The Tender For Law

Volume 8

Oct 03, 2014 6:27 AM

Scott Duncan

Scott's Legal/Courtroom Gold Nugget of the Month:

ALL LEGAL CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES, ARE PROHIBITIVE.

Read that carefully. When you understand that:

A LICENCE IS PERMISSION TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT. Therefore IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE LICENCED, IT MUST FIRST BE DECLARED ILLEGAL.

Discuss until you establish that these two things are FACT.

...GO!

Read Comments

Maximus Legis

So whilst some say "you are not permitted to do abc". Others say "you may do xyz if you pay for the privilege by buying a permit /licence" and Therefore No LEGAL CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES exist which say YOU CAN DO 123.

Alan Day

Take Kents example, fishing. Its an illegal act to fish according to the State unless one gets a license. Effectively the granting of permission. But if my understanding of Legal v Lawful is correct, this activity is perfectly Lawful. Its bloody NATURAL actually. Man has been fishing since we crawled out of the slime without the need to obtain permission. We have subverted ourselves to a lower status that requires the asking of permission to do something that can be done without said permission

So all ACTS etc do prohibit unless we beg to our masters for permission to engage in that act

Maximus Legis

^^^ I get it. ALL LEGAL CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES, ARE PROHIBITIVE therefore cannot grant a permission . So in order to grant permissions they issue licenses instead. Does that mean everything is illegal unless they grant you permission for it by offering a license?

Will Bed

Are you saying that whatever ACT / CODE / STATUTE which requires a LICENCE, is IN FACT, ILLEGAL ??

If LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING,

I've always told others, if I need to ask for PERMISSION, it means I'm a slave...

If THEY PROHOBIT it, and then once you wilfully BRIBE them (because you have been programmed to think it's OK because they've always forced your PERSON to) by buying a LICENCE (you are now SURETY) wouldn't it be EXTORTION and/or FRAUD ??

A LICENCE creates an ACCOUNT, Without a LICENCE, they cannot have YOU ACCOUNTING for THEIR LEGAL BULLSHIT, No licence = I never asked for a PERMISSION because I'm not a fuckin slave,

Hey govt : If YOU cannot ACCOUNT for it, not MY PROBLEM..?

Vicky Logozar

let me see....I have a drivers' license, a marriage license, a business licence, 4 x Provincial foreign worker recruitment licenses w/surety bonds, 4x Provincial recruitment agency licenses (no surety bonds).

David-Paul Sip

This licence dilemna has me remembering something Dean Clifford said to me about the marriage licence. Dean told me that I can simply return it to the gubment and inform them that it is no longer required. This stretches credibility mainly because I do not possess the ORIGINAL, only a certified copy so what is there to return since the Registrar General already has the ORIGINAL lol! It's not Deans fault though is it? I mean it's not like he's got a woman....just lots of boyfriends by now I'm sure ;)

Bryan Parker

Codes/statutes are for "Persons", which has been made a corp. status for citizens. Citizen is an invalid/ward of the state. Declare your status, you are not a corp. employee, or ward! These activities are illegal without permission if you are a ward of the state. Marriage licenses are funny, they were created to permit intermarriage with slaves and non slaves. Yet we still get them because we allow the state to be the slave owner!

David-Paul Sip

So what to do about the marriage licence? Return it VOID? I think I recall reading somewhere in the TTFL that changing any of the terms of the marriage contract excludes the government as a party to tha contract. Is this accurate?

David-Paul Sip

I'm liking "La Belle Province" more and more, except for the frenglish thing. So is the only way to cancel the licence in Ontario to file for DIVORCE Admiral Scott? This is what a government agent told me so I suspect immediatley he was lying or ignorant.

Stephen Thomas

Contrasting the presumptions of the de facto state and their statutes to law: Flumina Et Portus Publica Sunt; Ideoque Jus Piscandl Omnibus Commune Est. Rivers and Ports are Public; therefore the Right of Fishing is Common to All. (Maxim of Law.)

Stuart Stone

Re: Divorce is the only LEGAL way to do it:

What would be the effect if one or both of the individuals/persons that formed one half of the marriage contract underwent civil death (ie: liened into a private trust held by a corporation)...

Wouldn't that collapse the marriage contract with the state?

Scott Duncan

Yes, but the LEGAL PRESUMPTION remains. The onus is on YOU to remove it. They can ignore anything you have to offer up refuting it, too.

