Mister Supernumerary is my personal favourite.
Dean Clifford is fond of the very accurate "Mister Unauthorized Administrator".
When I am feeling particularly hostile I'll reverse the Gender designation. If it is a woman, I will use Mister, and if it's a Man, I'll use "Miss". :D
Derek Hill said it best (I Still can't believe I'm typing that); Drop the "Your Honour". They are simply "YOU".
With finger pointed at me , "YOU sit down right now or I will give you a week to think about asking this court questions not coming from your appointed representative. ONE (shouting) more SOUND and you will have a new change of clothes for a week! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?
I just nodded scared shitless. Long time ago.
Who could have guessed That the proverbial "hot potato" of "surety" could be literally packaged into so many silly court room verbal offers... And once that is perceived the plethora of equally silly counter offers at once unravel themselves to carry that burning spud right on back to whence it came:) Cheers!
That is a definite value in this thread S�il Eile, we just say words thinking we know their meaning, not realizing our pleasantry is actually causing harm to ourselves
My last conversation with cops, I stated that I did not consent to, well, pretty much everything, to which she responded: "Well, you're being detained."
"If you have done nothing wrong what is there to hide.If you have done nothing wrong what is there to hide." - Really? So you have no curtains on your windows? You clearly have nothing to hide, why would you need curtains. Why is your female partner wearing clothes? Has she got something to hide? :D
Does that give them adequate reason to "detain" me while investigating, or is there a correct response that would have allowed me to exit the situation?
Being detained is the same as arrest (if but temporarily). You is a funky word. Only means something if you respond to it.
How about a reply of "Who are YOU addressing? Followed with "Is that an ORDER? If so I will need your personal information so I may invoice you later."
Is good?
Judges do not exist in CANADA after1982 or any PROVINCE. Judges can only exist in a special type of government.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO only have JUSTICES to conduct and operate as the PROVINCE.
Judges are voted in. JUSTICES are NOT. Judges are simply for show. That is all.
Now perhaps Scott can share some insight on what MASTERS are.
Justice: are you Scott Duncan or not ? If your not Scott Duncan than you can leave my court room and a bench warrant will be issued for the arrest of Scott Duncan for failure to appear.
I wasn't worried about arrest, but the detainment ate up two hours of my time, and caused me to miss part of a very important appointment. I was just curious if there was something I could have said to get out of the detainment itself.
Which question did you want me to answer? Are you Scott Duncan? Or not. That's TWO questions that seem to contradict each other. Which one did you want an answer to?
I already told your that you may address me as ADMIRAL, YOUR GRACE, OR SIR. Any other titles I may or may not be addressed as, is quite frankly, none of your business.
when you go into court, you reserve all rights...do you have to continuously do that, or just reconfirm when there may be a possibility that your response may be taken as agreement to their jurisdiction? Looking at that question, I'm seeing why As King rather then answering is important :P
I know the justice system is about surety and individual oaths stem from that..but do they ALL really want to take people down, or is it that their hands are tied, and some may find some pleasure in having a knowledgeable person in front of them...even if they can't really say so?
Justice: I take it you refuse to speak or see with duty council while your in custody such as yourself. So, the matter at hand, of whether or not your pleading guilty or not guilty ? So how do you plea ?
Justice: I take it you don't accept your Scott Duncan? I dont care how you choose to describe yourself to the court, you will always be Mr Scott Duncan.
All these tricks of their trade the common man is toast from the get go. Can not a simple question such as "By what authority has the Crown brought me before this court?" And then keep following up with "There is a question before the court that needs to be addressed prior to continuing."
This is in another thread I know however it is directly related to this in the aspect of;
Trying to ask a question that they might throw at you comes after the point of NOT letting them get to that stage of the game at all.
Justice: Mr Hill, we are not here for that, a plea of not guilty has been entered on behalf of the defendant, the court will stand down until after lunch break and bring for the next case, thank you Crown
objection, by what authority do you have that you can even address me as YOU.
YOU implies that i accepted surety, the notice of mistake is not in the record is it?
If not, then i require to make an oral affidavit to that effect.
Justice: i will not entertain any more further communications on this issue, we are going to stand it down and the judicial case manager will arrange the dates, bring you back in and we will tell you those things.
ChiefRock Sino General , not 'a practical exercise'...many many many exercises. Yes it is difficult to assimilate a response when things move fast. Most answer before formulating a PROPER response.
