First: You are not making MOTIONS. Do NOT allow them to say that they are. Re: "I don't understand", respond that you require the supernumerary to RECUSE HIM/HER SELF as they are on record as being LEGALLY INCOMPETENT to do their job.

There are 2 separate scenarios that Scott has shared regarding this topic, Brenda..i will post both of them for review: On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS! Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only one with STANDING. If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it. When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?" Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their master's wish?

*judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!" *judge goes silent* "BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at this time I WISH to reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the court? *Jeopardy Music* Any objections? *Clock Ticking* ....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat second and third time) As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent). QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so: "Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN? As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights, ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY objections from the court). You'll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste system and how they give instructions. NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES". ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR". GENERALS GIVE ORDERS. The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none, you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case to be dismissed. If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not made my wishes clear?" Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you accept SURETY. As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is answered. Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.

MAKE A PAD of "NOTICE of MISTAKE", and MAKE them ANSWER the QUESTIONS, and if they are NOT answered, then you "CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS".

PAD?... :/

Yes, Sign each one and make up the liability later.

Derek, remember that the post you copied here for reference is what I would do. This may not be for you.

..should Brenda have repeated- "...going once, going twice, three times...are there any objections from the court?"

No, there's no "should" or shouldn't. you simply object.

she intends to have her kids home

Don't let them proceed.

tomorrow I will put in another copy of our notice of mistake and another affidavit stating we are not consenting to the Temporary care and custody order.

So the moment the Judge started speaking after Brenda reserved all rights barring any objections, i think she was supposed to counter with- At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?" As nervy i am sure that would seem to Brenda to say something like that to the Judge... :/

" Don't let them proceed." = "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?"

I will do it. Im gonna study and partice, look out next time. I hate doing something with out seeing how it is supposed to be done. But just you wait

when judge says he doesnt understand the language and if I can talk in a language that the court can understand, he's just pulling my leg isn't he? He totally conned me and I let him get away with it. Wont happen a second time.

" Don't let them proceed." = "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?" Scott: First: You are not making MOTIONS. Do NOT allow them to say that they are. Re: "I don't understand", respond that you require the supernumerary to RECUSE HIM/HER SELF as they are on record as being LEGALLY INCOMPETENT to do their job.

All the questions that you asked in the notice of mistake i had answered in an unrebutted affidavit that had been defaulted

I almost forgot to tell the most important parts, CPS lawyer stood up and stated that I was being vexatious, committing abuse of the process and he even brought case law Meads v. Meads into it.

Meads v. Meads is NOT CASE LAW, it's OPINION. the ISSUE TRIED was a DIVORCE, not any "Freeman" issue.

..OPINION made by an AMICUS CURIAE? :/

I stand corrected, what CPS lawyer was drawing from that case was there was deliberate thought to tying up the courts and expenditure in these cases, and that is what I apparently trying to do,

Meads v. Meads is turning into THEIR automatic STOCK-LANGUAGE - RED HERRING - COP-OUT they reach for to deal with people who are 'onto-the-CON'... ;)

By having done what you did in court today should be ENOUGH to leave you alone and get out of your life ????....why in the world would they want to take these kids off of you...????

Christopher of the Fleming family ATTEMPTS Scott's method..doesnt go as well, though :/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dygCDlkdyw

It was definitely a method, I don't think it's Scott's though. He reserved only his rights, and he didn't note for the record that the "judge" had acceppted liability when "entering a plea", as only a defendant may enter a plea.

Just listened to the beginning again..he did not call "Point-of-order!" at the start of his BUSINESS MEETING with the Judge ;)

"STOP TALKING!" = Stop making the record!

