Sort of. I read your replies in the clusterfuck that is the PIERRE WRITES SCOTT A CHEQUE thread. ...have you ever been slapped in the face with a large penis, Beverly? I ask, because reading your answers, I'm thinking it is something that might do you good. :P 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.

surety ?

*Jeopardy Music*

THE ONE legal difference between POSSESSION and OWNERSHIP! ...still waitin...

*sigh* 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.

possession is to exercise control over something, ownership is to hold title

Title is all that is sold.

�In the whole range of legal theory there is no conception more difficult than that of possession. The Roman lawyers brought their usual acumen to the analysis of it, and since their day the problem has formed the subject of a voluminous literature, while it still continues to tax the ingenuity of jurists. Nor is the question one of mere curiosity or scientific interest, for its practical importance is not less than its difficulty. The legal consequences which flow from the acquisition and loss of possession are many and serious. Possession, for example, is evidence of ownership; the possessor of a thing is presumed to be the owner of it, and may put all other claimants to proof of their title.� John Salmond, Jurisprudence 285 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).

buying something v. purchasing it... thats why if you see a receipt from something purchased with a credit-card, it says PURCHASED.. you see a receipt from something BOUGHT with cash, it says TENDERED, but more importantly, it doesnt say PURCHASED, ever... BOUGHT = POSESSION, OWNERSHIP = PURCHASED....?

when i spend $5 cash at Tim Hortons every day, what i am really saying to them but they just dont realize it is.."I still owe you guys $5..but they've suspended GOLD-as-payment for every year since 1933"

Better yet, when Tim Hortons gives you a receipt for something you had to pay for with legal-tender(notice you ALWAYS have to ask them for it, thats not a coincidence), what its saying is, THEY got paid, but, that you had to give them legal-tender/cash to do it..instead of, your SIGNATURE (section 57.1 Bills of Exchange Act, Part V., Consumer Purchase)

Can I give this to Tim Horton...lol...My version of a promissory note: Remove the items in brackets. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date: ____________________ I, (NAME), promise to pay on demand the sum of ____ printed letters amount of DOLLARS____ _ number amount 000 cents/100 to: _____________________________________________________ (Creditor) as payment in full for invoice number ________, or account Number _________ (SIN# if CRA) Consumer Purchase Signed: for (NAME written signature) for Her Majesty in right of Canada Negotiable Instrument as per Bills of Exchange Act of Canada, Sections 33, 57, 78, 176 and 190 and the Financial Administration Act of Canada, definition of �negotiable instrument�

You can GIVE it to them. They have no obligation to ACCEPT it.

Why are all of you opposed to PAYING?

DON'T DO COMMERCE YOU CAN'T AFFORD

THIS ISN'T A "BREACH A CONTRACT" COURSE! If you are a scumbag who signs a contract and decides they'll take the benefit and split, you deserve everything legal and illegal that happens to you. WHY do you think a franchise owner who's working to keep is coffee shop alive wants bullshit papers from you? Would YOU take that piece of shit "promise" for YOUR property? NO? Then why would you do it to somebody else?

control,n. The direct or indirect power to direct the management and policies of a person or entity, whether through ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise; the power or authority to manage, direct, or oversee <the principal exercised control over the agent>.

I've heard from others in this game a long time, you do not want to control, direct, manage anything to do with the name, other than be the beneficiary of it. It would presume ownership. The Certificate of Authority would suggest it isn't yours to control, as it is not yours.

Likely why that girl who walked into court and started directing everyone their duties either was presumed ownership of the name by taking authority on behalf of it, or was directing a meeting she shouldn't have been in. But it failed.

I'll represent the trust, but I cannot EXECUTE for the trust, and therefore need shareholder approval from the commercial shell...good thing I have a share. ;)

Playing the surety card in court, in my opinion, should be played carefully as to prevent injury to the crown and/or embarrassment to their show. Respect is granted when given.

No.

I dunno, you are at their party... and don't belong there... if they see that you know of their "kidfuckery" (or whatever) they don't want the rest of the party knowing their dirty secrets.

You just proposed that you surrender rights in consideration of their hurt feelings. Really? Scream I'M NOT SURETY, AND I DON'T CONSENT TO BE SURETY! Do NOT "be careful". These people MEAN YOU HARM, and "being nice to your rapist" is not something I encourage or endorse.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation To call upon a neighbour and to say: -- "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight, Unless you pay us cash to go away." And that is called asking for Dane-geld, And the people who ask it explain That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld And then you'll get rid of the Dane! It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say: -- "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away." And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane. It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: -- "We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that pays it is lost!"

hence for beginners' sake... I would say be careful of playing that card... we all don't have your boots on, Scott Duncan

Well they're not going to care how much you are like me. They are only concerned with how much they can wring out of you.

