1: Establish a trust
2: Establish a corporation - In the Charter, assign the role of the
corporation to HOLD the trust, and establish the "Law" guidelines (You
get to make your own up) as regards keeping the trust.
3: Get ANY accountant to manage the books of the corporation. You
direct the corporation as FIRST DIRECTOR, and establish roles
(President/CEO Vice President, etc) which is how the UNITED STATES
was formed.
Side Note: EVER NOTICE that when the US "Liberates" a country, they
NEVER install their form of government? It's always a PARLIAMENT they
install. Figure out why that is, and things will be clearer. USE THE U.S.
AS A MODEL FOR YOUR CORPORATION.
No YOU do that. The accountant EXECUTES YOUR TASKS within the
framework. To establish a trust, write it down, and have it witnessed
and notarized. The end. Only shareholders of your corporation are
recognized by the trust.
Stop letting OTHERS define YOUR trust/claim. Call it Le Trust DuPierre,
for all I care. IT'S YOURS and your CORPORATION'S.
Using GOVERNMENT terms is an INVITATION FOR STANDING.
Naval vessels are your last autonomous refuge
Car(riage) is a commercial vehicle, not a vessel.
Is your body a vehicle or vessel (for your "soul")
What part of NAVAL VESSEL did you miss? Boat - Water - Carries SOULS
in the manifest, and has a crew.
Car - Carriage - Land -COMMERCE.
Frank O'Collins did a talkshoe-show about who owns your home even
after you've paid/discharged the mortgage - i made notes, but ill look
for it later.. but it has something to do with our city-councillors being
the head of the WARD we live in, as in - we're born in a hospital WARD,
and then if our parents are bad to us we get taken away by Childrens
Aid and become a WARD of the state
"A mortgage masks, that even if you pay off the mortgage, you will only
ever be, what is described as a ward-tennant or a tennant-in-common,
a tennant of the ward, the ward being the council(city), under the
guardianship of your council, and you are considered either mentallyunstable or an incompetent or a pauper, and that is ultimately your
standing in their eyes.. you are never an owner, only a tennant, and
owner is not the bank, the ultimate landlord is the council of your
county.. and the purpose of the birth-certificate, is to provide you with
the proof that you are not a pauper, and that you do have an equitableshare in all of this."
so ask for your principle back, when you discharge
YOU created it. YOU gave it value. The bank got its interest. Give back
the principle.
Now you have to find that IN WRITING with a signature, or you cannot
"prove" it true.
...so get your money back
So, as you can see, you were mistaken when you interpreted the acts to
mean "Money" was illegal.As I said, PAYMENT is illegal. That's why you
can only PROMISE to pay.
All promissory notes buy...is other promissory notes. The title, and
associated LEGAL status are part of the CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THAT PROMISE.
No "payment" is ever made. You simply make enough promises to
cancel any debt.
PAYMENT, is what is actually illegal, so as soon as it's legal again, I will
gladly pay you for any damages I may have caused.
LEGAL TENDER = TENDER FOR LAW
Free bonus, It's also a promissory note!
Why has nobody asked WHICH law?
A bank cannot promise what it does not have.
The thing about banking is that BOTH parties come to the table with
NOTHING, so they therefore can offer NOTHING.
Bank notes are SURETY for "money". Yes, they promise, to deliver...a
promise.
You miss the point. The court admittet that THEY THEMSELVES have no
jurisdiction. They accepted that he had the right to demand it, but if it's
his position that they have no jurisdiction, neither do their superiors, so
why send the case there?
The court does not DENY and actually ACCEPTS that they have no
jurisdiction. That is the basis for denying an appeal!
If you go to the dentist and say "Gimme a new fuel injector for my car",
he's going to say no, and bill you for the time you wasted.
You can APPEAL to his "manager", but that won't change anything. The
manager can't help. Don't bother him (Said this ruling)!
LEGALLY you only have ONE "UNALIENABLE" right; The right NOT to
CONTRACT.
INALIENABLE RIGHTS can be sold to the highest bidder.
If you can SELL it, it's YOURS. That's why Prostitution has NEVER been
illegal in the Commonwealth.
"What is considered in lieu of, to be 'money' now in its place"? - THAT
was the question.
Now the ACTUAL answer. You can read the Bills Of Exchange act...then
the interpretation act (assuming you know what the words MEAN, and
most of you don't) because there's a few things they need to shuffle
around, so nobody clues in...
...or you can cheat, and just read what I say:
On April 10, 1933, PAYMENT became illegal, NOT MONEY.
I occurs to me that you can't tell the difference between ownership and
possession.
WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE TWO?
OWNERSHIP
POSSESSION
There is only ONE difference.
LAW is about CONTRACT for COMMERCE and its INTENT.
The ONLY thing COMMERCE (and therefore Law) cares about is MONEY,
so THEREFORE, if you OWN it, you can SELL it.
Interest. That's why they have "chequing" and "savings" accounts. GAIN
is money you did not labour for.
Money of EXCHANGE is taxed as INCOME
Money of ACCOUNT is taxed as EARNINGS
.COM = commercial
.NET = infrastructure
.ORG = organization of humans
.CA = Top Level Country Domain (2 characters)
.MIL = military
.GOV = government
LAW is only concerned with INTENT.
JOHN is my GIVEN name. SCOTT is my TAKEN name. I've been SCOTT
since childhood.
When ALL of you own MORE THAN ONE BOAT and you don't want those
vessels regulated by international law, THEN UCC will be useful. THE
REST IS BULLSHIT. YOU ARE NOT A BOAT!
CC is just INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE. You can't even figure out what
to do about MONEY, muchless USE UCC to any advantage! STAY AWAY
FROM IT.
LIEN yourself with a PRIVATE TRUST
they AREN'T declaring war on "ME", they are declaring war on your
PERSON
YOU ARE NOT A PERSON! You HAVE a PERSON.
"BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU DECLARE WAR ON MY PERSON"? Don't
change it or add to it.
Charles, WHY do you want to find case law? LEARN LAW to EXTRACT
yourself.
Marriages are PRIVATE TRUSTS with a GOVERNMENT LIEN on the
parties.
That is why PRENUPTUAL AGREEMENTS are so EASY to kill. POST
NUPTIAL agreements are ROCK solid. I have NEVER seen a challenged
POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT succeed. Not even once.
If you make an amendment to the marriage, the GOVERNMENT has no
say. It's TRUST business now.
Charles: Next time, LIEN THE A.G. using the CASE FILE number as the
account. The money goes to you, win or lose.
WHO ARE YOU? Is the MOST powerful question you can ask in court.
It REMOVES PRESUMPTION
It negates the assumption that there's "UNDERSTANDING"
It makes Justice's CRINGE at the thought of being revealed as a NON
PARTY WITH SURETY
Why would YOU prove it?
CRA: You owe us money. Pay up...the INCOME TAX ACT says so!
YOU: INCOME TAX ACT? Never heard of it, and I didn't sign it. If the
Government did, then I guess I DO owe tax...Best check first. You ARE a
GOVERNMENT worker, after all. If you were an honest man/woman
you'd never be working there!
So I need to see if it's true. What was the BILL number this ACT was
heard under? and what year?
CRA: I don't...
It;s a BILL, Like "Bill C-130" or the like. Year and bill number please. I'll
be able to check for myself.
CRA: ...what?
YOU: I see. You're inept. I get it. Please send me to your manager.
They need to prove to YOU. Not the other way around. EXTRAORDINARY
CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
THEY are claiming you are obliged!
That's ok. They're just STANDING BY. (The government is in fact
PROROGUED)
1985 Bill C-1 is what it claims. SOMEBODY SHOW ME THE BILL!
1: Demand PROOF that you owe. A BILL or a SIGNED INVOICE will do.
They never produce one
2: SET THE TERMS THROUGH NOTICE (Do not sign it! A notice of NO
PARKING or KEEP OFF THE GRASS is not signed; neither should yours
be)
Return ALL paper to them REGISTERED MAIL, along with NOTICE.
Signing attaches a NAME to the RESPONSE. Surety is assumed.
No Name
No signature
No Surety
You want to send a "keep off the grass" notice, not write a love letter
and/or become pen pals.
NO BRACKETS! You exclude the contained from the document.
BY:________________NON ASSUMPSIT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Just got off the phone with them. I asked- "When you say- "For security
reasons,' what exactly ARE those reasons at least.. and, when you say
"unable," is that code-word for UNWILLING or NON-COMPLIANT...?" The
answer?.. "Take it up with your MP." I told them- "Theres a Maxim-ofLaw that says- "To be silent is one thing, to CONCEAL is another"....all
VERILY surreptitious
What i found, is if you send any request to them ending in a questionmark(?), then they take you through the morass of FREEDOM-OFINFORMATION-ACT bullshit. Remember, thats an Act. And who do ACTS
apply to? Do you work for the Government? Thats why i always send a
letter with "please provide for me FULL-DISCLOSURE" instead..
THAT is CORRECT and VERY important. LOOK AT THE MECHANICS of
what he just said. It applies EVERYWHERE. When they MENTION AN
ACT, they are giving you a "program" like at a live theatre.
So by identifying as a RESIDENT of a STATE within the EU and using
the currency within the UNION, we accept the ACT/STATUTE that relates
to the country joining the UNION? Pretty much, yes. With central banks
you KNOW who the trustee is...No clue who the trustee for the EURO is.
Surety talk? OK! TODAY'S WORD IS... ESTREAT!
Becoming a surety for someone accused of a crime is a lovely way to
voluntarily enter into bonded servitude. You consent to the jurisdiction,
yourself, having committed no crime, and agree to provide valuable
assets, guarantees and unpaid babysitting for the new “ward of the
court”.
While it may be tempting to get mom out of jail, after she allegedly
robbed the jewelery store and all, you are guaranteeing the “accused”
complies with all conditions imposed by the court (to secure their
temporary liberty), and accepting full financial responsibility for any
action, or inaction, deemed as a default of those undertakings. It's a
little like that advertisement for “bits and bites”. You never know what
the conditions are going to be when you consent to the process.
If things don't go well, be prepared to say farewell to some, or all, of
your assets.
Estreat (French estrait, Latin extracta) means, originally, a true copy or
duplicate of some original writing or record; since the 1900s used only
with reference to the enforcement of a forfeited recognizance.
At one time it was the practice to extract and certify into the exchequer
copies of entries in court rolls which contained provision or orders in
favor of the treasury, hence the estreating of a recognizance was the
taking out from among the other records of the court in which it was
filed and sending it to the exchequer to be enforced, or sending it to the
sheriff to he levied by him, and then returned by the clerk of the peace
to the lords of the treasury.
I can point you in the right direction, but I'm not your law library. I had
to research this 20 years before Google.
I can show you what to read. That's it. Anything ELSE is ACTING AS A
SOLICITOR. I'm sorry I am not leaping up to accommodate your slothlike interest in the subject matter, but I actually had to WORK for my
knowledge, and so will you.
So if there's a hearing set for a particular date and it's being held for the
PERSON I'm authorised to represent, notification of the capacity/ies
should be sent asap...?
Yes, and notify them that you are there as a "Friend of the Court". Not
as Plaintiff or Defendant"
RE: "If we appoint the JP ADMINISTRATOR can't he re-assign the role
of beneficiary to the state?" - No, because the STATE gave it no VALUE.
YOU did. YOU get the benefit, not a state trust.
Ok, "statement of live birth"...is a statement.
"Fiona Munro want's to make porn with me" ...is a statement.
Scott Duncan was born on February 31st 1966 ...is a STATEMENT.
All have equal value.
...and have NOTHING to do with law.
Ok... Got ya. The BC is the only important document...
So registration of birth notifies the GOVERNMENT of another
man/woman in the country. They then create the PERSON for us to use
as beneficiary, they are surety and administrator is us also unless we
wish to appoint someone else... Like when we write up our last will and
testament, we appoint an executor....
NAME attached to VESSEL. That's all it is.
YOUR "WILL" is something to research for clarity. Remember, there are
NO HOMONYMS IN LAW.
BIRTH CERTIFICATES are NOT FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP is FEDERAL
Reading the "CLUB RULES" is fine IF YOU ARE IN THE CLUB!
YOU AREN'T.
Dude, if you were who you say you were you wouldn't be in THIS
jurisdiction. OUT! If you come back, we'll charge you with "trespassing".
Where is this vessel? That's where the trial must be held.
You know what.....its like that guy Russ Rawlingson said in an earlier
thread- ""Prove your claim I have to comply with Legislation"
LIEN IT so THEY get no value. You are free then... except you can't get
credit. ...but your corporation can!
THIS, is a TENDER FOR LAW.
Let's look at the LEGAL aspects of this. (Legal=Commerce)
Commerce. You sell TRUST, for FIAT CURRENCY? REALLY?
This is where the term "sold out" came from. The 13 Colonies spawned
the term. EVERYONE knew who they were and they understood
Jurisdiction. It's why they left the Banker's dominion called "Europe"
behind.
TRUST LAW IS THE HIGHEST LAW
DON'T SELL ITS VALUE TO LOWER LAW!
Safe Harbour is one of the OLDEST Legal concepts.
safe harbor. (1960) 1. An area or means ofprotection. 2.
A provision (as in a statute or regulation) that affords
protection from liability or penalty.
- Property registered to the PERSON I would think that once the property isn't used to cause harm then any
interaction between THEM and the PERSON in relation to the property is
just an attempt to engage a man/woman as surety for their benefit yes?
i.e. - My car is registered to the PERSON. They own their PERSON but I
have control of it. Any contact from them after registration is an offer
from them for me to act as trustee and take liability for alleged debts?
If YOU signed it, YES YOU ARE surety. YOU SIGNED.
The SECOND YOU USE THEIR MONEY, you are in THEIR JURISDICTION!
THIS
NOTE
IS
LEGAL
TENDER
THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW which says none of your fucking
RATES mean shit and you are committing FRAUD.
YOU ONLY NEED MONEY WHEN YOU ARE SPENDING IT!
The rest of the time MONEY is DEBT and OBLIGATION. HOARDING IT IS
STUPID!
Everybody think about that. I'm saying it for a reason. Get the concept
in your head, and cement it there. You'll know why later.
[ DON'T PUT THINGS IN BRACKETS UNLESS YOU WISH TO EXCLUDE IT
FROM THE DOCUMENT ]
notice that it's PAYABLE.
...except FIAT CURRENCY IS NOT "PAYMENT". PAYMENT is actually
ILLEGAL!
It's payABLE. You could PAY it, if it was legal. The ONLY alternative is
either to set it off on the books, or discharge the debt.
HINGS are transported on a "Artificial Created Space or WATER" I think
its regulated by ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW, but I am Not Sure, and the
Currents in this water is another Jurisdiction maybe its COMMERCIAL
LAW..... I see something here but I am to stupid to figure it out!
You're the LAWFUL Holder in due course, of that $50 note (no.
AMA4308541)
WHOA..... have i just figured-out that my/the Birth/Stock Certificate is
waiting for me to claim as soon as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy
and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born?
RE:"...as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given
for it 2 weeks after i was born? " - It's even simpler than that. A sworn
affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or
notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation.
The government is not a PERSON. You have a PERSON and YOU are
responsible. You contracted with a TRUST, not a PERSON. The signature
PROVES you UNDERSTAND.
There's ONLY ONE PERSON INVOLVED, YOURS!
THE PERSON (There IS only one in the transaction) is ALWAYS
responsible.
GOVERNMENT is a TRUST.
BIRTH CERTIFICATE = BILL OF LADING
Parents were the GRANTOR (one of the parties that created the bill of
lading).
Listen up and pay attention.
YOU ARE THE CARRIER!
A Truck ACTING AS CARRIER is NOT "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"!
IT IS, IN FACT, A CARRIER THAT HAS "120,000 RonCo Turnip
Twaddlers"!
It's delivering it to YOU (The Beneficiary). It just hasn't arrived yet.
You don't know that YOU own the CARGO. If you OWN the cargo you are
transporting you are no longer in commerce. You are transporting
PROPERTY.
The NAME is the CARGO, and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the BILL OF
LADING. It's valueless on it's own. Hence the term "Sold a bill of goods".
Ok, got it so far (I think)...so when you lien the name, are you doing it
because you haven't been paid for transport/carriage of the goods? You
are letting the world know that the cargo is in fact YOURS. Nobody has
the right to presume your cargo is for commerce now. That i ALL a Lien
is.
A maritime lien is a lien on a vessel, given to secure the claim of a
creditor who provided maritime services to the vessel or who suffered
an injury from the vessel's use. Maritime liens are sometimes referred to
as tacit hypothecation. Maritime liens have little in common with other
liens under the laws of most jurisdictions.
The maritime lien has been described as "one of the most striking
peculiarities of Admiralty law".[14] A maritime lien constitutes a security
interest upon ships of a nature otherwise unknown to the common law
or equity. It arises purely by operation of law and exists as a claim upon
the property concerned, both secret and invisible, often given priority by
statute over other forms of registered security interest.[15] Although
characteristics vary under the laws of different countries, it can be
described as:
a privileged claim,
upon maritime property,
for service to it or damage done by it,
accruing from the moment that the claim attaches,
travelling with the property unconditionally,
enforced by an action in rem.[14]
An action IN REM, versus, an action IN PERSONAM..... interesting stuff
PIERRE WRITES SCOTT A CHEQUE - What/Where is SURETY?
LIABLE = SURETY!
Ok...so I have Pierre Daoust's SURETY that he can pay me through the
trustee (bank), so I ENDORSE that SURETY, (Signature)...
Now, look at the $20 Bill... 2 signatures, and a Bank as a TRUSTEE...
So now you have 3 of the SAME THINGS, DON'T WE?
BIRTH CERTIFICATE
TWENTY DOLLAR BILL
CHEQUE FROM PIERRE TO SCOTT
Yes, SECRET SERVICE is the U.S. treasury dept. They also guard the
CEO of the Bank.
PAWN SHOP = Private Bank that pre-seizes assets.
Zero is the most powerful number.
The romans made THEIR numbers to HIDE it.
That precious number zero. Hidden ON PURPOSE to keep the masses
(dumb)
No... it's good for them. They are slaves by consent. 5 years is about
how long it takes.
The fastest was 7 months.
Slowest 9 years.
MOST of you DO NOT COMPREHEND what this sideshow is.
COPYRIGHT issues are the "Proving Grounds" of repugnant legal
concepts. It's purpose is to gauge how much the general public will
"push back", when watered-down versions of what is coming, are
tested.
Pay very close attention, and SPEAK UP... YES, with your FUCKING
PERSON! This is part of something MUCH bigger.
I'll be covering the MUCH BIGGER things here in the comments. If you
have the time, watch the videos I post in the comments.
For the "PROVING GROUNDS" are about to be transformed into
something MUCH more insidious.
WATERMARK = MARITIME
EXCHEQUER BILL = EXCHEQUER ACQUITTANCE
Passport = MONEY. It's a "Bank Book" of the PERSON/GOVERNMENT
credit you carry with you to foreign Jurisdiction. This is why a Passport
from CANADA is worth more than a passport from Lebanon.
ADMINISTRATORS ARE TRUSTEES.
The HOLDER/KEEPER ENABLES the trustees. The Keeper follows ALL
legal orders of trustees. They HAVE to. THEY represent THE TRUST
ITSELF as a TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.
When i brought up to my paralegal-instructor this past week who is a
lawyer about Prerogative Writs, he admitted to me that he had forgotten
about those cuz itd been awhile since he had ever done one, but he did
admit that "you are talking about common law Writs." He thought i was
asking him about Civil writs which were/are the ones you are talking
about i believe Fiona- WRIT OF POSSESSION. I could tell he was quite
surprised that i even knew about Prerogative writs at all and further
surprised as i listed off all 5 of them as he could only remember two. I
think you need to declare to the court that you are not there IN
PERSONAM, but, that you are there IN REM. IN PERSONAM = agree to
the jurisdiction.. IN REM = you are there to protect/defend a right
'against the world,' which would entail that Maxim that no one shall be
dragged from their house, an inviolable right which is even entrenched
in the Constituition of IRELAND
Commercial Maxims (Basic Rules)
1. A workman is worthy of his hire
Legal maxim: It is against equity for freemen not to have the free
disposal of their own property.
2. All are equal under the Law
Legal maxim: No one is above the law.
3. In Commerce truth is sovereign
Legal maxim: to lie is to go against the mind.
4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit
Legal maxim: (none)
5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce
Legal maxim: He who does not deny, admits.
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce
Legal maxim: (none . . . concept of the duel without weapons)
7. A matter be expressed to be resolved
Legal maxim: He who fails to assert his rights has none.
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default
Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
Legal maxim: He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter
affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment
Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is
absolved.
Every thing is a promise to pay until you accept it as payment.
I promise to pay you this cow for that chicken. Until the exchange is
complete, it's Promissary.
I promise to give you this $100.00 dollar bill for that Ipod.
I would question not what debt is but rather WHO'S debt it is. If it isn't
mine then I don't give a rats a** what it is.
MONEY as DEBT is like the UCC, What do you care of it if you have
nothing to do with it. Just my OPINION by the way.
Ever hear about the Guy in Germany in 1930 something that went to
the bank with a wheel barrel full of cash to deposit it. He turned to open
the door and when he turned back Thieves had taken his wheel barrel,
left the cash on the ground.
It also covers the creation of DIGITAL currency.
Use MATH instead of a "central authority".
One can only "Believe" in a "Central Authority".
One can TRUST math.
REMEMBER, the ONLY time you NEED money is when you are SPENDING
it.
'When do you need Money?' I took a tenth time look at it and come up
with this.
Hang on, let me peel the layers of onion away.
All the money in the world and you still starve/freeze/get rained on
whatever.
You NEED MONEY when You NEED/WANT something and Someone else
has what You NEED/WANT but will only accept MONEY in exchange .
The action of the transfer of value is the SPENDING part.
K. I butchered that one up with a dull knife but the parts still work.
The courts can only "see" legal. Lawful is outside their jurisdiction.
I love THIS gem: "cannot demonstrate that the future injury they
purportedly fear is certainly impending and because they cannot
manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation for nonimminent harm."
REALLY? They couldn't look at a HISTORY BOOK?
Well let's look at history. Surely we can find some ancient wisdom
there...
What did Italy do to THEIR fascist leaders? Hmmm...
Unless you are prepared to drag them into the street and behead them,
and hang their lifeless carcasses outside the court as a warning to
others, I'm not sure what you can do.
The general ignorance/faith/apathy of the MAJORITY (who are ALWAYS
wrong) is what allows this to happen.
History is repeating itself.
I know. Ireland is where they test oppressive policy to gauge the
"blowback". If it's acceptable, they implement it globally.
You are at "Ground Zero".
You're "patient #1"
Ireland is where I look for what's coming in this game of global Tetris.
Well if you try to corral the cattle too quickly, they tend to stampede.
They want it nice and quiet...fast, but quiet.
By the time the majority snap out of their haze, it will be too late.
...and they ALWAYS go running to the people who first saw it coming,
for answers.
I have a ONE WORD answer waiting for them, when they do; DIE.
So if the courts are only able to see LEGAL.. who sees LAWFUL then?
YOU DO, DIPSHIT! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SCREAMING THESE PAST
MONTHS!
We are all acting as PASSENGERS on a ship, and we FORGOT WE WERE
THE CAPTAINS! The "crew" has taken over and when they change
course, they tell you that it's done with the "captain's approval" and
they tinker with the "autopilot" to change the course.
Do you get what I'm saying here?
If you DO get a gun and intend to USE it, know who you are "retiring".
Look for any TITLE and find the deputy/vice of that post. That's who you
shoot.
Pinky was the genius. The Brain was Insane. Sorry you missed that.
I suppose "evil" genius" is what would fit into your current limited
view... except you don't know what evil is.
Evil is a lack of empathy. Malice, and hostile intent are not necessarily
evil but a lack of empathy makes such things evil.
I worry and take action to those I deem important, but the rest love
"belief" which is the ultimate evil.
Genius? No. I simply woke up sooner. I don't possess any mental
powers you don't. I've just been doing this far longer.
If lawful only exists outside the courts then who gives a crap what they
piss as legal
NOW you get it Cara Small Atherton!
Remember that. THAT is the fraud the Noble Lie sells. It's not what the
"freeloaders-on-the-land" mean...even though they are right... they are
just right for the wrong reasons.
Now. if the more astute among you realize that I am generating
"dependant" viewers, you will see how to kill "the system".
Make the system DEPEND on you.
No "striking back"...just infiltration through tender.
The "getting lost" part is the GOOD part. You are objective, and can
absorb new concepts. "Getting Lost" is a state I long for, which is why I
seek out new things to learn CONSTANTLY.
The thing about "remedy" is that there is already a transaction in
progress, and it's up the the parties involved.
Since the government CAN'T be a "party" they can't be an INJURED
PARTY, so it's THEY who have no "remedy".
Stop accepting surety in transactions IF YOU HAVE transactions.
Bitcoin is CURRENCY. Nothing more. The BANK part is YOU.
So...... Once corporation is established and we create credits.
People who need credits purchase our credits they
Benefit from credits.
We keep filling the atm up and eventuality the monetary system reaches
a point where bitcoin has got them running?
No we keep that money (It's the GOOD stuff! Money of exchange!), only
send the INTEREST back to Canada.
Putting money back into circulation, gives the Canadians money they
can earn to pay THEIR interest.
Scott Duncan It will allow economic growth for an extra 30 years and kill
the banks in the process.
So that's the big deal.....
That is one big benefit of sovereignty.
The ability to create credit. Wow!
Its good to be the King!
Yes...SO BE A FUCKING KING!
Study BITCOIN MINING. Collectively the "individual" banks MINE in a
cluster. Coins harvested get distributed evenly throughout. EVERYONE
gets a piece of the loot. Money grows by sitting there and it is like
"interest" but at 6 or 7 percent.
In the LEGAL Jurisdiction, Elizabeth Windsor is the only sovereign.
In REALITY you are a semi-evolved chimp that made it this far. Label
that anyway you wish.
Elizabeth Windsor can do NOTHING.
The QUEEN TAKES ORDERS, SHE DOES NOT GIVE THEM!
Who is HER master?
YOU ARE!
People are SUPPOSED to elect people who REPRESENT YOUR
INTERESTS, instead the people always elect the person they:
Like the most
Hate the least
...with NO understanding of the issues.
This is a self-made mess. Our Grandparents legacy has been shit on.
Seriously though, you are living in a universe, that by its very nature, is
trying TO KILL YOU.
We are on a tiny rock, in a thin magnetic field, and beyond that is a
universe that you will DIE if you are actually there. Down here on the
surface it's not much better.
Homo-sapiens are NOT by any stretch of the imagination "sovereign".
We need to cooperatively sustain ourselves, because as animals go, we
kind of suck. No fur/horns/spikes/sharp talons, to protect us... Just a
soft tasty snack for anything with a spine, that eats other things.
What level of "sovereign" do you think you can achieve alone?
I for one would die without Tara, my crew, and my trustees and officers.
I REALLY DO serve them, because they REALLY DO make my life in
EVERY MEASURABLE WAY, better than the majority.
...but I'm NOT "sovereign" by ANY stretch of the imagination. I need
them. They seem to need me. So, no sovereignty for Scott Duncan.
What are the group's thoughts on Credit Unions? Open bonded, not
employment related.
Credit Unions are COMMON LAW BANKS. USE THEM, because the rules
are a LOT different. NO MONEY OF ACCOUNT. It' all Money of exchange,
leveraging the fractional reserve system (Money of account).
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE - IS IT JUST AN INTERNET MEME?
IS IT REAL?
no one wants to bite on this one? I believe considering the definitions of
money, that the process has some truth to it ...if anyone actually could
pin down that process, but the banks have you believing you signed
away your rights to presentment,etc, so going through the bank might
not work without a fight. Convincing a utility company to send a true bill
(signed) is near impossible...all that said, when you start asking
questions that no one has or will give answers to, something about it
seems to have merit.
SORT of. MONEY OF ACCOUNT can be set off this way, money of
EXCHANGE cannot.
Government is your bitch. You can stiff them with funny (hysterical,
really) money, for eternity. THEY AREN'T AND CANNOT BE AN INJURED
PARTY.
with the exception of Scott and Kelleran, negotiating cash, or .... lol
(being a private contract of men/women) in all cases I can think of,
where corporations are involved, commerce should be dealt as a set off
(money of account)...if i am comprehending properly, the ONLY value to
the paper is what/when we give it, by signing it...banks don't make
money out of thin air without our signed note....that can then be
exchanged for cash...or data entry on the computer, i've read, ALL
"money" is loaned into existence...I would venture that is true, what
they don't say, is that it is first loaned from us in the form of the original
note.
CLOSE. Banks issue CREDIT in FOREIGN currency. YOUR SIGNATURE is
your "Domestic Currency", as you "make" that "money" with your
signature. YOU create it. YOU are the AUTHORity that creates the
money. The BANK provides the service of...
CURRENCY EXCHANGE.
OF COURSE it's simple. It's LAW. Law MUST be simple if you are to gain
UNDERSTANDING. No contract without UNDERSTANDING.
