Jul 18, 2014 2:11 AM

Is Hydro-Quebec a Government "STATE" institution?

Quebec hold 100% of HQ's shares...

Cusip / ISIN: 748149AG6 / US748149AG65

You lien FOLKS not corporations. Which man who is the principal of HQ stole your property?

:D

You CAN'T lien FOLKS......that's IMPOSSIBLE :P

I understand these guys are in conjunction with DTCC: https://www.cusip.com/cusip/index.htm

You lien the person....but not HQ.

I thought liening SECURITIES was the way to go.... :/

If they are publically traded there are different rules.

Why couldn't lien ALL HQ's trucks ? :/

Underwriter

Principal Amount Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

U.S.$

Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch

HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC

Nice...what are the rules?

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/722803/000110465913007812/a13-4445_1424b3.htm#Underwriting_070648

What different rules ?

If they are publically traded and you file a lien it can put them in dishonor. If you fax that lien to the SEC it apparently halts trading of that stock.

Oh??? Scott Duncan is this true?

?

That would get some really pissed off ? :(

http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/tradingsuspensions.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N5HorB57YE

Jason is correct. You cannot trade a damaged security.

Holy shit Jason Moreland that's some great insight !

From the SEC: on Québec

"Jurisdiction and Enforceability We will appoint the Delegate General of Québec in New York, One Rockefeller Plaza, 26th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10020-2102, as our authorized agent upon whom process may be served in any action based on the Securities which may be instituted in any State or Federal court in The City of New York by the holder of any Security, and will expressly waive any immunity to service of process regarding any action to which the Delegate General of Québec might otherwise be entitled. This appointment will be irrevocable until all amounts in respect of the Securities have been paid, except that, if for any reason the designated agent ceases to be able to act as the authorized agent or no longer has an address in The City of New York, we will appoint another person or persons in The City of New York as our authorized agent. We will expressly accept the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any State or Federal Court in the City of New York or any competent Court in Québec in any action based upon the Securities instituted in any such Court and will irrevocably waive, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any immunity from the jurisdiction of any such Court to which we might otherwise be entitled. We may be sued in the courts of Québec, and no applicable law requires the consent of any public official or authority for proceedings to be brought or judgment to be obtained against us arising out of or relating to obligations under the Securities. In addition, no immunity from suit is available to us in any action in those courts, irrespective of whether a party to the action or the holder of Securities is or is not resident within Québec or is or is not a citizen of Canada. Although any judgment obtained in an action brought in the courts of Québec against us may not be enforced by execution, applicable statutes provide that whenever we are condemned by a judgment that has become definitive to pay a sum of money, the Ministre des Finances et de l’économie, after having received a certified copy of the judgment, shall pay the amount due out of the money at his or her disposal for that purpose or, failing that, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Québec. In enforcing a foreign judgment in foreign currency, a Québec court will convert into Canadian currency at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date the foreign judgment became enforceable at the place where it was rendered. There is no currency indemnity in the terms and conditions of the Securities to make an investor whole for any difference in the exchange rate between the date the foreign judgment became enforceable where it was made and the date of its enforcement by a Québec court."

That's what killed all those banks trading mortgage-backed securities. ONE Court in an IMF country ruled that SUB-PRIME mortgages bundled into AAA+ rated securities, in fact DAMAGED them... THAT is why it all started tumbling down... TRILLIONS of dollars in securities were frozen OVERNIGHT.

Canada fared up because the Citizenry was ALWAYS footing the bill. They just didn't know it.

LOl that will change very soon The bubble is ready to pop

All that happened my senior year. My finance professor walked around like he saw a ghost for like 6 months. He was normally a fun guy.

Pete Daoust this section could be useful:

Although any judgment obtained in an action brought in the courts of Québec against us may not be enforced by execution, applicable statutes provide that whenever we are condemned by a judgment that has become definitive to pay a sum of money, the Ministre des Finances et de l’économie, after having received a certified copy of the judgment, shall pay the amount due out of the money at his or her disposal for that purpose or, failing that, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Québec. In enforcing a foreign judgment in foreign currency, a Québec court will convert into Canadian currency at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date the foreign judgment became enforceable at the place where it was rendered. There is no currency indemnity in the terms and conditions of the Securities to make an investor whole for any difference in the exchange rate between the date the foreign judgment became enforceable where it was made and the date of its enforcement by a Québec court.

