https://youtu.be/AOVehIKpm4k

I have broken down my 'empathy' (empathy -em- PATHETIC) into 3 stages. The person committing the crime Those benefiting from said crimes The children who are raised in lies and will more than likely chose to remain ignorant as they get older, and will BELIEVE they DESERVE the cushy life and that they EARNED it.

I have crossed over level 3 ohhh just about 7 days ago. Something I never BELIEVED possible --> really.

I even debated one night with Franki Rule over this. Franki: YOU WERE RIGHT. I was WRONG.

It was such a debate!!! :D

I owe you a lunch for that :) Mind you; I have recently found out that many who have the same mentality as 'the pack' were actually kicked out of 'the pack' --> those removed are intelligent, not-so-ignorant men like you, who have alledged much fucktardiness within 'the pack'. It is also made up of of ex-military, police --- Need I say more? So, I retract my 'but the kids are our future we can reprogram them' crap, but I'm sticking to: these people are fucktards who, after crossing my empathy levels, deserve to be torched with as much *love* as possible. I'll use love. I don't want some cop lover to call the SQ or Army saying they are in danger because of what I wrote on FB....or DO I?? Much fun can be had. I think I'll need a bit more VALUE first. I would be lying if I said I am not scared that as a woman, the intimidation tactics they would try on me would mooooore than likely be just a tad more aggressive compared to those they tried on your landlord, franki. I know this because, well, you know my story with the G.I. robocops:/

Did you guys debate in the dying language of a conquer people?

hahahaha nope. We took the legal route.

Ugh I lie. It was very frenglish....so worse than a dying language of a conquered people lol

That question was for you, Scott, just to be clear :)

I think you need to watch Dean Clifford's Trust Law videos. You are thinking of this wrong.

will do....thanks

ooppsss...sorry Scott Duncan, Dean Clifford has several videos available on youtube regarding Trust Law....is there ANY specific ones you suggest ?

All of them, really. the more recent, the better.

You might want to make it clear who the 'Dominus' and 'Usufructuarius' is.....Quebec = Absolute Ownership.....Ontario = the Doctrine of Estates

Chip Douglas, thank you. This is VERY important, Pete. Learn the differences between the Provinces (Administrative Zones).

OK....will do

I think that is the same in the States. For instance, my Trust is being set up as described in this paragraph "WHEREAS, The Trust shall be administered, managed, governed and regulated in all respects according to applicable Common Law Jurisdiction of Massachusetts as well as the Uniform Trustees Powers Act, and the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Uniform Commercial Code (only when and if applicable and/or allowable to remain under the jurisdiction of the Common Law). The domicile of the trust is within the Essex County, Massachusetts Republic." NOT the STATE of Massachusetts!

Tax percue... Is something that would be of interest to everyone.. Try googling it.. Gemstone university also has some great videos discussing operating in the private and the public.. and ties in with standing, capacity etc. ;)

You're welcome Scott...and is the Hague Convention Applicable to Trusts-document worth reading, or is this just more 'Clubhouse Rules' NOT to follow as you mention alot on the page here?

It's ALL "Clubhouse Rules". Ratifying a TRUST means you get to make YOUR OWN "clubhouse rules".

DA.... DA DA DA DA.... WTF is with Alberta? Its a gong show out here different everything. The Change of Name Act.... etc.. I mean, I get that the Provinces all pass their own legislation, for pith and substance...

Interesting that you bring this up Jay Le B. I came across Alberta's Perpetuities Act by mistake looking for Ontario's. Alberta's has in it this line right at the top: HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows: Ontario's Perpetuities Act, does not. Alberta's Perpetuities Act includes these definitions: (b) �disposition� includes the conferring of a power of appointment and any provision whereby an interest in property or a right, power or authority over property is disposed of, created or conferred and also includes a possibility of reverter or resulting trust, and a right of re-entry on breach of a condition subsequent; (e) �power of appointment� includes any discretionary power to transfer a beneficial interest in property without the furnishing of valuable consideration. Ontario's Perpetuities Act, does not. I get the gist of what Scott is trying to tell us in terms of "It's ALL Clubhouse Rules".....yet it seems very strange and peculiar that there are these omissions in Ontario's Perpetuities Act compared to that of Alberta's...almost as if there is intent involved in Ontario's trying to conceal something from us

I am still deciphering the pdf the Admiral put up a while back about the" In Personam in Admiralty Jurisdiction"... Its in the files tab above. Topics include Bills of Lading and other related matters. Provincial jurisdiction is covered... First 40 pages english... the next 40 or so same text in french..

Pete Daoust I watched most of Dean's Vids a while back.. Long before I landed here... The ones recorded in Alymer Quebec... are pretty good.

If we create a Private Trust, does it need an EIN# from the IRS for banking purposes?

Its a circular argument in a way... The corp is the trustee of the NAME. The Name once liened is Trust property until said lien is satisfied. To interact in their system you need a vessel in commerce, To launch that vessel you need to use the NAME... at least I did. So when the corp was created it was given a registration number which applies to tax stuff. Scott says good corps do not pay taxes so... figuring that as I go.

CORP yes, that needs a number, but Trust?

Because Scott also says that to protect a bank account, make it a joint account. I am thinking Trust/Corp bank account with a lien on it held in trust...???

What do you think? If that is the case, the TRUST would need an EIN, yes?

The corp is part of the Trust so it is surety... what ever number comes from the corp is of the trust as the corp is of the trust...

Yeah, thats what I was thinking.....but what about the joint account?

It is a trust account already... so I do not know about that.

But, if the bank is opened with 1 EIN (the corp), how can it be a joint account?

Or should the PERSON lien it?

Fuck.... the corp has liened the person... Why the fuck would you do that? My account is set up as a non interest bearing checking account. with no affiliation to any govt account of the person. No personal info = limited liability.... Its a Trust account subject to Trust by-laws... Joint account is a good question. I do not know about that.