I like like this kid's court "APPEARANCE" much better -->> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMLyE6CWN8k&feature=share

Joseph Pierre Gilles it's a matter of them showing their authority for the last 17 months. RCMP made shit up to "help" CPS make their case, and realize now after reading Scott Duncan's Proper Notices that had we never accepted the original notice when they took the kids they would be home right now. I have affidavits that have gone to default against the social workers and RCMP and several more about to go into default. CPS just sent me more affidavits for the canceled hearing next week and now I have another bunch of lies to default them on. I already have 3 letters from the department of Justice. The last one came registered mail. All three telling me that I am not following proper proceedure.

@brenda, did you reserve ALL or MY rights?

I first said that I wanted to reserve all rights then, I said my rights, but right away I realized what I had said and stated all rights.

This is what my pre-trial memorandum says (I sent in affidavit to correct mistakes of who we and the kids were, sent affidavit to CPS lawyer to answer to standing, contract and force and effect,-defaulted., and then also Notices of mistake for all of us.) # 93. Their essence is that the Respondent seeks to deny the jurisdiction of the Minister of CS under the CFSA and that of this Honourable Court under the same and under the Family Court Act. #94. Rather than engage in the Court proceedings and address the issues of child welfare risk, the Respondent has chosen to embark on a path of improper, non-legal process. #95. The documentation, language and entirely unsupported �legal� propositions put forward by the Respondent are not entirely foreign to Canadian courts. #96. Associate Chief Judge J.D. Rooke, of the Alberta Court of Queen�s Bench has recently provided a detailed, considered and careful discussion of this emergent and troubling phenomenon presenting in our Courts, the �OPCA Litigant�. #97. The acronym stands for Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA), and it presents in variants across North America, with stylistic differences but essentially the same core objectives � to obfuscate, to delay, to exhaust, and to defeat the proper adjudication of causes of action pursuant to the governing legislation and court rules. #98. ACJ Rooke�s exposition is set out in Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571, a full copy of which is provided herewith. #99. The documents filed in this matter by the Respondent arguably bear the hallmarks of the OPCA litigant. #100. The careful elucidation of the Honourable ACJ Rooke sheds light on these documents filed by the Respondent (and on the numerous and similar unfiled documents which she has served on the child protection social workers, the Minister and the Minister�s solicitors. #103. It is submitted that the unusual and �pseudolegal� language adopted by the respondent in the multitude of documents which she has forwarded to the Applicant Agency and its agents and counsel is not capable of sensible interpretation. #104.Nor is it reasonably feasible to glean from within that language and those documents any evidence countering the evidence of child welfare risk which has been placed before the court by the applicant Agency. #105. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Applicant Minister that this honourable court strike in their entirety the Respondents documents filed April 2, 2013. #106. This is the approach suggested by ACJ Rooke, in the Meads decision, supra. #107. This is the approach taken by Goodfellow, J. in Jabez Financial Serices v. Sponagle 2008 NSSC 112, which case is referenced by ACJ Rooke in Meads. #108. In Jabez, supra, where the defendant was engaging in �OPCA� tactics, Goodfellow, J. concluded as follows: [18] It is clear that the defendants, through their solicitor, consented to the deadline of April 1 for compliance with professional undertakings given January 8, 2008 which not only remain outstanding by very clearly, from the direct response of the defendans, they have decided that they have the right to refuse complying with orders. The defendants in taking the various postions indicated in the material that they filed, clearly and overwhelmingly show wilful and deliberate ignoring of the process plus a clear and unequivocal intent to ignore the authority of the court and its order. As a consequence, the only conclusion on can come to is tha the plaintiffs are entitled to an order striking the defence with costs set in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) payable forthwith. #109. The case before the court here concerns child protection and the welfare of children who have been removed from the care of their parents because of substantial risk. (NOTICE NOT BECAUSE OF ACTUAL ABUSE) #110. It is submitted that if these Respondents refuse to engage meaningfully and properly in the court proceeding and in services to address that risk, they frustrate the ability of the Applicant Minister and his Honourable Court to revisit the finding and the children�s placement in care. #111. The Minister seeks continuation of the Order for Temporary Care and Custody and that the Respondents participate in a Psychological/Parental Capacity Assessment.

