If you did not create It you do not own it...it is a transmitting utility/legal entity..you were tricked into using it..it is not you..if you claim it you pay for it

two words i keep repeating that have just become fucking-white-noise on this page at this point: receiver's certificate

..and the Birth Certificate is a Bill of Lading

the birth certificate is a surety bond collateral instrument. that the corporation liens. which makes it a surety interest

it then becomes an asset on the books of the corporation. Furthermore said capitalize name can no longer be used in public without the written consent of said corporation

SECURITY INTEREST: interest in real property or personal property, that secures the payment of an obligation. In common law, security interests are either consensual (by agreement), or arise by OPERATION OF LAW, as in the case of judgment LIENS and statutory LIENS. Barron's Dictionary of Business Terms

Holy fuck- it just occurred to me...we dont CLAIM the BC, as Rick Carne pointed-out above, and/or claim the RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE either (figured that out when Scott Duncan chewed-me-out for even suggesting it) ..we claim the INTEREST-COUPON-REDEMPTIONS Is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the BEARER BOND-COUPON, that was once ATTACHED, to the RECEIVER'S CERTFICATE, Scott??

..is this what was meant when i was told- "...you NEED, to ASK, the RIGHT questions" ??

Does that have anything to do with Section 38 of the Leiber Code?

Uh-oh...just got the thumbs-up from Andrew Langevin on my last comment...could another one be just around the corner? (those FUCKING theists are distracting his attention)

..is this what was meant when i was told- "...you NEED, to ASK, the RIGHT questions" ?? *Jeopardy-theme-music*

LOL.....ive been RACKING-MY-BRAIN ever since i was told that- "FUCK...whats the RIGHT QUESTION?!?"

All questions have a right answer, however in order to get the answer you seek you must ask the right question.

Receiver's certificate is a certificate or evidence of indebtedness, issued under order of the court. It is issued by a receiver to secure borrowings required by the receiver. It constitutes a first lien on the property in the receivership.

How is it we see the sky as blue? will get you the right answer to the question but if what you seek to understand is how a plane stay aloft in the sky you will be sorrily disappointed in the answer and still no closer to your understanding.

claim 1) v. to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law. 2) n. the making of a demand (assert a claim) for money due, for property, for damages or for enforcement of a right. If such a demand is not honored, it may result in a lawsuit. In order to enforce a right against a government agency (ranging for damages from a negligent bus driver to a shortage in payroll) a claim must be filed first. If rejected or ignored by the government, it is lawsuit time.

As Canada is operating in receivership, it is the "full faith and credit" WE extend for this corporation to continue. Therefore, as the creditors, we CLAIM our credit back.

In theory, we should claim any instrument wherein "money" or credit would be created.

When i mentioned to Scott that its the Receiver's Certificate we should be claiming to become the HOLDER to, he got quite irate- "WHY?? You didnt CREATE it, its not YOURS...you NEED, to ASK, the RIGHT questions"....ive been racking-my-brain on what that right question has been ever since - came to me in the shower today...alotta good shit flows-to-me when im in the shower, for some reason

creditor. (15c) 1. One to whom a debt is owed; one who gives credit for money or goods. Also termed debtee. 2. A person or entity with a definite claim against another, esp. a claim that is capable of adjustment and liquidation. 3. Bankruptcy. A person or entity having a claim against the debtor predating the order for relief concerning the debtor.

No. He LIKED, THIS question: Is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the BEARER BOND-COUPON, that was once ATTACHED, to the RECEIVER'S CERTFICATE, Scott?? So now we've ESTABLISHED that: the Birth Certificate, IS the BEARER BOND-COUPON, that was once ATTACHED, to the RECEIVER'S CERTFICATE.

Statement of Claim to the Receiver wherein the Secured Party of a (notarized copy provided) security interest requires reimbursement on behalf their Property's debt. Attach coupons.

well, can WE withold or withdraw our 'credit' inorder to pay our bills? like that hundred ounces of gold i received the other day?

or the thirty dollars a week i could use for groceries...

This thing has been created for "MY" benefit, so I am CLAIMING the benefits.......the heck with the rest..... The same as when WAL-MART send some stupid trash in the mail box, and there is a COUPON of $5.00 for some fresh strawberry that they have in there stupid store.....I will take the coupon, throw away the rest of the shit that came with it......enter WAL-MART, take the strawberry (benefits), PAY WITH THE COUPON :D and leave that stupid place.....If WAL-MART had to create a DEBT for these coupons, and try to push that debt on "ME", and try to make "ME" surety for these coupon.....that would not make any sense ??? :/ Oh, of course they could have named this COUPON PIERRE DAOUST, to make a dumb brainless bastard like me to think I am the fucking coupon......and it would have probably worked 3 years ago :D (To stay honest, I don't use WAL-MART coupons, I trash them)

The 'trick' is, i think we're talking about here.....is that we have to get "WAL-MART"(wink-wink, nudge-nudge) to send US the COUPON to begin with and NOT the Registrar Gener-err, i mean - NOT the bad-nextdoor-neighbour who works for the SENATE who constantly RINGS-UP their expense-account Signed, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, etc.

