Very entertaining it is too :-)

:D

Can't wait to see the accountant's face..... Hey, I can't stop the brain from spinning, so fuck it, let spin the fuck out of it... :D

You guys don't think this makes sense ? :)

We could call this thread the QUEBEC Doctrine :D

What do I care, we have courrier servive in Montreal, like purolator or Fedex....... :P

"and hence various accountant-related expenses" We call this, "ADMINISTRATION FEES", and it will be billed :P

Or crazy... :P

I think it would be even more entertaining if you did a one-man play on this and you play all the parts. I would be fascinated to see it as I know you know what you are about and you also have the seriousness and sense of humour to carry it off.

Looks like a stain shit to me

Do tell !! :-)

I will....but we have a snow event coming in 3 hours and I ned to sleep...tomorrow. But most of what you wrote is a stain shit....For starters, PETE should not be used in commerce any more. Use a proxy, the BILLS are worth the same....

:-)

Ok...so this "snow event" isn't accumulating. :-D

9111-1111 Quebec is a bank. THAT'S IT! Its a bank. Its for depositing, its not for commerce. The very idea that it would send a bill to PIERRE DAOUST is commerce. It would also be a self authenticating security....which no one will trust. But, 9111-1111 Quebec has an undertaking of balancing the TRUST that it holds, and it was entrusted with PIERRE DAOUST, therefore, with only EXCHANGING money, it must balance the books. For instance....a bill comes in PIERRE DAOUSTs mailbox. Well, this bill is for something that the Sole Authorized Administrator of PIERRE DAOUST asked for. The order was made, the bill is just a formality and the TRUSTEE must buy that thing. So, the TRUSTEE sends some Money of Exchange and it becomes the lawful holder of the bill. It simply creates a Bill of Exchange out of it and endorses it For Deposit Only [or some other wording possibly to transfer the instrument to 9111-111 Quebec (on the back of course)]. Note: no commerce has happened...this is simply an exchange. Another example....a bill comes in PIERRE DAOUSTs mailbox and the Sole Authorized Administrator did not ask for that thing. Upon inspection, it is an offer to buy some public debts. Now, presuming that the man that is authorized to use this account, PIERRE DAOUST, has resigned and the security has been damaged, the instrument is the property of 9111-1111 Quebec, but the liability belongs to the owner of PIERRE DAOUST. Maybe this is a good time to discuss damaging the security....The BC is a way for them to claim rights to the PERSON. They want the money generated from commerce using the PERSON. By liening the security, you are invoking the jurisdictional traffic cop known as the UCC to direct the rights to the lienholder. Without damaging the security, 9111-1111 Quebec doesn't have an interest in the PERSON...remember, a lien is simply a claim to the value. Now Pete, you are also the Administrator of a commercial venture called SFC Inc. As I see the situation (minus that marriage, I don't know about that, but lets just say that its just PIERRE, SFC, and 9111-1111 Quebec), 9111-1111 Quebec should issue 2 shares of stock. One to PIERRE DAOUST and one to SFC, Inc. That share would replace the function of the BC and act as a claim to value for 9111-1111 Quebec to its persons money. SFC, Inc is required to balance its own accounting, but, it can deposit its value to its holding company. A couple weeks back, I came to the realization that the only reason to get into commerce is to buy a bunch of debt....profit, as you know it traditionally, is a red herring. Now, lets look at the elephant in the room...these fucking marriages. If you are married, you need to create a new person to do commerce with...call it Joseph Gilles. Joseph Gilles is now the person which you and your wife will do commerce with. It will be a corporation..This thing will make agreements, buy debts, etc...it would also have to be a shareholder of 9111-1111 Quebec and that would give 9111-1111 Quebec a claim to the value of that Person. This whole thing is all about creating proxies to buy a bunch of dbt that is deposited and secured by a trust holding company. That is my comprehension of it....I am pretty sure it is accurate, but I am sure Scott will gladly correct me if I have left a stain shit. Oh...one final point....The Chartered Accountant is the person who registers the accounting on the correct ledgers. See, the lien is a public notice of damaging the security, but the Chartered Accountant actually does the damage. Just because we file a UCC1 or a PPSA, it doesn't mean that it is etched in stone (right Gail?). The Chartered Accountant 'etches' the lien in stone because that person REGISTERS the lien. [I think that person can also register deposits, but I am not entirely sure yet...I think this is the person we will meet with quarterly to register all deposits and they will perform the accounting and certify the value as such...but I don't know yet]

