SEEN by 41 LIKED by 12 ...seriously? Only 1/3rd of you? *sigh* IN OTHER NEWS: 66% of THE TENDER FOR LAW readers deserve to rot in a corporate jail!

I'm not a fan of "liking" things on Facebook... I think the fact that there are people who click it like it's their second nature puts me off... Doesn't mean I didn't read and "like" your articles man... Chin up! :)

All that being said- and i will post it when i come across it next, there is a Maxim that basically states all laws/statues will be written in such a way that the LAYMAN can/will be able to understand them, so...."Your Honour, let alone i was unaware of that i worked AND/OR was employed by The Queen AND/OR The CROWN, they didnt teach me in grade-school/high-school AND/OR University to talk like this..so how am i expected to be able to UNDERSTAND such obfuscating language which contradicts the Maxim-of-Law that says (LAYMAN's terms).....?"

First impressions/conflicts in my mind that come up here...How does legalese fit in with 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' & 'Equity Looks At The Intent Rather Than The Form'?!?

In my experience which is limited, form is everything to these twats. There is a Maxim which says that substance takes precedence over form but they ignore that fact. Unless I guess you raise that Maxim. A friend and I were denied our defence by a Sheriff (Scottish Judge) who said "You may have a very good defence but it must be in the proper form, fuck off and get a lawyer" meaning there way of presenting it on paper. In other words our legalese was shit. I would have fought him on that but my buddy was doing the talking, or not as the case may be because his rectum started chomping button holes in his shirt tail at the first sign of testing from the bench and he choked :-)

The court can only SEE what is before them. GIVE THEM A COPY OF THE MAXIMS! Ask if they UNDERSTAND them.

I had him all briefed with a crib sheet and he shat his pants at the first hurdle, noted for future encounters Scott. :-P

2 questions....1. In the second last paragraph, did you mean "THENDER" or should it read "TENDER" And 2. Can you please post the surety article, I cannot find it...Thanks

Shit. A typo. Thanks Chris. I hate Dragon Naturally speaking. I really really do. it's like a automated typo-generator :\

It's right underneath this one in the list. Look for the plug for "family law" where Dean Clifford lies about MOTIONS. ...no really. He does.

I have to admit, I am really not comfortable about motions after i read the def in black's law.

I am a Queen and don't ask their permission

Yet Dean Clifford squawks about them as if they are the ONLY ANSWER? REALLY? This is fresh from the "WHAT THE FUCK" dept.

I must confess ALL of the written law just irritates the hell out of me. I am very instinctual so words easily confuse and escape me.

It's hard to provide clarity when people whom others trust, BLATANTLY LIE! HE KNOWS BETTER! I cannot stress this enough. HE KNOWS better!

I don't really trust anything but my instinct. I confess to looking into info even from you

I would think he knows better, especially with the experience he has had.

...and the host sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth.

as a king or queen would one even file affidavit

i read most of the comments and here is what Scott Duncan says, If you have OTHER LEGALESE questions, post them in the comments. Now, i dont recall seeing many questions. I could be mistaken. So, legalese questions would be. Judges love giving the courts opinion on something, so what does this mean when they say it ? i have an opinion on it but lets hear from the rest.

Above post was referring to a statement a Judge could make like " so yours one of those freeman..." Which can also be taken as opinion. And bias.

Jason F. LeBlanc , Above post was referring to a statement a Judge could make like " so yours one of those freeman..." Which can also be taken as opinion. And bias. yes and also PROFILING which I think is an OFFENSE under their criminal code, I have to look that one up though.

ChiefRock Sino General - OPINION is the court's product. OPINION is not FACT. Try to get a RULING based on FACTS, and they will not do it. It's "illegal".

But what is the defintion of opinion ?

In a LEGALESE context, opinion is ANY document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right, which is written by a "JUSTICE". It is ALWAYS based on "reasons to believe". THAT is yet another example as to why BELIEF IS EVIL.

