The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Mar 22, 2013 1:46 AM

Scott Duncan

THE TENDER FOR LAW � SURETY FOR IDIOTS - PART II - WAIVING THE LEGAL NAME (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

THE FOLLOWING is an ENHANCED and TENDER FOR LAW ANNOTATED [In Square Brackets] version of section 2.1 of The ONTARIO "Change of Name Act" [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7... see what I did there? PAY ATTENTION TO CAPS HERE, as these are the words to look for where YOUR "change of name act" is.]

2. (1) For ALL [ALL purposes! Pay attention to that] purposes of ONTARIO LAW,

(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is ENTITLED [Which means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by the NAME appearing on the PERSON'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;

(b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is ENTITLED[Which means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by,

(i) the name appearing on the person�s change of name certificate, if the person�s name has been changed under this Act or a predecessor of it, or

(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing in Ontario,

unless clause (c) applies; and

(c) a person who adopted a name on marriage before the 1st day of April, 1987 is entitled to be recognized by that name unless the person subsequently changed that name under this Act or a predecessor of it. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (1).

So always WAIVE the BENEFIT of section 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME ACT.

Any name you are known by is PRIVATE, and NOT DERIVED from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Don't be surety for a THING.

I WAIVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 2.1 OF THE ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ADDRESS ME BY ANY NAME, AND/OR, ANY INFORMATION DERIVED FROM ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT?

Read Comments

Adam Thomas

Fuck you're good Scott. This is AMAZING. I've heard of this with I.D. but never really seen a template for it b4. I'll bet the good SHIPS lollipop dont do this.OUTSTANDING. So what's the all caps ONTARIO, mean please cap'n ?

Stuart Stone

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R61CHP2

2.1...'The use of surnames appears to have been more a response to the needs of state and church administration (the exchequer, legal transactions, tenants' rolls) than for purposes of self-identification.'

2.13... 'The common law recognises an adult�s right to change his or her name. Provided there is no intent to defraud or deceive and inflict pecuniary loss on another, a person may assume any new or additional name including one which is used by another.'...

Makes no mention of a child/baby's name being changed in order to defraud, deceive and inflict pecuniary loss on another...cheeky bastards!!

James Allan

However, it says a "person" is entitled to be recognized by the name. So it seems to suggest that a legal fiction is entitled not the man. So by waiving that entitlement could it not imply that you ARE a fiction since it appears to be a right attributable to a fiction/person not a man? Unless of course there has been a redefinition of person.

James Allan

However, the established rule is that the word, in this case "person", shall carry the meaning defined, UNLESS a CONTRARY INTENTION appears. So the question here is whether in this phrase, "a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is ENTITLED", the word "person" is a contrary intention to its express definition which carries the meaning of human being. Scott Duncan, whats your take?

Adam Thomas

None of their courts that I know of recognize us as being ALIVE. Unless you argue & create controversey. Sigh. My friend proved that he was living breathing but he argued for near over 12 months. No need to argue. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT everything they throw at ye UPON PROOF OF CLAIM....4 FOLD INCREASE IN PENALTY & LAW OF EQUITY PROSECUTION ACCEPTS THE INCREASE. AMEND THE ORDER & PAY WITH A BOE. EEEAASSYYYY.

James Allan

Read as a whole, it appears that s. 7 was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level. A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings. In this regard, the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 is of no application. There are no penal proceedings pending in this case, so the principle articulated in Big M Drug Mart is not involved: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. A. G. Que., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Dywidag Systems v. Zutphen Brothers Construction Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 705; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3.

Vito Jose Dono

Unfortunately, we are dealing with sociopaths that have no access to spirit at any level. We aren't talking about people with sociopathic behaviours. We adopt those behaviours at anytime in our conditioned lives but people who do not have the ability to source anything higher than their own programmed consciousness.

Don�t let your own conditioning about spirit fuck you over here.