Mar 22, 2016 7:05 PM

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/society SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. 2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice. 3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q.v.) a nation, (q.v.) or a body politic. (q.v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2. 4. In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership. Inst. 3, 26; Dig. 17, 2 Code, 4, 37.

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=905

Its weird... when inserting "Law" Society to the above definition, it sound a little "self proclaimed". Its a legally recognized term for bodies of PERSON coming together in a common goal... no one asked them if their goal is share and desired to involved in its design; ownership of men and women who think they are persons....

So this group of people defines words for themself and created a category they happily placed themself into... justifiying their existence through "PURPOSE" ;(

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=1033 <---Look at their TERMS OF USE using legalese ;)

you agree, on your own behalf and on behalf of any entity on whose behalf you may be acting,

:D

pour vous-m�me et pour tout tiers vous mandatant, :P

I will have to READ this, the English and the French version :D

Blacks 9th societe (soh-see-ay-tay), n. [French] French law. A partnership.

Their version of Creative Commons.

Blacks 9th societas (S<l-SI-<l-tas), n. [Latin] Roman law. A partnership between two or more people agreeing to share profits and losses; a partnership contract.

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=905

Protecting the public

Created by an act of the Legislative Assembly in 1797, the Law Society of Upper Canada governs Ontario�s lawyers and paralegals in the public interest by ensuring that the people of Ontario are served by lawyers and paralegals who meet high standards of learning, competence and professional conduct.

The Law Society has a duty to protect the public interest, to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law, to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario, and to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.

The Law Society regulates, licenses and disciplinesOntario�s more than 49,000 lawyers and over 7,900 licensed paralegals pursuant to the Law Society Act and the Law Society's rules, regulations and guidelines.

Self-governing professions

Like many professionals in Ontario, lawyers and paralegals in Ontario are self-governing. This means that lawyers and paralegals oversee their own regulation through the Law Society in accordance with the Law Society Act and its regulations, passed by the Ontario government.

The Law Society is funded through lawyer and paralegal licensing fees. To maintain the privilege of self-governance, the public interest must always be of paramount concern to the Law Society.

For information on who can provide legal services, please see Choosing the Right Legal Professional.

For information on how to become a lawyer or paralegal, please see the Lawyer Licensing Process and Paralegal Licensing Process.

Serving the public

Just so I am clear, this is the BAR Association in Massachusetts, right?

BurnBaby69 Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson is trying the LAWYER LIE mentioned above! He's hoping for the COMMON definition, and not the LEGAL definition is something you will buy!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the LEGAL definition of ATTORN, please! :D

ALSO: This profile was created by a STRANGER, for ME. Think about that. take as much time as you need.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010709713225

I'm going to teach you how to fight these pieces of shit, HEAD ON!

He comes out LYING, counter it!

He's giving all the COMMON meanings, and even points to some etymology site, all to hide the LEGAL definition of ATTORN.

So we are clear:

Attorn To turn over money, rent, or goods to another. To assign to a specific function or service.

Blacks 9th attorn (;)-tarn), vb. (Isc) l. To agree to be the tenant of a new landlord. - Also termed attorn tenant. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant Is.J 2. To transfer (money, goods, etc.) to another.

He's sharing and spreading the lies like a shotgun!

OK, so first he tries to deflect with a red herring:

"In what jurisdiction? Every jurisdiction is different and decides its own laws and definitions. No jurisdiction is bound by any particular dictionary or whatever. Either a legislature decides the meaning or the courts do."

In whatever jurisdiction the ATTORNEY in question, is. In the US, EVERY lawyer is an "ATTORNEY", but in CANADA, there's only the CROWN ATTORNEY. What do they ATTORN?

LEGALLY!

Crown attorneys attorn men into legal fictions to take on surety

Securities :P

Then he lies and says about the LAW SOCIETY claiming OWNERSHIP of ALL INDIVIDUALS:

"No, lawyers can't buy and sell individuals. Legislators don't have to be lawyers... government force doesn't come from a law society, but from Parliament and the military and police. You're free to leave the country - what does that tell you about their "ownership"?"

The question isn't about LAWYERS, it's about the LAW SOCIETY. Watch for these lies of distraction.

Now he says "Don't bother! Nobody's bound by a dictionary, and you can't find it anyway"!

