This is brilliant! I may weep.

Time for a grand slam Scott. Slam them with all your might. Witch is consideralbel

I got your video, and it's interesting, but has exactly NOTHING to do with THE TENDER FOR LAW.

fuk I'm laughing....I gotta go out for a cigarette......oouuffffffff I never had that much fun while digging for gold....Thanks..!!!

"I said your tenders will not survive. Generals are being appointed now. If you are who you claim to be you will command. We shall win with or without you." ^WTF? That message appeared as the latest comment in this thread, then disappeared. It was half visible too.

I deleted it. This is the comment section for the article I actually worked on. New-age retardo-speak has no business here. Comment spammers are basically this: http://youtu.be/BPHnT-hkzKo

I just got a private message from the comment spammer:"Fuck off coward". Why do you people do this shit? is it the fluoride? BANNED! http://mail.cdd.com/so-very-private-002.png

Todays game changer is the word "you" ......" i appreciate you" the realisation that i've disqualified most of the things i've ever said because i dont know the meanings of the words i'm using ...

Really, S�il Eile? You don't feel like THIS GUY?: ****Tony Boutros*** Tony Boutros i say again, you are a LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND and my intellect is far beyond the level you'll ever reach.. so go play in your fucking sand box little boy and let the adults have a descent conversation. Tony Boutros I couldn't be bothered explaining shit to you. Like I said before you're a waste of oxygen and my time. Fuck off! Tony Boutros Sorry Dean but this guy deserves to be put in his place. He's a fuckin menace to society... On a different note, did you get my text I sent you earlier? Tony Boutros Like I said Scott Duncan. You're an idiot wrapped in MORON! And furthermore you've got the IQ of a door knob. I never once said I support OPPT you moronic idiot. In fact, I've made it perfectly clear on several occasions on my group that I am suspicious of it. That's the reason I hosted a round table discussion you ignorant peace of shit so people who are undecided can hear the facts and decide for themselves. That does not in any shape or form constitute that I'm a supporter. But I guess you're too fucking stupid to understand that. Your lack of brain power can not comprehend this concept. My problem is your arrogant attitude that you think you know it all and you're nothing more than that 1 inch of slime you find at the bottom of commercial garbage bins. You might think you know shit but you're nothing. So, why don't you do us all a favor and take a very long walk on a short pier. Everything you ever posted here or anywhere else was nothing more than shit lip service. YOU NEVER BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH FACTS OR EVIDENCE. So from me to you, GO FUCK YOURSELF Or maybe This guy?: ****Geoffrey Franklin Finn*** Geoffrey Franklin Finn: fuck off coward (This was his response to my denying an off-topic post) Because these guys claim to be more "valuable".

my "feelings" are not based on any tangable facts, feelings are what we use to substitute facts.... so we dont have to look for them? He wants to appeal to the "feelings of people" you've had to dispense with those feelings in order to deal with the facts, how you convey those facts, whether you're smiling at me cursing at me, only the content is relevant.

wow....this guy dosent like you at all....gggeeee...!!!!!!!

I'm actually "TYPING" at you...but I see your point. ;)

I want to know WHICH "society" he's talking about me being a "menace" to... The Law society? OK, I'll go along with that, but that isn't really a BAD thing... ...the Humane society? I really like animals, it's people I can't stand. I don't think he's actually READ anything I've written, but he is an incessant crybaby, who's CONSTANTLY declaring he's "done" with me... until the next time he... you know what? I just noticed he even WRITES like he's got a dick in his mouth!

LOL.....

Scott Duncan, I hope you're happy. I cant listen to ANY of the archives on this page without thinking, "He does sound like he's got a dick in his mouth, doesn't he?". This insidious programming is why you're a "Menace to Society", you know.

Yes, I'm a bad man. :D

I wont be able to listen to this without jerking once of twice during the show......what a WASTE...!!!!!!

i dont know either party. However his thread claimed it wanted to test the validity of OPPF. he reacted badly to your nomination. personal insults between the 2 of you aside a few posts down he imagines "He" can defend the OPPF.... it does'nt inspire me with confidence about the level of critique which will be invested in finding the truth (that which cannot be rebutted)It is they who are claiming to make everyone a billionaire & save humanity from itself with an unknowing signature.

....or the level of critique used to get thus far.