The brutal context rules are for the CAS theread ONLY. No worries.

...I don't "get" the time, I have to MAKE it. I bother because I was ORDERED to bother. See the "I need to make something very clear" thread for details ;)

REASON. A faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions. Web- ster. Also an inducement, motive, or ground for action, as in the phrase "reasons for an appeal." Miller v. Miller, 8 Johns. (N.Y.) 77. TO. This is ordinarily a word of exclusion, when used in describing premises; it excludes the term- inus mentioned. Littlefield v. Hubbard, 120 Me. 226, 113 A. 304, 306; Sinford v. Watts, 123 Me. 230, 122 A. 573, 574; Skeritt Inv. Co. v. City of Engle- wood, 79 Colo. 645, 248 P. 6, 8. It may be a word of inclusion, and may also mean "into." People v. Poole, 284 Ill. 39, 119 N.E. 916, 917; Thompson v. Reynolds, 59 Utah, 416, 204 P. 516, 518. BELIEF. A conviction of the truth of a proposi- tion, existing subjectively in the mind, and induced by argument, persuasion, or proof addressed to thejudgment. Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 92 Latrobe v. J. H. Cross Co., D.C.Pa., 29 F.2d 210, 212. A conclusion arrived at from external sources after weighing probability. Ex parte State exrel. Attorney General, 100 So. 312, 313, 211 Ala. 1. Black�s 4th

that was exactly it......when I received the first QRA letter back in Jan. 2010, this is exactly what that letter said: WE HAVE GOOD REASONS TO BELEIVE THAT YOU ARE NOT DECLARING ALL YOUR REVENUES MR. DAOUST............lol

Thanks @Jason F. LeBlanc BELIEF. A conviction of the truth of a proposition, existing subjectively in the mind, and induced by argument, persuasion, or proof addressed to the judgment. Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 92 Latrobe v. J. H. Cross Co., D.C.Pa., 29 F.2d 210, 212. A conclusion arrived at from external sources after weighing probability. Ex parte State exrel. Attorney General, 100 So. 312, 313, 211 Ala. 1. What immediately sticks out in my mind is the 'existing subjectively in the mind' part, by introducing subjectivity, should be grounds to recuse a judge/justice etc, especially when we only want to deal with objective facts & truth

Along with other glaring holes in much of what I just had the misfortune to read, I would like to point out that contrary to this particularly interesting statement by Scott: "Germanic influence on the language of the Angols resulted in the English written in the MAGNA CARTA."....I will only point out that the Magna Carta was written in Latin, and the English Language did not exist at all at this point, and did not become a unified language until the very late 1500's and early 1600's. Now, was that ignorance....a lie, or both? It's about as accurate, however, as most of the things I just read in this article. For the people who want to follow this path.....enjoy. :)

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/latin.htm

Again, Quote - Scott: "Yet Dean Clifford squawks about them as if they are the ONLY ANSWER? REALLY?" Really, so not only do I squawk, but I believe that motions are the ONLY answer? People who want to believe sensationalists, are welcome to it. I might also suggest you start watching Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, if you prefer sensationalism and preposterous claims. Of course, they cannot compare to Scott at this point, as he has that market locked down. Also, yes, motions have worked JUST fine in the past to shut court down. Again, people can believe what they want, I am not arguing. Choose your path, and enjoy. Also, as for everyone else expecting an immediate reply to most of this absolute nonsense otherwise apparently the nonsense stands as truth, I have this to point out. I WORK FOR A FUCKING LIVING. I'm FUCKING TIRED when I get home, and I'm even MORE fucking tired if this celebration of foolishness that goes on here. You all want a fucking magic phrase, and think it's all about how your documents are worded or phrased, FFS. All people are capable of around here is talking shit, and THAT is why most of you are doomed. Tender for law?!?!? Really!?!?!? You honestly think that the Chinese are subject to our law if they hold Canadian currency in reserve, or that they are subject to the USA for holding their currency in reserve. You think that the use of a dollar bill binds you to statutes? Enjoy the stagnant reality that is about to become your education in law. Good, I'm full of shit. Bingo...see ya later. hahaha