RE: Look up the LEGAL definitions of EVERY word. "In what jurisdiction? Every jurisdiction is different and decides its own laws and definitions. No jurisdiction is bound by any particular dictionary or whatever. Either a legislature decides the meaning or the courts do."

Does ANYONE here accept that as rational?

It's a serious question. Do I need to rebut this one? I don't know how gullible most of you are.

"No jurisdiction is bound by any particular dictionary or whatever."

You never mentioned 'any particular dictionary or whatever'.

You said to "Look up the LEGAL definitions of EVERY word."

"In what jurisdiction?"

"In whatever jurisdiction the ATTORNEY in question, is."

He's avoiding ever saying THIS^ all at once.

Yet he finds a way to LIE about it.

ALL lawyers LIE. It is their JOB to LIE.

A "law Degree" is a fucking ARTS degree. You can get one through memory and recitation.

Their "art" is LYING!

Remember, this Scam Stevenson profile was created JUST FOR ME. That's normal, right? :D

They really don't know what to do, do they?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arts

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/suppression

Law Society: the body that both regulates and controls solicitors in England. It was constituted by royal charter in 1845. It is responsible for the legal education of solicitors, issuing practicing certificates and preserving minimum standards of behavior. It deals with discipline. It also administers the guarantee fund for the benefit of the public. It administers a complaints system.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+society

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bar

He attempted the "Blitzkrieg of Bullshit" tactic and ran out of ammo, quickly. :D

ALWAYS spot the lie, before you respond. In this case you know WHY he's lying, so it's a lot easier.

SO. What does an ATTORNEY, ATTORN?

And when you give your answer, BE PREPARED TO PROVE IT

*crickets*

Attorneys attorn men / women into legal fictions, thereby creating a joinder with the legal fiction. Once joinder is created, you've been attorned and now stuck with surety. It's all about surety and accounting.

That's true.

Prove it.

When you can do that, THEN you can tell others.

Attorneys can't address a man.

We have Pete's example of the Unidentifiable Defendant.

Unidentified ACCUSED :P

DON'T GET THE WORDS WRONG!

thanks for correction

The DEFENDANT can't show up until the party with surety is clearly identified :P

In CANADA, if you are a "Defendant", someone wants money.

There you go :D

No surety, no accounting, no MONEY :D

If you are an ACCUSED, they are inventing "authority" to prosecute a "CRIME".

much like they invented the legal fiction

No. :P

I didn't invent it.

I just administrate it.

accused

n. a person charged with a crime.

crime

n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.

Public

As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality.

BODY POLITIC, government, corporations.

There's no WRONGS with PIERRE DAOUST 1196604112851.

These greedy bastards who HIJACKED the TRUST is where the WRONGS is.

CITIZEN, persons.

Person

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.

But what does an ATTORNEY, ATTORN?

Securities :P

Can you prove it for us? =D

Through your understanding/consent SIGNATURE

Scott said that Jo's comment was true:

"Attorneys attorn men / women into legal fictions, thereby creating a joinder with the legal fiction. Once joinder is created, you've been attorned and now stuck with surety. It's all about surety and accounting."

Question is now on proof.

the line in Notice of Mistake (drafted / created by Scott Duncan) says "What warrant of agency do I have with the Crown? Meaning where have I endorsed the crown and given consent. (A security)

"By What Authority do YOU attach a name derived from a PUBLIC document to me, the man?, If I have led this court and/or agency or anyone hear to BELIEVE that I am the party with SURETY in this matter then that would be MISTAKE and please forgive me."..

Remember you are ONLY concerned about LEGAL definitions.

So as a PERSON that is a legal fiction created by the BODY POLITIC is all they have AUTHORITY over that which they created and since they did not create the man or woman they have no AUTHORITY over said man or woman as long as said man or woman realizes they are not a legal fiction. So the only AUTHORITY in a courtroom is the man or woman STANDING and speaking for him/herself and the BODY POLITIC and the AGENTS have no JURISDICTION over anything other than that legal fiction. How close am I?

Yes, Rick Carne, and when you do this, they go all tantrum because they just can't monetize that SECURITY :D

mon�e�tize (m?n'?-t?z', m?n'-) tr.v. mon�e�tized, mon�e�tiz�ing, mon�e�tiz�es 1. To convert (an asset) into cash, as by selling the asset or using it as security for a loan.

