:-)

"NOWHERE does it say the GOVERNMENT has the right to "SECURE THE PERSON"" But they did...??

Hmmmm....this whole "everything Hitler did was legal" is very clear now.

Indeed.

YOU ARE NOT A PERSON. You HAVE a PERSON. This was NOT a choice you made, and it's not your FAULT! :P

So cute :D

Who ?...me ?? :-o

No i didn't mentioned you... Scott Duncan post is cute not you :P

:-(

:-D

The first thing I have done this morning, was reading this post, and I really like it when Scott Duncan pond an article like this, while I am still sleeping, and lots of qualifiers came to my mind after reading this article, and I have to say, "cute" never crossed my mind :D But I KNOW why it crossed yours... :P

Pete, do you need someone to call you "cute"? :D

"NOWHERE does it say the GOVERNMENT has the right to "SECURE THE PERSON". YOU DECIDE what happens to your person..." Is the answer on how we "SECURE the PERSON" already in your PROPER NOTICE article, Scott?

Part of it, yes.

Why is it "your" person? What role did you play in creating it?

Is part of the answer also making the 'Affidavit of Affirmation,' you have discussed?

Affidavit OR Affirmation. That was something Derek Moran messed up that was a stainshit.

At no time have I discussed an "affidavit of affirmation". You are lying now Chip Douglas and it is time to shut up.

Sorry to say, but when I hear 'Affidavit of Affirmation,' ....it sounds like a "bananas of a bananas" in my head :D

That's because it's exactly that. It is bullshit.

Ladies and Gentlemen, DO NOT ATTRIBUTE MY NAME TO BULLSHIT. It's NOT an "honest mistake". IT IS A LIE.

"Chris Evan Affidavit OR Affirmation." Ok, got it.

The fact that you are committing LIES to memory, means you are UNTEACHABLE. This is also why I don't let anyone who thinks they are "experts" speak.

It is your RIGHT to believe all the lies you like. It is NOT your right to attribute them to ME.

Scott Duncan....that was a Derek Moran lie...Chip just didn't catch it yet

"Using the LAW dictionary of your choice, you will find that "INDIVIDUAL" is distinctly a "PRIVATE orNATURAL PERSON" (One OR the other! NO LIABILITY or FULL LIABILITY), and the LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS JURISDICTION." What the fuck! When ATTORN is considered with HABEUS CORPUS this makes complete sense. The LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS JURISDICTION over MAN! The only role of the ATTORNEY GENERAL is to hand a MAN (the body), which they have claimed jurisdiction over, to the GOVERNMENT so that the government has its SURETY for the NAME/PERSON that they created in their JURISDICTION. Yeah! They both make money so this must be a win-win. :/

If you are paying attention to things like "critical thought", then these thing "catch" themselves.

David-Paul Sip gets it.

Seriously. Read what he just wrote. It couldn't be clearer. He REALLY gets it.

So this is how they have fucked ALL of us Admiral :O One will NEVER find mention of MAN (or WOMAN) in any ACT/STATUTE anywhere. Why? Because as I recall there is a MAXIM of LAW that states the "CREATED can't have AUTHORITY over the CREATOR" (paraphrasing) and acts/statutes were created by MAN.

The GOVERNMENT has left that to the LAW SOCIETY to CLAIM so the GOVERNMENT can CLAIM its "hands are clean". The GOVERNMENT only has AUTHORITY over the NAME/PERSON. The GOVERNMENT has NEVER claimed AUTHORITY over MAN. The GOVERNMENT KNOWS about the DECEPTION but ALLOWS it to persist because they NEVER claimed authority over MAN (plausible deniability) so it's not their problem. The government has left the "dirty work" to the LAW SOCIETY.

So it's maybe time for us, men, to CLAIM authority over the Government (the person) ? :D ....I did that, several times so far... :/

In court a few weeks back a Justice said this " I have jurisdiction over everything that walks on 2 feet"

If you ACCEPT surety for the NAME/PERSON then that is your choice. They did not "force" you to (other than using COERCION, THREAT, AND DURESS if you do not ACCEPT). You are PRESUMED to know the law and it IS NOT the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT? Mother Fuckers.

" I have jurisdiction over everything that walks on 2 feet" Me: GREAT MISTER, so I am YOUR slave, please throw these chains at me so I can put these chains around my neck.....(and then, I would have sat down and shut it up :P )

You see Chris Evan, what that asswhole told you was: I OWN YOU....period.

You are a piece of meat Chris Evan, owned by that asshole, go get these transcripts or audio......you have your answer Chris, you are a slave, and it has been said PUBLICLY.....

* meat, sorry :D

WHO was there with you, Chris ? You have the ULTIMATE answer I am seeking for 2 years now......this is EXACTLY the "WHY" I am here, everyday, this is the answer I seek... YOU HAVE IT......lucky bastard :D So, I would address ALL communication like this Signed by: SLAVE NUMBER 119XXXXXXXXXX Owned by: (what was his name again ? ) :D and I would include a copy of the transcript/audio, or an AFFIRMATION from those who heard it PUBLICLY. That is EXACTLY what I would do.....

Fuck it.... :P

And you should send a NOTICE to that SLAVE owner, who OWNS you, and ASK him what to do everyday, and transfer EVERYTHING you own to him.....EVERYTHING.....get his NAME and Registration and all info you need......GIVE HIM EVERYTHING, you are HIS FUCKING SLAVE... :D

Good job Chris Evan :)

How does it feel, being PUBLICLY declared a SLAVE, and KNOWING who is your slave owner ? :)

This article has my mind running Admiral Scott . I am stepping away for a few hours but I leave with this: If the LAW SOCIETY has CLAIMED JURISDICTION over MAN then shouldn't they be SURETY? If I were to answer my own question this would explain why the ONLY role of the ATTORNEY is to hand over MAN into the GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION....to AVOID and DEFLECT SURETY from themselves lest they FAIL to do so.

This article has my mind running!: Yes, :D

You're on a roll, David-Paul Sip!

The next question I have concerns the oaths of these Attorneys/Justices a.k.a. fucking members of the Law Society. How many oaths have they sworn (ie to the LAW SOCIETY and The QUEEN)? Are they not serving more than one MASTER (I recall this being double minded) if so? Can anyone serve more than one master?