Where are the kids NOW..

They have been in foster care for 17 months.

The middle one is 15 she could walk at any time. but the younger one has down syndrom and can't and I have asked the middle one to stay with her.

And WHY the heck they took them kids away from you...????...I have 4 children, I have a pretty good idea how I would react if some thugs one day decide to take these children away.....and I CAN'T figure out WHY they would do that !!!....

just be aware there is a time limit for temp. care orders and the judge will have to decide or he is in contravention of the act.. can brenda order the court in violation and insist the judge dismiss the case as CAS had time to prove their case and haven't. Is that what the cas lawyer was trying to accuse brenda of( are they allowed to accuse people) and wouldn't that be an admission of brendas competence? CFSA45 (1) Where the court has made an order for temporary care and custody, the total period of duration of all disposition orders, including any supervision orders, shall not exceed: c)where the child or youngest child that is the subject of the disposition hearing is twelve years of age or more, twelve months. ABut they keep giving her more temp care orders.. *CFSA 42 (1) At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, the court shall make one of the following orders, in the child's best interests: (a) dismiss the matter; (b) the child shall remain in or be returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian, subject to the supervision of the agency, for a specified period, in accordance with Section 43; PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I DO BELIEVE THE THINGS SCOTT SAYS ON THIS PAGE, BUT THEY ARE LARGELY UNTESTED. bRENDA'S CHILDREN ARE REAL CHILDREN. Just make sure everyone understands what the true risks are. I stand behind you Brenda for seeing this through your way. Cas still no no legal right (no matter what the law claims) to have custody and say.

in their world cas is very powerful, although there is no true legal excuse, it is the kind of things for the self righteous in positions of power to operate with prejudice and feel they are truely Justice fied. what is it called when people in gov. do favors for others..or go over and way beyond to make sure nobody will discover this. Even when kids o need help, it is not the right of cas to swoop in and take control of the child no matter how many laws they pass to the contrary.

On a happier note, my son is 16 today and I am going to surprise him and his class with pizza for lunch.

My Son reached 18 2 months ago, and I will surprise him by taking him with me and leaving him at a corner of a street at least 500km away from home to see if he can MANAGE his self.....will get back there in one week to see how he is doing :D

But I KNOW that as soon as my wife will figure this out, she will RUN to him to SAVE him... :D

Family Court is statutory court? What about rebutting all presumptions? That list of presumptions listed on tender for law...is it accurate?

I think Scott Duncan should do seminars and charge a fee! What does everyone else think?

The problem is I can't pay Scott Duncan....he wants to get paid with sex....can't affoard it, I'm married.. :(

I THINK WE have to set up EVERYTHING, send out a limo to pick him up, he do the seminar, and then send him back in a limo to his TACHOE BRAE....

The money he makes with the seminars...here can do whatever he wants! ;)

He does not want $$....

He's too smart to let that just sit idle man! Ok...I'll buy him the good stuff! KUSH! !

THE ANSWER TO MEADS v. MEADS: RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery[1986] "The Charter applies to the COMMON LAW. The language of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 clearly includes the common law and a construction of that section that would exclude the common law from the Charter's application would be wholly unrealistic..... Although government action is generally dependant on statutory authority, it may rely as well on the common law as in the case of the prerogative. The Charter will apply to the common law where the common law is the basis for some GOVERNMENTAL ACTION which is alleged to have INFRINGED a guaranteed RIGHT or FREEDOM." http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=common+law%2C+rule&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii5/1986canlii5.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAQY29tbW9uIGxhdywgcnVsZQAAAAAAAAE

Would Brenda not submit a Praecipe to the clerk regarding proof of claim in order for them to not proceed?

Ed O'Brien, family court is NOT statutory court...

..i THINK a Praecipe needs to be submitted to a Court of Equity :/

BRENDA, reading this will give you a better understanding of what is really going-on in THEIR court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45886090/Temples-of-Baal-9th-Edition-by-Sir-David-Andrew

Aren't the kids "equity"?

