Sep 02, 2013 9:18 PM

Oh... I was thinking HARD about that stuff too :D even OVERTHINKING maybe, but that's another story... :D

Well, my thoughts are...If they REALLY want the person I happen to have in my pocket, to travel to fulfill its DUTY, I guess that person has to HIRE someone to do this.....in fact, that person dosen't even have arms to fit the steering wheel of a car,

So that person MAY hire a driver ?, and since "ME" have no intentions of dealing with these taxes collectors who carry guns, well that person I have in my pocket can find someone else than "ME" to go around town doing business :D

So if I ask this limo company to send a Bill of Exchange addressed to the person named:

PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX 1234 fucks the puppy road Crazytown (Quebec) Canada H1H 1H1

And ask to get paid in advance for a full month of SERVICE, well in that case "ME" who is the best SOLE authorized administrator of PIERRE DAOUST, can do the RIGHT thing with this Bill of Exchange......accept it, sign it, date it and send it registered mail to the Drawee, which can only be the Bank of Canada, so they can send the payment to the beneficiary, which can only be this limo company :D

And then, EVERYONE will live happy and have a long life....."ME", the PERSON and the Limo Corp. !!!!!!!!!

Pete Daoust - Your suggestion seems, at first glance, to solve the "driving" dilemma, if, we are successful at getting the BANK OF CANADA to "pay"/set-off/discharge the bill. Has anyone here been able to get the BoC to do this?

Problems remain however. For example, I ordered a phone from Rogers a number of years ago. Inside the box containing the phone was a contract that stated that I was bound to the terms of the contract inside the box, if I opened the box. Wrap your head around that one. Anyways, after a call to Rogers, asking how could I be considered to be in agreement with a contract which I haven't read. They told me they post their policies online (amongst other places) and that as a consumer it was my responsibility to educate myself about the products/services/contracts which I involve myself with.

That was NOT a suggestion, that was a HARD CORE thought, nevertheless, I've done it 3 times with BoC, and 2 times with 2 beneficiaries..........and so far, I have NOTHING from them.....COMPLETE silence.... :/

I'm checking in the window every now and then to see if no ambulance is there to pick me up and bring me to the hospital for crazy bastard....and NOTHING there neither.... :D

And the first time I did it with BoC is a month ago :/

I've heard nothing from the BOC but I have from my dentist and he hasn't received anything

Thanks Gail Blackman. As I see it, as much as we are "in the right" to "pay" bills this way, we will likely never be "successful", if we consider success to include: those whom WE request products and services from actually getting paid/compensated. I imagine that if we attempted to pay all our bills in this manner, eventually we would run out of dentists, limo drivers, cell phone companies, internet service providers who will to do business with us. While exhausting this list might take years in a larger community, in a small community, in a matter of weeks or less, a man or woman might find that not a single local company will provide them products or services. Nevertheless, my main point here is we live in a world of unilateral contracts. So, if you don't like unilateral contracts which holds the "user" (man/woman) as surety and includes a), b) and c), then do without those products or services. Get rid of your phone, internet, insurance. Don't use hospitals or drugs if you get extremely ill. Don't get your appendix out if it burst. <- Extreme example. Because if you do, all your rights seem to go out the window. In short, I don't want to limit my rights, but, I do value such services and products. It seems to be an ongoing catch 22 for us a TTFL. Much like us, these companies seem to say "if you don't like our terms and the limitations they impose, then #$%^ off and go without.

^^ In a world of increasing monopolization, and, or, an ever shrinking list of services providers, those that want to negotiate contracts which protects their rights are being left outside of the world of commerce. It seems we have two choices, live in the dark ages and do without, or, bend over and prepare to get &^%$#@ really hard.

Yes that is certainly how it seems to be in relation to the bills of exchange act. I'm interested in the corp/trust possibility, I think the goal Scott had for this group was an opportunity for us to manage with knowledge as a form of protection. I'm appreciative of that. By my nature, I'm not prepared to let them off the hook yet, these corporations or the "system". Interesting times indeed :)

Welll....hummmm, I don't mind being SURETY for MY teeth, I don't mind being surety for my APPENDICE.....But I do mind when it comes to some organized crime tax collectors that just steal from "ME", and pay THEIR teeth with MY time.

You see, I have done this with the Hydro bill, because I really have good reasons to believe that it's MY hydro, and all this infrastructure has been paid for long time ago, in fact, the Hydro company here in quebec has the person's in Quebec as sole shareholders......and I have done it with TRAFFIC TICKETS....these traffic tickets is PURELY business and disguised taxes.....and thieft...

And I will show the payment proof to ANY PERSON who says that I haven't paid, and can't wait to see what will happen then :D

I can't wait to take the NAME of who will refuse the payment :D

And why they just don't answer my correspondance or simply call me ?