The Law Society has no oath to the queen.

The law society have an oath to the law society :-D

And most of us, instead of saying, Hey Queen, please kill these bastards, we are blaming the Queen :-D

Next time you hear someone say: Ha the fucking Queen, ask him/her, WHY you say that ? and prepare yourself for some deep stupidness.... :-D

Pirates took over, and no Privateers are showing up, well, no enough... :-\

Collapsing banks and war seems to be the only alternative :-D

Share please !! :-D

:-D

I know what you mean....that led thing happened in my brain a year ago.... :-)

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN....

typo: "ALL FAMERS ARE HUMAN, BUT NOT ALL HUMANS ARE FARMERS"

"every INFANT MEMBER of the species" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701

I will rephrase Admiral Scott...do these members of the Law Society a.k.a. Attorneys/Justices only have an oath to the Law Society? Or do they also swear an oath to the Queen when they agree to ACT as a JUSTICE or CROWN ATTORNEY or ATTORNEY GENERAL?

David-Paul Sip "The GOVERNMENT has left that to the LAW SOCIETY to CLAIM so the GOVERNMENT can CLAIM its "hands are clean". The GOVERNMENT only has AUTHORITY over the NAME/PERSON. The GOVERNMENT has NEVER claimed AUTHORITY over MAN. The GOVERNMENT KNOWS about the DECEPTION but ALLOWS it to persist because they NEVER claimed authority over MAN (plausible deniability) so it's not their problem. The government has left the "dirty work" to the LAW SOCIETY." If a man disputes this jurisdiction though, how can they prove that it applies? I wonder how a man would pre-emptively dispute that claim?

That's sound advice Joelle Spirit, but I am sure that there will come a time for all of us, when we can't. I'm wanting to learn all that I can between this day and that.

They can't prove the JURISDICTION applies Adrian. That's when they become BELLIGERENT and resort to COERCION, THREATS, and DURESS to get you to COMPLY and ACCEPT SURETY. As Admiral Scott mentioned in the article the proof the COURT offers is the AUTHORITY based "because I said so".

in addition to the fact that these puppets are supported by other PLAYERS; judges, officers, and so on. They are all on the same freakin' team.

One way to pre-emptively dispute the CLAIM of JURISDICTION is the NOTICE of MISTAKE. Do not allow them to PRESUME or DEEM you to be anything. FUCK them! Then there are these questions and I quote the following from the article: "what evidence does this court have that I have any SURETY in this matter?", and "by what authority does this court attach ANY name derived from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT to me?". These two questions effectively remove any LEGAL PRESUMPTION as regards the NAME.

Correct David-Paul. They have perfected the art of bull dozing bogus paperwork in an attempt to annihilate those who are truly in honor.

The NOTICE of MISTAKE, as I understand it, is to dispute the PERSON and who actually owns it (SURETY). What I am now trying to wrap my head around is your insight posted above on the LAW SOCIETY and the claim on the MAN.

It appears to me, at this point at least since I am just getting started thinking on this, that the NOTICE of MISTAKE is only half the armor we would need. We would need to figure out something to counter the claim on the jurisdiction by the LAW SOCIETY over the man as well.

Correct, there are multiple layers. Sure, you can have your NOTICE of MISTAKE on public record etc. But have you countered their CLAIM or PRESUMPTION of where you RESIDE? If you administrate your affairs "in so and so city", you are publicly saying that you are IN their JURISDICTION. All of this crap is make believe; CITIES, STATES, TERRITORIES, COUNTIES, PRECINCTS, even COUNTRIES (BORDERS). This a freakin' piece of rock floating in space. NO other being has OWNERSHIP of the EARTH. But those with power, weapons, etc. POSSESS what they want and DICTATE to the servants.

...unless you "RESIGN'

Adrian Thomson, being the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR is your answer, forget about the word MAN, ACTING as the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR is one key here......WHO CAN OBJECT to this ? :) I hope one day, a LAWYER will object to this, in regards of ME vs PIERRE DAOUST. :P

Pete Daoust, SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the person in my wallet is certainly a huge step forward for me. Both in my daily life and more importantly in my mind. Having said that though, it is clear from other threads and discussions on TT4L, that this will only carry us so far... If there is a way to set up a Jurisdiction of my own.... :(

You may be better off joining Scott's navy.

The LAW SOCIETY can CLAIM whatever the FUCK they want Adrian Thomson...I DO NOT CARE. Just because they say something does not make it so. "All men are equal before the law" (a Maxim of Law if my memory serves me). Did the LAW SOCIETY create MAN? Did they LAW SOCIETY create me? Where they in bed with my parents when I was conceived? If they did not create ME than how can they OWN me (the CREATOR = the OWNER of that THING)? It is their CLAIM to prove and they can NEVER prove such a thing. All they can offer is "because I said so" so FUCK THEM!

Same ol' crap for the last couple centuries...

David-Paul Sip I know that a claim can be made, and that it can be disputed, and that it will not stand if it cannot be proven... Where I was attempting to go with that line of thinking was towards something like the NOTICE of MISTAKE, except pertaining to jurisdiction over the man. Please forgive me if I have not articulated this sufficiently. One of the things that is appealing to me, and others as well I am sure, is that the NOTICE of MISTAKE is something that I can reference NOW, without outside interference. I can break it down, into it's component parts, and really LEARN what it means, and how it deflects SURETY| of the PERSON to the rightful owners. I can do this while I am not under duress. If there was something similar that a dummy like me could break down and LEARN in the same fashion that related to the jurisdiction of the man, that would be a big help. I am a bit of a blockhead after all.... :) I'd rather not be trying to articulate that concept to thugs in costumes while under duress. I would want to OWN it in my mind before I was ever in a situation where I would need to....

Scott Duncan "...unless you "RESIGN' " Wiki- A resignation is the formal act of giving up or quitting one's office or position. If I wanted to formally resign, from a position or positions that I didn't even know that I had, how would I do that?

