Icbeonne Senama

Jul 01, 2013 12:44 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152435377608E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 12:44 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 01, 2013 1:06 PM
MANY of you see me use the term "Weasel word" in many of my critiques of your thought processes. Those whom I've banned for getting upset because I spoke the truth, didn't know it was a REAL THING, and just thought I was calling them names. If I use a term, look it up before you start telling your idiotic Christian friends that I "called you a weasel". You ARE, but that's not why I said it...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 1:06 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Jul 01, 2013 4:13 PM
Scott Duncan, I would love to hear your feedback! I am finally following YOUR advice and sending a notice of mistake. Yes folks... I am doing what Scott said (or at least my interpretation of it). I am using this for a child support allegation, but you could use this for anything! http://freedomfromgovernment.us/?p=217


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 4:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Norah Holloway

Jul 01, 2013 4:19 PM
This seems fitting. What is Canada Day, really? What are people celebrating? And why July 1st?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01536860029343E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 4:19 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 01, 2013 4:44 PM
I was looking at this: Financial Administration Act Part III Public Disbursements 29. (1) Where a guarantee has been given under the authority of Parliament by or on behalf of Her Majesty for the payment of any debt or obligation, any amount required to be paid by the terms of the guarantee may, subject to the Act authorizing the guarantee, be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. And thinking, if WE are the GUARANTEE... where IS this Act authorizing this guarantee?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 4:44 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 01, 2013 5:59 PM
Ok... it is out of my hands now!


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 5:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 01, 2013 9:17 PM
CLAYTON OSAWASKAYWAKOOP I DON'T CELEBRATE CANADA DAY!!!! BECAUSE TODAY REPRESENTS THE DEATHS OF OUR CHILDREN... IT REPRESENTS THE MURDERING OF THE WOMEN, AND THE INCARCERATION OF THE MEN... I DON'T CELEBRATE CANADA DAY BECAUSE I AM NOT CANADIAN... I know exactly who I am, niya nehiyaw!... Many of my own kind call themselves canadian... Because the don't know any better... THEY HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO THE SYSTEM, INTO THE VERY FABRIC OF CANADIAN SOCIETY... Our people have been beaten and murdered, told to forget who we are... We were told to assimilate into the canadian identity. FOR THE MOST PART THEY SUCCEEDED, LOOK AROUND AT HOW SO MANY OF OUR PEOPLE EMBRACE AN IDENTITY OF COLONIZERS... They do it because they wanna feel equal to the oppressors, they don't wanna be their true selves because its a life of being oppressed... Today many of our people teach their own children how to be a flag waving canadian... TEACHING THEM HOW TO ASSIMILATE AND TO COLONIZE THEMSELVES... There are those who wave the canadian flags, and embrace the canadian identity... AND THERE ARE THOSE SUCH AS MYSELF WHO KNOW EXACTLY WHO THEY ARE, AND IT SURE AS HELL ISN'T CANADIAN. TODAY IS A DAY OF LIBERATION!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 9:17 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Jul 01, 2013 9:50 PM
"all debts public and private"? can that be interpreted to be a claim that all private debts are also public?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 9:50 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 01, 2013 10:56 PM
SERVANT KING SCOTT PHILLIP HAYES 8:16pm Jun 30 - okay, i was wondering because the answer is the truth beyond the inns of court and is found in fleet law over a thousand years ago, because the templar illusion is based completely in the seat of the sovereign claims of the high kings and lower kings to all water surrounding their land boundies could not be owned or held, thus germany claimed THE RIGHT AND IMPOSED FLEET LAW TO CONTROL TRADE AND COMMERCE, LIKE ALL BUSINESS'S THE FLEET TRANSFORMED AGAIN AND ADMIRALTY AND THE CRIMINAL CODES WERE BORN OF IT. Which today is the is the fiction of the u.c.c. and the illusionary common law of crimes as the line of COMMERCIAL CORPORATE POLICY AS FORMING THE RIGHT TOO LAW, PIRATES OR USURPERS HAD THEIR OWN CODES AND POLICY AND THE TWO MERGED UNDER THE TEMPLARS AND BECAME COLONIAL LAW. Once any law cross's a soverign land boundary it is without force or effect because none of this supposed law was ever completely ratified by the world habitant's who became hostage to colonial hitmen like columbus, as a member of the "crown temple" her majesty had to give up the seat of the sovereign which is possessed in MAN'S LAW as for kings only..by divine rite: THAT'S WHY EVERY THING ABOUT THIS IS FRAUD, THE KING IS THE CREDITOR, GRANTOR AND LICENSOR, ANY THING AFTER THAT IS FICTION, THE POPE IS NOT EMPEROR, AND KING IS NOT THE POPE, BUT I LIKE WHAT I READ. WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TOO IS THE COMPETENT BOUNDARIES OF ALL LAWFUL CLAIMS TO THE SEAT OF THE SOVEREIGN, I DON'T NOT SEE HOW CROSSING THE BIG POND AND KILLING ALL OPPOSITION AND STICKING THE SURVIVORS ON LESS THEN 1% OF THEIR TOTAL LAND AND GIVEN THEM 4% OF THEIR TRUST FUNDS WHICH SHOULD IN REAL BUSINESS BE BASED IN REAL VALUES AT 60 %, AND HER MAJESTY, LESS THE COSTS OF THE COLONIES, RECEIVES MUCH MORE LESS THEN 40% oops i am intellectually masturbating, forgive me, i will put my brain away now, sorry to inconvenience anyone who may be offended with my words, but oddly not offended by the genocide that created these plantation states and prison provinces forgive me.. and this spell checker is complete crap.. :)

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 01, 2013 10:56 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 02, 2013 6:26 PM
THANK YOU Clayton Osawaskaywakoop for showing the truth of canada corporations destructive actions on ALL Our Peoples and Home Lands devastations, helped by indian act Section 74 chief and council, afn, ALL employees of canada, crown, crown templar, corporations, working together, too end their INDIAN PROBLEM. I have been saying this, but, many of Our Peoples look for the path of least resistance for the image of having security from the illusion and power of debt notes, the comfort zone of no thing but guaranteed death, by accepting the corporatphopy of true lies .... CLAYTON OSAWASKAYWAKOOP Canada knows it has no right to govern us... CANADA KNOWS IT HAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO CLAIM THESE LANDS... What it does know is how to create the illusion of it... What it did was created an identity within the confines and jurisdiction of the canadian state... IT TOOK OUR CHILDREN, FORCED THEM TO FORGET THEIR TRUE IDENTITY AND PRESENTED THE FALSE IDENTITY TO THEM... The children missing their identity latched onto this new identity... TAKING US AWAY FROM OUR IDENTITY, AND PUTTING US IN AN IDENTITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE CANADIAN STATE. In reality canada can't take away our sovereignty, we willfully gave it up... WE GAVE IT UP WHEN WE CHANGED THE WAY WE LIVED OUR LIVES... We gave it up when we embraced canada. What's it gonna take to liberate ourselves?... TO RECONNECT... TO FIND OURSELVES... TO KNOW OURSELVES.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 02, 2013 6:26 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 02, 2013 8:08 PM
Lani Black wins in court - and tells ALL about how she did it . . . .a Tender For Law-EXCLUSIVE! "Case dismissed. No. I did not accept the offer of 'no fines, no court costs...in exchange for a sworn testimony of probable cause' either. Case was dismissed because there was no credibility on the part of the state. My request for the video recording was denied, and the state could not hold up their case against me. It took my time though. Time that I cannot get back. Keep that in mind. I didn't have an opportunity to challenge jurisdiction. It was dismissed when I stepped up to the microphone....nothing to learn from me. The only question I ever posted was the one we discussed about a month ago..."


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 02, 2013 8:08 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 02, 2013 11:10 PM
Because FUCK YOU, God. :P

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 02, 2013 11:10 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 02, 2013 11:20 PM
Just a tip...


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 02, 2013 11:20 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 03, 2013 12:00 AM
Thanks for adding me Scott. I look forward to learning from you. I've already watched the required viewing. If I understand correctly, money is merely one of many tenders for law.


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 12:00 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 03, 2013 7:47 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 7:47 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/eG5PUMDRfGI?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 03, 2013 9:06 AM
I liked this. There is much you can "read" from it.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 9:06 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Jul 03, 2013 12:58 PM
I posted this on Trent's page, if you don't think it's accurate Scott Duncan, you can remove from the TFL. I'm grateful to Scott for various reasons...he may be alot of things but one thing I trust in him is that he is not a liar....if you reread the convo...you will notice that the suggestion was made that he lied. That is an ad hominen attack.. Ad hominem attacks during discussions = loss of credibility + no increased awareness/learning An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance The piece of information he was explaining is a KEY to freedom. I always say, if you can make it in that group you can make it anywhere...I'm forced to critically think everything before I post a question even. That in itself goes against our programming which is what makes the group so valuable. The other thing is, none of it is personal, even the law is not personal, it's our own ignorance that gives us that impression. We all comprehend that our person is different then us the living being. In the group, think as a living being (critically), but recognize that the 'person' is our programming. When Scott responds, it's the 'person' thinking/programming that he is responding to, not the living being.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 12:58 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Adam Thomas

Jul 03, 2013 2:03 PM
Critical thinking time. What would happen if you licked & stuck a $1 ( one dollar stamp) onto a five dollar note from your cuntree. 'Let he who is deceived be deceived'. Let's find out then.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02033698492237E+016
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 2:03 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 03, 2013 5:02 PM
I can't find the thread where Scott mentioned that the banks exchange currency, so will start a new one to ask this. I want to be sure I comprehend this correctly. For example, a loan, our signature creates the credit, the bank exchanges the credit for legal tender....how would you describe what is backing our signature to give us the power to create the credit? I know the banks suggestion we are in the debtor category and that our labour is what pays off the loan, which isn't accurate, is it the security of the person/birth certificate that is the backing of our signature?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 5:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 03, 2013 9:42 PM
I am in agreement with CHRISTOPHER BEACH with his words about the destruction on Our Peoples Home Lands and the planned GENOCIDE/KILLING off of Our Peoples, with man made up laws .. Treaties are tricks/spells, for these words are man made up laws .. Since contact we have no, never heard or witnessed the truth in the man made up words in trick treaties .. The original TREATIES .. Are only TREATIES OF PEACE .. NO, NEVER treaties for any Land Mass .. When Christopher Beach refers to us as aboriginal, he at this point agreed with a corporate word to self terminate him self and ALL those agreeing to be called aboriginal or the other corporate made up words of : indian : indigenous : 1st nations : native : metis, these are trick words to help the corporations end their INDIAN PROBLEM, to kill us off and steal Our Home Lands, by admiralty law, maritime law, that we have abandoned Our Home Lands, through trick words to cast a spell of an image we gave up, and their illusion is, they own Our Peoples Home Lands .. In writing request canada and its provincial corporations Our Peoples Ancient Ones could put a signature on paper when they did not know how to write in english .. So request for a wet ink insturment (document) with Our Peoples Ancients Ones true signature .. All signatures were written by priests, british agants of the crown, crown templar .. No not by Our Peoples Ancient Ones, for the fact they did not know english contract law, so every thing done since then is a fraud, and the fraud happening now is the indian act SECTION 74 chief and council employees of : crown, crown templar, canada and its provincial corporations, ALL these are working together to kill us off .... Christopher Beach �>> At the same time, Aboriginal people gave up the majority of this wonderful country so non-Aboriginal people can live the good life with the promise of a treaty, which was never , in my opinion, honored in good faith. Non-Aboriginals forgot what life was like in their homeland where many died of starvation and were persecuted at the hands of their own people. Now that they had a taste of the good life, they want to further persecute Aboriginal people today in a similar way. And the survival rate was of Aboriginal babies was due to filthy Europeans who thought it was alright to spit on the floors and throw garbage into the same water they drank from. They then bring those sicknesses they created by their stupidity from their countries, and come here and continue that way of life and thinking, infecting Aboriginal people and their babies. Now, these stupid same people's ancestors, want to destroy the rest of the country that they promised Aboriginal people, they would protect. Before European contact, there was 60 million Aboriginal people living on what was then know as Turtle Island , in harmony with all living things, no pollution. Two hundred years later, most of our lakes and rivers are so contaminated, some lake, have become dead lakes which has no life at all. Its time for Aboriginal people to take a stand and say enough is enough, we have given more than enough and realize the Greed of Non-Aboriginal people is never satisfied and never ending. Idle No More.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 03, 2013 9:42 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 04, 2013 4:13 AM
Some may find this interesting, it's not an easy read...translated from french to english ...it appears the french is on the even numbered pages and the english on the odd numbered pages, maybe Pierre can confirm that? The Liber Niger Admiralitatis, or Black Book of the Admiralty, is an illuminated manual of instruction for the Lord High Admiral. It contains details on the appointment and office of admiral, the conduct of cases in the High Court of Admiralty, and a section on the examination and punishment of offenders, and includes the Laws of Ol�ron, a code of maritime law thought to have been compiled in the thirteenth century under English royal authority, initially to govern the Gascon trade which passed by the island of Ol�ron, off the west coast of France. Little is known about the circumstances of the book's compilation, or its early history. The book was consulted at the Admiralty registry by naval historians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but by 1808 it had been lost and the registry clerk claimed that the registry 'had never seen such a book, and knew nothing of it'.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 4:13 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sheerien Carter

Jul 04, 2013 5:14 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 629108263838974
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 5:14 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 04, 2013 6:06 AM
HOW you think wrong.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 6:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/EF8tdXwa-AE?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Jul 04, 2013 2:14 PM
These two comments are from a thread in the contracting law group, the whole thread is enlightening, and I thought I'd share with this group these gems. Beverly's comment didn't directly follow the comment by Scott, but still related to the effect religion has/had on our belief systems Scott Duncan : NO MINISTER IS DUPED. That's why they have LEGAL protection! LEGAL protection. LET THAT SINK IN! Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: Its just a lien on your mind...


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 2:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 04, 2013 6:41 PM
I know this doesn't directly relate to TFL but Scott Duncan would you be able to suggest something? Stu Webb Anyone know any good resources for learning objective C and C++?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 6:41 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 04, 2013 8:03 PM
Solving a problem: Sino is looking for discussion/feedback/knowledge or legitimate remedy on the following post. This SHOULD be easy, but Sack-of-shit lying paedophiles keep polluting the discussion with bullshit about "God's Law" and quoting from the very bible WE (the Nobility) made! So I shall scrape the theist shit off my shoes, and carry it over here. Let's look at the answers. GOD and/or "GOD'S WORD" gets you banned. Period. Sino posted: Question, how many got a loan(car,student,house etc..) and paid it off fully and received the original promissory note back ? If you did not get it back, that is theft and stolen property. So, now its time to request it back from the people who stole it or is trying to steal it. RCMP , Courts etc... should be called in to investigate. If they fail to provide you the original, they should in honor(not sure many corporations have, well i am sure 100% there is none lol) send you a chq for the full amount of the promissory note you tendered to them when you signed it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RULES, ANY POSTS ABOUT RELIGION OR OUTSIDE OF SPEAKING ON SECURITIES OR CONTRACT LAW WILL BE REMOVED ONCE IM IN FRONT OF MY CPU, THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF TO ARGUE AND INSULT ONE ANOTHER, THE NEXT POST BY ANYONE WHO INSULTS OR ARGUES OUTSIDE THE FINE POINTS OF CONTRACT LAW WILL BE BANNED ALONG WITH YOUR COMMENTS FROM NOW ON. ONLY RELIGION POSTS THAT WILL BE TOLERATED ARE THAT OF POINTING OUT WHERE CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL LAW IS BEING APPLIED. Thanks everyone :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 8:03 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 04, 2013 10:52 PM
ALERT: Government is HIDING BUSINESS LISTINGS which reveal the courts as COMMERCIAL. I was in the Dunn and Bradstreet listings to get the listing showing that a Supernumerary (Justice) is different than a judge. Its account is a business entity called "JUSTICE". When you look it up, the listing USED to say: GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO Operating As JUSTICE. It VANISHED when I refreshed the page. EVERY OTHER PROVINCE has vanished. MANITOBA seems to be in tact still. I guess they forgot about that province :D I ScreenCapp'd the Manitoba listing, in case that vanishes too.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 10:52 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Jul 04, 2013 11:56 PM
Thought I would share this for discussion, a friend made a post that they received a trust number from CRA and the declaration/deed of the trust is to govern/control the use of the Canadian citizen by the living man


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 04, 2013 11:56 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 05, 2013 2:09 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 2:09 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 05, 2013 5:33 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 5:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/cMVeNyr16kc?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 05, 2013 6:15 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 6:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/cG963FOPg1s?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 05, 2013 4:38 PM
QUESTION: Civil Code of Quebec ( I know it's boring to discuss this but I'm IN Quebec) Article 397. A spouse who enters into a contract for the current needs of the family also binds the other spouse for the whole, if they are not separated from bed and board. However, the non-contracting spouse is not liable for the debt if he or she had previously informed the other contracting party of his or her unwillingness to be bound. _______________________________________________________ QUESTION:So if my WIFE publish a Notarized LEGAL NOTICE in the newspaper saying that she has NOTHING TO DO with ANY of commercial stuff I'm contracting in, that should be enough for her to NOT suffer from my DECISIONS for my PERSON ? Thanks Pierre


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 4:38 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Daslow Aizelasi

Jul 05, 2013 5:53 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152350240057E+016
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 5:53 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sheerien Carter

Jul 05, 2013 11:46 PM
Charity is a crime.

Unique Facebook User ID: 629108263838974
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2013 11:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZE1Za0hJcmY?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 06, 2013 1:34 AM
End of the week funny...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 1:34 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Norah Holloway

Jul 06, 2013 3:28 AM
There you have it Dean Clifford on with Dan Kahan here in Victoria. FMOTL Interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1ln94zgo7i0 Email: go_islandsouth@shaw.ca and send your Thank You's to Dan & his Team to send your support!! www.deanclifford.info

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01536860029343E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 3:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/1ln94zgo7i0?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 06, 2013 6:33 AM
Status update: Adam Thomas,Scott Duncan, Tara Duncan, so.... The Parougued ( fuck shit piss, spelling....) noble invites me at no cost to learn some things to save my life. I, Me, My... study, learn, become homeless living in a motor home... and travel thru High River as the guns are being seized. On my way to a clients house boat in BC... to a little place called KOOCANUSA.... fucking legalese and words and shit... The Game is on. This brings me to my point. shot some amazing footage... I created I own it... The client is a bully and he won in the past because I was caught up in belief and ignorance. I implemented the knowledge from the bills of exchange book Adam posted. He informed on me to police and the CRA... ( 2 counts unauthorized use of name @ 6000 per)I said great this is a matter of a private trust and because you accepted previous invoices for partial payment of services you have agreed to my terms and guess what mother fucker... ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Just a tast as this is a mtter of a PRIVATE TRUST, This may not be big to you guys but it is huge to me. 1. test case for knowledge retention and prep for when kidnapped.... I give myself an A 2. practical application of having leaned my name and utilized in an invoice to create my own law as a matter of a private trust. 3. having taken action I am fearless.... As This is a matter of a Private Trust I hope you understand when I cannot divulge any more... I will be out east looking to buy a boat and to bug out very soon..


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 6:33 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 06, 2013 2:26 PM
I have a Question ???? I am reading this Bill of Exchange Act, in English and in French (La loi sur les lettres de change L.R.C (1985). And the way I get it, is that the PERSON who send me a BoE, have the OBLIGATION to show me in FULL DISCLOSURE on how to discharge this thing, IF I ask for it. I'm I right here ?, or I need to learn more on HOW to read stuff ? Thanks Pierre


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 2:26 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 06, 2013 2:55 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 2:55 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 06, 2013 5:59 PM
BIOREGIONAL DECOLONIZATION CASCADIA, a bioregion in what is commonly known as the Pacific Northwest of North America currently hosts a movement working to make it the first bioregion to undergo successful bioregional decolonization of all human inhabitants.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 5:59 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 06, 2013 6:32 PM
Pierre Interesting report from Canada and I'm sure it's at least as bad or worse in the US. How much of your city or town's budget is consumed by law enforcement? You might be surprised.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 6:32 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 06, 2013 7:31 PM
I pinned this post, because it's relevant. ...and because fuck you. That's why.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2013 7:31 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 07, 2013 5:04 AM
Why `Murika is `Tarded and rich people are rich. ...and why intellect is going to be a crime.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2013 5:04 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 07, 2013 7:20 AM
Notice of Mistake Strikes AGAIN!!!! 6 Charges of possession of weed and 2 charges for disturbance of the peace with a charge of uttering a death threat to a "cop", a contempt for a restraining order, all charges were withdrawn. So what did I do exactly? Well, since i value my weed and I don't really care about cops, what better opportunity to test my understanding of the Notice than now? Yup, got arrested quicker than a black man trying to get into their own car(no racial slur intended). Helps when you light a fat one right at the police head quarters. So blah blah got charged was thrown in the slammer for a night. Morning comes and I file the notice with me(cops were kind enough to retain my effects and allow me to file it in the record). Got thrown in before a JUSTICE. First thing i said before prosecutor tried to say anything was "I reserve all rights presented, does anyone object?" JUSTICE and prosecutor didn't deny. Said stupid shit like "whatever rights those are". Me "fantastic, let the record show that no objection were made". "Did the prosecutor get my notice of mistake?" Prosecutor "Yes, but I do not understand your language or intention" Me "Good. Have you answered the questioned I posed in that to in order for me to UNDERSTAND the NATURE of the PROCEEDINGS". Prosecutor "Your honor, i request a short recess to review the documents that Mr DEREK HILL has served unto us" JUSTICE "Granted, how long do you need" Prosecutor "I believe 1 hour should be sufficient" Shit gets adjourned. I get back in there. I restate all rights reserved. Prosecutor "I have been given time to review the notice of mistake that was submitted by Mr. DEREK HILL, and it is the position of the crown to reprimand him for the time being as .....(i didn't pay attention to it was distracted by the officer right beside me making threatening movements)." When my attention restored back to the matter..."I'm sorry but your officer is making threatening gestures,.I REQUIRE the crown to repeat that.". prosecutor begins to repeat it. Me "Point of order, there is questions before the court, this must be addressed. I MUST have these questions answered before I can understand the nature of the proceedings, does questioning not negate understanding?" JUSTICE "He has a point, crown what will you do?" Prosecutor "At this time I do not have sufficient evidence to be able to answer those questions." JUSTICE "Well since the crown is unable to answer the questions you posed, what would you like to do?" Me "Get the fuck out of here." JUSTICE "Release him immediately. I am staying these proceedings for the time being." I was released and simply walked out. A week later i got a call from the crown attorney office(how they got my number i dont know). They wanted to let me know that the crown is withdrawing ALL charges(was 16 counts of possession) This was my first time doing it with my new understanding from Notice of Mistake. I requested a transcript for the hearing, They said that they do not have the records. I didn't bother pursuing it. I knew I got them nervous. Now for the next few times, all of it was very similar to the above. Had to face the same prosecutor several times. Clearly this guy wanted my ass. Every time I stood by it. Every time I filed my notice of mistake. IF anyone is wondering, to file your notice you must have made a simple affidavit, attach the notice as exhibit "A" in your affidavit just put in "See attached exhibit "A"". Serve it on the crown, get it notarized and commissioned. I was in jail so everything got done quick. You can make your own if you choose. Substance over form. Last time was for the restraining order contempt. This was about a month ago. Cops were called was arrested blah blah. Was thrown in the slammer for 2 days. Finally went into the court. JUSTICE Nolan(total bitch 100%) was presiding. Me "I reserve all ---". JUSTICE "Shut up I don't want to hear it". Me "How bout you suck dick? I still reserve all rights is there any objections?" No objections. Me "Let the record show that no objections were made and all rights has been reserved." Prosecutor "This matter has been brought to my attention this morning. The individual before the court claims that he is not Mr. DEREK HILL" Me "Objection, have you answered my questions. If so, i do not see any response or any response made or any similar instruments." Prosecutor "Your honor, i do not understand what the accused is trying to say, I ask that ---" Me "Objection, by what authority does the crown have to address me as the ACCUSED?" Prosecutor "Your honor, clearly the accused ---" Me "Objection, by what authority does the crown have to address me as the ACCUSED?" JUSTICE "Look, listen I am trying to get this done so we can release you." Me "Objection AND Point of Order, questions are before the court. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS". JUSTICE "Shut up or I will hold you in contempt" Me "IF its civil, where is the breach? If its criminal who is complaining?" JUSTICE "I am adjourning this matter to give you some time to think about what you are saying". Of course, I go back at the end of the day last case to be heard. Me "I reserve all rights, is there any objections?" No objections. JUSTICE has a different tone. Prosecutor "It is the position of the crown and for the best interest of the public and JUSTICE that the charges be stayed for the time being" JUSTICE "Do I understand you correct that the crown wishes to stay the proceedings?" Prosecutor "Yes, your honor." JUSTICE was clearly gritting her teeth at what was going on. JUSTICE "Granted. Officer release him and give his belongings." I was released. It was the same prosecutor who was trying to nail me several times. HE was not HAPPY not one bit. He was clearly red and squishing his lips. There was a reporter, asked to interview me, I said no. SO now that you got a gist of it, i will explain it the best i can. JUSTICE and crown prosecutor is from the same club house. If you look up JUSTICE at dunn and brad company listing, you will see JUSTICE is operating as OF ONTARIO, PROVINCE. Its omitted now but you used to be able to see it. All officers carries out the bidding of the company. The BC is owned by the province, that is what the crown is after. The thing is, they try to ding you as surety. By you failing to rebut any names they use such as ACCUSED, that means you accept SURETY. That is what compels you to perform. Remember something very important. Contract = Law. You are not surety. The signature on that BC is the surety. let them deal with it. The province holds the legal title for the name also, so therefor again they are liable not you. You also cannot forget that they did not inform you of what you were doing. Another thing i would like to add. MISTAKE. MISTAKE is very powerful in itself. The reason is that if you read into the Rules of Civil Procedure Ontario Annual Practice, they MUST accept your mistake and correct it/adjust it from the beginning. Note the adjust. It's just accounting. The JUSTICE and the Crown have a vested interest to prosecute you. They make money by prosecuting you. They both work at the same company. You do not understand the company rules, therefor you best not take part in it. Like Scott Duncan said, you are not in the club. The dialog is from my memory. I retained the majority of the meaning on how it went. And yes, all those cases seems to...vanish from record....convenient.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2013 7:20 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 07, 2013 9:09 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2013 9:09 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Lacey Hatt

Jul 07, 2013 11:04 PM
What is the Promise to Appear?How is it effected by signing All Rights Reserved and Under Duress.Does any of this even matter if I show up by Special Appearance with Notice of Mistake? Ps.I use my wife's FB my name is Ken.thank you


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153448125331E+016
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2013 11:04 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Stuart Stone

Jul 08, 2013 1:08 AM
Ok, time for a real life example: I wrote a bill for the return of my creditor's deposit/irregular deposit of a valuable security (credit agreement pertaining to a mortgage that has since been completed) & received a letter of reply from their lawyer: Dear Sir, We are instructed by SSSSSSSSS (mortgage company). We have been asked to respond to your letter dated 24 June 2013, concerning account AAAAAAAAA (Account number). On or about 30 July 2001 SSSSSSSSSSS made a loan to you of �XXXXX by way of mortgage. In consideration of the loan you promised to repay the principal amount along with interest at the agreed rate and you executed a mortgage deed in favour of SSSSSSSSS that authorised them to register a first legal charge against the property known as (property), by way of security for its loan. The mortgage deed is made out in accordance with s.52 of the Law of Property Act 1925. As your letter explains, you repaid the loan in full on or around August 2003, discharging your liability with SSSSSSSSS, who then released its security for the loan by removing its charge against the property, at which point the relationship came to an end. In light of the above, the position adopted in your letter dated 24 June 2013 appears ill conceived and misguided. If you should remain of the view that you have a claim against SSSSSSSSSS, then no doubt you will make such application to the courts as you deem appropriate. However, before taking such a step, we would strongly urge you to take independent legal advice. Finally, for the avoidance of any doubt, SSSSSSSS considers its position is clear an unequivocally set out in this letter and will not enter into any further correspondence with you about this matter, Yours faithfully, (name of legal firm) My draft response (not sent as yet) 8 July 2013 Dear (lawyer), Re: Your Ref: Thank you for your letter dated 4 July 2013, however there appears to be a misunderstanding. To put it bluntly, I am confused. Who are you referring to as �you�? The �you� that you are referring to appears to refer to an entity known as the �customer�. I am not communicating with you, or �SSSSSS� in the capacity of a customer or former customer. The �you� you are referring to is not me, nor am I to be addressed as �Mr� as it is not a title that pertains to me. I wrote to �SSSSSSSS� in relation to the deposit of a valuable security with them, that coincided on or about the time of them creating a customer account (number AAAAAAAAAAA). In this instance, you will notice that I am acting in the capacity of a creditor who made an irregular deposit by way of a bill of exchange (hereinafter �valuable security�). The irregular deposit of the valuable security was accepted and or deposited by �SSSSSS� and coincided on or about the time of the creation of the customer account (number AAAAAAAAAAA) as mentioned in my correspondence dated 24 June 2013. If you re-read the letter accompanying the invoice, it will become very clear. The primary reason for my referring to the account number was to give �SSSSSSS� a reference point for locating the funds that were deposited with them by me on or about 30 July 2001. So, any reference by either you or �SSSSSS� regarding customer dealings bear no relation to me and are of no consequence. I merely wish to withdraw the funds that were deposited by way of valuable security for the sum of �XXXXX with �SSSSSS� on or about 30 July 2001. I have provided sufficient details for �SSSSSS� to be able to locate the details of my irregular deposit and return these funds to me as directed and I will be dealing with this matter in the manner as set out in my correspondence dated 24 June 2013. I am willing to swear an affidavit to the facts, and, if �SSSSSS� wishes to acquiesce through their silence by not entering into any further correspondence as mentioned in your letter, then there will be no controversy that any court needs to address as there will be agreement between the parties. I trust that this clarifies matters for you, Stuart Stone, Authorised Representative Non Assumpsit, All Rights Reserved Any feedback would be greatly appreciated


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01534649465191E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 1:08 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 08, 2013 9:02 AM
I have to say, first of all... I�m so glad we�re not on FB feed anymore! Glad to be done with that. What I am learning and/or doing is none of anyone�s business, especially when they have absolutely no grasp and/or care of what this group is about. I feel like I am in an ELITE group here now... with actual TRUTH of what really affects our lives as a whole. I didn�t �believe� anything Scott had to say 7 months ago, but based on results, and everything I could look up and devour on the interweb... he has shown me exactly what makes the most sense... that all of this crap is all and only about money. This part I have seen played out (now even more) in so many different ways. This is why The Tender For Law has made the most sense to me. When you said, �I will train my slaves for occupations that don't even exist yet, and deploy them to serve US. They will have to suffer getting wealthy in the process, or having a larger purpose. Above all, my slaves won't think wrong. They will NOT value the wrong things.� �I don�t want to be �wealthy� in any� liability� sense, I have been surrounded with those people all of my life. I have only witnessed this �go to their heads.� Wealth to me is KNOWLEDGE. That is where I see wealth. The LARGER PURPOSE. This is WEALTH to me: �Imagine a navy FILLED with "Judges" We will build SAFE HARBOUR for those seeking sanctuary. We will train up EVERYONE so they are at my diversity of skills, because I will KNOW what to do with yours. When you learn HOW I do it, you will be free. You will round up your OWN slaves. I will turn all of you loose on a population who does not grasp the exponential function.� In end, I do not see anything the same anymore. I drive to work and look at everyone, busy trotting along, following every belief they have been presented, wondering if any one of them has any clue what they are doing. But what I do know is they will all get sick of this eventually. And they will all start looking for answers. Scott, your time has not been ill-spent.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 9:02 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 08, 2013 3:17 PM
I'm putting together a draft Affidavit of Understanding, for a few reasons, first to do an inventory for myself and second to forward with the acceptance for my dental bill. I would appreciate any feedback.(additions, deletions, clairifications) I borrowed the first paragraph from an affidavit I read of Scott Duncan. The purpose of creating an affidavit is to attach it to the signed bill the dentist will be sending to the Bank of Canada, or should it be sent separately by me? AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL BLACKMAN I, GAIL BLACKMAN, also known as Gail Blackman, also known as Gail BLACKMAN, also known as BLACKMAN, Gail being a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor, and being a beneficiary of the Commonwealth, and assuming full civil and commercial liability, and standing in SUI JURIS status, and having authority in these matters stand on Her Majesty's honour, and MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. The Birth Certificate of GAIL BLACKMAN is a SECURITY INSTRUMENT and confirmation of a share of the EQUITY derived from the resources of the Governmental Jurisdiction within which the Birth Certificate is located. 2. It is illegal to "pay" a bill in Canada and I do not wish to create more debt by using debt to pay debit. cite: Supreme Court 1978 Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal: �As I have already noted, a promissory note, by definition, involves an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money, but it is not itself money. True, the obligation of a promissory note may be carried forward by a renewal note, but no matter how many renewals there be, or how many replacements under different terms, there is no liquidation of the debt until it is DISCHARGED..." [Page 1156] 3. I act in good faith, and in a NON-adverse manner, as I have no wish to create controversy. I wish to remain in peace-and-honour. 4. The Birth Certificate is proof of the security of my person named GAIL BLACKMAN, to which Gail Blackman is the Beneficiary. 5. The Bank of Canada is owned by the people. 6. The Bank of Canada is the only organization in Canada that is capable of creating money/credit from the shareholders/peoples valuable consideration and/or signature. 7. In accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act RSC 1985, 16. (1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 3:17 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Fred Palmer

Jul 08, 2013 7:11 PM
In Canada our governments are in fact aiding and abetting criminal activity committed by corporations. The most important lesson we can learn is about human rights and equality. The fact that in Canada if you get hurt on the job and accept workers compensation insurance from any province means two things. Firstly you are promised at least 75% of wage loss and in many cases up to 100% and medical care will be provided for injuries. BUT! and this is where the crimes start, if you accept their offer legislation is in place to remove Canadians from the Canada health act and also remove a Canadians legal rights through Workers Compensation Acts. They don't tell you this when injured or before. Unfortunately there are hundreds if not thousands of Canadians murdered every year by the criminal activity of all Workers Compensation Boards and the corporations that cripple them. The blame lies squarely on governments shoulders for not protecting the working men and women of this country. In fact there are tens of thousands right now in Canada not being treated for Chronic Pain. As a result many commit suicide or die of stress from pain causing heart attacks, strokes, and ulcers. To ad to the trauma of the injured workers we are subjected to needless pointless psychologically abusive appeals process. Bottom line is this. If you get injured on the job in Canada you have absolutely no protection from criminal activity if you accept workers comp. Our governments are guilty of neglect and it is costing us our lives after injury. We can't get well, can't get back to work, because our medical care and wage loss benefits do not exist.. The whole system is a fraud leading to murder of patients.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523902665191E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 7:11 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 08, 2013 8:25 PM
Ok I said Adam posted this... However with the mass amount of stuff I download for later perusal I am not sure. Stating that as 100% accurate would be a mistake, please forgive me. This book is from Canada written in the late 1800's by a practical man... I am sure it is on a thread here somewhere. However it explains a great many details on BIlls Of Exchange. It is very helpful.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 8:25 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 08, 2013 9:14 PM
THE TENDER FOR LAW � LIVE EXAMPLE COURT OF AQUILAE SESSION (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. TODAY'S SESSION: Stymied by a Justice - How to respond to Questions, Statements, Comments and/or ORDERS from a Justice, Justice of the Peace, and/or cops. SEVERE THREAD CONTROL IN EFFECT - STAY ON TOPIC! Lately I've been hearing a lot of reports of people being "stumped" on this sort of thing. A Justice will say idiotic things, and the idiocy ISN'T COUNTERED. People don't know what to say. Now it's MY turn to take the role of YOU. Post the last thing that stumped you in an engagement with the government. I will give the PROPER response. THE CHALLENGE IS TENDERED! TRY STUMP SCOTT! HIT ME WITH YOUR HARDEST ONES! GO!


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 9:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Barry Doyle

Jul 08, 2013 10:32 PM
Here is phone vid of Court win.. Noosa Magistrates Court. Though Magistrate abandoned court without judgement after being called on her Bonding agreement and writ of commission,fines were issued next day and arrived by mail. How can this be so.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02028243727032E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 10:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/75x1c4mL95Y?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Terrica Lewis

Jul 08, 2013 10:48 PM
Peace! I was detained for driving with out a license. I am married with a suspended drivers license. However the name on my old license and my state ID (which they found after searching my vehicle for "inventory") are different. I mention this because I am aware that my marriage license contracts me with the state. While being bonded out of jail I was given documents to sign stating that I waive my right to see the magistrate in order to be released on bond, I signed every document presented to me "Without Prejudice, under duress UCC 308" however I am extremely new to this entire understanding of me vs the entity created to abide by state Codes and statutes. From my understanding I have 3 days to hand this matter on the private sector before it goes public... Is there anyone who can provide any advice, suggestions, or clarity on my options to take towards the remedy? I have been pointed in the direction of a Notice of Mistake, and plan to research this right now but I am still in need of assistance. Much appreciation.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01551930322204E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 10:48 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 08, 2013 11:49 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 08, 2013 11:49 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 09, 2013 2:44 AM
This one is the US version but I would go through it. Right off the bat he is stating, "Affiants personal knowledge, understanding and BELIEF. I, of course took that part out as we all know what that means...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 2:44 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Adam Thomas

Jul 09, 2013 7:59 AM
Ok. Here goes like a scrotum here it is in a nutshell. I, in 2001, went to RMIT to learn about becoming a UNION organiser for the head of the unions body here the ACTU.....Industrial Relations/ Human Resources I studied at university for 6 months. I from many thousands of voices Australia wide defeated politicians, Lawyers & Bankers by being short listed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions from over 6000 potential voices to lead a massive workforce. I lost the job because they asked me to LIE & tell them that I had a child I didn't have. I didnt LIE. I lost a child just previous to my ex but she was sacfificed to a Sky Daddy without my consent & an ex hit man for the Vic Police Force tried to kill me in PUBLIC TO SHUT ME UP.............the ACTU were too scared of my Voice & my Heart & Love for everyone & everything. My voice alone made the Vic Police Force sit up & become accountable for their lack of INTEGRITY & HONESTY whilst working for the global Crown POstal Office. Many Police high up the food chain do actually on the PRIVATE SIDE Indorse this lil monster of their own creation. This is Why I'm here. Scott & Tara.....THANK YOU....For getting me thus far. AQUILLAE OR BUST !! Peace & Love to ALL.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02033698492237E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 7:59 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 09, 2013 10:42 AM
In this letter from an MP relating to a tax debt....this MP suggests that... "the Receiver General for Canada is not obliged to accept payment in a form other then the one recognized as legal tender in the Currency Act. You can pay your debt in a form recognized by this act at any CRA office, bank etc. " According to Wikipedia; The Canadian Parliament passed the Uniform Currency Act in April 1871,[4] tying up loose ends as to the currencies of the various provinces and replacing them with a common Canadian dollar.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 10:42 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 09, 2013 2:15 PM
Thoughts on this post here /?? --------------------------------------------------------- LIFE MAY CHANGE AS WE KNOW IT. CHECK OUT QUEBEC AND NO CRIMINAL CODE!!!!!!!! The police no longer have the authority to stop Quebecers. This is what the result of a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal made this week. It could well have disastrous consequences, even anarchic, across the province. Due to an overly high level of criminal prosecution by the Queen number, the highest court in the province called it a "querulous litigant." By doing so, the court stated that the Criminal Code is therefore not in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision had the effect of a bomb in the office of the Prime Minister Marois and from the police. Immersed in an elusive legal uncertainty, the authorities now fear no longer have the legal tools to stop the criminals. Minister Marois has expressed its readiness to resort to the Act on Measures to war if the situation degenerated and that the Canadian military was now to consolidate its workforce. After Lola, Queen The Montreal wealthy businessman that the media had dubbed Eric in the legal saga "Lola against Eric" is the cause of the bang. Accused in a case of drunk driving in 2011, attorney Eric had managed to obtain a court decision declaring the "querulous litigant" Queen. For Eric, it was a rather unexpected victory given the overwhelming evidence that was presented against him at trial. Indeed, in a lengthy clip of 2:57 minutes filmed by chance using a video camera forgotten on the table of a bar, it clearly saw Eric put 17 pints of Heineken (20 oz) at a impressive rate. Also in the field of vision of the camera, we then saw Eric get up from his chair and heading to his shiny Porsche 911. Having joined his vehicle not without effort, he started up a whirlwind backwards through the wall of the bar, stopping a few meters from the camera that was nothing missing from the scene. Moreover, the final plan, we could see very clearly the plate of the vehicle (registered in the name of Eric), which gave evidence for the prosecution, already concrete, reliability bordering on arrogance. The police had finally put the collar the suspect a few minutes later when it was unloaded from a damaged vehicle, sat in the same chair he had left and ordered another pint of Heineken in the mid-horrified eyes, half-amused the few remaining customers. Funny fact, the well-known director Podz, which was the unfortunate owner of the camera forgotten on the table in the bar, failed to recover what had now become an exhibit. A surreal debate Following the viewing of the video in full hearing, Eric lawyer told the judge he would try something "a bit special legal sense" since his client had no defense, having consumed Heineken and not windshield washer fluid. He then asked what is declared "querulous litigant" Queen, or that is theoretically responsible for all criminal prosecutions in Canada. His argument was based primarily on the fact that a person can not multiply as broad and abusive judicial proceedings so that the courts do not intervene. Eric's lawyer was then referred to the case of Mario Small, a man from Saguenay having filed 14 legal remedies in the space of nine months. Its right to take legal action was then suspended in the early 2000s as had been declared vexatious litigant. By comparison, during the same time period, the Queen had filed 17,891 criminal prosecutions across Canada. Faced with these statistics, the court could not do otherwise than to suffer the same fate to the Queen that he had reserved at the time Mario Small. Indeed, all must be considered equal before the law. In a 24-page unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal of Quebec recalls that due to its recent decision to reject the argument Lise Thibault to the effect that the Queen could not continue itself, the Court had Now keep the same logic in treating the Queen as any other individual. It therefore had no right to take the course more than 20,000 lawsuits in a single year. Wishing to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, one of the judges of the Court of Appeal awarded: "We acquitted Eric, if we were obliged to pay Lise Thibault. We did not want to pay Thibault, the decision seemed so obvious. It was not made on the spot as it made the Criminal Code unconstitutional and that it prevented the same time the State to prosecute criminals. We learned like everyone else, listening to the chief of police to complain to the issue of Denis L�vesque. This, it was dropped, it's true. "


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 2:15 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 09, 2013 2:20 PM
Looking back, I have to say that being charged with assault this past January was actually a good thing. It gave me a "practice run" at the court system, on something fairly trivial, and was an excellent learning experience. But now, on to bigger and INFINITELY more important things... I'm going after the Children's Aid Society and the Ontario Court of Justice, for the theft of my children. I haven't gotten very far yet, but here is my first draft: NOTICE OF MISTAKE In ALL matters regarding XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXXXXX "TOSTIK", and XXXXXXX-XXXXX "BUTLER" (hereafter referred to as "PROPERTY"), I believe that there has been a mistake as my PROPERTY have been incorrectly identified as LEGAL PERSONS. If I have led the COURT and/or the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY to believe that said PROPERTY are in fact LEGAL PERSONS, and/or WARDS, and/or ANY other LEGAL FICTION, then that would be a mistake and please forgive me. As ALL signatures and/or consents pertaining to said PROPERTY have been obtained by the COURT and the SOCIETY through FRAUD and/or UNDER DURESS, I hereby rescind ALL consents, written, and or verbal, and/or implied, nunc pro tunc, ab initio. As this court is in fact a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT business, listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, operating as "ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE", and as so, ONLY has jurisdiction over LEGAL PERSONS, by what authority is this court attempting to administer over my property? As the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY is nothing more than a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT business, operating under the COLOUR OF LAW, by what authority is the SOCIETY attempting to administer over, and withhold my PROPERTY? As neither the COURT, not the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY have ANY authority and/or jurisdiction in this matter, I REQUIRE the immediate return of my PROPERTY. I'm not sure if this is the proper route to be taking. There isn't an open case at the moment. But they've been harassing me since waaaaay back, before I knew that saying no to them was an option. Clearing up the "consents" needs to be the first step, I'm thinking. Is a Notice of Mistake the best way to do that, though, or should I be drafting a Notice of Rescission and then following that up with my Claim?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 2:20 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 09, 2013 3:58 PM


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 3:58 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 09, 2013 5:57 PM
Still no hydro in Etobicoke due to flooding and NO functioning lights on Lakeshore. Yet one thing is conspicuously absent...not ONE single traffic cop in sight. So for anyone in the GTA, apparently today is a traffic free-for-all!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 5:57 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 09, 2013 6:44 PM
SINIXT NATION: SERVES CEASE AND DESIST http://westcoastnativenews.com/sinixt-nation-serves-cease-and-desist/ These remedies include but are not limited to: contacting the International Criminal Court to file criminal charges of genocide and/or crimes against humanity against Her Majesty and BCTS, filing domestic criminal charges of genocide and/or crimes against humanity against Her Majesty and BCTS and/or suing Her Majesty and BCTS civilly for damages we have incurred as a result of your actions. Again, you must IMMEDIATELY STOP issuing contracts for developments on slhu7kin (Perry Ridge) and send us written confirmation that you will stop such activities. You risk incurring some very severe legal consequences if you fail to comply with this demand.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 6:44 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 09, 2013 8:02 PM
Scott on the significance of Birth Certificates issued to Children and Grandchildren of VETERAN OFFICERS of WW2- thread. . . . . Leigh OftheHouseof Collins: I have two different birth certificates issued. Both with different letters and numbers. One legal name spelled all caps and the other does not. Is there a reason why? Do I have two persons? Scott Duncan: Names on Birth certificates that are NOT in ALL CAPS and have a BLANK BACK were issued to the Children and Grandchildren of VETERAN OFFICERS of WW2. Leigh OftheHouseof Collins: 'Birth certificates that are NOT in ALL CAPS and have a BLANK BACK were issued to the Children and Grandchildren of VETRAN OFFICERS of WW2.' Does that entitle me to something more? And why did they not issue the same one when requested, instead of an ALL CAPS name? Scott Duncan: The "VETERAN'S Offspring" version (It has no official name) gives you BENEFIT, without liability.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 09, 2013 8:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 10, 2013 1:38 AM
This is interesting and raises a few issues. Not sure if it's something for this group to discuss, but, I thought i'd pass it on to you in case you hadn't seen it. http://endthelie.com/2013/07/08/california-prisons-sterilized-female-inmates-without-permission/#axzz2YafGt5Zr

Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 1:38 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 10, 2013 4:32 AM
The "how to control your case by liening" thread. This is used typically for crown attorney cases, such as criminal proceedings and/or provincial offenses. So, you may have noticed that i speak about objection and standing. There is a reason for that. Lets have a recap on some things before we get into the liening. What would be the account? We know how the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO is operated by JUSTICE. This makes or means that the court system as you used to know by is in fact commercial. What does that mean? Well it means that they are a business. What do business have with "clients" or "applicants" or "claimants"? Business accounts. Business accounts => Court file numbers. Who are we liening? So now that we have an account. who do we need to focus our attention towards now. Well who represents the province? who manages the services of the court? The answer is the Attorney General of Ontario. Description? I would probably leave it simple like "Secured Personal Interest" Anything more is unnecessary. Creditor? If you have a shell corporation then you would list it as your LLC. If not you simply use your PERSON. Length or duration? You can define whatever length of time you want. conventionally its 8$ per year for 1-25 years or 500$ for forever...I'm not joking...So whatever you feel is necessary. Why lien it? Because you want all the value. If lets say you have a restraining order. Courts make money off that. When you lien it. They no longer make money. So you can see why they would be encouraged to terminate it. So what happens after? When you lien it and perfected it, you therefor control everything in that case. You direct how your case goes. So now that you got a basic grasp what now? When you perfect it no one will oppose it(how can they?They are not persons.)If they did not oppose it then they have no standing to speak or direct. See where I'm going? That is why your objections will become infinitely more powerful because you will truly have the only party with standing. Anyways, I'm sure this covers the basic concepts and benefits of what you can do.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 4:32 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Eamonn O Brien

Jul 10, 2013 12:18 PM
Interesting Wikipedia content... Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural people do. CORPORATIONS CAN EXERCISE HUMAN RIGHTS against real individuals and the state... Corporations can what?......


