The Tender For Law

Volume 5

Feb 17, 2014 8:39 PM

Pete Daoust

I have sent a question to the Government of Quebec :/

Hi, after doing some researches, I have good reasons to BELIEVE that a LIEN has been perfected by the Government, on me and my wife's MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, please tell me if it's TRUE or NOT.

Their answer.

What do you mean by LIEN ? Please, give us all the details that my help us give you an answer

(in French, I used PRIVILLEGE L�GAL, because that's what a LIEN is in French)

:-o .....I am shocked with this answer !!!! :-o

Read Comments

Xrisjuice Xris

Perhaps you can consider - if they don't answer- or the typical non responsive attitude is returned to you - you can remind them that All unconscionable contracts are subject to rescission and void ab initio under the common law for failure to make the proper disclosures in order to constitute an acceptance. Where there is no meeting of the minds there is no contract. Therefore, any and all Marriage License Applications and Certificates bearing the name FIRST MIDDLE LAST or any derivatives thereof are null and void, ab initio, through various elements of concealment and failure to make the proper disclosures.

August le Blanc

Just ,do it thru some one you trust, the common law shit is for pussies and freetards. In matters handled in privates. Equals fuck offo govenrmento. The corporation, will hold the power of attorney in Private law. Fuck off with this common shit.

Tommy Atherton

ok, my lien search came back stating that there was no lien match to the PERSON'S NAME. I did the search on the PERSON in the province of birth, could it be that I also need to perform a search on the PERSON'S NAME here in BRITISH COLUMBIA where it has been "RESIDING" as well?

Xrisjuice Xris

Bobis are you saying or suggesting that after your private agreements are in place, and the corporation holding the trust has put forth the lien that this rescued from the civil body and you should not bother with any kind of status correction with the public contracts that you willingly voluntarily entered into because its common law freetard pussie law shit? I am trying to understand this... so perhaps we can all learn something.. value added.

Tommy Atherton

I am wondering if my "criteria" was correct? Gail Marie I suspected i would see something due to the MARRIAGE. Scott Duncan posted that the PERSONS get secured by the GOVERNMENT as a result of the MARRIAGE private trust.

Tommy Atherton

I can say with absolute certainty that no woman on the planet has loved me more than Tara. However, no amount of love would compel her to JOINDER herself to a "BILL OF LADING", and hand it over to the GOVERNMENT. That means "getting married" (for the stupid amongst you). I'm sorry if that sounds condescending (that means talking down to people). Now think about this marriage transaction. The marriage INCLUDES "Scott" AND "Tara", not "Scott" OR "Tara". This means marriage makes you effectively ONE PERSON UNDER THE LAW. Since the marriage actually consists of THREE ENTITIES, "Scott" AND "Tara", which by its nature EXCLUDES the GOVERNMENT, still remains an "ORGANIZATION". A marriage ORGANIZES these "entities" into their respective roles. If "Scott" AND "Tara" remain "Scott AND Tara", the GOVERNMENT HAS NO STANDING. However, if Tara sought a divorce, the MARRIED PERSON is no longer "Scott AND Tara", and the GOVERNMENT gets to intervene. This most certainly wouldn't be the case if it was "Scott" OR "Tara". Therefore, the above CRIMINAL CODE definition of "PERSON" defines HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ***INSERT PROVINCE HERE***, which is both "HER MAJESTY" AND an "ORGANIZATION".

Tommy Atherton

Scott Duncan "Marriages are PRIVATE TRUSTS with a GOVERNMENT LIEN on the parties.

That is why PRENUPTUAL AGREEMENTS are so EASY to kill. POST NUPTIAL agreements are ROCK solid. I have NEVER seen a challenged POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT succeed. Not even once.

If you make an amendment to the marriage, the GOVERNMENT has no say. It's TRUST business now."