Namely me :(
Notice of mistake is not a key unless you know how to hold it. If you dont know how to hold it dont bother. Especially if you do not understand the fundamentals of the whole thing. Keep in mind, contract are dynamic, which means they can move, so if you feel a piece a paper is your win, try again, it only got you past the front door, now your oral skills will have to come into play and you can verbally kill a notice of mistake by your own oral mistakes ...dont be so confident in a piece of paper.
I dont mean the piece of paper itself....I'm with you on the knowing part, that is like anything powerful, we give it the real power through our awareness
The paper is going to place questions out there but they will just over look it and move on and process the case. Unless you orally speak the question they wont bother addressing the question within it. Now once you do ask, its on you to hold them to it by not allowing them to move further but not alot of folks know how or can do such a task as alot of justices intimidate ppl for some reason.
Last time I went to court, everytime I speaded out some stuff I've learned, I could feel it in the room, I knew I was right and they knew it to....I could feel it, it was a weird feeling...
The court need your understanding to continue to proceed if you ask a question about the proceedings because you don't understand they cannot move past the notice of mistake
Those fuckers don't intimidate me one bit. I intimidate them.Holy shit does it feel good when everyone in the room is on their knees and I am standing tall.
Re: ChiefRock Sino General's Questions:
Objection, point of order: How can I be expected to respond when I am unable to understand the nature and cause of these proceedings?
Isn't it true that there are questions before the court that MUST be answered before it can determined if a defendant exists, who the defendant is and if they are capable of making any sort of plea or if anyone else here is even capable of making a plea on their behalf?
Do you need me to read these questions into the public record so they can be dealt with or will you accept the Notice of Mistake as sufficient notice of the questions that need resolving?
PS: Remember Captain Scott Duncan, one hand for you, one for the boat...stay safe.
Let's say for the sake of argument you ask a question that cannot, or should not, be answered. However you "require" the question to be answered before you proceed.
Anything that is not answering the question is just white noise. Your focus then becomes, "Was the question answered?" If yes, impossible. If no, reiterate the question.
Why should it be "nosey" to watch court proceedings? They are advertised as the PUBLIC RECORD. As for asking questions, I'm not sure whom you would ask, or what the value of such an activity would be.
Scott Duncan so bridging from my old pinned topic.
JUSTICE : What gives you the right or believe that an order is a contract?
Me : Is an order NOT a contract?
in my recent case i backed one justice into a jurisdiction hearing with questions, he recused himself & next justice decided it would be handier to skip the plea & begin the hearing. i've learned from you that there are no judges so private prosecution is pointless? you did mention he accepted surety upon doing so but how do we enforce?
FUCK fuck fuck. Your a sneaky teacher Scott Duncan
Your just ignoring anything they say until they address you in a certain capacity thereby negating there claim against you.
Exact opposite ends of the scale. Think about it. I'm so fucking NOBLE that THE FUCKING NOBILITY FROZE ME OUT!
ChiefRock Sino General is exactly NOT the Nobility...IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY. A man of NATURE, is far more NOBLE than the Nobility could ever dream of.
And we're both right.
So pay attention. this is USEFUL combat.
Court Clerk: All Rise, court is now in session.... (got 20mins to play before i travel back to her moms..) Everyone in the court rises , Scott Duncan rises while the justice walks in....
Clerk: Case no 235435 is now being called, Scott Duncan please come before the court, Crown: Your honor, Mr Duncan charged with trafficking marijuana and failure to appear on two accounts, Mr Duncan also , failed to appear to the probation on April 12, May 12 and June 12, we are looking for a suspension of bail and to be held until his trial...
Justice: Well, your name was called and you stood up, your in my court in my jurisdiction, so are you Scott Duncan or not ? If your not Scott Duncan please reframe from continuing to speak
I am here for the matter of Scott Duncan. However there is STILL a question before the court. I'll say it slower and LOUDER:
ARE
YOU
ADDRESSING
ME?
*jeopardy music - ChiefRock Sino General Hip-Hop Edition.*
Justice: Either your Scott Duncan or your not, if you keep wishing to play these games, we will remove you from the court, you been asked 3x now if your Scott Duncan, we are moving forward with a bench warrant unless you are going to let me know whether your Scott Duncan.
MISTER Criminal Supernumerary/Unauthorized administrator. You are asking questions as if you have the authority to do so. You do not. You are neither legally, nor are you Lawfully allowed to PROCEED, while there is a question before the court.
I'll ask again. ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME?
Justice: if we are going to consider any point of order the first question on the floor was whether or not you are Scott Duncan, until you answer that, your question is of no concern and this court will issue bench warrant for the arrest of Scott Duncan.
