Jul 09, 2013 2:20 PM

SUBSTANCE, all about substance. Just make sure you can stand your ground to what you write.

Think you may have a typo...did you mean "nor"? As neither the COURT, not.

Kate did you see the post Scott made about Children's Services? It is buried below, but I copied it, if you want a copy of it let me know. It gives some good understandings and perspective.

Wow kate that's strong & brave & Powerful .

Fucking predictive text! I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi, so in about 99.9% of cases, it is probably safe to assume that any typos are a result of T9's "helping hand".

Hey Gail, could I have a copy of that too please ma'am?

sure I'll see if I can upload it as a note or something

Chad Brodgesell, you needn't worry about her holding her ground in court :D She has had training you could only DREAM of. :D When I wasn't hammering it into her, her S/O was. It was 24/7.

She's more than capable!

True , Kate Butler can RUN CIRCLES around me. :) I stand my ground as to what I wrote though. ;)

I'm not worried, my focus is more on WHAT I'm going to write, and the best format to present it in.

With my writing SKILLS, I have no SUBSTANCE issues.... I can stand on what I write in both English / French...this is a huge advantage I have :D

Petition: " A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license. In practice. An application made to a court ex parte, or where there are no parties" Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition.

That sounds a little too much like begging, to me. If I don't acknowledge the court's authority, why would I need them to exercise it? I'm thinking along slightly different lines...

Maybe some of this to start off:

"Property: That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs EXCLUSIVELY to one; in the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. The term is said to extends to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, property is ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude EVERY ONE ELSE from interfering with it. That dominion or definite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which NO WAY depends on another man's courtesy. The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in TOTAL exclusion over the right of ANY other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of person's acquisitions, without ANY control or diminution save only the laws of the land."

Which led me to this: Absolute Property: "in respect to chattels, personal property is said to be "absolute" where a man has, solely and exclusively, the right and also the possession of moveable chattels." and this: Personal Property: "in a broad and general sense, "personal property" includes everything that is the subject of ownership, not coming under denomination of real estate. The term is generally applied to property of a personal or movable nature, as opposed to property of a local or immovable nature (such as land or houses)." , and this: Private Property: "private property, as protected from being taken for public use, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition."

And finally, this: Chattel: "an article of personal property; any species of property not amounting to a freehold or fee in land. A thing personal and movable. The term "chattels" is a more comprehensive one than "goods", as it includes animate as well as inanimate property." and then this: Claim and Delivery: "an action at law for the recovery of specific personal chattels wrongfully taken and detained, with damages which the taking or detention has caused; in substance a modern modification of the Common Law action of Replevin."

im having an issue with CAS too, they are fucking retarded.

Its like they WANT to fuck your family up.

Of COURSE they do, that's how they make their living...by STEALING children.

But the way I see it, those are MY babies, I MADE them. What higher claim to PROPERTY could there be?

But that's the other idea that's been rattling around my head, while reading Black's Law. Wouldn't your OWN body be considered your personal property as well? And attempting to ENSLAVE, and/or ARREST, and/or DETAIN you, or ANYTHING else would ALSO qualify as a trespass against your PERSONAL PROPERTY?

NONE!

...until you sell them.

is there a method tor reverse that as in reverse the sale of the child.

Read the top of the original post. Notice of Mistake, RESCIND all consents, written and/or verbal and/or implied, nunc pro tunc, ab initio.

yes but i dont think that works on for the issue surrounding the child to reverse the sale of your child for the BC

My Notice also DETACHES the child from the LEGAL PERSON, ie: the Birth Certificate.

yes but you SOLD them.

Perhaps Scott Duncan can speak to this, i think it is a very important topic.

But because the contract was entered into without full disclosure, that makes it fraudulent. Therefore, there can BE no contract and simply rescinding your consent should be enough, I'm thinking...

Which is where the Notice of Mistake comes in!

if it was that easy everyone would be doing it.

It IS that easy. :D

NOTICE OF MISTAKE really does remove presumption.

And if it was "that easy" to get away with assault, "everyone would be doing it". Need I say more? ;)

Is not (damn I am using that a lot now) The Entire Purpose OF the Notice of Mistake, To Remove THEIR *ABILITY* to CONTINUE to make Presumptions?