As far as I can tell Adrian this changes nothing. This is still a question of SURETY. When I refute the PRESUMPTION that I am SURETY for the PERSON/NAME with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE this creates a dilemna for the LAW SOCIETY since if the LAW SOCIETY claims JURISDICTION over MAN then they must also be ACTING as SURETY for MAN. This might be a shit stain but this makes sense to me from what I have learned from the Admiral thus far. What seems obvious to me is that the LAW SOCIETY does not want to be SURETY, they ONLY want to get PAID. So they will ensure that they OFFER up a MAN in their place who will ACT as SURETY in order to deflect it from themselves. If the Man they attempt to turn over to the GOVERNMENT is not the SURETY (See NOTICE of MISTAKE) but rather, as Capitaine Pete said, the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the NAME/PERSON their illusion crumbles.

So it is all wrapped up in the same battle then? I was thinking of it in terms of two separate fights.

So from what I can tell The Law Society is ACTING as SURETY for MAN and the GOVERNMENT is SURETY for the NAME/PERSON. Neither of these PARTIES want to be left holding the "hot potato". That's where a MAN comes in to relieve both PARTIES of their burden but the MAN is usually none the wiser. The other two parties are able to ENRICH themselves at the expense of the UNWITTING MAN.

Gotcha. And so everyone, yet another example of why it is a good idea to go over this stuff BEFORE you might need it! HAHAHA :) Glad to help....

Pete Daoust "I hope one day, a LAWYER will object to this, in regards of ME vs PIERRE DAOUST" I just had a thought on that Pete. If PIERRE DAOUST was prosecuted, charged, fined, whatever... And somehow they grabbed Pete to act as SURETY by MISTAKE, and forced you to cover for your PERSON... Could you then file a claim to recover damages to you from your PERSON?

David - Paul sip can I share your comments on my wall?

Scratch that Pete Daoust, that's a boneheaded thought, sorry.

These comments are only my thoughts Michael . They make sense to me but could also be one big shit stain. Feel free to share as I'm sure the Admiral will let me know if this is the case. I did read somewhere before that the CROWN was liable if they were unsuccessful in getting a MAN to admit to being the NAME. The LAW SOCIETY claiming jurisdiction over MAN seems to tie everything in this triad together. Not what I was expecting from this much anticipated article Admiral Scott. BEAUuuuuuTIFULLY done!

Everything is set-up in triads, or trinities.

We are the part of the equation that must ensure that the flow of the current does not stop, at least by us.

Well, the "current" has been cut, amd it was not by ME :-D HAHAHAHA "!!

I don't see the BENEFIT to being publically called a SLAVE

A few tools to get out of the 'matrix': 1. Realise who you are (a man/woman), who HAS a person. (NOTICE OF MISTAKE REMOVES THIS PRESUMPTION AND DEFLECTS SURETY)...change the capacity that you are acting in: SOLE AUTHORISED ADMINISTRATOR is one way to do this. STOP USING THAT NAME WHEN ACTING AS YOU (MAN)...it is a GIVEN name for YOU to use in commerce. To avoid the confusion/surety, use a TAKEN name for yourself. 2. Realise that for all practical purposes (SURETY), you are deemed to be THAT person...somewhere in there, you are consequently deemed to be a government employee...so you need to RESIGN from this post. 3. Set up a corporation to act as a CURRENCY EXCHANGE/BANK: It receives $, converts it into the internal currency of the corporation, removing the liability(ies) attached to legal tender...ie: If you don't use their toys or play their game, then their rules don't apply to YOU. 4. As YOU are the only party that has added value (TIME and ENERGY) to the NAME, and you haven't been adequately compensated for it, YOU may wish to have the value claimed/liened into a private trust, held by the corporation in 3. above. This SECURES the NAME into a different jurisdiction, one which is controlled by a private trust, in a private corporation, with only ONE shareholder....YOU. The NAME has now been subjected to a civil death and no longer exists in their jurisdiction. It will remain in your created jurisdiction until the value of the lien has been discharged, a couple of days after the 12th of never. Feel free to add details or tidy up any stainshits gang :-)

Chris Evan Would it not shatter the belief in the state of those around you who witness you being publicly called a slave?

There was no one there

And he said it in judicial language....they wouldn't understand

5. ADMINISTRATE

Very good Stuart Stone and......they don't give a fuck

Agreed, which is why I now refer you back to my comment on 'spoils of war' from yesterday... One lonely vessel in the sea of commerce is easy pickings...like the Admiral pointed out previously, there is safety in numbers: ie: a private navy, with lawful recourse ;-)

Scott Duncan, what does it take to be an ACTIVE crew member of AQUILAE ?

This one ;-) 'Mackximus Minimus: If that is true, there has to be a way that they are fabricating joinder.' That word 'deemed' seems to have a lot of power, or at least presumed power... It also seems that liening a vessel into a private jurisdiction only has as much power as the vessels around you...ie: private navy...one lonely vessel becomes easy pickings for privateers. I recall the Admiral saying something about safety in numbers. On an unrelated but kinda related topic, I just watched the Monuments Men...interesting movie: It talked about the recovery of approximately 5 million pieces of art, from the Nazis, by the monuments men... Woo hoo, happy days, those priceless pieces of art then get returned to their rightful owners: Grade A grand lie of omission coming up, under the heading 'spoils of war'...check where 97% of the art found/recovered by Harry Ettlinger's team got returned to, ie: who the 'rightful owners' were: see 1:55 onwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG0J4m-NT6M I get the feeling that this resembles your current situation Chris Evan...your vessel is being treated as one of the spoils of war :/

Stuart Stone "A few tools to get out of the 'matrix':......." Why couldn't I have read this before having to subject myself to hours of reading about the buck-o-five, or circle-jerk to clubhouse rules?

Make that DAYS, now that I think about it...

Ahhhhh Grasshopper, one must go down many roads before one may discover their true path ;-) BAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAA! :D

This is not unique to you Adrian. FREE-DUMB seems to pervade like weeds in a garden, Easy to see/find much harder to get rid of. I am reminded that EVERYTHING happens for a reason...this article being the most recent example. Had I not spent countless hours researching and reading it would not be possible to identify the common threads and pull the pieces together now. Whether the Admiral intends to do this or not is irrelevant. What I know is that he seems to have an uncanny ability to fill in the holes that can only be refferred to as FREE-DUMB "lies of ommission".

