The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Feb 15, 2013 6:36 AM

Scott Duncan

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?

Read Comments

Daniel J Wentz

OMG he's already locked on. You poor girl. :(

Where's that "Fiona Munro"? I happen to know his targeting system is buggy when there are multiple targets in range of his influence! Evade while you still can!

Derek Moran

You say thats- "the proper response"..whats that the proper response TOO? As you say- "There's a catch; you MUST wait for them to offer it."...What is it that the court/judge has to say first, for you to come back with that line you used?

Derek Moran

So you go into court, with the intent of acting like a bit-of-a-dick, baiting them almost, until they 'declare you a belligerent,' which springs the trap back on themself, in which at that time you say- "By what authority do you make war on my person"?...hmmmmmmm, interesting

Derek Moran

"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?

Scott Duncan

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.

Derek Moran

Like this dickhead-security-guard from the other night wanting my name- "Umm, are you asking me for the name of the man, or, the name of the person?"..that fucked-him-up, he didnt know what i was talking about

Derek Moran

I heard you the other day with the ROOT/SUDO, telling the court that you are the Grantor, sole-living-Beneficiary and Lawful Holder In Due Course, effectively only leaving one-seat left for them to be the Surety as i understood it?

Scott Duncan

Kate Butler's Statistically Significant Other (She spends all her time with him) is pretty hard-core. I can move at a decent speed with him, but he's like a Lithium Battery; Full power and then without warning...done.

It takes about 4 hours to wear him down, and he knows more than everyone here combined. He has the HUGE advantage of a common frame of reference. I can get concepts across QUICKLY.

...and NO questions that reveal the asking party is clueless! It's LUXURY these days.

Scott Duncan

Well I didn't have no fancy internets. I had to go to a LAW LIBRARY.

I then subscribed to law articles. They just talked about it openly.

"The UK CANADA ACT will ACT as a CHARTER for the new shiny CANADA we're gonna slip in....and get this...the "citizens" will now think they are "Free"! BWAHAHAHAHA"

...I paraphrase, of course, but you get the idea.

Scott Duncan

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?

Scott Duncan

*sigh* Yes, but we mustn't leave Pierre Daoust behind.

To understand, Pierre, you must picture yourself in a car with a stick-shift, and 5th-gear overdrive, going 150 km/h. You are about to shift into fifth gear, but accidentally select "Reverse" and the engine goes flying out of the hood.

....that's what you do a thread. :P

Pete Daoust

Translate this in english and it says that here in Quebec, we are slaves...TOUT EST PRIVIL�GE CONC�D� PAR L��TAT -- VOTRE VOITURE, VOTRE MAISON, VOTRE PROFESSION, BREF VOTRE VIE; ET CE QUE L��TAT DONNE, IL PEUT LE REPRENDRE SI VOUS N��TES PAS UN CONTRIBUABLE DOCILE� d�claration faite et reconnue devant une commission de l�assembl�e Nationale du Qu�bec par M. Pierre-Andr� Par�, sous-ministre du Minist�re du Revenu du Qu�bec. (Le Devoir, 6 avril 1996, p.1)

Pete Daoust

Everything is privillege conceed by the state, your car, your house, your profession and your LIFE, and what the state gives, the state can take it back at anytime if you are not a docile taxpayer....declared in the assembl� national by sous-minister Pierre-Andr� Par� on April 6th 1996....

Derek Moran

164. Fair hearing

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), that subsection does not preserve the validity of the proceeding if the failure to comply with the agreement results in PREJUDICE to the DEFENDANT'S RIGHT to a FAIR HEARING.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK207

David Johansen

"NOBILITY COMMANDS WITH QUESTIONS ADMIRALS COMMAND WITH REQUESTS GENERALS COMMAND WITH ORDERS"

ok, so do I want a ham & cheeze on rye or pumpernickel, and does that come with a pickle, and put feet on it...

David Johansen

Beligerant in blacks II http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/B/b0125.jpg

ok, now what I have to ask because I want to know, WHO in their right mind (typical diseased deceived slave) would even consider fathoming that the court (supposedly IMPARTIAL?) would be asking a party defending themself against an accusation, wether or not they were at war against the (who) the state?

you actually ARE a beligerant to the state inorder to be a federal citizen. that's my point regarding the birth certificate, they didnt ask me, or tell me, and it is impossible to be educated by them and think they would explain to you that... o.k. little johnny, you have to make a choice, but with the trick we want to play on you there is free candy and gum...

wouldnt that be the equivelant of the federal raping the state? only the state is willing? because somehow the federal holds somthing over the state unless it chooses to accept what the federal is doing to the people, without them being smart enough to know they are having the wool pulled over their eyes, in broad daylight noless???

Ed O'Brien

What isBELLIGERENT?