UCC is ONLY useful if you have a fleet of ships.
Watch "Money As Debt III" and stop trying to DESTROY debt, just move
it elsewhere. You want your paid debt to become MONEY OF EXCHANGE.
YOU "create" money and it is endorsed by the bank, who will act as
currency exchange. One mortgage/loan exists. That's where the money
comes from...no surprise there.
Where does the INTEREST come from?
If you make YOUR bank deposit to your bank's accounts and you instead
MOVE the payment into BITCOIN or another currency of exchange, that
"paid" money goes BACK INTO the free market. YOU don't profit
EVERYONE ELSE DOES.
Get it?
You remove control of the money supply from the banks.
People will still pay interest, but that interest gets returned to the
"spendable" market.
Taxes would be paid by people who get loans from YOU, if you ran a
republic... or a trust... with people you trust... which form a
community...
If it's a logo and ON signature, it's not even a BANK NOTE! It's a
COUPON.
The new Canadian bills and Birth certificates are like that.
The TENDER FOR LAW is on the bill/coupon IF it says so (THIS NOTE IS
LEGAL TENDER). The FUNCTION of the instrument is NOT a tender for
law.
Coupon, Bank note, etc. It does not matter. A tender for law (Open to
offers to enjoin) can be on ANYTHING.
It's a bloody contract each time you use it then. Accepted for value and
exchanged for something else.
NOW you get it
LAW 'IS' finance, about the transfer of VALUE, or another word,
'SURETY'
You POSSESS the NAME. THEY own IT...
We are BENEFICIARY of the PERSON/NAME.
He who creates, owns... Creator = Surety/Liable party
There is only one signature on newly issued "Birth certificates" and the
new plastic bills only have BANK OF CANADA trustees signing (Nobody
from the government, like a treasurer).
This is not "your money" anymore and will help facilitate the "North
American Union" that's coming.
THE U.S. has no value and nobody is buying their debt anymore. They
will solve this by absorbing Canada and Mexico, and bleeding out
resources.
"Out of dodge" = Location's designation is "ZETA Aquilae".
You need boats to get there. It's not something that is public.
Even people who lived with and studied under me do not know its
location.
ZETA AQUILAE is the name of a server, as far as people like Andrew
Langevin, and the like, know.
It will also take a LONG time to get there, and I don't want to be
underway when war breaks out. I want to be settled in and lounging by
the time THAT happens.
We all did out best. We tried for 25 years to warn ALL of you, and for
what?
All I got out of it was:
A dead child.
Guns stuck in my face and removal from/of my home, and "what are
you gonna do about it" as remedy.
Failed students, who now declare "it was all them" and I was just
"incidental".
...and all sorts of nasty descriptions regarding my character.
So I'm liquidating and leaving. I shall sit back, surround myself with
those who have EARNED my TRUST, and we will all watch the
spectacular ass-kicking you've all got coming.
That's all that's left.
ou love the matrix (belief) too much.
Don't beat yourself up though. The majority is like that.
If you trust a systems engineer about a computer, because of their
KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE, and they tell you that something you
"BELIEVE" about a computer is wrong...you don't stand by "belief" when
the Systems Engineer says you need to get the computer working!
Expecially if it's NEEDED to run the point defence system of the loction
the "believer" is at.
That is just ONE example.
Clinging to "belief" that contradicts reality, EVEN IF YOU DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE REALITY, is toxic. There is no hostile intent. Belief is
EVIL. I will never abide it. EVER.
OPPT ...except it's FRAUD.
Sorry to poop on your party.
I'll wait for you to get the name-calling out of the way before I show you
what credulous dolts you are.
Face it. You're too stupid for self-determination/self-actualization.
The axiom "just because YOU say something is fraud..." applies to
EVERYONE here...except me.
WHEN I SAY IT'S FRAUD.
It's fraud.
You call me names, and all the bad shit you always do. I will just pump
out an easy dissection. It will take a few hours, but this is FRAUD.
You are BEING DUPED.
But you babble on about what you think is true... I want LOTS of chatter
about it here...
No really... I do. LOT'S of people supporting it. EVERYTHING.
I want to hear you all...
Then I will do ONE simple post showing that you are ALL too stupid for
words and will BELIEVE ANYTHING.
You people WRITE YOUR OWN ROUND-UP LISTS!
You SELL FRAUD, you BECOME FODDER.
please shut up about how much your "rate" is. They don't CARE. The
SECOND YOU USE THEIR MONEY, you are in THEIR JURISDICTION!
THIS
NOTE
IS
LEGAL
TENDER
THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW which says none of your fucking
RATES mean shit and you are committing FRAUD.
YOU DID NOT WATCH MONEY AS DEBT III. I TOLD YOU ALL TO SHUT
YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLES UNTIL YOU WATCH IT! WELL this breaks
down the FRAUD....
Too much credit. I have people smarter than me I throw things at, to
see if my position holds.
The biggest LIE that "BELIEF" sells is the De Facto notion that
something cannot be understood... because they (the "believers") don't
understand.
God did it. No need to understand. Waste of time.
The fact that you think that's what it is, means you will never have an
original thought in your head.
Do you REALLY "BELIEVE" that?
I ask you now, before I post. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?
Ah the Belief Bigot declares a "Brief encounter" is enough to clinically
diagnose me. His declaration shall now be deemed "valid". I will post
after proofreading is done.
I sure hope I have the intellectual prowess to defeat such a strong
rational position as the "believer" just posed.
The UCC. YES it's ADMIRALTY.
It regulates INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE within the jurisdiction of the
WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY (Currently the U.S. Dollar).
That's the funny thing: If you owned a fleet of ships and a Port, in the
country holding the RESERVE currency, that crap they spew with ONE
PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, might work...might.
But you'd have ships and ports to foreclose on.
Community is doomed as long as "Belief" is given VALUE.
All of which can be avoided, by understanding the technology and
extracting the benefit, while knowledgeably being able to remove
processes that work against your interests.
BELIEF removes that possibility. Look how he is PROUD of his ignorance.
"I'll admit that im not great with technology, & proudly so.", is not a
solution to ANYTHING. He thinks it's a VIRTUE.
This is why "Belief" has no value. There it is. In 2 posts.
BELIEF is taking NOT THINKING and making a virtue out of it. THAT IS
WHY it's worthless. IT CAN'T have value because of what it IS.
RUAIRI..no offence...but a few days ago, Scott walked us through
breaking-down the logistics behind what makes an effective NOTICE.
Now...id like Scott, after watching Money As Debt III, to walk us through
on how to format and structure an effective CLAIM OF RIGHT, cuz i
realize the only reason i use legal-tender, is not because i accepted their
OFFER-of-law..but because ive never sent them CLAIM for the right to
set-off/discharge my debt as they afford me to do per section 9. of the
Bills of Exchange Act, because YOU just wanna fuckin' talk about this
Spider-Mandammed Peoples Trust shit!
" If OPPT is what I "believe" it to be, then obviously all of what Scott &
you guys stand for is null & void. "
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I rest my case.
THIS is why "belief" needs to be destroyed. Ignoring reality and smugly
saying "belief" trumps it. This is rational in his eyes.
EVERY time one of you sells belief, i see this play out. If you've EVER
wondered how the Noble Lie took hold, this is it.
The "virtue" this guy espouses is what allows entire cultures to be
victimized. Keep that in mind whenever you see these people selling
"belief" as the highest principle.
These are the "mafia wives" of the system. ENABLERS.
ALWAYS hit them with the ridicule and contempt they deserve.
That's the problem with cognitive dissonance. Thinking and believing are
mutually exclusive. When someone advances a fact that is in direct
conflict with what you "believe" it is impossible to hold onto the belief if
you are examining the foundations of why you think your "beliefs" are
true.
Unfortunately, in the case where your entire entire existence is founded
on a series of "beliefs", how can you let that go without completely reexamining who and what you are? Belief, when countered with logic, has
the ability to “lock” people's brains. The only defense against letting go
of all unproductive thought is to stick your fingers in your ears, reiterate
your beliefs at the top of your lungs, and hope that insulting the person
talking to you will convert them, or make them go away.
Holy “Three Little Pigs” house foundation kids. Talking to people who
“believe” everything, but don't actually “know” anything, is largely
predictable and very tiring.
...and it if it requires "belief" it's fraud. The people selling you the fraud,
don't know it's a fraud. They all serve people they will NEVER meet.
QUEBEC IS A FREE STATE with LOOSE TREATIES with "CANADA".
That's it. There is nothing else. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. Figure
out why they are lying and you'll see who they work for.
Watch Money as Debt III. If you say you did, you are lying/stupid.
Go watch it (Again?) and YOU come back and tell ME why the Federal
reserve notes HAVE VALUE.
Tell me what VALUE the notes have... (AND IT'S NOT BELIEF). YES! A
measure of accounting to gauge FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY. FIAT MONEY
OF EXCHANGE (Federal Reserve Notes) IS THE ACTUAL FUTURE
PRODUCTIVITY.
Only 5% of the US money supply is this type of money. IT IS THE ONLY
ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF A NATION'S VALUE.
It's NATURE is it's value. It cannot be tampered with without
IMMEDIATE detection.
Yes. If a cop assaults you hunt him down, if he has children kill one. Pick
off people who BENEFIT from his job.
You are using MATH when you visualise these things. It's so normal to
you, you hardly think about it. That is because MATH is REAL. That is
why you can pull an idea from your head and bring it into the real world.
The law enters the real world by the ignorant executing process. It
never actually enters the real world. Keep that in mind, and you will
master the skill in hours.
You talking hypothetically? forget that. ummmmm because "LAW" and
everything in its pervew is not actually real then it is a construct only of
ideas and theories that can never be put forth onto the 'table'? so to
speak?
NOW you get it.
Now just remember the RULES. The most important being:
THERE ARE NO HOMONYMS IN LAW
THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN LAW (Unless defined, of course)
and NEVER presume you know what something means. If a phrase in
LAW confuses you, LOOK UP EVERY WORD, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU
ALREADY KNOW.
I was 9 when I learned that. Nothing's changed. It still works. Try it.
Let me say that again, to stress clarity: If a phrase in LAW confuses
you, LOOK UP EVERY WORD, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW
THE MEANING OF SOME OF THOSE WORDS!
ATTACK takes planning and a COMPLETE understanding. You have to
have won before you even start.
ATTACKS on their turf do not forgive error. Plan for EVERYTHING and
PREPARE. It's a LOT more effort than defending.
Remember: 2+2=4
It's TRUE if I say it.
It's TRUE if These two say it
It's TRUE if Charles Manson says it.
TRUTH is TRUTH. Who speaks it is irrelevant. TRUTH has NOTHING to do
with who says it.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF)
You'll notice I didn't use the word TRUST.
Scams like this diminish the word in much the same way
GOVERNMENTS have diminished the words “human rights”. As this is
my forum, I think I will prevent the concept of TRUSTS being diminished
any further by this scam.
So OPPF it is.
Before I get started about this, I'm going to raise another TRUST
system. It should have died at the outset because one guy ends up with
the money. I'm talking about bitcoin, except you can TRUST and VERIFY
bitcoin. It is a mathematical process that requires no trust. You don't
need to trust bitcoin any more than you need to trust 2 + 2 = 4; and
that's why bitcoin is a perfectly viable currency until the guy who started
it gets all the money.
It is an automated-accounting, self-regulated currency. Bitcoin is the
by-product of our knowledge of fundamental universal truths regarding
numbers. For math is a pure discipline. There's nothing more to learn
about it, and trillions of undiscovered things you can do with what we
know.
I see a beauty and elegance, and even humour for those who can read
the math in bitcoin. And that's why you can TRUST, because you get to
VERIFY.
Now let's look at the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD.
Those that can't be bothered clogging up valuable intellect with bullshit,
can reduce OPPF to its base components...and it basically goes like
this...
Three guys “reclaim” the world's wealth by way of the UCC, backed by
the people in the TRUST. Except in every context with the UCC
SERVICING NOTICE, etc., they are all LEGAL CLAIMS. The mere fact
that you are GIVING NOTICE acknowledges the process. A TRUST
cannot make aggressive moves like SERVING NOTICE and MAKING A
CLAIM. A TRUST has AUTHORITY over what it RECEIVES. TRUSTS exist
to fulfill a purpose based on ASSETS it has RECEIVED.
A TRUST IS NOT A PERSON UNDER LAW.
A TRUST IS NOT A PARTY UNDER LAW.
And a TRUST can only RECEIVE.
The AQUILAE TRUST, for example, has a PRIMARY MANDATE to restore
EXECUTIVE POWER to The House of Windsor. This is a relatively
unattainable goal. I don't think I'll see Queen Elizabeth II saying, “Off
with his head” in my lifetime, but that is, in fact, its PRIMARY
MANDATE.
As it is a PRIVATE TRUST (PRIVATEER) we stand by to SERVE The House
of Windsor. The House of Windsor can give AQUILAE an ORDER, and can
TRUST that the ORDERS will be followed, even though The House of
Windsor has no LEGAL or LAWFUL AUTHORITY over AQUILAE.
Every TRUSTEE is aware of this, and if 'Liz says, “Suit up and go to
war”, we “Suit up and go to war”, because we said we would and she
can TRUST us to do so.
PROMISARY NOTES have the CREDIT and WORTH of those making the
promises. ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD are making promises they
cannot LEGALLY AND/OR LAWFULLY keep.
It is therefore reasonable to presume, based on the preponderance of
EVIDENCE, that the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD exists SOLEY for the
purpose of profiting from your credulity.
You have often heard me speak ill of Robert Menard, but I want you to
pay close attention to what I speak. Robert Menard tells the absolute
TRUTH about the law. In fact, I dare say you can almost (but not quite)
TRUST what he says about law. If it's the TRUTH it doesn't matter who
says it. 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't matter if I say it, or if Robert Menard says
it, or if Charles Manson says it...2 + 2 will still equal 4.
However, Robert Menard lies through omission. If you ever want to see
Robert Menard fumble around, and ask bullshit-deflecting questions, just
ask him what “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER” means.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD is FRAUD at the outset. Always remember
the noble lie. If it requires BELIEF in anything, spirits, gods, fairies, etc.,
you are being sold FRAUD. There are no exceptions to this rule.
From childhood you are sold the lie that faith and trust are equal, and
they reinforce it with other lies like, “You must respect the beliefs of
others.” Think about that for a second. Why must I respect the beliefs of
others? Why have belief at all? If you examine the concept, belief is an
end. It means you don't have to go looking any further. It means you
can “just assume”, never having once examine WHY it should be
believed.
Observe the threads in this very forum. My mere public position that
“your ignorance does not equal my knowledge” immediately gets a
million ad hominem attacks. I collect the names you call me like
trophies, and all of you that call me these things remind me that none of
you are capable of having original thought.
All because I have offended your “beliefs”.
And you enter with the arrogant position that if I don't believe what you
do, there must be something wrong with me, which reveals your
hypocrisy. You see, in order for you to have the opportunity to say these
things about me, you most certainly would have had to initiate the
communication; because the only reason you would talk to me is
because you want my knowledge.
I would not talk to you. Your very beliefs negate the possibility of
UNDERSTANDING. You have nothing of VALUE for me, and presenting
an “alternate view” which focuses on bullshit always seems to neglect to
mention the fact that it is, in fact, focused on bullshit.
In short, belief has no VALUE. Those who say it does are selling you
FRAUD, and you must always suspect the motives of those selling
demonstrable FRAUD as TRUST.
The most primitive example of the self-imposed ignorance of belief can
be found in Roman Numerals; and before I start with this I just want to
remind everyone that the Ancient Greeks calculated the circumference
of the earth, so the concept of zero was well-known throughout history.
If you BELIEVE otherwise, examine the source of that belief and you will
discover it is, in fact, bullshit.
The number zero represents fifty percent of all math in existence. If you
do not understand that statement, and do not understand why that is,
you are not qualified to speak of math. I digress...
I think of my own personal knowledge of computer science, and the vast
technological powers I wield simply because “nobody else knows how to
do it.” I cringe in empathetic fear for humanity when I look upon its nine
billion souls, all in some way, intimately tied to science and technology,
and knowing nothing about science and technology. Even the most
simple-minded amongst you cannot be so stupid that they cannot see
this situation is a recipe for disaster.
And every day, I'll hear some ignorant, credulous adult, with an
imaginary friend, declare that I am ignorant, and that I am “closedminded”, of course; and this is my personal favorite, that I'm “mentally
ill” or some sub-category therein.
These people truly believe that their ignorance is wisdom, and that their
belief equals my knowledge; and that is precisely why I DO NOT
RESPECT THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
Let's jump back in time to the Romans. The Romans had a
technologically-evolving society. Mathematics and computer science
were actually in heavy use, and numeric policy and process allowed
those that could conceptualize the math to engineer aqueducts that are
working to this day.
Computer Science is profoundly powerful knowledge. I have the ability
to literally speak to the universe, and it will speak back – in numbers.
The test for intelligence is the test of understanding prime numbers, for
these things are universal, and all of it requires not one scrap of belief.
Those who don't see that only prove my point, because it's as true as 2
+ 2 = 4...
...and I'll demonstrate with the Romans.
Bookkeeping's a boring job, isn't it? Those who have been saddled with
such a task will know what I'm describing when I speak of numbers
dancing in your head, and you, being a pattern-seeking mammal,
indulge yourself in the boredom by seeing how you make these numbers
dance in a pattern you have not yet seen.
This is actually a very profound process and a lot of people miss it. The
last thing the Romans wanted were smart bookkeepers. Bookkeepers
make the rules. None of you see that. Watch “The Agenda” with Steve
Paikin. VALE and the Chartered Accountants of Ontario sponsor the
show, and they'll proudly tell you how long they've been setting PUBLIC
POLICY.
None of you are aware of this, because none of you think; and Steve
Paikin's shows are for people who can think, so there's zero risk of
discovery.
You can see for yourself, your masters laughing at your idiocy.
All the belief in the world is not going to change that reality....
...back to the Romans.
A society that's growing as a result of computer science needs to hide
the computer science part. I know more than you do by default. I've
simply dedicated more time to any subject you raise than you have to
studying it. It doesn't matter what you believe...this is simply true.
I don't possess any mental powers you don't; and I don't possess any
mental powers that the bookkeeper with “dancing-numbers-in-his-head”
has.
You can see where this is going.
Discovery of computer science is inevitable, and accountants will find it
first. I'm not going to find any gold in the Klondike if I don't go to the
Klondike. You're not going to find computer science if you don't go to
where math is used constantly.
So, the problem is reduced to one simple goal. How do you stop a
smart, little bookkeeper from discovering computer science, without
affecting the quality of his work? Enter the Roman Numeral system.
Literacy was restricted to the upper casts; and the ignorant will leap and
cling to what they can understand. In less than one generation the
Roman Numeral system was injected into society with the
DECLARATION, “This is math!”
...and there you have it. The next generation will truly believe that
Roman Numerals are actual numbers. They show the math function, and
thus no one has reason to believe that the declaration, “This is math”
was a lie, or that anyone's agenda was being served by believing that
lie.
Such beliefs cause the believers of Roman Numerals to say that those
“crazy people” who have no faith in the Roman Numeral system and
their kooky religious terms like fast Fourier transform (FFT), Fibonacci
Sequences, and calculus are just products of their ignorance...
...is this sounding familiar?
Do you get the idea?
And so we return to ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD.
In the comments below I'll go step-by-step through the very base
principles your beliefs have made you blind to. Unlike any other time in
history, we all have the wealth of human knowledge at our fingertips.
The ONLY weapon that those who work against your interests possess,
is your ignorance. Belief is what gives ignorance VALUE to them.
Ignorance serves those working against your interests.
The people who sell you these FRAUDS are so effective because they
truly believe in them, and of course that belief serves another unseen
agenda...
...because the people that mean you harm, don't actually know you. It's
not personal. You're a cow to be herded, because THEY took the time to
learn things YOU didn't.
And to the adults with imaginary friends, I dare say you attribute every
“good” quality in you to that imaginary friend; and all the bad qualities
in you, you attribute to yourself, because you're “a horrible wretched
sinner” that needs “forgiving” for some unknown crime called “sin”.
There really are people that laugh at the fact that immorality is sold as
morality. It gives them comfort that in 2013, declaring that you're an
adult with an imaginary friend is not only “normal”, but is in fact a
prerequisite for becoming President of the United States.
I'm told that Governor of Alaska is another possibility too.
I'm still trying to figure out why stating the truth is “ego”. It is always
the first motivator that I'm accused of. I suspect it's loosely connected
to the other strange belief that people's hurt feelings make my position
wrong; and if they're Christian they seem to think some sort of harm
should come to me as a result. They counter this vile thought with some
empty expression of “love”, because Love hasn't been diminished by
belief enough!
You have to see things from my perspective as well. When you declare
that you're “offended”, there's an automatic process that I programmed,
with intent in my head, and it routes all data from that point on, to the
same place in my head that I route whining. For, in the end, when you
say that you're offended, you should just presume that my response is,
“So what?” You're whining does not change what I said.
All that being said, I request you, friends, comrades, brothers, sisters,
to try to keep the banter to a minimum; and I know I'm as guilty as you
are for this...
I've had a good stern talk with myself on the subject regarding this
thread.
I am going to go through this whole document of THE ONE PEOPLE'S
PUBLIC FRAUD. We're going to play “Biology Class” with this piece of
LEGAL BULLSHIT.
I am going to put this fake “living document” (powered by “Belief”) on
the stainless steel table, and while it cries out for mercy, I shall carve
out its entrails, piece-by-piece. And we shall examine these entrails
while it writhes in pain.
And then we'll toss away those pieces because they don't survive the
light of understanding. At the end of our little legal biology class, with
two goals accomplished, you will see the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD
for what it is, and I will have given it the slow and painful execution it so
richly deserves.
Thanks for that Scott. Are you really from Earth? I pointed out the legal
tender printed on the notes that the believers want to use and the fact
that the oppt wants to foreclose on the very banks that the believers
want their notes deposited into. Since that post there have been no
more posts.
February 23 at 8:51pm · Unlike · 6
And you are correct. THANKS FOR GIVING AWAY THE END OF THE
STORY!
...oh wait. Contrary to "belief". that's a GOOD thing!
HEY, that sounds like stumbling onto the key to wisdom! (Notice that no
belief is required)
The ONLY reason to do that is to find out WHY!
THAT is what needs to be thought of as a VIRTUE. WHY is the HIGHEST
virtue.
FAITH=TRUST
BELIEF=KNOWLEDGE
ALCHEMY=CHEMISTRY
ASTROLOGY=ASTRONOMY
NUMEROLOGY=TRIGONOMETRY
This creates a credulous population that
1: VALUES "Belief".
2: WILL COMPLY with that "belief"
3: DOESN'T KNOW/DENIES THEY ARE TOLD WHAT TO BELIEVE.
Three words: SECURITY FOR COSTS
This is the best part about defending. Most cases die right there. If your
friend has PROOF (Signed discharge is proof), demand security for
costs. This means they must deposit to the court, a sum that you
determine to be "reasonable" to cover costs. It's almost always granted.
(You won't get an eleventy billion dollar security order)
The problem here, is that it's a bank. They have money to burn for this
stuff. They'll just pay it.
quote: SCOTT DUNCAN,
SURETY=SIGNATURE=LIABLE
BENEFICIARY=ENDORSEMENT=ACCEPTANCE
Lawful holder in due course, sole BENEFICIARY who is surety again
I am understanding that Common Law is not observed since our money
turned into a "promise to pay". Law is no longer about substance, it is
about form (application). Therefore has changed to hear trust law,
contract law and all things regarding equity. Verification from Scott
please...
Trust law only makes an appearance when a jurisdiction is changed to
trust law, but essentially that is correct.
Since when can a ACT/STATUTE devolve the common law?
Since you accept the TENDER FOR LAW when you use money.
Legal Tender=A TENDER FOR LAW
NONE of you are CAPABLE of acting in trust law. YOU ARE ALL TOO OLD
TO LEARN! It REALLY is that simple.
You need to ISOLATE yourself in admiralty. THAT you can do.
People studying under me for YEARS don't get it. You are already
PROGRAMMED, and you will now ALWAYS value the WRONG THINGS.
Until ALL BELIEF is PURGED from you, you simply ARENT WORTHY of
TRUST.
What belief do I hold that is unworthy of trust?
ANY BELIEF. BELIEF IS EVIL
You were PROGRAMMED to VALUE this vile thing. It is beyond your
comprehension that you can live without SOME belief, and inside you
doubt what I say is true. Your repeated non sequitur question
reveals all that.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT BELIEF! NONE ARE VALID, and you cannot
think without them. THAT is why you are unworthy of trust. You simply
aren't qualified to understand the concept.
You don't GET to "keep a little bit of evil" and be able to comprehend
TRUST LAW.
That is where "can't be trusted" comes from. You can't ACT in TRUST
LAW, because you bring "belief" along as baggage.
It is only those worthy of trust who should be ADMINISTERING TRUST
LAW.
Why would you "believe" in yourself?
All you just said was "I don't spread this vile thing around, but I save
some JUST FOR ME".
You will never get there as long as you have belief. You are too old to
purge that. BELIEF is fused into your brain. You will never get rid of it.
NONE of you are CAPABLE of acting in trust law. YOU ARE ALL TOO OLD
TO LEARN! You value BELIEF. It REALLY is that simple.
You need to ISOLATE yourself in admiralty.
THAT you can do.
You can VERIFY (endorse) what I tell you and your BELIEF mechanism
stores it. That's where the knowledge gets tainted, so BELIEF (the
mechanism) throws back answers you can...well...believe.
You cannot act in trust, because you are not WORTHY of the task. You
are not CAPABLE, because you have a program that your entire identity
is attached to, and as a result, you value the wrong things.
Your TRUST has no WORTH.
Ok, I walked in on this one late...if I was a girl, I may want a piece of
Scott Duncan, but thankfully nature granted me a penis & a thirst for
knowledge (before I revert to my programming & say: yeah, I used to
read Scott Duncan's stuff) ... If we've all been indoctrinated by
school/church/media/supposed authority figures etc & have belief
hardwired into our nervous systems, then we are incapable of acting in
TRUST because TRUST is higher than belief & the antithesis of it, which
is what I'm getting from this so far...consequently, we can be a grantor
& beneficiary of a trust, but never a keeper (because of having a belief
system precludes the possibility, which is WHY none of us are
qualified)...BUT, we CAN isolate ourselves in Admiralty...liening the
person would achieve that aim wouldn't it? Then, not reintroducing
ourselves into the system by accepting tenders for law from our rapist
becomes the means by which we maintain our isolation in Admiralty...is
this an accurate summary?
Get it?
Just because you can parrot 2+2=4 doesn't mean you can add,
muchless understand calculus.
I got that part from a previous thread, that by removing the name from
commerce, it becomes personal property, which stops it from being able
to be used in commerce to get credit because it is now out of
commerce...BUT, from the way Scott Duncan described the relationship
between AQUILAE & Roguesport, the corporation must be able to extract
value from the property/names held in trust...the name becomes
protected & the Corporation is a limited liability entity that can operate
in commerce...terminology is probably all wrong & it's not clear in my
mind yet...I think it needs a bit of time to percolate & rattle around the
grey matter for a bit...there are a few key pieces missing from the
puzzle at the moment.
Actually you have it exactly right.
Give yourself a cookie
For what it's worth, to solve the searingly important question of who
added whom, I do not seek people out. On instruction I add those who
request it. You might want to consider the investment of your time on
this issue in regard to the question of valuing what is important. Hope
that helps.
First rule of LAW CLUB, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT LAW CLUB!
ALWAYS remember it's ABOUT SURETY..
YOU=Surety.
All men and women need to know this: Your Oath is Your Law.
That's why people continue to call other people by derogatory names.
They want an emotional reaction to detract from any point at hand. In
essence they have run out of intelligent conversation and want to hurt
your feelings. If these people can't even mount an effective argument,
how could anything they have to say affect you at all?
"He who angers you controls you"
Your efforts are commendable, but I dare say, futile.
It is basically an admission that they are hiring thugs with guns, not
qualified keepers of the peace, when you pose these questions. "Might
makes Right" is the only mentality they have. Labels are all they
understand.
They try to enjoin you to the "freeman" label because YOU know more
about your rights than THEY do. They don't care.
I'm unsure what you hope to accomplish by doing this. People who
choose to be a thug with a gun, don't care about your rights, and trying
to convince them that they SHOULD is simply a waste of time, and
makes you a target, as far as I can see.
These are sub-human psychotaths. Their "psycological fitness" exam is
actually a test for a LACK of empathy. They actually WANT people who
don't care about harming others.
These are NOT people you will "win over" with reason. I dare say you
will find that out the hard way.
