The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Mar 13, 2013 4:39 AM

Scott Duncan

THE TENDER FOR LAW � CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY [C.A.S] FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This article is what we like to call an "emergency article" in as much as Dean Clifford has publicly and blatantly lied about family services and the law. Before we get started we are going to refer to the JURISDICTION I am most familiar with. You will find mirrors of this in any JURISDICTION that uses a world reserve currency.

If you live in Buttfuck Montana I will not be able to point you to the ACT and/or STATUTE that says what I am going to show you here.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/English/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm

The URL above will point you to the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO so you can sing along...

Before I start let's review a few LEGAL DEFINITIONS. Those who have been studying the Maxims of Law will be familiar with the Maxim that says, "The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of everything else." Like all good LEGAL documents I'm going to give away the answer right at the beginning and explain why this is true.

Every one who has been a victim of the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY has been profoundly aware that FRAUD is occurring, and has been unaware of how to identify this FRAUD. In order to have a child removed from a mother and/or father's custody an ORDER must be issued from the court that cites this very ACT. There are exceptions to this RULE (imminent physical threat to a child, WARRANT from a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE inter alia), but that's not what we are covering here. In this writing I am only going to focus on the long, drawn-out, cash-producing process laughingly called family law.

In every ACT and STATUTE, words are defined in the context of that ACT and/or STATUTE. If the word "light" is defined in a STATUTE as "darkness", then in the context of that STATUTE, light means darkness. A "JUSTICE" orders the kidnapping (and it is kidnapping) and/or alienation of a child with an ORDER in the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. So let's look at the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. What does "ORDER" mean in the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO? Let's go see the interpretations section and its definitions....

�ORDER� INCLUDES a REFUSAL to make an ORDER; (�arr�t�, ordre et ordonnance�)...WHAT?

...just looking through the ACT to see if there's a bit more detail here...nope, that's it. That's all it says. I assume the parties who drafted this ACT were never taught that you should never use the word you're defining in a definition.

In THE TENDER FOR LAW our standard operating procedure is to look up every single word, even if you think you know what it means; and in every case it always turn out that you don't. So let's go through that sentence, one word at a time. In our fresh new definition of "ORDER" we are "INCLUDING" something, which in legalese means we are EXCLUDING everything else. In this case we are including a REFUSAL(?) How can you include a refusal? (hey don't look at me...I didn't write this...I'm just telling you what it says)

Since refusal is not defined in this ACT we'll have to step up to a more general level. Let's see what Black's Law 9th Edition has to say about the word "refusal":

"An opportunity to accept or reject something before it is offered to others; the right or privilege of having this opportunity."...well, there's a privilege worth waiving! In fact I dare say that of all the privileges and benefits one would wish to waive, this should at least be in your top five. Dean Clifford and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth ("How do I sound"? - Tony Butros, HOW TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD-Ep13 Family Law www.blogtalkradio.com) are selling this as a benefit.

In fact, they're asking you to beg for it when they tell you to use APPLICATIONS and MOTIONS (...Yeh, you like that don't 'ya bitch!).

Rather than begging for your own victimization, a little effort tearing this apart will serve you much better. Since we're talking about ORDERS and MAKING ORDERS let's take a quick peek at the word "MAKE" since we have Black's Law lying open here...

MAKE, according to Black's Law 9th Edition, "To legally perform, as by executing, signing, OR delivering (a document) (to make a contract)"

Oh look, they use the word "OR"! Don't you just love it when they give you a selection? Always remember legalese does NOT actually "lie", it simply presumes you know what the words mean (as a CIVILIAN! HAR! Oh, I slay me!).

So when a "JUSTICE" MAKES an ORDER he gets a selection from the "bullshit buffet" that is the LAW, but he can only pick one, OR the other. Neither of these options actually apply to YOU. By ACCEPTING the ORDER you are in fact, EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS to "BENEFIT" from it, before everyone else can. Yes, you are accepting SURETY before anyone else gets a chance; and while I'm not one to tell you how to run your affairs, I personally think that that would be a MISTAKE! And we all know what to do about MISTAKES.

Now I want you to "fire up" that little lump of protoplasm you laughingly call a brain, and ask yourself, "Which makes more sense? Begging to be part of the JURISDICTION and all of its "BENEFITS" or following the Number 1 Rule of the Universe (Scott is ALWAYS right! Especially as regards LAW). Lawyers used to come to me when they got in over their heads, and I was shoved A LOT of payola under the table for my services. Single mothers reading this know how to express their gratitude. You may APPLY to Tara for the opportunity to provide remuneration.

So let's go through this fascinating definition one more time, translated to laymen's terms:

In the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO a "JUSTICE" will issue an opportunity to ACCEPT a BENEFIT before everyone else. So basically ORDER in this context actually OFFERS YOU the RIGHT TO DECLINE. I guarantee that none of you who have had your children stolen, DECLINED that ORDER. In fact I dare say you ACCEPTED it. That would be a MISTAKE.

Issuing a NOTICE OF MISTAKE will correct this, because another Maxim of Law says, "That which can be done, can be undone". Serving by registered mail a modified NOTICE OF MISTAKE to all participating PARTIES, will remedy this MISTAKE.

And now we will cover our new "word of the day", "PETITION":

PETITION, according to Black's Law 9th Edition, "A formal written request presented to a court or other official body."