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 12:18 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Eamonn O Brien

Jul 10, 2013 12:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBAqizD_7Ls Watching this again... Scottism? RELEVANT....

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 12:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/QBAqizD_7Ls?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Andrew D'Aragon

Jul 10, 2013 2:37 PM
Dean Kory is being held at "THE CENTRAL EAST DETENTION CENTER" in LINDSAY ONTARIO. 705-328-6000


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539690144256E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 2:37 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 10, 2013 7:09 PM
CHIEFROCK SINO GENERAL - So, first off, Number 1. There is no FIRST NATIONS period, its a made up name created by the INDIAN AFFAIRS, so using it is taking a benefit of their product thereby placing YOU UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION and agreeing to their laws. 2. CANADA IS A CORPORATION which has absolutely no rights under any treaty as from what i can gather or understand, Canada did not sign treaties the KING reps and QUEENS reps did, Canada seems to think they can step in as benefactors to this these old treaties. Number 3. First nations never violated the treaties ???????OMFG ARE YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW !!!!!! OK, get this thru your head, registering to be a Canadian is a direct violation and removes you out of any treaty period. HOLDING ANYTHING THAT IS PROPERTY OF CANADA OR A PROVINCE WHICH IS REGISTERED to Canada, means you are now saying A BIG FUCK YOU to your nation you are from and wishing to be part of the settlers new corporation as their employee to help press on the bull shit SCAM that is running at this moment, DO REALIZE canada OWES ALL THE NATIONS OVER 999 TRILLION IN GOLD, SILVER AND OTHER RESOURCES THEY KEEP ON STEALING AND USING TO DO BUSINESS ON OUR LANDS. Happy Canada Day? Learning about Treaties in tar sands territory Emma Pullman is writing stories from impacted communities on the front lines of the tar sands in the lead up to the 4th Annual Healing Walk, a spiritual gathering and 14 km walk to pray for the healing of the land and people at the front lines of tar sands expansion. The Healing Walk is July 5-6, 2013 in Fort McMurray, Alberta. While many Canadians are celebrating the 146th anniversary of this country, I don�t much feel like celebrating today. Right now, I am at the Beaver Lake Cree Nation, a community whose traditional territory is on both the Athabasca and Cold Lake tar sands projects. It�s hard to take part in the festivities when you understand the colonialism, genocide, theft of land and resources and broken treaties that are part of the history of this country. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation activist and educator Susana Deranger wrote in Briarpatch magazine: �This Canada Day, I reach out to you all and appeal to your consciousness and ask you to reflect on what you are celebrating. I ask you to reflect on what this day means to Indigenous Peoples on the territory you are living on that has given you so much. "I ask you to dig deep inside of yourself and think about how we can work together to rectify the colonial legacy of Canada. I ask you to walk with me and others to truly create a place that is worth celebrating. I ask you to stand up to create a Canada that acknowledges the wrongs of yesterday and today, and paves the way for dignity and respect for all peoples tomorrow and all the tomorrows that follow.� My own reflection of her words has led me to think about treaty rights, and how few Canadians understand the treaties or what it means to be Treaty Peoples. So today, I sat down with Tantoo Cardinal, Crystal Lameman, Maria Laboucan-Massimo and Melina Laboucan-Massimo, all members of Treaty 6 and Treaty 8 territory. And I did what feels like the most patriotic thing I�ve ever done on Canada Day -- I learned about Treaty 6 and Treaty 8, the treaties of the lands most impacted by the tar sands. 10 THINGS CANADIANS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE TREATIES UPON WHICH THE TAR SANDS ARE BEING DEVELOPED 1. If you are a Canadian, know you are a signatory to a Treaty. If you are a settler (i.e. non-Indigenous), know you are a benefactor of the Treaty. 2. Read the Treaty. Know which Treaty territory you are on. You can read Treaty 6 and Treaty 8, the two treaty territories that sit in the tar sands. 3. Know that the Treaty its not just an Indigenous peoples agreement. We are all Treaty peoples. Know that treaties are the foundation of Canada. 4. The Treaty is a reciprocal treaty, an equal treaty for co-existence. It was an agreement between the British Crown and Indigenous peoples. First Nations leaders believed they were entering into a trust relationship with the representative of the British Crown. They considered the Treaty a mutual trust agreement to live in peace. 5. Non-native people are benefactors of those treaties because they are receiving the benefits and profits of the resources from native land. There are billions of dollars coming out of traditional territories, and it never stays in the territory. These real costs of resource extraction, in turn, are borne by the people and communities who have lived here all along. 6. First Nations never violated the treaty. 7. First Nations have never surrendered their land. 8. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility with First Nations who entered into Treaty. In plain terms, it's similar to the responsibility that a corporation has to its shareholders. The Canadian government�s shareholders are First Nations and it has a duty, a legal responsibility to them. 9. When reading the Treaty, you�ll never come across the word �ownership�, because no one can own the land. The land owns its inhabitants. 10. According to the Treaty, as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow and the sun shines, First Nations will always have a right to the land to hunt and fish and forage. As long as industrial development continues to take place on these lands without consent, these Constitutional rights are being violated. �It says in the Treaty that we will SHARE THIS LAND WITH YOU TO THE DEPTH OF A PLOUGH,� Crystal said to me. Senator Allan Bird, Montreal Lake Cree Nation, is directly quoted on Treaty 6: �the government said that we would live together, that I am not here to take away what you have now�I AM HERE TO BORROW THE LAND�TO THE DEPTH OF A PLOUGH�that is how much I want.� That�s why ACCORDING TO TREATY LAW, ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND THAT CREATES REVENUE BELONGS TO FIRST NATIONS. Crystal adds, �AS PER THE TREATY, ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE TERRITORY is supposed to go to those people. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility with the First Nations who entered into Treaty.� But for Maria Laboucan-Massimo, THE LUBICON TERRITORY WHERE SHE IS FROM HAS SEEN $14 BILLION IN RESOURCE DOLLARS LEAVE HER TERRITORY. That money goes to federal government, and into a kind of bank. While the rest of the country uses this money, HER COMMUNITY DOESN�T SEE MUCH OF IT.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 7:09 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Jul 10, 2013 8:50 PM
so, district court is up the road. i go ask the magistrate about the federal rules of civil procedure, with regard to the attorney for the plaintiff admitting evidence, who can not be the witness. i learned the witness is 'the COURT', and he said, not defendant but DESPONDANT (which means without hope). so if the plaintiff IS THE COURT, and you NOTICE OF MISTAKE asking THE COURT'S FORGIVENESS the COURT can NOT DENY. pretty simple math if you ask me. and then he said it's up to the judge to accept the complaint, and I said, JUDGE or JUSTICE? and he (the clerk magistrate) replied, judge/justice, they are both the same, the words are interchangeable! which disproves the definition of DESPONDANT doesnt it. notice of mistake IS the HOPE we have all been looking for provided we learn how to properly apply it. so i need something to print to bring to him that proves he lied to me about that judge/justice meaning he said. anybody?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 8:50 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 10, 2013 10:27 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2013 10:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/qAsjvnZQDhA?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 11, 2013 1:36 AM
Here is a possible alternative for JUSTICE method. http://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=JUSTICE&state&country=CA&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop Ontario Justice Of The Peace 89 James St, Parry Sound, ON, CA http://centraleastontario.cioc.ca/record/PSD0094 the address when you look it up....

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 1:36 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


John Quicktree Muellers

Jul 11, 2013 2:39 AM
Hey I have a question for ya all , I was looking at my sin card today ( my original from 36 years ago ) and I noticed the middle name was missed spelled, how strong of evidence would that be for mistaken identity with the courts?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01540829161201E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 2:39 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 11, 2013 4:23 AM
ATTENTION FUTURE "Scott Duncan Simu-Drones"! (I Totally love that! :) ) THE TENDER FOR LAW � APPOINTED ARTICLE - INSURANCE FOR THE INEPT - By APPOINTMENT of Gail Blackman (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. One of the great things about being in a law forum, run by a prorogued noble, is that you have the unique opportunity of posing the right question and always getting a near-magical answer; which causes something to flip in that little lump of protoplasm you laughingly call a brain. ...and everything becomes clear. How many of you are kicking yourselves because you didn't know what THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER means? Well, this one's no different. Readers of this forum will notice I have a particular distaste for the Abrahamic religions. I have to tell you, it's not going to let up in this article, because this article is about INSURANCE. We all know about INSURANCE. If you're driving, you HAVE to have INSURANCE. Hell if you want safe harbour anywhere, the harbour-master will demand that your boat have INSURANCE. So let's look at the word. First the prefix "in". What does the prefix "in" mean? Well, look at all the words that I use to describe all of you - Inept, incompetent, incapable, insecure, insincere, indefensible, inexcusable, ineffective...I'm sure you guys are getting the idea. And the rest of the word just refers to surety. In the end it all refers to surety and accounting -- nothing else. In order to completely remove surety (insure), another PERSON must take responsibility (SURETY) for your actions. This concept is in fact, FRAUD. Here in reality it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. I've leveraged that concept all my life. Let's assume as I type this, I KNOW I am responsible for at least three homicides; but can you prove it? Let's say you could. What if you decided I committed those homicides for the right reasons, and you decided that you were going to "do the time" for me. And while I certainly don't want to discourage people from doing really nice things for me, you serving the sentence for me does not actually absolve me of the responsibility. You're just taking the proverbial "hit" for me. Allowing you to do that time for me would be unethical in ways I won't even cover here, yet that morally repugnant concept is played out daily - with INSURANCE. Another PERSON assumes SURETY for your actions. This is why INSURANCE companies still refer to natural events/disasters as "Acts of God". A delusional Christian fuck-wit brings this up weekly as though their INSURANCE policy validates the existence of God. This is one of many uses for the Abrahamic religions. They socially-engineer concepts like INSURANCE so they are elevated from blatant unethical FRAUD to a necessity for daily life, and they will say you are foolish, or a bad person, for not having INSURANCE. How did they manage to pull that off? In my above homicide scenario, I explained the FRAUD in plain, unambiguous terms. Only the most ethically bankrupt amongst you will miss the point. The reason it has never occurred to you, is because of everybody's favourite zombie-rape-baby, Jesus H. Christ. As a little side note to Christians, as it may not have occurred to them, it's NOT OK to impregnate women in their sleep! This should seem obvious but you're a Christian -- so you can never be too sure. Anyway...where was I? ...Jesus the zombie-rape-baby...right. The whole Christian doctrine revolves around the assertion that Jesus-zombie-rape-baby died for your sins. Only Christians seem to be able to determine what these "sins" are; however, apparently having sex is a sin, and murder is a sin; hell, even thought crimes (impure thoughts) are sins. But don't you worry, you horrible, wretched thing, Jesus the zombie-rape-baby has died for your sins. And if you can believe that, well then, Bob's Universal All-encompassing mega INSURANCE policy (don't forget to read the fine print) is for you (Act now, 'cause you know we can't do this all day)! One of the things all of you have to realize, especially the Christians, is that the entire history of the world was rewritten in the 1500's. Shakespeare was introduced to inject "legalese" into the vernacular of the Angols. Translate any copy of THE MAGNA CARTA and you will notice no legalese ever appears in it. And my personal favourite is Christians that wave around the KING JAMES BIBLE. I can't make this any simpler. It says right on the fucking cover who is scamming you! Everything in the nobility is executed by APPOINTMENT, from social engineering projects like the KING JAMES BIBLE, to Dunhill cigarettes, because the Queen likes a certain type of tobacco. These products and "services" are executed with the presumption that they are in compliance with the Sovereign's wishes, and notice is given on the product itself that it was created by APPOINTMENT, by the entity who appointed it. The KING JAMES BIBLE was APPOINTED by King James. The technology had reached the point were mass production of print medium was possible. This meant that social engineering that normally relied on "word-of-mouth" could now have rigid change-control introduced. This meant the instructions for selling your daughter into slavery was consistent throughout the Commonwealth. This also introduced the concept of an imaginary rape baby taking responsibility for all the bad shit you do. Seriously that's what you "bought". There are people reading this who believe this to be true. The whole "dying" thing is also a scam. That's the zombie part. Zombie-rape-baby-Jesus supposedly came back to life three day's after he died. Where's the sacrifice? He wasn't even out of commission long enough for his relatives to start fighting over his stuff. The very notion that "Jesus died for your sins" is nullified by the fact that he stopped being dead. He didn't die for your sins, he had a bad weekend for your sins...and he slept through most of it. OK, I'm really Christian-bashing here. Let's split the difference and say, "Jesus was sightly inconvenienced for your sins." I understand he was inconvenienced on a long weekend, too, which makes it really...bad? I'm sorry, I'm really trying to ascertain how this equals all the bad shit you do. You Christians will claim this Jesus guy will absolve me of any wrongdoing because of the "sacrifice" he made, but I'm not seeing where this sacrifice is. I'm not mentioning this because I'm looking for convincing. I'm from that same group of guys that made this book, and that's where the argument becomes moot. I can't stress this enough, but I'm one of the guys that's in on the scam. You'll constantly hear me say, "Stop studying the clubhouse rules, because you're not in the club." I'm descended from the founders of the club. I would rather live in poverty than to live off your labour; although my position on this has been on a sliding scale of late. Of all the clubhouse rules, the bible in any form, should be avoided at all costs. It should be fought at every possible opportunity, and should be met with all the ridicule and contempt you can throw at it... ...because it deserves no less. It is an ethically bankrupt FRAUD...just like INSURANCE. If you think I can make Christianity sound retarded, wait until I cover INSURANCE. So let's zoom back to when you were 16-years-old. You can't vote, you can't drink, there's a question mark as to whether you can legally have sex according to where you reside, but there is one thing you can do -- you can drive. Hence you engage in the ego-building act of getting "permission to learn" from the government. So, at the whim of a paper-pusher who couldn't get a job in the real world, you will hopefully be given permission to learn; and you will have proof that you have this permission when you produce a LEARNER'S PERMIT. And so every good Christian goes through this RIGHT OF PASSAGE where they are granted permission to learn. Gee willikers, it's awfully swell that the government gave you permission to learn, huh? But you're just sixteen, remember? You're not old enough to know of the real pitfalls of life...like dames and broads trying to play you for a sap (I'm laughing as I type this, because 1950's movie-speak is almost as retarded as this generations's pop-culture slang). Now in order to exercise your newly-acquired "permission to learn" you're going to need a vehicle, perhaps a car, which is a contraction of carriage...which is a LEGAL term, so don't use it. But since you're trying to be "LEGAL", having been granted "permission to learn" (seriously am I the only one who finds that the most demeaning thing ever written on paper?), a car will do just nicely. But what if you get into an accident? It won't occur to you that accident is just that - an accident. There is no SURETY, real or implied, for something that's accidental. That's what makes it an accident! There is no intent behind the damage. But if you subjugate yourself to a PERSON, that PERSON will assume full SURETY for any damages, and like zombie-rape-baby-Jesus, this PERSON only exists on paper. All of you consider it so real, that people are jailed regularly for "Driving without INSURANCE". It sort of "drives" the point home, doesn't it? You have been pre-programmed to accept this subjugation, this ridiculous, FRAUDULENT, morally-bankrupt subjugation is a LEGAL necessity, and all of it deals with MONEY OF ACCOUNT. MONEY OF EXCHANGE never touches the equation. For those of you who are too lazy and/or stupid to learn the difference between MONEY OF ACCOUNT and MONEY OF EXCHANGE, one dollar in MONEY OF ACCOUNT is only capable of buying and/or cancelling another dollar in MONEY OF ACCOUNT. 90% of all money in the world is this type of money. It's pretend. It's not real. It only applies to the clubhouse rules, and it competes directly with the money in your pocket. This is the dynamic that everyone misses. I hear lots of extremely accurate descriptions of how MONEY OF ACCOUNT is created, and they all come from idiots who know nothing about what money is. They'll go off on some tangent about Lou Manotti and his evil henchmen, the Freemasons. ...and lizards. There's lizards somewhere in all of their crap, too. Once again I'd like to digress and remind everyone that on every occasion that I required a mason, free did not enter into the equation. Masons are fucking expensive, and there's no such thing as a free one. ...where was i? Ah yes...MONEY OF ACCOUNT versus MONEY OF EXCHANGE. THE TENDER FOR LAW is primarily about the money that carries that TENDER. There are lots of learned men who will talk endlessly about law. I have forgotten more about law than all of these men combined have ever learned. I say men because a woman's brain simply would not be able to encompass the blatant lies that the travesty that we call law spews at them. Reading the writings of Mary Elizabeth Croft will provide you with one example of what goes through a thinking-woman's mind when law is actually analyzed. You'll notice the things I teach you here from a law perspective, are really simple. They are all created with the intent of getting you out of accounting and surety. I have declared publicly on the record that the TENDER FOR LAW that money provides is, in fact, a FRAUD. Most of you reading this are probably already painfully aware of this fact. My entire life plan relied on the RULE OF LAW remaining intact, but when the time came for me to assert my RIGHTS under that rule, the pretence became blatant. Anyone else going through what I have, would have been defeated; but as I constantly point out, I'm descended from an evil, vile, pseudo-culture...and I've forgotten more about law than any of these people will ever know. There are lawyers that will testify to that fact, so it's not like this should come as a surprise, but I have documented EVERYTHING. If it was spoken as regards me, I have a recording of it. If any name over which I have executive authority has been used in a document, I have a copy of it. Laid out on a time-line, the blatant FRAUD becomes irrefutable, conclusive proof of what everybody already knows. I mention all this because what I'm describing is, INSURANCE. Notice that my INSURANCE is a little different than the good neighbours at, "State Farm". It's designed to put the SURETY where it belongs -- not with me. The difference between the good neighbours at State Farm and me, is that I am not subjugating myself. My INSURANCE is real. It exists in the real world, and the more astute among you will see that I am pushing it all into a universe of virtual worlds. When you understand what money is, you can construct money through VALUE. If it exists in the real world, it has VALUE. Any currency used to track that VALUE, when exchanging goods, is MONEY OF EXCHANGE. Bitcoin, on the other hand, does not exist in the real world. Only its mysterious creators have any COPYHOLD on the VALUE. That's the thing about Bitcoin - in the end the guys that created it, get all the money. They get this because people volunteer to take alpha-test-grade, proof-of-concept code, and open their computers up to the Internet. They then give hardware-level access to their memory, processor, GPU and hard drive, to a rogue, autonomous process that their empty, little heads couldn't even dream of understanding, with no one paying attention to its original intent -- which is to prove that it could be done. Don't get me wrong, there are people who are doing this on purpose, because the VALUE is returned almost immediately. For Bitcoin has all the properties of gold, without the liabilities. Bitcoin is but one cryptographic currency. AQUILAE has its own cryptographic currency. It cannot be counterfeited, and is a near-perfect accounting mechanism. AQUILAE is not even a PERSON, it's a TRUST. If a TRUST can have a currency, why can't you? What I am building for everyone here, is a method to remove the middle-man. If you have your own currency, you don't need a bank. If cryptographic currencies can't be counterfeited, then it's trade cannot be regulated. It remains within the private realm and the ease at which you can convert your currency to MONEY OF EXCHANGE anywhere in the world, is directly proportional to your VALUE. In the current economic framework, backed by debt-based FIAT currency, the only legitimate path to wealth is to produce, to make something in the real world that didn't exist before. Like every dollar in existence, all things of VALUE have a creation date and a death date. Whatever you produce must be built with that in mind. For instance, producing a plaque with a cheesy-Jesus slogan on it, actually has VALUE. Perhaps it has VALUE to its creator, but here in reality, that plaque with the cheesy-Jesus slogan, will find its way to a landfill very quickly. This very article you are reading has a creation date, and a death date, and this is becoming apparent with the four threads that just magically disappeared here. Pierre destroyed the thread where he was bestowed his sacred, native name. The thread itself had VALUE, for it reflected the culture from whence Pierre came. The colloquial term, "fucking the dog" refers to bored, unionized workers taking their one-hour breaks between their fifteen minutes of actual labour. Look at any road crew in Quebec and you will see a working example of "fucking the dog." And so, Fucks the Puppy was bestowed upon Pierre as an homage, and in an irrational fit of nameless rage Pierre destroyed the thread, which by the way, is the most labour I've ever seen out of labourer in Quebec. Ok, I don't really feel that way about people from Quebec. Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure there's an act or statute somewhere in Ontario that says I must make fun of people from Quebec. I'm also pretty sure there's an equivalent act or statute for people in Quebec to refer to people in Ontario. Truth be told, one of the most inspirational people in my lifetime was Rene Levesque, and I strongly suggest that every single reader look at the history of this awesome shit-disturber. Quebec politicians do some awesome things. For example, if you want to see awesome, political suicide, no one will ever beat Jacques Parizeau...but I digress again... We were talking about INSURANCE. My INSURANCE is my life plan. It's way off track, and I need to get it back on track. But my life plan relied on the Rule of Law remaining intact. And while we weren't looking, our RIGHTS got sold, and nobody bothered consulting us. My INSURANCE company went bust. The Rule of Law is not intact, and in my eyes they have forfeitted the right to exist; because I've made it very clear, that limited liability is a fallacious concept, and if I stand by and watch the GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO operating as "JUSTICE", victimize the PUBLIC whose TRUST it holds, I become no better than you. I have a life plan that I must return to. I have a defective government process posing as "JUSTICE" and victimizing the citizens it has sworn to serve. To return to my life plan under these circumstances is to make myself an enabler; and so I have a problem. For whether I like it or not, I'm one of the good guys, and it's not a role I'm comfortable with. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that to be the good guy, I have to do both. I have to get "a" Rule of Law in place, one that serves the interests of the people it governs. Since I love spewing out spoilers I'm going to give the end of the story away RIGHT NOW! Why am I destroying your journey of discovery by giving away the ending? Because, FUCK YOU, that's why! I may be the good guy, but I don't have to be nice about it. The only way to LEGALLY and LAWFULLY do what I propose is to restore EXECUTIVE POWER to the Monarchy for a period not exceeding five years. From this moment forward a primary focus of those who follow what I am teaching should be an investigation into why this is true. It is the only possible answer that has any chance of success. Over the next few weeks we will explore why giving executive power to a little old lady of Germanic descent, and nine Corgees, is a good idea. AND, because I'm right, everybody is going to find out the hard way, that it is impossible to prove that I'm wrong. That's what makes it right! As I explain, step-by-step, how I intend to accomplish this lofty goal, it will become readily apparent that I already have everything in place. I've planned for what's to come. AND, before shit gets real, I'm going to train you all up to a level where you can think in a useful manner. By useful, I mean to YOU, because you currently think wrong, and VALUE the wrong things. It may be difficult to hear, but you're programmed to be a useless, sack-of-shit. If you should produce any VALUE, the government is there to lie to you about that VALUE, and to trick you into thinking you owE THEM for being VALUEable. If I'm successful, all that stolen VALUE will be returned to the people it was stolen from. But what happens at the end of that five years? You see Elizabeth Windsor is the KEEPER OF THE TRUST. You see a little, old lady. I see an echo of a little girl that the world knew as Princess Elizabeth -- and her plea to the Commonweath to come to her aid. This is the SOVEREIGN OF THE COMMONWEALTH, and she didn't choose it. My grandfather taught me all I needed to know to TRUST Elizabeth Windsor. When the power is handed to her, she'll know what to do with it, because she knows that even if she fails at what is surely a lifetime of planning, she has you and I, as INSURANCE. While this sinks in... Enjoy this LIVE FOOTAGE OF "Scott Duncan Simu-Drones" ATTACKING! :D http://youtu.be/6TAWFML2544

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 4:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6TAWFML2544?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Jul 11, 2013 4:58 AM
ISSUE ONE: OATH OF OFFICE MAKES PUBLIC OFFICIALS "FOREIGN" ISSUE TWO: JUDGE SERVES AS A DEBT COLLECTOR ISSUE THREE: NO IMMUNITY UNDER "COMMERCE" ISSUE FOUR: COURTS OPERATING UNDER WAR POWERS ACT ISSUE FIVE: LANGUAGE NOT CLARIFIED ISSUE ONE: OATH OF OFFICE MAKES PUBLIC OFFICIALS "FOREIGN" 1. Those holding Federal or State public office, county or municipal office, under the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch, including Court Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement Department employees, Officers of the Court, and etc., before entering into these public offices, are required by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law to comply with Title 5 USC, Sec. �3331, "Oath of office." State Officials are also required to meet this same obligation, according to State Constitutions and State statutory law. 2. All oaths of office come under 22 CFR, Foreign Relations, Sections ��92.12 -92.30, and all who hold public office come under Title 8 USC, Section �1481 "Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions." 3. Under Title 22 USC, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section �611, a Public Official is considered a foreign agent. In order to hold public office, the candidate must file a true and complete registration statement with the State Attorney General as a foreign principle. 4. The Oath of Office requires the public official in his / her foreign state capacity to uphold the constitutional form of government or face consequences. Title 10 USC, Sec. �333, "Interference with State and Federal law" The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it� (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. 5. Such willful action, while serving in official capacity, violates Title 18 USC, Section �1918: Title 18 USC, Section �1918 "Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the government" Whoever violates the provision of 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he� (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both. and also deprives claimants of "honest services: Title 18, Section �1346. Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud" "For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. ISSUE TWO: JUDGE SERVES AS A DEBT COLLECTOR 6. Judges hold public office under Title 28 USC, Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedure: Title 28, Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section �3002 As used in this chapter: (2) "Court" means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court. (3) "Debt" means� (A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or (B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States; (8) "Judgment" means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt. (15) "United States" means� (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. Title 22 USC, Sec. �286. "Acceptance of membership by United States in International Monetary Fund," states the following: The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. 8. Title 22 USC, Sec. � 286e-13, "Approval of fund pledge to sell gold to provide resources for Reserve Account of Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility Trust," states the following: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to instruct the Fund's pledge to sell, if needed, up to 3,000,000 ounces of the Fund's gold, to restore the resources of the Reserve Account of the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility Trust to a level that would be sufficient to meet obligations of the Trust payable to lenders which have made loans to the Loan Account of the Trust that have been used for the purpose of financing programs to Fund members previously in arrears to the Fund. ISSUE THREE: NO IMMUNITY UNDER "COMMERCE" 9. All immunity of the United States, and all liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials have been waived under commerce, according to the following US Codes: Title 15 USC, Commerce, Sec. �1122, "Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials" (a) Waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. The United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall not be immune from suit in Federal or State court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for any violation under this Act. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity by States. Any State, instrumentality of a State or any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity for any violation under this Act. Title 42 USC, Sec. �12202, "State immunity" A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State Title 42 USC, Sec. �2000d�7, "Civil rights remedies equalization" (a) General provision (1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. (2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State. 10. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 gives immunity in Administrative Court to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) only when an action is brought by the people against a public, agency or corporate official /department. Under Title 5 USC, Commerce, public offices or officials can be sanctioned. Title 5, USC, Sec. �551: (10) "sanction" includes the whole or a part of an agency� (A) prohibition, requirement, limitation, or other condition affecting the freedom of a person;(B) withholding of relief;(C) imposition of penalty or fine;(D) destruction, taking, seizure, or withholding of property;(E) assessment of damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation, costs, charges, or fees;(F) requirement, revocation, or suspension of a license; or (G) taking other compulsory or restrictive action; 11. Justice is required to be BLIND while holding a SET OF SCALES and a TWO-EDGED SWORD. This symbolizes true justice. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (60 stat 237) would allow the sword to cut in either direction and give the judge immunity by holding his own court office accountable for honest service fraud, obstruction of justice, false statements, malicious prosecution and fraud placed upon the court. Any willful intent to uncover the EYES OF JUSTICE or TILT THE SCALES is a willful intent to deny Due Process, which violates Title 18 USC �1346, "Scheme or Artifice to Defraud," by perpetrating a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. This is considered fraud and an overthrow of a constitutional form of government and the person depriving the honest service can be held accountable and face punishment under Title 18 USC and Title 42 USC and violates Title 28 USC judicial procedures. 12. Both Title 18 USC, Crime and Criminal Procedure, and Title 42 USC, Public Health and Welfare, allow the Petitioner to bring an action against the United States and/or the State agencies, departments, and employees for civil rights violations while dealing in commerce. Title 10 places all public officials under this Title10 section 333 while under a state of emergency. (Declare or undeclared War this fall under TWEA.) ISSUE FOUR: COURTS OPERATING UNDER WAR POWERS ACT 13. The Courts are operating under the Emergency War Powers Act. The country has been under a declared "state of emergency" for the past 70 years resulting in the Constitution being suspended (See Title 50 USC Appendix � Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917). The Courts have been misusing Title 50 USC, Sec. �23, "Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges," which provides for criminal jurisdiction over an "enemy of the state," whereas, Petitioner comes under Title 50 USC Appendix Application Sec. �21, "Claims of naturalized citizens as affected by expatriation" which states the following: The claim of any naturalized American citizen under the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] shall not be denied on the ground of any presumption of expatriation which has arisen against him, under the second sentence of section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act in reference to the expatriation of citizens and their protection abroad," approved March 2, 1907, if he shall give satisfactory evidence to the President, or the court, as the case may be, of his uninterrupted loyalty to the United States during his absence, and that he has returned to the United States, or that he, although desiring to return, has been prevented from so returning by circumstances beyond his control. 14. 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27 1868, states the following: PREAMBLE - Rights of American citizens in foreign states. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. SECTION I - Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. SECTION II - Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. SECTION III - Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868 15. The Courts and the States are enforcing the following code on American nationals: Title 50 USC Appendix App, Trading, Act, Sec. �4, "Licenses to enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance companies; change of name; doing business in United States," as a result of the passage of The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 to Title 50 USC, Trading with the Enemy Act Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) October 6, 1917. The original Trading with the Enemy Act excluded the people of the United States from being classified as the enemy when involved in transactions wholly within the United States. The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, however, included the people of the United States as the enemy, by incorporating the following language into the Trading With The Enemy Act: "by any person within the United States." The abuses perpetrated upon the American people are the result of Title 50 USC, Trading With The Enemy Act, which turned the American people into "enemy of the state."


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 4:58 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Fred Palmer

Jul 11, 2013 12:55 PM
Did This Medical Witness Defraud Thousands of Worker's Compensation Claims? (UPDATED) Of course he did as do all the Workers Compensation Doctors. What can you expect when it is a eugenics program to identify and eliminate the disabled.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523902665191E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 12:55 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 11, 2013 1:42 PM
Compelling evidence that we need to have a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day... during "Black History Month"! :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 1:42 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Derek Hill

Jul 11, 2013 3:55 PM
The application of "VOIDing court orders" thread success page. Yup, im goin in balls deep. gonna void the orders and intentionally go see her. Ill keep you posted, whenever i get out of jail.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 3:55 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 11, 2013 5:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyd_NldNSiM&feature=player_embedded#at=110

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 5:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uyd_NldNSiM?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Anibal Jose Baez

Jul 11, 2013 5:56 PM
I am getting ready to leave Facebook in a few weeks. I am still making notes of some things, and will take me a few days. I will kill myself if I loose contact wit the TFL group. Please don't let me out in the world with the crazy people. Admiral Scott Duncan, how can I keep studying from you, and my other "Scott Duncan Simu-Drones" after I leave FB? It will be an honor to keep learning from the first man I can really TRUST (sorry Dad, you've fucked-up a few times). Thank you!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 5:56 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 11, 2013 9:44 PM
A SHEEP NO MORE �>> I ran into one of these today at the Sprint store. The person who worked with me was going to college and working over the summer. Because my old phone had died and was a dinosaur (I wanted it to be non GPS on purpose), he presumed to think I was of course, useless. So I decided to ask him some questions. Do you know about the FED and what it is. He replied, of course, it's a part of the US government and is regulated. I said really? Then asked, and how about the $40 billion the FED is printing every month ....it's now called Q3? He said, the FED is regulated that when any new money is printed, the old money must be destroyed. Final question was about 9/11. When I asked if he believed the government's version of it and some other important facts, he said....oh yeah, ha ha .....you're one of those conspiracy theorist. Obviously this young man is still stuck in the matrix as he smirked at my much older than his face. Then he had the balls to ask me if I ever attended college (like that means anything while he's paying for his education using loans that have doubled in interest ...so he'll be a debt slave once he graduates and will spend his entire life paying it back). I replied by saying, does that really matter? But, just for your information, I do have a BA in psychology (and my final payment on my loan ended when I was 31) .... and I went on to get my masters later in life until I realized it wouldn't be worth it, and I quit after 2 semesters. But don't worry, because he KNOWS he is going make a lotta money once he graduates college. That's the majority of AmeeriKa's youth today. Sad to say, but they are just as brainwashed and propagated as the baby boomer generation.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 9:44 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 11, 2013 10:33 PM
Okie, i believe its time to go over the fine art of placing a lien on property, whether its on a house or on a boat,car and/or bank accounts. Now, if your going to post and comment on this, please do so in accord with the content, do rant about this or that bringing the content off to another realm, i know add and hdd is quite high but lets do our best to focus. Now, there are some ideas and concepts that have been written about and executed but who has successfully done this process and got what the full amount or at least an agreement on an amount ? For me, i normally get whom im dealing with, to agree with my lien of course by their silence or inaction. All done normally out of a notary presentment process and gathering a record to show that a non response certified and an administrative judgment has been certified as well. With private courts out of my nation, a court order has been issued along with the administrative judgment which can be entered into the superior/supreme court as a foreign judgment in order to help with the enforcement of your claim. Keep in mind its all about the claims, i mean contracts. If one is to file a lien, they are to make sure they have done their administrative process in order to get the assent of the other parties. Once done, its up to the party who got the contract to hold it, now this is where most if not all fail. Not many know how to hold a contract, keeping in mind that contracts are dynamic which means they move or can be moved by going in and arguing after the fact. This from what i can tell is called moving the contract or creating a situation for a judge to be granted the jurisdiction to make a judgement because you caused a controversy, you might say well, they started it and said there is no agreement. Which i would say why did you ask them to provide you proof of their claims, produce any records that would be in opposition of the records before the court, if in fact you get that far. Now, once you can get this record and there is an agreement for what the collateral is, what does one do in order to enforce if in fact they got the claim ? The Notary process can be explained in another posting but this here is mainly about placing a lien, whether on a house, car,boat or an account. I hear buzz of using CRA to place liens. Now, i dont wish to accept ideas or what you may think but actual true to fact information that some might know to be exact in their process. PPSA, UCC and the other forms of placing a lien, http://www.teranet.ca/ would be another place to file your lien as well. So if you would Scott Duncan, fill in the blanks for your position on a lien. Also, keep in mind, if you are able to hold your contract and get an order from a Superior/supreme court, you can take this order and have the U.S marshals come north of the border and execute enforcement for you. So, now on to your comments and questions. KEEP IN MIND KEEP ON TOPIC, FOCUS PEOPLE.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 11, 2013 10:33 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 12, 2013 1:46 PM
Just a video of Dublin's Finest... ...filed under "What the fuck are they saying"?

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 1:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/vZnrmJS-M44?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Jul 12, 2013 2:07 PM
Can anyone tell me by what authority can a RCMP Staff Sergeant give out informantion to a Community Services worker, about someone's personal record before the case has even been started in court?


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 2:07 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 12, 2013 2:21 PM
I close the group, and I have more members than ever... Fuck! People are weird! How many of you work for the government? How many work for the Law Society? How many are ACTUALLY listening to me? How many of you will wake up? If you are a member, or just became one, please speak up. I want to know WHY you are here. I want to know WHO is listening. I want to know what YOU can do, and what your VALUE is. If you don't know the answer to that last question, SAY so. It's the best one you can declare: "I don't know what my value is" = "I don't know who I am". I can fix that. but it will cost you... but it's a bargain. If you don't know who you are, then OTHERS will decide who you are FOR you...and that ALWAYS costs more. ALWAYS. So if you are a member, I want to hear about you. You are not a number, or an account, or an ID, of a Username with a postage-stamp sized picture. Be more than that. Who are you? Where do you come from? Why are you here? WHAT DO YOU WANT? I want to know what I have to work with here.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 2:21 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dee Brown

Jul 12, 2013 3:11 PM
two books tell me what you know about them: american jurisprudence and corpus juris secundum


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02040493454611E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 3:11 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 12, 2013 3:34 PM
I got a parking ticket last night, I don't remember seeing a thread but my thoughts are sending them a notice of mistake? ...or in this case would a notice rejecting their offer to contract be more effective ?...would that be sent to the town offices or to the court?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 3:34 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jennay Smith

Jul 12, 2013 5:21 PM
any advice on dealing with CAS (no they don't want to apprehend my kids, I have not signed anything, in the past I called them and they would pay for counselling and close the file, this time, apparently the fee for counselling is being waived so I don't need them to pay but they are refusing to go away until after counselling is completed... I don't need them I found my resources, identified and fixed the problem on my own...how to make them go away


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02029952972374E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 5:21 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 12, 2013 6:51 PM
Here we are !!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 6:51 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 12, 2013 7:03 PM
FIRST NATIONS ALLIANCE SET TO CHALLENGE AFN ON DEALINGS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON TREATIES MAANATHLTAAPAAN �>> NOTE BEFORE YOU START READING THIS LINK .. these Canada Corporations EMPLOYEES: First Nations alliance : Assembly of First Nations; mentioned in this article DO WORK for the crown, crown templar, canada and its provincial corporations, THEY get their operational funds and personal funds from these corporations .. So yes, they DO NOT REPRESENT THE ORIGINALS OF TURTLE ISLAND .. As their organizations names reflect their truths as SELLOUTS �>> First Nations alliance : Assembly of First Nations; TELLS YOU they are NOT representing the Home Lands, Resources, Woman, Children, Man �>> they represent themselves for HAND OUTS FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS the crown, crown templar, canada and its provincial corporations .. THE TRUTH this is no, never nation to nation, but EMPLOYEES NEGOTIATING WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS .... The AFN�s approach turns TREATY TALKS into a �POLICY DISCUSSION,� which betrays the NATION-TO-NATION approach, Day said. The AFN should take a �complete hands-off approach� and �not even try to coordinate or be a matchmaker,� he said.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 7:03 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Andrew D'Aragon

Jul 12, 2013 7:44 PM
If you are one of these �doubly-ignorant persons not only views things in a distorted way but possesses no capacity for self-correction; no truth can get through the delusory mind-set. Delusion feeds on itself and becomes a totally closed system of egomania.� Then you would not be here in this group �THE TENDER FOR LAW� This in and of itself shows that your IGNORANCE can be CURED, If Scott Duncan Agrees I suggest this to be required reading, for the sake of understanding Ignorance and how you have participated in your own belief paradigm. Thank you

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539690144256E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 7:44 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 12, 2013 9:23 PM
WEEEEEEEEEEE!

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 9:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ancfun2U04s?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 12, 2013 9:23 PM
This guy is starting to annoy me quite a bit now geez...what is wrong with him....thoughts? this a skype conversation from that Bondservant Edward James-Robin guy, owlmon1 on skype ----------------------------------------------- [1:35:35 PM] owlmon1: Robert told me the whole story of what a vile and without conscious scammer fraudster Scott is and you give him free reign....I smell a big rat...you can either get gloriofied for promoting the truth or get raked over the coals for promoting a fraud...Which one do you wish to be remembered by on youtube? [1:40:00 PM] owlmon1: That is not a threat but a warning to you and those you and your forum r deceiving, White forked tongue make up contract law with heap lies...Chief turn back on his tribe by teaching helping and promoting whiteman lie...Big error for chief as chief get fooled by complex bull forked tongue lie lose face...people no trust chief as of truth on youtube...Which is more important to you Ego or wisdom??? We will see if you wear the name Chief with wisdom or deception....Wise chief no act like proud fool!!! [1:59:15 PM] Chief Rock [sino general]: i will ask him about it, i have never heard about the issue or what happend [2:00:09 PM] Chief Rock [sino general]: whatever happened had nothing to do with what i do, i just merely do what i can do to help who i can help with their issues as best as i can, [2:16:03 PM] Chief Rock [sino general]: well, it appears as a threat and that is how it is witnessed as , my people been doing contract law before white many came here, only lie and bs i see is the promotion of white man jesus and the bible that cause so many from my nation to be raped and killed and removed our language and culture, so for you to stand there and try to send off info about the bible is an insult to anyone who is native, contract law is a way for folks to do their best to remedy and situation in their lives as long as they are aware of what is being done, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have yet witness what you do as having a remedy, i dont doubt i just havent witnessed anything but i have witnessed ppl i help with contract law and they either get zero balance or debt removed. Others have been let out of jail and others kept the courts at bay, but you stand there and try to tell me what i do is fraud with no evidence other than a bible that promotes slavery and with a history against my people who had land stolen under the name of god, even if those folks were wrong in the messgae in the bible the bible is written in english, or at least what you presss upon and use, however the real language it was truly written in, has been misinterpreted and who knows if they ever will do it right. All i know is, bible has some commerical value in it showing their games, mainly the King James version but i for one do not stand under or have faith in it in anyway shape or form, only faith i have is in my peoples way and our views on who our creator is as it has always been, [2:17:27 PM] Chief Rock [sino general]: So i dunno, do as you wish for whatever youtube videos you want but know by speaking my name in an ill manner online without any evidence or proof of your words other than a bible, shows me your dishonor and inablity to truly know who i am and speaking out your ass about someone you never met. Robert has never said anything to me about what you speak, so i will have to speak with Robert because from what i can tell, you sure do love your heresay and suck it up without ever having any first hand knowledge about anything or anyone, just go by what you hear, unless you witnessed it yourself, i am unsure i can truly place value in the words


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 9:23 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 12, 2013 9:25 PM
I tried to share this before, but Facebook seems to be eating most of my posts. They're from Ontario, so we know who this updated version is directed at... " Canadian post-punk outfit Alexisonfire (pronounced �Alexis-on-fire�) put out a 7-inch vinyl single with two cover tracks: �The Dead Heart� and �I'm Stranded� (originally done by a band called The Saints). Over the weekend, though, when I first heard their version of �The Dead Heart,� I was driving and not paying close attention. So I thought it was the Midnight Oil original. �The Dead Heart� starts with the same forceful lead guitar, propulsive drumming and group-chorus sung �Doo dot doo dot doo doo doo,� but then lead singer/punk screamer George Pettit comes in with an almost terrifying shouted cry from the heart when he sings: �We don't serve your country/Don't serve your king/know your custom don't speak your tongue/White man came took everyone.� It made me pull over and listen. This was not the version I knew (it's played much faster too). Midnight Oil's version was angry; Alexisonfire is filled with hate, contempt and venom. There is no doubting here what this song is about. The music is still pretty and you can still dance to it, but you cannot avoid the intent of the lyrics. Pettit spits them in your face and forces you to listen. The chorus, �We carry in our hearts the true country/and that cannot be stolen/follow in the steps of our ancestry/and that cannot be broken,� is sung by guitarist/pianist Dallas Green in a more melodic fashion. It ends up being perfect counterpoint to Pettit's full-bore venom.Alexisonfire lead singer George PettitThe fact that Alexisonfire is a St. Catharines, Ontario, band, and all-white, is astounding. When they sing this version, you forget that Midnight Oil was singing strictly about Australian aborigines because Alexisonfire version is done for all repressed people: be they Native North Americans, African slaves or indigenous peoples of Australia or New Zealand.The song is important because it details what our ancestors did to the native cultures of the many lands they colonized. There are many things my ancestors did that I would probably not be proud of. However, I live my life in a way that obviates that way of thinking. A song like this should be heard and understood, so we know what happened. But if we are to carry forward in this world, the hatred must end. Alexisonfire's version suggests the anger is still there, yet by understanding that anger, it is a starting point for reconciliation."

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 9:25 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 12, 2013 11:24 PM
Stealing content! :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 12, 2013 11:24 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Robert Cormier

Jul 13, 2013 2:59 AM
news tidbit....Sometime early last year, I signed a government document Director for: Robert Cormier. The gov worker looked at it and said I couldn't sign it in that manner and that I had to use the signature that was on my driver's license. I told her that I could draw a bunny if I wanted to, as it was my mark, and that my mark could not be dictated by the government. Anyways I was refused service for four months. Wrote them a number of letters. In the end, I was given services and my claim was back dated. More recently, I was asked to sign a government document to obtain services once again. I asked the gov worker what would happen if I didn't sign it. She said I wouldn't be given services. I told her that I didn't agree with the offered contract and that there was no "meeting of minds". She essentially said take it or leave it. I told her I'd sign it, which I did, and handed the document back to her. She looked at it and said "What's this?". She was referring to the fact that I signed it UNDER STRESS AND DURESS, followed by my signature. She said that she couldn't accept it like that and would need to speak to her supervisor. She came back and said that her supervisor would need to take it up the chain of command. Anyways, when asked why I signed it like that, I took the document from her, put an asterisk beside my name. At the bottom of the page I put another asterisk and wrote; "It is my understanding that I will not be given access to my trust of which I and all Canadians are beneficiaries unless I sign a contract which I don't agree with. As I need these services for my well being I signed it as indicated above." Several days passed. Finally, I was called and told that I would receive all benefits. Before hanging up the phone, the gov worker asked me if I'd please try to comply with the majority of their performance requirements. I said that I'd consider it and hung up.


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 13, 2013 2:59 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Robert Cormier

Jul 13, 2013 3:34 PM
Just prior to the death of my mother, my step-father and my mother signed the back of a vehicle registration form and gifted me a car as a token of appreciation for all my help. Immediately after the death of my mother, my money crazed EVIL step-brother and step-sister (who hated my son and I because they knew that my son and I were in my "Dad's" LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT and were situated to get an equal share of my his Estate) sequestered my father from us by keeping him in their home without allowing my son and I access. Anyways, not a week later I get a call from my "dad" and with the prompting voices of the evil children in the background, my "dad" asks me for the car back, and, with much stress in his voice he informs me that he has changed his mind, and, has now decided he doesn't want to gift me the car. He now wants it back. Pissed, and realizing what was going on (he's a self professed victim of elder abuse at their hands) I reminded him that he has already gifted the car to me. After more prompting by the evil kids in the background, he tells me meekly that if I don't deliver the car by 8pm he would call the police. Fast forward to today...I have the car and "can't" get it registered in "my" NAME because: a) Service Ontario requires that my declaration that the car was gifted be verified by my step-father attendance wherein he must SWEAR or AFFIRM that he gifted the car in the presence of a Notary. The only other option provided by SERVICE ONTARIO is that I COMMIT FRAUD and claim I purchased the car, inform them of the amount I paid, and pay tax on that amount (this would obviously potentially cause injury to my "dad", as I'm sure that the CRA would be expecting him to declare the extra income on his tax return). So, I am driving a car that is mine, which I cannot register unless I commit fraud. The tags on the plates have expired which I can't renew. Even though I have paid for insurance in "my" NAME, it is my understanding that the insurance provided is invalid because it must be in the name of the registered owner (they claim otherwise - the do highlight the fact that any potential claims that would normally be paid out to me would be paid out to my "dad"). The point of the story is: due to my unwillingness to commit FRAUD, I inadvertently find myself following in the tracks of Dean Clifford. I still have my drivers license though, and, if you'll recall from another post, it's signed Director for: followed by my signature.


