The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Mar 23, 2013 7:56 PM

Pete Daoust

This a very brief r�sum� of what I�ve told the Judge in tax court that I spent the first 12 months on this case learning HOW to file and prepare a petition because I have no lawyer representing me. I told him, After I filed the petition, I started learning LAW and discovered some weird stuff, first, your honor, I have read the Quebec Income Tax Act, and its says in this act that EVERYTIME the act use the word act and/or law, it INCLUDE an act and/or law OTHER than an act and/or law of the Parliament of Quebec. So the way I understand this your Honor is that this act/law address a certain group of people, and this group of people seems to be EMPLOYEE and/or AGENT of the Government of Quebec. So, your Honor, I just want to make sure I had to go trough all this�..since I�M NOT an agent and/or Employee of the government, do I really have to be here your Honor�??? The Judge said: Well you have a very NICE petition here very well made, I would focus on that if I would be you. I said: Yes, I agree, but I came here to tell the thruth, and I don�t want to be a pain here, I just need to know if my discoveries are TRUE OR NOT�.is it right your HONOR that agent/employee of the government only have to submit to this act.??? Judge said: EVERY CITIZENS have to obey the income tax act�. I said: I have no Idea whats a CITIZEN your HONOR Judge said: YOU ARE A CITIZEN I said: ok your HONOR, if you say I am a citizen its your choice, but I still have no idea of whats a CITIZEN is. So I went on with my PETITION for a good 5 hours plus�.at the end, I said that I�ve told ALL THE TRUTH here and I don�t owe NOTHING to NO ONE, and I WONT PAY NOTHING to NO ONE The judge said he believed me, and he said he will give his verdict in a few weeks�.

Read Comments

James Allan

Joseph Pierre Gilles, I believe that the judge is accurate in that you are a citizen. I suspect you were in a court having only statutory jurisdiction and that the only two parties having standing in that statutory matter were the Crown and the fiction(taxpayer/citizen). A Man cannot be recognized in a statutory court. That is why any submissions you made had to be deemed as coming from one of the parties having standing in the matter. And you clearly werent the Crown so the judge can only reasonably deduce that you must be the other named party - the taxpayer/citizen.

Scott Duncan

Don't RESPOND (Respondent=Identification/address) to YOU!

If they try, serve the "You" back with a QUESTION; "Are YOU addressing, ME"?

"By what authority do YOU address ME as ANY name or Title derived fro a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, including CITIZEN"?

"Are YOU a CITIZEN"? ;) That one always drives them nuts. :D

Pete Daoust

Quebec law is unique in Canada because Quebec is the only province in Canada to have a juridical legal system (pertaining to the administration of justice) under which civil matters are regulated by French-heritage civil law. Public law, criminal law and other federal law operate according to Canadian common law.

Pete Daoust

Civil law and common law occasionally overlap or contradict each other. For instance, under section 91 (26) of the British North America, 1867, marriage and divorce fall under federal jurisdiction. However, marriage ceremonies are solemnized according to the Quebec civil code, while divorce proceedings may apply federal laws and regulations and common law concepts such as in loco parentis which has no equivalent at civil law according to which only the biological or legally adoptive relationship with offspring are recognized.

Criminal law is, however, based on the common law system. See Law of Canada.

Pete Daoust

Civil Code of Quebec

Quebec's current civil code, the Civil Code of Quebec,[9] was the product of a lengthy review of the civil law, beginning with the establishment of the Civil Code Revision Office in 1955. The new Civil Code of Quebec was enacted in 1991, and came into force in 1994. This Code repealed both the Civil Code of Lower Canada and the Civil Code of Quebec of 1980.

