Scott, if the army/cops here avoid licence/insurance/test/tax with an act worded to the effect of "driving at his majesty's pleasure" if one was to take an oath to lizzy.... could you also claim that right for your "fleet" of vehicles??
as long as they were serving the House of Windsor, I don't see why not. You'd better be ready to drive shit around, if she wishes, or it's prison for you! :D
COMMONWEALTH, government. A commonwealth is properly a free state, or republic, having a popular or representative government. The term has been, applied to the government of Great Britain. It is not applicable to absolute governments. The states composing the United States are, properly, so many commonwealths.
2. It is a settled principle, that no sovereign power is amenable to answer suits, either in its own courts or in those of a foreign country, unless by its own consent.
The United Kingdom responded to the Republic of Ireland Act by enacting the Ireland Act 1949. This Act formally recognised that the Irish state had ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth, but provided that Irish citizens would not be treated as aliens under British nationality law. This, in effect, granted them a status similar to the citizens of Commonwealth countries.
Actually VERY LITTLE happened, really.
Hong Kong is the most OBVIOUS Commonwealth event...
Seriously, you are gonna have to work for it. It happened right in front of you,and you didn't even notice.
2nd Guess. Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) Bodies
CAC Act bodies are entities that are subject to the CAC Act. These are:
Commonwealth authorities [External Site] - a statutory authority (ie a body created by legislation) that is a separate legal entity from the Commonwealth and which has the power to hold money on its own account
Am I still on the right path Scott Duncan? Warmer/colder? 1997 Kruger v Commonwealth - AKA The Stolen Generations Case RE: Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT) and its subsequent amendments in 1939 and 1953. ....The Court also considered whether the Ordinance interfered with an implied right of due process in the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth under Chapter III of the Constitution. One aspect of this argument was that THE ORDINANCE PURPORTED TO CONFER JUDICIAL POWER ON PERSONS OTHER THAN CHAPTER III COURTS. http://www.answers.com/topic/kruger-v-commonwealth
hmm the debt owed is not owned by the countries themselves but owned by outsiders?....does it have anything to do with the pressures from the central bank for countries to sell their gold ?
Hmm... so, WTO, IMF, IPU, and money tie in some how so the accountants did something with a G something meeting, Kadaffi starts his own currency , is attacked under the guise of terrorism as a result... recently, 1997, Lizzy says bye to her kids.. so the kids are not alright having being sold a bill of goods they have know/no idea what the fuck to do with... Shit Piss Fuck.
In 1995 the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative was begun to channel investment capital through regional funds. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/commonwealth
Scott Duncan - Could Dianna have been killed due to her willingness to "reveal all"? < Sorry if this sounds like the statement of a conspiracy nut. Just trying to fit pieces together.
1859 - USA is Bankrupt - Bankers give a few years to arrange payment - Civil War is an excuse to pledge more land by gaining the southern states into the UNION - International Law provides 70 years for countries to pay debt - 1929 - Debt is due again! - US pledges citizens as collateral to pay debt - this is resolved by 1933 - 1997 - Debt is due again! This time there is nothing else to pledge. A few years later US invades Iraq. <---This from Winston Shrout.
Statutory Court is limited to statutory authority, statutes do not recognize non statutory sources of authority, and most certainly do not respect human rights. It's contract law, why are people trying to reserve human freedoms in a court of contract where they have signed agreements to perform under a certain authority? :P Non statutory right are irrelevant in a statutory jurisdiction. Of course they're all reserved. That's not what is going on there. You are well aware of the fact that there are more relevant things that can be brought up in statutory court, Scott. :P
"If one 'reserves all rights' in court", I'm presuming, most likely correctly, that this question was posed as the defendant, or accused, to a statutory offense while representing JOHN DOE? Because I highly doubt that 99% of people here are the Plaintiff in a properly filed claim in a court of equity. hahahaha
That' why an executive of the Trust administer's the affair prior to court, never needing to go to court and reserving and all rights anyways... Administrative process... As-king. Yes No?
There was a time you could rely on the rules. No more. I'm just waiting for rebellion, and I'll start taking out my targets.
It's all fraud now. The day I got that forged transcript, was the day it became OK to kill them.
Well, they certainly demonstrated that they are, in fact, completely illegitimate if they must tamper with court files to keep their con going. That's what dishonourable pieces of shit do.