And say, Mister Daoust, that is a NON-acceptable form of payment, please stop being an idiot and send a check....

Do you know WHY they don't call me ? :D

because you act like this....https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151894630709289&set=vb.24468800636&type=2&theater

I am 47, and I guarantee that ALL the stupid stuff I've made in the past, well the ones I've got caught, they ALWAYS made me pay for it....and they did it FAST and precise....It's been 14 months I haven't pulled one penny out of MY pocket for this stupid Hydro-Bill.....and nothing happened :/ ????

I've sent them 4 letters with ALL the explainations of how I comprehend this, I offered them each time to REBUT me, and tell me I'm wrong.......THEY DO NOT CONTACT ME.... :D

Gail Blackman: "I'm interested in the corp/trust possibility" I am as well. (Rubbing hands together) I'm still trying to figure out what i can provide to Scott that he finds valuable. I don't suggest I fully understand all of that, even though the general concept seems to make sense. As I understand it presently, even the corporation which runs my trust will need to provide a signing officer to accept responsibility for the products and services that it manages for my trust. And of course, those contracts will likely include clause a), b), and c) which again translates to bend over and accept that the entire football team gets to %^&* whomever wants to sign/accept.

I'm still trying to figure out what i can provide to Scott that he finds valuable...

GOOD LUCK !!! :D :D

Pete Daoust - Is your hydro still on? Have you switched to another service provider?

It seems that those of us who are paying attention are becoming somewhat skilled at avoiding surety, yet, whom among us is able to get a large corporation to provide us with products and services, while at the same time getting them to agree to eliminate clauses a), b), and c), which, once again translates to bend over and accept that the entire football team gets to ...

There is NO other service provider and YES it's still on

Congrats Pete Daoust :)

ChiefRock Sino General is good at the contract aspect of it Robert. He has a contract with Bell for his cell phone paying something like $11 a month

For what ? :/

For what you accomplished with Quebec Hydro.

Pete Daoust - Would you be willing to post your paperwork? I'd love to see it. :)

I don't see it as an ACCOMPLISHMENT, I see it as putting the right stuff at the right place......same thing with these traffic tickets.....

I AM NOT WORKING FOR THESE USELESS SACK OF SHIT....bon....

It's ALL in French....you feel like translating :D

I would if I could. :(

google translate can be helpful

But you can't :D

Google translate will fuck up all of it.....google translate is good for 1 or 2 word......it's bullshit for more that that

There must be someone here who is able to translate it.

Here is my last piece of art....I've made it this morning and will be sent tomorrow morning via registered mail :D

Att : Rachida Ait Allal Cour Municipale de la Ville de Montreal Case Postale 11045 Succursale Centre Ville Montreal (Quebec) H3C 4Y1

Objet : No. de Dossier 800 XXX-XXX Avis de Déclaration de Culpabilité

TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS / SANS PRÉJUDICES

Monsieur / Madame, Cette communication est pour vous aviser que le 16 Aout dernier, je vous ai fait parvenir une lettre concernant la personne nommée PIERRE DAOUST portant le numéro d’assurance sociale 261-XXX-XXX. Cette lettre dont le numéro du maitre de poste est le RW7629XXXXXX a bien été reçue à vos bureaux le 20 Aout 2013 à 10h21 am par M. BOULERICE.

Si vous n’avez pas l’obligation de répondre, svp, m’en aviser.

Pour ma part, j’ai de bonnes raisons de croire que vous avez l’obligation de me répondre, et vous aviez 10 (dix) jours pour le faire, hors je n’ai pas eu de réponse.

Donc, je vous accorde 10 (dix) jours supplémentaires pour répondre à cette lettre du 16 aout 2013. Si je n’ai pas de réponse, je devrai COMPRENDRE que vous avez fait une faute en présumant que MOI et/ou la personne nommée PIERRE DAOUST, était un de vos employés, et dans ce cas, je COMPRENDRAI aussi que vous devez annuler ce plaidoyer de culpabilité, et ce jugement qu’un système informatique a entré contre MOI et/ou la personne nommée PIERRE DAOUST portant le numéro d’assurance social 261-XXX-XXX, dont je suis le détenteur légitime.

Bien à Vous.

Par :__________________________ Détenteur légitime de PIERRE DAOUST

:D

My goal is one a week......I have to send an envelop to them once a week, I have so many unanswered questions :( ....you see, they woke me up 3 years ago, it's their fault, "ME", I was sleeping like a log, now that I am AWAKE, I have ALL these questions, and I NEED answers....and they have the OBLIGATION to answer "ME"....

