The Tender For Law

Volume 3

Aug 21, 2013 11:06 PM

Derek Moran

Gail's inspired- Scott on how the WHITE-MAN fucked-over the NATIVE-ORIGINALS into getting them to think they are ABORIGINAL-INDIANS-thread.....

Gail Blackman: things are heating up related to the "aboriginals" and the govt....they are receiving their funding dollars and a note requiring them to sign in agreement with the all the legislation before they will get they're funding. I know it's a pretty deep issue, i.e. accepting the label "aboriginal" and the "benefit" etc. They are being legally blackmailed as I see it? Would a Notice of Mistake and a Petition similar to the one described in the CAS post, be a good starting point, for individuals or as a group or is it similar to what you described as being on social assistance and tricky?

Scott Duncan: It is EXACTLY that. It is legal exploitation. Giving up what is MOST precious, for a few "benefits". Anyone who says otherwise is serving another agenda.

There is no debate here. it's just fact. ABORIGINAL = SLAVE OF THE WHITE GUYS. Period.

Gail Blackman:the fact that they are requiring a signature of agreement for their dirty legislation, says to me that they don't have full power even though they like to make one think they do...if they didn't feel the need for agreement, then they would just carry on business as usual

Eamonn O Brien: Signature would seal the deal alright... Aboriginal = Resident (Scott clicked LIKE)

Norah Holloway:I only found out yesterday that my band (I'm First Nations) hasn't signed a treaty with the government. We own land an territories. The person I was talking to said they contract with companies for development of the resources.

I was discussing this with someone and they said I should send a notice to the UN of Indigenous People. Only figured this out yesterday.

I have a status card with the govt. that's where my benefits come from.

Scott Duncan: Norah, as of 1933 there is NO SUCH THING as a NEW treaty. They will try to scam you into AGREEMENT. AGREEMENT is NOT a TREATY!. It's CONTRACT. Treaties and Contracts are NOT the same.

KnownAs Colin: From an Aussie-centric perspective, only a Council of Elders can sign away land rights on behalf of their people; individuals can not. There is a controversy about the true meaning of 'aboriginal'. In Latin it is written as 'ab original', which simply means 'from the original' and not inferior as most believe; same with the word 'abnormal'. 'Ab normal' means 'from the normal' and not necessarily meaning inferior.

Here in Australia, the word(s) 'Aborigine/Aboriginal' is a created proper noun; however, aborigine is a co-joined from the Latin, 'ab origine', the Etymology of which is from Latin ab (�from�) + origine, ablative singular of origo (�earliest beginning, lineage, origin�). Most Australian Aborgines consider the word as offensive and, erroneously, associate it with abnormal.

Gail Blackman: When I look at the Indian Act it uses Indian and not Aboriginal..where did Aboriginal come from ?

Scott Duncan: ABORIGINAL = FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ALWAYS.

Scott Duncan: The ORIGINAL people cannot be touched under law, so they get you to declare that you have LEFT the original people, making you AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS. ABORIGINAL. If you are in Admiralty, you are DEMOTED. THAT is what makes them INFERIOR. Not the name.

Scott Duncan: If you are AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS, you are CRIMINALLY INSANE. That is what they are under the law.

...but don't take MY word for it. See for yourself!

https://ucadia.s3.amazonaws.com/acts_uk/1800_1899/uk_act_1867_criminal_lunatics.pdf

Glad I could clear up the "controversy".

Read Comments

Derek Moran

Scott Duncan: The ORIGINAL people cannot be touched under law, so they get you to declare that you have LEFT the original people, making you AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS. ABORIGINAL. If you are in Admiralty, you are DEMOTED. THAT is what makes them INFERIOR. Not the name.

Derek Moran

Gail Blackman: This video speaks of Manifest Destiny specifically as it relates to the US and the claiming of land from the Indians. It provides insight into the attitude and righteousness of those who want to be master. It's easy to see many parallels in the world today and with this understanding Scott's words "don't appeal to your rapist" make much more sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QBAqizD_7Ls#!

Sino General

Im have to repost this on my wall and other native groups, see what they say hey !! Scott Duncan do give claifications on treaty and contract, i saw it as the highest form of contract / treaty (n.) Look up treaty at Dictionary.com late 14c., "treatment, discussion," from Old French trait� "assembly, agreement, treaty," from Latin tractatus "discussion, handling," from tractare "to handle, manage" (see treat). Sense of "contract between nations" is first recorded early 15c. ------------------------------------------- A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, contract,convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1] Funny how it say actors :P

Colin Stephen Tonks

Was our post on the Etymology of Aborigine/Aboriginal deleted? Etymology: From Latin ab (�from�) + origine, ablative singular of origo (�earliest beginning, lineage, origin�). Adjective: ab origine _ From the origin; from the beginning. However, the Australian Aborigine associate, erroneously, the name with 'abnormal' and, therefore, consider it to be offensive. Reference: 2003 [1933], Brown, Lesley editor, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, edition 5th, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860575-7, page 6.

Dean Clifford

Her Majesty cannot enter into an new treaties, because Her Majesty has nothing to offer. Statute of Westminster. She is a trustee only and basically only has the right to engage in commerce on an equal playing field as everyone else. That means contract law, as in her being a Trustee. HER MAJESTY is the Crown corporation forcing everyone to abandon their rights for benefits, worthless ones, at the barrel of a gun. There is no treaty to be had with HER MAJESTY, as it is nothing more than a corporation licensed to trade securities, that is IT. They have NOTHING to offer and a treaty would be pointless. We don't need treaties, we need these assholes to start living up to their contracts and stop beating people into "voluntarily" surrendering their entitlements as the People.

Colin Stephen Tonks

In accord with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, s92, a licence to 'drive' on the public road network(s) only applies to those who do so, or intend to do so, for hire or reward by way of using a motor vehicle. However, those who do not use the road network(s) for hire or reward, use the roads for 'free travel' in an 'automobile' designed for 'free travel'. Consequently, the 'free traveller' and the 'automobile' do not require licensing or registering. Try explaining that to the Corporate Police ...they are just not interested, but only want a conviction for revenue. Personally, we have only ever been issued with a 'license' to drive for hire or reward, never to 'travel freely'. This strongly suggests that the 'authorities' are fully aware they cannot license a 'free traveller' or 'automobile'. When in court, Prosecution must establish beyond benefit of doubt that the 'accused' was actually 'driving' a 'motor vehicle' and was receiving a reward of some form for doing so and violated a section(s) of an Act(s) in so doing. The Corporate Police are most ignorant of these issues.