For example: Try to convince any of my captains that I'm NOT their Admiral. It doesn't matter HOW compelling your argument is, they WILL ignore it. You are an outsider. You don't have a say.

Bryan Parker

Also Brad, i find it interesting that all those other licenses can be denied, but i've never heard of the courts saying, "Sorry, you've been married before and your not good at it, thus Denied". i can only guess that a marriage can create new slaves and therefore profit to the state. Just a thought.

John Smith

However, If you are the president / CEO of your company you can sell a private security to whoever you want. It only becomes "Regulated" in public transactions as I understand it. There are very large Private Companies like Koch and Quick Trip who use this.

David-Paul Sip

"I just can't believe that I was deeply convinced on BEING a LEGAL person all these years"

It has nothing to do belief with belief Capitaine Pete. I just didn't know there was a distinction and had I been told I would not have believed it. I always that it was strange language to say somethin like "found on their person"...but I get it now.

David-Paul Sip

I did not actually understand what LEGALese meant; that words have double meanings. I only thought legalese referred to the fine print not that the fine print was written in a language that looked like english.

Now the revelations keep happening...like my experience at court yesterday. Yes a revelation like being reborn. I can see much more clearly now :D

David-Paul Sip

Had someone told me this I might have said "what do you mean?" Had I just accepted it then yes that would mean I BELIEVED them but nobody ever said this to me. I thought I was a PERSON like everyone else and did not even know there was a separate LEGAL meaning. My mom and dad did not know this either....'till recently :D

Eamonn O Brien

I haven't read the comments on this one. I think I understand the point of the post though.

It reminds me of the mob shaking down shop owners for protection money. Government creates the problem/offence and the solution to it and thus profits.

The mob offer protection (mainly from threat from themselves) and profits...

Basically, give me your money or you'll be sorry...

Xrisjuice Xris

Usury is illegal and we don�t have right of use unless we pay a use tax this is ultimately defined by something in law called usufruct and this comes from the Latin usus (to use) that is where we get usury or use and other variations. FRUCT means fruit as in fructose � use of the fruit, so a usufruct means we don�t own it but we get the benefit of using it and the usufruct owner/controller gets the fruits of our labor. We create the fruits of our labor and our VALUE they get to have it. So until we change this we will not change the fundamentals of how this system works and this is how we have created an elite bankster criminal organization and a renegade government that�s really only a commercial corporation in which all VALUE goes UP and the burden of debt comes down on the masses of the people. All controlled by admiralty is my understanding at this time.

Xrisjuice Xris

What is the Issue of Status, Standing and Capacity all about? usufruct is in my opinion an important concept to understand. I am no freedumber that follows the heard.. never have been..for the record!. :p

Rick Carne

Usury hows this for illegal... ..(California Civil Code �1916-2); debtor may recover treble amount paid; willful violation-guilty of loan-sharking, a felony and punishable by imprisonment in state prison for not more than 5 yrs. or county jail for not more than 1 yr. (Civil Code �1916-3) - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-interest-rates-laws.html#sthash.Z4C8yrfb.dpuf.

Pete Daoust

Contract or agreement for greater than 12% shall be null and void as to any agreement to pay interest (Civil Code �1916-2); debtor may recover treble amount paid; willful violation-guilty of loan-sharking, a felony and punishable by imprisonment in state prison for not more than 5 yrs. or county jail for not more than 1 yr. (Civil Code �1916-3) - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-interest-rates-laws.html#sthash.Z4C8yrfb.RLmriDbj.dpuf

Dino Disenfranchised

Great thread. THEY declared shit illegal, contract licences permitting one to do shit, creates surety for the act of doing shit if/when not adhering to the permission.

Could it be said then... All acts of being or doing can be split into two groups of Rights/Liberty and Illegal/Permit?

Sirwade Firsbey

Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms guaranteed to all citizens.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.[3]

Janick Paquette

I was reading: "I hope this guy (cop) has the surety in his truck"

Because you are always asking "Where is the SURETY?"

I know you're a MAN, I've spoken to you before! :P I know you have a PERSON, don't we all? :P I know you are not surety for that thing! But you are an optimist MAN to hope that this cop might have the SURETY in his truck! (because THAT is what I thought you were saying!)

