

forgive me i wanna strut but i cant because this has STILL had to be pointed out..... its one for the team, so here you all go, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXtj_SdJMzM

They NAMED the documents and have accepted that it is proper notice. They have NOT accepted the terms.

Someone may hand me a flyer saying TWO FOR ONE HOOKERS. I may choose to throw it away or return it to him, but there is NO dispute as to whether I know if 2 for 1 Hookers are being offered.

Súil Eile, send that near-perfect response, but put it on the BACK of the original letter (AFTER YOU GET COPIES - notarized), and mail it back :D

Fuck. You guys are sort of listening to me! :D

AHH its nothing..... I had a good teacher :p Thank You very much Scott Duncan, i asked you a question 4 months ago, you told me he had accepted surety & directed me here, the way you have answered me & the benefit i have recieved was previously unfathomable, you ARE a clever fuckin man!! i get that (Y)

Ok. Let's run with this.

MONETARY THEORY time! :D Let's go over this:

You have the original letter with a "wet" signature (Not a photocopy) and a TRUSTEE... Some shmucks called "Courts Service". All you need to do is ENDORSE it with YOUR note and sign it (blue/red).

CA-CHING! Instant LEGAL money they can pay ANY debt with.

You "owed' them, so you PAID them... with this response, and the return of THEIR property...which is now GOVERNMENT money.

TWO SIGNATURES AND A TRUSTEE.

Certification of trust lol cheers man feeling giddy

Everyone: IGNORE WHAT DEREK MORAN SAID. THAT IS A SHIT-STAIN.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.

TAKE THE ORIGINAL FUCKING LETTER.

WRITE THE FUCKING RESPONSE ON IT

FUCKING SIGN IT!

THE NOTARIZED COPIES ARE PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE. THESE CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT.

Ok- sorry trees...

You Notarize the ORIGINAL FUCKING LETTER + Suil's response written on the BACK + Suil's signature?

YES. His RESPONSE is ADVICE for PAYMENT (Remittance)

i suppose notarized copies of the printed response on the back, the notary can still certify it to be a copy of the original despite print on the back ??

It's a fucking cheque.

That's all.

They end up writing themselves a cheque. When you receive it for ENDORSEMENT, you make notarized copies of it as PROOF they SOUGHT YOUR ENDORSEMENT.

So endorse it and return it to them to cash.

I thought Súil Eile would write his response in blue ink on the back, sign in red ink, notarize this document, makes certified copies of it, send the original to this clerk and do a BBQ .... :/

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh- thats why you said, "Make as MANY notarized copies as you can."

Get the ORIGINAL FUCKING LETTER NOTARIZED, into as MANY copies as you can.....bring them home from the Notary.....Suil writes his response on the NOW NOTARIZED COPY of the ORIGINAL.....Suil puts his SIGNATURE on it.....Suil sends it to them REGISTERED-MAIL back to them?

oh i'll be smoking something Pete but it may not be the BBQ :p my wet ink sig endorses the cheque, the responce & demand are incidentals if i am correct???

YES!

Key - "They APPEAR to have no legal effect"...(counter offer)

<<Súil Eile: ...my wet ink sig endorses the cheque, the responce & demand are incidentals if i am correct???>>

Once again, another example that it's ALL ABOUT SURETY and ACCOUNTING! The rest is just "busy work." :)

But the "programming" is going to make us try to stir back to worry ALL about the BUSY WORK, and forget it's really all about SURETY and ACCOUNTING.

Hot potato hot potato....their ability to create commerce from closing & finalising & completing any instrument that is INCHOATE has been trumped by the superior claim.......cheques in the mail on that...

my response is as a result of my understanding at one level, at another level, i didn't understand the "value" of the clerks note, it was still beyond me to certify copies & return as a cheque... theres still stuff i'm missing dude :/

....i'll get it though :D

i've taken a lot of stick from certain elements of the sovereign/freeman/activists here for my efforts ...they fear my conviction(not knowledge yet) i think? fuck them, if you'll indulge me in this small celebration... this is for them..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VZX4sHn-4

"..i'll get it though" - That much is certain. ;)

Well if I'm following this right the signed letter I recieved from the garda in relation to a fine last week does exactly the same thing. I sent them a notice of mistake they sent me back a similar letter and returned my birth cert but kept the notice :D

It makes more sense now, doesn't it.