Well, to make it a joint account. :-P

How did you communicate to the bank that it is "a trust accunt subject to trust by laws"?

It is a private matter. Public Notice takes care of that, ignorance is no excuse ;-)

"Scott says good corps do not pay taxes so" A corp needs a BoD, Executives, etc...all need to get paid. the PERSON is acting in some of those roles, so the PERSON should get paid! But IDK how...Bitcoins, gold, silver, 12 USC 411....

That would be up to the director of the Trust and his/her wishes... there is a post somewhere about CEO's getting paid a dollar per annum... and as the corp can act as a currency exchange you can set terms as to which currency you get paid in... for example, The trust only accepts payment in bitcoin and hey I can help with that exchange too... ;-)

Since you are in Quebec Pete Daoust, this should help: the TRUST FUND is understood in the civil law as property owned by NO ONE. There is NO title holder. The trustee and the beneficiary both have PERSONAL RIGHTS as against the UNPERSONIFIED trust fund: the trustee to DISPOSE OF and MANAGE the fund, the beneficiary to OBTAIN ENJOYMENT. The only OTHER solution open to the civilian is to DESIGNATE the trust LEGAL PERSONALITY, so that the trust ITSELF OWNS the TRUST FUND, and the trustee and the beneficiary have RESPECTIVE RIGHTS within the PENUMBRA(?) of that personality and its OWNERSHIP.

I appreciate this Chip Douglas, but I have no idea what it means :( I have a lot of learning to do concerning TRUST, it just dosen't click for now, and I have no idea why ....

You might want to make it clear who the 'Dominus' and 'Usufructuarius' is.....Quebec = Absolute Ownership.....Ontario = the Doctrine of Estates There's a rather simple definition explaining RATIFICATION that Scott mentioned earlier today online, in Black's Law 1st edition

http://deanclifford.info/your-rights-trusts-and-how-to-enforce-them/

@ Chip, could you please point us to the authorities/source used to reference "Quebec=Absolute Ownership... Ontario=the Doctrine of Estates."

"You do not use these terms, why do you suddenly use them regarding law? These are "Clubhouse rules" and you aren't part of the club."......."It's ALL "Clubhouse Rules". Ratifying a TRUST means you get to make YOUR OWN "clubhouse rules". Would a good "Clubhouse Rule" for myself Scott if/when i ever get around to 'ratifying' my own Trust be- "Only words/phrases from the dictionary my dad bought me for Christmas when i was in high-school are to be used, whenever someone from the B.A.R and/or Government are to deal with me" ?

WeLove- i remember seeing it in a trust law book i was thumbing through at the library

http://library.law.utoronto.ca/

Chip, I know one guy who wrote his own dictionary....of course, it IS his definitions as used in his TRUST. :-) You can make it up, you are the AUTHOR! :-)

:D....whatch me go :D

You guys never saw a Frenglish Dictionary I guess !!!!

Establish. To settle, make, or fix firmly; place on a permanent footing; found; create; put beyond doubt or dispute; prove; convince. To enact permanently. To bring about or into existence. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/establish

Pete, could this dictionary please include the definition of "ambourger", "ottdog", "ellos", and etc?

and... whoregasm...

Scott, i came across an interesting Maxim: Use is a fiduciary ownership. Interesting in that i have heard the term 'fiduciary ownership' used in relation to trust law. But i cant find a definition for fiduciary ownership even in a Black's Law 9th-edition. If you havent covered it already, could you give an explanation as to what 'fiduciary ownership' means in relation to trust law? Thanks.

Do you comprehend "Lawful holder in due course" as a concept?

As in- i may have not created the Birth Certificate, but, i am now the Lawful holder in due course of it?

Sort of. Avoid the birth certificate as an example. It's not accurate. Think of YOUR CAR. The method by which you became "lawful holder in due course" of Trust Property would dictate your fiduciary responsibilities. You REGISTER (transfer title) your VEHICLE, and it becomes Government (Trust) property. You still OWN it, but it is FIDUCIARY OWNERSHIP. You have duties and obligations to fufill in order to "own" the vehicle. Clear enough?

Deleted.

Seriously, why the fuck to people think I'm interested in their bad taste in "music"?

Your CAR is an example of ownership, becoming Fiduciary (Surety) Ownership.

So when you say make your own trust and you can make your OWN Clubhouse Rules; are we changing our status then away from having 'fiduciary ownership,' to some other status?

Nope, exactly the same. You are simply changing slavemasters.

The only difference is that you INVENTED the PERSON that is your master, just like WE (The Nobility) INVENTED GOD/JESUS as their "master".

So in a weird-way, our new 'master,' will just end-up being the new person that we create for ourselves. But this time around, would our new person have to be RECORDED this time, instead of REGISTERED?

Oh wait a second, ive read about this. Right now, we have a LEGAL PERSON/ESTATE. But ideally, we want to end-up having an EQUITABLE PERSON/ESTATE?

No it's registered. It just has LIMITED LIABILITY.

So if my current slavemaster is say CHIP ERNIE DOUGLAS, and i dont like my middle-name ERNIE; im going to change that to BERT...and my new slavemaster will be CHIP BERT DOUGLAS. And its my NEW slavemaster because, im the one who invented CHIP BERT DOUGLAS, instead of The Crown this time around who were the ones who created CHIP ERNIE DOUGLAS?

TAKE a name, don't use a GIVEN one, because names are NOT GIFTS in law. They are ACCOUNTS.

"WHY ROGUESUPPORT INC IS BETTER THAN GOD: * OWNS the name GIVEN to me by the government" So did you just happen to TAKE the same name, that was GIVEN to you by the government, and thereby notifying them of your Intent to do so, TAKING that same name, then made it YOURS in the end? Oh wait...or was it your new slavemaster as you put it which would be ROGUESUPPORT INC.(?), was the one who TOOK the name for you?