Arrest warrants are PROCESS. You do not have a LEGAL or LAWFUL right to proceed until the question before the court is answered. I'll ask again: ARE YOU ADDRESSING ME?
Let the record show that an unauthorized administrator did, without lawful excuse, Proceed in a matter where the court did in fact have a question before it. I hereby amend that warrant to INCLUDE the Government Supernumerary, as SURETY in this matter, and direct the arrest warrant by the authority Of Elizabeth Windsor, Sovereign of the COMMONWEALTH, and keeper of the faith. The charge is TREASON, and is underwritten by the AQUILAE TRUST.
So void the charging instrument. they have no right to attorn you and you have the right to void. The NAME of your PERSON is a PARTY. Go into the courthouse with a VOID stamp and go nuts.
Not so fast...I see a plan forming here. Every time someone we don't like must appear in court, wouldn't it be a swell idea to send someone in their place to piss the Justice off?
Scott, although i dont disbelieve you, what you are saying is stamping void on ANYTHING that is unfavourable to you.
What would happen lets say in a family case, where the other party can EASILY do everything you just did.
SO. LETS SAY, that you did not know the true understanding of oh lets say CUSTODY.
You take your stamp and you put VOID all over the order where CUSTODY was involved.
As you're the only one with standing when the justice wont answer your questions he creates the conflict and keeps you in honor while at the same time deflecting surety at all times so no meeting of the minds can be established either.
Pete Daoust yes but I see it this way. By NOT contracting is in it self a contract with the other party. By NOT contract they must AGREE that there is NO contract.
Sounds convoluted but if you think about it.
While ChiefRock Sino General and Scott Duncan was in duty, I received a phone call from a person who I've sent a bill of exchange accepted by PIERRE DAOUST, :/ it was funny.... :) She haven't seen that in 10 years, and I'm a very complicated Man she said :(
ahhh yes, getting them.
I have access to the agreement that the order relies on, i can void that no problem, but the order itself, fucxking clerk wont give it to me...somad.
You simply ask to see the original charging instrument. It is your right to inspect it. If they give a "Certified Copy", accept it, write NEW ORIGINAL at the top ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE, IN RED... and VOID IT!
so.
if theyg ive a cert of true copy
take it write on top of it NEW ORIGINAL
then void it as if it was the original. refile it into the record so the court knows its voided?
Your signature gives the document AUTHORITY.
They won't give it to you but do give a CERTIFIED COPY.
You say Okay this is it.
Write NEW ORIGINAL at the very top.
Then in RED , VOID your CERTIFIED SIGNATURE?
Alright.
Dealing with orders and a restraining order. Let me get this straight.
I go in, they refuse to give me originals, ok thats cool. Then i request they make certified true copies.
I take those and stamp VOID onto the placeholder of the signature regardless if its there or not. I take the agreement also and VOID that.
The restraining order i actually have a certified true copy of it so i stamp VOID on that.
I take the now voided orders back to the court clerk and i simply file it into the record...(Scott does it go in by itself? or in afffidavit and what is written in the affidavit?)...I obviously send notice or copies to the opposing party to notify them that it has been voided.
I take the restraining order to the police station to notify them that a restraining has been voided....you know...to avoid unneccesary arrests....
Scott Duncan did i get this right?
Scott Duncan when i file it back in the recordi attach it to an affidavit as exhibits or just file it by itself...I know the clerks have an issue if its not with an affidavit...I want to be sure and know everything when i do it tomorrow.
Are they transfering the PERSON from a STATE where you (the body) are not SURETYto a STATE where you are the SURETY? Is that the transfer taking place?
NEW ORIGINAL, at the TOP above ALL OTHER WRITING ON THE CERTIFIED COPY.
They are CERTIFYING that this is EQUAL to the ORIGINAL, so you endorse that by making it the NEW Original... If it's as GOOD as the original, then it IS the ORIGINAL. Who's to contest?
Ahhhhh. So the NEW ORIGINAL written and/or stamped constitutes YOUR SEAL of AUTHORITY and the VOID in red written and/or stamped still constitutes your authority.
In the United States, everyone is SOVEREIGN so to get you into the LEGAL jurisdiction, they must ATTORN you. That's why LAWYERS are called Attorneys there.
Paraphrased from servant king:
Attorn: to turn or transfer homage from one lord to another�an act of vassals or tenants, acknowledging a new landlord�.to be a traitor, an act of treason
Then after they "FIND" me guilty (I guess my PERSON suddenly appears to them after it was transferred to their jurisdiction) The lawyer says sorry, i tried to help., i'll send you my bill" And HE's the BASTARD that transferred you so you could appear and they can "FIND" you in whatever place they want to put you?