I told them.....YOU HAVE THE WRONG CUSTOMER.....they just did not listen to me :(

Now I will SHOW them EVIDENCES and PROOF that I am the WRONG customer... :D

lolling @ "my last piece of art"

I wonder if Scott Duncan would let me use SCOTT DUNCAN as reference in my letters I send....I see this in some other letters from people, they include reference on where they've got some stuff they are saying in their letters :D

This is my last letter sent to Hydro-Quebec....

Mirabel, le 6 Aout 2013

Madame/ Monsieur,

Ceci est la QUATRIÈME lettre que je vous envoie concernant le même sujet, c’est-à-dire ; à savoir quels autres moyens existent pour décharger cette lettre de change que vous m’envoyez autre que d’utiliser de l’argent fiduciaire.

La loi sur les lettres de change L.R.C. (1985) dit que vous avez la responsabilité de me l’expliquer.

Mais vous persistez à garder le silence complet.

Donc, suite à mes recherches concernant la loi sur les lettres de change L.R.C. (1985), voici ma compréhension.

Tous les 60 jours, vous m’envoyez une lettre de change que vous entreprenez pour moi, lorsque je reçois cette lettre de change, j’ai deux choix : Racheter la dette et vous envoyer un chèque, ou, compléter la lettre de change en L’ACCEPTANT, la datant, la signant, en y apposant mon numéro de compte (NAS ou no. d’inscription de certificat de naissance) et la faire parvenir à la Banque du Canada pour qu’ils puissent vous remettre les fonds.

Autrement dit, je suis le tireur, la Banque du Canada est le tiré, et vous êtes la tierce partie.

Donc, voici une copie dont l’original a été envoyé à la Banque du Canada.

Merci, et sachez que je suis très déçu que vous restiez silencieux à mes demandes répétées.

Avec Respect, Honneur, Dignité et Intégrité

Par :________________________________ Détenteur Légitime de PIERRE DAOUST

I hope that Scott Duncan will at the very least suggest ways to ratify an existing, or offered contract(s).

Hey Robert Cormier, just swing me your office's fax number and I'll fax everything to you...... :D If you promise me to NOT show all this to the other cops you work with :D

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sir / Madam,

This is the FOURTH letter I sent you on the same subject, that is to say, to know what other ways exist to discharge this bill that you send me other than to use the trust money.

The law on bills of exchange RSC (1985) says that you have the responsibility to explain it to me.

But you continue to maintain complete silence.

So after my research on the law on bills of exchange RSC (1985), here is my understanding.

Every 60 days, you send me a bill that you undertake for me when I get the bill, I have two choices: Redeem debt and send you a check, or complete the bill of exchange in the ACCEPTING, by dating, signing, affixing my account number (SIN or no. Registration of birth certificate) and to reach the Bank of Canada so that they can give you the funds.

In other words, I am the shooter, the Bank of Canada is fired, and you are the third party.

So, here is a copy of the original of which was sent to the Bank of Canada.

Thank you, and know that I am very disappointed that you remain silent to my repeated requests.

With Respect, Honor, Dignity and Integrity

I don't have a fax. Can you email it to me Pete?

LOL Mo Chara Do Chara, the shooter is the drawer, The fired is the drawee

google translate for ye

I promise. :)

I've said it before and i'll say it again... ChiefRock Sino General ROCKS!!

Robert Cormier, it's easy to write to EVERY bill of exchange you pick up in the mail box....

First Step is: Well, I can't BELIEVE everything I read on the internet, so I started this by ASKING them, if it's TRUE that other payment methods exist than the cash I used to have in my pocket.

My INTENTS are always the same.....I want the TRUTH. nothing less and nothing more.....

Second Step: Decide what is the person's debt, and what should be considered as MY debt....let's be fair :D .....even though, I know HUMANS can't have debts :D

Apparently, as per Derek Hill, I suck Scott Duncan's dick :/

"The law on bills of exchange RSC (1985) says that you have the responsibility to explain it to me."

..ummm - where does it say that? :/

What ive learned about contracting- is that you have to not only make your Terms-and-Conditions EXPRESSLY known, you have to make them known up-front from-the-get-go to make them solid, as opposed to relying on an 'IMPLIED CONSENT'-agreement that could later on be judicially interpreted the WRONG way against you...

"If within 30 calendar days i have not heard back from you, then I SHALL take your SILENCE as YOUR IMPLIED CONSENT that YOU have, through TACIT-AGREEMENT-BY-YOUR ACQUIESCENCE, conceded to the FACTS-IN-LAW that I have made through your NON-CONTENTION of the 3 (THREE) NOTICES I have sent to YOU previously, that YOU have CHOSEN NOT to REBUT, that in-fact, this is the proper way of marking a bill-of-exchange as the proper method for the discharge and/or set-off of a debt to a biller, in this case YOU, as i have described it as i understand it, in my 3 (THREE) NOTICES i have previously sent."

84. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, il est obligatoire de présenter, en bonne et due forme, la lettre au paiement. Obligation

The way I get this in French, they have to EXPLAINE if, of course, I ask for explainations....

In English it says: DULY presented.....which means, Explain what you are presenting to me ?

duly, adv. In a proper manner; in accordance with legal requirements.

Great !!! :D

If you present me something that I don't UNDERSTAND, the proper manner would be to EXPLAINE it to me ?

pro per., adv. & adj. See PRO PERSONA.

pro persona (proh pdr-soh-nd), adv. & adj. [Latin] For one's own person; on one's own behalf <a pro persona brief>. Sometimes shortened to pro per. See PRO SE.

manner and form. See MODO ET FORMA.

modo et forma (moh-doh et for-rna). [Latin] In manner and form. - In common-law pleading, this phrase began the conclusion of a traverse. Its object was to put the burden on the party whose pleading was being traversed not only to prove the allegations of fact but also to establish as correct the manner and form ofthe pleading. -

WOW!!!....now I am lost :D

If a bill is not duly presented for pay- ment, the drawer and endorsers are discharged.

In French it's so clear :D

Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, il est obligatoire de présenter, en bonne et due forme, la lettre au paiement.

Le défaut de présentation en bonne et due forme libère le tireur et l’endosseur.

Derek Moran, I am just ASKING the beneficiary on what are my options with this BoE, and as per the Act, they have to tell me..... il est obligatoire de présenter, en bonne et due forme, la lettre au paiement.........Le défaut de présentation en bonne et due forme libère le tireur et l’endosseur.

Due to some informations received recently, I have good reasons to believe that there is more options for me, regarding this Bill of Exchange YOU are presenting to "ME".....can you please explaine ?

That was the first letter I've sent.... The second was a little more specific The third I gave most of what I've learned The fourth, I Gave the final comprehension I had, and discharged the Bill, I have sent a copy to Bank of Canada, and one to Hydro-Quebec.

And I pointed out on the letter that I was not happy about their COMPLETE silence....

And still, complete silence :(

For the record, if this place (TTFL) is failing, well that is the best FAILED I had in these past 47 years :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

TTFL is thriving from my view. :)

that 'rogers' phone contract was non negotiable, therfore not a valid contract, null from the beginning.

and as far as needing an appendix removed, just go to the closest best hospital, they HAVE to provide you with care.

alternatively WE (us who are learning), can create a new company and trust, one in every county so assistance is not far, and we start a better union.

"I'm still trying to figure out what i can provide to Scott that he finds valuable." courtesians and precious metals, weed, he probably could use some good poop for his garden (i know i would accept a truck load of manure for a pc fix).

he might like it if you sent him a faggot. (could trade it for somthing useful), or maybe he wouldnt mind a ream or two out of it first. (a cheap ream lasts me a few years)...

Australian Constitution, the real one that hasn't been repealed, states that we have the right to Free Travel. The Quick & Garran interpretation is too long to include here. In simple speak it means as Free Travellers in our 'automobile' not for hire or reward (as opposed to a motor vehicle ... see below) we do not require a licence and, indeed, the 'automobile' does not require registering. So far we do not know of anyone who has actually exercised that right. A 'motor vehicle', on the other hand, is used for hire/reward by a 'driver'. We suggest reading up on Black's Law Dictionary.

Just had a revelation about driving. We can create persons; we never accept surety. Persons a just a costume we use. So, could we create a person who DRIVES around thier legal person and then we complete the bill of exchange. So different persons do all of these tasks for us, we arent concerned with other peoples psychology, and everyone is happy. An accountant figures out the accounts. What do we think about this?

By applying for a licence, wasn't a 'person' already created for this purpose?

Once the 'person' is liened into the private trust, the corporation may be able to hire the 'person' to 'drive' the man around...in a private capacity of course :D

Yeah....I dont have it all figured out, but yes that was my thought. Instead of hiring the limo driver, we created the limo driver!

Applying for another person would need another BC no?

I remember Scott Duncan saying something along the lines of (not a direct quote): The 'person' on the court order/charge sheet is not the same 'person' on the BC etc...

By extrapolation, my interpretation is that the 'person' on the drivers licence is not the same 'person' as that on the BC, or passport, or SIN as they have all been created for different purposes, even though they have been derived from the same foundational document.

Of course I could be wrong and/or talking out my arse

IDK. I wonder if the corp asks for a new number (ss5f orm in the states) if that could be the entity sending the bill and the liened legsl person accepts it and discharges it. "ledger transactions"

As it's all accounting each engagement with a state department is a new account...