I'm also (according to him) supposed to "prove" negatives. Apparently mentioning this makes me a "moron".

now we understand how the legal system was born :p

Interesting and enlightens, I believe. LOL. Where the proof that what YOU say is real? LOL. Just fucking with you. Thank you for this information. Damn it is so convoluted, no wonder they have to good to chimp school for years.

Most is memory and recitation. There are LOTS of lawyers with room-temperature IQ's. Few can ACTUALLY connect the dots.

FUCK FUCK FUCK and thrice FUCK again. I always knew deep down that the simplest way of defeating these psychos was to get the surety monkey off one�s back. It resonated with me so much, that in recent times I added wording at the bottom of my letters/notices etc stating for the avoidance of doubt that the flesh and blood body and personal property including all species of money belonging to James are not surety for the NAME/FICTITIOUS LEGAL ENTITY you are addressing in this matter. As clumsy as it may be I knew I was on the right track. I always thought this had to be the coup de gr�ce. I read some time ago information relating to YOU but put it on my brain�s back burner. Now Scott has explained it in a way I comprehend it�s right up front in there with the Surety Monkey. Thank You Scott. And yes I know about Alexander. Guess where I�m from. Oh, I think you know already :-)

Loved the article, thanks Scott Duncan. Right now the Government Census is happening here in NZ. Perhaps a modified Notice of mistake is a good method to dodge being the surety. I'm waiting for some kind of offer to arrive by mail before I send any notices.

RELEVANT SIDE NOTE: As I type this, there are 41 people who VIEWED this, and only 8 "like" this. ...yet if I posted a picture of a kitten, or said it was for cancer, there's be 1000's of "likes". This is one of the reasons I feel you should all die. :D

If you want likes.... just tell people what they believe they want to hear, with a Dick in your mouth ... maybe?

Comment-spammer's oh-so-very-private messages to me. http://mail.cdd.com/so-very-private-002.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

does this video have any relevance :p

Let's not go to Cemelot. It is a silly place... ...it's only a model.

some lovely filth over ere!

I'm pretty sure Monty Python has saved the sanity of MANY folk like me.

some people find no humour in MP movies ....its too close to their truth.

My only constructive-criticism for Tony would be to let Derek Hill when he calls-in to speak for as LONG as he wants and not to try and shorten him- but, all Cock-and-Dick references aside...this article absolutely has to be the most valuable piece-of-information since hearing Mary Croft explain about what our B[E]RTH Certificates really represent('receivers certificate,' check your closest Blacks Law), that i have EVER read, and ever WILL read- unless Scott can possibly top this. I appreciate the time it must have took to craft this article and thank you. You are as crazy-as-a-fox and you're mad-genius is rivalled only by that of Dr. Evil's father: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk

I think he's got you Scott...to my knowledge you've never mentioned tap-dancing lessons.

Dude! I can top this with NO effort. This is a whimsical little piece that I did when you mentioned surety! Mary Croft teaches useful stuff, but if SHE'S your scale, you set the bar pretty low :P

"...Scott Duncan would make outrageous claims, like he invented the QUESTION-mark..sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being LAZY..."

sorry

"but id SHE'S your scale, you set the bar pretty low "..... keep-in-mind, at the time, i had always BELIEVED(your favourite word again), that the Receivers/Berth Certificate, was just simply proof that i was actually even BORN, so..i think the scale woulda been for me at the time- "everything's relative" ;)

First I wish to express my gratitude for your TIME Scott, secondly I feel that I must offer my apologies, because I think it was me that piped in on one of these OPPF threads that evidently contained BOTH "a guy who sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth" and the "comment spammer". AGAIN; apologies ARE in order AND expressly OFFERED! https://www.facebook.com/groups/596696577012085/permalink/612884128726663/?comment_id=612911585390584&notif_t=like

e...and gratefully received. You could not have known, so there could NOT be hostile intent.

Apologies are nice I suppose, but Scott likes weed and slutty chicks better.

8-|

...it's true. I do! :)

Dumb curious question on the topic here perhaps. Why MUST a Court ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked and/or requested ?

Why? BECAUSE FUCK OFF, THAT'S WHY! ...oh wait. Wrong thread. :/ 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".

Fully comprehended now, Thanks :-)

You mentioned the exact moment when you are to break-in with- "Point-of-order!"... when is the exact moment to break-in with telling the "justice" to recuse himself, and what is the proper way of phrasing it?

