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 10

May 11, 2015 12:57 AM

Pete Daoust

QUESTION.

Other than my signature, what could LEGALLY bind "me" as being surety for anything ?

Read Comments 49

Age Thomson

Any valid contract is legally binding. If the transaction does not involve legal tender, the injured parties simply substitute a legal tender amount when they take it to the courts. So, in that way, a contract that is accepted by a handshake or an oath for example is then legally binding.

Anibal Jose Baez

I think I did not understand your question Adrian. Sorry. If you could elaborate, I would appreciate that.

Having the Law of Agency in mind, I think if you use and/or posses Legal Tender, you are accepting an unconditional offer to contract. The use of it, for nobody is forcing you to use it, is acceptance to the terms, and conditions attached.

Harry Wombat

I remember Scott mentioned that if you sit down and play chess you can't claim you want to quit the game later on and expect not to lose. This reminds me of ChiefRock who says that joinder can also be created through our actions.

Great question Pete!

Anibal Jose Baez

<< I remember Scott mentioned that if you sit down and play chess you can't claim you want to quit the game later on and expect not to lose. >>

Ehh, no. I have never read/heard Scott say that Harry Wombat. :/ I think you are misquoting.

Age Thomson

From my contract law textbook....

"Acceptance is the offeree's manifestation of assent to the offer. It is the event that brings the contract into existance because the offer necessarily contemplates that the parties will become bound immediately upon the offeree's exercise of the power of acceptance."

Anibal Jose Baez

Harry Wombat, here you go: <<Think very carefully about this. If you are a novice at chess, and did not know about castling and its rules, you might raise the obvious question, “Why do you get to move two pieces?” If I refuse to explain that rule to you, and even deny you the chance to present your understanding of the rules, would you continue playing chess with me?

If you attempt to stop the game for this reason, that's when you're going to “understand” that this was a chess game for money; and that I have big, burly thugs to enforce this game. You claimed to know the rules for the engagement, even if you later disclaimed being an expert.

Novice drivers and expert drivers all have to follow the same rules. You don't get to ignore rules because you suck at them. Just as my chess board is not a chess school, the court will not allow the presumption that you being a novice is a lawful excuse. The only method to extract yourself “with honour” is to accept responsibility for the mistake in presumption. They are presuming something wrong...and you are acknowledging it's your fault. The court must accept this MISTAKE, and your entreaty for forgiveness for the unintended debt created. The court MUST do this. - Scott Duncan>>

Harry Wombat

I imagine that one day, perhaps today even, we will all be able to contract and to be surety if we want and and we'll be able to do that via a blockchain. The fact we have contracted to be surety can be confirmed 100% in a blockchain electronically and by way of computer science which is the answer to everything.

Scott Duncan

The Original Post is a redundant question. Joinder is PRESUMED the second there is A RESPONSE, legally.

Every time you go to a merchant, and purchase something there is joinder; Most do not involve a signature.

Scott Duncan

Notice that the core of what I teach REMOVES PRESUMPTION.

Damaging the security of the Birth Certificate removes that presumption PERMANENTLY. That's why that "Dan Wilson" twit is so desperate to stop you from doing it.

If you are worried about your "credit" because your name is secured, then you are too stupid to be securing your name.

Scott Duncan

Putting it simply: If you are on one of MY vessels, where I have SUPREME authority... make no mistake; There's fucking joinder.

My "enforcers" are trained to kill or maim, not babysit assholes in the brig, so chances are joinder won't be foremost on one's mind, in that circumstance.

Scott Duncan

OH! Well THAT'S easy!

ANY AND ALL PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BEARING AND/OR CONTAINING ANY AND/OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

***Insert ALL Birth Certificate information here***

INCLUDING the public security commonly KNOWN AS the "BIRTH CERTIFICATE".

Back to top