Sep 05, 2013 8:47 PM

Trust Legal rights that apply where one person holds and deals with property on behalf of or for the benefit of another person.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/glossary/?id=448

Resulting Trust An action taken with the intent of creating a trust, where property is given from one person to another to control and act as trustee.

Constructive Trust A type of trust that may arise where one person contributes to the worth of another person's property. The court may find that it is a constructive trust if the property owner is unjustly enriched and the contributor receives no benefit. The effect of a constructive trust is that the owner of the property may have to hold the property in trust for the contributor.

Officers not bound to see to trust

32. No officer or person employed in the inscription, registration, transfer, management or redemption of any securities, or in the payment of any interest thereon, is bound to see to the execution of any trust, expressed or implied, to which such securities are subject, or is liable in any way to any person for anything so done by the officer or person so employed.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f12_e.htm

Execution of security certificates

29. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for the manner of executing security certificates and the coupons, if any, attached thereto, and may provide that any signature or signatures upon the securities and the coupons attached thereto may be engraved, lithographed, printed or otherwise mechanically reproduced.

Collection of debt by set-off

Definitions

43. (1) In this section,

“Crown” includes any agency of the Crown; (“Couronne”)

“overpayment” means a payment of money to which the recipient is not entitled at the time of the payment or to which the recipient ceases to be entitled at any time after the payment. (“paiement en trop”) R.S.O. 1990, c. F.12, s. 43 (1); 2006, c. 33, Sched. J, s. 4 (1).

Set-off

(2) If, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, a person is indebted to the Crown or the Crown in right of Canada in any specific sum of money or has received an overpayment of a specified sum from the Crown, the Minister of Finance may,

(a) retain by way of deduction or set-off, out of any money that is due and payable by the Crown in right of Ontario to such person, such sum as the Minister of Finance sees fit in the circumstances; and

(b) pay such sum to such public officer as the Minister of Finance thinks appropriate to receive it. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.12, s. 43 (2); 1994, c. 17, s. 62 (2); 2006, c. 33, Sched. J, s. 4 (2).

Application of subs. (2)

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite any other Act unless the other Act expressly provides that it applies despite subsection (2).

Yes I know it's long, I'll rework the posts into bite size posts

thanks Derek Moran

Good Luck ! :D

Just remember- 1978 Supreme Court Chief Justice Bora Laskin stated, in Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal: "...there is no liquidation of the debt until it is DISCHARGED..."

'Signed/SIGNATURE,' section 57.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act ;)

I may be complicating it, they don't honour the bills of exchange and wanted to be sure that there wasn't something I was missing

Even IF the courts ARE owned by the banks and there is NO REMEDY, like Scott says - i CHOOSE, to spend MY time, to gain a greater understanding of all this stuff...as opposed to spending it watching America's Got Talent and/or Dancing With the D-List Stars

Wise-man once said: "DONT be the raindrop contributing to THE FLOOD"

..again- the operative words, "I CHOOSE"

Sincerely, "Why? Because i fucking said so - THAT'S WHY"

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.

“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

"we would all be entitled to a portion of the value of Canada (the Trust?)"? - No.

You are either detaching yourself from the NAME, or you aren't. You did not invent and/or commission ANYTHING to do with commerce.

You had no hand in the creation of the name.

Let's look at a real world example: Tony "Sounds-like-he's-got-a-dick-in-his-mouth" Butros, had no hand in the creation, use, or value of the "Sounds-like-he's-got-a-dick-in-his-mouth" label, I so graciously bestowed on him. The fact that he SOUNDS like he's got a dick in his mouth, only gives value (validates) my label of "Sounds-like-he's-got-a-dick-in-his-mouth".

He can't demand payment for the use of "Sounds-like-he's-got-a-dick-in-his-mouth", despite the fact that he just happens to sound like he's got a dick in his mouth! :P

It gives him NO claim to a label I bestowed on him.

...That would be as stupid as Canadian Tire claiming trademark to "Crappy Tire"!

...oh wait.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2001/05/31/crappytire_010531.html

...law cracks me up. :D

Anyway, I hope this sinks into your girl-brain. You did not make the name. You did not invent the monetary system. You did not make the TENDER FOR LAW that money provides. You aren't suddenly entitled to the equity.

So Scott, when we claim the NAME, what exactly are we claiming? Equity? The value we put into it? Or just specifically the NAME?

I guess my question really is, what if "sounds like he's go a dick in his mouth" used the saying and somehow made it valuable.....can he have any claim on the Equity?