Those few of you who actually have a fucking clue who I am, know that among my many titles is ADMIRAL. I exercise my RIGHTS and DUTIES strictly through ADMIRALTY, so I totally know what I'm talking about here. I, as an ADMIRAL, have TRUSTEES SERVING me. I do not bark ORDERS at my TRUSTEES. I only do that to my inferiors. My TRUSTEES are most certainly NOT my inferiors. When I need a task performed for AQUILAE I REQUEST. Returning to the definition of PETITION you will see that this is also a request. I therefore PETITION my TRUSTEES to execute tasks on behalf of the TRUST. TRUSTEES do not serve an ADMIRAL; an ADMIRAL SERVES HIS TRUSTEES. The "payment" for this "service" is the TRUSTEE'S OATH to GRANT ALL MY REQUESTS. It is the COURT's DUTY to do the same.

This group's name "THE TENDER FOR LAW" is actually a translation to layman's terms of "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER". They mean the same thing. So naturally money comes into the picture. Remember our group's Maxim..."Follow the money". In this particular case we don't want to follow any money, we want to stop the flow of money.

All of you have heard the old adage, "The buck stops here." Translated to legalese, "the buck stops here" = "NON-NEGOTIABLE". In the construction of our PETITION we are going to contain, in its body, a cessation of negotiation. When dissecting documents that have a financial interest, we have learned that documents signed by a "PERSON" are considered NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS under the LAW.

Therefore in our PETITION, the first words that appear should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. This is similar to putting "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" on the top of a document. NEGOTIATE does not mean bargain or haggle, it means to EXECUTE a financial transaction. NON-NEGOTIABLE literally means "the buck stops here". Reading through Black's Law will show you numerous types of petitions, and reading them in the context demonstrated here will make these petitions very, very clear...even a chick can do it.

At this point I would like everyone to know that I DO NOT provide LEGAL service; I only point you in the right direction. Therefore I cannot draw up a petition for you as I did with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE. NOTICE OF MISTAKE existed in the real world before I typed up any document regarding it. Therefore I was quoting, which means I have not stepped outside of any LEGAL restriction. When The second I issue a petition you can bet your sorry, incompetent asses I'll be quoting it here. Until that happens though, you'd best use the comments section to ask any questions you may have. For the sake of your children do not listen to Dean and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth; they are deliberately misleading you! When you discover this is true (and you will if you listen to them), you are welcomed to board any AQUILAE vessel and beg me for forgiveness where I promise there will be a loyal and capable TRUSTEE standing by to kick you in the face, and toss you overboard.

So post your questions and keep on topic. As this is the most important thread, our fun banter is not permitted here!

...except when I do it.

Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11

e-laws.gov.on.ca

Last amendment: See Table of Public Statute Provisions Repealed Under Section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 � December 31, 2011.

Read Comments

Chad Brodgesell

I'm trying to put / read this in a way that I can comprehend cause I'm dumber then the dumbest.

1) If I have a document in my hand and I'm supposed to do something with it then I have control over it.

2) If I have control over it then I have the ability to Pay or Stop payment on the document.

3) The mere fact that the document is in my hands and others are waiting for ME to do something with it, gives ME THE POWER to let it continue or simply stop it from continuing.

Gail Marie

I've not had any dealings with Child services, but I'm assuming you would have dealings with them before they take the children either by phone or visits etc....the best time for the petition would be their first contact with you...create the petition and give to the proper court representative?

Scott Duncan

Seriously, it SAYS SO IN THE POST. Off-topic banter is NOT PERMITTED IN THIS THREAD! YOU and/or ANYONE ELSE who does NOT stick to the subject at hand, WILL BE BANNED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE!

A MOTHER IN PAIN BECAUSE SHE CAN'T SEE HER KIDS DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR YOUR MENTAL DIARRHEA! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO READ IT!

Adam Thomas

Amazing Scott. Thank you for your time & effort in this EPIC thread. Much VALUABLE information has now been gained thanks to YOU. I only wish I had known this late last year. I know I can still AMEND The (ir) order anytime I want in regards to my lil lady Liberty.

Chad Brodgesell

"To legally perform, as by executing, signing, OR delivering (a document) (to make a contract)"

So the JUSTICE is SERVING you, he is really HANDING you the SURETY and if you ACCEPT it, you are now BOUND BY LAW as the SURETY because you've accepted the BENEFIT of it?

Chad Brodgesell

But this is then a simple contract offer bound up with lots of fancy words, rights, privledges and benefits where they get you to agree to pay for nothing while losing your children. All Rights Reserved and No Contract then.

Pete Daoust

So this is very POWERFUL if I get it properly..?? 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

ALL RIGTHS RESERVED

Pete Daoust

Sorry but I see this NON-NEGOCIABLE as a KEY in here.....as I am a NON-NEGOCIABLE wild sexy BELLIGERENT....it has no place for negociation....and, in some case, that can be freaking upsetting for any JUSTICE that could try to trap me on some matters...just my tougths on it this morning...

Scott Duncan

Social Assistance (NOT Employment insurance) is a very touchy thing. You surrender a LOT of rights for the tiny amount of money that is received.

It actually changes your status when you "apply" for social assistance. ALL government money, is MONEY OF ACCOUNT, and when your bank turns it into MONEY OF EXCHANGE, some VERY UGLY legal baggage ALWAYS goes along with it. It will take me WEEK to find it all. This is a VERY hard question. You have NO idea...which is why I answer "PROBABLY".