Ok, so in 48 hours, HQ will receive an INVOICE with an account statement.

Attached to that invoice will be a Notice of Claim, identifying each claim and WHY. I will use PIERRE DAOUST to invoice, I'll post that invoice in here later...

I wonder when they will stop ignoring shit ? :D

When they are shut off from the bank for Securities fraud

Will they still do the "We don't care" attitude with this ? :/

Maybe Capitaine Pete...but HQ will not ignore when you lien them that I am sure of.

Perhaps the party that should be contacted is the Ministre des Finances et de l’économie.

Ok, I never done this before, so this is what came out of my brain....please comment, Scott :D

$10,000.00 for Breach of Trust in regards with the several times I have asked you, if these instruments were having any DEFECTCS, and to advise me if there was, NO ANSWER FROM YOU.

$10,000.00 for Breach of Trust in regards with the several times I have asked you, if these instruments were REFUSED, and if so, to advise as soon as possible, NO ANSWER FROM YOU.

$10,000.00 for Breach of Trust in regards with the several times I have asked you, if these instruments were indeed refused, to RETURN THEM BACK , NO ANSWER FROM YOU.

$50,000.00 for a serious VIOLATION to the integrity of the person named PIERRE DAOUST 1196604XXXXXX, by STEALING what PIERRE DAOUST owns, but interrupting the electric service at PIERRE DAOUST's domicile.

$122,400.00 for each hour Hydro-Quebec have stolen from PIERRE DAOUST, the electricity service ( 408 hours at $300.00 per hours), as agreed on July the 4th 2014.

$4500.00 for MY time, acting as the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR, to take care of all this, since July the 4th 2014. (15 hours x $300.00 per hour)

$9833.43 for these VALUABLE INSTRUMENTS, you have sold, as per your (again) complete silence on WHY you are refusing to send them back.

I, as the sole authorized administrator, am considering to file criminal charges, under section 337 and 340 of the C.C.C, against HQ and its AGENTS who have treated this matter.

AM I missing something ? :/

ONLY $50, 0000 for damage against your PERSON....you're nice guy Pete. I would have started at $1,000,000. I would include a fee, say $1/minute that HQ remains in possession or refuses to return your property, these VALUABLE INSTRUMENTS, from the date service was disconnected.

Just my thoughts but you want to get HQ's attention so HQ can't IGNORE the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR. I also discovered in some commercial lien research that a perfected lien can be sold at adiscount. In order for it to be marketable it needs a large value attached to it.

This may be a shit stain but why lowball your claim? I think my PERSON is worth much much more since the PERSON I have is necessary for my survival in this FUCKED UP system. What is your life worth?

Ok !!! :-D

Oh and the $1/min would be instead of $9833.43 for these VALUABLE instruments Capitaine Pete. There is one other thing that I actually would love the ADMIRAL to comment on. Apparently it is acceptable/standard in commerce to multiply damages by 4X when perfecting a lien. Not sure if this is FREE-Dumb bullshit but why the fuck not. Again what is your life worth? I can't seem to come up with a number large enough for mine :D

In the States, its 3x for consumer fraud and even money for business to business transactions

First you need a valid binding contract, then if they don't pay simply take it to court and forgo the lien. Liens are more for secured loans or judgments that can't be collected because the defendant has limited/protected income and assets. If you file a PPSA without a valid contract or judgment it's basically an abuse of the system and can be thrown out, possibly with costs and damages. Also only a PERSON or corporation can contract, sue or lien...

Where do you get that " Liens are more for secured loans or judgments that can't be collected because the defendant has limited/protected income and assets" John Trew. Does this include a vendor/contractor's lien?

He got it from Trent!!