I know you know this Scott...but going to say it anyway.. that is priceless!

...Yes.

Mind if I share?

That is in the licence on the title Gail ;)

You didn't ask her what she wanted to share. Maybe you're thinking one thing...and it's something else, no?

Sorry pierre, but i really hate Elvis. A lot. He was a parasite who got fat off the talent of black composers. He was "manufactured" so the music could be sold to the white masses. Elvis is MUCH more entertaining as a corpse. Please. No Elvis posts. *deleted*

Elvis eh? Had it all and still died on the shitter !

@ Derek; RE: "point of order" comes AFTER you've claimed ALL rights.

I was being presumptuous! Gail Blackman, are you offering me some sexual gratification? Is that what you mean by "sharing"? Or do you just mean that you don't know what a Creative Commons attribution license is :P

Tried to listen to a thing on aforementioned radio person... but the mental picture.... The horror..... The Horror.

after all of what has been written.

The question was less about point-of-order.. and more about 'recusal'

LMFAO

"If I have led you to believe that I am offering sexual gratification in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me." :P

Priceless Gail Blackman!

no way

Gimme a blow-job and we'll call it even.

Wow...I so should have seen that coming :D

Point of Order!

Im off the washroom.....back in 3 minutes....:D

" But since you're the only one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING...You're the only one with STANDING."..... ok so- why exactly IS that, what is it that makes US the only one with STANDING again?... i know you've mentioned the court/judge/justice is NOT a PERSON, so it cant have STANDING...but what about the other party in the matter, why cant IT have STANDING, too? :/

Who are you?

I'm the man you asked forgiveness of, a couple of posts back. Don't you remember?

"Gail Blackman- please RECUSE yourself from the back of Scott Duncan's car, put your pants, AND your underwear back on, you have been disqualified from having any grimy-sex with him further..please exit back-door(pun intended)!"

I totally just played that scene out in my head. :D

That was a blow job Derek....no pants or/and underwear needed to be removed

I wish the case dismissed Mr Duncan !

Don't give up Gail Blackman. You have the superior position (no pun). This is right on topic...like Sesame Street with porn.

By what authority do YOU address me as MISTER?

I have no knowledge of who "YOU" is and respectfully ask what authority is the court addressing me as such?

Can I get my blow job now?

By what authority do YOU address me as YOU??

YA! FUCK you! YOU'RE a YOU! I'm a ME!

Forgive my mistake if I've given I've made you feel that I have not reserved all rights ....I reserve all rights!

Yes- do YOU not recall i reserved ALL rights at the beginning of the proceeding??

WHAT EVIDENCE does Mr Duncan 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?

yeah....take your fuking black robe and shovel it up your ass....bye....

( did I give you evidence when I asked permission to share?)^^^

I learned that shovel up thing 2 days ago.....it just flow so nice in my mouth when I say this.

Hmm- i can see a tricky-part being asking the court to please forgive me.. it comes off as you're kow-towing to their authority :/

Wow...

All rise, the court will recess for 5 minutes.

I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

stays in seat :)

hey hey where are you going...???....come back here I'm not finished....

You will stay in here until I finish, or you will go and get me someone competant to finish this thing

So... i can just stand in front of you then, and get my blow-job? EXCELLENT! Please! Don't get up!

In case you missed it I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

now I wish to get up and leave this area

Returning my offer huh? So if I go down on you, you are warning me that you squirt... Got it.

I wish you to make way for the me (the King) to pass...I wish for you to bow

You DO know that women are still "property" under Admiralty, right?

I wish I could go in court soon......

Point of order!" 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?"

YES!. I am the only one with standing... THE TENDER FOR LAW IS MY GROUP! (DuuuH!)

YOU are just some chick making vague sexual innuendo.

Objection.The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you, Mr Duncan speaking?

So this scenario makes sense for going up against THE CROWN..... what about in a CIVIL matter?

NOT: Contrary to popular belief, INNUENDO is NOT the Italian isntructions For "Preparation H".

Derek Moran, in a CIVIL matter you ALWAYS want to be the DEFENDANT.

Objection.The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you, Mr Duncan speaking?

The record shows that a SUPERIOR AUTHORITY has REMOVED those rights. Weren't you paying attention?

Why is it bad to be the PLAINTIFF?

Too much of a burden. I'm a lazy man...