Exactly.

The NOTICE OF MISTAKE asks questions and removes consent. Asking questions negates understanding. No understanding, no MEETING OF THE MINDS, therefore, NO CONTRACT.

DEAN KORY IS IN LINDSAY CENTRAL EAST DETENTION CENTRE .705-328-6000.

Just saying :/

Pete Daoust What are the charges against Dean? Any more details?

Here you are Robert Cormier : http://inlindsay.com/man-threatens-judicial-system

Pete post a dean kory thread.

Scott would it be possible to declare the mother legally incompetant?

REPLEVIN: "Replevin is one of the oldest Forms of Action known to Common Law, first appearing about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It was a legal procedure for claiming the right to have personal property returned from the possession of one who had less right to hold it than the plaintiff. Originally the action may have been available only for the recovery of goods that were illegally held past the time the defendant had the right to their possession, but soon the right was extended to cover every situation, whether the defendant wrongfully took or just withheld another's property. As time passed, if the goods themselves could not be recovered, the courts sometimes gave judgment for an amount of money representing the value of the goods. Generally, however, replevin aimed at restoring the property itself to the person entitled to possess it. The defendant could not claim as an excuse that the property belonged to someone not involved in the lawsuit because the only issue before the court was rightful possession, not title. For example, an executor of an estate could seek replevy of racehorses boarded by the decedent if the owner of the stable refused to release them. It would be no defense that the executor was not the owner of the horses.Replevin differed from the actions of Trespass and Trover in that it sought recovery of the specific items of property in dispute rather than monetary damages. Unlike trover, the plaintiff was not bound to prove that the defendant had converted the goods to his or her own use, only that the defendant wrongfully refused to give them up. Unlike trespass, the defendant in an action to replevy goods was not claiming that he or she owned the property, only that he or she was entitled to hold on to it rather than give it to the plaintiff. The action of Detinue was available to recover property that the defendant acquired lawfully and then unlawfully refused to return, such as in an ordinary Bailmentsituation.Like other forms of action, replevin was wrapped up in technicalities that made it unwieldy for many plaintiffs. Modern statutes have replaced the old forms with more efficient laws of Civil Procedure; in most states, these include a particular statute regulating the recovery of personal property wrongfully withheld. These procedures generally incorporate elements of the common-law actions of detinue and replevin. The plaintiff usually initiates proceedings by serving papers showing why he or she claims the property and by posting a bond equal to double the value of the property. Then the sheriff seizes the property and, after a short period, delivers it to the plaintiff to hold until a hearing can be had on the claim. Most statutes allow the defendant to regain the property before the hearing by posting a bond of his or her own and filing an Affidavit stating that he or she is entitled to possession of the property. In some states, it is possible to punish a defendant who secretes, destroys, or disposes of the property by citing him or her for Contempt of court. An uncooperative defendant or the losing party can be ordered to pay monetary damages to the other party. The bond posted by either party is a source of money to pay any costs or damages assessed against that party." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Dean would of been smart to add a disclaimer or two to his threads as everything here is always just for educational/research purposes.

Disclaimer........I disagree with the whole point of the Disclaimer. Anyone who reads and/or uses anything they have the ability to is doing of THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Disclaimer from my point of view is it is not needed.

Would come in handy in his situation for him to be able to say look at my next post where i clearly stated it was hypothetical

Did I force you to read this? Did I force you to Act upon what YOU read? Is it not YOUR interpretation of my words IF YOU take offense? that kinda thing

not argueing with you just talking about the subject at hand :)

No, it would help if he had all the knowledge needed to defend himself, before he started poking them with sticks.

I don't take it as arguement Chad Brodgesell just debate ;)

I think you could pretty much say whatever you want, as long as you're competent to defend yourself later if needed.

I don't think people in general realize that facebook is the public record you have no ownership over anything you post and should for that reason never issue threats or say too much on it.

You'd need PROOF, Derek.

Kate Butler,"Kate Butler I think you could pretty much say whatever you want, as long as you're competent to defend yourself later if needed." Well said.

You can only get that from a court approved professional name-caller and drug dealer (Psychiatrist).

Not useful ANYWAY, because she has a LAWYER, and thus, she is a WARD OF THE COURT.