Pierre, there WAS no English back then. They wrote it in Latin because that is what the only people that could read or write KNEW. Keep following insanity, let me know how it goes. So....was that ignorance or a lie...that "Germanic influence on the language of the Angols resulted in the English written in the MAGNA CARTA?"...being a document written in LATIN! Maybe I should mouth off now, and talk shit, and demand to know whether that, among every other glaring error on that post was ignorance or a lie. WHY ARE YOU LYING SCOTT......WHY ARE YOU LYING!?!?!?!?!?!?! HEY EVERYONE, LOOK HOW OBNOXIOUS IN A NON WITTY MANNER I CAN BE!!!!!!!! Good grief....

@ Scott Duncan "The court can only SEE what is before them."....This is why we must serve your Trust. By this I obviously mean that should we be willing to speak nonsense to you (READ court), then the court can't see us. If the Court that we are attending, had a JUDGE that was fortunately feeling extra generous (because, just the night before, he was served weed and a couple of effective woman from a happy fan), he might be willing to yell at the schmuck that he somewhat senses a person who is ignorant AND for some reason does not choose to not INCLUDE his ignorance from the proceedings.So he informs the sod that he can't see anything that was presented that makes sense. He can't see a thing that the sod presented that is relevant to the matter. Therefore, he must decide to EXCLUDE equity and treat him as another PUBLIC SCHOOL recipient that is only one more worker bee for the QUEEN bee.Such is the lot in life of those worker bees that serve the QUEEN. Am I on track here?

MAGNA CARTA was written in LATIN, Vernacular French, Gaelic, and Angol. Fuck off Dean Clifford. MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM Latin, Gaelic and Angol. Yes there was no "English back then". English evolved through the ANGOLS and Germanic influence to create the language you speak today. EVERY TRANSLATION OF MAGNA CARTA resulted in the translation we see today. Readable, NO "U"'s and Not backward like Shakespeare. Containing NO WORDS like Shakespearian Speech, and since LIBERTATUM was the basis for ENGLISH law The FIRST English version was as I said. Now let's talk about how you are lying about APPLICATIONS and MOTIONS not bringing you into jurisdiction. I notice you don't touch on that.

Coming soon. MAGNA CARTA FOR DUMMIES. It is the ONLY surviving LEGAL document relevant to TODAY. You know...where we live? Where we are, and where APPLICATIONS (begging) and MOTIONS (which only a PARTY can file) Bring you into jurisdiction. The first English translations of the MAGNA CARTA (and the Bible) appeared in 1380 (although there are reportedly earlier ones). And yes there was English in the 1380s. I was referring to the source documents which appeared in the 1200s. It was NOT translated into "Shakespearean" English...because that is when Legalese was inserted. History was REWRITTEN in the 1500s and few historic documents can be relied on. NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with you LYING ABOUT APPLICATIONS AND MOTIONS.

It's not a "constitution" so don't focus too much on it. Nobody was considered anything but a serf, except the nobles. It was written so they don't fight amongst themselves.

it is more for an understanding on how laws are written and on understanding words.

For everyone. Find Legalese in it? :D

nice piece of paper.....wish I could have found this thing first...would exchange it for a few bitcoins... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Magna_Carta.jpg

Read Shakespeare, LOTS of legalese there. NOTHING before that. It's just not written AS "legalese", it was written make you use the WORDS. It's why the Public Fool system still teaches it in high school, even though they barely teach anything else (and every kid passes).

Wasnt the MAGNA CARTA eventually amended into what i think is the fourth-version that survives today - the CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM...?

Yes Derek Moran ...and still they do not do right by Alexander.

Alexander?.. as in, Alexander the Great?