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 13, 2013 3:34 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Gardynik

Jul 13, 2013 6:14 PM
I am a man from Oshawa Ont. Canada. I am here to learn. Learn if this stuff produces results. If it will be honored by the powers at be. The only live man I talked to about this in person was showing me about this and he is now in jail. The concepts seem right to me. And yet they do not seem to be honored. I want to live my life free from molestation of government or anyone else. I want to do no harm or be harmed. I want to be shown respect from officers of the government. Nothing special just common curticies. What I am not is a wanna be marter. I am not a radical. I want to be lawful. If there is a way to avoid fines harassment and disrespect I would be interested in learning.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02046759172396E+016
Last Updated: Jul 13, 2013 6:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Lei Gh

Jul 13, 2013 10:07 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 544228225691299
Last Updated: Jul 13, 2013 10:07 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 13, 2013 10:39 PM
A comment from Brian Alexander on the Sovereign International , ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Alexander This is the testimony/converstatoin I had with a friend, what she told me of her esperience with scott n the like;.................... speaking of the hate of God, have you ever come across a creep called Scott Duncan ? I have a lot to say about him, I was in Sweden when he actually asked to call me all the way from his expensive little penthouse in Toronto to sniff me out, let me digress and say that I guess because I am trustworthy, people tend to confide spontaneously, I don t ask questions, I find it rude....anyways, before this Scott flipped out on me 2 days later, the first phone call he called overseas at his own expense, we must have talked 40 mn, then he asked me to get skype ( I did and uninstalled it after the blow out and incidentally it had scrambled the PC I was in so bad I had to let a friend remote fix from the US, and even for her using logmein, and her expertise as an ex US force repair tech for PC circuitry outer space in orbit for their special satellites....she is retired, in the process she just about got her PC all fucked up too, the creep must have done soemthing, he is a PC programmer or something in those lines, besides his legal shit. Anyways, what I found out about him, is for one he is hiding behind a shady trust calles aquilae trust, in it was then Dean Clifford and Andrew Langevin, I saw andrew enter the penthouse on day two, on skype....the other thing is he told me they had 10K in the trust to take down Robert Menard....then that his goal is to re-instate the trust of the Monarchy, when I asked which Monarchy, he said Elizabeth, and went on on how of a hottie she used to be and how she upholds the Common Law, ok well technically I guess, but then he got on my case, giving me shit for all the notices I sent, I sent only 2, one to the receiver general saying I was voiding all my contracts, sin, citizenship and all, and why....( that part for a later conversation, or go to my about page and you will eventually find it ) the other was a 10 day notice, about me giving allegience to God, I dropped that one on the shores of the NSA, on a public board they admiister. Well Scott started flipping on me about God, and how tired he is of all these people with uimaginary friends etc, and when I started taking his argument down, he outright started calling me a cunt and screaming I just said goodbye and hang up on him. I knew them I was onto something, who the hell would call Sweden for 40 mn other than a high level rat. So I blocked him on FB, I blocked Andrew and Dean as well, Mika has kept Andrew on his list. I have warned Robert about this, now I am telling you, and I agree with you they are terrified of God, but I do have genuine atheist friends who threw the baby with the bath water, because of their hate for the hateful things religions have and are doing in the name of God, and I can t blame them, if they only knew they just threw the emergency exist key away, but hey there is not much I can do about it, most of them couldn t be bothered finding out their rights anyways, and I am tired of wasting my saliva, but yeah Mika is interesting, but when I look at his face type when his hair is short, he looks awfully like the special marching platoon of the rc's on Canada day and remembreance day....they all looked like clones when I saw them march in Duncan BC once, I couldn t beleive they had found so many men with the same skull structure, the lions with wide cheeckbones big heads, all sporting the mean look of vengence, strange parade that was. For the longest I used to admire Mika for at least speaking his mind, one day via Andrew the Greek fellow from Montreal who was in phone contact with me in 2012 and had Mika at his cousin s place for a bit, a visit that didn t end well, anyways I got to hear Mika's voice on the phone, and it wasn t anything I expected, it didn t fit the image, I could feel a lot of vanity in it, or something I can t really put a finger on, but although a nice voice, selfishness ? not sure wat it was, but love wasn t what I felt, we'll watch and see, good meeting you and John Spirit.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 13, 2013 10:39 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 14, 2013 1:12 AM
At the risk of overstaying my welcome...I wanted to get some feedback on a letter I've drafted to send to the Bank of Canada along with my dentist bill. Any comments would be appreciated, I'm pushing myself beyond my ever changing comfort zone..thank you in advance :) July 10, 2013 Mr. Stephen Poloz, Governor of the Bank of Canada 234 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G9 Instructions for Account: GAIL BLACKMAN a/c #xxxxxxxxx Dear Mr. Poloz, I am writing to you in good faith, at the request of Dr. Advani's to provide some clarification and/or instruction, if required, with regard to two bills for dental services rendered by him for my benefit.I am advising you to please set off and/or discharge this debt obligation to 0.00 as defined within the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C. 1985, using my valuable consideration/signature as your authorization. I am aware that "giving a (Bank of Canada) note and /or check does not constitute payment (see below Supreme Court decision). Supreme Court 1978 Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal: �As I have already noted, a promissory note, by definition, involves an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money, but it is not itself money. True, the Obligation of a promissory note may be carried forward by a renewal note, but no matter how many renewals there be, or how many replacements under different terms, there is no liquidation of the debt until it is DISCHARGED..." [Page 1156] The relevant sections of the Bills of Exchange Act RSC (1985) include, but are not limited to Sections 38, 53, 52, 138. Please find enclosed, my endorsed bills from Dr. Avani to be set off/discharged. I have also provided you with my affidavit for your convenience. (still deciding on this?) If there is any lawful reason that this matter cannot be dealt with in this manner, please provide specific details of any defects and instructions to remedy same. Sincerely, Gail Blackman, NON ASSUMPSIT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Authorised Representative for GAIL BLACKMAN


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 1:12 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 14, 2013 4:34 AM
So, there are a few folks here in the group who dont know or cant seem to figure out what a WRIT is, or how one works, so if here are a few examples of a writ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The writ of Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that directs a public official or government department to take an action. It may be sent to the Executive Branch, the legislative branch, or a lower court. The famous case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), which established the right of Judicial Review of congressional statutes, was an action for a writ of mandamus. William Marbury asked the court to issue the writ to Secretary of State James Madison, commanding him to deliver his judicial commission. The Court, however, refused to issue the writ of mandamus. The writ of prohibition is another extraordinary writ and is the opposite of a writ of mandamus, because it commands a government official not to take a specified action. The most common use of the writ is by an appellate court to a lower court, commanding the lower court to refrain from a proposed action. For example, a trial court might grant a request by the news media to release information from a court file. A defendant who objects to the release could petition for a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals. If the appellate court issues the writ, the trial court may not release the information. The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court that is used by that court when it has discretion on whether to hear an appeal from a lower court. If the writ is denied, the lower court decision remains unchanged. The U.S. Supreme Court has used the petition and writ of certiorari to control its caseload since 1925. The extraordinary writ of Quo Warranto starts a proceeding in which the state challenges the legality of the use of an office, franchise, charter, or other right that can be held or used under authority of the state. For example, a writ of quo warranto would be used to remove a person who illegally holds public office, or to nullify an illegal amendment to a municipal charter. A writ of attachment is a court order used to force obedience to another order or a judgment of the court. It was originally used to order a sheriff or law enforcement officer to take a disobedient party into custody and to bring her before the court to answer for the Contempt. In modern law, a writ of attachment orders seizure of the defendant's property rather than the defendant's person to secure the satisfaction of a judgment that has not yet been secured. Modern law limits the scope and effect of attachment procedures to safeguard the defendant's rights to liberty and Due Process of Law. A writ of execution may be issued after a plaintiff wins a judgment in a civil case and is awarded damages. The writ directs the sheriff to take the property of the defendant in satisfaction of the court-imposed debt. A writ of entry is an instrument used in an action brought to recover land wrongfully withheld from the true owner or tenant entitled to possession and use of the land. It establishes who is entitled to possession of a parcel of land but does not settle the issue of who is the true owner. The central inquiry is which of the two individuals has the superior right of possession and use of the land at the time of the action. To determine the priority of the rights of the parties fighting over land, the court must consider how and when each individual acquired ownership or possession. In general, modern laws permit the recovery of monetary damages for rent or abuse of property, as well as recovery of possession of the land. The individual who has been in possession of the land may be compensated for any improvements he has made in the property. The writ of entry is used in only a few states to recover the possession of land. It has been replaced by the action to recover possession of real property. A writ of error is an order issued from an appellate court directed to the judge of a lower court, mandating the judge to release the trial record of an action in which the judge has entered a final judgment. The appellate court issues the writ so that it may review the case and either reverse, correct, or affirm the lower-court decision. Most states have replaced the writ of error with a simpler appellate document, usually called the notice of appeal.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 4:34 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 14, 2013 5:23 AM
The Chief was a big help in assisting me setting this up Thanks for all your help Chief!


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 5:23 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Jul 14, 2013 2:52 PM
What is happening with these posts and threads?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 2:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Maa Nathltaapaan

Jul 14, 2013 6:11 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02036191852601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 6:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z_vM59_38j4?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 14, 2013 6:27 PM
OK! PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS ACCUSING ME OF FRAUD (And being a "creep"): Listen you silly future victims! I gave you this knowledge! I CAN TAKE IT AWAY TOO! Muuuuahahahahahaaaah shit. I cant. Knowledge doesn't work that way... :( WELL AT LEAST I HAVE YOUR MONEY! SUCKERS! Muuuahahahahahaaaa Fuck... I don't charge anything... :( Shit. I'm the worst fraud artist EVER! :((


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 6:27 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 14, 2013 7:27 PM
CRA calls me every second day since 3 weeks now, they keep leaving message in English in my voicemail, and they want me to call them back, they are in Toronto, I wonder why they call me from there, we have a place in in Shawinigan Quebec filled with CRA agent, why in the world they are calling me from Toronto ? They are asking me to call them back and to state the corp. gst taxe number of the corp I happen to be the CEO of when they will answer the call They are telling me that there open business hours are from 7:00am to 11:00pm This is the first time in 9 years they are doing this Any thoughts ? These people scares me and I don't want to be as STUPID as last time they've fucked me. Why not just sending what they want by mail ? Sorry, maybe off topic but I am wondering.... Thanks Pierre


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 7:27 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 14, 2013 8:41 PM
Fresh from the "BIG FUCKING SHOCK" Department:

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 8:41 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


John Gessas

Jul 14, 2013 11:26 PM
Court tomorrow! default court for failure to pay a court order for spousal and child support. Court order was obtained by fraudulent information filed by my ex of 2 years to an address I was no longer at. they held a trial without me present to rebut their claims and they gave her an order for more than I make and left out the fact that I have other children that I support without the need for the courts meddling. These assholes are threatening to put me in jail for6 months if I dont jump thru their hoops and provide all my cra info and tax returns and sign a contract to pay. I have asked for dna and they tell me to shut up? I have no right to MY hose cause I put it in her name but it has been deemed not to be a matrimonial home yet she gets awarded spousal? 2 years togeather and I have to pay for a lifetime or go to jail Can any one offer any sound advice? I am not


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01551704575751E+016
Last Updated: Jul 14, 2013 11:26 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 15, 2013 12:16 AM
In this new interview with Captain Deryl Zeleny, Royal Canadian Air Force (retired), we cover the latest series of events in Deryl�s campaign to reveal to the world the corrupt nature of the Canadian banking/court/police mortgage foreclosure machine. This interview first summarises Deryl�s story to date and picks up the story from Tuesday 30th May 2013 when a removals team, including a representative a from a company purported to be the manager of properties foreclosed on by the Bank of Canada.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 12:16 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 15, 2013 2:12 AM
another interview about the courts making money off court cases and bonds.. this is a good interview as well...

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 2:12 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Colin Stephen Tonks

Jul 15, 2013 8:03 AM
Foundational Maxim: First: All law is the protection of private property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523951670811E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 8:03 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Erik Aguilar

Jul 15, 2013 8:53 AM
Hi guys! thank-you for accepting me into your group I look forward to learning alot from all of you! With that being said I am hoping to be able to discuss a lil run in I had with the law with you cats. Last year I was arrested, and shortly released with a promise to appear. So on the date I was scheduled to appear, I show up at the courthouse. Lo and behold there is no sign of me begin scheduled for court that day. Confused I asked to get in contact with someone and was given the number of the crown prosecution. When I called I could only speak to his secretary and all she told me was "wait for a letter in the mail". So 8 months later I get a call from an RCMP officer telling me I have had a Public Interest Warrant issued 7 months ago, and that I have to go to the province it was issued from (I live in canada eh) to clear it up. Because of their severe lack of communication ive been hanging on a thread for almost a year now about this case, does this situation give me any leverage?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01544200057957E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 8:53 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 15, 2013 2:57 PM
Got messages that they don't understand the voiding of orders. www.dosrpg.net/other/affidavit.jpg www.dosrpg.net/other/order1.jpg www.dosrpg.net/other/order2.jpg I just included the restraining order, it was really the only one i was concerned with. View the documents. The key points is the CERTIFIED COPY on top left corner over seal, the new original printed on top of both pages and the VOID on the second page of the order. I don't have a copy with the VOID printed with ink, because I didn't make a copy with the red ink so i used my awesome paint skills to put void on there anyways. If you still do not understand these simple things, then you might want to consider getting your head checked. Scott Duncan, did i miss anything, im sure i covered this. I just want to make it more solid to get the point across with less hassle. Even though my first attempt worked like a charm, you will not always get easy going people to go along with it. Or would you prefer to keep it simple like the above?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 2:57 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Mick Parker

Jul 15, 2013 3:01 PM
A very Interesting interview/insight with the Master of the High Court. judiciary,procedure,mortgage,title, legal impass. http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/programmes/2013/0420/383502-marian-finucane-saturday-20-april-2013/


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152746075001E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 15, 2013 5:37 PM
Weird things are happening My life was threatened on the weekend... By an individual I took seriously... Backed up by a friend of his.. I bugged out... there were more of them...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 5:37 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 15, 2013 9:35 PM
"Would you do me the respect of letting me know who you are?" "Yes im the Judge, my name's White(?), im gonna hear the case this morning" "Thank you very much and i uh- I acknowledge-and-accept your oath-of-office Judge White" (now the guy in the video says- "your Honour," but, thats not what the Judge said when asked exactly who he was) ..LOL - and here i thought this video was gonna end-up being about 15-minutes long or so! http://youtu.be/HiUqg8dL7p8 ---> Lege Unum

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2013 9:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/HiUqg8dL7p8?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 16, 2013 12:01 AM
Attributed to http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/rbaldwin/NobleLie.htm for educational purposes

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 12:01 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 16, 2013 1:21 AM
Scott on the danger of making a MOTION/MOTIONING with/to the court- thread... Derek Moran: You have mentioned before NOT to MOTION to/with the court, as you are unwittingly consenting to their jurisdiction, Scott? Scott Duncan: YES! Martin Sutton almost did that. Darren the cop was all for it. If Darren the cop says it, you probably should try figure out why you shouldn't... Derek Moran: As i am typing this, i am listening to the portion of the show where Dean describes RECUSING the judge. Was it uneccessary then for Dean, to MOTION for the judge to recuse himself, as in he didnt even need to bother with doing that to begin with? at minute 32:00, is where Dean starts explaining how he asked/told the judge to "recuse himself": http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfactradio/2013/03/05/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep12-dean-tells-all Derek Moran: So going into court and right-off-the-bat saying to the judge- "I MOTION for you to Strike/I MOTION for you to Quash this matter" = BAD, because you are consenting to their jurisdiction unwittingly Scott Duncan: Re:"what does MOTION equal?" It means, "BEND OVER AND TAKE IT DRY, BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY ASKED FOR IT! JOINDER, BABY"! Derek Moran: So, to review: it was unneccessary for Dean in court on the audio, to "MOTION" for the judge to recuse himself? He needed only to OBJECT, and ASK the judge to recuse himself, using the phrasing that you wrote earlier, Scott? (Daniel Daniel J Wentz clicked 'Like' on this) Daniel J Wentz: If a JUSTICE cautions you about the "dangers" of MOTIONING, he's HELPING you. Judges are ELECTED, and JUSTICES are APPOINTED. [Scott-like emphisis added] Since you are in CANADA, then you should not be concerned about JUDGES, because you will never be before one. Scott Duncan: ...What he said. Derek Moran: ..so- i guess thats why then Dean couldnt figure out why the judge was not Recusing himself, because, Dean had MOTIONED for him to Recuse himself, instead of simply OBJECTING and asking the judge to Recuse himself? Scott Duncan: Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY. I would have locked him up for contempt. Daniel J Wentz: Civil or Criminal? Scott Duncan: Criminal. I would have witnessed FRAUD against the petitioner. Dean claimed he was not the name, but by MOTIONING he was acting as a PARTY, and was INTERFERING WITH THE LEGAL COMMERCIAL INTERESTS of the petitioner. You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD Derek Moran: "Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY."...... holy fuck, where does it actually say that somewhere- where is the source-of-reference for this?..id love to see this for myself Scott Duncan: Derek: ONTARIO ANNUAL PRACTICE has all the rules. Who else BUT a party can even APPEAR? You are trying to "prove" something you already KNOW! Pete Daoust: You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD: wow...thats solid stuff ???.....is it me or I focus on the wrong stuff Daniel J Wentz: Derek Moran, Only a PERSON can be a PARTY. Do you really need "proof" of this? Why do you looking for "validation from your rapist" (as Scott says)? Chad Brodgesell: ""If you are in court RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. State that you wish the "charges" dismissed, and keep QUESTIONING!"" But don't MOTION and then DEMAND their claim if they have one , if not DEMAND the session to be dismissed? Chad Brodgesell: So the WISH is the Living persons WILL at the moment? But is not a motion? Scott Duncan: YUP! No "understanding" involved. Ask for everyone's credentials. That one drives them nuts!

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 1:21 AM
https://player.cinchcast.com/assets/player/jwplayer-5.9.2156.swf?config=https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.cinchcast.com%2Fconfig%3FplatformId%3D1%26assetId%3Dglobalfactradio%26assetType%3Dmulti%26itemcount%3D6%26version%3D2.0
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Lacey Hatt

Jul 16, 2013 1:35 AM
Trial today:willfully obstructing a peace officer.I refused to show ID or insurance at a TRAFFIC stop for snow on my bumper covering the license plate. This was my fifth appearance re this matter.Previously I had deposited my Live Birth Record and Notice of Mistake into the COURT file the latter they just ignored.Today I walked in with 9 of my friends and family in tow.Judge asks are you(name)?Thats my name I own it.Is anyone disputing that?Supernumerarry interrupts me,I cut him of cross my arms and firmly say Is anyone disputing that my name is my property?while looking him right in the eyes.No one is disputing that he says.On and for the record no one is disputing that my name is my property.Supernumerarry "Ahhhh it seems that crown has double booked the same spot for you and xxxxx case.sometimes bla bla bla you could come back tomorrow see if we can get you in bla bla bla sign some papers reschedule bla bla bla how do you wish to proceed?Im thinking sign some papers,ya I'll get right on that.I look,the judge in the eye and say"what does your internal procedure have to do with me? I don't understand what you are talking about.I want to settle this right here,right now so I can get back to my family and my job.I go on a little rant and tell him I'm not coming back.I turn around and walk out.Sherrif tries handing me a paper I ignore him.My friends ,family and I get out into the foyer and start jeering the two cops that arrested me.Sherrif comes out and tells me to leave the building Right Now.I ask him if he is going to put his hands on me he says yes.I tell him he does not have my consent to touch me,my dad says let's go ,so we go outside.The cops leave ,more heckling . Ok people critique me


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153448125331E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 1:35 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Jul 16, 2013 3:37 AM
how come this isn't here?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 3:37 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Saturn Azad

Jul 16, 2013 4:05 AM
I have a promise to appear noticed for failure to produce a log book. I don�t wish to appear nor do I wish to be liable for the voluntary payment option. I am not in dispute as far as I know. Can you advise me on how to proceed or direct me to some instructional reference?


Unique Facebook User ID: 449889051855228
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 4:05 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Colin Stephen Tonks

Jul 16, 2013 9:56 AM
What is a promissory note? A Flagstaff Hill man, 33, has been arrested for deception offences after allegedly passing fraudulent promissory notes across Adelaide. Police will allege he presented the promissory notes to a number of financial institutions via ATM deposits. One promissory note was presented at a retail outlet. The investigation is still ongoing and anyone with information that may assist should contact police. Promissory notes are not legal tender and have no value. Police advise the public if you are presented with a promissory note, do not accept it, and contact police. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1002983_503936179683729_1207125720_n.jpg


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523951670811E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 9:56 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 16, 2013 12:37 PM
Want to bring your attention to this little gem which drives even further on surety. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i-21/latest/rsc-1985-c-i-21.html �security� and �sureties� � caution � ou � cautionnement � �security� means sufficient security, and �sureties� means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required; http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html �valuable security� � valeur � ou � effet appr�ciable � �valuable security� includes (a) an order, exchequer acquittance or other security that entitles or evidences the title of any person (i) to a share or interest in a public stock or fund or in any fund of a body corporate, company or society, or (ii) to a deposit in a financial institution, (b) any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order or other security for money or for payment of money, (c) a document of title to lands or goods wherever situated, (d) a stamp or writing that secures or evidences title to or an interest in a chattel personal, or that evidences delivery of a chattel personal, and (e) a release, receipt, discharge or other instrument evidencing payment of money; ===================================================== Can anyone piece these together :)

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 12:37 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Jul 16, 2013 2:54 PM
Can anybody shed some light on a warrant of committal? This seems to be something truly special, because they wont let you have a copy of it, which is what I wanted, only willing to let you look at it. I'll need to take my camera in to get a good picture of it.


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 2:54 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 16, 2013 5:48 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 5:48 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Jul 16, 2013 8:07 PM
I think this is morally deficient/deviant and identifies many concerns. From a TFL perspective, however, maybe this can help us to see that there is detachment between the flesh man/woman/child and their PERSON. As Pierre says, they own the PERSON. They obviously feel righteous in using it in any way they see fit. To be emotionally attached or otherwise to our PERSON can be traumatizing. The identity they used was the name of the child's PERSON which they own via the birth certificate. Using the PERSON's BC, they were able to obtain a passport in the PERSON's name.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 8:07 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ashley Hamaluk

Jul 16, 2013 11:20 PM
I'm working on discharging some debt. I was wondering if someone, who has been successful in doing so, would be willing to look over what I have completed to send to the bank and see if I'm on the right track. Also, if there is anyone who has been successful in discharging debt when there is a co-signer involved. I'm not to clear if the processes are the same - discharging debt vs. involvement of co-signer (hope that make sense)? Any insight and direction would be much appreciated. Thank you. Admin - Scott - hope this is alright if I post this.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01532716222658E+016
Last Updated: Jul 16, 2013 11:20 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None






Scott Duncan

Jul 17, 2013 1:39 AM
IGNORANCE wins again :( We need to continue this project privately. Is anyone informed enough to know why? ...or do you all think it's an evil "earthquake weapon"?

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 1:39 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 17, 2013 4:38 AM
I found this very interesting:

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 4:38 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 17, 2013 5:10 AM
TEST case addendum: In response to 2nd notice Jason, The Police are looking for you and they are also aware of outstanding issues that you have discussed with me. I will do everything in my power to make sure that you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and will not stop until this has been resolved. And, YOU ARE A THIEF. Lets see which Law really works. Mine puts you in front of a Judge. Have a good evening, Jason First response by ME: once again your hubris is amazing. say goodbye to XXXXXX TV. I take it your not going to pay your bill... You rat. Security for costs is not thievery. have your accountant send me police file number. you have incurred more charges. a third invoice will be forthcoming. you lying sack of shit. second response from ME a few minutes later: If you could read you would comprehend the disclaimer at the bottom of these emails in my electronic ( legal signature). You have breeched the TRUST. You are in violation of PRIVATE communications by sharing with an unauthorized third party. Quite simply YOUR FUCKED, so take you and your bald head and prison ball tickler moustache and cease and desist. IT IS GOING TO COST YOU EVERYTHING AT THIS RATE... BRING IT ON. Jason Fredrick Le Blanc DIRECTOR OF A PRIVATE TRUST ALL ( that's right mother fucker) RIGHTS RESERVED. 1732964 ALBERTA LTD. SEAL


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 5:10 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Jul 17, 2013 6:16 AM
So I'm on probation. I found the office i report to once a month on Dun and Bradstreet so obviously they are for profit. I did sign a CONTRACT obviously. So could i send them a NOTICE OF MISTAKE? How might one withdraw from the contract without going to jail? Because the contract with probation and parole is what got me out of jail... Is this even possible? Seems like anything else just send the NOTICE...... It is a public debt I'm paying i suppose. How might one discharge that DEBT?


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 6:16 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 17, 2013 6:55 AM
Tara Duncan is collecting real-world data for a statistical analysis she's preparing. This analysis is part of a larger project to acquire one or more top-quality "Boat Bunnies". Please answer the following questions (for science) This is for the women only. Please answer Yes or No: 1: Do you want do have sex with me (Scott Duncan)? 2: Can you cook? 3: Can you clean? 4: Can you cook and clean on a boat? 5: Can you swim? Please answer these questions and list any other factors that work in your favour.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 6:55 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 17, 2013 8:15 AM
The thing is, officers on Turtle island, really and truly dont have a REAL authority on these lands. They work for a King/Queen who fucking lives in England THEY ARE NOT ORIGINALLY FROM THESE LANDS, even if they were born here. Their people are originally from England. So point in fact, police are either one, contracting with you, or two: pressing on a dictatorship upon folks...so am i to believe Canada is a dictatorship ? Cause if i cannot determine my own worth and trust me im damn expensive when it comes to any Court or Police who wanna assault or press their laws against me. I have the right to contract for whatever the amount i wish for MY TIME, not your time, MY FUCKING TIME. Dont tell me i cant determine my worth ...your not my Creator nor an authority ...anyways this article didnt mention the amount of people POLICE KILL IN A YEAR, lets just go within a month, im sure its a hell of alot more than 6. Also, i know there are good cops out there but good cops aint doing shit to straighten their co-workers ass up....so they are just as guilty of their crimes and yes its a crime to kidnap someone without their CONSENT FOLKS, ITS KIDNAPPING anyways just read the article hahaha shit...whew..im done...OH ITS ALSO RACISTS TO THINK THEY CAN RULE OVER ANOTHER NATION BTW

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 8:15 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 17, 2013 3:13 PM
IN DOUBT, WE VOID http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/01/void_stamp-352x285.png


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 3:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 17, 2013 3:49 PM
As if I haven't presented enough of it... STILL MORE evidence that a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day would be good for all of us!

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 3:49 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 17, 2013 5:05 PM
Today's light reading...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 5:05 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Eamonn O Brien

Jul 17, 2013 5:55 PM
Saw this in my local paper today... Dare I say, "Only in Ireland?" :p


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 5:55 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 17, 2013 6:08 PM
Oh, and THESE could come in handy, also. I carry them with me on my cell at ALL times :D (I would have have just added the files, if not for Facebook's 25 MB file limit) http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/207297865/Law+Dictionary+Collection?tab=summary


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 6:08 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Cheryl Watson

Jul 17, 2013 6:52 PM
Imperative and Permissive Construction �Shall� and �may� 11. The expression �shall� is to be construed as imperative and the expression �may� as permissive. R.S., c. I-23, s. 28. i believe in the states may is also imperative? interpretatiobn act


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01540680963052E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 6:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 17, 2013 8:46 PM
I had to break out of delusion.... this helped:

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 17, 2013 8:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/u5um8QWWRvo?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None






Derek Moran

Jul 18, 2013 12:59 AM
Scott on how to file a LIEN step-by-step on your CASE-FILE, with the assistance of Derek Hill and his real-time-life-test-case-scenario- thread.....


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 12:59 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Neil Rowe

Jul 18, 2013 2:42 AM
Interesting. They can BS real good in the lower courts, but they have to admit thats what their doing when pressed. These are all supreme and federal court cases. Heres your New and improved licence to practice law 1. THAT The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right. (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)) 2. THAT No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943)) 3. THAT The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (1957)) 4. THAT Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)) 5. THAT "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)) 6. THAT Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, void, and without effect in law. (Marburry vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803)) 7. THAT "All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)). 8. THAT "The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams 9. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings (Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar 377 U.S. 1; Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425). "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign' " (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972; Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law." (NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415; United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969).


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 2:42 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 18, 2013 3:12 AM
This is why I target religion. They are targeting me. ...and they want to hurt me. Think about that. Adults with imaginary friends really feel this way. This is what they call "love".

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 3:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fdnWwlZCsSw?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 18, 2013 3:58 AM
BA International, a banknote company that printed Canada�s paper currency is located in Ottawa and is owned by a German company by the name of Giesecke & BA International, a banknote company that printed Canada�s paper currency is located in Ottawa and is owned by a German company by the name of Giesecke & Devrient. They announced they stopped printing currency (including Canadian) as of January 1 2013. You read that right! Canada has not printed any paper currency since Jan 1 2013.

Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 3:58 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Norah Holloway

Jul 18, 2013 4:08 AM
I was passed along this video. I thought it was great.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01536860029343E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 4:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wVf30rA89Fc?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 18, 2013 6:03 AM
From the Interpretation Act R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21 Terminology 8.2 Unless otherwise provided by law, when an enactment contains both civil law and common law terminology, or terminology that has a different meaning in the civil law Terminology 8.2 Unless otherwise provided by law, when an enactment contains both civil law and common law terminology, or terminology that has a different meaning in the civil law and the common law, the civil law terminology or meaning is to be adopted in the Province of Quebec and the common law terminology or meaning is to be adopted in the other provinces. I thought it might be helpful to start a thread on COMMON LAW TERMS and the meaning/ definition of COMMON LAW TERMS, including their implications and importance as regards CIVIL LAW.


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 6:03 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dean Thom

Jul 18, 2013 11:54 AM
hi guys. what is a lien? im struggling to comprehend the legal definations ive seen. is it possible to explain it in different language so that i may get a better handle on the issue? regards. dx


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02026981860828E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 11:54 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Jul 18, 2013 3:13 PM
How does one create a "Shady Trust" like Aquilae? I read a Word document once (now I can't find it) online which seemed to commission Aquilae.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 3:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None






Derek Hill

Jul 18, 2013 6:58 PM
In light of ChiefRock Sino General posting of a kind original man being beaten by "security guards" or whatever bullshit title they want to make, I would like to present the first in this area. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/18/norbert-mestenapeo-police-beating_n_3616720.html?utm_hp_ref=canada The "How to fuck up the life of a cop" Thread. Now lets get crackin :)

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 6:58 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 18, 2013 7:58 PM
Right out of the... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME... section pass on and share. http://www.newslo.com/pope-criminalizes-the-reporting-of-sex-crimes/


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 7:58 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 18, 2013 9:38 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 9:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/06jF1EG8o-Q?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 18, 2013 10:01 PM
Yahweh is the answer? REALLY? Based on WHAT?

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 10:01 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 18, 2013 10:33 PM
NEW RULE: If you are a CHRISTIAN, you accept the following conditions - By reading, using or referring to THE TENDER FOR LAW, you being a CHRISTIAN, ADMIT THAT I AM BETTER THAN JESUS CHRIST! That's right! BETTER THAN JESUS CHRIST! Run and tell Tony "Sounds-Like-He's-Got-A-Dick-In-His Mouth" Butros!


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2013 10:33 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 19, 2013 1:27 AM
Got a interview with Winston Shrout coming up this Sat, Now wondering what questions people would like to hear on this interview, there is a topic but also im sure we could go into some other areas of law and enforcement.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 19, 2013 1:27 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 19, 2013 2:10 AM
im so fucking baked right now. its a struggle to type. who else does the mary jane?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 19, 2013 2:10 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 19, 2013 3:43 PM


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 19, 2013 3:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sirwade Firsbey

Jul 19, 2013 4:02 PM
question is based upon the notice of mistake where it says crown do I change too prosecutor since I'm in the United States? I am planning to take a open beer right by the cop shop and get arrested to prove the notice mistake works.


Unique Facebook User ID: 4593312846627
Last Updated: Jul 19, 2013 4:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 19, 2013 4:14 PM
Just when you think I have run out reasons for a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 19, 2013 4:14 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None








Scott Duncan

Jul 20, 2013 1:29 AM
Just a quick reminder that the ALPHA-TEST PROOF-OF-CONCEPT coding crap-fest that is BITCOIN now has a BILLION DOLLAR MARKET CAP, imagine what PRODUCTION CRYPTO-CURRENCY will leech from your masters :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 1:29 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 20, 2013 3:34 AM
...Because, fuck the troops.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 3:34 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 20, 2013 3:00 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 3:00 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 20, 2013 3:47 PM
We think Wrong and Value the wrong things.... Because we are ignorant... an ignorance that has been cultivated in a multi-pronged approach by what we call society. I have tremendous empathy and compassion for my fellow humans. I love my friends and family... I fucking despise Bullies.. and have stood my ground and protected the little guy. I am 6' 3" I do not know enough, yet, I concede to this fact.... When do you think we will be ready to know what the right things to value are? I do know that this system has been highjacked.. by the LAW society... The hijackers have disguised themselves in THE CROWN in Right of Canada.... The Bankers and Media... and in other ways I do not know... I started on this road when severe grievous bodily harm was caused to my vessel.. ME I started studying LAW about a year prior to being invited to this forum in order to exact remedy from the fuckers.... I stand ready to learn and be educated to what is right... So, Please Scott Duncan could you expand upon what to VALUE ... The clock is ticking we do not have much time from what I see around us. AM I Wrong? Are we not products of the successful implementation of the NOBLE LIE? ( which isn't really noble at all ) A lifetime of programming is difficult but not impossible to overcome. I do not believe in much anymore. The TENDER FOR LAW is dispelling a lot of the myths.... I know I do not have anything you want currently. I am working hard to read and learn as much as I can... What do you recommend to speed up the process? HUMBLY, Jay


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 3:47 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 20, 2013 4:03 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 4:03 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Jul 20, 2013 4:03 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 4:03 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 20, 2013 8:11 PM
Wow Guys, i guess we have folks on my group who are part of this forum online, it was pointed out to my by a contact i have on skype...Check it out and let me know your thoughts. If you are one of these ppl from this forum let us know, im sure we will have plenty of questions for you in regards to your perspective. I am truly curious as to what you think, QUATLOOS

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 8:11 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Jul 20, 2013 9:12 PM
Ive requested true original copies of all the standing ORDERS with my name on them. I'm going to VOID these orders when i recieve these copies.. "NEW ORIGINAL" after VOIDing these documents where do i send them? To the court clerks office? And my probation officer has a copy of the ORDER so when i don't show up next month he's going to think he has the authority to come and hunt me down. So does he get a copy too?


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2013 9:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Icbeonne Senama

Jul 21, 2013 1:38 AM

My False World

Still don't think we live in an out of control over policed-militarized society in the United States? Think again. A List of 19 Children Recently Arrested or Assaulted by Police For Trivial Things #1 At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was recently arrested for spraying herself with perfume. http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/texas-student-sarah-bustamantes-12-arrested-for-spraying-perfume/13250/ #2 A 13-year-old student at a school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was recently arrested by police for burping in class. http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15077292 #3 Another student down in Albuquerque was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had $200 in his pocket. The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57334925/student-arrested-for-burping-lawsuit-claims/ #4 A security guard at one school in California broke the arm of a 16-year-old girl because she left some crumbs on the floor after cleaning up some cake that she had spilled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk2b_twCCdw&feature=youtu.be #5 One teenage couple down in Houston poured milk on each other during a squabble while they were breaking up. Instead of being sent to see the principal, they were arrested and sent to court. http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools?cat=world&%20type=article #6 In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl at a school in Forest Hills, New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk. �I love my friends Abby and Faith� was what she reportedly scribbled on her desk. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1 #7 A 6-year-old girl down in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/feb/11/port-st-lucie-schools-confines-6-year-old-with/ #8 One student down in Texas was reportedly arrested by police for throwing paper airplanes in class. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SSGYFCcCtbEJ:www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D458433+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-beta #9 A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father�s lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/nc-high-school-senior-suspended-charged-possesion-small-knife-lunchbox/# #10 In Allentown, Pennsylvania a 14-year-old girl was tasered in the groin area by a school security officer even though she had put up her hands in the air to surrender. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Police-Officer-Tasers-14-Year-Old-Girl--135571738.html #11 Down in Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing a plastic butter knife to school. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2009/june09/zero-tolerance-states.html #12 Back in 2009, an 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/mass-boy-suspended-over-jesus-on-cross-self-portrait-/1#.UerOCj83JyI #13 A police officer in San Mateo, California blasted a 7-year-old special education student in the face with pepper spray because he would not quit climbing on the furniture. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Mateo-pays-family-of-boy-pepper-sprayed-by-cop-2384518.php #14 In America today, even 5-year-old children are treated brutally by police. The following is from a recent article that described what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California a while back�.�Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old�. http://www.kcra.com/5-Year-Old-Handcuffed-Charged-With-Battery-On-Officer/-/11798090/12648852/-/goag4t/-/index.html #15 At one school in Connecticut, a 17-year-old boy was thrown to the floor and tasered five times because he was yelling at a cafeteria worker. http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2011/06/14/news/doc4df7b12331ec9768149316.txt #16 A teenager in suburban Dallas was forced to take on a part-time job after being ticketed for using foul language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Teen-Fined-637-for-Foul-Language-in-Classroom-114879844.html #17 In 2011, police were called out when a little girl kissed a little boy during a physical education class at an elementary school down in Florida. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cops-called-for-school-kiss-657831 #18 A 6-year-old boy was recently charged with sexual battery for some �inappropriate touching� during a game of tag at one elementary school in the San Francisco area. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/27/hercules-family-battles-playground-sex-assault-claim-against-6-year-old/ #19 In Massachusetts, police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book from a 5-year-old girl. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/02/charlton-library-sends-police-to-collect-overdue-books-from-5-year-old/ SOURCE- http://intellihub.com/2013/07/13/a-list-of-19-children-recently-arrested-for-trivial-things/ #OBAMA #POLICESTATE #POLICE #NWO #ILLUMINATI


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152435377608E+016
Last Updated: Jul 21, 2013 1:38 AM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Steve Lemieux

Jul 21, 2013 11:47 PM
This is a REAL man. We need MORE real men like him.

Unique Facebook User ID: 458370044339963
Last Updated: Jul 21, 2013 11:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/gCRP74YqPIg?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 22, 2013 5:28 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 5:28 AM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Andrew D'Aragon

Jul 22, 2013 5:45 AM
The Mobius strip arrest theory.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539690144256E+016
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 5:45 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Sino General

Jul 22, 2013 8:05 AM
New Interview with Winston Shrout share share share !!!

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 8:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/0TIMSS_nCHg?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 22, 2013 2:43 PM
I suspect there will be civil unrest...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 2:43 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Ceit Butler

Jul 22, 2013 4:41 PM
Those sneaky fuckers! Currently patrolling the highways of the GTA, are shiny, new, black police SUV's. They have NO markings, (not even the hidden, black-on-black decals), and NO exterior lights. The red and blues are built in, and look like normal head and tail lights. Not even any external antennae!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 4:41 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jul 22, 2013 6:14 PM
A friend of mine in the UK who is a single mother on assistance, received this letter the same day her assistance was cut off. I'm posting to see if there is any suggestions anyone has on how she can deal with her situation. My understanding is that in the UK, benefits are tied to you finding a job https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/1060456_10151721160712593_698478776_n.jpg?oh=2fbec830da4b29ae5bd9dcef45c346c3&oe=51EF98A4&__gda__=1374682073_31733b4a98bfbcb656ac9c4161dc8bc7


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 6:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Adam Thomas

Jul 23, 2013 2:21 AM
G'day y'all. This is a letter that a Person? I may or may not know wrote to a financial institution recently supposedly, allegedly. To CEO of Mercedes Benz financial services Australia. AdAm would like to bring to your attention that AdAm, has never requested &/or demanded hard ship request forms as supplied by Jim, the Greek arse bandit. Therefore AdAm's request was & still in line with AdAm's, original demand that your office should provide the OrIgInAl promise to pay document that AdAm, signed or in the alternative provide a certified copy of the same document. Please also include the full payout figure to the 31st of jxxx 20xx to enable AdAm, to finalize this matter. Please respond within 14 days. Yours sincerely By Adam: Thomas. Authorized signatory ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. signature in RED INK above the name. CHECKMATE FEWLS..


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02033698492237E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 2:21 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 23, 2013 3:52 AM
https://www.facebook.com/notes/chiefrock-sino-general/is-canada-ruling-by-dictatorship-or-are-laws-unilaterial-contracts/10151705884324280


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 3:52 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 23, 2013 5:02 AM
This is an effort to tie up loose ends with the VOID thread with combination of the Notice of Mistake. Take it from me when i say it works as long as you stand by it. So there was a lot of talk about VOIDing contracts. I was under the false impression(my fault) that by VOIDing the contract was doable because your name was on the docket. You control the name, use the name to contract with fictions. The name is your middleman sort of speak. But never forget, the name is NOT YOURS!!!This is created and owned by the government of whoever created your birth certificate. In my case, it was quebec. Now, the government gave you that name to USE IT. You can contract with it, use it to receive benefits, use it for other commercial purposes. But just because you use it, does NOT MEAN you are liable for it, so long as you don't accept it. The whole point about the Notice of Mistake is to REBUT SURETY and ask questions they CANNOT ANSWER. "They" as in anyone interested in your case, which is the JUSTICE/CROWN. Remember the most important rule, they CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT SURETY. Surety is a guarantee that an account will be paid, you know the original charging instrument you get pinned against you? Yea, that. That is what they expect you to pay. See the CROWN creates a charge, which is a liability, and the CROWN ASSUMES that you will act as SURETY. So over the course of a NORMAL PRECEDURE, you act as surety, so one way or the other, you will be getting damaged. But if you take the Notice of Mistake route, you can save yourself the trouble and make sure its dealt with immediately rather then taking the chance. Now getting back to VOIDing things. The way i look at it is VOIDing orders ensures that you no longer consent. What gives you the power to do these is look at the parties involved. IE. Restraining Order - Only 1 name is on there so 1 party. You. VOID it, who is to say you cant? Interim Order - 2 names. Having 2 names is irrelevant, still VOID it. Important fact you must view is WHAT ARE ORDERS. In one of my topics i talk about valuable securities and sureties being the same thing. When your name appears on ANY ORDER, you are a SURETY to it. Meaning they EXPECT YOU to PERFORM the OBLIGATIONS. That is what generates revenue. My security article talks about security and surety being one in the same UNLESS EXPRESSED OTHERWISE. This is why the Notice of Mistake is powerful. Because it fulfilled the requirement to rebut security and/or surety. So what happens when you rebut SURETY. It goes back to the sole signatory on the founding document. The birth certificate. The sole signatory is for my case "Le Directeur d'etat civil". That office is SURETY for my name. That office is responsible to pay accounts. All public servants are from the GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT is NOT A TRUST, but a collective of PERSONS CHARGED WITH TRUST DUTIES. This is called a TRUSTEE. A TRUSTEE is CHARGED with DUTIES to maintain and care for the ESTATE which is the TRUST. This includes acting as SURETY in ALL MATTERS brought against the ESTATE/TRUST/NAME. That is why the Notice of Mistake rebuts that and asks that very questions: ====================================================== WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? ====================================================== If the COURT/CROWN cannot provide evidence to all of the questions(lets face it probably wont happen), they it is impossible and might i say illegal for you to ACT as SURETY, as that would be IMPERSONATING a PUBLIC OFFICIAL. A beneficiary is an individual who received benefits and/or other incentives of a TRUST, but has none of the liabilities. You are the BENEFICIARY. THEY as in the COURT/CROWN are the TRUSTEES. Now that you know you cannot be trustee/surety, can they really proceed against you and/or hold you liable? The answer is NO! Remember, your documentation is only as strong as you are. You are threatening their revenue, they WILL TRY and they WILL TEST YOU to see what you got what it takes. The question is. Are you ready to cast away your fear spending a few nights in jail, or will you live in your comfort and continue to be controlled? The choice ultimately is yours. It always has been. I would like to close this topic by one of my favorite quotes of all time. "Peace. It does not mean to be in a place where there is no noise, trouble or hard work. It means to be in the midst of those things and still be calm in your heart." -Unknown


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 5:02 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Jul 23, 2013 6:57 AM
How did we become "Sold down the river"? Let's talk about history, not "Club Rules" Just a thought, Thanks.


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 6:57 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 23, 2013 9:31 AM
This is Gordon Halls indictment but what is the most interesting is the very bottom it says True Bill. http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gordonhall2.pdf


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 9:31 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




James Eugene Vari

Jul 23, 2013 5:59 PM
When to tax court on Friday with a friend it was a federal court could not believe how mean people are like sheep l had the most interesting time there this is what l have learn some use the freemen argument why they should not pay taxes the crown use this agents you . Why? Lot of copycat letter and the letter say the same thing something has to be in your own words!! My Friend when up. after seeing the judge coaching the crown from the beach l could not believe how young and stupid the crown is plus it two agents one .on my Friends case the last case the crow did not know what to say on my friends motion all the crown would say is his wife had to show up but my friend has power of attorney to speak for her. He is the ceo of the corporation he put the motion in why am I here??? Judge asked if my friend is a Lawyer. No I am not I am a ceo of an international trust what court am I in? What Canada do you represent? The land Canada or corporate Canada. You have a Canadian flag up there now remember this is federal tax court!! What the judges said next made me fall out of my chair. The court does not represent any part of the government at all my friend picked up on this and asked what corporation is asking a c e o of an internal trust on my motion this question!! The judge looks at my friend and could not question the question at this point the judge looked at the crown and said we are going to make next court case September 20 she did not what this hot potato pushed the case off on a another judge my friend could of pursue this case but did not what to come back twice his wife need to be there to plus he need more document in court for his status. There you have it tax court does not represent any part of the government what a bombshell ����.more to come


Unique Facebook User ID: 857731637607687
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 5:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 23, 2013 6:30 PM
Bank of Canada. The government's public debt (also called domestic debt or federal debt) consists largely of outstanding government securities, such as treasury bills and marketable bonds. The Bank provides policy advice to the government on the efficient management of this debt and sells the securities at auction to financial market distributors and dealers. The main goal of the Bank's debt-management activities is to help provide stable and low-cost funding to the government. :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 6:30 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Jul 23, 2013 7:12 PM
I had to race back home to let everyone in on the newest situation that has just developed. I had gone to the court house yesterday to get a copy of my family court order, a certified true copy, and they tried handing me a copy that I sent back to the court house that I had declined. Then the court administrator came out and stated that I couldn't have a copy because of some marks that had been put on it. So I had to wait till today to see what the judge would say about it. So anyways I stopped in today at the friendly neighbourhood court house and asked for a true copy of the family court order. The clerk is a little miffed and goes to the back and comes back out with the file. Any ways I wasn't paying much attention at first, but then I noticed her put an envelope down, and then she started comparing two documents page for page. Then she grabs a stamp and starts to stamp it and I said no, if that is going to be your certified true copy that isn't it. I want a true certified copy of the order. Well it is a mirror copy of the original and it has not been tampered with. It is the exact same thing except it has not been tamper with. Well the original one has been tampered with or destroyed so I can't get you a copy of that but this is just as good. I said no. I want a true certified copy of the original, I can't give you that because it is damaged. I said I guess that I�m not going to get one then. I had notice that the sheriffs in the court house were acting a little weird but wasn't paying attention. So as I'm walking out of the administrative office and into the lobby, an RCMP officer says Brenda. And of course I�m so used to answering and I said yes. And of course right after that I realized again what I had done. I'm officer so and so and I have a court order to take your daughter into custody. Is she with you? I said no. Do you know where she is? I said no. Was she with you last night? I said am I under arrest? No. Well then I'm free to go then? I said bye. And walked out of the court house. He also handed me a faxed a few times copy of the ex parte order to pick the kid up, anywhere in Nova Scotia. So my next move is to go to the next town over and pick up a true certified copy of the EX PARTE ORDER FOR SECTION 29 OF THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT and get my handy dandy void stamp out and start stamping like a mad woman. And I should also drop copies of the ex parte order voided and with notices of mistake to the court house and community services and still debating the RCMP detachment.