If you sent them cash, they'd send that back too.

I am taking a chance here..... :/

So if a PUBLIC servant send me a document with his WET signature, and the LOGO of the PUBLIC OFFICE he is in duty for, this document is considered a PUBLIC document.

If I endorse with WET signature that document for the NAME i have in my pocket, which is a PUBLIC NAME, I automatically create a VALUABLE instrument ? :/

It gives two signatures and a TRUSTEE, the trustee being the PUBLIC OFFICE, the FRONT signature being the SURETY, and the back signature being the acceptance ?

Thanks

Sure does it's been a while since I had one of these moments were something clicks makes a whole lot more sense now (y)

Asking the right questions gets you the answers. I have rules I must comply with... so if it's "been a long time", it means you are asking the wrong questions.

This is a direct result of thinking wrong, and valuing the wrong things.

...just sayin' :P

I haven't been asking any questions :P... I've had my head stuck in commercial law books trying to come to these conclusions by my self but as I just told suil I wouldn't of put that together without being told thanks (y)

This is fucking awesome.. A big atta boy for following the process. Mik :-)

The Catch 22 of it all is deceptive and has led to much confusion over here , I find. ( which is the point of it ) Studying the clubhouse rules is for me a part of comprehending but I am finding the language truly is secondary to the process's for practical purposes. The process's are what we have been told all along, It's all accounting... but needing to be able to speak the language to back your claim... B O E a fucking simple accounting process. Verifiable proof from not 1 but possibly 2 ( i till I see a substantiated claim... well you know) ;-) Gratitude is here from this semi-evolved chimps grasping at the edges of comprehension... Scott Duncan Adam Thomas Who-are You Frisbey MIk Pete Daoust Carl Dunne I salute you.

Unlike the Free-Dumb movement, and the Nazi Christians calling themselves "Sovereign Citizens", I actually tell you the truth.

Unlike the Tony "Sounds-like-he's-got-a-dick-in-his-mouth" Butros', and Rob Menards of the world, I am not seeking ANY profit.

I am starting to get reports of Christians who intend to harm me because people are listening to me. This is why I can't stand most of you.

MOST of you will say the Christians are right for doing it. If Jesus actually showed up, he'd be killed at the hand of a devout Christian in the first week.

Best start asking the right questions, because when THE TENDER FOR LAW moves to the main site (INVITE ONLY), there will ONLY be people who listen to me.

My work here is almost done, and I shall no longer have to endure the bulk of you people. Seriously. Most of you will listen to these whack-jobs with imaginary friends, and idiotic evil value-systems, and try to integrate the truth I tell with the lies they "believe"... I won't have to endure that much longer.

None of you see the larger picture. You want to deal with YOUR situation, and then be done with it. You don't get to do that. Nobody ever calls the people who CAUSE it to account. I will... and that's scary to a lot of people.

To those who grasp what I am saying (...and it's REALLY hard to say this without sounding condescending. I know), I'm proud of you. You may actually change something.

To the rest of you "believers": I hate you. The only reason I don't kill you on sight, is because it's unlawful to do so... and that's the ONLY reason. Your delusions, apathy, and the imaginary friend that the nobility made for you are what caused all this to happen in the first place. If you are a Christian who lost their children to the very mess they helped create... GOOD! YOU DESERVE IT. The child is better off figuring things out the hard way. Adults with imaginary friends shouldn't be raising children anyway.

This whole year-long venture has shown me that you are all the same, in the end. I have seen the enemy, and it is Jesus.

I can quote from fiction as well as any christian, so how's this for a quote?

"The KEEPER is awake. The Keeper is aware. The Keeper has seen the enemy" - Chapter 8 ASCENSION, Homeworld 2

This is FUCKING AWESOME! I have at least 2 of these notices I haven't known what to do with! Task for the week.....create LEGAL money!!!!!

"... it was still beyond me to certify copies & return as a cheque... theres still stuff i'm missing dude...I wouldn't of put that together without being told thanks " - my sentiments exactly, thank you Súil Eile, Carl Dunne, and of course Scott

*insert EMPTY-HEADED comment by Adam Thomas here*

...that only THEY can spend.

