The Tender For Law

Volume 3

Sep 01, 2013 6:43 PM

Pete Daoust

IS THIS ALL TRUE ?

I have a person, its name is PIERRE DAOUST, this person has an inscription number, a certificate and blablabla�.

And �ME�, the Man that gives value to this person, has the RIGHT to this person�s Life, Liberty and its security / Surety�.

So, �ME�, if I want, I can KILL this person, because if I have the rights on its life, I must have the rights on his death�..Like Mika did and all these guys who are in this movement called Free-Man-On-The-Land.

But why in the world would I want to do that ? :/

Every LEGAL BUSINESS is made through this LEGAL PERSON, that I have, and this LEGAL person has NO property, and it seems to be the GOVERNEMENT�s property anyway.

So, EVERY BILL I pick up in the mail box, seems to be addressed to that person named PIERRE DAOUST, and the SURETY of this person seems to be sitting in the Government�s bank, which is the Bank of Canada.

So, as a good ADMINISTRATOR for this person, I shall re-direct all of these bills where this person�s SURETY is ? (I did this 5 times, and so far, complete silence )

So why in the world would I want to kill this person ?, I mean, the way I see it, this person has been created to BENEFIT �ME� ?

And since I HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS on it, It seems to me that I must be the MASTER of that person ?

As the MASTER, I get to DECIDE for it, so WHY these FMOTL wants to kill it ?

Of course I will encounter some resistance to this, but if it�s the truth, at one point the truth will eliminate this resistance, and I had to deal with resistance all my life, so what�s the big deal��.anyway��

If I am dragged to court, for ANY reasons, (unless I�ve committed a real crime of course) and I start by RESERVING ALL RIGHTS, they are fucked ?.....I mean I can explaine all this shit to them, I can tell them I AM NOT the surety, never been, and never will�.I can ask them to PROVE ME WRONG, and even ask them to point to me WHERE IS THE SURETY please ?

Dean Clifford told me once that I am surety period, they only make false claims upon my person�why Dean told me this ?...is there 2 different ways to see this stuff ?

Exact words from Dean: You are the surety, period. They are just making false claims against your person

And he followed up with: But Bank of Canada must settle the accounts, as they are trustee and you are insolvent in their system.

And I followed up with these questions to Dean:

So you say that I AM the surety of the person ? This person has been created for me right ? It has been created when I was a month old appx right ? and someone, decided that I will be the surety of this person ? Can I decide to NOT be the surety ? Or, is this thing is hooked on me weither I like it or not ? Another question I have is, Who is this someone that made that decision FOR me ? This someone must have an AUTHORITY of some kind to make such decisions ? And, I am ALSO the beneficiary of this person, right ?

And never heard anything after �. :(

WHY is Scott says: I AM NOT SURETY And Dean says: I AM SURETY PERIOD.

If I have the right to the life of the person, the liberty of the person and the security/surety of the person, I can�t be the surety ?....if I have the right to it, and it�s not me who created it, how can I be it� ?

Anyway�..please don�t give up on �ME� :D

Signed Pierre Master of PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX

Read Comments

Derek Moran

Regulations

60. Form of register

(2) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) may be in a bound or loose-leaf form or in a photographic film form or may be maintained by any system of mechanical or electronic data processing or any other information storage device that is capable of reproducing any required information in intelligible written form within a reasonable time.

Marginal note:Canada Evidence Act

(3) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) is deemed to be a record for the purposes of the Canada Evidence Act and every employee of the Bank of Canada who supervises the inscription or registration of securities in the register is deemed to be a manager of the Bank of Canada for the purposes of that Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-29.html#docCont

Pete Daoust

Bank of Canada must settle the accounts: HOW they do it ?....creating more debts ?

Who is the SURETY of PIERRE DAOUST the person ?

The only logical answer I can come up with is; The Quebec Government, and since they are an ADMINISTRATIVE zone in Canada, it has to be the Bank of Canada.