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 7:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Jul 23, 2013 10:27 PM
This Rule governs Bill Payment Remittance Processing (as defined below), wherein Remittances are Exchanged as credit transfers between Financial Institutions. Part I outlines the general requirements for Bill Payment Remittance Processing, and certain additional requirements specific to the processing of electronic and paper-based Remittances respectively. Part II outlines the technical requirements for Bill Payment Remittance Processing.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2013 10:27 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 24, 2013 12:11 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 12:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/S0X0fc3hid4?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Icbeonne Senama

Jul 24, 2013 1:10 AM
I am posting this because I noticed that on the South African Rand there is no "this note is legal tender" and also interesting is how the wording on the notes changed in 1928 here in Thailand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender So why is it that only the countries listed here on the wiki the one who have "legal tender"?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152435377608E+016
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 1:10 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 24, 2013 5:59 AM
THE TENDER FOR LAW is an examination of what you need to know to fight Judicial corruption, by examining the stuff you are LIED TO about. SPOILERS: IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY. You are BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES when you use MONEY. On that money are the words THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER: THIS NOTE - The note the words (NOTICE) is written on. IS LEGAL - CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES with the force of law. TENDER - tender verb ten�dered ten�der�ing Definition of TENDER transitive verb 1: to make a tender of 2: to present for acceptance : offer "tendered my resignation" intransitive verb : to make a bid or tender Origin of TENDER Middle English tendren, from Anglo-French tendre offer First Known Use: 15th century THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER=THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW This forum is where you can ask all your questions, and we don't have to keep typing the same answers over and over. To that end, I am telling you to WATCH THIS FIRST: http://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM NOT watching this, and then posting a question and/or making idiotic statements which reveal you HAVEN'T watched this, means you are DELIBERATELY ignoring these instructions, and you will be banned. Post your question, we will do our best to answer. OFF TOPIC POSTS WILL BE PURGED. We want people to be able to use this as a central reference and a place to go for help, where people will take the time to do so. Post any questions on LAW, MONEY, CONTRACTS, and JURISDICTIONS and how they are connected. Keep it civil, even if Scott doesn't. (It's Scott after all. Seriously, it's better than paying him) Remember that Scott chooses his words carefully. LEARN WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 5:59 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 24, 2013 5:09 PM
The INTENTION TO CREATE A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP in regards to creating and/or entering into a CONTRACT- thread. . . . . The parties to a contract must have INTENDED from the beginning of their negotiations that legal obligations would result from their agreement. This is based on the premise that the contract will be the result of a meeting-of-the-parties'-minds, or CONSENSUS AD IDEM, on the terms and conditions that will form the contract. The first requirement of a contract is the INTENTION of the promisor to be BOUND by the promise he or she made. All agreements contain some kind of a PROMISE either to do something or to refrain from doing something. ALL contracts contain promises, but NOT ALL promises become contracts. Some promises carry with them a moral obligation, but ONLY a VALID contract carries with it a LEGAL OBLIGATION. The question to be determined, then, is whether the person making the promise (the promisor) INTENDED to be BOUND by his or her promise. Some people make promises intending to be bound by them. Some people make promises with no intention of becoming legally obligated to fulfill them. Without the INTENTION TO BE BOUND, a promise CANNOT form the basis of an ENFORCEABLE contract. Since examining intention requires finding out what was in the promisor's MIND at the time the promise was made, PROVING intention can be difficult. As a result, the courts rely on a PRESUMPTION OF LAW that promisors INTEND to be BOUND BY the promises they make. Once this PRESUMPTION has been made, the ONUS, or 'BURDEN OF PROOF,' shifts to the promisor to prove that the intention did not exist. The courts look to EVIDENCE such as: 1. the CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES at the time the promise was made 2. the CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING the making of the promise 3. the STATEMENTS MADE by the parties 4. the RELATIONSHIP between the parties The test to be applied is- "Would a REASONABLE person hearing the promise, assume that the promisor INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT?" PRESUMPTION OF LAW: an INFERENCE in favour of a particular fact; a RULE OF LAW, whereby a finding of a basic fact, gives rise to the existence of a presumed fact or state-of-affairs, UNLESS the presumption can be REBUTTED, or proven false, by the party seeking to deny the presumed fact. (Fundamentals of Contract Law, Jean Fitzgerald & Laurence Olivo, Emond Montgomery Publications)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 5:09 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 24, 2013 6:08 PM
A topic that hasnt been explored or applied alot (from my experience) is how to do a WRIT OF HABEUS. Now its common sense that doing notice of mistake and/or VOIDing orders is going to piss the wrong people off, and you will most likely be spending some time in jail. But what if they continue to railroad you, refuse to let you go when you KNOW you are in the right. Well a writ of habeus may be your lifeline. What is a writ of habeus? A writ of habeus is a COMMAND to the custodian(jailor/warden/other similar positions of "power" to detain a body) of the body in question(which will be you or your friend in which you want out). You need to have a few things in it. The body you are reffering to, such as "The body that is mistaken as JOHN DOE" You need the custodian such as "WINDSOR POLICE SERVICES" You need a phrase similar to "You are COMMANDED to bring forth the body to be questioned on what AUTHORITY you have to detain, blah blah." This is really all i got so far.....Its up to you guys to post something to help complete this writ.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 6:08 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Tim�thy C?mmins

Jul 24, 2013 7:13 PM
A TREATISE ON COMMERCIAL LAW All crimes are commercial. See "Title 27 C.F.R. 72.11." All "crimes are commercial" and as such a violation of "statute." If you trace that word back to its origins you will find that it is a "statutory" or "performance bond," a "bid bond." A "bid bond" which becomes a "lien;" or "debt obligation:" which is a "commercial asset traded on the stock exchange." That is where the bit about contract law comes into play. Because all "crimes are commercial," it is thru a trick of law called "admiralty" that they convict YOU, a "living man" for a crime owed a "statutory obligation" or "bid bond;" a "lien." That means it is all a voluntary system. The "legal name," in all capital letters, is commercial property of the federal government. It conveys a loss of "God given" or "unalienable" rights under this law structure; based on Roman Civil Law. That is why that name is "berthed" into commerce upon "delivery" of the child from the "mother's berth canal/womb" or "waterway." And the mother is given a "certificate" in exchange for the true "title" to her baby. She is given a BIRTH CERTIFICATE see BERTH, which is like a "Bill of Laden." The "Dockter" "berthed" commercial property and in exchange all the mother gets is a "certificate of title." While the true or alloidial title is retained by the State via one of the many "blind adhesions" in the Birth Certificate contract. The world has come under a dark cloud and that cloud is "international maritime law" or "admiralty" upon which all "citizens" of the Earth are subject(s). "Resident/citizens" are "14th amendment" creations "of and by the federal government." The "14th amendment" was the first time the word "person" was ever mentioned in any law of this land. And that is because a "person" is not a "people." A "citizen" is not a "Citizen." A "person" is "a creation for and by the United States and one who shall immediately fall under its jurisdiction." See the book Black's Law 4th ed. or earlier for help defining the word "person." Furthermore if you read the postal reorganization act of 1970, you will see that the use of "zip codes" places you within a "federal district, territory or possession." If you have ever read the constitution for the United states of America 1787/1789. You would know the original constitutional federal government only has jurisdiction "within the ten square miles known as Washington D.C., and all other "federal" territories and possessions." To put all that together for you: Residents of the United States, which is "a corporation;" see 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)A, are employees of the federal government. Whom have signed blind adhesion contracts in "admiralty" that conspire collectively to turn "people" into "persons" and to deprive them of all constitutional due process and rights. Making them completely a statutory "person," endowed with nothing other than what the creator/father-god/government wants for its "children." Don't be misled, all "residents" are "children" of the federal government; commercial property given a bond number in commerce, traded on international markets. That number on the back of your S.S. card (should be in red or blue) is a "cusip." Know what that is? By signing these contracts you place yourself into the "commercial and territorial waters" of the "State of California," for instance; which is a "commercial and territorial possession" of the "District of Colombia." The "State of California" belongs to the Federal government. And all of its "residents/citizens" are "chattel property" of the "State." We are and have been under a state of Martial Law since Abraham Lincoln declared it so in 1863. See "the enrollment Act of 1863." The whole Nation has been turned into one giant corporation, see the "District of Colombia Organic Act of 1870," floating in "international waters." Whereby all of its "citizens" are its "commercial property" and can be taken in as "surety" every time they "offend" "code or statute" and have a "lien" placed on their physical body. Though that "lien" can be discharged just "for entertainment purposes only." See GSA form OF-90 and 91. The purpose for the document was to establish with the powers that be that we "inhabit" the "physical place/ space/ time" known as the "California Republic" or "California" state. Not in a state, but "on the land." Not in a "state of confusion," not in the "commercial and territorial waters of D.C." "Located on the physical land mass, not in a state or territorial possession of the federal government." "I am not on the citizen(s)ship." I am "One of the People," which incidentally makes me a state's Citizen under the de jure "common law." A man endowed with "unalienable" rights not "inalienable" privileges. "I am a state's Citizen from the Common Law Republic of Georgia state," an independent and Sovereign territory and possession of "We the People." One of the Several states which first attempted to form that "most perfect Union." A "Citizen of the federal Republican Union between the Several states," and "One from the Several state's United." See the "Postal Authorization Act of 1792," for help in understanding all the subtle use of language and its true meaning. Because we are and always have been a Constitutional Republic under all mighty God whereby all the "people" of this land are "endowed with unalienable rights that neither man nor institutions of government can abrogate." "A state's Citizen; One of the People from the Several states mentioned in the Constitution for the United states, 1787/1789.." With "persons" like yourself trying to teach people falsely, this once great "Republic" has become nothing more than a "democratic oligarchy" ruled by fat cats and despots. Anyone out there tired of getting stepped on. Educate yourself as to the nature of this beast. Because it is all simply "commercial maritime law" under "admiralty" which turns "people" into "persons." See "Title 8 Section 7 U.S.C.:" all "citizens are vessels, and as such commercial maritime property." To get back to what I was saying. I am a "Citizen" and a "National." Of the "Nation" known as "America." Not of the corporate "United States." Notice the difference between "Citizen/National" and "Resident/citizen." A "National is not a citizen." A "National" is One of the "People." A "citizen" is a "person created by and for the Federal government." Which is now a corrupt "de facto" bent on world domination. The reason for putting it into the journal; it is the local paper of record. We put our affidavits into the "commercial arena" via the "local paper of record." We then wait 30 days and it becomes a matter of "public record," a matter of "public law" or "statute." One final thought, I know that "U.C.C. 1-308" does not provide for remedy other than to let the other party know that you are signing "in propria persona." "With a full retention of all your constitutional rights still intact." Don't you see that every contract we sign with the federal government is unconstitutional.. Because they use those contracts to take away your rights from God and give you only "civil rights" or "privileges" granted from the government. So as the "living man:" as "a living soul," not as the "strawman" or "stramineus homo." And that is what "U.C.C. 1-308" is truly for; "signing contracts and retaining all unalienable rights and liberties while doing so." You are confusing "remedies," the "remedy" you are looking for is found under "U.C.C. 2-209." Which states in brief that "a party subject to a contract has ten days to "rescind" that offer." As well, if you are still with me, see "California Civil Code 1689(B)1;" which states in brief that when "an offer is forced ''under-duress,'' ''coercion,'' 'threat of loss to real time property,'' ''threat of enslavement,'' or ''mistaken identity'' etc., that offer can be "rescinded" unilaterally for all time." Returning all parties to the "status quo ante." Finally because "all crimes are commercial" anything you put into the "commercial arena" can be turned into a "crime; or offense of code, a debt obligation owed." It is always best to "reserve your rights" when making "deposits" into "commerce." ... All rights reserved. Without Prejudice. "U.C.C. 1-308."


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02037914437225E+016
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 7:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 24, 2013 8:54 PM
A question to all Natives of Turtle Island. I read a post today with quite a few case law studies that are indicating due to the BENEFIT of the so called PROTECTION OF THE CROWN. The European English Law of Canada has full right and jurisdiction over all lands and Nations across Turtle Island. I questioned that position and i ask you now what is your thoughts on whether CANADA/US has any real claim to do what they do to the land and people whom are original to these lands?? Now, please post your views only, no need to name call or what not. Also, here is a reply to my questioning, this is a so called Native from the U.S. you tell me ?? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- or the record, I am not a Canadian but as someone in the United States that is Native American, people like you make me sick. We have your type here too - the people that cling to their ancestry in order to justify doing anything they don't want on the one hand while gladly taking every benefit they can from the government on the other hand. Your ancestry - in terms of the applicability of the law - is irrelevant. It applies to everyone in Canada, even you. No amount of screaming racism is going to change that. Also, just for the record, nothing is YOUR land or YOUR resources. The ownership of land and resources is determined by the conquerors, not the conquered. You don't have to like it, but it is reality. Even if we were to accept your warped version of reality, the truth is what you think of as YOUR land and YOUR natural resources was at various times owned by other tribes before your tribe took it from them. That is what people did - they form groups and take stuff from other people. Yet somehow if we lived in your fantasy version of reality I doubt you'd want to determine just who REALLY owned what you think is your land, as if we looked I'd bet you just about all of it could be traced to being won by war or some other atrocity against another tribe. You going to hand all that land and resources back to them?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 24, 2013 8:54 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Neil Rowe

Jul 25, 2013 12:45 AM
Ok. so Im ordered to pay. Sure. Fine. Whatever. This is the law as I understand it, can you please explain, clarify, your order, bill, claim? THAT No state may make any thing but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts (Article 1 sec 10, US Constitution), yet no payment in gold or silver may be demanded in payment of any debt or obligation ( HJR 192, 1933). So how do I pay?


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2013 12:45 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 25, 2013 3:23 AM
Here is the follow up post, its a long one but its about the laws and judgments in courts that are attempting to show how EUROPEAN LAW or Canadian law believe they are superior or have the right to rule over all the lands and people who are original due to the benefits of Crown protection, i for one dont see any protection other than the tearing apart of the nations in purpose. How is that protection? So the following post is a post from i assume a lawyer of some kind with many cases from courts as evidence that Originals nations do not have the rights you think you do here in so called Canada ? ---------------------http://www.quatloos.com------------------------------------ The items you have identified are not ones that I understand are authorized by law in Canada. That broader kind of self-governance may be something that emerges in the future, but if it does, that will be decided by Canadian provincial and federal politicians, and aboriginal politicians. I will not comment one way or another on if I think that is right or wrong - that is not a subject for Quatloos, in my opinion. I suspect comments on the legitimacy of certain actions in places like the Middle East would also fall into this prohibition. Only a guess. If I�m wrong on this I am sure the administrators will straighten me out. So instead, to law. I understand aboriginal people in Canada have special rights, and that these are protected by the Constitution via the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 35: 35(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and M�tis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. A couple quick observations, you will notice that Canada�s law treats Indian, Inuit, and M�tis in the same way. I know you previously wondered whether law concerning the M�tis applies to other aboriginal peoples, and as you can see here, it does. There are two kinds of rights recognized explicitly: aboriginal rights, and treaty rights. Treaty rights are something I�ll talk about later, but let us first discuss what are aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 said these rights are part of aboriginal culture: �... an aboriginal right an activity must be an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal group claiming the right ...� and that is a �... crucial [element] of the distinctive aboriginal societies that occupied North America prior to the arrival of Europeans ...�. Aboriginal rights are not just treaty rights, but exist even after Britain and then Canada took authority over this land. It was put this way in Tsilhqot�in Nation v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285 at para. 167: The assertion of Crown sovereignty did not, as a matter of common law, serve to extinguish the pre-existing traditional rights of First Nations, and those rights survived. Aboriginal rights, then, are recognized rather than created by the common law. So you see, common law and aboriginal rights are different. There are a huge number of cases that talk about aboriginal rights and when they still exist today. I am going to just look at one Supreme Court of Canada case, Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 56 (http://canlii.ca/t/fnr69) as it is quite recent and illustrates how these rights work. In this case a group of British Columbia Indian bands claimed they had an aboriginal right to operate a commercial fishery. The Supreme Court said they did not. This is a four step process (see para. 46): 1) what is the actual right claimed? 2) has the aboriginal group proved �(a) the existence of the pre-contact practice, tradition or custom advanced in the pleadings as supporting the claimed right and (b) that this practice was integral to the distinctive pre-contact Aboriginal society.� 3) is the modern claimed aboriginal right �connected� to the pre-contact practice: Third, determine whether the claimed modern right has a reasonable degree of continuity with the �integral� pre-contact practice. In other words, is the claimed modern right demonstrably connected to, and reasonably regarded as a continuation of, the pre-contact practice? At this step, the court should take a generous though realistic approach to matching pre-contact practices to the claimed modern right. As will be discussed, the pre-contact practices must engage the essential elements of the modern right, though of course the two need not be exactly the same. 4) what is a modern form of the aboriginal right that is fair to both the aboriginal people and Canadians as a whole. In this case there was absolutely no question that the Indian band�s ancestors had engaged in an extensive fishery, so that was clearly an aboriginal right. What they had not done is engaged in a commercial fishery. They did not engage in trade of fish or fish products in a manner that made that �an integral part of their distinctive culture�: para. 52. There is a complication in that an aboriginal right that existed at contact can be taken away, or "extinguished", by either a treaty or by a �unilateral act of the sovereign�. The treaty part is simple - if a treaty for example limits the area of land used by an Indian band to do something then that �extinguishes� the aboriginal right to do things outside that space. �Unilateral act of the sovereign� means just that - the Crown (Britain or Canada) has created rules, usually legislation, that takes away a right to do something by displacing it. I found a case that is very helpful in understanding when a treaty or aboriginal right is extinguished: Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33 (http://canlii.ca/t/521d). Mohawks from Akwesasne claimed they had an aboriginal right to import things into Canada without paying customs. They argued this was a modern extension of their traditional trade practices. The Supreme Court of Canada talks about when rights are extinguished. You have asked why aboriginal communities do not have full rights today? The law for that is explained at para. 9: Long before Europeans explored and settled North America, aboriginal peoples were occupying and using most of this vast expanse of land in organized, distinctive societies with their own social and political structures. The part of North America we now call Canada was first settled by the French and the British who, from the first days of exploration, claimed sovereignty over the land on behalf of their nations. English law, which ultimately came to govern aboriginal rights, accepted that the aboriginal peoples possessed pre-existing laws and interests, and recognized their continuance in the absence of extinguishment, by cession, conquest, or legislation: see, e.g., the Royal Proclamation of 1763, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1, and R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1103. At the same time, however, the Crown asserted that sovereignty over the land, and ownership of its underlying title, vested in the Crown: Sparrow, supra. With this assertion arose an obligation to treat aboriginal peoples fairly and honourably, and to protect them from exploitation, a duty characterized as �fiduciary� in Guerin v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. So there you go. Pre-contact aboriginal rights were removed by cession (aboriginal people not using those rights), conquest (self-explanatory) or legislation. So what about the Mohawk�s claimed international trade rights? It turned out they didn�t have the evidence to back up that actually occurred and was an integral part of their pre-contact culture: para. 60. These cases talk about �Crown sovereignty�. That means, bluntly, �there can only be one boss�. When English law governed Canada that meant the �country-like� functions of aboriginal people like law-making, running courts, waging war - all those went away. They belong to the Crown, and that is that. But, as you remind us, this is not just a one-way street. When the Crown took over those rights it gained an obligation identified in Mitchell v. M.N.R. �... to treat aboriginal peoples fairly and honourably, and to protect them from exploitation�. We�ll talk about that fiduciary duty later. So, this answers your argument that aboriginal people can just set up their own governments - they lost those rights in return for Crown protection. Further, many of the things you mentioned have clearly been extinguished by legislation. Aboriginal groups have no right to set up their own police forces because any right to that was �extinguished� by the Criminal Code and legislation that authorized police forces. The same goes for courts - the only right to organize courts is found in the The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 (http://canlii.ca/t/8q7k), ss. 91-92. And the same goes for �Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.�: s. 91. Oh, and if an aboriginal group were to somehow set up a court? Again, the inherent jurisdiction of the Canadian superior courts would mean the inherent jurisdiction courts would have the right (and duty) to review and reject any 'aboriginal court' decisions that are contrary to Canadian law. The same, by the way, goes for Indian band counsels - their decisions are currently reviewed by the Federal Court. So let�s talk about treaties. I found a very interesting Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 SCR 1025 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fsvg) that talks about what treaties with aboriginal people are and how they come about. And it�s a neat historical story, too! The case on its surface deals with something very different. Four Huron were arrested and convicted for cutting down trees and camping in a Quebec provincial park. They said they had a treaty right to do that. The Supreme Court agreed. Now the �treaty� the Huron identified is short so let�s look at the whole thing: THESE are to certify that the CHIEF of the HURON tribe of Indians, having come to me in the name of His Nation, to submit to His BRITANNICK MAJESTY, and make Peace, has been received under my Protection, with his whole Tribe; and henceforth no English Officer or party is to molest, or interrupt them in returning to their Settlement at LORETTE; and they are received upon the same terms with the Canadians, being allowed the free Exercise of their Religion, their Customs, and Liberty of trading with the English: -- recommending it to the Officers commanding the Posts, to treat them kindly. Given under my hand at Longueil, this 5th day of September, 1760. By the Genl's Command, JOHN COSNAN, JA. MURRAY. Adjut. Genl. It was signed by Brigadier General James Murray of the British army. He was the commander of the British military in what would later become Canada. These were exciting times! Britain and France had been dueling over North America for close to a century, and for France the end was at hand. The previous year Britain had invaded Quebec, and in 1759 the climactic battle of the Plains of Abraham decided the contest. The French were defeated and the British seized the entrance to the St. Laurence river. Remaining French forces retreated to Montreal, where, surrounded, they surrendered. That ended France�s military presence in what is now Canada. So who were these Huron, and why did Murray make this arrangement with them? They were Indian allies of the French, and with this agreement they made peace with Britain after the defeat at Quebec City. Interesting stuff - so what else does this case tell us about treaties? A lot. For one, a treaty with an aboriginal community is not an international law treaty - it is something different: ... an Indian treaty is an agreement sui generis which is neither created nor terminated according to the rules of international law (p. 404). ... ... a treaty with the Indians is unique, that it is an agreement sui generis which is neither created nor terminated according to the rules of international law. ... That quotes another Supreme Court of Canada, Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 387 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fv04), and I think it might be helpful to quote the whole passage, for context: ... While it may be helpful in some instances to analogize the principles of international treaty law to Indian treaties, these principles are not determinative. An Indian treaty is unique; it is an agreement sui generis which is neither created nor terminated according to the rules of international law. R. v. White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), at pp. 617 18, aff'd [1965] S.C.R. vi, 52 D.L.R. (2d) 481; Francis v. The Queen, 1956 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 618, at p. 631; Pawis v. The Queen, reflex, [1980] 2 F.C. 18, (1979), 102 D.L.R. (3d) 602, at p. 607. A treaty with an aboriginal group is �sui generis�. Frankly, I don�t like that term, it�s latin for �of its own kind and therefore unique�. A treaty with an Indian community is not an international treaty because Indian communities are not countries, but it is a bargain: ... a treaty is the intention to create obligations, the presence of mutually binding obligations and a certain measure of solemnity. ... A treaty created this way is a treaty under s. 88 the Indian Act - again, not an international treaty. Here there was a promise by the Huron to cease fighting, and the British to respect the religion and customs of the Huron and �treat them kindly�. However, was it �solumn� enough? The Supreme Court says it was, even though there was no providing of traditional peace treaty belts. This was negotiation in wartime, and the paperwork was good enough for all. The court also investigates whether this right was extinguished and determines it was not. There is something else interesting in R. v. Sioui. Freemen seem to talk a lot about �de jure� and �de facto� governments and authority. Well, the Supreme Court here makes clear that is a very foolish argument. British �de facto� authority was established by military conquest, in 1760: In fact, the total defeat of France in Canada was very near: the Act of Capitulation of Montreal, by which the French troops stationed in Canada laid down their arms, was signed on September 8, 1760 and signalled the end of France's de facto control in Canada. �De jure� authority was established three years later, by international treaty between Britain and France: Great Britain's de jure control of Canada took the form of the Treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763, a treaty which inter alia ensured that the "Inhabitants of Canada" would be free to practise the Roman Catholic religion. Some months later, the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 organized the territories recently acquired by Great Britain and reserved two types of land for the Indians: that located outside the colony's territorial limits and the establishments authorized by the Crown inside the colony. Where did Canada get it�s �de jure� authority? In 1867 the U.K. passed the The British North America Act, 1867 (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) and Canada was granted authority to govern itself, as a country, by the country (the U.K.) that had previously had that authority. You can think of it as one country splitting into two. So much for all that �de facto� crap. So, last major point. I was a little disappointed you did not look closer at the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwfft) because as I read the decision it requires Canada maintain a duty called the "honour of the Crown" to all aboriginal people in Canada (para. 66): The honour of the Crown arises �from the Crown�s assertion of sovereignty over an Aboriginal people and de facto control of land and resources that were formerly in the control of that people�: Haida Nation, at para. 32. In Aboriginal law, the honour of the Crown goes back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which made reference to �the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection�: see Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53 (CanLII), 2010 SCC 53, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 103, at para. 42. This �Protection�, though, did not arise from a paternalistic desire to protect the Aboriginal peoples; rather, it was a recognition of their strength. Nor is the honour of the Crown a paternalistic concept. The comments of Brian Slattery with respect to fiduciary duty resonate here: The sources of the general fiduciary duty do not lie, then, in a paternalistic concern to protect a �weaker� or �primitive� people, as has sometimes been suggested, but rather in the necessity of persuading native peoples, at a time when they still had considerable military capacities, that their rights would be better protected by reliance on the Crown than by self-help. In this case Canada did not live up to its obligation in a bargain with the M�tis. The M�tis had their own community in what is now Manitoba, the Red River Settlement: In 1869, the Red River Settlement was a vibrant community, with a free enterprise system and established judicial and civic institutions, centred on the retail stores, hotels, trading undertakings and saloons of what is now downtown Winnipeg. The M�tis were the dominant demographic group in the Settlement, comprising around 85 percent of the population, and held leadership positions in business, church and government. The M�tis were prepared to defend their community and its independence (para. 26-27), but in the end Canada and the M�tis came to an agreement. The Red River Settlement would join Canada as a province, Manitoba, and the M�tis in return would get a large grant of land to maintain their community: paras. 30-31. The sad remainder of this judgment discusses how that bargain was not respected by the Canadian authorities and the M�tis land grants were either delayed, had �strings attached�, or were set up in a way that broke up the M�tis community. That failure to live up to the bargain breached the honour of the Crown, and ultimately indirectly led in 1885 to an armed M�tis rebellion in what is now Saskatchewan. The Supreme Court of Canada does not say what should be done to fix the breach of the honour of the Crown because the M�tis and Canada did not ask for that answer, so now presumably there are going to be some very interesting negotiations in the next few years! So I hope that is helpful and interesting. I certainly learned a lot more about aboriginal title, rights, and treaty reading these cases. I am also quite convinced that your position is absolutely incorrect, in law, in Canada.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2013 3:23 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 25, 2013 3:49 AM
From Leigh OftheHouseof Collins "After having my affidavit notarized for another matter , I asked for a certified true copy of my custody order. Realizing I had stopped recording, I began again and this sounds like a good first try to me."


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2013 3:49 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 25, 2013 5:44 PM
http://www.gizmag.com/haarp-operations-on-hold/28383/


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2013 5:44 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 25, 2013 5:55 PM
A call made today


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2013 5:55 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Jul 26, 2013 12:28 AM
This is from NORTH KOREA. EVERYTHING they say is true. ...but you can see what they DON'T say, are the lies. It's like Robert Menard, with a budget! :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 26, 2013 12:28 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Jul 26, 2013 2:54 AM
So....I scanned the whole page today looking for gold nuggets. (found a bunch) and I realized a few things. 1. Scott Duncan really wants to kick a cop in the face, but I don't think he will be satisfied with just one. A Justice may suffice. 2. Pierre and Eammon are hilarious. 3. I miss Blake Gardner and Fiona. 4. Who are the other 350 members? 5. Are you looking for surety in the matter? Well, its not me.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Jul 26, 2013 2:54 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Jul 26, 2013 12:59 PM
I also found this, which I only scanned and didn't read, but think it may be important to bring back to the top for NEWBIES: I don't remember who to thank, but I think it was Maximiliano P�rez. Yes Max?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Jul 26, 2013 12:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Jul 26, 2013 2:25 PM
Ok, so im getting a feeling something is gonna go down tonight. Got told the restraining order was still in effect(really justice?) And strongly advised me not to break it or i will be prosecuted with prejudice. Sounds like they are pissed off at me...oh well. IF i dont report by tonight im most likely arrested. quite possibly gonna be locked up by the weekend. Yea i didnt see my son today v.v


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Jul 26, 2013 2:25 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dean Clifford

Jul 26, 2013 4:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtbSthgYh0U Sorry, Scott. This practically screamed your name.......

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01541010460705E+016
Last Updated: Jul 26, 2013 4:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LtbSthgYh0U?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Lee Edgely

Jul 27, 2013 10:04 AM
Would someone be so kind as to post the NOTICE OF WAIVER please, as I can only find reference to it when searching.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01529407782786E+016
Last Updated: Jul 27, 2013 10:04 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Eamonn O Brien

Jul 28, 2013 2:05 PM
https://www.facebook.com/pages/%C3%89ire-Bank/239282016218344 What's your take on this Scott?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Jul 28, 2013 2:05 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 28, 2013 4:15 PM
I�ve been thinking currency for a few days, IN ENGLISH, first time in my life I catch myself so often THINKING in English, anyway, I start seeing people as DEBT , but that is another story. My question is: Using BITCOIN as money of exchange to live my life seems to free �ME� from lots of troubles, and I like it. But I am wondering WHO can pretend having AUTHORITY to make �ME� show them ANY record and/or accounting books about �MY� BITCOIN usage ? I see NO ONE, but I think the question is VALUABLE. Thanks "ME"


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 28, 2013 4:15 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 29, 2013 1:18 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 29, 2013 1:18 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 29, 2013 7:21 PM
Thoughts?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 29, 2013 7:21 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 30, 2013 3:56 AM
WOw cops killing a 18yr old, on youtube, a murder on youtube...like that old video that shows people getting killed. You dont see him die but you hear the gun shots, i guess that is what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight with Police ? Instead of shooting to incapacitate you they shoot to kill you ? How does that work? shoot in leg or something so they cant stand or shoot in to death so he cant live ? Anyways have a look...

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 3:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/lG6OTyjzAgg?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Jul 30, 2013 5:00 AM
scott ,are you the subject of a movie character?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 5:00 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 30, 2013 5:09 AM
In the CANADIAN Geographic Region? PAY ATTENTION

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 5:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/6dZILMivNgI?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 30, 2013 6:53 AM
What The Fuck!

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 6:53 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 30, 2013 1:04 PM
Fake cop robbing people, turns out to be REAL cop robbing people. A National kick-a-cop-in-the-face day is looking REALLY good.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 1:04 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Lawrence White

Jul 30, 2013 3:41 PM
P.S. give me some shit to study and I'll be back. Maybe I just need to slow down. I keep reading and you all keep moving further and further ahead. I'll catch up. Again thanks, you are all individually pretty awesome. I'm learning a lot.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530679426634E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 3:41 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 30, 2013 3:46 PM
Question: Since 1968, (45 years) Canada has 4 prime miniters that held office for "37 years" out of 45, All of them from the BAR of Quebec. Trudeau, Mulroney, Martin and Cr�tien. Now, what happened in Quebec in 1968 ? I smell judicial corruption, but hey !!! Any thoughts ?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 3:46 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 30, 2013 6:18 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 6:18 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 30, 2013 6:58 PM
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/30/the-basics-and-power-of-an-affidavit-of-truth/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEwxYhIIal0

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 6:58 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Jul 30, 2013 8:39 PM
Dean Clifford on the ONLY way he would ever CONTRACT with HER MAJESTY these days- thread..... *Ben Lowrey to Dean Clifford* "You mean Her Majesty and HER MAJESTY dont mean the SAME THING...?? :/" ;) Dean Clifford: Contracts are an operation of law, Derek. They are 99% unwritten, and established by your actions....but that does not negate the requirements. I'm open for business. We have only one thing we have the right to establish when it comes to a contract.....impress me..... 3 words......but ohhhhhhhhhh so important........ Especially when serving "HER MAJESTY", the general contractor who wants something from you............ Derek Moran: 3 words, im supposed to guess i take it...? How about 4 - i guessed this during a post Derek Hill put-up the other day: "...unless otherwise expressly required..." �security� means sufficient security, and �sureties� means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required; http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-21/FullText.html Dean Clifford: No, that's their Policy. Do you not have one? Scott Duncan: WHO ARE YOU? BY WHAT AUTHORITY! ALL RIGHTS RESERVED! I DO NOT CONSENT. Oh those three word trinities! Dwaine Carrillo: Offer-Acceptance and Valuable Consideration Dean Clifford: Close, Dwaine. There are 3 words I attach to EVERY offer for me to perform. They are my " ... .... ......." Dean Clifford: Oh, I always consent now, Scott. In accordance with my "..... ... ........." I even put the correct amount of dots for letters on that one. Dwaine Carrillo: Your Reserved Rights ... and theirs too Sev Ren: ive been told that one doesnt work all to well Scott Duncan: Oh well, if you've been told... best not read anything here. Go read the shit the guy who told you says. Wouldn'd want to contradict some guy who knows a guy. Dean Clifford: In fact, it's the only way I would ever serve HER MAJESTY, is under my "..... ... .........." Dean Clifford: Forced compliance is acceptance of my "..... ... .........." lol Dean Clifford: I won't perform for HER MAJESTY unless it's under my "..... ... ..........", and further contact is acceptance of my "..... ... .........." Dwaine Carrillo: Forced Compliance is Acceptance of my Terms and Conditions! Dean Clifford: "Terms and Conditions!", Dwaine wins the prize!!!! A date to burn down the town of choice with Dean Clifford! Scott Duncan: ALL rights reserved. Not just YOUR rights... ALL of them. Even the Government's Dean Clifford: Dwaine Carrillo: "Forced Compliance is Acceptance of my Terms and Conditions!" Dean Clifford: NEVER question Bruce Dickenson!!!! Dean Clifford: Actually, Between "All Rights Reserved" (depending on your status and the rights you have access to) and "Terms and Conditions" for Service. This world would be fixed tomorrow. Provided one fucking Person knew WHAT IT MEANT! Scott Duncan: You probably should. It's ALL trinities. Dean Clifford: Derek Moran: [I] DO NOT CONSENT (bit-of-a-cheat there) Dean Clifford: I Most CERTAINLY consent...on the following terms and conditions....... Dwaine Carrillo: Stay in Honor .... Always consent .... with terms and conditions Derek Moran so to review: WHO ARE YOU? BY WHAT AUTHORITY!? ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Dean Clifford: I Most CERTAINLY consent...on the following terms and conditions....... "Forced Compliance is Acceptance of my Terms and Conditions!" (not a 'Trinity' here, not even close) Dwaine Carrillo: If they don't rebut (your terms), they MUST agree to them .... works both ways And when two people agree, we now have LAW Dean Clifford: If my Big Mac is advertised for $50,000 up front, and some cocksucker eats it........... we have done to them, what they do to us. Dwaine Carrillo: God Damn, I love that! .... "Forced Compliance is Acceptance of My Terms and Conditions" I'm getting that painted on the side of the H2 Dean Clifford: Anything else would be involuntary servitude. Law, for the plebians, 101. Rebut my terms? They have a say in what my time is worth and what I do with my life? It's a take it or leave it kind of thing...... Scott Duncan: "Rebut my terms", Dean? Who exactly will do that? The government is NOT a PERSON. Derek Moran: Terms-and-Conditions: Any PARTY without having made it EXPRESSLY known to ME ab initio, that you INTEND to ATTEMPT, to contract with ME, then ANY party attempting to contract with ME without the EXPRESS NOTICE required, such attempts SHALL be considered NULL-and-VOID ab initio and of no LAWFUL and/or LEGAL force-and-effect. ..and that goes 'trinity' for Scott Duncan

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 8:39 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Lee Edgely

Jul 30, 2013 8:44 PM
Need advise. I bought my house in 2007 and signed a contract with the building company and in this contract it had a section that a management company would take over the servicing of the estate I live in. What I need to understand is, the Building Contractor has gone out of business and there is no bilateral contract between myself and the management company, so can the contract still stand against me with regards to the management company? Don�t kick me out for this one Scott


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01529407782786E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 8:44 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Jul 30, 2013 10:51 PM
Again, on the Territory and many of the people are standing around watching this officer beat this man on the ground. If i saw an officer beating a man, i would step in and stop him, its our duty to up hold peace, the man is catching a beat down and officer swings overs and boots the woman who is also on the ground. Wow Military type policing is here, it can only get worse. Thoughts?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Jul 30, 2013 10:51 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Jul 31, 2013 12:06 AM
HERE is why I'm a MILITANT ANTI-THEIST. ...think about this the next time I abuse an adult with an imaginary friend.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Jul 31, 2013 12:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fdnWwlZCsSw?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Jul 31, 2013 5:20 AM
I looked for the post it was up yesterday... could not find it today... people must be studying and messing with the threads... This we do not mind... :-) The post was from the Calgary Herald... Showed a picture of a truck with its front end thru the glass and stated it was The Calgary Court House.. So my mon ami Pete Daoust asked me to check it out... so I did here is what I saw.... To All the people here at the Tender For Law.. Even if you are of "the sociopathic work for the bar type with nothing left of your humanity..." I just quoted myself ;-) You gotta realize we are in this together and your fucking up... And we are not pleased... So this shows part of the lie... Please pardon the camera work... I was traveling... http://youtu.be/RSX-Dxc3UE8


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Jul 31, 2013 5:20 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None






Derek Moran

Jul 31, 2013 6:02 PM
Justin Moule when Ontario Premier Mike Harris was in office in the late 1990s, ... There are no lawfully sworn and bonded sheriffs in Ontario, one of the reasons he got rid of them. So if that is the case. Someone who calls themself a sheriff to lock you out of there home? so who are they if they are not "sheriffs" ??

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Jul 31, 2013 6:02 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Jul 31, 2013 10:01 PM
I've picked that up on Dean Clifford's FB page....I thought it was interesting I see two words in this that attracted my attention :D People and YOURSELF :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Jul 31, 2013 10:01 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Hill

Aug 01, 2013 2:01 AM
This thread is to help explain what happened while i was in jail. Friday July 26th was the court she was trying to get another restraining order. She = Ma. Justice "informed me" that VOIDing wouldn't work and only terminating would(contrary to another justice who didn't bother getting a new order). So once it was granted, i had a feeling something was about to go down. met up with an old friend had a few beers, made a drunk-ish comment, but i didn't carry through was distracted with other things. When i was walking on riverside, I was suddenly stopped by a cop car, 2 minutes after another 3 patrol cars come up. They arrested me because i was alleged to breach the restraining order. They said that my "freeman bullshit" wont work. They were very aggressive when I was arrested and cuffed, one of the cop grabbed my neck and threw me in the back seat. Unfortunately i didn't get any other badge numbers because i was at a heightened sense alert because i seriously though i was gonna get kicked in. Was sent to the cop shop in windsor where they took my stuff. They tried to take my earrings out, I told them no. Cop officer "217" Constable(i believe) informed me if i did not comply and if i give them reason to believe I'm a freeman that they would have no problem throwing me in a chamber and make my stay hell. He also threatened the taser if i didn't comply. I complied under extreme duress. The last time i was tasered my heart beat became irregular. Not enough to be a problem but not normal. Don't ask I don't know much more on that. At this point, I did not have the opportunity to serve a notice of mistake but I knew it off by heart so i can recite it straight from memory if needed. They threw me in HC02, a cell for 1 person. Multiple times I was taken out for fingerprints(the officer told me to not say a word, and he didn't need my consent. If i didn't comply he would taser me(different cop)). There was other times where i was thrown in another room just blank, then put back into HC02. I was thrown in other guys, then pulled again back to HC02. i was held overnight until Saturday morning. I was very dehydrated. The water fountain+shitter+pisser in one wasn't functioning. The officer explained that he did not give me food/drinks because "i believed i was above the government and laws, so i don't need government help". He brought juice a few hours later. I had some sort of hearing to see if I would be remanded or released. I knew I wasn't going to be released. The clerk asked for my name, i said it wasn't mine to give and that there was a mistake in identifying the accused. Officer stated that they had evidence by way of a mug shot to confirm that i am such and such. The CROWN did not consent on my release because they said that their secondary grounds were that I believed that I was ABOVE THE LAW. I was pulled back into my cell. An officer came in badge#517 i want to say, told me to comply and drop my freeman bullshit. And that if i did it again that i would get whats coming to me. I told them that if any harm comes to me they would be liable. And that they have no right to tell me what i can and cannot say. I was transfered to the brock. The officers who were putting me in told the guards that I was a freeman and to show him the way we treat "outlaws". I was thrown into an isolation chamber. I was there for about a few hours, then I was thrown in range c left. This was Protected Custody. When I was thrown in there the guard announced that I was fresh meat and to show me how they treat new guys. Fortunately they locked me in my cell for Saturday. I couldn't get my dinner because the other inmates took everything but the toast. Which was cold. Meals were pretty much a free for all. Sunday morning. I was told by my inmates that if i didn't do the "initiation" that they would gang beat me. I did it out of fear. Did 120 squats in a row. Well...not in a row but you take 1 step do 1 squat take another step do 2...etc, i made it to 15 and collapsed. I was incapable to walk for an hour. Guard told me to get out I couldn't move fast enough so he belly clobbed me with his stick right in my legs. I was on the ground, almost crying from pain. I was put into an isolation chamber, was given my 30 minutes to do whatever then back I went. I was moved back to range c Monday morning. Then an hour later was brought to court. meanwhile i had the notice of mistake prepared to file, but I could not file it without an affidavit. I informed that i must file a document into the case file. Officer "3xx" said no and that i would have to take it up with court. I was pulled from my cell around 11:30am to go take the phone, it was duty counsel. She asked if i wanted her help i said no. She asked what was my intention. I told her it was not her concern. Around 1:05pm Monday i was brought to court hearing. it was a video hearing. For bail. Hold on to yourselves. This is the part where the railroading really kicks in. I get in there and the CROWN was about to speak when i said i RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. The justice immediately stated that she did not want to hear my freeman arguments and therefor she will ignore me. Then a woman stands up, stated that she talked to me and speaks for me, she agrees with the CROWN to remand me until such time. I was objecting the shit out of it, but the officer beside me laughed and said i was muted. I was FUCKING PISSED OFF. First they refuse to file my documents and now they just mute me? While i was going back to the cell an officer bumped into me hit my leg, i began to limp. The officer that brought me to the video hearing asked what was wrong. I told him what happened. He just replied with "Oh really now?" He proceeded to take my leg muscle and put pressure onto it. It immediately shot me down to the ground. It was fucking painful. Anyways, i was returned back to brock. Was put back in range c. When the inmates saw my muscles sore, they began to punch, poke, flick, anything to cause a quick burst of pain. By Monday night I was exhausted from enduring the pain. I couldn't sleep well. Worse then normal for jail. Tuesday morning. I woke up in so much pain i couldn't get off my bed. Amigo my inmate helped me down. I asked for the nurse(i had sports injuries and pulled muscles, but this pain was on another level) to go see what he can do. He replied and announced that i was a cry baby and to suck it up. I was harassed even more. the other inmates took turns punching my legs until i was in so much pain i couldn't defend myself anymore. I was shaking and crying from all the pain. I was brought to Court. When i got there. I was put on the ball and chain. Was thrown in BP03. Bull Pen #3. I couldn't sit because of the pain, i couldn't stand because of the pain. I was overwhelmed with pain that i felt that i was going to black out. When the officer came to get me for some call I told him i REQUIRED an affidavit and my notice of mistake to be filed. HE said no its not his job and talk to duty counsel. I told him right away i did not want duty counsel. He said tough luck they wont hear you without one. I went into the booth. It was duty counsel again i declined again. When i was brought out an officer asked what my answer was. I said no. HE was pissed off and 3 other officers walked towards me. One of the officers was the one who arrested me and thrown me in the back of his cop car. I was thrown in a waiting room(?). They threatened me that if i didn't drop the freeman bullshit that they would kick the shit out of me. I said it was the law. It was not my problem. The officer 217 took his baton and wailed it right at my legs. I immediately screamed in pain and was on the ground shaking violently from the pain. They asked again 3 more times i said no. They hit one in the ribbed, threw me against the wall, punched my abdominal. They asked again. They said that if i didn't comply that they would taser me and beat me relentless. I grunted and complied for fear of my life. They said to plead guilty and accept a probation or they will arrest me again and keep me there for 30 days at least. I couldn't deal with it. I was in so much pain the pain was drowning my thoughts. I pleaded guilty, knowing that if i did not that i would be beaten and my life to be in serious jeopardy. 3-4 officers(cant remember) escorted me to the office where i would sign the probation sheet. One of the officers told me to sign it normally no rights reserved bullshit. Under threat of my life i did. After i was released i immediately called 911, went to the hospital. took me about 90 minutes to get a bed and see a doctor. I could not move my legs often and when i could it was painful. John something gave me pain relief meds and an anti-inflammatory cream. It relieved a lot of pain but it was just bearable. I had bruises in some spots, asked him to take pictures for evidence, he said its not needed. I said i needed it for documentation. HE said he couldn't. I would have taken pictures but for some reason they didn't bring my stuff to the court house. I could not go to the jail house in my current condition. Was just not happening. I took a piss and blood sample. Blood sample came back said my liver was out of whack. The doc said that the levels of something(not a doc cant remember these damn 10 syllable words) and that its normally a result of doing hard drugs. I told him i only do weed and drink the occasional beer and hard liquor. He said that he would send it for further analysis. My piss was pitch black. You couldn't see through it. It didn't look like blood, but the doc said that it is most likely from my liver. He said that it would take around 48 hours to process it. HE also gave me an appointment at the hospital to go see a neurologist Friday at 11am. HE said someone just canceled so asked if i wanted it. I took it right away, getting an appointment like that that fast was a opportunity i could not pass up on it. I was released and walked about a block until a good Samaritan gave me a ride. It took me 2 minutes just to get in her car. But i thank her greatly for her kindness.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02045272709166E+016
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 2:01 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Lei Gh

Aug 01, 2013 11:54 AM
I have to report to probation today. I have not sent in my Notice of Mistake. Should I breach or keep the peace?