Stuart Stone....the way I see it is that the have bypassed a wharf and put the person on the old vessel using force. Wait....maybe they don't know. But how could they not??

Could it even be that the average employee actually thinks the are doing a good job? Goes home with a feeling of accomplishment? So confused that they cannot see how it is harmful.

My brother in law is an Italian corporate lawyer in Italy...their history (fascism) paints a very obvious picture: When asked by what right can a government claim that I am surety in a matter, his response was profound, honest & simple: 'By force'... 'nuff said.

I am certain they do Michael! From the article: Their "job" trumps your rights, and that what they REALLY mean when they use the cop-out "I'm just doing my job" I have personally observed that THEY DO NOT CARE that what they are doing is harmful since they continue doing the same thing after one points out they are doing wrong. They are mindless peons carrying out orders just like the NAZIS did.

Exactly Stuart ...."By force" This should make clear what the ultimate response must be after one has tried in vain to remain in HONOUR.

Im really glad to be reading Scott Duncan.

David-Paul: ' All they can offer is "because I said so" ' ... and a gun. Re: honour... In this latest writing, Scott makes a point about these words (honour and honourable) being legal terms referring to contracts. If you're set on remaining in honour, does that mean you have a contract?

Yes.

Is that contract something that either of you can / want to be specific about here? I'm genuinely curious.

The question of CONTRACT is a good one Matthew Gundry. I can't be specific as it is not clear to me :( The Admiral responded YES to your question sooooo now I am left to think there is a contract with the PERSON until the PERSON RESIGNS from PUBLIC SERVICE. I have heard/read about a "social contract" but as far as I can tell there are no written contracts...at least none that is disclosed. Can there even be a contract without disclosure? I have tested this by asking for the BILL and a copy of the contract in a parking ticket matter only to be told that this is not something that is provided in respect to a parking enforcement matters, implying that there is a CONTRACT that could be produced; This is a LIE. It seems to me that any effort to remain in HONOUR is done to avoid being the one creating CONTROVERSY or bringing controversy into the court. It places the burden and onus on them. Does this actually matter to them though? It seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. It does not seem to be worthwhile to remain in HONOUR when it is clear that the GOVERNMENT and the COURTs have no intention to to do so themselves. That said things like asking for the BILL or whether you are able to use the SURETY of the PERSON to DISCHARGE the DEBT seems to be part of an effort to remain in HONOUR. I may be wrong but isn't this what is being done when one gives these TRUSTEES an opportunity to respond? Doesn't ACCEPTING or CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING (as per the BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT) or stating "Tell me I'm wrong and I will Pay" (to paraphrase Capitaine Pete) allow one to avoid CONTROVERSY and remain in HONOUR or is this a shit stain? :/

That was the FIRST lesson, ALL BELIEFS ARE EVIL. So when I realized I could use PIERRE DAOUST's surety to discharge public debts sent to PIERRE DAOUST, I could not just BELIEVE it, since all beliefs are evil......you see ? So I asked the concerned party, I said to my self, if it's TRUE, they will tell me, and if it's NOT true, they will also tell me, especially the fact that these guys are PUBLIC TRUSTEE, I am sure at 100% that they will tell me the truth ?...no ?? :D BUT NO, THEY JUST DON'T FUCKING ANSWER :-o

So then, after asking 3 times, I said, well, I will do it, but I will leave them, in the process, ALL the lattitude possible to REFUSE....I will even tell them IF YOU REFUSE, I WILL PAY..... But no, no nothing.......and after 2 years of me, begging them to refuse......the service is CUT, with any fucking whatever :D

Nope....they don't answer ANYTHING.

And NOW, I am asking for these valuable instruments, they seems to refuse, and they don't know where they are :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

But they know where the photocopies are, they can supply me with photocopies no problem.... :D But the ORIGINALS, seems to have vanished into somewhere, somehow :D

Here, that constitutes LEGAL. The only remedy is to lien

ROTFL! Or as I experienced with a parking enforcement MANAGER last year, they outright LIE or LIE BY OMISSION by implying that a CONTRACT exists when responding by email that a copy of the CONTRACT is not something that is provided in respect to a parking enforcement matters :/ They are ALL FUCKING criminals Pete.

EnFORCEment....they told you

LIENing these TRUSTEES would be the preffered solution Chris Evan if you could obtain their PERSONal information. In my experience they have been instructed to give ONLY their FIRST NAME and/or AGENT NUMBER. Otherwise these AGENTS will continue to carry out the bidding of the GOVERNMENT/COURTS with IMPUNITY.

Depends how deep into the Crime they get. Robert Brennan seems to operate through proxy. Glenn Trueira does not.

That tells me what their INTENT is

My "intent" is pure, since the beginning, I just want to know if I can use the person's surety to discharge a public debt.... And NO ONE is answering, and now, I am being robbed, and PIERRE DAOUST has his integrity violated....Hydro-Quebec seems to have no problem stealing from one of its OWNER, which is PIERRE DAOUST 1196604XXXXXX. This shit is fascinating :D

I think HQ is relying on a mysterious SOCIAL contract of some sort, no one ever saw it, and no one ever SIGNED it, but this seems to be their argument. They told me on the phone, why don't you do like everyone else and PAY. :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!..... and I am the pretended CRAZY one in this fuck up... :D

Crazy like a Fox Capitaine Pete ;)

Social Contract??!?! Perhaps you might have a use for your VOID stamp after all Pete Daoust

Well, if, and only IF, I get to see this SOCIAL CONTRACT one day ! :-D

or if they show evidence of a meeting of the minds, intent to contract, full disclsure, and 2 wet ink signatures.....

That day will be a special day, and worthy of a virgin stamp I am sure.

Scott: Re "by what authority does this court attach ANY name derived from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT to me?" Could this be used, after changing 'this court' to read 'you, Const/Sgt etc', when issuing a road-side Infringement Notice?

Scott, please forgive me if this is a stain shit....once the CARGO is on a WHARF and we resign from employment, can the PERSON still use the Social Security Number, or would the holding company use their Tax ID Number for Administrating the PERSON henceforth?