Dats right!..

Registered as an asset in their books.

My consent/understanding (signature) is needed for them to monetize that security. They need someone to act as SURETY. Because it's all DEBTS :P

Money=Debt

To make a long story short, this crown attorney is asking me since the beginning.

CAN WE MAKE "MONEY" OUT OF THIS SECURITY PLEASE MR.DAOUST?

And I keep saying NO. :D

Tantrum.... :D

Can you JOINDER the SECURITY and the CROWN, Pete Daoust?

And it's MY right to say NO. Unless there's an injured party, right?

Yes,

Scott Duncan, attorneys attorn men that believe they are the person/security/property. And proof of this is the LICENSE they have! The signatures in the LICENSE are PROOF. Is this correct, Scott? A LICENSE to OWN/SELL MEN AS PROPERTY/SECURITIES!

:D

:D

A LICENSE to commit and act that has been deemed ILLEGAL by the GOVERNMENT! OWNING MEN/SLAVERY!

OR, You can do what Pete Daoust does. Send them NOTICE that the picture on the guy on the driver's licence is the Administrator of that entity.

But the man needs to say YES, right? :D

Yes, he needs to ATTORN first! :D

To "be" attorned by saying YES.

Saying yes to being HIM (the Principal).

Same shit happened to your wife when she said YES :P

Same to yours! :P

:D

Lol

Same to yours! :P

Yes, and now that crown attorney wants to STEAL her from me :D

Just say "YES to the Dress"! :P

Fucking criminals :D

Hey, Quatloosers, GET IN!!! :D

Hey Quatloosers, what does this mean?:

"Word "person" is not construed to include Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions. Commonwealth v. Voight (Mass. App. Ct. 1990), 28 Mass. App. Ct. 769, 556 N.E.2d 115, 1990 Mass. App. LEXIS 350."

They want to use NADINE to create ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY? They haven't gotten Pete to create them shit. Remember Scott said once they start this process, SOMEONE has to foot the bill. I say the Law Society seems desperate to look for another surety, other that them to "pay." :D

Criminals...

Sovereign citizens!

To get Nadine they better kill me first, because it ain't gonna work :P

But Pete, you got a magical letter, from someone wearing a suit? Aren't you afraid? :D

Lol... :D

I now suspect that this document can be transformed into a "surety bond". It only missing one signature :/

Fuck me!! :-o

Yes, but whoever makes that second signature becomes surety, is my understanding.

Well, I have this right to a surety, right?

And that public trustee seems to unlock it on this piece of paper, so, as the Administrator, I can access it now, no? :/

I have all the accounting ready :D

HAHA!!!... Ceit Butler did it, right? :D

Hellos! :/

Hellos! What did Ceit Butler do right, Pete Daoust?

Name resolution issue. Removing/re-applying the redirect in your HOSTS file flushes your DNS cache.

You know why we use comma, right Nina J Winter? :/

Whhhhhat? You have me shaking my head on this one, Pete Daoust. And to answer the question, NO.

:D

The comma as in proper grammatical context?

Coma then? :/

I'm about in a coma...lol

Commas is used to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. So I am going to take a stab at it having something to do with JOIN.

So when you read this, what does it tell?

HAHA!!!... Ceit Butler did it, right? :D

Opppsss, I think I just unlocked new dots, and connected them :/

And I have good reasons to believe that some ain't going to be happy about it :/

Two independent clauses joined.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=cayAcTWRqmsC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=upper.canada.legislative+acts+passed+1797&source=bl&ots=lejrXpV9oe&sig=ifLWzye5eIV0GBzdMTufUnxHVCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSuM-wydXLAhWCtoMKHVnvBDgQ6AEIJjAD#v=onepage&q=upper.canada.legislative%20acts%20passed%201797&f=false

"An association or company of persons (generally not Incorporated) united together for any mutual or common purpose." Which led me to: association: "The act of a number of PERSONS who unite or join together for some special purpose or business. The union of a COMPANY of PERSONS for the TRANSACTION of designated affairs, or the attainment of some common object. An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise."

OK...gonna be in that dictionnary all night me thinks. Not like i shouldn't be, right?

