He is talking about certain RIGHTS that EVERYONE has, but mostly are not been ASSERTED. The way to assert those rights would be via AGENCY, and it's Principal/Agent relationship, which he is missing. In this case the word EVERYONE would equal to AGENTS, and the PRINCIPAL is the responsible party for HIS AGENTS. The PRINCIPAL is the party that must provide for "adequate living, food, clothing, housing,..." for HIS AGENTS. He is wrong to believe "we" have millions in some account/s. It's ALL "their" stuff, not of our CREATION. But AGENCY can sure explain how/why is the PRINCIPAL the responsible party for EVERYONE, meaning HIS AGENTS.

There is no remedy for him and he is also of the misconception that he has the right to the value of the security of the person which he didn't create. He is an unwitting agent by tacit consent, whos signature facilitates any transfer of value regarding the security of the person for the government. He says there is a distinction in law between a man and woman and an artificial being , no there's not they assume and presume you to be the artificial being they control by hoodwinking you into being surety for it. It's up to you to make the distinction . He's very confused and talks about a little knowledge being dangerous in the wrong hands, he is the epitomy of that.

LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. It doesn't matter which jurisdiction. If it doesn't fit into THAT SPECIFIC MODEL, then IT'S WRONG. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION! ...and any effort beyond that is a waste.

In case you missed it: LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.

This just in: LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.

In other news: LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.

Yes of course, always revert to the basic facts.

The parts that don't fit that model, in Mr. Spirit's video, ARE WRONG.

That's clear as it's impossible to follow.

It's a shame for him he never arrived at the Scott Duncan fork in the road, ah well :-)

In this case AGENCY would take care of explaining SURETY, and WHO ACCOUNTS for it.

I always try to picture a "mysterious" claim of rights he wanted to sell to me for $1800.00 CAD, when I see his face :D

Not my fault :/

So, my guess is, as soon as he reveals LEGAL=SURETY AND ACCOUNTING, there will be nothing else to SELL for him :/

Bingo!

He's Native. As far as I'm concerned, he can charge people for anything he wants.

Yes.

He can.... :D

If natives want to club government workers to death, and take their shit, well I'm good with that too.

If natives want to skin Lawyers alive and make Jackets out of their skin to sell on Ebay: 1: I'm good with too 2: I'll be their first customer.

LOL :D

I was in a LAWYER's office yesterday, for three hours :D He said, WHO the fuck taught you all this ? I said: Scott Duncan :D

He wrote it down :/

NO, no no! The PROPER answer to that question is... WE ARE COMING.

When last I had to speak to a lawyer and I told him I knew what was going on and it was all about Accounting and Surety he put his head down and pretended not to hear me.

This lawyer is 65, and no one ever came in his office to say things like that :P

Criminal Lawyer....

This guy may literally be too old to have heard of me. He'll ask around... ...and that's when he'll realize he's stomped on a burning pile of shit. :D

Hahaha!

...and NOBODY stomps on a burning pile of shit anymore! :D

He will be sitting in the court room, on November the 16th, because after we've made a play, with him acting as the judge, he had no fucking clue on where to go with this.... :/

He was "mouthless" :D

"Scott Duncan Says Hi" is a good response too.

Yeah! ....very polite and courteous :/

It's a nice chaser to "We are coming" too. Mix and match them! :D

"He was mouthless". That combined with "full hog" are two of my favorite bastardizations of otherwise common expressions :D

Oh, I forgot "fruitile", pointless, but with a fruity flavour. :P

This is what I picture when Pete says this :D

Not that I've come accross it here but one of my favourites is CONVERSATE. Conversate. A word used by backwards, ignorant, illiterate inner city trash who mean to say 'converse'. "Yo, I just needs to conversate witcha!"

Oh yes. I forgot another one - from high school. Guy says, "Why do we need these stupid English classes. I can conversate pretty basic!" He's probably a pilot now.

If this thread is off track, and you want to REALLY go sideways with it... ...This is happening: https://www.facebook.com/bryon.watkins.9/posts/787452898043301?comment_id=788060747982516&notif_t=like It has the return of Dan "Lien Your Name" Wilson, and Derek Moran in the intellectual cage match that will sure to be told of, years hence! ...make sure you screen-cap.

Haha, was witness to that thread's early developement. Some fuckwits just need to be right so much even when they're wrong they just don't know when to admit it. What the fuck is so hard about saying hey , you know what I was way off base on that thanks for providing me with the right information ?