Ask Dean Clifford, about his experience with bonds and money ONLY the government can spend. ;)

It just hit me....THEIR Notice IS an INCHOATE BoE and we are making it legal tender for them to discharge the matter. :-) Correct?

..and i just got not ONE, but TWO wet-ink-signatures from the City of Toronto a month ago- a NOTICE OF ISSUANCE TO A BAILIFF from their 'Collections, Supervisor,' and, a WARRANT TO DISTRAIN FOR TAXES from the private-Bailiff, which i both stamped with the red-ink-stamp i bought VOID, and mailed back to them registered-mail - oh well.....theres always next time :D

..who woulda thunk Súil Eile posting that seemingly ROUTINE letter would've lead to this THIS

YUP! I had a traffic ticket I VOIDED too!!!!

They sent me a Notice that I couldn't do that (or something). hehehe.....THat will become LEGAL tender!

Dean Clifford, Could you share with us about your experience with bonds and money ONLY the government can spend. ? :D

Ya Dean Clifford! See if you can jam some actual knowledge into these chowder-heads.

I just re-read the LETTER the courts sent Suil, and the response that Suil will send back to them, written/printed on the BACK of the Notarized-COPY Suil will have done of the ORIGINAL LETTER, which, has created LEGAL money for the GOVERNMENT to use, with these TWO wet-ink-signatures now on it

I now put my CRITICAL-THINKING-CAP on, with the possibilty that i might be blasted again for asking this question:

..how much is this newly created LEGAL money for the GOVERNMENT to use, now worth?

The selective mystical power to ordain certain institutions the right to convert money of account to money of exchange...paper prejudice in the highest degree considering that we all are private bankers...set negotiable instruments free!!!:)

Hey Derek Moran, at least you have the GUTS to ask these questions :D

Jesus is NOT your savoir, any more than Captain Kirk is.

People who say "Jesus was real" sound like people who think "Captain Kirk" is real.

If you produce an old Navy record showing there is a real man named "Captain Kirk"... THAT DOESN'T MAKE STAR TREK REAL!

WE MADE IT UP. ALL OF IT. MOST WAS STOLEN FROM OTHER PEOPLE MAKING SHIT UP.

Christians CAUSED all this. Jews profit from it, and Muslims want to kill all of you because of it.

The thing everyone is missing, is that they are ALL ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS.

ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. ALL OF IT.

Until you grasp that, you will always be stupid, and a victim of the Nobility....no matter HOW much you "believe" in Jesus.

You know what Pierre- Pete Daoust- THANK YOU! Because what Scott has taught me more than ANYTHING ELSE being on this page, is to put on your fucking CRITICAL-THINKING-CAP, and QUESTION, what you DONT, UNDERSTAND!

Yeah, Derek, I did that yesterday......I think I will ask my questions in PM's from now on!

CHRIS- SCOTT HAS TENDERED...feel FREE to ACCEPT-HIS-OFFER. Keep in mind, nobody should expect Scott to answer ALL questions, as his life IS HIS OWN, and he does like weed-sex-and hookers, and not necessarily in that order...

I didn't pose my questions to Scott because he already answered them and I didn't fully understand the answers. So I asked around to the people who did!

Jesus is NOT your savoir, any more than Captain Kirk is.

People who say "Jesus was real" sound like people who think "Captain Kirk" is real.

If you produce an old Navy record showing there is a real man named "Captain Kirk"... THAT DOESN'T MAKE STAR TREK REAL!

WE MADE IT UP. ALL OF IT. MOST WAS STOLEN FROM OTHER PEOPLE MAKING SHIT UP.

Christians CAUSED all this. Jews profit from it, and Muslims want to kill all of you because of it.

The thing everyone is missing, is that they are ALL ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS.

ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. ALL OF IT.

Until you grasp that, you will always be stupid, and a victim of the Nobility....no matter HOW much you "believe" in Jesus.

Reposted because I can't like it twice :D

"...YE NEVER EVER LISTEN TO ANYONE ELSE OR BACK ANYONE ELSE IN THE GROUP BUT SCOTT..." - yeah, just like Tara asked- a LONG time ago - LOL

...checkmate. :D

K- all that being said, if you HAD to go into a courtroom, and defend the 'Buck O Five,' if asked- "Where is this CITED?"

You wouldnt honestly answer- "You mean you've NEVER seen 'Team America' your Honour, that marionette-movie??"