...but now I want to know too. So I'm going to find out.

Eamonn O Brien

It's a topic that your research and determinations could help alot...

Unfortunately alot of people here in Ireland are finding themselves with no other option but to seek Social Welfare...

Accepting a benefit from the State...

I often wonder if one is wasting their time asserting their capacity as beneficiary while accepting the benefit of a tender for law by signing one's signature each week...

Looking forward to some clarity on the issue... Cheers Scott

Derek Moran

So Scott- is what you're saying, is that if CAS shows up to your door with an ORDER signed by a Judge, saying that they are there to take your kids away..you should say to them- "Oh terrific, today is my lucky day! You have an ORDER for me from a judge, who refused to sign an ORDER letting you steal my kids from me probably because he didnt want to be the reason why some kids got stolen from their parents. GREAT. Now fuck off and get off my property!"

Scott Duncan

...actually Adam, it isn't. The government NEVER gives anything it didn't take from somebody else.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE on the other hand, is a different story. You paid INTO that benefit, so you are entitled.

"Social Assistance" is where you come with NOTHING and trade rights for loose change.

Derek Hill

just a little tidbit of info here since im going through this myself.

if the other party lies the person or the lawyer it is considered to be priviledged and therefor protected from defamation lawsuits. You can also only get them on perjury if somethign drastic happens such as the loss of a job or an order was made against you. Scott care to weigh in?

Scott Duncan

Sure. You're an idiot.

...I'm sorry, did you want more? Lawyers are THIRD PARTIES in ANY dispute. The Lawyers ACT AS REPRESENTATIVE of the party. Limited liability. It's why they refer to each other as "my friend". there's no conflict themselves. THE PARTIES have the conflict. When the GOVERNMENT uses a "crown attorney", they are "representing" an "injured party".

None of the mythology you are making up has ANY basis in reality. Any other rectally-inspired concepts?

Derek Hill

i know that part, but where does the law draws the line. This lawyer is just out of control and whats worse is the justice was accepting it as truth. This was from last time i showed up so since we talked there was no other hearings.

Scott Duncan

A lawyer ALWAYS has LIMITED LIABILITY. He's a PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION.

Wow. Just when I think you couldn't pull out ANY more dumb shit, into your ass you go and pull out, more dumb shit. Amazing. Natural selection should have killed you off by now.

....Wow. Just... Wow.

Derek Hill

natural selection kills off the people who cannot adapt. not the dumbest or the weakest.

Yes i know that they are protected from an amount of liability.

Anyways, the stuff you said about surety and other things, someone i know was desperate and pulled that. got proceedings stayed til god knows when.

Scott Duncan

Indeed? Hmmm... Of your own free will, would you like me to demonstrate JUST how dumb you are? This is a yes or no question. Should you answer "Yes" I will ask questions that will lead you to your stupidity. You will step in it and you will NOT be able to back-pedal from being the pretender wannabe you are.

Those are the terms.

Wannna play?

Derek Hill

i never said i was a pretender wannabe? im here just to try and figure things out.

How is asking me questions that will lead to my stupidity will do anything. i already admitted i dont know everything. What else is there to prove?

Harry Wombat

@ Scott If my lawyer PLEDGES to something in a conversation (...because I have first hand knowledge and I know A B AND C to be true) their lawyer must accept it as fact, OR, they would be in violation of their Canadian Bar Association Code of Conduct. Lawyers can't call their FRIENDS liars. Yes or No? If yes, does breaking their own codes weaken, or, remove their limited liability shield?.

Scott Duncan

Why WOULD you say it. I'M saying it. You keep passing yourself off as some sort of "expert" and you simply aren't.

I see all the other venues, and you just spew dumb shit. HERE you get called out on DUMB SHIT. Want someone who loves dumb shit? Go see carrie-lee.

You certainly don't "admit you don't know everything" there!

Derek Hill

i dont talk to carrie lee and that was what? 2 years ago? yea there was still alot of stuff i didnt know, what of it. I am here asking questions. If i dont get answers oh well. Im simply here to learn. Try finding me doing recent uadios or videos, you wont find it, because i wen back into researching.

Scott Duncan

Oh yes, it's REALLY paid off. You've reached an all new level of made up stupid shit. Would you like me to show you just how stupid THIS is:

"if the other party lies the person or the lawyer it is considered to be priviledged and therefor protected from defamation lawsuits. You can also only get them on perjury if somethign drastic happens such as the loss of a job or an order was made against you."

You want to see? I can show you after just 3 questions.

Scott Duncan

First this "privileged communication" is bullshit you picked up in american legal shows, and has NO basis in reality. Limited liability means a lawyer can never BE charged with perjury, so you pulled THAT out of your ass too. THE ONLY thing a lawyer can EVER be charged with is the misappropriation of funds in a trust. THAT IS IT. NO OTHER REASON. There is only one crime in Admiralty; Interference with Commerce. BREACH OF TRUST, thus the "privileged communication" between a lawyer and client myth was born. Credulous people like yourself perpetrate this myth. Here in reality, such a thing would conflict with their oath to the LAW SOCIETY.

SO first question: Do you know what hearsay evidence is?

Derek Hill

1. i dont listen to american shows. i got priviledged from canlii cases when dealing with defamation from lawyers. all cases was dismissed because lawyers were priviledged members or something. The only times lawyers were charged with perjury is if they went out of their way to lie under a sworn oath.