Because its occurred to me that the Birth Certificate never came with an 'Instruction Manual' along with it- ive noticed Scott where you've said something to the effect of, "Sending an Affidavit of Affirmation (to the Registrar General it was i think), pretty much covers YOUR obligation." Ok, lets say i do that. What is then the next OBLIGATION on THEIR part?...and thanks for all the info, this is great stuff

The government did NOT gave me any names :/

I am a MAN, and I took Pierre, Peter, Pete, Babe, and Dad to communicate with some folks .... The government create a PERSON, 5 to 6 weeks after my BIRTH, and they seems to have named that person PIERRE DAOUST, and they've done everything to make me BELIEVE that I am that PERSON. I can registered a new NAME ( or a corporation if you wish) and use THAT new name to LIEN that person that the government created 5 to 6 weeks after my birth..... I think that this is what Scott is trying to say :D

get a Master Business Licence for the name https://www.appmybizaccount.gov.on.ca/sodp/portal/osb/!ut/p/b0/PY4xDsIwDEXPwtA17sxGEQMS0AoV0XZBTmUFi9SJkhSuTyiCwcPzf_o2DNDBIPhkg4mdoM3cezRkWR5rF7XyLiS0ys_a8qjEifrq2pJKzvMIVxhgsCgGepJlMjeX6rDf3rb1qd11LfRFOWkkMZbjvSidUHRzGKkol45YlDFhPqTnyDnLfCbDMVFgMVj9t-3H_kV1OJPQq89NP6OW_DiBn6bmuFmt3jlwhA4!/ employer B.I.N.

What ? ^^^^^^ :/

So I get to write what ever I want ? , I just have to make sure it dosen't harm no one, and that my intentions a GOOD ?

You need 2 people to sign a Trust

2 Grantors

You've mentioned on the page Scott about- "Send them an Affidavit of Affirmation, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation" By doing this, are we merely letting our general intentions be known, and creating a valid executory trust in the process?

Ever notice they always ask if anyone objects before a marriage? Same thing with creating a TRUST. Objections must be heard.

Whoa. Thats deep.

Pete, what's your name gonna be? Fuggsda Petite Chien?

Scott Duncan - When I give PROPER NOTICE to the PUBLIC, and NO OBJECTIONS are RECORDED (through the POST), is the TRUST, at that moment, RATIFIED?

^^ Forgive me, BUT, if I do say so myself; learning is ALMOST equal in the fun category as SEX. :D

More importantly...you dont get anyone pregnant in the process *whew*

"...merely letting our general intentions be known, and creating a valid executory trust in the process..." Say one were to do this.....would they now be on any sort of 'clock'/deadline, to complete this now valid executory trust, into an EXECUTED trust, Scott?

Why?

I find it very easy to get women to trust me. So much so that they often think sex would be a good idea. They do/feel this way, because of TRUST. At no time have I waited for ANYONE'S approval and/or objections before I had sex, even WHEN I gave notice that I was going to do it. NEVER. Not even once.

You've talked about RATIFYING the/a Trust. Lets say, i like all the Terms-and-Conditions ive put into my Trust, and im quite satisfied with the 'Clubhouse Rules' ive set for myself. Now what? How does a Trust ultimately get RATIFIED and/or, who does it, who is the document sent to?

Public Notice.... A tender for law...

Is the RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE applicable here in Ontario to Trusts, Scott?

I found this interesting. Food for thought at least. I wonder if Scott Duncan would confirm the info. The link relates to the construction of TRUSTS with specific attention being given here to ANTI DURESS clauses. http://www.assetprotectiontraining.com/antiduress-provision-asset-protection-trust

There's a 'UNIFORM LAW' on this stuff now in Canada?...interesting http://www.ulcc.ca/en/home-en-gb-1/509-josetta-1-en-gb/uniform-actsa/perpetuities-act/616-perpetuities-act

It seems that there are thousands of laws now in CANADA..... :-D

perpetuity is a long fucking time.

It's forever.....like hell

and it was replaced by trustees act...

in the act it is 21 days...

I am taking it that you are all discussing "statutory" trusts?????

No

common law trust (or private)

Beverly, thanks.....my study is on Express Trusts (common law). I need to read this thread again as Pete mentions "Civil Code Zone". In the states, it would be "without the United States" and NOT within a Federal Zone....

Gail- your Holder-In-Due-Course question, i noticed Scott speaks of it here in this thread...

I can't be the holder in due course of PIERRE DAOUST anymore :( The car is :P

Chris Evan! Good stuff in here! Read Chip's and Scott's exchange.

Chris Evan......I find conflicting info here.....

From my comment way ^ there...I just found out yesterday that Essex County in Massachusetts no longer exists and was not replaced. :-/

You need a trustee in the common law territory in which it is created and one where it is manged.

trustee in the common law territory....what?

What do you mean Essex county is no longer? Is that possible?

I went to the Registry of Deeds yesterday looking for a public record. Upon inquiring the woman told me that there are only a few counties left in Mass and that Essex was "voted out years ago. It was on the ballot." Out of curiosity, I asked if I wanted to register a valid UCC claim on property other than a deed or real estate, where would I do that and she said they "still accept those." She went further and said "they report to the Secretary of State now". I interpreted that to mean that they are only a corporate subdivision now. That looks to me as if the bell curve of our rights slipping away is happening and we can't even see it.