Derek: THIS Alexander - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Scotland To do right by Alexander, is the LAST Amendment to the FIRST MAGNA CARTA.

Yes. He is lying to have people rounded up as near as I can tell.

LAYMEN TERMS "They", the controllers of THEIR legal language (to which most of us have ignorantly bound ourselves to), have effectively turned the world into a stage, in which we are merely players. If we can control the stage, through understanding their language (or defining our own as "They" do, we can EFFECTIVELY become the DIRECTOR of the play which which "They" created AND became the SURETY for AND we can create our own definitions which EXCLUDE their nonsense. "They" accepted SURETY for "their" language when they affixed their signature AND/OR PRESENTED a verbal OATH to accept their OFFICE. It's beginning to APPEAR that this language which "They" have perverted for their own means is akin to a game of tag. In their game of tag, instead of being vaguely "it", the person who is "it" (read the ID-I-"IT" who took on the SURETY) quickly wants to tag someone else so that the SURETY is no longer theirs. That is the lot of those that will bound by the game and don't make a game that he AND/OR she would like to play. The game of tag "They" made is designed to have us to publicly "perform" the role of ignoramus AND SURETY. Feedback Scott? Am I waking up a tad with this Layman's synopsis?

Hey cara.... hahahahahahahahahaha.... I enjoy pushing your button . Hahahaha

So Scott, if I may please. Dean Clifford is still an Aquilae Trustee isn't he? Why? Why is he doing what he's doing & NOT LISTENING TO YOU?? WTF?

I think Dean and Scott, without gettin' nasty about it, would make a great 2-hour show debating this stuff- MOTIONS, APPLICATIONS, WRITS, PRAECIPES..then they can hug-it-out like Ari and E. ;)

I'd insist on a "pay-per-view" type setup. I have Boats that need gas. That shit ain't cheap!

Adam Thomas, AQUILAE only owns the NAME. The government cannot use it, because it is now NON-NEGOTIABLE. The conditions of his ratification, is that he is FREE. He can do what he wishes. To do otherwise would be a breach of MY duties. Dean Clifford does not serve AQUILAE, but "DEAN CLIFFORD" most CERTAINLY does.

AQUILAE "owns" over 400 names, collected since 1982. All serve in different capacities.

so were they holding him thru DEAN CLIFFORD or thru Dean CLIFFORD or thru Dean Clifford

Aha. Of course. I see now.... I think. Are ye both FRIENDS still? Things are getting weirder & weirder. Why is he lying ??

Theoretically I could dump half a billion dollars into the economy, and unless it was spent on purchasing MY skillset/value, it would reduce the country's "wealth" by that much.

If the NAME is own by another trust, its the same as the NAME is own by JAMAICA instead of CANADA....or Quebec....when a Jamaican get pulled over by a cop here.....he only have his ID from Jamaica.....what the heck the cops are doing in those case.....they cant give him a traffic ticket..??

so Dean must have some type of ID with AQUILAE....No ???

Cara: My war is, and ever shall be with the current "GOVERNMENT", which is unlawful since Michelle Jean PROROGUED it. They are still "standing by" in any legal sense. The "Government of Canada" is now "The Harper Government". That's not media weasel-words, it's POLICY. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-re-brand-government-in-stephen-harpers-name/article569222/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/04/pol-harper-govt-brand.html They have targeted Dean Clifford, so the second they try to MONETIZE the name, there is a HUGE legal clusterfuck. I stand by for that event.

Nobody pays attention to this shit because they are too busy having their children stolen, and their pockets emptied.

Martin Sutton, got him out. Anything ELSE said about his release, is simply rectally-inspired.

I wanted him on a "Ghost Run" (Where they move him from jail-to-jail every 3 or 4 days, in order to boost budget numbers for the next year.) They do it all the time to people awaiting trial on a detention order.

A ghost run=monetization.

