Pete Daoust, Beverly Berta Braakschmack, Chris Evan, Mackximus Minimus, and anyone else that has any knowledge on this.

I still drive on a UK old type (no photo) and the license is "for life" no rip off renewal fees. Not much help I'm afraid still in the early learning process in TTFL.

Is the legal Name allowed to drive everything from a motorbike to a container truck Gerry Odonothing? My dad had one of those, it was given to him by the State.

As far as I know Lee, but I can't check right now because I'm in the west and the license is in Wicklow, for got to bring it with me... hope I'm not unlawfully stopped by the Garda�..:)

BY:__________________________ Sole Authorized Administrator. :/

The signature has to be completed on one of those electronic pad things that you can not even see what you have written. I can only hope that they do not cut out, sole authorised administrator, or it will be a long day in that office trying to get them to put it on.

I did it once, at the post office, if you take your time, it works :)

I'll update when I get back from their office. Few days away. Thanks Pete.

I did it too at the post office on those electronic pads S.A.A. after the signature Now that I think about it, maybe if I had just written S.A.A. for JANICK PAQUETTE THAT would have been enough I'm guessing.

No, you sign, and underneath the signature you write: Sole Authorized Administrator.....

ok Captain!

Should I sign all documents like this?? I have been wondering ..... because now when I have to sign for something I wonder do I really want to sign

I don't know, should you ? :/

I would :D

WHY would you do that ? :/

I don't want to sign at all.....

Well, just don't !!! :/

But signing in that manner is administration of the person I have as opposed to trying to be that person ?

What do you think ? ...

Oh, that damn signature! Man, that shit was drilled in ours heads pretty hard. I wonder why? Oh, wait! :D I soon have to renew the driver license contract. And, as most of you, I am not any kind of expert in any of this. So, as a "born-again" sole authorized administrator, I am urged to NOTIFY the DMV of a few mistakes, and introduce the sole authorized administrator. I will slip a copy of the affirmation of the sole authorized administrator. I will communicate in the notice that the person I happen to have needs a drivers license, because if not the sole authorized administrator may be seen as the liable party for the legal name, and I fear for my life when strangers think they can beat me up like Kunta Kinte, and commit crimes against me, for not producing "id." Also, I inform that the sole authorized administrator has decided NOT to buy back any public debt. So, I set the record straight of WHO is surety, who am I, and who I am NOT, even before touching their offices. I send evidence with my notice to support my claim (affirmation, copy of the BC). I notify that I will be going to this particular office, this particular date to apply for the person, and that I will sign as the sole authorized administrator for the legal name. If there is anything illegal, or unlawful about this, please let me know. If not, I will assume we have an agreement, and I will apply for the person's driver's license. I want to let know my INTENT before hand. I do not sign notices, I use my administrator seal now, or nothing at all. I carry a stamp that has my signature qualified as the sole authorized administrator that I carry around, for when I need it. Or, when it's a digital signature on a pad I write "Authorized by: Sole Authorized Administrator for MACKXIMUS MINIMUS", but no "signature." Just that NOTE/NOTICE. :D Well, that is what it's on my mind, but what the fuck do I know? :/ At least I have the truth, and know how to keep it simple. Let's see how it all goes.

The legal name issued to you requires a new license. So yes, you, the man or woman -the only animate breathing component in a fictional equation- might wanna assume administration of it before some other swinging dick does on presumption that only a dead man would abandon the usufruct "at sea" for another to enjoy. I mean, it's not like the benefits derived from that particular legal name are yours exclusively, they're only yours so long as you maintain the fucking thing with some level of cognitive coherence akin to a man who can wipe his own ass without calling on the nanny.

That is the best idea I have ever read Mackximus Minimus, the understanding followed by the signature being qualifying. That seems pretty wrapped up. When you slip that copy of your affirmation for the sole authorised administrator in there, by whom do you have it witnessed?

I used a notary to witness the signature. I keep the original, and then send COPIES with a VOID red stamp over the signature, and my administrator seal punched in the copies.

You VOID the solicitor signature?, and yours?

No! You void the signature of the COPY of the affirmation. You KEEP the original affirmation. The original IS NOT VOIDED, you leave that alone, and keep it in a secure place. Never give out the originals.

I understand that you only send copies. What I would like to know is, is it your signature ONLY that you VOID?

If I have to sign on a digital pad, the only thing I would put is "Authorized by: Sole Authorized Administrator for MACKXIMIS MINIMUS" If you send a notice, a copy of the affirmation, and copy of the BC, the only VOID over a signature would be the one in the COPY of the affirmation. It's my suggestion, so it's not that other way wont work. That is just what makes sense to me.

We once went over a draft for a possible affirmation. It's in some thread, somewhere.

