The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Mar 10, 2013 6:35 AM

Scott Duncan

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. Let's cover SURETY!

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. Who could even argue that? :D

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 any translation of (Originally all British Law was written in LATIN) 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".

#http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfactradio/2013/03/12/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep13-family-law

...because when Scott Duncan does a plug, he does it hard core!

HOW TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD - Ep13 Family Law

blogtalkradio.com

Welcome to episode 13 of HOW TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD! The topic of this weeks episode is Family Law. Questions for Dean prior to the show going live MUST BE sent to a guy who talks like he's got a dick in his mouth!

Read Comments
Unique ID: 462493170453287_490608044308466
Unique Facebook User ID:
927379467328526
Last Updated:
https://player.cinchcast.com/assets/player/jwplayer-5.9.2156.swf?config=https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.cinchcast.com%2Fconfig%3FplatformId%3D1%26assetId%3Dglobalfactradio%26assetType%3Dmulti%26itemcount%3D6%26version%3D2.0
Type of Post:
video
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments

Hamish Cummins

"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.

Scott Duncan

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".

Mick Parker

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.

Scott Duncan

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!

Daniel J Wentz

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.

Mick Parker

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.

J Conrad Steele

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.

Maximus Legis

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 :-)

Hamish Cummins

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.

Scott Duncan

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

Derek Moran

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

Derek Moran

"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" ;)

Michael Webb

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

Scott Duncan

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".

Derek Moran

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?

Scott Duncan

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*

Scott Duncan

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

Derek Moran

" 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? :/

Derek Moran

"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)!"

Gail Marie

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.

Mick Parker

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.

Pete Daoust

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.

Pete Daoust

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.

Pete Daoust

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.

Pete Daoust

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,

Pete Daoust

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 ?????

Mick Parker

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.

Mick Parker

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.

Mick Parker

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.

Mick Parker

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,

Eamonn O Brien

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..."

Eamonn O Brien

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...

Derek Moran

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? :/

Pete Daoust

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.

Pete Daoust

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

Chad Brodgesell

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.

Eamonn O Brien

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.

Harry Wombat

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.

Harry Wombat

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?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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).

Harry Wombat

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?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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...

Harry Wombat

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.

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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...

Harry Wombat

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..

Harry Wombat

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

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

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...

Harry Wombat

Why not put a NOTICE in your own RECORD that you create, that yiou are not the NAME. Again....WINSTON says let them create the controversy and challenge you. Then when they are in YOUR JURISDICTION you give them the one two punch and ask them as private liable men AND/OR women if they want to accept SURETY when you pose those questions: 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?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Well they will create a claim on you... there are soooooo freakin many stupid laws that NAME cannot remotely even try to know and keep in mind that you are definitely gonna screw up, hence the fraud... but still its all about surety.

Harry Wombat

KEEP THEM IN YOUR COURT. As Scott says....my rules or i kick you out and throw you overboard when you come running to me crying. I imagine Scott will tell us about TENDER FOR THE LAW....stage two. I imagine that he is discerning who is reading or not. I suspect trick questions and trick answers to see who is awake.

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

I like Winston... haven't heard much on him. What I know for sure is Scott is definitely the bottom line guy. You can seek information and he will verify for you. If you have a specific question regarding a specific matter, just message him. Or if you would like to share a thread on an issue, just post it. Those always land up much more interesting, cowbell and all... :D

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Well unless and until there is a controversy with NAME, what do you care? If there should be one, in order to avoid the "court party" of which you aren't interested in attending, send them a Notice of Non-Attendance then...

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Yah and everyone's busy, Scott included. But I only try to portray what I've figured out and verified with him. He can't be here all the time. If you have a specific question he will answer...

August le Blanc

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

I personally have gained in this particular bit of knowledge immensely. Leading to honest self appraisal finding a wierd delusion of overconfidence in some areas and lack of it in others. Curious syndrome or effect.... Awareness is crucial to break out of it..... A work in progress. One of the first encounters I had with Scott, I wondered about delusion and how could one tell if one was delusional. I have my answer. Being chewing on it for a while now. So chances are if there is a name for it..... It must be a thing of frequent occurrence. As a result, I have a clearer picture of my self. Realizing that in many ways I am unqualified due to lack of knowledge, that is being dealt with. And in other ways Seeing the qualities..... Very interesting and crucial in Self Defense. Just Saying.....

Eamonn O Brien

Scott, 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...

Pete Daoust

Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a matter and, with reference to decisions announced by a court, a judge's ruling is commonly referred to as disposition, regardless of level of resolution. In Criminal Procedure, the sentencing or other final settlement of a criminal case. With respect to a mental state, means an attitude, prevailing tendency, or inclination.

Kelleran Holman

lol, I'm reluctant to post after your reality stopping comment....but...the answer to Eamonn O Brien would be ...yes they do keep it?....I have never used a coupon at walmart...or anywhere...with exception to the legal tender bank notes...they DO keep those...so my answer is "yes" ...so then the next time the "person" is summoned and/or fined...they already have the "person"?

Stuart Stone

This may seem like a crazy question, but if you've liened the name into a private trust, then surrender the person to the court for disposition, does that mean the name & the person are two separate entities in law, just as the man is not the same entity as the person or the name?

Pete Daoust

surrender legal definition: To give up, return, or yield.

The word surrender presupposes the possession or ownership of the thing that is to be returned or given up. It indicates a transfer of title as well as possession, but it does not express or in any way suggest the transaction of a sale and delivery. Instead, it involves yielding or delivering in response to a demand. A surrender may be compelled or it may be voluntary.

Stuart Stone

agreed...my mistake, forgive me ;-) ...Scott Duncan is very specific in his language. My question again though: What are the ramifications of the two actions, liening the name and the disposition of the person? Are they two separate entities in law? Is each copy of the BC a separate entity? Or to pose a different question based around the same theme: When I sign a power of attorney over to the bank & they sign/create a bunch of documents/ promissory notes etc using the name, is the consequence of this action that they have created one or more persons with the same name?

Scott Duncan

...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.

Pete Daoust

NON-NEGOCIABLE

I'm Pete and/or Peter and/or Pierre and/or Babe (I reserve this one for my wife) I'm also Dad (I reserve this one for my children) and/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

At least 51% of my blood is ORIGINAL blood

I LOVE WAL-MART COUPONS

And I reserve ALL RIGHTS�.all of them�

Is ANYONE have any objections ?????

