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

Sep 15, 2014 8:05 PM

Scott Duncan

I got around to finishing this. Point out errors in the here, NOT on my timeline. :P

Unique ID: 462493170453287_720361971333071
Unique Facebook User ID:
927379467328526
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
status
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 210

Gerry Odonothing

"You've learned that government, and lawyers do not speak the common language of the Angols (English), but rather a bastardized "fork" of English commonly referred to as "LEGALESE"". I certainly have Admiral, but it took your good self to drive it home to me; thanks.

Pete Daoust

Funny !!! :D ....I am all fucked-up now, I'll stick to: I am a Man, and I have a person... :D

Minority: a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, indigenous Americans (Indians) and other people supposedly "of color," despite the irony that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law.

David-Paul Sip

"As an interesting note: Birth Certificates NO LONGER WARN YOU NOT TO USE IT AS ID, have ONLY ONE signature, and have reference to it being a "FOUNDATION DOCUMENT", as if that constitutes "notice" of the same thing as was once there." Admiral Scott

I'm confused here Admiral. My boy was born in 2010 and his Birth Certificate has two (2) signatures the Deputy Registrar General (Judith Hartman) and the Registrar General (Harinder Takhar , former Transportation Minister). Did this happen recently in the last few years?

David-Paul Sip

"Sort of. Newfoundland" Lol! back to business... I have my original Ontario BC and a second I requested in the early 90's. The original has nothing on the reverse. The second BC matches the one my boy received. All of them have two signatures on the front. So does this means that birth certificates vary by province? Ontario still has two signatures.

David Vilaca

De facto: Flag in use, but without legal provision is the best I can do at this point. I see they are both near identical with Union Jack in upper left corner which represents the Royal Navy. Maritime Jurisdiction while under De Facto Authority is War upon the people? Scott how far off am I, this questions begs an answer.

David Vilaca

Ontario-A red field with the Royal Union Flag in the canton and the shield of the coat of arms of Ontario charged in the fly. Manitoba-A red field with the Royal Union Flag in the canton and the shield of the coat of arms of Manitoba charged in the fly.

David Vilaca

Canton, Canton may refer to: Contents

1 Administrative divisions 2 Place names 2.1 Australia 2.2 Canada 2.3 China 2.4 Kiribati 2.5 United States 2.6 Wales 2.7 Fictional 3 People 4 Other uses 5 See also

Administrative divisions

Age Thomson

On land, there is a distinction between civil flags (FIAV symbol FIAV 100000.svg), state flags (FIAV 010000.svg), and war or military flags (FIAV 001000.svg). State flags are those used officially by government agencies, whereas civil flags may be flown by anyone regardless of whether he/she is linked to government. War flags (also called military flags) are used by military organisations such as Armies, Marine Corps, or Air Forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_flag#National_flags_on_land

The FIAV symbol didn't display properly here in the message, you can see it at that link. It appears that it is relative to how the symbol is positioned on the flag....

Chip Douglas

David-Paul Sip "As an interesting note: Birth Certificates NO LONGER WARN YOU NOT TO USE IT AS ID, have ONLY ONE signature, and have reference to it being a "FOUNDATION DOCUMENT", as if that constitutes "notice" of the same thing as was once there."

Kent Barrett "This certificate is a valuable foundation identity document."

David Vilaca

The term "everyone" includes every human being who is physically present in Canada and by virtue of such presence amenable to Canadian law: Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177.

David Vilaca

a·me·na·ble ??m?n?b(?)l,??men?b(?)l/ adjective adjective: amenable

(of a person) open and responsive to suggestion; easily persuaded or controlled. (of a thing) capable of being acted upon in a particular way; susceptible to.

Scott Duncan

No. It is a SECURITY. Stop making shit up.

I have said repeatedly that it is A SECURITY.

Shut off that thought process that compelled you to ask that. There really ARE stupid questions! You have convinced me.