Unique Facebook User ID: 544228225691299
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 11:54 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Anibal Jose Baez

Aug 01, 2013 12:22 PM
Scott Duncan, this one is for you. :) Fire away! <<Indidis insisted on the validity of his case, saying �I know with a matter of fact and truth we have a good case with a high probability of success and I hope it is done in my lifetime.�>>

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 12:22 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Aug 01, 2013 1:04 PM
David Johansen and I have worked out this document for our area. Can we get a peer review? Also, we have not had a discussion on APOSTILLED documents...can we have an APOSTILLE discussion on this thread?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 1:04 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Neil Rowe

Aug 01, 2013 2:30 PM
The court calls the case of state v paul Rowe. Im here on that. are you paul Rowe? NO. The name was given me, but I am not a name, and I refuse to plead not guilty, a negative that cant be proved, I am innocent of any crime, and if the court pleads for me surety is transferred to the person pleading, and i do not consent to being judged or tried in any court except an Article III constitutional court of record for the protection of my life liberty and property rights. IN ONE BREATH, GIVING THEM NO CHANCE TO INTERRUPT


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 2:30 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Aug 01, 2013 5:59 PM
I have an interesting story from today as well but just not that intense as Derik�s. I went down to the court house to finish the paper work and get a claim started to get my property back. When I got there I was told to have a seat and as soon as someone was finished with doing something with another client that they would deal with me. As I sat waiting, I noticed an RCMP officer heading to the front door of the courthouse. Of course he was coming in my direction and when he got close enough, he asked if I was Brenda. I stated that I am commonly called Brenda. He told me that he had a recording device and that it was there to record what I said and he said, so that way he couldn�t say I had said something and I couldn�t say he said something. (Funny how recording devices work!) So he told me he was there to talk about my missing daughter. I told him that I had no comment. Asked if I was under arrest. He stated no, and told me that I wasn�t under arrest or being detained. Then he moved on to a picture and stated is this your daughter, and I didn�t answer him. He told me that he was working with cps to try and locate her. Did I know where she was? No comment. Could I at least tell the officer if she was safe? No comment. I am here to get my documents. Are my documents ready yet? The stupid bitch behind the counter holds up a finger. Then some other people come walking in and the officer wants to know if I want to go into the lobby to talk. I didn�t acknowledge anything. So while we are sitting there waiting for the people to leave and my paper work to be ready, I asked the officer a question. If I want to make a complaint that my daughter is missing would you take that complaint? So what daughter is that, you have three right? Catherine is 15, and Carole is 13 and handicapped? And you have an older daughter. I said I'm only talking about the youngest one. If I want to make a complaint about my youngest one missing would you take that complaint? Well, he says, I know that cps has told me that she is fine where she is, I haven�t actually seen her, but they say she is fine. So you would not take my complaint? No cps says she is safe and fine. So I got up to pay for my paperwork and get the fuck out of there. He took his recorder and talks into it, stating that it is Aug. 1, 2013 at 10:34 am and talking to Brenda Larson. I said by what authority do you address me as Brenda Larson? Oh well that is just what I am saying into my recorder. He left and I got my paper work, and left as well. When I left I saw him standing on the opposite side of the street with his back turned to the courthouse. So I left and walked behind a strip mall, looking for the van, I spotted it. But practically next to it, was a Sheriffs truck, so I knew what was going on. I just kept on walking, and the van knew what was going on. Unfortunately, I had forgotten my cell phone but found a place to use the phone. The Sheriff kept pretty close to me and I was able to duck them when they were right outside a place of business, I went into to use the phone to be able to call and let the van know where I was headed. I rounded out the back of the building went through some back yards and was home free. Things should be heating up here shortly.


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 5:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Lei Gh

Aug 01, 2013 8:34 PM
Got a question for ya...the postman, who advised me he worked there 30 years, said I HAD to put a return address on my envelope, to send it registered mail. I told him I was not in a position to debate right now but I know I do not have to put a return address on it. I cannot find a similar thread...


Unique Facebook User ID: 544228225691299
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 8:34 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Aug 01, 2013 8:51 PM
This practical example, from our friend down under... there is substance via Adamsky..... although the form is an acquired taste ;-)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Aug 01, 2013 8:51 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 02, 2013 2:48 AM
FEATURE! THE TENDER FOR BULLSHIT: Starring Derek Hill. http://roguesupport.com/common/audio/the_tender_4_bullshit_001.mp3


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 2:48 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 02, 2013 3:17 AM
Just in case you are still a Theist... ...THIS is why your evil ignorant fabricated ideology needs to be eliminated. This is why it deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 3:17 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Aug 02, 2013 4:15 AM
Its been a little bit since i been able to sit down and post any material since my move, but its coming along and i should be ready to start posting and becoming more active again. Anyways, some really fun threads i been missing. Hope to see you guys online again once im done sorting through my stuff. YAY !!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 4:15 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 02, 2013 3:48 PM
I've got arrested back in January for a speeding ticket. I wrote NO CONTRACT in red on the ticket and sent it back registered Mail. 3 weeks ago, I received a BoE of $295, and on the upper portion of it, it says that I was found GUILTY and I was SENTENCED to pay this $295. So I sent them a NOTICE saying that I received this, and ASKED the name, address and inscription number of WHO entered a plea on my PERSON, and WHO sentenced my PERSON. I gave them 10 days to answer, and this 10 days ended july the 25th. Since I have NO ANSWERS from them What do I do now ? :D Thanks Pierre


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 3:48 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Chad Brodgesell

Aug 02, 2013 4:33 PM
Response to a 'Notice of Pending Cancellation' Received a Notice of Pending Cancellation in the mail which contains my corporations name and address on it. Have spent a bit of time (Okay,,,2 whole days) writing and re-writing a reply formed in a series of questions regarding this said Notice. Posting a semi finished reply here for thoughts of other members regarding the reply. I wrote this version up on purpose of NOT referencing any other documentation from here or other sources just to see how well I could do from memory and gained knowledge. I know that there are sources of better phrasing regarding certain parts but I wanted to stand alone with what I could come up with even if I had to verbally respond in a situation such as court. I see this as an exercise in being able to train my mind to think objectively with no outside assistance either from documents and/or other peoples help. Comments no matter how critical would be welcome. :) mmmm Okay, having problems posting the zip. (Am I doing something wrong? says the content is no longer available, I must be doing something wrong. will post here direct with picture attached. Some of the formatting is lost such as high lighting and bolding. if photo didn't go through let me know please. Notice of Pending Questions TO: Mr. Jim FLAHERTY Minister of Finance Ministry of Finance Collections Branch PO Box 627 33 King St. W. Oshawa, ON. L1H-8H5 FROM: Chad Brodgesell CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP. 24-75 Wentworth Street South Hamilton, Ontario REGARDING; the attached 'NOTICE OF PENDING CANCELLATION' and referred to as 'said Document' through out this 'Notice of Pending Questions' document of which this 'Notice of Pending Questions' document consists of 7 pages in total. 1) WHO in the Ministry of Finance or any of its affiliates issued said Document and thereby accepts SURETY for issuing said Document to CHAD BRODGESELL SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP.? a) Since there is no AUTHORIZED NAME of PERSON on said Document of who is SURETY for issuing said Document then I, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR of SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP. do assume that you Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and/or any other PERSON of AUTHORITY yet to be named with in the Ministry of Finance or any of its affiliates is SURETY for issuing said Document as you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY are the Minister of Finance of the Ministry of Finance, of which the Collections Branch PO BOX 627, 33 King St. W., Oshawa, ON., L1H-8H5, is under, are you not, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY? You, 'Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and/or another PERSON of AUTHORITY yet to be named with in the Ministry of Finance or any of its affiliates' will be referred to as 'Mr. Jim FLAHERTY', and 'SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP.' will be referred to as 'SDI', and the 'CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR of SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP.' will be referred to as 'CEO' through out the rest of this 'Notice of Pending Questions' document. b) If there has been a MISTAKE of issuing said Document then you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY will kindly confirm MISTAKE of issuing said Document in writing and signed by an AUTHORIZED PARTY of the Ministry of Finance stating such MISTAKE within 30 days of the Date of this Notice of Pending Questions and sending said Written and signed MISTAKE to the CEO at the ADDRESS stated above. 2) Is it true that the 'Corporations Tax Account No.' and/or 'Federal Business No.' and/or 'Mailing Date', as displayed near the upper right of said Document are IN FACT BOXED OFF from said Document and IN FACT ARE NOT PART OF said Document? a) Would then said Document NOT HAVE a 'Corporations Tax Account No.' and/or 'Federal Business No.' and/or 'Mailing Date' if the 'Corporations Tax Account No.' and/or 'Federal Business No.' and/or 'Mailing Date', as displayed near the upper right of said Document are IN FACT BOXED OFF from said Document? 3) WHY is said Document ADDRESSED to the LEGAL ENTITY/PERSON named CHAD BRODGESELL which I believe is the LEGAL ENTITY/PERSON in which Chad Brodgesell is the BENEFICIARY and PRINCIPLE, and not ADDRESSED to the CEO? 4) QUOTE �This letter is to advise you that as a result of non-compliance with the Corporations Tax Act, we are proceeding with the cancellation of the corporation's certificate of incorporation.� END QUOTE. a) Has SDI PAID and/or CONTRACTED you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY to 'advise' SDI in and/or on and/or of and/or about and/or for ANYTHING having to do with SDI? b) WHO is 'you'? c) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide a BONA FIDE CONTRACT obligating SDI to comply with said 'Corporations Tax Act.' and/or ANYTHING under the Charter of Canada? d) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide a CERTIFIED copy of said 'Corporations Tax Act.' under the Charter of Canada to SDI for preview, inspection and better comprehension? e) To which corporation are you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY referring to? All I see is 'the corporation's'. f) By WHAT AUTHORITY do you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY claim to have the right of CANCELING 'the corporation's certificate of incorporation' of SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? g) Are you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY willing to receive and make payment of an invoice 'see 'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS'' 'see Section 14' , for the time, effort and expense of SDI for filing ANYTHING with the Ministry of Finance and/or any of its affiliates if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? 5) QUOTE �If your corporation wishes to retain its certificate of incorporation, all delinquent tax returns or Exempt from Filing Declarations must be filed and all taxes, including interest and penalties, must be paid whether or not the corporation carries on an active business.� END QUOTE. a) WHO is 'your corporation' ? I have no knowledge of 'your corporation'. b) 'delinquent tax returns'? Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide a BONA FIDE CONTRACT obligating SDI to file tax returns and/or any other document/documents with the Ministry of Finance and/or any of its affiliates if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? c) Mr. Jim FLAHERTY, does 'including' a thing exclude all others? d) Mr. Jim FLAHERTY, regarding 'paid', with what would payment be? e) Mr. Jim FLAHERTY, would the 'payment' be 'a promissory Note/ bank note' and/or according to the Bills of Exchange Act simply a, 'note' and/or any other form of payment as disclosed in the Bills of Exchange Act? 6) QUOTE �If your corporation is not in compliance within thirty days of the mailing date of this letter, a final notice will be published in The Ontario Gazette stating that an order to dissolve your corporation will be issued unless your corporation complies with the requirements of the Corporations Tax Act.� END QUOTE. a) WHO is 'your corporation' ? I have no knowledge of 'your corporation'. b) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide SDI a BONA FIDE CONTRACT that obligates SDI to comply with this 'compliance' if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? c) If this 'Mailing Date' IS IN FACT BOXED OFF from said Document and IS IN FACT NOT PART OF said Document, then what is the 'mailing date' of said Document? d) If you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY make this PRIVATE matter PUBLIC that would be YOUR decision as SURETY for your decision to make a PRIVATE matter PUBLIC with out the EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION of SDI if you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY are indeed speaking of SDI then SDI may invoice you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY for your, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY, 'order to dissolve' if indeed you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY are speaking of SDI 'see 'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS' stated in 'see Section 13'. e) By what AUTHORITY would you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY 'dissolve' SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? f) The SOLE SHAREHOLDER, Chad Brodgesell, of SDI would not be agreeable to you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY for 'dissolving' SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of unless you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY agree to issuing a Certified Cheque in the AMOUNT of $10,000,000.00 in CAD funds made out to Chad Brodgesell, and delivered by Registered post to Chad Brodgesell 24-75 Wentworth St. S. Hamilton, Ontario Non-Domestic Without Canada and received by Chad Brodgesell the SOLE SHAREHOLDER of SDI and cleared into an account of Chad Brodgesell and the funds released to Chad Brodgesell for the honor of you Mr. Jim FLAHERTY then 'dissolving' SDI that the SOLE SHAREHOLDER, Chad Brodgesell, holds shares in prior to you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY executing said order to DISSOLVE the corporation of SDI. g) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide SDI with a BONA FIDE CONTRACT obligating SDI to these 'requirements' under the Charter of Canada and provide a Certified copy of said 'requirements' that you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? 7) QUOTE �If your corporation fails to comply with the final notice, its certificate of incorporation will be canceled. The cancellation of a corporation's certificate of incorporation has serious implications including the : *forfeiture of corporate assets to the Crown; *loss of corporate limited liability and insurance coverage; *inability to apply tax losses; and *categorization of your business entity as a sole proprietorship or partnership.� END QUOTE. a) Who is 'your corporation' ? I have no knowledge of 'your corporation'. b) Are you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY suggesting that you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY have the AUTHORITY to cancel the corporations certificate of incorporation of SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? c) If you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY say you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY do have the AUTHORITY to cancel the corporations certificate of incorporation of SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of , then by WHAT AUTHORITY and can you provide that AUTHORITY for preview and inspection by SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? d) Are you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY suggesting that you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY will ORDER and thereby receive an invoice from SDI for your, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY order to seize all SDI ASSETS by the Crown and can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide a BONA FIDE Notice of Seizure of Assets to SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of if you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY do not have or have any AUTHORITY to execute such an order? e) Would seizing assets of another without their written approval/consent and/or AUTHORITY constitute a CRIME? f) Is the Crown, you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of, 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor'? g) Or is the Crown you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of, 'The Crown Corporation of Canada'? h) Which one of the two 7)f) or 7)g) above will be SURETY for the forced 'forfeiture of corporate assets to the Crown;' of said Document if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? i) WHAT 'insurance coverage' do you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? j) 'inability to apply tax losses;' implies that there is a BONA FIDE CONTRACT in place that obligates SDI to file taxes to begin with, does it not Mr. Jim FLAHERTY if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? k) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide SDI a BONA FIDE CONTRACT obligating SDI to file taxes if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? l) By WHAT AUTHORITY do you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY have that would allow you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY to 'categorization of your business entity as a sole proprietorship or partnership' without the EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION of the SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of ? m) If 'your corporation' means MY corporation SDI then what AUTHORITY do you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY have to tell ME what to do with MY corporation SDI? Is it MY corporation SDI or not? (I do not see you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY having anything to do with MY corporation SDI unless you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY can provide a BONA FIDE CONTRACT stating other wise.) 8) QUOTE �We urge you to deal with your corporation's compliance issues as quickly as possible.� END QUOTE a) WHO is 'We'? b) WHO is 'you'? c) You, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY, 'urge' ...'you'? (this does not make sense to ME. Are you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY urging yourself to do something?) d) By WHAT AUTHORITY do you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY have any STANDING to say/suggest ANYTHING regarding SDI if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? e) Can you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY provide SDI with a BONA FIDE CONTRACT that obligates SDI to comply with these 'compliance issues' if SDI is indeed the corporation you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY speak of? 9) Is it true that the bottom portion of said Document IS IN FACT BOXED OFF from said Document and IS IN FACT NOT PART of said Document? 10) Is said Document IN FACT not even signed by ANY ONE of AUTHORITY, and/or any one from the Ministry of Finance and/or its affiliates having AUTHORITY to sign? 11) If there is NO ONE OF AUTHORITY signing said Document then does this lack of a AUTHORIZED signature IN FACT MAKE said Document OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT.? 12) If you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY have NO AUTHORITY to execute any item/items in said Document and/or ANY other document Previously presented and/or Present document/documents and/or Future document/documents against SDI yet you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY do execute any item/items in said Document and/or ANY other document Previously presented and/or Present document/documents and/or Future document/documents against SDI without the EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION of SDI would that CONSTITUTE a CRIME and may incur an invoice 'see 'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS' stated in 'see Section 13' from SDI to you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY for REMEDY? 13) 'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS', The amount of $10,000.00 in CAD funds per hour, amount subject to change without notification , by certified cheque made out to SDI for any and all work performed by SDI upon receiving an invoice from SDI for any work that you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and/any affiliates of the Ministry of Finance, request and/or order SDI to preform will begin upon said cheque clearing and funds transferred into an account that you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and/or any of your affiliates can not and will not access and said funds being released to SDI and a BONA FIDE CONTRACT agreed to and signed by ALL parties concerned. Also you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and/or any affiliates of the Ministry of Finance will provide SDI and/or any OFFICER/OFFICERS and/or any EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYEES and/or any SHAREHOLDER/SHAREHOLDERS of SDI with a LIABILTY WAIVER from any and all ACTS/STATUTES and/or CODES of The Government of CANADA and/or any of its affiliates for any work performed by SDI. If SDI and/or OFFICER/OFFICERS and/or EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYEES and/or SHAREHOLDER/SHAREHOLDERS of SDI is FORCED by any method without a BONA FIDE CONTRACT to preform anything of any nature by The Government of Canada and/or any of its affiliates then an immediate charge of $1,000,000.00 CAD paid in advance per incident by certified check made out to Chad Brodgesell, and delivered by Registered post to Chad Brodgesell 24-75 Wentworth St. S. Hamilton, Ontario Non-Domestic Without Canada forthwith upon SDI and/or any of its OFFICER/OFFICERS and/or any of its EEMPLOYEE/EMPLOYEES and/or any of its SHAREHOLDER/SHAREHOLDERS receiving said forced obligations. Incarceration of any of SDI's OFFICER/OFFICERS and/or EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYEES and/or SHAREHOLDER/SHAREHOLDERS in any form will incur an immediate charge from SDI or Chad Brodgesell a fee of $1,000,000.00 CAD PER DAY OR PORTION OF to be PAID FORTHWITH in CASH in CAD funds to SDI or Chad Brodgesell. Terms and Conditions may change without notification. 'End of ''THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS'' For greater clarity and understanding I the CEO require ALL the above questions to be answered in writing and signed by you, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY and sent by Registered Post within 30 days of the Date of this Notice of Pending Questions to the ADDRESS stated above since I the CEO have no understanding of said Document nor why it was issued nor who it is issued to in SDI. All I know is said Document contains the name and address of MY corporation SDI in it and said Document originates from your, Mr. Jim FLAHERTY Ministry of Finance and/or one of its affiliates. Forced compliance is acceptance of 'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS' stated in 'see Section 14'. Date: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP. 24-75 Wentworth St. S. Hamilton Ontario ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


Unique Facebook User ID: 515504925285426
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 4:33 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 02, 2013 5:08 PM
How about a NATIONAL-let's-encourage-ALL-PEACE-OFFICERS-to-be-JUST-LIKE-THIS-GUY DAY! http://bit.ly/16dLEOb

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 5:08 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Neil Rowe

Aug 02, 2013 6:31 PM
I got so much positive feedback on these posts that I decided to reedit them and thread them all together into a proper publication. BIRTH CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF SLAVE TRADE IN AMERICA Since 1933 every new child born has been required to be �registered�, thereby creating a Corporate Person in legality, subject to legalism in statutory courts, and the doctrine of being a corporate fiction, and not subject to Law or vested with any rights, effectively denying that child any rights as a citzen protected by the Bill of Rights, or owner of Real Property you might be surprised to learn. On or about the same time, President Roosevelt, quietly through Congress claimed all property, both real and living, to be "subordinate to the interest of government," effectively seizing elodial and equitable title (as distict from legal title) to all property, including the people themselves, so that the government might borrow there upon the same serving as surety and collateral, for loans from international bankers, in violation of the 10th and 13th Amendments (prohibiting slavery). Roosevelt's unlicensed lawyer and top economic ad-visor, Col. Edward Mandell House, in support of the plan for econmoic enslavement of the entire population has been quoted as saying : "...[E]very American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient (admiralty Maritime) system of pledging (themselves as contribution or tribute to government)... By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register (by birth certificate, social security card, and drivers licence) or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions ( or presumed obligations in statutory jurisdiction in corperate courts). This will inevitably... leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call 'Social Insurance.' " HOW SLAVES TO LEAGALITY ARE LAWLESSLY RULED Article Three of the Constitution establishes the judiciary for the people, fully vested with their rights. Article One and Four establish the executive and legislative branch, which can create "administrative courts," that mimic law courts with legality, legalese, and leagalism (religion teaches is black magic, witchraft and sophistry - or, the art of lying) to handle internal government affairs of employees and agents of government, who have no more rights than military personnel who have signed stewardship and ownership of themselves over to government, to be treated as "wards" you might say. All Article Three Courts, which are empowered to recognize your rights as a free citizen, have been entirely supplanted, and replaced since the Civil War and the Great Depresion, with Aticle One, and Article Four, Legislative or Executive branch administrative courts, all the way down to your local circuit, district, or municiple state court, and their operations have aditionally been Privatised, to create a role reversal between you and government, to treat you, the private person, as a public institution, subject to the legaleese of fictions, while the government operates as a private corperation, masquerading as a public institution. These courts cannot recognize the rights of a person not employed, or owned by government. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. A "Statute" is not a "law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), and a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), Nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) these being defined by Black's Law Dictionary as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial, evidence of law, a facade, represented by 'public policy,' being color-able, or 'color of law,' being 'counterfeit or feigned' as defined. As the Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." ( U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187 ). The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any inferior federal or state act, code, title or statute, derived from or predicated upon the original contract for government, to be valid, must be In agreement therewith. - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. The courts today operate on the presumption that you are owned by government, (chattle property) an 'asset', or 'human resource', an agent, representative, or employee, an 'office,' or 'department' of government, only by the birth certificate, and other 'Union' memberships they have created for you, a contract for slavery, that you never knowingly and intentionally signed, bearing your foot prints. Clever. The act of registering a child contracted them as chattel, and the birth record was a deceptive legal way of getting the parents to sign the baby away. The birth record was in fact a promissory note that was converted into a slave bond, which was then sold to a private reserve bank effectively giving ownership of the child to the bank. Each new baby�s contract was sealed by either a drop of their blood or by an ink impression of their foot onto the birth record, as was done with paupers upon their death certificate probating their estate. This �signature� was used to create their lifetime value, evidenced by their labor and the taxes and costs of that labor as monetized currency � all designed to keep people in servitude for their entire lifetime. The banks have been the modern slave owners and as the saying goes, �He who owns the debt owns the people.� The way the Slavery System was imposed on us meant that even if we did end up paying off our house or our car, we never actually owned it, because our right to any Real Property ownership was given away at the registration of our birth. This has been legal process since 1540 via something called a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, and this was still in effect until the recent UCC Rulings changed the legal landscape and reinstated the un-rebuttable fact that no-one, and no corperation or government, can own our �selves or own our bodies. The slavery system has remained intact for so long because of educational doctrines, the influence of our community at large and because so many people accepted and embraced their slavery by waiting for others to help them or to tell them what they should/could or should/could not do. Enforcers like the police and courts made sure we stayed within the slavery system and incarcerated us if we chose to live as FREE individuals. In fact, the slavery system was imposed on us all (and maintained for centuries) by building walls in our minds through propaganda and conditioning, creating the false belief that we did not deserve better, that we were not part of a greater plan and that we should instead be happy with the handouts, crumbs and �indulgences� given to us by the Powers That Were (PTW), while the system itself reaped in millions of dollars every year, directly from the sweat and blood of our labor in bondage to the witchcraft of legalism as slaves. But you can remove yourself from their corperate jurisdiction, or begin to at any rate. Memorize this, and you will avoid a lot of trouble, a lawyer taught me long ago. The court calls the case of the State v Me (You). "Im here on that." You state. "Are you this (so and so) person the Judge asks? "NO (you must say)... "The name was given to me, but I am not the name, and I refuse to plead not guilty, a negative that cant be proved, as I am innocent of any crime, and i do not consent to being judged or tried in any court except an Article III constitutional court of record for the protection of my life liberty and property rights, and if the person of the court pleads for me surety is transferred to that person in his private capacity for the national debt." That "Fiat Paper Currency" Col edward Mandel House proclaimed would "secure a chargeback" for your slavery, is in fact forged or counterfeited money or value, and any demand for payment can be responded to as follows : AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY COST AND FEES AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE Being Duly deposed and Sworn, Affiant, autographed in Blue and sealed by thumb print in red ink below, states as follows: I can make no Payment on any debt or obligation to pay pursuant to costs, fees, any contract, settlement, or order of the court, until the form of payment is clarified and defined, considering the following : FACT ONE Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, as deposits are merely book entries, and it is still a Felony to tender these or any such substitute, electronically or otherwise for lawful money in many States today including Texas. As Texas criminal law states �All recognizances, bail bonds & undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, & all fines & forfeitures of a pecuniary character shall be collected in the lawful money [gold or silver, not legal tender federal Reserve Notes] of the United States only.� TEXAS Code of Criminal Procedure � 43.02. the Supreme Court has ruled that "Lawful Money of the United States could only be gold & silver coin or that which by law is made its equivalent so as to be exchangeable therefor at par, & on demand, & does NOT include a currency which though nominally exchangeable for coin at its� face value, is not redeemable on demand." Bronson v. Rhodes, 74 U.S. 229, 247, 19 L. Ed.141. �Checks, drafts, money orders & bank notes are not lawful money of the United States." (State v. Mellon, 73 Pac. 321, 43 Ore. 168. Black�s Law Dictionary 6th Edition defines �Real money,� as; �Money which has real metallic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks & drafts.� FACT TWO No state may make any thing but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts (Article 1 sec 10, US Constitution), yet no payment in gold or silver may be demanded in payment of any debt or obligation because of government declared bankruptcy. ( HJR 192; Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; 31 USC 5112, 5119;12 USC 95a; confirmed in Perry v. U.S. 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912 (1935)). FACT THREE "The legal tender quality of paper money is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty." (Knox v. Lee 79 U.S. 457 (1871) " and By agreeing to pay fines, court costs, or any other obligation or debt in monetary exchange or commerce with any public institution by such means, weather or not being tricked or coerced by rogue government or any representative thereof into paying any debt, obligation, or fine, in anything other than gold or silver, one would be as such either pressured, intimidated, coerced and threatened or induced under duress, drawn into, or conspiring to engage in the crime of 'counterfeiting' and forgery, a felony, and so should and must respectfully decline and resist any pressure to accept any offer and reject, any inducement to be pressured or drawn into contributing, aiding and abetting, weather directly or indirectly, any manner of criminality, such as defined in and by law as 'forgery' and the 'counterfeiting' of money or value. FACT FOUR �No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.� - Constitution of the State of Texas Art. 1 � 18, 1876. �No man can give that which he has not... [nor that which he can not be required to have, such as contraband Federal Reserve Bank Notes counterfeited as money].� (Jackson v. Bradford, 4 Wend. (N.Y.) 619). �Incarceration to coerce bond is unconstitutional.� (Pullman v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)) LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL OF YOU through this Declaration, autographed in Blue and sealed by thumb print in red ink below, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our law, that we do not offer or freely concede to contracts being brought into existence by extortion, counterfeit or forgery, that Begin and End in fraud, the poison fruit of an accursed tree, whereas as our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been by us published to you, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them, by charter, fealty, demur, or concession. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I the undersigned and above named do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon opposing counsel by placing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, all postage paid, or by my own hand, notice to agent being notice to principle, on this the day of the month, this the year of our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen A.D. ATTESTED VERIFICATION In Witness, Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and Men, I solemnly affirm that I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof to be true and correct to the best of my own knowledge except those matters which are therein stated based on my information or belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true and will testify to these in the legal or lawful court of any nation on earth before both Man and God so help me. Dated this the ___________day of the ___________month, this the year of our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen A.D. Without Prejudice __________________________________ All Rights Reserved __________________________________ Witness ___________________________ (Witness Name)


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Aug 02, 2013 6:31 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 03, 2013 4:23 PM
Court order, No costs


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 03, 2013 4:23 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 03, 2013 11:26 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 03, 2013 11:26 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Fred Palmer

Aug 04, 2013 1:31 AM
BLACK TRIANGLE CAMPAIGN Everywhere in the Commonwealth the same thing happens. In Canada We have probably the most discriminatory legislation involving "injured workers". While everyone believes Canadians enjoy a high level of health care there is one group excluded from the Canada Health Act. While touted as being inclusive of all Canadians, injured workers are discriminated against and excluded if they accept Workers Compensation Insurance. To add further discrimination each Province of Canada removes an injured workers legal rights. How can any seriously injured person get well and back to work at something if they are denied all benefits and actually become sicker because of the medical neglect? Welfare and charities only provide very basic needs and sometimes not even enough for food or heat and light. Good honest, decent, hardworking, men and women having numerous insurance frauds committed against them that literally kills them. In Canada these agencies are disobeying a direct Order of the Supreme Court of Canada to compensate financially and medically for Chronic Pain caused by injuries. Forced into poverty and losing all they worked for, suffering unbearable pain, rights taken and subsequent psychological abuse, many injured workers commit suicide. Others die of heart attack, stroke, or ulcers bought on by Chronic Pain. This is happening in every workers compensation system. I call it genocide. Eugenics of the unfit, disabled. Everything mankind has fought against for thousands of years. Inequality and injustice kills us. The responsible party causing so much harm is the Crown. It is they who are supposed to protect the people from criminal insurance gangs cutting off medical and financial aid to seriously sick or injured people. It is they who allow, condone, permit, these bad faith insurance practices to happen. We are dealing with an International crime syndicate responsible for the murders of 100's of 1,000's of individuals they have deemed as "disabled". Once they have that evidence, the appeals and abuses start. As a matter of fact the Workers Compensation Board of Ontario, Canada, has declared me dead and have cut off my disability pension now for over a year. All I can say to that is; 'Don't you think I type quite eloquently for a dead man?" Rise up "injured workers" everywhere in the Commonwealth. Demand your basic rights to justice be enforced and demand the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of those responsible for these crimes against humanity. Demand the bonus system which is obtained illegal money taken as a percentage of denied serious injury claims be abolished. no more cutting off injured workers medications and therapies to obtain a bonus! Go to my site on Youtube. Watch my videos about 9/11 first Responders in America and their horrendous mistreatment. The Gulf Oil Spill victims, and many more. Are you a victim of 'compensation abuse"? Are you being neglected and abused and tortured with untreated Chronic Pain? Are you V.O.C.A.L. (Victims Of Compensation Abuse League) Keep speaking. Tell the world. Warn them.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523902665191E+016
Last Updated: Aug 04, 2013 1:31 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


LaNi Black

Aug 04, 2013 1:37 PM
http://vimeo.com/71587843


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523097369865E+016
Last Updated: Aug 04, 2013 1:37 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sirwade Firsbey

Aug 04, 2013 5:57 PM
The majority is always wrong and one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes.


Unique Facebook User ID: 4593312846627
Last Updated: Aug 04, 2013 5:57 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Kevin Flanagan

Aug 05, 2013 2:47 PM
Thought people in here might be interested in this:

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01524573361208E+016
Last Updated: Aug 05, 2013 2:47 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Neil Rowe

Aug 05, 2013 4:37 PM
Something is forming in the mist in my head. Wouldn't it be Conspiacy, in their private ministerial or administrative capacity and outside immunity for judicial acts, for a court official, expected to know the law and barred from pleading good faith ignorance of the same, to deprive one of rights, by imposing a corperate classification without rights, upon a natural living man, woman or child? I need help. Ive been trying to crack this code for 20 years. And I believe I have. What kind of crime is it to frame someone, from the jump, from the mail and wire fraud we all know it is? THAT should an Attorney, or Judicial officer, together or separately, in their private ministerial capacity, in the administration of their public duties, "conspire to deprive any person of rights," they most commonly succeed in such en-devours, by utilizing rules, regulations and statutes, known by them to be written and intended for fictional corporate entities or persons in commerce, misapplying and imposing these upon non fictional, unincorporated, living persons. THAT any private citizen acting as Private Attorney General may bring suit against any public official under rico for crimes of mail and wire fruad, including deprivation and interference with constitutional life, liberty, and property rights. RICO allows average citizens (private attorneys general) to sue those organizations or government officials in their private capacity that commit mail and wire fraud as part of their criminal enterprise. To date, there are over 60 federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. (Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000); Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722; See also Equal Access to Justice Act. Who's got the file on "Notice of Error and Grace to opposing counsel to ammend defective pleading?"


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Aug 05, 2013 4:37 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 05, 2013 10:17 PM
More candidates for National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 05, 2013 10:17 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Debbie Leidner

Aug 06, 2013 1:53 AM
I am so stressed out over being stressed out that I can't even remember why I'm stressed out and it's f***ing stressing me out!!!!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0202877239638E+016
Last Updated: Aug 06, 2013 1:53 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Daslow Aizelasi

Aug 06, 2013 7:48 AM
Any interested person may intervene in the proceedings or contest a judgment which, in fraud of his rights, has attributed juridical personality. 1991, c. 64, a. 332; 2002, c. 19, s. 15.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152350240057E+016
Last Updated: Aug 06, 2013 7:48 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


August le Blanc

Aug 06, 2013 2:12 PM
I am firing my lawyer. I have created a new original and voided all signatures. Is this the correct way?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Aug 06, 2013 2:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dino Disenfranchised

Aug 07, 2013 6:49 PM
I got to get a t-shirt press.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523100619462E+016
Last Updated: Aug 07, 2013 6:49 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 07, 2013 8:53 PM
Scott on- 'How the Canadian BILL OF RIGHTS is STILL IN FULL FORCE because it belongs to THE PUBLIC'- thread..... Derek Moran: Whats the equivalent of American PUBLIC LAW here in this country, as she (Monique Moon) was talking about...? Scott Duncan: Derek Moran might get some value out of these fuckwit-posts(tm) after all! You ask a VERY good question, and you have but to refer to THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS. THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS applies to YOU, and the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is a CORPORATE charter. They mislead by saying "Because the bill of rights had little effect in court, they made the CHARTER to REPLACE it... It didn't. The BILL OF RIGHTS is STILL IN FULL FORCE because it belongs to THE PUBLIC. Derek Moran: As i understand it, however, THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHT does NOT apply to PROVINCIAL matters? Scott Duncan: NOW a quick review on what PROVINCE means. PROVINCE=ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, and it most certainly DOES apply. What? you give up rights because you are in a GEOGRAPHIC region? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.html

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 07, 2013 8:53 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Neil Rowe

Aug 08, 2013 3:24 AM
State courts, pursuant to federal law, have no jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims, or claims against state government or agents of state government, acting in their private capacity outside the requirements and restrictions of law, so if you file a counter claim, of any kind, they pretty much snicker at your ignorance. Trust me, this is first hand knowledge, trial by error and LEGAL practice. Your counter complaint, ideally, is for a federal deprivation of rights or violation of federal law by the state, or state officer, WITH, and this is important, stated up front, like in the Heading, a "Counter complaint with PETITION FOR REMOVAL to federal district court exercising original jurisdiction over such claims," as such claims cannot be heard by the state, against the state, or an agent thereof, and you waive the right youve claimed to access a higher authority by not stating the jurisdiction of your claim, as any claim is required to provide its basis in jurisdiction of law. Dont be a hypocrite yo! Got the devil by his the tail covered in scales, Bro. Im practicing, and giving legal advice, with no licence, foot loose and fancy free. "It all depends on what your definition of 'is,' Is." - Bill Clinton


Unique Facebook User ID: 853360158011508
Last Updated: Aug 08, 2013 3:24 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




David Vilaca

Aug 08, 2013 4:42 PM
I have been here little more than a week. I've been aware for quite a while that for every enactment there is remedy and relief. The way I see it now is there is remedy in commerce and relief for the man. I have been solely focused on the human rights aspect, relief from Crown servitude, in that regard I gained standing as an individual. I've yet to manage the return of my property. I see now it will be through the tender for law. So... Grantor creates trust, Title,Bla bla bla, your momma. Held in the trust is my trusty my property, SOB, the International Bill (called a bill for a reason) of Rights. Uncontested claim of right and Court Ruling for the man as competent individual. (Prothonotary noted, "as for the plaintiff being an Individual and self represented, the motion is Granted, AT NO COST). Man creates Corporation, title, , charter the Corporation to hold the trust. The Corporate By Laws are to increase the value of the trust and pay the dividends to the shareholder. 100,000 shares 1 share holder. As a birthright I pocess a name and am beneficiary of said name. The minister of industry by default is the registrar general, yet the deputy dog ontario registrar provides surety via a mechanically reproduced signature on Certificated paper that it is held by the registrar. "Foundation Document" The birth certificate is the negotiable instrument, insofar as the Bank of Canada issued it through the treasury for a public purpose. So birthright, grantor of the living trust, liens negotiable instrument via the corporation for say a 100,000,000. Any time the name is used without prior written consent value should flow to the trust via the Corporation (first in line) in the form of set off, damages and or tender. All by public notice Think I just burn a bulb, good thing I have no faith, I'll be back to seek answers in the light of truth.