Oh....and the TIME that I will HOLD that coupon on "ME", I will make sure that NO ONE is fucking around with its surety, which is NOT me of course, but it will BENEFIT me, so don't try to fuck around with this coupon while I am the LAWFUL holder in due course :D

Seriously Derek, should I care WHO send the coupon ?.....one thing is for sure....I did not asked for it, and I did not created it....that's an IMPOSSIBILITY.....

..it was an ANALOGY

The inference that two or more things that are similar to each other in some respects are also similar in other respects. An analogy denotes that similarity exists in some characteristics of things that are otherwise not alike. In a legal argument, an analogy may be used when there is no precedent (prior case law close in facts and legal principles) in point. Reasoning by analogy involves referring to a case that concerns unrelated subject matter but is governed by the same general principles and applying those principles to the case at hand.

Derek Moran if you read the Domestic bonds of canada regulations, the bank of canada and deputy minister of finance are the responsible parties...wonder if there is anything in these regulations that could be helpful? http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._698/page-1.html

I`m trying to find the `Order in Council P.C. 5938 dated October 25, 1940`, I can`t seem to find it which makes me more curious about it

The date is not far off the bankruptcy time, it could be relevant

Since all things are set up as TRUSTS, would you not claim the VALUE of the estate via a Will? A TESTAMENTARY TRUST on behalf of the PERSON (decedant)? Send to Registrar General...

If the govt HOLDS the receivers certificate (or the VALUE of the cargo), our BC is only a receipt for the goods delivered, yet is evidence of a public trust. Scott?

So the RIGHT question, is NOT whether do we claim the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and/or the RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE ..it is - "Do we claim the INTEREST-COUPON-REDEMPTIONS, Scott Duncan?"

Claim the EQUITY, Derek. They hold legal title, the use of the title, and you OWN the EQUITY in what you GRANTED them USE OF. They are a tenant, the very definition of Cestui que vie. They are trying to convert everything you do into an act done as an agent of the tenant under license subject to regulation by the tenant who hold the right of USE to the LEGAL TITLE, and THAT, is the fraud.

As in a WILL?

I don't care WHAT they fucking hold that they created AFTER you deposited the value.....it does NOT change the fact that you own the equity no matter WHAT it was converted into. In commerce, EQUITY IS KING. Own the Equity, and you are KING of the "Thing" in question. FUCK!

So by OWNING the equity I automaticaly own the VALUE of the thing, even if the thing is NOT my thing....like the $20 bill I have in my pocket......and the only way to own the eqity of something that is NOT mine, is to lien the thing

Is there any other ways to OWN the equity other than liening the thing Dean Clifford ?

Do you remember this scene from 'Batman Begins,' Dean? They start talking about the CESTUI QUE VIE ACT at 1:23 in it, without actually saying it mind you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6J5BcHFCs

One does not own equity,.. one claims equity..to own means you get the liability...ownng and claiming are two different

Check out .Christian Walters..NTT

OK...... So by CLAIMING the equity I automaticaly OWN the VALUE of the thing, even if the thing is NOT my thing....like the $20 bill I have in my pocket......and the only way to CLAIM the eqity of something that is NOT mine, is to lien the thing...by registering a PRIVILEGE on the thing ?

THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES!!..and that is also the fraud...they make a claim and usually no one rebutts their claim..everyone assumes that they are right.when infact the are stealing your equity.. most of the liens they do are only " notice of lien" ..that is not a lien, only a notice...

False Claim ?..... like Dean Clifford said a hundred times so far :D

everyone assumes that they are right.when in fact the are stealing your equity......Except when you show up with a Notice of Mistake, and / or a Notice of Waiver....depending on the situation :)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equity

Frustrated plaintiffs turned to the king, who referred these extraordinary requests for relief to a royal court called the Chancery. The Chancery was headed by a chancellor who possessed the power to settle disputes and order relief according to his conscience. The decisions of a chancellor were made without regard for the common law, and they became the basis for the law of equity.

The only thing you had when you were born was the right of use of the resources of, in and over the land for life plus what equity you might bring to the table before death.

Usufruct...

u�su�fruct The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way....mmmhhh !!!

Liening is simply the enforcement of what you already own, Pete. If that becomes necessary. Possession is 9/10 of ownership, the other 1/10 is by way of Lien interest. ;)

If there is NO profit, there can't be equity ? :/

This equity thing is fucking up my cells brain...well...anyway :(

So basically- Ron Howard and Tom Cruise were trying to tell us something with this scene from 'Far and Away'.....i remember watching this movie, thinking - why did they go to all this trouble...why didnt they just BUY the land and avoid the hassle :/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULhkipzltU

Basically- it sounds like we need to exploit the hell out of section 26. of the Charter for ourselves, fuck it... Signed, Here-a-Claim, That-a-Claim

Without "ME", there is no PERSON, I am the SUPPLIER, and should be first in line to get paid.....period. No Supplier = No business...that seems way more powerful than the equity to me, of course I may NOT grasp this equity thing at this moment, but to claim equity, a profit needs to be made.....as a SUPPLIER, I care less about the profit, I get paid, and the person's book can be negative or positive, what do I care ?....sorry if I stain shit this thread....