Derek Moran

For the same reason why there is a RECEIVER[SHIP] GENERAL...we've been operating in BANKRUPTCY since 1933, who would actually realize/catch onto that, other than us Freeman-KOOKS such as ourselves.....Money is GOLD...they suspended Gold(MONEY) as PAYMENT back in 1933 with Order-in-Council no.16 on April 10....there is only THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, and/or section 57.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act

Like Scott told me straight-out: "Money now is either DEBIT or CREDIT".....and like Mary Croft said: "THEY, now issue to us a CURRENCY, in the form of DEBT"

Jeff Roggers

yes the only reason that the able to play shirty on the man is because they lost on legal title to the old identity once you create a new name and trademark it from the corporation they cannot then take place sure on the new legal identity. because the business did not leave it up for salvage

Derek Moran

In court?...only a PARTY can have STANDING...and a PARTY is a PERSON- remember, the Government is more like a TRUST, therefore it is NOT a PERSON...you are the only one with STANDING, because you are the only PARTY...so you have the ability then to reserve ALL rights, not just YOURS/your PERSON's

Derek Moran

What trips-us-up, is when we unwittingly-CONSENT to being the person as defined by such entities as the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Government of Canada's, etc. definition of what a PERSON is, which i would say is NOT our intended 'In Propria Persona'

Rick Carne

diff is that your "corporation/person" that you create and register with the state doesnt get sent out to have money borrowed against it by the STATE based on its abilty to generate energy..think about it...you can copy right that name as you created it....derka derka....corporation is a person remember? a trust is also considered a "person" in their legalese land of fiction...

Rick Carne

not to benefit you...you use it by mistake what is the benefit to you?? you give no energy to that certificate, you use it to get other registrations for their benefit..of which you didnt create either..you asked for those by APPLICATIONS and they were issued to you..you volunteered for them...movie oliver.."may i have another sir"..hahahaha..the energy you gave to the other account you GIFTED!!! by way of their forms stating such....

Rick Carne

The system operates on trust law, but we as a "private man" are not a party to that Name Trust/Estate. We are are just a private man who has been SPOLIATED by way of a foreign corporate military invasion and seizure of our private property, via their war powers they operate under via their rules of war on land AKA General Orders 100 (Lieber Code)

The Name (First Middle Last ) is a fictitious Name for the purpose of conducting commerce with. The fictitious Name is the most valuable commodity man has. Without it man cannot conduct commerce within the artificial commerce system. As the OWNER of that fictitious Name the owner is liable for it.

Under the Foreign Corporation known as United States, Inc., which was formed under the reconstruction act after Lincoln turned the nation over to the military due to its original government dissolving upon its board members walking out never to return, the Military formed itself the new corporation known today as the UNITED STATES.

Advance forward to 1933 when that military corporation known as UNITED STATES went into bankruptcy. Under executive orders by their commander in Chief of their Military in conjunction with their foreign corporate military board members commonly known as CONgress, Declared a State of Emergency under its War Powers which supersedes all their Civil Codes, Regulations and Polices.

Under their Declared State of Emergency by way of Executive Orders and Banking Emergency Acts they came in and SEIZED ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY via section 38 of their Lieber Code and ALL PROPERTY was turned over to the STATE!

The fictitious commercial Name (First Middle Last) is PRIVATE PROPERTY. That is not YOU the man. That is merely a fictitious Name man must have to use to conduct commerce with.

When you were born the hospital took the information, created the TITLE (Birth Certificate) for the fictitious commercial Name, and then sent that TITLE to the STATE so the STATE could registered the EVENT. Only the STATE never completed the delivery of that TITLE to the Name by sending the original to the parents. Instead the STATE kept the ORIGINAL by way of their Declared State of Emergency and SEIZED the TITLE to your PRIVATE PROPERTY via their War Powers under their Lieber Code section 38.

38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States.