"...in a properly filed claim in a court of equity"
That actually sounds like a great topic...could you go through that in one of your by the window-Vimeo chat-videos in the future, Dean? :)
@Dean. Yes, the question was that of being in the position of an accused/defendant.
We recall quite a long time back that Scott strongly advised to present that question to the bench as quickly as possible. We assume that was to prevent prosecution, or anybody else, from reserving all rights ... is that a correct assumption?
The Plumber's Society summoned a plumber associated to their organization to assess a fine for violations of their "Plumbing Association" rules and regulations. You are certified and recognized in their system when doing plumbing work under that registered name. That's the rules/jurisdiction the court operates under, and they have a mandate to operate, absent being able to demonstrate to the contrary, that the claims of the Plaintiff are accurate, and made in good faith.
If Scott agrees with that, then there are several suggestions for how to proceed to remove the "presumptions" they are required by law to operate under. :)
When Scott is interested in something, the people in his "Kingdom" (tender for law) should pay attention, as that scenario was REPLETE with a "tender for law", on MANY angles. They like to be thorough.
I also like to be thorough, and hand out a thorough ass fucking to these bastards when they trespass on MY jurisdiction. You think their rules are ridiculous? Wait until you trespass in MY jurisdiction. :P
The same is true in either direction. If Dean Clifford is interested in something I say, PAY ATTENTION. If you are a Christian, get a FUNCTIONING adult to read it to you.
So, while I'm still using poor judgement and investing my time here, who can field where a good place to start might be, for those foolish enough to show up for the hearing instead of declining the offer.
*Hint* Plumbers do not have the right to create new rules and regulations and plumb any way they want when representing the "Plumber's Society" and operating under a name registered with them for those purposes. So reserving the "Right" to plumb any way you want......is not something you can reserve in that jurisdiction.
There is an "unless" I can add to that, but if anyone can figure that one out, you won't need a translator anymore. :P
As lawful holder in due course ( liened Name)
as acting pres... to deal with the affairs of a Private TRUST thru the proxy of the trustee administrator the CORP....
The ONLY reason you would be at the "Plumber's Society" is to determine if you owe a debt/undertaking, and/or if there has been a MISTAKE.
Otherwise, what the fuck do they have to do with me? I just want to get that drain un-clogged for you.
I should clarify, the offer to field solutions had the condition attached that all fielded solutions must be well thought out and not stupid. Meaning no throwing shit out there hoping it was correct, upon penalty of a kick to the junk, being the liability.
Offer to field Solutions: Tender for Law
The law: All solutions must be well thought out and not stupid.
Penalty for violations: Kick in the junk
Judge of violations: Me, I'm the author.
I really hope there are even one or two Scott. Most people think we are at odds because they have no fucking clue what we are talking about. People simply cannot understand "capacity".
Dean: Judge of violations: Me, I'm the author.
Further clarification for the ninnies. Only I knew my intent when I drafted the legislation, and since I'm the author only I can determine its meaning. For those people out there that think anyone gives a flying fuck about your interpretation of the copyrighted Acts and Statutes of Canada.
"For those people out there that think anyone gives a flying fuck about your interpretation of the copyrighted Acts and Statutes of Canada."
No matter what dictionary definition you use. Always check with the author, as his intent is the absolute authority.
How many pearls did I cast today Scott? There better be some non swine out there today, or I just made a VERY bad investment, and that makes me very moody.
P.S. I'll be out there from the 14th to the 23rd ish. Supper with Tara? We have some waitresses to harass and cause to blush.....
THE Creator has the SUPREME law. YOU are THE creator. "God" is an invention by the nobility to FILL that "THE CREATOR" spot, so you will think you aren't entitled.
Actually, Scott, while the shaved monkeys decipher all of that. I was thinking I need to come check out the harem of "Boat Bunnies", I was led to believe existed. :P
Quote: Dean: Judge of violations: Me, I'm the author.
"Further clarification for the ninnies. Only I knew my intent when I drafted the legislation, and since I'm the author only I can determine its meaning. For those people out there that think anyone gives a flying fuck about your interpretation of the copyrighted Acts and Statutes of Canada."
So, I bet those judges who are qualified to interpret the intent of Acts and Statutes are really interested in what you have to say. So, now what are you going to do in one of those hearings?
