Lou Manotti, I could not grasp the whole "law" surety/accounting concept, UNTIL I read Scott's article on AGENCY. THAT did it for me. I was missing that piece of information.

Perhaps you can assist us in resolving a mystery then. Why don't people like Dean C. Clifford, Robert-Arthur: Menard, Sino General, John Spirit, of anyone who speaks of "law", tell you about AGENCY? Is it because they are ignorant, or do they deliberately omit it?

Anyone?

Hello?

I am writing a speculative answer. Please stand-by.

It's because they all want free steaks and free boose and free bananas :P

Scott Duncan said we will never get a straight answer :/

QED

What Scott Duncan teaches, implies that ONE is better get to create/produce something if ONE wants to eat :P

Or he/she will starve :D

As true as that is, It doesn't actually answer my question.

Would you like me to repeat the question?

"Is it because they are ignorant, or do they deliberately omit it?" It's because they deliberately omit it. Admitting it would force them to create/produce something of VALUE :P

That is demonstrably true with Menard, and Clifford, but can you say the same about the rest?

That is too simplistic an answer.

If you insist it is "true" I'm going to need you to substantiate your position.

"That is too simplistic an answer." :D

THEY ALL WANT "MONEY" .....all of them, fuck, it's like they all want a FREE FUCKING RIDE..... That doesn't exist in here....... :P

I understand what you are saying, but what are you basing this on?

I'll come back, container guy just showed up

I listen to everything you say, Pete Daoust, and then I dismiss it. Scott Duncan has hundreds of "studies" he reviews. Then he dismisses it. "Where is the peer review"? They are the same thing. You are one big french bundle of confirmation bias. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm) This means that it is not reasonable, by your very nature, to presume you have the right answer. You don't by the way.

I do not know why Dean and Friends ignore and/or omit the Law of Agency. I can speculate, based on my own experience. In my case, I had no idea about the Law of Agency, until Scott wrote that article. And I would had not been able to understand it, IF I had not been paying attention since the beginning of the group. Within the "freedumb movements" you mostly hear/read about laws related to the Constitutions, Magna Carta, Common Law, Natural Law, but NEVER Law of Agency. One of the things the programming does to many in these "movements," is to want to ignore and/or DETACH yourself from "the system." You want to pretend you are NOT part of it. So, the idea of being an AGENT of the government is not something a programmed mind wants to do. You don't see yourself as the ADMINISTRATOR/AGENT for the person. I experienced some of this myself. Something like the "Notice of Mistake" may reinforce that idea, to the still confused. The notice it's a complete detachment. You are not even saying you are the Administrator/Agent, one is asking for evidence of such claim. So, they either ignore the Law of Agency, because they have never heard of it and/or bother looking, and/or because the programming finds to much an inconvenience to place yourself in the position of AGENT without surety within the system. It's easier to "run" and pretend you are not part of it. Again, this is all speculation, based on my own experiences.

This is a lot more valuable than Pete Daoust's declarations.

Pete Daoust, you are no different than the "Quatlosers" when you declare something is true, and when asked to substantiate it, you effectively answer "reasons".

Yes, I just don't have TIME right now to type.......I'll be back

I have never met Menard or cliford. But I have met a free dumber who runs peace maker society here in Manitoba. Essentially a Menard clone selling claim of rights packages for 1500 bucks. Everytime I try to explain the issue with agency or tender for law it is met with insane violent reaction. He has threatened me oN numerous occasions. But refuses to answer the questions. Except with a lame one line response similar to this not is legal tender cannot compel one to act. And the argument dissolves into threat against me even a threat of a libel suit. At any rate it appears belief is a strong component of this issue. These men and women believe so strongly in wrong thinking and belief that they won't even have a discussion about it. Fuck I'm rambling and not answering the question. In summary this piece of shit ripped off a bunch of men and women by selling them magic parchments and is keeping all the money. So having willfully committed fraud and stolen the money admitting it at this point is too much so they just start threatening

"Libel suit" ?! ...OMG !!! :D

I have read some seriously free dumb stuff from peacemakers society too. Like the founder got busted growing cannabis in his apartment. But because he put the right to grow cannabis in his claim of right bs he now thinks he has the lawful right to grow cannabis despite having signed for the apartment etc.

What do they say about Menard and Clifford?

I never asked...... wish I had

Just so we are clear. THE TENDER FOR LAW is the ONLY place to mention the LAW of AGENCY?

I've NEVER read about the LAW of AGENCY ANYWHERE else.

I never read anywhere else, :/

That's fucked up. Remember how Scott Duncan said EVERY lawyer knows? That.

Imagine if they hadn't fucked Scott Duncan around! You'd never have known. :/

I mentioned THIS ^^^ to my mother just this week :o

Indeed. Just imagine.

They don't even have the option of buying my silence, now. Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson waived that option on behalf of the Law Society. Too bad, too. $700,000.00 is only a fraction of the damage I've caused to the society as a whole. They should be quite upset that Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson acted without authorization. Too late now. Buying my silence is a bargain at twice the price!

Ok, I realize that I may be leaving the Law Society with no remedy. I'll reinstate the tender. I have to add the shit-stain removal fee, incurred by their agent Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson. They can buy my silence for $901,250.19 Next month, it doubles, because fuck you.

:D

I like better that number :D

I know that number seems pretty specific, and some may suspect it's just made up. It isn't. There is a lot of precise accounting (as pricey as I may be) involved.

Yes, I've heard from some Japanese mysterious folks that you are very good with numbers :D

No. I'm one of the "Dumb ones", remember? I don't care how many computers I have helping, Daniel J Wentz can do the same shit in his head. I'm not even sure I could beat his crew.

Right, sorry I forgot :/