Isn't that really all that "legalese" is, in a nutshell? The means to talk your way out of almost ANY thing?

Scott Duncan, THIS IS WHY I AM HERE!

""Scott Duncan You can only get that from a court approved professional name-caller and drug dealer (Psychiatrist).

Not useful ANYWAY, because she has a LAWYER, and thus, she is a WARD OF THE COURT."" I would NEVER EVER been ABLE TO COMPREHEND what that statement MEANS. With out being here :)

So i can declare her incompetant to manage her affairs and the child by the fact she had a lawyer?

Want to confirm

No. In fact if you are successful, the LAWYER gets the power of attorney over the estate.

More like the process of "Because she is a Ward of the Court she IS incompetant" I would think.

fck, I forgot about that from last night...I am not ready for any engagement with the courts, i can not hold it together yet.

Hate typing on phone fucks up all the words

All of which are moot points. She attourned to the court. You're done. There's a court and a lawyer ahead of you in line for that estate.

So the process of having a Lawyer (in laymans terms) "Once a Lawyerhas been got go sit down and shut the fuck up up because you have NOTHING to say to the matter at hand"?

The whole reason you "need" a lawyer, is because you are "not competent" to speak for yourself.

Yes. You have NO rights.

By giving him the RIGHT to represent you, you give up ALL of your other rights along with it.

The lawyer acts under limited liability also so he can fuck it all up and go home for dinner while you get carted off.

hmm....so just to confirm, the COURT AND the LAWYER for the estate of my child?

Were you married to her?

Sorry, I have been struggling with Process and Law as 2 separate issues. Only now have I realized that Law IS Process. Sht I am not capable in explaining in specific words what I mean.

Because under COMMON LAW, you, being the husband, would have a higher claim than she would for ANY property.

Yes and if you are really lucky your lawyer will not speak for you either and let the cps lawyer do all the talking.

i have no lawyer, i self repped. We were never married.

Both of our lawyers bailed on us last year and I have been doing what I can to try and learn, and have been self representing ever since. I may have messed up a few hearings that we were supposed to have but the good thing is that if they had gone ahead with those hearings I would have accepted jurisdicition and I am greatful to that. The last time that I was in court June 18, I sent in an affidavit that stated that I was not the legal name, i was there by special appearance and had put in notices of mistake for myself, the old man and kids. And I was sitting at the back of the court. At the end the justice looked up and said well Ms. Larson do you have any questions? And as soon as the word no left my lips, Fuck, I knew that I had fucked up in answering no. Come to think of it now, I probably fucked up in more than that one way I should have had a shit load of questions.

So what is the benefits (for me) that she is a ward of the court.

She is incompetant to handle her or the childs affairs.

That is pretty much what i see, but how can that be used advantageously.

"By what authority is the Crown holding my Property?" Good question to ask???

I asked that question in an affidavit, and they never replied

then object to everything until they answer if they dont you have a perfect opportunity to void EVERYTHING.

Make it conditional then? like"If the Crown can not prove Authority to hold my Property then The Crown Accepts all Liability for the Crime of Theft, Kidnapping yaddayadda as Consent has Not been given"

mother gave that up

I have a number of defaulted affidavits, but I already received a warning from the cps lawyer that if I try to use them in court that he will file a motion to have them struck from the record. I already tried speaking on the rcord in court and was told by the justice that he was not hearing any political statments made by me.

I know Scott gave the answer to this in another thread awhile back, I just can not remember which one.

comment from scott on this topic would be amazing right now.

Brenda Larson, what person do you use when you show up in court ? :/

was in the CAS thread I think.

I don't use a person, as soon as court starts, I stand up and tell them that I am there by special appearance and that I am a woman with inherent unalianble rights attached.

Who's case is it? Are you the "respondant" in the matter?

Also the first time that I used the notices of mistake, I sent them in before court started and it took the justice an extra 10 minutes to start the session. Everybody was wondering why, I knew why. He was trying to understand and figure out what to do next. Then when he came out he told me he didn't understand what surety meant

im applicant.

if he didnt understand what surety meant require him to recuse himself immediately

To Brenda Larson: From what I've picked up lately, you need to bring your OWN claim before the court, for TRESPASS against your PROPERTY. I'm thinking something along the lines of a WRIT OF REPLEVIN.