Scott- i know from experience, when you begin to bring up such terms
as 'Underwriter'...Hazard-Bond...where is the location of the 'Risk
Management' company, with them..there is that moment where you can
tell they are frozen-in-their-thoughts contemplating what you have just
brought-up with them, it at least backs them back-up half-a-step while
dealing with you.....hmmmmmmm..sounds like itd make for a good
thread
"Belief" has nothing to do with what I say. I'm not seeing it from the
outside, I've been right in the bowels of it. I was ONE of them. I built
something that allowed them to "flag" you, in my 20's and patted myself
on the back for my ingenuity. They still use it to this day. They will
never be held accountable, because it relies on innocent and unlrelated
pieces of infrastructure.
It was YEARS before I even understood what I had done.
If you want to toss the "belief" crap at me, here's one for you; Your
"belief" that you can fix the system and/or the people in it, is futile,
simply because you are NOT qualified to understand what it is you are
dealing with.
What you are doing is both interesting, and amusing, but if you
"believe" you are actually doing anything... you aren't. Reality does not
care. The fact that you VALUE "belief" only proves my point. That too
was programmed into you. You don't know any better. Belief has NO
value and ALWAYS serves another agenda.
...but don't take my word for it. Time is running out and you will have
that point driven home, by strangers who have never had an original
thought in their lives. When that happens, take a moment and
remember how you thought "belief" trumps reality, Brad.
You still think all of this is "Stephen Harper". Let me show you someone
who has a better grasp of reality than you, and tried to slip it out there
on STATE TELEVISION.
What it would take to get MY qualifications:
Step 1: Be born into the Nobility.
Step 2: Be sure your farther is an idiot who married a bimbo he knocked
up so your title is defamed.
Step 3: Get hauled out of school at grade 5 and be tested for years,
while doctors write notes about hoe very clever you are and how it's a
bad thing.
Step 4: Refuse your birthright and have the title prorogued.
Step 5: Study law, computer science, and later on biochemistry
(Because your grandfather was the chief of biochemistry at the hospital
for sick children, and he didn't finish what he started)
Step 6: Return to your home country, study law, and prorogue your title
Step 7: Rescue anyone who is still indentured in the system who can
grasp the issues.
Step 8: Form an admiralty and establish jurisdiction.
Step 9: PROFIT!
It only took 35 years.
The All Things "RECUSAL" -thread..... Black's Law 8th-edition
RECUSABLE: 1. (of an obligation) arising from a party's voluntary act
and that can be avoided. 2. (of a judge) capable of being disqualified
from sitting on a case. 3. (of a fact) providing a basis for disqualifying a
judge from sitting on a case.
RECUSAL: removal of oneself as judge or policy-maker in a particular
matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.
RECUSANT: adjective. refusing to submit to an authority or comply with
a command <a recusant witness>
RECUSANT: noun. 1. Ecclesiastical law. a person (esp. a Roman Catholic
(?)) who refuses to attend the services of the established Church of
England. 2. a person who refuses to submit to an authority or comply
with a command.
RECUSATIO JUDICIS (latin): Ecclesiastical law. the procedure and
grounds by which a judge may be challenged and removed from hearing
a case. The grounds for disqualification traditionally include great
friendship or enmity with a party, close kinship to a party, acceptance of
a bribe, previously giving counsel to a party, or demonstrated ignorance
of the law. A panel of three arbiters, chosen by the challenging party
and the judge, decides whether the party's complaint has merit.
RECUSATION: 1. Civil law. an objection, exception, or appeal; especially
an objection alleging a judge's prejudice or conflict of interest.
RECUSE: 1. to remove (oneself) as a judge in a particular case because
of a prejudice or conflict of interest <the judge recused himself from the
trial> 2. to challenge or object to (a judge) as being disqualified from
hearing a case because of prejudice or a conflict of interest <the
defendant filed a motion to recuse the trial judge>
..unrelated, but on the same page and interesting;
RECTUS IN CURIA (latin): "right in the court". free from charge or
offence; competent to appear in court and entitled to the BENEFIT OF
LAW (hmm, sounds familiar). See LEGALIS HOMO.
REDDITION: an acknowledgment in court that one is not the owner of
certain property being demanded, and that it in fact belongs to the
demandant. ("Do you, your Honour, take Judicial Notice of the fact that,
i as the DEMANDANT, am the Lawful-Holder-In-Due-Course of the
SECURITY of my PERSON, and not that of my public-servants meant to
serve me?" :
"Would you like to recuse yourself"? - This always works
This actually claims your rights, and turfs the Justice.
The second you suspect it; "Your Honour your conduct has caused me
to reasonably believe that you have formed a biased position as regards
this matter, and could serve to damage my interests. Would you please
recuse yourself"?
In fact this would fall under OBJECTION. You OBJECT to a
sanctimonious, worthless parasitic bitch ruling on the matter.
POINT OF ORDER serves to POINT out an error and/or MISTAKE.
So the more formal way of phrasing this then would be"Objection...(and then what you wrote a couple posts up)...Your Honour,
your conduct has caused me to reasonably believe that you have formed
a biased position as regards this matter, and could serve to damage my
interests. Would you please recuse yourself?"
So going into court and right-off-the-bat saying to the judge- "I MOTION
for you to Strike/I MOTION for you to Quash this matter" = BAD,
because you are consenting to their jurisdiction unwittingly
1. At common law, a writ ordering
a defendant to do some act or to explain why inaction
is appropriate. - Also termed writ of praecipe. 2. A
written motion or request seeking some court action,
esp. a trial setting or an entry of judgment...
So praecipe is a request for the court to issue a writ...?
YES, and it's a DEMAND. Praecipe= ORDER FROM THE KING
Praecipe is WRITTEN, because it's LAW, and the WHOLE PURPOSE is to
NOT be in a court!
TRUTH is a defence in all defamation cases.
Pierre, when someone addresses you as "SIR" you are being addressed
from a subordinate. ALL my trustees in a duty capacity MUST call me
"sir".
Ever notice that when a COP doesn't know your name he calls you SIR,
and when they HAVE your name they Call you "MISTER Daust"?
One HOLDS fealty. One does not HAVE it
MOTION means "BEND OVER AND TAKE IT DRY, BECAUSE YOU
LITERALLY ASKED FOR IT! JOINDER, BABY"!
Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY.
I would have locked him up for contempt.
Criminal. I would have witnessed FRAUD against the petitioner.
Dean claimed he was not the name, but by MOTIONING he was acting
as a PARTY, and was INTERFERING WITH THE LEGAL COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS of the petitioner.
You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are
NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD
Derek: ONTARIO ANNUAL PRACTICE has all the rules. Who else BUT a
party can even APPEAR? You are trying to "prove" something you
already KNOW!
If you are in court RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. State that you wish the
"charges" dismissed, and keep QUESTIONING!
Ask for everyone's credentials. That one drives them nuts!
FULL DISCLOSURE IS A LEGAL FICTION. ASK FOR "WHOLE
DISCLOSURE. "
In cases of foreclosure
Lien the AG's office with the court file as the account.
And lien your own property.
This is just tossing it out there. "last minute" is not something I do.
Every time, either the client lies, or the data I get about the case is
inaccurate. I can't work with "last minute"
From previous readings elsewhere: What parties to the contract risked
anything? (only you, because the bank have not provided any valuable
consideration to the transaction)...If the bank claim they have risked
anything/funds, demand that they show the origin of the funds via
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of double entry bookkeeping
which will show who the grantor was (ie: you in a different status)...Ask
for a stay in proceedings to allow them time to come forward with this
information. I hope that's useful & this post wasn't too late.
Rick, the courts will not hear you at this point, you are in dishonour and
as far as I know, there is no turning back. The house is gone; I would
learn and move on. Let me elaborate…
Rick likes house, makes offer on house.
Rick enters contract with bank which allows him to close on the
purchase contract and move into house.
Rick has fun in house. Many women are fucked and much beers and
weed is consumed. Rick has a lot of fun in said house.
Rick has a little too much fun and forgets his contractual obligation with
the bank to make his mortgage payment.
The bank sends a friendly letter reminding Rick to make his payment.
Rick ignores the letter.
The bank sends 2 or 3 more letters.
Rick ignores the letters.
The bank sends NOTICE and warns Rick they are going to foreclose and
COLLECT the COLLATERAL if he does not make good on his PROMISE to
pay.
Rick ignores the NOTICE, ignores the court appearance; dishonours
himself.
Bank goes to court UNCHALLENGED, get judgement in their favour. Rick
breached a contract; the COLLATERAL must be COLLECTED.
Rick does ignores that he is NO LONGER OWNER of the house
Bank lists the property on the MLS with a realtor with the CROWN as
SELLER
Rick ignores that the house he thinks he still owns is for sale.
Another realtor brings a buyer along who likes Rick’s house and writes
an offer SUBJECT to financing.
Rick ignores that his house is PENDING under a NEW and VALID
CONTRACT
Several days go by and the new BUYER removes his conditions. The
home is no longer PENDING SALE. All that is required at this point is for
the judge to say “done deal!”
Ricks pulls his head out of the sand and says “hey! You can’t do that,
that’s my house!”
Court does not hear Rick because he is not even part of the equation
anymore. He breached a contract, agreed to the JURISDICTION by not
showing up. In the courts eyes, he is insane. He agreed for the
COLLATERAL to be claimed and is now saying he owns the house.
Rick is lucky they didn’t send him away for a psychological assessment.
This is what happened. You can give all the notices you want, the judge
will not REVERSE the initial judgement awarded to the bank. Should you
have shown up at the first court session, you might have had a chance,
although highly unlikely. The judges are there to PROTECT the SYSTEM
(scam). Don’t expect to penetrate the wall of bullshit they put up. The
wall is thick and high.
Bend over, smile and try not to scream too loud when they stick it in…
Norah, as of 1933 there is NO SUCH THING as a NEW treaty. They will
try to scam you into AGREEMENT. AGREEMENT is NOT a TREATY!. It's
CONTRACT. Treaties and Contracts are NOT the same.
The ORIGINAL people cannot be touched under law, so they get you to
declare that you have LEFT the original people, making you AWAY FROM
the ORIGINALS. ABORIGINAL. If you are in Admiralty, you are
DEMOTED. THAT is what makes them INFERIOR. Not the name.
If you are AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS, you are CRIMINALLY INSANE.
That is what they are under the law. ABORIGINAL = FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. ALWAYS.
THE TENDER FOR LAW – LEGALESE FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013
ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
It's feast or famine around here at THE TENDER FOR LAW. This is article
number two in as many days!
Derek Moran says that he finds it difficult to believe that I will be able to
top the SURETY article...CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
It is almost midnight on Sunday, I'm on the bridge of the Tycho-Brahe,
and as I look out onto the lake the water is like a sheet of glass...and
it's not even frozen. How can I not produce a superior article tonight? So
today, with all my "God" complex, "arrogance", and the knowledge that
a host of "pseudo radio" is reading my superior work, and knowing that
all he can do is tremble in impotent fury. Things are so good I can cover
the bad aspects of law, namely its language.
Some of you may have already started to figure this out, but every
single word in a legal document is designed specifically for the purpose
of trapping you. Even words like AND, OR, IS, MAY, SHOULD...all of
these are traps! And law dictionaries use them perfectly. You may have
noticed words like UNDERSTAND don't mean what you think they mean.
This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in the legal world. What I am
about to teach you here is the legalese equivalent of "code breaking".
Let's jump back to the 1500's...
This is the time in our civilization that we often refer to as the
Renaissance. The reason the Renaissance occurred is that whole
shitloads of people were dying of various forms of plague, and rat-shitcovered scientists were baffled as to why this virulent disease was
spreading everywhere.
The practical result of all this was that a whole shitload of people died,
and the ones that made it, inherited all their possessions. Efforts to
communicate more efficiently became a social priority, because there
was lots to do to maintain all this new property, and not enough people
to do it. For nearly 800 years "God" was everything, despite his
demonstrable lack of assistance in this era. You see the age where
"God" was everything was called the "dark ages". Every time I hear an
adult with an "imaginary friend" talk about how "ignorant and closedminded" I am, all I see is an individual that wishes to return to that
horrible time.
As there were fewer people in the 1500's, and the Renaissance was just
getting underway, inherited art was often used as currency. The next
generation had a higher literacy rate than the previous, and so
administrative rules were born. It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to
see how useful slipping Shakespeare in around the latter half of the
1500's would be to those few who don't actually do any work. The false
profession of "law" was born.
You'll notice that nobody ever "does" law. They only "practice" it. They
keep practising and practising, but they never quite get it right (that's
what you get for not subscribing to the TENDER FOR LAW!).
From the 1500's to the present, there has been an odd phenomenon
regarding language. English is a Germanic language that merged with
the language of the Angols (we will discuss the Angols and the Picts in
another article). Germanic influence on the language of the Angols
resulted in the English written in the MAGNA CARTA. But if you try to
learn German today, you'll notice an interesting phenomenon. Though
the words you use sound startlingly similar, and the really observant can
actually pick out the words when German speak and get a general idea
of what they're saying, even if they don't speak the language. Except
further study shows that the Germans speak "backwards"
grammatically. Jumping to the south-west, Spanish, a much simpler
language, where every vowel is a syllable, and words say what they
mean, but once again, "grammatically backwards". Head north-east in
our mental European map...to France...well France is filled with French
people so we needn't bother with them. Those French have a different
word for everything, and their language is, you guessed it,
"grammatically backwards".
Those of you noticing the pattern here will not be using too much
intellect when they start posing the question, "Maybe we're the ones
that are backwards". And that is almost, but not quite true.
Like a virus, legalese infected the English language. It's encouraged to
this day to use legalese to appear "smart". This is done on purpose. It is
an insidious piece of social engineering.
The want you to try to use these words without knowing what the little
words mean.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LITTLE THINGS.
When you read, you read from left to right on a page. The small words
actually exclude part of the sentence. You will notice in my now famous,
NOTICE OF MISTAKE, that I always use "and/or". I do this on purpose,
because I like to keep my options open.
Maxims of Law say it plainly. The inclusion of one thing excludes all
others. The definition of a PERSON in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
is the most hysterical example of this. The definition of PERSON is
hidden in the larger scope of "every one". The common law maxim, "The
INCLUSION of one is the exclusion of another" means in the context of
the CRIMINAL CODE INCLUDES "Her Majesty" AND an "organization".
See for yourself:
*** THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA***
“every one”, “person” and “owner”
« quiconque », « individu », « personne » et « propriétaire »
“every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her
Majesty and an organization;
**********************************
You will find this by searching for R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 under the
Interpretations Section.
In reality, what this says is that a "PERSON" is "HER MAJESTY". Unless
you are "HER MAJESTY" people answering to these acts and statutes are
simply "performing these acts" (remember Shakespeare) on "HER
MAJESTY's" behalf, much like the GOVERNOR GENERAL PERFORMS royal
duties on the Queen's behalf. This is why the GOVERNOR GENERAL is
always a chosen CITIZEN, and not an elected official.
The GOVERNOR GENERAL ACTS as the Queen when the Queen is not in
town. This of course has nothing to do with "HER MAJESTY".
When dealing with the LAW, in CANADA anyway, you are always dealing
with "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA", which as we all
know is a CORPORATE ORGANIZATION.
"OR" means you have a choice, "one" OR the "other", but not BOTH.
So, in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, a PERSON can be "HER
MAJESTY". A PERSON can be "HER MAJESTY", but a PERSON must also
be an "ORGANIZATION". Notice it does not say "OR" an organization in
the above interpretation. Confused yet?
That happens in Legalese. Let's, instead of looking at this dry,
depressing CRIMINAL CODE stuff, look at something happy, exciting and
real.
I can say with absolute certainty that no woman on the planet has loved
me more than Tara. However, no amount of love would compel her to
JOINDER herself to a "BILL OF LADING", and hand it over to the
GOVERNMENT. That means "getting married" (for the stupid amongst
you). I'm sorry if that sounds condescending (that means talking down
to people).
Now think about this marriage transaction. The marriage INCLUDES
"Scott" AND "Tara", not "Scott" OR "Tara". This means marriage makes
you effectively ONE PERSON UNDER THE LAW. Since the marriage
actually consists of THREE ENTITIES, "Scott" AND "Tara", which by its
nature EXCLUDES the GOVERNMENT, still remains an "ORGANIZATION".
A marriage ORGANIZES these "entities" into their respective roles. If
"Scott" AND "Tara" remain "Scott AND Tara", the GOVERNMENT HAS NO
STANDING. However, if Tara sought a divorce, the MARRIED PERSON is
no longer "Scott AND Tara", and the GOVERNMENT gets to intervene.
This most certainly wouldn't be the case if it was "Scott" OR "Tara".
Therefore, the above CRIMINAL CODE definition of "PERSON" defines
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ***INSERT PROVINCE
HERE***, which is both "HER MAJESTY" AND an "ORGANIZATION".
Every one who is CHARGED in CANADA is usually CHARGED by their
PROVINCE. For instance, if I were to take the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC
FRAUD lawyer "Heather" and bash her skull into jelly with a ball-peen
hammer (as she so richly deserves), I would likely be CHARGED with
HOMICIDE in the JURISDICTION where I chose to do this "skullbashing". As I'm a profoundly lazy man I probably wouldn't travel, so
ONTARIO would be the JURISDICTION. This makes "HER MAJESTY" AND
the "ORGANIZATION", "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF
ONTARIO". Since all ACTS and STATUTES fall to PUBLIC SERVANTS who
are ACTING on behalf of "HER MAJESTY", this makes all PUBLIC
SERVANTS who are ACTING on behalf of "HER MAJESTY" effectively
"HER MAJESTY". HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO is in
fact, an "ORGANIZATION". You now have the qualifications for a
"PERSON" as defined in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.
Just as the "marriage" consists of "Scott AND Tara", which effectively
creates an "ORGANIZATION", "HER MAJESTY" and the organization
defined as "IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO" create a "PERSON" which YOU are
presumed to be a PUBLIC SERVANT of. This effectively means all
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS are simply administrative processes for that
"ORGANIZATION". The NOTICE OF MISTAKE effectively removes that
presumption.
You now see how powerful the words "and" and "or" are. If AQUILAE
says the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE is "Scott AND Tara", this would
mean neither of us individually could act as CAPTAIN, but "Scott and
Tara" could BOTH be CAPTAIN. This means that all ORDERS from the
CAPTAIN must come from BOTH Scott AND Tara. However, the AQUILAE
TRUST is not a stupid document, and the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE
is, in fact, Scott OR Tara. This means that when Tara speaks, everyone
shuts the fuck up...including me. It's Scott OR Tara - not BOTH!
"AND" refers to BOTH. "OR" does not. This is why putting "and/or" gives
you the options; and since the AQUILAE TRUST is pretty much perfect,
here in reality, the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE is, in fact, Scott
and/or Tara.
This means I can ACT as CAPTAIN, Tara can ACT as CAPTAIN, and we
can BOTH ACT as CAPTAIN. Recipients of this POLICY have NO
STANDING to contest when we assume and/or drop the role of
CAPTAIN. Why do we do this, you ask? Because FUCK OFF, THAT'S
WHY! If you're even looking at the AQUILAE TRUST, you're a fucking
TRUSTEE; and the only reason you should be looking at the AQUILAE
TRUST is to find the best way to "Shut the fuck up and do what you're
told" for Scott and/or Tara....
And that is how you make a powerful LEGAL document with the words
"and/or", and the reason why we write things this way. Use AND & OR
to restrict other parties. Use BOTH (and/or) to free yourself.
If your document is stating the terms, make it as open as possible for
YOU, and as restrictive as possible for every OTHER PARTY. If somebody
is thought of as a "good lawyer", it means they have mastered this skill.
Were I to be practising law, I would be a very, very good lawyer.
One of our loyal readers made the horrendous mistake of using different
words, in another post. Instead of NOTICE OF MISTAKE he said, NOTICE
OF "ERROR", which means something completely different. If you look
up the legal definition of "mistake" you will notice amongst other things
(inter alia) the legal definition of "MISTAKE" ends with ", or error". If
you are going to learn from the TENDER FOR LAW, you must always
remember the Number 1 Rule of the Universe:
SCOTT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
You can save yourself a lot of time by NOT second-guessing Scott, and
proceeding to figure out WHY Scott is right.
This also means that when I present a document you should presume
it's perfect, and that changing it will fuck you over in ways you don't
even understand. "NOTICE OF ERROR" is not "NOTICE OF MISTAKE".
You don't change the document because you think it "sounds cooler".
You don't change the document because you think another coolersounding word means the same thing; and I will always interpret such
changes as TENDERING AN OFFER to amuse me, by allowing me to
berate you for your stupidity, and to laugh at you when a court kicks
your ass. This is a TENDER I will gladly ACCEPT and volunteer for, with
the added bonus that I will execute my duties in this TENDER to the best
of my abilities. I'm really good at that too.
Taking what you have just learned here and reading through ONE
PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, will reveal some very interesting and insidious
things. You're better off serving me as a slave, because unlike ONE
PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, I won't lie to you, and I'll tell you exactly what
I mean.
So there you have it, AND & OR - two hidden keys to legalese and the
knowledge that "include also excludes"...and before you ask EXCLUDES
includes all that remains. Use EXCLUDE to get rid of everything else;
use INCLUDE to restrict to a single point/item.
The guy with the fake "charity" seeking legal advice actually asked what
TENDER means, and it occurs to me that those who AREN'T lying to me
might wonder too. TENDER in the context of Law means, "to present to
PERSON, an unconditional offer, to enter into a contract". Look at those
words, then look at a bank note. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER means,
"THIS NOTE IS AN UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR LAW". That is why the group name is so clever. ;) This
group is ABOUT that UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR LAW. It's ALL money.
Money is JOINDER. JOINDER MAY (Read as: "ALWAYS DOES") INCLUDE
SURETY!
THIS is the LEGALESE you need to know. NO MORE. Your ONLY goal
should be to REMOVE and/or AVOID SURETY when dealing in commerce
and/or LAW. WHEN YOU SIGN A CHEQUE, you are TENDERING SURETY.
A BANK NOTE does NOT THENDER SURETY as the SURETY is signed for,
by SOMEBODY ELSE.
If you have OTHER LEGALESE questions, post them in the comments.
OFF TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED. LEGALESE IS A COMPLEX
SUBJECT, SO BE PREPARED FOR VANISHING POSTS, and/or BANNING if
you do post something OFF TOPIC.
All that being said- and i will post it when i come across it next, there is
a Maxim that basically states all laws/statues will be written in such a
way that the LAYMAN can/will be able to understand them, so...."Your
Honour, let alone i was unaware of that i worked AND/OR was employed
by The Queen AND/OR The CROWN, they didnt teach me in gradeschool/high-school AND/OR University to talk like this..so how am i
expected to be able to UNDERSTAND such obfuscating language which
contradicts the Maxim-of-Law that says (LAYMAN's terms).....?"
The court can only SEE what is before them. GIVE THEM A COPY OF THE
MAXIMS! Ask if they UNDERSTAND them.
OPINION is the court's product. OPINION is not FACT. Try to get a
RULING based on FACTS, and they will not do it. It's "illegal".
In a LEGALESE context, opinion is ANY document that states some
contractual relationship or grants some right, which is written by a
"JUSTICE". It is ALWAYS based on "reasons to believe".
THAT is yet another example as to why BELIEF IS EVIL.
"The court can only SEE what is before them."....This is why we must
serve your Trust. By this I obviously mean that should we be willing to
speak nonsense to you (READ court), then the court can't see us. If the
Court that we are attending, had a JUDGE that was fortunately feeling
extra generous (because, just the night before, he was served weed and
a couple of effective woman from a happy fan), he might be willing to
yell at the schmuck that he somewhat senses a person who is ignorant
AND for some reason does not choose to not INCLUDE his ignorance
from the proceedings.So he informs the sod that he can't see anything
that was presented that makes sense. He can't see a thing that the sod
presented that is relevant to the matter. Therefore, he must decide to
EXCLUDE equity and treat him as another PUBLIC SCHOOL recipient that
is only one more worker bee for the QUEEN bee.Such is the lot in life of
those worker bees that serve the QUEEN. Am I on track here?
MAGNA CARTA was written in LATIN, Vernacular French, Gaelic, and
Angol. Fuck off Dean Clifford.
MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM Latin, Gaelic and Angol. Yes there was no
"English back then". English evolved through the ANGOLS and Germanic
influence to create the language you speak today. EVERY TRANSLATION
OF MAGNA CARTA resulted in the translation we see today. Readable,
NO "U"'s and Not backward like Shakespeare. Containing NO WORDS
like Shakespearian Speech, and since LIBERTATUM was the basis for
ENGLISH law The FIRST English version was as I said.
Scott Duncan Coming soon. MAGNA CARTA FOR DUMMIES. It is the
ONLY surviving LEGAL document relevant to TODAY. You know...where
we live? Where we are, and where APPLICATIONS (begging) and
MOTIONS (which only a PARTY can file) Bring you into jurisdiction. The
first English translations of the MAGNA CARTA (and the Bible) appeared
in 1380 (although there are reportedly earlier ones). And yes there was
English in the 1380s. I was referring to the source documents which
appeared in the 1200s. It was NOT translated into "Shakespearean"
English...because that is when Legalese was inserted. History was
REWRITTEN in the 1500s and few historic documents can be relied on.
Wasnt the MAGNA CARTA eventually amended into what i think is the
fourth-version that survives today - the CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM...?
LAYMEN TERMS "They", the controllers of THEIR legal language (to
which most of us have ignorantly bound ourselves to), have effectively
turned the world into a stage, in which we are merely players. If we can
control the stage, through understanding their language (or defining our
own as "They" do, we can EFFECTIVELY become the DIRECTOR of the
play which which "They" created AND became the SURETY for AND we
can create our own definitions which EXCLUDE their nonsense. "They"
accepted SURETY for "their" language when they affixed their signature
AND/OR PRESENTED a verbal OATH to accept their OFFICE. It's
beginning to APPEAR that this language which "They" have perverted for
their own means is akin to a game of tag. In their game of tag, instead
of being vaguely "it", the person who is "it" (read the ID-I-"IT" who took
on the SURETY) quickly wants to tag someone else so that the SURETY
is no longer theirs. That is the lot of those that will bound by the game
and don't make a game that he AND/OR she would like to play. The
game of tag "They" made is designed to have us to publicly "perform"
the role of ignoramus AND SURETY. Feedback Scott? Am I waking up a
tad with this Layman's synopsis?
AQUILAE only owns the NAME. The government cannot use it, because it
is now NON-NEGOTIABLE. The conditions of his ratification, is that he is
FREE. He can do what he wishes. To do otherwise would be a breach of
MY duties. Dean Clifford does not serve AQUILAE, but "DEAN CLIFFORD"
most CERTAINLY does.
I wanted him on a "Ghost Run" (Where they move him from jail-to-jail
every 3 or 4 days, in order to boost budget numbers for the next year.)
They do it all the time to people awaiting trial on a detention order.
A ghost run=monetization.
No money was made by ANYBODY in Dean Clifford's case because the
transaction is not complete. 364 days from the day the charges were
STAYED, the case will close as a written-off debt to all parties with
financial interest. (Crown Lawyers, Remand centre, etc.)
NOBODY made ANY money and the government loses the money on the
books.
I saw your post on feudal decline due to Jewish economic influences,
perhaps you should read some of this.
In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an
income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the
remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be
"anti-government." They don’t talk much about these roots. Few even
know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this
success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well
understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the
original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means
"spoken." The protest obviously didn’t happen here. It occurred in
England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the
relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here’s
what happened.
The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the
churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high
cost of paper. Contrary to what you’ve been taught, it was not the
invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That
concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application.
Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to
write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The
handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those
with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of
the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for
"oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved
land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to
farming. So that’s how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn’t
push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility wouldn’t sell their
land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a
lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no
legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn’t have
moved out? Then you’d have a feel for what feudalism was all about.
A tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the
noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required
that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty
and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to
the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant
then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing
years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence
farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain
him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman
could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . .
. under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be
fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or
cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the
critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his
own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."
The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and
unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they’d also
be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a
sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few
coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d
never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He
was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven.
The tradesmen didn’t need adolescents; they needed someone strong
enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13.
By age 21 he’d have learned enough to practice the craft. That’s when
the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made
a journey?
No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He was a
"man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He’d then go to work for
a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for
more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty
normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some
years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if
the journeyman was good at the trade, he’d be recognized by the
market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to
take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him,
become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at
age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s
father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both
sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means
"gold") as a protection against the potential of the government
attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.
When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a
membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He
literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he’d only work for
pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of
that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the
very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and
Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a
secret. They’d love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their
logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")
Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn’t the
wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants.
They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the
tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined
life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the
tradesmen were the market was that they’d also been taught how to
read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know
how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the
priests) nobody else knew how to read.
These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against
swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a
millennia they’d been trusting that the church - originally just the
Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling
them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out
that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.
Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years.
Without oaths there’d have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility,
and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was
premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it
violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done
it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and
giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that
was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better
term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban
the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the
millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning.
They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."
In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe
adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of
founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The
church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple
thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.
Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a
statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful
oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None,
except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?
The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of
England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear
words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They
exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them
preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech.
But they couldn’t establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for
that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what
Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those
who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church
or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he
encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black
hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t
miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term
"you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior.
"Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends.
So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by
their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk
"Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them
had told the judge that he’d better "Quake before the Lord, God
almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee
are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total
misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the
huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from
men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was
technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other
people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in
Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather
this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can’t go bankrupt.
It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament
did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current
standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in
that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax
as a tax "without jurisdiction,’ at least so far as they went. As men
unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn’t have to pay it,
nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude,
there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it
a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were
charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who’d
thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to
them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they
earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied
to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded
significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in
the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes
weren’t enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax
was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The
members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If
this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the
next generation would swear an oath.
Who’d then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would,
but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be
leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in
the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of
the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the
Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off,
with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth.
But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the
priests and officials. They’d always held a position of superiority in the
society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as
equals?
They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy,
not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so
those in government thought. There’s an aspect of a monarchy that
Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two
centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An
expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by
demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone
jumps.
Why do they jump? Simple. It’s a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail
(hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is
considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a
Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that
wasn’t possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have
done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It
ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown!
Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!
A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a
simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They
opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into
court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the
witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of
allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right
to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the
administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged
him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for
there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that
day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails
reached their capacity, plus. But they weren’t filled as you’d envision
them. The men who’d refused the oaths weren’t there. Their children
were.
There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that. There was no social
welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison
existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist,
starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to
have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he
could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the
family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more
heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to
allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on
charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family
had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the
same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was
destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the
breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should
serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to
the family earnings.
That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons
of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for
their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails.
They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong
man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time
on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the
unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually
every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and
church be duly embarrassed.)
Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little
fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other
prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to
make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime.
High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists,
rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on
commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road.
Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the
crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how
they’d exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to
venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those
meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they
were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name,
they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from
starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and
nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal
to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand
that people swear them!
The followers of Jesus’ words didn’t bring that chaos, those who ignored
that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the
revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the
children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was
removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the
odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted
that as a victory. Given what they’d been through, that was
understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the
practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal
concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a
prophecy!
When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in
droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between
themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the
situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very
strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of
the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were
incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to
those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution
is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document.
Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the
United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION.
A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not
a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of
Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal
act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been
COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it’s the
opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can’t be
criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do
something. That concept in place, the new government would have
lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do
something, then the officers of that government would have done
NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a
concession.
Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to
support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to
enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these
people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official
"fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his
oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the
punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not
treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who
were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just
that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the
average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know,
the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th
amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century
Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t
apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that
it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an upfront total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the
census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed
a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit
of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a
"return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can
demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the
rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?
Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to
answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a
person needs standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has
occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the
Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers
demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question
couldn’t have come up.
Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO
taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have
been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a
side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of
income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income
from the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is
pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far
easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper.
The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back
as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office
could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by
Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The
first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at
law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a
prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing
the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it
was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the
second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to
overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.
The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source
derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it
doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court
has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers."
That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes,
but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a
benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to
tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other
sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the
statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are
subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers.
That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file
or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical
definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the
broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that
you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, "Man, I’d
never be so foolish as to claim that." I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that
you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax
form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed.
You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of
perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury
you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s
common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be
under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be
under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically.
There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on
making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to
claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false.
But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then
you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
You’ve read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and
penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you
say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can’t even be
placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.
The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just
state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single
criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true.
There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice
tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction
of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal
officials are under oath, an oath of office. That’s why you call them civil
servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them
to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official
oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury
clause. You aren’t under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You
can’t be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury.
Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn’t try to deceive
you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was
jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.
Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that
you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to
have income and you’ll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of
doing nothing when commanded to do something!
Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed)
before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter
all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income
from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him
on a criminal charge. If he didn’t list it, then swore that the form was
"true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a
perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The Supreme
Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide
any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line,
and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against
himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few
years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the
"gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line,
as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the
notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."
Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of
the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were
made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the
Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise
on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on
the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the
taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and
early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan
had no current relevance.
There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income
taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The
court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and
assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a
person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single
criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to
try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the
concept of perjury, not treason.
However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should
take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and
then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a
federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed
statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of
oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under
federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully
makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.
The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he
truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then
duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his
ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I’m) under
penalties of perjury" and "I’m not a federal official or employee" would
be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal
employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement
would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a
FALSE statement. Can’t have that proof on the record, can we? About
now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure"
where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth,
that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such
cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And
you are right; they told the court that they weren’t federal persons.
Unfortunately, they didn’t tell the court that while under oath. A most
curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant
has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn’t a federal
person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that’s surely
what he’d try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swearin the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells
the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he’s
not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a
contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in
evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to
file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal
officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming
that he’s under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of
penalties. It’s still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn’t
changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we
have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of
America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do,
then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office.
Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory"
once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income
tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You
voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you
are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters
your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to
file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you
knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free
man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal
government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a
duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of
office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can
also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under
the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If
that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal
officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal
officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It’s still the same system
as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don’t
immediately realize it. Yes, it’s a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken
matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled
over the 14th Amendment. You’ve wondered who are persons "subject
to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are
not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.
The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former
slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil
beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from
occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little
more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an
act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You
should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.
After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves
were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn’t
vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over
what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to
extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal
government found a way to force that.
It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to
become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to
the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that.
They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an
unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to
secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the
Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of
what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!
Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist,
these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their
assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by
Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an
OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively
among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously
refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of
the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than
the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal
officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath.
They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their
office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There
was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres
and a mule, but that quickly faded.
Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will.
For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or
petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded
under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of
office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be
issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be
discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be
charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one crime for which
immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.
You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable
when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction"
means. You didn’t WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of
perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it
voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn’t realize the import
and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big
one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent.
You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a
perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn’t give
those words any thought.
What do you do when you discover you’ve made a mistake? As an
honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error,
apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the
future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your
mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all
income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a
perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you’ve never
sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will.
You made this mistake on every tax form you’d ever signed. But now
that you understand the words, you’ll most certainly not make that
mistake again! That’ll be the end of any possibility that you’ll ever be
charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it’s only as simple
as it’s supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple
matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an
oath, or you are not.
If you aren’t under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses
you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under
oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman
can’t be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty,
certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute
a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.
It’s a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally,
the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making
parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you
know that you’ve never sworn an oath of office, and now understand
how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does
that. Funny how that works.
Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all."
That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal
society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound
by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who’d farm those lands in the
next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a
bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain
jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition"
for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He’d "tear down the
temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute,
refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!
The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question
attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in
the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An
adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence,
responding, "You have so said."
He didn’t "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge!
That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus
was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his
heart he’d said so. That’s what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that
falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few
words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it,
back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn’t get jurisdiction.
Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus
off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power
might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel
with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of
any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of
Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would
need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him.
Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of
"person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the
civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered
that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate
"marveled at that." He’d never before met a man who preferred to live
free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be
unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar.
When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that
"failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act.
To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did
so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so.
The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain
jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn’t kill Him, nor could it prevent
that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death.
How’s that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be
sworn. But the law couldn’t do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free
a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law
- at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly
free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or
fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos.
That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the
result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the
people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe
that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason,
because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under
the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades.
Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the
people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and
jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast
majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by
churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still
profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a "lawful
oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so,
for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don’t
name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous
members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they
could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t
answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command,
ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what
today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat.
If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court
(without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn’t a metaphor.
Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!
It’s rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and
have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps
inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation
instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step.
You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in selfpreservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It’s all a
matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can’t abide.
Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to
no one on earth. We can’t serve two masters. No one can. As Christians
our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance
arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As
Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our
eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.
As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even
affirmations, this writer honestly can’t envision. Certainly it would have
been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial
instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I
can’t envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet,
every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel
servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages
were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to
enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly
violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel
oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death
occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a
compelled oath and an offered oath.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos
as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical
premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that
chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use
oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We
ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely
that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned,
without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves,
rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a
complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to
punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that
society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind.
Even if you can’t, you still have to obey His command. That will set you
free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never
been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths,
I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives.
Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE
claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You
claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It
worked 400 years ago. It’ll still work. It’s the only thing that’ll work.
History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason
extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell
this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then
explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for
that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow.
Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force
them to realize that you aren’t the extremist they originally thought! If
only 2% of the American people understand what is written here,
income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge
will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the
next generation would swear an oath? Then there’d be no servants! No,
the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen.
That’s only money.
Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will
always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the
knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can
run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends.
But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will
probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell
the truth. That will set you free - and it’ll scare the government silly.
Well if you are CURRENTLY married, you are CURRENTLY fucked. It's a
bill of lading that secures your PERSONS in the same way Rogueupport
has secured Tara and My "PERSONS".
You need the government's PERMISSION to disolve the "bill of lading".
We only require the SHAREHOLDER'S permission...and they're WAY
nicer than the government.
If both parties lien their names, then wouldn't that take the surety out
of the equation?
That's "WILFUL DAMAGE to a SECURITY INSTRUMENT". The Marriage
came first. IT has the claim, not you. Liening your name just makes you
"next in line".
How about a DECREE that the signatures are now rescinded by free will
of both parties and marriage is now and forever null and void?
That damages the security. The trustee you LICENSED from, will
demand payment, which will, by happy coincidence, consist of
everything you own.
If there is lien in place then our corp would be "first in line"? (yes?)
"Make a PERSON with LIMITED LIABILITY, and HAVE that "PERSON"
LIEN IT! CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS UNDER THE LAW!"..... ok - i
hear you on this, but after that, i am now heading down the slipperyslope of TRUST LAW once i set that corporation up am i not?...which i
have no shame in admitting i dont know much about
March 9 at 4:15pm · Like · 1
Scott Duncan Are you sure? Perhaps Brad can help?
He knows that "Stephen Harper" is doing all the evil stuf and
"Anarchists" are bad.... oh and I have a "God" complex.
Surely he knows better!
*sarcasm self-test complete*
OK, so here in REALITY you need help with the TRUST aspects.
When you create a LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, you and the
Governmaent are acting as GRANTORS - This ends upon creation and
the GRANTORS have no further say.
1: A coprpration has SHAREHOLDERS who are the BENEFICIARIES. You
determine the number of shares when the corporation is chartered, ans
YES you can have ONE SHARE in a corporation. Ammendments to the
charter can change this.
2: A corporation has DIRECTORS with titles (TRUSTEES), and you can
be one. You have surely seen "Voting Shares" when examining share
purchases of a corporation. If not, you need to invest more.
3: Since YOU (Or rather your PERSON) are the only VALUE in this
corporation, you should be SECURED.
THIS TRUST TRUMPS ALL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS.
As part of my "God Complex" I shall now grant you permission to ask
about what I just wrote.
So even though there are many various types of Trusts you can set up,
simply put.. in setting-up a LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, you are
ALSO setting-up a TRUST at the same time?
Scott Duncan ...but he IS god in that context. THIS is EXACTLY why I
didn't become a Doctor. Inept, unqualified people will "judge" my work,
and attach labels. More ignorance taking the same status of ACTUAL
SKILL/KNOWLEDGE.
I'm pretty sure I just explained that ALL CORPORATIONS are trusts.
Perhaps the evil Stephen Harper has tainted your critical faculties and
my "god complex" has frightened you... and you're going to be an
"Anarchist"... AND DON'T GIVE ME THE ACTUAL meaning of the word!
Brad and I dislike those "Facts" and "Knowledge"... I'm trying to
squeeze "fremasons" in here too...
I didn't make the law, I just explain it, so what you and I think the
Chinese are going to do, is largely irrelevant. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL
TENDER, does in fact establish JOINDER (Not "bind") when you USE it.
It's how commerce is CURRENTLY done. It's unsustainable. I'm showing
EVERYONE how to LEAVE it and still have the benefit WITHOUT
JOINDER, but yes according to EVERYTHING IN JURISPRUDENCE,
COMMERCE, and PUBLIC POLICY, it DOES establish JOINDER.
Pretending it does not ignores reality. The people ENFORCING the
LEGAL aspects don't care what the Chinese will do. They don't care what
Dean believes, and they CERTAINLY don't care which one of US you
believe.
Use your heads. Look at everything I write (ESPECIALLY the C.A.S.
article) and look for YOURSELF. READ what he is saying, and read what
I am saying. He is giving BAD ADVICE. A MOTION and/or APPLICATION
also makes JOINDER. Pretending it does not is just stupid! AGAIN, all he
has to say about his bad advice is "it's worked in the past", completely
ignoring the JOINDER issue. Special Appearance means you cannot
APPLY or MOTION ANYTHING. DOING SO MAKES YOU SURETY!
I'm saying you CANNOT make a MOTION, or an APPLICATION to the
court without being SURETY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
You will notice MOTION or APPLICATION is NOT mentioned.
I have a very Knowledgable contract lawyer friend and he was telling me
you, want to make a declaration and not a notice as a notice can be
rebutted and a declaration has more standing.
How can it be rebutted? By serving a NOTICE OF MISTAKE you are
putting the burden of proof back onto the plaintiff to prove their claims
that the defendant has surety... That's my understanding...
If you want to parrot BAR FUCKTARDS, tell him that he and the "justice"
who's cock he sucks, ARE NOT, AND CANNOT BE A PARTY AND HAVE NO
STANDING.
How do you REBUT A NOTICE THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE?
Seriously? You REALLY think a sack-of-shit lawyer who harms strangers
for a living is going to tell you the TRUTH?
Tell him to call me and I'll tell your "lawyer friend" he's a lying sack of
shit, and I'll post the call here.
HE LIED TO YOU. WITH INTENT. You need better "friends"
Have you even read the NOTICE OF MISTAKE?
There is NO such thing as a "reformed lawyer". In your SECOND YEAR
you learn that your duty is to harm strangers for a living, and you have
a third year and a year of internship/articling to decide. He did it WITH
INTENT. He knew when he went in.
Being "called to the Bar" is "HOTEL CALIFORNIA". NEVER forget that.
There are no "reformed lawyers". There are no "kind rapists", there are
no "honest fraud artists". They even have to lie to their children to keep
their oath.
Ask him about that!
SCOTT- regarding the AMICUS CURIAE, are you saying...that by virtue
of them being members of the B.A.R., this automatically NEGATES them
from as you said- "...ARE NOT, AND CANNOT BE A PARTY AND HAVE NO
STANDING."....???
Yes. The COURT is NOT A PERSON. BARtards are OFFICERS OF THE
COURT
On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion(??), that
being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only
one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick
about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS!
Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give
them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only
one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're
entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of
order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I
am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I
wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any
objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond,
simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have
reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they
say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that
I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak.
Why are you speaking?"
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be
posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for
that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their
master's wish?
You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste
system and how they give instructions.
NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".
ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING
THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".
GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.
The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none,
you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give
instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how
you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the
time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time
you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like
he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial
PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case
to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise
your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES
ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case
dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll
recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these
proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not
made my wishes clear?"
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question
serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the
possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you
accept SURETY.
As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are
you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is
answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
Reserving rights is the ONE MOTION they have no standing to refuse.
In any courtroom proceeding in the western world, SURETY IS
PRESUMED, and it must be deflected from you. As a "justice" is not a
PERSON under the law, the only PARTY that can ACCEPT SURETY is the
PARTY making the CLAIM.
Think of it as "Pushing the vessel away from the dock".
Let's zoom back to the present (so we can get as far away from belief as
possible) where the word "YOU" is part of the English language, as are
the titles, "Mr.", "Miss", and "Mrs.". All of these titles and means of
addressing you, are in fact, assigning and/or presuming SURETY...yes,
on YOU. The easiest mnemonic exercise you can do to make deflecting
these titles second nature is to replace the titles "Mr.", "Miss", or "Mrs."
with the word, "bitch", in your head; and to respond as if they had
addressed you as "bitch", because being addressed as "Mr.", "Miss", or
"Mrs." is doing exactly that.
As for the word "YOU", think of that as a tennis ball which must be
served back. Assert your AUTHORITY by questioning whenever they
address you as "YOU"; "Are YOU addressing ME?" If they're stupid
enough to say yes, or even to imply the affirmative, demand proof; "By
what authority do YOU address me as a PARTY OF SURETY?"...or
something along those lines. Your only objective is to serve the "YOU"
back to them.
A Justice is a supernumerary (Third party contractor), and is not even
part of the court system, nor is a "justice" part of the BAR...and why are
you cutting-and-pasting previously typed stuff?
If you reserve ALL rights, they have no standing to speak, and therefore
NO JURISDICTION.
"...BARtards are OFFICERS OF THE COURT"..... and is there ANY
significance to this at all?
Lawyers have NO standing and "Limited Liability". They cannot challenge
a "NOTICE OF MISTAKE" because they are 3rd parties.
I'm saying you CANNOT make a MOTION, or an APPLICATION to the
court without being SURETY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae You will notice MOTION or
APPLICATION is NOT mentioned.
if you want to parrot BAR FUCKTARDS, tell him that he and the "justice"
who's cock he sucks, ARE NOT, AND CANNOT BE A PARTY AND HAVE NO
STANDING.
SCOTT- regarding the AMICUS CURIAE, are you saying...that by virtue
of them being members of the B.A.R., this automatically NEGATES them
from as you said- "...ARE NOT, AND CANNOT BE A PARTY AND HAVE NO
STANDING."....???
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Yes. The COURT is NOT A PERSON. BARtards are OFFICERS OF THE
COURT. Judge? We haven't had JUDGES for decades. It doesn't MATTER
what a JUDGE is bound to. You'll never see one.
Legal Latin is irrelevant. Define what you wish at the beginning of your
writ. A writ is LAW. Frame it like one.
Think of it as "Pushing the vessel away from the dock".
A Justice is a supernumerary (Third party contractor), and is not even
part of the court system, nor is a "justice" part of the BAR
If you reserve ALL rights, they have no standing to speak, and therefore
NO JURISDICTION.
Lawyers have NO standing and "Limited Liability". They cannot challenge
a "NOTICE OF MISTAKE" because they are 3rd parties.
The goal is to GET OUT of court, not INTO it.
MOTION = BAD.. APPLICATION = BAD.. i had hopes for PETITION, but
PETITION seems to = a synonym for MOTION
On the other hand: COMMAND = GOOD.. WRIT = GOOD..
PRAECIPE(only written, never delivered orally) = GOOD
MOTION=EFFECTS ANOTHER PARTY
PETITION=EFFECTS THE COURT
Scott, respectively, that doesn't answer the question. I see a lot of
people offering very vague positions with no specifics on how to go
about achieving the ends. One could easily say the goal is to win not to
lose. Well of course! As far as I can see there is nothing in the rules that
permits an intiating process much other than an application or a
statement of claim with some small variances thereto. Do you have
another way that works? If so, how specifically do you implement it? If
its outside the Court, then where does it go and what exactly is it?
No, you only RESPOND.
It's called "OFFERING AS PROOF FOR APPEAL". They MUST address you
somehow, if they are pretending to be a party.
Define "way that works"? What is your goal? You are looking for a
"magic bullet" that doesn't exist. MY "way that works" is to remove
presumption, and start demanding/offering proof for appeal.
Ok, let me dumb it down. It's really simple.
STEP 1: READ MY SURETY ARTICLE, and then READ IT AGAIN. This is
what you AVOID.
STEP 2: Get a TRUSTED PARTY to LIEN THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR BIRTH
CERTIFICATE. This prevents them from MONETIZING.
Step 3: DEMAND PROOF that ANY PARTY has ANY authority to attach
ANY name, which is derived from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, to "Me". (Never
use YOU except when returning SURETY.)
LIABILITY/SURETY...PETITION...WRIT...REPLEVIN...AMICUS CURIAE(or
lack of it involved)-thread
This is a 4-minute video showing that even a 12 year-old girl back in the
Wild West knew about THE LAW, which provides a free 5-for-1 lesson in
the law regarding: LIABILITY = SURETY...PETITION(instead of
MOTION)...WRIT(instead of(i think)APPLICATION)...REPLEVIN(one of
many forms of a common law WRIT)....and an example of no AMICUS
CURIAE being involved at this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=714Xl-G5qaI
Give in Lieu of "Identification"
by Scott Duncan (Notes) on Friday, March 22, 2013 at 1:01am
NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME
ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7])
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a
PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, have
demanded "IDENTIFICATION" from ME, and
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a
PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have
the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to
ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME
and/or JOINDER to ME, and
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a
PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND
BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and
respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact, waive ALL benefits of the
ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as
such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.If I and/or such other parties
who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE
NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a
MISTAKE, and please forgive me.
NOTICE OF MISTAKE
TAKE NOTICE THAT: In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I
believe that there has been a MISTAKE, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY OF A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as an
"accused" and/or a "suspect".
FORGIVE ME: If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT
AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A
COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE
and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believeby
responding to “You” and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN” and/or SUCH
OTHER IDENTIFICATION such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I
am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a
MISTAKE, and please forgive me.
As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”
and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION ANY COURT and/or STATUTORY
BODY and/or GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS
of such bodies [HEREAFTER "YOU"], HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY ARE "YOU" ADDRESSING me
as such?
As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the
COURT [In the custody of Justice Wailan Low, ONTARIO SUPERIOR
COURT OF JUSTICE: Court File Number CV-11-430464], WHAT
EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as a MAN who is not lawfully
entitled to the BENFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE [PPSACA13078], have
any SURETY in this matter?
As GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND
(BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the
LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE for
the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE
and have ANY SURETY with respect to ANY NAME?
WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have, that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a
TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? WHAT EVIDENCE do
"YOU" have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?
WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have that there has been any meeting of the
minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION
offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?
As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate
DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.
[ AUTHORISED BY:
] [ AQUILAE Trust Seal]
THE TENDER FOR LAW – SURETY FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT
INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
3.0 Unported License.
It's been a while since I've posted an article, and I've solidified the "For
Idiots" concept.
One of the most painful things about being on FaceBook is having to
endure the fact that people with chronic Dunning–Kruger effect still
think that their ignorance has the same standing as my knowledge; and
they will happily state many unkind things regarding my character when
I challenge their "pulled-out-of-their-ass" mythology.
Some don't even go that far, and will simply lie about what I said, and
claim I don't post evidence. I don't have to post "evidence". I'm not
trying to PROVE anything to you.
That said, this is not a debate centre either. You assume ALL LIABILITY
when you ask to join this group. This, by default, means you have
"SURETY", because SURETY equals LIABILITY. I don't need to provide
"proof" of this; as my banning you from the group should be compelling
enough to show the difference between who's in charge, and who's
liable.
Before we get to the actual issue of SURETY, and why you must avoid it,
we must take a quick journey back in time to learn where the legalese
that enjoins you came from.
Those of you who endured the content-free 1.2 decades of the Public
Fool System, will remember certain things, not the least of which is
Shakespeare. The plays of Shakespeare are sold to you as "Olde
English". In fact, it was sold as "Olde English" when these were first-run
plays. There is a problem with this, though. Nobody ever spoke in the
manner that Shakespeare wrote, and they most certainly never used the
words. Shakespeare produced most of his major works between 1589
and 1613, all of which were sold as "Olde English". Popular periodicals of
the time show that you were often considered "learned and of good
taste" if you could speak in this "Olde English".
So let's go read some really, really Olde English.
Let's pick a really old English document, completely at random. We'll
pick...The MAGNA CARTA.
A quick read of the MAGNA CARTA will swiftly reveal two things. The
first is that that it's pretty readable, not backward and convoluted like a
Shakespeare play. There may be a few archaic words you may need to
look up (to ascertain their meanings), but it's still pretty readable, and
there are no words that Shakespeare used. There's also no letter "U".
This is a very important fact to remember, because *spoiler alert*,
when courts or legal documents refer to "YOU", they are in fact,
granting you SURETY in the matter. If you look at a WARRANT, or a
ticket from a Policy Enforcement Officer, it will have a name and it will
then refer to that name as "YOU" from then on. For example, "JOHN Q
PUBLIC, YOU have been charged with (insert bullshit offence here)".
YOU=SURETY
If you're ever in a courtroom and do not wish to have the "benefit of
SURETY", you have but to object to being addressed as "YOU". There
are many ways to do this. Dean Clifford might say, in response to being
addressed as "YOU", "If I have led the court to believe that I am
SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive
me." (FUN FACT: A court MUST ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked
and/or requested)
Others, like myself, are a lot more succinct. For example, I might
respond, "FUCK YOU! You're a YOU, I'm a ME! By what AUTHORITY do
YOU address ME as a "YOU"?", because I can get away with it. The
reason I can get away with it is that I UNDERSTAND the UCC as
opposed to ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD which spreads mythology and
bullshit about the UCC.
Now there may be a certain "pretend radio" talk-show host (who speaks
in a manner that would suggest he is hosting a show with a dick in his
mouth), who would demand "proof of this", ignoring the fact that the
UCC is, in fact, the proof.
Section 1, Subsection 308, of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE covers
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This is a well-known fact, and this is how
you use it.
On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that
being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only
one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick
about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS!
Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give
them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only
one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're
entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of
order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I
am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I
wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any
objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond,
simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have
reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they
say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that
I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak.
Why are you speaking?"
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be
posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for
that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their
master's wish?
You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste
system and how they give instructions.
NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".
ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING
THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".
GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.
Now even the talk-show host who sounds like he's got a dick in his
mouth, won't "demand proof" of the fact that if you have all the rights,
and everybody else has none, you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are
going to have to learn to give instruction by expressing your wishes.
This is why they are asking how you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and
test your SOVEREIGNTY all the time. You simply have to listen to the
words they are using. At this time you may respond, "I wish to prove to
some ass-wipe who sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I
know, so I wish to go to trial PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I
would simply wish the case to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise
your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES
ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case
dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll
recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these
proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not
made my wishes clear?"
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question
serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the
possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you
accept SURETY.
As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are
you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is
answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
Quite possibly one of the most useful documents I have ever published
is my NOTICE OF MISTAKE for Dean. This is a useful, powerful
document that also instantly removes SURETY. I framed it in such a way
that you can replace the name "Dean Clifford" with your name, and you
can make a pad of these things. Have lots of copies to hand out to
friends and opposing counsel. Hell the court clerk loves these things
too...make sure the court clerk has one as well. Just make sure you
UNDERSTAND what the document says. Read it carefully and
understand what the words mean, because you will be challenged. And
remember, the NOTICE by its very nature, presents several questions.
Do not permit the proceedings to move forward without these questions
being answered!
Because so many people ask for it, transcribed here is the copy of THE
ROGUESUPPORT NOTICE OF MISTAKE.
***Begin NOTICE OF MISTAKE
NOTICE OF MISTAKE
In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has
been a
MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY
IDENTIFIED as the
accused. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT
AND/OR
SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT
to believe
by responding to “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or SUCH OTHER
IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the
PARTY
WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please
forgive
me.
As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or
SUCH
OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I
RESPECTFULLY
ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT ADDRESSING me as such?
As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the
COURT,
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as the SOLE
BENEFICIARY of the
TRUST have any SURETY in this matter?
As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY
BOND
(BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the
LEGAL
NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE for
the
LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a
TRUSTEE and
have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am an OFFICER, an
AGENT, a
TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY
for the
principal?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any
meeting of the
minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION
offered, or
that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?
As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate
DISCHARGE and
CLOSURE.
AUTHORISED BY:
***End NOTICE OF MISTAKE
If you truly UNDERSTAND what this document says and/or does, this is
one of the most powerful documents you can wield in court. If you have
the Dunning–Kruger effect you will likely go to jail. Used properly the
NOTICE OF MISTAKE will ALWAYS remove any real or implied SURETY
the court believes you may have.
You will notice the court always refers to "belief". When I say belief is
evil, it is not just a disparaging remark against adults with "imaginary
friends" (which they totally deserve), it is yet another example of why
this statement is profoundly true. All belief is evil.
You are taught from childhood to "respect belief", and are constantly
reinforced with the really dumb freedom that it is your "right to believe
what you want". If I had the authority and/or power to remove just one
right from humanity, and no more, the right to "believe" would be the
one that I would eradicate. In all my years of studying, and being part
of the Nobility, the curtailing of this one "RIGHT" would exponentially
increase quality of life for all humanity. I calculate it would take two
generations for it to "stick".
Belief is the end of questioning. Belief is intellectual bankruptcy, and is
the exact opposite of knowledge. You will never question if you
"believe".
Let's leap back to the 1500's to Shakespeare. This is where the concept
of addressing somebody as "YOU" indicated the assignment of SURETY.
No writings before this contained any such logistic mechanisms. Don't
"believe me"...go look for yourself. Go look at the MAGNA CARTA
yourself; and ask yourself why there's no "YOU" before Shakespeare.
And ask yourself why the MAGNA CARTA, in all its current published
forms, no longer has, "To do right by Alexander".
There may be three readers amongst you who understand what I just
said there, and all of them are Scottish I guarantee you.