I used to think "there are no stupid questions, just inquisitive idiots". You humble me by showing I was in error. There ARE stupid questions.

Vicky Logozar

" To renounce your Canadian citizenship you must prove you are a Canadian citizen. You must also prove that you are, or will become a citizen of a country other than Canada, if this application to renounce is approved" http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/renounce.asp

Vicky Logozar

so a person formally resigns their position in the organization...how does he/she board a plane or cross a border?...won't other jurisdictions require proof of ownership before they allow entry?...there has to be some type of order between jurisdictions...like if a "branded" sheep or cow wanders off into a neighbouring farm.

Scott Duncan

Pete ADMINISTERS his PERSON, because CIVIL LAW makes it beneficial for him to do so.

COMMON LAW has no OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. It works on the DOCTRINE OF ESTATES. That is why I get ANOTHER person to TAKE OWNERSHIP of my PERSON.

I do not endorse or agree with Pete's methods, even though they are essentially correct. He will remember this as a "phase" he went through, 10 years from now. ;)

Scott Duncan

OK, now let me make you look stupid...

I TRUST Tara Duncan implicitly.

In all the wonderful years that trust has existed, I don't recall engaging in "trust business".

Perhaps you know more about the TRUST I have with Tara. Is there "secret commerce" occurring, which I have yet to be informed of? If so, why do YOU know before me?

These questions are moot, because, you are, of course, an idiot.

That is my position on "TRUST BUSINESS" and anything YOU think is just bullshit you are making up.

Chip Douglas

Wait a second... so is this why people end-up freaking-out so much when they UNCOVER that a 'charity foundation' had so much of their funds going to the ADMINISTRATION of the foundation, as opposed to how much actually went to the charity itself?

Chip Douglas

...you don't say!

(1) Organization The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (the Trust) is a tax-exempt private foundation that holds the donated investment assets from Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. The Trust operates its main office in Seattle, Washington. Bill and Melinda Gates are its Trustees. The primary role of the Trust is to manage the investment assets and transfer the proceeds to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (the Foundation) as necessary to achieve the Foundation’s charitable goals (note 8, Related Parties).

Chip Douglas

Yes- but at the same time, what % of the people will ever consider in their lifetime..."maybe im supposed to set-up a foundation trust" - oh fuck, i need a drink, this is alotta shit to wrap-my-mind-around... you are a good man, Scott Duncan

Scott Duncan

I'm having a weaponized Ebola bomb detonated there on general principal. It does NOTHING to further my agenda, and is gratuitous to be sure, but it will make me feel good, and in the end that's all that matters. :D

Chip Douglas

"Scott Duncan I do not endorse or agree with Pete's methods, even though they are essentially correct. He will remember this as a "phase" he went through, 10 years from now."

As in- instead of naming that page Pete had 'Administrate the Person,' he should've named it- 'Administrate the Foundation Trust?'

Chip Douglas

"Scott Duncan I intend to kill 2/3rds of you...You know that, right?...LIVE men and women are more VALUABLE than dead men and women."

Out of curiosity...does 1/3rd of the population of this country work for the government, by chance?

Chip Douglas

So Scott- in regards to what that Marcus/ServantKing guy kept on coyly saying in his videos about- "...first, you will have to find your way HOME, you will have to go HOME first"...does this have anything to do with the saying i first learned as a kid, that - "CHARITY, begins at HOME"...?

Chip Douglas

So you have discussed before Scott the concept of 'Doing Business As.' If one gets a lawyer, they automatically become a ward of the court. A ward of the court is considered an infant, or one of unsound mind/an incompetent unable to handle their own affairs. They are always so eager to appoint you duty counsel if you are unable to afford a lawyer, which would seem to be an act of CHARITY then by them for helping these poor 'vulnerable' out in need of representation because they dont understand the law.

Is The Law Society of Upper Canada really 'The Law Foundation' Doing Business As The Law Society of Upper Canada, and why any money you give a lawyer is put 'in trust' because they're really a Foundation?