Tommy Atherton

Scott Duncan "Well if you are CURRENTLY married, you are CURRENTLY fucked. It's a bill of lading that secures your PERSONS in the same way Rogueupport has secured Tara and My "PERSONS". You need the government's PERMISSION to disolve the "bill of lading". We only require the SHAREHOLDER'S permission...and they're WAY nicer than the government. If both parties lien their names, then wouldn't that take the surety out of the equation? That's "WILFUL DAMAGE to a SECURITY INSTRUMENT". The Marriage came first. IT has the claim, not you. Liening your name just makes you "next in line".

How about a DECREE that the signatures are now rescinded by free will of both parties and marriage is now and forever null and void? That damages the security. The trustee you LICENSED from, will demand payment, which will, by happy coincidence, consist of everything you own. If there is lien in place then our corp would be "first in line"? (yes?)"

Tommy Atherton

"Marriages are PRIVATE TRUSTS with a GOVERNMENT LIEN on the parties. " Parties is plural, if Scott Duncan said party, than i would be more inclined to look at the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE PARTY for the lien, as the two parties become one PARTY through it, anyone see what I am getting at here? I have been told to take his words as deliberate and precise.

Gail Marie

I suspect we would need to find out what they named the marriage person to start....I'm not overly concerned about that....the lien on the certificate will be at worse case scenario a precaution...with the assumption that they have hidden this without being able to verify it beyond Scott telling us.

Tommy Atherton

YES Gail Marie would be good information to find a new NAME if that were the case; what is on the certificate is some red numbers X8 and a Registration No. but I can't seem to find a way to lien search with that information.

Tommy Atherton

So I just found the quote I was looking for: above. He does not actually say lien, he says the Bill of Lading, which is the Marriage, SECURES the persons (plural) like Rogue Support did for the PERSONS he and his partner have.

August le Blanc

Tommy Atherton good for you for whacking your own bush, you will find this is all verifiable. It needs to be verified, if nothing shows up on the lien search then good, for me going in live, it was about being able to stand to challenges. I have faced them. I have made mistakes. I am still here. All of this just made me stronger. So it is good practice to verify everything for accuracy and truth. Interesting, that the original security agreement issued at the same time as the birth certificate, did not turn up on your on lien searches.. I had idiots at the alberta registries who, did not know what they were doing, and printed me of 50 pages of shite to find my name amongst hundreds , that all had a security agreement in place�

Tommy Atherton

So the WILLFUL DAMAGE if one's trustee were to attempt to lien the PERSONS involved in a MARRIAGE, would be caused because they are already securing another INTEREST. So then one's trustee liens the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE thus securing it in the private. Once secured in the private could one's trustee then VOID the signatures on the contract creating the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, thus performing a private DIVORCE? Once done, then, could one's trustee secure the PERSON the beneficiary has in the private as well?

August le Blanc

You cannot but some one you trust can, they are licensed by private charter, so yes to all of the above. Or you could monetize the lien, by giving it a value, no idea where to find that, one thinks ones own formula could do it, make one up, and then the trustee can make up a bill, to submit for payment somewheres :-)

Tommy Atherton

Thanks Chris, I have been received well here, and wish not abuse the efforts being made. I feel lucky to jump in line behind others who have broken a lot of ground for me. Perhaps I can break trail one day.

Tommy Atherton

Scott Duncan, thankyou for looking at through the confusion, and sorting process. I see the "like" on: " I am wondering if my "criteria" was correct? Gail Marie I suspected i would see something due to the MARRIAGE. Scott Duncan posted that the PERSONS get liened by the GOVERNMENT as a result of the MARRIAGE private trust." 15 hours ago � Like � 1. I realize this was intentional, are you willing to expand? I will open up the PPSA site once again and ponder.

Tommy Atherton

Got that, but I flail, being stuck on the concept that it should show up in the PPSA, or is that hidden, in front of out eyes, AS the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, so as to not red flag the sheep, yet still BE COMMERCIALLY LEGAL.

Pete Daoust

So anyway, I did answered this to the lady... :D

Bonjour Madame Lamy, et merci pour votre r�ponse rapide�

Pour tout vous dire, je vois le certificat de mariage comme une FIDUCIE, et je vois moi et mon �pouse comme �tant CONSTITUANT, concernant cette fiducie.