In any courtroom proceeding in the western world, SURETY IS
PRESUMED, and it must be deflected from you. As a "justice" is not a
PERSON under the law, the only PARTY that can ACCEPT SURETY is the
PARTY making the CLAIM.
There may be certain readers who talk like they have a dick stuck in
their mouth, who will demand proof of this...and so I direct you to the
Rules of Civil Procedure (wherever you are) to look up SECURITY FOR
COSTS.
Let's zoom back to the present (so we can get as far away from belief as
possible) where the word "YOU" is part of the English language, as are
the titles, "Mr.", "Miss", and "Mrs.". All of these titles and means of
addressing you, are in fact, assigning and/or presuming SURETY...yes,
on YOU. The easiest mnemonic exercise you can do to make deflecting
these titles second nature is to replace the titles "Mr.", "Miss", or "Mrs."
with the word, "bitch", in your head; and to respond as if they had
addressed you as "bitch", because being addressed as "Mr.", "Miss", or
"Mrs." is doing exactly that.
As for the word "YOU", think of that as a tennis ball which must be
served back. Assert your AUTHORITY by questioning whenever they
address you as "YOU"; "Are YOU addressing ME?" If they're stupid
enough to say yes, or even to imply the affirmative, be like that guy
who talks like he has a dick in his mouth and demand proof; "By what
authority do YOU address me as a PARTY OF SURETY?"...or something
along those lines. Your only objective is to serve the "YOU" back to
them.
So that's today's word, "SURETY". It's something you don't want, and
I've just shown you how to give it back. I'd like to thank my involuntary
guests, Dean Clifford, and the guy that talks like he's got a dick in his
mouth. Since I was so liberal with their identities, I certainly have no
problem putting in a free plug for a "pretend radio" show.
So here's a link to Dean Clifford talking about family court rules or
something...hosted by a guy who sounds like he's got a dick in his
mouth. And before Pierre thinks I've "soft-balled this one in there" for
him, I'm now going to presumptively say, "Yes Pierre, I'm pretty sure
it's Dean's dick he's sucking".
THE TENDER FOR LAW – SURETY FOR IDIOTS - PART II - WAIVING THE
LEGAL NAME (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
THE FOLLOWING is an ENHANCED and TENDER FOR LAW ANNOTATED
[In Square Brackets] version of section 2.1 of The ONTARIO "Change of
Name Act" [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7... see what I did there? PAY
ATTENTION TO CAPS HERE, as these are the words to look for where
YOUR "change of name act" is.]
2. (1) For ALL [ALL purposes! Pay attention to that] purposes of
ONTARIO LAW,
(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is ENTITLED [Which
means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by the NAME
appearing on the PERSON'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE or change of name
certificate, unless clause (c) applies;
(b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is ENTITLED[Which
means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by,
(i) the name appearing on the person’s change of name certificate, if the
person’s name has been changed under this Act or a predecessor of it,
or
(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with
which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing
in Ontario,
unless clause (c) applies; and
(c) a person who adopted a name on marriage before the 1st day of
April, 1987 is entitled to be recognized by that name unless the person
subsequently changed that name under this Act or a predecessor of it.
R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (1).
So always WAIVE the BENEFIT of section 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME
ACT.
Any name you are known by is PRIVATE, and NOT DERIVED from a
PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Don't be surety for a THING.
I WAIVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 2.1 OF THE ONTARIO CHANGE OF
NAME ACT. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ADDRESS ME BY ANY NAME,
AND/OR, ANY INFORMATION DERIVED FROM ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT?
*judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!" *judge goes
silent* "BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at this time I
WISH to reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the court?
*Jeopardy Music*
Any objections?
*Clock Ticking*
....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat
second and third time)
As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It
is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING
PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent).
QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't
understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC
RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so:
"Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A
COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN?
As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights,
ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to
you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY
objections from the court).
"By WHAT AUTHORITY does this court attach ANY name, derived from
ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT to ME"?
Trinsey Vs. Pagliaro D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647 "An attorney for
the plantiff CANNOT admit evidence into the court. He is either an
Attorney or a witness, and, Statements of counsel in brief or in
arguement are NOT facts before the court."
thats why scott says create a trust heald by a corporation (person) and
claim by a lien ownership & control of the birth certificate. in the case of
a warrant issued, the party has to claim the birth certificate as his
property to control. as if it were stolen, the lien is proof it's your
property that they have to return to the rightful owner. and i believe this
leaves them with no evidence.
Dismissing has effect on another party, recusing only effects the judge.
Ok, last time. ALL CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS, but ALL PERSONS
ARE NOT CORPORATIONS. A "birth certificate" means there is a
SECURITY, not a CORPORATION.
You don't vote at shareholder meetings.
You don't have a "first director", nor do you have a "president". You
have a PERSON which is A SECURITY, NOT A CORPORATION. PLEASE
stop saying that it IS.
It misleads people and they will miss key points.
SO SAY IT WITH ME:
A PERSON IS NOT A CORPORATION!|
A CORPORATION CAN BE A PERSON. THAT IS ALL AND HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH YOUR "PERSON".
you don't "register yourself" as a corporation. You also don't OWN a
corporation (That would be SLAVERY).
You CREATE a corporation, then grant ONE SHARE. You are now the
SOLE SHAREHOLDER (not an "owner"). You then ORDER (from the
corporation, for which you are the CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER to
LIEN your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The corporation can then hold that asset
IN TRUST.
When you say "...register myself in full name as a corporation", you
reveal a PROFOUND ignorance as to what a CORPORATION IS! You have
no CLUE. Stop pulling answers out of your ass, and RESEARCH THESE
WORDS, because, as I countless times, have said, YOU DON'T KNOW
WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN. Pretending you DO helps NOBODY.
Government accounts may be liened WITHOUT notice. Only a PARTY
may be NOTICED, and since the GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON, they
CANNOT be a PARTY.
Only an AGENT OF THE CORPORATION need be served (An agent
served, is the PARTY served.)
I really like that question Joseph Pierre Gilles. I was thinking about it
earlier today but just didn't work up the enthusiasm to get a point
across. I think we have become lazy and stupid as some have said. To
borrow from Scott Duncan, we value the wrong things. And we're so
addicted to not saying or doing the wrong things for fear of being
inconvenienced, punished or unliked that we're afraid of doing anything.
We're actually now afraid of being afraid. It's like finding yourself in a
really bad relationship and realizing that you have gotten there by
compromising a little at a time until you don't recognise yourself any
more. And the funny thing is that every one else, having done exactly
the same thing, thinks that is the best you can hope for. The less funny
thing is that the people and systems responsible for metering out these
various financial and penal punishments are actually funded by us, and
supported by your friends and neighbours and families. So how, and
when did we get here? That I can't answer. The situation is thick with
irony though. This would actually be funny if it wasn't sad.
I have a long comment, Maximus Legis, but the short version is this.
The definition of insane is, by definition, insane. You can easily prove
that most people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Is
it, for instance, fantasy or reality to believe that an omnipresent
imaginary caretaker oversees the actions of billions of people, providing
their value systems and answering the most banal requests? Is it
fantasy or reality to believe entrusting your children for care and
instruction is best left in the hands of known Pedophiles? Would a sane
person kill himself (or another) for coloured pieces of paper? Is it sane
to believe that a piece of hardened carbon should cost thousands of
dollars or be exchanged for love or sex? What sane person needs 100
pairs of shoes?
I could go on, and on, and on. The fact is we judge sanity by how
closely it resembles normalcy. The problem with normalcy is that to
thinking people it seems insane. With these facts in hand, what
authority can or should have the right to make that determination? I
prefer to self-validate, to be able to substantiate my personal choices
through logic and reason. At this point I'm not sure I'd [edit] trust the
medical profession or the court system to validate a ham sandwich.
The US has the ONLY charter that SEPARATES CHURCH AND STATE. You
have no idea what that does for the PERSON. It's HUGE from an
autonomy standpoint.
DELAWARE has the BEST laws on the PLANET!
THE TENDER FOR LAW – THE UCC FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013
ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
THIS ALSO SERVES AS PART II of ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF)
As promised, I am now going to cover the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
(or UCC, for you idiots who type with your thumbs.)
FUCK! Myths about THIS shit, sure has “done the rounds”, hasn't it? No
more myths have been generated, out of a piece of regulation, than the
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE!
The dumbed-down, but very accurate, explanation is that the UCC is a
standardized LEGAL mechanism, to resolve disputes in commerce,
where such commerce utilizes the world reserve currency.
At the moment, the world reserve currency is the US DOLLAR. This
doesn't mean it's American law, but it most certainly covers the
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and all the US shores and waterways.
ITS DEFAULT ROLE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION
If you watched Money as Debt III, you saw a brief explanation as to
WHY gold became a world currency. It was universally accepted, around
the world.
The UCC provides this very same function by being the very LAW you
TENDERED when you used the US DOLLAR. This effectively means the
UCC covers the UNITED STATES and any JURISDICTIONS, real or
implied, which can and/or do use the US DOLLAR.
In order to make use of the UCC, you must either be in the DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, and/or in one of the waters, shores or tributaries of the
UNITED STATES, and/or conducting business in US DOLLARS.
I, for one, love the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. If you have a fleet of
ships and you do business in AMERICAN DOLLARS, and don't have any
debt, you're pretty much as free as a human being can get in 2013.
If there is anyone that says the UCC is anything else, they are, in fact,
lying to you. The purpose behind the UCC is to have COMMON
INTERNATIONAL LAW regarding COMMERCE. ABOVE ALL;ITS DEFAULT
ROLE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!
...idiots. (Yes, as a matter of fact I DO have to say that! FUCK OFF!)
The UCC allows certain presumptions regarding accounting that would
simply be impractical in a corporate environment. The fact that roles are
clearly defined, and MARITIME ADMIRALTY LAW is heavily integrated,
makes owning a ship, or even better, a fleet of ships, a very liberating
idea, for the UCC protects you. The UCC guarantees that other users of
THE TENDER FOR LAW that offered this JURISDICTION, will protect your
interests by presumption.
This whole “Dean arrest thing” has distracted me from my larger goal,
and now I have to stop and dumb things down. I certainly hope my
explanation of the UCC is clear enough.
Now ponder how stupid a CLAIM against such “constructs” actually is.
OK, you know what?...you're all too stupid...I'm going to have to explain
it.
Let's cover a few fundamentals. I'll try not to use large words so the
“BELIEVERS” won't get confused.
A TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.
A GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON, AND
A JUDICIARY IS NOT A PERSON.
A human that is registered with the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT IS A
PERSON.
A human, and that stripper they fucked last year and has since squirted
out a NEW human, and THEREFORE, said NEW human is registered with
the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON. (That's what you get for
fucking strippers)
A CORPORATION IS A PERSON.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD poses as a “TRUST”. A TRUST cannot
make a CLAIM. Only a PERSON can make a CLAIM.
The GRANTORS of the TRUST have NO STANDING to make a CLAIM
once the TRUST is commissioned. They have no more power to do so
than the guy, whose signature is on a Ten Dollar bill, has the
AUTHORITY to tell you how to spend it.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, and their ilk, will happily talk as EXPERTS
on the UCC, and I'm pretty sure NONE of them has actually used the
UCC.
So, let's do a side-by-side comparison as to who is more qualified to
speak on this subject:
I, unlike OPPF and “FREELOADERS-ON-THE-LAND”, have actual VALUE.
As I type this the general consensus of the LEGAL AND BANKING
SYSTEM says that I can, without question, UNDERWRITE half a Billion
Dollar's worth of BONDS converted to MONEY OF EXCHANGE. Think
about that. On a whim, I could inject half a Billion Dollars into the
economy. This means that unless you use those dollars to purchase my
value, the entire net worth of the country will drop by half a Billion
Dollars.
If you think it's frightening that one privileged man wields the power to
do this sort of thing, pat yourself on the back because that is the proper
response. Ethics is the only thing that stops me from doing that. But
that doesn't really help much in COMMERCE. An ethical guy with a gun,
in the end, is still just a guy with a gun....
….Enter the UCC.
The UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE in COMMERCE, only recognizes
whatever currency is the world reserve currency. This of course is the
US DOLLAR. This means that every other currency touched by the
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND is simply “acting” as a US DOLLAR
(or part thereof).
Muammar Gaddafi was wiped off the face of the earth, because he dared
point out that the world's currencies are propping-up the dead,
hollowed-out carcass that is the UNITED STATES. He raised the point
that, according to the little, green book that got him into office, He was
pretty sure that LIBYA'S economic wealth was to go to its people.
I hear people stating that the war on LIBYA was ILLEGAL. Sadly it
wasn't. The UCC made it perfectly LEGAL.
LAW IS A TRUST. According to the TRUST, Gaddafi's attempt to change
the currency was a BREACH OF THAT TRUST.
THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE can be viewed as the grand, de facto
law that exists where no other de facto law exists.
Therefore according to IMF TREATIES, if there's no law at a particular
place, the UCC is DEEMED to be the de facto law.
You will notice that there is nothing to LIEN or FORECLOSE ON in the
UCC. UCC is a “legal traffic cop”, directing traffic to its appropriate
JURISDICTION.
Treating a TRUST like a PERSON makes any further documents
produced as a result, FRAUD. Such documents are OF NO FORCE AND
EFFECT.
In short, ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD is, by its very nature, based on
an ILLEGAL concept.
...but that's not the worst of it. UCC, like any OTHER TRUST is based on
CONSENT. Let's look into LEGAL UTOPIA! We needn't bother with silly
things like consent. IT'S LEGAL PARADISE! Ferst we must get into the
right “headspace”.
Since all of you like to form uninformed opinions of me, and what a bad
man I am, I'll put this next scenario in the context of “me”, because
your self-created loathing of me will allow you to accept this concept, in
your empty little heads.
SO, Imagine if you will that I, the KEEPER OF THE AQUILAE TRUST,
decided that I wanted to do something FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, because
you're too stupid to do it yourself. With the arrogant presumption that I
even have STANDING to do so, I, without your CONSENT, make a
DECLARATION that you get a “chunk of the world's wealth”; and to
ENFORCE that I drafted some AWESOME LAWS, as I do not “believe”
(belief is the only thing that would cause a rational human being to
think this way) you are capable of managing your own affairs...
...hey wait, this is starting to sound familiar. But I'm not like the
GOVERNMENT, I know what's best for you! I'm just here to help; and
anybody who doesn't want that help is clearly a “hater”, and are
jealous... maybe even criminals and psychopaths. Why, anybody who
doesn't want my help is mentally ill. That's safe to say! In fact, I'd
better amend my awesome laws so that I may lovingly and humanely
dispose of these mentally ill.
Got the picture?
GOOD.
Now just replace “me” with those “three guys” in ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC
FRAUD, and that is what is being sold to you. I cannot make this any
clearer.
I have just explained what the UCC is. If you think it's anything else,
you're “making shit up”.
I use the UCC daily. AQUILAE has points-of-presence in CANADA, THE
UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE, SCOTLAND and ICELAND. So anybody
who dares say they know more about the UCC is publicly declaring that I
am LEGALLY INCOMPETENT TO MANAGE A TRUST, which is
DEFAMATORY; and I deal with that in MY JURISDICTION, and there's a
nice “legal traffic cop” that says I can. People who want to continue
spreading bullshit may find themselves on my “LEGAL AUTOPSY TABLE”
where they are used as a live example...
...Because ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD has a lot more than the UCC. I
could show mercy right now and let this FRAUD die as it is; and even
though I made some grandiose promises about this document's horrible
fate, I remind you all that mercy is the mark of a GREAT MAN!
...The problem is, I'm just a GOOD man.
In my next major post I shall cover the procedural FRAUD within the
TRUST itself as laid-out in its CHARTER DOCUMENTS.
REMEMBER: IT'S ALL ACCOUNTING
GOVERNMENT is a DIFFERENT TYPE OF ACCOUNT than CORPORATION
ALL THOSE WHO VALUE BELIEF CANNOT CHANGE.
It really is that simple.
The concept of valuing belief was PROGRAMMED INTO YOU.
IMPOSED ignorance, attached to BELIEF, and BELIEF given the VALUE of
TRUST, is a self-supporting program.
Its only byproduct...imposed ignorance.
ALL BELIEF is created so you will use this method. It's easy, automatic,
and feels good.
All the useful UCC shit is in the article. There is not NEARLY enough
about how awesome the article is. It's the PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW
how awesome it is, so I reserve THIS DISCUSSION for correcting this
blatant violation of YOUR RIGHTS!
Yes it is awesome Scott I know people that have filed the UCC and are
having there bill paid by the Treasury !
So you know a guy who knows a guy (no names) and he's gonna ring
that register ANY TIME?
Its been done
Just because they pay you doesn't mean they can't say there was a
mistake and ask for it back in the future!
NO IT HASN'T BECAUSE THERE IS NO "TREASURY" IN THE UCC.
ANYONE who say they got money out of the UCC is a LYING SACK OF
SHIT
No your right Scott, you file your B.C plus a bond to the UCC
ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY GOT A BILL PAYED BY THE UCC IS A LYING
SACK OF SHIT.
Then you send the B.C to the Treasury
Which treasury is that?
USA
Joel- there's several Maxims-of-Law against doing that..
There's the trap. MAKE people BELIEVE it works. THEN a letter Dear soand-so this the retard that accidentally made an accounting error. Yeah
that money we gave, well you are going to give that back or rot in jail
for fraud or something.
OK, so... Just so I have this straight... MY ONTARIO birth certificate
goes into... THE US TREASURY! Do I deposit my Canadian Tire money
into my CIBC Savings account too, while I'm at it?
Do they follow the law? Isn't the whole system is based on fraud? So
until you tell them, they are working on the assumption that you are ok
with fraud. No?
You cant pay debt with debt, they want people to do this to bring down
the deficit !
Do you even know what a Deficit is?
It has nothing to DO with debt.
Debt is the BYPRODUCT
Everything you do in Canada taxes banking ends up in the US
Everything you do in Canada taxes banking ends up in the US" - I think
the bank of Canada might have a few things to say about that, because
that Birth Certificate is YOUR SHARE in it.
The Money's YOURS not Washington's.
Can you please stop talking out of your ass now fiona?
All of this shit, is crap you are PARROTING.
Have you READ the BANK OF CANADA ACT?
Every time we make a promissory note or bond, and deposit it to the
Banks your bring down the debt !
NOWHERE does it say it goes to LOU MANOTTI in the US
OMG FIONA, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS? PLEASE. Shut up.
Derek Moran were you referring to this section of the Bank of Canada
Act?.. Distinction
(6) Notes of the Bank are neither promissory notes nor bills of exchange
within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.
Oh Derek. THANK YOU!
Fiona Munro, please assume that I do not agree with ANY of the nonreality in your head.
YES. SO STOP TRYING TO "GAME THE SYSTEM".
Fiona... please be silent. PLEASE?
I don't want to muzzle you.
As i understand it.. isnt the UCC the U.S's equivalent to our Bills of
Exchange Act, basically?
Yes, but it is also the WORLD reserve currency, so it's INTERNATIONAL
LAW
The US dollar isn't US money either.
since all currencies are peggd to the dollar then there are no national
currencies?
Not really, no
It's fraud anyway. If you didn't want to follow the terms, DON'T SIGN.
You will be DEBT FREE IN NO TIME (Literally!) using this method.
stop wasting your life trying to "fix the system. It's 2013 and you can
spawn your own COMPETING system with ease.
THAT is what you aren't supposed to find out, and that's what I mean by
"mean to misbehave" which is WHY THE TENDER FOR LAW Group exists,
really.
THE TENDER FOR LAW - WE AIM TO MISBEHAVE
(making our own bank)
As i understand it, during your Allocution, you are supposed to say to
the Judge- "Your Honour, with all due respect, i do not agree, i do not
acceede, i do not attorn, and i do not consent to the court's sentence."
I do not understand do not recognize any of this ... as who is SURETY in
this matter?
Thanks for helping me too innerstand the UCC better. I am almost ready
to reclaim my estate.
No you aren't. You don't get to. MAKE ANOTHER PERSON, and have
THAT person claim it.
My bad. Right the proxy. If I reclaimed it myself I would be confessing
into their jurisdiction. I figured I would put the bond into a trust as
settlor provided I can find someone I can trust and make myself
beneficiary. Then open a non-interest bearing trust account at a bank
and the trustee would get the check book. I may have some more work
to do yet. What do you think. I am going to slam that asshole captain
tonight.
THAT is MUCH closer.
For the MILLIONTH time: A CORPORATION is a PERSON. THAT PERSON
LIENS YOUR PERSON! FUCK!
Any MORE OF YOU ASSHATS WANT TO CALL ME NAMES AND SAY WHAT
A BAD PERON I AM BECAUSE I POINT OUT THE REALITY THAT YOU ARE
ALL TOO STUPID TO GRASP EVEN THE SIMPLEST THINGS?
Why do I have to repeat this shit? do you people not know how to
connect this stuff?
If the Government IS a Trust; why cant i just say- "YOU GUYS take care
of this Trust-shit for me. Except, we're gonna be doing things a little bit
differently around here. I will be the EXECUTOR calling the shots, and
especially I will be the Beneficiary NOW..and you guys will start being
what you were intended to be all along, the TRUSTEE now for a change.
And considering how much this "valuable instrument/security" is
supposed to be worth, i will have NO PROBLEM with paying you guys
you're administrative-fee for doing your job in the form of INCOME
TAXES from the value/credit derived from the Trust-account you guys
set-up but NEVER had any intention of telling me about until i BROUGHT
IT UP, thank you very much!!"
wouldnt you at least like to know the whereabouts of your original
LFSOLBR is?.. i think the path for that will be 3 NOTICES sent by
registered-mail.. DEFAULT NOTICE by Affidavit.. Court of Equity.. and
making(not quite sure what the proper phrasing is here)for a Writ of
Mandamus getting the Judge to make the ORDER, and enforce the
ORDER, getting the Registrar General's office to spill-the-beans on at
least that one question, if not more - that would be a start, get them to
admit they've at least been CONCEALING from us, tsk-tsk, not very nice
of our TRUSTEES now is it?
My issue with the City, i sent them like Scott mentioned NOTICE FOR
PROOF-OF-CLAIM, and hit them with Dean's line- "That's a presumptionof-law/you have made a presumption-of-law. PLEASE PROVIDE FOR ME
FULL-DISCLOSURE WITH A PAPER-COPY OF THE ACTUAL LAW AS
PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM THAT I HAVE SUPPOSEDLY BROKEN AND/OR
VIOLATED THE LAW.
OH- and this is how i start-off every NOTICE: "Hi - how are you? Let me
just first start-off by saying that i am writing this in good faith and i do
not wish to create controversy as i wish to remain in peace-and-honour.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ANY QUESTIONS? NO? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BITCH!
That is how I start any "legal notice".
As for "Fraud" (Coming from the government, that's funny); Who's the
injured party?
Regime=LEGAL. Every crime the US commits against other countries is
perfectly "legal".
...and "legal" is always presumed to be "right".
THE TENDER FOR LAW – LIVE EXAMPLE #001 – PROPER NOTICE FOR
IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
TONIGHT'S TOPIC: PROPER NOTICE
In one of the many ongoing AQUILAE initiatives, I have cause to
produce a NOTICE.
Since I'm using THE TENDER FOR LAW as a notebook for my students, I
figure I might as well “kill two birds with one stone” by discussing the
aspects of NOTICE here, more specifically PROPER NOTICE.
As a secondary objective we shall learn the difference between a GIFT
and a COURTESY.
*spoiler alert* - Courtesy doesn't mean what you think it means,
because like money a COURTESY is, in fact, a...
...TENDER FOR LAW!
As long as there have been professions, there have been LAWs
governing them; and a courtesy is one of the oldest tenders for LAW,
because it governs the oldest profession. You see, my friends,
COURTESIES are for COURTESANS, because THEY'RE THE ONES
GETTING FUCKED. If you ACCEPT a COURTESY, you accept that you're
the one getting fucked. I can't put it any simpler. This is why you NEVER
accept courtesies from the government.
The GOVERNMENT is not a PERSON.
The COURT is not a PERSON.
...and if you accept a courtesy from the court, you are putting it on the
PUBLIC RECORD that in ALL LEGAL EXCHANGES, YOU'RE THE ONE
GETTING FUCKED!
A GIFT, on the other hand...
... is exactly what you think it means. :/
Digressing from the spoiler alert (because when I “spoil” it's hard core),
and returning to the NOTICE, I shall now discuss the practical aspects of
PROPER NOTICE. We'll start with one of the simplest notices:
KEEP OFF THE GRASS.
Is this PROPER NOTICE?
Yes it is, however the LEGAL strength of this notice is dependent on
WHERE THE NOTICE IS. The terms of the notice, “KEEP OFF THE
GRASS”, is far different for a PUBLIC PARK than say, for example... A
HOUSE FULL OF RUSSIAN MOBSTERS. Ignoring the NOTICE has
DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES depending on WHERE IT IS. If you are
going to wield LAW, your NUMBER ONE GOAL SHOULD BE TO REMOVE
VARIABLES, and I have just described a big one!
How do you remove this variable?
Let's look at another PUBLIC NOTICE that all of us have seen.
NO PARKING
On the surface, “NO PARKING” and “KEEP OFF THE GRASS” are
functionally the same, however, unlike “KEEP OFF THE GRASS”, a “NO
PARKING” sign will also give you notice as to WHO PUT IT THERE. This
removes the variables that “KEEP OFF THE GRASS” has.
We have removed the question as to WHO is saying this, and as a
byproduct, the consequences of ignoring the notice. As I've mentioned
throughout the TENDER FOR LAW, the question “WHO are you?” puts
the court in the most jeopardy. Identifying WHO you are when giving a
notice creates what's called “PROPER NOTICE”. The primary goal of a
LEGAL document is to remove all possible variables to accomplish its
goal. “NO PARKING” is pretty specific. It reduces the variables to
“PARKED”, and “NOT PARKED”. “NOT PARKED” is the GOAL of the
notice. “PARKED” is something to be discouraged.
If it is a TRUST and not a PERSON WHO posts the NOTICE, it is what is
known as a BY-LAW. This means that should you choose (of your own
free will) to interact with the TRUST, you are subject to the BY-LAWS.
TRUST LAW is the HIGHEST LAW. It trumps ADMIRALTY LAW. It trumps
CANON LAW. It is the HIGHEST LAW.
Thus endeth the preamble. Let's draw us up a NOTICE.
In this particular case a VESSEL has been LAWFULLY transferred to the
AQUILAE TRUST.
As this VESSEL is NOT in AQUILAE's custody, a PUBLIC NOTICE must be
given laying CLAIM to the VESSEL. This permanently curtails any
SALVAGE RIGHTS on said VESSEL. If you construct a VESSEL it is
VERILY YOUR RIGHT to transfer ownership of said VESSEL, but one
must remember, one does not own the SOUL of the VESSEL, and should
the SOUL speak, their word is LAW. If you want to find this LAW, you
have only to look in the CAPTAIN's Log; for the CAPTAIN is the SOUL in
question.
Now like every other LEGAL document, the first line on the LEGAL
document MUST state what the document is.
CERTIFICATES, BONDS and NOTES are often mistakenly called LEGAL
DOCUMENTS, when their actual LEGAL status is, “VALUABLE
INSTRUMENT”. It's not “LEGAL INSTRUMENT” because “LEGAL” does not
indicate VALUE. The name itself, says what it is; an INSTRUMENT you
can attach VALUE to. But we're not dealing with “VALUABLE
INSTRUMENTS”, because we are transferring this VESSEL from the
LOWEST LAW (ADMIRALTY) to the HIGHEST LAW (TRUST). This pulls it
out of the ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
I'm sure some of you are putting this together already, so I'll just give
away the ending, because I'm a total dick that way.
In ADMIRALTY, on land, you are considered a “VESSEL” in dry dock.
You're not a corporation, you're a boat in the eyes of ADMIRALTY LAW.
You are a VESSEL “ON-THE-HARD” in marine slang. If you are ever in a
marina you will notice that the marina leaves everybody who is docked,
alone. They won't speak to the CAPTAINS unless spoken to, and the
CAPTAINS are given the utmost respect...
...until they pull your boat out of the water.
When the VESSEL is “ON-THE-HARD” you are now in the marina's
“CUSTODY”, and your STATUS is very, very, different; and this, above
all, is why you treat the HARBOUR MASTER with the highest respect. My
experience has shown that doing this ALWAYS pays off...
...but I digress.
Let's construct the first line of our document.
The first line of the document MUST state WHAT IT IS.
Since this is intended to be a PUBLIC NOTICE, it makes sense that
“PUBLIC NOTICE” be the first line. There is now no confusion as to what
this document IS, and WHO it is . It is not addressing a particular
INDIVIDUAL. This means if you give a PUBLIC NOTICE to an
INDIVIDUAL, you are DEEMED to have done so as a COURTESY. You've
already read the spoiler so I'm not building the plot up.