As i recall Scott Duncan breaking it down, as it stands- YOU are the CARRIER However.....you want to become the TRANSPORTER, as they arent engaging in commerce

When i worked for the tire-company, CHESTER would come in every day with lets say a few-hundred tires - CHESTER, was, the CARRIER However, we had 4 stores, and sometimes to make things easier, we would accept the shipment for another store, and then, once Chester-the-CARRIER was gone, we would back-up our own Cube-Van, load the tires onto it, and do a TRANSFER out to the other store(s).....when we did TRANSFERS, in OUR own Cube-Van, we were NOT engaging in commerce, we were TRANSPORTING, what was now already OURS

I will sleep on that.....I just can't believe that mommy was the SUPPLIER.....she did not even got paid.....a supplier is missing in this picture, and if I don't exist, there is NO person.... good nite

Holy FUCK.....HOWEVER, none of those tires were ever OURS, until they were all unloaded off the truck, and counted, making sure they were all there, and then, FINALLY....... Someone would have to act as SURETY, signing for the CARRIER for the guess what?...the BILL OF LADING, that he would always PRESENT to us, right-off-the-bat as soon as he walked back into the warehouse, but, would always get set-aside until, all the tires again, were unloaded, stacked, and counted, verifying they were all there. Then...he would take that now signed BILL OF LADING that was originally given to him first by the SHIPPER whoever it was, Goodyear, Dunlop, Michelin, etc., and bring it back to them, verifying, that we had in-deed, got THE GOODS ;)

We never got the goods, they weren't even on the truck.

Goodyear > Bill of Lading > Chester > The Tire Company > Chester-driver hands Bill of Lading to Tire Company-guy > tires unloaded/DELIVERED > Tire Company-guy signs Bill of Lading, hands it back to Chester-driver > Chester-driver brings it back to whence it originated from > Goodyear

..they're still sittin' in the FIELD WAREHOUSE, with the FIELD WAREHOUSEMAN aka. Registrar General - watching DUTIFULLY over that INVENTORY? ;)

Somehow i feel this all played-out like Bill Murray in 'Scrooged' - he ends-up sending his brother the BATHROBE for his Christmas-present, and the secretary ends-up getting the VCR meant for the brother INSTEAD - except, Bill Murray made a MISTAKE....... i think the INTENT was meant to be a TAD different for our cases, though

yes everything is a contract. Law= Offer to do contract

And how you protect yourself from the legal person liability is your Majority Share holder of the company trust... I only deal through the post office and the newspaper. The post office for bills of exchange and the lien for newspaper.

Nine tenths of the law is equity title . the 10th is legal title. What we lien is the 10th of title of legal title

When the judge takes your charges to the Comptroller of the county that is where the money is made. This is for the USA I don't know about Canada.

By liening the legal title capitalize name the corporation is taking back the 10 percent and/or legal title.

Scott Duncan: 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.

..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.

Am i to think Dean Clifford or Scott Duncan, that the LIEN this particular certificate 'constitutes' on the PROPERTY, is their very disingenuous way mind you, of PROTECTING the property for us, with the idea in mind that ONE day MAYBE we might just wake-up, and come CLAIM the PROPERTY for OURSELVES? ..in the meantime, the LIEN this Receiver's Certificate represents, serves to protect the PROPERTY from falling-into-the-hands of someone/anyone else?

if you create a trust and corporation to have the name liened...is it still possible if you go bankrupt before doing the lien?

In the meantime.....ALFRED = the GOVERNMENT...gets to enjoy the spoils of the WAYNE ESTATE = Security-of-the-Person...because the one who has the rightful CLAIM to it, MASTER/BRUCE WAYNE = US...has been gone for 7 years ala CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, there presuming he is dead, but...."If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest."

so that means the govt will offer up the rolls for us ;)

AFFIDAVIT OF THAT I AM ALIVE-AND-WELL Notice of Mistake: sorry if you guys thought ive been dead since my 7th birthday CLAIM OF RIGHT: ummm..."Everyone has the Right to (Financial)Security-of-(their)Person, being held in Estate for me, cuz again, you guys thought ive been dead since i was 7" - right? :D

Scott Duncan: When you say those names out loud, are they any different? (DEAN CLIFFORD v. Dean Clifford) Scott Duncan: Speak them both, and tell me which sounds different. Scott Duncan: THEY make the claim to it...except they CAN'T be a PARTY. Scott Duncan: ONLY a PERSON can be a PARTY. Scott Duncan: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT, AND CAN NOT BE, A PERSON! So in the end- they never had any RIGHT to this Security-of-the-Person TO BEGIN WITH....hence- Security-of-the-Person, not, Security-of-the-TRUSTEE meant to look after it for us since we were 7!

They currently have an INFERIOR claim to it...just waiting for us to come along and trump it with our SUPERIOR claim

The Government can not be a person because it IS A COLLECTION of persons.