Dean Clifford is just one of several "traps" I have lying around for "The Harper Government". The courts have rotted away from the inside though. The options are limited, and they act arbitrarily now.

Scott. Did the COURTS make any money out of Liening Dean? I know Aquillae did but by the sounds of it only the prisons did & maybe the maggot kunts...ooooppss I mean the copper kunts

No money was made by ANYBODY in Dean Clifford's case because the transaction is not complete. 364 days from the day the charges were STAYED, the case will close as a written-off debt to all parties with financial interest. (Crown Lawyers, Remand centre, etc.) NOBODY made ANY money and the government loses the money on the books.

Well then who's plan backfired then? Hahahahaha. Noice.

So, a month in jail with NO return is worth the government having an imbalance on a ledger? Someone has their priorities skewed!

It could have been much longer & much worse for Dean. He's out & thats a good result.. I know Aquillae has lucked out temporarily on the negative return but im sure that there will be recourse with it all soon. Just have to wait I guess for now.

Ahhh Scott, I wasn't laughing at your trap I was laughing at the Harper govt ignorance & stupidity.

RE: "HARPER GOVERNMENT" - Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister's spokesman, said in an e-mail that the style is "a long-standing practice that accurately reflects the government's leadership, regardless of who was the prime minister." ...WHAT?!?

So what really is their LEADERSHIP & STYLE then? FaScIsM.

Brand corporatism

FASCISM and CORPORATISM are synonyms. Ask this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

State owning the corporatiin to the CORPoration owning the STATE.

Cara brought up an EXCELLENT question in this thread that looked like it fell-through-the-cracks, Scott Duncan... Cara Small Atherton: as a king or queen, would one even file (an) affidavit?

cara yes I am a king and when I file my notice of mistake I use an affidavit for them to recognize the notice of mistake in a courtroom. which I get it notarized and I also mail it to the court registered mail .

Just as an opinion regarding the original post. It should be the FIRST mandatory reading when wrapping ones brain around the CORE of their trickery and how to avoid most pitfalls. Comprehension of this post makes every thing so much easier to grasp. Thanks for taking the time Scott of writing it.

Hey....just bring this one alive, while WAITING on a new one :P

Dean v Scott 2013. Should we cite this case?

Scott you are- Sine Pari!!!!!!! Thank you for Imparting to us!!!!

I am starting a corporation. I am understanding I should issue 4 shares, correct? But to whom? CHRIS SCHULTE or a trust?

aren't you putting CHRIS SCHULTE out of commission?

Oppssss...you should wait Chris, just saying :D

You have to put 1 of these share to PIERRE DAOUST :D

Yes Gail, but isn't CHRIS SCHULTE's last job to start the corp?

Wait for what Pete?

hmm good question Chris Schulte, I guess you could give a share as you are approving the use of the name, and the trust would be private?

I am thinking ALL the shares. Where should ALL the shares go. In the states, I am pretty sure that taxation is conducted differently if 80+% of the shares are held by one entity

Wait for what Pete?

Is that a US thing having at least 4 shares..i must look that up

Not that I know of....I thought that is how it is done....

Pete Daoust!!!!!!!

WHO cares about the shareholders ? :/

ME!!! :-)

LOL....

9111-1111 Quebec Inc has 1 shareholders, and its happen to be PIERRE DAOUST

Make CAPPY 1 share holder ;-)

1: A coprpration has SHAREHOLDERS who are the BENEFICIARIES. You determine the number of shares when the corporation is chartered, ans YES you can have ONE SHARE in a corporation. Ammendments to the charter can change this. 2: A corporation has DIRECTORS with titles (TRUSTEES), and you can be one. You have surely seen "Voting Shares" when examining share purchases of a corporation. If not, you need to invest more. 3: Since YOU (Or rather your PERSON) are the only VALUE in this corporation, you should be SECURED. -- Scott Duncan

Good shit Pete

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CDYQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs-corp.com%2Ffaqsindex.html&ei=j8o_UpOOGsqCyQG9pIGwDQ&usg=AFQjCNG-M-v3q-HgKuXRt2vdgjlM5oX4gg

Why S-corp? Why not C-corp?