As a courtesy, a copy of this PUBLIC NOTICE (with some redacted shit
filled in) will be sent by registered mail to a LAWYER who mistakenly
BELIEVES he/she/it has INTEREST in the VESSEL. As an extra
COURTESY, a copy of the LIEN on the VESSEL will be included, because
we at AQUILAE, if nothing else, are very, very, COURTEOUS. ;)
The next line in any LEGAL DOCUMENT must list any PARTIES being
referred to. Since this is a PUBLIC NOTICE there are no PARTIES to list.
Therefore PUBLIC NOTICE meets all LEGAL obligation.
After this point in the document, all UNDERTAKINGS must be listed.
So if I posted a PUBLIC NOTICE, I am, in fact, POSTING A BILL. A BILL
is also a TENDER FOR LAW. When you receive a BILL for your meal,
your ACCEPTANCE makes it LAW.
When you give an ORDER, you have pre-accepted the LAW, and the
BILL is simply a FORMality (Everybody GET THAT?).
A BILL in PARLIAMENT is supposedly ordered by the CITIZENS, or
“DEEMED ORDERED” by the CITIZENS. This is why the phrase, “POST
NO BILLS”, is often found on temporary structures with flat surfaces.
“POST NO BILLS” = “POST NO TENDERS FOR LAW”; This means you
have been PROPERLY NOTIFIED (PROPER NOTICE because a BILL is a
TENDER FOR LAW).
THERE ARE NO HOMONYMS IN LAW
THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN LAW
For instance, BILL C1,1985 is a BILL nobody accepted, simply because
there's no sane person that would accept, THE INCOME TAX ACT.
This act has been AMENDED MANY, MANY
ACCEPTED into LAW, and like the deluded
Dean's Facebook page, the GOVERNMENT
and will IGNORE/ATTACK those who point
NOTICE.
TIMES, but has never been
Christians you'll find on
will pretend not to know this,
it out or give PROPER
This is one of the dirtiest “hidden-in-plain-sight” secrets in LAW. The
Income Tax Act that was once LAW, for the purpose of paying for the
war, expired DECADES AGO, and people just kept paying.
They govern these PAYMENTS OF IGNORANCE through an OUTSOURCED
THIRD-PARTY. Douglas Levitt didn't come into my home with a gun.
Cowards don't do that, and ALL LAWYERS ARE COWARDS. These are
strangers who harm people for money. Only cowards choose such a
profession. If they wish to inflict violence, they outsource to a thirdparty, and pay them...
Where was I? OH YES! I remember...
THEREFORE having received PROPER NOTICE (PROPER NOTICE =
KNOWLEDGE under LAW), you now KNOW that, should you POST a
TENDER FOR LAW, it is NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE your TENDER
FOR LAW will be there at a LATER TIME.
However in our case, we are going to POST our PUBLIC NOTICE by way
of the POSTAL SERVICE. :D
The POSTal SERVICE (Everybody GET THAT?)
The POSTAL SERVICE is a service provided for POSTING TENDERS FOR
LAW. So when you send a REGISTERED letter via the POSTAL SERVICE,
this service also BEARS WITNESS (and gives a RECEIPT for it) to the
fact that NOTICE was posted to a specific PARTY.
Now; In the interest of time, I shall now draw out that PUBLIC NOTICE,
because the PARTY I'm drafting the document for, is wondering why I'm
not on the phone with him right now, drafting it with him. :/
Drafting documents in public is a lot like fucking in public. Many parties
will consider it in bad taste, some might even find it disgusting, but in
the end it rarely happens, and it's fun to watch.
What? Am I wrong?
So let's draft this document RIGHT NOW. :D
***BEGIN***
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as ***redacted shit here*** is
now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of the AQUILAE TRUST per the wishes of
***redacted shit here***'S CREATOR and GRANTOR.
Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING FEBRUARY
18, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS ***redacted shit here*** MUST BE
CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED
AND/OR IMPLIED.
PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE ***redacted shit here*** FOR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($5,000 PER DAY) OR ANY PART
THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE.
Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY
AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ROGUESUPPORT INC.] at (416)
994-1700.
AQUILAE TRUST SEAL (Insert lower right)
***END***
And there's everything you need for A NOTICE.
NOTICES NOTIFY! That's what makes it a NOTICE. It's not for ASKING.
The purpose is NOT to have a chat, or ask questions.
It's a NOTICE.
PROPER NOTICE IS disclosure. Before the sign "keep off the grass" was
put there, no INTENT was disclosed.
The law is about INTENT.
as for Praecipe..it seems like you waltz into the court acting as if you're
the King and asking a Court of Equity Chancellor to issue an ORDER
based on your COMMAND, within reason and that you are in the right i
suspect
so i would say.......PRAECIPE trumps CERTIORARI
So Scott, does a NOTICE point towards something? Or it just makes it
"lawful"? As in NOTICE OF INTENT, NOTICE OF RIGHT, etc?
It transfers KNOWLEDGE.
When you give notice, the reading party HAS KNOWLEDGE OF whatever
the notice says. It is considered a FACT IN LAW beyond that point (If it
is written, it is law).
So lien the item for DOUBLE its face value and notify them.
...then send them a bill for the balance
OK time to shut up, monique. That is not true. They do not register you
as a "Corporation". Who are the shareholders? Who are the directors?
You are registered as a NEGOTIABLE SECURITY INTEREST, nothing
more.
Stop saying they register you as a "corporation" because it's NOT TRUE.
yur all capitol letter name is ur corporate person...
NO, it is NOT. It doesn't matter what your "gurus" say, it's not true.
It is a SECURITY INTEREST. NOTHING MORE.
People need to know what a CORPORATION is.
A CORPORATION MUST HAVE:
A FIRST DIRECTOR
SHAREHOLDERS
GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT
And a RECEIVING TRUSTEE (Bank)
You AND your Birth Certificate are NOT THESE THINGS.
It's closer to a $20.00 Bill than it is to a "Corporation".
EVERYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS LYING TO YOU.
OMG SHUT UP! Now I have to debunk all your AMATEUR BULLSHIT
because you pull your concepts out of your ASS.
Seriously. The douche in the video with blacks, says SUCH AS A
CORPORATION.
Roguesupport inc.
and
ROGUESUPPORT INC are the SAME.
THE CAPS MEAN NOTHING UNLESS IT IN A COURT FILE, and ONLY IN
THE CONTEXT OF PARTY.
ScOtt DuNcaN
Scott Duncan
SCOTT DUNCAN
ALL THE SAME.
And you wrote like an autistic 12 year old. THAT ALONE is enough
reason to muzzle you.
BE SILENT.
You ask a VERY good question, and you have but to refer to THE
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS applies to YOU, and the CHARTER OF
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is a CORPORATE charter.
They mislead by saying "Because the bill of rights had little effect in
court, they made the CHARTER to REPLACE it... It didn't. The BILL OF
RIGHTS is STILL IN FULL FORCE because it belongs to THE PUBLIC.
NOW a quick review on what PROVINCE means.
PROVINCE=ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, and it most certainly DOES apply.
What? you give up rights because you are in a GEOGRAPHIC region?
TENDER=CONDITIONALLY OPEN TO OFFERS.
In this example I am going to use Gail Blackman.
If you go to our corporate mail server http://mail.cdd.com, you will see
a TENDER.
In this tender you can use CASH, or "Serviced" for service.
There are conditions. If she wishes to offer one of these for my services,
she must abide buy the conditions.
If she arrives at the table with empty pockets, she is aware that she
must bend over that table and lift her skirt. Business has not
commenced, even though she'd clearly "means business", by doing that.
After she is "serviced", she is now qualified to avail herself of the
services I offer.
hmm let's see if I'm getting this....I could present you with a counter
conditional offer ? and is this what we are doing when we send money
when we receive a bill?
Yes... And I can reject the counteroffer, as I am the one who offered the
tender. YOU would have to come to ME to do business. It's not
COMMERCE as it is not an advertisement. YOU must SEEK OUT the
tender.
so people are trying to pay their bills A4V, when all they have to do is to
return the bill stating they accept the offer/tender which is the bill?
Yes Gail.
1. Crawford and Falconbridge's Bills of Exchange book apparently says,
all you have to print is ACCEPT at the top of the bill..'ACCEPTED-FORVALUE' is not necessary
2. your signature on the front of it
3. 'without recourse,' after your signature
4. fill-in the empty 'Amount-box'...give them a little more than you
supposedly owe, like a tip, make it less likely for them to complain
about it
5. put the date
6. your SIN# with no dashes- 123456789
7. print something in regards to section 3. of the Bills of Exchange Act
1985 which states: Thing done in good faith
3. A thing is deemed to be done in good faith, within the meaning of this
Act, where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or
not.
Scott, question regarding trying to get someone into TACIT-AGREEMENT
with the ending of a NOTICE..how does this example im working on read
to you?
If within the next 30 calendar days, I have not heard back from THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO to rebut-or-refute this
NOTICE in written-form, then it will be agreed-and-understood to be an
acquiescence-through-tacit-agreement on the part of THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO in recognition-andacknowledgment that it is my de jure-common law-right to discharge
any debt presented to DEREK MORAN by THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF TORONTO by way of any of the various bill-paymentremittances that it TENDERS to me, and that my public-servants are
willing to fulfill their fiduciary-duties owed to me of:*(will polish this up
later) whatever is in my best interests within the accordance of the
common law, and, provide their duty-of-care owed to me.....
Derek Moran, I would probably insist that it be signed accepting full
commercial liability & under penalty of perjury, after 30 days, send
them a fault notice & another 10 days to rebut, then default notice them
& give them 7 days to rebut...eg: 'If there has been no response within
30 days from the date of this notice, rebutting point for point, signed
under full commercial liability & penalty of perjury, that will be accepted
as tacit agreement that no contract or obligation exists between the
parties in question'.....if they pursue it after you default them, swear up
an affidavit stating the facts that there is no controversy as there is
agreement between the parties that no contract and hence no obligation
exists...that should put it to bed
RIGHT idea.
WRONG phrasing.
Hey Scott, here is the last line i put for the Claim-of-Natural LawCommon Law-Inheritance-Jurisdiction-Right-Notice i just finished for my
dad, for the City- can you let me know what you think?
"Any future attempts to create joinder with me into statutoryjurisdiction will be considered as committing FRAUD against me."
OMG I have SO much to type.
Work your way up the ranks. You aren't Nobility. Do not use "will". Your
"will" is not a factor. You aren't qualified.
*RIGHT ANSWER SMACK-DOWN*
"Should YOU or YOUR OFFICE attempt joinder, such attempt SHALL be
CONSIDERED an attempt at FRAUD".
...and that's how you do it.
YOU'RE, not YOUR!
YOUR = SHOWS FUCKIG POSSESSION
YOU'RE YOU FUCKING ARE
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC is
now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of a PRIVATE TRUST per the wishes of the
CREATOR and GRANTOR.
Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING FEBRUARY
27, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC MUST
BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED
AND/OR IMPLIED.
PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE JASON FREDRICK LE BLANC FOR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF SIX
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($6,000 PER DAY) OR ANY PART
THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE.
Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY
AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ 1732964 ALBERTA LTD.] at
(587) 719-2112.
By: Jason Fredrick Le Blanc President/ Creator/ Grantor/ Sole
Beneficiary.
Maximus- as i recall, this is how Scott showed how to sign your name
for the PERSON properly...
By:____________NON ASSUMPSIT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ALL RIGHTS
RESRVED
Maximus Legis, Grantor, sole-living-Beneficiary, Lawful-Holder-In-DueCourse, de jure pro domino(i added that last one)
Lien that one YOURSELF. Social Insurance Number. Social "security"
number... Nothing to do with you. LIEN THAT FUCKER.
You don't OWN a corporation.
A corporation is a PERSON.
That PERSON liens YOUR NAME. The corporation is owned by the
SHAREHOLDERS. Those shareholders just happen to be YOU.
Small point of fact: A COW is NOT "income".
...and stop using "employed". You get INCOME from "employment",
whereas CONTRACTING is a private undertaking.
The jurisdiction is even narrower than you think. Government ONLY has
claim to INCOME. INCOME is pay from "Employment" or gains through
Money of Account.
DEPOSITS are not part of the government's jurisdiction either. Jut put
FOR DEPOSIT ONLY in the memo section of any cheques you deposit.
NO INCOME TAX. Deposits AREN'T INCOME.
OK, NONE OF YOU DUMB FUCKS ARE GETTING IT!
IT'S ALL ABOUT SURETY!
Talking about silly rules and statutes outside of that IS A WASTE.
THIS GROUP IS CALLED THE TENDER FOR LAW FOR A REASON!
Scott Duncan SURETY is for MONEY
WHERE IS THE FUKIN SURETY...??????????????????????....I still have
this freaking $20 dollar bill in front of me, right beside my birth
certificate....
Is your signature on any of those instruments?
NON
Are you lawfully entitled to them?
no Im LEGALLY entitled to them
And lawfully. You didn't steal them, did you?
Lawfully they're not mine....
You lawfully POSSESS them.
MONEY OF EXCHANGE = GOOD Money of EXCHANGE is just DEBT IN
TRANSIT.
MONEY OF ACCOUNT = BAD
Can't dumb it down any further...it hurts too much already!
Money of account is bad because it doesn't exist amongst other things ,
money of exchange is tangible (paper coinage) and physically circulates.
ACCOUNTING ONLY exists ON LAND.
There is NO ACCOUNTING IN ADMIRALTY, which is why they need a
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Judge who is an advocate for accounting
(GENERAL, as in GENERAL LEDGER)).
Notice the military terms start to appear in ACCOUNTING. No NAVAL
terms (Strange?).
POP QUIZ!
ADMIRAL (navy)
GENERAL (Army)
Which one is the higher rank?
SAME RANK, DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS!
Why is there a ROYAL NAVY, but no ROYAL ARMY?
LOOK FOR THE LEGAL definition of ADMIRAL and GENERAL. They DON'T
mean what you THINK they mean, and there are NO HOMONYMS IN
LAW.
ADMIRALTY. The name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of suits
or actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or relating to
the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and proceedings relative
to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea.
2 Gall. R. 468. In the great maritime nations of Europe, the term
"admiralty jurisdiction," is, uniformly applied to courts exercising
jurisdiction over maritime contracts and concerns. It is as familiarly
known among the jurists of Scotland, France, Holland and Spain, as of
England, and applied to their own courts, possessing substantially the
same jurisdiction as the English Admiralty had in the reign of Edward
III. Ibid., and the authorities there cited; and see, also, Bac. Ab. Court
of Admiralty; Merl. Repert. h.t. Encyclopedie, h.t.; 1 Dall. 323.
2. The Constitution of the United States has delegated to the courts of
the national government cognizance "of all cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction;" and the act of September 24, 1789, ch. 20 s. 9,
has given the district court" cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction," including all seizures under laws of imposts,
navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made
on waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons
burden, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas.
3. It is not within the plan of this work to enlarge upon this subject.
February 14 at 10:56am · Like
Joseph Pierre Gilles General: AFFIRMANCE-DAY, GENERAL. In the
English Court of Exchequer, is a day appointed by the judges of the
common pleas, and barons of the exchequer, to be held a few days after
the beginning of every term for the general affirmance or reversal of
judgments. 2 Tidd. 1091.
DAMAGES, GENERAL, torts. General damages are such as the law
implies to have accrued from the act of a tort-feasor. To call a man a
thief, or commit an assault and battery upon his person, are examples
of this kind. In the first case the law presumes that calling a man a thief
must be injurious to him, with showing that it is so. Sir W. Jones, 196; 1
Saund. 243, b. n. 5; and in the latter case, the law implies that his
person has been more or less deteriorated, and that the injured party is
not required to specify what injury he has sustained, nor to prove it.
Ham. N. P. 40; 1 Chit. Pl. 386; 2 L.R. 76; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3584.
GENERAL. This word has several meanings, namely: 1. A principal
officer, particularly in the army. 2. Something opposed to special; as, a
general verdict, the general issue, which expressions are used in
contradistinction to special verdict, special issue. 3. Principal, as the
general post office. 4. Not select, as a general ship. (q. v.) 5. Not
particular, as a general custom. 6. Not limited, as general jurisdiction. 7.
This word is sometimes annexed or prefixed to other words to express
or limit the extent of their signification; as Attorney General, Solicitor
General, the General Assembly, &c.
HEIR, GENERAL. Heir at common in the English law. The heir at common
law is he who, after his father or ancestor's death has a right to, and is
introduced into all his lands, tenements and hereditaments. He must be
of the whole blood, not a bastard, alien, &c. Bac. Abr. Heir, B 2;
Coparceners; Descent.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Dumbed down:
LAW FROM SEA
ACCOUNTING FROM LAND
GENERAL LEGER? ATTORNEY GENERAL? GET IT?
THERE ARE NO HOMONYMS IN LAW! GENERAL IS A LEGAL TERM JUST
LIKE ADMIRAL!
So Beverly- you're saying that basically, the birth CERTIFICATE, is our
evidence or proof, that we have AUTHORITY to be operating within this
FOREIGN JURISDICTION...?
Cuz the great fear has always been- "Dont walk into court with the Birth
Certificate.. go in showing your Birth RECORD, you'll create joinder with
the court if you present the Birth Certificate"....but, its like Dean
says...are you gonna be there as the janitor, or, are you gonna act like
the Owner/CEO...?
I think the mantra ive put together for if im ever in that position is- "Im
here for that matter.. good morning your Honour.. im here by special
appearance only, pro se/sui juris, as i am the Grantor, the sole-livingBeneficiary, and the Lawful Holder in Due Course, now, who will be
acting as the Surety today?..."
"Barring the court's objection, I believe the best interests of all parties
would be met if YOU were the administrator, your honour, don't you
agree? First an apology: If I have lead to the court to believe I am a
surety in this matter, than that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me
(They MUST forgive). Now, I'd like to cover the matter of surety, now
that there is a competent administrator, would you be so kind as to
identify, for the record, who is surety in this matter?" Then you respond
with questions to EVERYTHING. It's a battle of wills and intellect.
I'd like, has NO power. I WISH does. YOU'RE A KING! ACT LIKE IT!
At this time I WISH to ADDRESS the matter of SURETY. Look at that
statement.
Wishes are statements. To execute that statement, ask a question
relating to the statement.
At this time I wish to address the matter of surety. Would you be so
kind as to assist me in addressing the party of surety?
I was in the superior court today and they would not let me file my reply
to the statement of defense with my live birth record
Why would you OFFER YOUR NAME as a DEFENCE???
They were helping you out!
They wanted government id
Yes, for SURETY. You CLAIM the name, not DEFEND it. If you don't
CLAIM, it's not YOURS. You are just USING it.
They will never question you CLAIMING the name! The CANNOT
challenge that claim. The Government is NOT a PERSON.
They covered your ass. NEVER offer your name in DEFENCE!
The law and reality don't care. And if you want to change it, say you
made a MISTAKE. You are the KING! ACT like it!
You PRE-CONSENTED surety OUTSIDE of driving, with a driver's Licence.
That's why cops always ask for it specifically. You MUST produce it when
asked...even walking around.
Ok..what do I do with the last speeding ticket I had....belligerant ???
In RED, write NO CONTRACT and mail it back registered.
Diagonally so it VOIDS it.
Send BACK everything registered mail, with NOTICE that Government
interaction with this "address" is billable at $500.00 per exchange.
(Good day's pay for the work you are doing...just like them!) No
signature is required, not even WHO it's from. It's a KEEP OFF THE
GRASS notice.
If you get a BILL or a SIGNED INVOICE, then pay it.
Derek Moran A girl on Dean's page contacted me during one of his
shows on Monday, asked if i was in Toronto, if i could help her in court
in a few days with a traffic-ticket. These Crown prosecutors like to say
we cant give you legal-advice. He's holding the police-report. What
about that i say. What about it? Theres a problem with the police-report.
How so? The Complainant/Victim says on it- 'Toronto Police Services.'
Yeah, so? So then, i pull-out of my jacket my Police Officers Manual
2000 of Criminal Offences and Criminal Law by Gary P. Rodrigues. Well,
as i understand it, the definition of a complainant in this book, says that
is a victim? Ummm, uh-huh, thats right. And the definition of a victim, is
the one who suffered physical or emotional loss as a result of harm from
the committed offence. At this point, his eyes start to widen as he sees
where im going with this. Mmm-hmm... Ok, SO, you mean to tell me,
that this petite-girl, as a result of her traffic-ticket, injured and harmed
the WHHHHHHHHHOLE Toronto Police Services - all at ONCE? Or, did
she somehow manage to harm them as a result of this traffic-ticket,
incrementally, one at a time. Like, have they recovered yet? Are any of
them still in the hospital - are they ALL still in the hospital?? At this
point he tells me - Oh, uhh, you know what, dont worry about that its
not really all that important. I BURST out laughing, yeah maybe to you,
but to she it is, and, you're gonna be able to call the Toronto Police
Services Board onto the stand to explain how she ended-up injuring
them all at the SAME TIME? His attitude changed after that. Who did
they fill-out as the Complainant/Victim? Thats Misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation is Fraud. Misrepresentation on the witness-stand is
perjury. All that was, was False Pretences. Eustace Mullins would say"Your Honour, we're here under False Pretences. Thats illegal. Itd be
illegal to continue with these preceedings. Thats your remedy.(one of
them)
WHO ARE YOU is the question they fear the most.
By what authority does this court wage war on my person?
There is no "foreclosure" in Canada. Only power of sale.
That's what a marriage is. It's a bill of lading for money of account.
Seriously. Lien it and use your name without JOINDER. Seriously! THESE
ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS! STOP TRYING TO JOIN THEIR PARTY!
Too many points of failure.
Lien your name. Goodbye government.
Start a corporation
Make an "internal" currency.
GET A CLUE and do your ACCOUNTING.
Go live your life. THE END.
Just make sure the shareholders are people you TRUST.
You are like a gold-digging whore who spends but doesn't want to fuck
the old rich guy.
Stop trying to "profit". JUST EXCHANGE. This is NOT a Ben Lowry "game
the system" course.
1: Too many people and everyone thinks its their right to breed.
2: We're an agrarian society supporting specialist skills.
3: None of you know what money is.
4: Collectively ignorance is celebrated, so the SMART ones are away
from all of it...and they AREN'T breeding.
DO YOUR FUCKING HOMEWORK!
If you don't want to watch, or are too stupid to understand it, SHUT UP
IN THE TENDER FOR LAW GROUP!
I WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT THIS ANSWERS, so watch!
THIS IS SHOWING YOU WHAT I'M DOING. Please read what I say here.
I'm tired of explaining. I'm tired of assholes calling me names, because I
won't pander to their ignorance.
Just watch. Until you watch it, SHUT UP.
Me and others of my kind, are giving away trillions of dollars worth of
FREE SHIT. Open Source and FREE (as in speech, not as in beer)
SOFTWARE INITIATIVES are now competing head-to-head with the
Commercial Counterparts.
BITCOIN and other OPEN currencies are ALREADY the cheapest way to
send money, internationally.
HUGE WEALTH awaits those who STOP TRYING TO PROFIT.
Homework done.... and an opinion offered. Some metaphors are used ...
This also address’s Scott Duncan’s 4 points above.
Results:
Quite simply, the moment of clarity that comes with long sought after
comprehension of truth.
A conclusion to the final fragments of thought needed to complete an
idea. Leading to a solution that could apply to others, it definitely
applies to me. A cumulation of many years research looking for truth.
Let me explain.
I arrived to this page muddled and confused thinking I had a
comprehension of the Sovereign movement and process’s to rectify the
deception. I stand corrected.
To comprehend my epiphany one must be aware of certain facts. the
following is paraphrased and based on research which I can site upon
request.
We are all born into something. Whatever it is, it is something. What
comes with it is quite simply, indoctrination. We are imprinted from the
get go to follow in our cultures footsteps. That is as simple as I can
make it. It is what it is.
If you are reading this you are in some manner affected by the
imprinting on many different levels of being, you cannot not be. As a
result, a condition of life has been programmed into us, intentional or
not. A condition that affects us in 3 very powerful ways.
In most cases accompanied by multiple traumas
1. Learned helplessness/superiority Prey/ Hunter
one example:
Relying on systems of faith including but not limited to: Religion, No
Religion, Politics, Racism, Tolerance, money, sex, occupation etc.
all systems require some sort of faith in what you are doing is right for
you based on cultural biasses.
2. Suspension of Reason:
Every cult has a book, the initiates of that particular cult have a cultural
version of their truth. with that software installed to our bio metric
operating system we cannot think naturally
. Clichés are often used in all manner and forms that suspend analytical
analysis and critical thinking, compounded by mass media and false
teachings.
3. Chronic Frustration:
All the stress’s over a programmed world view that is made up of
multiple software installations manifesting in addiction on many levels.
Resulting in operating systems temporarily going offline and creating
physical and psychological disease. Affecting the whole......
The outrage one feels upon investigation is a result of breaking away
from the betrayal of trust on many levels, it affects us to the core of our
beings. Our Operating systems have been infected with numerous
insidious virus’s that take away from our natural state. Symptoms of
infection: the nagging feeling something is going on but I can’t quite put
my finger on it, just out of reach of my primitive, stupor induced mind.
The anger I once felt has now stiffened into resolve. The moment of
clarity was akin to a huge, big ass safe being opened, the combination
clicked and the bolts thunked out of place and Holy Shit ...
understanding money in a whole new way lead to the final part of my
solution for this sovereign being.
I am not a greedy guy, I do want security and health for my being. For
me it looks like a rejuvenating way to farm. working in harmony with
natural process’s with a blend of old and new technologies. I can do
what is termed as Bio Mimicry, replicating the natural process of the
way the millions of buffalo lived for centuries, until recently, as a crucial
component of the North American ecosystem. The innovation was
created by a guy named Joel Salitan of Polyface farms, he is the
innovator behind this process. With light weight plastic electric fences
that have micro chip cable of sustaining a voltage high enough to
humanely keep the cattle contained and safe from predators and low
enough not to melt the plastic ( Nasa tech), that are sized according to
what nature can sustain a herd of cows on, about 100 head on 1 acre
for 1 day, they invade, disturb the land eat the grass down to the nub,
leave gifts of fertilizer then move them to the next patch to an already
setup 1 acre paddock to which they go for 1 day and so on and so on.
Grass-fed not acidic corn which is not a food for an omnivore hugely
different than what is available in most places. 3 days later come the
chickens, heritage chickens non genetically manipulated, 2 kinds, the
egg ones and the eating ones, 8 week growing cycle. They come in a
spread the fertilizer and disturb the ground some more also grass-fed
supplemented with healthy feed.... Exchange can begin then. Also
hogs.... I have attached a link.... He explains it perfectly. It is based on
science and the blending of tech.
What’ the big deal? It is based on 0 .... balancing the ledgers in
cooperation with nature. Zero is phenomenal, it is in balance. In every
way. The whole thing works in a natural process and offsets many
environmental concerns.... it creates topsoil. a little independent system
of bio diversity. which if done as choice could have a huge impact the
process is learnable and simple. the skill set is one which I have.
I appeal to your sensibilities and superiors to look at this as a
complimentary way to live the principles outlined by the film “Money as
Debt III”. This process is simple, duplicatable and most importantly
scalable, we can make them fit any community on the face of the
planet.
This could be BENEFIT to all of us. The awake and asleep...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBZgANtcXm8
So Scott- who ultimately within the government holds the SURETY for
DEREK MORAN?.. im guessing it was/is the REGISTRAR GENERAL of
ONTARIO, as it was he who signed the second-signature on the Birth
Certificate i am BENEFICIARY of?
It says right on your birth certificate who the surety is. The ones who
sign.
And just to be clear, Scott: the first-signature being the DEPUTY
REGISTRAR GENERAL on the debit-side created the debt.. the secondsignature being the REGISTRAR GENERAL on the credit-side, created the
CREDIT?
Yes Derek. The PROVINCE OF ONTARIO is the TRUSTEE...It's no
different than a $10 Bill.
You need to CLAIM the VALUE you have contributed to the name. Lien
the shit out of it, and call yourself something else. No "given" name.
Only TAKEN names have power.
the definition of TRUST (as in law)- thread.....
(Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition, 1991) TRUST: property, REAL or
PERSONAL, held by one party for the benefit of another. It implies two
interests; one legal, and the other EQUITABLE; the TRUSTEE holding the
legal title or interest; and the CESTUI QUE trust or BENEFICIARY holding
the equitable title or interest. The one who supplies the property or
consideration [RES] for the trust is the SETTLOR [also called TRUSTOR
or DONOR]. Trust also applies generally to any relationship in which one
acts as a GUARDIAN or FIDUCIARY in relation to another's property.
Thus a deposit of money in a bank is a "trust", or the RECEIPT(think
REVENUE RECEIPT) of money to be applied to a particular purpose or to
be paid to another is a "trust."