Pete Daoust

Coupons are usually attached to a document, such as a promissory note, bond, share of stock, or a bearer instrument. A coupon is a written contract for the payment of a definite amount on a specified date according to the terms of the main document from which it must be separated for presentation for payment. Each coupon represents a separate promise by its issuer to pay its holder on the due date. Failure to do so will support a Cause of Action for breach of contract

Eamonn O Brien

Hypothetically speaking, does giving the BC to the court for dispositioning then render the possibility of using it again for the likes of a passport an impossibility?

And can the court refuse to accept possession of it?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

A copy... Here's a bit from Judge Dale: The Complaint and Warrant will reflect your [BIRTH NAME] or identify you as a [JOHN DOE], if your name is unknown, which is typed out in all capital letters! This is not a mistake on their part because it is your Birth Certificate that is under arrest and not your living, flesh and blood person. The hope of these pseudo Courts is that the flesh and blood person will be intimidated enough to accept responsibility for the Birth Certificate! Sounds crazy but nothing is what it seems: �It�s all Smoke and Mirrors.�

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

At your Arraignment or Trial, the Judge will ask you if you are the named individual [ALL CAPS BIRTH NAME] on the complaint and your natural response will be to answer in the affirmative but that is exactly what you don�t want to do! Remove your Birth Certificate and respond to him by stating: I am making a Special Limited Appearance on behalf of the defendant who is right here and [hold up your Birth Certificate!]

Derek Moran

I think this all makes for a great NOTICE FOR FULL-DISCLOSURE to send to some/one of our public servants- "How are YOU guys able to manage to get funds from out of my person's security for YOUR benefit- uhh, but im NOT...?!"

Derek Moran

All we do is talk about how to go to court as the DEFENDANT and how to FEND off creating joinder with the PERSON. How about for a change, talkin' about how do we go to court as the PLAINTIFF and use the PERSON we have, to pull-out the Birth Certificate and ask some judge, to tell some public-servant, to- "...pay my fucking rent for me with this!" :)

Derek Moran

"If this is supposedly worth at least a $1 million, then fine, i have no problem paying for this $200 speeding-ticket. On the condition however, you tell me how to use it to pay my fucking rent with it. Just DO, your JOB, public SERVANT, tell me where to sign, so i can give you the VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, which is my SIGNATURE, then fuck off, and go back to doing your job, which ultimately, is whatever is in my best interest i.e. 'Fiduciary-Duties-to-me' " :))

Derek Moran

At Dean Clifford's seminar here in Toronto last year, i got there early and was talking to a guy, who was hardcore about how whenever one of his public-TRUSTees did not act as he deemed with TRUSTworthiness towards him, he would rifle off one of his NOTICE OF FIDUCIARY TRUSTEE notices to them, calmly explaining to them that they are being paid a job to do that he is helping contribute towards with the taxes he is forced to give so that they can have a job which is to do whatever is in his best interests and gave them a list of what he thought their Fiduciary-Duties were to be towards him. I liked that guy.

Derek Moran

Scott is quite clear that the law is all about INTENT. Then, using that logic, what was the INTENT of the Birth Certificate/Security of the Person then? To FUCK US, or to HELP US? I would like to think to HELP US. Its turning out however to FUCK US, as they are the ones who hold the keys to their own arcane rules they have yet to provide DISCLOSURE to us about as to how do WE, not our SERVANTS meant to SERVE us, WE, benefit from this SECURITY, which as i understand it, represents our share of whatever value/credit of ours is sitting in the CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND waiting to be CLAIMED by us that will just be deemed surplus and WASTED by them if we dont. :/

Derek Moran

Pierre.. you mentioned just the other day that you wrote to QRA and said to them- "...i am not the accused in this matter...", and as a result, they switched you from being the Defendant to the Plaintiff right? Seems to me, and i dunno what Scott has to say about this, but if you're deemed to be the Plaintiff in this matter...do you not have the right then to just simply WITHDRAW the charges against QRA ? :/

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Criminal breach of trust

336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 296.

Mick Parker

not the only breach of trust .... It appears Tony got jilted by DC "Tony Boutrosposted toGLOBAL F.A.C.T. *** WELL IT'S OFFICIAL *** DEAN CLIFFORD HAS ADMITTED THAT HE SOLD ME OUT. He made his official announcement on his forum a couple of hours ago" strange carry on indeed :/

Adam Thomas

The most amazing & thought provoking thing I get so far from this thread is about BELIEF. We've all been fed a LIE, a LEGAL FICTION, a PSEUDONYM every step & breath of our entire lives. LIES UPON LIES. This does upset me as I now am worried for our child thats now in the skewl system & the many young ripe minds that are now being manipulated to BELIEVE in BELIEF. FUCK OFF to all the BELIEVERS I SAY. When those children grow up a very small percentage of them will become enlightened by the actual TRUTH. How will they react to knowing that their FAITH BASED BELIEF system is & always will be a complete MYTH. Hopefully they'll all start following Scott & start to buck the system that has bucked them.

Brenda Larson

In this particular post I realize that you do a notice of mistake because the court has had a deposit of a surety bond supposedly in my name. It has come to my attention recently that I have no birth certificate, would I still do a notice of mistake, to correct their assumption that I do have a birth certificate?

Brenda Larson

I applied a short while ago to the quebec govn. for my live birth record and BC. I was told that I need to supply them with my baptismal certif. I dont have one cause my mother was athiest. So they wanted to know which hospital I was born. I don't know just now it was Montreal. They phoned me back and said they need my batismal certif. told them I don't have one, they said they can see where I was born. So told them forget the BC just send me the live birth record. Apparently that is not part of their records, that belongs to hospital. I said tell me what hospital I was born at and I will get it my self. Vital Statisics said no and hung up. So according to them I need my live birth record, baptismal certif. and one form of id and $ 104.00 and they will be more than happy to do one up for me.

Brenda Larson

I had something at one point in time, I (there is that nasty word) believe it was my live birth record, however when we went through a bust here at home, it was in a safe that the RCMP confiscated. And according to them there were no personal papers in it but it was in there. So what ever it was I son't know. but I do have driveres license and wernt ot school so Im guessing that is what it was.

Pete Daoust

Plus....I realized that when you ask to many questions to those public servants.....you may/shall/must get this at one point https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=114583932072891&set=vb.105516722948410&type=2&theater

Pete Daoust

Scott Duncan, you say: QUEBEC = Civil Law. Whole other mess on top of surety. can you give me a HINT about what SURETY could have something DIFFERENT in Qu�bec from the reste of CANADA.....???...Thanks Pierre.