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 08, 2013 4:42 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 08, 2013 5:52 PM
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE - IS IT JUST AN INTERNET MEME? IS IT REAL? IS Scott Duncan going to SNAP with all the stupid questions? FIND OUT HERE! (updated August 8, 2013) Derek Moran: LIGHTBULB just went off! > (PROPER NOTICE because a BILL is a TENDER FOR LAW). As in- how can any CORPORATION deny you the ability to discharge your debt by way of the bill-payment-remittance THEY, sent YOU, in the first place?!? (Scott clicked LIKE) Derek Moran: ... a BILL is a TENDER FOR LAW.......did THEY, not TENDER it to ME?? Derek Moran: HOLY FUCK- so theres no need to go through all this Liening of the Property Tax Account Statement-instrument they sent us even to begin with..just accept the TENDER FOR LAW they offered us by sending in the bill-payment-remittance they provided!!! (Scott clicked LIKE) Scott Duncan: TENDER=CONDITIONALLY OPEN TO OFFERS. In this example I am going to use Gail Blackman. If you go to our corporate mail server http://mail.cdd.com, you will see a TENDER. In this tender you can use CASH, or "Serviced" for service. There are conditions. If she wishes to offer one of these for my services, she must abide buy the conditions. If she arrives at the table with empty pockets, she is aware that she must bend over that table and lift her skirt. Business has not commenced, even though she'd clearly "means business", by doing that. After she is "serviced", she is now qualified to avail herself of the services I offer. ...all sexual performance after the terms of the offer are fulfilled is purely recreational, and has nothing to do with the tender... like a tip. Server - mail.cdd.com - NO COMMERCE EXPECTED and/or IMPLIED mail.cdd.com Server - mail.cdd.com - NO COMMERCE EXPECTED and/or IMPLIED mail.cdd.com Derek Moran: I know-HUH??...what are they gonna do- take you court??.."You're the FUCKIN' guys who sent it to me in the first-place..i just accepted YOUR, OFFER!" (Scott clicked LIKE) Scott Duncan: THEY TENDERED, YOU ACCEPTED. Gail Blackman: hmm let's see if I'm getting this....I could present you with a counter conditional offer ? and is this what we are doing when we send money when we receive a bill? (Scott clicked LIKE) Scott Duncan: Yes... And I can reject the counteroffer, as I am the one who offered the tender. YOU would have to come to ME to do business. It's not COMMERCE as it is not an advertisement. YOU must SEEK OUT the tender. Derek Moran: As in, the City possibly saying- "Oh no, we dont accept payment THAT way."...."OH??..then WHY, did YOU, SEND it, to ME, in the FIRST PLACE???" (Scott clicked LIKE) Gail Blackman: so people are trying to pay their bills A4V, when all they have to do is to return the bill stating they accept the offer/tender which is the bill? (Scott clicked LIKE) Scott Duncan: Yes Gail. Scott Duncan: Gail Blackman, what does the STAMP on a cancelled cheque mean? Gail Blackman: accepted? Scott Duncan: See? Easy, and you didn't even have to put out. Gail Blackman: when sending it back..we simply write "Accept" on it? and if they question it, suggest they refer it to their legal dept? Gail Blackman: the question would come from their own ignorance...like no one ever "pays" like that...im sure they are only used to counter offers of money? Derek Moran: GAIL- i have a friend who has Crawford and Falconbridge's Bills of Exchange book which he said says, all you have to print is ACCEPT at the top of the bill...'ACCEPTED-FOR-VALUE,' ACCEPT-FOR-VALUE, or A4V, is not necessary Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma: And send it back to the offerer? Derek Moran: ..id take a photocopy of it before you registered-mail it Gail Blackman: I agree..I'm talking more about accounts receivable clerks who would receive the confirmation of acceptance...and put you in the list for not "paying" and cut your services Pete Daoust: You sent a registered mail envelop.??...how can they cut your service ??? Derek Moran: The bank they ultimately deal with, will turn your $100 property-tax-bill-payment-remittance, into $2300 worth of credit.. credit the $100 back to the City.. leaving $2200 leftover for the bank to try and rule-the-world with even more with it Derek Moran: AND..........it all started with YOUR signature, they reverse-engineered everything we THOUGHT we knew about money Scott Duncan: NO. You accepted the TENDER. The dozy broad in accounts will escalate the issue to management. It USUALLY pays out like Derek describes. Gail Blackman: I guess this is why they are soooo keen on automatic withdrawl to pay bills....they push it as a convenience for you but really it's for their own benefit...knew I never liked that offer Gail Blackman: So I'm clear....all i have to do is write "Accepted" on the bill and return it registered mail? Derek Moran: ..there are a number of other things id do to it myself, Gail Blackman Chad Brodgesell: @ Derek Moran, that's just 'fractional reserve banking though' isn't it? Derek Moran: Yup. Banks legally are allowed to counterfeit credit, basically. In Canada, the Fractional-Reserve-Rate/Ratio, is called either the CAPITAL ADEQUACY REQUIREMENT, or the ASSET CAPITAL MULTIPLE. However, no promissory note-representing-debt + your signature = NO, CREDIT, for THEM. The rate is 23 in Canada, btw. Chad Brodgesell: Nicely put. Was just checking cause we use different terms. I use general and you guys use the proper ones. This is how I approached the bank when I got my credit. I didn't know it was 23:1 though thought it was 12:1. Derek Moran: Barrons Law, BILL: a PROPOSITION or statement reduced to writing. In commercial law, an "account for goods sold, services rendered and work done." Derek Moran: BILL(LEGISLATION): a draft of a PROPOSED statute submitted to the legislature for enactment. Chad Brodgesell: I fired off a letter a while back asking the bank to clarify that it was my signature that created the credit to begin with and that on fractional reserve they had already been paid as their balance sheet would indicate and can they please send me a statement of account that was SIGNED by an authorized person. In 2 weeks time they had sold the account to a collection agency, never did get back to me. Not sure what I did was/is right but got them off my back. Derek Moran: BILL(NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS): Bills are all forms of paper money. see PROPOSITION, PROPOSED above Chad Brodgesell: well that was like a year ago, but last week I fired off reg mail to the collection agency for them to produce a valid claim against me and if they could not do so then a charge of $10k for them to keep bothering me. I'll see how it goes. Chad Brodgesell: This is the problem most of the time. Some stuff works but no one will verify WHAT it is that works. Chad Brodgesell: Now I don't know what this is worth, but, EVERY time I ask for a SIGNATURE from who ever is whatever with me....the door slams shut. Chad Brodgesell: I did get my former boss to ask the bank who was the GRANTOR of one of his buildings. Next week he told me he didn't want to talk about it. Derek Moran: CHAD- ask the bank for this: "...for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form." Derek Moran: The problem is, when we all opened-up a bank-account and never read the 10-page contract, they had language that apparently waived our right to discharge bill-payment-remittances in it. But, you cannot waive a right unless you did it with the express intent to. Derek Moran: on a financial instrument, you sign- 'without recourse' Chad Brodgesell: Just asked for A SIGNED document back saying that (in my very fukked up wording) what I said wasn't true. I then found out they sold the account. m, can't say sold, they just called and said the matter had been 'sent' to collections. Derek Moran: "the original instrument of indebtedness," is a promissory note, which considered to be the money you created with your signature.. and yes, they wont want to provide the original because its probably been marked-up from being Fraction-Banked, and evidence the bank has ALREADY been paid. Chad Brodgesell: so, in essence thru basic general english I asked them to DENY that they already had been paid as soon as I signed,,on the dotted line.? Derek Moran: You know what- on second thought, someone brought-up a good point..not only do i think the SIN# doesnt have to be on the BILL-payment-remittance, like someone said, i think it would be construed as a tacit-agreement that you're a Government-employee by doing that...maybe Scott can verify that one way or the other Kelleran Holman: Derek, does this notice then suggest that you agree that you are liable to a certain debt (it applies to you) to the Corp of Toronto, and now want to sort methods of settlement? Derek Moran: Good point.. they are not presenting it to Derek Moran.. they are presenting it to DEREK MORAN, they are just trying to get Derek Moran to act as SURETY for it Derek Moran: Kelleran- im doing this keeping in mind, that we do use the water..and they do pick-up our garbage-and-recycling.. this about enforcing the right to DISCHARGE debt, as opposed to PAYING them property-taxes with legal-tender from out of our pockets Derek Moran: I dont think it will make my fathers life easier for him by saying- "Just tell the City you dont feel like paying taxes anymore".. the City has given him the REMEDY, which is the bill-payment-remittance..im just trying to get him to wrap his mind around how credit is created Derek Moran: "As I have already noted, a promissory note, by definition, involves an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money, but it is not itself money...there is no liquidation of the debt until it is DISCHARGED..." http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1977/1977canlii36/1977canlii36.html CanLII - 1977 CanLII 36 (SCC) www.canlii.org Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Limited and Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Limited na...See More James Baal: Notice = valuable instrument = bill of exchange, exchange of what? Value .. Value= promissionary note, bond.... well debt! Government Notices are notifying of outstanding Value? Its up to me here how to tackle it, "its an offer"? I can Accept it for value, just create another promissioary note, or assume liabilty and act as surety and offer banknotes...or coupons...???? Jason F. LeBlanc: James, One suggest reading the bills of Exchange act and the Bank act. Empower yourself. Adam Thomas: Yeah Jim. Do what jason says mate. Then it'll all fall into place. NEVER EVER PAY WITH MONEY ( legal tender) IN THEIR COURTS. Use a BoE instead PERFECT. Adam Thomas: ORDERS also come under BOE. Judge ORDERS ye to no longer bend over & clutch ankles. YOU AMEND THE ORDER YOURSELF. Fuck this stuff is sooo POWERFUL.... I wonder what would happen if it actually fell into the wrong persons hands ? Derek Moran http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61 Bills of Exchange Act 1882 www.legislation.gov.uk An Act to codify the law relating to Bills of Exchange, Cheques, and Promissory Notes. Sonja Ruebsaat: can someone tell me more about how to go about this: "Wise-man once said to get a STAMP made up for the back of any bill-payment-remittances you want to try using to discharge debt with... and what would that STAMP read, for it to be most effective exactly?" I heard there is a stamp you can get made...connected to your bond...some sort of personal insignia and then you also write something on the bill/debt that it should be paid from your bond... Derek Moran: The STAMP, as i was told, is for the purpose of getting across the MESSAGE you want to CONVEY to the biller you're hoping has SOMEONE with the slightest knowledge of the purpose the bill-payment-remittance/coupon/voucher at the bottom of any particular BILL you are TENDERED from a biller is. Derek Moran: For instance- lets say a STAMP has room for only 4 or 5 lines on it...this is what I would put on MINE: BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1985 section 3. Thing done in good faith section 9. Common law of England section 57.1 Presumption of value (the most important one of all) �value� means valuable consideration. Derek Moran: If someone being paid a job to do on the other end doesnt understand any of this then that is not my fault..hire someone who is LEGALLY COMPETENT to deal with this. They TENDERED you a BILL, not to pay your debt, but, to DISCHARGE it, as PAYMENT of a debt is an IMPOSSIBILITY in lieu of GOLD being suspended-as-payment since 1933, and, you ACCEPTED it - what are they going to do, take you to court and tell the Judge that you had THE NERVE to ACCEPT what THEY tendered/OFFERED to you?? Derek Moran: Apparently, what i was told, is that CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND=BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and BIRTH CERTIFICATE=CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND, and that the Consolidated Revenue Fund is actually mentioned in the Bills of Exchange Act, but, i was unable to find it. Derek Moran: Things i am fuzzy on were, where the STAMP goes on the bill-payment-remittance; the front, or the back. Another one, was that the bill-payment-remittance should be mailed registered-mail to THE BANK OF CANADA, as the Bank of Canada is the ONLY organization in 'Canada' that is able to create money/CREDIT from our SIGNATURE. They can do this, as the Bank of Canada as i understand it ultimately, is the one holding onto our SECURITY OF THE PERSON in their Clearing and Settlements House; not sure if that is exactly the TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT, or, CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. Another one was, register-mailing it straight to the Bank of Canada without the second-signature presumably from the biller already on it, as Scott has driven-home-the-point enough times that you MUST have TWO SIGNATURES (us, the biller), and, a TRUSTEE (the Bank of Canada); this begs the question whether or not it should be register-mailed back to the BILLER first for it to be the second-signature, then, they send the bill-payment-remittance now with TWO SIGNATURES into the Bank of Canada if they want to get 'paid.' (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) Derek Moran: Another important point was that it is the BILL, not the INSTRUMENT/REMITTANCE which is marked ACCEPT, but the BILL, meaning the upper-portion of the document NORTH of the perforated-edging-line you ultimately tear across. You DO NOT mark ACCEPT on the INSTRUMENT itself. You are ACCEPTING the BILL. Then, using the INSTRUMENT/REMITTANCE, to DISCHARGE, the BILL. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) Scott Duncan: http://bit.ly/ZQ6GC4 Blake Gardner: I just indorse the private side and add my account number/social number, then send it to the CFO or the like with a brief cover letter outlining the tender and requesting a statement of zero account. Derek Moran: "I just indorse the private side".... what exactly does that mean- "the PRIVATE side"?.. i get lost in the whole public-side/private-side lingo Blake Gardner: The back of the instrument:-) like a cheque... The front is the public side... Derek Moran: So FRONT=PUBLIC=GOVERNMENT side... BACK=PRIVATE=US/OUR side, hmmm interesting. I would've assumed as US being the first-signature, that it just would've been put on the FRONT of the instrument... Scott Duncan: Look at any promissory note. It is always "BACKED BY" someone/something. Adam Thomas: Signature = SURETY. Blake Gardner: "Backed by" - "indorsed" = on the back of... Also as far as two signatures go, look up the word mark & seal - mark/logo/letterhead etc., is considered as their mark/signature/certification. So the front of these presentments/instruments usually have such identifying marks...it's also the reason most corporate correspondence usually comes without a signature but a letterhead/logo or the like instead. Derek Moran: Ohhh ok, so Scott, this is what you meant by when you said register-mail the bill-payment-remittance straight to the Bank of Canada, because, the biller already has their MARK/SEAL/SIGNATURE on the front of the instrument/remittance? Derek Moran: What required of corporation 5. In the case of a corporation, where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed, it is sufficient if the instrument or writing is duly sealed with the corporate seal, but nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the bill or note of a corporation to be under seal. http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-2.html#h-3 PART IGENERAL - Bills of Exchange Act lois-laws.justice.gc.ca Federal laws of canada Blake Gardner: Remittance is money sent by one person to another, either in specie, bill of ex- change, check, or otherwise. Derek Moran: Corporate Seal for the City of Toronto, although, i dont ever recall actually SEEING this before, let alone on the bill-payment-remittances: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_237.pdf Derek Moran: Another question is how exactly is the proper way to MARK a bill-payment-remittance for proper presentment-and-acceptance. Section 190. explains somewhat how a Consumer bill or note is to be marked. Other than that, as i understand it: 1. Print ACCEPT on the face of the BILL-payment remittance 2. the empty AMOUNT-BOX needs to be filled in..give'em a $10 tip so as to less of a reason to be mad with you 3. your SIGNATURE (thats a biggy) on the BACK (think 'Backed by'), not front, the BACK of the INSTRUMENT/REMITTANCE 4. putting WITHOUT RECOURSE after your SIGNATURE, just in case they want to scare you with some legalese-talk 5. putting the DATE on it would seem like a good idea 6. the STAMP/MESSAGE you want to CONVEY to them (not sure whether on front or back) 7. ??????????????????????? http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-38.html#h-28 PART V CONSUMER BILLS AND NOTES - Bills of Exchange Act lois-laws.justice.gc.ca Federal laws of canada ChiefRock Sino General: man, what is everyone going on about here. I can send them a friggin piece of used toilet paper, IF THEY KEEP IT , its agreed as accepted and settled. If i write 1000000 on it and sign, they keep it, its agreed its good for settlement. Retention is key here. Know how to hold your contract. its simple stop getting so god damn complicated and focusing on public laws and statues and this and that. If they keep it we got ourselves a binding agreement. Bills of exchange act can be good to keep them in line but just know, if it is kept its good as gold. who knows what benefit they got out of the used piece but i dont really care. If they send it back, they discharged the account to zero. Its a win win people !!!!!!!! Adam Thomas: 3 days. 72 hours. SETTLED & CLOSED. Blake Gardner: Go chief go...! A contract "if" you can keep it....exactly.... amidst the psychological onslaught of pre indoctrination & post neuro linguistic programming....private international law/contract. (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) Adam Thomas: INCHOATE INSTRUMENT ACCEPTED FOR VALUE RETURNED COMPLETE SUPRA PROTEST PAY THE SUM CERTAIN OF ONE AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR Adam Thomas: RECEIVED BY.............. Adam Thomas: Signature & date the above STAMP Adam Thomas: STAMP DUTY PAID Adam Thomas: SEE OVER FOR INDORSEMENTS Adam Thomas: ACCEPTED AS INDORSED Adam Thomas: NON NEGOTIABLE NON TRANSFERRABLE WITHOUT RECOURSE Adam Thomas: 5cent stamp on front. ALL INSTRUMENTS MUST HAVE " VALUABLE CONSIDERATION". Adam Thomas: $1 Australian stamp. PAID...SETTLED....CLOSED....ZEROING OF ACC... Adam Thomas: The NON NEGOTIABLE ETC ETC RUBBER STAMP GOES ACROSS THE TOP OF THE BoE. In RED INK. Adam Thomas: ALL RUBBER STAMPS ARE RED INK Adam Thomas: I hope that helps paint a picture of what the RUBBER STAMPS LOOK LIKE...visualize them stamps. Derek Moran: Hey Adam- so, just to play Devils Advocate here...i dont get the whole 5cent-stamp/$1 stamp stuff; to me, its quite clear what is considered the VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, it says it right there at least in OUR BoE here in 'Canada' in section 57.1: 57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value. http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-12.html#h-11 Holder in Due Course - Bills of Exchange Act lois-laws.justice.gc.ca Federal laws of canada Derek Moran: (Scott clicked 'Like' on this) 57. (1) "...SIGNATURE...IS...THE...VALUE" Of course, this is where Scott has wrote before that they like to keep the pieces spread-out and in different spots; �value� means valuable consideration. http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/page-1.html#h-2 Aladdin Sane: "Hey Adam- so, just to play Devils Advocate here...i don't get the whole 5cent-stamp/$1 stamp stuff;" A few years back, a man from Alberta posted photos of his setoff/discharge (to Enmax, I think, or some other utility company,) and on it he had a postal stamp that he signed through, and then about a year ago, I seen this cheque written by Abe Lincoln with a 2 cent stamp in the right top area also with a scribble through it from the top right corner diagonally. Scott, can you tell me why this stamp with a signature through it is added? Aladdin Sane: Forgot the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086848/Check-President-Abraham-Lincoln-wrote-day-killed-discovered-bank-vault.html Aladdin Sane: Is the UPU the highest jurisdiction? Blake Gardner: Value/consideration Blake Gardner: Currency Adam Thomas: Its LAWFUL CURRENCY. NOT LEGAL TENDER. Adam Thomas: TRUST LAW IS THE HIGHEST....WANK... Blake Gardner: And what is a trust but a contract:-) Derek Moran: TRADING STAMPS has its own section in the Criminal Code here in Canada. Kate of Gaia has covered about how people have no idea just how much of an influence the UPU has over the rest of the world. Theres some sort of document out there that covers it at length too..a treaty, i think David Johansen YOU cancel the stamp which enjoins them as a party, subjecting the document to mail fraud if it is not accepted Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes: I think I liked Chiefrocks answer the best... But if we are talking about affixing stamps and all that... The UPU is considered higher than any government, hence the power of the stamp...which, as I have come to understand it, is to be affixed to the BACK bottom corner. That is the very end of the document....kinda like you having the last say, and is to be signed diagonally in certain colors, like purple or gold. Some stuff: http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=195295 Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes: Some better stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4h9Qi9brs&feature=youtube_gdata_player Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes ...after oh....three or four minutes into the above video....youll quickly see why I prefer to stick to chiefs response lol Blake Gardner: Yeah - simplicity is easier to hold, communicate and stand on:-) Derek Moran: Reprobata pecunia liberat solventem. Money refused releases the person paying (or offering payment). Derek Moran:i think theres another Maxim in there somewhere that basically says the same thing, too Adam Thomas: Thats what the $1 aussie postage stamp is. PAYMENT. Adam Thomas: Paying a fiction with a fiction. Perfect. Adam Thomas: A $1 stamp with the queen is even better. Adam Thomas: Its THEIR VALUE BELIEF SYSTEM. Use it to settle any & every ALLEGED DEBT. Adam Thomas: It cost $1. Blake Gardner: Stamps have recognized/authorized value/currency in the public. Blake Gardner: Alternatively you can just use your signature if one dollar is too much, as obligation-debt is money...tender for law...payment for contract:-) Adam Thomas: I just leart this absolute HEAD FUCK OF A WORD. SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE. Off topic I know but that would be the 2 words that lawyers the world over would be spanking themselves stupid over. It's the LAWYERS WHORE.The English language. Derek Moran: my favourite two-word terms: ULTRA VIRES...PRIMA FACIE...MALA FIDES Blake Gardner: Like the Jesuit justification for everything is EQUIVOCATION - the doctrine of mental reservation/equivocation has a lot of relevance in judiciary, me thinks:-) Shawn Ofthefamily Folkes You can actually use your thumb print....if we are gonna go down the stamp road. And yes Blake... that public should be Public...as in universal public. It (stamps) certainly have an assigned value. The basic unit I believe is $.02 U.S. this is the lowest universal standard for the minimum cost of a stamp. It is the most basic tender for law, your most basic payment for contract, because when governments fail some system must be in place that ensures exchanges can occur between peoples in the case old government failure and collapse so a new one can be reestablished . A system has to be in place (and is) where people can continue to do shit -like contract with each other, the basis of all shit, and have some universal system in place so that shit can get done, no matter what....including what currency. This is where a completely electronic currency would should and will come in place....for one thing...no borders. No empty Forts full of metals we rape out of the ground that are more available in countries that....without it....would contribute Jack shit to the global economy. Other than our fucking greed, gold, for example, like silver and copper....makes a great conductor for electronics and should be used and valued as such. Anyhow.... I get why sheeps dont get shit. See...it all begins with understanding that money is debt. They CANNOT admit that. Once you admit that the answer is very simple: get rid of money and you get rid of debt. And since most politicians talk about debt, youd be getting rid of the need for most of them. Most of the "police" people wouldnt be needed. Youd be getting rid of greed....like our greed for gold thats really just another fucking metal. That I don't believe in. But nooooo you cant get rid of money because money is debt and debt exists to fuel greed and getting rid of greed? there's too much money in that. Money....? Ah! Adam Thomas: POLLEX = THUMB PRINT = BETTER THAN SIGNATURE!! Adam Thomas: BoE Act is near on identical except for a few different words here & there. Joseph Davia: Here in NZ theres a guy on fb - look/search for "Pirate Bill Turner NZ" he has a few vids on there regarding this subject....but have had a friend try this process to pay ACC levies - they sent it all back to him stating they don't accept this form of payment and threatened him with "using a document to gain pecuniary advantage" they also quoted the law regarding stamp duty in NZ but they still refused the payment. Adam Thomas: It's a Bill of Exchange. They're in total DISHONOUR. CHECK MATE FOOLS !! Blake Gardner: Payment (instrument) refused without a notice of defect in the instrument or notice of dishonor from the drawee is discharge of debt - plus all that you would request in an affidavit signed under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Also if their statement contained a direct threat without the use of may or might ect, that's a tort... Gerry Cardinalli: Blake Gardner... ACC here in NZ replied with "You have attempted to produce an inchoate instrument under the Bills of Exchange Act 1908. We do not accept this form of payment." New Zealands Law takes its definitions from Butterworth's Law Dictionary which defines the word 'inchoate' as the following... "Begun but not completed. An inchoate offence is a preliminary offence such as attempt, conspiracy or incitement. An inchoate instrument is a partial or unfinished document or enactment. See Bills of Exchange Act 1908, s20. Joseph Davia: thanks Gerry - I didn't have the exact wording relating to their reply-still a refusal to accept is still a refusal to accept..? Adam Thomas: Theyre in DISHONOUR...CHECKMATE... Adam Thomas: The 5cent postage stamp with the RUBBER STAMP STATING.....STAMP DUTY PAID .....ON TOP OF THE 5CENT STAMP IS JOINDER FOR THE CROWN. IT BINDS THEM TO THEIR ACTS TO FUCKING ACT....IT IS THUS A CROWN INSTRUMENT. Adam Thomas: NON NEGOTIABLE NON TRANSFERRABLE WITHOUT RECOURSE FINISHES & COMPLETELY COMPLETES THE INCHOATE INSTRUMENT OR FINALISES THE INSTRUMENT. ..V O I L A...LAWFUL CURRENCY HAS BEEN CREATED TO SETTLE & DISCHARGE. F I N I S H E D !! Returned COMPLETE. Blake Gardner: Gerry Cardinalli - you gotta love the stuff they come up with dont ya...but mate I didn't hear any specific defect in the instrument mentioned in that paragraph, did you?:-) Adam Thomas: Bills of Exchange is where Real Remedy lays.... ORDERS from JUDGES....AMENDABLE INSTRUMENTS Adam Thomas: Yeah Gerry, how was the instrument NOT a BoE ?? How long a time did they hold the VALUABLE INSTRUMENT FOR GERRY?? Adam Thomas: But Gerry, let them take YOU to their courts & do the EXACT SAME THING WITH THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT/ INSTRUMENT ( ORDER)& FINISH THE KUNT FOR GOOD....2 WORDS N O N A M E N D A B L E. Adam Thomas: The judge's signature does not make the ORDER/ BoE COMPLETED. Adam Thomas: Its still INCHOATE Adam Thomas: Do the RUBBER STAMPS make the cheques bounce?? Harold Austerman: www.assistingvesel.com Harold Austerman: http://assistingvessels.wordpress.com/ Harold Austerman: ^^^^^^^Involving the authority of the UPU is automatically invoked by the use of postage stamps. Utilization of stamps includes putting stamps on any documents (for clout purposes, not mailing) we wish to introduce into the system. As long as you use a stamp (of any kind) you are in the game. If you have time, resources, and the luxury of dealing with something well before expiration of a given time frame, you can use stamps that you consider ideal. The most preferable stamps are ones that are both large and contain the most colors. In an emergency situation, or simply if economy is a consideration, any stamp will do. Using a postage stamp and autograph on it makes you the postmaster for that contract. Whenever you put a stamp on a document, inscribe your full name over the stamp at an angle. The color ink you use for this is a function of what color will show up best against the colors in the stamp. Ideal colors for doing this are purple (royalty), blue (origin of the bond), and gold (king's edict). Avoid red at all cost. Obviously, if you have a dark, multi-colored stamp you do not want to use purple or blue ink, since your autograph on it would not stand out as well if you used lighter color ink. Ideally one could decide on the best color for his autograph and then obtain stamps that best suit one's criteria and taste. Although a dollar stamp is best, it is a luxury unless one is well off financially. Otherwise, reserve the use of dollar stamps for crucial instruments, such as travel documents. The rationale for using two-cent stamps is that in the 19th Century the official postage rate for the de jure Post Office of Adam Thomas: STAMP DUTY PAID Derek Moran: Gerry Cardinalli- do you have an 'Anything Done In Good Faith' section in your BoE, as we do here in Canada, its section 3. for us... INCHOATE INSTRUMENT = "im flyin' fuckin' blind here cuz my SERVANTS wont give me an honest answer to my honest question as to how it should be filled-out properly then!" Derek Moran: In our The Dictionary of Canadian Law, the exact term they use here is: WITHOUT RECOURSE TO ME... thanks Adam, im gonna add that to my stamp Derek Moran: WITHOUT RECOURSE TO ME: a phrase used to protect the indorser of a NOTE or BILL from LIABILITY. The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 4th-edition. Derek Moran: 30 Presumption of value and good faith (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is prima facie deemed to have become a party thereto for value. Value means valuable consideration. 91 Good faith A thing is deemed to be done in good faith within the meaning of this Act where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0015/latest/DLM137816.html Bills of Exchange Act 1908 www.legislation.govt.nz Bankrupt includes any person whose estate is vested in a trustee or assignee under the law for the time being in force relating to bankruptcy Derek Moran: Hey Adam- our BoE must be different here in Canada, just did a search on 'amendable,' 'non-amendable,' 'usury'...nuthin' came up Chad Brodgesell: May I add something here for simplicity, When I look at a 'Bill' I see what looks like a Cheque and on said 'Cheque' it states right on it, "Please make cheque Payable to blahblah". "Do not send Cash" Mmmm, if I'm not supposed to send cash and they have specifically told me to make said Cheque (they didn't say "write a cheque and send it to us. It says "Make cheque Payable to" (If they are not talking about this cheque then 'what' cheque are they talking about?) On the next one I get my wife and I are going to simply write the amount in write Value Accepted across the face, Make Payable to blahblah


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 08, 2013 5:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 08, 2013 8:51 PM
So Canadian Bank Notes are strictly made for PERSONS legally ? No HUMANS are suppose to touch these NOTES ? If you admit touching it, then you admit being a LEGAL PERSON ? If I have a $20 bill in my pocket, it's the PERSON who hold it legally, not "ME" ? These are questions....almost affirmations....


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 08, 2013 8:51 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 08, 2013 9:32 PM
Scott on how we were registered as a NEGOTIABLE SECURITY INTEREST- thread.... Scott Duncan: OK time to shut up, monique. That is not true. They do not register you as a "Corporation". Who are the shareholders? Who are the directors? You are registered as a NEGOTIABLE SECURITY INTEREST, nothing more. Stop saying they register you as a "corporation" because it's NOT TRUE. Monique Moon: your all capitol letter name is your corporate person... Scott Duncan: NO, it is NOT. It doesn't matter what your "gurus" say, it's not true. It is a SECURITY INTEREST. NOTHING MORE. SECURITY INTEREST: A property interest created by agreement or by operation of law to secure performance of an obligation (esp. repayment of a debt) .� Although the UCC limits the creation of a security interest to PERSONAL PROPERTY (ahem), the Bankruptcy Code defines the term to mean- "a LIEN created by an agreement." Black's Law 9th. SECURITY INTEREST: interest in real property or personal property, that secures the payment of an obligation. In common law, security interests are either consensual (by agreement), or arise by OPERATION OF LAW, as in the case of judgment LIENS and statutory LIENS. Barron's Dictionary of Business Terms 4th-edition. Monique Moon: your the security interest... its all under their commerce admiralty/maritime laws.....its all based on contracts... they cannot interface with u unless u agree to it... we are the security...again our labor our efforts our words our energy... Scott Duncan Which you know NOTHING about, CLEARLY. Then shut up and read. You are saying things that are NOT TRUE. This is your LAST warning. SECURITY: Components of a security are: (1) an investment of money. (2) in a common enterprise. (3) with an expectation of profits SOLELY from the EFFORTS OF OTHERS Finance SECURITY: COLLATERAL offered by a debtor to a lender to secure a loan, called COLLATERAL SECURITY. INVESTMENT Security: an INSTRUMENT that signifies an ownership position in a corporation (a STOCK), a CREDITOR relationship with a corporation or GOVERNMENTAL BODY (a BOND), or other ownership rights. SECURITIES > BOND: essentially, a loan agreement representing a debt. In return for the capital given to a corporation or a government entity, the bondholder gets a promise of repayment of principal and interest over time, instead of ownership rights. Since the holder of a bond is a creditor instead of an owner, his claims against the assets of a corporation are satisfied first in case of a failure of the business venture. Most bonds are secured by some kind of COLLATERAL(that would be US), so that in case of default, the debt might still be satisfied. Consequently, bonds are generally a lower risk investment. Bonds raise money commonly known as Debt Capital. BOND: any INTEREST-bearing or discounted government or corporate security that OBLIGATES the ISSUER to PAY the BONDHOLDER a specified sum of money, usually at specific intervals, and to repay the principal amount of the loan at maturity. Bondholders have an IOU from the ISSUER, but no corporate ownership privileges, as stockholders do. Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms 3rd-edition. BEARER BONDS: an owner of Bearer Bonds presents the bond-COUPONS and is PAID INTEREST. Bearer Bonds are NEGOTIABLE instruments that must be safeguarded by the owner to prevent loss. Interest is paid by coupon redemptions. SEE security bond, treasury bond. REGISTERED BONDS: the owner of Registered Bonds appears on the records of the Bond ISSUER. SECURED BOND: is backed by COLLATERAL which may be sold the bondholder to satisfy a claim if the bond's issuer fails to pay interest and principal when they are due. UNSECURED BOND or DEBENTURE: is backed by the full-faith-and-credit of the issuer, but NOT by any specific collateral. CONVERTIBLE BOND: gives its owner the privilege of exchange for OTHER securities of the issuing company at some future date and under prescribed conditions. A BOND in FINANCE, is the obligation of one person to repay a debt taken on by SOMEONE ELSE, should that other person default. A bond can also be MONEY or securities deposited as a pledge of good faith. SURETY or PERFORMANCE BOND: an agreement whereby an insurance company becomes liable for the performance of work or services provided by a contractor by an agreed-upon date. If the contractor does not do what was promised, the surety company is financially responsible. See also INDENTURE; ZERO COUPON SECURITY. ..so who gets paid the INTEREST-COUPON-REDEMPTIONS? Derek Moran: AMERICAN DEPOSITORY RECEIPT(think REVENUE RECEIPT): a receipt issued by American banks to domestic buyers as a convenient substitute for direct ownership of stock in FOREIGN(CROWN Corporation of BRITAIN) companies. ADRs are traded on stock exchanges(i think CANADA is trade on the Luxembourg stock-exchange) and in over-the-counter markets like stocks of domestic companies. Stock dividends and similar adjustments to the underlying shares are paid in cash or ADR dividends by the BANK(OF CANADA?) Derek Moran: Scott.. CANADA the CORPORATIONS shares are traded on the stock-exchange of LUXEMBOURG, if i am not mistaken? Scott Duncan: They are. Scott Duncan: People need to know what a CORPORATION is. A CORPORATION MUST HAVE: A FIRST DIRECTOR SHAREHOLDERS GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT And a RECEIVING TRUSTEE (Bank) You AND your Birth Certificate are NOT THESE THINGS. It's closer to a $20.00 Bill than it is to a "Corporation". EVERYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS LYING TO YOU. WeLove JessicaDawn AndOthers: CHARLES MORELAND (negotiable security interest) -->>PERSON. Pete Daoust: CHARLES MORELAND seems to me as an account....not a corporation....this is an account with surety attached to it... and YOU (whatever the name YOU want to use...I use MASTER) are the LAWFUL HOLDER OF THIS CHARLES MORELAND account You are the SOLE beneficiary of the account you just have to wait until someone is fucking around with the SURETY I'm pierre or peter or pete or Babe or Dad, and I'm the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of this account that his creators named PIERRE DAOUST I'm the sole beneficiary of this account I'm the MASTER of this account...and it seems to me that someone is messing around with the account's surety


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 08, 2013 9:32 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 09, 2013 4:37 PM
Adam Thomas on the significance of the LIEBER CODE- thread..... Adam Thomas: Has anyone in this group actually read the LIEBER CODE ?? Section 30-31?? I think ? Abraham Lincoln, wrote it with another lawyer sheila kunt. It's about conduct of armies during the civil war on the battlefield. It morphed into the geneva convention....now its international LAW......... Accredited by the bar bastards....indorsed & backed by them kunts to use against us. How about that for a whole new level of sneaky kuntitis???? Hoho they love laughing at us


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 4:37 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Derek Moran

Aug 09, 2013 5:11 PM
Pierre, Chad and David Johansen, on the significance of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE being LAMINATED and/or NOT LAMINATED- thread..... Pete Daoust: Why if I plastify the birth certificate, it becomes no more valid ? same reason as if I plastify a $20 Bank Note I guess... Same thing with a freaking CHECK David Johansen: because it CANT be cancelled... you cant endorse a cheque if it's plastic encased, you could remove that and claim it was never endorsed. David Johansen: laminated with 2" wide clear packing tape!, we do that sometimes with the wide 4" rolls, as a laminate for a soc sec card or other thing they say not to! ..|., them. Pete Daoust: So they are ASSUMING that, one day, someone will INdorse the birth certificate ?? Pete Daoust: So they don't want me to laminate it for that reason ? David Johansen: the other reason would be the raised seal. you cant feel a raised seal through a lamination. Chad Brodgesell: I think in the end to make simple of it is if you laminate the B.C. then you have altered it. The plastic is melted in to the fibers of the bond paper there by altering it. Putting it in a plastic sleeve is better. The question of laminating documents has come up a lot. If the issuers of said document did not issue it laminated (such as the D.L.) then it should not be ALTERED. Pete Daoust: OK Chad Brodgesell, we ALL know that if we laminate the BC with plastic film, it will be altered....the question was: WHY is it we can NOT do it, why is it we can NOT alter it... Chad Brodgesell: YOU CAN NOT FUCKING ALTER THE SAID DOCUMENT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. Pete Daoust: The answer would be more like: NO! there are detailed security features on a birth certificate that is not originally laminated. If you laminate/tape etc it will NOT be accepted. So I don't see anything related to AUTHORITY in this, the security features seems to be the reason, like laminating a $10 bill would make the same effect.....That is the MOST valuable answer I've find so far.... Chad Brodgesell: Security features. Mmmmmm.. So if you laminated it these features would not be able to be inspected properly. SO IF YOU FUCKING LAMINATED IT THAT WOULD """ALTER""" THE THING TO THE POINT WHEN THOSE SECURITY FEATURES WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE. Plus, you DO NOT have the AUTHORITY to alter the document. Derek Moran: My BC is laminated. I, nor my family did it. Went to ServiceOntario to ask questions regarding it. The girl at the counter automatically gave me shit for it when she saw it was laminated. After i went- "AHEM," she took a look at the date of it and went- "OH, well...we stopped doing that SINCE then." She did tell me that one of the numbers on it, was a- "tracking number." The number she was referring to, was the CUSIP number... Chad Brodgesell: Yes those are the results of ALTERING without the authority too. Forgery is not altering a document, it is creating a new one without the authority to do so. Who-are You Frisbey: well sure they can laminate it it's theirs it's their property they made it they can do with it what they want Chad Brodgesell: The act of altering or creating something CREATES the offence of forgery and/or counterfeiting...when you do not have the authority to do so Who-are You Frisbey: they also have to prove intent Chad Brodgesell: If you do not have the authority to alter and/or create something but you go ahead and do it then by one or more of those actions you have committed the offence of forgery and/or counterfeiting. Whether you get caught and/or convicted is a different story. Chad Brodgesell: Pete Daoust do you have the authority to create a B.C.? A Canadian Bank Note? A D.L.? No you do not. So if you alter or create those then you have committed a crime. Do you comprehend that? Pete Daoust: So if you alter or create those then you have committed a crime: And who will be the injured partie.. ? If I laminate a BC, it is a crime ?, if I cut a $20 in 4, it is a crime ? Chad Brodgesell: Yes Pete Daoust , "If you do not have the authority" think about that. That would only apply to something within the jurisdiction of the authority in the first place. Pete Daoust: Sorry....it dosen't make sense when you bring this authority thing in the picture....where have you got that information ?....common sense ?...I just can't get it, and I will prove you this, I will get my BC out as we speak, I will write FUCK YOU on it, and I garanty you that NOTHING will happen, I will use one of the 20 certified copy if I need it in the future... I can do the same with a $20 bill I also have in my pocket Who-are You Frisbey: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership Daniel J Wentz: I've known Scott Duncan, a very long time. All of this will be used against you later on. That's the only reason he doesn't just ban you. I've had my finger poised on the button myself. You may have figured this out by now, but Scott is a lot smarter than any of you. Everything he does is with a reason. I suspect someone is going to be a teaching aid and/or object lesson. I could be wrong, but I've seen this all before.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 5:11 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Aug 09, 2013 5:12 PM
This is crazy they include a copy of the voided order in the Application And Affidavit For Order To Enter And Search For Child. But they wont give me copy directly, only a previously copied version stamped true certified.


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 5:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Aug 09, 2013 6:12 PM
I have a couple of stupid/crazy questions. Is a court order not a contract? If one doesn't adhere to the order but the other party (cps) still keeps it going, then the contract is valid? But if both sides don't adhere to it, does it not make it null and void on that basis alone? For example CPS wants us to take a Parental Capacity Assessment and Psychological evaluation, we said no and that is why they pulled in the reins on our supervised access from being in the home to in their office for only two hours a week. But since this little situation with the kid having left foster care, and being returned, now they have decided that we get no visitation till the next court date at least ( and they are then looking to have the kids put into permanent care). So now they have broken their order by not allowing visitation, or getting that in judge approved to stop all visits for now. Or am I totally out to flipping lunch here?


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 6:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 09, 2013 8:02 PM
The placeholder-thread for what the SIGNIFICANCE of the SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER is Jason LeBlanc asked Scott Duncan about in which Scott 'implied' that would be- "...an article in itself." (hint-hint) :) Jason F. LeBlanc: What is the significance of the S.I N.? Scott Duncan: Oh THAT is an article in itself. Scott Duncan: Lien that one YOURSELF. Social Insurance Number. Social "security" number... Nothing to do with you. LIEN THAT FUCKER. Jason F. LeBlanc: One thought that was already attached to lien on Legal Person. It is not part of ...... Oh.... It's an account? Scott Duncan: IT'S ALL ACCOUNTING. Jason F. LeBlanc: The lien I have is for All Personal Property present and after. So it is not Personal property linked to the legal name? It is the government account. That makes sense. **Jason F. LeBlanc: Fuck. I just got the meaning of the SIN card..... Insures compliance... (SCOTT CLICKED LIKE)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 8:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Michael Af Sj�lland

Aug 09, 2013 8:14 PM
Recently I've been thinking, trying to get back to real basics, what is my name - who owns it? Is it mine? And if it is then where is the proof? Seroiusly, if MY name is MINE where is proof of ownership? This is where I need to start. Quite frankly I don't feel confident in saying 'My name is such-and.such,cos folk,s I'm not sure it really is MINE. Now I wouldn'nt want to participat in a fraud, so if if isn't MINE then why should I use it? Here in tender for law the subject may have been broached but I can't find it (help me please if my facebook searching is inadequate). Scott this is your place, maybe I missed something...you know. What I'm getting at is: I've given up all benefits from the state and declared independence, and I'm comfortable with that. But a few questions remain, maybe others ask this too: .....oh shit...nobody wants to address this... oh what the fuck, I'm just gonna say it... COUNTRIES. Yeah, slave camps. "I'm a proud American, OR I'm a proud Canadian OR i'm a proud Norwegian or Tongan OR I'm a...you get the idea. Please folks get out of that mindset, we're just folks trying to get along. All that crazy freeman stuff is great wheh you've got 'constitutions' and 'bills of rights' and stuff, but did you ever think that folks in the old world haven't got that? We REALLY don't have that, but we're folks like you. We're under ancient monarchies. We really all need to pull together and realise that old borders are crap. Powerise your Bullshit-O-Meter, and see that when it smells like shit is probably is SHIT. We gotta pull together. And about the Name...I need to know I own it or I'm not going to use it. Verbiage welcome :)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02064971488079E+016
Last Updated: Aug 09, 2013 8:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Gardynik

Aug 10, 2013 3:15 AM
Hi folks. I was wondering if there is anyone in the Oshawa area that is willing to mentor? I would like to see someone actually assert they're rights and have it honored.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02046759172396E+016
Last Updated: Aug 10, 2013 3:15 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sirwade Firsbey

Aug 10, 2013 9:28 AM
http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DngpsJKQR_ZE%26feature%3Dshare&h=3AQH5oG94&enc=AZNKcV70jry2he0w8Jj3mIn5onlKK0F6J3jTnwCM9JJZa5iJbbj36COkL4KblZw6ewPR3WWH71SqX-LEd5Nx-4LJy8HGBfAascWSGAv8uTAVfFo4Er12dHSWw1d9PsbhnC6gKpQzlQgaSFkNsez8Pc85&s=1


Unique Facebook User ID: 4593312846627
Last Updated: Aug 10, 2013 9:28 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Aug 10, 2013 4:15 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Aug 10, 2013 4:15 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Michael Af Sj�lland

Aug 11, 2013 12:16 AM
A maxim of law says: "An error in the name is immaterial if the body is certain". Any ideas as to what this means with respect to the PERSON?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02064971488079E+016
Last Updated: Aug 11, 2013 12:16 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 11, 2013 12:31 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 11, 2013 12:31 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




J.P. Alexander

Aug 12, 2013 2:55 AM
The protest must be annexed to the bill or must contain a copy thereof and must be under the hand and seal of the notary making it, and must specify:(1)The time and place of presentment;(2) the fact that presentment was made and the manner thereof;(3) the cause or reason for protesting the bill;(4) the demand made and the answer given,if any,or the fact that the drawee or acceptor could not be found."^^ The signature of the notary may be printed;^^*andneitherthe seal nor the signature of the notary need be proved.-^^" A certificate of the protest of a foreign bill of exchange is no proof of the drawer's refusal to accept or pay the bill, unless properly authenticated by the seal of the officer before whom the protest was made.


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Aug 12, 2013 2:55 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 12, 2013 10:01 PM
Repair and Storage LIEN Act - Ontario Refers to lien claimants that are in possession of an ARTICLE that is subject to a LIEN: � 28. (1) Where an article that is subject to a lien is in the lien claimant�s possession, the lien claimant, (a) shall use reasonable care in the custody and preservation of the article, UNLESS A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE IS IMPOSED BY LAW; and (b) unless otherwise agreed, (i) shall keep the article IDENTIFIABLE ("Revenue Receipt - For Treasury Use Only(?)"), and (ii) may CREATE A SECURITY INTEREST under the Personal Property Security Act in the article, but only upon terms that DO NOT IMPAIR A RIGHT OF REDEMPTION under that Act or this Act. �article� means an item of tangible personal property other than a fixture; �lien claimant� means a person who is entitled to claim a lien for the repair, storage or storage and repair of an article;

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 12, 2013 10:01 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 13, 2013 4:09 AM
Im curious Adam Thomas- that night awhile back you shit-on Derek Hill for calling you a bullshitter, where exactly IN the Australian Bills of Exchange Act does it EXPRESSLY talk about how a BoE is either AMENDABLE and/or NON AMENDABLE? Im having trouble finding where it EXPRESSLY says that...and here, ill make it easy for you: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00128 Adam Thomas: Pete, I've alteady asked for your phone number but ye refused to hive it. Derek Moran, what's your excuse again?? NOTICE TO THE TENDER FOR LAW My EXCUSE, for NOT giving Adam Thomas MY phone-number, is a rather simple one. Im not REQUIRED to give him it. AND, he's not even FUCKING QUALIFIED to be ASKING and/or it seems like DEMANDING it here from me to BEGIN WITH. QUO WARRANTO. . .ULTRA VIRES. . .COLORE OFFICII. . .KOO-KOO. . .for KUNT-KUNT PUFFS Signed, "Fap-fap, larf-larf, KUNT-KUNT, BETTER THAN DOIN' ACID, 2+2=4, SUCKING COCK, COCK-SUCKING, and i wouldnt even realize if i had become a caricature-of-myself it it happened - I AM THE ROOOOOOOSTER, DEREK HILL!" Speechless. . . . .sad, really Adam Thomas What the fuck are ye doing Derek? ? Why the fuck are so many in t4lg fucked off with ye including ME?? START FUCKING LISTENING & BACKING EVERYONE IN T4LG OR LET SUM ONE ELSE BE ADMIN. STOP PULLING SHIT FROM YOUR ASS. STOP BACKING THAT DEREK HILL KUNT....OR....NOT....YOU'RE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A SELF ABSORBED EGO SPANKING PARROT THAT'S HIDING BEHIND A SKIRT.....START WALKING & TALKING & BACKING OR ......?? I'll let you fill in the gaps ok mate. Good-fucking bye. 12:05pm Adam Thomas Oooppss. ..I nearly forhot the KUNT. Better. Fixed now.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 4:09 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Aug 13, 2013 4:21 AM
Where a bill is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted with in the prescribed time,the person presenting it must treat the bill as dishonored by non-acceptance,or he loses the right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers. "When a bill is dishonored by non-acceptance an immediate right of recourse against the drawers and indorsers accrues to the holder,and no presentment for payment is neccessary.


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 4:21 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Aug 13, 2013 2:52 PM
A cancellation made unintentionally,or under a mistake,or with out the authority of the holder,is inoperative; but where an instrument or any signature thereon appears to have been cancelled,the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges that the cancellation was made unintentionally,or under a mistake or without authority


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 2:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Mick Parker

Aug 13, 2013 7:00 PM
this arrived from the District court clerk & here is my proposed response, any insights/corrections most welcome...... AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE for MICHAEL PARKER. FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION. TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF CLERK, DISTRICT COURT. TOM WARD An envelope arrived at the address of my person from YOU in your Public Office. In a correspondence in that envelope, signed by YOU, TOM WARD on 7 August 2013, YOU address a Mr. Roche in the matter of MICHAEL PARKER. WHO is Mr Roche & what is his involvement in this matter? I have NO knowledge of this PERSON. I seek clarity and understanding on his involvement in this matter. On what authority do you believe he can act AND/OR MAKE DETERMINATIONS/accept legal ADVICE for MICHAEL PARKER. Why have YOU caused this confusion TOM WARD? I cannot take action while you deny me understanding and lack of understanding negates contract. Contained in that envelope were also documents which I had sent to YOU under clear instruction that they were to be placed on the relevant court file. YOU HAVE FAILED AND/OR REFUSED . On what Authority have YOU FAILED AND/OR REFUSED MY instruction? YOUR actions may constitute an unlawful interference ,dereliction of duty AND/OR YOUR Complicity in FRAUD. YOU will provide me with the authority AND/OR Court rule/procedure YOU applied in this matter which allowed you make summary judicial determinations on documents YOU were instructed to put in the Court file by ME, Keeping in mind that you must follow court rules AND/OR procedures only in so far as they do NOT conflict with the purpose law or the right of the PERSON. YOU WILL DOCUMENT AND VERIFY ALL YOUR ACTIONS up to this point while stating your observations of your duty to me. YOU, TOM WARD will now as a matter of public function and in accordance with law, release to me the full details of the PERSON ACTING AS SURETY claiming CONTRACT AND/OR AUTHORITY UNDER HIS OWN LIABILITY which would give rise to THIS claim. As is my right to know. Failing to substantiate your super powers to hurdle law, logic and higher jurisdiction, YOU, TOM WARD, Chief Clerk, PUBLIC SERVANT WILL as a matter of lawful OBLIGATION AND/OR Fiduciary PUBLIC DUTY WILL Place the RELEVANT documents NOW IN YOUR CUSTODY . BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND NOTICES of MISTAKE,DECLARATION OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT, DEFAULT on the relevant Court file. ANY PERSON acting on AND/OR stating court procedure AND/OR legislative rule of contract in contradiction to the purpose of law or in contradiction of MY AND/OR MY PERSONS RIGHTS WILL be considered to be committing a FRAUD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Authorised Representative


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152746075001E+016
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 7:00 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 13, 2013 7:29 PM
Can we discuss this ?....without bullshit insert..? :) Exemption from performing duties that the law generally requires other citizens to perform, or from a penalty or burden that the law generally places upon other citizens.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 7:29 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 13, 2013 7:35 PM
Jurisdiction....Can we discuss this ?.... The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 7:35 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 13, 2013 8:11 PM
NEW THREAD ON BILL OF EXCHANGE, because the actual one is fucked up with GOD shit.... OK....lets do it again.... OK, there are three parties to a Bill of Exchange, the drawer, the drawee and the payee.....who is who ? The drawer = PIERRE DAOUST The Drawee = Bank of Canada The Payee = The ticket company ( City of Toronto let say) Is that make sense ? So when that ticket company (City of Toronto let say) send PIERRE DAOUST that bill of exchange, it is INCOMPLETE right ?... My job, as the lawful holder in due course of PIERRE DAOUST is to complete that thing...right ? By ACCEPTING it, sign it and put the PIERRE DAOUST's account number on it and send it to the drawee, which is the Bank of Canada .....right ?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2013 8:11 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Aug 14, 2013 4:56 AM
Scott, how about commenting on "no synonyms/homonyms": blacks 4th revised Attorney: "Lawyer" and "attorney" are synonymous, People v. Taylor 56 Colo. 441, 138 P 762, 763"


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 4:56 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Lei Gh

Aug 14, 2013 4:49 PM
I am not wanting to steal S�il Eile's spotlight. I have my own questions to post. I am super overwhelmed, for us all! And for educational purposes... I came at this from a Human Rights perspective and can not see much difference...it is accounting and surety. Admiral Duncan has been aware of my status, as a human being, from God. I have not opened my Bible this year. :) I will post regardless. I know I must recollect my thoughts and re-read Suil's thread. :) Does the response and signature from my Lieutenant Governor mean the same thing; when he responded to my declaration of private law? I also have one from the Director of Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, on behalf of Senior Administration, Department of Justice, Minister and Attorney General of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Lieutenant Governor. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=326852784095512&set=pb.100003123781499.-2207520000.1376496568.&type=3&theater


Unique Facebook User ID: 544228225691299
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 4:49 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 14, 2013 7:36 PM
LEGAL vs LAWFUL: Sam can't tell the difference.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 7:36 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Aug 14, 2013 9:12 PM
Trust commision


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 9:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 14, 2013 10:01 PM
ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER in CONTRACTING Acceptance of an Offer: may be made verbally or in writing, or it may be INFERRED from the CONDUCT of the PARTIES. However, certain rules must be complied with before acceptance of an offer is valid. First, acceptance MUST be communicated by the offeree to the offeror in the manner REQUESTED by or IMPLIED in the offer. Second, the acceptance must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional. Communication of the Acceptance: this is simple IF the offer STATES the method of acceptance. An offer might state the the offer may be accepted ONLY in writing or in person. In that case, the acceptance must be communicated in the STATED manner. HOWEVER, the offer may NOT contain such a precise stipulation. The courts look at a number of variables to determine what may constitute a valid form of communication of an acceptance. For example, they look at the form in which the offer was made, the usual and ordinary way of doing business in a particular industry, and the HISTORY of dealings between the parties to determine whether the method of communication was valid. While the form of acceptance must generally be POSITIVE in nature; EVEN SILENCE CAN BE a valid form of acceptance if the parties have AGREED in advance that SILENCE IS SUFFICIENT, or, where the parties have HABITUALLY used this method in previous transactions. Example of SILENCE as Acceptance: You belong to a music club. Each month the club mails you a NOTICE ADVISING that it will send you that moth's selection of CD's UNLESS you mail back the NOTICE stating that you dont want them. The agreement you have with the club states, that failure to send back the NOTICE constitutes ACCEPTANCE of the Cd's. In this case then, SILENCE constitutes acceptance. IF a person's conduct, though SILENT, leads the offeror to BELIEVE(?) that the offeree has accepted the offer, especially where the person receives some BENEFIT from the offeror, and knows that the offeror expects to be compensated for the services or goods supplied, the courts MAY find that a contract has been formed. Example of SILENCE as Acceptance: Saint John Tug Boat Co. Ltd v. Irving Refinery: the plaintiff made its tugboat available for use by the defendant. The terms of the rental of the tug were never made agreed upon in writing, but a VERBAL agreement was made and extended TWICE. No formal authorization was made for a further EXTENSION, but the defendant CONTINUED to make use of the tug. The defendant then tried to DENY liability for ALL charges arising from the continued use of the tug. The court stated: 1. Liabilities are NOT TO BE FORCED UPON PEOPLE BEHIND THEIR BACKS, any more than you can CONFER A BENEFIT UPON A MAN AGAINST HIS WILL. 2. BUT...if a person KNOWS that the CONSIDERATION is being RENDERED for his BENEFIT, with an expectation that he will PAY FOR IT, then if he ACQUIESCES in its being done, taking the BENEFIT of it when done, he will be taken IMPLIEDLY to have REQUESTED ITS BEING DONE: and that will IMPORT, a PROMISE TO PAY for it. In some cases, PERFORMANCE of the TERMS of the OFFER, may constitute acceptance. In those cases, acceptance is COMPLETE when the offeree performs all of the TERMS contained in the OFFER. In such a case, NOTIFYING the offeror of the ACCEPTANCE is UNNECESSARY. Fundamentals of Contract Law - Emond Montgomery Publications by Jean Fitzgerald & Laurence Olivo


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 10:01 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Aug 15, 2013 12:23 AM
�189. By the principal debtor becoming the holder in due course.The instrument is discharged if,when it matures, the acceptor or maker is or becomes the holder, since the right to recovery upon the instrument and the liability to pay the instrument are coincident in one and the same person. In order that payment or coincidence of right and liability should operate as a discharge,it is essential that the instrument should have matured."A negotiable instrument is discharged when the principal debtor becomes holder of the instrument at or after maturity in his own right/''*''*An acceptor or maker may acquire it before maturity, as purchaser, and may then further negotiate it.The possession of a bill of exchange by the acceptor after it has been in circulation is prima facie evidence that it has been paid by him.*'-**And the possession of a promissory note by the maker is prima facie evidence that it has been paid by him.'*'*'' But where he admits the execution of the note,the burden of showing payment is on him."*^


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 12:23 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Aug 15, 2013 12:39 AM
Ok this is kinda cool -ish :( On all of my cheques, the line where you would sign is ACTUALLY a microprint of something. I can barely read it. It looks as if its a dotted line but it is not. It says "microprinted security feature". What does this mean?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 12:39 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Scott Duncan

Aug 15, 2013 2:42 PM
TO THOSE WHO THINK PROTESTING IS VALID, and cite Egypt as an example: I hate to say "I TOLD YOU SO", but... ...wait, who am I kidding? I LOVE saying "I told you so". That's one of the benefits of not being "spiritual"... I'm not delusional, so I'm right more often. :D Point being; PROTESTS DON'T WORK. PROTESTS GRANT AUTHORITY. STOP PROTESTING. IT DOES NOT WORK, AND HAS NEVER WORKED. Q.E.D. ---> EGYPT.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 2:42 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Lee Edgely

Aug 15, 2013 6:33 PM
John Doe The Office of the Revenue Commissioners LPT Branch PO Box 1 Limerick Ireland To John Doe in your private capacity. I refer to your notice dated 30/6/2013 Your reference to My Property: ******* My name is *** Mason and my title is under the birth notification form and my status is as a woman of original jurisdiction with inherent rights and inherent power. I hereby claim allodial title over all my property and possessions. I am not an officer, agent, trustee, or employee of The Government of Ireland. In regards to your notice, I rebut everything you said or stated in it. Your office has been contacted in regards to this alleged Household Charge and Local Property Tax. I am not liable for the Household Charge or the Local Property Tax. I have the poof of delivery from An Post. This will be the last time that I contact you about this matter as I have, on previous occasions, informed you of my position and of yours i.e. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I never agreed to register for the Household Charge, Local Property Tax, or give you The Office of the Revenue Commissioners free money. I never gave you permission to contact my previous employer. There appears to be a mistake as although the included correspondence was sent to *** MASON the correspondence implies that an obligation was against �You�. Would you (John Doe) in your private capacity kindly confirm who �You� is, and/or forward this correspondence to You. I have no knowledge of who �You� and/or �*** MASON� and/or any such other identification your department/you and/or The Office of the Revenue Commissioners has addressed me as. I respectfully ask; by what authority is The Office of the Revenue Commissioners addressing me as such? Please define what a liable person is please under your acts and statutes? As I am not a qualified solicitor or barrister I do not understand acts and statutes, as such I will not be forced to agree or be held liable for something I do not understand. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners are under no circumstances to withdraw or steal money from my private pension, as I have not given *** BUIDING SOCIETY, you or The Office of the Revenue Commissioners permission to do so and I will never give my permission for you or The Office of the Revenue Commissioners to take money from me without my written consent. It seems to me that in the matter for surety for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a mistake as the sole beneficiary has been incorrectly identified, therefore under no circumstances are you or The Office of the Revenue Commissioners to be party to the theft of my money. What evidence does The Office of the Revenue Commissioners have that I am a trustee and have any surety with respect to the LEGAL NAME? What evidence does The Office of the Revenue Commissioners have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of The Government of Ireland? There is no evidence that there has been any meeting of the minds, any proper notice given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have any intent to contract in this matter. I have no obligation to file any such Local Property Tax (LPT) Return. You (John Doe) are on Notice that if you, your office/The Office of the Revenue Commissioners steal money from me in an unlawful action from my private pension without my written permission I will be holding you (John Doe) personally liable in your private capacity and I may be seeking An Garda S�och�na to investigate your (John Doe) actions under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act, 1997 and/or Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001. As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE. Notice: Failure by you (John Doe) in your private capacity to respond within 7 (SEVEN) days of receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims. Yours in truth, sincerity and honour, AUTHORZIED BY______________________ DATE____________________ Mason Signed in the capacity of an inherent woman of original jurisdiction. All rights reserved I could only attach one scan of their response with this post so the second will be added on a seperate post.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01529407782786E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 6:33 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Lee Edgely

Aug 15, 2013 6:35 PM
This is the second scan. Please comment and give ideas on what the next step might be


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01529407782786E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 6:35 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Aug 15, 2013 7:19 PM


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 7:19 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Michael Af Sj�lland

Aug 15, 2013 8:41 PM
Elephant in the room (uncomfortable issue): My feeling is that corporate intelligence gathering is at...say 14% here: any takers, or will I get banned/chastised?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02064971488079E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 8:41 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 15, 2013 9:00 PM
OTHER TENDER FOR LAW? With DEREK HILL? If I find you there, you aren't here.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 9:00 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Michael Af Sj�lland

Aug 15, 2013 9:47 PM
"it's all about ACCOUNTING" -I've seen this a lot latelty and I'd really like to learn about it. Where can I look? (I like to read)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02064971488079E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 9:47 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dean Clifford

Aug 15, 2013 10:52 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c9_1376526705 Just for you, Scott. Just when you thought "dumb" might have had a limit......