Since we can clearly discharge debt through this legal person that they created and since we can put on any costume we choose, could we not fill up our closets with costumes and use the remedies available as needed?

So the Legal Person obtains a DEBT payable to CS Corp for "transportation" (or "office space", or "storage", or "administration"). As Pete clearly stated, people with guns will lock you in a cage if the "transporter" doesn't have a license to drive. So some PERSON with a LICENSE TRANSPORTS the Legal Person and sends a BILL to the Legal Person. The AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE of the Legal Person discharges the debt. How does the account of CS Corp become credited?

Or I am thinking wrong and valuing the wrong things? :-D

I'm thinking outloud here...our ability to discharge debt is our opportunity to claim for our labour that the person was pledged for in the bankruptcy? In doing so because all is accounting, we actually shrink the countries debt. Scott has talked numerous times about becoming our own banks. Wouldn't we want to discharge the debt (to decrease the countries debt) and then create our own currency to take the "power" the bank presently has over us? Does that make any sense?

Scott Duncan The GOVERNMENT owes the debt. They owe it to the banks.

Scott Duncan You'll find that you OWE the market. There are no DIVIDENDS, until the DEBT is paid.

hmmmm......I have had this thought lately that the BC is a BANK CHARTER. It allows us to use their foreign money. Any thoughts on this?

In the 1970's nobody gave a shit about "national debt" because all the debt was owed to the PEOPLE. Therefore the PEOPLE have the power. Now it's owed to the banks.

Accountants have all the power.

which is why we want to be our own banks to remove that power from them?

In the 1970s in Canada or everywhere?

in Canada Chris, the B of C is owned by the people unlike the fed

Banks = money exchangers. Corporations can exchange money.

it's no wonder they don't want to honour the bills of exchange

If the government borrowed from the BANK OF CANADA like it's SUPPOSED to, none of these things would be an issue.

So the government is borrowing from.......us?

government is borrowing from banks...we are the collateral i think?

Yeah, but our collateral is our "full faith and credit" They are borrowing our "full faith and credit" through the BC...Scott is this correct?

is full faith and credit equivalent to our sweat and labour?

No, your PERSON is collateral.

YOU have no part in this.

'If the government borrowed from the BoC" So they are supposed to, but they are not. So, who is the Creditor of the government then?

lien the person they can no longer use it as collateral?

YOU have the superior claim.

I'm going to be meeting with a chartered accountant, hopefully this week, are they bound by any oaths, rules like lawyers are?

Scott Duncan, 'If the government borrowed from the BoC" So they are supposed to, but they are not. So, who is the Creditor of the government then?

I have to run, thanks Scott Duncan for the clarity

Chris:

Government - Borrows from private banks, with PERSONS as collateral.

Private banks, borrow from the BANK OF CANADA (Your Money), thus having a claim on your VALUE and therefore the buying power of your money.

You now know the accounting mechanics of LEGAL SLAVERY.

:/

Notice NONE OF THESE ENTITIES HAD MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

IT'S ALL YOUR MONEY!

Here we go... :)

LIENING YOUR NAME means you owe NOTHING. If you don't they can attach your name to ANYONE.

they can attach your name to ANYONE.: They can REALLY do that ? :/

They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE,

IT DOES NOT CLICK.. !!! :(

Please just an example...please...

I think it has to do with the word YOU

I think my brain is melting....

They can attach my NAME to ANY person they want to create ?

You ever hear of Pavlov's dog? We have been TRAINED, Programmed from berth... To accept surety by consent, For example... When pulled over, before knowing anything about surety, I handed my license over thinking it represented me... It is not mine.. The Birth Certificate is not mine... I was trained into accepting Surety thru ignorance and programming, if any one consents to accept surety for the name, ... in the eyes of the courts they wanted me, by asking if YOU are the name... If I respond with yes and proceed it attaches surety to me... so by that logic they can attach it to anyone who consents... Enter the Lawyers who are fronting for the accountants... Disguising simplicity in legalese and B O E... I think...

Pete Daoust I think what Scott is saying is that because a lien is a claim, if you don't have a claim on the name , it is open season to attach (create joinder) with the name. If I understand this wrong, and am shit staining, please correct and forgive me. :)

^^ Not having a lien can get you in "trouble", but, thanks to Scott we have the Notice of Mistake to get us out of trouble.

See: Attach and Attachment :)

It's NOT YOUR NAME. You are the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of the name. It BELONGS TO WHOEVER OWNS THE PERSON.

hmmmmm....so if we are the lawful holder in due course of the NAME now and it is OWNED by someone else, then we LIEN the NAME, are we still the lawful holder in due course?