...and I'm STILL the only one who gives ACTUAL answers. Mr. Spirit is close, though! :D

The more I'm wrong around those who are right, the more I learn :-)

It's all about accounting and surety, I am not that person and if at any time I or anyone acting on my behalf has led you to believe that I am surety in this matter then that would be a mistake and please forgive me. That's my basics. I love basics :-) P.S It'd be nice if the cunts gave you a chance to utter those facts though :/

ahem... Point of Order works good,as recollection serves me, just don't fuck up like I did, What follows is an analysis of where I went wrong. simply put: talked myself into surety First thing that took place after approx 28 hours in custody upon first meeting while kidnapped in front of Justice, Cop starts to Talk, I talk over him and say *point of order, I used my vocals to "notice of mistake" the Justice. a basic notice of mistake much like the one above and stood behind it verbally, The Justice listened , intently. and a previous assumption of surety, after the Point was heard. New Charges were attempted but no action was taken at that point in time, they stuck me in remand for unpaid restitution, now, time has been served and all these mistake are being corrected. However, I was forced to have the crowns agents act to obtain release, after that I gathered intelligence to see how they did things. Now we never ever, go quietly. Remember, They don't care. Accounting and surety. The agency now handles that... Crown Duty council, Lawyer, to me " we do not use email it is too personal:" Oddly the truth.. it keeps it private. The last words uttered for the record by Justice... Justice: " You better make sure you are all prepared at your next appearance". Me: "You Bet..." Surety back at the Justice. So as not to repeat these past blunders, I share these mistakes and what I learned, here, so maybe you will be able to get the fuck out of there, and be safe at home. Now for me, An Agency handles all things ,Me does not go. The Person we have has accounted for it properly by the document of power of attorney. Not magical parchments, This process means something to them, they believe it... We, now appoint someone with a power of attorney, to act as agent. If forced to appear by kidnapping, no talky to police, Objections would be thrown in, as a rebuttal to bullshit. On all points. Notice of Mistake. verbatim, unadulterated and pristine from memory, loudly ,Remember, silence is deadly. Rebut any and all points, object for the record over talk them. Void any forced bull shit. Surety and Accounting via agency of a privatley owned and operated person If you can, find the humor of the act they put on, laugh at them. It throws them off. Rebut any/all bullshit Brought up by bull shit butt pirates. ALL points. These are some of the things, I have learned, that now lead me to be a crypto coin, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Name coin, Bobcoin, Doge etc.. Open source , de centralised, P2P... I was distracted by bullshit for a while. They just do not care...

the person I have acts legally as an agent and the creator of this agent is the Agency and therefore surety. It is important for us to make the distinction with any party attempting to do commerce and copy the attorney general. Do I have this correct?

john scott duncan = a man. A Semi-evolved chimp, that made it this far. John Scott Duncan = REGISTERED AGENT for the CROWN ORGANIZATION. In order to ACT as AGENT in this CAPACITY you MUST be ACTING AS HER MAJESTY. JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN = LEGAL NAME, LEGAL ENTITY, REGISTERED CROWN ORGANIZATION. This is where all the ACCOUNTING and SURETY happens. When you use this name, you are ACTING in COMMERCE. When you use this name, there is always a MONETARY VALUE attached to it. Under ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION this would be a "VESSEL". John Scott, DUNCAN = HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION. -Scott Duncan

thanks Pete.. found it - joinder for idiots article. Need to work on my understanding of the accounting to help me fill in the gaps.. I see a very nice stamp collection in my future. :)

I have made a video on ACCOUNTING, would you like to watch it ? :/

Here, it's 1 minute and 16 seconds, very simple stuff.... :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJcCf4wqe2k

John $1800

Pete Daoust STEPHANE BOUCHER and Stephane Boucher are different, one is for use in commerce what is the other one for?

Fucking ? :/

See above Scott comment, he mention clearly that all cap is for commercial use but the other one not. I am thinking that the Stephane Boucher one would already be joiner to the commercial one, making it commercial as well but that could be a shit stain....

john scott duncan = a man. A Semi-evolved chimp, that made it this far. John Scott Duncan = REGISTERED AGENT for the CROWN ORGANIZATION. In order to ACT as AGENT in this CAPACITY you MUST be ACTING AS HER MAJESTY. JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN = LEGAL NAME, LEGAL ENTITY, REGISTERED CROWN ORGANIZATION. This is where all the ACCOUNTING and SURETY happens. When you use this name, you are ACTING in COMMERCE. When you use this name, there is always a MONETARY VALUE attached to it. Under ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION this would be a "VESSEL". John Scott, DUNCAN = HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION.

The Canada Revenue Agency will write your name "John DOE" when they want money from you.

Send those back. :D

This is what I have done, last April. They've called and say. CRA: We received your envelop, but there's no PAYMENT in it. Me: You received the Bill of Exchange ? CRA: Heu.....well, heu... Me: Do you see the words Bill of Exchange on that instrument ? CRA: Yes Me: Do you see the words Bank of Canada as well ? CRA: Yes. Me: So, you just have to PRESENT this bill of exchange to the PAYMENT, payment being Bank of Canada. CRA: Ok, thanks.... :D That was june 2015, never heard of it since..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP5fiuJsE5o

EVERYONE knows that "cooperation" is my shtick.... :D

"shtick" :D You really have been listening to Scott Duncan!