:P

Dino Disenfranchised

Liberty n. freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.

rights n. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts, or under an agreement (contract).

illegal 1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity.

permit 1) v. to allow by silence, agreement or giving a license. 2) n. a license or other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts. These can include building a structure, using a building, driving on the highway, conducting a retail business, and dozens of other activities. The purpose of permits is supposedly to guarantee that laws and regulations have been obeyed, but they also are a source of public revenue.

Sirwade Firsbey

lib�er�a�tion ?lib??r?SH(?)n/ noun the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release. "the liberation of all political prisoners" freedom from limits on thought or behavior. "the struggle for women's liberation"

Anibal Jose Baez

But to spoil the learning experience, if it is LEGAL, it means it involves MONEY. And if it involves MONEY, there has to be SURETY, and ACCOUNTING also involved somehow.

If everything in LEGAL world is of COMMERCIAL nature, then the words "free" and "liberty" have not really to do with the man, but with PERSONS. And those have "rights" and/or "privileges".

"Free" involves NO ACCOUNTING. And "liberty" can be BOUGHT, and/or SOLD by way of CONTRACT.

Dino Disenfranchised

The way I see it... If a person is acting as an agent, he does not have the liberty to act as his own person. If a person is acting as a employee or incarcerated, the same. If a person is acting as self and within his rights, liberty is the state of being or doing.

Back to my earlier question but with a little elaboration... How many BASIC states of being or doing are there and what are they?

David-Paul Sip

So there IS a difference between UNalienable vs INalienable and yet the definition for INalienable in Black's Law 10th ends with "-- Also termed UNalienable" while the definition for UNalienable says "See INALIENABLE".

I have read numerous times from Admiral Scott and even in this thread from Mackximus Minimus that there are no synonyms in law, so what is going on here?

David-Paul Sip

Yup I figured that out Mackximus Minimus....first example I have discovered where Black's law 10th is intentionally misleading. I thought it was Freeeeee-dumb bullshit that the definitions were being intentionally changed to obscure the truth. :/

Anibal Jose Baez

Nobody is intentionally obscuring anything. It's ALL out in the open. It is our programing that wants to paint us as the exclusive victims, to try to ignore the fact that we are very much responsible, as well. There is no conspiracy. We have become LESS than animals.

David-Paul Sip

If I didn't have access to the information available here (eg. There are no synonyms in law or INalienable does not = UNalienable) how the hell would I or anyone else know that these words aren't synonymous after reading Balck's Law 10th to even question what I was reading?

Anibal Jose Baez

The definitions have always existed. We just never actually know how to read, and process the information. It was not hidden. If you look at a legal dictionary, you will notice each word has a unique definition. That is not a conspiracy, we just never bothered to learn.

I remember thinking "Oh, those sneaky bastards They hide this from us!" after actually READING and UNDERSTANDING a word in the dictionary. I wanted to feel like a victim. I wanted no part in the responsibility.

But there was no "sneakiness." I was no "victim." The dictionaries are FREE to access. I was just a dumb idiot that pretended to know how to read, and pretended to know what the words actually meant. I just NEVER paid attention.

Who's fault is it, then? :/

John Greco

Scott N Tara LEGAL CODES, ACTS and STATUTES are prohibitive because THEY ALL PROHIBIT THINGS!

In order for something to be licenced, it must first be declared "Illegal". That's what Codes, Acts and Statutes are FOR.

John Greco

. . . When I apply for a license I am begging to have my unalienable rights replaced with privileges . . and I will subsequently be accepting all the attached rules, restrictions, regulations and responsibilities such as surety. I would now be in contract as an agent of Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada, Ontario or some other state. . . . I'll be folked!

Chris Evan

I declare under an Atribution Creative Commons NoDerivs 3.0 unported licence held by PBIDDY that it is illegal to consider a man surety for a public debt for any account held or controlled by PBIDDY. (c)

Would that work?

Rodrigo Dan Darius

This line has always caught my interest..

From: AGENCY (ARTIFICIAL PERSONS) FOR IDIOTS

"...you benefit from ONGOING commercial warfare."

Since not much is going on here in Tender for Law today, I'm just gonna think out loud and hope I don't stain anything.

