The Tender For Law

Volume 4

Nov 30, 2013 2:41 AM

Derek Moran

The Ceit HAULS ASS in court thread, and a lil' Lou on Affidavits TOO...

Chris Evan: Tom Davies, I did this twice. Released on Personal Recognizance means one signed a BAIL BOND as SURETY. That is all!!! They don't just let you go because you said so, you HAVE to sign it.

Ceit Butler: Look, signing is NOT a problem if you know HOW to sign. I got out on bail in my case. Guess who told me how to sign? Dean Clifford. Sign: By:____________ RESTRICTED SIGNATURE, RESTRICTED CAPACITY

And draw a box around the entire thing...that REMOVES it from the document. (You know, I'm PRETTY sure I already said this.)

Ceit Butler: As for your "magic document"....the Notice of Mistake is the closest you'll find, for IN court. But ONLY if you all start fucking using it properly! It's NOT just a document.

If at ANY time while you're speaking, you feel you've stepped into their jurisdiction by accepting SURETY, you throw out a VERBAL Notice of Mistake: "If I have led this court to believe that I am a paryt with SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. and please forgive me".

And responding to "You" is the biggest one. Let them know right from the start that as the Sole Beneficiary of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE BOND, you wish to solely be addressed as "insert regular old first name here". And ANYONE who doesn't address you by THAT NAME ONLY, EVERY time that they speak to you, you respond "Are you addressing me? As the SOLE BENEFICIARY, I wish to solely be addressed as:___"

Ceit Butler: Say it as MANY times as you like. (and any time that they RECESS, that resets everything so IMMEDIATELY repeat everything again when they come back!)

Make sure the verbal Notice of Mistake is the very LAST thing that you say before they finish up, so it's the LAST THING on the record and wipes clean any SURETY that may have you accidentally fumbled into.

Ceit Butler: Sign the RIGHT way at your bail hearing and get the fuck out so that you're actually able to handle things properly.

Take the disclosure, read all the LOVELY things that it states on the front, that you are agreeing to by accepting these documents.

STAPLE (so it becomes part of the document and cannot be removed) a Notice of Mistake, neatly, onto the top of the front page and MAIL THAT FUCKER BACK, as declined.

Ceit Butler: Then you work on your first document. Notice of Questions for the Court.

Address every question that you need answered in order to UNDERSTAND the NATURE and CAUSE of these PROCEEDINGS. Also include your Affidavit of Status with this document.

Have everything nicely organized with tabs seperating each document, a cover and spiral-bound at your local copy place.

It's a LEGAL DOCUMENT...so make it fucking look like one. You don't want to be treated like a joke in court? Then don't give them ANY excuse to.

Include the Notice of Mistake in a tab marked EXHIBIT #1 in the back. It has already been submitted when you sent the DISCLOSURE back by REGISTERED MAIL (with NO return address!). Give them 10 days to respond, have your documents NOTARIZED and mail it in.

Ceit Butler: When the 10 days expire, you send them a CERTIFICATE of NON RESPONSE and OPPORTUNITY to CURE. Give them 5 ADDITIONAL days to settle this HONOURABLY. This way THEY are the ones creating CONTROVERSY.

Ceit Butler: Include ALL previously submitted documents thus far, in new tabs in the back. These (are) PROOF now.

Ceit Butler: When the 5 days expire, you send them a NOTICE of DEFAULT.

Again, everything professionally spiral-bound, tabs, covers, and type it out in the correct format. Look at samples of legal documents, pay attention to how they are laid out.

Everybody clear now?!

Ceit Butler: And make sure every new document states that UNLESS these questions are answered, you cannot UNDERSTAND the NATURE and CAUSE of these PROCEEDINGS.

Ceit Butler: Perhaps you missed this part:

"You don't want to be treated like a joke in court? Then don't give them ANY excuse to."

Chris Evan: "These PROOF now" Ceit, what exactly do you mean by this sentence? Just that the Exhibits are now proof?

Ceit Butler: You've mailed them to the COURT CLERK, by REGISTERED MAIL, (oh, sorry, and include copies of your postal receipts with the signature of the party who accepted them) and they are UNREBUTTED.

Ceit Butler: Other than filling up the thread with useless bullshit, destracting from the ACTUAL CONTENT, and making sure that anyone new who may be browsing will immediately dismiss the thread?

Because that's the only possible "point" that I can see. (She WASNT speaking to Chris Evan here)

Chris Evan: Ok...thanks. And we are Noticing the Court Clerk and NOT the Prosecuting Attorney, is this correct?