Sorry if off topic but while I have been writing documents for the last 3 weeks for analysis and structure as to the goal of each I found out the difference of using the "and/or", or the, "and & or" mentioned in another post by Scott Duncan. While following the structure of a question/statement using slips of paper as the people/organizations referred to I realized the significance of the differences between the two and how either affects the question/statement. Just thought I would point out the importance of the two as to comprehend they completely change what you are asking or stating. Back to practice for me.

"They are trying to convert everything you do, into an act done as an agent, of the tenant, under license, subject to regulation by the tenant, who hold the right of USE to the LEGAL TITLE- and THAT, is the fraud." Just to drive home the point of what Dean Clifford said - listen to Alfred's tongue-in-cheek comment to the newly 'back-from-the-dead' Bruce Wayne in this clip at minute 1:42... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6J5BcHFCs

Gail Blackman- a big factor in this equation, is Dean Clifford's comments earlier on in this thread about The Cestui Que Vie Act involvement's in all of this...until that is sorted out, it seems like the Government thinks they are Alfred, and that they are presuming they are just doing their job, in giving US, the use of our OWN Rolls Royce, but, that we make sure we just bring it back with a- "...full tank-of-gas...," even though it is OUR car to begin with

Yes I saw the parallel immediately when I watched that clip..will look up the Cestui Que Vie Act thanks

Remember Gail- it was Chad Brodgesell who got LIKED by Scott, on his observation that the Government isnt even a Trust so-to-say...the Gov is a HOLDING-CORPORATION, who just so happens to be in charge of HOLDING all of the Trusts FOR us, seemingly until-and-when, we sort this all out on our own

Holding Corporation....hmmmm Who do I know that runs a corporation that holds Trusts????? <finger tapping>

Not bound to EXECUTE trusts 59. Her Majesty and a fiscal agent or *REGISTRAR* acting as such are not bound to see to the EXECUTION of any express OR IMPLIED trust to which any SECURITIES are subject. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-29.html#docCont

I have a Holding Corp, but no TRUST established as of yet.....it's coming :D

If Scott Duncan could be more datailed about ESTABLISHING a trust :P

Wouldn't it be more like, "Canada" is a holding corporation and the Fed/Prov Gov't are the operating or administrating corporations. "Canada" holds all assets, trusts, etc.

Pierre, you have your company/shop (where you get specific customers) and you also have a holding corporation...and its considered the parent of your shop?

No, the Holding corp. holds 50% of the company/shop corp.

EXECUTE: 1. To perform or complete (a contract or duty) <once the contract was fully executed, the parties owed no further contractual duties to each other>. [Cases: Contracts 2. To change (as a legal interest) from one form to another <the shifting use was executed into a valid legal estate>. 3. To make (a legal document) valid by signing; to bring (a legal document) into its final, legally enforceable form <each party executed the contract without a signature witness>. 4. To put to death, esp. by legal sentence <Johnson was executed shortly after midnight>. [Cases: Sentencing and Punishment C;=> 1795.] 5. To enforce and collect on (a money judgment) <Williams asked the sheriff to execute on the judgment>. Black's 9th.

EXECUTION: 1. The act of carrying out or putting into effect (as a court order or a securities transaction) <execution of the court's decree> <execution of the stop-loss order>. 2. Validation of a written instrument, such as a contract or will, by fulfilling the necessary legal requirements <delivery of the goods completed the contract's execution>. [Cases: Contracts (:::-J34; Sales Vendor and Purchaser <::=>23; Wills (;=: 108129.] 3. Judicial enforcement of a money judgment, usu. by seizing and selling the judgment debtor's property <even if the plaintiff receives a judgment against the foreign debtor, execution is unlikely>. - Also termed (in Scots law) diligence. [Cases: Execution Federal Civil Procedure C=>2691.] 4. A court order directing a sheriff or other officer to enforce a judgment, usu. by seizing and selling the judgment debtor's property <the court issued the execution authorizing seizure of the car>. - Also termed writ ofexecution; judgment execution; general execution. [Cases: Execution <:-"'::>74; Federal Civil Procedure C=>2697.] "A writ of execution is an authorization to an executive officer, issued from a court in which a final judgment has been rendered, for the purpose of carrying such judgment into force and effect. It is founded upon the judgment, must generally be conformed to it in every respect, and the plaintiff is always entitled to it to obtain a satisfaction of his claim, unless his right has been suspended by proceedings in the nature of an appeal or by his own agreement."

EXECUTED TRUST: A trust in which the estates and interests in the subject matter of the trust are completely limited and defined by the instrument creating the trust and require no further instruments to complete them. Also termed complete voluntary trust. Trusts ~114.]

DONATIVE TRUST: A trust that establishes a gift of a beneficial interest in property for a beneficiary .� Most trusts are donative trusts. Also termed gratuitous trust. GRATUITOUS TRUST: See donative trust.

PRIVATE TRUST

Is the Birth Certificate PROOF of there being the existence of a DONATIVE TRUST, Scott Duncan?

