The Tender For Law

Volume 3

Aug 02, 2013 4:33 PM

Chad Brodgesell

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

Read Comments

Chad Brodgesell

Was supposed to have a photo of the received notice. Will see if I can try again to upload it. Basically this is a point for point query to the Notice. Started as a 1 page rant then went over 20 pages. Came to my senses and started to think dropped down to 7 pages all said. Some minor errors in numbering and wording that I see but would be great if members could pick it apart. :)

Adam Thomas

Fuck Chad Brodgesell maye...what the fuck have 'you' been eating....or smoking ?? Sounds like that killa shit Willie Nelson, choofs like puffing Billy. Awesome. ..I need to breathe though dude & I think if I was tgat Flaherty, kunt id be hearing a beeping from a life support machine going bbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeePPPPPPPPPPPP

Adam Thomas

But of course behing this jellyfish kunt Flaherty, he's an arsehole sized room full of assholes that sit around all day long doing reach arounds to each other & fantasizing about a massive penis that enjoys fucking, rupturing, & ravaging unsuspecting but TRUSTING tight virgin assholes with no spit lubeRIcunt but done DRY........

Chad Brodgesell

Crap, I'm not getting notifications anymore of posts. I thought every one was dead the last 24 hours. Ya Pete Daoust and Adam Thomas, is a hoot doing this sht. I fucking love questioning their requests now. :) 3 years ago this one would have made me piss in a corner, :)

Chad Brodgesell

Jason F. LeBlanc, I am sticking with 'who' for now as I am only asking questions so far. I can see greater clarity in being more specific in the correctness of the usage, just in a time bind right now so have done a few word corrections and number changes but must send it tomorrow.

James Allan

What follows is from a Supreme Court of Canada Justice in an SCC ruling. I draw you attention to this pertinent part of the citation, "Since the state defines the parameters of corporate existence". Anyhow here is the full citation from the Thompson News Paper case, I hope it helps your understanding, enjoy: "Modern corporate existence carries with it a notion of privacy which is at odds with the privacy inhering in physical persons. This difference flows from the nature of corporate existence. While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities. Even if corporations are given legal capacity, their legal powers may be restricted by the enabling articles of incorporation and legislation. The corporation's legal existence can be terminated by the state for failure to comply with these restrictions. Since the state defines the parameters of corporate existence, it would in my view be unreasonable for the corporation to expect that it is completely free to determine by itself whether it exercises its delegated powers in accordance with restrictions imposed by law."

Chad Brodgesell

James Allan, nice find. Thanks. I have gone over my Incorporation papers and can find no tie to the government that provided full disclosure. I am not going against this or any other items they wish to send my way to remove myself from paying. Am here just to be able to force them to be held accountable for their actions as I must be aswell.

Chad Brodgesell

Maximiliano P�rez, Ha, nice one. Thanks, I had managed sadly enough to forget that , am doing now. Sucks because we just had a whole slew of threads speak of it too. My ability of memory for for stuff I do not use is about zero. :(

Robert Cormier

I haven't seen my suggestion in this forum, however I have had success with it. I'm not sure if I was merely lucky, or, if I was on track and therefore suggest that you take this advice with a grain of salt: Prior to mounting an "attack" you might send something similar to the following: Dear Mr. Flaherty, I received this document in the mail. As it is not signed, I am unable to confirm its validity. I suspect it is a forgery and someone has initiated a hoax upon me. Please be advised I do not communicate with paper or other inanimate objects. If this document was sent by you, or, one of your agents, please resend it an be sure to sign it, or, have one of your agents sign it so I can be certain that it was constructed and sent by you or one of your agents. If I, or anyone, has lead you to believe that I am willing to attempt to communicate with inanimate objects, including unsigned paper, that would be a mistake. Please forgive me. If I do not receive a response from you, or, one of your agents, with your signature, or, the signature of one of your agents on such a document within 21 days, I will understand that the enclosed letter was a forgery, and is in fact an instance of MAIL FRAUD, and, or, PUBLIC MISCHIEF, and I will report it as such to the Postmaster General.

