The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Mar 11, 2013 6:38 AM

Scott Duncan

THE TENDER FOR LAW � LEGALESE FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

It's feast or famine around here at THE TENDER FOR LAW. This is article number two in as many days!

Derek Moran says that he finds it difficult to believe that I will be able to top the SURETY article...CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

It is almost midnight on Sunday, I'm on the bridge of the Tycho-Brahe, and as I look out onto the lake the water is like a sheet of glass...and it's not even frozen. How can I not produce a superior article tonight? So today, with all my "God" complex, "arrogance", and the knowledge that a host of "pseudo radio" is reading my superior work, and knowing that all he can do is tremble in impotent fury. Things are so good I can cover the bad aspects of law, namely its language.

Some of you may have already started to figure this out, but every single word in a legal document is designed specifically for the purpose of trapping you. Even words like AND, OR, IS, MAY, SHOULD...all of these are traps! And law dictionaries use them perfectly. You may have noticed words like UNDERSTAND don't mean what you think they mean. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in the legal world. What I am about to teach you here is the legalese equivalent of "code breaking".

Let's jump back to the 1500's...

This is the time in our civilization that we often refer to as the Renaissance. The reason the Renaissance occurred is that whole shitloads of people were dying of various forms of plague, and rat-shit-covered scientists were baffled as to why this virulent disease was spreading everywhere.

The practical result of all this was that a whole shitload of people died, and the ones that made it, inherited all their possessions. Efforts to communicate more efficiently became a social priority, because there was lots to do to maintain all this new property, and not enough people to do it. For nearly 800 years "God" was everything, despite his demonstrable lack of assistance in this era. You see the age where "God" was everything was called the "dark ages". Every time I hear an adult with an "imaginary friend" talk about how "ignorant and closed-minded" I am, all I see is an individual that wishes to return to that horrible time.

As there were fewer people in the 1500's, and the Renaissance was just getting underway, inherited art was often used as currency. The next generation had a higher literacy rate than the previous, and so administrative rules were born. It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to see how useful slipping Shakespeare in around the latter half of the 1500's would be to those few who don't actually do any work. The false profession of "law" was born.

You'll notice that nobody ever "does" law. They only "practice" it. They keep practising and practising, but they never quite get it right (that's what you get for not subscribing to the TENDER FOR LAW!).

From the 1500's to the present, there has been an odd phenomenon regarding language. English is a Germanic language that merged with the language of the Angols (we will discuss the Angols and the Picts in another article). Germanic influence on the language of the Angols resulted in the Latin-to-English written in the MAGNA CARTA. But if you try to learn German today, you'll notice an interesting phenomenon. Though the words you use sound startlingly similar, and the really observant can actually pick out the words when German speak and get a general idea of what they're saying, even if they don't speak the language. Except further study shows that the Germans speak "backwards" grammatically. Jumping to the south-west, Spanish, a much simpler language, where every vowel is a syllable, and words say what they mean, but once again, "grammatically backwards". Head north-east in our mental European map...to France...well France is filled with French people so we needn't bother with them. Those French have a different word for everything, and their language is, you guessed it, "grammatically backwards".

Those of you noticing the pattern here will not be using too much intellect when they start posing the question, "Maybe we're the ones that are backwards". And that is almost, but not quite true.

Like a virus, legalese infected the English language. It's encouraged to this day to use legalese to appear "smart". This is done on purpose. It is an insidious piece of social engineering.

They want you to try to use these words without knowing what the little words mean.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LITTLE THINGS.

When you read, you read from left to right on a page. The small words actually exclude part of the sentence. You will notice in my now famous, NOTICE OF MISTAKE, that I always use "and/or". I do this on purpose, because I like to keep my options open.

Maxims of Law say it plainly. The inclusion of one thing excludes all others. The definition of a PERSON in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA is the most hysterical example of this. The definition of PERSON is hidden in the larger scope of "every one". The common law maxim, "The INCLUSION of one is the exclusion of another" means in the context of the CRIMINAL CODE INCLUDES "Her Majesty" AND an "organization". See for yourself:

*** THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA*** �every one�, �person� and �owner�

� quiconque �, � individu �, � personne � et � propri�taire �

�every one�, �person� and �owner�, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;

**********************************

You will find this by searching for R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 under the Interpretations Section.