In international law. A term used to designate either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a �neutral.�Read more: What is BELLIGERENT? definition of BELLIGERENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

Anibal Jose Baez

Scott, can you finish explaining the difference between contempt to court in civil vs. criminal matters? You asked the question a few times, <<Contempt of court. You keep mentioning it, and I asked Civil or criminal?>>. Thank you.

Derek Hill

Hi scott, sorry this might be late. But ive been busy.

im trying to grasp the meaning of belligerent and tis connection with sovereignty.

my understanding of belligerent is a hostile act or intention towards another group/nation. Would they be accepting you as someone who is hostile or trying to get you to accept being hostile?

When i look it up it makes alot of references to waging war. I somewhat understand why you always say or ask if they are waging war against you, but i dont fully understand the connection between them agreeing you as sovereign.

They "may" refer to you as a nation or an entity, but as sovereign?

Someone be so kind to help me figure this out?

Derek Hill

a sovereign state or anything that is of sovereign?

so if they call you "escort him out of here this man is belligerent, etc blah blah"

they are indirectly admitting that you are sovereign and by stating that you are belligerent means that you are acting on your own authority?

Does this bring into light as to why they always bring a controversy??

Scott Duncan

No.

Once again you fumble around in your ass to pull out answers, never once focusing on what I say/write.

Nothing you wrote had ANYTHING to do with what I just wrote.

I'll answer in a more direct way henceforth.

The answer to any question you have is, henceforth; "Because you're an idiot".

That should save me some time.

Derek Hill

scott i apologize if im not using the right words, but im just simply here trying to grasp things the best i can.

you say that only a sovereign can legally wage war.

how does that make you sonvereign, are they trying to say that you are waging war against them for not following their bs?

David Johansen

sibling rivalry is beligerence not formally recognized outside the castle and typically isnt feudally over property not otherwise held by the father.

in the court, if they ask you if your beligerant then obviously they do not yet know, asking the court if it is waging war cant be answered by the court as it is not capable of such act AND confirms to them that you are of the capacity to WAGE WAR.

Derek Hill

hmmm.....yea i get that who wants to go to court. but sometimes they issue warrants and your taken in by force, which you can just state for the record that they kidnapped you. but you get where im going right?

Derek Hill

k thats nice and dandy,. but my example was about getting arrested before doing anything.

Scott, its a bit unclear what your trying to get me/us to see by wage war.

My best guess is that in order to wage war you must have your own currency and that comes with its own nation. Therefor with that in mind you are capable of waging war. And thus since a nation can only wage war if sovereign, that indorectly states you are in fact sovereign?

Scott Duncan

When a WAR is WAGED, the TRUSTEES are NOT accountable. Soldiers=Trustees. They can kill enemy trustees under licence from their government.

...and they get paid for it and all their needs provided for. WAGES. The SURETY of the war pays for everything.

Derek Moran

I think Scott may be 'burying the lead' as they say in this explanation..there are a couple Maxims-of-Law that say the same thing: "Laws fall SILENT amid arms." Which would explain, why the U.S. is always rushing-off to war, while Ron Paul reminds everyone that they never got the Congress to DECLARE war.....

Jessica Bender

he who has the gold makes the rules.....No doubt youve discovered loyalty is no longer the currency of the realm, as your father believed.. Im afraid currency is the currency of the realm."...Currency. A medium of exchange of value to define by reference to the geographical location of the authorities responsible for it. by not being the surety for the matter you are the belligerent and when you lein or make the "claim" then you would not have to term "sovereign" it would be known as you are not the surety and have authority over it

Stuart Stone

Derek Moran, I have found it very interesting, as you say, that congress didn't declare war against [insert just about any country name here]...but the chief executive/president, 'W', HAS declared war on terror/drugs/poverty, at least in the media...In my thinking, this then becomes a sneaky legalese play on words that theoretically allows/justifies the US forces to pursue the terror, drugs etc all over the globe, without the need to legally declare a war against a country, nation, group or people because they have declared war against a concept.

Lee Edgely

Can belligerent be used as an adjective too in a statute court as an offering from the judge to seize your lawful right to go to war and free yourself. What I mean is the prosecutor has to now prove that you are liable for/to statutes and not that you have to obey them?

Pete Daoust

no....you need to wait until they ask 3 times.....and then you say outloud: BY WHAT AUTHORITY YOU DECLARE WAR ON MY PERSON...?????....and then you take your stuff and leave...and if someone say something, you tell them: go ask Scott for more details... :D

Pete Daoust

the way I get this Philip Laforet, is at one point, the justice or judge or call it whatever you like, aknowledge the fact that the crown WAGE WAR on your person, and simply ask you if you want to bend over and get fuked or if you want to stand and fight....but verify this either by reading EVERYTHING in here, or ask Scott Duncan....