Your making alot of very big assumptions, why would i listen to american shows if im in canada?

I suspect heresay evidence is your pointing it against me claiming that i heard this and that from this or that person. Rumours.

Scott Duncan

Hey, I just figured out how to make this work. I'll just fill in for BOTH sides...

Do you know what hearsay evidence is?

...duh, *prattling on with content-free bullshit.*

Is that a yes or no?

...*more content-free bullshit*.

After 100 or so posts we establish that HEARSAY evidence is third-party testimony and is not admissible.

Next I ask "what is a legal fiction", and then the readers would have to wade through/endure more of your content-free bullshit...

Leading to...

"OBJECTION! By what authority does this LEGAL FICTION admit HEARSAY EVIDENCE to this court? Was this LEGAL FICTION present during the events described, or is this LEGAL FICTION offering the court THIRD HAND TESTIMONY?

Adam Thomas

Yep fair call Pierre. I shall. Ho hum. Fuck me. This is not sitting well with me at all. Makes me feel very ill & troubled. Things are really looking weird & fucked up. I don't like it at all.....feel like throttling some 1. This is CHILDREN FFS........AAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH......LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE YOU FUCKING LUCIFERAN GOAT FUCKERS.

Adam Thomas

Oh well I guess some 1 gets paid for shoveling the children to them. Some 1 has sold their soul and/or their moral compass. integrity, intent. Compassion.... whats the deal ? Have we all become corrupted enough to allow this insanity to be our lives ? Theres people I need to contact quick smart but will have to wait till morn. This is very important. REMEDY IS AT HAND. MUST SPREAD THE WORD.

Maximus Legis

An excellent article Scott. I'm just glad my youngest turned 18 last week and I got through her childhood unscathed. I had a fuckwit cop threaten to call social services when I declined his offer to interview my Daughter regarding an incident she had nothing to do with and had no knowledge of. I was threatened with kidnap of myself too for declining to give my name at the entrance to my own home. The fuckwit cop stepped across the threshold/doorway. I said "stop right there I do not consent to you entering these premises" and fuck me it was like garlic to a vampire he actually jumped back. He said "I'm going to call my Inspector" I said "Call your daddy if you like nothing will change" He radioed his daddy and then fucked off back to his car. His bum fluff faced chum/partner came over from the car and demanded my name. I asked "Am I obliged by law to give you my name?" he replied "Technically no." I said "Technically will do me just fine, goodbye." and closed the door in his face. They sat outside in the car for a while writing identical lies in their notebooks no doubt, then fucked off never to be seen again. :-)

Maximus Legis

Derek Moran I had a copy of Rice v. Connolly plus further proof of the right to decline i.d on a table in my lobbly. Also a Noitice of Withrawl of Common Law Right of Access which basically says fuck off or pay for the privilege of trespassing on my property.

Mick Parker

so for we lazy brains, as the lawyer is the third party representative his evidence is hearsay, there is no "actual" evidence or claim to answer & thats the only relevance in the court? in a recent case with an electricity company we sent an affidavit to the c.e.o. accusing him or agents acting on his behalf of perjury. we were informed in a one line letter that the case had been dropped.

David Johansen

after i put together the past few weeks of data, i feel like hiding, knowing how much trouble my own mouth can get me if I am not to carefull. you know, it sort of sounds like somethig out of Abbot & Costello's skit "Who's on first" [all this courtroom boondoggle].

Mr. Christian: Admiral, what is the will of the King?

Derek Moran

164. Fair hearing

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), that subsection does not preserve the validity of the proceeding if the failure to comply with the agreement results in PREJUDICE to the DEFENDANT'S RIGHT to a FAIR HEARING.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK207

Brenda Larson

I knew that on April 9, when I appeared in court there would be another Temporary Care and Custody order coming through. That In the past I had not consented to it. In a number of different ways. Then I learned that it was a MISTAKE TO NOT CONSENT to it so I sent in my Notice of mistake and begged forgiveness to and requested to decline it. It was almost 2 weeks but here is another Temp. Care and Custody Order. Am I right in assuming that they just by pased me in court on last Tuesday cause I wasn't there (not supposed to be there till June) and had my mistakes withdrawn again and went ahead with the order or is something else going on?

Derek Moran

@Derek Hill- im not sure what to do if your ex has suddenly denied you from seeing your son AT ALL. Maybe someone in this thread going through the same could weigh-in..the perfect guy to ask is Adam Thomas for sure, or Scott

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

At common law, certiorari was a supervisory writ, serving to keep "all inferior jurisdictions within the bounds of their authority ... [protecting] the liberty of the subject, by speedy and summary interposition".

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Prerogative writs

The "prerogative" writs are a subset of the class of writs, those that are to be heard ahead of any other cases on a court's docket except other such writs. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are habeas corpus, quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.

The due process for petitions for such writs is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority, so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. In this they differ from a motion in a civil process in which the burden of proof is on the movant, and in which there can be a question of standing.

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Pete Daoust

Here is what I would do, on the private side of course...(sorry, could not resist),

Here is what I have done to continu to see my daughter, who is 26 today. 1). First I admitted MY mistakes. 2). I apologized. 3). I agreed on PAYING an Allymoney. 4). I did my part of the contract. 5). I did the best I could to make sure my daughter knows I love her. 6). I did shut-up numerous times on some MINOR stuff. 7). I made sure to be friendly with my ex new boyfriend. 8). I even had a meeting with him alone to avoid ANY bullshit. 9). I accepted the fact that my daughter may need MORE her mother than me. 10). I minded my own business as much as I could. 11). I REALLY, HONESTLY, did the best I could. 12). EVERY case is completely different from one to another. 13). FOCUS on the well being of the child AT ALL TIME 14). This apply to Men only, I have no clue about Weman denied of seeing their child by Men.