Seriously, you people just make shit up as you go. I'll dumb it down. Stop making shit-stains and pulling crap out of your ass. JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was created by 2 "Citizens" and ratified by the government, and GIVEN to ME. I DO NOT CONSENT, AND WAIVE THE BENEFIT, but it is still "mine" because I am the only VALUE to this constructive trust. I AM NOT A PERSON, I HAVE A PERSON, but it's NOT MINE. I cannot claim it outside the jurisdiction. I CREATE A PERSON named ROGUESUPPORT INC, who ACTS AS TRUSTEE and SECURES the name for MY benefit, in a TRUST. Notice that there's no "trustee in the common law territory" or any such bullshit. It really is that simple. STOP MAKING SHIT UP!

Seriously. Just die. All of you.

Faster's better...

"Just die" In the Civil sense or the literal sense? :-P

I think LITERAL :D

In the empirical existential sense.

I see a sword, a throat and blood :(

NOW you get it! :D

Who is you? I don't understand the word "you"?

Fuck !!!!....DONE....sorry :(

*sigh*

Thanks, Pete! Now we have to die faster.

You are MORE than welcome Maximus Minimus P�rezera.... :D

"JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was created by 2 "Citizens" and ratified by the government, and GIVEN to ME." 2 signatures and a Trustee, correct?

Mom's person and Dad's person, and the government HAHAHA!!! THANKS ! .....I really appreciated :D

I've already started to talk to my Son about all this...and he looked at me and said: WOW, that is funny !!!....with a big smile on his face :D

I think Samuel will become a pretty sharp ADMINISTRATOR :D

I can't wait to explaine all this to Majo :D, she is only 15 now, so I leave her alone, as pink floyd suggested, but soon this little girl will be tough to fuck, I know, because I KNOW her :D Muhahahahahahaahaha!!!!!! :D

This is off color, but "tough to fuck". I have met women like that before too. :-P

Not like her.... :D

Ask my neighborhood, they'll tell you !!! :D HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I dunno Pete, this one chick made me wait over a month!!!! She was tough as hell to fuck!

Ho, you should talk with Cara Small Atherton, I was NOT relating to sex.....I was clear as water about it......her sex life is NONE of my business, I was talking about her PUBLIC vs PRIVATE life, and HOW she should handle her ADMINISTRATION shit, when I'll finish my DUTY of EDUCATING her :D

I know what the word LEGACY mean :D a gift by will of REAL property, and KNOWLEDGE seems to be a REAL property to me :D

Thanks for the LEGACY Scott Duncan :D

But Scott Duncan is ONLY here for the TAIL :D Muhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

When DOTS connect, I can read a VOLTAGE measure on the tester :/ that's fucking weird :/

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

Hahaha, remember the 2 citiZens, must have the "intent" to create the trust.

Well, let me tell you that these 2 citizens in my case, had no idea of the existence of this word INTENT :P

I can prove that ANYTIME :D

So by your "understanding" you are administering a void trust? LOL..

Who VOIDED it ? :/

Helloosss ??? :D

He Rick Carne, WHO voided that trust, I am ADMINISTRATING ?

I can only see it as an opinion, a joke or a figure of speech thing .......let me know if I have missed something please Rick Carne, I can be one heck of a slow thinker sometimes :(

Ask the crowd here if you don't BELIEVE me :D

Think, Pete..what are the requirements for a valid trust...if the "intent" was not expressed by the GRANTORS then, it is what??.. i never said �nyone voided it, i merely stated that if intent is not expressed it is void as that is a requirement for a valid trust and as you understand, as you stated, that yur moms person and dads person..aha!.. and that they had no intent...you are administrating a void trust..no? Want me to type in French Hahaha..

So you think mom and dad are the 2 citizens?

No, the persons they happen to have in their pocket are citizens.....unless a Man can be a citizen :D which I doubt ..... As far as their INTENTS, they could NOT have that, I know it :D , they even had NO intentions of ME being born, that was an accident :D, oh fuck I am sure I just released some good informations on why and why... :D As far as the trust, I can ASSURE you it's NOT voided. Well, if it is, NO ONE told me :D

And it seems that there is a lots of trust here that was established by ACCIDENT :D

You see Rick Carne, I just realized, not too long ago, that I am a Man, and I HAVE a person.....and I INTENT to have some fun a little bit what that sucker :D So please, don't SCARE me by saying that thing is voided for christ sakes :D

Scott, you are correct sir..they should kill themselves

:D

Rick, I had a question about whether that would be a CIVIL death or an actual death.....no one has answered me yet!

Yes we did Chris Evan :P

No, you did...but you didn't say it. Rick and Scott said it!

:P

Well, too bad, I won't kill myself, and will PERSEVERE.....and I can persevere, I guarantee this :P

I meant it in reference to Scotts comment.LOL...i have already commited a civil death..and am always vigilant not to resurrect than Citizen.

So we should kill the PERSON! Pete, thats the message!!!

I won't... :P

Fuck, I am having fun.....fuck off :P

Kill your's Chris Evan :D

yours or your's ? :/

Interesting words from Dr. Waters... IV. LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL TRUSTS ANY transaction or act, which CONTRAVENES public policy, the COMMON LAW, or statute of the realm, is UNLAWFUL. The same PRINCIPLE applies to trusts.

Who says it's "unlawful"?

The doctor who wrote the book :D

Dr. Walters can suck a moose cock. I don't care who says it's "unlawful". By what authority do they make this claim?

yarkkk !!!!!

Ultimately i would say- it would have to be US to make the CLAIM that something was done UNLAWFULLY Maxim: The Law aids the VIGILANT, not those who SLEEP or SLUMBER on their RIGHTS

Hellos? Who's is beings the authority twos says Unlawful? <---in Frenglish

Maxim: The Law aids the VIGILANT, not those who SLEEP or SLUMBER on their RIGHTS AND "Let HE who would be deceived, BE DECEIVED" aka. 'You gonna put-up wit dat SHIT??'