Is "Trent Goodbaudy" your source of this assertion John Trew?

That's my own conclusions based on years of studying. "Does this include a vendor/contractor's lien?" Sure there are a few more types of liens... check out http://www.archive.org/stream/atreatiseonlawl02jonegoog#page/n117/mode/2up The fact of the matter is if you have a valid contract you don't need a lien in most instances because you can simply sue in court then garnish income and have the sheriff seize and auction assets if they don't pay the judgment. But for that if they respond and don't default you have to convince the judge you did it properly, i.e. the other party has to clearly agree and intend to enter into contract. Unilateral notices, silent acquiescence, aren't typically considered binding in contract law... That's a "freedumber" misconception. A better approach might be to demand a certain type of action to signify agreement that they are likely to perform, so you can use their performance to claim they expressly agreed. Filing a PPSA without an enforceable basis is simply an end-run around the law, an abuse of the system. If the "debtor" challenges it in court you will lose.

Didn't we learn anything from Meads v. Meads?

[525] Punitive damages are warranted when a person bases a legal action or files a spurious lien or personal property claim on the basis of a foisted unilateral agreement. The courts have authority to indemnify the legal costs of a litigant who is forced to defend against a foisted unilateral agreement scheme: Williams v. Johnston, 2008 CanLII 63194 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4853 (QL) at para. 15, 2008 CanLII 63194 (Ont. S.C.), affirmed 2009 ONCA 335 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 335, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 609, leave refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 266; MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at para. 17.

Here is the deal...

I offered Hydro-Quebec some COMPLETED bill of exchange to settle debts Hydro-Quebec send to PIERRE DAOUST every two months.

I aloso offered HQ, to say NO, and refuse these COMPLETED bill of exchange.

I offered HQ to tell me if there was some DEFECTS on these COMPLETED bill of exchange.

HQ, never answered and/or respond to this OFFER.

For 2 years, HQ kept ignoring everything, and then, july the 4th 2014, they simply cut the service.

So, after the cut the service, I OFFERED HQ, to send ALL these completed bill of exchange to me, and after I have the ORIGINAL instruments in my hand, I WOULD PAY.

HQ, said NO to that offer, and couldn't give a reason WHY :D

So I gave them 5 days, to return these, or I will UNDERSTAND that they have SOLD these.

If I don't count the week end, this next wednesday will be the 5th day....

I have so many documents that PROVES I have done all this in good faith, I also can PROVE that HQ is owned by the PEOPLE,

I have questioned them on HOW, some public TRUSTEES, can take from PIERRE DAOUST, the person, what PIERRE DAOUST the person owns ?

I have pointed out Article 337, from the Criminal Code.

I have also pointed out Article 340, from the Criminal Code

The truth is, HQ are in a fucked up position, and maybe they've thought that by cutting the service, I would panic and go nuts and beg them to re-connect.......unfortunately, they have the wrong customer for that....

I AM NOT THE GOOD CUSTOMER FOR THAT....fuck, :D

Now, I see three options....

1). I am a free man and my rights will be respected :D

2). I am a slave, and I have NO rights, it will be PUBLICLY declared by the MASTER, and I will have to kill the MASTER if I want to be FREE again. :D

3). I will get shot in the head :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!.... :D

Court is the only way you can force them to recognize a payment or seize their funds and assets, and courts don't recognize "free men", just "slaves"...

The only way I will end up in court, is by FORCE....

To send copies of the instruments and not return the ORIGINAL instruments is not only a UNILATERAL (to use your words) decision to keep them against the wishes of their owner John Trew but a UNILATERAL decision to not use them for their intended purpose.

Since HQ is CHOOSING not to return this property then they have been given NOTICE of the cost associated with doing this. This is not "silent acquiescence". It is an ACTIVE choice to do or not do something. They either return the property at no cost, or do not and pay the disclosed cost.

How is this "Meads vs. Meads" or some Free-Dumb misconception? Since HQ can simply return the property then this IS binding if they do not return it.