"FUCK YOU! You're a YOU, I'm a ME!

"The record shows that a SUPERIOR AUTHORITY has REMOVED those rights"..... when did THAT happen??

burden of proof?

I'm sure you'll recall Mr.Duncan that at the beginning of these proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not made my wishes clear?

Again, women are PROPERTY under admiralty. You simply have no standing so stay seated. Stay pretty, and deliver that blow-job you vaguely requested :P

is there any way or special move you can do to remove your self from being the plaintiff...???

Yes, don't file a claim.

too late...I alreadu filed the fukin claim

"Again, women are PROPERTY under admiralty"- you've made a PRESUMPTION-OF-LAW, prove your claim!

I had no other option at that time

WHAT EVIDENCE does the Mr Duncan have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of The Tender of Law?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the Tender for Law 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?

"Gail Blackman" asked to join THE TENDER FOR LAW ...facebook is the proof.

:P

The best line...'The image is one thing, the human being another...It's very hard to live up to an image'...nice one Pierre Daoust ;-)

...said the guy with the convertible and the hot blonde arm-candy :P

O:)

Brilliant post thank you Scott Duncan, this provided a massive amount of clarity & answers a bunch of questions :-)

In the matter of SURETY for Gail Blackman, 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 Tender for Law AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT to believe by responding to �You� and or �Gail Blackman � 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.

Just getting started, Stuart Stone ;)

Yes Gail, so just gimme a blow-job and we'll call it even.

like Elvis says...'The image is one thing, the human being another...It's very hard to live up to an image' ;-)

...said the guy with the convertible and the hot blonde arm-candy :P

who is the guy with the convertible and the hot blonde arm-candy ?????

touche ;-)

I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

hey Gail, you're on a mission ????

would rather do it here first then in court

There she is, bragging about squirting again...

this has been extremely helpful too ty Scott Duncan

..how long ago should Gail have RECUSED you, Scott?

lol...I hear you....but in court it must be a fukin thrill......ADRENALINE....I WON...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes can we critique the exchange?

Moot point, Derek. It's my group. The whole exchange is based on the presumption that ANYONE besides me, even has STANDING here.

The fun part is when I'll do it in FRENCH in court......I translate EVERYTHING that Scott teach and I end up with different words for EVEYTHING......but it sounds freaking great....

I was attempting to come at it from the perspective that I had to give sexual gratification to be in the group...which isn't something I contracted for lol

If you were the Judge in a quasi-court then, how long ago should she have RECUSED you?

http://mail.cdd.com/ My conditions are NOT a State Secret.

CA$H UP FRONT or PAY WITH YOUR CUNT* *If you are MALE, please inform your wife/mother/daughter that you intend to impose commerce on us.

Very nice..... Comedy with substance.

my MOTHER is on its way to your place as we speak.....good luck....:D

Pierre Daoust, I suspect you are not entirely being truthful with me.

ok...sorry....She has no teeth...should told you this....please forgive me...

Scott if you were a judge in that exchange....i knew you were giving me a hard time and noticed things I said were likely not in the most effective order...how long does it or do you allow it to go on?

also was there a significance in the recess?

I was hoping to be called belligerent lol

this is a very good topic.

that one is for me Gail Blackman

I can't hear that word without thinking about you Pierre Daoust

me neither :D

ok Scott Duncan....I feel GUILTY now.......I have no MOTHER....dont expect anyone....sorry....

regarding standing on this page & in court, it is just what cannot be considered, dont upset or take on scott/judge try to appeal to his decency or lack thereof....scott wants to see how much shit we will allow ourselves absorb because thats the same thing in us that the judge depends on in court. scott cannot be a group on his own, that gives us standing, you need us to fulfill your "orders", When we fail to understand you fail in your mission. You may quickly root out the weeds on here for the sake of the crop but you are very much planting seeds for a sustainable future. so you depend on us in the way a farmer depends on seeds, ok, you can throw a whole batch of bad seeds out but you must find more.

this gail woman....damn

I've said it before; I only do this for the tail.

yet you have a wife.

I have several.

It was becoming apparent to me where I need to rewire my brain lol

Gail Blackman has no interest in being part of my harem. She just wants to do me.

acquiescence?

Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know) A man and woman who are legally married to one another and are thereby given by law specific rights and duties resulting from that relationship. The U.S. legal concept of marriage is founded in English Common Law. Under common law, when a man and woman married, they became a single person in the eyes of the law�that person being the husband. The duties and benefits afforded a married woman, as well as the restrictions on her freedom, reflected this view. Even today, although the Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the Equal Protection of the laws" (U.S. Const. amend. 14, � 1), the U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted this to mean that states must treat husbands and wives the same. There is a strong public policy in favor of marriage. Because of this, a husband and wife are not always able to determine their duties and privileges toward one another; instead, these rights and responsibilities are set forth by special legal principles that define the parameters within which husbands and wives must act.

That is why a Harem is best.

Sexual RelationshipThe most unique aspects of the relationship between a husband and wife are the legal sanctions attached to their sexual relationship. A number of states will grant a divorce based on the ground that a husband or wife was denied sex by his or her spouse. Similarly, an individual is ordinarily able to obtain an Annulment if his or her spouse is unable to engage in sexual relations. The right of the state to interfere with the marital sexual relationship is limited by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Wife = accepting title, capable of rights but obliged by duties

objection !

PropertyHistorically, wives were at a disadvantage as property owners. At common law, when a woman married, her personal possessions were considered to be the property of her husband. In addition, the husband was entitled to use the land she owned or subsequently inherited, and to retain rents and profits obtained from it. A married woman's right to own property was not incorporated into U.S. law until the mid-nineteenth century, with the Married Women's Property Acts. These laws allowed husbands to permit their spouses to own separate property. Women were also granted the right to enter contracts, sell land, write wills, sue and be sued, work without their husband's permission and keep their earnings, and in certain jurisdictions sue for injuries caused by their husbands.

WIFE, domestic relations. A woman who has a husband. 2. A wife, as such, possesses rights and is liable to obligations. These will be considered. 1st. She may make contracts for the purchase of real estate for her own benefit, unless her husband expressly dissents. 6 Binn. R. 427. And she is entitled to a legacy directly given to her for her separate use. 6 Serg. & Rawle, R. 467. In some places, by statutory provision, she may act as a feme sole trader, and as such acquire personal property. 2 Serg. & Rawle, R. 289. 3. 2d. She may in Pennsylvania, and in most other states, convey her interest in her own or her husband's lands by deed acknowledged in a form prescribed by law. 8 Dowl. R. 630. 4.-3d. She is under obligation to love, honor and obey her husband and is bound to follow him wherever he may desire to establish himself: 5 N. S. 60; (it is presumed not out of the boundaries of the United States,) unless the husband, by acts of injustice and such as are contrary to his marital duties, renders her life or happiness insecure. 5.-4th. She is not liable for any obligations she enters into to pay money on any contract she makes, while she lives with her husband; she is presumed in such case to act as the agent of her husband. Chitty, Contr. 43 6.-5th. The incapacities of femes covert, apply to their civil rights, and are intended for their protection and interest. Their political rights stand upon different grounds, they can, therefore, acquire and lose a national character. These rights stand upon the general principles of the law of nations. Harp. Eq. R. 5 3 Pet. R. 242. 7.-6th. A wife, like all other persons, when she acts with freedom, may be punished for her criminal acts. But the law presumes, when she commits in his presence a crime, not malum in se, as murder or treason, that she acts by the command and coercion of her husband, and, upon this ground, she is exempted from punishment. Rose. on Cr. Ev. 785. But this is only a presumption of law, and if it appears, upon the evidence, that she did not in fact commit the act under compulsion, but was herself a principal actor and inciter in it, she may be punished. 1 Hale, P. C. 516; 1 Russ. on Cr. 16, 20. Vide Contract; Divorce; Husband; Incapacity; Marriage; Necessaries; Parties to actions; Parties to contracts; Women and, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index,

She is under NO OBLIGATION TO LOVE.....this is funny....HAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Definitely its always been about the money, commercial transaction with "feelings" ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry

Women refuse to accept that Admiralty considers them PROPERTY.

when you said that in the exchange what should my response have been?

I'll acknowledge it but won't accept it

The woman's PROPER response is "Please Forgive me Sir", followed by a blowjob and an a nice meal.

lol and the empowered with knowledge of a King response?