AND, who dare to suck a moose cock, shall write a book :P

A CLAIM not RE-BUTTED, means YOU gonna be da one gettin' BUTTED then

yarrkkk

Why would I give a fuck about "what you would say"? You make these declarations and when I demand substantiation you think "Ultimately i would say" even QUALIFIES as an answer? Seriously, you are like this bullshit faucet that never quite shuts off!

The right answer IS: " By what authority do they make this claim?"

Or the right "question" :/

WHO'S MAKING THE CLAIM!

Scott- I dont know, its just a passage from the book i posted in Pierre's Trust Law-thread he started...

Oh !!!...it's me who started this thread ?...bin oui criss !!! :-o

Dr Walters would be a member of the clubhouse rules gang...so is he not relaying a club house rule/claim ?

Yeah !...and I am sure he plays curling :P

So you posted bullshit you cannot substantiate and mislead people with irrelevant bullshit... AGAIN. Here in reality, outside Derek Moran's Wonderful World of Irrelevant Bullshit, the BIBLE is claimed to be true, because it says so in the bible. SAME THING, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! STOP FOCUSING ON BULLSHIT

Acts and Statutes say things are unlawful, because the Acts and statutes say they have the authority to. Nothing else.

God damn you all deserve slavery. You really, really do.

no way :P

When I say, I am the SOLE authorized administrator for PIERRE DAOUST, the person created by the government when I was 1 month old, WHO can OBJECT, ARGUE or even REFUSE that empowerment from me to me Scott Duncan ? em�pow�er (m-pour) tr.v. em�pow�ered, em�pow�er�ing, em�pow�ers 1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize. 2. To equip or supply with an ability; enable: "Computers ... empower students to become intellectual explorers" (Edward B. Fiske).

What exactly Scott is meant by the 'Three Certainties' of a trust, or in our case, can you fill-in the blanks of what specifically they would mean in our cases? Certain Intention = ? Certain subject-matter = ? Certain objects = ?

Grantor Beneficiary Trustee :-P

acts & statutes are tools of a trade .

people dont deserve being brainwashed into a belief system either, just because they are nieve enough to fall for a trick.

No.

If I show you a how a deception works, you don't get to keep falling for it.

Continuing to fall for it, grants me leave to call you stupid. It just does.

Ok, there's a lot of gold in this thread...I'm playing catch up here & had a few thoughts percolating around in the protoplasm re the following: Chip Douglas: ...I've noticed Scott where you've said something to the effect of, "Sending an Affidavit of Affirmation (to the Registrar General it was i think), pretty much covers YOUR obligation." Regarding the 'Affidavit of Affirmation': Is it being sent to the public trustee (whether it be the Registrar General, Dept of Births Deaths & Marriages etc, depending on the jurisdiction)? Regarding the contents of the Affidavit: Is the purpose/intent of the affidavit to revoke the power of attorney granted to the public trustee & inform/notify them that a new POA/trustee has been appointed, namely the Corporation? Thanks :D

I don't recall Scott Duncan using "Affidavit of Affirmation" ....never I saw this here, maybe from another member but not from Scott :(

Further up this thread Pete Daoust, Chip referred to something along those lines, I don't think the name is accurate...my question is more with regards to the intent, ie: Is the intent to firstly, revoke the power of attorney granted to the public trustee, and secondly, inform/notify them that the name has been liened into a private trust & the new power of attorney is the corporation? I'm trying to get my head around the mechanics of the process

revoke the power of attorney granted to the public trustee: And WHO granted this to some PUBLIC SERVANTS ??

"Affidavit of Affirmation" dosen't seems to make any sense to me :(

According to some (Bill turner from NZ in his videos, and possibly Marcus, but don't quote me on that), we attorned when we applied to vote: ie: When we reached the age where we could legally administer our the PERSON's affairs, by applying to vote, we (as in the man signed for/as/on behalf of the PERSON, effectively asked the government to represent the PERSON instead of self administering...in effect, granting a power of attorney to the public trustee. This is a reason why, according to my comprehension, that it is futile to protest as we asked to be represented in the first place, so by then opposing/protesting against the person's representatives, a controversy is being created. If we wish to administer the PERSON's affairs/estate, then this is a mistake or appointment that needs to be revoked/corrected. If this is a shitstain on my part, I request Scott Duncan to berate and/or correct me accordingly...I'm not ready to kill myself just yet.

Agreed...'Affidavit of Affirmation' is an oxymoron, but I wanted to reference the post in order to comprehend the intent of the process... :/

Stuart, the purpose of the "Affidavit of Affirmation" is to CLAIM the PERSON. It's a way to LIEN the PERSON. https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/578696338832969/

we attorned when we applied to vote: IT,s funny because, well, that was some times ago, but the last time I APPLIED to vote, they told me I was APPLYING to vote, there were NO mentions of any of this ATTORN thing on the paper, in fact, PIERRE DAOUST received one of these paper recently, concerning some MUNICIPAL voting shit, and again, NO ATTORN stuff on that paper. So, to make a long story short :D, I DID NOT ATTORN ANYTHING TO ANYONE, unless a PERSON can prove it. :P

Champion, thank you Mackximus Minimus :D

Thank Scott! :D

I'm sure the government ALWAYS provides full disclosure Pete Daoust

Thanks you Mackximus Minimus for directing me to the relevant post & to Scott Duncan for the original information & not having to come down here & slap me up the side of the head :D

For me Stuart Stone, if they have PROOF that I have done something and show that proof to me, well, I have done it, but if they CAN'T prove it, they can shovel up their claim right into their stinky asses :D

Or put a chain around my neck and tell the world I am a slave....