Looking at Scott Duncan, the guy acting as an agent for the corporation called JUSTICE says "the court is requesting the presence of Scott Duncan. Are you or are you not Scott Duncan? If you are not Scott Duncan, the court will issue an arrest warrant for SCOTT DUNCAN.
Do you keep repeating "Are you addressing me?" and remind him that there is still a question before the court? What would you say if you really wanted to ream him out? If you really wanted to let him know you are up to his tricks?
The Attorney General of Canada is the highest-ranking prosecuting officer in Canada....Being the chief law officer of the Executive Council, the Attorney General is obliged to see that the public affairs are administered in accordance with the legal regulations in the country. In other words, his or her duties have been referred to as �judicial-like� and as the �guardian of the rule of law�. ....The Attorney General is also responsible for all lawcriminal prosecutions in the country. However, some prosecutions are conducted by the provincial Attorney General authorities under the Canadian Criminal Code....The Attorney General has a number of litigation responsibilities as well. They are based on the so called �Crown�s parens patriae authority�.
WAIT hold the phone.
Scott Duncan, are you saying that in the commonwealth there is only 1 attorney. that is the crown attorney.
So if we are not attorneys, or do not have an attorney, then we have not attorned. If we havent attorned then we are immune to their legal system unless a contract has been made?
[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.
Let us rip it apart to the basics.
1) They keep asking because they can only deal with the TRUSTEE for the person.
2) You can be either the BENEFICIARY *or* the TRUSTEE.
3) They ONLY want to speak to the TRUSTEE so SURETY for the matter can be TRANSFERED *from* them to you. (Who wants to be surety for anything?)
4) The *ISSUE* at hand is to NOT ACCEPT becoming the TRUSTEE.
5) They can ONLY speak *with* authority to one of their own. The above 4 items are based on this. If you are not part of our organization then what the fuck are you doing here? They could if they wanted even Charge you with IMPERSONATING an OFFICER.
.
If the above is incorrect in anyway please correct. :)
The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English Common Law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.
In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents.
I see it more like , There seems to be a greater amount of focus regarding legal matters then before the group was closed. I just hope I can keep up with the cuts.
Attornment (from Fr. tourner, "to turn"), in English real property law, is the acknowledgment of a new lord by the tenant on the alienation of land. Under the feudal system, the relations of landlord and tenant were to a certain extent reciprocal. So it was considered unreasonable to the tenant to subject him to a new lord without his own approval, and it thus came about that alienation could not take place without the consent of the tenant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attornment
Aspects of the parens patriae jurisdiction were given a
statutory basis in the nineteenth century and a Court of
Protection was established with the authority to protect the affairs of "adults lacking legal capacity".
In Ireland, jurisdiction over the
affairs of adults lacking legal capacity is still contained in a
nineteenth century statute. The Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act
1871 provides that the wardship jurisdiction arises in relation to a person found to be �of unsound mind", and incapable of managing himself or his affairs.
ChiefRock Sino General had to "cheat" to "defeat" me. I will damage the security instrument and the Justice has to pay the balance out of his own pocket, and I live happily ever after.
Seriously, you don't LOOK like a girl, Derek! How come you have Stupid Cunt Syndrome?
Sino had to cheat, but that method doesn't work because He (As Justice) will end up PAYING if they want to stay on the bench! :D
We all have Power of Attorney over our Person until we give it to others..Willingly. We literally WILL it to some one else. By Hiring a Lawyer or granting it to the crown. Is this correct?
ward n. 1) a person (usually a minor) who has a guardian appointed by the court to care for and take responsibility for that person. A governmental agency may take temporary custody of a minor for his/her protection and care if the child is suffering from parental neglect or abuse, or has been in trouble with the law. Such a child is a "ward of the court" (if the custody is court-ordered) or a "ward of the state." 2) a political division of a city, much like a council district.
the court becomes your guardian.
hence why if you have a lawyer you CANNOT SPEAK. unless you are spoken too.
when i was in court and baby mamma tried to speak justice told her to shut up.
How about this: CAR Insurance. . .HOME Insurance. . .HEALTH Insurance. . .SOCIAL INSURANCE??....hmmmmmmmmm, i APPLIED for that when i was FOURTEEN, and theres something about MINORS contracting ;)
Re : Ward of the court. The court becomes the guardian. When you look up guardian....this is part of the explanation: Sadly enough, often a parent must petition to become the guardian of his/her child's "estate"
Must the parent petition to become the guardian of their child's estate because the child was (since the BC) a WARD OF THE COURT. So, we are all adult WARDS OF THE COURT?