I will look for it, nice one Mackximus Minimus

And for the newbies, if a contract is not completely to your advantage, you have the right to VOID it! If a documents bears the NAME, you have the right to VOID that document, you have the right NOT to contract. So, if someone insist that you MUST sign a document (think when you are detained in jail), carry a red ink pen, or stamp, and VOID that shit!

Max, I don't remember discussing VOIDing signatures on copies. Also, are these CERTIFIED COPIES or copies from the Sole authorized Administrator.

Ok, I send only copies of my originals. I do those myself, and stamp them with the administrator seal, to give them AUTHORITY! :D . No certified copies of anything. The only time I am going to send a certified copy of the BC, is when I am returning a Bill of Exchange, or some charges, to settle an account, and it's called CONSIDERATION.

The VOID over the signature of the affirmation is something that was taught to me by Scott, in my last visit to Toronto. That is why you have never read about it. Every document that bears the "signature" it's a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. So you don't want to be giving away free money of account. If it bears the name, you can VOID.

OK...got it.

As opposed to writing 'non negotiable' or in addition to?

You mean the trip to Toronto that I didn't go to? Fuck fuck fuck!!!

Well, if you VOID the signature the document becomes by default NON-NEGOTIABLE! :P

That information is astatine Mackximus Minimus, thank you for sharing.

I have learned ALL THIS from Admiral Scott. You may thank him. I didn't know SHIT when I came in this group, and I STILL don't know shit. Well, I know SOME shit, I guess.

:-)

In the above example of signing something in jail, it was mentioned to use a red pen to void... What is the significance of the red? What if red is not available and only blue or black?

You don't sign

He was using an example "And for the newbies, if a contract is not completely to your advantage, you have the right to VOID it! If a documents bears the NAME, you have the right to VOID that document, you have the right NOT to contract. So, if someone insist that you MUST sign a document (think when you are detained in jail), carry a red ink pen, or stamp, and VOID that shit!" I wasn't trying to imply that I'd sign it. I was just curious about the red pen to VOID versus another colour.

So, if someone insist that you MUST sign a document...like THOR or something ?

:/

Maybe some evil jack-booted thug in a costume with a gun?

Myself, I would opt for the not signing as well. But that still doesn't satisfy my curiosity on the significance of red ink.

You mean, some evil jack-booted thug in a costume will put a gun on my head to steal my signature ?

In LAW and in PUBLISHING, RED ink indicates a VOID that must be corrected.

Thanks Scott.

When drafting documents, lawyers will use RED ink to mark where corrections/changes will be. This is referred to as "Bleeding on the draft", in lawyer-speak.

If i am a Man, and i have a PERSON but im not a PERSON and its not my fault, then let them show ME where a Man is required to have a Driver's Licence to travel from point A-to-point B in a thingy-with-wheels-on-it-and-a-steering-wheel

Men are not required to have a driver's license.....

Persons are, and I am DEEMED to "be" a person... :D

Yes.

Do youz lads ever stop? It's brilliant Admiral. Take a break, go aft and tend the tiller, for there you will be in full control.

Admiral. Not Helmsman. That's 4 ranks below me :P

Yup I got that it's all about TRUST.

I've heard it's more about surety and accounting, but I may have missed something :-P

I take your word on anything Captain especially if it has been sanctioned by the Admiral; but, as a lowly crew member with blood red hands from tending to sails all day, it dawned on me how a private company could issue a note that has printed on it: This Note is Legal Tender and then for me the benificiary of this note to be subject the Acts and Statutes of a government that has absolutely nothing to do with this private company. Bear in mind I'm only fit for hoisting and lowering masts and thinking things is not my job and I apologise profusely for wasting your time on such trade wind waffle.

:-o

Pete Men are not required to have a driver's license.....Persons are, and I am DEEMED to "be" a person" Is DEEMED the same as saying PRESUMED?

Nautically, I would say you have missed nothing captain as it would be your job to make sure the tillerman knows the difference between starboard and garboard as the course the Admiral has ordered would need to be rigidly adhered to, as going aground would be futile given that there might be reefs and/or currents that need to be avoided for safe passage; in which case the tillerman needs to be TRUSTED, only saying Sir.

Admirals don't order.

Deemed seems to = REPUTATION :)

I stand corrected Admiral, please accept my apologies.

I seems to have a reputation of being a person.....

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Deem.aspx

value is deemed legal tender

By whom?

two parties in agreement?

Deemed seems to be based on a belief. If I am a party in that agreement I am pretty sure I know my value. Guess it depends on the parties....

And the tool for measurement

Hopefully that tool accurately measures the principal.

Its your choice...