If a Praecipe was used to get Dean out of jail for traffic crap...

In Canada is used in place of a motion

Thats a good question...has Scott commented on whether or not a PRAECIPE was used in Deans case?...im not sure :/

Scott has said a PETITION is to be used in place of a motion..

Praecipe: In Canada it is used in place of a notice of motion as an application for a desk order that is granted in the court registry without a hearing before a judge.

A petition is a request to do something, most commonly addressed to a government official or public entity.

as Scott explained to me, MOTION = between you, Judge, and the other party... PETITION = just between YOU and the Judge/court

Doesn't she want an order to release the kids?

But you don't want to MOTION

Petition can also be the title of a legal pleading that initiates a legal case. The initial pleading in a civil lawsuit that seeks only money (damages) might be called (in most U.S. courts) a complaint. An initial pleading in a lawsuit that seeks non-monetary or "equitable" relief, such as a request for a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus, custody of a child, or probate of a will, is instead called a petition.

Petition would be starting a "claim"?

Help! Scott Duncan

Scott said that by MOTION you are MOVING into the court's jurisdiction by consent with asking the judge to do something that will AFFECT the other party (still dont completely understand that)- BUT.....a PETITION, is something going-on that is JUST between you and the Judge/court

MOTION = asking Judge/court... PETITION = directing and/or ordering the Judge/court ? :/

I am reading that PETITION is the first pleading, or complaint...

Also termed writ of praecipe. 2. A written motion or request seeking some court action, esp. a trial setting or an entry of judgment.

She's still in it right now...?

praecipe quod reddat (pree-s<<schwa>>-pee or pres-<<schwa>>-pee kwod red-at). [Latin �command that he render�] Hist. A writ directing the defendant to return certain property

Yesterday in court they sealed all of my Notices of mistake in an envelope along with other papers like affdavits. So today I served them with new Notices of mistake along with mistake of not consenting to Temporary Care and Custory Order and changing it to delcined. I had, not consented to the Order numerous times through affidavits and even stated in court and still kept getting them. Tomorrow Im serving them with Petition - Non negotiable. I am going to make their life so miserable, not even close to what they have done to us. But at least it is a start.

Scott has mentioned to me, in terms of sending a NOTICE, that the next line under your NOTICE-heading should read, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. That is what i do now with any NOTICEs that i send...

I will send them another notice tomorrow with that change and I also had put it under the sigature name All rights reserved.

Scott told me a few months ago to ALWAYS put ALL RIGHTS RESERVED on ANY letter I send.....makes lots of senses to me....I do that for ANYTHING I send to whoever I send it...even my wife :D

How far does that go with the wife?

Here are some of MY favorites RIGHTS security of the person rights to privacy All peoples have the right of self-determination the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. The rights to a fair and competent hearing

I don't know is Scott would know (or recommend) this, but (since he is the Master of the UCC) you also night be able to further your authority, and further confuse, deflate...and fuck with them... By adding a stamp to the bottom of every corner of any courr document you serve...esp the front page and the BACK of the last page. And make sure you sign over each stamp with how you sign your name...using either gold or purple ink...but not red or black.

Seriously? Sounds like a "Meads" tactic...

I don't know what a "Meads" tactic is, but I do know it's something potentially useful if you wish to ensure that "all rights" are "reserved" and places that document under UCC protection and/or jurisdiction... Just something I read somewhere once... Id have to dig deep to find it.... Thought if I mentioned it and Scott saw it, he or someone else might have also heard of this and know more about it...

Brenda- there is another In-Court related thread on here Scott has given instruction on that would help you, but its somewhere near the bottom so ill have to dive-in and get it...

Oh... the Praecipe used in Dean's case was after NOTICE of his name being property of the Trust... gotcha

Scott Duncan: no. You ask, BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES A LEGAL FICTION administer MY estate?