Par contre, je vois le Gouvernement comme �tant B�n�ficiaire, et Fiduciaire de cette fiducie, ce qui me chatouille un peu, sans vous vexer bien entendu�. Donc, je me demande si le gouvernement poss�de une PROCURATION quelconque, et/ou un LIEN, et/ou un PRIVIL�GE L�GALE concernant ce certificat de mariage, et/ou fiducie.

D�sol� pour toutes ces questions, mais lorsque nous nous sommes mari�s, nous �tions TOTALEMENT ignorants concernant l�aspect L�GALE du mariage.

August le Blanc

You have to know a little clubhouse rules to get out of their clubhouse, by creating your own clubhouse in private. It is easy to go down the rabbit hole of their clubhouse. A lien on any property created in their clubhouse via trusted third party is that key. Then you stay out in private.

Pete Daoust

I was reading this thread, and thought of this word :/

Consideration

Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.

Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract. It may consist of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. In a bilateral contract�an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises�each promise is regarded as sufficient consideration for the other. In a unilateral contract, an agreement by which one party makes a promise in exchange for the other's performance, the performance is consideration for the promise, while the promise is consideration for the performance.

Consideration must have a value that can be objectively determined. A promise, for example, to make a gift or a promise of love or affection is not enforceable because of the subjective nature of the promise.

Tommy Atherton

We know the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is a bill of lading, and the Bill of Lading is the MARRIAGE. Being a Bill of Lading one's trustees are going to lien it as it moves into PRIVATE PROPERTY, so what exactly is the proper name and/or label and/or commercial SECURITY code of the PROPERTY known as the bill of Lading, Is it the red, in our case 8 digit number? Obviously one's trustees have to be able to identify the PROPERTY properly to lien it.

Pete Daoust

Here in Quebec, it's THE INSCRIPTION NUMBER, same as the birth certificate, but instead of the number starting with 199, it starts by 2199404XXXXXX

219 = married in the 1900's 94 = the year we got married 04 = Province of Quebec And the last six digits, I have no idea where they come from :/

Pete Daoust

PIERRE DAOUST's birth certificate also have an INSCRIPTION number, which is 1196604XXXXXX

119 = Born in the 1900's 66 = Year of birth 04 = Province of Quebec (It's not really a Province but they don't want to say it) And the six last digits are the Life Birth Registration number....

Tommy Atherton

back to the subject matter. I think if our trustees lien the marriage certificate it is possible the lien on the persons may be affected in the public as well, so yes that is a concern for the trustees to be schooled on, I know of one man who may have the answer to that.

Tommy Atherton

I think by liening the marriage certificate, the GOVERNMENT would lose their claim to LIEN the PERSONS as they no longer will be the TRUSTEES of the marriage, thus no rightful claim to SECURE an instrument now out of their jurisdiction.

Tommy Atherton

Do you know how to describe the CARA AND TOMMY PERSON, I have been trying to figure out how that PROPERTY is described too, so I figured that perhaps one of the numbers on the bill of lading is representative of the "CARA AND TOMMY" PROPERTY, but I do not know.

Tommy Atherton

On the PPSA site you are given certain fields to select from for the lien, I, today, with my given knowledge would have the trustee lien "COLLATERAL" and describe all information on the Certificate, thus encapturing any PROPERTY on it. I would not attempt to LIEN CARA at this time, I think that is the willful damage to a security.

Tommy Atherton

I think we are talking about the same thing, I agree Lien the PROPERTY ON THE BILL OF LADING known as the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE FIRST, the problem arises for me here as I do not know exactly how to acurrately describe this new UNIFIED PROPERTY to the PPSA LIEN REGISTRATION. RED NUMBERS? AND/OR REGISTRATION NO. these two seem like the only options as the NAMES on the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE are the PERSONS B/C NAMES and Birthdate, and I am feeling confident that is a no no.

