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 7

Jul 01, 2014 12:10 AM

Read Comments 51

Scott Duncan

This isn't an attack. His reasoning is sound. He just forgets that they are ignoring their own clubhouse rules.

In the 80's and 90's I tried my cases PRO SE because EVERYONE STUCK TO THE RULES (With notable exceptions). The courts had VALUE for your PERSON, as it did for MONEY.

It doesn't now.

Mistake and Fraud can't enter the record unresolved. PERIOD. NOTICE OF MISTAKE is designed to GET YOU OUT OF SURETY, not "seek justice".

The goal is to detach and damage. Not "win".

He's thinking he can win a rigged game. He's presuming the Administrators are impartial. They aren't.

That not an attack, that's a guy with sound reasoning... and a BELIEF that there are "magic good courts" that will rule honestly (there aren't).

LIEN THEM PERSONALLY? That'd work

How does he plan to get their FULL NAME ADDRESS AND DATE OF BIRTH? You think they just hand that shit out?

There's a MISTAKE all right. He's making it. :P

Stuart Stone

But there IS a mistake...by my own ignorance (ignorance of the law is no excuse), that I believed I was the name.

It is a mistake that was made by ME, and it needs to be corrected...once corrected, then any further interaction from 'THEM' would most likely fall under the category of 'Demands with menaces' which is found in Section 138 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 Australia Administrative zone clubhouse rulebook:

138.1 Unwarranted demand with menaces (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if: (a) the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and (b) the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (c) the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property. (3) This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand. 138.2 Menaces (1) For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes: (a) a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or (b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat. Threat against an individual (2) For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless: (a) both: (i) the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and (ii) the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or (b) the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' then becomes a double edged sword :D

Scott Duncan

You look at the "exhaust" of the Free-dumb Guru "Industry". Karl Lentz doesn't give a shit if everyone gets it or not. He got paid. Even if he gives away 90% of his "sales" there is enough to sustain him, or he wouldn't be asking for money.

The fact that he "succeeded" on his own, in the PAST, does not mean the courts conduct themselves the same way NOW.

For me it ended when I saw my transcript edited to say "I understood". As far as AQUILAE is concerned, EVERYBODY who signed a document in that case (except the "respondents") has forfeited ALL rights!

...and I will NEVER accept that they are a court of competent jurisdiction, EVER again.

...Carl Lentz doesn't care. He will still think what he sells is true. Reality has no bearing. Those that PAY him, make an investment. That's why they do it.

Reality will show different.

The sad reality is that the time to pick up a gun and organize, is NOW, and most still think Jesus will fix it.

Isaiah Whitney

I used to itch for the the fight in my early 20's but I now know that war isn't glorious and I don't want it. That said it seems inevitable. I look forward to this new way you've spoken about should I survive!

David-Paul Sip

What I learned from Karl Lentz is the meaning of the words they use in court. Karl Lentz likes to say that what he teaches is "so fucking simple it's scary". Of all the research I have done (before TTFL of course) his information is the most practical and yes even simple to a degree. For example he talks about FLIPPING the court, moving to COMMON LAW jurisdiction and PROSECUTING the PROSECUTER. You must really know what you are doing and how to counter their trickery. There is not much room for error in my view. You must also be willing to play their game and dance with them in court. Why? I have zero interest in getting that close to anyone that means me harm.

Maximus Legis

It seems in the past where one was educated in Law and able to stand on that knowledge the courts would beat a hasty retreat. Now it seems they are willing to commit fraud on fraud because there are more with the knowledge standing fast and they simply can't/wont have that lest it spread like wildfire.

Chris Evan

Also, I saw some mention of the War of 1812 when I was gone...what did the British attack??? The HOLDER of the LEGAL TITLES. They also needed to remove the original 13th amendment to gain access to the rights to the LEGAL TITLES. It was a DEFAULT!!

Chris Evan

Tax purposes.....this is a good idea. So....they are trying to steal the rights to the Security of my Person with the idea that they will create some new debts. What are the Tax Forms they are required to fill out for such purposes?

Back to top