When you apply to vote (or for your PERSON to vote), you are granting power to someone else to represent the PERSON...hence in Australia's parliament, there is the Senate & the House of Representatives...ie the people appointed to represent the citizens/persons... If you applied to vote (as/for/on behalf of the person), I'm sure there would be a record somewhere. Otherwise, you would have appointed yourself to administer the person's affairs, no?... Because we didn't comprehend these things back then, isn't that a big part of the reason we are liening the name now, to claim it from the government, so that it can be governed in accordance with our own wishes, without interference from third parties & interlopers?

<<... Scott Duncan ... I'll dumb it down. Stop making shit-stains and pulling crap out of your ass. JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was created by 2 "Citizens" and ratified by the government, and GIVEN to ME. I DO NOT CONSENT, AND WAIVE THE BENEFIT, but it is still "mine" because I am the only VALUE to this constructive trust. I AM NOT A PERSON, I HAVE A PERSON, but it's NOT MINE. I cannot claim it outside the jurisdiction. I CREATE A PERSON named ROGUESUPPORT INC, who ACTS AS TRUSTEE and SECURES the name for MY benefit, in a TRUST.>>

When you apply to vote (or for your PERSON to vote), you are granting power to someone else to represent the PERSON. I thought this granting power thing would have happened when the person ACTUALLY vote, not before..... :/

Oh, and let say the person vote, and it votes for a SPECIFIC party because that party have made some specific promises :D And this party WIN !!!! :D But this party DOES NOT keep these promises, not ONE of them, in fact, the party decide to do the EXACT opposite.... What would happen then ?? :(

I comprehend the WHAT we are doing & WHY we are doing it Mackximus Minimus...I'm sure the (presumed) joinder/obligation is multilayered & not the result of just one event...or maybe I'm reading too much into it. I think it was discussed in the first or second part of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5-4BwT5ZpE Maybe I am just pulling crap out from between my bumcheeks & if I'm creating a shitstain, I apologise.

Worse, let say some of this party's members, are being caught in some corruption shit :D

Sorry Stuart Stone, I was EXPANDING this voting question.....sorry mate !! :D

Who votes, the PERSON, or the MAN? The attachment to the NAME/PERSON as being oneself, creates all these weird questions, that lead to nowhere.

Haha Pete Daoust, I think those questions are addressed by Larken Rose when he talks about the flaws in the entire concept of government & specifically with regard to the concept of Demoncracy :D

Only PERSONS can vote, Man are NOT in the deal :D

Agreed Mackximus Minimus, in many ways we are (or at least previously) continuously/inadvertently creating joinder between the man & the person...

Ok- so just to reiterate based upon what you Pete wrote, and what Scott subsequently 'like' on; in terms of what exactly is meant by the 'Three Certainties' of a trust, or in our case, what specifically they would mean in our cases: Certain Intention = GRANTOR Certain subject-matter = BENEFICIARY Certain objects = TRUSTEE k, thanks- i had thought that the Objects were the Beneficiary, and that the Subject-Matter was the Property....just wanted to get that clear

I would see it more like this.....but I don't grasp that trust thing completly still :( Certain Intention = GRANTOR Certain subject-matter = BENEFICIARY Certain DUTIES = TRUSTEE I see Objects as what's being kept IN TRUST :/

The GRANTOR, with certain intentions, creat a TRUST for some certain subject matters (beneficiary), and appoint a TRUSTEE with some certain duties.....all this for some OBJECTS or STUFF to be protected from some certain VAMPIRES :D

That's ALL I know regarding TRUST for now, but I promise that one day, I'll know more .... :(

uhhhh......I think that is exactly it Pete!

You sure ?? :-o

Yes....I am sure. What I am not sure of though is the currency conversion and how the Trustee compensates the Beneficiary weekly/monthly/or yearly.

That part is determine by the GRANTOR I would imagine :/

Yes....but maybe I am thinking too much about this. I am not comprehending how it is actually done. So lets say the Grantor expressly states the Trustee has to pay the Beneficiary 8 BitCoins per week. The Trustee (as any good trustee should do), takes the appropriate FRNs and turns them into BitCoins and deposits them into the account of the Beneficiary. Is that considered "Taxable Income" by IRS standards, as the Trustee IS a creature of the State? Or is that Private Trust Business and counted as an expense of the Trustee?

Scott Duncan: I CREATE A PERSON named ROGUESUPPORT INC, who ACTS AS TRUSTEE and SECURES the name for MY benefit, in a TRUST.

well chriss, i might think (althou we all know about my thinking wrong, and the way that goes), that since the reporting limit (opp here i go thinking, i dont report on myself [fuck them]) is $25K/Yr (under that is not required to file a tax return form). so there is no wrong with just not filing, I'm lucky to maybe clear about 1.2k a year, so fuck them. I am not qualified to be discusssing ANY matters with them. how much I earn is none of MY business! LOL

Hey David Johansen, I can fix ALL your income tax problems.....ALL OF THEM :)

In fact, I can fix ALL your problems :(

Financial problems, I may add :)

i showed a lawyer a silver eagle, told him i was working for them as pay, he asked how much is it worth. they are just so skilled at deception...

Scott: OK, so here in REALITY you need help with the TRUST aspects. When you create a LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, you and the Governmaent are acting as GRANTORS - This ends upon creation and the GRANTORS have no further say. 1: A coprpration has SHAREHOLDERS who are the BENEFICIARIES. You determine the number of shares when the corporation is chartered, ans YES you can have ONE SHARE in a corporation. Ammendments to the charter can change this. 2: A corporation has DIRECTORS with titles (TRUSTEES), and you can be one. You have surely seen "Voting Shares" when examining share purchases of a corporation. If not, you need to invest more. 3: Since YOU (Or rather your PERSON) are the only VALUE in this corporation, you should be SECURED. THIS TRUST TRUMPS ALL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS. As part of my "God Complex" I shall now grant you permission to ask about what I just wrote.