I don't think so Derek Moran :D

PUBLIC TRUST

And the PUBLIC TRUST here in Quebec seems to have a hard time BALANCING their book... :D

Same as in Canada

Hmm, better yet- Scott DOES LONG FOR to be a Judge..... "(ahem) Do you, Judge Admiral Duncan, take JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT, that the Birth Certificate is/acts/serves-as-PROOF, of there being the existence of a DONATIVE TRUST?"

A trust that establishes a gift of a beneficial interest in property for a beneficiary Where does the GIFT comes from ?

I've been wondering the same thing. Once the corp gets to be the Creditor, how is that right transferred to the Trust? Bequeathed? GIfted? Sold? Placed? How does the accounting work for this?

Transfered

ok....and this is probably where an accountant comes in handy. How does the accounting work though?

with an accountant :D

Thanks bud.....I don't trust anyone (clearly), so how does the nuts and bolts of the accountants job work?

You don't have to trust the accountant, if he fucks up, he is liable :D

"..we claim the INTEREST-COUPON-REDEMPTIONS Is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the BEARER BOND-COUPON, that was once ATTACHED, to the RECEIVER'S CERTFICATE, Scott??" RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: Bankruptcy. An instrument issued by a receiver as evidence that the holder is entitled to receive payment from funds controlled by the bankruptcy court. "..we claim the INTEREST-COUPON-REDEMPTIONS Is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the BEARER BOND-COUPON, that was once ATTACHED, to the RECEIVER'S CERTFICATE, Scott??"

The CERTIFICATE I have in my pocket, still has the BEARER BOND-COUPON attached to it......when I received it, the letter accompanying it, was so insistent on "ME" detaching that coupon that I thought it would be a good idea to NOT detach it.

I have good reasons to BELIEVE that I should do EXACTLY the opposite of everything these PUBLIC SERVANTS tells me to do :/ And it's NOT my fault :D

..just so there is nothing left to be assumed: If on the Birth Certificate there is what APPEARS to be our name, Scott Duncan..... ..whose name then is on the RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE?

The person's name I would imagine :D

EXECUTION CREDITOR: A judgment creditor who has caused an execution to issue on the judgment. judgment creditor. See JUDGMENT CREDITOR. judgment creditor. (18c) A person having a legal right to enforce execution of a judgment for a specific sum of money. bona fide judgment creditor. One who recovers a judgment without engaging in fraud or collusion.

EXECUTION: 1. The act of carrying out or putting into effect (as a court order or a securities transaction) <execution of the court's decree> <execution of the stop-loss order>. 2. Validation of a written instrument, such as a contract or will, by fulfilling the necessary legal requirements <delivery of the goods completed the contract's execution>. [Cases: Contracts (:::-J34; Sales Vendor and Purchaser <::=>23; Wills (;=: 108129.] 3. Judicial enforcement of a money judgment, usu. by seizing and selling the judgment debtor's property <even if the plaintiff receives a judgment against the foreign debtor, execution is unlikely>. - Also termed (in Scots law) diligence. [Cases: Execution Federal Civil Procedure C=>2691.] 4. A court order directing a sheriff or other officer to enforce a judgment, usu. by seizing and selling the judgment debtor's property <the court issued the execution authorizing seizure of the car>. - Also termed writ ofexecution; judgment execution; general execution. [Cases: Execution <:-"'::>74; Federal Civil Procedure C=>2697.] "A writ of execution is an authorization to an executive officer, issued from a court in which a final judgment has been rendered, for the purpose of carrying such judgment into force and effect. It is founded upon the judgment, must generally be conformed to it in every respect, and the plaintiff is always entitled to it to obtain a satisfaction of his claim, unless his right has been suspended by proceedings in the nature of an appeal or by his own agreement."

Derek you hit the nail on the head! Or my head at least. Federal Civil Procedure C=>2697.] "A writ of execution is an authorization to an executive officer, issued from a court in which a final judgment has been rendered, for the purpose of carrying such judgment into force and effect. It is founded upon the judgment, must generally be conformed to it in every respect, and the plaintiff is always entitled to it to obtain a satisfaction of his claim, unless his right has been suspended by proceedings in the nature of an appeal or by his own agreement."

I have never appealed. I told them what I needed, what my injuries were, and asked for help in the form they offered. 75% of my gross wages, and medical care for those injuries. This includes right now immediately a prescription for marijuana to be self administered in the dosages I deem necessary to remain calm and somewhat pain free. Massage therapy, hydrotherapy, and my Drivers licence back I have never relinquished the care and maintenance of this body to anyone or anything but me. As it was a Railway that injured me, this applies to anywhere in Canada, we are automatically entitled to 100% of lost wages, 100% of pain and suffering (set at $1,000,0000). And all benefits intact until retirement including CPP and company pension. That is what I have been entitled to automatically under former and current law, including the FELA legislation and, I was a good honest decent hardworking man who was sober and healthy. Algoma Central Railway and WSIB/WCB have both conspired to deny me those benefits by offering me a settlement in the form of 75% of my lost wages tax free while I was off work from my injuries and medical care for those injuries. I receive neither, never have except to the point of them considering me totally disabled from employment. no appeals necessary or warranted. I was totally disabled from employment and still am. Economic duress, physical duress, mental and emotional duress, is inflicted on me daily. I do have a cognitive deficit from the brain injury, which was compounded by being subjected to frivolous and vexatious psychologically damaging appeals processes. I still am being tortured. My only real defence is my honesty.

file a lien against them. sell it to their bank.