I know that's what Scott Duncan said after the fact, but I didn't know that at the time. I had no idea I could do that.

Never mind then, it's the past. This is your remedy NOW.

Well I just tried a Writ of Habeas Corpus. and the court clerk wouldn't put it through. So now I have more crap to deal with cause I have filed a criminal complaint.

"A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the "great writ", is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond his authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".[3] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom')." -Wikipedia

You're not trying to free someone falsly imprisoned, you are DEMANDING the return of your PERSONAL PROPERTY. Writ of Replevin...

yea was about to say that./

This is the direction I'm headed: : Chattel: "an article of personal property; any species of property not amounting to a freehold or fee in land. A thing personal and movable. The term "chattels" is a more comprehensive one than "goods", as it includes animate as well as inanimate property." and then this: Claim and Delivery: "an action at law for the recovery of specific personal chattels wrongfully taken and detained, with damages which the taking or detention has caused; in substance a modern modification of the Common Law action of Replevin."

but it is not only for imprisoned people is for any one falsly detained.

And I guess you reserve ALL those rights ?

Falsly imprisoned, so they can be brought before the court to determine if they deserve the imprisonment. Better to just keep it basic. That's MY property, and I REQUIRE it back, tout-de-fuckin-suite. Simple. NO ONE can POSSIBLY present a higher claim to your property, unless you've consented to dispose of said property. That's why the NOTICE OF MISTAKE first and RESCISSION of all consents, written, and/or verbal, and/or implied, nunc pro tunc, ab initio.

tout-de-fuckin-suite :D

:D

I'll use it for sure :D

Writ of Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") they claim to hold.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

I swear I read a blog where this guy submits a writ of quo warranto requiring the court to provide evidence of their authority in the matter of his "property", then a mandamus to release the order. I just can't find this blog.

Well done Kate Butler baby....COOKIES BABE....COOKIES......NOM...NOM...NOM........

you mean the ottawa divorce one?

Huh Derek? ?

I've walked in late on this one...seems to happen regularly lately, but, for Kate Butler's situation, would this be appropriate?

1. Remove any & all presumptions with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE ABOVE 2. Send a certified copy of the 2 Birth Certificates to the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY, registered post, so that it can be demonstrated the 'persons' in question are in their custody. 3. File a Habeus Corpus with the police/courts for her missing flesh & blood?

Wow that sounds great Stuart. Has anyone had any luck filing such paperwork that ye know of for the recoveru of vesdels or property or securitised interest ??

Siegs...recovery of vessels

From memory & my limited comprehension at the time, it seems similar a strategy that was used with regards to Dean Clifford

Habeus Corpus is for bringing someone falsly imprisoned before the court, so the court can decide if the imprisonment is valid. Why would you even want to leave it open to debate?

"Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which NO WAY depends on another man's courtesy. The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in TOTAL exclusion over the right of ANY other individual in the universe. "

Taken from the definition of PROPERTY, from Black's Law

so how do you claim property?

COUGH*LIEN THE CHILDS NAME*COUGH

Dean Clifford was IN jail, so it was accurate in his case.

You claim it like this: "Claim and Delivery: "an action at law for the recovery of specific personal chattels wrongfully taken and detained, with damages which the taking or detention has caused; in substance a modern modification of the Common Law action of Replevin."

WRIT OF REPLEVIN.

Or that's the route I'm going to try...

You just say: " give me my stuff tout-de-fucking-suite"

did scott comment on it? i didnt see it, just wondering what his toughts was.

Kidnapping then...especially if you can demonstrate that 'they' already have the persons in their custody via the registered mailing of the BCs...anyway, that was a top of the head thought process...seems you already have a very good handle on it, as well as the best possible mentor. I wish you well :-)

I was talking to him about it yesterday. He said, roughly, that if I WASN'T on the right track, he's certainly not one to keep his opinions to himself.

Fuck that, what RIGHT does the Children's FUCKING Aid Society even HAVE to the custody of even the LEGAL PERSONS?!

If the manager of Walmart walked up to you, and demanded that you hand custody of your children over to them, would you listen? So WHY THE FUCK DO WE TAKE IT FROM THEM?!?!