Bobby Sludds

Excuse my ignorance, but, would that not imply that the court was in fact the holder and grantor of that right ? I thought your sovereign rights were over and above the jurisdiction of any entity such as the courts ?

Stuart Stone

My take Philip Laforet, is that, by not granting jurisdiction, by disassociating yourself from being the name (notice of mistake) & other means outlined through your 'point of order' & reserving all rights, you have effectively/deliberately/inadvertently demonstrated your sovereignty...

The court will (after repeated challenges/threats/ignoring you etc) recognise this & refer to you as being (a)'belligerent':

not the common everyday adjective 'hostile & ignorant',

but the noun meaning:

'A nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law'....(this is an online dictionary definition because I don't have Black's at hand, but Black's is very specific about the adjective & its relevance in law).

You then ask 'By what authority do you wage war against my person?'

When you look up 'war' and 'wage war', again there are specific references to a requirement for a head of state (I think- talking from memory here) to declare war (written signed order) before anyone has any authority to wage an attack against your person...ie: the court, the judge/justice, the plaintiff etc do not have any authority because war has not been formally declared against your nation/person.

Rules of evidence (apparently, because I haven't verified this for Australia/UK where I spend most of my time), require that this merry-go-round goes round 3 times & as long as you continue to demonstrate that you are not surety & you maintain your sovereignty & don't grant jurisdiction, the court finally accepts that they are the administrators/trustees to the account/name, and you, the sovereign man are invited to go & have a nice day (or words to that effect ;-)

But as always, read the threads numerous times, define any and ALL terms you are unclear on, see if I get a kicking for talking out my ass, or if it's liked/confirmed by the brainstrust, and just as your brain starts to fry, it will become clearer...and then clarify grey areas with the oracle :-) (brainstrust & oracle being terms for Scott Duncan )

Philip Laforet

Wow thanks so much Stuart! I am in the middle of a court case now and I did use the notice of mistake and the point of order. I was removed fromthe courtroom once. I was in "custody" and wanted to get out, so I didn't push it too hard. They had sent an out of town J.P. and crown plus an expert bail cop. I still won, but had to sign recog. Now that I am out, I am more determined to get things straighten out and declare my status. Actually can't wait. Thanks again for clearing this up for me. With so many comments and some off topic it is difficult sometimes to get to the bottom of things! All the best!

Mike Carparelli

Blacks Law 5th Edition: Belligerent

In international law, as an adjective, it means engaged in lawful war. As a noun, it designates either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively co-operating, as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties,called a "neutraL" As a personality trait, refers to one who is overly assertive, hostile or combative.

Sirwade Firsbey

I see the term "BELLIGERENT DEFENDANT" as a ploy to cause an emotional response which was programmed in that most comprehend it to mean "stupid" The courts, cops, agents of government will use these tricks to gain jurisdictional authority. this thous CONjoins the "PERSON" with the "man" My suggestion is this. look up words you think you know don't just assume you know for sure. Common English tends to mislead us in our endeavor when we seek freedom. YOU can either allow this to continue or break free.

Stuart Stone

Absolutely Pete Pierre Joseph Feather Puppy ;-) ...It depends on our perception on their intent...Are they malicious bastards who mean us harm, or are they genuinely making an offer that we don't fully comprehend the meaning of?

Stuart Stone

My reference was to 'the' person solely because of John's comment re a declaration of war...I want to know by what authority the court has declared such a war...ie: Who authorised it? I think the head of state is the only party who can legally declare war, so if there is no formal declaration of war, by what authority is the justice declaring war against a belligerent/sovereign? ;-)

Stuart Stone

Relax John, it's all tongue in cheek...Pete feather puppy does it all with a smile & good intent because he's shaking up paradigms...paradigms that will result in us getting harmed if we continue to 'believe' in them :-)

Sirwade Firsbey

I don't fear Scott. I do comprehend that Scott will challenge my old way's of thinking but that is the very reason I am here to do. When I am full of bullshit he tells me and I then reconsider my position and correct it

Stuart Stone

It's a no bullshit environment...Scott Duncan sees to that...it can be challenging, frustrating & enlightening...but expect to be handed an emotional kicking once in a while because only then will we learn to remain calm & stand our ground effectively when confronted in the 'real' world with people who genuinely mean to do us harm...

Scott Duncan

According to Police, I have done time for Fraud, Assault, Burglary and Murder... Except Tara and everyone I know personally KNOW that's not true. One record from 12 division, says I'm doing time RIGHT NOW.

Its all fraud. If you ever find yourself "jailed" again... KILL YOUR KIDNAPPERS.