-Russ Rawlingson: So if you get the Justice to admit representing the crown and your adversery is the crown it then becomes clear "conflict of interest" and leads to recusal or even dismissal as there is no way to proceed. Is this where your going with "WHO ARE YOU?" Scott Duncan ?

Scott Duncan: Yes -Russ, that is where I am going WHO ARE YOU negates the POSSIBILITY of there being UNDERSTANDING.

Scott Duncan: THEY ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR. They have NO AUTHORITY to identify themselves. A JUSTICE IS NOT A PERSON

Scott Duncan: THEY SIMPLY CAN'T ANSWER!

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

<<WHO ARE YOU negates the POSSIBILITY of there being UNDERSTANDING... THEY ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR. They have NO AUTHORITY to identify themselves. A JUSTICE IS NOT A PERSON... THEY SIMPLY CAN'T ANSWER!>> Scott Duncan. A whole LOT of info, and just 31 words. ;)

Thanks for bringing this thread back up Mackx, then there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiUqg8dL7p8

THEY ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR: UNauthorized :)

Don't bring these old threads too often please Mackximus Minimus, I was surprisingly stupid in these days :(

Oh shiiiittttt !!! O.o Please destroy this !!! :(

Haha! I love going back, and reading again "old" threads. With what I have learned from Scott, I can read back and, actually UNDERSTAND what he was saying. It was extra-terrestrial language for me, in the beginning. I recall how surprisingly stupid I was too. I guess I am a lot LESS stupid now. :D

When a "Justice" claims not to "understand", ask if they are legally competent to hear this case, with such limited understanding. :P

Awesome!!! I am getting so much material to use on these clwns here. Loving it!!!!

I need a competent douchebag "Justice" to pose bullshit statements I can counter. You guys are only good at parroting what they have already said. Hardly a challenge. :P

So far..... :-P

But I am just getting started. :-P

Parroting? Why do I think of Freezebeat/Jeff when I read that word...? :D

PIERRE DAOUST received some mail !!... :-D

Today, was a GREAT day, for the ADMINISTRATOR !!! :D

I have sent a letter to CRA, with one simple question. Do PERSONS domiciled in QUEBEC, are OBLIGED to have a Taxpayer Title in CANADA. Nothing really fancy, just one little question, I even told them WHY I ask this question, after receiving some information, I have good reasons to believe they don�t, but I am not sure�..so I ask you, CRA, which should be the best source for that kind of question�..anyway� I received an ANSWER :D And let me tell you something Dean Clifford, you are in the deepest of the shit� :D You will go in jail, and you will have to pay thousands of dollars, they KNOW who you are, and they will go after you :P They direct me to their website and telling me to see how it works with kooks that dosen't want to pay taxes :D They NEVER, in that letter, answer my question, but they are telling me ALL the bad things that will happen to me, if I follow weirdos like Dean Cliffort :D So I have sent back another small letter, asking to answer my simple question, and forget about the other shit�..I promise them, regardless of their answer, that I will file an income tax return for PIERRE DAOUST, :D , and they can count on me, I always keep my promises, I tell them that I am not part of ANY groups that want to disobey the law :P , like these freeman on the land idiots... :D I tell them the TRUTH, all of it....so let see if they will do the same :( I need a YES or NO to my question :D

we need a flow chart and/or script. talked about that with chris yesterday.

Here you are Chris Evan and David Johansen, if you need anything else, just ask me :D http://www.rff.com/flowchart_input_output.png

:D

Just to back track a little, from what I gather - NOTICE=PUBLIC and PETITION=PRIVATE. I've heard from a very competent source (a national justice) you should stay out of the public as it prejudices EVERYTHING you submit/file as it is against PUBLIC POLICY. That is why they NEVER UNDERSTAND the notice of mistake and you must STAND and ASSERT it in open court. The notice reveals the TRUTH of the constructive TRUST in play (court) and no agent of the court wants to touch that HOT POTATO, especially in open court in front of the people!! Petitions should be submitted under seal, in camera (to chambers) through a 3d party, such as a NOTARY PUBLIC (it is the opinion of the court - all are fucking liars until a 3d party validates something) When something is reviewed in chambers, it is kept PRIVATE and the justice carries the knowledge with him to the bench. In PUBLIC it is form OVER substance. In PRIVATE it is substance OVER form. Maybe it would be wise to start sending documents to the PRIVATE side of the courtroom instead of knocking heads with the PUBLIC side? Take it for what it is, hope this helps someone.

