"A judge is a Judge"? These are "Justices", not judges! The Lies are just so blatant!

Lol! Yup, that's another snippit that really should be called out Admiral. As I said, there are so many blatant lies to choose from.

Wailan Low can have court records sealed/forged and she gets off, but this guy does time for KNOWLEDGE/ANSWERS that are supposed to be "secret"? The fact that everyone is OK with that reveals that life would be better with most of you dead.

I know, right? Is the inconsistency surprising though?

I recently witnessed how these "justices" behave Admiral. Fortunately Tom McKeogh agreed earlier this month that I am not the person I happen to have in my pocket when he deemed the person to have not appeared and entered a conviction in the person's absence. This to harm and coerce me apparently and after the fucktard quotes "Meads vs Meads" explaining that the man and the person cannot be separated. Lol! He knows not what he has done :D "Judge a man by actions, not by his words".

(gAynor was) a Toronto auxiliary police officer for 18 years.

RE:"explaining that the man and the person cannot be separated" THEY CAN"T! It has been stated to me, by a trusted source, (as a direct result of this post) that you idiots are missing some key points. 1: "The Man" is: a) a "Natural Person ...AND (Fucking AND!) b) HER MAJESTY 2: "The Legal Person = A CROWN ORGANIZATION HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION ARE TWO PARTIES IN A TRUST FOR WHICH YOU ARE AGENT AND TRUSTEE. NOT AGENT OR TRUSTEE. AGENT AND TRUSTEE (And the trustee MUST perform) for THE PRINCIPAL BOTH ARE LEGAL FICTIONS. HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE SEPARATED, and YOU are surety FOR MAJETY under the CROWN AGENCY ACT. ...so next time you are in court, demand that the principal attend, as well! He's an "accused party". ;)

Whoah! Okay digesting this one Admiral. Funny how HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION keeps coming back like a fucking Hydra :D

So demand that the principal = HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION (Legal Fictions) attend as well since they are the accuse party. Lol! Lovin' it :D

...or motion to dismiss, as one of the parties has FAILED TO APPEAR :D

Demand the Principal (surety) appear! :D ...she's a little busy. She has 9 dogs, you know!

"... TWO PARTIES IN A TRUST FOR WHICH YOU ARE AGENT AND TRUSTEE." If this is this case Admiral Scott does it not contradict the claim that I am the Sole Authorized Administrator for the PERSON? I had instructed the court that "I am to be called SIR or ADMINISTRATOR only and do not consent to being called by any PUBLIC NAME". Tom only called me SIR. :D Can I be both TRUSTEE and ADMINISTRATOR at the same time in a trust relationship?

Fuck I have so many questions in my head now.

Yes David-Paul, you can....It happens all the time.

The "her majesty" topics really throw me being from Ireland... Is it just Government of Ireland here? :/

1: "The Man" is: a) a "Natural Person b) HER MAJESTY hmmm...a.) or b.), not a.) and b.) So...I guess The Man

I think its when the organization gets involved that we have a legal person

"Yes David-Paul you can....It happens all the time" I thought so Chris Evan but do not want to presume anything. Oh you just created more questions in my head brother. So if a Man is 1a or 1b, not 1a and 1b, then hmmm...seems HER MAJESTY comes before the organization. Can you have the organization without HER MAJESTY? Put another way, if the Man is a Natural Person then can there be an organization? Fuck it hurts, make it stop! :/

or is it a.) and b.) :-/

Scott, did you mean a AND b? or a OR b? or a and/or b?

AND!

Thanks.

Eamonn, the people NOT from Ireland, have ZERO clue about what's going on there. Yours is a VERY different situation.

:/ I'm not going to ask how that's fucking possible? It's club house rules. I've never come across any overt attempt for the system to define "The Man". Is this definition of "The Man" actually defined anywhere Scott?

Scott, in what way is the Irish situation very different? We could maybe do an Irish thread for any Irish members, substituting terms like her majesty and crown corporation with the appropriate Irish terminology... Theres a few of us in here that it may benefit...

Ireland is LEGALLY a "republic" but in International Law, it's a "Free State". Look at the words.

Am I looking for contrasts between the two? I know that it was declared a Free State in 1921, and then legally branded/re-named a Republic in 1949...

Free State =/= Republic. They are two different things.

So how does that equate to our situation being very different? What effect does it have legally speaking?

Correct me if i'm wrong here, A free state is a Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations and is governed by Constitutional monarchy. A Republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.

You are not wrong.

So internationally Ireland is under the crown, but legally the people vote to make their own political decisions? They gave us a ball to play with but they own the playground so to speak...? :P

Yes. That way the Nobility can use it as a "Proving Ground" for social engineering policies.

Im understanding that^ alot better now. The colour of freedom...

You are at "Ground Zero" for all this shit. Nobody in this group (except other Irish) know what you live with daily. They will though. It comes here next!

Big protests in Ireland today against the most recent attempt to tax water... A massive, "No contract, return to sender" campaign took place over the last few weeks... People wrote it across the application packs sent out by the newly founded water company and returned them...