Mackximus and others have elaborated on the fact that there seems to be a type of codified slavery going on. And reading something that Mackximus typed recently somewhere made me think of Stefan Molyneux's notion of Nation States being farms. (not solely Molyneux's notion, I'm sure)

For a while now, without asking anybody for the answer, I'd often think to myself: what gives them the right to control commerce in the first place? I'd always simply brush it off with either a placeholder or simply assume that it is a PRESUMPTION that they ACT upon. But maybe it's deeper than that: But probably more simple.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

"ALL LEGAL CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES, ARE PROHIBITIVE.. A LICENCE IS PERMISSION TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT. Therefore IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE LICENCED, IT MUST FIRST BE DECLARED ILLEGAL."

Therefore the Creative Commons licence becomes our licence to perform an illegal act. And perhaps because of the Trust relationship that Mackximus asked Scott about, we are entering into Trust law, the highest law.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

Mackximus Minimus: Can we say that Creative Commons is a TRUST relationship, Scott? I see a triad of trust relationship, but I could be wrong.

Scott Duncan: You are witnessing a constructive binding trust being created, EVERY TIME you see that license used.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

Legal = Surety and Accounting.

"...you BENEFIT from ONGOING commercial warfare."

Everything LEGAL is commerce? Everything LEGAL is warfare?

Admin: Feel free to quarantine these posts. Just thinking out loud.

Anibal Jose Baez

<<what gives them the right to control commerce in the first place?>>

In "theory," I think because they created commerce, so they control it. You, or me did not created it. So, why would it be our "right" to control it?

When you see the FRAUD of the current money system, you realize commerce is part of an insidious man-made imposition, that creates conditions for slavery.

Steph Boucher

Humans needed to exchange value before they create legal (accounting and surety) commerce. They created the template to record it, they have the "alpha proof of concept" so all of the framework is their but NOT commerce itself. Ware fare sales expensive, it must benefit a lot from Surety and Accounting - of being legal...

Will Bed

THEY control commerce because we use THEIR persons and legal tender in commerce.

We could kill this "commerce" thing, and all that goes with it, and have a bunch of stupid chimps exchanging shit as they wish based on their own value. No one could lawfully interfere with the rights of 2 stupid chimps to exchange a banana for a back rhub...

Infringing on your right to not contract is taking your free choice away from you. If I dont have a choice in regards to who I have to deal with and by what conditions, then I'm effectively a slave.

Last I checked, I didn't make that choice when I was born.

Anibal Jose Baez

Wow, Will Bed that is a lot of "rights" being claimed. If you claim them, the burden of proof of that claim lies on YOU. Where is the PROOF you are entitled to those "rights"?

You see, we have an imposed alter-reality with commerce. It's here, and I will make the best to understand it, and use it in my favor. I am not fighting it.

Still , I am able to distinguish what is REAL, and observable in NATURE, and on the contrary what is the creation of MEN. Many times, these creations can only come alive in our mind. A MENTAL STATE.

Like GOVERNMENT, for example. GOVERN-MENT. From the Latin words GUBERNARE (to control) and MENTIS or MENS (mind). Put hose together, and that is CODE.

Yes the is commerce, but it is a creation of man. Men created it, and men are controlling it.

Anibal Jose Baez

You will happily find historian describing tribes as being "in commerce" because they exchanged skins, seeds, etc. In reality, we do not know when it could had been something just as simple as: men, and women sharing what they had, for it helped to further survival. No commerce expected and/or implied.

Will Bed

Claim ? What claim ? Fuck claims ! I'm no fuckin slave !It's a declaration ! I can produce value and how I chose to part with it or gain from it is no one's fuckin business !!

Want proof ? Come here : I've got 5 knuckles dying to prove I'm not cattle.

I just said "kill commerce" because "commerce" most certainly is legalese and unalienable rights arent controlled by "commerce".

Anibal Jose Baez

I am with you, Will. I was not attacking you. I am trying to make a point to distinguished between what is created by man, and what is not. Don't listen to Frisbey. He is a moron.

Unfortunately, Scott is always right, and he has indeed said the we are in fact SLAVES. Even Pete got a taste, just recently. And he has as many knuckles as you, and me.

I follow Scott, because I love to acquire knowledge, and he has told me the truth. I have been able to verify. I have PROOF of some things. Accepting reality has helped me focus in what is important. I do not live like a slave, or at least try very hard not to, but I also do not turn my back on the harsh reality that: I live in a plantation, I serve in many folks' agendas, and that violence will come to me if I do not agree to go along. Ask the originals.

But, I am with you in the agenda of loosing the chains a bit, and having some freedom.

Oh, did I mentioned that Frisbey is a moron?