Ceit Butler: Send it the CLERK. And make sure each document also states that if the QUESTIONS are not answered, then it is you WISH/REQUIRE and DEMAND that this matter be DISCHARGED.

Ceit Butler: How about restricting the Grade-School BULLSHIT to personal chats?

I was mistakenly under the impression that you all wanted to learn something.

I am going over the steps from my case with you because I thought you were finally at levels of understanding that would allow you to grasp this. (Posting every back in July would have been like handing a loaded shotgun to a 2 year old.) Again, clearly mistaken.

Chris Evan: Out of curiosity, why wouldn't we send it to our adversary...the person bringing the charges?

Ceit Butler: You send it to the CLERK...the person in charge of the court file and the PUBLIC RECORD. Send a copy to the CROWN ATTORNEY as well, if you like. I had additional copies with me when I went to court. That way, if they tried to claim they had not received them, I could KINDLY provide them with one. (Aren't I nice? )

Ceit Butler: I also submitted a notorazied, colour copies, (front and back) of my BIRTH CERTIFICATE with the first document and had extra copies when I went to court.

Ceit Butler: If you act in HONOUR the entire time, then the COURT is the only one creating CONTROVERSY.

Eamonn O Brien: Rather than shouting about how one is a man...

Ceit Butler: That's why ANY error, such as the COURT presuming that YOU are the PARTY with SURETY, you CLEARLY accept as being your fault and you ASK FORGIVENESS....because they HAVE to grant it.

Ceit Butler: "If have led this COURT to believe that I am a PARTY with SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please FORGIVE me".

Ceit Butler: It's not "THEIR fault" that you forgot to mention that you weren't the LEGAL PERSON, they're simply operating on presumptions. The burden of correcting that error lies on you.

That's how you have to treat it.

Ceit Butler: It is the CLERK's responsibility to enter all DOCUMENTS into the file. That's why you send it there.

Ceit Butler: Yes. Now, I went to my first appearance, stated my status as the SOLE BENEFICIARY and that I wish to be solely addressed as KATHRYN.

The JUSTICE did that, no arguement, which means he just ACQUIESCED and TACITLY AGREED that I am in FACT the SOLE BENEFICIARY.

I then ordered the TRANSCRIPT and attached it as an EXHIBIT in each proceeding document as PROOF.

Ceit Butler: The JUSTICE attempted to enter a plea for me, three times, to which I responded "I DO NOT CONSENT." They'll try to trick you, just stand your ground. Do not consent, and NOTICE of MISTAKE.

(Make sure you KEEP all your ORIGINAL notarized documents. Send them colour copies.)

Ceit Butler: Correction, send everything to the PROSECUTOR's office. (Sorry guys, I'm rushing here)

Ceit Butler: No problem. Things are...strange...

I wanted to get at least the bare-bone basics out there.

Lou Manotti: YOU all need to understand the power of an affidavit.

Eamonn O Brien: An unrebutted one at that Lou

Lou Manotti: An unrebutted affidavit stands as a PUBLIC RECORD as TRUTH in LAW and COMMERCE.

Robert Cormier: Scott told me/us to study notaries.

Ceit Butler: Send them to both, CLERK and PROSECUTOR.

Ceit Butler: As a BONUS, we have an object lesson!

Eamonn O Brien, you just failed the SURETY TEST!

"Please don't let one member's comments deter you from sharing Ceit. It's MUCH appreciated..."

At NO point did I mention YOUR name, you just responded to "you" and accepted SURETY.

Try to get your mind into the habit of spotting that when it happens, and it will seve you well.

Ceit Butler: Send everything, notarized copies, by REGISTERED MAIL. No return address.

Derek Moran: "[YOU] all need to understand the power of an affidavit."

Does this have anything to do with THIS Maxim-of-law, Lou?

Qui non negat fatetur. A person who does not deny admits.

p.s. you saw what i did there, right?

Derek Moran: somebody on Scott's boat was pointing-out this very Maxim to me in regards to Affidavits- oh thats right, he said exactly - "He who does not deny, admits"...did i mention i was reminded of this Maxim on Scott's BOAT? ;)

Derek Moran: This just off Norah's page:

"Norah Holloway Someone just got a call from Dean Clifford. He was brought before the Chief Justice Chartier first thing this morning! Dean dropped his two sentence A-bomb stopped them in their tracks!

Derek Moran: Knowing Dean, "his two sentence A-bomb" probably included:

"I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU THAT FORCED COMPLIANCE TO ORDERS BY YOURSELF, AND/OR YOUR AGENTS, IS IN FACT, ACCEPTANCE of my Terms and Conditions."