Derek Moran regarding a comment you made above. My B.C. on the back states, "this certificate" Blacks law 9th definition of this certificate is 'see stock certificate'. I do not know how others see this but to me the B.C. is simply a promissory note showing that I am the creditor and the issuer is the debtor. Though having no cash out value any debt I create I should be able to set off and discharge against the debt of the B.C.

To me, the Birth CERTIFICATE certify that "ME" is the Sole BENEFICIARY of something (a PERSON), the same as the CERTIFICATE in the minute book I have, concerning the person 9123-0987 Quebec Inc, CERTIFY that the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST, is the sole BENEFICIARY of this 9123-0987 Quebec Inc.... That is why I have no problem of saying that "ME", the Man, I am the MASTER of this thing they've created......I am the MASTER, and I benefit from that thing.....I am NOT that thing.....unless SOMEONE would like to say otherwise by writing... :)

So, when I have to COMMUNICATE something to someone regarding this thing named PIERRE DAOUST, I always sign: BY:______________________ Master of PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX Because that is TRUE.

And Man did I ever COMMUNICATE these past 6 months :D

You have 30 days to answer this, if you do not answer, I will UNDERSTAND that this and that is true, and you will have no other choices to UNDERSTAND it as well With Respect, Honor, Dignity and Integrity. BY:____________________________ Master of PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX :D

I know he IRKS Scott Duncan- but it WAS 'eternallyaware' who pointed-out to me for the first time, that somewhere in their own legislation, the Quebec government makes mention of 'the PATRIMONY' - yet...i dont think there is anywhere, where the Ontario government comes straight-out and points-it-out as well as Quebec has

(8) Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario may be sued in the courts of the Province of Ontario with regard to any claims arising out of or relating to the obligations of the Province under the Bonds. No law in the Province of Ontario requires the consent of any public official or authority for suit to be brought or judgment to be obtained against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario arising out of or relating to the obligations of the Province under the Bonds, though in certain circumstances prior notice and particulars of a claim must be given to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. An amount payable by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario under an order of a court of the Province of Ontario that is final and not subject to appeal is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Province of Ontario pursuant to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (Ontario). http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/74615/000007461513000014/form_18ka5.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p27_e.htm ..and because Dean Clifford's such a good-guy, here is Manitoba's: http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/laws/stat/ccsm-c-p140/latest/ccsm-c-p140.html

I suddenly like the PROVINCE OF MANITOBA a whole lot more! :D "person" does not include the Crown; (� personne �) http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/laws/stat/ccsm-c-p140/latest/ccsm-c-p140.html

TRUST: Legal rights that apply where one person holds and deals with property on behalf of or for the benefit of another person. CONSTRUCTIVE Trust: A type of trust that may arise, where one person contributes, to the worth of another person's property. The court may find that it is a constructive trust, if the property owner is unjustly enriched, and the contributor receives no benefit. The effect of a constructive trust, is that the owner of the property, may have to hold the property, in trust for the contributor. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/glossary/?id=448

Nice Derek Moran.

"Dear Registrar General of Ontario, Is the Birth Certificate i have proof of the existence of an EXPRESS Trust, or, a CONSTRUCTIVE Trust, that was set-up by you guys for my benefit?" ;)

I will start putting terms in my communication as if they don't answer within 30 days, so and so will be....... Because they just don't fucking answer nothing.... :( I even put my cell number and they don't call :( WHY ARE THEY NOT ANSWERING Scott Duncan....WHY ?

..operative-word in this is "ANYTHING" Fraudulent concealment 341. Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-164.html#docCont

PART IX OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY Fraudulent concealment 341. Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

conceal verb camouflage, cloak, confine, cover, cover up, curtain, disguise, eclipse, enshroud, entomb, envelop, harbor, hide, keep clandestine, keep from, keep out of sight, keep secret, keep to oneself, keep underground, make innonspicuous, make indiscernible, make unapparent, make unperceptible, mask, not reveal, obscure, occulere, protect, render invisible, screen, seclude, secrete, shade, shadow, shield, shroud, store, suppress, throw a veil over, veil, withhraw from observation, withold, withold information Associated concepts: conceal assets, conceal information, conceal material facts Foreign phrases: Fraus est celare fraudem.It is fraud to conneal a fraud.

conceal information

:)

Fait de cacher frauduleusement 341. Est coupable d�un acte criminel et passible d�un emprisonnement maximal de deux ans quiconque, � des fins frauduleuses, prend, obtient, enl�ve ou cache quoi que ce soit. � S.R., ch. C-34, art. 301. :D

Like a guy use to say... HAHAHA!!!! :D

Payment by Crown 22. The Minister of Finance shall pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the amount payable by the Crown, (a) under an order of a court that is final and not subject to appeal; (b) under a settlement of a proceeding in a court; (c) under a settlement of a claim that is the subject of a notice of claim under section 7; or (d) under a final order to pay made by a competent authority under a trade agreement that the Crown has entered into with the government of another province or territory of Canada, the government of Canada or any combination of those governments. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p27_e.htm

Mmhhh !!!...