No, you are the PERFECTED OWNER, and COPYHOLDER of the name.

COPYHOLD, estate in the English law. A copyhold estate is a parcel of a manor, held at the will of the lord, according to the custom of the manor, by a grant from the lord, and admittance of the tenant, entered on the rolls of the manor court. Cruise, Dig. t. 10, c. 1, s. 3. Vide Ch. Pr. Index, h.t.

Copyholder

A copyholder is also someone who holds land by means of copyhold.

Are the terms used equivalent in United States law too?

Can the person be lien by the corp I already have without having the TRUST established ? Scott Duncan

I have the same question! But my corp still has 275,000 share. I need to change that to 4 I think. And my corp needs to re write its By laws. hmmmm.....how do I do that?

:D

It's amazing how dumb we can be :D

Holding corp....Holding corp....Holding corp....hmmmmm.....

I have a Holding Corp, in French iT,s a Compagnie de Gestion :D

I have an S-corp

Fuck....I wanted to WORK today, instead I am getting lost in this again :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company

I don't think HUMAN are meant to WORK anyway, so stand by Chris Schulte :D

Personal holding company[edit source | editbeta] In the United States, a personal holding company is defined in section 542 of the Internal Revenue Code. A corporation is a personal holding company if both of the following requirements are met:[2] Gross income test: At least 60% of the corporation's adjusted ordinary gross income is from dividends, interest, rent, and royalties. Stock ownership test: More than 50% in value of the corporation's outstanding stock is owned by five or fewer individuals.

That's exactly it Chris Schulte, this holding company owns shares of another corp., and its only purpose so far is to receive dividendes from this other corp.....

I kinda like work. :-)

Look at the LEGAL definition of WORK, you'll change your mind :D

Pete...and "In the United States, 80% or more of stock, in voting and value, must be owned before tax consolidation benefits such as tax-free dividends can be claimed."

oh, yeah... I know. I was speaking in slang. As in, I like to do shit

Fuck....everytime I have had a lawyer or CPA write these docs for me, they never issued all the shares to me. Fucking Crooks!

So, if my trust owns 100% of the stock, in voting and value, tax free benefits can be claimed. :-) Whats the catch?

And I am the sole beneficiary of that Trust! This is starting to look like something here.

Oh....I am NOT in the tax business :D

"COPYHOLD, estate in the English law. A copyhold estate is a parcel of a manor, held at the will of the lord, according to the custom of the manor, by a grant from the lord, and admittance of the tenant, entered on the rolls of the manor court."

Manor A house, a dwelling, or a residence.

Historically under English Law, a manor was a parcel of land granted by the king to a lord or other high ranking person. Incident to every manor was the right of the lord to hold a court called the court baron, which was organized to maintain and enforce the services and duties that were owed to the lord of the manor. The lands that constituted the manor holdings included terrae tenementales, Latin for "tenemental lands," and terrae dominicales, Latin for "demesne lands." The lord gave the tenemental lands to his followers or retainers in freehold. He retained part of the demesne lands for his own use but gave part to tenants in copyhold—those who took possession of the land by virtue of the evidence or copy in the records of the lord's court. A portion of the demesne lands, called the lord's waste, served as public roads and common pasture land for the lord and his tenants.

The word manor also meant the privilege of having a manor with the jurisdiction of a court baron and the right to receive rents and services from the copyholders.

"PERFECTED OWNER"

..this also relate to the definitions i came across recently in Black's 9th regarding PERFECT EQUITY and/or SECRET EQUITY, Scott?

So basically- the Bank of Canada is giving away money with RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE and WILLFULL BLINDNESS to the private banks, who pass-it-along to the Government, money that the B-o-C KNEW that was all along INTENDED, to go, to US the people?

Is in it gross ? :D

Can we say is in it ? :/

LEGAL SLAVERY !!

WOW...just when i think you cant go any further down the rabbithole Scott, you do - thanks for this "Thats gold, Jerry - GOLD!"

It seems like more of a MINE hole, yhan a ribbit hole :D

*Rabbit

Using us as COLLATERAL, brings to mind a few definitions ive come across recently > WAREHOUSEMAN...FIELD WAREHOUSE...FIELD WAREHOUSING, stuff along those lines, not near my dictionaries right now

When I have a claim on it, I will use it as collateral! :-)

The person I have in my pocket seems to be sitting in THEIR warehouse, along with the house, the car, the shoes, the sunglasses and the underware :D

Oppsss....I just received this :D

Conversation started samedi 12:20 Pete Daoust

Hi, is it an OBLIGATION from my part to put a return address on an envelop I am sending registered mail ?

If this is the LAW, can you point me where it says so ?

Thank you very much !!