Pete Daoust

Brenda Larson, I sent a fax to: 418-266-7024, fax included a photocopy of my driver's licence and a photocopy of my healthcare card and this: Mirabel, le 11 Septembre 2012

Bonjour, A Qui de Droit :

Je suis Joseph Gilles Pierre Daoust Poss�dant la Personne Juridique nomm�e PIERRE DAOUST Date de Naissance : XX XXXXX XXXX Permis de Conduire : DXXX-XXXXX-XX Assurance Maladie : DAOP XXXXXXX Nom Famille de ma m�re : XXXXXX Adresse : XXX rue LaXXXXX Mirabel (Qu�bec) XXX-XXX

T�l�phone : 514-234-XXXX

Documents ou Renseignements demand�s :

SVP, me faire parvenir une copie D, enregistrement d�une naissance vivante.

Merci

__________________________

Adam Thomas

Hahaha.... pierre, thank you for making me aware of something thats glaringly obvious now & its not my English either. You & Gail, have helped me. Thank you both. I'm now in the heart of darkness (Fed magistrates court) APPLYING for a RECOVERY ORDER for LIBERTY. Keep ye updated to outcome.

Adam Thomas

TAKEN NAMES NOT GIVEN. So a Name is GIVEN to me by my Ma' & Da', ALL Names are TAKEN from any Bozo or thing. Mine is from the first MAN supposedly, allegedly. PROVE THAT IT WASN'T. How can they PROVE in their FICTICIOUS BELIEFS that he even existed ?? Am I NOT that Name? Did ye notice that? ? It's called a NEGATIVE AVERSION. Puts their question straight back at them. Youve answered their question. Next question please.

Brenda Larson

I did it today, I put 3 notices of mistake one for me, the old man and the kids. I went to CPS lawyers office and tried to serve it on them, I asked for a date stamed copy back. The liar told me that she was as good as a date stamped copy she would attest to the fact that they received it. (I may have idiot stamp on my forehead till now but I washed it off and look at me now.)I told her no, i need it date stamped, started to protest and put her hand on it so I could not remove it. I just grabbed it up and walked out. She said as I was leaving and ignoring her, we will see you tomorrow in court Ms, Larson.

Brenda Larson

I gotta tell this story cause it is funny. I had the same thing happen when I tried to serve the RCMP with my complaint, I asked if I could get a date stamped copy back from the staff srgt., He was totally outraged, his comment was "Do you think I would LIE !"

Brenda Larson

No cause, he went looking for a date stamp that would work, and asked me to sign a paper that stated I would not go public with my complaints. He also told me that you know this could go either way. Meaning he might find something else to charge me with, I told him are you threatning me? And he wanted to know if I was threatening him. When I said no I wouldn't sign anything he threw the stamped copy of the complaint at me and said never mind. I got the heck out of there.

Derek Moran

btw Pierre, Scott just LIKED this message i left you a moment ago- just so you know..... "Pierre.. you mentioned just the other day that you wrote to QRA and said to them- "...i am not the accused in this matter...", and as a result, they switched you from being the Defendant to the Plaintiff right? Seems to me, and i dunno what Scott has to say about this, but if you're deemed to be the Plaintiff in this matter...do you not have the right then to just simply WITHDRAW the charges against QRA ? "

Pete Daoust

btw Pierre, Scott just LIKED this message i left you a moment ago- just so you know:What message ???

"Pierre.. you mentioned just the other day that you wrote to QRA and said to them- "...i am not the accused in this matter...", and as a result, they switched youfrom being the Defendant to the Plaintiff right? NOT AT ALL�.I always been the PLAINTIFF with QRA from A to Z

do you not have the right then to just simply WITHDRAW the charges against QRA ? " : YES, but if I do that I will have to PAY�!!!!

Pete Daoust

So you won't answer me Derek Moran, you just throwing me this BY THE WAY thing and you leave me with it....and thi JUST SO YOU KNOW thing......I KNOW NOTHING of what you are talking about....NOTHING....expose your toughts please...

Adam Thomas

Joseph Pierre Gilles, it's happening again.. Just a quick question to you pierre. Q; would ye go for full custody of your child if ye knew her mother was a prostitute & has been exposing OUR daughter to paying clients ??

Pete Daoust

I got it Derek Moran, but I NEVER been the d�fendant in this case.....always been the plaintiff....my goal was and is to switch to d�fendant...I asked them to arrest me if I commited fraud, they just wont....

Tara Duncan

I'm not really familiar with your situation Adam, but do you have a well formulated plan for what constitutes "the best interests of the child"? I'm always slightly confused that people who develop a relationship, produce children, get to the point where they will drag their relationship and children into a situation which is not in anyone's best interest. Do you have any other options for remedy?

Cheryl Watson

best interest of the child is an advertising campaign slogan designed to bolster business for the child protection industry. They are getting paid to provide serves to victims, and it is genious really, they confiscate kids in the name of their best interests( and just to cover the constitution aspect) the betterment of society. the continuation of abuse to these poor children, once they have custody of the child ensures the continuation of a market for their services in the future. Another beauty of this industry is the fact that they do not even have to provide quality services.

Tara Duncan

Agreed to both. The problem with trusting third-parties (with motivated self-interest) to operate in the best interest of children, is that the actual welfare of the children may not produce the best monetary result. It is a constant source of amazement to me that people who once loved one another could not at least try to find an amicable solution outside such a system.

Adam Thomas

Tara, I've constantly made Private Offers that she agrees to then at the last minute changes her mind just to FUCK WITH MY MIND. She has been exposing Liberty, to paying clients disguised as Boyfriends. Again she has DISHONOURED our aggreements & the Fed Court Order. She is very Dishonorable. What more can I do? I have not seen Liberty for 13 days now. It's school holidays & she's meant to be with her Dad but like last school hols I was denied anytime with Liberty because of her mothers malicious intent to upset me every step of my life. I have had enough.....im at the very end of my tether. NO MORE. What more can a father do?

Tara Duncan

Again, speaking out of the ignorance of the lack of knowledge with your particular situation, you should be able to best a woman with mental health issues. For the sake of your daughter take your emotions out of the equation, find out what your ex wants, and work something out. Assuming she's not totally insane she should be receptive (on some level) to the fact that children need the guidance and companionship of both parents. Otherwise the children blame themselves for the dissolution of what they perceive would otherwise be a happy relationship. You connected with this woman once - she must be reachable on some level. It is likely your ex cared for you deeply at one time; otherwise she wouldn't be punishing you this enthusiastically now (don't beat me Cheryl!)