Yes. In fact ANY AGENT of the TRUSTEE (HOLDING) CORPORATION can administer the debt.

Colin, yes you could, but the stupid Gomer isn't going to understand the question.

Adrian, David-Paul Sip, Matthew... you guys are reading and listening! Nice to see the newbies catching up so well! Now that the evidence of Pete's and Chris' administrative processes have become an example of the fact that THEY DON'T CARE... not to say that it absolutely will not, but Chris definitely pushed his "luck"... :P Start paying some attention to crypto currencies also. This IS the only way really out. Especially after Stuart's brother in law's point of "by force". If you have noticed, everything happening lately is definitely a "BY FORCE" non-option and getting worse. The only way out is to starve them out. This group is called "tender for law" which is about money and the more we more focus on TAKING THAT AWAY, or TAKING IT BACK... then maybe those who think they have a right to administer "all" will, um... just go broke... and maybe listen. And by then, who cares if they listen...

This group is NOT for a quick "get out of jail free" card. Its for the long haul.

This group is about an agenda. Is not about us, even if we get benefit. Look at all the time it has taken to train just very few of us: 19 months. And every day we ALL learn something new in this group. So, is it very true that this group is NOT for a quick "get out of jail free" card, or how to discharge parking tickets. A lifetime of programing is not an "easy fix." YEARS, and years of programing of believing that the "quick, fast result" needs to be attained. Like attending to a seminar, or two, will fix a lifetime of bullshit, and lies. The information is NOTHING, if we do not know how to think. That is one of the most valuable things I have gained here. Scott has helped many of us to be able to use our brain in an useful manner, by thinking. He is NOT a spoon feeder. We have to fill in the gaps, and sometimes very wide gaps. I am glad to see new members reading, and making the right questions. I wish you find the value of the knowledge shared by Scott on this group.

Beverly, they might not care, but for now, I don't care if they don't care, I will push this shit, I will NOT quit on this shit.... I will PAY, if they give me back these VALUES, I have created with MY signature, I want the ORIGINALS, and I will do EVERYTHING I see fit, even though Scott Duncan, Scott N Tara, or ANY of you think I am WASTING my time. Because ALL BELIEFS ARE EVIL....and I just CAN'T believe being robbed without having access to remedy somehow.....

As per EVERYTHING I have learned, in these past 2 years, HYDRO-QUEBEC is in a SERIOUS "breach of trust" position right now, and I have everything in MY hands, to prove it..... HYDRO-QUEBEC is owned by the Government, so therefor PIERRE DAOUST is one of the OWNER :P

If they give me back these ORIGINAL instruments, they are stripping me, from my right to the SURETY of PIERRE DAOUST. If they don't give back these instruments to me, they are HIDING it, they've SOLD it, They've DESTROYED it....so article 340 of C.C.C. apply.... that's the TRUTH, so far, AND IT'S NOT MY FAULT :D

A forensic accountant should be able to trace their current whereabouts

A forensic accountant is a lawyer, no ? :/

Not as far as I'm aware. My understanding is they are a type of accountant who tracks different transactions/hidden accounts/ useful for divorce settlements involving offshore accounts, money laundering/fraud etc. They would more than likely be able to track the movements of the registered securities you have sent HQ.

I still think these VALUABLE SECURITIES need to be deposited as a CREDIT on ACCOUNT. I think the Beneficiaries are so used to stealing them that we shouldn't trust them.

:D

I think the DRAWEEs are also stealing them by ACCOUNTING for them in the WRONG ACCOUNT! In the States, I am thinking "For Deposit ONLY to the United States Department of Treasury for Credit pursuant to 12 USC 411 and discharge of the obligation pursuant to 12 USC 95a (2)."

WIthout INSTRUCTIONS, they must be thinking that we are transferring the Instrument to them.... :-/

Oh fuck, MY instructions was CLEAR...... :P

No they weren't...not the INSTRUMENT!!!

And how's that ? :/

What EXACTLY does the endorsement on the back of the Instrument state?

This....plus, a NOTICE... :/

Maybe its different in the States, but here, I think we need to endorse those "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY to the UNITED STATES TREASURY pursuant to 12 USC 411" because that is how the medium works here. That, to me, looks like: 1. Take the Money out of Pierres account number..... 2. Pay the Beneficiary 3. Deposit into Pierres Account, number.... I don't get it

Here, I think we should create the VALUABLE SECURITY, DEPOSIT it into the Treasury, and in exchange, have the obligation discharged pursuant to 12 USC 95a (2).

But this could be a stain shit.....I am not sure about Canada

There's NO money, Chris Evan, only CREDIT :/

Great post, it brought back childhood memories of Sesame street, seriously, " A Policeman is a PERSON in your neighbourhood, in your neighbourhood" Remember that song ??.ITS all about PERSONS haha, Braindumbed from an early age !!

And debit :D

Yes...and to create the MEDIUM, we need to back it up with a VALUABLE SECURITY. It just seems to me that you haven't created a VALUABLE SECURITY......

You told HQ to get the money for PD at the Bank of Canada....then on the back you accepted it on behalf of the Account at the Bank of Canada, did you not?

Ok, well if it's the case, Hydro-Quebec should have NO PROBLEM to give those non-valuable shit to me, and it would have been easy to tell me this a year and a half ago, :)

Well...yes. here in the States, they made sure they didn't have to do that anymore with the Check 21 Act.....did you put the REGISTERED MAIL sticker on the BoE?

And I have asked HQ numerous times, IF THERE IS A "DEFECT" ON THOSE INSTRUMENTS, please advise, so I can CORRECT them :)

I also asked numerous times....IF this is NOT TRUE, please advise, so I CAN PAY :P

I also asked numerous times, IF YOU REFUSE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, please advise asap, so I CAN FUCKING PAY :D

So now, HQ don't want to give those back to me, and don't want to accept those as payment......so I can't think nothing but: THEY'VE SOLD THEM.....