Pete Daoust

If both parties lien their names, then wouldn't that take the surety out of the equation? That's "WILFUL DAMAGE to a SECURITY INSTRUMENT". The Marriage came first. IT has the claim, not you. Liening your name just makes you "next in line".

Tommy Atherton

Right, so the property being CARRIED should be listed on the BILL OF LADING, I think that by putting a lien on the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, it REPRESENTS the "CARA AND TOMMY PROPERTY", to use your terminology.

Janick Paquette

If

Cara Tommy Cara & Tommy

are 3 different persons, why do you need to do the marriage/person first?

Why not do them all at the same time?

Is it because of you need to undo reversely what you have done and/or registered?

Tommy Atherton

I am going to upload our "certificate of marriage" as it lists two PERSONS, The two b/c PERSONS. 1 . as "bridegroom" 2 . is the "Bride". We have learned we can not have our trustees lien THESE PERSONS as it will damage the SECURITY of the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. To me, by liening the CERTIFICATE one liens the PROPERTY on the BILL OF LADING.

Tommy Atherton

Janick Paquette here is some of the material we are working off of: Scott Duncan "Well if you are CURRENTLY married, you are CURRENTLY fucked. It's a bill of lading that secures your PERSONS in the same way Rogueupport has secured Tara and My "PERSONS". You need the government's PERMISSION to disolve the "bill of lading". We only require the SHAREHOLDER'S permission...and they're WAY nicer than the government. If both parties lien their names, then wouldn't that take the surety out of the equation? That's "WILFUL DAMAGE to a SECURITY INSTRUMENT". The Marriage came first. IT has the claim, not you. Liening your name just makes you "next in line".

How about a DECREE that the signatures are now rescinded by free will of both parties and marriage is now and forever null and void? That damages the security. The trustee you LICENSED from, will demand payment, which will, by happy coincidence, consist of everything you own. If there is lien in place then our corp would be "first in line"? (yes?)"

Chris Evan

I think my fear of commitment is gonna trump my desire to do HUGE damage to the government on this one....unless..........Hey Lana, will you marry me? No commitment, but I would like to consummate the agreement. AND do HUGE damage to the government

Janick Paquette

So if I understand correctly, by Liening the person or persons you happen to have, you f*ck up there debt world where you inhable them to use this credit and this person's name to there advantage.

This way when you get anything regarding that person, it's there creation therefore it's there shit therefore all the shit you get for that person belongs to them and you can just send it back to the owner?

And this way you are clear of all the BS?

Do I understand at least something out of all this? :/

Tommy Atherton

"You make it too costly to hold"- Scott Duncan. IF we are the CARRIERS of the BILL OF LADING known as the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, perhaps making the CARRIER FEES astronomical, then perhaps it would be "too costly to hold?" If I were contracting transport, that is what I would do if I were CARRYING undesirable CARGO.

Tommy Atherton

From a common sense perspective: we have been CARRYING this cargo for free up to this point. Sole Signatory party on the BILL OF LADING is SURETY, to me this PARTY is in need of a BILL. A BIIIIIIIIG BIll?

Pete Daoust

So the first question from me was�.

Hellos, Following some research I have made, I have good reason to believe that the Government of Quebec recorded a legal privillege (lien) on the marriage certificate that we, me and my wife, have, could you confirm whether I'm right or wrong ? Thank you in advance

Their first answer: What do you mean by LIEN ( privilege legal) :-o

So, I followed by: Hello Ms. Lamy, and thank you for your quick response ...

To be honest, I see the marriage certificate as a TRUST, and I see myself and my wife as GRANTORS concerning this trust.

I see the government as Beneficiary and Trustee of the Trust, which bothers me a little�

So I wonder if the government has any POWER OF ATTORNEY and / or Lien and / or LEGAL PRIVILEGE on this marriage certificate, and / or trust.

Sorry for all these questions, but when we got married, we were TOTALLY ignorant about the LEGAL aspect of marriage.

Thanks in Advance.