Tara Duncan

Don't cry Adam...it's not becoming on the Internet. Your wife/girlfriend/whatever had strong feelings for you and you disappointed her in some ridiculous chick-shit kind of way. The only way she has of hurting you is to deprive you of something you value. She doesn't have the relationship she wants, but she does still have a relationship with you. Many women are assholes in this regard. If you let it affect you at the cellular level she controls you. This is a problem to be solved. Your child's mental health is riding on your ability to work this out. No pressure :)

Tara Duncan

Not true. She cares about you deeply; otherwise she would simply arrange joint visits with your daughter. People get so caught up in their emotions and the manipulative advice of people with their own agendas, that they don't know how to stop. You have the best chance of establishing the voice of reason. Crying is ok...I was just trying to inject a small amount of levity.

Adam Thomas

I'm actually doing that as I write Derek Moran. Every 1 please know this. I'm not going to allow her to crucify me anymore. Ive constantly offered her PRIVATE REMEDY but she agrees then FUCKS ME ALL THE TIME.

Tara Duncan

Moving on...take a break. Get some perspective. Do something good for yourself. Six years is a long time to be upset. Think about what you want for your daughter and find a way to convince your ex that your daughter will benefit. Even bad parents want to "believe" they are doing the best for their children. Do not approach this person unless you can do it without throwing in a boatload of emotional baggage. When you are ready you can put together a list of ways both your ex, and your daughter can benefit from having you in her life.

Derek Moran

*pssst* Tara...Daniel Wentz recently spoke about how effective Scott has been with Praecipe's in the past. Any chance you could get him to share what an effectively-drafted Praecipe looks like?...i only ask cuz i hear you got some 'pull' with him ;)

Adam Thomas

She has forced my hand & I didn't want this to happen. Pierre, yep ok m8 I'll conditionally accept what ye claim I am upon proof. So I'm crazy for our daughter. That's a sin? The system isnt though is it pierre !! Hahahahahaha....I don't wish to go overseas & kill beings for a LIE.....THATS INSANE !!

Adam Thomas

She has Maliciiusly attacked me over the years & made many false claims against me. She has purjured herself to the police & the Right & HONOURable Fed Magistrates Court.....vomit...heave.. Lied to every 1 in her Life and the most important 1 LIBERTY !!!! Don't morals or ethics comi into the equation?? Or emotion. Where should I be coming from? HEART??? EMOTION??? MY ASS?? Or I just carry on & continue to clutch my ankles & cop her strap on up my chocky starfish ??

Cheryl Watson

What are you looking for? A mob to get together and force the court to see things your way? if you are looking for someone to make your ex act in a responsible manner, you are out of luck. if you want people to know you are a victim, that is becoming clear. I am convinced that victims cannot be helped. The victim always has a good reason why words of guidance and direction (good, proven advice) has not or will not work for them. what your ex has done to you is your problem and responsibility to deal with. that doesn't mean that people don't care because some people do care. AND BEFORE you think that I am being judgemental, I will let you know that I was a victim for the majority of my life. I still have plenty of victim ways and beliefs. Stop telling people how mean your ex is to you and stop using your precious daughter as a bargaining chip to get people to help you. If people spread malicious lies about you, you have them charged or take them to court or whatever. Hire a private eye, take pictures, voice record. voice recordings do work most of the time. if you are talking to your ex about stuff, secretly record. The criminal code of canada gives you the right to record any conversation that you are a part of of. you give your consent to yourself, the other person does not have to be told. CCC Sect. 183.1 . Don't ever, ever, ever, invite CAS into this fight with you. AND I AM GOING TO SAY THANK , IN ADVANCE, TO EVERYONE ON HERE TO LET ME KNOW IF YOU FEEL I AM ACTING/SPEAKING AS A VICTIM.

Adam Thomas

Department Of Human Services down here. Viscious, savage pack of Rabid animals. I have REMEDY at moment. I had to bend over again & clutch my ankles & walk into a FUCKING PIG STY to pick up LIBERTY against what Liberty, wants & me also. I have a VALUABLE INSTRUMENT that says FINAL ORDER. I've looked & looked but still cannot find where it says NON-AMENDABLE on it so now I must RETURN COMPLETE. CHECK MATE ?? Hmmmm...how shall I complete it?

Cheryl Watson

I am going to apologize to ADAM. I definitely have "bitch disorder" lately. I have been on a new medication. I probably am a fruit cake that's been in the oven too long..my true intention though is that whiny people remind me of myself and what I did for most of my life and that is not Adam's problem. It wasn't right for me to put my problem onto him. But also, I know the difference in my life from trying to over come that mindset and learning the difference between venting and whining. Apparently, still need to learn to examine my motives more carefully before speaking. What I said about victims though is still true. and it was meant to be helpful in an ass backwards way.

Adam Thomas

Fuck. I miss a good ol knuckle fight. Her muppet rejected My Offer last week after he hung the phone up on me whilst I was mid sentence with Liberty. He's a 2 faced dog thats off his leash & needs a goodl muzzle & a very tight leash & he's exactly where I now will get my REMEDY....Hehehehehe...im a sneaky fucker....

Mick Parker

Well this is the page to let loose cheryl :p We can only advise others from our own perspectives .... & thats yours (Y) @Adam, leave that poor bastard where you found him because pretty soon, she'll do it to him too mwa ha ha ha ha

Adam Thomas

I still can't believe that they've actually guided me down this path & im now about to lay them open in a court roim battle but I just load 1 bullet & give it to him & then he shoots her with it &/ Or shoots himself with it. There will be LOTS OF LIVE IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD WHEN THIS GOES DOWN...:) Farkn brilliant.

Adam Thomas

Mick, he rang me & told me 2 months ago to get full custody of Liberty & that her mother's a WHORE...I really felt for the poor dumb bastard. I recorded his next conversation & y hat 1's fuckin awesome..hehehehe...larf larf larf larf....

Pete Daoust

OK�well I can let it loose then�Sue Eli ?????? OK Adams�.here is the input of a MALE�NO OFFENSE�. :D What have you promised her before putting your dick in her ? How many times have you cheated on her.? Have you took care of her ? Have you treated her like a woman need to be treat ? WHY you went away ? Who carried this child in her for 9 months ? WHY you�ve made a child with her ? WHY your WAY, and only YOUR WAY ? Who the FUK do you think you are ? If she is so EVIL, how in the world you ended up with her ? And what�s WRONG with you ?..serious, look in the mirror and ask yourself this serious question Your shit has NOTHING to do with LAW�it�s a HUMAN concern�.think about it and good luck !!!!!