Do you see the fuck up, Chris Evan ? :D

I also asked Scott Duncan, Scott, did I missed something ? Scott answer: No, you haven't missed NOTHING, Pierre..... :/

So what's the number ONE rule of the UNIVERSE ? :D

Yes...I see it and HAVE seen it. I am thinking of how to bypass the theives and gain remedy

How can you expect REMEDY, by bypassing the THIEVES ? :/

How can you expect REMEDY, by bypassing the THIEVES ? :(

No, I haven't put the tracking sticker on these COMPLETED BoE, because I really think that they were COMPLETED....and no one called a DEFECT on them... :/

And I NEVER expected PUBLIC TRUSTEE would steal from me, and/or the PERSON named PIERRE DAOUST :)

Maybe I was naive, but I certainly was in GOOD FAITH, and if GOOD FAITH mean being NAIVE, well here we are, Pierre is a NAIVE fucktard

:D

I have so many TYPING to do :(

Yes...Yes...Yes....I understand. But I thought you are a SCIENTIST...which means if your hypothesis was wrong, you take the FACTS and rehypothesize in order to come to a provable theory, correct?

which means if your hypothesis was wrong.. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS....if I am WRONG, it's OK, just send me those no good piece of paper, and I will pay, and then I will figure out WHERE I was wrong ! :/

If they REFUSE to send back to me these no good thing, well, I AM RIGHT ? ....NO ? :/

Ok....I am just trying to think deeper here....carry on.....

The funny thing, which gives me ALL the good reasons to believe they are committing FRAUD, is they have no problem sending me PHOTOCOPIES of these non-acceptable things, but they REFUSES to give me the ORIGINALS..... :)

When one tenders money of exchange to a currency trader, upon inspection of the legal tender notes, the trader must hold on to the notes if they are DEEMED fraudulent.

:D

Brauns Orig Libau T?lis When one tenders money of exchange to a currency trader, upon inspection of the legal tender notes, the trader must hold on to the notes if they are DEEMED fraudulent. Hmmm... Then why would the LARGEST Internet / TV / Phone provider in Quebec ERASE the debt and SEND BACK the Bill of exchange I sent them, after it was sent a SECOND time asking "by what authority can your employee speak on behalf of the Bank of Canada ?" and "If it's not good, just prove it to me"... My guess is these guys have a SHIT LOAD of VERY EXPENSIVE LAW PROFESSIONALS who would have LOVED to make any "fraudulent" note blow back on the smart ass customer who just refused their bullshit reply and gave them instructions to proceed ??? : / As Pete said, if those were fraudulent, they wouldnt have waited 23 months... They usually cut the power after 90 days. And with 23 fraudulent notes, they'd have their case...

Will Bed My personal experience in Amsterdam, exchanging Federal Reserve Notes for Dutch Guilders.

or...if you sent it to the Beneficiary without endorsing the back, but only completed the front of the Instrument and put the Registered Mail sticker on it!! :-D

When you asked Scott if you did it right, your expectation was for discharge. What if you ONLY did it right to corner them and that is what you did?

I didn't asked Scott Duncan if I did it right, I asked him if I have MISSED something, he said NO. :D

Missed something with what goal? Honorable discharge or Commercial checkmate.....???

I am in the same boat (no nautical pun intended). I also have a commercial dishonor here after seeking an honorable discharge. My goal was an honorable discharge....I see that (at least here), that may not work. So now, my only option is for a commercial dishonor. <----with respect to the Kourts

My goal, is to NOT buy back public debts, and have the person's surety discharge these PUBLIC debts.....because, apparently, I have the RIGHT to the person's surety, and the reason WHY I don't want to buy back these debts is that I have good reasons to believe that PUBLIC TRUSTEES are STEALING from me.... EVERYONE knows this, I am telling them as it is.... Now, the BIG question is, Am I a slave and have no choice to buy them back ? Or, Am I free, and can decide for my self... :D

Since the beginning, it has NEVER been an issue of ME, not PAYING for something.......it ALWAYS been an issue about "me", being a slave or free....

<----look at this picture !!! :D

And maybe I need to achieve a "Commercial checkmate" to finally get a public debt honorably discharged ? :D

Please keep on saying what's in your brain, Chris Evan, it's good training for mine.... :)

sigh....i AGREE!!!!! I am simply stating that maybe there is an easier way in which little Pete would always have electricity!

HAHA!!...you think it will be EASY ??... :D Do you really think yhey will let little Pete going away with that one, easely ?? :D I thought I was the NAIVE one :D (no offense here )

In fact, "easy" never been the INTENT, "TRUTH" was..... And the TRUTH, well, no one wants to talk about it... :D HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Start a trust, write a check from the corpus, bill the grantor...Grantor affects payment, trust has a legal tender instrument, trust sends it to be ACCOUNTED, then....I don't know. Some kind of Credit or reimbursement..but I think this is how one man could pump $500M into the economy if he wants.

ohhhh....maybe the TRUST issues the BONDS!!! :-D :-D

Scott, can my Trust Holding Corp BOND DEBTS??

I�ve been thinking about this a lot because it�s messing with my head...from the principle that 'money is debt in transit' We know a statement/bill is an incomplete instrument (from the Bills of Exchange Act), which can be completed, making it a cheque/money order. We know (from a Lord Denning statement), that a bill of exchange is to be treated as cash for accounting purposes. [The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92). "We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary" (see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar[1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)] We know that cash is not an accepted form of payments because you can�t pay a debt with a debt. We know that any cash deposited with a bank is considered unsecured credit/unsecured loan. We know that our corporation can act as a money exchange, in the same manner as a bank takes promissory notes and converts it: So maybe we need to create an additional transaction, through the corporation that we created eg: FTP Ltd: We receive a bill from a company eg: Hydro Quebec. We complete the bill in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act, and deposit it with FTP Ltd. FTP Ltd treats it as unsecured credit and adds it to its assets. In exchange for this, FTP Ltd writes a cheque to Hydro Quebec to purchase the debt. FTP Ltd deposits the completed Bill of Exchange as a cheque into its own business account, drawing it against the Central Bank (BANK OF CANADA in this case). To correct what has already been done: FTP Ltd writes a cheque to Hydro Quebec for the outstanding balance on PIERRE DAOUST�s account, in exchange for the completed Bills of Exchange being held by Hydro Quebec. FTP now secures these Bills of Exchange by way of lien against Hydro Quebec, for the return of its property and/or their face value. This is what makes sense, based on Pete not missing any steps, that 1 of 2 things has happened: 1. Hydro Quebec are lying (quite possible) 2. Hydro Quebec has no obligation to use the unsecured credit/completed Bills of Exchange/cash to discharge PIERRE DAOUST�s debt because cash is not an accepted form of payment, so they have treated the �cash� as a gift. 3. Once the �cash�/Completed Bills of Exchange have been secured by FTP Ltd, it can be recovered So although you haven�t missed anything Pete, you may (and I may, with my situations) have deposited the completed Bills of Exchange/ �cash� with the wrong entity� That�s the only thing that makes sense�or they are lying and/or stealing :/