Sorry but I cant resist...... I'm Pete or Peter or Pierre or Babe (I reserve this one for my wife) I'm also Dad (I reserve this one for my children) or BELLIGERENT and I'm the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF PIERRE DAOUST Social Insurance no. 26X-XXX-XXX, Inscription No.119XXXXXXXX I�m the SOLE beneficiary of PIERRE DAOUST I make ALL business decisions for PIERRE DAOUST And I reserve ALL RIGHTS�.all of them�yours as well Is ANYONE have any objections ?????

Moot point, Gail You cannot be a King.

but can be queen

I would be sitting on a gold mine if I would be a girl...:D

I didn't say I was a King, but I can have the knowledge of one and use it to act as one

Not before I get my blowjob. :P

Hey Gail Blackman, you can be on TOP of any king....no big deal

monarch is the office? queen lizzie holds the office of king/monarch?

Agree Pierre, labels are limiting

A Queen can only hold power when there is no KING.

so kill the king Gail Blackman

problem solved

I just use it because Scott often refers to it, I wanted him to understand what I was referring to..it wasn't the title, but the knowledge and empowerment he refers to ;)

yep....seems like killing kings is a pretty easy and effective solution

too late.....kings need to die now...!!! :D

you woke up this BELLIGERENT beast inside of me...

you see how POWERFUL you can be ?????

woman...

I've always known it...just didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle

Can the Notice of mistake work in retrospect? in my case where the unidentified judge has accepted surety & i've received notice of the fine in the post?

nunc pro tunc

i wasnt aware judges can be surety

me neither...!!!!

but I dont really care, what I've caugth from this is I HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM BEING SURETY......whoever gets it, I dont give a fuk...as long as its not ME

As i understand it the office of the judge didn't have authority to do what was done so therefore he took it upon himself, his knowing liability.. surety. I believe my case presents a greater opportunity as the first judge i encountered who asked for my details locked me up when i asked him to identify himself, 2nd judge recused herself 3rd judge actually ordered a jurisdiction hearing but then recused himself. I've been denied information central to my defence & therefore making an appeal pointless. I just want maximum damage & learn along the way. 2 friends of mine might be able to use the Notice of error with fines though.

"ERROR" is NOT "MISTAKE"! DO NOT EVER CHANGE THE WORDS I USE! EVER! THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS! THERE ARE NO HOMONYMS IN LAW, AND THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN LAW!

Language is key, every word has a meaning. my mistake :/

Read EVERY WORD AND LOOK THEM UP! Especially the words you THINK you know!

A mistake in a court proceeding concerning a Matter of Law or fact, which might provide a ground for a review of the judgment rendered in the proceeding. The nature of the error dictates the availability of a legal remedy. Generally speaking, mistaken or erroneous application of law will void or reverse a judgment in the matter. Conversely, errors or mistakes in facts, upon which a judge or jury relied in rendering a judgment or verdict, may or may not warrant reversal, depending upon other factors involved in the error. However, appellate decisions make a distinction�not so much between fact and law, but rather, between harmless error and reversible error�in deciding whether to let stand or vitiate a judgment or verdict.

An unintentional act, omission, or error. Mistakes are categorized as a Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law, or mutual mistake. A mistake of fact occurs when a person believes that a condition or event exists when it does not. A mistake of law is made by a person who has knowledge of the correct facts but is wrong about the legal consequences of an act or event. A mutual mistake arises when two or more parties have a shared intention that has been induced by a common misbelief.

Do you know what OR means in law?

had'nt considered it :/ OR. 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,

Looks like it's time for an article :D Gimme an hour ;)

scott your informative as ever

an article about "or" and how to correctly use "your" and "you're" hopefully :P

Irish District Court Rules, Security for costs... "On hearing the application the Court MAY order the plaintiff to lodge in court the costs of a dismiss, or may make such other order as it thinks fit, and, if security for costs is ordered, the security shall be of such amount and be given at such time or times and in such manner and form as the Court shall direct..."

MAY = SHALL, MUST

SHALL = MUST, SHALL = imperative

MAY = MIGHT? = MAYBE?, the antonym of imperative(isnt coming to me right now)

MAY is FUNCTIONALLY the same as SHALL & MUST, but with "options".

I'm going nuts with this....:(

I'd imagine in this sense of the word it's a must... If the defendant asked to put up for security of costs refuses they can apply to the court to have the plaintiff secure the costs... The other party with standing...

I'd imagine being born somewhere else....