The UNITED STATES having gone into bankruptcy came in and had to SEIZE all Private Property out of NECESSITY in order to continue to support its Army and bankrupt UNITED STATES CORPORATION.

Having SEIZED all your Private Property the commanding officer (Governor of State) signed into law their Vital Statistics Act causing for you the man (spoliated owner) to be issued a RECEIPT (Certified Copy of Live Birth) to SERVE you the "spoliated owner" to obtain indemnity for all claims against the fictitious commercial Name that the STATE became owner of by way of their Military SEIZURE and now the holder in due course of the original TITLE to that Private Property Name.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

This seizure of ALL PROPERTY is also confirmed in their Senate records.

Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph in the right column. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

We as a "private man" have NOTHING to do with the Name Trust/Estate. We are NOT an Executor, Administrator, Trustee, Beneficiary or Surety for that Name. We as a "private man" have been SPOLIATED by their having seized all our Private Property under their declared State of Emergency via their War Powers.

Our ONLY recourse is to use the RECEIPT they issued to us to SERVE us as "spoliated owner" to obtain indemnity.

This is also why there is NO MONEY for us to use. What can we possibly have any use of money for if EVERYTHING is all vested in the STATE? This is why they removed all money from the private sector under executive order and replaced it with their INTERNAL CURRENCY.

EVERYTHING we had and acquire is all taken by the STATE via their seizure of the Private Property Name the STATE holds original TITLE to, and everything acquired by that Name automatically becomes property of that Name which automatically becomes property vested in the STATE by way of the STATE being holder of the TITLE to that Name.

Rather than go to war against the STATE by being a resistor against their foreign military occupation and seizure of all Private Property and being deemed a belligerent, instead, go to PEACE by acknowledging they have seized all property by letting it all go (peaceful surrender) where the STATE now becomes liable for all claims against the Name they hold TITLE to.

Stuart Stone

I think this ties back in with the servant king info, where 'Marcus' allowed/caused civil death of the person (or liened it out of the public and into the private realm) in order to be freed from its associated public liabilities...that's my take on it so far

Chris Evan

Rick Carne: "Rather than go to war against the STATE by being a resistor against their foreign military occupation and seizure of all Private Property and being deemed a belligerent, instead, go to PEACE by acknowledging they have seized all property by letting it all go (peaceful surrender) where the STATE now becomes liable for all claims against the Name they hold TITLE to."

I am pretty sure his point was NOT to be a belligerant. or IMMUNE. I think it was to have Indemnity

Chris Evan

Indemnity Recompense for loss, damage, or injuries; restitution or reimbursement.

An indemnity contract arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

Pete Daoust

Vacate

To annul, set aside, or render void; to surrender possession or occupancy.

The term vacate has two common usages in the law. With respect to real property, to vacate the premises means to give up possession of the property and leave the area totally devoid of contents. To vacate a court order or judgment means to cancel it or render it null and void.

A person may vacate property voluntarily or involuntarily through the issuance of an eviction order by a court. Rental and lease agreements usually contain a provision concerning when and how the tenant is to vacate the premises at the end of the lease period. Many landlords require renters to make damage deposits, which are refunded after the tenant vacates the property if the landlord determines that no serious damage has been done and that the renter has not left behind Personal Property that must be disposed of by the landlord. Otherwise, the landlord may keep all or a portion of the deposit.

The other common legal usage of vacate refers to the canceling or rescinding of court judgments and orders. State and federal rules of Civil Procedure give courts the authority to modify prior judgments. A judgment is the definitive act in a lawsuit that puts an end to the litigation by specifically granting or denying the relief requested by the parties. Once a judgment granting relief has been entered, the plaintiff may legally collect the damages awarded by the court.