In reality, what this says is that a "PERSON" is "HER MAJESTY". Unless you are "HER MAJESTY" people answering to these acts and statutes are simply "performing these acts" (remember Shakespeare) on "HER MAJESTY's" behalf, much like the GOVERNOR GENERAL PERFORMS royal duties on the Queen's behalf. This is why the GOVERNOR GENERAL is always a chosen CITIZEN, and not an elected official.

The GOVERNOR GENERAL ACTS as the Queen when the Queen is not in town. This of course has nothing to do with "HER MAJESTY".

When dealing with the LAW, in CANADA anyway, you are always dealing with "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA", which as we all know is a CORPORATE ORGANIZATION.

"OR" means you have a choice, "one" OR the "other", but not BOTH.

So, in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, a PERSON can be "HER MAJESTY". A PERSON can be "HER MAJESTY", but a PERSON must also be an "ORGANIZATION". Notice it does not say "OR" an organization in the above interpretation. Confused yet?

That happens in Legalese. Let's, instead of looking at this dry, depressing CRIMINAL CODE stuff, look at something happy, exciting and real.

I can say with absolute certainty that no woman on the planet has loved me more than Tara. However, no amount of love would compel her to JOINDER herself to a "BILL OF LADING", and hand it over to the GOVERNMENT. That means "getting married" (for the stupid amongst you). I'm sorry if that sounds condescending (that means talking down to people).

Now think about this marriage transaction. The marriage INCLUDES "Scott" AND "Tara", not "Scott" OR "Tara". This means marriage makes you effectively ONE PERSON UNDER THE LAW. Since the marriage actually consists of THREE ENTITIES, "Scott" AND "Tara", which by its nature EXCLUDES the GOVERNMENT, still remains an "ORGANIZATION". A marriage ORGANIZES these "entities" into their respective roles. If "Scott" AND "Tara" remain "Scott AND Tara", the GOVERNMENT HAS NO STANDING. However, if Tara sought a divorce, the MARRIED PERSON is no longer "Scott AND Tara", and the GOVERNMENT gets to intervene.

This most certainly wouldn't be the case if it was "Scott" OR "Tara". Therefore, the above CRIMINAL CODE definition of "PERSON" defines HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ***INSERT PROVINCE HERE***, which is both "HER MAJESTY" AND an "ORGANIZATION".

Every one who is CHARGED in CANADA is usually CHARGED by their PROVINCE. For instance, if I were to take the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD lawyer "Heather" and bash her skull into jelly with a ball-peen hammer (as she so richly deserves), I would likely be CHARGED with HOMICIDE in the JURISDICTION where I chose to do this "skull-bashing". As I'm a profoundly lazy man I probably wouldn't travel, so ONTARIO would be the JURISDICTION. This makes "HER MAJESTY" AND the "ORGANIZATION", "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO". Since all ACTS and STATUTES fall to PUBLIC SERVANTS who are ACTING on behalf of "HER MAJESTY", this makes all PUBLIC SERVANTS who are ACTING on behalf of "HER MAJESTY" effectively "HER MAJESTY". HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO is in fact, an "ORGANIZATION". You now have the qualifications for a "PERSON" as defined in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

Just as the "marriage" consists of "Scott AND Tara", which effectively creates an "ORGANIZATION", "HER MAJESTY" and the organization defined as "IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO" create a "PERSON" which YOU are presumed to be a PUBLIC SERVANT of. This effectively means all CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS are simply administrative processes for that "ORGANIZATION". The NOTICE OF MISTAKE effectively removes that presumption.

You now see how powerful the words "and" and "or" are. If AQUILAE says the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE is "Scott AND Tara", this would mean neither of us individually could act as CAPTAIN, but "Scott and Tara" could BOTH be CAPTAIN. This means that all ORDERS from the CAPTAIN must come from BOTH Scott AND Tara. However, the AQUILAE TRUST is not a stupid document, and the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE is, in fact, Scott OR Tara. This means that when Tara speaks, everyone shuts the fuck up...including me. It's Scott OR Tara - not BOTH!

"AND" refers to BOTH. "OR" does not. This is why putting "and/or" gives you the options; and since the AQUILAE TRUST is pretty much perfect, here in reality, the CAPTAIN of the TYCHO-BRAHE is, in fact, Scott and/or Tara.