If somehow "ME" happen to MAKE something VALUABLE, WHY should "ME", have to CLAIM equity on this something......I have the value INSTANTLY....

Claiming to be the name makes you the surety for it..They love that shit..means they get to put thier Dick in your mouth and you give them your energy credits that they converted with no rebuttal/complaint from you..some people like that shit..hahaa and yes he would have a claim to equity, but a claim is only a claim and would have to Bring it to their court of chancery...remember the government owns all property...the name is THIER property.. you are in usufruct by using it.just lote the car you gave them thru registration, this is why you get no due process when they take it from you..

If "YOU" come in my backyard and plant an apple tree, without ASKING "ME", and you've done it while I was NOT there.....when these apple will show up, I dare you trying to CLAIM equity on them :D

This EQUITY claiming thing just dosen't compute in my protoplasm.... :(

so to give back the birth certificate and liening the name, I better find my value (via offering service that is paid for via my own currency within my corp/trust I create) to be able to survive? and thank you Scott Duncan for responding and clarifying :)

Usufruct, huh Rick? I was sure it was SOME type of equity claim! How does a claim go from "just a claim" to a lien?

Me, I was sure it was a fruit kind or something eatable :D

u r a fruit of some kind

a lien is your claim but it's the process that you do it in

Jeff is correct...a lien is a claim, most never rebut it or have it validated, they can be removed most even file notice of lien and the agents treat as if it is a lien which it is not, it is only a notice..many can be removed by rebuttal or request of validation of debt ( lien). It is no different than a pirate with letters of marque from the king taking your property under the kings authority..you are at war! and they treat you as such by claiming you are in their territorial waters subject to thier jurisdiction, [as it were] if you were to seek remedy with the internatioal court they would say too bad..rules of war...because you have said" YES I AM THE NAME(surety) " this is why they come afer you..you have claimed their property by operation..and by not keeping the ledgers on the name( thier commercial property) balanced they come after you to correct it since you said you were it!.who gave you permission to use that name?..you assumed it (they tricked you)..and they let you cause use it but when you fuck up the books they come after you to correct it... Remember the meaning of usufruct?..you use the earth under the rule of usufruct...it IS not yours, you only have the right use it..

Fricken phone

[7] Property and Economic Rights

What is immediately striking about s. 7 is the inclusion of "security of the person" as opposed to "property". This stands in contrast to the classic liberal formulation, adopted, for example, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the American Bill of Rights. The intentional exclusion of property from s. 7, and the substitution therefore of "security of the person" has a dual effect. First, it leads to a general inference that economic rights as generally encompassed by the term "property" are not within the perimeters of the s. 7 guarantee. This is not to declare, however, that no right with an economic component can fall within "security of the person". Lower courts have found that the rubric of "economic rights" embraces a broad spectrum of interests, ranging from such rights, included in various international covenants, as rights to social security, equal pay for equal work, adequate food, clothing and shelter, to traditional property - contract rights. To exclude all of these at this early moment in the history of Charter interpretation seems to be precipitous. This Court does not, at this moment, choose to pronounce upon whether those economic rights fundamental to human life or survival are to be treated as though they are of the same ilk as corporate-commercial economic rights. In so stating, this Court finds the second effect of the inclusion of "security of the person" to be that a corporation's economic rights find no constitutional protection in that section: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. A.G. Que., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-7.html

Scott- Is the BIRTH Certificate, and the RECEIVER'S Certificate, two completely-different-separate documents, or..... is the Birth Certificate and the Receiver's Certificate one-in-the-same and are actually the SAME document?

The receiver's certificate is to certify the the birth certificate has been received ?

Receiver's certificate A debt instrument issued by a receiver and serving as a lien on the property, which provides funding to continue operations or to protect assets in receivership.

Speaking of Tony- anyone ever remember Dean Clifford 'painting-around-the-edges' regarding this on one of his shows? Dean once said about the BC on Tony' s show- "the BC used to say on it- FOR TREASURY USE ONLY, so what is that telling you...is that maybe saying it is not for US to use?"

Yes, it's telling me that it's FOR TREASURY USE ONLY :D

James Baal once likened the situation we're in to being a real-life version of the film INCEPTION, which i found to be quite astute..

..and maybe Pierre, that NUKE, was meant to be sent by Canada POST to the Treasury? ;)

Rick how is validation done? such as what I'm contracting done I need my signature notarized to make it up binding contract isn't that correct?

are only tool is negative avermeant affidavit

Contract equals law

I get to write my own contract so I get to write my own law