You mentioned its always best to go to court as the DEFENDANT. If, you have to go to court as the PLAINTIFF, im guessing thats its best to be going there to have a Judge make and enforce an ORDER for a PREROGATIVE WRIT you are seeking? :/

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.

here we go again....

Definitions at the time of use of the word is as always very important...

Tara says I MUST slap Beverly May Braaksma in her face with my my dick.. See the difference?

Tara said you SHALL, then?

yeah....and she may or may not participate and/or may kik you out..????

I SHALL, because Tara says I MUST.

Shall = Has a duty to perform

Why wouldnt ESTOPPEL be considered the sixth-Prerogative Writ?

Is estoppel considered to be a writ?

estopel MUST be a football and/or a Basketball player and/or I shall go check the legal definition of that word....I may go nuts very soon with all this....

A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, or denial. The rationale behind estoppel is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or Fraud. There are two general types of estoppel: equitable and legal.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estoppel

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ

ESTOPPEL sounds already like the Prerogative Writ called/named PROHIBITION, then- so i guess..... whats the difference between a Writ-of-PROHIBITION, and, an ESTOPPEL?

I think in criminal is different that civil administrative.....estopeel seems to be for criminal....Im not sure....here is something to read on it.... http://oldsite.mobar.org/e4cace40-4d6b-4acd-a237-127ee910688c.aspx

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?

Finally got around to reading this post, very nicely done. I now UNDERSTAND why lawyers refer to each other as "my friend... bla bla bla..." The avoidance of liability is now very clear.

I really want to get into this but I can't figure out wether to stand or croach infront of the great white throne

Chad, are you STILL sick? This is dragging on a little.

Hang on while I wipe the spittle from my chin.....................there we go. was sick last week for a day then my other kid got sick, then I got sick again but this time is really bad. Biggest clusterfuck anyone has ever seen. Sweating all the time, lost like 5 pounds in the last week. I just can't focus on this stuff right now, waiting for it to break. Cook an egg on my gut if ya want. But the really distressing thing is, every time I come here to read theres more threads and fell like im losing ground.

I can't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnT-AU7ToQ

From 2005 Irish Interpretation Act - (j) Offences by corporations. A reference to a person in relation to an offence (whether punishable on indictment or on summary conviction) shal (MUST)l be read as including(ONLY MEANING) a reference to a body corporate.

Chad, you're acidic, start juicing and get your PH up. Start drinking your vegetables!

FUCK! I could have had a V8!

I mix a teaspoon of baking-soda in my 'flouride-drink' the city graciously provides for me, at least once a day...

me I put 3 large coffee and 3 OH Henry in the blinder wit 1 BANANA....but the for the banana, I just started this 3 weeks ago....

and it makes me accomplish stuff like that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_oLhHQIrQ

Fuck Pierre. Too funny. :)

Forget the banana Pierre, throw in some Soursop, it will make your wiener big and strong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck3XMmNWMGw

It'll protect you from cancer to boot!

IF he KNOWS better... WHY would Dean push FRAUD?! ... DISTURBING!

Re PROPER NOTICE: I noticed you required us to read every word in in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE and previously instructed us to use Black's 9th (which you provided as our basic text), and this is what I found: notice, n. (16c) 1. Legal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation oflaw as a result of some fact (such as the recording of an instrument); definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, ofan existing right or title <under the lease, the tenant must give the landlord written notice 30 days before vacating the premises> .� A person has notice ofa fact or condition if that person (1) has actual knowledge ofit; (2) has received information about it; (3) has reason to know about it; (4) knows about a related fact; or (5) is considered as having been able to ascertain it by checking an official filing or recording.

I like instruments... musical, commercial. :D

Its a transfer of knowledge. Not an invitation, claim, affirmation, testimony, application, love letter...

Interestingly, I see the word OR which tells us that we have a choice to decide what kind of NOTICE we will PRESENT. Will we draft this notice or that? Obviously, we can't draft a notice that is both this OR/AND that, because we must choose which kind of NOTICE we will draft. Therefore, the question that presents itself is which kind of NOTICE we will draft. Scott instructs us to draft a PROPER NOTICE. Sounds good to me because in legal land I like things to be proper. The definition that I posted (the word of law) suggests a few important details might be important for us to distinguish between. Details which SCOTT never mentioned (curiously). I wonder why? Nevertheless, the point is that as I read the definition of NOTICE, the better option between this OR that is the second option where a fact is ESTABLISHED! Scott never mentioned that we can establish that a mistake was made prior to entering a BANKER'S court. If I read this right, and, I understand the meaning of NOTICE, our best option is to RECORD the NOTICE OF MISTAKE prior to going to their COURT. The second option puts "them" in OUR COURT! Am I on track? Has this been a TEST to find out who's paying attention? Am I missing something?

