Here's a little tidbit, I was in court on Wed, the Justice said, they don't do point of order and he couldn't understand the Notice of Mistake. So I sent him a little "Notice of I'll fucking lien your law licence!" I am back there on Wed., next week, lets see if he changes his tune!! Although now that I have heard Dean Kory give it to 'em, I know better!!

"...the Justice said, they don't do point of order and he couldn't understand the Notice of Mistake..." - i think Scott's advice to Brenda Larson when the same thing happened to her, was that she should've said if you dont UNDERSTAND what im talking about that makes you LEGALLY INCOMPETENT to do this job so please RECUSE yourself!

I did ask him to recuse himself, not for that reason, but he said no!!

He said "no," interesting...would love to hear Scott gives his opinion on how to deal with a justice who on valid grounds doesnt RECUSE himself when asked :/

Be a "SOVEREIGN MAN" All Rights Reserved.

From what I remember, as soon as that public servant said, "they don't do point of order," you should have said, "I know, it's my thing that I do. Do you object to that?" Then if he vomits anything I would ask

DAMN: I would ask, "WHO ARE YOU?" Now there is no understanding.

Bildo brings up a good point. Do you "reserve all rights" right-of-the-bat BEFORE you cross 'the bar,' OR, is it ok to cross 'the bar' THEN reserve them? I would assume you do this BEFORE you 'cross the bar'...as you would have already created joinder with their jurisdiction by crossing-the-bar first, and THEN saying the- "...I reserve all rights..."?.....seeking clarification here, Scott

The railing or low wall that separates the gallery [land] from the well of the court [captain's ship in admiralty].

It's best to stay standing and not enter the well of the court. But sometimes they say they can't hear you unless you enter the well.

Can this be used to cancel restraining orders and existing orders

Ive gotten it into my head while discussing all this stuff that it be best if in the position, to deliberately stop short of before 'crossing-the-bar' and make it immediately clear to the justice that- "I am here by special appearance under protest ONLY, not GENERAL appearance, special appearance under protest ONLY, as it is not my INTENT to create joinder with this court of admiralty; do you take Judicial Notice of the fact your Justice, that i am here by special appearance under protest only and do not CONSENT to any joinder created by ME with this court of admiralty?".....if the Justice says "yes;" wouldnt you then be 'boarding-the-ship' with the Justice now fully being aware that you are ONLY doing so as sort of a 'guest' and/or 'visitor?'.....i might get my ass-handed-to-me by Scott for throwing this out there, but this all brings up a good point ultimately; do we go through the- "I reserve all rights"-mantra BEFORE we cross-the-bar," or, is it still okay/safe to cross-the-bar first and deliver the "I reserve all rights..." even AFTER having crossing-the-bar..... :/

I reserve before and after. Actually, while going through the bar, and finish at the accused table, and I remain standing when asked to be seated, as I don't want to lose "standing" in the "court".

Or reserving all rights both side of this stupid bar ? :)

Be a lot easier if they had a friggin' boat floating around in the well.

Better question Bilbo: How can you have an admiralty court which is either supposed to be on or over navigable waters when, umm.....WHERE are the NAVIGABLE WATERS to begin with?!.....two words- FALSE, PRETENCES ;)

False pretences -exactly

I used to ask them where is the international contract?

MAXIM OF LAW: A judgement given by one who is NOT the proper judge is of no force and should not harm ANY ONE.

I think i have seen that MAXIM phrased: "A judgment given by one who is not in the proper JURISDICTION is of no force and should not harm any one"

would a notice of mistake and the handbook courts follow that requires them to address the mistake to that extend such as lets say you were mislead on what a word meant if you consent to an agreement which turned to an order??

questions remove understanding and presumptions.

They would respond with something like get a lawyer

who are they to order me to do anything?

I also carry around a invoice lager to bill them. .

Scott Duncan talked about how judges dont exist after 1982. where is it? Curious. I just got a "judge" for a hearing unrelated.

was he voted in by the people?

because a real one is voted in on the trust of the people

if i remember justices were put in by the attorney of ontario. the judge is voted in, but i dont know the process.

im looking for like literature or books or material to prove this. not saying your word is bad but i feel better if i saw something in writing

A judge is an official who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate.