..OH - i live in Councillor Karen Stintz's WARD, by the way - thats a real doozy of a presumption there too
Signed,
Infant and/or Mental Incompetent which must have Karen Stintz as my GUARDIAN
can this void stamp be added at any time or is there a time limit? Also, I too would like to know if your "new original" must be accompanied by anything else.
Power of attorney is power of will which means you have to be alive. So there is no time limit to the fact of power of attorney to change document and contract
Derek Moran Dean Clifford has talked about getting any type of insurance. You are automatically in SUBROGATION of your rights when you do. Winston Shrout says that often he wants to be the SURETY so that he can subrogate everyone rights and has full control over the matter.
Justice: I have read the police report which includes posts in which you say you would like to kill a cop...do you have anything to say before I pass judgement?
I WOULD LIKE to have a million dollars and sprout wings. Does this mean I actually intend for these things to happen? Well, the cash...give me time, it's still early ;D
1) Thinking something is not a crime.
2) Saying something 'as long as' there is no non-disclosure contract in effect is not a crime.
3) Actually harming some one IS a crime.
the way I see it unless anyone can either correct it and/or add to it.
Scott Duncan, resuming this topic a bit.
Me "Are orders NOT contracts?"
JUSTICE "HAHA No they are not, you do not get to VOID things just because it does not agree with you, that is not how it works."
Ok, it just hit me. An Order is a negotiable instrument same as us writing a cheque. Since Corporations cannot "create" money... they do it this way and drag us into it for Exchange...
Me : "Is an ORDER NOT a contract?"
JUSTICE : "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND where you are getting this information"
Me : "Do I have it that you are not denying?"
JUSTICE "Well i see an application here so you granted me jurisdiction, so yes i am authorized."
Me "Oh im sorry, allow me to correct this on and for the record, i REVOKE the authorization for MR.JUSTICE to administrate over this estate. Better?"
Either you are the name, or you have CONTROL over the name. Either way, it's your RIGHT to void the instruments. They didn't have your permission to use the name (OR ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT)
When a Native Clan blesses you with a name, it is the CLAN'S name, not yours. They GIVE the name "Fucks the Puppy", but only YOU give it value...
...or it can be shat upon in an epic tantrum, fueled by ignorance. :(
When you know who you are, YOU will choose your name.
Scott Duncan: They didn't have your permission to use the name...A NAME on a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, belongs to the PUBLIC, not you. These two sentiments seem to contradict each other. They can't use my name, but, my name is not mine and belongs to those who may not use it without my consent? Please help me reconcile the two statements.
YOU only know yourself as Robert Cormier.
The GOVERNMENT uses ROBERT CORMIER, and PRESUMES it is YOU, because your ignorant parents said they could.
But now its YOURS. You grew up with the name. You gave it VALUE, but it still belongs to them.
You simply have to claim it.
You can claim it, because the GOVERNMENT gave no equity.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT lien something for which they have on value in. You have ALL THE VALUE, hence why you are able to lien and government cant do anything about it.
JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN is supposed to hold the clan equity and act in commerce. Scott Duncan is the Admiral of a fleet that stays afloat with tape and spit. Government has nothing to do with that.
Scott, could you elaborate a bit more on how they killed it.
IF its killed Then they COULD technically kill you, without accountability.
IS that why you made yourself admiral?
..speaking of LIENS
RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: Debt instrument issued by a Receiver, who uses the proceeds to finance continued operations or otherwise to protect assets in receivership. The certificates constitute a LIEN on the property, ranking ahead of all other secured or unsecured liabilities in liquidation. Barrons Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms.
Scott Duncan: Pierre, when someone addresses you as "SIR" you are being addressed from a subordinate. ALL my trustees in a duty capacity MUST call me "sir".
Ever notice that when a COP doesn't know your name he calls you SIR, and when they HAVE your name they Call you "MISTER Daoust"?
March at 5:21pm
Daniel J Wentz: Only those I have fealty to, may call me "Mister Wenttz"
The Government holds legal title to your NAME, your car, your house, your land... but you have equitable interest in all those things as beneficiary. You are busy paying for, using, maintaining ie. taking care of THEIR stuff.
So, again, if they hold legal title then would they NOT be responsible for PAYING the bills, since they hold legal title for it?
Perhaps Scott can post a thread abnout this.
I think these bills (remittances) are supposed to be signed by us to make sure the bill went to the correct ACCOUNT... then sent back so the corporations that have created the liability can adjust their accounting. Because yes, they are surety for that name.