Good Luck ! :D

Derek Moran

remember the PUBLIC NOTICE discussion we had the other night? Scott mentioned that facebook and Google+ (though i have no idea what Google+ is), are methods of placing a PUBLIC NOTICE, along with the classifieds of a newspaper. Place somesort of an ESTOPPEL against her, barring HER from BARRING you, from seeing your child. POST it on her page. Print off a copy of it if you have to use it later, go get a copy of it NOTARIZED. I dunno..im just thinkin' outside the box here for'ya man as i have no experience with this.

Adam Thomas

Try & get her To agree PRIVATELY. TRY. TRY. TRY. TRY. TRY......PERSIST. IT WILL MAKE "YOU" LOOK HONOURABLE IN THEM KUNTS EYES....Glint...blink...blink.... But they dont care a fuck about you both because you aren't ADULTS & can't settle anything & you both will be treated as CHILDREN BY THEM KUNTS. They're only concern is for which one of them Despicable, evil to the very core kunts can RAPE YOUR CHILD FIRST....

Pete Daoust

Sorry Derek Hill, I have a tendency of driving people INSANE in here.....it's just like that, here is what will happen to you if you keep reading my stuf....

1) mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the district attorney, or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person may request a trial to determine sanity. The original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity," will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten Rule" from 19th Century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. 4) a claim by a criminal defendant of his insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial held only if sanity returns. 5) sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or anti-social behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes. (See: M'Naughten Rule, temporary insanity)

Derek Moran

Scott, would you start off an AFFIDAVIT with the very TOP-line reading ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - NON NEGOTIABLE... much like you describe starting off a PETITION with NON NEGOTIABLE as you described in this article?

Derek Moran

Stuart Stone: might be worth a look WeLove JessicaDawn AndOthers... http://www.matrixfiles.com/The-Solution-to-ALL-Your-Problems.pdf ... basic premise is waiving your human right to be recognised as a person before the law, talks specifically about this issue...worth getting Scott Duncan's input first though cos it might fall into the 'pulling things out of the ass' category

Derek Moran

Adam Thomas: Reminds me of the movie "FIGHT CLUB." When Brad Pitt says " you arr not your drivers liscense etc etc blah blah". The run down dilapidated shit hole of a house they live on is called "PAPER STREET." That movie is not about nental health, its all about YOU, YOUR PERSON, YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICALE & HOW CREDIT IS CREATED.

Derek Moran

Derek Moran: My friend knows a guy who had his kids taken by CAS. Then, they returned them. I asked my friend what had happened/changed. His answer? "CAS found out that my friend had LIENED his kids on PPSA.ca" Hmmmmmmmm.....a How-to-Properly-Place/Register-a-Lien-on-PPSA.ca-thread sounds appealing

Derek Moran

Derek Moran: Im guessing part of this entails making as part of the 'Discovery' producing the original Long-Form-Statement-of-Live-Birth-Record to construe STRICTLY the wording that was used in it to determine whether parents have been DUPED into signing over their kids unwittingly, otherwise- who THE FUCK would ever fill-out that form and REGISTER their kids AGAIN!? (Scott clicked LIKE)

Derek Moran

Jason F. LeBlanc: My registration of live birth has a similar format to the pink insurance card of a vehicle..... Hmmmm. And One crucial line that asks.... Citizen ship.... Making me a vessel in commercial water..... Which web then it became my title which them surety security of the BC was created. Just like a car. Making me legal title holder while the govt benefited. My reasoning leads me to the citizen ship entry on live birth registration is the line parent are duped into signing.

Janick Paquette

Since I am Homeschooling my little ones...

I received a letter from the "School Board" (I think that's what it's called in English) for both parents of my offsprings person's, to SUMMON them to attend a meeting (all the persons) to have an "end of term" EVALUATION of the students's persons, would a NOTICE OF MISTAKE, for all four persons put an end to this?

Janick Paquette

Thank you Cheryl Watson for your Personnal Message. Let me share it with the others so anyone in the same situation can benefit from your input. :)

Cheryl Watson: "don't you have your own practice of testing and delivering the results to the school board? you are allowed to home school in the system as long as you cover certain subjects and you must have an approved system of evaluation of that...you do not have to go to a meeting if you are following the education act. unless the act says you must......then you can do the notice of mistake or whatever thing you think may work......"

Janick Paquette

So I would have to send them a Notice of Mistake for Myself and my offsprings. And the father of the offspring would have to send one for himself AND his offsprings as well or just himself.

They are both our chattel property, so we should have them named in both our Notice of Mistake.

I WISH for some input from the wise ones! :D

Gail Marie

wouldn't their education system also be considered a benefit...waiving the benefit may be helpful too? I know with my daughter, I took responsibility for her education ...the school phoned me once asking if there was anything that I needed help with and then never heard from them again

Janick Paquette

pose:

1 (p?z) v. posed, pos�ing, pos�es

v. intr.

