The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 4

Oct 15, 2013 3:36 PM

Anibal Jose BaezMackximus Minimus

This question is for Scott Duncan, yet if any feel you can better contribute than Scott (good luck with that), and/or you are certain of the answer, please feel free to comment ... at your own peril, of course. Back in May, in a civil matter for debt collection from a local bank, for a small amount ($3,000.00USD), a municipal court send a NOTICE OF HEARING for August. They all received back a NoM, voided orders, new originals, with the BC/SURETY BOND attached, meaning the "DEFENDANT/DEMANDADO) is already in the custody, via registered mail, plus it was filed in the court file as well.

Shorter version of the story, The trial was "held" last October 9th, and the sentence was "WITH PLACE, WITH TRIAL IN THEIR MERITS, Fund. 43" "Status"; RESOLVED, INACTIVE SINCE 09302013 " Now, "Fund. 43", what the heck is that?

The PERSON never received notices after NOTICING the MISTAKE, but their website say they did.

Does that means they settled the accounting and closed it, as per the NoM, or does that mean the PERSON better cough-up the "money" quickly because they railroaded HIM? It's seems they still PROCEEDED.

It's hard to tell, because I don't have any documents from the court. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 311
Printed copy of this post
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 311 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Unique ID: 462493170453287_572694626099807
Unique Facebook User ID:
1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
status
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 12

Scott Duncan

"The PERSON never received notices after NOTICING the MISTAKE, but their website say they did." - You DID point out that the PERSON was in their custody. It has nothing to do with you. Perhaps the PERSON is in the file, and thus deemed served. ;)

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 312
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 312 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Anibal Jose BaezMackximus Minimus

That is EXACTLY what I had concurred. It is not MY NAME, is in THEIR custody, I AM not SURETY of HIM and I splashed evidence all over them, is not my place, is NOT OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS what do after that.

But I wanted to bring this question up, because as part of our "programming" WE LOVE TO BE ATTACHED to that fucking NAME! And I have found myself sometimes, and seen some friends here at TTLF, still lingering for some kind of magical "approval" from our rapist, after correcting a MISTAKE.

Perhaps not the best analogy but, I think of it as this:

One receives a letter in ones mailbox, for our next door neighbor (which happen to be a government employee), Oops! Thats a MISTAKE, thats not intended for ME. So I kindly RETURN that offer to open someone elses CORRESPONDENCE, and and give it back to the REAL party with surety, for its not for ME.

Now, would it not be DELUSIONAL to, after returning a correspondence that is not for YOU, still wander, and wander about what the fuck that letter said/was for? :D

Thanks for answering my question Scott! I'm sure a couple of smart ones will appreciate what you just clarified.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 312
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 312 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Anibal Jose BaezMackximus Minimus

Yes, Pete. I made this disclaimer before my analogy:

<<Perhaps not the best analogy but, I think of it as this:>>

The important thing is to GET the point brought. Merci, Pete!

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 313
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 313 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Anibal Jose BaezMackximus Minimus

Scott Duncan, my apologies for the confusion, my question really was this: <<Does that means they settled the accounting and closed it, as per the NoM, or does that mean the PERSON better cough-up the "money" quickly because they railroaded HIM? It's seems they still PROCEEDED.>>

But you answered my question already with your comment. Thanks.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 313
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 313 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Back to top