Sending a telegram DIRECTLY to the "Justice" before going to court is pretty much effective.....I did it once, and the day after, I received a call to cancel that appearance :D

Steve Lemieux, that seems valuable to me in my situtation.

Telegram is a old thing, but Man does it rock :D .....the telegram company call the PERSON and dictate whats on the telegram, the company send a fax and then a registered mail..........so the PERSON to whom you are sending it, can't blame on no one, if he did not heard of it.... :D

It's a lot more expansive, but on certain situation, it's worth it :D

Who did you use, Western Union?

www.telegrammes.com :D

It's about $50 for 100 words.......so you get to be PRECISE and to the point :D

That's why I have brought this telegram thing in here.......just for you Chris Evan :D

Fuck....how am I going to say what I want in 100 words?

Don't say what you WANT, just say what NEEDS to be said :P

http://www.sendtelegram.com/ This seems to be a good one.

They are ALL good ones :/ ......it's a simple business, you should start one :D .....you would make a fortune, I would USE you :P

This fucking ENTREPRENEUR mindset within me dosen't stop one second :(

Same here! I had a paper route when I was 9, I was dealing candy in school when I was 12, I was a bookie in high school. Now I run a landscaping company since 2004.

I know, but landscaping must be terribly boring.......start a telegram company, that shit must be fun.....imagine, you get to SEE all these communications between chimps :D

Dude, you should see the communications between chimps I see everyday! :-D

HAHAHA!!!!.... :D

I don't get why people are compelled to make statements and reply to questions in open court. The only things coming out of your mouth should be QUESTIONS. For example, Did you get the paperwork that was filed respective to this claim? Were the questions in that document answered? How? By who? Was it an affidavit? Under who�s authority? Can you share the answers in this court room here today as I have not received these answers? How can this gong show/trial continue if the questions submitted in the affidavit and/or notice have not been answered? Is there not fraud being committed here today? Am I not entitled to have questions answered? Why are questions not being answered? Are you suggesting that asking questions in this court today is an act of contempt? Is it not a fact that the crown prosecutor in this courtroom like to suck big cocks? Did the crown suck your cock today Mr justice hence you are showing favouritism towards him? Why do you keep suggesting that I am the fictitious juristic person and/or the decedent? Did the paperwork filed not clearly identify me as beneficiary of the trust? What your problem exactly? You get the idea. Assert YOUR shit in YOUR filings and ASK QUESTIONS and INSIST on answers in court (if you insist on going). Just my 2 cents. Ok, back to work...

IS that Satan's semen on your chin?

Chris, you might wanna word it as follows - Does anyone in this courtroom have any FACT or EVIDENCE that rebuts the presumption that this crown did in fact suck off this justice earlier today and in doing so, gained favourable treatment? No? LET the record show that NO fact OR evidence has been brought forward to REBUT the presumption that the crown DID sucked off the justice here today and in performing such an act, fraudulently GAINED favourable treatment respective to this alleged claim. How can this joke/trial proceed under these cirCUMstances?! ;)

Dude, i am working on saying what I want in under 100 words....don't tempt me!

:-D

:D

HAHAHA!!!....please remove that meme creation thing out of my hands :D

hihihihihhi!!! Hey Chris Evan :D,

Are you guys laughing ???....fuck I am having a blast :D

*sigh*

I am laughing Pete Daoust...thanks for the good morning smile!

Sorry Sir, just had an air bubble crossing one of these channels I have in the protoplasm :(