Chris Evan

"the state now becomes liable for all the CLAIMS against the NAME THEY hold title to."

liable= surety. claims = liens.

acknowledge v. 1) generally to admit something, whether bad, good or indifferent. 2) to verify to a Notary Public or other officer (such as a County Clerk) that the signer executed (wrote, signed) the document like a deed, lease, or power of attorney, to make it certified as legal and suitable for recording.

Jeff Roggers

right your corporate books are at another location where the accounting is done and all papers are served on the corporation. my corporation is public but the trust is private so the books are done by the IRS hahahaha.

Chris Evan

"The other common legal usage of vacate refers to the canceling or rescinding of court judgments and orders. State and federal rules of Civil Procedure give courts the authority to modify prior judgments. A judgment is the definitive act in a lawsuit that puts an end to the litigation by specifically granting or denying the relief requested by the parties. Once a judgment granting relief has been entered, the plaintiff may legally collect the damages awarded by the court."

Is this how JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was killed?

Rick Carne

Pete,....sure..but when a claim is made against the "Person" and the "person" does not respond, then the person will enjoy the benefits and privileges that go with that and unless your past as surety for that person has been corrected,.. you are it!! based on unrebutted presumtion the trick is if you answer then you have made a claim to not being that person and now you must prove that claim...

Rick Carne

here is this fast enough...when you applied for it the application you filled out stated that you would be getting a certified copy...derka derka....show me wherein it states that it is the original....you received it from the office of vital statistics same as where the one i mistakenly ask for came from..different country same fraud....

Rick Carne

certified extract from......the original!! Hahahahahaha!!What is EXTRACT?

A portion or fragment of a writing. In Scotch law. the certified copy, by aclerk of a court, of the proceedings In an action carried on before the court, and of the judgment pronounced; containing alsoan order for execution or proceedings thereupon. Jacob; Whishaw.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/extract/#ixzz2dh16TKhO

Chad Brodgesell

HOLDER. The holder of a bill of exchange, promissory note, check, or other commercial paper, is the person who has legally acquired possession of the same, by indorsement or delivery, and who is entitled to receive payment of the instrument. Person who is in possession of a document of title or an instrument or an investment security drawn, issued or endorsed to him or to his order, or to bearer or in blank. U.C.C. � 1-201 (20) Black's Law 5th Edition

Rick Carne

What is HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

A term for the original holder of an instrument that takes it in good faith and exchanges something valuable for it. AKA protected holder.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/holder-in-due-course/#ixzz2dh6Nthpz OPERATIVE WORD CHAD IS "ORIGINAL" holder in due course

Legal term for an original or any subsequent holder of a negotiable instrument (check, draft, note, etc.) who has accepted it in good-faith and has exchanged something valuable for it. For example, anyone who accepts a third-party check is a holder in due course. He or she has certain legal rights, and is presumed to be unaware that (if such were the case) the instrument was at any time overdue, dishonored when presented for payment, had any claims against it, or the party required to pay it has valid reason for not doing so. Also called protected holder, or bona fide holder for value.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/holder-in-due-course.html#ixzz2dh6uJKYt hehehehehe!! cart before the horse

Rick Carne

prove it is negotiable...or can be presented for payment where has it been expressed?...what did you use to get them to send it(the BC) to you....Hmmm? a Photo of the PERSON??? hahahahaha the States Identification card?? or the States SSI card?....

Stuart Stone

If I have it in my possession, yet did not create it, did not sign it & it has a stamp/seal from a government body, with their letterhead (or other identifying mark at the top of it), how or why am I considered surety for it?

If I claim it as mine, isn't it true that I would be attempting to commit fraud by claiming something that isn't mine?

If someone else then attempts to claim it IS me, wouldn't they be aiding & abetting fraud?

Rick Carne

...."Chad Brodgesell The information of who the certificat belongs to is printed (thats the certified extract from the LBR) on the face of the certificate. about an hour ago � Like CHAD...WHERE DOES IT SAY IT BELONGS TO YOU???? it only has the NAME of the "PERSON" REGISTERED>> are you a MAN or a PERSON????