RES (latin): the thing; the subject matter of actions that are primarily
IN REM i.e. actions that establish rights in relation to an object, as
opposed to a person, or IN PERSONAM. For example, in an action that
resolves a conflict over title to real property, the land in question is the
RES. Tangible PERSONAL PROPERTY can also be a "res," as in the
CORPUS of a trust. In a QUASI in rem proceeding, land or chattels that
are seized and attached at the beginning of the action, in order that
they may later be used to satisfy a personal claim, are the res of such
suits. The term refers as well to the status of individuals. Thus, in a
divorce suit, the marital status is the res. The purpose of a res is to
establish a court's JURISDICTION, i.e. if the property lies within the
state where the action is brought, or an individual in a divorce action is
a DOMICILLARY of the state, then jurisdiction is established.
CORPUS (latin): body. The principal mass of a physical substance. It is
the principal or res of an ESTATE, DEVISE or BEQUEST from which
income is derived. In the law of trusts, any valid trust must have a valid
subject matter or corpus; the corpus can consist of any transferable
interest, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, real or personal,
tangible or intangible, as long as the subject matter is "certain."
Intangible things such as a copyright or the good will of a business or a
trade secret, if transferable by gift, inter vivos or by will, can constitute
the corpus of a trust. In the law of real property, the term refers to all
tangible objects; thus, the roadway, embankment and equipment
constitute the corpus of railroad property. ROYALTIES from oil and gas
in a well also constitute the corpus of the land. The term generally is
found in civil law denoting a positive fact as distinguished from a
possibility. See corpus delecti. It also refers to an aggregate of a
substance such as the law. See corpus juris.
AGGREGATE: a total of all the parts; the whole, the complete amount;
also, to combine, as to aggregate several causes of action in a single
suit; similarly, to aggregate many persons whose causes of actions are
closely related into a class action.
ESTATE: interest, right or ownership in land; technically, the degree,
quantity, nature and extent of a person's interest or ownership of land.
In its broad sense, "estate" applies to all that a person owns, whether
REAL or PERSONAL property. See also PRIVITY [privity of estate]
PRIVITY OF ESTATE: denotes mutual or successive relation to the same
right in property. A privy in estate is one who derives from another
TITLE to property, by contract (grant, will, or other voluntary transfer of
possession), or law (descent, judgment, etc.)
DEVISE: traditionally a GIFT of real property made by will. A
testamentary act by which a now-deceased person manifested his intent
to create one or more interests in land or in a thing other than land,
irrespective of whether such act is effective to create such interest.
Simplicity of statement requires that a single word be available to
describe a testamentary act intended to dispose of interests in land,
interests in things other than land or both these types of interests. The
employment of two words, such as DEVISE and BEQUEATH is awkward.
BEQUEATH: the appropriate term for making a GIFT of personalty by
means of a will. Strictly, it signifies a gift of personal property, which
distinguishes it from a DEVISE, which is a gift of real property. A
DISPOSITION is the generic name encompassing both a bequest of
personalty and a devise of realty. However, when a testator's intention
is obvious, "bequeath" is considered synonymous with "devise."
LEGACY: GIFT, or BEQUEST by will of personal property. The term is
frequently confused with devise, which refers to a disposition of real
property, but the technical distinction between "legacy" and "devise" will
not defeat a testator's intention, so that either term may be used to
dispose of real or personal property. It is regarded as synonymous with
bequest. Compare to devise.
NATION is PEOPLE, humans with a collective ideology ("Christian
Nation", "Nation of Islam", etc), whereas a COUNTRY is just an
incorporated/surveyed region.
IT'S ALL Accounting. ALL of it.
Remember what I've said so far and it gets easier. You've been taught
since childhood to THINK WRONG, so these obvious things become
hidden to you.
NONE of this is hidden!
Fun Fact: Of all my students, only Mathematicians and Computer
Scientists are easy to teach. The average is 3 years for everyone else. A
computer Scientist can be taught in LESS than 90 days.
capitis deminutio applies in your imagination. John Scott Duncan, JOHN
SCOTT DUNCAN nad John Scott DUNCAN...are the same person. It's the
NAME (which was GIVEN to you) which you HOLD (not own) that
matters.
It's all ACCOUNTING. Stop listening to those fucking freemen.
It's all ACCOUNTING. A name is an ACCOUNT.
Roman Numerals: IIV = iiv They mean the same thing.
You DON"T. Make a CORPORATION, and let THAT be the LEGAL entity.
You are whoever your familiars know you as. WHY would you worry
about the LEGAL name? IT'S NOT YOURS. Changing it "legally" makes
SURETY a fact in law. You formed INTENT to change it, and therefore
UNDERSTAND the LEGAL obligation.
Seriously. Why are you concerned about a LEGAL name at all?
Shawn, I have done research into the Roman foundations of legislation
and in doing so I have found reference to the term 'family' originally
meaning a household of slaves. That being so, it is unfortunate that
many people call themselves Xxxx of the family Yyyy.
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE is a TENDER for LAW
(Legal)
BANK CURRENCY is NOT the money in your pocket. In fact, the BANK'S
currency COMPETES with your money.
They are actually correct. They don't have to accept a tender for law,
any more than YOU do. A BANK, is a PERSON under law. A PERSON has
ONE UNALIENABLE RIGHT; The Right NOT to CONTRACT.
It would be hypocrisy, otherwise.
Habeas Corpus
by Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes
FYI:
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary",
"common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by
the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts
and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the
other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus,
procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not
simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of
non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to
prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court
must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an
interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which
the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.
Also... Pay attention to these writs in particular:
Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative
writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority
they have for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") they claim
to hold.
A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing
something the law prohibits. In practice, the Court directs the Clerk to
issue the Writ, and directs the Sheriff to serve it on the subordinate, and
the Clerk prepares the Writ and gives it to the Sheriff, who serves it.
This writ is normally issued by a superior court to the lower court asking
it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its
jurisdiction.These Writs are issued as "alternative" or "peremptory." An
alternative Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and
"Show Cause" why the directive should not be made permanent. A
peremptory Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and
"return" the Writ, with certification of its compliance, within a certain
time.When an agency of an official body is the target of the Writ of
Prohibition, the Writ is directed to the official body over which the court
has direct jurisdiction, ordering the official body to cause the agency to
desist.Although the rest of this article speaks to judicial processes, a
writ of prohibition may be directed by any court of record (i.e., higher
than a misdemeanor court) toward any official body, whether a court or
a county, city or town government, that is within the court's jurisdiction.
Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a
superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or
public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that
body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may
be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a
statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do
something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to
force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been
made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a
mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the
applications.Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative
action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal
rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable
and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a
mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is
denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something
and abstains from doing.
Interesting terms one should also familiarize oneself with these as well:
aggrieve[ uh-greev ]verb (used with object) ag·grieved, ag·griev·ing.1.
to oppress or wrong grievously; injure by injustice.2. to afflict with pain,
anxiety, etc.
Franchise[ fran-chahyz ]noun1. a privilege of a public nature conferred
on an individual, group, or company by a government: a franchise to
operate a bus system.2. the right or license granted by a company to an
individual or group to market its products or services in a specific
territory.3. a store, restaurant, or other business operating under such a
license.4. the territory over which such a license extends.5. the right to
vote: to guarantee the franchise of every citizen.6. a privilege arising
from the grant of a sovereign or government, or from prescription,
which presupposes a grant.7. a player of great talent or popular appeal,
considered vitally important to a team's success or future.8. a legal
immunity or exemption from a particular burden, exaction, or the like.9.
freedom, especially from imprisonment, servitude, or moral restraint.
Other writs, also named habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum:
a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the
place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more
literally to return holding the body for purposes of “deliberation and
receipt” of a decision.
Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum (also called habeas corpus
cum causa):
a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being
held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of
“receiving” the decision of the superior court and of “doing” what it
ordered.
Habeas corpus ad prosequendum:
a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of “prosecuting”
him before the court.
Habeas corpus ad respondendum:
a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to “answer” to new
proceedings before the court.
Habeas corpus ad testificandum:
a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of
“testifying".
"grant" legal definition
A transaction in which a grantor transfers a subset of his or her own
rights in property; the rights so transferred.To transfer rights in real or
personal property; in litigation, accession by the court to a party’s
request made by motion or pleading.
Contract:
" A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into
voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one
or more legal obligations between or among them. The elements of a
contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having
legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of
obligation." Proof of some or all of these elements may be done in
writing, though contracts may be made entirely orally or by conduct.
The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" in the form of
compensation of money or specific performance enforced through an
injunction. Both of these remedies award the party at loss the "benefit
of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere
reliance damages, as in promissory estoppel. The parties may be natural
persons or juristic persons. A contract is a legally enforceable promise or
undertaking that something will or will not occur. The word promise can
be used as a legal synonym for contract, although care is required as a
promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an
agreement without consideration."
The ONLY way to stop them is to form your own currency. Bitcoin is just
a beta test. It's code is actually VERY basic and is NOT scalable. It was
just meant to be a proof-of-concept so EVERYONE gets it.
OVERLAY NETWORKS are the key
Guess the change will have to be gradual...
NO! It won't! LOOK AT BITCOIN!
That one billion market cap was NOT "gradual" by any scale. You all just
need to learn what MONEY IS, and how it actually works, instead if
pulling definitions out of your asses!
If the change is "gradual" it's because none of you can tell the difference
between what's true and what feels good.
You buy THEIR tickets (currency) to account for the value people will
fork out for a midway ride. Prices/profits are outside the government's
jurisdiction.
if for example...you offer a service...like say massages...you would
have people buy massage coupons to exchange for a massage....and
they exchange their money for massage coupons through your business
and that relates to a much earlier comment you made about being like a
bank?
Ya, gee... why didn't I think of that!
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER - You've seen it on a Dollar bill.
What does it mean?
What does it have to do with personal Sovereignty?
Can you live without it?
Scott Duncan:
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER
THIS (The NOTE you are reading)
NOTE (Still that same NOTE)
IS (estoppel)
LEGAL (Acts and statutes with the force of LAW)
TENDER (An OFFER)
This note offers you LAW, and if you receive the BENEFIT, you have
ACCEPTED the LAW."
and our BC is on a bank note... legal tender? has to be accepted to
settle debt?
*facepalm* It's a coupon that says you are entitled to benefits...like a
10 Dollar bill is.
Bank Notes do that task, so the BC MUST do some OTHER financial
service, which you would grasp, if you ACTUALLY LEARNED WHAT
MONEY IS.
You have no RIGHT to monetize a birth certificate. IT'S NOT YOURS.
I suppose it could settle ONE debt, but then you don't possess it
anymore... you see the problem.
Only the GOVERNMENT MUST accept notarized copies, as it is the trust,
and you are ENTITLED to. It says so in the BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT.
technically.. the BC is printed on 'Exchequer Bill Paper?' (yes)
.for the same reason you found out yours was $142mil?
I already KNEW that. If you lien it, that's what they must pay you,
before they can use it again. WHO CARES what they do? Seriously?
For someone who wants "freedom" you sure are interested in the wrong
things.
STUDY, don't experiment. You aren't qualified to interpret the results.
Slept on it last night... so the 'receivers certificate' i looked-up in Black's
last night.. is really the birth certificate.. they just dropped the
'receivers,' and substituted it with 'birth'...
Scott you can accept for value your birth certificate and turn it into a
bond !
...doesnt it already have a bond attached to it sitting in either the Bank
of Canada or DTCC at 55 Water Street in New York?
WERE YOU NOT READING?
IT IS A TRUST. Please stop using asinine phrases like "bond attached",
because that comes straight out of your ass.
YOU ARE THE ONLY HUMAN BEING INVOLVED. THE GOVERNMENT IS
THE TRUST. Who will challenge that claim?
I think i know what Charles was alluding too.. the definition of 'starr' in
Black's Law.. the birth-certificate-receipt needs to be DEPOSITED into a
LAWFUL REPOSITORY
MONEY OF ACCOUNT CAN ONLY BUY OTHER MONEY OF ACCOUNT.
MONEY OF EXCHANGE IS able to purchase consumables.
The "value" is irrelevant.
A Corporations' collateral is the VALUE of its shares and invested capitol
Liens have NOTHING to do with "remedy".
You don't. A Lein is an estoppel Claim. Nothing else.
So Scott- LEGAL TENDER is an OFFER for LAW.. we ACCEPTED their
OFFER upon ACCEPTING their TENDER, so.....what is the
significance/consequence then as a result of once we ACCEPTED their
LEGAL TENDER, in THEIR eyes.....?
Yes Derek, that is what I've been telling you. It's the NAME OF THE
FUCKING GROUP!
I know, i know. But upon ACCEPTING their offer, without us realizing it,
they then view us as what?.. that we are performing-a-public-functionof-government, that being an AGENT of The BANK OF CANADA in a
roundabout way? (yes)
they see us as using THEIR stuff, so by using THEIR stuff, we accept
THEIR terms and conditions, which is: GIVE US A CUT YOUR MOTHER
FUCKERS.....
Cash gives you the BENEFIT but no LIABILITY (Your signature is not on
it).
Euro's dont state "legal tender" ???
No they don't! Count the signatures now.
...I'm sure EVERYONE spending Euros will sign for their half ANY TIME
now!
...otherwise the Euro is just a fancy coupon.
Ok, now im confused. What is the difference between CASH, and a BANK
OF CANADA NOTE that reads THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER.. i thought
they were the same thing?
When you sign, the tender has been ACCEPTED. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL
TENDER is simply PROPER NOTICE (I SWEAR I covered that here,
somewhere...)
Ok, so, make SURE(ty) that i dont SIGN the back of whatever cheque i
am bringing to the bank, like i always have in the past. I ONLY print like
Pierre mentioned, FOR DEPOSIT ONLY. They DEPOSIT the cheque into
my account. *shrugs* Now what? I want to go buy a coffee, but my
pockets are empty. How do i go about getting the CASH now that i need
to go buy my coffee, without creating joinder with the government
accepting their LEGAL TENDER?
You walk to the ATM and withdraw as much as you need...it's your
account!
ONLY the ATM?... what if i withdraw it like Pierre mentioned a couple
minutes later from the same TELLER?
That works too... but an ATM is safer (legally).
the way I see this is: STAY IN PRIVATE.....all the time, do not sign
ANYTHING....do not put the NAME on anything...before doing it...THINK
about it and/or ASK questions...
Well, i dont know how many of you have done this, but i contract my
way into agreements by the retention of whatever i am sending for
payment. Money is only a medium of exchange, does it really matter
what it is we exchange ? Cash or legal tender notes are nothing more
than paper with ink on it and now plastic with ink somehow integrated
into the plastic. So, if we take their remittance vouchers and just accept
the top portion and fill out the voucher in such a way that it has a
signature on it with numbers printed on it and along with the account
number. I go ahead and tender this to the CFO or dept that accepts
remittance vouchers and send along a notice document that contracts
the settlement of the account with stipulations that, retention of the
fully endorsed voucher will be observed as acceptance by their conduct.
So, in fact they benefited a service and their in-action, which is an
action in fact held onto the tender. OR i could and have, sent in a chq in
the amounts of 20 dollars and wrote in the memo: payment in full for
settlement and closure on acc #12343 and by cashing that chq they are
in full agreement that 20dollars settles the 15,000.00. I have done this
and thus far no one has ever sent back the voucher. contractually they
all agreed. who knows i may be wrong...so far i cleared my credit and
debts this
way. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152693156665024&
set=a.10151982027160024.874658.510870023&type=1&theater
well fuck!...all this time my method has been to cash cheque WITHOUT
depositing it into account first (some tellers don't like to do that btw)
then I have the cash, and my account reflects NO activity regarding any
cheques I receive for my services...this is wrong then?
YES! That's INCOME. If you have a record of having been PAID "income"
(your employer) but no record of a DEPOSIT then it's TAXABLE.
If you write FOR DEPOSIT ONLY in the "notes/memo" line of the cheque,
then it is NOT taxable. It becomes...a DEPOSIT.
You should still be ONLY making DEPOSITS!
Stop looking for shit and pay attention to the LEGAL MECHANICS.
DEPOSITS are not INCOME. INCOME tax is for INCOME, not DEPOSITS.
That is all you need to know.
he DOCUMENT OF TITLE- thread.....
(Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd-edition, 1991) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a
BILL OF LADING, dock WARRANT, warehouse RECEIPT, or order for the
DELIVERY of GOODS, or any other document which in the regular course
of business or financing is treated as adequate EVIDENCE that the
PERSON in POSSESSION of it is ENTITLED to RECEIVE, hold, and
DISPOSE of the document and the goods it covers.
(Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd-edition) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: 1.
Includes any bill of lading, dock warrant, warehousekeeper's certificate
and warrant or order for the delivery of goods and any other document
used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or
control of goods, or authorizing or purporting to authorize, either by
endorsement or by delivery (sounds like a CHEQUE you would bring to
the bank), the possessor of the document to TRANSFER or RECEIVE
goods thereby represented 2. any writing that purports to be issued by
or addressed to a BAILEE and purports to cover such goods in the
bailee's possession as are identified or FUNGIBLE portions of an
identified mass, and that in the ordinary course of business is treated as
establishing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive,
hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. Personal
Property Security Act.
(Black's Law 8th-edition) DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a written description,
identification, or declaration of goods authorizing the holder (usually a
BAILEE) to receive, hold, and dispose of the document and the goods it
covers. See BAILMENT. Carriers. Warehousemen. Safe Depositaries.
NEGOTIABLE DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a document of title that actually
stands for the goods it covers, so that any transfer of the goods requires
a surrender of the document. See Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit.
NONNEGOTIABLE DOCUMENT OF TITLE: a document of title that merely
serves as evidence of the goods it covers.
DOCK WARRANT (Dictionary of Canadian Law): a document resembling
a bill of lading and issued by a dock owner or dock company authorizing
delivery of certain goods to a named person or to that person's
ASSIGNS by ENDORSEMENT.
DOCK WARRANT (Black's Law 8th): See DOCK RECEIPT.
DOCK RECEIPT: Maritime Law. an INTERIM document issued by a
maritime carrier to evidence the delivery of goods at the dock.
Generally, a dock receipt ENTITLES the designated person to receive a
bill of lading, waybill, or other transport document. Also termed dock
warrant. See DOCUMENT OF TITLE.
INTERIM: In the meantime; for the time being; not permanent or final;
temporary or provisional.
INTERIM RECEIPT: the written acknowledgment of a premium paid on
an insurance policy that is pending final approval.
INTERIM TRUSTEE: a BANKRUPTCY trustee appointed to perform all the
functions and DUTIES of a trustee until the regular trustee is selected
and qualified. Before the meeting of creditors, the interim trustee often
preliminarily investigates the debtor's assets and financial affairs.
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY (Dictionary of Canadian Law): the person in
whom a bankrupt's property is vested in trust for creditors.
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE (Barron's Law): refers to the person who takes
LEGAL TITLE to the property of the debtor and holds it "in trust" for
equitable distribution among the creditors. In most districts, the trustee
is appointed by the bankruptcy judge or selected by the creditors and
approved by the judge. In a limited number of "pilot districts," a United
States (Canadian) trustee, appointed by the Attorney General (our
Registrar General/Receiver General?), served as or supervised the
trustee.
LEGAL TITLE (Black's Law 8th): a title that evidences apparent
ownership but does not necessarily signify full and complete title or a
BENEFICIAL INTEREST. Before 1536, a legal title was enforceable only
in a court of law, not chancery.
EQUITABLE TITLE: a title that indicates a beneficial interest in property
and that gives the holder the RIGHT to acquire formal legal title. Before
1536, an equitable title was enforceable only in a court of chancery, not
of law.
Dumb curious question on the topic here perhaps. Why MUST a Court
ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked and/or requested ?
The court MUST accept forgiveness because that is what the authority
MUST do. That is what GIVES authority. When you make a MISTAKE
there is no HOSTILE INTENT, and since there is no hostile intent in a
mistake, the court cannot claim "conflict".
in a CIVIL matter you ALWAYS want to be the DEFENDANT.
A Queen can only hold power when there is no KING.
MAY is FUNCTIONALLY the same as SHALL & MUST, but with "options".
Do you know what OR means in law?
This syllable in the termination of words has an active signification, and
usually denotes the doer of an act; as, the grantor, he who makes a
grant; the vendor, he who makes a sale; the feoffor, he who makes a
feoffment. Litt. s. 57; 1 Bl. Com. 140,
You as the petitioner MAY use MAY, or you MAY not.
Saying that I MAY slap Beverly May Braaksma in her face with my my
dick, is NOT the same as I SHALL slap Beverly May Braaksma in her face
with my my dick.
Tara says I MUST slap Beverly May Braaksma in her face with my my
dick..
See the difference?
I SHALL, because Tara says I MUST.
Shall = Has a duty to perform
ESTOPPEL sounds already like the Prerogative Writ called/named
PROHIBITION, then- so i guess..... whats the difference between a Writof-PROHIBITION, and, an ESTOPPEL?
Writ-of-PROHIBITION relies on pre-existing ESTOPPEL to have force and
effect.
..and you would do this by? Sending an ESTOPPEL NOTICE
demanding/ordering them/someone to STOP doing something you
deemed to be unlawful against you, first?
with regards to depositing the BC in with the court, this is to serve as
evidence that I am the sole beneficiary yes? Otherwise another party
could do the same? Only one vessel per cert, or vice versa...
Neither. You are giving it to them for disposition.
It's THE ONLY CLAIM they have on you. Give them the PERSON. YOU
ARE NOT THAT PERSON. You HAVE/USE that person.
...they already have the "person". Kelleran Holman has it right. If I'm
asked I tell them JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN is ALREADY in the court's
custody.
You only need make NOTARIZED COPIES because you are identifying
the security of the name. The BIRTH CERTIFICATE is NOT THE NAME,
it's PROOF of the SECURITY OF THE PERSON. The number of copeis is
irrelevant.
Writ and Praecipe is all you need to worry about
Hint:A numbered corporation has no SIN.
Your name isn't yours either.
So your company should lien the "vessel" as a martime lien and all acts
in commerce are done through the company...?
Yes.
Put in the corporate charter that the corporation holds a TRUST. Live off
that.
Do you HAVE to give the corporation a NAME spelled with LETTERS... or
can you just get-by with a strictly NUMBERED corporation like James
mentioned?
Beverly May Braaksma I would go numbered... then you can "call" it
anything you want, operating as 9875843 ON Ltd.
Also anybody with any understanding of corporate workings knows you
cannot sue yourself. Some of us know how to hit the lawyers back hard,
that is: to make them and the alleged creditors ect responsible for the
taxes through the tax agency. You can have your say in court but not
with the CRA and IRS. If the CRA and IRS have to abide to international
law by tax treaties, then that is all that us alleged “freeman” have to do.
Is it not slanderous to use the word “FREEMAN” is it not profiling and
discrimination?
I told a person who had to appear at discovery for tax court to discuss
the slander only and when this was discussed your brave lawyers ran
out of court.
You have to realize that there are disgruntle employees in all areas
including the tax agencies and in your so called societies showing us the
correct way to do things.
The game plan is over, some us know that everything is based on basic
accounting and that is done through the tax agencies. Whoever is
holding the hot potato which is called “income” pays the taxes so if you
want to collect from us, and then we shall claim. The tax agencies just
want to know who received the funds. This is not old news; it’s just that
we know how to properly file our accounting properly now.
That is what is coming to light. Why should the truth be known by only a
select elite few?
It’s not no more.
The ironic part is that after you have received your proper tax numbers
for tax filing, you can go down to STAPLES and get approved software to
file to the CRA for a refund at your favorite lawyers expense.
Check mate
"Whoever is holding the hot potato..."..... its funny you say that James, i
was just thinking in-terms of what it seems like the BIRTH
CERTIFICATE(OF DEPOSIT) is to me; as long as i am SAFEGUARDING
IT, i am deemed to be the TRUSTEE of it from what ive figured-out as
long as i am holding onto it.....
The BC is supposed to be somewhat of a DEED. A DEED, is an
instrument used meant to CONVEY Title. Thats why we are deemed to
be a TRUSTEE of the government in their eyes, and they are acting as if
they are BENEFICIARY...until we take steps to correct these roles.
"...the only contracts we get into are the ones we use the BC to get of
OUR free will choice....the BC is only an OFFER and the only piece of
paper the government sends for you that isn't you..."
What i took from this, was the same thing that Scott's been poundinginto-us regarding LEGAL TENDER; that the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is/was
also an OFFER FOR LAW, that we have continued to accept using since
we turned the age-of-majority..... would you concur with this Scott- is
the BIRTH CERTIFICATE another form of them making an OFFER OF
LAW to us?
Yes.
HOWEVER, there's a BIG difference Scott between the $20 Bill that says
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE......that
being, the Birth Certificate DOES NOT have on it anywhere THIS BANKNOTE IS LEGAL TENDER thereby giving us proper NOTICE that they are
making an OFFER FOR LAW to us, correct?
Correct, but you are the BENEFICIARY. the onus is on YOU to know your
rights/duties regarding commerce (which this bond allows transactions
in)
So where is the accountant located that does the accounting for the BC
and currency. Have you opened an account with the accountant in
Ottawa? Not theirs but yours?
INDENTURE A document such as a mortgage or deed of trust, which
provides for security for a financial obligation, and which sets forth
essential terms such as interest rate and due date or maturity date.Â
...or their appointed guardian as proof as the “holder” = Registrar
GENERAL (its ALL about ACCOUNTING) ?
INDENTURE (Black's 6th): in bankruptcy law, indenture means
mortgage, deed of trust, or indenture, under which there is outstanding
a SECURITY, other than a voting-trust certificate, constituting a CLAIM
against the DEBTOR, a CLAIM secured by a LIEN on any of the
DEBTOR's PROPERTY, or an equity SECURITY OF THE DEBTOR
INDENTURE TRUSTEE: person or institution named in a trust indenture
and charged with holding LEGAL TITLE to the trust property and with
CARRierYING out the TERMS of the indenture. Trustee under an
indenture.
I was thinking of sending a NOTICE FOR FULL-DISCLOSURE registeredmail to the Registrar General asking him on the whereabouts of my
original Long-Form-Statement-of-Live-Birth-Record - NOW...im thinking
i should be asking him to see a copy of the INDENTURE regarding the
Birth Certificate they TRANSFERRED to me by means of CONVEYANCEOF-TITLE
I am always amazed at the bull that is posted all the times about the
BC. The UN charter states that a legal person has to be created for
every human on the planet, so what do you think the BC is .Proof that
the government has done so, so what is your problem?
The posting was about how many have incorporated so that they do not
have to file tax returns with the SIN. WHY those are the derivatives
created from the legal person . Probably over you heads . That’s why
only one in a million figure this out.
Notice for what ?
So you can prove that you don’t know what you are doing?
If you cannot claim the derivatives through the SIN then there has to be
another way. That was what the question was about. Taking a
consensus to see how many have done so.
Conclusion ZERO
Thanks Willie. Usually I'm the one who points this out, but it's all whitenoise to them now.
It's simple. Lien the Birth Certificate, and walk away. Don't "notify"
strangers that you are an idiot. They already suspect it, so you don't
need to confirm.
The birth certificate is not a property of the Government of Canada and
it is not an instrument to request payment by the Government of
Canada of any Debt incurred under your name. It is an official document
issued by a Provincial Government giving details of a person's birth. For
any information or to voice any concerns regarding a birth certificate,
please consult the Provincial Government where the birth certificate was
issued.
if an instrument does not specify it is NON-NEGOTIABLE, the
presumption is that it IS negotiable, as anything with a
signature/autograph would be considered negotiable.
a card without the remainder of the matching deck is worth/use[less]
unless it has an autograph or the remainder of the deck could be
reassembled.
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT YOUR BIRTH-CERTIFICATE:
1. On the bottom of your Birth Certificate, it says in teeny-weeny letters
the words- 'Canadian Bank Note Company Limited'
2. On the back of it you have a CUSIP-number printed in red (a CUSIPnumber is evidence of a 'security')
3. Its made of 'Bond-paper' (technically, its called- EXCHEQUER BILL
PAPER)
4. The new ones have a watermark on it
5. The old ones used to have the words "Revenue receipt...For Treasury
Use Only" on the back
6. Barrons Law of banking-terms says a certificate is proof or claim of an
ownership
7. The Birth Certificate and your 'original' Long-Form-Statement-OfLive-Birth-Record are considered to be a "valuable token" by the Office
of the Registrar General of Ontario
8. The legal-definition of a "token" is simply put?.. 'money-substitute'
Ok so Scott, from Brenda's post (and some others)... A Preacipe is
regarding a Trust, to create and "order"... A Petition would be in the
case where there is no Trust Authority —but is also used to create an
"order" (rather than a motion which would only be ASKING)
It SHOULD be a writ. The Justice issues the Praecipe.
...in response to the writ, that is.
THE TENDER FOR LAW – CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY [C.A.S] FOR
IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
This article is what we like to call an "emergency article" in as much as
Dean Clifford has publicly and blatantly lied about family services and
the law. Before we get started we are going to refer to the
JURISDICTION I am most familiar with. You will find mirrors of this in
any JURISDICTION that uses a world reserve currency.
If you live in Buttfuck Montana I will not be able to point you to the ACT
and/or STATUTE that says what I am going to show you here.
http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/English/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm
The URL above will point you to the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
OF ONTARIO so you can sing along...