Sirwade Firsbey

Art. 43.

Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service.

Rodrigo Dan Darius

So in a way, the very simple answer is: The creator of a thing is the controller of the thing.

Through ONGOING commercial warfare they created commerce. They also created pieces of paper clearly labeled: This Note Is Legal Tender. (They even gave us NOTICE) They also created legalese. So in a way, the key thing is to avoid using all of them. Otherwise one has stepped into COMMERCE.

Perhaps because of the whole awkwardness that comes with stamping humans at birth with a label they HAD to create PERSONS to use in commerce. And they created those too. And based on a post I read from Scott, they've already SECURED THE FUNDS, from those persons. (Birth Certificate like a Certified Cheque)

Sirwade Firsbey

http://searchpage.com/index.php?keywords=Lieber%20Code%20part%2031%20Lieber%20Code%20part%2038%20Hague%201907%20Article%2055%20Demonstration%20of%20your%20lack%20of%20claim%20of%20ownership%20unto%20NAME%20/NTLE%20help&ett=ceo_help

Pete Daoust

PIERRE DAOUST is Her Majesty and an Organization, right ?

And some Pirates have stolen his electricity, so I could ask some Aquilae to kick these Pirate's asses, and to bring this electricity back, right ?

:-D

Scott Duncan

IRS is just a wholly-owned subsidiary of what was once the British East India Trading Company. Nothing more.

"Indians" are PROPERTY of the British East India Trading Company. You are a CLIENT of the British East India Trading Company.

Rick Carne

WOW Scott..reading all of this just now and you post it!! it is easy to see how all of this translates to the current PRIVATE CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT system here in North America..http://www.economist.com/node/21541753 https://archive.org/stream/recordofservices00prinrich#page/n3/mode/2up..

Dino Disenfranchised

I am looking for clarity... Scott wrote... "The IRS is just a wholly-owned subsidiary of what was once the British East India Trading Company." Was this statement meant to be inclusive or exclusive to the UNITED STATES?

Alan Day

Speaking of cargo and vessels etc, there was a post a few months back discussing this very thing that I've been trying to find. Any idea who created that thread and how far back it was exactly? Fb search is absolutely terrible. It would be easier finding a needle in a haystack

T?lis B?auns

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence_Aldous Huxley The experts regurgitate what they have specialized in and follow the MAJORITY in evreything else, because it feels good. Scott asked what would you do if you truly had freedom. What the fuck would I do?

Rodrigo Dan Darius

After reading that exchange from a few days ago, I was thinking about it for a while. The way I saw it, he did more than just provide the answer to that one question. He explained, among other things, why: Scott is ALWAYS right.

BELIEF = This NOTION is EVIL TENDER.

Scott refuses the tender that belief provides. This is why: SCOTT IS ALWAYS RIGHT. If he doesn't know something, he doesn't declare that he does... unlike EVERYBODY ELSE.

Rick Carne

http://books.google.com/books?id=AHJbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Children+sent+to+east+india+company+to+apprentice&source=bl&ots=xx6nkf2-us&sig=MzwUUIp_MOklkFIaL8sWFm_5vBY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AYl-VImiLYWHyQT5lYBI&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Children%20sent%20to%20east%20india%20company%20to%20apprentice&f=false

Rick Carne

7. and it is hereby enacted, that any MASTER and COMMANDER of any ship or vessel in which an apprentice bound under the last section(see 6) shall be appointed to serve by the party to whom he is bound, shall be deemed an AGENT of such party for the purpose of this act

Chris Evan

Thanks for the answer....so the drivers license is permission to use the YOU then.

Everything I do with this YOU is friggin illegal. Even things I don't do with this YOU, I am charged for.

....charged....ahhhh.....The fee for using the YOU.

What a fucking fraud!

Chris Evan

When you have one of these, they just make up stuff. It's like giving a waitress a Credit Card before you order and she charges the whole sections dinner to your card, then says "what are you going to do about it?"

Chris Evan

There were 3. Driving on an invalid inspection sticker (x2). I was not the owner not operator of that either time. And allowing an unlicensed operator to operate a motor vehicle. It wasn't my truck or decision. :/

David-Paul Sip

My thought is NOTICE OF FRAUD and LIEN the court file. Let them IGNORE that. Since the PERSON you have is property of a TRUST it seems there is some accounting to do. Like Pete $1000 per hour every day he must ride the choo choo. Not his fault.