1. To assume or hold a particular position or posture, as in sitting for a portrait. 2. To affect a particular mental attitude. 3. To represent oneself falsely; pretend to be other than what one is.

v. tr.

1. To place (a model, for example) in a specific position. 2. To set forth in words; propound: pose a question. 3. To put forward; present: pose a threat. See Synonyms at propose.

n.

1. A bodily attitude or position, especially one assumed for an artist or a photographer. See Synonyms at posture. 2. A studied attitude assumed for effect. See Synonyms at affectation.

Janick Paquette

Gail Marie, I wrote a Notice to let them know that I'm registering my children's persons with the school board for the year 2014-2015. As mentioned by the Quebec's Education System, The program will be met with the following tools (and I listed a bunch in my letter) Blablabla Signed as The Sole Authorised Administrator for JANICK ...

And never heard about them all year.

Now they sent me a letter saying I have to SUBMIT my child to an evaluation because it is there DUTY to proceed this way according to the art. 15 of the Law on Education.

Gail Marie

is this what they are referring to? (4) a student who receives home schooling and benefits from an educational experience which, according to an evaluation made by or for the school board, are equivalent to what is provided at school.

Janick Paquette

Education Act 15 . The following students are exempt from compulsory school attendance: ( 1 ) a student excused by the school board by reason of illness or for the purpose of receiving medical treatment or care required by his state of health; ( 2 ) a student excused by the school board, at the request of his parents and after consultation with the advisory committee on services for handicapped students and students with social maladjustments or learning disabilities established under section 185, by reason of a physical or mental handicap which prevents him from attending school; ( 3 ) a student expelled from school by the school board pursuant to section 242; ( 4 ) a student who receives home schooling and benefits from an educational experience which, according to an evaluation made by or for the school board, are equivalent to what is provided at school. A child is excused from attending public school if he attends a private educational institution governed by the Act respecting private education ( chapter E-9.1) or an institution whose instructional program is the subject of an international agreement within the meaning of the Act respecting the Minist�re des Relations internationales ( chapter M-25.1.1) which provides all or part of the educational services provided for by this Act. A child is also excused from attending public school if the child attends a vocational training centre or receives instruction in an enterprise that meets the conditions determined by the Minister in a regulation under paragraph 7 of section 111 of the Act respecting private education. In addition, the school board may exempt one of its students, at the request of his parents, from compulsory school attendance for one or more periods totalling not more than six weeks in any school year, to allow him to carry out urgent work. 1988, c. 84, s. 15 ; 1990, c. 8, s. 3 ; 1990, c. 78, s. 27 ; 1992, c. 68, s. 143 ; 1994, c. 15, s. 33 ; 1996, c. 21, s. 70 ; 1997, c. 96, s. 9

Gail Marie

I would get a copy write new originals on it and void the signatures return to them with a Notice of Mistake and waive the benefits let them off the hook for liability...they aren't worried that your children aren't learning, they are worried they will be held liable ?

Janick Paquette

Wait a minute, waive the benefit? I thought you only did that when you wanted nothing to do with them?

Does that mean that with, what you suggested, I would do the same process if they send me a registration renewal for my children, next year?

Pete Daoust

Enforce the obligation on them, to tell you that you are a SLAVE, and that you have NOTHING TO SAY, and NO choice but to OBEY.....

Then, you will have a SOLID proof that they keep you in SLAVERY mode, which is not a good thing, because it's ILLEGAL :/

Pete Daoust

You just waive tha benefit...

SUMMON them to attend a meeting (all the persons) to have an "end of term" EVALUATION of the students's persons

And where have you seen this SUMMON word, on the letter they've sent you ? :/

Pete Daoust

They are making you an offer for a meeting, all together, to give you something.....

Just tell them:

"PEREMPTORY NOTICE" Thanks for your offer, but I will WAIVE that benefit for now

With Love.

Authorized By: SOLE authorized Administrator.

Chris Evan

DIPLOMA. An instrument of writing, executed by, a corporation or society, certifying that a certain person therein named is entitled to a certain distinction therein mentioned. 2. It is usually, granted by learned institutions to their members, or to persons who have studied in them. 3. Proof of the seal of a medical institution and of the signatures of its officers thereto affixed, by comparison with the seal and signatures attached to a diploma received by the witness from the same institution, has been held to be competent evidence of the genuineness of the instrument, although the witness never saw the officers write their names. 25 Wend. R. 469. 4. This word, which is also written duploma, in the civil law, signifies letters issued by a prince. They are so called, it is supposed, a duplicatis tabellis, to which Ovid is thought to allude, 1 Amor. 12, 2, 27, when he says, Tunc ego vos duplices rebus pro nomine sensi Sueton in Augustum, c. 26. Seals also were called Diplomata. Vicat ad verb.

Janick Paquette

First, because I don't see the relevance of it. Since we are registering the persons why do the children have to go?

Because like you just posted "I've asked for it".

Ok so, How do I UN-register their persons or undo what was done?

That's why I thought Notice of Mistake would be a good option to clear things up.

I have to register the children's persons. But WE don't have to attend that meeting. (in my book)

Janick Paquette

Isn't this all about accounting and surety anyway? So how are they surety for their persons in the education program? Because I registered their persons. And how can I stay in honor and stop this from being what it is right now? .....

Pete Daoust

My point is, do NOT neglect your children's future because of some "freedumb" bullshit that still reside inside of you, for having spent to much time with freedumbers....in freedumb groups, they would be 100% with you on this stuff.....