I didn't take that picture... Not one for protesting myself, I'm at home, learning... :p

David-Paul Sip: An ADMINISTRATOR by its very nature IS a TRUSTEE. That's what gives them the RIGHT to administer.

So coming back to the comparisons/contrasts with "The Crown" and Ireland, when is The Crown involved here? When we engage the legal system, we are doing so according to the laws of the Republic... What role does The Crown play?

RE: The Crown involved here? Look to the North.... Tell us what you find :P

...we'll wait :D

Scott, unless I am missing something, this doesn't seem to differ much from the United States. Is this incorrect? It seems that they own the playground and gave us a ball, then took that ball back.....

Yes. ...except in the US, they took the ball, and all of you are still planning to play soccer, as if you still had it.

Like retards....

(Re-applying the playground analogy) Everything Irish Government related is just a legal playground they gave us... The 1916 rising resulted in the Crown giving us the playground via the treaty, we called it a Republic and everyone celebrated "Independence" whilst picking teams for the big game... :p

Irish history in a nutshell right there^^ :D :(

Consider that you are "tainted" with what you have learned here. Looks a little different now, doesn't it?

I more or less had that understanding of it but some days it's clearer. Today is one of those days... Playground analogy sent it home I think... :p

This was a point I tried covering in the call last night, before french people ruined it... ...All of you will agree that you have learned MORE HERE than ANYWHERE ELSE. WHY is this a true thing?

How come I'M THE ONLY ONE WITH ANSWERS?

Good question! Im pissed about this!

Because you have an agenda and a lack of knowledge/lies do it no good... Everything I learn here I try to teach straight away...

Were the last 2 Skype calls recorded?

That only describes my MOTIVATION. You can ALWAYS rely on me to serve my own agenda; We've covered/established that already. That has NOTHING to do with what happened to the OTHERS BEFORE me. Do you REALLY think "The Admiral" is the first to do this? ...because if you do, then you have a nasty shock coming.

You were taught about this growing up Scott... We got the "Yay we're independent" side of things... The education system can be equated to a set of monkey bars in the playground I suppose...

True, but why am I still here? Why have I not been "censored" or marginalized like Menard or Clifford?

You're under orders from Liz?

Where are all the PAST articles mentioning "This Note Is Legal Tender"? You think I was the FIRST EVER to point this out?

I don't know. Scott, where are all the past articles mentioning "This Note Is Legal Tender?

Scott, why have you not been marginalized or censored?

So why haven't you been censored? I ask myself that sometimes. We know you've hired assassins, used a guitar string for purposes other than playing a tune and can be found easily enough but are still here, teaching us how to fight Government... :/

Re:"You're under orders from Liz?" - you are on the right track. It IS a licence. Just not from her. I'll NEVER teach things that only my title affords. Ever. What good is that yo YOU? Everything I teach YOU, is something YOU can use. ...but I digress. :D You are on the right track with the LICENCE (Permission to perform an ILLEGAL ACT) but Liz doesn't issue it.

Am I in the Truman Show?

Creative Commons?

Yes.

Right...we went through that!

I think I am starting to see the mechanism.

Creative Commons GAVE ME PERMISSION TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT. ...let that sink in.

Ergo, THE CREATIVE COMMONS CAN GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT.

an seems to be the operative word there.....

Homework... Learn about Creative Commons...

Wow. You LOVE focusing on the wrong thing.... That's breathtaking in its irrelevancy. :D

Try again Chris.

I see the mechanism....I guess my thinking was that the Creative Commons could grant permission to perform AN illegal act multiple times...such as, each of your articles.

You focus on "an" and you don't ask WHAT FUCKING ILLEGAL ACT I AM COMMITTING. and you don't ask BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES THE CREATIVE COMMONS GIVE PERMISSION, and WHY DO THE COURTS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AUTHORITY?" ...you think "an" is more important? Really? ...kill yourself.

God damn Americans... :p

Right....excuse my irrelevant comments... WHAT FUCKING ILLEGAL ACT ARE YOU COMMITTING? BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES THE CREATIVE COMMONS GIVE PERMISSION? Lastly, WHY DO THE COURTS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AUTHORITY?"

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it, but... YOU THINK WRONG.

Here is what I remember from you discussing this... 1. The Creative Commons makes it LEGAL.

2. The Creative Commons was written by a bunch of lawyers under threat of death by the nobilty, although you didn't get much more into it than this

So....what illegal act are you committing?

The Creative Commons makes it LEGAL by issuing a LICENCE.

So what ILLEGAL thing am I doing?

I HAVE PERMISSION to do this ILLEGAL ACT, and since it's released under that licence, SO DO YOU!

Why were the lawyers being threatened ?

Spilling the beans?

Once upon a time, some lawyers went after some Nobles... It ended badly for them. ...now they serve in a "legal" sweat shop. You're all caught up, and that's all I'm saying about it :P

Is this legal sweat shop located on a VESSEL?

OK, the stupid is starting to burn, and leave blisters.