Law society: The Law Society of England and Wales (officially named The Law Society) is the professional association that represents and governs the lawyers' profession for the jurisdiction of England and Wales. ? Govern? *head busting open. Why did you guys have to make my curious brain question every single word i read now? Oh yeah...bring me back from the dead. Nothing more important than being ALIVE and FREE*

^^^^ a Royal Chartered organization..

OK we need to find an act passed by legislative assembly of upper canada in June of 1797. We are looking for the transaction. The law society claims it in public notice we need to find it.

This is it. I've got to read read it a few times. June 8th 1797. An act to supply the want of enrollment of deeds of bargain and sale. https://books.google.ca/books?id=KmlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=upper+canada+acts+passed+1797&source=bl&ots=LWXkJyECpL&sig=JflM27DH2FfbXnzQMdyqeRRliWE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4oZSl19XLAhUKuIMKHVugDcYQ6AEIMzAH#v=onepage&q=upper%20canada%20acts%20passed%201797&f=false

Ok, explain now...

Stand by. Brain is smoking here.

Their Creative Commons with a fee schedule.

And the transaction keeps surety hidden in plain sight because of control over grammar schools. The whole programming you with belief that you are a person.

Scott pointed I looked it seems obvious. But I'm still missing something.

Grrr one of my ether miners is down poor timing

What are you guys looking for? :/

Proof the law society of upper canada claims ownership of all individuals

I found a book on Google books that has all the acts passed in the legislative session for the year1797 in upper canada.

I think the LICENSE to PRACTICE, and the signatures on it, are the PROOF. Attorneys attorn men that believe they are the person/security/property. And the PROOF of this is the LICENSE they have! The signatures in the LICENSE are PROOF. A LICENSE to OWN/SELL MEN AS PROPERTY/SECURITIES!

If I am not mistaken, that answered Scott's question about PROOF.

So, best is to get these LICENSE numbers, when one of these vampires engages :D

LOL :D

The only thing that binds us is a presumption on their part and a belief on our part. Here at TTFL we've been taught and it's been drilled into us by Scott Duncan, and it's on the bobble head that ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. So stop believing and remove the presumption! :D

"The only thing that binds us is a presumption on their part and a belief on our part."

No, it's our SIGNATURES :/

And you have been programmed to believe to sign everything put in front of you when these tards present you with shit.

Yes, but this time has past :D

ABSOLUTELY!!!!! HAHAHAHA :P

I don't think we answered Scott Duncan's 2nd question: Does the Law Society claim OWNERSHIP of all INDIVIDUALS?

Scott Duncan said look at the LEGAL DEFINITION ALL WORDS!

When you look at the legal definition of INDIVIDUAL, Black's Law states: Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person.

The last statement says it all. If an INDIVIDUAL can be considered to include (not includes, so not limiting) an artificial person, then when the Crown representing the government comes forward making a claim, it is PRESUMED that they OWN THE INDIVIDUAL, and by default are presuming the individual is the artificial person. That's where you need to break the presumption and clarify your status. So when the LSUC states they own ALL INDIVIDUALS, it is true unless the presumption is broken.

I cannot stress this enough, so I'm saying it again.

ANY "officer of the court" who refers to "General" or "common" usage of a word, IS LYING TO YOU SO YOU WILL NOT FOCUS ON THE LEGAL MEANING OF THE WORD!

When it comes to BANKS, or GOVERNMENT, ONLY THE LEGAL MEANING APPLIES. EVER.

Gotcha :D

PRICELESS!!! :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B359hCC3HQU

Should be Scott Duncan, but you know what I mean :D

Natasha Tutino, you saw that the Autistic Newfie Lawyer with the imaginary mail-order Gook-Bride(tm), immediately tried to bombard you with "common" and "general" usage meanings. They ALL do this, so you DON'T look at the LEGAL meaning.

It's really easy to make them look like complete idiots, once you spot this. All they can do after that, is just blatantly lie.

I am a bit confused. Has the 2nd question been answered? :/

No.

It's more blatant than that. You just have to find it.

Oh piss. I knew I should've kept digging.

They CLAIM OWNERSHIP of ALL INDIVIDUALS. <---look up the LEGAL meaning of those words.

The LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of ALL INDIVIDUALS. <---[That sentence is mostly CAPS because you want the LEGAL meaning of those words, so look them up!]