Chad Brodgesell

Oh, Nice! Robert Cormier, very nice. I still want my questions answered though. Problem is, the originating document is not addressed to ME. It is addressed to the corporation of SDI to be directed to my PERSON. not sure if I am saying that right. Can I blatantly steal your suggestion to also attach to what I am sending? Your suggestion never the less goes on my wall. :)

Chad Brodgesell

My wife just read what you posted Robert Cormier and said I do not think that way. "Your not that nice, you like to get all up in arms at the drop of a hat and damn the torpedoes" Probably a good thing I don't have an army at my disposal.

Robert Cormier

You may use it in any way you want Chad Brodgesell. The point of my suggestion is to establish SURETY and is therefore a suggestion regarding strategy. The letter you crafted will get backs up immediately and put everyone on the defensive. It is likely that you will get a one line response in another letter that will also be unsigned. It might read "I am terribly sorry to inform you that we don't understand the point of your letter. Could you please rephrase your questions. PS you have 4 more days to respond before we dissolve your company" I would use mine first to establish SURETY, and, I would be all nice about it adding "please" and "thank-you" as well as something along the lines of "Surely you appreciate that given the seriousness of the implications, you will understand my need to confirm if it's authentic." etc. Additionally, I would break your letter into about 4 or 5 letters. I would be nice in those letters as well. Example: I am seeking clarification regarding the box which contains xxx. A lawyer friend suggested to me that this letter is likely a hoax because, according to him, the contents of a box do not appear on that page in the eyes of the law. Was that box that contained xxxx supposed to be there? My point here is that you are more likely to get an articulate response if you pose a few question/points at a time. Also, if your letter is "tight" legally speaking, and you are entitled to eleventy billion, Flaherty's office could say We never sent such a letter, who is it signed by?" When you establish that nobody signed it, you yourself will confirm that none can be held liable. I'll make more points regarding your content later. Have to go. Again....this post, and my previous post here is intended as food for thought. :)

Robert Cormier

I would buy a VOID stamp. I would also buy a PRIVATE stamp (HINT HINT) quickly. Keep the matter PRIVATE so you have a better chance of suing/liening the private person who responds and not their public office. I would go after their office (career) after I was done with them on the civil side. :)

Robert Cormier

Get them to damn themselves piece by piece. Example: "no, the box has no legal implications" etc. Then send off a few more questions. As they say, "keep giving them just enough rope to continue hanging themselves". (Y) In my humble opinion, your letter lays all your cards on the table for everyone to see what cards you will play. From its submission they can deduce your strategy as well. It also leaves you without additional cards to play in the future.

James Allan

Chad, I think perhaps one of the main points of my posting was missed. Like it or not, as the party having requested use of the corporation, which the State writes the rules for, you are responsible for ensuring it fulfills its obligation. These obligations, as well as the rights of a corporation, are detailed in statute. They have no duty to disclose or otherwise explain the term you are bound by (statute) to you. You do know the maxim - ignorance of the law is no excuse. As for the legal duties of the corporation and it officers and directors, you will likely receive a response stating that if you are unsure of same you should contact a lawyer. And while I see where Robert Cormier is coming from, I suspect that the provisions of the statutes (the rules that apply to corporations) allow for unsigned or electronic signatures. Respectfully, I think you are just spinning your wheels and the exercise will not be a good investment of your energy. But I wish you all the best.

Adam Thomas

I'm dealing with two corporate lawyers that are a very special kind of dumb as they're now trying to tell me that they DO NOT ACCEPT BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES or any other unspecified form of payment made in relation to the contract. Also they only accepts payments made by the specified methods, namely cash, CHEQUE, Direct debit or Bpay. Hmmmmm........I'll lay my balls on the line corporate lawyer for MBFSAu that "YOU" & YOUR OTHER BRAINIAC IN CRIME Jenny sits on the Crapper that I WILL FLEECE YE ON EVERYTHING YE OWN & HAVE YE SACKED FROM YOUR JOBS. WHY? BECAUSE YE ARE LAWYERS & WOE BE UNTO YE MUTHAFUCKAS IS WHAT JESUS SAID & GUESS WHAT KUNTS? I AM BAAAAACCCKKK...... TO JUDGE & BUCK-O- FIVE ALL YOU KUNT LAWYERS THE WORLD OVER.... VIVE LE REVOLUTION !!!