I see 2 options with bill of exchange address to PIERRE DAOUST
I buy this thing and pay for it,
or I accept it, I sign it, i date it, I write PIERRE DAOUST'S account number on it, I refere to the Bill of Exchange Act, and send it registered mail to the TIREUR (the PERSON who sent it to PIERRE DAOUST)
I did it with one so far, and they've called me, I told them the call was recorded, they've tried to tricked me into their game, it did not work, and it's OVER :D
Why not ask, are you using that name for identification purposes? If, yes well have a good gentleman and thanks for identifying yourself as the defendant lol ...
Is this correct?
The path of the remittance;
1) Resource held in Trust is used to create (water, hydro (anything taken from the land(or using space on/under) and/or inland waterways))
2) They have it "delivered" to your door step.
3) You use it.
4) They send you a Remittance.
5) You fill in amount and put BC number on it and ACCEPTED BY: *signature* (not *Approved*). Edited here
6) You send it back from whence it came.
7) They send to Their Bank Account.
8) Bank converts the amount of the remittance of your portion of Trust into Their Notes.
9) Bank Debits your Trust and Credits Utilities Account.
.
Is this fcked? Am I fcked?
1. Open the envelop
2. Ho, a Bill of Exchange :D
3. Turn it to have the back side facing my eyes
4. Wrote on it ACCEPTED BY: my signature
5. Wrote the date
6. Wrote ACCOUNT NO. the SIN or the BC number your choice, I chose the SIN
7.Wrote: Bill of Exchange Act (L.R.C.1985 cg. B-4)
8. Put that thing in a envelop
9. Sent it back to the issuer registered mail
That's ALL
Pete Daoust, you did not fill in amount?
And I am trying to Path the Layers from start to finish of the utilities so I can see the book keeping in the process.
They've tried that one on me Chad Brodgesell, it didn't worked for them....as an INSTRUCTOR, I charge $1000,00 an hour + Traveling time, which is costly, I hate traveling
The DEBT has been created when your dentist fixed your teeth
Now the dentist need you to PAY for this because it's YOUR teeth
If you don't PAY, the dentist will SELL that debt to a collection agency
So now the debt belong to this COLLECTION agency
These fuckers will try to sell you the debt, but they CAN NOT send you an invoice, they haven't done ANYTHING for you
So they will send you a bill of exchange and wish you will buy the debt.
So you will have 2 choices
Ask them for an INVOICE with the description of goods they have sold to you, which they will never be able to do.
Or you ACCEPT the bill of exchange and send it back to them the way I have described a few posts up.
Their duty when they receive the bill as ACCEPTED is not clear, but I think they have to send it to the receveur general, and then the receveur general send it to the Bank of Canada, and then the bank of Canada send the fund to the collection agency....not too sure about that, but It dosen't seems to be my problem anyway....maybe Derek Moran can put his 2 cents on this...
My wife got an accident with the car, my daughter was in the car, and my wife took no chance and called an ambulance for her, because she was complaining having pain in the back
night Chad..Pierre...you said the collection agency sent you a bill of exchange.....I'm wondering how that is different from the bill the dentist gave me
blacks law dictionary defines invoice as goods or merchandise
What is INVOICE?
In commercial law. An account of goods or merchandise sent by mer- chants to their correspondents at home or abroad, in which the marks of each package, with other particulars, are set forth.
I've got a good one. I heard a Judge tell a woman in family court that she couldn't have a boyfriend. Then the Judge replied "but I'm not saying get a girlfriend and be a lesbian either" then the court officials all laughed at her seemingly IDIOTIC joke. The woman who was actually the plaintiff in this custody battle ensuing in all silliness was dumbfounded. She had NO CLUE how to respond.
OK, if you don't pay your dentist, he will SELL the debt to what we call a fucking collection agency, who the debt belongs to at this point ? Gail Blackman
But if he boost the invoice to $2500.00, he could easely find a collection agency that would buy this debt for $1500.00 :D, but that would be not a very nice thing to do :D
They become THE other party as soon as they BUY the debt, If I buy a chocolate bar at the store, the chocolate bar is mine, I can try to RE-SELL it to my neighbor but if he dosen't want it, I'm stuck with the fucking thing :D, unless we have a contract concerning chocolate bars
So even though i did t need to go to court i still want to know what would happen.
Me- My voids stands on those orders. It is non negotiable.
Justice- send him back to the jail cell.
Im thinking the only way you can deal with that is just file a writ of hab. I sit in some courts. And some of these justices are corrupt as hell.
Scott i must ask after the above scenario. Does justices know they are liable is that why they try to get you to sign sonething or convince you so hard to reconsider or whatever?