Chad Brodgesell

CERTIFICATE, n. (15c) 1. A document in which a fact is formally attested <death certificate>. See STOCK CERTIFICATE. 2. A document certifying the bearer's status or authorization to act in a specific way <nursing certificate>. 3. A notice by one court to another court of the action it has taken <when issuing its opinion, the Seventh Circuit sent a certificate to the Illinois Supreme Court>. Black's Law 9th Edition

The ONLY definition the certificate fits into is the first one.

Stuart Stone

Please forgive my ignorance Rick, there is obviously some principle that I am missing re usufruct.

Your comment re: WHERE DOES IT SAY IT BELONGS TO YOU???? it only has the NAME of the "PERSON" REGISTERED>> are you a MAN or a PERSON????

I'm the man. I have (an extract, certificate, copy of) the person.

Are you suggesting that the Notice of Mistake would negate these presumptions re surety and/or my mistakenly claiming the name?

Rick Carne

yes...thats what it is for..the mistake that you are the person...the living MAN that gives energy to the corpse...NO WHERE WILL YOU FIND IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON" THE WORDS" MAN" OR "WOMAN"...NATURAL PERSON IS A FRAUD as IS "HUMAN BEING".....you are MAN! unless you wanna be Mr. Surety...

Stuart Stone

I'm guessing Chad Brodgesell, but from what I understand was being said here by others, a certificate by definition is not an original document.

Maybe Jeff Roggers can provide a source/definition supporting his statement: The word certificate mean copy thereof

So, my take on it is this: Even if the certificate itself IS an original, it is not the original document, but something derived from or separate from an original document.

I recall Dean Clifford saying somewhere along the way, is that the birth certificate is not to be used as a form of identification (as it identifies a person but not the man...my interpretation from what was said).

I wrote & asked births deaths and marriages (equivalent of Vital Statistics for NSW, Australia) if the BC can be used as identification or not, and to direct me to the relevant clubhouse rules for support of their advice.

I got an unqualified yes, but when I asked what it identified me as (man or person), I did not receive a response.

If the informant(s) on/to the BC were acting in the capacity of persons, and the registrar is acting in the capacity of a (legal/fictional) person then no one is operating in the capacity of a man or woman in the creation of the original document or the certificate derived from it. In other words, it only records fictions/events & cannot pertain to the man.

If we have claimed it/used it as identification to obtain other government benefits (SSN, passport, drivers licence etc), then we have claimed the name (at some stage) and consequently accept the responsibilities, benefits and privileges of our (misguided) actions. We continue to be accountable until we correct the record (Notice of Mistake), either one by one in response to various offers to contract,

OR,

lien the person(s) into the private trust, taking it/them out of the public realm once & for all.

That may be way off the mark as to what you were asking, but I hope it's accurate in principle & useful. ;-)

Derek Moran

EXTRACT: ...In Scotch law, the certified copy, by a clerk of a court, of the proceedings in an action carried on before the court, and of the judgment pronounced; containing also an ORDER for EXECUTION or proceedings thereupon.

RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: a non-negotiable evidence of debt, or debenture, ISSUED by authority of a COURT of chancery...

Derek Moran

a Birth Certificate says when it was "Issued" on it, right.....?

ISSUES (noun): ...the giving a thing its first inception; as the issue of an ORDER or a writ.

ISSUES (verb): ...as, an officer issues ORDERS, process issues from a COURT. To put into circulation; as, the TREASURY issues NOTES.

..the Birth Certificates used to say on the back of them- "Revenue Receipt...FOR TREASURY USE ONLY" !

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/I/i-0645.jpg

Rick Carne

I must apologize to the group,.. I made a statement wherein I asserted that "no where will you find the definition of "person" will you find the word "man" associated with it..or something similar..anyway, I just read a case where it is Stated>>"A "person" has been defined as a man, considered according to rank he holds in society,with all right to which place he holds entitles him and duties it imposes,but as possibly including artificial beings,such as corporations. People v. Guzzardo, 124 N.E. 2d 39,41, 4th App. 2d 355.