Ok.. wow...thanks y'all. Hascanyone in the group heard from Dean Clifford ? He seems like he's heading for hollywood. Is he taking that bloke that has choking issues with him ??

So following that logic, what FUCKING RIGHT would they have to even the LEGAL PERSONS??

From my comprehension so far, the legal person is a creation of the state...anyway, it's stupid o'clock here, so good luck & night all!

And the Children's Aid Society is NOTHING more than a private business. They've just TRICKED us into thinking that they are some sort of government entity.

club house rules?

ffs, ive been trying to talk to scott for a while...fml

:D

Grow some tits? ;p

ill pass.

Hahahahaha...nuh...that Derek Hill, bloke has a serious set of stones...lol...lol..lol. Hmmmm...titties...yum...nom..

here is a stumper, what if the clerk refuses to accept writs?

...you send everything by registered mail, you have receipts.

what stops them from returning it?

This shit practically answers itself. :D

.NO RETURN ADDRESS!!

and if they dont put the writ on the docket?

They have no right to return it. it belongs to THEM now.

the writ Scott?

Are you mailing something else?

Once they accept it, it's theirs. Your receipt from Canada Post, with copy of the signature is PROOF of this.

Shoot the posties then if mails not getting through at their end..

Don't put a return address. They CAN'T return it then.

hmmm so again, what if they do not put the writ on the docket?

You file your own CLAIM, for TRESSPASS against your PROPERTY.

which includes the writ?

Then you Default. Praecipe is now YOUR option. Defaulting is your authority.

You serve them a NOTICE OF MISTAKE to rebute the presumption that your PROPERTY are LEGAL PERSONS, and RESCIND ALL CONSENTS, verbal, and/or written, and/or implied.

Serve them with the WRIT OF REPLEVIN for the return of the wrongfully withheld PROPERTY.

So, if they ignore your writ of replevin for this case

then you put in a writ of praecipe. What difference would it make if they ignore that too?

Devils advocate here.

and i only ask because windsor court is fucking corrupt.

And I'm thinking, the day in court, you give them 3 hours for ANY one to produce a higher CLAIM to your property...which NO ONE can.

yes but if its not on the docket, your writ cannot be heard.

Praecipe is an order for a writ. It is not a writ. The writ comes from the praecipe....

There was a couple in New Brunswick, (They have a video on Youtube from back in February of this year) that attempted to dismiss the CPS case against them, as Living Beneficiaries, but it didn't work. They brought their own, one-page, 12 sentence-long COMMON LAW claim into court for TRESSPASS against their PROPERTY. They stated that if no one else could produce a more valid CLAIM to the PROPERTY, they REQUIRED the immediate return. If I recall correctly, they were in court on Wednesday, and had their five kids politely returned the following week.

Writ this writ that, praecipe this praecipe that, Are you guys's loosing your minds ? :D

GIVE ME MY FUCKING STUFF TOUT-DE-FUCKING-SUITE :D

Now no one goes into the details of what this CLAIM actually said, not without PAYING for it. But I'm good at puzzles, so taking the bits and pieces that they DO give away, and researching on my own....I'm thinking I've got all but the last few pieces put together here.

You really like that one, don't ya? :p

I'm NOT one of your employee, I'm NOT in your club, I'm NOT one of your slaves, I DON'T want to do BUSINESS with you, I am the MASTER of my PERSON, so Give me my stuff tout-de-fucking-suite or I call the cops :D

And you take out your cell phone and you call 911 :D

Oh, and by the way, I've heard that your crown or whatever you want to call it, is a quirulent litigent, is that TRUE your Juge de Paix ? :D

Difficult to use their system if your not in it. If you are using their system then... .

You must be part of it.

I have an ISSUE, here at The Tender For Law. Please no tinglies. Please let me not feel them. While spending almost ALL my spare time that I can make to be here and study I always come back to; 1) They kidnapped my child. I am going to hunt them down and get back my child. Not Negotiate with them. 2) You are going to take my car? Really? Over my dead body you will. Let us have at it. 3) Hey , You Bank, You allowed a third party to meddle with my money? Who do I have to shot to correct that. I KNOW many will have issues with me here. But are we just playing in their arena when we really should be canceling everything we have done with them and then simple protect what is ours after that?