Well, I had three options.... :/ Listening to idiots. Listening to Government Listening to Scott Duncan The two first was tried, for a long period of time, so I've picked the third option, just in case :D

And it went well !! :D

Hey guys, this is Eamonn O Brien, playing some faggotry music :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4KWjKswBII

Faggotry music?

That was a joke.....don't kill me, please :P

I'll let you off this time... :p That faggotry music will be funding the purchase of BTC this year... :)

I get it. Sort of like The Commitments meets The Full Monty - but with a crappier ending :)

You can't PURCHASE bitcoin :P

It'll provide fiat to be exchanged for BTC

Sounds good. Perhaps you can punch up the brass section and show us some skin :)

We tend to leave our hats on Tara... :p

:P

Good point, Pete, Eamonn said nothing about socks. :p

This thread is dying a painful death... ?

Let me finish it.... :D Flea can inspire Eamonn O Brien, I am sure :D

Pretty sure our bookings would decline rapidly if I followed in fleas shoes, wherever he may have left them...

As Tara Duncan would say, "You never Know"!! :D

There are dangerous trends for faggoty topics eh. Man, I remember back in the days, 3.75 days ago to be exact, people would have been shamed for much less then this! ;)

It's a good thing we're not in the shaming business. Hopefully this is just good, clean fun!

Jeez ?

Another post ruined by extreme gay shit.

I don't see anything shameful in here :/

Lol I meant that Scott would have brought us back on the right track before so many naked man pictures appears ;) He had a special touch to "shame" our collective bullshit or love for thinking wrong and valuing the wrong shit.

What track ? What bullshit ? What value ?

What the fuck are you talking about ? :/

Sorry. If it will make you happier, I can say "What's with all the faggot stuff", or whatever The Admiral says. There's 6 of us doing this, and we really have no idea what we're doing. :D

:P

Lol are you that clue less Pete? You just don't get it do you? This tread, when Scott was around, would have been moderated with some "mild shaming". An exemple could be that faggoty things tend to be faggoty.... these things include pictures of man hiding their dicks with socks, even if is to get a point across ;) Nothing personal Pete.

I never saw Scott Duncan "moderate" anything. And no, I am not that clue less..... Anyone in here that says Scott Duncan acted as a MODERATOR in here is LYING..... "Moderator" pfffttt......that's for gays..... :D

Didn't he? I remember tingly feelings...

That was not "moderate", that was kicking out idiots......as in BANNING........

And highlighting shit stains... I maybe wrong with my use of "moderator" words. My mistake sorry of this. I gotta run anyways if more need the be discussed it will be later. Bonne journ�e ;)

And if these pictures are shocking you in some ways, get on your fucking knees and PRAY......

That was decisive not moderate!

Lol Shocking no... off the initial topic ... yes. Was just taking my phone to plug it... I'm out.

Here's a plan. If you have something interesting or insightful to comment regarding the post, why don't you do that now. If you have questions for the group - here's your opportunity. Otherwise you are contributing to that thing you don't love.

This thread ended at the 3rd post......look, I am not clue less :P "Scott Duncan LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. It doesn't matter which jurisdiction. If it doesn't fit into THAT SPECIFIC MODEL, then IT'S WRONG. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION! ...and any effort beyond that is a waste."

Who's your "daddy"? Is it Scott? Is it the government, the clergy, your corporate boss? Do you notice something wrong and then make the necessary corrections to get things back on track, or do you grumble and wait for "daddy" to tell you what you should think or do? I currently have no stake in the outcome. I would be remiss in not mentioning, however, that the time you spend participating in pointless activities is time you won't get back. If you don't like how something is going, change it. In this case, one comment should suffice. For those of you who have children or cats, look at the way they deal with distractions. If they want something they keep coming back to it regardless of how many distractions you throw in their way. They know what they want, and they don't lose focus. If you think right and value the right things, a few naked pictures or jokes are not a deal breaker. If your conversation can be derailed that easily you'll never accomplish anything. To Pete's point, everything that needs to be said regarding this post, may have already been discussed. This should, however, speak to the larger issue for this thread, and others. I'll start. Comment on the subject matter, or off you fuck.

:D

It was intended to be a small "wink", "tease" from a poorly put together "call back humor" from newly absent Scott. I have to be what I want to see in the world, thanks for putting be back in line Tara... sorry if that bothered anyone else, including you Pete. I shut my pie hole now and will contribute or put forward insights as they come.

" including you Pete" ? So, you really don't give a flying fuck about ANYONE else than me ? :P

Or maybe it's just that you are clue less about the words you're using :P

Attention French people: clueless in English is one word. :)

See? :D

Seriously, it's like you people have "aucune id�e"!

*Bump