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Judge

im looking for legislation or protocol that outlines this. or if there is none then some maxim if p;ossible. a simple website doesnt mean its fact.

http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=2583

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/sys/index-eng.asp

Just read this again. I noticed that UCC is being utilized via the reservation of rights. "Section 1, Subsection 308, of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE covers RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This is a well-known fact, and this is how you use it."

definition of CODE = secret meaning (literally) Uniform Commercial CODE Municipal CODE Criminal CODE DaVinci CODE signed, i dont trust them

All of these CODEs are ways to fleece us out of money, property, and rights. They serve only those who create them and that is not the public.

This might be a stupid question but, If we want to avoid belief because ALL belief is evil, then why are we saying "I believe" in the very first paragraph of the NOTICE? Should we not be saying something like "I wish to contest there has been a mistake" as a King expresses their wishes. Also in such couldn't saying I believe leave it open for debate as it is being presented as an opinion and not a fact?

use belief to keep the not knowing issue alive.

see why belief is evil yet??

If you knew of the contract how then can you also claim you did not know. it is a notice of mistake not a argument.

Mister Frisbey has answered, Daslow Aizelasi. You are simply too dumb to see it. It is clear, and concise. Would you like me to dumb it down further, or can you take the time and read the thread again? Of everyone on this thread, Mr. Frisbey seems to be the only one with their brain engaged.

I dare say Mr Frisbey is the ONLY one here who has provided any real understanding of NOTICE OF MISTAKE.

Yes, and if i become a despot, the rest of you who didn't get a clue, will be the first against the wall.

For when it is written as, to contest the issue of knowing there was a mistake would be an implied knowing of the contract and since you knew of the contract you can not claim that you did not know. See makes WAY more sense.

That is why you are an idiot Daslow Aizelasi. What you call "logic" is food for the system. If someone claims they have a contract with me, I get to say "no" and "prove it". There is no "understanding" and the steaming pile of shit that you think "makes more sense" is just crap that your empty head constructed.

In The Dictionary of Canadian Law, the very last line in the definition for CROWN CHARGES is: "...by virtue of any contract." I think this is relevant because the average-'person' going into court is doing so thinking that it will be the same way they saw it on JUDGE JUDY- you give your side, they give their side, and then the Judge will give their decision based on FAIRNESS and IMPARTIALITY relative to the law. The average-'person' has NO idea that this is based on these imaginary (but maybe not in some cases) SUMMARY EXECUTION OF MERCANTILE INSTRUMENTS. It SEEMS the NOTICE OF MISTAKE is a very non-adverse alternative to saying what i think all of us REALLY want to say to these public-servants- WHERE'S THE FUCKING CONTRACT, THAT OH BY THE WAY, NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

Thanks Scott, sorry unlike yourself most of us were not born into this with a silver spoon in our mouths & raised on it. Maybe you should be pointing the finger at the Nobles who allowed this knowledge to slip away. You may be fulfilling your duty now but what about the years you sat back and watched it all happen? And you are calling me an idiot. I think those who had the knowledge and did not share are the idiots and we are merely the circumstantial outcome. You say we have no value, well what value does your constant rage and anger have? How do you benefit from it? Oh wait I forgot Scott is God. Sorry GOD

Thank you Derek. ...as for those who think like Daslow Aizelasi, on this VERY SIMPLE AND BASIC concept, I think it's time to accept that you are using resources others could be using, and the ONLY ethical thing to do is kill yourself. Please video the act, so we can post it here on THE TENDER FOR LAW. I've always wanted to run a forum that has a body-count. :D Seriously, I see all these dipshits who claim to be "studying for years" and they can't grasp the SIMPLEST concepts. EVERY ONE OF THOSE DIPSHITS are a THREAT to MY initiatives, and when my duties are fulfilled, such people will NOT be tolerated/abided... I long for those days to arrive soon. Seriously, I fucking HATE every single one of you with stultified brains. I really want to take a blade and cut you all up slowly, one-by-one, because you rob me of so much.

I don't care if you benefit from the ignorance/stupidity of others. I'm the one paying the price, not you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_vM59_38j4

Scott Duncan: If someone claims they have a contract with me, I get to say "no" and "prove it". There is no "understanding" and the steaming pile of shit that you think "makes more sense" is just crap that your empty head constructed.

Awesome shit here