Measure in time, FRNs, Bitcoin...whatever. Your choice

Since free-will is the wild card, then it's up to the principal to define it's value, status and standing as a capable creditor.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Principal.aspx

I suppose the agent acts to my detriment when I fail to properly define the principal and it's value at the OUTSET of a bill, claim, notice, etc. Me thinks that when wannabe creditors fail to define the principal at the outset, the judge then has a FIDUCIARY DUTY to define the principal by claiming it as abandoned property / cargo in need of salvage so it can be moved "back on land" under GENERAL jurisdiction where it can be ACCOUNTED for and DEEMED a collateralized security asset until the wannabe creditor finally mans up and claims the principal. If the principal was just sitting there abandoned at sea or dormant in a warehouse, then it wouldn't be moving between hands. Securitizing it as a unit of measure is a way to keep it warehoused while having something of value to move and exchange at the same time. "money of exchange = good money of account = bad"

So, I am deemed to be a person by the public, this is the REPUTATION I have, for some reasons..... The logical move to this, mistakenly reputation, would be to NOTIFY the public about it.... And to NOTIFY the public, folks usually use the newspaper, it has a section for legal notice in there..... PUBLIC NOTICE. Dear Public, Be advise that I am Pierre, the Man who have the person named PIERRE DAOUST with the inscription number 1196604XXXXXX. And "ME", Pierre, the Man, I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for this PERSON that has the inscription number 1196604XXXXXX. Authorized by: Pierre the Man. :D I really want to pass this on the newspaper, I REALLY think it can help some day :D

Maybe I should add: No new persons can be created from PIERRE DAOUST 1196604XXXXXX, without my authorization. :D

oh yeah!

Hmmmm...I like this a lot. Should be done at the same time a resignation from government service is tendered :)

Yes David-Paul, but no one from the Public wants to tell me if I have a JOB with them, so how can I resign if I don't even have an answer on this ? :-\

And the only proof of resignation is a lien on the person...

Pete Daoust....if you used the SSN here, you have created an employee. That's the presumption.

It says so in the Social Security Act

I think you also create a TAXPAYE TOO,

Great, so PIERRE DAOUST is an employee, but this SIN has been created when PIERRE DAOUST was 16 years old, that was ILLEGAL to do this, at that age, since PIERRE DAOUST was not "MAJORITY" at that time :D

I think that is what we are resigning from...then operate through proxy!!! In trust. :-)

And QUESTIONING on this, was NOT answered... :P

wasn't that something Dean was teaching, to resign by changing your status from resident to non-resident on your SSN/NAS ?

So its in undertakings....fuck em. I am sending a Resignation Letter. It is pretty clearly written here.... :-/

I never APPLIED for a SIN....my parents did. And to complicate things even more they did not use the name of the PERSON. The used the name they gave me when I was baptised which is different than the one that was used at REGISTRATION. The NAME on the SIN account does not legally exist anywhere and yet the CRA keeps sending REQUEST/DEMAND to file

Did you use the account?

Undertakings Chris ? What's this?

Its when a question is posed that isn't answered....they can't compel performance.

UNDERTAKINGS is all over the place, here :D

Yes I filed returns up to 2010...now they CRA is filing what their agents refer to as ARBITRARY returns on behalf of the PERSON that does not exist. Oh that is what undertakings means

So you used the account and never canceled it?

Why have you STOPPED filings, David-Paul Sip ?

Yup Chris when I did not know the difference between Man and a PERSON. Partly because of time and mostly because I've been figuring this shit out Pete...not easy to do with so much free-dumber crap out there.

:-) it was rhetorical to show why they are ADMINISTRATING it for you

I bet they declare you SURETY too....using the BANK ACCOUNT you are storing your time in!

Ok, David-Paul Sip, what have you figured out, to STOP filing ?

I know they are Chris. Can they administrate it on my behalf when I have been attempting to ADMINISTRATE myself by requiring the CRA provide documented proof of any amounts they have claimed I owe? No response there since last September

They don't need to prove the PERSON owe, the PERSON needs to prove it dosen't owe.... :D

Sounds like they are trying to figure it out. :-/

Freeeeduuummmb. :-D

Seems so Chris...who fucking knows. :/ They could have just ignored it but I know they got it. I recognized that the Income Tax Act does not apply to Me, it applies to the PERSON. that I am the ADMINISTRATOR for the PERSON. No longer sure who the fucking BENEFICIARY is though. About that Pete, doesn't the one making the claim also have the burden of proof? I see by the smile this excites you...please tell

:D ....if you want to ADMINISTRATE the person, you have to ADMINISTRATE the person......so you need to FILE an INCOME TAX RETURN for the person, and sign that thing: BY:___________________________ Sole Authorized Administrator for the PERSON. Then, whatever happen, you will keep administrating, if they decide to send a debt to the person, you ADMINISTRATE that debt via the SURETY of the person..... That's what I did these past 2 years, and I am doing it again for 2013. I do al;l this with Honor, respect, dignity and integrity. :P

I have administrated 15k of public debt so far with CRA and QRA, and NO RESISTANCE AT ALL....nothing, nada, none a fucking SOUND....