You're legally "going after" the Nobles is where I'm at... By crippling currencies and starting a war, under a license of course...

By what authority do creative commons issue their licenses?

...and showing others how to as well.

How are the rights outlined in creative commons licenses upheld/enforced?

As for " By what authority do creative commons issue their licenses?"... stop and think for a minute. Remember that the courts COMPLETELY and WHOLLY ACKNOWLEDGE the authority of the Creative Commons Licence.... ...THINK.

...remember all the players.

Creative Commons established by lawyers, (pissed off ones) so any licenses issued or work done under one to damage the nobility is welcomed?

There is this: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Whitehouse.gov

Judge a to judge b - "One of our friends got bitchslapped by the king... He's going to issue license to people to share his knowledge and experience so if any of them come our way, wink wink..."

This makes a bit more sense now... :p

In an effort to not miss the point, this seems relevant: Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions. Attribution. If You Share the Licensed Material, You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); a copyright notice; a notice that refers to this Public License; a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable; indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License. For the avoidance of doubt, You do not have permission under this Public License to Share Adapted Material. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

Copyright!

T?lis, why do you constantly delete your comments?

haha, sober second thought. My deleted comment from skype conversation last night: The case law on the freeman movement originated in 12th-century Europe and was common as an English or American Colonial expression in Puritan times. In Colonial times, a man had to be elected to this privilege by the General Court. Being a freeman carried with it the right to vote. By the mid 17th century, you needed to take an oath to be recognized freeman. With the abolition of slavery the term became irrelevant BUT the law society, the free mason societies, and guilds continued the practice of taking this oath to their society, which gave these members special rights by society at large; this attracted people who aspired to be in high places, which was exploited by the free masons especially, because so many people in high places were masons and they declared themselves to be the defacto elite, by being called 'private individuals' in order to distinguish/ privilege themselves as not just being an ordinary citizen. https://www.scribd.com/doc/245121839/On-Freedom-of-Expression-and-freeman-rights

Well looks like folks have been busy here :D

Attribution � You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial � You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives � If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. No additional restrictions � You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

if you were to be taken to court for something you've written, because you are protected under the CC license, does this mean there is no recourse for them to use your writings against you?

The issuer of the licence is responsible for prosecution/enforcement. Wouldn't cost me a thing to defend.

no COMMERCE expressed and/or IMPLIED.

NO COMMERCE EXPECTED and/or IMPLIED! :p

Scott Duncan So what ILLEGAL thing am I doing? You didnt get what you paid for. They�ve got an outstanding debt and you�ve got books to balance� Would it be ILLEGAL to teach a bunch of ignorant slaves (which will teach others and so on) how to avoid their fraudulent accounting traps and how to hold accountable the actual party with surety� Or even kill their accounting process altogether ?

It would also seem like moving PERSONS away from using LEGAL tender notes would be ILLEGAL and effectively killing their accounting process... Kinda the same way they censored Gaddafi who wanted to move away from the USD world reserve currency...

Scott mentioned somewhere that Gaddafi was removed because the Uniform Commercial Code is the default law that exists where the US Dollar is used and no other law is present. When Gaddafi tried to fuck with the US Dollar, the US Dollar fucked him back.. all LEGAL apparently. In regards to Scott's ILLEGAL act.. He has mentioned before that legalese is copyrighted.. He is also interfering with others' commerce by teaching this material..

Rodrigo Dan Darius has been paying attention! Impressive!

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

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

I knew it! :D

Why Kent! How very Legal of you! :D

It is a ROGUESUPPORT ARTICLE. Scott Duncan is merely an agent that produced VALUE.

It says so, right in the license. :D

"Once upon a time, some lawyers went after some Nobles...It ended badly for them......now they serve in a "legal" sweat shop." Is The Law Society of Upper Canada a "legal sweat shop," Scott?

A lawyer from Quebec, Michel Lebrun, got disbar a few weeks ago for telling the truth in court, saying that Quebec court are unconstitutional, he literally said that there's no law in Quebec... :D

I am not sure if he got disbar, or disbar him self.....but he is NOT in Le Barreau du Quebec anymore....

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=bar

Bump! :D

So maybe Michel Lebrun could be a nice ex-lawer to contact to get answers! :D

I have his email, and phone number....I'll email that info to you Janick, tonight ;)

:D

:(

Oh fuck....forgot :-o

:D Thanks Pete!

what we are being shown/told is that there is a LEGAL way around the LEGAL system involving only commerce, by using a corporation as the proxy and/or a third party, as the agent acting is not the responsible party. I only need to figure out how to create/register the corporation without having the financial costs they expect to aquire. one has the 'right' to use the court at no cost. is there a means/way around the cost to register a corporation?

:/ Yes David Johansen...not incorporating! You don't REGISTER a fucking corporation. How about starting a separate thread instead of shit staining in this one? Seriously.

If it's FREE, then you are the product, David Johansen :P

sorry david, i may have typed that in the wrong thread. i may be lost.

If it's FREE, then you are the product, <<==MOST RELEVANT THING YOU WILL EVER READ