Think about it, not for you but for your children...

One of my daughter wants to be a DOCTOR, and she is in-line with her goal, I will ADMINISTRATE her person in ACCORDANCE with her goals.....not mine, and that dosen't prevent me on telling her the truth.....

That's my point.....just be careful with this stuff :)

Janick Paquette

What makes you think I am neglecting my children's future because I do not see the relevance of attending this meeting?

I did take a break when I took them out of the system and I gave them one as well because I needed to figure out what was best for THEM.

And being in the school system for numerous years doesn't make them NEGLECTED?

I ALWAYS have their best interest at heart. I just didn't know how to start and I know from experience that even if you are one or two years without doing actual HOMEWORK, that it takes a few months to recuperate what is thought in public schools.

So my worry was to figure out what to teach and how without fucking them up even more then they were.

I took the time and everything is falling into place now. I've been in the FREEDUMMM mode for almost a year with Dean and been in this group for a few months so it's been three kind of brainwashing in three different directions.

I am back on track and my convictions on education and how it should be done with respect with what the children are is back on track and has been for a few months. Just haven't gone full throttle yet.

Janick Paquette

I had/have a learning disability and one of my children has the same challenge. I know that it takes more time for our brains to connect the dots. That is probably why a lot of you who read my posts get a :/ face afterwards! It's not my fault! Was born with it! :D So instead of putting my daughter on medication, just like the school personnel who were assisting her wanted, we took her out!

Pete Daoust

What makes you think I am neglecting my children's future because I do not see the relevance of attending this meeting?

Because you have a learning disability, and I know it takes more time for you to connect the dots :D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

Anibal Jose Baez

Pete, what would you do in a situation similar to Janick's? Can you explain the reasons why you would accept such an invitation, and what will you say/do in such a meeting? Maybe that would help Janick a bit.

Pete Daoust

My "DUTY", as an ADMINISTRATOR is, "take care" of these PERSON'S interest.

Janick quote: I ALWAYS have their best interest at heart

So the question is: Is it, in these person's BEST interest to go to that meeting ?

Or is it better for these persons that I do not go to this meeting.?

You've used JANICK PAQUETTE to APPLY for that TEACHER's position, right ?

That has NOTHING to do with my dad's duties, IT DOSEN'T MEAN I CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH TO MY OFFSPRING :P

Pete Daoust

Mackximus, The TRUTH is the TRUTH.... I am NOT against Janick Paquette in here, I am just telling the TRUTH....

In these freedumb movement, they advertise at large this home schooling thing....but they don't THINK about it, they just parrot bullshit and they want to teach freedumb stuff to these children....

The ONLY one thing I can't stand with PUBLIC education, is the OBEDIENCE concept they teach kids......well, my kids KNOWS this, it took me 10 minutes to teach them, and they caught it so fucking fast :D

As far as the PERSON, they happen to have, I will GIVE them the information on it, and THEY will decide on HOW to DEAL with this, not me :P

My kids has their OWN blood flowing in their veins.....They have their OWN life.....that's how I see it, but it dosen't mean Janick need to see it that way....I AM JUST DISCUSSING this shit, she can do what she wants, it won't change ANYTHING in MY life :)

Home teaching is a serious huge job, it's not a joke....

Pete Daoust

She KNOWS the truth about this, so now she has three options :D

1)."PEREMPTORY NOTICE" Thanks for your offer, but I will WAIVE that benefit for now

Authorized By: SOLE authorized Administrator.

2). Go to that meeting.

3). I have NO IDEA :D

The three options are viable, she needs to pick the one that will fit these kids's persons BEST INTEREST.

This is what difference The Tender for Law, from these freedumb groups :P

:D

Janick Paquette

You're right about the Notice of Mistake, I did apply for the teacher's job and THAT wasn't a mistake! But the mistake was to think that we have to register persons to do commerce like, doing business with the "School board" and that we have to comply to there rules when there rules do not apply to my children but to the person.

So what the heck is wrong with this picture. They are mixing the two, in my book.

Janick Paquette

Pete, I've been searching for Peremptory Notice exemples on the internet but all I see are Premeptory challenges or calendars or writ or all kinds of Peremptory stuff but no notices.

Do you have a reference to this kind of Notice?

Janick Paquette

Pete Daoust:

1)."PEREMPTORY NOTICE" Thanks for your offer, but I will WAIVE that benefit for nowAuthorized By: SOLE authorized Administrator.

Janick Paquette:

Since we are both parents Authorised Administrators, would it be accurate to write:

By: Authorised Administrator ?

Janick Paquette

Here's the Notice:

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED / WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PEREMPTORY NOTICE

Take NOTICE that I received your offer to submit (NAME OF THE OFFSPRING'S PERSON HERE) to evaluation tests on the 9th and/or 11th of June 2014.

As the Authorised Administrator for the person named (NAME OF THE OFFSPRING'S PERSON HERE) Inscription number 12xxxxxxxxxxx, I thank you for your offer but I will waive those benefits for now.

By : Authorised Administrator for the person named (NAME OF THE OFFSPRING'S PERSON HERE) Inscription number 12xxxxxxxxxxx.

Janick Paquette

French version.... :D / It's "Double the fun when you're Qu�becois!"