Second sentence = "Fellas...you're gonna want that cowbell"

Ceit Butler: Because, as Lou ALSO just said early, the power lies in the fact that :" An unrebutted affidavit stands as a PUBLIC RECORD as TRUTH in LAW and COMMERCE."

Ceit Butler: Silence is aquiescence. If the court does NOT rebut any of the facts stated in your affidavit, then they have TACITLY AGREED with them.

If you DO end up in the courtroom, reading your Affidavit out loud gets it on the PUBLIC RECORD. State afterwards that "For the record, the COURT has tacitly agreed that I <insert previous statements>".

Pete Daoust: The truth of an affidavit jams their fucking lies

Derek Moran: OOH- regarding Affidavits, on Scott's boat it was made CLEAR.....ONLY, send, the court, PHOTOCOPIES

WE keep the ORIGINAL...the court gets a PHOTOCOPY.....has to do with COPYHOLD, you dont want the court getting their hands on the ORIGINAL...the AUTHOR is the AUTHORITY...so handing over the ORIGINAL to the court is BAD - would you concur, [Ill]Lou Manotti?

Lou Manotti: only send THEM photocopies of your documents (certification unnecessary).You retain ALL original documentation.

Read Comments

David Johansen

even if you do sign as suggested, you still signed and might aswell be X with witnesses. never sign anything. autograph.

oh but they wanted my autograph. i thought they wanted my autograph? didn't they just want my autograph, i am famous you know...

lack of understanding negates surety. thats why "i do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings" is one of the questions you need to memorize, and when they try providing you with councel you hit the councelor/lawyer with the chris evan objective (the question that makes the lawyer shit and decline the case).

"Do you have any pre-existing oaths or obligations to uphold the Laws of the State of Massachusetts which this case is being brought under?" and the lawyer could not acccept the judges request to take the case.

Derek Moran

"...and when they try providing you with counsel..."

I think Scott covered that by simply saying to state: "I DO NOT CONSENT, and i WAIVE ALL BENEFITS"

Lawyers cost ALOTTA money these days, so thats a nice BENEFIT they are OFFERING to you - OR, as Dean Kory would say:

"Dammit your Justice, i have to attorn MYSELF- it's not the court's to TAKE/ACCEPT, its MINE to GRANT/GIVE" ;)

Derek Moran

Uh-oh..... :/

I just had a really bad thought. Any chance Scott fell overboard feeding the 'House-Duck?' :(

Signed, Fukishima-sized-CARP

*note to self: need to appeal-to-my-rapist and APPLY for a Hunting (notice i did not say FISHING)-Licence to help curb the CARP-population in Lake Ontario*

Pete Daoust

BY:________________ CEO of SFC Inc

BY:__________________ CEO of 9111-1111 Quebec Inc

BY:________________________ Director of Fucks the Puppy Inc

BY:______________________________ Sole Administrator for PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX

BY:__________________________________ Nobody, for the moment :P

Derek Moran

For Mackximus:

Derek Moran: Kate- can you share in a nutshell, what you stated was your STATUS to the court, in your Affidavit-of-Status?

Ceit Butler: I stated that I:

-would attend court on this date under a SPECIAL APPEARANCE with restricted capacity of SUI JURIS, -DO NOT consent to be recognized as a LEGAL PERSON (of ANY class) and/or PRO SE LITIGANT and/or ANY other LEGAL FICTION, -have NO INTENT to CONTRACT Witt the COURT, not have any knowledge of any existence of a VALID CONTRACT with the COURT, -that I DO NOT consent to be addressed as a "YOU", being a party of SURETY. -that my name is PRIVATE and NOT derived from ANY information from ANY PUBLIC document, therefore I waive SECTION 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME ACT OF ONTARIO, -if you proceed against the LEGAL PERTAIN (PERSON), and it is convicted, then you must soak (speak) to the holder of the title document, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH, for satisfaction of any financial and/or legal obligations, which holder, I understand is THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO.

Ceit Butler: (Make that last one "LEGAL PERSON", not "PERTAIN". Stupid predictive text software)

Ceit Butler: Speak!

Derek Moran

Person�s name

2. (1) For all purposes of Ontario law,

(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person�s birth certificate or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;

(b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by,

(i) the name appearing on the person�s change of name certificate, if the person�s name has been changed under this Act or a predecessor of it, or

(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing in Ontario,

unless clause (c) applies; and

(c) a person who adopted a name on marriage before the 1st day of April, 1987 is entitled to be recognized by that name unless the person subsequently changed that name under this Act or a predecessor of it. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (1).