Adam Thomas

Again pierre. I haven't the energy to answer your questions. I've been stuck in EGO the last couple of days. I do Value your input Pierre. My story is tooo long pierre. In & out of court for over 5 years on false claims made by her. Ive always bent over & copped it from her & tonight was the very last time I did that. I'm not engaging you on this pierre. My battle is not with you. Here's 1 for ye though pierre. How would ye react to an ex partner making a false claim against ye for saaayy...lets just make one up & pull this straight outta my ass..SEXUAL ASSAULT??? When in actual FACT NOTHING HAPPENED & SHE THEN WITHDREW THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU. HOW WOULD YE FEEL FOR 6 MONTHS WITH THOSE CHARGES HANGING OVER YE??

Pete Daoust

I' no Champ.... I'm Pete and/or Peter and/or Pierre and/or Babe (I reserve this one for my wife) I'm also Dad (I reserve this one for my children) and/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

At least 51% of my blood is ORIGINAL blood

I LOVE WAL-MART COUPONS

I�m a very NICE guy

I am the MASTER or my PERSON Named PIERRE DAOUST

And I reserve ALL RIGHTS�.all of them� :D

Adam Thomas

Please Pierre. Explain to me HOW MY SITUATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW ?? Johnnie alltalkin notwalkin not there no more... PATHETIC STUFF ?? HMMMM.... I'll check my bait in the morn......I'll leave my response to your comment in the morn pierre...nighty night mate ;)

Adam Thomas

Pierre. He who leaves the battlefied has admitted defeat. Nothing to do with LAW hey pierre. Well pierre, I once thought that ye were intelligent but have since proven to me that's not the case so a big "UP YOURS" & "FUCK OFF" :) NO OFFENSE :)

Pete Daoust

EVERYONE knows from the begining in here that I'M NOT intelligent, and I'm the first to know this....I don't even have a high school grade...so were the fuk you've got that tought from ????....Seriously Adam, get some help Buddy.....urgent....and what battlefield are you talking about..???.....defeat what ?????....do you have all your neurons burnt..???...I know who I am Adam....you have no idea how I know who I am ....you have NO IDEA who you are....you NEVER took a good look at your self in the Mirror....do it, and do it fast Adam....good luck..!!!!

Pete Daoust

I'm NOT intelligent Adam Thomas, I agree, but I'm smart enough to KNOW that when an AFFECTIVE Relationship goes wild, its ALWAYS the 2 partie's fault...ALWAYS...you are here and keep telling us how she is this and that and you don't even realize that there is some SMART people in here that gave you very good suggestion.....I say it again Adam....TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT YOUR SELF IN THE MIRROR....that is the KEY....stop everything else....and stop writing like a 13 year old....I have a hard time reading you when you do that...I have to ask my daughter all the time to translate....

Adam Thomas

She has 3 beds to sleep in @ my house & she chooses to sleep with her father not all the time but mostly. She also sleeps with her mother but has her own bed but mostly chooses to sleep with her Ma'. Her mother sleeps with her MUPPET OR REd Dog as I affectionately named him ( dumbed down for you Pierre means her partner.) How do ye think I react to that pierre? ? Hes the 2nd fly by nighter that has accompanied OUR daughter in bed since she's been 2.5 years into her life SO FAR !! How many more I wonder? The bloke (australian slang name for MALE) Before him was a PAID CLIENT OF HERS that OUR daughter was exposed to for 3 + years. I've no reason for concern have I pierre?? (Scratch head) Why is it such a bad thing for OUR daughter to sleep with either parent Pierre?? I've never ever exposed OUR daughter to any of my lovers as I'm tge fussiest fucker on earth when it comes to wimen & all I've seen out there so far is millions of women that suffer frim DUMB KUNT SYNDROME. The only intelligent women I've seen sio far are on forums exactly like this & their advice has been very rewarding for me so far & I pay ALL THE LADIES that have given me advice on this page as to my situation the HIGHEST CONSIDERATION & VALUE & I Thank them for it too.

Pete Daoust

women that suffer frim DUMB KUNT SYNDROME.: these are weman that usually slept with their fathers...and beed kissed on the lips by their fathers.....you ever heard that song that says: LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE.....these guys who wrote that song were very SMART people.....

Pete Daoust

When I left her, she find ANOTHER man I think 5 days after I left

I took 10 minutes with this guy to let him know that if ANYONE hurt my daughter I will kill him/her�I was 22 at that time, and I was telling him the truth. ANd he knew it....

Today this guy is a good friend of mine�.This is one of the BEST thing I�ve done, without REALLY knowing it�

It took me 3 years to TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT MY SELF�.and realized that EVERYTHING I�ve done since I�m 15 years old was MY FAULT�.I mean EVERYTHING�all the goods and all the bads�.and there is more bads than goods�.so the BUCK STPS HERE

I had to sat down with her at one point to tell the TRUTH�.about ME, not her�.her is her problem, not mine�asking FORGIVENESS is the KEY�.

Pete Daoust

SO here we go again... :D What have you promised her before putting your dick in her ? How many times have you cheated on her.? Have you took care of her ? Have you treated her like a woman need to be treat ? WHY you went away ? Who carried this child in her for 9 months ? WHY you�ve made a child with her ? WHY your WAY, and only YOUR WAY ? Who the FUK do you think you are ? If she is so EVIL, how in the world you ended up with her ? And what�s WRONG with you ?..serious, look in the mirror and ask yourself this serious question Your shit has NOTHING to do with LAW�it�s a HUMAN concern�.think about it and good luck !!!!!

Adam Thomas

I've ADKED pierre. ...too many times. Still sending her LOVE but that came to a sudden stop just recently. Even sent him Love & I actually got them back together after he left her after he found out her TRUTH......

Adam Thomas

Im not lying there I did pierre, thats my TRUTH. I actually got them back together. I hugged him & consoled him. If I hadnt Liberty, would be as hurt as him because our lil lady actually Loves the muppet. I'd be a right kunt to DENY OUR daughter LOVE from any 1. I've enrolled Liberty, in skewl counselling every friday to prepare her for the inevitable seperation.

Adam Thomas

Yes Pierre, true that FORGIVENESS IS THE KEY. I ALWAYS FORGIVE HER & ITS KILLING ME. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH NOW. She has exposef herself & I now have to use her system of the PUBLIC LAW COURTS to get MY REMEDY & yes her muppet is where my REMEDY LAY. She is actually asking for this & she also needs this to happen fir her own ENLIGHTENMENT.