We need a new thread on A4V, remittance...

OK, I'll start an A4V thread, and when everyone's focused on that, we'll slip out and make some porn. :P

Scott Duncan: WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE TWO? OWNERSHIP POSSESSION There is only ONE difference. *sigh* 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. Title is all that is sold.

So Beverly buys a home, where she really bought TITLE to a home, giving her proof of OWNERSHIP to the home. Was it ever determined in this thread who TECHNICALLY had POSSESSION of the home/land?

I own my body. I possess a ID. ?

The PERSON own the house, who own the person ? ....everything we buy or aquire flows through the PERSON. So as long as we are the lawful holder of this person, we can benefit from its CONTRACTs....of course we have to give this PERSON'S creator his % of everything the person do in COMMERCE...This is the way I get it anyway.. :/

The house bought by a CORP. in trust which happen to have liened the NAME seems to be the best way to do business :)

I haven't read all the replies but..... The difference between ownership & possession is: If you own it you can sell it...some smart guy told me that once :D

�your person can sell it.

Ummmm, in reference to ladies of the night, aka hookers, I'm not so sure their 'person' sells it...unless the 'person' sells it & the 'lady' just gives it away :/

But they ONLY way to really OWN something, is NOT to register it....like right now, I have a circuit breaker in my hand, it is NOT registered nowhere, it is owned by me, Pierre, and I can sell it to whoever I want and NO ONE will ever know about it, except me, and the other HUMAN who bought it from me, and how did he paid me ?...it is nobody's business :)

But with a HOUSE, it's another Story ...lol...

whatever you guys agree upon makes the terms of the sale...

If Your PERSON buy a house, your PERSON will sell the house...and EVERYONE will know about it :(

Try to buy a house as a human being, with Pierre as a name, or Fucks the Puppy :D

hmmmm....new thread...Fucks the Puppy buys a house :D ...has a nice ring to it.

But, as Scott teaches, with a Corp. and trust, it can be really embarrassing for WHOEVER would want to PROFIT from what business you do ;)

http://mashable.com/2013/03/22/house-bitcoins/

Fucks the Puppy can't buy a house, unless he uses his PERSON :(

If people start exchanging houses for bitcoins, that would be fucking great... :D

This bitcoin thing will create a HUGE freaking mess....if not a HUGE war...

Split title as opposed to alloidial title should be explored here by interested parties...9/10 times folks in the public are dealing with equitable title/possession not legal title/control...which in essence is a beneficiary position with specific strawman ramifications...

You wanna mess with my brain cells Blake Gardner ? :D

Haha

the law of the land in in the jurisdiction of legal Admiralty/maritime.

Would it then be possible to request from the titles office the title & hand it personally to the new 'owner'...and put in a notice that the property had changed hands...ie: that the event had taken place? The new owner is the only one holding legal title, the transaction is in bitcoin...and when someone from government (census office etc) comes knocking on the door to find out who the new owners are, they get 'none of your F&@ing business!' in reply :D

Or just: I DON'T KNOW :/

and followed by: WHO ARE YOU ?

or...WHO ARE YOU? :D

Ok...and followed by: I DON'T KNOW :D :D :D

none of your fucking business pete and stuart

boom tish! ain't that the truth! :D

The ABSOLUTE truth...

OK...so I will sell my house to whoever wants to by it with BITCOINS, for one condition, this guy needs to sell it back to me within 48 hours and need to accept BITCOINS as payment :D

not worth it lol

I would like Scott Duncan's comment on this one :/

I read some where about "safe harbor"

and I'm sure there's a maxim about a man's house being his castle....time to break out your 101 Maxims for every possibility imagineable Pete Daoust & Derek Moran :D

Also why is it in 2013 there is more prates then there has ever been in history?

Because it is easier to do that job

Google this Jeff Roggers : The 10 Biggest Errors most people make when facing the Pirates and Privateers of the Private Bar Guilds

well do

yes privet is lawful and public is legal. so I want to be a Pirate ?

Scott Duncan: WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE TWO? OWNERSHIP POSSESSION There is only ONE difference. *sigh* 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. Title is all that is sold.