Icbeonne Senama

In anything LEGAL asking the question WHERE IS THE SURETY? stops any further motion. Is it necessary to have resigned, formed a trust and liened the NAME in order use WHERE IS THE SURETY? Or is that separate and only useful to create money of account and damage other securities or am I totally missing something?

Anibal Jose Baez

<< Is it necessary to have resigned, formed a trust and liened the NAME in order use WHERE IS THE SURETY?>> No.

<<Or is that separate and only useful to create money of account and damage other securities or am I totally missing something?>> I am not sure exactly what you mean, but If it's LEGAL, it's about MONEY, and always subject to SURETY, and ACCOUNTING.

Is not something you "use", but rather a legitimate LEGAL question that MUST to be answered. One must not let things move forward, if that question is not answered. One does not UNDERSTAND.

Anibal Jose Baez

i.e. In the case of a court proceeding, if your questions about surety are not answered, then one cannot understand the nature, and cause. Things must not proceed. No proceedings, no accounting.

Your welcome, but I never get tired of reminding everyone all things related to LAW and MONEY I have shared, I learned from Admiral Scott.

Anibal Jose Baez

MISTAKE, and FRAUD are the only "remedy." The Notice of Mistake by itself is not "automatic." Although, in some instances it has. There is a high possibility that one may have to pose those questions in a court, at some point.

Asking the question of SURETY negates the possibility of understanding. If one does not understand, one must not proceed.

Icbeonne Senama

Well if like you said all proceedings end an therefore any accounting by simply pointing out that "I am NOT the NAME" WHERE IS THE SURETY, then how does having the NAME LIENED via a TRUST and RESIGNING make a difference to the outcome?

Anibal Jose Baez

Ok, first of all, let me clear something. I never said to point out "I am NOT the NAME".

Secondly, the question of SURETY will always be present, regardless of who the MASTER of the SLAVE is.

The NAME is a SLAVE, and the NAME has a MASTER (government). The MASTER is there to take as much VALUE from that SLAVE.

When you OFFICIALLY RESIGN, by placing a LIEN on the NAME/SLAVE, and holding that VALUE in TRUST, now YOU are the MASTER of the SLAVE. Is no longer the "government." A new PERSON you TRUST can help you administrate these affairs.

The question of surety will always be there, is who is in control of the NAME/SLAVE what is different. If you are in control, you have not only better chances of an outcome, but you may be entitled to some money, if someone insists in doing business. Just like the "government."

Did that help, Icbeonne Senama? :/

Icbeonne Senama

I didn't mean to imply that you said that "I am not the NAME" That is just my way to think. I wouldn't SAY it literally. OK your explanation is really dumbed down. Thank you it helps :P. So to that end is how we would be participating in the Admiral's agenda. By removing the Government's ability to create DEBT via the NAME...

David-Paul Sip

"Asking the question of SURETY negates the possibility of understanding. If one does not understand, one must not proceed." Mackximus Minimus This is what is supposed to happen and yet depending on the "Justice" they may proceed without you.

I will post on this in more detail later but my recent experience in traffic court was similar to what Gail Marie expierienced with the "Justice" referring to "Meads vs Meads" and then contradicting himself by having the name/person paged DEEMing that DAVID PAUL SIP was not in the courtroom. This despite 1) ME informing the court that I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the person DAVID PAUL SIP 2) I am a MAN and have the person and use the name and 3) there being a question before the court regarding SURETY (Can I use the surety of the person to discharge this public debt, or am I automatically surety because I have shown the driver's licence?)

It seems that the courts BELIEVE that the opinion from Justice ROOK gives them the authority to ignore questions they deem to fall within the MEADS vs MEADS ruling. It seems that the standard to make this interpretation is very broad.