Adam Thomas

I dont know how to dumb my last few comments down any further Pierre. Maybe if I write slower...?? Ok here goes. I G O T T H E M B A C K T O G E T H E R A F T E R H E L E F T H E R. I T O L D H I M T O F O R G I V E H E R A S I T S N O T H E R. THE DUMB KUNT BELIEVED ME...HAR HAR HAR.....

Adam Thomas

Correct PIERRE......BOW....BOW... BOW.....APPLAUSE & STANDING OVATION. SHE HAS TO FORGIVE ME FOR WHATEVER I'VE DONE TO HER........ Thats The REMEDY I SEEK FROM HER I don't know which life twas in........Or the hard part of finding out WTF it was I did.......Ive asked but no reply. I think a few of the ladies noted it & hit it on the head. CARE ??? LOVE ??? She's STILL ATTRACTED TO ME....Which is totally understandable as I'm a good lookin Rooster...she's only human....I think.... She wsnts her obedient lil muppet back but I'm too much of a MAN for her now & she don't like it but is ssooo attracted to it she wants it back.

Adam Thomas

There's NO need for your apology Pierre. Not your fault you're a DUMB KUNT........HAHAHAHAHA....as I stated a wee while ago Peter, our language differences are huge....customs are similar but LINGO is &/OR has been difficult.... Joseph Pierre Gilles, you've Helped...in your very own unique way you've helped US, both Liberty & her Dad & I thank you for it too mate so THANKS :D

Adam Thomas

Hahahahahaha....good luck with that pierre......larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf.....breathe...larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf......breathe. larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf larf......she's a NYMPHOMANIAC Pierre. Q; is Nymphomania a crime??

Anibal Jose Baez

Where in the USA would you put a lien on the NAME? I've seen Scott publish a website for Canada. The way I have seen people putting a lien on the NAME here in the USA is filling a UCC 1 in the Dept. of State. But, Scott has mentioned that using UCC doesn't work, unless you have a fleet of ships to enforce whatever. So, that confuses me.

So, taking this into consideration, where in the USA would you put a lien on the NAME?

Anibal Jose Baez

I post this question again, for our friends in Merica: Where in the USA would you put a lien on the NAME? I've seen Scott publish a website for Canada. The way I have seen people putting a lien on the NAME here in the USA is filling a UCC 1 in the Dept. of State. But, Scott has mentioned that using UCC doesn't work, unless you have a fleet of ships to enforce whatever. So, that confuses me.

So, taking this into consideration, where in the USA would you put a lien on the NAME?

Pete Daoust

Do you search or register UCCs?

UCC stands for Uniform Commercial Code - it's a standard similar to PPSA used in the United States. We search and register the Canadian equivalent, PPSA. We do not search UCCs in the United States. For more information on performing UCC searches and registrations, consult the consumer and commercial registrar within the state you're interested in.

Anibal Jose Baez

Everywhere I had/have looked points me to the UCC. I have personal friends done their "strawman" magic filing UCC 1's. But, since Scott mentioned NOT TO USE UCC, I have doubts about where exactly you place a lien on a NAME in the USA.

<<The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) under Article 9 governs how a lender obtains a security interest against a debtor's personal property for the payment of debt. Under Article 9, a borrower is called the "debtor" and the lender is called the "secured party." Filing a document called a UCC-1 Financing Statement secures a lender's lien against a borrower for specific collateral used as payment to the lender. The filing of a UCC-1 to secure collateral is termed "perfecting" a lien.>>

Read more: How to File a UCC Lien | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_8186779_file-ucc-lien.html#ixzz2RU11oScD>>

Pete Daoust

Well....what else do you expect in here....Intelligent High Academic Educated Bastards ???? I don't think so.. :D .....these specimens are busy at the BAR doing some LAWS to fuk dumb ass smart french dudes like me....in fact, why the heck you are not with them ?? :D

August le Blanc

D fucking Hill �. Live in the thread. hmmm�. I guess, we all make mistakes. Meaning him in previous encounters. Like: fucking around with names of chats and adding people without their knowledge and then baiting them into something� it seems a little underhanded from over here. However , if the admins saw fit, I am just popeye the sailor man�

Pete Daoust

I have heard you are not too bad in crypto-currency Derek Hill, if ever you could share your knowledge with us, it would be great.... :)

If you use the word "baton" in this group, I will ban you in the second, plese do not TEST me, it won't work

:D

August le Blanc

See once a dick, always a dick. Why don't you answer the fucking questions in a clear and concise manner? One would think being allowed back in here and when the Captain asks a fucking question he should get a clear answer. Mining bit coins: fucking bulshit� Prove it.

Anibal Jose Baez

The Admiral, with the help of the Captain and crew, is running a tight ship. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

We are NOT the same group of a few months ago, Derek Hill. We are VERY protective of what's happening here. That's not being "stupid".

If you have something to contribute, please play with/for the team. We have much respect for Captain Pete Daoust.

I don't doubt you might have something to contribute, but keep the controversy out from this group.

August le Blanc

I vote to ban the cunt, I know its not a democracy, He still has not proven anything or added any value what so ever, Other then he approves of a fucking post that needs no approval� Primary or secondary thread, Like he would fucking know. See no fucking value to add except some laughter. Instead of rebutting, so he must be a liar: As he has accepted those terms when applied to him.. I do not have time for fucking liars. Do you Captain? All due respect to whoever allowed, the fuck, back in here.

August le Blanc

Showing off? We are demanding proof. You do not seem to get it is a privilege to be here. One that has been earned by most here, You have not earned anything but doubt in what you say. Your intent is in question. It would behoove you to speak (type to that) So what is your Intent as Mackximus Minimus asked?

Derek Hill

bobis....just what are you on about. I have no desire to show my rig because I have no obligation to. I never "claimed it" pete asked and I answered.

and what if I don't show it to you. would it really matter? what if I don't, would your life change? Probably not

The "Admiral" ok'd my return. if you want to kick me you would have to "answer" to him.

Ceit Butler

Now would be a good time to get with the program, Derek. You may not have noticed, but the group has gotten a hell of a lot smaller. The people who survived "The Great Dogecoin Purge of 2014" did so because they are actively participating.

Read Pete's Dogecoin thread, the one with over 1,300 comments, that starts off with "Hey, this is Captain Pete, with an ORDER, yes a fucking Order�. ".

If you have a Dogecoin wallet already, post the wallet address and join the list. If you don't have one, everything that you need to know is in that thread.