The current Code consists of ten books: 1.Persons 2.The Family 3.Successions 4.Property 5.Obligations 6.Prior Claims and Hypothecs 7.Evidence 8.Prescription 9.Publication of Rights 10.Private International Law

Pete Daoust

Lawyers, be they attorneys or notaries, in Quebec are required to hold a degree in civil law. There are various names for the degree, depending on the university which grants it. McGill University and Universit� d'Ottawa grant a Bachelor of Civil Law degree, while other universities, such as Universit� Laval, grant a Bachelor of Laws degree (LL.B.). Candidates must then complete an articled clerkship, pass the professional bar course and be called to the Barreau du Qu�bec (Bar of Quebec) before being able to practise law.

Derek Moran

MOTION = REQUEST, PETITION = REQUEST.. i suppose in hindsight, Pierre should have filed a PREROGATIVE WRIT, or, the much vaunted but little known (other than it is strictly written, and never orally delivered) PRAECIPE ?

Derek Moran

btw, about being a citizen: THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP Marginal note:Persons who are citizens

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/FullText.html

Pete Daoust

there was NO MISTAKES....cant be any MISTAKES....I signed an AFFIDAVIT as PIERRE DAOUST when I filed my PETITION a year ago....if there would be a mistake, well its MY mistake and that petition would be REJECTED....

Derek Moran

12. No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html

Pete Daoust

Here is my favorite historical doccument IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun. 2. 2. It is an imbecility or sterility of mind, and not a perversion of the understanding. Chit. Med. Jur. 345, 327, note s; 1 Russ. on Cr. 6; Bac. Ab. h.t. A; Bro. Ab. h.t.; Co. Litt. 246, 247; 3 Mod. 44; 1 Vern. 16; 4 Rep. 126; 1 Bl. Com. 302. When a man cannot count or number twenty, nor tell his father's or mother's name, nor how old he is, having been frequently told of it, it is a fair presumption that, he is devoid of understanding. F. N. B. 233. Vide 1 Dow, P. C. now series, 392; S. C. 3 Bligh, R. new series, 1. Persons born deaf, dumb, and blind, are, presumed to be idiots, for the senses being the only inlets of knowledge, and these, the most important of them, being closed, all ideas and associations belonging to them are totally excluded from their minds. Co. Litt. 42 Shelf. on Lun. 3. But this is a mere presumption, which, like most others, may be rebutted; and doubtless a person born deaf, dumb, and blind, who could be taught to read and write, would not be considered an idiot. A remarkable instance of such an one may be found in the person of Laura Bridgman, who has been taught how to converse and even to write. This young woman was, in the year 1848, at school at South Boston. Vide Locke on Human Understanding, B. 2 c. 11, Sec. 12, 13; Ayliffe's Pand. 234; 4 Com. Dig. 610; 8 Com. Dig. 644. 3. Idiots are incapable of committing crimes, or entering into contracts. They cannot of course make a will; but they may acquire property by descent. Vide, generally, 1 Dow's Parl. Cas. new series, 392; 3 Bligh's R. 1; 19 Ves. 286, 352, 353; Stock on the Law of Non Compotes Mentis; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

David Vilaca

i was on the hook for 20g, I got my ducks together and proceeded with a statement of claim in the FEDERAL REGISTRY. I messed up my form and the Crown received a motion to dismiss my claim. No known cause of action. Interesting thing, in the judgement they recognized my claim of right, that I am an individual and self presented, the Crown won motion to strike but the judgement stated i clearly has issues with the government and if I could formulate a proper claim, I was free to do so.

Scott Duncan

" i was on the hook for 20g" - No. A Secured Party was seeking remittance for $20,000. There is a HUGE Difference. The SURETY ADVISES. REMITTANCE IS ADVICE.

That is the definition of REMITTANCE. ADVICE ON HOW TO DISCHARGE. Only the SURETY has the AUTHORITY to do that.

ALL financial transactions work this way.

Chris Evan

HOLD ON!!!!! Scott, that finally makes sense to me. I am sure Pete Daoust and Adam Thomas can tell how this does not make sense to me.

So, if I need ADVICE on the discharge of debt, I need to find the SURETY and ask them. Is this correct?? So, asking the Secured Party is incorrect then. Do I finally have this correct?