Did you tell them that you know Scott Duncan? :-)

If ever CRA and QRA, dosen't like the way I administrate, I guess they will let me know ? :D

Absolutely correct Pete. So if the PERSON has received no verifiable INCOME but the MAN has received a WAGE in exchange for his time and effort then all I need do is disclose that there was no INCOME

Then they will have to show up with some PROOF :P :D

Lol! So the only time a wage is considered as INCOME/gain is when the SSN is used :D

They will certainly say that it's impossible for the PERSON, to "live" without an INCOME.......so they will arbitraly invent one for the person......let them do that, it dosen't matter,

The IMPORTANT part is: ADMINISTRATE THESE PUBLIC DEBT, don't just let them be without ADMINISTRATION.... :P

"they will arbitraly invent one for the person" That's has been my concern. All based on the previous years return in my case 2010. Then they administrate on behalf of the PERSON without my consent and claim that I filed the return. I fucking love that word ARBITRARY = on a whim. Yes I am getting that part Pete

The TRUTH is "YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR DUTY" .....do what needs to be done..... :P

If you don't TAKE CARE of your stuff, someone else will, and that's EXACTLY what happened :D

Yes my DUTY as an ADMINISTRATOR. Exactly. So how does one ADMINISTRATE a situation when the SSN has been used and one does not file a return when they got their $$$ but file an ARBITRARY return and claim more is owed? Nevermind...FILE an INCOME TAX RETURN.

You can Always send them a Notice-of-I-have-Found-The-Light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel ! :/ Dear CRA, Recently, I have found the light at the end of the tunnel, and I KNOW who I am now. I am the SOLE authorized Administrator for the person named so and so.... Please send ALL outstanding debts owed by the PERSON I happen to be the SOLE authorized Administrator of, and I will ADMINISTRATE these PUBLIC debts at speed of light. If I sound confused these past year, I ask for foregiveness, but this LEGAL system is one heck of a puzzle to put together. Thank You !! Paul, the MAN who found the light at the end of the tunnel, and SOLE authorized Administrator for so and so. :D

I am pretty sure that once you resign, the SS Account is only for pass through filings. At least that is how I see it

Do you Kanucks have pass through taxation? Here, it is an LLC or an S-Corp. Do you guys have these entities?

No Chris we don't and a Canadian PERSON should not be a member/partner in an LLC if they do any business stateside unless double taxation is the objective

"I bet they declare you SURETY too....using the BANK ACCOUNT you are storing your time in!" I will also need to send a NOTICE OF MISTAKE since as Chris pointed out they will DEEM me to be surety through the BANK ACCOUNT. Fuck, no surprise here, I need to clean up some shit stains!

Who's bank account you are speaking of ? :/

Mine errr should I say the PERSON's?

Of course !!..

So as long as you use the SIN they got you by the balls Pete? And anything you claim on that return you must be able verify i.e. keep all receipts etc?

You have NOTHING, David-Paul Sip, but you can control EVERYTHING.....it's up to you to figure that out :)

I don't USE the SIN, I administrate the SIN.... :P

David-Paul, the ONLY thing you can do, is ADMINISTRATE......that's ALL

"you can control EVERYTHING.....it's up to you to figure that out" Lol, Merci! Right...not USE, ADMINISTRATE...important distinction Pete! OMG! I am very familiar with this. I CONTROL many entities so this is the same shit :D I love this stuff!

I can hear your brain connecting dots, from my kitchen table, David-Paul Sip :D

Key things to ALWAYS keep in mind, when I administrate: 1). Good Faith 2). Honor 3). Respect 4). Integrity 5). Dignity 6). UNDERTAKINGS :D 7). The TRUTH. Good Luck !!! :D

So even if one resigns from government service Pete FILING an INCOME TAX RETURN and then ADMINISTRATING the SSN will always be required as long as the account remains open?

No....if you lien the person, everything seems to FREEZE, check that out with Scott Duncan.....I haven't chose thi path, for now.... :)

Listen to Pete Daoust. Lien the name when you RESIGN.

ONLY do that when you KNOW WHO YOU ARE, or end up in jail.