Jay Le B: "Hey where is my fucking prize Dean Clifford?" Actually, I'm still waiting for someone to post the words I wrote, not parrot what Scott said. There is one sentence that has them both in it, and will hopefully change the way you look at the world. And if it does not, then I will point out why people are morons.
Public Notice... Notice of Mistake... Registered mail... with invoice.. prior to Kuntaroo Court date..
Dean Clifford
1 not a parrot... I have created many things in my life so I get it... Your vids helped me comprehend...
2 reviewing to get it...
" identify yourself as the creator and interpret for them ?" You drafted their acts and statutes Gail? You're going to educate them on their intent and applicability within their jurisdiction?
I will CREATE my own definitions of anything I please...as well as interpretations. I can't touch their stuff. It's not mine and I don't have the copywrite to their rants.
Since we're using allegories, can anyone tell me who the supreme authority on all Harry Potter trivia is? Which fan is the most knowledgeable and is considered the authority on the topic?
Ok, Gail Marie. I THE CREATOR of the SUPREME MOTHERFUCKING LAW OF THE UNIVERSE (I think big) DECREE THAT YOU MUST CONSUME A LITRE OF MY SEMEN EACH YEAR>
GET ON IT! You are PROPERTY now.
OK, How seriously do you take that?
Me, I only tell them who I am, and who I am NOT, I explaine clearly what I am doing and WHY
I swing that envelop registered mail to them
And tell them that IF they have any objections, or simply want to refuse this, to let me know by writing, I give them 30 days.
If I don�t hear ANYTHING form them, I send them a notice saying THANK YOU for ACCEPTING my shit.
So far, so good :D
Sorry for this little contribution, if it's in fact, a contribution :/
point taken, I was unsuccessfully attempting to come from the perspective of their interpretation is irrelevant if I do not fall within their jurisdiction
What happens if I do prove to the author that their ruling was not consistent with previous rulings, or that there is other inconsistencies with their story, or legislation. If I prove to J.K. Rowling that something in her story does not makes sense, or add up, or that all the quotes from her book that I presented tend to support my claim. What happens when I am right, in Caesar's Court?
The "Author", the "Divine Creator" of the Harry Potter books can rewrite, change, or add to the story at ANY TIME to prove the point of the AUTHOR, that is THEIR WORLD!!!!
Even when you are right in Caesar's Court, you are STILL WRONG....because he will just CHANGE THE FUCKING RULES to suit his needs.
Author = Authority AUTHOR - ITY
Prove Star Trek wrong, and the writers will write a new episode where they go back in time and cause a temporal anomaly that explains the inconsistencies with the script.
Now, if you happen to be a registered plumber to do work in the realm of the "Plumbing Society" is that all that you are? Does that mean that EVERY TIME you do plumbing it is under that registered name which is governed by the Plumbing Society? Is that now ALL that you are? Or is that maybe a presumption by the Plumbing Society, to gain control over EVERY plumbing job you do?
I think the challenge most have is that many are so entrenched in the system and can't imagine not being part of it, which is where the Corp/trust idea is so valuable. You can ease yourself out, while still having the protection of the limited liability and the privacy and opportunity to create via the trust
Well, I just did it on the phone a few times now, and it is the most fun stuff on the phone I've done so far......well, if we don't count this Natasha girl :/
Robert Cormier: "If I am a man....they can't speak to me...they can't even see ME."
What business does the Plumber's Society have with a man? They only deal with Certificated Plumbers.
Jeff Roggers: "so how many of you want to become an author of your own laws?"
Your laws, equally, don't mean shit to them. You also spent a lifetime creating joinder to the Plumber's Society of infantile and ignorant morons who interpret law like they're the Author.
"You also spent a lifetime creating joinder to the Plumber's Society of infantile and ignorant morons who interpret law like they're the Author."
Notice of Mistake to EVERYONE?
S�il Eile: "its reasonable for a customer to presume you'll abide by the society's rules unless otherwise stated?"
ESPECIALLY if you promote yourself as a member of that society to get the work, and even produce an ID card to prove your association.
oops how the fuck did that happen... forgive me...
but I have this lien and I think you have a notice in your thingy that states it so... here is the invoice, terms and conditions ... your name again Mister..
My Jurisdiction.....hmmmm.......I need to finish defining this. This is important. Pete, I think this is what the TRUST is!!! Its MY JURISDICTION. Yes Dean Clifford?