Chad Brodgesell

Continue to make assumptions as to what I said when all you have to do is read what I wrote. Stuart Stone sry but I REALLY do think there is no real interest in what I might bring forward to the discussion. So far no one has addressed the actual BC. Now here is where others bring up other papers without addressing the actual documents. Kinda like "Let's NOT discuss the actual document but let's talk about this other paper" Thats a circle jerk which I will not participate in. Obviously I am to stupid ask a question and make comments in return. I shall now look at my actual documents and take them as false paper. Carry on.

Chad Brodgesell

All this from asking a question. This teaches me to NOT ask questions here. This shit is so important as EVERY THING FORWARD from the LBR and BC is FROM the LBR AND BC. Challenge, Both �BIRTH CERTIFICATES� are **BASICALLY** the same. They consist of TWO (2) parts, 1) the Certificate it self, 2) the information (which is an EXTRACT from the LBR) printed on the Certificate itself. To say that The Certificate is a **COPY** I think is FALSE. The Ontario BC **SPECIFICALLY** states at the bottom �Canadian Bank Note�. ����Is anyone telling me that this is a *copy*?���� It itself was printed AS A �Canadian Bank Note�, �Certificate�, �Promissory Note�, just in blank. The Alberta BC **SPECIFICALLY** states on the back **this certificate** (promissory note) and that the **EXTRACTED** information is printed ON THE CERTIFICATE.

So we have 1) The Certificate/ Bank Note itself which is **ORIGINAL** and then, 2) The **EXTRACTED** (the copied) information then printed on the **ORIGINAL** Certificate/ Bank Note itself.

I am PRESENTING the ACTUAL documents themselves for all to see AND READ. I am NOT producing ANY OTHER documents. PERIOD. Just the Birth Certificates themselves. I DO NOT CARE about ANY OTHER documents as THEY WERE NOT GIVEN/ASKED for regarding the Birth Certificates. ONLY what can be produced to be, by possession of.

So far I have heard that the Birth Certificate is a **COPY**. I call, BULLSHIT! The Birth Certificate itself IS ORIGINAL, it is the EXTRACTED information that is a copy. The Birth Certificate CONSISTS of TWO (2) PARTS. Using ONLY the documentation at hand (the Birth Certificates I have posted photos of), I CHALLENGE **ANY ONE** to PROVE otherwise what I have said in the past, or above, REGARDING the Birth Certificates. Do not forget, I am only using the ACTUAL documents themselves. ***READ the FUCKING Birth Certificates. *** As to what transpired with the signing of the LBR by our parent/parents and the BC I have an opinion based only on thinking about the subject matter regarding our rights that we gained the moment we were born on this land and what was then agreed upon on our behalf by our Parents. How ever that is another story and off topic regarding my comments above. Please Scott Duncan or other Admin Please FUCKING BAN ME because I keep getting drawn back only to get in to USELESS FUCKING arguments ***JUST BY ASKING A FUCKING QUESTION*** which by the way, STILL HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED! Proof is an answer, Opinion is not. Oh wait a sec....I can just leave. Fuck me.

Chris Evan

Chad, I just thought of something Andrew said. Loosely quoted about asking the wrong questions "you can ask if the sky is blue, by that doesn't answer your question of how to fly". I've been thinking about this. What if we accept that IT IS what IT IS....(the sky is blue) and learn to fly. Now the question becomes....how do we take off?

Chris Evan

I honestly am in the same boat as you....i only have theories of what the document is....but I know it REGISTERS the name in COMMERCE and creates a PERSON. After that, I am not positive. I think it is an indemnity coupon in the States under the Lieber Code Section 38. I think the more important question is:

HOW DO WE USE IT TO OUR BENEFIT?