Ceit Butler

No, just examining the evidence. You were shooting your mouth off about your mining rig and the cryptocoin you have, BEFORE reading Pete's thread, before learning everyone was mining Doge now.

At that point, you would have assumed there were no circumstances under which you could be compelled to verify such things.

After being pointed to Pete's thread and realizing the situation...suddenly your story changes.

See how that looks suspicious?

Pete Daoust

And Scott ORDERED me to cease fire, some 4 days ago, so I didn't want to make a MISTAKE here........I did banned him, and can PROVE I was right.....

Being Captain is a dangerous spot.....can't make too many mistakes :D

Adam Thomas

What annoys me the most is his lack of honesty......but there are many that lack this very basic & grounding value. Shit-for-brains named Duhrick, are not even MAN enough to admit that they lied.....this could have lead to his Value rising & the Trust &/or Love ??? being shared again equally amongst us.....for our benefit. By not stating his alleged lie WE now un-Trust him.....WE here do not hate him.......he fell on his own sword like many others I know because the Truth.....is & does come out eventually & that is my BELIEF. ..... So no more lies because WE do not value liars because OUR whole life is a lie.....& WE are all here to find OUR TRUTH & TRUST & TO BE LOVED...... Clive,<3

Adam Thomas

I do not mean no harm to no one here. ...sum have felt my spleen & kidneys wrapped around their throats here in this cyber-world & group......sum deserved it.....sum didn't. I'm sorry if we have upset sum. WE still have value....ALL OF US

Chip Douglas

"Legal Aid Ontario is embarking on a significant expansion of legal services in family law that could chip away at the swelling masses of self-represented litigants and steer couples away from lengthy court battles."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/07/03/legal_aid_hopes_to_discourage_feuding_couples_from_acting_as_own_lawyers.html

Howard Posehn

I'm not sure if I sent you the new address that I got after I was able to download the Dogecoin wallet. I had sent the first one that I had at Dogevault, but it would be no good now. OK Pete, this is the new address: DQRT9brStW6QawCx6hEPTXwXvjuYJrjJ36 Please disregard the old address. Thankyou.

Scott Duncan

YOU HEAR THAT MENARD, YOU PIECE OF SHIT FRAUD!

SUCK IT UP, AND STARVE! I'VE ALREADY SET THE GEARS IN MOTION! WATCH WHAT I BUILD, CRUSH YOU, BIT-BY-BIT, WHILE I TELL YOU, EACH STEP OF THE WAY, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU!

... you see folks, Menard (And the government, for that matter) LOVE to say I'm "crazy". I never dispute it. Better people than Menard have suggested it...

...except I'm only "crazy", until REALITY says I'm not.

It doesn't MATTER if Menard thinks I'm "crazy". It doesn't MATTER if the Government says I'm "mentally Ill".

Reality doesn't care. 2+2 STILL equals 4. It doesn't MATTER what worthless people say/think/believe...

...I'll still win.

Steve McCall

Scott Duncan I was re-reading this today for the 3rd or 4th time and the point that popped out for me was that we are "The sole Beneficiary of the trust". This weeds out a stain that I think I accumulated from watching one of Dean Clifford's videos some time ago where I believe he was saying that the "government is the beneficiary of the legal name". So let me get this totally straightened out... We are the beneficiary. We are NOT the trustee. Our only attachment to the legal name we want to accept is as the administrator?

Steve McCall

Scott Duncan where can I find precedent case law on NOTICE OF MISTAKE where charges have been dismissed or dropped because of it's use? Anyone else here who has used it successfully and can point to the ruling?

Gail Marie

there is no ruling with it Steve, the point of it (if you take it into a courtroom) is to make the court aware that there has been a mistake in any presumptions/beliefs they have that you are the person. If the questions cannot be answered then court shouldn't be proceeding to the point of a ruling. Questions negate understanding. IF a case is thrown out or dropped as a result of the use of the notice of mistake, I doubt the Notice of Mistake or the premise behind it, would be provided as the reason. They do NOT want the secrets of their deception revealed.

Gail Marie

The success with the notice of mistake, while it is a well written document, really comes from the one using it. If your thinking doesn't match what is written and said, it can be very apparent to those in the know and a trap will be set :/

Gail Marie

you are either the soul authorized administrator of STEVE MCCALL or you are STEVE MCCALL...that is what you need to be clear of in your mind...once you are, then everything makes much more sense....similar steve to my situation when they wanted me to be a defendant....i could have chose to be a defendant and likely won my case...but I'm not a defendant..i had a private settled agreement....and it was my knowing that , that allowed me to not fall into the traps laid out

Steve McCall

No hand holding required... Just a question. I want to understand as completely as I can. I have no use for it at the moment as there are no charges against me. It is more about knowing my shit if and exactly how to use it should that ever arise. And or when people challenge me on this not looking like an idiot who has no idea what Im talking about. Thanks guys and Gail

David-Paul Sip

Chris "Are dismissed cases part of the PUBLIC RECORD???"

Unless I am mistaken DISMISSED charges remain part of the PUBLIC RECORD and the court can reopen that shit whenever they please. If a case is QUASHED then it is like it never happened and no record of it will be found anywhere. At the very minimum you want the matter DISCHARGED. If this is a shitstain then please forgive me.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Q/Quash.aspx

David-Paul Sip

I know someone that appeared in traffic court earlier this year where he CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED to enter a PLEA of GUILTY on the CONDITION that the CROWN provide the facts and evidence that the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT applied to him. After providing them with his taken name they made him wait until the end of the session to hear the matter. When the matter was called he read an affidavit into the record affirming he is a man who HAS a PERSON but that he was not this PERSON. It was obvious to me why they QUASHED the matter....they wanted no record of it anywhere. He didn't even know the difference between DISMISSED and QUASHED. The Crown had to correct him when he used the word DISMISSED after the justice had said case QUASHED.

Ceit Butler

"Dismiss verb: the ruling by a judge that all or a portion (one or more of the causes of action) of the plaintiff's lawsuit is terminated (thrown out) at that point without further evidence or testimony. This judgment may be made before, during, or at the end of a trial, when the judge becomes convinced that the plaintiff has not and cannot prove his/her/its case. This can be based on the complaint not alleging a cause of action, a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable, or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim. A defendant may be "dismissed" from a lawsuit, meaning the suit is dropped against that party."

That second-to-last part is interesting, "The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable, or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.", since it was the Crown who IMMEDIATELY suggested dismissing the case at trial, before I'd even made it to the podium.