They've ORGANIZED us.... and we are theirs :D

With a shit load of magical parchiaments :/

Scott is asking a very specific question. LEGAL definitions of the following sentence:

"The LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of ALL INDIVIDUALS."

We need the LEGAL definition of INDIVIDUALS. I've got an idea of what it is, but will keep my mouth shut until I can source it.

Ok, so according to the legal definition of INDIVIDUAL, they claim ownership over NATURAL PERSONS, which are HUMANS. Is this it, Scott Duncan?

NATURAL PERSONS = HUMANS WITHOUT LIMITED LIABILITY!

Claim the request or demand for payment of money, damages for an injury, for property, or for recognition of a right

http://americanintelligencereport.com/police-are-creating-fake-accounts-on-facebook-so-they-can-monitor-you-how-to-identify-a-fake-account

Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson does this shit. Just sayin'

Who is this Sam?

Wow!!!.... :D

They work very hard.... :D

But it's too late :/

"[6] Of particular note is the claim that their birth registration and the form of document created to show a live birth is somehow equivalent to �security� as defined in the Bank Act. "

And they DO NOT say that it is NOT a security.

This is the latest Dan wilson clone?

Yes. That is Dan Lien-Your-Name Wilson doing that perfectly normal behavior of making profiles just for me.

He's had them ready for some time. That means he knew I, or someone like me, was coming.

Now what kind of man/woman is worried about me SO much that profiles are created for the purpose of "damage control"?

...or maybe it's some psycho in his mom's basement! Who's to say?

That doesn't actually change the truth, though, does it?

Yes, I mean we are just CRAZIES who chit chat on facebook, right? ......we are no threats to anyone!! ....we are so wrong in EVERYTHING we say/do .....why the fuck even read us ?

:D

Now the stupid piece of shit has made YET ANOTHER fake profile called "Tru Teller", claiming my blocking him means his name calling "struck a nerve".Yes. I block pieces of shit who call my readers names. It "strikes a nerve" that I can't solve it by smashing his face with an axe. So I blocked him...

Seriously, lawyers are complete delusional psychopaths.This idiot thinks it's "perfectly normal" to do this shit too.

Another profile (Made just for me) blocked.

This time I'm accused of "not being able to deal with people". I've never denied this. Most lawyers I'd rather Stick a hot soldering-iron in their eyes and ears, than have any sort of dialog with them.

Yes I get it. I'm causing the court system an insane amount of trouble, as well as banks. I've taught too many people, too much. That doesn't mean I have ANY obligation to abide stalkers.

Yes. I "can't deal with people". I can't deal with people who create stalker profiles. i can't deal with lying lawyers. I can't deal with adults with imaginary friends.

SO FUCKING WHAT! YOU are the inferior one, not me. I don't harm people through fraud. I don't claim to own people, and I don't have an imaginary friend. These are the kinds of people I "can't deal with".

My stalker seems to think I'm "bad" for this reason...and continues to stalk.

So let's talk about how it's both morally and ethically sound to blind lawyers and cut off their thumbs. :D

But at this point... you must at least expect it ;)

A littles? Oui?

You sent so many hellos to the 4 winds, over the years... it would be weird if you had no stalker.

Just a quick reminder:

While I have already sold the title to the eyes and thumbs of Douglas Levitt, Timothy Duggan, Brian Horlick, Wailan Low, and James Makris, I still have the titles of the eyes and thumbs of Deborah Knight, and F. Manuel Fernandez for sale at $50,000 each.

To those just joining: I don't accept money from people unless I am SELLING something. I SOLD the eyes and thumbs to those who owe me a debt.One even bought it as an INVESTMENT, because I have a very strict MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. If any of them need money, all they have to do id bring me the eyes and thumbs they own, and I'll give them their money back! :D

I also don't care if the rest of the body is attached, or if they are even alive. Just bring me the eyes and thumbs, and I'll give you your money back.

Alas, the two for sale still, aren't connected to the Law society or the government, so they are a LOT harder to sell. That's why they are so cheap. :D

Coincidentally if you look at the "shares" there's an Astroturf Movement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing] forming to counter Scott Duncan's disruption. These lies must be called out and met HEAD ON.

If you look they pretend to be "hysterically laughing" and saying that we are "denying the facts" which is ironic.

This is coming from people who think they own you, or they work for people who think they own you. THAT is a fact. Remember it when dealing with them.