Saving

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect a change of name effected under a right that existed at law before the 26th day of June, 1939. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (2).

Surname and forename

(3) A person�s name may not be changed under this Act so as to include no surname or so as to include no forename. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (3).

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c07_e.htm

Derek Moran

In regards to your 'fancy-certificate-permit' thread i NOTICED you POSTED, Mackximus...i do recall a rather simple, straight-forward question, that Lou Manotti tried to instill into me at Dean's seminar for them:

"What evidence do YOU have, that any of YOUR CODES apply to ME?"

And...if i have misinterpreted the words of Lou Manotti in ANY way, then that would be a MISTAKE- and i want the court-of-Lou to FORGIVE ME. :D

Chris Evan

yes.....put the burden of proof on the one making the claim!! I am being called a PERSON, which in Massachusetts "shall include corporations, societies, associations and partnerships." I asked how they claim I fit the definition. :-D They haven't provided a response for some reason.

Derek Moran

Just in case Ceit goes bye-bye and her GOLD disappears, too...

Ceit Butler: I didn't even get to say a word! I walked up, laid out all my documents and the Crown immediately asked for a dismissal of all charges

Bildo Schmildo: Exactly which docs did you lay out?

Ceit Butler: They didn't even ask me for my name! The Crown asked if they could address Kathryn Butler's matter next as she saw I was there. I walked up and started to prepare everything and the Clerk paged my ex husband. The Crown stated that he had declined to attend, meaning there was no valid claim from a living man, no signed complaint and no charging instrument. We sent several documents which let them know that I was aware of these egregious errors. They paged him once, probably hoping he would show, and then asked for immediate dismissal.

Ceit Butler: I had previously submitted an AFFIDAVIT OF STATUS, and NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT which I required answers to in order to proceed, and gave them ten days to respond. When they didn't, I served a NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, with an additional five days to respond. When that time elapsed, I served a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE (attaching ALL previous submissions to each new document as EXHIBITS).

A little disappointed and annoyed, I was all ready for a good battle!

Derek Moran: can we get a look at what these documents look like, Scott/Kate? > AFFIDAVIT OF STATUS...NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT...NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE...NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE (attaching ALL previous submissions to each new document as EXHIBITS)

Derek Moran: Well- ChiefRock did say at the seminar last Sunday, that when he was in court once, he told the Justice- "Public jurisdiction doesnt have any authority over private agreements" and the reply from the Justice was- "You're right." So i guess what happened in court with Kate today is an example of that?

Kate- can you share in a nutshell, what you stated was your STATUS to the court, in your Affidavit-of-Status?

Ceit Butler: I stated that I: -would attend court on this date under a SPECIAL APPEARANCE with restricted capacity of SUI JURIS, -DO NOT consent to be recognized as a LEGAL PERSON (of ANY class) and/or PRO SE LITIGANT and/or ANY other LEGAL FICTION, -have NO INTENT to CONTRACT Witt the COURT, not have any knowledge of any existence of a VALID CONTRACT with the COURT, -that I DO NOT consent to be addressed as a "YOU", being a party of SURETY. -that my name is PRIVATE and NOT derived from ANY information from ANY PUBLIC document, therefore I waive SECTION 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME ACT OF ONTARIO, -if you proceed against the LEGAL PERTAIN, and it is convicted, then you must soak to the holder of the title document, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH, for satisfaction of any financial and/or legal obligations, which holder, I understand is THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO.

Ceit Butler: (Make that last one "LEGAL PERSON", not "PERTAIN". Stupid predictive text software)

Ceit Butler: Speak!

Eamonn O Brien: First off, well done Kate and everyone involved... I wasn't following the story but seems like a great result...

When you say STATEMENT OF BIRTH are you referring to the BC?

Ceit Butler: No, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH is the original long form your parents filled out. The government retains the original so that they have COPYHOLD over it.

Eamonn O Brien: Copyhold ~ a former tenure of land in England and Ireland by right of being recorded in the court of the manor...

So by their having copyhold they are recorded as being the holder/possessor thus have surety?

Ceit Butler: They hold LEGAL TITLE to the LEGAL PERSON, and yes, that makes them SURETY for it.

Ceit Butler: That, and the fact that my ex husband declined the invitation to participate. The questions mentioned the lack of a signed complaint, lack of impartial third-party witness and the fact that there was no charging instrument. It would be one thing if I was not aware of these facts, but the fact that I obviously was...I think they tried one last attempt at getting him in there and when that failed, they folded.

Derek Moran: "... no charging instrument..." - is this referring to the 'Constructive Bond/Trust' they set-up in advance for these types of cases?