Much more work/reading to do here but the path is becoming clearer. Pleasure being onboard Admiral et mon Capitain

I see it more as, a little bit more work/reading to do here, and a LOT TO "THINK"..... :D

Here is the really basic facts about this� I was born. A person has been created 16 days after my birth. I haven�t gave my consent. I haven�t signed. I haven't ASKED for it. I haven�t been explained. I�ve been misled into BELIEFS. I�ve been told that I �WAS� that person. A "reputation" has been formed about me being the person. So I was "deemed" to be that PERSON :D No one never taught me the TRUTH about �Having� that person. That person just been delivered in my pocket. The truth is I �have� that person, and I am its SOLE authorized Administrator. It�s the same as if the government would have dropped a $100 bill in my pocket, without saying anything, and I wake up one day and find this $100 bill in my pocket, I would certainly do whatever I want with it, as long as it�s LEGAL, :D And then, Scott Duncan SHOWED up :D with the TRUTH :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

In general, after giving notice (in good faith) to correct mistakes I've made under the presumption that I'm employed by the government, and after undertaking, I have to issue a Bill and establish myself the authority (author of the bill) before I can lawfully administrate the PERSON to lien something up for the value of the principal (me) defined in the Bill, no? I know I'm missing something (besides a few braincells.).

No....keep reading.

Bill who?

:D

Who said something about LAWFULLY administrate the person ? :/

I miss Bill the cat.

I actually have one!

Once I've corrected the mistakes and fraud by claiming the principal, why wouldn't I bill somebody who is fraudulently administrating my principal via the PERSON?

Los Blanc, you aren't billing a PERSON, that's why. You can't bill a trust.

Less speak. More Read.

What is this "principal" shit ? :/

It's like they FIGHT to protect their bullshit.

Los Blanc, you need to define PRINCIPAL for little peter.... :D , and WHY you would want to claim that thing :D

Seriously, if you want to circle-jerk to clubhouse rules for a club you ARE NOT PART OF, then go find Derek Moran and circle-jerk with him.

Pete, the principal is the one who authorizes an agent to purchase and liquidate assets, and to raise funds by using the principal�s assets as loan collateral. http://thelawdictionary.org/mercantile-agent/ The principal is also the party of authority in a business relationship. http://thelawdictionary.org/principal-2/ In order to be recognized as the party of authority, the principal must be defined from the OUTSET (of a bill, claim, notice, etc.) otherwise the identity of the party of authority is unclear by defect of expression, making the correct jurisdiction over the principal equally unclear. http://thelawdictionary.org/principal/

OK, this is the last time I'm telling you. Less speak, More read.

The request for the definition was MAKING FUN OF YOU. HE WASN'T ASKING!

Yer right, he wasn't asking. "Los Blanc, you need to define PRINCIPAL for little pete" is an order from little pete, the party of authority. So, fuck it, I figured he was handing out hall-passes despite orders under Captain Duncan that I get back to swabbing the shitters (between my ears). Shame on you, 1st Lieutenant Pete. :P

That reading thing is gonna help you not get banned.... Just saying.

Oh, I thought the "PRINCIPAL" was the SUM of a DEBT, and I thought claiming such a thing would be a stupid thing to do..... :D Here, I have learned that if you are going to CLAIM anything, claim the fucking VALUE of the thing :P But hey, I might be all fucked up !!! :D

As far as "ME" claiming any AUTHORITY, I really don't see the necessity of doing this, because that is something I ALREADY "HAVE", unless another person dare to say otherwise.... :P , so I don't CLAIM being the SOLE authorized Administrator, I just ANNOUNCE it :D

ANNOUCE as in INFORM, TELL, ADVISE, AFFIRM, COMMUNICATE, ... Ya know ??.... :D

If I am NOT what I announce, I am pretty sure someone will INFORM, TELL, ADVISE, AFFIRM, COMMUNICATE, ...to me that I am wrong ? :D ....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!.... :P

Show me the chains! :D

:D

Captain Pete, you have dumbed down the administration of the person to such a level, that whoever does not get it MUST be borderline retarded. If it is not simple, we are doing it wrong!

Anyone who have this need of CLAIMING authority, is in fact filled with beliefs and guilt, and should apply for a cop's position.... :-P

:D

Fucking cops...they like to PRESUME and DEEM lots of shit but that's a matter for another day

Exactly, pete. Like I said, "the party of authority must be defined from the OUTSET (of a bill, claim, notice, etc.) You don't say, "I claim I'm the shit." You say "I, the shit; sole authorized administrator of _____________, hereby claim, or give notice, or bill or authorize or whatever, depending on the affair before you. I know that's not so difficult for you to grasp, Mackximus Minimus.

^^^ I'll take everybody's silence as agreement that I have a shitty principal. :D

That is NOT what you said, you said this..... Once I've corrected the mistakes and fraud by claiming the principal, why wouldn't I bill somebody who is fraudulently administrating my principal via the PERSON?

Harry Frankfurt ON BULLSHIT http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

You do NOT correct a fucking mistake by CLAIMING a fucking debt, you correct a fucking mistake by asking for foregivness.....now just shut up please....