Im like Chris Schulte in that sense- "WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?"

Ok.. It is an accounting procedure, you turn the court documents into accounting instruments... Bills of Exchange. The Bill of Exchange book in the files will help with your comprehension it is 69 pages or something. The void procedure is an accounting practice, the New Original process is an accounting procedure... It is ALL ACCOUNTING... The duty paid stuff is covered in the stamp book in the files above... it is powered by the UPU... All countries postal services in the world belong to it ( well most of them)... Wars do not stop the mail... nothing stops the mail... think about that.

so get out of the clubhouse and come join us ... Please.

Is that the Bills of Exchange book that Jesse Alexander posted some time ago?

Yes, it is in the files tab above... good fucking read.

Bills of Exchange Book.pdf

Honestly?...other than the VOID-stamp revelation recently, i dont see Scott pushin' any of this stuff. That, and id be willing to listen to Blake Gardner's take on all of this, only because im with him 100% on his SIMPLICITY motto

Well, it works hand in hand with the Notice of mistake and the subject of this thread.... that seems like a pretty big ok from this end...

..and more importantly, i want the- "KICK ME im DEEMED to be a TRUSTEE"-sign off my back, due to the BIRTH CERTIFICATE - thats what im focused on right now

and it is the first time this info has probably come to light in a setting such as this.. It is hidden in plain sight. There are times when it is advantageous to be able to amend a document into an unamendable one. ;-)

Scott's revelation to Suil yesterday about converting a NOTICE - see this is the thing...if Scott Duncan aint TEACHING IT, i am NOT BUYING IT - like Súil Eile and Carl Dunne both said, who woulda EVER thought about that?!

Yes I understand that me too... However creating a Trust... Liening your name.. all of it plus the new stuff... removes the sign... you get to make your own ;-) The birth Certificate stuff is important, so is this. we will and have been pointed in the right direction, pointed in the right direction... So, to recap... If it is on this forum it is relevant, all of it... somehow. We need to be able to think for ourselves... it all matters.

Well I do not know what to say .. really all I know is that Scott Duncan is not, not endorsing this... that in itself is a positive one thinks... and Súil Eile post is an exchange of bills...

Thru the post office

Scott's not not endorsing it cuz he has a plan, he's like The Joker - "Its ALL, part, of THE PLAN..." - he probably thinks its all TOO advanced for us at this stage and doesnt want us ending-up like Dean Kory

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

OBLIVION on the other hand, was a film TRYING TO TELL US that - ALL, BELIEF, is EVIL

In admiralty, once a claim is made you are presumed guilty (guilt (n.) Old English gylt "crime, sin, fault, fine," of unknown origin, though some suspect a connection to Old English gieldan "to pay for, debt".) unless you can rebut the claim.

The system is trained to provoke you to react, thereby getting you to take a position. Then they say prove it. Who ever ends up with the burden of proof generally loses. Thus all cases are won solely by one party indicting themselves via there words or actions/consent.

This basic principal therefore gives birth to many possible remedy methods that are only limited by ones creativity and willing resolve.

Without getting too caught up in where does it say this and that and the minutiae, remember its a fictional system and our foundation should be the basic premise of the game, namely contract (offer/counter offer).

The moment we lose sight of that basic element one can get lost and end up bamboozled by legalize, and ultimately capitulating /consenting in one way or another.

So wether it's discharging or setting off a debt with stamp, void, endorsement, ect...it's all just a counter offer...and that game can go on and on until someone consents via word or conduct.

Always reverse proof of claim, because in a fictional system can anyone prove anything?

Peace.

Funny example of this precept is a court case I heard about but can't confirm. A guy got charged for poaching furs on a reserve. The lawyer in court brought some furs in as "EVIDENCE":-) and sat them on the table. He then proceeded to question the defendant about "THE FURS" his goal of course being for the man to "CONSENT" to the lovely and benevolent benefit of prison and/or fine by incriminating himself. (All is by consent in this system, because involuntary servitude is unlawful) The defendant however keep replying to the plaintiff with the question "WHAT FURS". The plaintiff was pointing to the furs, picking them up and saying these furs. The judge looked back to the defendant who countered with, "WHAT FURS" again. This went on for 5 or so minutes before the judge apparently dismissed the charge. Upon leaving the court room the plaintiff said to the judge, what do you want me to do with all these furs? The judge smiled and while walking away said, what furs!