The hidden hook they use to keep us from being fully empowered is the emotions they trigger in people. Steal your kid, of course you are going to feel emotions related to it. The key for our empowerment is to use the emotional energy towards doing just what you suggest Chad, rather than wanting revenge. We must learn to manage our emotions. The emotions cloud critical thinking and cause us to react rather then act.

Mmm. Yes there is a difference between fighting to the goal of getting your child back and revenge for them taking your child to begin with. The purpose should be to get your child back. Period. The bodies you need to step on in order to do that are of secondary nature.

When, and where did you see revenge figure into the plan?

Mine was just a general statement Kate...not directed specifically at anyone if you are asking me

Hey, I was attempting to offer support to one of my 'sisters' on here going through a very trying time dealing with questionable actions of others at best...injustices are always going to evoke emotions, and when it deals with family & loved ones, especially children, very strong emotions.

When I read this post initially, I thought that the primary aim was to get two children back to their mum, out of harms way, period.

I offered support re the children in question, and got a few strong responses re two bits of paper (BCs), which if you lien the legal persons and/or the case files, the BCs no longer have any value to the other party, regardless of who 'owns' them.

The important issue is the kids in question, at least that's what I thought this post was about. If it were my kids, I wouldn't give two shits about the bits of paper until AFTER the kids were back in my safe care...then I'd worry about any shitstains I'd left behind at a later time.

To borrow from the WalMart example above: When I'm dragging my kids away from WalMart, away from the manager in question, I don't give two shits if he thinks he owns the shoes they're wearing...he can have them...but I'm taking the kids. Everything else is secondary.

I wish you well and absolutely support the return of your flesh and blood. We are all learning here & my suggestions were offered as another possibility & support only. You have the best mentor imaginable, so I doubt I can offer anything that could even come close from any other standpoint except support. Re emotionally hot topics, I'll leave commenting to those way better qualified from now on. Whatever ends up happening, I wish you the safe return of your babies.

Well, first things first. The only person that appears to be taking comments personally, and reacting with emotion, is you. I don't tend to think and react like your typical female, so just try to take what I say at face value and make no assumptions about emotional intent. The point IS just to get the children back. But the Children's Aid Society is NOT the court...so my point was, why would I submit to their authority by even allowing them access to the LEGAL PERSONS? Walmart claiming the shoes are theirs is one thing. Since they sell shoes, they would have "JURISDICTION" over shoes leaving the store that potentially haven't been paid for, and the right to investigate. They DON'T have any JURISDICTION over the children wearing the shoes...

They have committed FRAUD, and are PROFITING from the KIDNAPPING of babies. Why would I negotiate with these people?

Kate Butler, revenge does not figure into the equation. In dealing with emotions I think that Myself and Gail Blackman were discussing the point of doing something such as going to get a child back instead of focusing on the fact that they took the child away to begin with. First let the emotions feed getting the child back to begin with. If there is any revenge in there it would come after.

I understand that. I was just curious as to how the topic of revenge even entered the conversation, as everything discussed thus far has strictly been on the subject of how to get them back.

It is emotion. I know a few people who have had their children taken from them because of a political venue. All they talk about is revenge. After an hour of that they mention getting their children back. Backwards. And yes threads regarding children degenerate so fast to screaming and yelling. More civilized here. :) The point of being here is to learn to correct issues. Love it.

Emotions ? ... what is that ? :D

The thing about ANGER is learning how to control it so it becomes productive. You let it control you, and it becomes RAGE. And RAGE is hot and blinding. It affects your judgement, stops you from thinking clearly. I prefer cold, collected, focused, FURY.

Speaking of REPLEVIN, Kate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=714Xl-G5qaI

I'm getting there Kate Butler, I'm getting there :-D

Wow. I've never learned so much about so few in a short time. I will ADD VALUE to my story in about 5 weeks... Peace, Love to ALL. KATE.....GO GET THE CHILDREN......NOW........ CHAD, we must ALL learn to FORGIVE US THOSE THAT TRESPASS & DO US HARM....SWALLOW HARD....... I feel every bit of your RAAAAAAGGGGEEE.... WE MUST STOP CREATING MORE 'VICTIMS' TO THE SYSTEM ALSO.

I am now crying for you & your child Chad.....true story that...tissues please??