Ah yes, Pete, you're correct, however, before you corrected me, I ALSO later said, "In order to be recognized as the party of authority, the principal must be defined from the OUTSET (of a bill, claim, notice, etc.) otherwise the identity of the party of authority is unclear by defect of expression, making the correct jurisdiction over the principal equally unclear." that was your second strike....THEN I said, "Exactly, pete. Like I said, "the party of authority must be defined from the OUTSET (of a bill, claim, notice, etc.) You don't say, "I claim I'm the shit." You say "I, the shit; sole authorized administrator of _____________, hereby claim, or give notice, or bill or authorize or whatever, depending on the affair before you. Third strike....y'all agreed, I'm the shit. What's the controversy?

Los I-dont-shut-the-fuck-up?

Yeah, I do have some shitty principals. ;)

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT WHATEVER THEY WANT TO RECOGNIZE OR NOT....what the fuck is going on with you ? :-(

Ok, the word PRINCIPAL just got banned from this group, the next idiot who use it, is banned....

I can't say "notice to principal is notice to agent"?

I am dealing with PUBLIC SERVANTS for fuck sakes, they have 2 choices... 1). Do what I wish, because it's LEGAL. 2). Breach the fucking TRUST This AUTHORITY bullshit recognition shit, is simply STUPID.... Fuck and fuck :(

NO YOU CAN'T....... ?

"notice to principal is notice to agent"...ANOTHER FUCKING STUPIDITY..... NOTICE TO CRA IS FUCKING NOTICE TO CRA......fuck :P

It's like they WANT to pile extra shit on the simple things. I just don't understand. As near as I can tell, all of you LIKE being stupid. You'll add this shit to VERY SIMPLE THINGS so you can AVOID knowledge and create complexity that you can then ignore, because it's "too hard"... ...am I close here?

:D

so desperate to try and sound smart makes complete fool of oneself

I don't have this problem :D

You would have had to ban yourself

No, I wouldn't even be an administrator here.... :P

What ? :/

I was born. A person has been created 16 days after my birth. I haven�t gave my consent. I haven�t signed. I haven't ASKED for it. I haven�t been explained. I�ve been misled into BELIEFS. I�ve been told that I �WAS� that person. A "reputation" has been formed about me being the person. So I was "deemed" to be that PERSON No one never taught me the TRUTH about �Having� that person. That person just been delivered in my pocket. The truth is I �have� that person, and I am its SOLE authorized Administrator. It�s the same as if the government would have dropped a $100 bill in my pocket, without saying anything, and I wake up one day and find this $100 bill in my pocket, I would certainly do whatever I want with it, as long as it�s LEGAL, And then, Scott Duncan SHOWED up with the TRUTH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I just love that.:)

pete, a man; sole authorized administrator of PETE DOAUST, notices that he; DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT WHATEVER THEY WANT TO RECOGNIZE OR NOT. Awesome, nobody has to recognize you, I agree. But since i recognize you, pete, i recognize I misspoke, you're correct......I should've said: In order to DISTINGUISH yourself as the no-bullshit-havin-badass-lady-slaying-stud you are, it's best done at the OUTSET when you're born, or perhaps when you're 16 (and if not then, now will do because you're competent and have the self respect and integrity to administrate your affairs with all the ladies, Pete.). At least we can agree we don't give two shits WHAT the fuckin party of authority is called so long as it's distinguished correctly without fraud, at the OUTSET. If LOS BLANC is addressed with some mail from a Utility, I look for the party of authority at the beginning of the document. If it's not clearly defined, I send notice of my requirement that it be properly defined so I can administrate the shit correctly to the proper party. If they fail to define who "my" PERSON owes, then it's possible they're perpetrating fraud, intentionally or by mistake, while attempting to make "my" PERSON an accessory to it.

What the fuck is this guy's talking about ? :-(

Why don't you just shut up ?

Don't annoy the Captain or there might be a keel-haulin..

"Why don't you just shut up ?" That'd be a lot easier to do if you'd stop addressing questions to me, Captain. What you want, Pete, a mute? Then address my PERSON, it wont talk back to you, I promise. :D You can TRUST it.

I have a MUTE, let me show you :D :D :D

See ? :D

HAHAHAHA!!! :D

I am sure the party with AUTHORITY is pretty clear for you now, Lost Blanc :D

Los Blanc some unsolicited wisdom for you, the information you can learn here is beyond what you are able to fully comprehend at the moment. You can continue to allow your programming to "defend" yourself with a result of little value to you, or you can read the information posted, open up to learning, and recognize that specific words are used for a reason, that may be beyond your grasp at this moment, but will make sense as you learn. It all comes down to a choice for you, either you are here to learn something that you don't know, or you are here to defend what you think you know. One perspective will benefit you greatly, the other will keep you in the present holding pattern. Up to you. :)

He got banned Gail Marie.....