Whether true or not this does illustrate the simplicity of the systems game and the vast possibilities that can be derived from that understanding. It also confirms the very reason the code of legalese was created to obscure in plain sight the simplicity of the game so only a select few can truly consciously play:-)

oh ya... the birth certificate is a bill of exchange... the all encompassing meaning..

Therefore the only reason and benefit of knowing some public policy is so that your contracts/counter offers can benefit by being 1) voluntary and 2) of reasonable expectations.

Yeah Derek, I DEFINITELY do that. I think humans have made it to this point by listening to others (specifically lawyers) and what they say. I see no benefit to knowledge if I can't prove it! All I ask for is "How do I prove that?". I picked that up from Bill Cooper.

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Du8g_tNimjEo%26sns%3Dfb&h=pAQFHmxp_&s=1

Tell them they don't recognize them because they are of the real law of this land and they, the court, are foreign cunts.

Agreed, Derek. What happened to Cari-Lee for her role in the attack on me? LOL! What a loser. How do you defend yourself against "fucking stupid", other than to let it run its course and reveal itself.

Stuart- ask Scott some time his opinion on liars. He'll give you a chance to RECANT what you said. After that - NO LEEWAY. I hate fuckin' LIARS.

Uhh- i dunno, what happened....did something happen to Cari-Lee?....last time i heard, she was lashing-out at Santos Bonacci and Kate-of-Gaia real good on her shit-show

NO LYING - NO THREATS OF VIOLENCE - NO FRIVOLOUS and/or VEXATIOUS SLANDERING and/or DEFAMING of a TRIFLING NATURE (unless its your group)

EVERYBODY, OBEYS, the LAW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfD63pCY718

your use of documents are improper, there response is correct.

cheers Derek!!! David, i didn't ask the clerk to interpret them for me, i told him put them on the record because they are relevant facts to the case, they may do as they like but with my stuff on the record... theres a problem with their books, things no longer add up, this transaction is not complete.lol so improper in that regard only :p my returning it signed with incidentals means they have payment but also the liability for the mess. 2 wet sigs & a trustee...... hahaha

Is this clerk's practicing LAW ? lol..... :D

judicial determinations Pete

Now, there's no $ amount on either THEIR letter, or your response Suil....will it just be IMPLIED then that this is to DISCHARGE/SETOFF whatever debt they are seeking from you once you place your WET-INK on it?

yeah there are two fines so they'll be returned in the envelope to the clerk

i'm essentially endorsing payment under the clerks/trustee's liability to make sure everything is correct & act accordingly if its not, now with little effort we watch the giant gears of the system chew themselves mwa ha ha the summary court was created for the purpose of speeding up the BoE mechanism, thats all thats going on, there is procedure to be followed & liability when they slip... provided we know to spot the mistake & make it relevant

ok, i did not realize it was to be put on a docket (case#), i presumed you just sent them to some clerk arbitrarily.

sorry David heres the catch up :p ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9jZ7k4WEFE

i had no contract/dealings ever with Dept of social welfare, i was in a building i had a lease for, perjury was commited claiming i was "working" there for someone else when i had implied no commerce, nobody would indentify themselves, my breach of peace was insisting on i.d. i was shown a .38 when i asked for i.d. i responded "his pissy little 38 didn't impress me i'd had bigger" ego's were bruised. criminal damage was relieving myself outside my trousers rather than piss myself, which i alerted the garda to & offered to clean up if he got me a mop :p

i wouldnt have offered ur a gent mick :)

you can not breach the peace of a peace officer, he has no implied peace to be kept while on duty. you should have just told him you have no buisness with him and shut the door.

.....there was no door.... would it still work? haha what relevance is "should have" at this point?? the facts are what they are.

next time we meet he will be more cautious, i've gained standing with the local cops now but for the most part its useless arguing law with a cop who has no clue & is used to getting his own way, focus on your facts & your future actions against them, they're gonna do what they're gonna do.... it'll be your move next so dont waste energy arguing ;)

In the next chapter in the book i'd like to entitle "The great Fall of the Oligarch in Ireland" the court clerk believes ignoring the facts & fobbing me off in confusion should do the trick, i've prepared this.... in the absense of the admiral to shout COMPREHENSION into me i leave my self in the hands of your "constructive"? criticisms :p... cheers, ill scan the actual letter in a bit, but basically "forgive him his typo, heres your documents back, no legal effect yada yada...."

