The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Feb 28, 2013 1:22 AM

Derek Moran

Talked to a guy yesterday who says he pays/discharges his bills basically by ACCEPTED-FOR-VALUE, this is how he marks-it-up:

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-FOR-VALUE' 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.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-2.html#h-3

Interesting how this Federal Government page lists the Bills of Exchange Act as CONSUMER LEGISLATION, and, highlights PART V. in brackets: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_00029.html#consumer

Read Comments

Derek Moran

Like Scott has said, LAW is about INTENT.. MENS REA.. the GOOD FAITH section in the Bills of Exchange Act is their remedy they are giving you that- "We recognize we havent done a very good job at explaining this all to you, so we wont really hold it against you if you dont in deed do it properly, you just didnt know any better - due to us of course"...

Icbeonne Senama

If a business man walks into a bank with one of those, bills of exchange that a bank would let him exchange it for Canadian Currency? Or really let it be desposited? We could write bills to each other for services...

Derek Moran

Scott would say payment is ILLEGAL, but id say that more specifically payment is just flat-out an IMPOSSIBILITY, since money is really GOLD, but, that they've effectively made GOLD as payment illegal every year since 1933... Maxim-of-Law- Nemo tenetur ad impossibile: "No one is bound to an impossibility"

Derek Moran

JOEL- what popped-out at me about MoneyAsDebt III, was where he said around minute 37:00 how we havent CLAIMED the right to use real money..in this day-and-age, negotiable instruments

�money� includes negotiable instruments;

�negotiable instrument� includes any cheque, draft, traveller�s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-1.html#h-2

Derek Moran

GAIL..i have taken Scott's advice on this and are currently working on a Claim-of-Right to submit to the biller before i do anything regarding this, in fact ive titled it- CLAIM OF NATURAL LAW AND COMMON LAW INHERITANCE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOTICE, so no public-servant can say back to me- "Umm, we are unclear as to what it is you're asking. Can you please provide for us more details?" - like they usually do. I think the title pretty much speaks for itself. The NOTICE is acting as a 'heads-up,' cuz they've become accustomed to you sending them LEGAL TENDER, right?

Derek Moran

But if Scott says ultimately, that LEGAL TENDER = a TENDER FOR LAW.. and that a BILL = OFFERS LAW.. 'a fortiori' (latin-law-phrase) by even greater force of logic, wouldnt a BILL-payment-remittance be OFFERing you a TENDER FOR LAW? (look-up OFFER and TENDER in a thesaurus)....but they dont want you to know that, hence, why i imagine they codefied it being a BILL with the use of the '96' in the bottom-right-hand-corner

Derek Moran

"By the common law no person is required to pay a negotiable instrument unless the instrument is delivered [Page 145] up to him at the time of payment. See Hansard v. Robinson ([10]); Byles on Bills ([11])."

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=+The+Common+Law+Procedure+Act+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1884/1884canlii31/1884canlii31.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeIFRoZSBDb21tb24gTGF3IFByb2NlZHVyZSBBY3QgAAAAAAAAAQ

Derek Moran

Yeah- from what i can tell, your BC is supposed to be considered a negotiable instrument.. ive heard varying reports on who you should send it back too though, The Queen, Governor General, Receiver General..... :/

Derek Moran

"Finance Minister controls finances".......hmmm, how long ago did you send your BC to him, and, have you heard back from him yet?...i will not be sending/delivering my BC to anyone til i know absolutely sure who it is to be sent to...if i only have ONE bullet, i better know damm sure when to use it :/

Derek Moran

" 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 slippery-slope of TRUST LAW once i set that corporation up am i not?...which i have no shame in admitting i dont know much about

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. :P

Derek Moran

Why thank you God-err, SCOTT - that was very informative. I appreciate the information. Unfortunately, any God-Complex you might have is trumped by THIS GUY's below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svhRi_6dUfs

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.

Scott Duncan

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've got nothing. Sorry :/

Pete Daoust

ok...I already have a freaking trust.....fuk....6 years ago I established this trust..I didnt even know....This trust is called a COMPAGNIE DE GESTION, its a numbered company that had been established to hold 50% of another company's shares...