Oh ok..maybe it will benefit others :)

Or maybe not.. :-D

Were doing good! We are filtering out the unteachable, and the rest, I'm going to arm with the deadliest of legal weapons. ...coming soon ;)

:D

We need to weed out the `Tards first, then the group goes "secret" again... JUST like we did before NOTICE OF MISTAKE. They don't get to ignore this one ;)

The Admiral aims to misbehave!

I want angry people. I have no use for angry stupid people (Yes I'm talkin' about Derek Hill), so if you're wondering why Pete has so much latitude with that BAN hammer, that's why. ;)

Fuck am I pissed!!! :)

I can be angry. And I will do my best not to be stupid.

You're lucky Adrian. I was born stupid but I'm good at scraping barnacles off a moving hull, so here's hoping when the pen is wielded.

Don't be pissed Jo Xappie, be angry :-D

They should put birth control in Grape kool-aid.

I am angry, however I know i've been stupid too. I want to learn so much more and the right way. Thank you for this post Lee as I am due for a new drivers license and reading all these posts have helped tremendously (and showed more how much I need to learn! ) Going back to reading now!

The deadliest of legal weapons :D .....can't wait to try that new toy :D

"I have a MUTE, let me show you"....Fucking ROTFL! :D Man I didn't expect there to be so much humour here. The past 72 hours have been a fuckin riot Pete. In stitches and tears laughing. Ribs hurt but that's probably because they're still healing.

Ya and the next time I give ya a thumping David-Paul Sip, it'll take twice as long.

:)

Yah thanks, caught that Kent :) I'll be ready for ya Gerry ;)

And it's free !!... David-Paul :-)

Pete Daoust what's the difference between pissed and angry?

Pissed is when you're out of urine, angry is when you're mad :/

The Tender for Law's progress, in images........at exactly 24 seconds, it's ME realizing SURETY :D https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152038902302816

I think pissed can also mean David Grant. In some dialects of English. Is this correct Eamonn?

<I see it more as, a little bit more work/reading to do here, and a LOT TO "THINK"> Wholey fuck Pete, you were so right there. Lots of thinking last night. Many more questions but later so I can reduce them to the essentials.

Come on David-Paul Sip, throw us ONE simple question, on this beautiful SUNDAY morning......let it rip, come on :D

Come on, It father's day Captain Pete! :D My brain is hurting from all the new neural pathways being formed ;/ Shit okay, simple one then...forgive me in advance if I do not reply right away. I have read many examples where folks have given NOTICE of their ADMINISTRATION fees/"fee schedule" when settling any CLAIMS for the PERSON. I have done the same previously with the CRA in the matter of an HST account (that's another story which will make for a great thread on its own) Can/should the same be done with respect to FILING an INCOME TAX RETURN?

Father's day ?? :/

Everyday is Father's day in here :(

Pissed = Very drunk... :D

Can/should the same be done with respect to FILING an INCOME TAX RETURN? .....I don't see any reasons why it couldn't !! I never done it, so far.....But I am planning to do it..... I suggest to start with the most SIMPLE way, at the beginning, you'll figure out what to do on your way, ALWAYS act in GOOD FAITH......ALWAYS' ALWAYS' ALWAYS......that's the key, so if you ask this question, it's because you are not sure for NOW, one day you will have YOUR answer on it ;)

Maybe CRA has this answer for you ? :D Hey, CRA, I was thinking about sending you an invoice concerning all this TIME I have to spend on these filing thing, and since I am using MY time on something that is NOT mine, I was wondering how much I could charge, for MY time......do you have a COMPENSATION plan already ESTABLISHED for "me" ? .....Dear CRA ? ... :D Now, that is big time GOOD FAITH, David-Paul Sip :)

If you catch this "Good Faith" thing, you will rock as an ADMINISTRATOR :)

ANY questions you pose in this group, can be pose to them :-D think about it :-D

I love this Pete...I asked this question because I want to separate any previous efforts from the Feee-dumb bullshit out there. I done a lot of homework and research so I recognize there is a chance I may make mistakes because I may think wrong due to wrong programming.