Robert Cormier: "Put the BC into the Justices file. He can talk to it all day long. It isn't mine."
If you ever used it as ID, even once, for a benefit then you have consented to be associated under terms and conditions. They are the author of those terms and conditions, and none of you EVER counter offered, or even attempted to re-negotiate the association to get better terms at your Minimum Wage Tim Horton's job. So you are STUCK.
this reminds me of americas dumbest criminals, the guy with the balaclava robbing a bank, they show him the footage of the hooded man & use his stupidity to create joinder... he gives in....
They got your full consent to be associated under their terms and conditions with ZERO of your own. You are a negotiators wet dream. If you were a nation, you were conquered in .01 seconds with no negotiations.
forming a trust and liening the legal title name and getting rid of the surety is what I was talking about dean. And the bylaws of the corporation that holds the trust.
I'm confused Dean Clifford, a wise man once said... Just because I worked at THE PLUMBER SHOP before, doesn't mean I'm working there now, or I was working there when I was having a beer while off duty? :(
Robert Cormier: "I'm confused Dean Clifford, a wise man once said... Just because I worked at THE PLUMBER SHOP before, doesn't mean I'm working there now, or I was working there when I was having a beer while off duty?"
Exactly. I gave everyone their remedy. All they had to do was demonstrate otherwise in the face of mountains of joinder by presumption. So, now people can figure out how to defeat Statutory Court with ease.
No worries Scott, I wasn't planning on it. A little critical thinking and deductive reasoning will do them wonders. After all, where do people think I get my answers, the law fairy?
I'm usually around, reading and weeping, no worries. From time to time a bout of madness overcomes me, I am overcome by the spirit of "Freeman Jesus", and descend from the heavens to fuck a new asshole into the sinners from on high.
I can write my own book of parables, if people would prefer, attempting to teach law to the shaven monkeys, and I could even make up WAY cooler stories and fables, to include lots of boobs, a boat, some boat bunnies and way cool shit where I do FAR more than just beat the Money Changers with bulrushes.
Want to collaborate on a book, Scott? :D Hahahahahaha
We'd get caricatures and shit done up, like bad assed ones, like "Menga Jesus". It would be fucking EPIC!
Now, who wants to be the first to compel me to provide an Act or Statute to back up any of that? You get a free ticket to Hamilton so I can kick you in the fucking junk so hard your next life will be sterile.
Dean Clifford, I am sorry but I have to ask :(
Do you HAVE a person ?
If yes, WHO is surety for that person ?
Do you get to administrate it once in a while ?
Thanks
Would the person have any value without you as surety? That would be like walking up to a poker table and putting no chips down. It only has value because you are the surety. Then, they just enforce false security agreements against it, if you know why they're false then you win. If you're a little smarter yet, you seek remedy.
I heard you once use the analogy on some show Dean, about going-out to dinner with a group of 10 people- do you wanna get screwed on the cheque at the end of the night cuz a couple people snuck-off or didnt put enough in, or, do you wanna tell the waitress from the get-go- "Separate cheque for me, please"....you wanna establish your standing BEFORE you ever walk into that court - "establishing roles up-front," as you put it
Would the person have any value without you as surety: WHO THE FUCK CARES ?....is this should be MY problem ?
Maybe that's WHY they've backed it up with THEIR signature, in case I decide to fuck up the poker game :D
Damn you Tara Duncan! I had to look up a word for the first time in several months because of you! Dulcet.....who the hell uses that anyways! :P
Just for that, I shall punish Scott's ears....... and his tenuously remaining sanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFT1l50CgHo
"There is a comprehensive ban on Sass Jordan, and ANYTHING she's had a hand in..."
I do believe I negotiated my own special status within your realm. I reserved that right, and Tara ratified by providing me with a data stick containing the anthology, or literary works, of "The Box".
Oh, we don't need to do that no more Maximus Minimus P�rezera, some members in here do this for us, screen everything, and then re-post all this with ONLY the gold nuggets :D
Tara Duncan calls Dean Clifford, Dean "Where's My Fucking Ladder" Clifford.
The ladder God that at least one Boat Bunny intends to sacrifice Dean to, is unrelated :D
Meanwhile in Quebec, Pauline Marois announce a 2 Billion dollar investment into the Quebec economy that will supposely creates 43,000 jobs
Where in the fuck she will find this 2 billions dollars ?