Ceit Butler

In my case, the Crown mumbled something about attempting to contact my ex husband, but he declined to attend so they'd just like to dismiss. The thing is, HE wasn't the one charging me, the Crown was, so there was no reason for him to be in attendance. But for anyone sitting in the courtroom listening, it sounded much better than saying "Shit, she got us. We fold!"

Howard Posehn

And there is Ceit's hauls ass thread on this too! I apologize for forgetting this, Ceit. You are not going to find any case precedence on this. Why would they advertise success against them? This is a freeeeeduuuumb thought process that if there is no case law to confirm it works, then it must not. FUCK YOU ROBERT MENARD FOR TEACHING TARDNESS YOU USELESS SACK OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That felt good.

Ceit Butler

Exactly, they're just NOT going to come out and admit to the fraud. Think about it, that would bring the ENTIRE system crashing down. In fact, as Scott has pointed out, they are so terrified now that they will openly falsify the PUBLIC RECORD just to try and cover their asses.

Steve McCall

Lol Aladdin Sane... I din't bring it up because of Menard. It was because a lawyer friend challenged me on it today in a discussion and I didn't know the answer. His point was that "if any of this stuff worked there would be case law and precedent" and I couldn't answer why.

David-Paul Sip

The "Why" is because the game is rigged Steve. Your lawyer friend may/may not know/admit that the club house rules work to their benefit not yours. The courts/law society do not want precedence on the PUBLIC RECORD that exposes their fraud PERIOD.

Howard Posehn

If you got this, there would be no room or time in your life for sack of shit treasonous bastard who would harm you the first chance he got for his own personal gain. You do not need "friends" like him. Ask yourself who is more important in your life now. Sack of shit treasonous bastard lawyer or Scott Duncan.

Pete Daoust

:P

AVIS DE FAUTE

PRENEZ AVIS QUE : Dans l�affaire d�une S�RET� pour le NOM L�GAL, je suis d�avis qu�il y a eu une FAUTE, car l�UNIQUE B�N�FICIAIRE D�UN DOCUMENT PUBLIC a �t� ERRON�MENT D�SIGN� � pr�venu � et/ou � suspect �, et/ou � D�biteur �

PARDONNEZ-MOI : Si DES PERSONNES ET/OU DES AMIS DE LA COUR ET/OU TOUTE AUTRE PERSONNE AGISSANT DANS MON INT�R�T ET/OU MOI M�ME avons port� UN TRIBUNAL et/ou UN ORGANISME CR�� PAR UNE LOI et/ou UN SERVICE D��TAT et/ou DES MANDATAIRES et/ou DES REPR�SENTANTS de ces organismes � croire, en r�pondant � � Vous � et/ou � � JOHN SMITH� et/ou � TOUT AUTRE TERME par lequel ces organismes M�ONT APPEL�, que je suis la PARTIE D�TENANT LA S�RET� dans la pr�sente affaire, c�est une FAUTE que je vous demande de me pardonner.

Si DES PERSONNES ET/OU DES AMIS DE LA COUR ET/OU TOUTE AUTRE PERSONNE AGISSANT DANS MON INT�R�T ET/OU MOI M�ME avons port� UN TRIBUNAL et/ou UN ORGANISME CR�� PAR UNE LOI et/ou UN SERVICE D��TAT et/ou DES MANDATAIRES et/ou DES REPR�SENTANTS de ces organismes � croire, en r�pondant � � Vous � et/ou � � JOHN SMITH � et/ou � TOUT AUTRE TERME par lequel ces organismes M�ONT APPEL�, que je suis, en QUELQUE QUALIT� QUE CE SOIT, personnellement partie � la pr�sente affaire et/ou UNE PERSONNE L�GAL dans la pr�sente affaire, c�est une FAUTE.

PAR CONS�QUENT : Comme je ne sais pas qui sont � Vous � et/ou � JOHN SMITH � et/ou TOUT AUTRE TERME par lequel UN TRIBUNAL et/ou UN ORGANISME CR�� PAR UNE LOI et/ou UN SERVICE D��TAT et/ou DES MANDATAIRES et/ou DES REPR�SENTANTS de ces organismes [CI APR�S, � VOUS �] M�ONT APPEL�, JE DEMANDE RESPECTUEUSEMENT par QUELLE AUTORIT� � VOUS � ME D�SIGNEZ ainsi?

�tant donn� que le CAUTIONNEMENT (CERTIFICAT DE NAISSANCE) a �t� d�pos� aupr�s du TRIBUNAL,DE QUELLE PREUVE le TRIBUNAL dispose t il pour affirmer que, en tant qu�HOMME, ET SEUL B�N�FICIAIRE d�un CERTIFICAT DE NAISSANCE , je d�tiens une S�RET� dans la pr�sente affaire?

�tant donn� que le GOUVERNEMENT est le SEUL SIGNATAIRE du CAUTIONNEMENT (CERTIFICAT DE NAISSANCE) et la SEUL SURET� en tant que FIDUCIAIRE du NOM L�GAL, DE QUELLE PREUVE DISPOSEZ VOUS pour affirmer que je suis un FIDUCIAIRE du NOM L�GAL? DE QUELLE PREUVE DISPOSEZ VOUS pour affirmer que je suis FIDUCIAIRE et que je suis une S�RET� relativement � QUELQUE NOM QUE CE SOIT?

DE QUELLE PREUVE DISPOSEZ VOUS pour affirmer que je suis un REPR�SENTANT, un MANDATAIRE, un FIDUCIAIRE, un ESCLAVE et/ou un EMPLOY� de l��TAT? DE QUELLE PREUVE DISPOSEZ VOUS pour affirmer qu�il existe un MANDAT consenti par le mandant?

DE QUELLE PREUVE DISPOSEZ VOUS pour affirmer qu�il y a eu accord des volont�s, qu�un AVIS EN BONNE ET DUE FORME a �t� donn�, qu�une CONTREPARTIE consid�rable a �t� offerte ou que j�ai L�INTENTION de CONVENIR de quoi que ce soit dans la pr�sente affaire?

Je vous retourne votre OFFRE, que je REFUSE, pour D�CHARGE imm�diate et FERMETURE du dossier.

[AUTORIS� PAR : Seul administrateur autoris�.

J.P. Alexander

FUN FACT: King John placed his seal upon The Articles of The Barons ( later to become The Magna Carta ) in 1215 as a promise "To do right by Alexander." Alexander II of Scotland to clear up any questions about his rights or liberties. Apparently King John had served the SURETY ball to a lot of people that finally threw the ball down and started a war. :-)