And further, I am really thinking that all accounts should be changed to a proxy so there is no activity for the account known as PIERRE DAOUST.

Again further...about monetizing these securities...I am not sure. But, some banks will create shell entities to hold a bundle of these things, then sell the shares at par...that could be an option. I think there is a market within Private Banking that will buy these things, but I am not sure I really want to sell them...or exchange them rather. I am hoping they wish to receive a share of stock for the term neeed as a valuable consideration for the exchange. I am nor sure about any of this, but I know this is what other banks are doing!

Fuck??? where is everyone? :-D I could do this and dump this shit in a Western African jurisdiction!! I hear they have some very archaic rules. :-D Does anyone get what I am writing here?

Well....I wouldn't do it with one of these vessels per se....but I could create a vessel holding some tortured cargo and then sell that one for pennies on the dollar there!

I'm keeping my yap shut for I while.

I have a meeting with the Chartered Accountant, today at 4:00pm.....will get back in here after... :D

Scott Duncan, how many PERSONS 9111-1111 Quebec Inc can ADMINISTRATE ? :D I am asking because some folks I know, seems to have problems trying to administrate their persons, it looks like the actual TRUSTEE can't be TRUSTED :D

I know!!!! As many shares as are issued!!

Wow...this thread is quiet....either this is the biggest stain shit ever and Scott is taking his time to carefully write why I am wrong, or I think I got it! :-D

Scott, is all of this correct?

What you write here seems to make sense brother Chris and I can tell you have been thinking about this alot

Oh....one more thing...I think it is better to use a proxy to buy these bills rather than an exchange at a bank....it will create an extra level of detachment (I think).

I am sure Pete will have something to say after his meeting though.

:-D

What news Pete? :)

I'd say the Captain is in the ascendancy, just a hunch.

adrian and pete you coming into skype?

First confirmation from this accountant: Yes, a Chartered Accountant can CERTIFY a Bill of Exchange. Yes, Bills of Exchange is cash :D Yes, All this need to stay in PRIVATE, so therefor, PRIVATE BANKING is the way to go. No, he can NOT help me with this, I need to go to a large accounting firm, I think it has to do with AGENT and AGENCY.....not sure. Yes, his head was spinning all over the place.... So now, I will have to take an appointment with one of these large firms :/ Any suggestion ? :D

I am calling Ernst and Young

The TOP 10 in Quebec :D Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton (RCGT) Samson B�lair /Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte) PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Ernst & Young (E&Y) KPMG Mallette RSM Richter Chamberland BDO Canada Groupe RDL Fauteux Bruno Bussieres Leewarden (FBBL)

I have a referral to a specific man at E&Y.... :-D

Chris, question on this.... "I think there is a market within Private Banking that will buy these things, but I am not sure I really want to sell them...or exchange them rather. I am hoping they wish to receive a share of stock for the term need as a valuable consideration for the exchange. " WHY would you offer a "share of stock" for "exchange"? The consideration should be the "things"; not a share of stock. Correct my thinking here....

I'm still working it out in my brain, but I don't know. I think both could be tools depending on the situation. But not a share of the holding company....a sub-shell corp holding these things. :-D

Scott, the article on PRIVATE banking, is it on the agenda ? :D

"Pete Daoust First confirmation from this accountant: Yes, a Chartered Accountant can CERTIFY a Bill of Exchange. Yes, Bills of Exchange is cash Yes, All this need to stay in PRIVATE, so therefor, PRIVATE BANKING is the way to go. No, he can NOT help me with this, I need to go to a large accounting firm, I think it has to do with AGENT and AGENCY.....not sure. Yes, his head was spinning all over the place.... So now, I will have to take an appointment with one of these large firms Any suggestion ?" Did you get that resolved and find the help at the large firm Pete?