Before I start let's review a few LEGAL DEFINITIONS. Those who have
been studying the Maxims of Law will be familiar with the Maxim that
says, "The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of everything else."
Like all good LEGAL documents I'm going to give away the answer right
at the beginning and explain why this is true.
Every one who has been a victim of the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY has
been profoundly aware that FRAUD is occurring, and has been unaware
of how to identify this FRAUD. In order to have a child removed from a
mother and/or father's custody an ORDER must be issued from the court
that cites this very ACT. There are exceptions to this RULE (imminent
physical threat to a child, WARRANT from a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
inter alia), but that's not what we are covering here. In this writing I am
only going to focus on the long, drawn-out, cash-producing process
laughingly called family law.
In every ACT and STATUTE, words are defined in the context of that ACT
and/or STATUTE. If the word "light" is defined in a STATUTE as
"darkness", then in the context of that STATUTE, light means darkness.
A "JUSTICE" orders the kidnapping (and it is kidnapping) and/or
alienation of a child with an ORDER in the context of the CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. So let's look at the CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. What does "ORDER" mean in the
context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO? Let's go
see the interpretations section and its definitions....
“ORDER” INCLUDES a REFUSAL to make an ORDER; (“arrêté, ordre et
ordonnance”)...WHAT?
...just looking through the ACT to see if there's a bit more detail
here...nope, that's it. That's all it says. I assume the parties who drafted
this ACT were never taught that you should never use the word you're
defining in a definition.
In THE TENDER FOR LAW our standard operating procedure is to look up
every single word, even if you think you know what it means; and in
every case it always turn out that you don't. So let's go through that
sentence, one word at a time. In our fresh new definition of "ORDER" we
are "INCLUDING" something, which in legalese means we are
EXCLUDING everything else. In this case we are including a REFUSAL(?)
How can you include a refusal? (hey don't look at me...I didn't write
this...I'm just telling you what it says)
Since refusal is not defined in this ACT we'll have to step up to a more
general level. Let's see what Black's Law 9th Edition has to say about
the word "refusal":
"An opportunity to accept or reject something before it is offered to
others; the right or privilege of having this opportunity."...well, there's a
privilege worth waiving! In fact I dare say that of all the privileges and
benefits one would wish to waive, this should at least be in your top
five. Dean Clifford and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth ("How do I
sound"? - Tony Butros, HOW TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD-Ep13 Family
Law www.blogtalkradio.com) are selling this as a benefit.
In fact, they're asking you to beg for it when they tell you to use
APPLICATIONS and MOTIONS (...Yeh, you like that don't 'ya bitch!).
Rather than begging for your own victimization, a little effort tearing this
apart will serve you much better. Since we're talking about ORDERS and
MAKING ORDERS let's take a quick peek at the word "MAKE" since we
have Black's Law lying open here...
MAKE, according to Black's Law 9th Edition, "To legally perform, as by
executing, signing, OR delivering (a document) (to make a contract)"
Oh look, they use the word "OR"! Don't you just love it when they give
you a selection? Always remember legalese does NOT actually "lie", it
simply presumes you know what the words mean (as a CIVILIAN! HAR!
Oh, I slay me!).
So when a "JUSTICE" MAKES an ORDER he gets a selection from the
"bullshit buffet" that is the LAW, but he can only pick one, OR the other.
Neither of these options actually apply to YOU. By ACCEPTING the
ORDER you are in fact, EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS to "BENEFIT" from it,
before everyone else can. Yes, you are accepting SURETY before anyone
else gets a chance; and while I'm not one to tell you how to run your
affairs, I personally think that that would be a MISTAKE! And we all
know what to do about MISTAKES.
Now I want you to "fire up" that little lump of protoplasm you laughingly
call a brain, and ask yourself, "Which makes more sense? Begging to be
part of the JURISDICTION and all of its "BENEFITS" or following the
Number 1 Rule of the Universe (Scott is ALWAYS right! Especially as
regards LAW). Lawyers used to come to me when they got in over their
heads, and I was shoved A LOT of payola under the table for my
services. Single mothers reading this know how to express their
gratitude. You may APPLY to Tara for the opportunity to provide
remuneration.
So let's go through this fascinating definition one more time, translated
to laymen's terms:
In the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO a
"JUSTICE" will issue an opportunity to ACCEPT a BENEFIT before
everyone else. So basically ORDER in this context actually OFFERS YOU
the RIGHT TO DECLINE. I guarantee that none of you who have had
your children stolen, DECLINED that ORDER. In fact I dare say you
ACCEPTED it. That would be a MISTAKE.
Issuing a NOTICE OF MISTAKE will correct this, because another Maxim
of Law says, "That which can be done, can be undone". Serving by
registered mail a modified NOTICE OF MISTAKE to all participating
PARTIES, will remedy this MISTAKE.
And now we will cover our new "word of the day", "PETITION":
PETITION, according to Black's Law 9th Edition, "A formal written
request presented to a court or other official body."
Those few of you who actually have a fucking clue who I am, know that
among my many titles is ADMIRAL. I exercise my RIGHTS and DUTIES
strictly through ADMIRALTY, so I totally know what I'm talking about
here. I, as an ADMIRAL, have TRUSTEES SERVING me. I do not bark
ORDERS at my TRUSTEES. I only do that to my inferiors. My TRUSTEES
are most certainly NOT my inferiors. When I need a task performed for
AQUILAE I REQUEST. Returning to the definition of PETITION you will
see that this is also a request. I therefore PETITION my TRUSTEES to
execute tasks on behalf of the TRUST. TRUSTEES do not serve an
ADMIRAL; an ADMIRAL SERVES HIS TRUSTEES. The "payment" for this
"service" is the TRUSTEE'S OATH to GRANT ALL MY REQUESTS. It is the
COURT's DUTY to do the same.
This group's name "THE TENDER FOR LAW" is actually a translation to
layman's terms of "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER". They mean the same
thing. So naturally money comes into the picture. Remember our
group's Maxim..."Follow the money". In this particular case we don't
want to follow any money, we want to stop the flow of money.
All of you have heard the old adage, "The buck stops here." Translated
to legalese, "the buck stops here" = "NON-NEGOTIABLE". In the
construction of our PETITION we are going to contain, in its body, a
cessation of negotiation. When dissecting documents that have a
financial interest, we have learned that documents signed by a
"PERSON" are considered NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS under the LAW.
Therefore in our PETITION, the first words that appear should be NONNEGOTIABLE. This is similar to putting "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" on the
top of a document. NEGOTIATE does not mean bargain or haggle, it
means to EXECUTE a financial transaction. NON-NEGOTIABLE literally
means "the buck stops here". Reading through Black's Law will show
you numerous types of petitions, and reading them in the context
demonstrated here will make these petitions very, very clear...even a
chick can do it.
At this point I would like everyone to know that I DO NOT provide
LEGAL service; I only point you in the right direction. Therefore I cannot
draw up a petition for you as I did with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE.
NOTICE OF MISTAKE existed in the real world before I typed up any
document regarding it. Therefore I was quoting, which means I have not
stepped outside of any LEGAL restriction. When The second I issue a
petition you can bet your sorry, incompetent asses I'll be quoting it
here. Until that happens though, you'd best use the comments section
to ask any questions you may have. For the sake of your children do not
listen to Dean and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth; they are
deliberately misleading you! When you discover this is true (and you will
if you listen to them), you are welcomed to board any AQUILAE vessel
and beg me for forgiveness where I promise there will be a loyal and
capable TRUSTEE standing by to kick you in the face, and toss you
overboard.
because all crime is commerce, if we make something NONNEGOTIABLE then that in affect stops the charges?
What else could it be?
I've not had any dealings with Child services, but I'm assuming you
would have dealings with them before they take the children either by
phone or visits etc....the best time for the petition would be their first
contact with you...create the petition and give to the proper court
representative?
ANY time is good, but yes, first communication is the best. Kill it at the
root.
If they have already taken the child(ren), is a petition necessary along
with a notice of mistake, because the petition is identifying your wishes?
ie i made a mistake, this is how i want it resolved
NOTICE first, petition second.
"To legally perform, as by executing, signing, OR delivering (a
document) (to make a contract)"
So the JUSTICE is SERVING you, he is really HANDING you the SURETY
and if you ACCEPT it, you are now BOUND BY LAW as the SURETY
because you've accepted the BENEFIT of it?
That is correct. The statute in the context of ORDER specifically gives
you the right to "waive the benefit"
But this is then a simple contract offer bound up with lots of fancy
words, rights, privledges and benefits where they get you to agree to
pay for nothing while losing your children.
All Rights Reserved and No Contract then.
Pretty much, yes.
Social Assistance (NOT Employment insurance) is a very touchy thing.
You surrender a LOT of rights for the tiny amount of money that is
received.
It actually changes your status when you "apply" for social assistance.
ALL government money, is MONEY OF ACCOUNT, and when your bank
turns it into MONEY OF EXCHANGE, some VERY UGLY legal baggage
ALWAYS goes along with it. It will take me WEEK to find it all. This is a
VERY hard question. You have NO idea...which is why I answer
"PROBABLY".
...but now I want to know too. So I'm going to find out.
So Scott- is what you're saying, is that if CAS shows up to your door
with an ORDER signed by a Judge, saying that they are there to take
your kids away..you should say to them- "Oh terrific, today is my lucky
day! You have an ORDER for me from a judge, who refused to sign an
ORDER letting you steal my kids from me probably because he didnt
want to be the reason why some kids got stolen from their parents.
GREAT. Now fuck off and get off my property!"
Yes, derek. Pretty much, yes.
Eamon, social assistance is YOURS. TAKE IT. ITS A TRUST ACCOUNT
THAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS.
...actually Adam, it isn't. The government NEVER gives anything it didn't
take from somebody else.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE on the other hand, is a different story. You
paid INTO that benefit, so you are entitled.
"Social Assistance" is where you come with NOTHING and trade rights
for loose change.
just a little tidbit of info here since im going through this myself.
if the other party lies the person or the lawyer it is considered to be
priviledged and therefor protected from defamation lawsuits. You can
also only get them on perjury if somethign drastic happens such as the
loss of a job or an order was made against you. Scott care to weigh in?
Sure. You're an idiot.
...I'm sorry, did you want more? Lawyers are THIRD PARTIES in ANY
dispute. The Lawyers ACT AS REPRESENTATIVE of the party. Limited
liability. It's why they refer to each other as "my friend". there's no
conflict themselves. THE PARTIES have the conflict. When the
GOVERNMENT uses a "crown attorney", they are "representing" an
"injured party".
None of the mythology you are making up has ANY basis in reality. Any
other rectally-inspired concepts?
i know that part, but where does the law draws the line. This lawyer is
just out of control and whats worse is the justice was accepting it as
truth. This was from last time i showed up so since we talked there was
no other hearings.
A lawyer ALWAYS has LIMITED LIABILITY. He's a PRIVATE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION.
Wow. Just when I think you couldn't pull out ANY more dumb shit, into
your ass you go and pull out, more dumb shit. Amazing. Natural
selection should have killed you off by now.
First this "privileged communication" is bullshit you picked up in
american legal shows, and has NO basis in reality. Limited liability
means a lawyer can never BE charged with perjury, so you pulled THAT
out of your ass too. THE ONLY thing a lawyer can EVER be charged with
is the misappropriation of funds in a trust. THAT IS IT. NO OTHER
REASON. There is only one crime in Admiralty; Interference with
Commerce. BREACH OF TRUST, thus the "privileged communication"
between a lawyer and client myth was born. Credulous people like
yourself perpetrate this myth. Here in reality, such a thing would conflict
with their oath to the LAW SOCIETY.
SO first question: Do you know what hearsay evidence is?
After 100 or so posts we establish that HEARSAY evidence is third-party
testimony and is not admissible.
Next I ask "what is a legal fiction", and then the readers would have to
wade through/endure more of your content-free bullshit...
Leading to...
"OBJECTION! By what authority does this LEGAL FICTION admit
HEARSAY EVIDENCE to this court? Was this LEGAL FICTION present
during the events described, or is this LEGAL FICTION offering the court
THIRD HAND TESTIMONY?
Yes, Adam, something “big” is coming. The fact that you are asking this
question is mildly disturbing as it should be self-evident. Think of it as a
giant game of “Risk” where progress to an inevitable conclusion is not
measured in hours or minutes, but in events. In seduction, if you have
held her hand, exchanged passionate kisses, and have moved on to
exploring erogenous zones, it is practically a foregone conclusion you're
going to get laid. In both circumstances I can't tell you exactly what
form or position(s) the outcome will manifest; but I can tell you that it
does involve getting fucked.
Think of your own recent experiences, look at the domestic and global
events that are unfolding, and put the pieces together.
Scott is honouring a promise to shovel as much information out there as
possible. I have long been of the position that his efforts are largely
fruitile (pointless, but with a fruity flavour). Time will tell I guess. One
man cannot stop a flood. One man with thousands of people and sand
bags just might.
In the immortal words of Cave Johnson, "I like your grit. Hustle could
use some work though, now let's solve this thing!"
Scott Duncan, this is what i did in court today.
Family Court
All rise please
Please be seated. A minute or two pause.
I said POINT OF ORDER
I believe I am the only one with standing , so barring objection from the
court I wish to reserve all rights now, and henceforth, are there any
objections from the court?
You wish to – reserve my rights, all rights
Well you can certainly, whatever those rights may be, I uh terms of
appealing or whatever, I uh that’s (something) the record to make
decisions I guess.
I wish to reserve all rights now and henceforth, and are there any
objections from the court?
Let the record show that the court that I have reserved all rights and
the court has not objected
I know,it, of no motion at this stage that, your motion doesn’t make any
sense to me quite frankly.
There are 2 separate scenarios that Scott has shared regarding this
topic, Brenda..i will post both of them for review:
On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that
being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only
one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick
about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS!
Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give
them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only
one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're
entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of
order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I
am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I
wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any
objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond,
simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have
reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they
say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that
I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak.
Why are you speaking?"
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be
posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for
that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their
master's wish?
*judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!" *judge goes silent*
"BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at this time I WISH to
reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the court?
*Jeopardy Music*
Any objections?
*Clock Ticking*
....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat
second and third time)
As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It
is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING
PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent).
QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't
understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC
RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so:
"Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A
COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN?
As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights,
ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to
you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY
objections from the court).
You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste
system and how they give instructions.
NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".
ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING
THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".
GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.
The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none,
you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give
instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how
you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the
time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time
you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like
he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial
PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case
to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise
your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES
ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case
dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll
recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these
proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not
made my wishes clear?"
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question
serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the
possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you
accept SURETY.
As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are
you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is
answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
MAKE A PAD of "NOTICE of MISTAKE", and MAKE them ANSWER the
QUESTIONS, and if they are NOT answered, then you "CANNOT
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS".
.should Brenda have repeated- "...going once, going twice, three
times...are there any objections from the court?"
No, there's no "should" or shouldn't. you simply object.
Don't let them proceed.
" Don't let them proceed." = "Objection. The record shows that I have
reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are
you speaking?"
" Don't let them proceed." = "Objection. The record shows that I have
reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are
you speaking?"
First: You are not making MOTIONS. Do NOT allow them to say that
they are.
Re: "I don't understand", respond that you require the supernumerary
to RECUSE HIM/HER SELF as they are on record as being LEGALLY
INCOMPETENT to do their job.
Scott explained to me, MOTION = between you, Judge, and the other
party... PETITION = just between YOU and the Judge/court
Scott said that by MOTION you are MOVING into the court's jurisdiction
by consent with asking the judge to do something that will AFFECT the
other party (still dont completely understand that)- BUT.....a PETITION,
is something going-on that is JUST between you and the Judge/court
WHO ARE YOU negates the POSSIBILITY of there being
UNDERSTANDING.
THEY ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR. They have NO AUTHORITY to identify
themselves. A JUSTICE IS NOT A PERSON. THEY SIMPLY CAN'T
ANSWER!
You do not HAVE an incorporated business. There is no joinder, because
the CORPORATION is in fact a PERSON.
You can own CONTROLLING (voting) shares but you never own the
corporation. It's up to the CORPORATION to protect the name, not you.
The SHAREHOLDERS are just beneficiaries. Their taxes are their own
business, and NOTHING to do with CORPORATE taxes.
If they come to YOU, YOU are just a SHAREHOLDER of the corporation.
That corporation JUST HAPPENS to have liened the shit out of your
NAME. THEREFORE "Beverly May Braaksma" is PROPERTY held IN
TRUST.
Since the corporation (with the shareholder's consent) OWNS "Beverly
May Braaksma", then you must maintain/give value to, that name, and
the corporation looks after the "asset". You need never engage in
commerce again.
So when one "applies" for a corporation, say to "BRITISH COLUMBIA" is
the "applicant" now the "grantor" or "settlor". Is the grantor/settlor not
liable to joinder now, say for filing, or for for appointing an Executor, or
Trustees to File for the corp. This post is thru Cara by boy toy.
No. The GRANTOR'S job is FINISHED.
Your parents and the Government were the GRANTORS of the name on
YOUR birth certificate. They are no longer parties with standing. A
PERSON is responsible for their OWN debts.
Liening the NAME means the CORPORATION is presumed to have the
value, not the name. The name OWES the corporation, so the name is
responsible for the DEBT to the corporation, and nothing else. That's all
the name DOES anymore...owe the corporation.
The ONLY thing "limited" is liability to the shareholders. (ltd'S)
You don't Apply for a corporation, you REGISTER it. The GOVERNMENT
is the one ENDORSING (and is therefore surety) the registration
(Perfecting). Liability is not even a factor in this exchange.
No. You send them a bill.
Then a Steatement
AThen a NOTICE
Then a default.
Then get an ex parte order to seize the funds.
The court offers you the right to claim sovereignty IN THEIR
JURISDICTION, WITH FULL SOVEREIGN STATUS all the time. There's a
catch; you MUST wait for them to offer it.
YOU don't know what the word "belligerent" means, do you?
When a court says you are a "belligerent defendant" (That's a NOUN; for
the retarded people who THOUGHT they knew what it meant), what are
they saying?
They "declare 'YOU'" belligerent. Look for the WORD "belligerent". When
they USE it, they are accepting your Sovereignty.
How will they respond to "By what authority do you make war on my
person"?
"By what authority do you make war on my person?" is the equivalent to
telling a cop who pulls you over in your car - "Not for hire," then the cop
supposedly walks off.....thats your way of telling them your unscanable?
...well unless you WISH to be surety!
So what - you walk into court, give them THE NAME, they think they got
you, then you just ask them.."Does the court consider me to be a
belligerent defendant?"..and then hit them with your line?
The court/judge will then ask you- "Are you here as the man, or as the
person?"
No.
You only need to show that the NAME has "APPEARED". Then you ask
questions. LOTS of questions! (NOTE:Canada Grade "A" Shit Disturbing
can be had here) and just wait. You'll know when the time comes. They
will engage you 3 times, to meet the burden of evidence.
Then they disengage. DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM THE COURT
PAST THIS POINT AS IT IS TREATY FROM THAT POINT ON.
THE ONLY LAWS BETWEEN NATIONS ARE TREATIES!
No treaty if you don't accept. Ask the Moors!
"They will engage you 3 times, to meet the burden of evidence." - so
you have to ask them three times, "By what authority do you make war
on my person?".....?
They'll make you. If you mean it, you won't let them move forward
without an answer to the question.
..and that answer is?
YOU ARE FREE TO GO!
There is NO PERSON behind the declaration.
It goes from "LEGAL DECLARATION OF WAR" to "Derek Moran is a
poopie-head" written on a bathroom stall, in terms of legal authority.
THE COURT IS NOT A PERSON.
A HOCKEY RINK IS NOT A PERSON
I LOVE being the defendant. For 20 years I was PRO SE. If you know
the rules you have ALL the power.
The system is corrupt now. They are unworthy of TRUST. When it was
functional, I ALWAYS won. PRO SE!
So theres really no fear then in going into court and CONTRACTING with
them by giving them THE NAME, cuz you can get out of it later?
You ARE contracting them. WAR DEVOLVES CONTRACT.
WHOA.. when they ask for THE NAME, i give it to them, its the complete
opposite of what everybody is thinking, in that, im not contracting with
THEM..they are contracting with ME??
Yes. Learn what a TENDER is.
YOU are OFFERING your NAME in RESPONSE (respondent) to the
TENDER of LEGAL SERVICES they OFFER.
YES- thats right! I just read a Maxim last night that says- 'During times
of war the law ceases!!'
Well DUUUUUUUH!
Derek, let me give you $50.00 worth of free advice; STAY THE FUCK
AWAY FROM A COURTROOM. You THINK wrong.
WHY is the court asking YOU questions? Are you a SERVANT on the
PUBLIC record?
I've spent more than my fair share of years in command, and I'm
PRETTY SURE I didn't put up with questions from lower ranking officers.
I lien the NAME because I GAVE IT VALUE. I want the value, not the
government. Now it's trust property.
What exactly did you expect "them" to give you, when you demand they
"give you the bond"?
What IS this shit you've pulled out of your ass?
A lien puts you first in line when it comes to monetization.
You become your own creditor. YOU get all the value.
BUT IT BELONGS TO THEM!
What are you going to do after?
Walk into the BANK OF CANADA with a $20 bill screaming "give me the
fucking bond"
So you placed a lien on the Bond.. does PPSA act like a bank to get the
value for it out of it?
No. If I have VALUE, I ALREADY HAVE it. I don't need to "get value" out
of a claim. It's just a claim.
If my name has VALUE I GET THE BENEFIT. Before I claimed it, THE
GOVERNMENT DID.
If you didn't SIGN IT, then YOU DON'T OWN IT.
2 signatures and a TRUSTEE
you dont own it, until you claim it.. you dont claim it, until you lien it
Was that so hard to grasp?
You STILL don't own it. You are JUST THE BENEFICIARY of the VALUE.
Just like the bearer of a $20 bill is the BENEFICIARY of the VALUE.
NOBILITY COMMANDS WITH QUESTIONS
ADMIRALS COMMAND WITH REQUESTS
GENERALS COMMAND WITH ORDERS
Why do you care what these strangers have done? Do you need their
PERMISSION to claim it? WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THEM?
Are you WINDOW SHOPPING for SERVICES?
Perhaps you can mail the ministry of natural resources and ask if you
are wildlife too! Good use of your time. I can really see it's paid off.
If you don't own VESSEL and you are NOT in international waters, you
have NO use for UCC!
Am I being "threatened" with CIVIL contempt?
Am I being "threatened" with CRIMINAL contempt?
Why did you consent to a CONTEMPT Charge?
...what? you think it was without consent?
What KIND of "charge" is "contempt"? Civil, or Criminal?
Civil? Produce the contract.
Criminal? Who's the injured party?
So... there's 30 days that made some strangers some money!
Justice and Justice of the Peace are NOT the same. Learn what they are
for before you do something stupid.
Now it's time to read what has happened, because this is more than
you think.
"Be advised that the Attorney General of Nova Scotia does not accept
your notice of understanding..." - DOES NOT ACCEPT. Your NOTICE is
an OFFER.
Let's look at a simple NO PARKING notice. They are giving you NOTICE
NOT to park there, with a notice of what you pay if you DO park there.
That's the conditions of NO PARKING. If you don't accept those
conditions, don't park there... it's just notice.
Same with your NOTICE. They don't ACCEPT THE TERMS. It MAY mean
they intend to leave you alone.
so LEGAL TENDER = OFFER... BILL of exchange = OFFER... the same as,
any NOTICE we send to the government = an OFFER...?
Yes. Sorry YOUR notices don't have superpowers.
It's all contract driven by ACCOUNTING.
SO...what makes a good NOTICE isnt just telling them to STAY OFF THE
GRASS.....a good NOTICE must always include clear INSTRUCTIONS on
what will happened to someone if they dont heed the NOTICE and they
still decide to walk on my grass....INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT WILL
HAPPEN = TERMS AND CONDITIONS, as you just mentioned to Brenda?
NOTICE OF MISTAKE detaches you from the liability of the NAME. You
can't then demand things only your NAME is entitled to.
Better to have a corporation lien it on behalf of a trust.
...for which you are a beneficiary...and controlling shareholder in the
corporation.
A CORPORATION IS A PERSON, A PERSON IS NOT A FUCKING
CORPORATION. A TEN DOLLAR BILL IS NOT A CORPORATION! A
CHEQUE IS NOT A CORPORATION! AND A MUTHERFUCKING PERSON IS
NOT A FUCKING CORPORATION AND I WILL PERMANENTLY BAN THE
NEXT ASS-WIPE THAT ATTEMPTS TO SPREAD THAT BULLSHIT AGAIN!
A PERSON IS NEVER A CORPORATION, A CORPORATION CAN ACT AS A
PERSON...THAT'S FUCKING IT. CORPORATION HAS NO OTHER CONTEXT
WITH PERSON!
WHO'S YOUR PERSON'S DULY ELECTED FIRST DIRECTOR?
WHO'S YOUR PERSON'S SHAREHOLDERS?
WHEN ARE YOUR ANNUAL MEETINGS HELD FOR THIS CORPORATIONPERSON?
CAN YOU SELL THESE SHARES? IF SO, FOR HOW MUCH?
Who's the CEO?
Oh, wait, that's right, YOUR PERSON ISN'T A FUCKING CORPORATION!
Yes, SO NOW you UNDERSTAND WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER SAY THINGS
LIKE:"so our public servants are MANIPULATING the original intent of
the PERSON, by redefining it as a "CORPORATION" in their own
statutes" - THEY DO NO SUCH THING!
In fact they tend to give corporations a HIGHER standing than your
PERSON.
Ask which context they BELIEVE you are. QUESTIONS NEGATE
UNDERSTANDING (or there wouldn't be questions).
TENDER = "CONDITIONALLY OPEN TO OFFERS"
LEGAL = "RULES WITH THE FORCE OF LAW WITH CONSENT"
http://merx.com/ offers public tenders.
Money offers a TENDER FOR LAW.
They are the same thing.
The purpose of BITCOIN is to stop the transition of MONEY OF
EXCHANGE to MONEY OF ACCOUNT. ACCOUNTANTS only have
jurisdiction over MONEY OF ACCOUNT. MONEY OF EXCHANGE is YOUR
JURISDICTION.
When you deposit MONEY OF EXCHANGE into a BANK, that money
becomes MONEY OF ACCOUNT.
NOT SO WITH BITCOIN!
...get it?
We use 'Money' for exchange of goods we need/want. transaction
complete at that point, over and done with between the parties to the
transaction. With Moneys of 'Account' , someone is keeping score/track
of and probably charging for it though it is none of their businesss, the
initial transaction I mean. Bitcoin eliminates that. My words, my head.
That is the FIRST sign that you are listening to a "believer". What they
SAY may be true, but what they THINK isn't.
Picture a 2 year old parroting 2+2=4. They say the right thing, and the
answer is true, bit it's IMMEDIATELY obvious that that same child knows
NOTHING about WHY because the kid CAN'T ADD.
Bitcoin is a great system to exchange funds. It works very well and now
a lot of people are using it, due to the writing on the wall in EU. There
are some bitcoin clones even floating around because the software is all
open source. It's only weakness is the infrastructure that supports it is
susceptible to forces beyond it's control.
So build your own. That's what I do.
Clubhouse rules. They ignore them on a whim. What are you going to
do? SUE THEM?
It's all about SURETY!
"YOU"=SURETY
Your "Name"=SURETY!
I'll never quite grasp how attached all of you are to your NAME. It's not
YOURS! It (and SURETY) were given to you.
On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that
being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only
one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick
about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS!
Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give
them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only
one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're
entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of
order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I
am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I
wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any
objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond,
simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have
reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they
say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that
I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak.
Why are you speaking?"
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be
posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for
that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their
master's wish?
Sunday at 1:51pm · Unlike · 4
Derek Moran *judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!"
*judge goes silent* "BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at
this time I WISH to reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the
court?
*Jeopardy Music*
Any objections?
*Clock Ticking*
....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat
second and third time)
As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It
is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING
PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent).
QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't
understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC
RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so:
"Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A
COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN?
As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights,
ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to
you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY
objections from the court).
You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste
system and how they give instructions.
NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".
ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING
THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".
GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.
The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none,
you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give
instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how
you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the
time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time
you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like
he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial
PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case
to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise
your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES
ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case
dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll
recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these
proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not
made my wishes clear?"
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question
serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the
possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you
accept SURETY.
As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are
you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is
answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
Scott Duncan MAKE A PAD of "NOTICE of MISTAKE", and MAKE them
ANSWER the QUESTIONS, and if they are NOT answered, then you
"CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS".
Secure the costs.
File a commercial lien on "The state of Michigan" as regards the
account(Docket number). When it's done, send them a bill.
You WISH the case dismissed, you don't DEMAND. Where do you get
authority over THEM? You are in their jurisdiction.
Only on NEW names where there is ONLY ONE signature on the birth
certificate.
Yes, a B.C. with only ONE signature is, in fact, a coupon.