They don't think it..... they believe in magic parchments that say so.

People are going to start lying about Scott Duncan en masse. You are the only ones who can refute those lies, and looking at all of you, I'm not optimistic. :(

Well, where the fuck are they? :/

They're coming. Don't try to rush it.

K :/

Yeah, Pete, I'm not ready yet! LOL

I am.

There's only ONE of you.

Well, just two at a time then.

If the lies were to come from only ONE source, I could just handle it myself, but it will come from thousands, and you will "believe" whatever lie they make up, eventually. I know you SEEM grateful for my work, but in the end I know ALL of you have an Andrew D'Spyder-Pig lurking inside.

Nope, I can't understand nor consent. Too late now :P

There is NOTHING you can say that The Spyder-Pig didn't say 1000-fold. Like it or not, you're all the same. :/

I know who spyder pig is, and I am not like that. I was build very different. :P

As I indicated before, ONE (1) is NOT a statistically large or relevant number :P

They are creating entire pages dedicated to lying about him, now.

Calling him a "Freeman on the land". https://www.facebook.com/996830310359664/photos/a.1008479195861442.1073741829.996830310359664/1104650039577690/?type=3&comment_id=1105596736149687&notif_t=like&notif_id=1459955455758419

Anibal Jose Baez, and Pete Daoust are doing fine, but it'd be nice if others spoke up too.

"Get off my lawn"! I just got the joke! :D

Seriously? You've been playing it for four years and you didn't know why it was called "get off my lawn"?

It's because it's all OLD people like you, isn't it! :D

Yes. And fuck you. The same shit's going to happen to you. :P

<<How much time should we waste responding to individuals who are unresponsive liars, with the intent of misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and obfuscating everything we say>>

Steven Sharp. I have come to realize it must be done every single time it happens. And one must have the last word too. I feel ashamed it was not until recently it dawned on me we must combat lies every time they are out to see. If we don't do it THEY WIN. If lies are not called out, they will remain as "the truth."

NOW you're getting it.

The best part is, the lawyers are being PAID to do it, which means they will RUN OUT OF MONEY. They always do.

After a while the stupidity makes your eyes bleed and you want to reach through the computer and just.. give them cake.

How much are you willing to do for the truth?

It's the title of a subject that has been in my thoughts for a while. I will perhaps write about it, but in the meantime I ask you to ponder that question.

It "feels good" to see the "Likes" on my previous comment, about ALWAYS be on the side of truth, by combating lies every time we see them.

I know many are maybe not prepared to engage professional liars that hide behind fake accounts, but your comment and/or at least "Likes" of comments of our group members in those exchanges can be felt a lot more present.

We have been given a lot of knowledge, all free. Scott and Tara are being attacked, meaning that YOU (WE) are been attacked. So, I ask again, how much are you willing to do for the truth? :/

A little bit :D

Xam Borg seems to kick a little ass! What's his story?

the story of � Guy who whant to beleave h� could stop evryting saying where is the surete of m'y person in court ... but the biggest l'obyste fucker jean masson is a Old lawyer as t�moin in m'y case against me .. and the caporal buck grc leader and and spvm agent against me... so im not sure I whant to proced hehe I did try say that in municipal court but the juge didnt whanted to hear more from me and i got aquiter. . but there in criminel im not sure

I really wish I understood this... And My Frenglish is pretty good!

...fuck. Out-Frenglished again! :(

LOL :D

He yelled out loud, during a protest: HARPER, I AM GOING TO PUT A BOMB IN YOUR OFFICE.

Of course this was a joke :D , but apparently, some took it seriously :/

Google jean masson .. and u gona understand who m'y enemi is ... its not just law its contact its lobby its plante of influant People. ..

Now he faces criminal charges on that joke :/

You can not go out in public and yell: I AM GOING TO PUT A BOMB IN YOUR OFFICE.

Especially if the tard you yell this to is a prime ministere.......it will cause you troubles :D

Even if it's a joke, TRUST me ( no need to verify it again :D )

lolll no n��d to v�rify true

:D

I'm called a "terrorist" as well, and I didn't do anything!

...mind you, Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, either ;)

If Charles Manson hadn't played the "church" card, and just said "these are just some fucked up kids I let crash at my place" he'd be a free man :D