Oh wise one Scott Duncan with the alleged 'God Complex' (I'm not sure if the God part is being alleged here or the Complex :P )... Re 3: Since YOU (Or rather your PERSON) are the only VALUE in this corporation, you should be SECURED. To clarify, is the process of liening the PERSON the process that secures the value of the PERSON for the/in favour of/ for the benefit of the corporation, as opposed to leaving the PERSON wide open for 'pirates', including but not limited to governments, policy enforcement agents & others? Thank you in advance Admiral :D

Yes. What little "legal" protection remains claims the value for the corporation. The government is not a PERSON and/or PARTY so they have no standing to counter that claim.

You've probably noticed Scott, that under CONTRACT in Black's Law 9th, there are alot of variations of 'contracts' given. Following up on the conversation we had regarding 'Fiduciary Ownership,' i was looking over the section regarding everything FIDUCIARY in Black's 9th, and just spotted a form-of-contract that seems to have been placed all on its own separated from the rest all under CONTRACT: fiduciary contract: Hist. An agreement, by which one party delivers something to another, on condition that the second party, will return the thing, to the first. Is the Birth Certificate a 'fiduciary contract,' Scott?

Yes. So is a $10.00 bill.

oh.....something just clicked!!!! That is why when money is created by a Mortgage or other Promissory Note, the money principal should be returned to the original signer. Because its a fiduciary contract, just like a $10 bill!

Chris, we need to cover OUR OBLIGATION! :D

Interesting, i just looked this up in my Stephen Waddams 'Law of Contracts' text ChiefRock talked about being interested in getting too...nowhere though in the table-of-contents or directory at the back, is there any mention of it covering FIDUCIARY CONTRACTS :/

OH SHIT...a 'wiseman' did once tell me over the phone, that the Birth Certificate needs to be sent back to the Registrar General- and by REGISTERED MAIL! ;)

How did you get the Birth Certificate? They won't give those out down here....do you mean the Certified Copy?

OK, and when this PERSO receives BoE, I can send these back to the Registar General as well ? So I won't have to do HIS duty ? :/

Just give NOTICE and LIEN it.

Scott, so Rogue Support Inc is TAKING care of the person you happen to have in your pocket, since Rogue Support SECURES that person. What happen when that person receives a bill ? I guess Rogue Support has to take care of it ? Does Rogue Support is then ACTING as a third party to all this, and have to charge fees to someone ?

Too late, I pressed send :D

Is the Principal in the United States (the person we are supposed to notify) the Seretary of State of the United States?

Let me rephrase that....WHO do we notify? or is this a public notice in a newspaper?

look at this.... https://www.publicnoticeonline.com/notice.php?nid=2560

Chris, the notice is the one Scott used in PROPER NOTICE FOR IDIOTS.

<<PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the VESSEL known as ***redacted shit here*** is now the LAWFUL PROPERTY of the AQUILAE TRUST per the wishes of ***redacted shit here***'S CREATOR and GRANTOR. Therefore: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT AS OF THIS DATE, BEING FEBRUARY 18, 2013, THE VESSEL KNOWN AS ***redacted shit here*** MUST BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE VESSEL WITH NO COMMERCE EXPECTED AND/OR IMPLIED. PARTIES ATTEMPTING TO USE ***redacted shit here*** FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY BE FINED AT THE RATE OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY ($5,000 PER DAY) OR ANY PART THEREOF, FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE. Questions regarding this NOTICE may be addressed to the DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION, [ROGUESUPPORT INC.] at (416) 994-1700. AQUILAE TRUST SEAL (Insert lower right) ***END*** And there's everything you need for A NOTICE. NOTICES NOTIFY! That's what makes it a NOTICE. It's not for ASKING. The purpose is NOT to have a chat, or ask questions. It's a NOTICE. PROPER NOTICE IS disclosure. Before the sign "keep off the grass" was put there, no INTENT was disclosed. The law is about INTENT.>>

FUCK! THAT GUY'S GOOD! :D

At the library here Pete looking through a textbook called 'Wills and Estates' 3rd-edition by Derek Fazakas put-out by Emond Montgomery, it has a chapter on TRUSTS and gives a great/simple explanation on the THREE CERTAINTIES: CERTAINTY OF WORDS OR INTENTION: means that it must be certain from the words in the trust document that the testator or settlor clearly intends to transfer the legal ownership in the property to the trustee and the beneficial ownership to the beneficiary. It is not an absolute requirement that the trust document use the words "trust," "trustee," and "beneficiary" as long as the intention of the testator or settlor is CLEAR. CERTAINTY OF SUBJECT MATTER: means that it must be certain and clear from the words in the trust document exactly what PROPERTY is being transferred to the trustee. CERTAINTY OF PURPOSE or OBJECTS: means that it must be certain and clear from the words of the trust document who the BENEFICIARY or Beneficiaries of the Trust are. An individual Beneficiary may be an unascertainable beneficiary, but the rule is satisfied as long as the class of beneficiary itself is certain. Apart from the three certainties, the trust document SHOULD INDICATE THE RULES under which the trust is administered. These rules, of course, should not undermine the three certainties.

There he goes again, finding gold nuggets. You're the best kind of gold digger Derek Moran :D

WHy do you think I ASKED Scott Duncan to bring his ass back Stuart ? :D

" You're the best kind of gold digger Derek Moran" ..umm, other than Scott - right? ;) Signed, Kanye W.

Is the Birth Certificate Scott, evidence of a 'Bare, Naked, or Simple Trust,' and the Registrar General of Ontario is a 'Bare Trustee?'

i had seen that some time ago, hadnt understood it to precisely, until now.