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01541010460705E+016
Last Updated: Aug 15, 2013 10:52 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Aug 16, 2013 12:20 AM
If you say, wanted to get un-married... Could you just get a certified copy of the original application and VOID it as well?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Aug 16, 2013 12:20 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jason Wettstein

Aug 16, 2013 1:13 AM
i bought enterpriserentacarcanada.com in 2008 after they fucked me over on a rental cost me over $2000. I was planning to use the domain to board complaints and bad media about them and still am and even more so now after i received this letter. On Aug 9, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Reuter, Renee M wrote: To Whom it may concern, I note you have not responded to my previous request that you transfer the domain name, enterpriserentacarcanada.com. A copy of my previous request is referenced below for your perusal. Your prompt response and compliance is expected. Sincerely, Renee Reuter From: Reuter, Renee M Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:29 PM To: 'info@eyeaxis.com' Subject: enterpriserentacarcanada.com To Whom it may concern, I represent Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ("Enterprise") on trademark issues. It has recently come to my attention that you have registered and put to use the domain name,enterpriserentacarcanada.com, which incorporates several of the family of trademarks owned by Enterprise without authorization (the �Domain Name�). In addition, marks identical or confusingly similar to trademarks owned by Enterprise are used in metatags, text, hidden text and/or images on one or more of the websites. These uses are likely to create consumer confusion by suggesting that you or your company is somehow affiliated with or sponsored by our famous Enterprise brand. For decades, ENTERPRISE has been used as a service mark in connection with vehicle rental and leasing services, reservation services for the rental and leasing of vehicles, the sales of vehicles, and the repair of vehicles. Enterprise owns U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 1,343,167; 2,371,192; 3,548,422; 3,490,649; 3,479,308; 3,475,113; 3,581,022; and 3,547,336, EU Trademark Registration Nos. 5,647,987; 5,323,134; and 5,648,001. By virtue of its well-established trademark rights in the U.S, E.U. and elsewhere, Enterprise enjoys the exclusive right to use the ENTERPRISE mark and related logo marks (�the Enterprise Marks�) in connection with these services, and others closely related. Use of the Enterprise Marks by you and your company in this way constitutes infringement of Enterprise's federally registered service marks, as well as other violations of state and common law. Enterprise is committed to protecting its trademarks and enforcing its trademark rights against infringers as can be seen in various UDRP matters, including http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1142637.htm. However, Enterprise always strives to resolve these kinds of matters amicably and on a business basis between the parties. We will consider the matter resolved if you promptly provide us with your written assurances that you and your company will immediately discontinue any and all use of marks owned by Enterprise in the Domain Name listed above, on websites and elsewhere, and take steps to transfer the Domain Name, and all other domain names in your possession that incorporate Enterprise Marks to Enterprise. Please respond by August 5, 2013 confirming that you agree to comply fully with the foregoing. You may contact me by telephone 314-512-3234 with any questions. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Renee Reuter Corporate Counsel - Intellectual Property 314-512-3234 office renee.m.reuter@ehi.com <image001.gif> Operating <image002.jpg> Corporate Headquarters 600 Corporate Park Drive St. Louis, MO 63105 USA enterpriseholdings.com <image003.jpg> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system. I would like to know if anyone has any advice. They offered me 200 and cost me over 2000 what can i do to fight this off the domain is owned by me but held by Godaddy and i think they may favor Enterprise regardless of my rights.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015239345811E+016
Last Updated: Aug 16, 2013 1:13 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 16, 2013 12:10 PM
Implied trust, a question about a consumer purchase. I buy a car in cash, the dealer says let us register that for you we have an express line at the MTO. I just paid in full and the dealer, without disclosure registered what I thought was my property into public stores. Is this not a breach of the trust. Did they not have the fiduciary obligation to inform me that my property was being registered for a public purpose?


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 16, 2013 12:10 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Aug 16, 2013 5:20 PM
Its all verbal contracting in court

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Aug 16, 2013 5:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/bgbQYMHQG5E?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 16, 2013 10:11 PM
THE TENDER FOR LAW - VITAL STATISTICS DEPT: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE QUESTION: How awesome is Scott Duncan. Please answer in 500 word essays.


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 16, 2013 10:11 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 17, 2013 1:00 AM
Just wondering about the PERSON's domicile What would be the BEST spot for the person ? An office ? A postal Box & ? A virtual office ? ...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 17, 2013 1:00 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 17, 2013 1:54 PM
This is why I loathe Theists, and why I loathe all of you for allowing a world to have this be a real thing.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 17, 2013 1:54 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Aug 18, 2013 1:50 AM
I`d like to make sure I`m comprehending the summary judgement part of the administrative process. The final notice of the administrative process is the default. and that is the notaries summary judgement? Taking that into the public court, would that be considered a foreign judgement?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 18, 2013 1:50 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Colin Stephen Tonks

Aug 18, 2013 6:34 AM
Scott, we hope you don't object to us posting this. We believe it also applies to Canada. This is a must view for ALL members of the Commonwealth of Nations. Firstly, please view the following short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seOBrpvbB74 After which you can read on-line and/or download and save Arthur Chresby's 37 page booklet, Your Will Be Done. Arthur Chresby's 37 page booklet, Your Will Be Done, is freely available as a pdf download from: http://www.clrg.info/2011/02/your-will-be-done-by-arthur-a-chresby-ebook/ or http://saveoz.info/documents/pdf/YourWillBeDone.pdf Every high school student should have a copy of Chresby's booklet.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523951670811E+016
Last Updated: Aug 18, 2013 6:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/seOBrpvbB74?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Christophe Anteros Palli

Aug 18, 2013 3:26 PM
http://truthpills.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/without-prejudice-ucc-1207-1-308/


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02030454255931E+016
Last Updated: Aug 18, 2013 3:26 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Christophe Anteros Palli

Aug 18, 2013 3:28 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02030454255931E+016
Last Updated: Aug 18, 2013 3:28 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Chris Evan

Aug 18, 2013 9:54 PM
I got arrested last night. They pulled me over for swerving (I did because I was leaving a party and checking TT4L!!! funny). I wouldn't identify myself or produce ID, so they opened my door and cuffed me, i didn't resist. I was expecting to get my legs beat with batons pretty badly, but it wasn't like that at all. They just kept locking me in a cage every time I wouldn't "cooperate" with them. They didn't care about any law I cited, only the ones they cited. Very strange!!! I wouldn't tell them my name other than "Chris". I told them my DOB was hearsay. I told them my address was none of their business. When they asked where I was going, I told them "I was going to get laid." They weren't happy, so they locked me in a cage. Then I yelled "I will answer your questions under protest and duress." They let me out and continued the BOOKING. They read me my Miranda rights, then said "We need to do the Suicide questions now. How do you feel?" I was silent for like a minute. They asked again.....silent. They said "This would be easier if you cooperated." To which I replied "Did you just tell me that I have the right to remain silent and any thing I say will be used against me in a Court of Law?" "Yes". "Then you asked me a question and I invoked that right, do I have to answer your questions?" They said they were fed up with me and I was going back in a cage....lol! Really? Tell me I have the right to remain silent, then force me to answer questions????? So again, I yelled that I would comply under protest and duress....blah blah blah. I signed some shit under protest and duress. Then the Bail Clerk shows up....She says if I giver her $40 and sign some recognizance document I could go. I asked what if I didn't and she said I would go to the county jail until Monday. So I signed it "under protest and duress VOID <autograph>. She said I couldn't do that, I said that is my signature. She said that "my signature is not VOID". I said "that is how I sign that document". She said "I will give you one more chance to sign another one of these or you will go to county jail", but I HAD to sign it how she told me!!!!!! Yes, that really happened!!!! So i did!!! She WOULD NOT let me put the wording "under protest and duress"!!!!! Regardless, I was released within 90 minutes, half in the bag! Oh, I may have left that part out and I had an open container. I was feeling cocky last night. The Recog document says the PERSON would be in court on Tuesday....YUP, no problem. It will be there with a Notice of Mistake. Now, my question is.....how do I get my documents into the court file for Tuesday morning? And should I lien the court file?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Aug 18, 2013 9:54 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jeff Roggers

Aug 19, 2013 2:01 AM
http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0TIMSS_nCHg&h=hAQEI4at_&s=1


Unique Facebook User ID: 1009917269041577
Last Updated: Aug 19, 2013 2:01 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Aug 20, 2013 2:10 AM
I'm interested in hearing others thoughts on this; We are offered bills of exchange from corporations etc It's been mentioned that these corporations are already paid for the cost of our use of their service? I'm not clear how this happens but I got to thinking today...what if that is the purpose of the bills of exchange act, it's for their use to get reimbursed..and the Canadian Payments Association was created to streamline the process...any thoughts?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 20, 2013 2:10 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Eamonn O Brien

Aug 20, 2013 4:42 PM
Something I've been pondering regarding the accounting aspect of the legal system... Am I right in saying that when one is arrested and charged it is the Police's corporation that create the account and seek to discharge? Can a random PERSON seek an action against another for say, breaking a red light? Or would the incident have to be reported to the proper authorities and they then seek to discharge the account? Pat on the back for the informant... I'd imagine the courts would be a little more thorough when determining valid grounds for a case when it is one man (through his person obviously) seeking an action against another i.e. contract/injury as opposed to when the authorities rely on ignorance and coersion...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Aug 20, 2013 4:42 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Aug 20, 2013 11:35 PM
I thought this might be of some help. It's "clubhouse rules", but, they provide some clarity about contracts, offers, acceptance etc. http://www.youtube.com/user/lawsessions?feature=watch

Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Aug 20, 2013 11:35 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Dino Disenfranchised

Aug 21, 2013 12:03 AM
If you ever go to call Equifax, know you will receive the Philippines and not a Canadian on Canadian soil. If you request to speak to a Canadian on Canadian soil they will not transfer you but give you another number 1-877-323-2598 to the QUE for the Quebec office. Today, after being on the phone for over a half hour and several attempts to communicate with a human, I finally got through to the Customer Service Dept for correcting discrepancies. You see, I.C.B.C. applied a debt (not belonging to me) on my credit report and I have been trying to have removed for more than two years. Of course, this directly effects my rating and subsequently my credit. I really don�t understand why it is me who has to work this out for them seeing it wasn�t me who created the debt, nor was I the one who is unable to correctly manage the account, nor was I the one who accept the file or attach it to my bureau report. It seems as though I am the only one with the desire to remove it. One would think they would want to track down the correct person to recoup their debt. The Phlip I first spoke to spoke english barely and was either deliberately difficult or he was just stupid. Raymond-8991 told me he was in Canada though he was not a Canadian citizen. I requested to speak with a supervisor but he refused to escalate the call. He would not give me the name of the supervisor nor would he do anything to correct the reason for my call. He ended up hanging up on me because I asked him if he knew of a law which requires Canadian companies servicing Canadians to supply calls, if requested, to be directed to a Canadian on Canadian soil. I called back (again) and spoke with a female who answered my questions to only inform me that they were a call center in the Philippines and they were not Canadian citizens. I tried to make a complaint about Raymond however she refused to take it and directed me to call this number, the one above. She would not release the name of the business she worked for. I asked to speak to a supervisor but again, she refused. Sorry for the semantics but I am a little aggravated at the moment. I am so pissed and need this gone. Sure would be nice to recoup something for my time and inconvenience as well. I am new to this and will take a wild stab and say I need 2 affidavits to inform them of the circumstances and a fee schedule to bill for future time and inconveniences if required. Send one to ICBC and another to Equifax. Of course, I have absolutely no idea how to do this and humbly request the wisdom of TENDER FOR LAW.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523100619462E+016
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2013 12:03 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Blake Gardner

Aug 21, 2013 6:00 AM
No matter how big or how small, wether public or private...The new revoke and rescind device for those problematic obligations within the world of paper fiction, is here...introducing, "The Shredder"...(gov approved)...

Unique Facebook User ID: 665853723528529
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2013 6:00 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 21, 2013 11:06 PM
Gail's inspired- Scott on how the WHITE-MAN fucked-over the NATIVE-ORIGINALS into getting them to think they are ABORIGINAL-INDIANS-thread..... Gail Blackman: things are heating up related to the "aboriginals" and the govt....they are receiving their funding dollars and a note requiring them to sign in agreement with the all the legislation before they will get they're funding. I know it's a pretty deep issue, i.e. accepting the label "aboriginal" and the "benefit" etc. They are being legally blackmailed as I see it? Would a Notice of Mistake and a Petition similar to the one described in the CAS post, be a good starting point, for individuals or as a group or is it similar to what you described as being on social assistance and tricky? Scott Duncan: It is EXACTLY that. It is legal exploitation. Giving up what is MOST precious, for a few "benefits". Anyone who says otherwise is serving another agenda. There is no debate here. it's just fact. ABORIGINAL = SLAVE OF THE WHITE GUYS. Period. Gail Blackman:the fact that they are requiring a signature of agreement for their dirty legislation, says to me that they don't have full power even though they like to make one think they do...if they didn't feel the need for agreement, then they would just carry on business as usual Eamonn O Brien: Signature would seal the deal alright... Aboriginal = Resident (Scott clicked LIKE) Norah Holloway:I only found out yesterday that my band (I'm First Nations) hasn't signed a treaty with the government. We own land an territories. The person I was talking to said they contract with companies for development of the resources. I was discussing this with someone and they said I should send a notice to the UN of Indigenous People. Only figured this out yesterday. I have a status card with the govt. that's where my benefits come from. Scott Duncan: Norah, as of 1933 there is NO SUCH THING as a NEW treaty. They will try to scam you into AGREEMENT. AGREEMENT is NOT a TREATY!. It's CONTRACT. Treaties and Contracts are NOT the same. KnownAs Colin: From an Aussie-centric perspective, only a Council of Elders can sign away land rights on behalf of their people; individuals can not. There is a controversy about the true meaning of 'aboriginal'. In Latin it is written as 'ab original', which simply means 'from the original' and not inferior as most believe; same with the word 'abnormal'. 'Ab normal' means 'from the normal' and not necessarily meaning inferior. Here in Australia, the word(s) 'Aborigine/Aboriginal' is a created proper noun; however, aborigine is a co-joined from the Latin, 'ab origine', the Etymology of which is from Latin ab (�from�) + origine, ablative singular of origo (�earliest beginning, lineage, origin�). Most Australian Aborgines consider the word as offensive and, erroneously, associate it with abnormal. Gail Blackman: When I look at the Indian Act it uses Indian and not Aboriginal..where did Aboriginal come from ? Scott Duncan: ABORIGINAL = FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ALWAYS. Scott Duncan: The ORIGINAL people cannot be touched under law, so they get you to declare that you have LEFT the original people, making you AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS. ABORIGINAL. If you are in Admiralty, you are DEMOTED. THAT is what makes them INFERIOR. Not the name. Scott Duncan: If you are AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS, you are CRIMINALLY INSANE. That is what they are under the law. ...but don't take MY word for it. See for yourself! https://ucadia.s3.amazonaws.com/acts_uk/1800_1899/uk_act_1867_criminal_lunatics.pdf Glad I could clear up the "controversy".


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2013 11:06 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Anibal Jose Baez

Aug 22, 2013 12:04 AM
Here is another compilation of threads/comments by Scott, and some others, at TTFL. I hope this helps! PS: I'm looking for some lost/missing threads. If any have anything that is not here, and would like to share it, please do so. Thanks!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2013 12:04 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Mauricio Moz

Aug 22, 2013 3:13 AM
Good evening/day beautiful folk, I am glad to be in your fold, thank you very much. I hope that you and all your loved ones are in Great Spirit. I was wondering if I could please receive some assistance/pointers/ideas about a particular case I am presently dealing with. I am here in Ontario, about five weeks ago we had a blackout in our city, I was at a major intersection helping to direct traffic for about 2 hours ( I am lucky there were hundreds of people witnessing this, so it is public record) a cop came to tell me that he would take over { & that I should go to another intersection} at the beginning of this (about 7pm), he didn't... 2 cars tried to run me over while helping (toward the very end of the 2 hrs.), I jumped on the hood of the second car to get out of the way, the people inside of the car attacked me while I was on top of their car asking what "was wrong with them", I threw punches back in defence, while I tried to get off the car. I continued helping, about 10 mins. after the 2nd car incident the same cop came to tell me to get off the road, of course I complied, I went to retrieve my stuff, he began being belligerent toward me, calling me a nuisance, belittling me after I'd performed his job for 2 hrs or so.. I turned to the the about 10 people that were directly behind me for support, many of them had been video taping this throughout, asked them about his nuisance comment, they quickly in tandem told him that I was helping/being good/ to leave me alone.. this continued for a short while, I could not believe his imposing, outrageous attitude... being in awe by his insults and characterization, I told him that in our interaction I had been true to my word and that he was the one lying not only to me, but to the thousands of people that he refused to serve by directing traffic-- in my head thinking (I have been true to my word, I have testified true, this man is violent offensive and a liar, I'm done-- ... I testified by showing him my testes (the origin of the word), turned around showed him my butt & told him to suck on the left one (the people laughed).. & I left peacefully walking my bike, not believing the amount of hate that man was giving out, when crossing the second intersection, cruisers surrounded me, he came out of the corner where we were speaking/arguing, he pointed at me and said "you're going in".. I said " for what?" he repeated it, I asked him again for what, he did not respond, at this point cops start grabbing at me, the people on the south/east corner that were supporting me raised their hands as a group & screamed to stop.. I screamed for them to help me & ran toward them, for aid & mediation, I hid behind them momentarily, they broke through them I realized my presence there put them in danger, as the cops just smashed through them. So I decided to take off from there running, I got about a 75 meters away with them well behind me, but I realized my running was a moot point & that my best bet was to have witnesses. I returned toward the same intersection running on the sidewalk, when I got close to the intersection they started beating on me, they had me under control, they threw me on to the street, cuffed me and proceeded to beat and pound on my body ( I am 5 '4, 135 lbs.), I had about 8 of them on my body, they tried to make me stop breathing, by pressuring on my chest, I asked to please stop, that I was not resisting, I was peaceful, but they smelled blood, so they continued... I gained a few broken ribs from this, a punctured and collapsed lung.. as well as 7 charges: 2 cops assaults, 2 assaults on the people that attacked me with their car and their fists, they lie/claim I broke their windshield, 1 property under 5000, public intoxication/ & disturbance.... there is multiple video and witnesses corroborating my story/ hundreds of witnesses in fact, there is medical record of the injuries sustained.. they refused me medical treatment, when I told them several times that I had broken ribs. I am a free man on the land (since 2005) I have continually identified myself to them as such.. by stating my name as I am commonly known as so & so of the, so & so family/clan. The step I'm at is awaiting their second disclosure date.. & it is time for me to start affirming to them that they've got the wrong guy in the wrong court, challenging their jurisdiction, any help is much appreciated, here on the board so we all learn, or as aprivate message, thank you all so much beeautiful people. O:)


Unique Facebook User ID: 901896756506338
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2013 3:13 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None






David Vilaca

Aug 22, 2013 4:26 PM
A week ago Friday I was assaulted by two Clown, erm Crown Corporate entities in uniform. My love and I were out posturing for a yard sale. We left the house on her e bike, she had a helmet on I did not. We came to our first intersection to poster and I noticed the pigs in the turn lane, as we crossed the street the Clown entities pulled to the curb lane and the female entity informed me that I was breaking the law by not wearing a helmet, I laughed and stated that I am an adult and quite capable of making my own decisions. I then asked if I was free to go. The sow answered no and asked if she could see my ID to which I stated, for what purpose? Do you intend on causing me harm. At this point the rather large cannibal in uniform ( I could smell bacon on his breath) and the sow exited the cruiser with obvious intent to extort a name via threat, coercion or intimidation. He claimed to have witnessed me cross the walk with pedestrians riding the e bike and me not wearing a helmet is a violation of the hwy trafficking act and that I had to produce identification. I asked the clown entity what law states I had to produce government issued id as I was not carrying any and that I had no problem giving them my name. The sow then asked for my name to which I stated David. She then asked for a surname to which I stated I could not give that which did not belong to me, I could give the given but not that which belongs to my family. The sow stated that she needed my name and that I would be placed under arrest and so I orated the family name. She then asked my dob and i asked by who's authority do you ask for private information. The cannibal, standing in silent rage instantly lost his contenace and shit on me and my rights with his violent nature and ego, he grabed me with force, twisted my arms around back and placed me in bondage telling me I was under arrest and that I was going to the station for finger printing. He was very hostile and bound my left wrist so tightly that I felt a nerve being pinched. I knew this was to throw me off my standing and place in mental duress but I remembered to state I do not consent to any searches before ordering him to loosen the left cuff. As a matter course he squeezed the cuff tighter and stated that I had no choice I was under arrest. His cloven hand dived right into my pockets. I stated loud and clear that I did not consent to any violation of my rights that he was causing me harm and was to loosen the left cuff. The sow stated they needed to identify me while bacon breath worked me into a frenzy of pain by twisting the binding while lifting me into the air , at this point I began shouting that they were peace officers and that they were causing me harm. At this point I began making more mistakes by shouting at them and not retaining my calm, I was in pain and my first concern was the damage being caused. I lost focus and started calling them little more than animals, brutish criminals enacting violence for consent. I told the cannibal I was no longer corresponding till the binding was loosened. The piece of stinking shit pretended to loosen the binding while causing me to shout out in pain. He claimed I was resisting. He then opened the cruiser door, pushed a button on the side of the cage, informed me I was being recorded and placed me inside. They turned to speak to my partner but she's super smart, she left the keys to her e bike and helmet and stood in the shadows across the street. The pigs looked confused, they knew they lost track of more information. When they oinked their way into the bacon mobile the first question was where did my friend go. I replied that I will choose what questions I answer. Next question was do I have a drivers licence? Same reply I'm a little fuzzy on what the exact order of questioning was. I will get the video and post it here. I think I asked wether they were peace officers and if their intention was to collect a tribute for HER MAJESTY. The sow replied with. " have you ever had mental health issues. Standard answers was I will choose what questions I will answer. At this point the cannibal drew her attention to the computer and she asked if my address was bla bla bla. Standard answer. Again they looked perplexed. My license came up with no picture and no criminal history of which there is plenty (many years ago). They talked about how little info was in there system and then the sow asked if I had a criminal history. I replied with a firm yes. Seemed to me the dipshit swine were even more perplexed. The claim now was they would release me with a fine if I provided them with an address they could confirm. The address on the licence is a private sanctuary so just to fuck with them I gave them my P.O box so they could not correspond the two together. Knowing the camera was on I ranted for a little while about peace officers playing policy enforcer, how peace officers have a duty to not cause harm in the community and how shooter Forcillo was enacting the policy of shoot center mass when his duty was to section 7 and 10(c) of the charter. The dipshit swine then began to have second thoughts when I asked for a business card and the information of the their underwriter and bond holder. Both claimed not to be carrying business card and played clueless to public hazard bonding. I asked if they thought they could operate with impunity, if they actually believed they held no liability in the community. Dead silent. The sow asked me for my angels #, she claimed that if I could get her to come back to identify my name they would release me. I noticed 2 bicycle cops showed up and I thought to negotiate by telling the sow the bike cop could call her and give her the options. To my surprise they agreed on camera that the bike cop would phone and tell her she was in no trouble and that the purpose was only to identify the name. I gave the sow her digits and she gave the deets to the bike cop to call. He did and my angel agreed to return on condition. When she arrived, the cannibal exited the bacon mobile and asked her what my name is. Her first statement was that she is not involved in their or my affairs. The cannibal stated that they just need to confirm my name and address. My angel stated she did not understand the question and she did not want to be involved. The pig said he just wanted to corroborate my name and asked if I was David. She said yes I was david he then asked my last name and she said she was not involved. He asked if my surname started with a V. She said yes, he then asked if my last name was Vbla bla. And she stated yes. The cannibal informed the sow that my angel corroborated my name and that I could be released from my bondage with a ticket. The dipshit pigs released me from the bacon mobile and offered me the ticket, I took the ticket and told the sow I was going to correct the controversy by seeking her public information being the bond, business card and underwriter information. I will be going to 55 division today to demand from the desk Sargent the information I need to correct the controversy.


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2013 4:26 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Aug 22, 2013 8:59 PM
This video is the EPITOME of ON/OFF, and a textbook-example of ON/OFF...notice- no arguing, no escalation, no controversy "...are you public servants?...are you public employees?...are you public employees?...are you public servants?...what's your names?...oh i dont have any weapons on me, but ill back-away from you if you feel unsafe, am i making YOU feel unsafe at all, the law is ALL about intent and that is not my INTENT, what is YOUR intent with me by the way?...i live here, this is my home i live here...are you a public servant?...are you a public employee?...are you a public employee?...are you a public servant?...are you going to IDENTIFY yourself to me?...do you have 4 forms of identification?...i need to see your Badge, your photo-identification-card, your Warrant card, and i need you to give me one of your business-cards, if you wish to contract with me- are you trying to contract with me, i do not BELIEVE i have a contract with you, and that i am under any obligation to answer ANY of your questions...if you would like to contract with me, we can do so, if you provide for me 4 forms of I.D.?...are you trying to contract with me, what ARE you trying to do with me?...are you operating as a public official right now, are you a public servant, are you a public employee...i am asking you a direct question- yes or no...the Master asks the question, and the servant answers them...no-no, the Master asks questions, the servant answers them- isnt that correct...i dont WORK for YOU, i dont answer YOUR questions, YOU answer MINE- so im asking you a question - are you a public servant?...you are- you ARE a public servant, arent you?...arent you, you're a public servant arent you?...and unless you have 4 forms of I.D. right now, i dont even believe that you're in your uniform...and im REALLY feeling threatened right now, cuz i see 4 armed-people armed-with-DEADLY WEAPONS and I FEEL threatened, so please back-away from me...no?...well i feel threatened right now, and you're actually armed-with-deadly weapons, so, this is all AGGRAVATED everything you're doing right now, cuz this is actually Intimidation, you're attempting to INTIMIDATE me, from me exercising my Constitutionally-protected rights...which would be a violation of WHAT? (need to think of a good one, here)...anyone know what 'Color of Law' is, Color of Authority?...you're in an OFFICIAL uniform right now, you're acting as a public servant, with the authority of the state, and when you BREACH your DUTY as a public official, NOW, your BONDS are up-for-grabs for people like me, and go file claims against you for them, i get your Badge-numbers, then i go write a claim against the (county), and i say- "HEY, this public employee, came to my house with a GUN, and they INTIMIDATED me, and i dont care if you're wearing a Badge-and-a-uniform, anybody can go get a costume with the same stuff and walk around with a gun, having a shiny-medallion-and-a-gun dont mean anything, you are out of uniform until you provide for me 4 forms of I.D..."

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2013 8:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/yi6scLZLrMw?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Aug 22, 2013 9:19 PM
Inspired by the recent stories of offers to contract some members have had recently, I thought it may be worth while creating a double sided card that I can hand out to public servants who invite me to contract with them, when I'm not interested. I'm not exactly sure how to technically create and print them yet, but thought others others may appreciate the idea. If can offer some technical assistance to me to, it would be much appreciated. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153195083450078&set=a.10153195083250078.1073741830.867445077&type=1&theater


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2013 9:19 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Colin Stephen Tonks

Aug 23, 2013 10:10 AM
Scott, We feel the image reflects much of what you have to say about some of the subscribers :-) https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/542224_10151902059241159_1308762463_n.jpg


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523951670811E+016
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2013 10:10 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 23, 2013 3:19 PM
Police Mission & Values=LOL


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2013 3:19 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Aug 23, 2013 4:59 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-courts-only-open-to-the-rich-judge-warns/article12942343/


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2013 4:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Kelso Fes

Aug 23, 2013 8:09 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 265786466925519
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2013 8:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/1G3jPybtyBo?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


James Baal

Aug 24, 2013 5:13 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VENkDuj4VTk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVENkDuj4VTk


Unique Facebook User ID: 1104103486333909
Last Updated: Aug 24, 2013 5:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Anibal Jose Baez

Aug 26, 2013 11:42 AM
I am respectfully requesting (see what I did there?) Admiral Scott Duncan to explain/share, if it is his wish (see what I did there?),: how must one deal with a "police" encounter" outside of the courtroom? How to deal with "thugs-with-guns" at our door step? How to deal with "thugs-with-guns" when they turn their lights on us (without having committed any crime), while on the road? How to deal with "thugs-with-guns" knocking at our vehicle windows? What to do when asked for "ID"? I, myself, have watched many videos of "success" at border patrol checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, open carry situations, and very few at people's doorsteps. Some have similarities, but none are the same. Apparently, it also depends in the level of "experience" these "public officials" have dealing with "difficult" "persons". Many other videos I've seen are made by "attorneys". All they say is: "I don't consent to searches," "I'm not gonna talk, unless in front of my lawyer." "Never, under any circumstances talk to cops, not without a lawyer." All those answers that still pin surety on us. I have also watched other attempts to deal with police, which not only are unnecessarily confrontational, but plain DUMB. You've seen what happens to those. What is the key to all this? If it's all about surety, and accounting (involving contract), how must one deal when dealing with a police encounter? Thanks!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated: Aug 26, 2013 11:42 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 26, 2013 1:41 PM
Clown Entities, errm CROWN AGENTS. Just Me gathering more evidence.

Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 26, 2013 1:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/eTZCFoezoNU?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Aug 26, 2013 2:24 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Aug 26, 2013 2:24 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Aug 26, 2013 3:28 PM
Here is what has been happening to me lately. I was in family court last Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesday after court started I told the justice that I didn't think that the court order was valid because I had voided it and I couldn't get a true certified copy of it. That I was told that the document was tampered. That when I looked up the word tampered it meant void. So the justice told me that there was (conveniently) a certified copy in the courtroom. The justice and the clerk hunted high and low and "found" a copy. The Sheriff handed it to me and when I checked the back page, I told him that this wasn't a true certified copy. His response was "I say it is". I also figured out another lie that the social worker made up and used in some of the documents to get the kid back. So my next step is to take it to the Attorney General?


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Aug 26, 2013 3:28 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Brenda Larson

Aug 26, 2013 3:33 PM
As if that wasn't enough on Wednesday morning of last week, I got served with a summons to appear in court because my favorite Staff Sgt. of the RCMP is fearing and needs to get a peace bond. He stated that aggressive action, identifying myself as a member of an organization who target police and persons of authority for assault. He is fearing personal injury and damage to property. Does a peace bond run along the same lines as a normal criminal charge, being surety/accounting?


Unique Facebook User ID: 626715857464241
Last Updated: Aug 26, 2013 3:33 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




August le Blanc

Aug 27, 2013 9:18 PM
I, Me, My, You.... We, One... I have been pondering circumstances and language. I do not want to have any / all surety attached to me in certain situations. In others utilize surety as a tool... So as part of my own growth, and knowledge base expansion... One is now going to use the knowledge we have gained to value the right things... which turn out to be... wrong. Fuck We have shared openly about the Creation of our Trust... One is tired of valuing who is who, what is what, one just wants to learn how to take care of oneself in all situations. One will not take part any longer in any discussions about personalities or who's a cop... One does not FUCKING Care. We are her to learn and be useful to a whole. Most of us are here by invite no matter who we are... So if one is a cop, a freetard, human, person what the fuck ever... One is still here to add value in whatever form that happens to take at a particular moment. Get a fucking grip people. Your Fellow traveller. Jay


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01530787868601E+016
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2013 9:18 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Aug 27, 2013 10:13 PM
I went to TPS HQ today after work and picked up the form I will use to get the following services and/or information. Records of Arrest, video from cruiser General Occurrences; Incident Reports Memorandum Book Notes Business Card and bonding info. If I filed in "person" I would have to show 2 pieces of ID. If I mail it (registered) they dont request any. If you plan on being arrested, you can archive this form. If you have'nt planed on being arrested, your doing it wrong.


Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2013 10:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jeff Roggers

Aug 28, 2013 4:04 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_in_due_course


Unique Facebook User ID: 1009917269041577
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2013 4:04 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Aug 28, 2013 7:54 PM
A friend of mine was given this message by another friend about his case. It looks to me like they are backing off whatever they falsely charged him with..anyone have any comments? I'm assuming they didn't void it because it hadn't been processed yet? "hey i have spoken with constable tarala and he spoke with his supervisor who have now cancelled your promise to appear and the undertaking." undertaking, n. (l4c) 1. A promise, pledge, or engagement. cancel, vb. 1. To destroy a written instrument by defacing or obliterating it <she canceled her will by marking through it>. 2. To terminate a promise, obligation,


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2013 7:54 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Aug 29, 2013 8:27 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Aug 29, 2013 8:27 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None






Fred Palmer

Aug 30, 2013 7:09 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523902665191E+016
Last Updated: Aug 30, 2013 7:09 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 31, 2013 2:20 AM
The creator of Calvin & Hobbes wants you to know something...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 2:20 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Joe Bucks

Aug 31, 2013 3:13 AM
Law dictionaries anyone?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02041227007269E+016
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 3:13 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 31, 2013 5:25 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 5:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dD-yN2G5BY0?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Aug 31, 2013 1:35 PM
A MENSA ET THORO DEFINITION:Latin meaning ''FROM BED AND BOARD''a divorce A MENSA ET THORO is rather a separation of the parties by act of law then dissolution of marriage. It may be granted for the causes of extreme cruelty or desertion of the wife or by husband.This kind of divorce does not effect the legitimacy of children,nor authorize a second marriage.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 1:35 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Aug 31, 2013 8:29 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 8:29 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Aug 31, 2013 11:27 PM
Why nothing the government does works There's big money to be made in screwing up :D - See more at:

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2013 11:27 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Sep 01, 2013 4:32 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Sep 01, 2013 4:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FCZB-k4jKBc?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Sep 01, 2013 4:37 PM
Scott on whether this APOSTOLIC LETTER that comes into force-and-effect today on SEPTEMBER 1st 2013, will REALLY have any effect on anything other than internally/inside the Vatican City State- thread.....

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Sep 01, 2013 4:37 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 01, 2013 6:43 PM
IS THIS ALL TRUE ? I have a person, its name is PIERRE DAOUST, this person has an inscription number, a certificate and blablabla�. And �ME�, the Man that gives value to this person, has the RIGHT to this person�s Life, Liberty and its security / Surety�. So, �ME�, if I want, I can KILL this person, because if I have the rights on its life, I must have the rights on his death�..Like Mika did and all these guys who are in this movement called Free-Man-On-The-Land. But why in the world would I want to do that ? :/ Every LEGAL BUSINESS is made through this LEGAL PERSON, that I have, and this LEGAL person has NO property, and it seems to be the GOVERNEMENT�s property anyway. So, EVERY BILL I pick up in the mail box, seems to be addressed to that person named PIERRE DAOUST, and the SURETY of this person seems to be sitting in the Government�s bank, which is the Bank of Canada. So, as a good ADMINISTRATOR for this person, I shall re-direct all of these bills where this person�s SURETY is ? (I did this 5 times, and so far, complete silence ) So why in the world would I want to kill this person ?, I mean, the way I see it, this person has been created to BENEFIT �ME� ? And since I HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS on it, It seems to me that I must be the MASTER of that person ? As the MASTER, I get to DECIDE for it, so WHY these FMOTL wants to kill it ? Of course I will encounter some resistance to this, but if it�s the truth, at one point the truth will eliminate this resistance, and I had to deal with resistance all my life, so what�s the big deal��.anyway�� If I am dragged to court, for ANY reasons, (unless I�ve committed a real crime of course) and I start by RESERVING ALL RIGHTS, they are fucked ?.....I mean I can explaine all this shit to them, I can tell them I AM NOT the surety, never been, and never will�.I can ask them to PROVE ME WRONG, and even ask them to point to me WHERE IS THE SURETY please ? Dean Clifford told me once that I am surety period, they only make false claims upon my person�why Dean told me this ?...is there 2 different ways to see this stuff ? Exact words from Dean: You are the surety, period. They are just making false claims against your person And he followed up with: But Bank of Canada must settle the accounts, as they are trustee and you are insolvent in their system. And I followed up with these questions to Dean: So you say that I AM the surety of the person ? This person has been created for me right ? It has been created when I was a month old appx right ? and someone, decided that I will be the surety of this person ? Can I decide to NOT be the surety ? Or, is this thing is hooked on me weither I like it or not ? Another question I have is, Who is this someone that made that decision FOR me ? This someone must have an AUTHORITY of some kind to make such decisions ? And, I am ALSO the beneficiary of this person, right ? And never heard anything after �. :( WHY is Scott says: I AM NOT SURETY And Dean says: I AM SURETY PERIOD. If I have the right to the life of the person, the liberty of the person and the security/surety of the person, I can�t be the surety ?....if I have the right to it, and it�s not me who created it, how can I be it� ? Anyway�..please don�t give up on �ME� :D Signed Pierre Master of PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 01, 2013 6:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pepper Wagner

Sep 02, 2013 1:27 AM
Just had a couple of questions if someone could answer. I have been to court on the state side of the corperate border and all the courts I have been in have flags, your paperwork is stamped and signed by the clerk and every signature has the capacity of the person signing. My partner went to Provicial Court of British Columbia, (small Claims Court) and is signed "by the Court" (that is how it's signed, no seal, no Clerk of Court, no capacity of the person signing, They won't identify or clarify signature. So what kind of court is this..(yes I know Kangaroo, but seriously.??) Is this typical canada court or just Vancouver Island court of blatant money collecting here in Canada. So do we look up who chartered it/how.(any by the way if you don't go they send thugs with real guns)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02021066342623E+016
Last Updated: Sep 02, 2013 1:27 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 02, 2013 5:45 PM
If you have the evidence, you SHOULD present it :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxlA-XDpWVY

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 02, 2013 5:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/cxlA-XDpWVY?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Robert Cormier

Sep 02, 2013 9:18 PM
This is a bit of a long post, but, it encompasses several ideas encountered here at TFL. Forgive me if I seem to ramble. In response to a request to Scott Duncan, wherein he was solicited to propose suggestions/solutions/remedies to the difficulty faced by those wanting to TRAVEL in their PRIVATE, NOT FOR HIRE property, without being accosted by men with guns, and, or having their property seized, Scott suggested that we do not drive ourselves. For me, and, judging by the posts of others, the answer seemed to be an obvious reference to a common theme here at TFL, specifically the (generalized) �mantra�: do not expect justice from the courts (government agents etc.) as it is tantamount to appealing to your rapist to treat you fairly. ERGO (at least in MY MIND): Don�t steer yourself around in that technology. If, however, you choose/desire to do so in the capacity of a man/woman, and should you suffer a TORT while lawfully traveling in your private property, do not expect to be provided a remedy, and, certainly do not expect any justice. Bottom line�don�t own a car and attempt to use it by yourself if wish to be somewhat protected from the harm that such use can bring you. On a personal note, and possibly for other members, this was, and is, �a very hard pill to swallow�. Anyways, after weeks of considering/contemplating the implications of the above, I sat down with my son this morning and we watched the documentary �HOT COFFEE�. (I recommend it - for whatever that�s worth.) The film examines the extensive efforts by corporations and such to limit the ability of men and woman to receive compensation and, or justice to TORTS which they may incur. A fortified and revitalized global effort to deny us justice, was seen by the filmmakers largely as a response to (amongst other suits) the litigation brought forward by the old woman who spilled coffee on herself and subsequently successfully sued McDonalds. While watching this documentary, Scott�s advice regarding the use of a car (as described above) kept returning to my mind. I began to wonder (MOVIE SPOILER ALERT), since almost every useful technology and service available to us today is provided to us with one or all of the following: a) a MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT which waives our right to seek justice from any other source other than your rapist, and, or, you must first agree to never inform the public of any harm you become aware of which is caused by that company/service etc. b) INDEMNIFICATION of the company/service from our government (think drugs and vaccines for example) in which the government has passed acts and statutes protecting drug companies from any damages they would otherwise be responsible for (even if they know/knew their products were/are harmful, toxic, poisonous, cancer causing etc.) c) TORT LIMITS, which more often than not put the burden of costs related to recovery, treatment etc. are without recourse foisted upon the victim, and, or, the public; Now, it seems, there are dozens of tough pills for me swallow. SHOULD WE, AS CONSCIENTIOUS MEN AND WOMAN, wishing to avoid harm to ourselves and others, USE OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES when, by their very use, we are quite likely AGREEING to be COMPLICIT in any and all unscrupulous acts perpetrated by the companies/services/organizations, and, additionally, are likely agreeing to be bound by a provision to never bring any such devious treatment of customers/clients/users - to the attention of the public? It has just dawned on me, after watching the movie, that following the logic of the car example above, and, given the even more extreme ramifications of a), b), and c) mentioned above concerning other technologies etc. ; perhaps we would be best protected from harm to ourselves and others by not engage in commerce to secure our ability as men and women to use telephones, cell phones, internet, health insurance, medical care/treatment, etc. How can we, if at all, protect ourselves, should we desire to use other products/technologies/services/organizations etc. which come with clauses such as those described above? Am I way off track and over thinking this? Questions and comments are encouraged as always. Thanks. :)


Unique Facebook User ID: 725045367641937
Last Updated: Sep 02, 2013 9:18 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Eamonn O Brien

Sep 03, 2013 11:40 AM
Bit of advice needed if anyone wants to give their 2 cents... A toll road company sent a notice to my person a while back. I responded in my private capacity asking them to clarify who Mr. O Brien was and to forward the letter to Mr. O Brien, failure to respond within 10 days will constitute legal accord and satisfaction. I received no response so I sent another letter stating that and offered 10 more days to rebut my statement. No response to that so a notice of default was then sent and delivered. However the solicitors who deal with the company's legal proceedings have now sent a letter pursuing the matter. I notified them that the matter has been dealt with by default and should they want to review any paperwork pertaining to the matter to contact the company's officer with whom I dealt with. They sent another letter stating they "work within the legal framework of this jurisdiction and will be continuing with legal proceedings against you unless x amount is cleared or unless we receive repayment proposals within 7 days". They state that they are to proceed against "you" etc.... So my confusion lies with whether or not to start the who is "you" process again or just return their letter as they are acting on a void claim? I don't want to write back asking for a copy of a contract because as far as i can see the matter is closed by default. Would asking for a contract imply that I'm not standing on the default? (I can post the letters I sent if required)


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035706386866E+016
Last Updated: Sep 03, 2013 11:40 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 03, 2013 9:13 PM
Just to share..... Conversation started samedi 12:20 Pete Daoust Hi, is it an OBLIGATION from my part to put a return address on an envelop I am sending registered mail ? If this is the LAW, can you point me where it says so ? Thank you very much !! Pete. Aujourd�hui 16:58 From Canada Post Hi Pete, Thank you for your inquiry! Please keep in mind that you don't have to put a return address on the envelope but it's a your risk. If something happen, your item will not returned to you. Sincerely, Melina


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 03, 2013 9:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Chris Evan

Sep 03, 2013 11:13 PM
5. As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT [In the custody of Justice Wailan Low, ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE: Court File Number CV-11-430464], WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as a MAN who is not lawfully entitled to the BENEFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE [PPSACA13078], have any SURETY in this matter? What specifically are the benefits of a Birth Certificate?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02024820688268E+016
Last Updated: Sep 03, 2013 11:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Derek Moran

Sep 05, 2013 12:23 AM
Gail-inspired- Scott on how you end-up fucking yourselves when you get MARRIED "the ole'fashioned way"- thread..... Scott Duncan: Well if you are CURRENTLY married, you are CURRENTLY fucked. It's a bill of lading that secures your PERSONS in the same way Rogueupport has secured Tara and My "PERSONS". Scott Duncan: You need the government's PERMISSION to disolve the "bill of lading". We only require the SHAREHOLDER'S permission...and they're WAY nicer than the government. Gail Blackman: Can I send them a Notice of Mistake? Scott Duncan: No, because YOU WERE CAUTIONED before the "I Do's". Pete Daoust: Is there a specific reason to bring to the goverment, where they have NO CHOICE but to grant PERMISSION? Scott Duncan: Nope. It's LAW now. Only a court can dissolve it. BOTH PARTIES (The GRANTORS) consented, and the TRUSTEE ratified it. You are fucked. Gail Blackman: If both parties lien their names, then wouldn't that take the surety out of the equation? Scott Duncan: That's "WILFUL DAMAGE to a SECURITY INSTRUMENT". The Marriage came first. IT has the claim, not you. Liening your name just makes you "next in line". Pete Daoust: I wonder if there is LAWYERS that specialize in marriage dissolvement...?? Like a package kit you know..???...for $1099.99 we disolve your marriage no question ask..type of thing Scott Duncan: There are, but then they identify the split parties' assets and let the government know (As they are entitled to, according to the "license" you signed) so they have someone to "legally" targeted. (There's a paper trail, and therefore "Proof"). Pete Daoust: So whats the remedy..??? Joel Kinmond: The remedy is you learn the hard way what happens when you break an oath. Pete Daoust Gail Blackman, nice stuff here...lol.. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage Cara Small Atherton: How about a DECREE that the signatures are now rescinded by free will of both parties and marriage is now and forever null and void? Scott Duncan: That damages the security. The trustee you LICENSED from, will demand payment, which will, by happy coincidence, consist of everything you own. Cara Small Atherton: If there is lien in place then our corp would be "first in line" (Scott clicked LIKE)

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01539996628005E+016
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 12:23 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sep 05, 2013 1:05 AM
I bought a book the other day from a second hand store called Law in Action, Understanding Canadian Law. It turns out it was a high school law class text (I think). I opened it up and looked at the index, I was, in particular, looking to see if they had anything on trust law. Nothing. So then I go to the definitions page to see if they have PERSON defined. Nothing. Then I started to read various parts of it to see if PERSON is used anywhere in it, and I didn't see that word anywhere, however I did see the word "people" used fairly often. It was interesting going through it because now realizing/recognizing the real meaning of 'understanding' the information in the book is feeding readers i nsuch a way that they do/will stand under their fraud.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 1:05 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Sep 05, 2013 1:25 AM
Kinda irrelevant... but doesn't this remind you of something?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 1:25 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sep 05, 2013 2:53 AM
ChiefRock Sino General Whoaa, say what ? Listen to this, Its about Notaries, mmmm i think someone is confused here talking about Chief Rock, Sino General and Hajistahenhway who are completely separate things totally...ha idiots ... It starts about 1 hour 20 mins where they talk about ChiefRock Sino General and notaries


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 2:53 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Blake Gardner

Sep 05, 2013 7:24 AM
The only source of law is that which you assent to...EVERYTHING outside involuntary servitude is by consent, therefore it's ALWAYS about the law of THE contract...find or make the contract - you'll find and/or make the law. Best to keep it clear & simple:) peace...