Maybe she is reading this group, and knows about my 2013 income tax return of 600 billions dollars that I will file for PIERRE DAOUST this next january :D
Dammit...I hate it when I walk in late on these threads...only one question for Dean Clifford:
If we are ever roped & hogtied & dragged into one of their clubhouses out of some misguided presumption that we belong there, do we request an exhumation order to bring the original author of their statutes to the stand, in order to interpret their intent at the time of authoring those statutes?
Without the interpretation of the original author, aren't ALL of those statutes effectively null & void? :D
Jason is property of the TRUST and any use is unauthorized, Only Authorized by expressed written permission.
When in communication with me.
Consider yourself Notified :-D
One wil not answer to that moniker ever more.
Now to create...
"Fucks the Puppy".. nope, spoken for...
Sir Jay of Lac La Biche has a ring to it...
Naw too fucking nutty...
Jay of the jungle... Hmmm...
Sir Smokes like a Chimney...
Sir Whack a Lot....
Captain? Hmmm..
Pondering...
The conveyance of HK's sovereignty to China must be for the repayment of a debt. I know shortly before this, the US started to privatize Trust responsibilities, but through what I 've read here, it sounds like Her Majesty was doing the same. But that was 1992 here...executive Order 12803.
So, Scott was a Duke who's position got prorogued, so he became an Admiral in 1997. But he is a Privateer. He is teaching us to take back OUR portion of the Public Trust in order to starve those who have breached the Trust. He also seems to go by a different code of conduct than we do, perhaps a Noble Code....?
ADMIRAL, officer. In some countries is the commander in chief of the naval forces. This office does not exist in the United States.
The code of Nobility and Oaths of fealty and such...
in trust law...
Licensed by the House of Windsor...
Which our Trust is Not = Pirate
Descendent of the Bankers who came up with this shit...
and 1997 ... I do not know.
A set of international agreements that have global ramifications on a number of levels is what I can figure so far.... but as to the specifics hmmm
several times...I know how to keep them from gaining jurisdiction and reserve all rights...I stand my ground well now,it's just been a shit show up to this point so I could get recordings and transcripts showing there corruption!lol!
You limp into the fight to let your adversary see that your hurt and weak...once the bell goes off...you stand tall and strong and kick the fuckin shit out of them!
Wow! I was just reading the voluminous thread here and I realized that Dean Clifford has "Rick Rolled" me into breaking the comprehensive ban on The Box. Damn YOU, Dean.
Dean Otf Kory has MASTERED misusing there and your. He managed to get BOTH wrong, and he's not even from the U.S.
Christmas is when all this comes to a head.
Poor Dean Clifford. He's at the end. Soon others will awaken and I will build my navy. The mandate will be "leave us alone, because if you don't, we'll hurt you and take your shit".
I think if we are going to be treated like violent criminals, then we should BE violent criminals to those who treat us as such. Very "Golden Rule". They are treating us the way they CLEARLY want to be treated.
...you people aren't ready to stomach my "and their children" part, but I just have to wait for that too.
Apparently, back in the day, as they say, there could be a gunfight between JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, and if these people contracted to enter into a gunfight realizing they accepted all LIABILITY for the outcome, even the SHERIFF couldn't stop them. Is that true Scott Duncan, or just a "shit stain" created by Hollywood?
I recall Winston Shrout emphasizing that common law essentially died in 1933. I'm occasionally so confused by all of this, and think so hard, sometimes, I can almost smell smoke. :( I hope it's not the wood burning.
I think I heard about the duel from Jordan Maxwell Robert. People weren't citizens up until the establishment of the U.S. so men could "call each other out" without any interference. Could be just a story though...
AUTHOR... INTENT... CAPACITY...
So basically, the "CROWN/STATE" has to to provide PROOF that the MAN was operating under the TITLE/LEGAL NAME as trustee/agent for the government at the moment of the alleged offense.
If the presumption that one, at the moment of the offense, was operating as a trustee/agent for the government is rebutted by affidavit, (and also, perhaps throwing in a certified/notarized copy of the Life Birth Registration as an Exhibit, as well) their statutory world will crumble down.
Dean Clifford, and/or Scott Duncan, kick my in the nuts if I am wrong!