Pete. Aujourd’hui 16:58 Canada Post

Hi Pete,

Thank you for your inquiry! Please keep in mind that you don't have to put a return address on the envelope but it's a your risk. If something happen, your item will not returned to you.

Sincerely, Melina

Pete Daoust They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE, They can attach my name to ANYONE,

IT DOES NOT CLICK.. !!!

Please just an example...please...

One I can think of Pete Daoust...

For some reason, you end up in court.

You manage to deflect surety for the name.

Unless the other side withdraws, surety for the name may be attached to them and they become responsible for discharging the debt.

You manage to deflect surety for the name.....I'm not DEFLECTING surety in that case, I just leave it where it has to be ? :/

The other question:

Can the corporation lien the name without having established the private trust?

Yes, but why would you? It doesn't take the name out of the public realm.

The corporation is considered as another person, in the same way as the person you are liening is (in the same way that both are registered with the government).

Because the corporation is registered with/through the state, it has the same capacity as the 'person' you are liening (I think). The state/government would still have the right to require/demand the details of the trust, its establishment etc.

However, once the name is liened into a private trust (taking it out of the public realm), and it is merely held by the corporation (which is another person in law & fulfils the requirement of trust law), the government and its agents are unable to attempt to attach surety to the person because it is no longer in the public system.

ThisPrivate Trust thing seems to be like a 10,000 pieces puzzle to me :(

Ok, you recognise that a mistake has been made, in that the court (or whoever) is attempting to attach surety to you.

You, being a dumbass smart French dude :D , send it back to where it belongs...is that better now Pete Daoust :D

YES :D

It would have been perfect if :

Ok, you recognise that a mistake has been made, in that the court (or whoever) is attempting to attach surety to you.

You, being a dumbass smart French dude , I leave it to where it belongs...is that better now Pete Daoust

:D :D

If I don't have it, I can't send it back :D

Think of the Private Trust this way:

Your wife is very good at working out when you are going to give her a surprise gift.

You have it in your hand and you see your wife (government officer) coming up to you, with that knowing look in her eye...you know that when she asks you all these questions about your surprise gifts, you often make a mistake & can't keep the surprise from her for very long.

So, you hand the gift to your daughter (another person= corporation) to hold, while you talk to your wife...but, your wife can see it in your daughter's hand & the questions start all over again, and she starts asking her daughter questions about it (she still has some power/jurisdiction there as well).

So, being a smart French dude, you decide that next time, you'll remember to place the surprise gift in a big, ugly looking box, with pictures of sports cars all over it, so she doesn't ask about the valuable things inside & so she can't see what's inside...That's the private trust. You give it to your son & tell him to keep it in his room, so your wife doesn't ask you what is in the box.

I don't know if you have a son Pete Daoust, & I don't want to offend you or your wife by suggesting she's like the government, but I hope the example helped :D Time for me to stop eating sugar I think :D

i just thought of somthing, the state representative for the county where your birth record originated has fiduciary responsibility over the account that document is connected to, so send the exchange to HIM/HER!

maybe i should take the document over to him, and tell him he is not performing his duty properly. maybe he presumes i'm dead, and needs to be straightened out.

Just smoke a joint David Johansen ? :D

joint's waste 50% or more of the material produced, i do not waste a precious thing such as what may constitute what you specified (i smoke a pipe). you think i haven't lately?

who is the comptroller for the state? (i remember that position was higher than the general manager at the hotel, [i was a hotel groundskeeper for several seasons...])

Thanks Stuart Stone, I am running in the shop as we speak to build that box :D

Thinking about what Scott wrote yesterday...i can understand the Gov going to the private banks for more money in order to be able to splurge it on themselves.....i can even understand the private banks going to the Bank of Canada to get it for the Gov, at interest.....what i DONT the fuck understand, is HOW does the Bank of Canada, GIVE them OUR money as Scott put it, without that being a Criminal BREACH-OF-TRUST, and/or, they just think that nobody knows/understands whats going-on anyways, so no one will catch-on and be any the wiser

I'd say the latter is your answer

Did you see the video of the bank of canada lawsuit. The judge refused to hear it even though he acknowledged that it is something that can be brought into the court and the complaintants have standing...shhhh

Us, the crowd, are NOT suppose to learn these things Derek , we are suppose to watch NHL and Canadian Idol ....

It's why I loathe you all. You are all too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to even knowingly question the issues. Now the banks own the courts. There's no remedy.

Hell, you people don't even know what money IS, and that's what the fucking group is about!

That's why I'm being busy creating cryptographic currencies and being called "crazy" to this day for doing so. Your ignorance does not equal my knowledge, and I simply have no time for those who incorrectly think otherwise.