Unique Facebook User ID: 665853723528529
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 7:24 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sep 05, 2013 8:47 PM
I would like to get some clarity. Please forgive me Scott Duncan and all if my comprehension is lacking or confused and for the length of this post. Birth Certificate -is a bill of lading � (3) it is a 'document of title' to the goods, of which it is the symbol. It is by means of this document of title that the goods themselves may be dealt with by the owner of them while they are still on board ship and upon the high seas." title. (15c) 1. the union of all elements (as ownership, possession, and custody) constituting the legal right to control and dispose of property; the legal link between a person who owns property and the property itself ^^ is this not them using the BC to inform us of their ownership of the PERSON and to to �set off� the fact that they own the person, they provide �benefits� (as listed in a previous post started by Chris Schulte) If we (the living beings) did not accept the Birth Certificate (offer of the PERSON ), we would all be entitled to a portion of the value of Canada (the Trust?)? Canada is bankrupt therefore there is no money, only debt which can be set off or discharged only (money of account) The PERSON who WE falsely accepted to be us is the collateral for the debt Now this is where I get confused about what is real and what is freeman bull. The Birth Certificate and Liening the name are two separate things? Returning the BC to its rightful owner (the govt) is that like returning something you bought (contracted) from Walmart to get a refund (counter offer)? but there is only money of account so Walmart (govt) gives you a gift card (Receivers Certificate) that you can use to buy what you need to replace the value of what you originally bought? Liening the PERSON NAME stops our value being used as collateral by anyone in the public side of things Queen E II in Right of CANADA owns everything in the public..Queen E II of the House of Windsor is holding it in trust for the living beings of the land mass? right now there are no living beings on the land mass because we have identified ourselves as the PERSON therefore have given up our true claim/beneficiary status to the trust? once we claim our beneficiary status, then the value of our corporation/trust (for accounting purposes) increases and the bank will provide credit to our corporation based on that? We can then exchange the credit they provide and any money of exchange or account we earn through our labour, into bitcoin or a currency we create? Pay the bank back the credit they extended to our corporation by using the legal tender you exchanged already for others?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 8:47 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 05, 2013 9:47 PM
Here is HOW I see all this�..from the beginning� Set up a corporation. Make sure that this corporation can ACCEPT crypto-currency as payment and can PAY with crypto-currency. Establish a TRUST (This is where I freeze :/ ) hopefully Scott Duncan will write a long fucking article on this subjet) Make sure NOTHING is in the name of this PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX EVERYTHING need to be in the TRUST and the trust needs to be HOLD by the corporation. Hire a chartered accountant to balance the books The corp PAY PIERRE DAOUST in crypto currency, PIERRE DAOUST pays his rent to the corp. in crypto-currency. PIERRE DAOUST never touch ANY of these Note is legal tender shit. And of course the corp. LIENING this PIERRE DAOUST PIERRE DAOUST, no contract and no signature nowhere�.unless crypto-currency is implied :D Having fun with Bill of Exchange. Don't go to court. And fixing this marriage fuck up. Alla Blake Gardner :D All the rest is pure complication


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 9:47 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Vilaca

Sep 05, 2013 11:35 PM
I know I know, I value the wrong things. None the less, I walked out with 7000 in debt notes. The video is from April of this year, long before I discovered TTFL. I'm still bleeding equity, I'd like to think I'm gaining a better understanding, truth is I'm mixing methods. T-1395-12 was a small victory, it was relief without equitable remedy.

Unique Facebook User ID: 431342553693049
Last Updated: Sep 05, 2013 11:35 PM
http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=63999879&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Jeff Roggers

Sep 06, 2013 7:51 AM
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61


Unique Facebook User ID: 1009917269041577
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 7:51 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jeff Roggers

Sep 06, 2013 8:07 AM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-418#3-418d


Unique Facebook User ID: 1009917269041577
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 8:07 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Sep 06, 2013 10:04 AM
What are you thoughts on this ? [526] It occurs to me that �fee schedules� may also have a potential criminal effect. Documents of this kind are intended to impede the legitimate action of government, law enforcement, and court actors by purporting to assign very sizable penalties for actions that are not only a part of their jobs, but very often a duty. These penalties are a threat of �damage to property�. Since �fee schedules� have no legal force, the threats they contain are by definition unlawful. [527] If so, it seems that perhaps when a person advances a �fee schedule�, that may be prima facie evidence of the act and intention of the Criminal Code, ss. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant offence. Advancing a �fee schedule� and claims based on the same, may perhaps also prove other criminal offences. Mr. Meads� �fee schedule� claims damages that clearly escalate in a manner that offends the Criminal Code, s. 347 criminal interest rate prohibition. Documents of this kind may have relevance for whether bail should be granted or denied: R. v. Boisjoli, 2012 ABQB 556 at para. 51.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 10:04 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sep 06, 2013 3:43 PM
The titles "First Nations" "Aboriginal" are all names created by the gov't., claiming that title has the same effect as me claiming to be a person? I ask because I want to give this response on a post with this headline "Prime Minister Harper is seeking to eliminate all First Nations Tribes." Here is the response I want to give, but want to make sure I'm accurate; The title "first nations" and "aboriginal" are names created by the govt ...meaning they are fiction. You are living breathing beings, not legal fictions. The govt created the name so they own it, they can do what they want with it. Detach from their created names, their only power comes from identifying oneself as one of their creations


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 3:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jason Wettstein

Sep 06, 2013 8:01 PM
how do i fight an eviction and .....>>> This is a court order; only a licensed court bailiff can execute residential evictions (Writ of Possession) issued by the Supreme or Federal Courts. Once you have an �Order of Possession� from the Residential Tenancy Branch, served your tenant, and they have not moved out by the date of order, you can then file for a Writ of Possession from the Supreme Court to evict your tenant and sign over peaceful possession to you. I have an agreement with my landlord to pay back rent from when i was sick as long as i kept current. I have fulfilled my agreement he has handed me a eviction notice for 10 days.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015239345811E+016
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 8:01 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Sep 06, 2013 8:13 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Sep 06, 2013 8:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5jCIEt1rIxU?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Blake Gardner

Sep 07, 2013 9:43 AM
Family business collecting fines via contract as the state...The basic corporate commercial model when sovereignty is submerged in chapter 11 bankruptcy:)

Unique Facebook User ID: 665853723528529
Last Updated: Sep 07, 2013 9:43 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 07, 2013 6:39 PM
When you're right, you're right. :(

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 07, 2013 6:39 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Sep 07, 2013 8:10 PM
Check this case out, now you will have to read but this just goes to show, how damn ignorant and foul these European judges really think they are superior over our nations, they think they can choose for us, determine things about us and push their laws upon us, cause we are less than nothing in their eyes, our status doesnt mean shit to them here is the statement about it, a good point this guy makes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope that was helpful and interesting. Just one last little point � it�s pretty clear that the courts have concluded that aboriginal status has no effect on the application of Canadian law, see R. v. Jones, 2000 CanLII 28221 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bqrq). In R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701 the Supreme Court of Canada said �� a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.�

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Sep 07, 2013 8:10 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Sep 09, 2013 7:36 PM
My understanding is that the UK is debating a private members bill "Provide a system of national service for young persons; and for connected purposes." In the above description they use the word PERSONS, but in the description they use the words "participant" and "individual" individual, adj. (I5c) 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Ofor relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group. What is PARTICIPANT? Any person who takes part in any activity, service or program. So are they getting sly or are these other words used because it's a private members bill and not law yet? http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0032/cbill_2013-20140032_en_2.htm


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 09, 2013 7:36 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Sep 09, 2013 7:38 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Sep 09, 2013 7:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/sOJvPGTWxAU?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Colin Stephen Tonks

Sep 09, 2013 8:04 PM
Telstra agreed more than a decade ago to store huge volumes of electronic communications it carried between Asia and the US for potential surveillance by US intelligence agencies, in a secret agreement with the FBI and the US Department of Justice. On Friday, Telstra was refusing to say whether it had similar data retention agreements with other nations' intelligence agencies, including those in Australia. Australia's other major telco, Optus, declined to say whether it stored data for potential surveillance by US, or Australian, authorities. Under the previously secret US agreement, Telstra has been sending all communications involving a US point of contact through a secure storage facility on US soil that is staffed exclusively by US citizens carrying a top-level security clearance. The data includes the content of emails, online messages and phone calls. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fbi-gets-access-to-telstra-records-20130712-2pvl6.html#ixzz2eOi7bDSZ

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523951670811E+016
Last Updated: Sep 09, 2013 8:04 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Sep 10, 2013 1:03 AM
Does anyone have any suggestions on ways to find the name and policy number for Directors� and Officers� Liability Insurance for a corporate executive? I can't imagine they would just freely offer it to me?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 1:03 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sep 10, 2013 1:07 AM


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 1:07 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 10, 2013 1:20 AM
So I have the RIGHT to this person named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX is life?....so I guess I can kill it ? I also have the RIGHT to this person named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX is Liberty?.....So I guess I can cage it ? And I also have the RIGHT to this person named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX is SURETY/SECURITY? :D ......so I guess I can LIEN it ? :D Larf, larf, larf, larf�..fap, fap, fap, fap Check Mate :D I feel like I have a SLAVE in my pocket :D Signed The-Master-of-PIERRE-DAOUST-26X-XXX-XXX


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 1:20 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Sep 10, 2013 2:22 AM
Money is compliance to involuntary servitude. Period.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 2:22 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Norah Holloway

Sep 10, 2013 3:51 AM
- Dean Clifford - TORONTO SEMINAR COMING NOVEMBER 2013 Email Norah@DeanClifford.info for updates on ticket costs, location and details. Stay informed @ www.deanclifford.info


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01536860029343E+016
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 3:51 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Sino General

Sep 10, 2013 8:43 PM
Thoughts on this, here is a case about a guy who is arguing with S32 of the Charter of rights and freedoms, that he is not a Govt Agent and only Govt Agents fall under Canadian law not private citizens. Please dont go off topic, stick to the topic at hand please. i will delete any comments try to steer this off course. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What s. 32 actually does is makes it a requirement for Canadian law, and government actors to follow and respect the rights provided to Canadian residents under the Charter. The court at paras. 74-84 explains how Petrie has literally got the law backwards in a simply excellent analysis on this point: [75] Section 32 of the Charter and the jurisprudence interpreting this section makes it clear that the Charter applies to all actions undertaken by state authorities and government agents when they interact with private citizens, meaning that private citizens who have an interaction with a government actor benefit from the rights afforded to them by the Charter during that interaction and have recourse to the courts if they believe that the government actor, and by extension the government, has breached one or more of their Charter rights. To give a concrete example: state conduct, i.e. government action, such as police investigating and arresting a private citizen must conform with Charter values and respect the Charter rights of the private citizen. Thus an individual private citizen, when investigated by the police, has the right to be secure from an unreasonable search and seizure by virtue of s. 8 of the Charter and has the right to retain counsel upon arrest or detention by virtue of s. 10(b) of the Charter. [76] The jurisprudence interpreting s. 32 of the Charter also establishes that the Charter does not apply or govern activities between private citizens or between private citizens and corporations. Thus, where a legal dispute arises between private citizens, for example, in a divorce proceeding or interpreting the terms of a contract, the parties cannot invoke their respective Charter rights against one another. � [79] With respect, the applicant appears to be endeavouring to turn the jurisprudence pertaining to s. 32 of the Charter on its head. If he is arguing that because he is a private citizen the Constitution, and by extension the laws of this country, only apply to government actions and agents, he is mistaken. He, too, is subject to the laws of Canada, including the CDSA. He cannot pick and choose what laws apply to him, nor can he engage in what Myers J. characterized in Porisky at para. 67 as "legal numerology" by picking and choosing extracts from statutes and cases and weaving them together in an attempt to create logical links where none exist. [80] Section 32 of the Charter mandates that the Charter applies to government actions such as the RCMP's investigation and arrest of the applicant in this case, which means that the applicant's Charter rights are to be observed and protected in the carrying out of such actions. The Charter does not, however, govern interactions between private citizens. Moreover, s. 32 of the Charter does not stand for the notion that as a private citizen the Constitution and the laws of Canada do not apply to the applicant and his actions. [81] If the applicant is trying to assert the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because, by virtue of s. 32 of the Charter, the Constitution and the laws under which he is charged only applies to government agents, and he is not a government agent, he has fundamentally misconceived what s. 32 of the Charter means and what the jurisprudence has interpreted its purpose to be. [82] If the applicant is trying to advance the argument that the laws under which he is charged do not apply to him because he is not a government agent, again he is mistaken. [83] If the applicant is suggesting the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because he is a private citizen and thus outside of the Court�s jurisdiction, then, as Mr. Justice Hollinrake noted in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at para. 13 [Warman], his argument would be "a complete denial of the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law." Arguments of this kind must be and are "rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever": Warman, at para. 14. [84] There is no legal merit in the point the applicant advances under s. 32 of the Charter


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 8:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sino General

Sep 10, 2013 8:58 PM
I read alot of contract books, now i wanna go get the one that is listed here on this thread, here is a post about a case that shows, you allegedly cannot get an agreement through silence, in Canada. So, time for some research, i know there has to be cases that demonstrate silence as agreement, oh wait, isnt the Supreme Court filing, Notice to Admit one of those ? If you dont reply in 14days, your in agreement, geez i think these are are half retarded, therefore untrust worthy 100%, they only seem to apply these sort things when it favors their players, as to why you dont go into their damn PRIVATE COURTS, unless by force, or by you standing on your contract, either way it can be fun if you know what you doing, here is the posting ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure enough, Petrie has claimed that Black�s Law Dictionary contains a definition of �tacit consent�. Justice Ker notes that the current version does not, but perhaps he meant �implied consent�, which is defined (para. 46). The response is, in my mind, worth quoting in full: [47] That definition is of no assistance to the applicant. The basis of contractual obligations is an agreement between the parties, often referred to as consensus ad idem or agreement of the parties to the same thing. However, the jurisprudence or common law does not support the applicant's argument. [48] In Resource Realty Ltd. v. Swiftsure Developments Ltd., 2005 BCSC 229 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 229, Mr. Justice Owen-Flood held the following at paragraphs 23 and 24: [23] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff's offer was accepted through the defendant's silence. Mr. Braithwaite communicated his terms to the defendants orally and in various faxed documents. Because there is no concrete evidence that the defendants specifically rejected these offers, the plaintiff submits that their silence constituted acceptance. However, as held by the Supreme Court of Canada in Schiller v. Fisher, 1981 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 593, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror before a contract can be found to exist: [g]enerally, the fact of acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the offeror before acceptance is complete and a binding contract is created. [24] As stated by Professor Waddams in The Law of Contracts, Fourth Edition (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1999) at p. 67, Ordinarily, therefore, silence will not operate as an acceptance even through the offeree should prove an intention to accept. This is not a technicality but part of the requirement of a bargain. No reasonable person, on receiving a proposal that looks for a reply, considers the bargain concluded until the manifestation of assent. Nor will a reasonable offeror ordinarily consider that silence on the part of the offeree manifests the latter's acceptance (references omitted).


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Sep 10, 2013 8:58 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Sino General

Sep 11, 2013 9:24 PM
Maybe a big majority of people became super comfortable with par taking in one of the biggest mass murders and theft of resources ever to take place in history of man. Alot of folks just are not concerned enough to really tell this murderous Govt, no. They are the most in your face racist that i can think of, in your face truly believe they have the rights to rule and govern all the original nations, not just nations of turtle island either, yes i am speaking of the British Empire, King and Queen. They love to point to their laws as to why they can. So, you dont see the conflict of interest here ? Your laws, your So called Queen is your point of authority. RCMP/police forces gain their power from these so called authorities, yet no one questions it? You do realize, no one is arresting these criminals for murder/biological warfare and genocide of a race. Seems the Queens men or army have affected 70% or more of this Planet, Big Corporations who have no real claim to real property seeing its all just a made up thing, fiction. They gain more rights and win in court because they fund probably like 80% of the courts daily intake. Wouldnt be in their interest to turn down their biggest client against, the natives they been trying to eradicate for the past 400 years. Most might be upset by these words but time is coming to close off this bs way of living everyone has been fooled into buying into. Time to change and only the people can do that. If we need, make our own courts and jails for those who wish to continue this bs agenda that doesnt seem to have an end. Passive thinking and passive ideas are no longer possible. I know we need to create something unique that isnt modeled after their criminal activities but it would be a start. Than grow from there. Its not okay to live on land that has a history of bloodshed, murder/rape and the list goes on, if your not okay with simple things like robbing a store/bank or people on the streets. If your not ok with that, why is it okay to not say anything about what took place on the very land you sleep each night ? i guess its like eating meat, unless you didnt kill the animal, it doesnt matter just keep on keeping on. Time for Change, we need to really set our priorities straight, how would our ancestors think we they saw how we complied with these terrorists, called the Canadian Govt, American Govt. Share and share and keep on sharing if you agree, time for a movement to gain power.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated: Sep 11, 2013 9:24 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 12, 2013 12:05 AM
Got a question: Can the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST can be DOMICILED where ever I choose to ? As the MASTER of this person, I would say yes, but wish to have some insights.... :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2013 12:05 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dino Disenfranchised

Sep 12, 2013 7:16 PM
This may be beyond the scope of TTFL but I thought it rather interesting. The video link is a Noam Chomsky interview regarding the USA and Syria. At the 30 minute mark, NC describes the USA's contribution to the International Courts and their immunization to said court. This was done as a condition to participation. To summarize, Obama is using the threat of force (illegal in International to which the USA is immune) on Syria to surrender all chemical weapons in accordance to International Law. Questions: 1) For the USA to be immune from prosecution in International court, they used a "conditional participation clause" to avoid jurisdiction... How is this dissimilar, other than level of court and participants, to the thoughts/ways of TTFL? 2) Has anyone sought out a linguistics professional like NC for advice? 2a) Doesn't anyone think this would be a valuable avenue to research?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523100619462E+016
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2013 7:16 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 12, 2013 7:52 PM
Hey, this PIERRE DAOUST person got ANOTHER speeding tickets from the City of Montreal :D So, I, as the most responsible administrator in town, took that bill of exchange addressed to the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX, and accepted by:,signed it, dated it, put the PIERRE DAOUST�s account number on it, put the Bill of Exchange Act as a reference, included a one page letter to EXPLANE what I am doing, and sent that bill of exchange to the Bank of Canada to discharged that debt addressed to PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX. Of course I photocopied everything and sent all of it to the the City of Montreal to let them know that Bank of Canada has been informed to send them a payment. And Yesterday, I�ve picked up this in the mail box :/ Notice to continue proceedings IMPORTANT NOTICE We wish to inform you that the explanations you have provided with your plea of not guilty give rise to a matter that ought to be brought before the court. (I NEVER ENTERED a non-guilty plea ?....I paid, through the surety of the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX.) The Municipal Court of Ville de Montreal, will soon send you a notice, indicating the different manners by which your file may be put on the roll for a hearing before a Municipal Court Judge. You may present your defence at that time. The judge. After hearing the parties involved, will render a judgement. It is important that you advise us of any change of address. (What defence ? , what file ?.... I have NO DEFENCE, and NO file with them� I have paid ) If you wish to change your plea and no longer contest the infraction, you can pay the amount indicated in the item entitled *amount due* before the due date. Upon reception of your full payment your file will be closed. Certain infractions do carry the consequence of an inscription of demerit points on your file with the Socit� de l�assurance automobile du Quebec (SAAQ) (Change WHAT plea ?....I have NOT entered a plea fuck :D) I NEVER ENTERED a non-guilty plea ?....I discharged the debt, through the surety of the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX. I have NO DEFENCE, and NO file with them� I did NOT gave any explanation on any possible defence�.I just explained HOW I discharged that debt through the Bank of Canada, where the surety of PIERRE DAOUST is�.. Why they just don�t tell me that they are NOT accepting the payment ? Seriously Scott Duncan, Why they just don�t tell me that they are NOT accepting the payment ? FUCK !!! :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2013 7:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Mark Redmond

Sep 12, 2013 9:16 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 625222947564936
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2013 9:16 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 13, 2013 8:51 PM
The FTP Trust. TRUST CONSTITUTION I, Pierre Daoust, give all my assets to 9111-1111 Quebec Inc, as Trustee, to hold and administer in trust and to make such withdrawals, at 9111-1111 Quebec Inc�s sole discretion, and from time to sustain and benefit the beneficiary. This Trust ends the last of the funds are so expanded or 2099, and in the event that funds remain as of 2099, this trust ends and those funds are to be given to the residual beneficiary. Signed on this 13th day of September, 2013. X_______________________________ Do I have a TRUST Scott Duncan ? :D


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 13, 2013 8:51 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Grizzman Freedude

Sep 14, 2013 12:42 AM
Nova Scotia Barristers' Trust Accounts Manual


Unique Facebook User ID: 435233866666361
Last Updated: Sep 14, 2013 12:42 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 14, 2013 8:05 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CHUQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedom-school.com%2Fpaper-arrows.pdf&ei=4MA0Uva8LpGK2QXE-IDwDg&usg=AFQjCNEDWgT7OX_prZTzCAPpam-HeG2-Cg&sig2=GcHqC-z3PyhBADkMdJappA


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 14, 2013 8:05 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 14, 2013 8:06 PM
The Book, Paper Arrows, is appropriate, we seem to get in Trouble by Signing Papers!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 14, 2013 8:06 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 15, 2013 8:36 PM
This is why I loathe "believers". Adults with imaginary friends will happily impose their delusions and say shit like this. You stupid delusional sacks of shit, dare say I shouldn't have rights. The world would be a nice place, if all the believers died... alas, they won't. I won't say they shouldn't have rights though.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2013 8:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ie2-12sSyKI?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Ceit Butler

Sep 16, 2013 3:43 PM
" The police were trying to shoot a man who was trying to kill himself, but shot innocent witnesses instead." There's just SO much that is wrong with that headline. Go NYPD! http://www.alternet.org/new-york-cops-injure-two-bystanders-times-square


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153923542315E+016
Last Updated: Sep 16, 2013 3:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 16, 2013 5:39 PM
I was recently trespassed from a grocery store, the self chec out reader didn't scan a $1.00 item. Mngt waited an hour to approach me, didn't get out on the sidewalk, still in the store, security flashed a badge, led me to a small room, forced me to sign trespass papers which I signed under duress, coercion,with all rights reserved etc, My question is, I want to do an Affidavit/notary witness procedure, where do I find what to charge them with?? USC Codes? UCC codes etc! Any input is appriaceted!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 16, 2013 5:39 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jo Xappie

Sep 16, 2013 6:40 PM
Just got off the phone with Bell. Told them that Rogers offering a better deal and I will no longer need their services. Told me you still have a contract with us and it doesn't expire for another 2 years and if I wanted to get out of the contract it would cost $635. Told them I never signed a contract or gave them authority to autorenew the contract. Agent said that they sent the renewal attached to an invoice and that I never responded to it, so I was in agreement to the auto renew. I said I wouldn't be paying the bill, they said collection will be calling you everyday and we will ruin your credit rating. Filed a complaint with https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/complaints/complaint-form and am waiting to hear from them. Anyone have any info on the autorenew aspect of this contract? Thanks

Unique Facebook User ID: 1620495888164360
Last Updated: Sep 16, 2013 6:40 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


T?lis B?auns

Sep 16, 2013 11:24 PM
Property rights are intense, Following the entry onto the property, Mrs Rumble(counil agent) then said to the police: "Please charge them with trespass after I had asked them three times to leave the property once they entered. Are you going to act against the law? Constable Harcher: "No I won't do that. Their paperwork is right. Don't tell us about the law. Mrs Rumble: If you know the law, then you should know that you will be charged with trespass too once you enter

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523955859954E+016
Last Updated: Sep 16, 2013 11:24 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Antony Mac Phiarais

Sep 17, 2013 9:26 AM
what do you think of this scott ?

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0203959943332E+016
Last Updated: Sep 17, 2013 9:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Auf1rehiA-4?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Mick Parker

Sep 17, 2013 4:36 PM
So the Dept of Defence is switching to Electronic Funds Transfer & claim they wont be able to pay me this week unless I have a Bank account.... i'm sorry hahaha NOTICE I have received correspondence from YOUR office regarding a change to Electronic funds transfer (EFT) IF I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE IMPRESSION IN ANY FORM THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACT ON MY BEHALF, I AM SORRY BUT THAT WAS A MISTAKE AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I have NO Bank account & Know of NO obligation to have one. I rebut your presumption that handing agency for my pension to a third party makes YOU fulfilling your obligation easier for me. There is no controversy as to the fact that my person is ENTITLED to pension payments but your Section/Dept, through its policy change has made itself NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE. YOU WILL NOTIFY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE OF YOUR INABILITY TO FULFILL YOUR FUNCTION IMMEDIATELY AS ANY DEFAULT ON PAYMENTS WILL RESULT IN HIS LIABILITY. MICHAEL PARKER


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152746075001E+016
Last Updated: Sep 17, 2013 4:36 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dean Clifford

Sep 18, 2013 12:18 AM
Hey Scott, who is this Lege Unum retard? He tried getting into things with me today. He never says anything relevant, talks in endless circles, and then accuses you of doing that very thing. Anyways, made him look like a punk, almost worth reading, but not really. Got him to confess that even he does not like his own posts. :D Hahahahahaha! Lege Unum: "I never like my own posts ... you seem to be confused littlun" Post that, that is a keeper. It admits that it does not even like its own posts. It probably also does not like its own life, looks, hair, clothing, make-up and living accommodations in its parents basement. Win.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01541010460705E+016
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 12:18 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Mick Parker

Sep 18, 2013 4:05 AM
Why is it there is a presumption that a police officer has any more right to put his hands on you than you have on him? in the lacking of any reasonable motive, the police officers should be charged with assault. Fair fucks to the 2 boys :)

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0152746075001E+016
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 4:05 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 18, 2013 2:12 PM
WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE COMING FROM? Seriously. It's not like I INVITE people here. There's 450 Members now. SOME of you are theists... ...and I'll find you. ( muahahahahaha!) Seriously. Why do people keep coming here?


Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 2:12 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Maddog Wonfeyeve

Sep 18, 2013 6:41 PM
I know I came here to learn something; i can only speak for myself though...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0153448126356E+016
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 6:41 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 18, 2013 7:17 PM
Who feels like COMPLYING today ? :D Compliance Observance; conformity; obedience. Compliance with the federal Income Tax laws is essential to avoid prosecution for Tax Evasion. Synonyms 1. acquiesce, yield, conform, obey, consent, assent. Antonyms 1. refuse, resist. com�ply [kuhm-plahy] Show IPA verb (used without object), com�plied, com�ply�ing. 1. to act or be in accordance with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, conditions, etc.; agree (sometimes followed by with ): They asked him to leave and he complied. She has complied with the requirements. 2. Obsolete . to be courteous or conciliatory.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 7:17 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 18, 2013 7:48 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 18, 2013 7:48 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 19, 2013 4:30 PM
SPECIAL REQUEST FROM THE TOKEN FRENCH DUMBASS ! Hi, I would like to get this Adam Thomas token guy back in The Tender for Law. I know he is "SPECIAL", I know he has a fucking loud mouth, I know he can be ANNOYING, I know he is fucked-up. But I don't see ANY difference between "ME" amd "HIM". And I like him, in fact, I've been surrounded with the type of Animals since I am 8 years old. Adam has NOTHING to do with MAJORITY :D So this is my special request. I am READY for whatever the answer... Thanks Pete (Token) Daoust


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 19, 2013 4:30 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Cara Small

Sep 19, 2013 5:05 PM
What significance, if any, would there be if one was to receive a letter from Elections BC with a wet ink signature and with one's name written in proper form (not all caps)?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02066034553543E+016
Last Updated: Sep 19, 2013 5:05 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Joe Bucks

Sep 19, 2013 7:02 PM
Re-posting this shit here, so you guys can pick it apart. lol Sam Ganci Our Freedom Fighter Earth Bro, Antonio Paulo had a victory. Read on. Antonio Paulo 9 hours ago via mobile He He He He He He:) That was so much fun. I absolutely kicked the shit out the judge, the prosecutor, the clerk + the Victoria Police. The judge + prosecutor now have to offset the debt that they created by charging the 'Cestui Que Vie Trust.' They are up for a substantial amount of money between them both. It only took me 3 minutes to completely destroy the court system. They had to get me out of there + quick smart. I was exposing the fraud of the court + I did it all from the 'Public Gallery' without even stepping a foot into the dock/court. The judge calls out "Antonio Paulo." I answered back by saying "Are you saying that the trust which you are now administering is the Antonio Paulo trust sir?!" He was stunned + turned white. Judge then answers. "May you please step into the court please?" I answered. "Sorry. I reserve my right to stay here in the public gallery." The judge - "You are required to come into the court." Me - "Sorry. I do not consent to boarding the ship or coming into the 'Bar' sir." The judge - "We'll proceed anyway." The prosecutor - "Antonio Paulo failed to obey our parking signs." I cut him off + said. "Antonio Paulo is indeed in the court." I pointed at the judge. "It is you! As 'Trustee/Administrator. You are Antonio Paulo today aren't you?!" The judge + prosecutor both drop their heads. I continue in addressing the court. "Before we go any further. I need to know who you all are?" I point to the clerk + say. "Are you the 'Cestui Que Vie's 'Owner/Trustee' who has appointed this judge as 'Administrator' + 'Trustee' of the constructive trust case no. D12403742. Did you also appoint the 'Prosecutor' as 'Executor' of this constructive trust?" I then point to the judge + say. "So you are the 'Trustee.' Then pointed to the 'Prosecutor' + said. "And you are the 'Executor' + I am the 'Beneficiary.' So now we know who's who and as the 'Beneficiary.' I authorize you to handle the accounting + dissolve this constructive trust." The judge, prosecutor + the court is in dead silence. I continue in saying. "I now claim my body. So I am collapsing the 'Cestui Que Vie Trust' which you have charged as there is no value in it. You have committed fraud against all laws! Are you not the creators of controversy?!" The judge with a face that is red as a tomato calls for the Police + security to remove me from the court cause I exposed their fraud. In the meantime I ask the judge 3 times. "Are you under oath here today sir?" No answer from the judge. I then ask him "Are you are a public servant?" No answer. I then ask him 3 times. "Excuse me. May I see your 'Writ Of Commission' + 'Bonding Agreement sir?" The judge could not produce it for me at all. I then state. "I as a sovereign am now the highest authority in the court as the judge has not shown me their 'Writ Of Commission' + 'Bonding Agreement.' I now dismiss the case!" By that time the police + security remove me from the court as I have now exposed the judge + the fraud of the court. I was released at the front door with me saying to the police. "Go back into your private corporate courtroom + continue to commit 'Treason' you fake counterfeit police impersonators." Now the court is left to pay the debt that they created. Stiff shit to all the people that thought that I was talking shit + was going to get locked up. I won the case! Proved everyone wrong + got my retribution against the court from the last time that I was brought into court by a fake counterfeit police officer by the name of Jody Clayton. Mission accomplished + God bless!!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02041227007269E+016
Last Updated: Sep 19, 2013 7:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Fred Palmer

Sep 19, 2013 10:50 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523902665191E+016
Last Updated: Sep 19, 2013 10:50 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Sep 20, 2013 7:05 AM
So Scott... If we must write a cheque (negotiable instrument), let`s say for rent or payment to a friend... Should we write Non-Negotiable on it so the banks cannot screw with it? Also, should we qualify our signature `without recourse to me`?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.0151988293247E+016
Last Updated: Sep 20, 2013 7:05 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 20, 2013 2:45 PM
Homeless and living off BitCoin.

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 20, 2013 2:45 PM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Sep 20, 2013 6:27 PM
Accounting, a credited negative offset can not be a positive? [yes i just made that up], so credit issued by a bank is not really credit, it is just a debt offset on the ledger. So ipso facto, there is technically no credit either because less negative is still not a positive, and credit is technically a positive...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Sep 20, 2013 6:27 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 20, 2013 9:05 PM
?????-When does an Inchoate Instrument become that??? After the Offer? As in the car salesman, draws up the Papers??


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 20, 2013 9:05 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Grizzman Freedude

Sep 21, 2013 2:20 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 435233866666361
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 2:20 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Grizzman Freedude

Sep 21, 2013 2:31 AM
section 1000 of GAAP


Unique Facebook User ID: 435233866666361
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 2:31 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


David Johansen

Sep 21, 2013 6:11 AM
Accounting, a credited negative offset can not be a positive? [yes i just made that up], so credit issued by a bank is not really credit, it is just a debt offset on the ledger. So ipso facto, there is technically no credit either because less negative is still not a positive, and credit is technically a positive...


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.020477456099E+016
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 6:11 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 21, 2013 2:43 PM
Hello's... I've been receiving some private FB messages recently, from others asking "ME" questions.....I am a little confused when this happens, since I don't think I am the most intelligent guy in this group, it makes me think that I may answer you with bullshit :D So I will post these questions I receive here, in TTFL, and will try to answer the best I can, so others can detect my bullshit, if bullshit there is.... Question From Philip Laforet: Hey Pete, how ya doing? None of your business :D I was wondering how your knowledge was on doing liens. I am not certain on the method in regards to sending invoices and statements. Also how do you collect on them, I guess if they don't pay once they get the lien, I would have to go into superior court? if you are not sure, do you know who is best at it? Thanks! Well, the best method to send invoices is with registered mail Canada Post. Same thing with statements. Same thing with Notice Same thing with Final Notice (because I am a nice guy :D ) Same thing with Default Notice. You do NOT collect on them, you register a PRIVILLEGE LEGAL on their stuff, if ever they decide to SELL this thing, you are in line, maybe the first, second or..???....to get paid out of that sale. No superior court involve in that process. The best at it that I know, so far, would be Scott Duncan. You are welcome. You've been in business Philip Laforet, what would you do if one of your customer would not pay you ?......same thing here, it's STRICTELY BUSINESS.... Thanks Pete Daoust.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 2:43 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


James O'Suilleabh�in

Sep 21, 2013 4:56 PM
At 11:22 this morning I received a phone call from my tenant panicking after a thug acting for Ulster bank banged on the door of my property in Tramore, Co. Waterford with a summons to the Circuit court in Waterford City. When the tenant opened the door she was greeted by a large thuggish man with handcuffs hanging off his belt, who pushed straight past her and moved through the house, checking the rooms demanding to know where I was. I was not there as I live up the country now and have for a while. Just to point out from the start of this story, I have a case in the High court since last November, a valid case that the bank does not have a claim over the property for many reasons, including: they sold on the original loan agreement with my signature as a financial instrument through a process known as securitisation, they are in breach of contract law by their actions, they are insolvent as a business and it is illegal to trade while insolvent, they have no banking license and other claims. Also, and one of the most important, they were at no loss of accounting as they never loaned me any cash in the first place, my signature created the credit. Back to the story; this thug acting for Ulster bank had no lawful authority to enter the premises and he was not invited, all he had the power to do was issue a summons. He had no order for repossession. THIS IS TRESPASS, a common law crime. He did not leave his name or any contact details. Two Gardai were with him, watched him enter the property and did not interfere when he unlawfully entered the property. He threatened the tenant with eviction. His actual words were "You will be out of here by xmas". There is a young child living in the property with his mother. He was screaming with distress. This man threatened to take all property in the near future regardless if it was mine or the tenants. He also said and I quote "You don't have to give this summons to him if you don't want to". The reason why he would say that is because he said he knows I have a case in the high court against Ulster bank, if I , or others like me win, it will open the flood gates. They are trying to get a repossession order in the lower court to stop my case before it is heard. WE ARE HAVING AN IMPACT! They are now panicking and sending heavies in to try and intimidate people who are bringing lawful claims against the corrupt banks into the court. To say I am shocked and upset by the blatant breaking of the law of the land while members of An Garda Siochana stand idly by, is an understatement. I was lawfully and civilly dealing with this through the courts, while Ulster Bank have now lowered themselves to sending in scum and scaring the life out of women and children without even a court order in hand. I will use all means necessary to find out who this criminal was who without lawful authority entered my home and seek a criminal prosecution against him for trespass. If we have no law, we have nothing in society. THIS HAS TO STOP NOW! James.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01524173870698E+016
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 4:56 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 21, 2013 7:50 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 7:50 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Stuart Stone

Sep 21, 2013 8:31 PM
Very interesting compilation re Bills of Exchange, Banking Practices & 'lending'...worth a look :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01534649465191E+016
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2013 8:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/-o2yavOr2D0?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Sep 22, 2013 2:15 AM
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/09/20130921-091528.html


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 22, 2013 2:15 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None






Steve Lemieux

Sep 23, 2013 3:28 AM
Forgive me, as I STEP ONTO MY SOAP BOX, I�ve had several (strong) drinks� A friend of mine forwarded this link to me. It APPEARS to me that Mario Antonacci, AKA, Andreas Pirelli, of the Calgary Embassy is a complete PIECE of SHIT. You would think that a greater understanding of public & private jurisdictions, contracts and trusts would instil compassion & responsibility in so called "FREEMEN" but obviously, SOME just don't get it. Behavior like this only HURTS our quest to be intelligently heard. I am NOT a fucking �FREEMAN ON THE LAND� and I certainly am NOT a fucking �SOVEREIGN�. I am nothing but a BENEFICIARY. My inability to �PAY� debt PRECLUDES me from being a responsible trustee so what else can I be, but a beneficiary? That fucking justice on the bench can be trustee; who gives a fuck about the decedent�s public account anyway? Certainly not I. Problem is, idiots like Andreas Pirelli fuck shit up for the rest of us. Those kinds of fucking RETARDS have made it very difficult to interact with the public in a nice and calm manner. Almost every time we step into a face to face with public officials, whether on the street or in court � we are considered FREEMEN/Terrorists. That makes it VERY tough to have an intelligent conversation and/or be taken seriously. If you�re still chasing DOLLAR BILLS and/or recklessly using liens for billion of dollars against your fellow men/women, you just don�t GET it; you�re a fucking TOOL and have a lot left to learn. If you�re still making statements like � I�m a FREEMAN on the LAND! You just don�t get it and have a lot left to learn. STOP making statements/arguing and start ASKING questions. Yes, there is a time and place for liens - once agreement of the parties has been established. If you file and can�t hold your shit, sucks to be you. You deserve what you get. With knowledge comes responsibility. If you use your knowledge to harm, you are no better than those you hurt. As far as I�m concerned, sorry, I just don�t have time for you. As I STEP OFF MY SOAP BOX, I say, learn your trust structures people. This whole pursuit for freedom thing is not going to get any easier any time soon. Public perception is that we�re all cut from the same FREEMAN cloth� If you give a shit and/or have a few minutes to burn, you can read all about that fucking Andreas monkey here.... Peace�

Unique Facebook User ID: 458370044339963
Last Updated: Sep 23, 2013 3:28 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


J.P. Alexander

Sep 23, 2013 4:59 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 780666251957463
Last Updated: Sep 23, 2013 4:59 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 23, 2013 5:13 PM
Scott, whats your Opinion of "OPPT"


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 23, 2013 5:13 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 23, 2013 8:05 PM
Im Reading "Best of-gold Nuggets" Wow, RED PILL, the Size of a Cantalope!!!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 23, 2013 8:05 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 23, 2013 11:58 PM
A friend of mine,his daughter started a small fire in his backyard, it spred and some DNR land caught fire, very small 1-2 acres, now they sent him a Bill for $10,000.00 he called me wondering what to do. I said write a letter Conditionally Accepting their offer to Contract with these stipulations! Swear out an Affidavit under Penalty of Perjury(all truth is spoken in affidavit form) Produce a wet ink Contract that was signed between them, if you cannot do this, your offer to contract is rejected!!! Any thoughts!?


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 23, 2013 11:58 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Anibal Jose Baez

Sep 24, 2013 3:35 PM
In the booklet "Trustees in Commerce, By Carlton Weiss" it says that its fraud to lien a trust you did not create, and annexed are the reasons suggested. In the USA, if a corporation liens a NAME that did not created, to be HELD in TRUST, would this be fraud? If not, what Am I missing? Scott Duncan? I am trying to protect my property and persons, by applying what I have learned here. <<A UCC Financing Statement (UCC-1) is a very mighty financial instrument indeed, but only when used for the right situation. Filing a lien on a trust you did not create and did not act as trustee for is inherently fraudulent because you�re demanding a debt from an entity that owes you nothing. If the US government decided to issue you a social security account number and thereby create a revocable living trust naming you the beneficiary, you have no grounds to file a lien on that trust. No commercial gain was had at your expense, even if the trust is identified based on the name of the cestui qui trust, such as using your name in all capital letters (e.g., JOHN WAYNE DOE). ... Therefore, one who is a beneficiary, one who benefits from a trust created by the US government has no recourse to file a lien when he discovers he�s been made the beneficiary of a trust identified based on his name.>> Trustees in Commerce By Carlton Weiss


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02035927166068E+016
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2013 3:35 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Sep 24, 2013 6:51 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2013 6:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/zAPBzq_0NM8?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 24, 2013 6:52 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2013 6:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Mark Russell

Sep 24, 2013 11:50 PM
Blogtalk has the topic wrong but we have the right guest.

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01521106363428E+016
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2013 11:50 PM
https://player.cinchcast.com/assets/player/jwplayer-5.9.2156.swf?config=https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.cinchcast.com%2Fconfig%3FplatformId%3D1%26assetId%3D5452637%26assetType%3Dsingle%26version%3D2.0
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Lee Edgely

Sep 25, 2013 4:14 PM
A STATEMENT MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON ONLY BECOMES EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM IF HE, EITHER BY WORDS, CONDUCT OR DEMEANOR, ACCEPTS THE SATEMENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS BEING TRUE, THUS MAKING IT A STATEMENT OF HIS OWN; ONLY SO MUCH OF THE STATEMENT AS IS SO ACKNOWLEDGE TO BE TRUE, AND NO MORE, CAN BE RECIEVED IN EVIDENCE. EVEN IF THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED TAKES THE FORM OF AN ACCUSATION WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO CALL FOR A DENIAL OR EXPLANATION, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED, UNLESS AND INSOFAR AS THE ACCUSED, BY WORD, CONDUCT OR DEMEANOUR, ACCEPTS IT SO AS TO MAKE IT, IN EFFECT, HIS OWN. JUST SHARING FOLKS, I HOPE THIS HELPS SOMEONE.


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01529407782786E+016
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2013 4:14 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Pete Daoust

Sep 26, 2013 1:45 AM
OK.Scott Duncan, why is it CBC and Ridio-Canada is BITCHING like this against CRA ???....I don'T get it :/ Tomorrow, at 8:00pm, at Radio-Canada, SHOCKING revelation will be made.... WHY ????


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 26, 2013 1:45 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None




Harold Austerman

Sep 26, 2013 3:55 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 26, 2013 3:55 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 26, 2013 4:18 PM

Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 26, 2013 4:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/lgL3MngUXF8?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 27, 2013 3:26 AM
Just in case you thought I have forgotten about my campaign for a National Kick-A-Cop-In-The-Face Day... ...here's YET ANOTHER reason for it (WHY is it SO EASY to find examples of this shit)

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 3:26 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Steve Lemieux

Sep 27, 2013 7:33 AM
Public servants... gotta love 'em

Unique Facebook User ID: 458370044339963
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 7:33 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Oh crap...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 27, 2013 5:29 PM
BOE Information from the UN (SKYNET) :)

Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 5:29 PM
http://viewer.docstoc.com/?doc_id=23790609&mem_id=2645953&revision=127328134&showrelated=0&showotherdocs=0
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 27, 2013 5:40 PM
Correct me if Im wrong!!! Are Canadian Laws and Usa Laws basically the same because Both have IMF Banks/Charters, because ALL law is Contract!!


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 5:40 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Sep 27, 2013 5:52 PM
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that police can deploy drug-detecting sniffer dogs for warrant-less searches against suspects, but only with "reasonable suspicion based on objective, ascertainable facts" of criminality.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2013 5:52 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 28, 2013 1:44 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2013 1:44 AM
Type of Post: photo
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 28, 2013 5:19 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2013 5:19 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 28, 2013 5:20 AM
OH Dean...

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2013 5:20 AM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None




Pete Daoust

Sep 28, 2013 5:16 PM
This NOTE is legal tender :D

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.02017712542701E+016
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2013 5:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UbACCGf6q-c?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Korectly Bobson

Sep 29, 2013 4:55 PM
My dad is teaching not to believe.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559761510740104&set=a.102427636473496.1446.100001187797490&type=1&theater


Unique Facebook User ID: 1690819137812953
Last Updated: Sep 29, 2013 4:55 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Jason Wettstein

Sep 29, 2013 8:41 PM
thoughts on this guy Santos Bonacci??

Unique Facebook User ID: 1.015239345811E+016
Last Updated: Sep 29, 2013 8:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6_bR-Uy6Eg?autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 30, 2013 12:09 AM
"Nemoprasens nisi inteligat," or "One is not present unless he understands," 2 Bouvier's Law Dic. 136, title Maxims"


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 12:09 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 30, 2013 12:14 AM
"Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 12:14 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 30, 2013 12:27 AM


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 12:27 AM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Scott Duncan

Sep 30, 2013 3:58 AM

Unique Facebook User ID: 927379467328526
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 3:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/mPK9U2o6U24?autohide=1&version=3&autoplay=1
Type of Post: video
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 30, 2013 3:59 PM
Scott Duncan, could you you Elaborate on the Roman Numeral Zero, or Point me in the right Direction for the file if already Elaborated on!! Thanks! Excelsior


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 3:59 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Harold Austerman

Sep 30, 2013 7:15 PM


Unique Facebook User ID: 739373829449191
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 7:15 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Dino Disenfranchised

Sep 30, 2013 9:02 PM
I dont understand, Freedom Costs a "Buck 'o Five"... I get that it comes from the movie 'Team America: World Police' BUT... I found this... "This is a reference to body weight based on an Eddie Murphy joke when he stated that Micheal Jackson only weighed about a "Buck O Five." (105 pounds)" I also found if you calculated value of the elements in your body it would be roughly a $1.05. Adam Thomas Is it fair to say "Buck O Five." = "Your life"?


Unique Facebook User ID: 1.01523100619462E+016
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 9:02 PM
Type of Post: status
Place of Post: None


Steve Lemieux

Sep 30, 2013 9:37 PM
I am here right now at this very moment to make an official public confession. I have a belief. Yep, it's true. So without further ado, here it is - I BELIEVE weed is GOOD That is all. You may return to your shopping...

Unique Facebook User ID: 458370044339963
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2013 9:37 PM
Type of Post: link
Place of Post: None