My third insightful critique: you do not start the top of the document with the name of your rapist. It implies is THEIR stuff, playing by THEIR rules.
My tenth insightful critique: if you choose to administrate this matter at court (and do not have a private trust), your capacity must be of SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the LEGAL NAME. Anything other than that CAPACITY, may put you in a vulnerable position, like presumed surety.
Another thread I will probably copy and save into a file. I appreciate it. Before coming here, I was aware of "some" stuff (anytime I see or hear any reference to the "constitution", the hair on my neck stood up - to me, a red flag), but as I gradually get through the info here, I am realizing that some of my previous communication(s) may have to be re-done/re-written. Not the first time I've done stuff incorrectly. Just as long as I don't make the same freakin' mistakes, it's all good.
Michael Lamb II, and all the newbies, if not acting completely under a private trust, the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR is the other most reasonable position to assume. Do not label yourself anything else. OK?
If all it's surety, and accounting, as the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR: we can't be surety, we have PROOF of who is surety, we know were the surety is, we know what to give in consideration to settle the accounting, we know how to give instructions via notices to administrate all this.
Got it?
Got it. Some of us are "not quite there" yet. I've always had the proper mindset (all of it makes sense to me), but that is useless if you can't APPLY it into your public and private affairs. That trust thing is critical, but my studies and knowledge on TRUSTS is zip. Hopefully, I can catch up with you'all... after a couple years (preferably sooner).
Read AND - unlike that "I, ignorant Registered Agent of Her Majesty" - ASK QUESTIONS ! ALWAYS negate UNDERSTANDING ESPECIALLY if you believe you UNDERSTAND AND until you can PROVE what you say because you speak FACTS ! You'll learn much faster that way !
Believing you know something may be comfortable but SURE IS DANGEROUS.
(See Original Post - this kind of freedumb bullshit is a ticket to benchwarming a seat in a cage)
was this a test? i only got to 4) before it started to hurt enough to skip to the comments. Max, i see you closed with the lost and/or un named 11th insight.
have you read james redfield?
there is very little we have that is original thought, if any. YOU blended eloquently aswell as drew out just enough that some of the 'new' attendees might start to crack out of a shell layer of brainwashing freemannery.
except Javier Alfredo Villela. he will still fight the argument. he wasted too much effort writing. he BELIEVES too much hogwash truth.
You will also piss me off.
People who attribute documents where they changed the words to sound "cooler/smarter" than me, deserve to rot in a cage.
I choose the words I do for a REASON, and NONE of you are qualified to write a shopping list, muchess a Legal Document.
From our past observations and experiences over the past few years we are fully aware that what Scott writes and posts is the 'Gospels According to the Truth' and are not to be changed.
i just figured out that word 'of' actually means to exclude, so I think i'm down to not even having enough vocabulary knowledge to get past two letter words yet.
Now Scott, having said the above we now enquire if or whether the 'LETTER ROGATORY FOR RELIEF' complements the 'NOTICE OF MISTAKE' or does the 'LETTER ROGATORY FOR RELIEF' stand alone?
i think that's why i couldn't get past 4), because i said (to myself as it caught up with me) that there were atleast 2 if not more un-relative things being overlapped within the composition. (is it a notice AND a dorogatory, plus whatelse?) and then i had convulsions.
Kent, in response to your comment (8 hrs ago), I have no intention of "changing" anything that is shared here by Scott. You are correct, I should have looked up that particular word. Why I am so cautious now and researching everything is because I have discovered that I have been using certain words incorrectly. So, since I am aware of those errors, I will now choose to correct my mistakes. I may be ignorant and my lawful use of words/terms sucks, but I am very receptive to constructive feedback and acting upon it. Probably why I have not been put in a "cage".
There is a formula to writing a legal document. I don't just mean STYLE but content as well. Scott is a computer scientists. He's showing you the rules at play. What you do with them is on you. THAT'S WHY!
I couldn't read this...reeeked of Free-Dumb bullshit. Started to hurt my brain. I knew there would be more value in the comments. Great critiques Mackximus Minimus!
Free dumber proves he doesn't know shit and shit and makes a fool of himself on the public record and further causes detriment to anyone trying to remove joinder from themselves and no longer live under threat of violence
In regards to this:
Now Scott, having said the above we now enquire if or whether the 'LETTER ROGATORY FOR RELIEF' complements the 'NOTICE OF MISTAKE' or does the 'LETTER ROGATORY FOR RELIEF' stand alone?
LETTER ROGATORY are for COURTS of different jurisdiction.
Pro Se Defendants may OFFER FOR APPEAL any EVIDENCE they choose. This REQUIRES the court to INCLUDE a LETTER ROGATORY, to have the APPEALS court ACCEPT it from their jurisdiction.
This creates JOINDER between SURETIES. It has NOTHING to do with you, and unless you find yourself ACTING as a JUDGE in a COURT, a 'LETTER ROGATORY' should never enter into your life.