Ceit Butler: No, they HAVE to have a signed charging sheet. A citation, something that states WHAT you have been charged with, and containing an official signature. It should have been Page 1 of the disclosure. The closest thing it contained was an "information" page stating the charge, the cop's name, the date was just "This____day, Dec. 2012" and there was NO signature from a Justice at the bottom,

Ceit Butler: They didn't even have a signed statement from the ex, just the police notes and a video statement that they didn't include in the disclosure.

Ceit Butler: They gave me the Disclosure at the bail heating. The top page listed a bunch of conditions on it and stated that "by accepting this disclosure, you agree to the following...". At the bottom, it CLEARLY states that "if you do NOT accept these conditions, you should immediately return atoll these materials to the Crown and arrange for disclosure in another manner or seek an order of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction." And the Office of the Crown's address below, so we mailed the fucker back with a Notice of Mistake stapled to the front. Next appearance, the Crown tried to hand it to me WITH my Notice of Mistake still attached

Stapling it on makes it PART of the document now.

Pierre Eleveneightfivetwo: I have processed my first BoE, the right way yesterday, and a young lady just called me, saying she have NO IDEA what I am talking about July 5 at 12:08pm � Like

They don't EVEN know that what they've sent me is a bill of exchange, they never heard about The BoE ACT.

Derek Moran

"-if you proceed against the LEGAL PERSON, and it is convicted, then you must speak to the holder of the TITLE document, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH, for satisfaction of any financial and/or legal obligations, which the holder, I understand is THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO."

..Gold, Jerry- GOLD!

Derek Moran

"Are YOU DEAN KORY?"

"You must speak to the HOLDER of the TITLE DOCUMENT, the STATEMENT OF BIRTH, for the LEGAL PERSON DEAN KORY, for satisfaction of any financial and/or legal obligations if it is convicted, which i understand, is THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO."

Rodrigo Dan Darius

Ceit Butler, the approach detailed in this thread.. do you still generally advocate this approach?------- Even for those with less experience?

I'm pretty sure I keep hearing folks advocate not going to court, in fact, being ADAMANT to stay away from the court. The man who currently holds these 5 pieces of paper, Part 3 Summons.. doesn't want to do anything stupid.

Ceit Butler

No, ESPECIALLY for those with less experience. I was lucky; I had the assistance of two VERY experienced people, and Simcoe is a small town and they were not prepared for a fight.

Your instincts are correct, Scott is FAR more qualified to answer your questions than I. :p

Rodrigo Dan Darius

To be clear, the PERSON is listed on the Summons. But it was placed in MY hands.

The child inside of me is hoping someone will tell me it's as simple as OFFER and ACCEPTANCE. Contract law? ChiefRock Sino General? :D

Rodrigo Dan Darius

I made sure to tell them "I don't consent to this." I kept repeating: "I dont understand". They asked if I have a fear of cops. I said: Yes. They asked why.. I told them the truth.. "I've watched too many videos where cops harm people".

Anibal Jose Baez

I think your problem is that you are STILL very attached to believing you are the PERSON. And you also believe in "authority." You are still not aware of who you are. But that is fixable! :D It takes balls, but is not impossible.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

I know I am not the PERSON.

..the PERSON received the summons.

Prior to receiving any guidance instructing me differently, I would probably decide to file a Notice of Mistake. As I stated earlier I probably would staple it on top of the 5 Summons'.. I would send them REGISTERED MAIL to the COURT CLERK and the PROSECUTOR.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

Also, prior to any guidance instructing me differently, I see the benefit of creating an AFFIRMATION OF STATUS. And a NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT. Also, colour photo-copy of both sides of the Birth Certificate Bond for Proof of who the Surety is.. I have read we also do this as providing CONSIDERATION. I will admit I don't totally understand it... ...which begs the question, why do it then? :/

Derek Moran

*shrugs* I dunno Scott - isnt "the BIRTH CERTIFICATE BOND" something Ceit used when she went to court?...this is where i remember it from :/

"And responding to "You" is the biggest one. Let them know right from the start that as the Sole Beneficiary of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE BOND, you wish to solely be addressed as "insert regular old first name here". And ANYONE who doesn't address you by THAT NAME ONLY, EVERY time that they speak to you, you respond "Are you addressing me? As the SOLE BENEFICIARY, I wish to solely be addressed as:___" "

Anibal Jose Baez

Wow, Derek is still immerse in that swamp of bullshit. If he does not become an attorney, and makes money of this, he is NEVER going to get ANYTHING from it, other than helping folks looking into the wrong direction.