Vesting orders as to stock and choses in action 13. (1) In any of the following cases, (a) where the Superior Court of Justice appoints, or has appointed, a new trustee; or (b) where a trustee entitled alone, or jointly with another person, to stock or to a chose in action, (iv) neglects or refuses to transfer stock, or receive the dividends or income thereof, or to sue for or recover a chose in action, according to the direction of the person absolutely entitled thereto, for fourteen days next after a request in writing has been made to the trustee by the person so entitled, or (v) neglects or refuses to transfer stock, or receive the dividends or income thereof, or to sue for or recover a chose in action for fourteen days next after an order of the Superior Court of Justice for that purpose has been served on the trustee; or (c) where it is uncertain whether a trustee entitled, alone or jointly with another person, to stock or to a chose in action is alive or dead, the Superior Court of Justice may make an order vesting the right to transfer, or call for a transfer of stock, or to receive the dividends or income thereof, or to sue for or recover a chose in action, in any such person as the court may appoint. Court may make declaration (7) The Superior Court of Justice may make declarations and give directions concerning the manner in which the right to any stock or chose in action, vested under this Act, is to be exercised. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-t23/latest/

Unclaimed money 11. (1) Money administered under this Act that has been unclaimed for 10 years after the intestate person�s death shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 7 (1). Interest (2) A person who proves entitlement to that money is entitled to receive it, with interest at the rate the Lieutenant Governor in Council directs. 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 7 (1). Remedy of persons having claims upon the estate 12. Any person claiming to be entitled to any such estate or to any interest therein or to any part of the proceeds thereof may apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an order declaring the person�s rights with respect thereto, and the court may direct the inquiries that are necessary to determine the matter, and may finally adjudicate thereon, but no application under this section shall be entertained unless security for costs is given by the applicant if the Public Guardian and Trustee demands security. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.47, s. 12; 2001, c. 9, Sched. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c47/latest/rso-1990-c-c47.html

The trustee acts as receiver for all the estate's property, and is entitled to see its books and records.[45] All moneys he receives must be deposited into a separate trust account.[46] When required, he is obliged to report on the estate's condition, moneys on hand, and property remaining unsold.[47] 46. ^ "BIA, s. 25". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_and_Insolvency_Act

Trust account 25. (1) When acting under the authority of this Act, a trustee shall, without delay, deposit in a bank all funds received for an estate in a separate trust account for each estate. Marginal note:Other deposit-taking institutions must be insured (1.1) The trustee may deposit the funds in a deposit-taking institution, other than a bank as defined in section 2, only if deposits held by that institution are insured or guaranteed under a provincial or federal enactment that provides depositors with protection against the loss of funds on deposit with that institution. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-3/page-14.html#docCont

�equity claim� �equity claim� means a claim that is in respect of an equity interest, including a claim for, among others, (a) a dividend or similar payment, (b) a return of capital, (c) a redemption or retraction obligation, (d) a monetary loss resulting from the ownership, purchase or sale of an equity interest or from the rescission, or, in Quebec, the annulment, of a purchase or sale of an equity interest, or (e) contribution or indemnity in respect of a claim referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d); http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-3/FullText.html

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act...look for the term 'Trust Account' in it The more i read this Act, the more it occurs to me, that the TAXES we are charged with, i think are deemed by THEM to be in exchange for the continued ADMINISTRATION of our Trust-Accounts by them- except...i dont ever remember them ACKNOWLEDGING that we even HAVE a Trust-Account to BEGIN WITH

there lies the omission

Dean- you're a big-fan of the Canadian Bill of Rights, right? (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY, CHARTER: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof..... See whats missing in the CHARTER version?..... i was leafing through my Donovan Waters' 'Law of Trusts' book last night, and what it mentioned; one of the accepted RIGHTS of the Beneficiary in Trust Law, is?...that they are to have the- 'ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY' ..im guessing there's a reason why they conveniently left THAT out, hmm? ;)

OH- and when you mentioned, "CLAIM the EQUITY" Dean...the exact way they referred to it in Waters' Trust-law-book was as- 'the EQUITABLE INTEREST'

60 Minutes doing a piece on Michael Jackson of all things, breaks down at 6:17 of this clip how Government keeps up their lavish-lifestyle: "...the Governments of Canada, financed much of their lifestyle, by routinely borrowing against their assets...(but it wasnt these) personal 'belongings' that they used as COLLATERAL..." ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1tBUyWbpSs

EQUITABLE INTEREST = Common Law. I thought common law was essentially dead and buried. Isn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_interest

Enjoyment=use.....usufruct

when you lien your legal name, is it like putting it to bed, never to be used again in any way?