Authorised Administrator for MICHAEL PARKER

Authorised Administrator for MICHAEL PARKER

NOTICE

TO; OFFICE OF CHIEF CLERK,DISTRICT COURT

TOM WARD

I received a correspondence from you apologising for your error. I cannot forgive you while YOU continue apparently oblivious to the evidential aspect of law and the unalienable right to consent. A mistake of fact occurs when a person believes that a condition or event exists when it does not.

YOU have FAILED AND/OR REFUSED to discharge under my terms.

I have also received unsolicited claims from Tazbell T/A FCS as a result of your error which you will immediately correct or both you & they will bear liability . Threats of enforcement of default on a claim you cannot substantiate does not alter anything except your level of liability.

The District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Summary hearings are administration of Bills of Exchange. Your comprehension of how the documents sent to YOU will effect later actions in greater jurisdiction is irrelevant.

Its very simple TOM WARD, The District Court had its scheduled opportunity to substantiate its standing in my affairs. An individual in the court took it upon himself to deal with the matter contrary to my instruction & his offices ability,HE accepted surety under full commercial liability, Then HE refused to identify himself. I want that PERSONS name and relevant information.

YOU have no lawful reason or ability to WITHOLD AND/OR REFUSE to provide that information upon demand. I have already shown my intent to make my facts relevant. YOU have referred to them by name in both your refusals. There will be no need for legal advice, the whole law society can not change the EVIDENTIAL facts in this matter.

YOU have Seven days to indicate that you realise YOUR mistake and are willing to take the corrective action or I will be forced to take action against YOU AND/OR THE DISTRICT COURT.ND/OR THE DISTRICT COURT.

Chris this is the thread you need to look at when they send you back a notice from the notice that you just said we talked about on the phone

In light of the relevance of the clerks last letter, i now regret describing it as "yada yada" would you mind having a look Scott??

so they ha the NoM, they have the BC, yes? wtf is this stuff? I dont get it

It's a counter offer...

Contracts are dynamic and can continuously moved...

they're negotiating with me lol? i obviously have a gaping hole in my understanding as regards this. i missed this aspect of the last one, do you believe my response is off point?

Counter claim/lien is the only way to enforce...if your at all bothered. I've had a couple of brush off cases recently myself...

in fairness, i wont say i created the situation but i have been very aware of its unfolding & i'm all in. I cant leave it hanging, i have lessons to learn & so have those fuckers, as the justice says in the video.... this goes on :) this response was intended to be followed by a lien. cheers for the response Blake (Y)

Not a prob. You are the creditor:-)

hey Blake me and others lost that uh negative averment affidavit could you please re post it so we can have it we lost it

Scott Duncan..... is it a case of " Shit for Brains you miss the point" or "meh...close enough" ????

analysis paralysis lol

4, four documents mentioned in their title that you sent, so which one then does conform? who's rules? what game are you playing?

sign the back of that making it a bill of exchange, stamp it void, Non-Negotiable, sign it UNACEPTABLY YOURS!

if you were just arbitrarily submitting those for no more reason than shits & giggles, you did send them to the secretary (of state/nation) cc'd to the attorney general. not just the county district court?

I think ( worth is discutable :-D ) that we should NEVER represent a PERSON, unless we want a job, we USE a person, and/or ADMINISTRATE a person.

Silence can be a powerful responce ;) I think the point is i'm too far along to be pulling on Scotts shirt tails so i'm sorry for that. it boils down to my conviction not to allow anyone interfere, confuse or ignore my facts. I appreciate the comments butt CC'ing at this point would be somewhat pleading with my rapist, i'm getting the surety's fuckin name & thats that. new responce will be sent in the same fashion as last, its up to them. if they want to test my conviction, i'll give them a lesson in it. cheers again (Y)

conviction is a word which is pretty close to the belief word :(

it boils down to my KNOWLEDGE would be not to bad as a word :D

if they want to test my KNOWLEDGE would be AWESOME :D

Sorry Man, could not resist :D

It's NOT my fault, I have to check all the word's definition trying to keep up with you guys..... :/

fair comment Pete (Y) yeah its my conviction based on knowledge, my attitude knowing what i know, not easily swayed. I understand i may make mistakes but i wont allow mistakes pass me without understanding them, once i understand then i can be sorry... so i'm not too worried i'm on the learning curve :)

Speaking of movies, like Oblivion, have you ever seen Django Unchained, Scott?...it just occurred to me today...Quentin could've easily have called it 'Everyone Unchained,' or at least- 'How to Get...'