Chris Evan

The more I read and learn, the less I see that in America the Police have anything to do with the Public Trust! The Sheriffs, yes, the Police, no. They seem to be more like Pirates flying under the foreign flag of the United States.

Derek Moran

A City of Toronto property-tax Bill has THE NAME, and the address on it - however....

..on the REMITTANCE/Coupon at the bottom of it, there is only the address, there is no NAME as given up-top on the BILL portion

Derek Moran

BUT, the City of Toronto didnt create THE NAME (whomever's it is listed)...the PROVINCE/GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO did, so.....

..who needs to ASKED, for ADVICE, on how to DISCHARGE, any REMITTANCE, that is sent with THE NAME on it, is the one/the SURETY who CREATED it

So Scott Duncan, would one in Ontario be asking the Registrar General, or the Minister of Finance, on how to properly DISCHARGE any debt with the use of a REMITTANCE with THE NAME on it?

Derek Moran

Chris Schulte- at least you guys GOT a Sheriff! I just found out the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO here got rid of ours in the 90's - wtf?!...no Sheriff with fucking powers-and-duties ascribed to him at common law?? = BULLSHIT

Derek Moran

Pierre, i did. The head of Revenue Services here for the City of Toronto is a MISTER Casey Brendon- and yes, i do refer to him as that in any NOTICE i have sent him. HE DOESNT KNOW. He wanted to pass me DOWN to someone in CUSTOMER SERVICES. I told him- "...we're going backwards here. Pass me UP to the one person with the greatest knowledge of bills-of-exchange and negotiable instruments. Gave me to a lawyer with the City, MS. Christina Hueniken. She claimed not to know what i was talking about, either.

Derek Moran

But i think what Scott is saying, is that they arent the SURETY for that name. They are the MAKER of the BILL. But they are not the SURETY for THE NAME on it. That would be the PROVINCE. So who do we ask exactly at the PROVINCE on how to DISCHARGE a REMITTANCE TENDERED to THE NAME, Scott Duncan?

David Vilaca

there is no discharge, offset the instument on your security. If you hold the security by due course of law, they must offset it on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All money in Canada is public money, those with the benefit are indemnified, saved from harm.

Pete Daoust

I've sent one ACCEPTED BoE to the Bank of Canada.....can't wait to see what's going to happen.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Ministre des Finance du Quebec....no answer.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Quebec Revenu Agency....no answer.....I've asked REMITTANCE ADVICES to Hydro-Quebec.....no answer....so I guess they ALL waiting on "ME" to act.. :D

Pete Daoust

Now, I received yesterday a letter from QRA asking for PIERRE DAOUST's bank account info in order to deposit MONEY in it.....these idiots wanted to collect 45k from me 5 months ago....they should know by now that I KNOW that this is a fucking trap shot.....

THEY WANT ME TO BE ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEE.....to destroy everything I'v said in court.....they want to fucking BUY ME with MONEY

FUCK YOU QRA....I will send a nice fucking letter to them ....fuck...!!!

Pete Daoust

The letter starts with:

Beneficiary name: Pierre Daoust.

I wonder WHO is this Pierre Daoust they call BENEFICIARY ? :D So this is my first question regarding this letter.

They asking: YOU have to supply valids bank account infor. I want to know who is this YOU that have to supply this info.

Dwaine Carrillo

How can he claim you are a "citizen"? If you do not rebut, you must agree ;) He says "YOU ARE A CITIZEN", and you should have said "that's a strong presumption, can you prove your claim?"

You should have said "Since presumptions seem to be the flavor of the day in here, I'm also going to presume you are a public servant, which makes you a public trustee, therefor, I, as the sole beneficiary of this estate you are attempting to hold a shareholders meeting against, would like to see the letter have, with my handwriting and signature, that gives you or anyone else in this courtroom permission to hold this meeting.

"Surely you wouldn't have a shareholders meeting without my written-authorized consent, would you?"