Derek Moran

Holy fuck Pete, i know it was a year ago- but do you remember maybe what can kind of thread this came up in? :/

I ask- cuz Lee DID submit a notarized copy of her BC into the court today, she mentioned that she noticed a 'wary' look from the guy who took it once he realized what it was....hmmmmmm

David Johansen

however... collective stupidity is simply duplicitives of the same stupidity, and should be circumventable. either that or i am just rambling on stupididly... and if that may be the case, please forgive me.

Neens Jean

I could no longer handle reading his comments and had to finally block him to make reading flow smoother. He thinks he is part of the clubhouse AND he thinks they are going to let him in and show him fairness and justice because he can quote their rules. Painful, and it makes my head hurt just seeing his name. What couldn't that man get?

Neens Jean

Yes, Anibal. I see the gold. I am studying and using the dictionary to reprogram the old OS. It takes me a bit as this old brain has a lot deep files of bullshit programming. Sometimes it hurts so bad that I have to get away and THINK about what I have just read and then come back and read it again with new eyes that replaces the bullshit "in the library of my ass" as you all call it. Painful, very painful, but it also means that you can teach an old dog new tricks. Persistence and repetition.

Pete Daoust

For an hour and a half, they were waiting for see to say ONE wrong word. And that would have be it. I would have been arrested....

This part was the most difficult, staying sure to not use a wrong statement or word.

At one point, near the end, I said: IT IS BOVIOUS TO ME THAT I AM GETTING "FUCKED" IN HERE.

Neens Jean

Reading again. Anibal, and I see that ME has to start seeing everything as visa versa and ME has to start being the fucking KING. YES, I said, KING, because who the fuck wants to be the QUEEN! In court you are the ONLY one with STANDING. Me DEPOSITS the YOU and then they OFFER ME the VISA VERSA of what I have been PROGRAMMED to believe (ALL BELIEF IS EVIL)! We hang ourselves for lack of knowledge of the WORDS that we have been programmed with because there are no SYNONYMS.

Scott Duncan

It was beyond their comprehension that someone would study law, and NOT become a lawyer.

As I said before; NOBODY drops out of law school because it's "hard". It isn't. It's memory and recitation. The whole myth about "Law degrees are so hard to get", is a myth PAID FOR by the Law Society.

Ever notice that EVERY lawyer you meet is stupid? HOW? How can they be stupid? Don't you have to be "smart" to get a law degree?

NO!

In fact it's SO easy I studied computer science and medicine too!

You paid for it, too! :D

Natasha Tutino

Hey Pete I put my Rene Tshirt to the test; a man of about 65 noticed pointed at me with surprise (I guess because I'm 'young' to be wearing rene on my shirt) and said 'That man. He was the best.' boom. proof of concept. lead right into pirate party. was just missing a pin to give and and to take a selfie and post lolol we have this little idea about 'spreading the word' to those not using any social media online.

Natasha Tutino

Pete can you tell me: have any 'separatists' brought up the financial reasons why it is advantageous to split? Like the numbers in the fucking face type of info? I was too young and studying too much right now to start going through videos of those years. lolol

Natasha Tutino

Ren� L�vesque was NOT as fun as Jacques! He just wasn't!: please elaborate: I come from the generation of 'liberals' that were brainwashed by media convincing us he was garbage and I just didn't give a fuck cause 'prgramming' lol

Scott Duncan

I could kill a lawyer's family in front of him/her and feel NOTHING, except the tiny consolation that I have made the world a tiny bit better.

YOU might think "Their family is innocent". No. No they aren't. They are PETS that fed off of YOUR LABOUR.

They think it's their RIGHT.

The Law Society CLAIMS TO OWN YOU. NEVER FORGET THAT!

THE LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS OWNERSHIP OF ALL "INDIVIDUALS".

Natasha Tutino

YOU might think "Their family is innocent". No. No they aren't. They are PETS that fed off of YOUR LABOUR." - YES. Climbing that hurdle step by step. That's a tough one for me as a woman. But the more I dig deeper into this, the less 'empathetic' I feel.

Pete Daoust

This guy, Paul Leblond, he was there friday. He called me about 5 times since friday, he is SHOCKED......he came here at my place after the hearing, I showed him the WHOLE case....

I showed him EVERYTHING I have done with City of Terrebonne......He is just fucking shook to the core....

He was there, and really focused on what happened friday, he just can't believe it..... :D

Scott Duncan

It's SO hard to say this without sounding condescending, so I apologize in advance!

I'm proud of you. You are BETTER than your peers, and you make a REAL difference. Time will surely show this to be true.

While you observe Mr. Leblond's reactions, you already know you are on the RIGHT side.

You can't be on the RIGHT side, unless you think right, and value the right things (or implicitly trust someone who does). It's a burden, but it's worth it. You are now more than you were. The possibilities are ENDLESS.