I couldn't find one about see car but that was just an example

C Corp

The amount of shares is arbitrary the suggestion I received from Scott to have 4

The reason for four shares is each board member gets one and then you give one away

Acting secretary acting president acting treasurer

hmmmm....I am sure I read somewhere recently that if any entity own more than 80% share in a corporation, the taxation changes and is beneficial.

<<1: Establish a trust 2: Establish a corporation - In the Charter, assign the role of the corporation to HOLD the trust, and establish the "Law" guidelines (You get to make your own up) as regards keeping the trust. 3: Get ANY accountant to manage the books of the corporation. You direct the corporation as FIRST DIRECTOR, and establish roles (President/CEO Vice President, etc) which is how the UNITED STATES was formed. Side Note: EVER NOTICE that when the US "Liberates" a country, they NEVER install their form of government? It's always a PARLIAMENT they install. Figure out why that is, and things will be clearer. USE THE U.S. AS A MODEL FOR YOUR CORPORATION. ... No YOU do that. The accountant EXECUTES YOUR TASKS within the framework. To establish a trust, write it down, and have it witnessed and notarized. The end. Only shareholders of your corporation are recognized by the trust. Stop letting OTHERS define YOUR trust/claim. Call it Le Trust DuPierre, for all I care. IT'S YOURS and your CORPORATION'S.>> Scott's gold nuggets

what does the queen have to do with this she has no authority Statute of West Minister took care of that in 1931 .........But before that all Governor generals were British appointees after enactment Mackenzie King appointed the first Canadian to the position to give the impression that we were some how still tied to the monarchy .............Victoria and Elizabeth have no power they never did so the crown they refer to in court is a fraud if they are referring to the queen

They NEVER refer to the Queen. They Refer to HER MAJESTY, THE QUEEN, IN RIGHT OF (Insert administrative zone here). It's a TRUST (Keeper of the Faith).

I'm sure Scott Duncan will correct this if it's wrong but my understanding (right or wrong) here in the UK when action is taken by the "Crown" it's the Crown Corporation of London. Forgive me if this is shite left over from old freedumb thinking .

That is correct. "The CROWN" is merely a corporate facilitator.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/constitution/lawreg-loireg/p1t171.html IS this all?

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=facilitator

A point from the first few comments... Dean is in jail. Scott Duncan is not

But he's 11th on THE list! :P

so s the crown gender neutral because in the SWM it is desci9bed as his majesty and now it described as being her majesty . Both the GG`s and the Lt GG of Ontario's office have explained to me that the crown is the Queen as have the courts............But it is also worth noting that there is no sovereign the Parliament of England engaged in a war with One of their Kings at one point eventually beheading him .........Mary Queen of th Scot`s suffered the same fate

http://web.archive.org/web/20070124225257/http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp

These "Zombie" articles are great. When I read them now, I can actually understand them.

Lol. " I'm sorry if that sounds condescending (that means talking down to people)".

Scott Duncan. I was wondering if a simple amendment to the marriage could be to change the AND to AND/OR. Would that not put us back to having 2 persons with the choice of either (AND/OR)?

If using gov / central bank issued legal tender to pay debts means that the payee avoids becoming surety, then I take it that use of a self-signed promissory note does mean the payee becomes surety. What about using gold, silver or crypto coin as payment? Who or what is the surety in those scenarios?

There's no 3rd party involved in cryptos. ....

So, gold, silver, crypto coin et al is the thing of value therefore no need to go looking for surety because the other party already has it...

Bumping these to the top for the newbies.

:)

Cara Small's last question......the answer to that?

Relevant to original post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform

Dumb down more please.... :/

No.

It hurts already...

>:-{

BUMP

.