HEre is another one for you Scott Duncan that several people may face.
Me "Objection i do not understand the nature of these proceedings"
JUSTICE "Then i will assign a lawyer for your representation"
Assigning a lawyer would constitute the Judge "proceeding"... There are questions before the court that need answering before any process can take place...
Scott Duncan If the LAW cannot be understood by all, then we are clearly not EQUAL before the Law. I love that one. Seems like one of the best "comebacks", I've heard in a few hours.
As the duly appointed administrator in these proceedings, I would be remiss if I didn't assign Duty Council to assist you Mr. Duncan. This case will be remanded until such time as Mr. Duncan has Council assigned to represent him. I believe a week should be sufficient. Case remanded till July 20th, when Mr. Duncan can be represented by a competent attorney.
" I do not consent to representation. Do you understand?"
Have you not consented to being addressed as Mr.Duncan by responding to Robert's last post? :p
I am responsible to ensure that you are defended by a competent person. Are you claiming you are a certified member of the bar, and are therefore capable of representing yourself?
Based on what? Do you have PROOF of this responsibility? Because I know of NO ACT of LAW that would allow a SUPERNUMERARY to administer a PARTY'S ESTATE. ESPECIALLY WITHOUT CONSENT! Do you have PROOF of these "responsibilities" that you claim?
Mister Supernumerary, you have failed to answer my questions, and are unlawfully practising law from behind the bench. Given these extremely prejudicial acts, don't you think it would be a good idea to recuse yourself?
Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing Mr. Duncan. This is a founding principle of law. Your ignorance of this fact establishes your ignorance of the law. I would be remiss in my duties if I allowed these proceedings to continue without providing you with competent assistance in these matters. Case adjourned until July 20th, by which time Mr. Duncan will have an opportunity to meet with his assigned council and whereby he will return to this court with n accredited member of the bar association to assist him in these proceedings. Next Case Bailiff?
Mister Unauthorized Administrator; You are being deliberately obtuse when questions are posed. You have unlawfully attempted to bind me to a commercial contract with a stranger named "Duty Counsel", and have not performed the proper diligence regarding the facts. As you have clearly refused the invitation to recuse yourself, I state for and on the record that I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.
I'm not implying anything Mr. Duncan. I am stating that you have proven to the court's satisfaction that you are not competent to defend yourself in these matters. Until such time, as you can satisfy this court that your implied competency to represent yourself is qualified as a fact, and or, you have been recognized and certified by an accredited organization, educational institution or society, you fail to prove to the courts satisfaction that you are competent. Having read a few books on law doesn't qualify you. Do you possess a law degree Mr. Duncan, obtained from a government accredited and recognized institution?
There are NO LESS than FOUR questions before the court. Unless they are answered, I do not and CAN not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings. Are you prepared to answer the questions before the court?
No justice will say "I understand the Law".
I am engaging a LOT of "suspension of disbelief" here, because none of these things are what a Justice would EVER say.
I have responded that you are not competent to defend yourself. This has been established by your refusal to answer in the affirmative to my question regarding your accreditation which would satisfy this court that you are capable of representing yourself. Anyone with standing may ask questions of this court, however, only competent persons can defend themselves. Competence is established in this court by providing proof of your abilities. This court does not recognize competency based on hearsay. I ask you again, do you have an accredited education in law, certified by a recognized educational institution?
When the name is called and one responds that they are here for that matter, how would one respond to the question "And who are you?"... Lawful holder in due course of the legal person this hearing is being held for?
By what authority, do YOU, an UNAUTHORIZED STRANGER make ANY legal determination for ANYBODY?
And that's 5 questions before the court. Unless they are answered, I do not and CAN not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings. Are you prepared to answer the questions before the court?
I require you to recuse yourself, as a legally incompetent Supernumerary is prejudicial to my rights (ALWAYS reserved) and the interests of my estate. Would you do that now please?
stranger. (14c) 1. One who is not party to a given transaction;
esp., someone other than a party or the party's
employee, agent, tenant, or immediate family member.
unauthorized practice of law. (1928) The practice of
law by a person, typically a non lawyer, who has not
been licensed or admitted to practice law in a given
jurisdiction.
A profession does not necessarily require any certified qualifications... Plenty of training and higher level education... (I may have peeked at Black's for that one)
"Judge I do not wish to be represented, especially by someone who is only practicing law. I take my matters very seriously and any court appointed trainee of the law can practice somewhere else!" :p
I'd imagine so Beverly. They can't be held liable as they were only practicing law at the time. Once the judgment is passed the liability is also, back onto the unsuspecting layman... Attorneys transact business on our behalf...
