just stop lying about it and you wont have to till the 'income' is more than 25,000. which means at todays .0014% interest rates, pretty difficult. you need almost 2Bn in a bank. when i was a kid one could live comfortably and/or support a small family off the interest a bank paid you for that privelage of crediting them one million. today a single man cant hardly live off the interest of 2 billion.

Lying? Who's lying about what?

I will file a tax return for PIERRE DAOUST, I will also include an invoice with it, and whatever the debt PIERRE DAOUST will receive, I will ADMINISTRATE that debt.... :-P

Eli, you dont know what income is, or that wages and/or earnings are NOT income. so you tend to without knowing it, lie on all the forms. they want you to, it is to THEIR benefit that you do. they wont tell you that part.

Oh ok I see. I have heard that before. Such sneaky bastards.

Good deal Pete! I screwed up my last Bills of Exchange by not sending registered mail. I have a state tax debt to administrate still so hopefully I'll have good results to report soon. :)

"for deposit only" seems to be an important term when depositing a cheque, I am not sure of the quality of this understanding, but I am looking into how a cheque "for deposit only" does not qualify as "income." David Johansen is this a piece of what you are alluding to ?

only interest accrued on the "for deposit only" is "income". or in a "non-interest bearing" account there can be no income generated.

Deposits are NOT income. So, deposits cannot "pay" income taxes. Unless, your employer reports your income. Other than that, the INTENTION is noted in the cheque, "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY".

My wife and me are filling this year, and making it "very expensive" to "them". A marriage and the "custody" my children's persons is expensive to administrate. And the whole "administrating for free" ain't flying no more. We are not down for involuntary servitude any longer.

The way I see it now, ANYTHING that needs ADMINISTRATION OF THE PERSON, has a price attached.

yes tommy, what he said. just beware some other human who might try to talk to you AND TRY to GET YOU to speak to, on, about, any issue intending to trick you into saying somthing you might not know what you actually did say. for instance if a government employee called you an "individual" or a "resident" or any of a number of (there are many) 'deceptive 'weasel' words, and you dont know better, they might trick you. the cheque stands on its own as a bill of exchange. if somone were to ask you what the word 'deposit' that you wrote on it, not 'for deposit only' but just DEPOSIT. i endorse with just my first name, david, and the account # and write ONLY the word DEPOSIT beneath that. you will discover even bank tellers are pretty dumb. they just want to do there job and go home like everyonelse, and leave difficult things to the next guy (who might just happen to be a machine)...

thanks David Johansen, I am realizing that separating the role I play, titled Administrator, by using ones taken name, as well as not allowing any other titles to be attached to me, for surety purposes, are uber important!

Mackximus Minimus, I am on the same path with my filings, I have recently notified CRA of the Administration Fees, now,envoked. Had not even considered the "marriage" aspect.

Why does the administrator needs to divulge a name? As I see it now, the administrator's name is NOT of their business. And since we are not going to be signing shit, saying a "name" it's just part of the programming. "NOTICE I am a MAN, and happen to be the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the PERSON MACKXIMUS MINIMUS. (Some redacted shit here) If you have any questions, please contact the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for MACKXIMUS MINIMUS at such address. Thanks YOU. SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for MACKXIMUS MINIMUS (no signature attached)" Am I alone here? :D

Why would the name of the MAN/ADMINISTRATOR be ANY of their business? I don't see any reason.

The MAN is NOT supposed to be SEEN in their COMMERCIAL world. *There is no JURISDICTION over a MAN. :D Let that sink in... *UNLESS, that MAN does not know WHO he/she is. And, as a result, he/she BELIEVES he is the PERSON, and starts ACTING AS the PERSON. :/ The "name" thing is ALL programming! It's all SURETY and ACCOUNTING, and all names in commerce are ACCOUNTS, then "names" are for COMMERCE. Not REALITY. You don't "have" "names" in NATURE. And If I, ME, the MAN, have a name, it's because I, MYSELF, have decided what MY name is. And that name would be... none of your fucking business! I KNOW this is thinking right. :D

:-D

You can ADDREES "ME" as SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR. period :-P

... and/or Sir, and/or YOUR Majesty! :P

Talking about names, here's a good one. "We must have a fundamental right to an identifier..." Robert Menard, from his essay titled "Who owns the name?" https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.52/posts/854891214525961 You CANNOT get any more Kunta Kinte than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx9WAV5WbVY

Scott Duncan also said we have to write for deposit only on the front as well as the indorsement

I think I have been blocked. Sorry, this page isn't available The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

You won't miss much, let me tell you this :-D

Consider the source. I'm not worried. :D

They are doing some phylosophic concepts about who own "The Name", they don't seems to know that it's a FUCKING PERSON, not a name, but for three easy payment of $49,99, Rob will de-confuse the HUGE stainshit.... :-P

I have all the answers I need right here minus the freedumb bullshit. That's priceless.