David-Paul Sip

What is interesting is he completely contradicted himself and this MEADS ruling (which I should read) from what he said "There is no separation between the man and the person". :o Instead of calling me Mr Sip or David he had DAVID PAUL SIP paged and DEEMed DAVID PAUL SIP to have not appeared lol! Judge me by my actions not by my words. His actions (by paging the NAME/PERSON) demonstrated that he said was not recognized is TRUE :/

David-Paul Sip

I have read that if you claim to be a MAN then the courts cannot recognize or see ME. This seems to be case as this JUSTICE was in a big hurry to render judgement in the PERSONs absence to close the record.

David-Paul Sip

I think they are hence the question before the courts. Meads vs MEads is from the Alberta Queens Bench Capitaine Pete. I am in Ontario. That said Quebec is different and I am loving Quebecois more every day. Different is bien!

David-Paul Sip

One great thing is this question you suggested I ask Capitaine Pete is still before the courts and remains unanswered. Now that the PERSON was DEEMed to have not appeared and a CONVICTION entered in the PERSONs "absence" the question must be answered and this can all be done administratively :D

Anibal Jose Baez

Plus, who cares about Meat Head vs Meat Head, and any opinion from a "justice"? Haha!

I think it hurts what we are trying to acomplish when this information is used for stupid stuff, like traffic court. i mean, pay the fucking ticket! Don't fucking violate their stupid rules, and you wont get stopped. :/ This is no "free-dumb" shit.

David-Paul Sip

So do I have the right to use the SURETY of the person to discharge this public debt or not Mackximus Minimus? If I do not then I will pay. Pretty simple :D I either do or I do not...yes EVEN in traffic court.

Chris Evan

I've been thinking....why couldn't you just send the instrument to the OWNER of that thing for discharge? You have the right to the SECURITY of the person. A ticket is a SECURITY, yes? They gave you your right, now you have the right to have the owner pay for that debt, don't you?

David-Paul Sip

So let them tell me that Mackximus Minimus. I never said I would not pay but I need them to clarify what my right is regarding the SURETY. I either have the right to the SURETY of the PERSON or I do not. If signing the drivers licence made me surety then they should have no problem to say so. Capitaine Pete's question is a good one and it must be answered. The Captain thinks SURETY can also be used in traffic court and I wish to confirm this.

David-Paul Sip

A funny thing with this Tom McKeogh was when I asked for his NAME after he DEEMed the PERSON to have not appeared he answered "You haven't told me your name so why should I tell you mine?" I responded "Because YOU are required to!" He then told me his named and even made sure I got the spelling correct too. Interesting how I informed the court that I do not consent to being called by any PUBLIC NAME and NEVER not once did the justice call me anything but SIR :/ Even after quoting "Meads vs Meads"...so yes fairy tales Chris Evan

David-Paul Sip

Actually I corrected him a couple times earlier that "No I'm a ME, you're a YOU" as well as informing the court any attempt to address ME as YOU was in reference to the PERSON that I speak for as Sole Authorized Administrator ONLY. Plus the exchange above was AFTER he entered a CONVICTION in the PERSONs absence. Like I said...if that was his bait this fucktard complied with my wishes and only ever referred to me as SIR.

Chip Douglas

Mackximus, you and Scott told me to "Kill myself," the other day. But if i were to do that, wouldnt an OBITUARY NOTICE have to be put in the newspaper and be made part of the PUBLIC RECORD, presumably stating that all my assets were left to the named beneficiaries and possibly a CHARITY, and that my ESTATE is to be held IN TRUST for them?

Chris Evan

Scott, can you please tell me exactly which noun that 'its' is substituting in this sentence:

This is an account number in an ORGANIZATION of AGENTS, and the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INTERFERE with its AGENTS.

Thanks...I am not sure if it is a substitution for organization or government

Pete Daoust

They ALREADY have the person, they are just looking for a SURETY to appear....

That's the POWER of Notice of Mistake, it removes SURETY from "ME", and then, they need to make it APPEAR from somewhere else :D

Back to top