Court order free access anytime. Mother would not give access nor address/contact info. Court refused to hear my grievance. Lawyers / Justice lied . Lawyer would not put forth original court order for free access. Every one has a similar story when using lawyers. The kids were toddlers last I saw them in 87. When the court the lawyers and the families collude and you do not know how to deal with it, well we all know the out come. Now the 3 children I have now with my current wife we got court ordered custody when they were little. A little bit of safety. Better then nothing. Oldest has moved out already , the girl is in her last year of collage next year and the youngest just finished high school. They still live with me and their mother. We barely scratch by pay check to paycheck. My wife is kind hearted but stands her ground. I am a raging dangerous person when some one tries to tell me what I can and cannot do. Oh. And I am also just a plain dick head. I'm working on it though. I will always be fighting mad though. Is there anything else you wanted to know about Adam Thomas? Everyone here is here for a reason. My story really is only different in details. We all bare burdens. . All this because I woke up with a thought and wanted to post it before I forgot it. Scott Duncan needs drones that are capable because he has an OATH he cannot break. Just a thought is all. Maybe others see it already but for me it us another piece of the puzzle that clears up a few things.

Wow...Chad. ..sigh...all I'll state is the obvious and that is THANK FUCKERY FOR SCOTT JOHN DUNCAN &/OR JOHN DUNCAN &/OR JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN COLLECTIVISM IS HIS MAIN GAME. Here WE ALL ARE..... LOCK 'N' LOAD. 2+2=4= TRUTH. .

Whoops....can I add the Kapital "K" thing without offending anyone's feelings please?? Or would someone just like to add it for me please ?? Who are they & what are they again please ?

What gets me, what I can't seem to forgive is the pure evil that has stolen ALL OF OUR CHILDREN by deceiving us. Signed Bruised Shins.

Who's behind the whole show??? Who runs the wholiest shop on earth ?? Go ask popeYE, why he don't like condoms. Or MASTURBATION..... BUT ITS EXCELLENT WORK DONE TO RAPE & FUCK CHILDREN. ........

Kate have you thought about making a SALVAGE CLAIM on YOUR property?

You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what YOU think it means...

I could be wrong here, but THIS is what I find when I research "Salvage": http://www.admiraltylaw.com/summary.php?case_id=600

and "CLAIM OF SALVAGE": http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_salvage

Inconceivable!

(Sorry, couldn't resist. For some reason "The Princess Bride" has been running through my head for the past two days!:) )

Kate, being that this thread starts with an assault charge, and you stated the following: -would attend court on this date under a SPECIAL APPEARANCE with restricted capacity of SUI JURIS, -DO NOT consent to be recognized as a LEGAL PERSON (of ANY class) and/or PRO SE LITIGANT and/or ANY other LEGAL FICTION, -have NO INTENT to CONTRACT With the COURT, nor have any knowledge of any existence of a VALID CONTRACT with the COURT, -that I DO NOT consent to be addressed as a "YOU", being a party of SURETY. -that my name is PRIVATE and NOT derived from ANY information from ANY PUBLIC document, therefore I waive SECTION 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME ACT OF ONTARIO, -if you proceed against the LEGAL PERSON, and it is convicted, then you must speak to the holder of the title document, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH, for satisfaction of any financial and/or legal obligations, which holder, I understand is THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO.

Was there supposed to be a question in there?

Is this after you sent a notice of mistake on it and they implied a not-guilty plea on your part? So you sent an affidavit of status to be sure this was the contract for you showing up? Just to clarify.

wasn`t done

If I hit ENTER to create a space, it posts.

not used to typing that way

The Notice of Mistake, I sent stapled to the front of the Disclosure, mailed to the Crown's office.

Ok, so they demanded you show?

shift + enter probably, took me a while... much editing. ;-)

Then the Notice of Questions for the Court, and Affidavit of Kathryn, with 5 days to respond. When they didn't, I sent a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure, with 10 more days to comply.

When that time limit expired, I sent a Notice of Default and Certificate of Non-Response, and Affidavit of Status.

PERFECTED! :D

Gotcha.

Yep. It wasn't ME that failed to respond, and therefore created the controversy! *I* did EVERYTHING in my power to sort this lil' mix-up out...the COURT is the one in dishonor.