To not return the instruments means HQ has ACCEPTED them for their intended purpose which means the debt must be DISCHARGED. This represents a contract and these are the terms and conditions which became BINDING with ACCEPTANCE of these Bills of Exchange.

So Capitaine Pete is giving HQ fair warning by disclosing what the charge will be if his property is not returned since they have not zeroed the account. Pete does not wish to sell these instruments. He is looking ONLY to discharge the debt of the PERSON. If the instruments are not being used for the purpose intended by the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR then they are to be returned. Very simple. These are the terms and conditions.

Yes, possibly, but again we come back to court, the only way to force the matter if they ignore you.

We'll see, soon :)

"To not return the instruments means HQ has ACCEPTED them for their intended purpose which means the debt must be DISCHARGED. This represents a contract and these are the terms and conditions which became BINDING with ACCEPTANCE of these Bills of Exchange. " I second this

If a CORPORATION is in bankruptcy, who administrates the debt and discharge? I have noticed some people point to the IRS in the U.S. Would you send it to the IRS for discharge?

I do NOT say you are wrong, John Trew, I can't because I never went that far, with enforcing the obligation of PUBLIC TRUSTEES......but we'll see.... :)

This is a matter of TRUST, and so far, the TRUSTTE is in BREACH OF TRUST....big time :D

I have LEARNED this stuff, and most of it by reading THEIR fucking stuff.....I can NOT unlearn, and I can EXPLAIN all this shit without anything in front of me, no books, no documents....nothing

So if they want to bring me BY FORCE, in front of ANY justice, I AM READY....

No wonder WHY, no LAWYERS showed up in this fuck up so far !!!

HAHAHA!!!.... :D

I understand what you are saying, John Trew, and I appreciate your input....but I won't BEG no one for what I already have......that would be stupid.... :)

I am a BELLIGERENT, it is in my HEART !!! :D

PUBLIC NOTICE

To ALL lawyers.

I will NOT "tolerate" ANY lawyers's bullshit. NEVER.....so at your OWN risks.... :P

With the terms outlined if these instruments are not returned then as I recall there is a process which culminates in a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND REQUEST TO CURE. I also recall reading in a thread the ADMIRAL mention a procedure by which you can obtain an ORDER/DEFAULT JUDGEMENT without the presence of the ACCUSED. Does this sound familiar Capitain Pete? I am not sure if the two are related but this seems to require the court.

I am the SOLE authorized ADMINISTRATOR for PIERRE DAOUST.

What does that tell you ?

This is NO JOKES !!!!

No one else but "ME", is authorized to ADMINISTRATE the person named PIERRE DAOUST, 1196604XXXXXX

NO ONE.... :D

If its creator is not happy with that fact, well TAKE IT BACK.... :D

Sounds like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFFb4mXjENA (Part 1/3)

I will NOT "declare" anything, I am AFFIRMING everything.... :D

If it's NOT true, well hang me !! :D

Do I really need to watch that video ? :-\

No I do not think "Declaratory Judgement" was it. Does not sound familiar.

Declaratory Judgment is an alleged way to gain recognition by the courts/government of your superior control/ownership of the PERSON and everything in/attached to it. "If you can get this on, you're free, you're outta there man. Just put a certified copy of the judgment in your pocket and go to town." I'm skeptical a court would make such a judgment, though. From what I've seen they do not recognize a man separate from his PERSON.

Will they recognize its SOLE authorized administrator ? :-D

Will they point out, to the SOLE authorized adminastrator, where/who is SURETY ?

Not in Slaveachusetts. As a matter of fact, if one states that they are the Sole Authorized Administrator of the PERSON, one gets locked up for a day!

:-D

Time to start a fight.

You always want to either LIEN or FIGHT. :-D

Why lien when you can seize income and assets via contract judgment and actually get paid? Courts and PPSAs are in the same jurisdiction. If you use PPSAs you might as well be willing to use the court, too.

You seem to like court John Trew :/ My experience with being awarded judgement in "small claims" court did not result in recovering anything. Is there something to be said for not ceding "authority" to a court? Would love to hear Admiral Scott's thought's here.