What follows is not the whole story Pete but in my ADMINISTRATION of the HST ACCOUNT the CRA was given NOTICE that I require $500/hr and estimate 30 hours annually to ADMINISTRATE and provide TAX COLLECTION SERVICE. CRA was sent an invoice for services rendered. After sending CRA numerous INVOICE, CRA then escalated matter to COMMISSIONER of APPEALS. I DECLINED the offer to APPEAL (understanding it as an attempt to regain jurisdiction) and sent COMMISSIONER copy of the INVOICE. I followed up with NOTICE of DEFAULT and REQUEST to CURE. I have not heard a peep since August 2013

Hey, here is my next question for the Government :D Dear FINANCE guy, I intent of LIENING the person named PIERRE DAOUST 1196604XXXXXX using a HOLDING CORP., so my question is, is this will have ANY positive and/or negative effects for the Government ? I know for me, the man that has this person, it could be good.....but I wonder how could this affect you ? Thanks Pierre. Sole Authorized Administrator for PIERRE DAOUST, the person

They might take the person from me, if I send something like that ? :( Scott, is this a good idea ? :D

Scott Duncan, said "LEGAL WEAPON" yesterday, just before I went to sleep, so I thought about it all night, in my sleep, while Ceit Butler was busy with this programming stuff :P

And you guys ALL know me, when that brain starts boiling.... :D

Yup...Eamonn. That's what I thought

"so my question is, is this will have ANY positive and/or negative effects for the Government ?" Yeah I'm not sure I would ask them that last question. I realize this is GOOD FAITH and it would not hurt but I would be surprised if they respond. I truly really don't care. If they did respond Pete and begged you to stop would that change your decision to lien the PERSON?

Maybe !! :D

It always come back to the same thing, David-Paul Sip, these are PUBLIC SERVANTS, who have an OATH on telling me the truth.....if they don't, they are BREACHING the trust.....and so far, they are ALL in "breach of trust". AND IT'S NOT MY FAULT :P

That is why the PUBLIC SERVANT retards choose to remain silent. They know what they say can also be used against them. And if they don't answer (I recall this being UNDERTAKINGS) that's okay too because when PUBLIC SERVANTS AQUIESCE it makes ADMINISTRATION very easy :)

:D

Your comments on the use of "RED INK" Scott, reminded me of something else this Peter from Privatis.me has talked about before. "Putting a RED-BOX around it," as he has put it. With the use of a RED-marker, in combination somehow with the use of the FOUR CORNERS RULE he has talked about the effectiveness of 'framing' the inside of the borders with a thick marker in RED-ink for any sort of B.S. Notice one may get from the Government, etc. before you send it back to the sender. Unfortunately- he has never really explained WHY this would be effective, as he seems to use it as a lure to get people to go pay to join his site to learn more about it. Is there anything to this 'RED BOX' method, Scott? DEEMED = in the absence of any evidence to the contrary

Yes and no. Adding shit to SIMPLE shit is just stupid. If you code, like you think, perhaps this group is for you: http://www.ioccc.org/

So, is there "anything to it"? Not that will be discussed here!

There's always an answer in computer science. :D

All of that code "works", but it's stupid, wasteful, and consumes FAR more time than necessary. The people you sign in front of, don't have a clue about your "magic red box".

Is there a point in the future, where the entites who have all this "debt currency" have to fear? Where the debt gets called in? All this fiat currency in circulation who owns it? What would the consequence of trying to settle this debt be?

my programming is very fearful of those questions

China will show the US an example of what happens. ;)

Will they have a legal justification for war or much worse?

I clearly did not understand the answer to my question

Is it possible that America will offer the LEGAL PERSON as collateral??

They can foreclose, and seize the assets! (Duuuuh!)

War would only occur if the `Murikans breached the contract.

Who does Canada owe it's debts to?

Chartered Banks.

Ok... so ultimately who is responsible for the debt that fiat currency represents? Tell me at any time if I should shut up

YOU are.

Whether it's MONEY of account or money of exchange ? The PERSON or the MAN? SO if China called in the debt and my only tangible asset is my labour. ...

This is the real reason behind resigning and declining legal tender?

When the shit will hit the fan, ALL persons will be SHIT....:-D

Wow .... they have us freaking programmed that you literally deny it while staring it in the face..... these fucking arsehole are claiming ownership of PERSON s

And the SHIT will hit the fan :-P

The way the US financial system and even Global is set up, "Citizens" have been completely sold out. What makes it even worse is 99% of these people have no fucking clue. As long as they have cable TV, a car and McFattasses they don't care.

"McFattasses" how could you not love this site.

What site? I was talking about McDonalds.. Just what I call it...

it's the first time I heard that phrase Jason, and I heard it on here.

Oops read it.

This site is loaded with: McDumbfucks, McJesus and McGenius etc. I use of the "Mc" tag to attach those who constitutionally cannot think or act for themselves. Unfortunately, I feel this type of competitive banter could be understood as a type of "Text 'Tard�". My response could land me in fucking sensitivity training & anger management again.

I wish I could scrape users IP from facebook. I would have a field day locating & exterminating McMorons.

Good man Jason let it all out.

You don't need a license or permit to hunt & kill Attornies. Season is open 24x7x365. It is my understanding that Attornies are a form of primate.