That is what I have been saying too!!! You, Sir, are more gifted with a keyboard than I am!!!! :-D

We have to keep control of the instrument by way of our corporations...then when WE deposit the completed instrument with the bank, we can state what we KNOW: That it's a cheque completed in good faith. And we can deal directly with any resistance instead of it being at arm's length via a third party, and consequently out of our control.

In the States though, we may have an additional remedy of 12 USC 411. I think we can deposit ours to the Treasury to back our medium for exchange....I think we are the only country that has a dual purpose medium for exchange.

I have been contemplating the differences lately....

I did speak with a bank representative about having bills of exchange to deposit into the corporate account, could she give me the process....she had no clue what a bill of exchange was...she said i'll ask around....called me a few days later still not knowing :/

I am only speculating based on logic and what I can currently prove to be true...if there is a flaw in my logic/thinking or I'm creating a stain shit, I request the Admiral Scott Duncan to come and kick my errant thinking out of the park.

A cheque/check is a bill of exchange drawn against a bank. They're cheques/checks Gail...can I deposit a cheque/check into the corporate account? Yes. Cool, deposit this please :D

It's worth a try lol..I know Bobis Youruncle created a boe from a check and deposited it, I dont remember the particulars as it was months ago, it was returned and charged back to his corporate account

I am in agreement with you Stuart, just not sure if the local bank branch employees are aware enough to process it as a check ?

BANK CHICK: Will the Bank of Canada honour the cheque? GAIL: I expect so, they're a pretty big bank :D

Offer to become a corporate trainer on the definition of a bill of exchange and cheque...for a fee...payable in cryptocurrency of course :D Cheque/Money order/cash, deposit it any way you want love, just make sure it gets credited to the correct account so your books balance at the end of the day, ok? ;-)

Mmhhh....I think HQ are lying and stealing :-P

Ha!!!! Stuart, 'Money is Debt in Transit". If the MONEY is held on a WHARF, it is no longer in TRANSIT. The Buck stops here!!! That is either the best thing I have ever wrote here or the biggest stain shit....I am not exactly sure.

Ha....but it COULD be in TRANSIT...if lets say some CRAZY computer scientist had $500 mil that he wanted to all of a sudden move.....

*shit stain :-P

I don't think so....that is where exchanges happen!

:-D

THE Wharf!

Didn't you read the Maritime thread?

Maybe that should be my tomorrow's fax to HQ, HEY, HQ, WHERE'S THE FUCKING WHARF ? :-D

Stuart Stone You're right on with what I was thinking too. (Travelling all day for work gives me lots of time to think) It would be similar to the concept of taking your expenses from work in to the boss for re-imbursement. In this case, expenses for the PERSON sent to the trust's holding corp, for it to deal with. Didn't someone say that if it was hard, then we are doing it wrong?

If I get this right, Stuart, you are saying that I have sent some money of exchange to HQ (cash), and they just decided to keep it as a gift ? :D So, if I send $7000.00 CASH in an envelop, they will ALSO keep it as a gift ? Even though, I have include instruction on what to do with this, and asked for a notice of refusal if ever they decide to refuse this to settle the debt ? Even though, I have asked them numerous time to let me know if there's any DEFECT on these instruments ? Even though, I asked them if this is all bullshit, to let me know and I would PAY ? Even though, before I did it, I have asked them 3 times if, indeed, there was other ways to settle that debt, without them answering to me ?

Now, I have made a promise to HQ, that if they send me back the originals instrument, that I WILL PAY, and they are NOT sending them back, and they CAN'T TELL ME WHY !!!! :D

Their last answer (complete silence since then): WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE !!!!!!! :D

We know where the photo copies are though... :D

Adrian: "Didn't someone say that if it was hard, then we are doing it wrong?" What I have done, even a child can do it.... :D

Exactly Pete Daoust. But it's a phrase that has stuck with me and seems to dial my thinking back to basics sometimes... Ever since I read that, it has stuck :)

Even though CASH is a TENDER FOR LAW and you can PROVE they STOLE IT !

I agree with you Pete Daoust, I have had similar concerns: Completing a bill of exchange on a mortgage for example: They referred me to the section of the contract that says payments MUST be made by direct debit, unless otherwise agreed. They accepted an over-payment by cheque 3 years ago, showing that they had agreed otherwise, so why not now? They do not wish to return the completed bill of exchange either... My out loud musings were along the lines of what Chris Evan was saying: Even though there are letters of instruction with the bill of exchange, the directions (in my case) did not form part of the bill of exchange. Even though I wrote asking for all means of administering account, to which I received no reply, the account statements (and the contract) clearly states what form of payment they WILL accept, so cash in an envelope (completed bill of exchange in this case), in their eyes MUST be a gift, just as a tip given to a waitress MUST be a tip. My focus for now, is determining if there is anything I have/haven't done that is in MY control, to have these debts discharged.

Chris Evan Ha!!!! Stuart, 'Money is Debt in Transit". If the MONEY is held on a WHARF, it is no longer in TRANSIT. The Buck stops here!!! Is the lien the wharf in this analogy?

The wharf would be the trust.

Thanks Will Bed, I'll just slap myself in the face for that last question :D

No worries... Took me a while myself to start figuring that shit out and still... Some of that stuff just wont sink in... Thanks for your great input !