"Case closed" = "Done deal"
go see your western trained doctor and witness doctor USE YOU FOR PRACTICE, and some practice for years , and treat many with chemicals from the pharmaceutical corporations, also participate authorizing heavy metal and other toxins into your children's bodies to protect them from FEAR ....
Only one accepted as a friend of the court may speak to the matter before the court and only on behalf of the court to bring forth a potential conflict or irregularity that may harm the integrity of the system.
"go see your western trained doctor and witness doctor USE YOU FOR PRACTICE, and some practice for years , and treat many with chemicals from the pharmaceutical corporations, also participate authorizing heavy metal and other toxins into your children's bodies to protect them from FEAR ...."
either im stoned and not seeing it or im not seeing it.
I think he is pointing to the fact that the health system is designed to not only make you sick but also simple monetizing sickness as long as there is money. When the money ends it means your dead. I posted in another thread regarding this. Just can't remember which one. Why does mobile only have post and like but search or any thing else?
Heres another possible situation.
Me "Objection i must ask questions as i do not understand"
JUSTICE "You can ask your questions to a lawyer"
Me "Objection is the court preventing me from asking questions and implying that i require duty council?"
JUSTICE "yes and yes"
Me "On and for the record the court/justice is preventing me from asking questions, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS!! I REQUIRE these questions to be answered.
so no matter what the judge say just keep asking about the notice of mistake correct? Point of order that the questions must be answered for the proceedings to go through under equal protection under the law I must have understanding these proceedings to proceed. and does not questions negate understanding
Point of order is used at the beginning of the business meeting ( court In session ) to introduce the notice of mistake and the questions it pose's as well as reserving all rights as you are the only one with standing... everyone else is a trustee in some capacity and have no standing... It keeps you Master of your domain...
So Scott Duncan when you say they can only INFORM is that they can only introduce documentation to the court But NOT *Speak* to the matter before the court ?
Scott Duncan No justice will say "I understand the Law". <- Does this have anything to do with FML and STANDING UNDER? JUSTICE a) interprets the law b) decides c) applies d) none of the above?
""Can ANYBODY tell me why the scenario CAN'T happen? Remember SURETY and ACCOUNTING."
This was when scott and chief was goin at it.
QUESTIONING NEGATES UNDERSTANDING.
NO UNDERSTANDING NEGATES SURETY
NO SURETY NEGATES PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS = ACCOUNTING
NO SURETY = NO ACCOUNTING
my understanding of what happened in the court that day is that the man screaming accepted surety for his actions. he can do anything he likes but he cannot escape liability for his actions ..... if i realise that, he broke all the procedures which offered him protection. I now admit to myself there were underlying presumptions which he was willing to press(insert Notice of Mistake here) that the justice previous to him (who had ordered a jurisdiction hearing & recused himself.) wasn't willing to take the chance.
re Jo Xappie: how do you plead?
Response: Are you addressing me?
It is my understanding that a legal entity known as a defendant pleas. You have been requested to address me as Sir. By what authority are you addressing me as a defendant?
Or any variation of Scott's responses from further up the thread where he & the Chief went toe to toe...all of that exchange is pure gold! :-)
my nephew was up in court this morning, he was waiting for 2nd call, the justice copped me walking in late & sitting beside him, the justice immediately called the case & struck out in the same breath, a garda followed us to the door & watched us walk away & into a coffee shop. Minutes later a well spoken man walked in, up to our table & inquired if we were "the freemen"which we denied & asked for definition (4 of us in unison :p ) was i the guy from YT, i asked who he was & told me he was the court reporter, he inquired about my intentions, i briefly explained liability & surety attached to those who'd attacked my rights. I went outside for a smoke & he followed me, I asked him who sent him that the video on YT didn't show my face, he asked me was i happy & why i was doing this, "I want the return of the proper function of law, i am far from spent & every encounter will only strengthen me... go back & tell the judge that" he dropped his sholulders & sloped off.... all i could do was strut haha
Heres a new one that comes to mind. Scott Duncan, kill this one..
Me "Objection we cannot proceed until we addressed the questions before the court regarding the matter of surety for this case."
JUSTICE "Well Derek, you have to bring forth a motion for us to address this issue?"
Me "Objection, does that not constitute process? How can process be made without addressing SURETY for the matter?"
Scott whatcha think? I am trying to think of new ways JUSTICES would try to ding me.
Gets better & better with every read...as my comprehension has increased over time, I'm able to extract more gold...Thank you Admiral & everyone else :D