Then they answered: Seek for LEGAL advices, and we suggest to contact the Ministere of Justice :-o

WHY THEY ARE SUGGESTING to contact the ministere of JUSTICE, Scott Duncan ?? :/

Tommy Atherton

Does it not make sense if the BILL is not paid for CARRYING, then any ASSETS of the GOV would be vulnerable to a lien, Force them to collapse the TRUST of the MARRIAGE, just for starters one's trustees lien the property of the CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE, each day after the DEBT accumulates. This is the DEBT collection process they do to us.

Cara Small

If I was to do work for some one and the work is described in a contract, I wouldn't lien the contract. I would lien the property of the one who signed. To me the Marriage cert describes the property and the one who signed is the Director of Vital Statistics.

Lana Dukakis

sending you all over the place and never getting an answer and after talking to a whole bunch of people, the last person suggests that you need to speak to the person that you started with. That happens to me all the time. I've spent days on the phone being sent from one person or ministry to another and after 20 or more calls been told that I need to speak with the person or ministry where I satrted.

Tommy Atherton

That is why PRENUPTUAL AGREEMENTS are so EASY to kill. POST NUPTIAL agreements are ROCK solid. I have NEVER seen a challenged POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT succeed. Not even once.

If you make an amendment to the marriage, the GOVERNMENT has no say. It's TRUST business now."

Tommy Atherton

I think the remedy to the MARRIAGE is to be found in the above quote! Amend the marriage through a POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT. The contents of this post nuptial agreement are to make the MARRIAGE too costly for the Current Trustee (Gov) to hold.

Tommy Atherton

amend. v. to alter or change by adding, subtracting, or substituting. One can amend a statute, a contract or a written pleading filed in a law -suit.

Are the Gov Trustees of the MARRIAGE, obligated to carry out any amendments made to the MARRIAGE contract by the sole authorized administrators for TOMMY and CARA if they agree to the terms as cited in a Post nuptial agreement?

Tommy Atherton

Also, i think the relevance that the PERSONS have been moved into the the private, via the MARRIAGE private TRUST, must be looked at. Perhaps this can be used by the MARRIED PERSONS we have to our advantage.

Tommy Atherton

The Post nuptial agreement could be compared to a corporations charter, it is a marriage charter. The SOLE ADMINISTRATORS for the PERSONS IN MARRIAGE agree to appoint a corporation (say Quebec xxx inc.) as the duly authorized sole administrator. This, new, administrator now ACCEPTS BILLS as well as directs the Trustees to carry out policy of the "MARRIAGE CHARTER" (POST NUP) and gets paid for administrative duties out of the security of the MARRIAGE. This then sets the grounds for the corp to lien. It kind of like what we could do had the MARRIAGE not taken place, same parties, slightly different roles.

Pete Daoust

We had a little Ethereum drinkup in Utrecht, The Netherlands where Nick, Yves and Joris did a little pair programming on a marriage contract with divorce clause: https://github.com/jorisbontje/cll-sim/blob/master/examples/i_want_half.cll

With CLL Simulation testing all the marriage scenarios : https://github.com/jorisbontje/cll-sim/blob/master/examples/i_want_half.py

Usage: * Both parties should send their marriage proposal to the contract; with the address of other partner that they'd like to marry. * Once they are married, they can deposit whatever value to this shared contract. * To withdraw, both parties should send a transaction with the withdrawal request, recipient and amount. Once both request the same the transaction is made. * To divorce, both parties should send a transaction with a divorce request. Once both send the request, the remaining balance is split 50-50 among both partners... I WANT HALF!

HAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

Neens Jean

Still trying to understand just what is the "do what you are told" part. Based on this thread, it's my understanding that my new trustee liens JEFF AND NINA, JEFF, NINA too along with any other PERSON that lives with them and was created after their creation. Right or wrong? As these PERSONS are now held in PRIVATE TRUST and a POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT between these PERSONS makes the original TRUSTEE leave them alone? Shit stain?