The Tender For Law

Volume 8

Oct 30, 2014 3:29 PM

David-Paul Sip

Immediately thought about the TTFL when I read this. So many quotes to choose from, I thought this snippet was funny "...the COUNTRY as a whole was a victim of his crimes". Which snippit had you laughing with everything the Admiral has taught in the TTFL?

Ex-citizenship judge jailed for illegally revealing citizenship exams | Toronto Star

thestar.com

Philip Gaynor, 71, was sentenced to three years for the �reprehensible� act of providing copies to an immigration consultant to make extra money.

Read Comments

Scott Duncan

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.

David-Paul Sip

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".

Scott Duncan

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". ;)

David-Paul Sip

"... 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?

David-Paul Sip

"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! :/

David-Paul Sip

:/ 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?

Eamonn O Brien

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...

Paul O'Shea

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.

Eamonn O Brien

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...

Eamonn O Brien

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?

Eamonn O Brien

(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

Scott Duncan

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.

Eamonn O Brien

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... :/

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

Scott Duncan

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.

Chris Evan

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.

T?lis B?auns

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

Rick Carne

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.

Will Bed

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 ?

Will Bed

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...

Rodrigo Dan Darius

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..

David Johansen

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?