The best 'kind' of gold digger...in contrast to Kanye & Jamie Foxx's encounters... :P (I'm unqualified as to assess the 'best' gold digger, that's a too general/relative for me to speculate) Scott is the Creator ie: he already knows where the gold is...he lays that stuff down, but can only respond when 'we' find the nuggets & ask the right questions: :D So, in my estimation (using this analogy), Scott isn't so much a gold digger as a jeweller & geologist, who either confirms whether we have found a nugget or if it is just a polished turd pulled from the arse...when 'we' uncover a nugget, he explains why it has value, how to maximise its value, and as a geologist, he leads the way in demonstrating where to find more of these nuggets and how to avoid the turds. Right, that's the end of my messed up analogy, but I hope you get the sentiment...in plain language: Good find Derek Moran, thanks Scott Duncan for the education :D

That was profound, and surprisingly accurate :D

Here's an excerpt from 'The Trust Law Book': "For example, a corporation may MOVE assets such as ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE off its books into a trust for itself, the trustee's SOLE obligation being to hold those assets SECURE." In our situations- have our SECURITY-of-the-PERSONS been "MOVED OFF THE BOOKS," as mentioned here Scott?

Security of the person seems to be more like accouts PAYABLE than accounts RECEIVABLE in this analogy, so therefor, not an ASSET...

Dean Clifford did mention not too long ago here that- "WE, are the RECEIVER in this equation"...but yeah i know what you mean, its also like Blake has also said too- "...depends on which side of the DIAMOND you're playing on"

If it's ALL debts, receivers can only receive debts... :-\

Derek Moran: Have you set-up your own EXPRESS TRUST, by chance? Chris Fleming: It was already established for me when I was born, my parents created it. They didn't know at the time but I figured it out Derek Moran: As an example of what you just said, here in Canada we have this in one of our Acts: 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

Scott Duncan: It shouldn't (Notice I DON'T say "WON'T" because they are just making shit up now, and acting arbitrarily) because TRUSTS are not the same JURISDICTION and involve 3 potential parties, and even a Supernumerary in the "legal" system is subordinate to the TRUSTEE in a TRUST. ...but they just make shit up now, so there's that.

Pete Daoust mmhhh...just too bad I'm not a HOT horny chick....I would be SITTING on a GOLD MINE in here....I would have Scott's dick liened as we speak.. April 5 at 10:06am � Like Scott Duncan *backs away slowly* April 5 at 2:09pm � Like

Yeah well, it was true ? :D

Scott Duncan: True that. But It's really Admiral Scott (Taken Name) not any family and/or GIVEN name. I hold the AQUILAE trust, and GIVEN names are for COMMERCE.

Scott Duncan: It's really simple: ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. It STOPS the critical/rational thought processes. When you BELIEVE you no longer question.

Civil Death The Forfeiture of rights and privileges of an individual who has been convicted of a serious crime. Civil death is provided for by statute in some states. Most civil death statutes apply only to offenders who have been sentenced to a life term. Civil death involves the imposition of numerous disabilities, including the denial of the privilege to vote, to hold public office, and to obtain many job and occupational licenses. In addition, an offender cannot enter into judicially enforceable agreements, such as contracts, and may not obtain insurance and Pension benefits. The offender may also be deprived of any right to commence certain lawsuits in court. Successive marriages can also be affected by civil death laws. The issue is whether or not the spouse of a person declared civilly dead may enter into a subsequent marriage. The state courts are in disagreement on the matter, although, in most instances, where a felony is a ground for Divorce, the spouse of the convicted person may end the marriage.

Derek Moran: I know, i know, ultimately.....this road leads down to creating your OWN Trust Scott Duncan: ...and perfecting/securing it. ..give thanks to Rob Ford for this little nugget

Rick Carne is very fond of speaking about the PROXY. So just to be clear Scott; is YOUR proxy ROGUESUPPORT INC. ?

Scott don't need a proxy, maybe JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN needs one though :/

One thinks it is a person One trusts. ( rogue support ). corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. One benefit is that a corporation's liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud. For private business corporations the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Secretary of State of the incorporating state must include certain information, including the name of the responsible party or parties (incorporators and agent for acceptance of service), the amount of stock it will be authorized to issue, and its purpose. In some states the purpose may be a general statement of any purpose allowed by law, while others require greater specificity. Corporation shareholders elect a board of directors, which in turn adopts bylaws, chooses the officers and hires top management (which in smaller corporations are often the directors and/or shareholders). Annual meetings are required of both the shareholders and the Board, and major policy decisions must be made by resolution of the Board (which often delegates much authority to officers and committees). Issuance of stock of less than $300,000, with no public solicitation and relatively few shareholders, is either automatically approved by the state commissioner of corporations or requires a petition outlining the financing. Some states are considered lax in supervision, have low filing fees and corporate taxes and are popular incorporation states, but corporations must register with Secretary of States of other states where they do substantial business as a "foreign" corporation. Larger stock offerings and/or those offered to the general public require approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission after close scrutiny and approval of a public "prospectus" which details the entire operation of the corporation. There are also non-profit (or not for profit) corporations organized for religious, educational, charitable or public service purposes. Public corporations are those formed by a municipal, state or federal government for public purposes such as operating a dam and utility project. A close corporation is made up of a handful of shareholders with a working or familial connection which is permitted to operate informally without resolutions and regular Board meetings. A de jure corporation is one that is formally operated under the law, while a de facto corporation is one which operates as if it were legal, but without the Articles of Incorporation being valid. Corporations can range from the Corner Mini-Mart to General Electric. (See: articles of incorporation, bylaws, board of directors, close corporation, public corporation, de jure corporation, de facto corporation, shareholder, stock, securities)

Scott Duncan: I CREATE A PERSON named ROGUESUPPORT INC, who ACTS AS TRUSTEE and SECURES the name for MY benefit, in a TRUST. ..i guess i am then just seeking clarification on the difference between PROXY and TRUSTEE