All of what's to come over the next 180 days, was created by all of you, and your worthless parents. ...and yes, I CAN apply that to all of you! If your parents weren't worthless eaters, they would have taught you what money is, and you wouldn't be HERE.

..did you ever manage to get a LETTER OF CREDIT from out of the Bank of Canada, regarding 'the' Birth Certificate Scott?

Why would I want one?

sigh

...and it's not MY birth certificate. It's not even MY name! I didn't make it.

Was reading the definitions for that today...was wondering if a LETTER OF CREDIT plays into this at all

No. The only part of that which "play into this" is that you are a fucking idiot.

...seriously, it's like you're struggling to intentionally miss the point.

Let me say this one last time. you will NEVER get any money from ANY public entity/government "service". Ever. That's "freeman" bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59HD8UPl_3Q

Apathetic ?...no way Sir, not "ME", I don't accept that one.....for the rest, I have no comments :-\

Money is LAW....as simple as it is.....if you DECLARE having touching it.....you are simply a fucking slave and you AGREE to it......

Thanks Pierre.

Now, read this :-D

EVERYONE IS TO OBEY THE LAW.

and think about it :-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxZhtGeRa-M

mo lol

Following on Scott explaining how the PERSON we have is used as COLLATERAL, here is a definition i came across from Black's Law 6th-edition, that is NOT in Black's 9th:

FIELD WAREHOUSE RECEIPT: a document ISSUED by a WAREHOUSEMAN, evidencing receipt of GOODS which have been STORED (the Registrar General of Ontario's office is way up in Thunder Bay, btw). Such may be used as COLLATERAL for LOANS.

the birth certificate is a surety bond that is used as collateral. the cap name is the person

“goods” means tangible personal property other than chattel paper, documents of title, instruments, money and investment property, and includes fixtures, growing crops, the unborn young of animals, timber to be cut, and minerals and hydrocarbons to be extracted; (“objets”)

..does this definition Scott in a roundabout way, imply that WE, are the owners/have claim to the natural resources of this country/province?

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p10_e.htm#BK0

“purchaser” means a person who takes by purchase;

“purchase” means a taking by sale, discount, negotiation, mortgage, hypothec, pledge, security interest, issue or reissue, GIFT, or any other voluntary transaction that creates an interest in property;

“security certificate” means a certificate representing a security, but does not include a certificate in electronic form;

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06s08_e.htm#BK6

Money is the Measure by which goods are valued, the Value by which goods are exchanged, and in which Contracts are made payable.

MONEY: Money is the measure by which goods are valued, the value by which goods are exchanged, and in which Contracts are made payable. Everything receives a value from it’s use, and the value is raised, according to its Quality, Quantity, and Demand. Money is not the value for which goods are exchanged, but the value by which they are exchanged. (John Law, political economist, 1705).

Scott Duncan "All of what's to come over the next 180 days, was created by all of you,..." Does the following refer to what you are warning us about Scott? Or do you think this is a bunch of hogwash? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiQkKoIeFw

Found this somewhere:

“Money” is a vague term. Technically, anything can serve as money. And historically, many things have served as “money”. As a social construct “money” is really nothing more than a tool that helps us interact in our everyday lives. The history of “money” is lost in time, but there is ample evidence of forms of monetary systems in primitive monkeys in which sexual favors are traded in exchange for protection, grooming and other “bonds”.

Aaahhhhh, the good 'ol primitive days...

It seems many of us have some "primitive monkey" in us, even Scott Duncan. :)

Thinking of money and crypto-currencies. When I think of the hope that I have for Bitcoin and such, I am reminded of my favorite philosopher, Thoreau, speaking about laws changing to include a new idea (in his example he wrote about the abolishment of slavery). Then my hopes are kept on a short leash. Essentially he warned us that new ideas are only ever accepted as valid and legal by government, when it is "expedient" for them to do so. History is replete with examples which support this stance.

scott is correct, DO NOT DRIVE. why drive when you can just travel?

I think the inherent advantage that bitcoin holds is that it is decentralised & not 'belonging' to any country as such, making it effectivelly nowhere & everywhere at the same time...the only thing that will win out against cryptocurrencies like bitcoin is fear and misinformation...

how about more than one qrypto currency just because there's one Bitcoin doesn't mean it can't be 50

a bit like web browsers...the public will ultimately decide which cryptocurrency(ies) best serves its purposes

more Bitcoin different operations is harder to follow and track

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJ-GdErX1c

Bitcoin has a 12 placement binary incription code.

Is anything the end all be all?

Wait....maybe I can draft the perfect document....lol...law is malleable...what thinks the ChiefRock Sino General?

rebutable presumption; If I am as accused, then by what evidence is there proof of such?

copper plated silver bars, or i'll spraypaint silver on them, nobody would believe it ...

bump