Here's what Winston Shrout had to say about three weeks ago about NOTICES and the OPPT. This is very relevant. Who is right? SCOTT DUNCAN OR...AND/OR WINSTON SHROUT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGjfKnAjnNI

No, I wondered that myself in the thread with my daughter. Its weird as they are using her fiction name, but threatening me as guardian. But they didn't use my fiction name specifically toward said threats. It was just stated. So in the case of using Notice of Mistake (being a mistake regarding the accused/whom is surety), to add in a Proof of Claim (being claim on me), yet still the claim in this case seems fine. I think that a Notice of Mistake directly challenges jurisdiction in that matter (which is the point).

shit dude, that's 2 hrs long :/

When I read NOTICE in Black's law and here Winston, it comes to mind that our best option is to stay PRIVATE and have them come to OUR COURT. By NOT ENTERING INTO CONTROVERSY in their JURISDICTION we can make our own law and our own COURT as a PRIVATE person whom has suffered from their MISTAKE. WINSTON is informing us again and again and again to face these PIRATES using STATUES in COMMON LAW as PRIVATE LIVING BEINGS. Forgive the rant. I'm trying to sort it out in my own head. Who will argue WINSTON SHROUT?

It is my understanding they are bringing in THE NAME to court, you can send in a Notice of Mistake as to whom the accused is before court. It doesn't put any one in "our" court, it puts the surety at question. It also adds in the example the requirement for evidences for proof of claims on that name...

It all goes back to Surety... who is surety for that name? If said Pirates are after you because of a name, might tell them who is liable for it and they're after the wrong guy...

I hear that BEVERLY. I'm having a few shooting stars go off in my head. In my mind. It puts the SURETY in QUESTION in THEIR COURT is my point. Winston keeps on saying MAKE YOUR OWN LAW by CREATING it. He keeps on asking people why would anyone want to put us on the defensive and therefore in controversy. As I understand WINSTON SHROUT, he says that we might consider using a better "TECHNOLOGY" than having them dictate their STATUTES AND ACTS as well as other flaming hoops they would have us jump through. Don't misunderstand me,. I am grateful for everything I learn. It is in my nature to question even those I trust. Perhaps, I might allow myself the privilege to especially question those that I have faith in.

Did anyone listen to what the old soldier had to say?

They might have a controversy with that name... but they'd better find the surety for it and deal with those guys... That's how you would stay out of it. Your court doesn't have a claim, it just is not liable for these statutes and/or mistakes. Let them deal with themselves...

If you don't want to be SURETY, the best option might be the second option in the definition of NOTICE. RECORD the facts instead of just sending someone a letter with the word NOTICE in big capital letters. WINSTON is saying that giving any PERSON such a NOTICE is the same as calling your Aunt Sally and cring in her ear that the world isn't treating you fairly. He is saying it really doesn't establish much (other than the fact that you legally created some weak little nothing kind of NOTICE).A BETTER NOTICE is on whiuch is on the RECORD that YOU create..

WINSTON"S point is that "that name": isn't yours so why would you answer to it in their JURISDICTION. Keep everything in YOUR JURISDICTION.Make a NOTICE, BUT, keep it in your PRIVATE jurisidiction and put your PRIVATE CLAIM in the PUBLIC RECORD. If I'm getting this. LOL

Yes, but they are always creating a controversy regarding that name. Hence, a Notice of Mistake (regarding that name) would be correct? There are many notices, Notice of Termination, Notice to Attend, etc. I don't think in any controversy you need to determine your facts, rather question their claim, correct?

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?

If someone has a claim with THE NAME, and they are focusing on you... I guess you could call it a Proper Notice but you would be determining that there has been a mistake as to whom the surety is and are requiring evidence to the controversy...

Why CONTEST?

There is nothing to contest... you don't even understand what this is about.

If someone has a claim with THE NAME, and they are focusing on you....only if you are that name!

Are you that NAME?