"..here- i've even got the WAYBILL" - LOL ;)

over the weekend while holding virtual argument with Pete & Adam over signing the BoE, i got a flash of a slip of pink paper, the recognasince i signed when bailed from prison. It equates to a large shitstain presumption they are holding so that went back this morning as a "New Original" with a simple note :)

Authorised Administrator for MICHAEL PARKER

TO; OFFICE OF CHIEF CLERK,DISTRICT COURT

TOM WARD

I received a correspondence from you on 19 sept. 2013

YOU are again creating confusion, If as YOU suggest I am not entitled to the information I demanded it could only lawfully be because it has nothing to do with me. Ipso facto

Therefore I return your offer as Void, Not Accepted, Not Understood, No Consent!

If liability for YOUR court order infringes on me AND/OR my PERSON'S right in any way I will exercise my right and lien the court file to gain the information required for remedy. All Rights reserved.

Authorised Representative

it should read the person not my person

wait a minute I can't think

i was referring to my person, not the one they created for the case, my person is moored/tied up, its mine but i choose not to use it ;)

if my person is floating around their system.... without me, i accept no liability & look for the surety who went out joyriding in it :)

BOLLOX!!!! cant believe i let that one slide "Jeff Roggers - wait a minute I can't think" bahahaha you are fuckin funny frizbee :p

.....although Scott might swing by & tear me a new arsehole for fucking something up... so we wait haha ;)

theres value in that correction, admitting you are wrong opens up the opportunity to be right :)

yeah Mick....being wrong is the door to learning!

*admitting/acknowledging you are wrong is the key, i fuckin hate being wrong which can make me a bit cautious sometimes but drives me to find whats right i suppose.

Noun 1. recognisance - (law) a security entered into before a court with a condition to perform some act required by law; on failure to perform that act a sum is forfeited

Mick, i signed one of those too, so I added a line in my NoM that negated that signature. They still issued an Arrest Warrant. I am sending a NoM for that too...

did you void the recog & new original it Chris???

that sig is a performance guarantee to turn up & accept their interference.

NO! I can as I have a copy of it. I wrote this into my NoM:

4. If I, AND/OR ANY DOCUMENTS BEARING MY SIGNATURE OR SEAL, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, that I am acting as SURETY for the LEGAL PERSON, that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me.

I can't see how one could miscontrue what that is saying.......

I think you need to see a copy of the original complaint/charging instrument.

:-) hmmmm.....what is that called?

if you gave your signature, thats the element of consent they are hanging on to i'd say dude. if you signed they gave you a copy, that pink slip has been lying in the drawer getting ignored every day, thats the contract/consent they used to ignore my NoM afaik

photo copy the original ticket they gave you Chris new original void it and send that b**** back

hmmmm.....Mine is blue, but yes I have it. I don't see why my statement in the NoM wouldn't correct that though

I didn't get a ticket

the copy of whatever you signed a new original void it send it back

Recog document is the ONLY thing I signed

.because they choose to acknowledge only the one that suites them... so remove it ;)

its dodgeball and you ain't movin

Got it gentlemen.....I will send them a VOIDED NEW ORIGINAL tomorrow along with another Notice of Mistake and a note as to what I want them to do with all of this

If liability for YOUR court order infringes on me AND/OR my PERSON'S right

If liability for YOUR court order infringes on me AND/OR the PERSON named MICHAEL PARKER'S rights

It,s NOT my person, it's THE person I happen to have in my pocket...

It's not MY $20, it's the $20 bill I happen to have in my pocket

Anyway, I am really careful with this, it's important I think to make sure that they know that you know........if you leave them any doubts, they will try even harder to create controversy and confusion.....They are EXACTLY there with me, trying to create confusion, and it won't work :D

They are in the corner, they will refuse the payment method, or they will accept it....There is no other options.... :D