Pete Daoust

What about SALES TAXES Scott Duncan, is there ANY possibilities to add terms & conditions for doing it, as, Mister Government, I will gladly take some of my time to collect taxes for you, but, since I am not your slave, I want to get paid for it...

Just a thought.... Thanks

Chad Brodgesell

Interesting comments from all. As I have no problem filing returns or anything regarding any form of documents with any one , As long as there is an obligation to. Hence, the questions. Question: Can any one refute some one else from asking questions regarding something that affects them.? If some one can not show Cause is a presumption that is refuted have any force or effect.? Nothing wrong with clarifying.

Chad Brodgesell

Thank you Scott Duncan. THAT makes sense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But that can be dealt with a Notice of Mistake. Some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence.

James Allan

Chad Brodgesell, I do not believe the Notice of Mistake will help you where obligations of your corporation are concerned. But where your human rights are concerned, that is those rights not granted by Her Majesty, you may be able to put forward facts which establish a breach of trust and confidence and/or fiduciary duty by the State, thereby nullifying any social compact (statutory) liabilities and duties as a result of thier breaches of duties owed to you as a man.

James Allan

Here, I hope this will help in your understanding as to the minimal rights you possess as a representative of the corporation (you being a rep of your corp does not, by your actions, appear to be a fact in dispute). This is from the SCC, enjoy: " That is, read as a whole, it appears to us that this section [s. 7] was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level. A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings.

Thus, to the extent that the individual appellants act as representatives of the corporation, s. 7 is no more applicable. Indeed, to allow the individuals acting in such a representative capacity to invoke Charter protection under s. 7 would be to grant the corporation rights which it cannot enjoy."

Chad Brodgesell

To all the comments, :) I have come up with this to start it rolling.

Dear Mr. Flaherty, I received the attached document in the mail. As the attached document is not signed, I am unable to confirm its validity. I have NO UNDERSTANDING of the attached document yet have many questions regarding the attached document to ask of the person who sent the attached document to my corporation. I suspect it might be a forgery and someone has initiated a hoax upon me and my corporation or it could possible be a simply mistake of issuing and sending the attached document without a signature.

If this document was sent by you, or, one of your agents, please issue a new Notice of Pending Cancellation signed by you, or, have one of your agents sign it so I can be certain that it was constructed and sent by you, or, one of your agents and I may reply appropriately. Please hold on to the attached document for purposes of evidence if indeed you or any of your agents did in fact not send attached document.

Please be advised I and/or SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP. do not communicate with unsigned paper or other unsigned inanimate objects. If I, or anyone, has lead you to believe that I am willing to attempt to communicate with unsigned paper and/or other unsigned inanimate objects, that would be a mistake. Please forgive me.

If I do not receive a response such as a new signed 'Notice of Pending Cancellation', or, a signed 'Notice of Mistake' for issuing the attached document if indeed it was a mistake by you or one of your agents within 30 days of the Date of this letter then I will understand that the attached document is possibly a forgery, and I will report it as such to the Postmaster General.

I thank you for your appreciation of the seriousness of this matter and timely response.

That is the soft fluffy one.

I need really critical, in my face comments regarding this. If any thing it seriously helps my writing and language skills. Thanks to all who commented. :)

Chad Brodgesell

Such as this.....? super fluffy and doesn't make my blood boil?

But pleasant and sugar coated.

Dear Mr. Flaherty, I received the attached document in the mail. As the attached document is not signed, I am unable to confirm its validity. I have NO UNDERSTANDING of the attached document yet have many questions regarding the attached document to ask of the person who sent the attached document to my corporation.

If the attached document was sent by you, or, one of your agents, please issue a new Notice of Pending Cancellation signed by you, or, have one of your agents sign it so I can be certain that it was constructed and sent by you, or, one of your agents and I may reply appropriately.

Please be advised I and/or SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT & INTEGRATION CORP. do not communicate with unsigned paper or other unsigned inanimate objects. If I, or anyone, has lead you to believe that I am willing to attempt to communicate with unsigned paper and/or other unsigned inanimate objects, that would be a mistake. Please forgive me.

If I do not receive a response of a new signed 'Notice of Pending Cancellation', within 30 days of the Date of this letter then I will understand that the attached document is simply a mistake and of no force or effect.