Same here David-Paul Sip

Own nothing but control everything comes to mind.

I wonder if CUSIP has a map for Canadian municipalities? https://www.cusip.com/cusip/heatMap/muniHeatMap.htm

David-Paul Sip Court is a legal tool, just like liens/PPSAs. If you get a judgment against a person or entity with no income or assets then yes, you might not get paid. Neither might you get paid if they have income or assets and you fail to apply to the court for a garnishment order or hire a sheriff to appraise, seize and auction their property. Whatever authority you 'cede' by using a court you cede the same by using liens/PPSAs, because it's the same jurisdiction.

Which is why SHAREHOLDER is the ONLY good LEGAL position to be in.

That's why CORPORATIONS should lien, not YOU.

Would that be ok to use PIERRE DAOUST'S Holding Corp to invoice and lien ?

"That's why CORPORATIONS should lien, not YOU" Ahhhhh....now there's the key. For some reason the Admiral commenting on ONLY being the PLAINTIFF in court is coming to mind with this.

Without causing a shit stain, is it accurate to say that CORPORATE PERSONS have more POWER than INDIVIDUAL PERSONS?

Court is a legal tool, just like liens/PPSAs". This gave me some good insight John . In my experience with "small claims" 20+ years ago the expectation was that I would somehow have the information needed to garnish a PERSON's wages (you need a SIN for that).

In other news.... ChiefRock Sino General said :D

ChiefRock Sino General: man, what is everyone going on about here. I can send them a friggin piece of used toilet paper, IF THEY KEEP IT , its agreed as accepted and settled. If i write 1000000 on it and sign, they keep it, its agreed its good for settlement. Retention is key here. Know how to hold your contract. its simple stop getting so god damn complicated and focusing on public laws and statues and this and that. If they keep it we got ourselves a binding agreement. Bills of exchange act can be good to keep them in line but just know, if it is kept its good as gold. who knows what benefit they got out of the used piece but i dont really care. If they send it back, they discharged the account to zero. Its a win win people !!!!!!!!

:D ....

have they told you what they did with the instruments you sent them Pete.

"If they keep it we got ourselves a binding agreement. Bills of exchange act can be good to keep them in line but just know, if it is kept its good as gold." Could not be any simpler. And here I thought I was crazy about what constitutes a BINDING contract. :D

In other words HQ recognized and accepted the VALUE TENDERED. C'est fini motherfuckers!

No...they just don't want to talk about it :D

John Trew: Refrain from citing Winston Shrout here.

People who charge MONEY for LEGAL KNOWLEDGE are in fact ethical scum. Shrout and Menard are the same kind of scum; Hypocrites who lie through ommission.

Agreed Scott in times like this I firmly believe that there should be an obligation to assist humanity instead of profiting off of others misfortunes

C.C.C. 337. Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

"494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes (i) has committed a criminal offence, and (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property (2) Any one who is (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or (b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property."

Sounds just like what the POLICE do.

yes

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#PART_XVI_COMPELLING_APPEARANCE_OF_ACCUSED_BEFORE_A_JUSTICE_AND_INTERIM_RELEASE_1709044Destroying documents of title

340. Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, destroys, cancels, conceals or obliterates

(a) a document of title to goods or lands,

(b) a valuable security or testamentary instrument, or

(c) a judicial or official document,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 300.

Emphasis on: "for a fraudulent purpose"!

It's NOT fraud if YOU do it to things that are YOURS. For FRAUD there MUST BE AN INJURED PARTY, and the burden is on THE CROWN to demonstrate fraudulent intent.

in this instance wouldn`t they be canceling or concealing the existence of what they did with Petes instruments

I think Scott meant in the sense of if YOU keep a valuable instrument.....if the drawer is the name of the person you administrate, the instrument is under YOUR control.....I think that's what he meant....

In the case of me vs hydro, they definitely HOLDING something that is under MY control, because they didn't returned them before cutting the service.....even though I have asked MANY times.....