TOUS DROITS RESERV�S/SANS PR�JUDICE

AVIS P�REMPTOIRE

Soyez AVIS�S que j'ai re�u votre offre de soumettre (NOM DE LA PERSONNE DE LA PROG�NITURE) � des �preuves d'�valuation le 9 et/ou 11 juin 2014.

En tant qu'Administratrice Autoris�e pour la personne nomm�e (NOM DE LA PERSONNE DE LA PROG�NITURE) N� d'inscription 12xxxxxxxxxxx, je vous remercie pour cette offre mais je vais renoncer � cette avantage pour cette fois.

De : Administratrice Autoris�e pour la personne (NOM DE LA PERSONNE DE L'ENFANT) N� d'inscription 12xxxxxxxxxxx.

Janick Paquette

Question:

If I don't have a seal yet, do I sign the PEREMPTORY NOTICE? Not signing the Notice of Mistake, is written as a man/woman (Private) so you DON'T sign it.

But all other Notices need to be signed or sealed, which is even better because it takes confusion out of the equation, right?

I just need to confirm this so it can be clear in my mind! :)

Los Blanc

kiddo: mama?

moms: yes, dear.

kiddo: what is property?

moms: that which is exclusive to oneself and no other within a society, honey.

kiddo: mama, am i exclusive to you and papa?

moms: yep, but only if we don't make the mistake of identifying you as a warden of the state. As far as they need be concerned, you're our little bundle of joy, not the state's property.

kiddo: but im not gonna be little for ever, what about when i'm a grown up?

moms: then you will be old and wise enough to control your own cognitive capacity to determine how you navigate, enjoy and exercise your property; your breath, heartbeat, body, labor/it's fruits and your self determination/liberty.

Janick Paquette

And am I the SOLE Authorized Administrator for the offsprings or just the Authorized Administrator?

In French we have the feminin and the masculin,

Administratrice Administrateur

Could I be the SOLE (feminin) Administrator and the father would be the SOLE (masculin) Administrator?

Hey, I'm trying all the angles here! :D

Janick Paquette

I understand that part Mckx! :) But HOW is it layed out on the sheet of paper?

Since we are two Authorized Administrator, if I pick one, ... I can't write:

SOLE A... A... for the offspring's person.

SO,...does it have to be like so:

Authorized by: Sole Authorized Administrator? O_o

Will Bed

Would it be wrong to offer them, in good faith, that if they have an extra copy of that exam or whatever, to send it over to you and you'll gladly evaluate for yourself how above average your kids skills are vs their exam, saying it's important to you that he gets to learn and be tested from and through as many and diverse sources as possible, and it's not your intention to discriminate or ignore any, but clearly stating that they wont get the results, as your kids education is none of their brainwashing business..? You know, i'd still love to get an idea how better my kid would score vs the "social stupid standard" he'll eventually have to coexist with ?

Janick Paquette

OK! So I got a response from the School Board. ___________________

Madame Janik Paquette Monsieur Jocelyn Rouillier

Object: (child's person name) evaluation - 2013-2014 ______________________________________________________

To follow up on your communication, we wish to specify that the evaluation session is not a benefit but an obligation. We are reminding you also that this process is clearly stipulated in the homeschooling protocole that you have signed.

According to art. 15 of the Law on education (Loi su l'instruction) it's the School Board (Commission Scolaire) that evaluates and determines the exemption you get from Home schooling. You will understand in these circombstances that failure to appear at the selected dates will result in our rejection of your request (demande) for homeschooling next year because we will not have been able to reach a decision (se prononcer) on the education you have (dispenser ...don't know how to translate that word!) at home.

Therefore, failling to submit your child to the evaluation session esthablished, we will assume that it is our duty to inform the proper athorities.

Bla,bla,bla without love ! :D

Janick Paquette

(English version)

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED / WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SCHOOL BOARD LAURENTIANS Administrative Building c / o Ms. Marie-Jos�e Morin 13, rue St-Antoine Ste-Agathe-des-Monts, QUEBEC J8C 2C3

Subject: Evaluation of (CHILD'S PERSON'S NAME) - School Year 2013-2014 REGISTERED MAIL: RN 001 XXX XXX CA

NOTICE

Ms. Morin,

In response to your communication, I wish to receive the original contract/protocol signed enrollment as you alleged in your last communication.

Failure to provide this document, will force me to understand that these are only presumptions and we do not have an agreement of the parties which by all means, will end any further communications.

Regards!

Authorised by: The Sole Authorized Administrator for (child's person's name) N� inscription XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Janick Paquette

(French version)

TOUS DROITS R�SEV�S/SANS PR�JUDICE

COMMISSION SCOLAIRE DES LAURENTIDES Centre Administratif a/s Mme Marie-Jos�e Morin 13, rue St-Antoine Ste-Agathe-des-Monts, QU�BEC J8C 2C3

Objet : �valuation de Myla Rouillier � Ann�e scolaire 2013-2014 COURRIER RECOMMAND� : RN 001 175 136 CA

AVIS

Mme Morin,

Pour faire suite � votre communication, je d�sire recevoir par courier l'original du protocole de scolarisation sign� comme vous le pr�sum�e dans votre derni�re communication.

� faute de fournir ce document, je serai dans l'obligation de comprendre que ce ne sont que des pr�somptions et que nous n'avons pas entente des parties qui, par le fait m�me, mettra fin � ces communications.

Mes salutations !

Autoris� par : La Seule Administratrice de la personne (nom de la personne de la prog�nitude) N� d'inscription xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.