How is it your name?....did you create it? Register it? Or do you use it? Did you apply to recieve it?...if it was yours why do you ask the State for it?.. do you have the MCO? Hahaha...

ha! ty...still working on clearing out that programming...no its not mine I dont want it lol

Possession of the BC we are the Lawful-Holder-in-Due Course of, has made us an AGENT of the Trustee that gave it to us/signed it to begin with, the Registrar General...the BC is what is known as a DISCHARGING RECEIPT, under trust law

Gail Blackman - I think Scott said the lien makes the name bankrupt, but the corporation that manages the trust can finance the lien.

The fact that the corp. Has a lien on something with great value ( 1 million a year) shows a excellent credit bureau for the corp.

That's what it is....

The lein on the legal title that is held by the corp Trust is not money of account but needs to be satisfied if people use it without written consent of the corporation

you are not the holder in due course of that STATE issued title..you are the "beneficial owner" the STATE holds the LEGAL TITLE...the BC is the token that the public uses to ledger the securities against the estate...LIVING MAN DOES NOT BELONG IN COMMERCE...you can only operate it by proxy and the living man cannot be the debtor.. the NAME is!....do you know what this is?? you do not need this stuff are you loohkng for riches>>� 8-502. ASSERTION OF ADVERSE CLAIM AGAINST ENTITLEMENT HOLDER. An action based on an adverse claim to a financial asset, whether framed in conversion, replevin, constructive trust, equitable lien, or other theory, may not be asserted against a person who acquires a security entitlement under Section 8-501 for value and without notice of the adverse claim......these are all for SLAVES..if you claim the NAME you are their SLAVE..and as such, unless you have learned the combination will always be the surety... NAME operates as a TRUST, where all Foreign Corporate Officials are all holding offices as Executors, Administrators and Trustees! Under their Foreign International Laws all those trusts operate under the rules of usufruct. The STATE having received, accepted, used and BENEFITED from the usufruct (all property) where the STATE is benefiting from all property belonging to another (YOU as naked-owner of the usufruct), the STATE is the usufructary that has FULL LIABILITY for ALL taxes, dues and claims against the securities account, NAME, in which that status affords as being the usufructary of the usufruct! The STATE under ITS Foreign occupancy through ITS Military SEIZURE has caused for YOU the soliated/naked-owner of the usufruct to be issued a RECEIPT for YOU the spoliated/naked-owner to obtain full indemnity for EVERYTHING associated to the securities account, NAME which consists of ALL YOUR CREDIT that has been SEIZED! The RECEIPT issued is the CERTIFICATE of Live Birth which is a securities receipt for the securitiesaccountNAME! ask the trustees about the Usufruct and watch them leave the room...

I am NOT running the lien thecorporation is which I am a major shareholder of

the old identity must die

this is why "we" use proxies...

I need to get rid of my old record laugh out loud

this also gives my corporation commercial lien power for any unauthorized use of the old identity

what happens when cops lawyers and judges ect lose bonding

They work at McDonalds asking if you want fries with that. Bada boom!

Whoa - that's alotta info there Rick, im gonna have to go over that again. The RECEIPT ive come to find out, is a DISCHARGING RECEIPT.....DISCHARGING RECEIPT = the trustee is saying to us- "Now ive done my part...your move next" This guy that ChiefRock knows hits-the-nail-on-the-head at minute 5:00 of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZC0eur4Z4

Question, Rick- in your estimation...is the BC a NEGOTIABLE Receipt, or a NON-NEGOTIABLE Receipt?

do you know who you gonna negotiate with??

Hmm, interesting point. There really should be no 'negotiating,' as the BC is a GRATUITOUS PROMISE for a GIFT to us.

Once you look at this, ask yourself... "a receipt for what?" http://s752.beta.photobucket.com/user/mrmitee/media/BirthCertificate.jpg.html

GIFT? As in COURTESY?

When something is bought, a receipt has to be give.. :D

there is nothing on the back of my BC copy... it is in 'blank'.

Receipt Acknowledgment in writing that something of value, or cash, has been placed into an individual's possession; written confirmation of payment rendered. Receipt of goods refers to the act of taking physical possession of them.

receipt n. a written and signed acknowledgement by the recipient of payment for goods, money in payment of a debt or receiving assets from the estate of someone who has died.

:/

The w-2 and w-4 is classified as gift and estate tax forms...

I don't get it Rick :/

Nor do I....I have heard that before, but where is that defined? I specifically have heard the term "bequeathment".

IR manual...

"Jeff", thats a big mauual...have you found the gift part?

"Back of a Birth Certificate from BC. "REVENUE RECEIPT TREASURY USE ONLY" ..of course- this is a PRESUMPTION, the picture doesnt show what the FRONT of this 'REVENUE RECEIPT' looks like

Rick, what exactly does "the estate" mean...".the BC is the token that the public uses to ledger the securities against the estate"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estate

Pete, he said "the estate" as in a specific one....

And if you look at that link, you will see at least a dozen defined

Pick one :D

I am mostly interested in find out about "the" estate... :P

"tenant" includes an occupant and the person in possession other than the owner; http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/

Zombie this! Also: I fucking hate Derek Moran

I was a teenager in these days :/