A friend got some no insurance charge and he sent an affidavit but burned into it the notice of mistake. They sent him back a non-guilty plea with a court date. He wants to rebut someone putting in a plea for him. I said he should put in something like your Affidavit of Status.

But now that I have seen your PROCESS, maybe he should also do a PROCESS. Seeings how its all so NEGOTIABLE.

Check-mate.

You HAVE to go through the paces...YOU have to make every effort to settle the matter in honour. Otherwise, you have no legal recourse.

Yes, I just did the same for an 8000 line of credit...

Same negotiable diff...

The Justice entered the not guilty plea for me at my first appearance, despite me stating that I did not consent each time he tried.

Yes, since they do this, then you started your administrative process?

The transcripts of that appearance are attached as exhibits, along with all previous documents, to anything new that you submit. The transcripts are PROOF that the things you said were not rebutted, which means they now stand as fact.

What did you do to receive an accusation of assault? Push some ass out of your face?

Slapped, actually (with my NON-dominant hand...I was holding a pug puppy in my right!), my ex-husband.

I bethca that left a mark... ;-)

seriously good for you... sort of. ah fuck, I will be quiet, this is all you guys. go get em..

Apparently not...but the boot to the knee may have. What kind of father doesn't even call on his son's 14th birthday...

we call them sons of bitches out here...

thanks Kate

Boot to the knee is not a good thing ....for the knee...

on the same token... you could accept the CHARGE for VALUE, but then the trouble lies in crossing the border, etc.

Not even bothering to PHONE and say "Happy birthday!" to your teenage son is FAR worse...

Trust me Kate I know this world too, unfortunately... :/

When your son is 23 yrs and states `I don`r have a dad`to his own friends...

I bow to all the ladies in the t4lg........incredible.....

I didn't know that Beverly, thanks for sharing ladies. Great value added. .

Fuck you girls have made babies with some REAL SCHMUCK ! :-D

Me..lol...loll....

Ask Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma Dory Alexander :D

Zombie thread!

Wow.

Tout-de-fucking-suite :-D

**really really long drum roll**

Ok. I can't take the suspense. What happened. What was the outcome?

She won. They ran.

DISMISSED.

They were SO not ready for her. She had 2 of the best resources on the planet telling her what to do/think/respond to, over and over. She almost slept through the final hearing, it was so easy.

CONGRATULATIONS to all involved!!!

I can imagine the jaws dropping one by one, accompanied simultaneously by "deer caught in the headlights" or glazed looks coming over them. :)

It's worse than you know. There are "legends" of people like Ceit in court, but that shit only happens in Toronto with that "Scott Duncan" guy. (Yes. They ALL know who I am)

They were NOT expecting it to happen in their podunk courthouse. There was NO connection to ME. This sent a shockwave up to the Attorney General's office. LOTS of policy changes happened then.

The Deputy Attorney General then, as a result, started compiling EVERYTHING about ALL of us.

It became obvious that everything they had "on record" is misdirection. The records themselves are contradictory, and only make sense, if I PUT THEM THERE. (I learned a LOT being an errand-boy for Casey Hill). It worked for $CIENTOLOGY, and it worked for me :D

That's why people get REALLY twitchy when my name is mentioned in court.

This means more than you understand. This same story is playing out ALL OVER THE WORLD AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. ALL ARE AQUILAE!

*** Dramatic music here ***

...no really. WE ARE COMING!

...but for the Attorneys General, worldwide:

https://youtu.be/wDjxCy3yIMI

:D

This shit is my life's work. I'm going to have fun with it. it's kind of my right :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v_Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto

'Largest libel award in Canada

The jury award that was upheld in this appeal was the largest libel award in Canadian history. Barrister Manning and the Church of Scientology were found jointly liable for general damages of $300,000 CAD. Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of $500,000 CAD and punitive damages of $800,000 CAD, making Scientology's total liability $1,600,000 CAD. It was not until 2008 that this record was broken [1]'

HAPPY COINCIDENCE!

Did you break Hill's record in 2008? Just curious?

I can neither confirm or deny any events that you refer to. I DO keep my promises.

"It's THEM. They are back!"

:D

** more BIGGER dramatic music*** (I've been told not to play/post anymore music video's here.)