Pete Daoust

Let me explaine�.

YOU registered that corporation.

By doing so, you�ve accepted to some terms and conditions.

The CEO of the corp, have not met some of these terms and conditions.

Now, they must have tried, in the past, to explaine to the CEO that some duties haven�t been done.

Now, they are fed up with it, and they want to shut down the corp, because the corp is in default.

The CEO need to contact them, and tell them that the corp is READY TO DO EVERYTHING it needs to do.

Now, the CEO of the corp., needs help to do, step by step, what�s need to be done, because the corp. has NO FUNDS to hire a professional to do the work.

So the CEO is ready to sit with them, for them to HELP the CEO to resolve these issues.

DO YOU WANT TO HELP PLEASE ?

Thanks The CEO

If ever they don�t want to HELP, that will bring this to a complete different story.

James Allan

Chad, respectfully, do you really believe it to be a mistake? Do you think you could convince any finder of fact to believe that you honestly thought it was a mistake? Was there not previous letters of a similar subject matter sent to you? Do you not think that a finder of fact may see you as just being difficult and not acting with honour and integrity?

Chad Brodgesell

You are assuming that I am trying to get out of something. That would be wrong. I KNOW I registered and have duties to perform that can be back tracked. You miss the point.

If you are going to send me something, sign it. That is the point. Other wise I would have to assume. This is an exercise of language, the usage of the language and the application of Law on all parties. Being here is supposed to broaden minds and abilities not close them in. Most of my and my wife's returns are written regarding 2 corporations another couple weeks they will be mailed in. Stop making assumptions. The assumptions **IS** the point. EVERYTHING any one does here regarding law is to, *Correct assumptions to return to Fact* This is my insight though just my opinion. All comments welcome.

James Allan

I am sorry if you thought I was assuming anything. My communications should not be deemed as expressing any assumption on my part, as I made no statment of fact as to my position, should I even have one respecting your matter. I only poised questions that you may wish to consider. Chad I understand the frustration. It is what brought me here as well. I am well over a decade into this. Let me ask you this, do you know EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY what you are trying to achieve by your letter? I am unsure of your objective/goal so it makes providing useful feedback challenging.

Chad Brodgesell

If some one sends you some thing that affects you, would you not want to know who in case they are wrong leaving you some one to address for remedy?

A signature. Some one accepting liability for their actions should they be wrong.

As to comments and replies regarding posts. Yes it is frustrating to have comments not on topic.

I posted an article to be critiqued, Not as to if I have liabilities or how to get out of, or circumvent. I would ask a question regarding my post.

Did I miss any thing regarding the questioning of every item that could be questioned?

Are there flaws in the method of questioning.?

Is the structure of my questioning flawed and if so then how.?

Is the grammar used unbiased, without myself making statements?

Like I said in the post, the more critical the comments the better. (To the post)

Please re-read the top portion of the post. Not the pending reply part. Not giving flak here just attempting to gain insight in methods and structure of legal documents.

Pete Daoust

Sorry Chad Brodgesell, I did not want to bother you in any ways....promess !!!

As far as these questions:

Did I miss any thing regarding the questioning of every item that could be questioned?

Are there flaws in the method of questioning.?

Is the structure of my questioning flawed and if so then how.?

Is the grammar used unbiased, without myself making statements?

If you don't mind, I'll pass this on to my secretary, she is so good in that shit :D

Chad Brodgesell

QUOTE '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. END QUOTE "THIS VERSION" no it is not the one sent, nor any thing like it.

QUOTE 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. END QUOTE

Have you ever wanted to learn how to question properly? Have you ever wanted better speech/writing skills when dealing with Courts and Lawyers? Have you ever wanted to be able to ask concise direct question to a statement of another? Have you ever wanted to be able to comprehend what was said and give a appropriate response regarding what was said? Have you ever wanted to increase your linguistic/writing skills to better your ability to fend off others who would trample on your rights because you lack these skills? Have you ever wanted to be able to speak sense without fear when in a tough situation? Have you ever wanted to be able to hold your own ground against all adversaries when the only weapon you have is speech as you are in chains?

Thanks to all commented. :)