I get your point too, Stuart, but here, I am dealing with a PUBLIC debt, I have NEVER asked for that debt, I have NEVER signed a contract with HQ, this is purely and only a public debt, I am dealing with PUBLIC trustees, why in the fuck a PUBLIC trustee would think I am sending them a TIP ? It's NOT the same, it can't be the same as a mortgage or any type of private debt.....

HQ is 100% owned by the PEOPLE (persons) :D

Back to the point.....they are VALUABLE SECURITIES why would we give them back???

Scott Duncan, if the Kourt gives me a "defendant copy" of a "complaint" can that be a VALUABLE SECURITY?

Then lying, thieving sacks of shit is probably a very good description for them ;-)

I don't know....I have already wrote "NEW ORIGINAL", and crossed everything off, and wrote something lie "refusal to contract for immediate closure and discharge."

Pete....another idea. :-D For the future of course...I think you are doing the ONLY thing you can now. Lets say you complete an inchoate instrument and make it a VALUABLE SECURITY by identifying the 3 parties, writing out the dollar amount, dating...etc....whatever one does (buck o five, etc...whatever). Then you affix the registered mail sticker to the BoE, then you send it REGISTERED MAIL to the PERSON. It is now a REGISTERED SECURITY. Then someone you trust, or YOU, HOLDS these Instruments and CLAIMS them. Then they can be LEVERAGED for MONEY for EXCHANGE for future PUBLIC DEBTS.

It seems to be better than getting the power shut off....which has happened to me a few times. Does this make sense? Gail? Stuart?

This place is quiet today......

Scott, is this a stain shit? Or will this finally give us VALUE?

Dear HQ, (3 names), Have you sent back the originals negotiables instruments to my person ? YES or NO. If YES, I will wait for them and PAY when I receive them If NO, I will have to administrate this matter differently. If NO ANSWER, I will UNDERSTAND that you have sold these, and I will send you an invoice, and will do exactly what the LAW tells me to do. You give me no other choices. I know very well that you are PUBLIC TRUSTEES, and you HAVE to answer. You have 5 days to reply With Respect, Honor, Dignity, Integrity and DETERMINATION By: Sole Authorized Administrator for PIERRE DAOUST 1196604XXXXXX

I can't make it clearer :D

And as far as Bank of Canada, I keep getting the same answer, over an over :P Sir, Your request is not the responsibility of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada is not a central bank and a commercial financial institution. Therefore, it does not take or accept deposits, bonds, securities or other funds on behalf of the public. It does not offer banking or financial services to individuals. The Bank of Canada has a mandate to conduct monetary policy so as to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canadians. It pursues this objective by keeping inflation low, stable and predictable level. In addition, it issues banknotes quality that are readily accepted and counterfeit-proof, and ensures the reliability and efficiency of the Canadian financial system. Sincerely,

WHO Accounts for the Bank of Canada?

And meanwhile, somewhere !!! :-o Weaponized ladies are preparing for some shit..... :/

Hmmmm...a thought just came to mind brother Pete. I do not wish to create a shit-stain but I am wondering what if the Bank of Canada is telling the truth?

Wow! look at those guns...and she's even armed with heat seekers :O

:D

To continue before the pointed distraction above :)

Ok David-Paul Sip, if they tell the truth, I am ok with that, but I am wondering WHY they have this staff in place ? :/ Funds Management and Banking Grahame Johnson, Chief Eric Wolfe2, Deputy Chief Philippe Muller, Director Th�r�se Couture, Director Scott Hendry, Research Director

In French they even say: Funds Management and Banking Operations :/

Good question but I have one myself. Is there any truth to the Bank of Canada belonging to the 13th FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT?

Well your PROVINCES are REGISTERED with the SEC!!!

I have NO IDEA about that, David-Paul Sip :/

It's not a PROVINCE, it's a STATE :P

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/722803/000110465914005930/a14-4829_118ka.htm

I had read this at some point in my research but this is what I turned about with a quick GOOGLE search http://www.trentu.ca/org/tipec/3helleiner5.pdf

Look at this baby :D ....is this thing can be liened ? :/ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/722803/000110465913008012/a13-4614_1fwp.htm

If it is owned by the persons of canada...then is it not the Minister of Finance who would give direction to the bank of canada?

Pete....that fucking link you posted ^^^ before Gails is ALSO payable in "lawful money of the united States of America". Mackximus, Jesse....this is what I am saying!!! These SECURITIES are money laundering schemes. You really need to get in on it.

The Bank Accounts I administrate only accept "lawful money of the United States of America" now...that is a fact! I damage every instrument I touch now!!!! AND lower the national debt!!!

Hey..Sue, Rick...do you see this???? These Bond Contracts are money laundering schemes. Ontario did it too and I have a copy of it!

Hey..Absalom.....learn how to use 12 USC 411 so you can write contracts like Quebec!!!!

Bobby....did I ever tell you about this?

I'm not really trying to use any of their codes Chris...

Oh.....so what is it you are trying to do?

Listen up folks Chris isn't bull shitting. This is fucking BANKING people

It's in receivership... let it go. Dissolve the whole thing. If you operate an unclean system you have unclean hands. Particeps criminis.

Shaking my motherfucking head!!!!!!

<blinks> ....... <blinks again> Yes...I know. However, if I want to EAT FUCKING FOOD, I think I should probably know the best way to deal with the fucking banking system until the new one comes....which I already am fucking stocking up on.

I guess we all have our OWN INTENT

Hey Chris these individuals aren't as pissed off as we are. :-) They don't care they've been robbed....

I think so....

What was stolen from you? really? property is a state privilege. They can't steal from you what you never had in the first place.

If I was you....I would stop typing now and start reading heavily. Just my two cents.....

Chris Evan got some time off anytime soon !?? We MUST MEET ! You're on a faster gear with more momentum, I need to catch up, I KNOW I can and Pete Daoust keeps telling me I'm not stupid so I guess if I get it I can help... But I really have to get a hold of what you're on to / your mindset ! I still dont have a TRUST - still seems like I'm missing something / or maybe not ?

Oh i have been.

:-D Ok..good....It doesn't matter that they own it...they stole it and left you with BENEFICIAL usage as a naked spoliated owner. That is the power! Wel...that and the ability to overthrow a banking system!