Not yet....it's in the priorities, somewhere :D

I was wondering about the AGENT/AGENCY part of that...

Well, do you have the remittance with you ?

Adrian Thomson, the way I get this is, if I go to a large firm, and one of the hundreds of accountant in that large firm takes care of my stuff, he is doing it as an AGENT of that large firm, so he won't get into troubles with the government..... That's what came to mind, when I was there....

I do not think Revenue Canada can answer the question of surety, being that the ORGANIZATION was NOT the creation of that AGENCY/Revenue Canada, but ANOTHER AGENCY. Why would we ask that question to RC/IRS, I am still debating about it. Maybe the question should be made to/answered by the creator of the security/organization? Still, I do not think they will put it in writing. It's like putting in writing a company secret. Why would they do that? One of a few options is, other than administrating that BILL, for the AGENT to forward those BILLS to it's owner, which is the PRINCIPAL. It is JOHN BARRET that owes. JOHN BARRET is the PROPERTY of the PRINCIPAL. The government is a TRUST, but it's operation is via AGENCIES. That LAW of AGENCY cannot be ignored when dealing with government.

As the SOLE authorized Administrator, I have the right to administrate these bills...and these AGENCIES who sends debts to the person has to OBEY the law, no ? :/

That's WHY I ask the question, because if I can't administrate the PERSON, I need to know......I don't care to re-direct ALL these bils to the party who signed the surety bond, I really don't, but if I have the right to the surety, and I choose to administrate, and no one can OBJECT to it, well so be it, I want to ADMINISTRATE :D

Yes, that appears to be one of a few options, in this particular case. Another possible option is for the Administrator to "pay", and then, after previous notice, ask the PRINCIPAL for reimbursement by showing proof that an expense FOR the organization was made. That would also make sense to me.

The administrator has NO money, he never did...ever... :P

It's ALL for the PERSON, all these LEGAL bank notes are for the person, not the administrator....that's WHY a proxy is needed....

Humm... I have to think better about that one. In essence, it would make sense to "pay" AS the PRINCIPAL. Meaning payment was tendered by the PRINCIPAL, and/or on behalf of the PRINCIPAL. But yes, the PERSON is the one that "pays." When I say Administrator has to "pay," I meant that in REALITY it is the MAN that has to exchange his time, for money, to then "pay."

Well, here, the Man has no intentions on BUYING these debts :P

If you feel it's ok to get robbed, you can BUY BACK these debts, you have 18 trillions to pick from :D

There's a reason WHY I don't want to buy these debts back, and I NOTIFY all of them about it. I HAVE GOOD REASONS TO BELIEVE WE ARE BEING ROBBED. That's the WHY.... :D

If ANY of these idiots, can send me a WRITTEN guaranty, that we are NOT being robbed, never been and never will, I WILL BUY BACK THESE DEBTS AGAIN :P

Hey, I am going thru this myself. Have you seen this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205383465014392&set=p.10205383465014392&type=1&theater To me, in REALITY, it boils down to how much harm I want to inflict me, and/or my family. so my options must consider this. I already know there IS slavery in place, so what is the price I am willing to "pay" to prove that? If that LAW of AGENCY is in place, then my beef has to be with the PRINCIPAL, the MASTER! My "employer." Who the fuck cares in the Tax AGENCY if the man does not want to buy any more public debt? They cannot do anything about it. That sound like something that needs to be heard/solved by the PRINCIPAL. It should be able to do something about it. Does this ^^^ makes sense to you, Pete?

Yes, it does make sense, DO IT, and post the results !! :) Me, I will bill that agency, in the mean time :D

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205383471654558&set=p.10205383471654558&type=1

If it's this hard, we are doing it wrong, yes?

I heard that somewhere...

Bump.