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 5

Jan 25, 2014 11:12 PM

Steve Lemieux

Chris, what are your options? How can THEY move forward without answering critical questions and without your consent? Let's brainstorm - in a color-able manner so as to avoid controversy...

Personally, I would inundate them with QUESTIONS structured to expose their BULLSHIT. Make it fun, it's gonna go down anyway.

Mr justice, can you please explain what is going on in this courtroom here today?

Am I not entitled to be heard in a fair and impartial manner?

Why are you ignoring everything I have asserted respective to this action to date? Is it just me or are you actually showing favouritism towards the plaintiff? Do you have something against me, the beneficiary creditor and accommodation party for the defendant?

Is it legal for you to DEEM SURETY upon a bone fide beneficiary?

Mr justice, what does a beneficiary and creditor such as ME have to do to be recognised as such in this court?

NOTE: At this point, I’d consider addressing the peanut gallery with something like — “Does anyone in this courtroom have any fact, evidence or testimony REBUTTING the presumption that I am the Grantor AND beneficiary of the constructive trust taking place here today?” — “No?” — “Let the record show that NO ONE in this courtroom has rebutted the presumption that I am the true grantor and beneficiary of this trust and that I STAND as such”

Or you could keep asking questions until they finally buckle or drag you away. Keep this in mind — How can they pin surety on YOU if you ONLY ask questions? THEY CANÂT. Sure they can ignore you and totally trample you over but when it comes down to it, THEY have violated the public trust and SOMEONE should be held accountable for that. No?

More Questions: Mr justice — is that NOT a TRUSTEE’s robe you are wearing? Then are you NOT the trustee in this action? Are you trying to delegate YOUR duty on to ME? Did you NOT swear an oath of office pledging your commitment to protect beneficiaries like me?

Hammer the justice with questions — Mr justice, can you please explain how you can legally DEEM me the surety in this action when I clearly DO NOT CONSENT to such a liability? What kind of court is this?

Is this legal? How can this be legal and lawful? Is that NOT an act of contempt against the people, whom I consider myself a part of? What KIND of DUE PROCESS is this?

See - I told you I’d come up with more bullshit for you to chew on today.

;)

PEACE

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 6, page 321 · cut by a page break
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 321 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export. A page break in the printout cut off the beginning of this comment, with its name.