This means I can ACT as CAPTAIN, Tara can ACT as CAPTAIN, and we can BOTH ACT as CAPTAIN. Recipients of this POLICY have NO STANDING to contest when we assume and/or drop the role of CAPTAIN. Why do we do this, you ask? Because FUCK OFF, THAT'S WHY! If you're even looking at the AQUILAE TRUST, you're a fucking TRUSTEE; and the only reason you should be looking at the AQUILAE TRUST is to find the best way to "Shut the fuck up and do what you're told" for Scott and/or Tara....

And that is how you make a powerful LEGAL document with the words "and/or", and the reason why we write things this way. Use AND & OR to restrict other parties. Use BOTH (and/or) to free yourself.

If your document is stating the terms, make it as open as possible for YOU, and as restrictive as possible for every OTHER PARTY. If somebody is thought of as a "good lawyer", it means they have mastered this skill. Were I to be practising law, I would be a very, very good lawyer.

One of our loyal readers made the horrendous mistake of using different words, in another post. Instead of NOTICE OF MISTAKE he said, NOTICE OF "ERROR", which means something completely different. If you look up the legal definition of "mistake" you will notice amongst other things (inter alia) the legal definition of "MISTAKE" ends with ", or error". If you are going to learn from the TENDER FOR LAW, you must always remember the Number 1 Rule of the Universe:

SCOTT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

You can save yourself a lot of time by NOT second-guessing Scott, and proceeding to figure out WHY Scott is right.

This also means that when I present a document you should presume it's perfect, and that changing it will fuck you over in ways you don't even understand. "NOTICE OF ERROR" is not "NOTICE OF MISTAKE". You don't change the document because you think it "sounds cooler". You don't change the document because you think another cooler-sounding word means the same thing; and I will always interpret such changes as TENDERING AN OFFER to amuse me, by allowing me to berate you for your stupidity, and to laugh at you when a court kicks your ass. This is a TENDER I will gladly ACCEPT and volunteer for, with the added bonus that I will execute my duties in this TENDER to the best of my abilities. I'm really good at that too.

Taking what you have just learned here and reading through ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, will reveal some very interesting and insidious things. You're better off serving me as a slave, because unlike ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, I won't lie to you, and I'll tell you exactly what I mean.

So there you have it, AND & OR - two hidden keys to legalese and the knowledge that "include also excludes"...and before you ask EXCLUDES includes all that remains. Use EXCLUDE to get rid of everything else; use INCLUDE to restrict to a single point/item.

The guy with the fake "charity" seeking legal advice actually asked what TENDER means, and it occurs to me that those who AREN'T lying to me might wonder too. TENDER in the context of Law means, "to present to PERSON, an unconditional offer, to enter into a contract". Look at those words, then look at a bank note. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER means, "THIS NOTE IS AN UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR LAW". That is why the group name is so clever. ;) This group is ABOUT that UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR LAW. It's ALL money.

Money is JOINDER. JOINDER MAY (Read as: "ALWAYS DOES") INCLUDE SURETY!

THIS is the LEGALESE you need to know. NO MORE. Your ONLY goal should be to REMOVE and/or AVOID SURETY when dealing in commerce and/or LAW. WHEN YOU SIGN A CHEQUE, you are TENDERING SURETY. A BANK NOTE does NOT THENDER SURETY as the SURETY is signed for, by SOMEBODY ELSE.

If you have OTHER LEGALESE questions, post them in the comments. OFF TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED. LEGALESE IS A COMPLEX SUBJECT, SO BE PREPARED FOR VANISHING POSTS, and/or BANNING if you do post something OFF TOPIC.

Read Comments

Eamonn O Brien

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! :)

Derek Moran

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).....?"

Maximus Legis

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 :-)

Sino General

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.

Chad Brodgesell

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

August le Blanc

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

Pete Daoust

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

Stuart Stone

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

Dean Clifford

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. :)

Dean Clifford

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

Dean Clifford

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....

Harry Wombat

@ 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?

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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).

Harry Wombat

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?

Scott Duncan

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.

Pete Daoust

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..??

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

Adam Thomas

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.

Scott Duncan

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?!?

Jeff Roggers

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 .

Chad Brodgesell

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.

Pete Daoust

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

Anibal Jose Baez

<<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

Rick Hiltz

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

Maximus Legis

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 .

Rick Hiltz

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

Matthew Gundry

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?