The Tender For Law

Volume 12

Oct 17, 2015 5:48 PM

Scott Duncan

And now we revisit this scam-in-plain sight with JUSTICES/JUDGES. Dan Lien-your-Name Wilson drew attention to this, when he graciously showed all of you that the COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT only mentions "judges", and that a "JUSTICE" is NOT A JUDGE. GO CHECK! They are NOT THE SAME THING! ONTARIO HAS NO JUDGES. NONE! NOT EVEN ONE!

The Toronto Star has NO liability when they use "Judge/Judges" instead of "Justice". They are ORDERED to by the Law society. The ONLY time they use the title "Justice" is when they are referring to a specific individual.

Think long and hard about that. THIS is done ON PURPOSE.

Secrecy to continue when complaints are raised against judges | Toronto Star

thestar.com

Ontario Judicial Council rebuffs a bid by the Toronto Star and Criminal Lawyers' Association to make reviews of judges more transparent.

Read Comments

Scott Duncan

�We are still reviewing the decision and considering our options,� said his lawyer, Peter Thorning... What the fuck does that even MEAN?

...THIS GROUP is directly responsible for this decision. Can you imagine what would happen if there was public shit I could just point to?

They walk on eggshells regarding this group already! Deleting/banning the group at THIS point would trigger the "Streisand Effect" (look that up if you don't know what it is). This would get too many people asking questions.

As I am constantly reminding you, because there is still no adequate answer posted, yet; I'M THE ONLY ONE ON THE WHOLE FUCKING INTERNET WHO TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT LAW! THE ONLY ONE!

...why is that a thing? You think the Law Society hasn't noticed? REALLY? The last thing they want is people ENDORSING me as TELLING THE TRUTH. It would be the end of them.

I also make NO secret of the fact that I have global communications network and can build/host a network the size of Facebook, on a whim. I'm doing this ON FACEBOOK. Not on the nx2000 network, not on the CDD, Not on ANYTHING I have direct control over. EVERYONE KNOWS that I have this ability. I won't shut up about it, and I REALLY like showing off how much I know, and how much I can do :D

...NOBODY wants to see what happens when this group gets deleted...and LOTS of people have REALLY TRIED.

Lawyers are discouraged from reading THE TENDER FOR LAW, lest they start asking the wrong questions.

LOTS of lawyers will say I'm "wrong" but when you start asking the obvious questions, they will either:

1: Say you are too ignorant to understand (effectively nullifying any surety on your part. This may be a problem for them later, but lawyers are only taught to solve the problem in front of them, and avoid the "bigger picture".)

2: Give a long convoluted legalese bullshit line, and claim YOU are "mistaken", because...grammar.

Scott Duncan

I do it on shit that I DO NOT CONTROL. I make it VERY clear that I can, on a whim, reproduce this on something I DO control...

..with no pesky "terms of service", or even LAWS, for that matter, getting in the way. This is a fact... here. Now. IN REALITY.

...and there's the distinction. To build THE TENDER FOR LAW on MY OWN infrastructure, would oppose a key message/method I'm trying to drill into your empty heads.

Having that kind of control over something that is not for me, but serves my agenda is NOT in my interests, and it could be argued it is an overtly hostile act...

...but if I do it in RESPONSE to a hostile act, like say... deleting THE TENDER FOR LAW, then THEY have surety. That's all you people REALLY want. You want someone to assume surety for these rules. With SURETY comes AUTHORITY. NEVER lose sight of that. At the moment, Stephen Harper has SURETY for the PARTY he leads. It's why "GOVERNMENT OF CANADA" became "HARPER GOVERNMENT" [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/a-rebranding-of-the-harper-government-1.1040716] and there is NOTHING you can do about it. EVERYONE who is given power, eventually USES it to their own gain. There are NO exceptions to this rule. NONE.

IF YOU GIVE ME AUTHORITY, I WILL FUCKING USE IT! <--Best you DON'T FORGET THAT!

Scott Duncan

Most are forbidden to even read what I write, or to mention my name... ever. It really is that sweeping. I'm told 4th year Osgoode students get some sort of written "warning" about me too. They are not very subtle about the intent of the notices, either. They "Warn" that bad things will happen to them (not specified) if they think mentioning me in ANY context is a good idea.

For me. Against me. Good things about me. Bad things about me...IT DOESN'T MATTER! If you are in the Law society, you are NOT to mention my name in the course of your duties. Ever. Not even a little bit.

...but that's just "crazy" talk :D ...like that crazy computer money I've been going on about for 7 years. Pay me no mind. :D

Scott Duncan

They REALLY think that's the best way to "handle" me.

If there IS a Law Society of Upper Canada member reading this... or if there's an Attorney General agent/officer reading, then perhaps you can pass on the message to your leash-holders:

My DIRECT and VERY PUBLIC assault on the LAW SOCIETY will begin with a story. When I publish the article titled:

DRAMATIS PERSONAE: His name was Harrison Krupnik.

When you see that published, it is strongly recommended that you get your affairs in order, because your masters are going to be upset, and in damage-control mode. You will become expendable, and your masters will throw you under the bus. You won't even have the option of switching sides! You are not welcome on the "other side", and there is a standing kill order for ANY Law Society member who dares set foot on an AQUILAE vessel. (I didn't even make the order! That was Admiral Wentz who did that!)

As always: I'll rip your lives apart, and I'll do it LEGALLY and LAWFULLY. ;)

Howard Posehn

I just want to like this again. It really is heart warming: "Scott Duncan They REALLY think that's the best way to "handle" me.

If there IS a Law Society of Upper Canada member reading this... or if there's an Attorney General agent/officer reading, then perhaps you can pass on the message to your leash-holders:

My DIRECT and VERY PUBLIC assault on the LAW SOCIETY will begin with a story. When I publish the article titled:

DRAMATIS PERSONAE: His name was Harrison Krupnik.

When you see that published, it is strongly recommended that you get your affairs in order, because your masters are going to be upset, and in damage-control mode. You will become expendable, and your masters will throw you under the bus. You won't even have the option of switching sides! You are not welcome on the "other side", and there is a standing kill order for ANY Law Society member who dares set foot on an AQUILAE vessel. (I didn't even make the order! That was Admiral Wentz who did that!)

As always: I'll rip your lives apart, and I'll do it LEGALLY and LAWFULLY. wink emoticon"

Anibal Jose Baez

So a drama will start being unfolded, and the "persons of the drama" will be presented to the audience, one by one, starting with the actor/person named Harrison Krupnik.

<<Dramatis person� (Latin: "persons of the drama") is a phrase used to refer collectively, in the form of a list, to the main characters in a dramatic work. Such lists are commonly employed in various forms of theater, and also on screen. Typically, off-stage characters are not considered part of the dramatis person�. It is said to have been recorded in English since 1730, and is also evident in international use.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatis_person%C3%A6