SHIT STAIN! *sigh*

That one just CAN'T get in, Sir, it just can't :D

Again, Pete, your frenglish is perfect. No worries! :D

pierre, what would one use to place a stain upon a shit? if you spilled red coolaid upon a pile, would it then be stained shit? (i think thats where scott was going with his remark, correct and please forgive me if i am wrong)

Admiral Scott, I have a question on affidavits. I've heard they must be written in form of negative averment. I think that's all bullshit, but I'm about to make an affidavit, and VERY SIMPLE it's what keeps coming as the result. Is there "the way" of redacting an affidavit, or if it's not simple, I'm doing it wrong?

In VOID we trust.

Is that the answer to my question, Admiral Scott? :/

Yes. Void the signature.

Ohh! :D Thanks.

Here is what it's on my mind. To properly administrate, I need in GOOD FAITH to let "them" know the TRUTH about the whole "I know what's going on with the administration of the person", with PROOF. So, if this is COMMERCE , and an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce", that is the way to I want to lay down the TRUTH. Secondly, notices will do the rest of the communications. So, here is an idea I have for an affidavit. a DRAFT, it's not final. Admiral Scott, if there is a fatal error, and/or shit stain, and/or you know this is not a good idea, please point it out. <<Comes now, I and/or ME and/or MYSELF, to tell the truth to the facts related herein states that I have firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein and believes these facts to be true to the best of my knowledge: 1. I am ME. 2. I am not YOU. 3. My name is not of anyone's business. 4. I am not a LEGAL NAME. 5. I am NOT a NATURAL PERSON, and/or a PERSON of any kind. 7. I waive the right to be recognized as a PERSON, and/or a LEGAL PERSON, and/or a NATUTAL PERSON, under the law. 6. I DO NOT OWN any PERSON/S. 8. I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for xxxxxxxxxxxx, BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or SURETY BOND/PUBLIC RECORD # 152.-1975-01929-000000-001551-xxxxxxxx, with REGISTRATION DATE of 21 APRIL 1975. 9. I am NOT xxxxxxxxxxxx. 10. I am NOT SURETY for xxxxxxxxxxxx. 11. PROOF of who is SURETY for xxxxxxxxxxxx, surety being the GOBIERNO DE PUERTO RICO/GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO, is provided in exhibit A, a BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or SURETY BOND/PUBLIC RECORD # 152.-1975-01929-000000-001551-xxxxxxxx, with REGISTRATION DATE of 21 APRIL 1975. 12. I, as a MAN, am not lawfully entitled to the BENEFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. 13. I am not an OFFICER, and/or a government AGENT, and/or a TRUSTEE, and/or a Government EMPLOYEE of the CROWN and/or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and/or ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO and/or GOBIERNO D E PUERTO RICO . 14. I am NOT a SLAVE to ANYONE. 15. I DO NOT CONSENT to either slavery, and/or involuntary servitude. 16. All the administration done for the legal name xxxxxxxxxxxx is subject to a FEE SHCEDULE. See Exhibit B, NOTICE OF FEE SCHEDULE. 17. I do not consent to be governed, other than by ME, AND/OR MY own free will. 16. I do not recognize and/or authorize ANY authority outside of ME. 18. There is no authority to attach any LEGAL NAME, and/or ANY information, derived from a public document to ME. 19. As the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR, I will NOT buy back any public debt that comes under the legal name xxxxxxxxxxxx. 20. As the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for xxxxxxxxxxxx, I will only ADMINISTRATE these public debts, and send them back to its beneficiary, so they can be presented to THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK and/or to which ever pertinent party, for complete discharge.>>

13, i am not now [insert] nor have i ever been < an... scratch 19 rename 20 - 19 and change it too: As the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for xxxxxxxxxxxx, I will only ADMINISTRATE to the best of my abilities for the benefit theirof.

Pete DaoustScott Duncan Thanks for allowing me in the group. Can you clarify something about SURETY in the administration process and CRA. Forgive me, I know little and have never done any of this before. Please correct any misinformation. I am a man, ADMINISTRATING the PERSON on behalf of CRA/ GOV/CORP. I am willingly billing them for my time and services. "I" the ADMIN? In terms of the amount that they say my PERSON owes them I am not disputing anything I am ADMINISTRATING the ACCOUNT by directing them to the SURETY for the PERSON, which is the BANK OF CANADA? I am asking them to discharge the ACCOUNT through it's SURETY? I remember a post you had in ADMINSTRATION OF THE PERSON that you would "not buy back public debts anymore" such as taxes. Again, forgive me, I read the posts here. I still don't totally understand how to execute what is being taught. Thank you :)

I am a man, ADMINISTRATING the PERSON. PERIOD. I am asking them to discharge the ACCOUNT through it's SURETY? I am NOT asking, I am TELLING them :P

OK thanks for that correction in direction Pete. So, I write a response as discussed as ADMIN explaining that they should seek surety in the Bank of Canada. I take it I include the "remittance" voucher they sent me and write in the full amount in the "amount paid" box. Do I have to write anything else on the remittance?