The Tender For Law

Volume 14

Apr 16, 2016 6:46 PM

Read Comments

Pete Daoust

Ok....here, the fast method

1). ALL BELIEFS ARE EVIL, all of them. And through a quick tour on your facebook page, you're filled with stupid beliefs......fix that.

2). YOU THINK WRONG AND VALUE THE WRONG THINGS......accept it and fix it.

3). Read all these articles 2 to 3 times, and then come back here with questions....

Thanks Pete.

http://kentbarrett.com/articles/

Jim Nicoll

Thank you Pete. You pointed me in the direction of TTFL back in mid December. Either Chris or Kent pointed me to the files section and Scott's gold nuggets.

The first 3 months I spent about 10 hours a day going back through all the posts.

I was taking too much in and not giving my brain a chance to absorb what I was reading.

I'm still spending a fair amount of time going through the posts and comments. But now, taking breaks and then coming back, I find things are starting to stand out.

I've been getting frustrated lately because there are some posts where ideas are started, but not finished in the posts or there are multiple directions that are not quite clear to me.

I would much rather ask for clarification in the posts, than to message any of the members, as I know you all get bombarded with questions in your inboxes.

again... thank you for allowing me to join.

Nanabush Westwind

vacated your bowels eh ? how old ru ? lmao, any way i dont know too much about this but i learned about the private side of the matter and wrote on the back of the offer my charges mailed to me by the crown. and i filled a brown envlope which i gave to the crown with regina vs JAH the queens oath, undrip, and related treaty's, my statutory declaration. told them they have no sovreinty , judicial authortity because of regina vs jah the queen has no sovreinty so where are they getting there authority from any way in the end it was vacated

Richie Petrowski

Thanks for the honesty Pete Daoust, have spent the last few days with your points in consideration, and you were right. Thank you Scott Duncan as well for your generosity and time you have taken to publish your work.

This is what I needed.

Jim Nicoll

Almost 1 1/2 months ago, I asked Bell to send me a bill so I can pay it. What I received though was an account summary... correction... I received a "copy" of an account summary.

I am thinking I should make "copies" of legal tender and send them to Bell, to cover the "copy" of the account summary.

Any thoughts?

Jim Nicoll

I've been reading TTFL posts, and I've been leaning a lot. I know they are just statements. Well in this case, a summary.

I'm not into committing fraud, so guess I won't be copying legal tender then.

Just thought I would play with their heads. Kinda getting tired of big corporations insulting my intelligence.

So it looks like I will have to go with my second, but less humorous option, which was to send them a letter telling them I can only settle this matter if they send me a bill or signed invoice.

Scott Duncan

Let me explain the three levels of stupid "Just thought I would play with their heads" is:

1: It accomplishes exactly NOTHING. 2: It flags you and attracts the wrong attention, and you will find "Just thought I would play with their heads" being used AGAINST you in LEGAL proceedings. 3: ARE YOU FUCKING 12?

Scott Duncan

Don't mix-and-match shit either. Remember that I only POINT at things. You are not qualified to handle the "LEGAL" my way.

I suspect you have not gone through past accounting to see if you actually consented.

Anibal Jose Baez

Ok Jim Nicoll. You are in a circumstance which you BELIEVED to have known what you were doing. Now you are hit with the reality that you are WRONG. You can either defend your position, and get banned, OR actually find out why are you wrong, and what is the truth about this whole "discharge" of public debt.

Scott Duncan

Fiat Money is DEBT IN TRANSIT. If you can buy good/services with it, it's MONEY OF EXCHANGE.

The rest is MONEY OF ACCOUNT. MONEY OF EXCHANGE can buy MONEY OF ACCOUNT, but MONEY OF ACCOUNT cannot buy MONEY OF EXCHANGE.

The ONLY thing MONEY OF ACCOUNT can buy, is MORE MONEY OF ACCOUNT.

Jim Nicoll

It's all debt. I've already been familiarizing myself with alt coins. I have a measley 3000 doge and a few other coins. Didn't have the means until a few days ago to actually invest in some equipment to start mining. I have been cpu mining and it is a wste of time.

Scott Duncan

When you use a CREDIT CARD, you are CREATING MONEY OF ACCOUNT, and the merchant gets MONEY OF EXCHANGE from the TRUSTEE (The Credit Card Issuer). That's why the business is "Charged Back" when the cardholder defaults.

Anibal Jose Baez

Jim Nicoll, since we navigate in a LEGAL world, ALL words have a LEGAL definition. Those are the ONLY definitions we are concerned about here. Look up EVERY word in a legal dictionary BEFORE you use words at random here.

Jim Nicoll

As I said above. I have a list going. I've been jumping all over the place here trying to learn as quickly as possible. I know I need to focus more and learn one thing at a time, instead of trying to learn everything at once.

Anibal Jose Baez

It is called LEGALESE, and it's a way for LAW SOCIETY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTS, and other parties in commerce, at plain sight, to conduct their "business" without the understanding of most. There are no synonyms, nor homonyms in "law".

Anibal Jose Baez

Jim Nicoll, you came here, and wrote a post about wanting to dischage a Bell debt. You had a exchange with Scott, and a few of us. You found out that you are wrong.

After this exchange, do you know what was wrong, and it why was wrong what you were trying to do?

I am really interested to know if you have learned anything here.

Anibal Jose Baez

Jim Nicoll, with the information we shared here, try to see what was exactly wrong with what you were trying to do. Then place your thoughts here. There is no hurry. Take ALL the time you need. If you come back with your answers (even is they are retarded), or even no answers because you honestly do not know, I promise I will explain to you what I see.

Jim Nicoll

This was my thought process.

I have asked for services, and I have always paid. If I buy something, I pay for it. I did not know that I was buying back debt until I read it on TTFL I don't have to buy back debt if I don't want to. I have the option to buy back the debt or discharge it. I am not yet ready to start discharging debts, but wanted to prepare by having Bell send me bills instead of paying online. My intention is to pay, I was just offended that they sent a "copy" instead of sending a bill, and I started thinking the wrong things. I posted my thoughts here in order to have constructive feedback, because I wasn't thinking clearly and I didn't want to do something stupid.

From Pete's example with hydro. Pete has the option to buy back the debt and let hydro have the remittance or he can discharge the debt as authorized administrator for PIERRE DAOUST. 9111-1111 can buy the debt.

They are asking me to buy this debt. I don't want to buy this debt. This debt was sent to my person.

Since I haven't had the means to get my notices sent out, my plan was to get proper bills/invoices and continue to pay until I am able to discharge. My goal is to be prepared for when I do start taking charge.

This was my thought process.

I now have the means to get the notices done, as well as creating a corporation.

I do understand that if I buy something I must pay, and that if I choose not to buy something, I don't have to pay.

I have to process the words I use and choose them carefully. I'm still stuck on the common meaning most of the time.

I got this far then had to run out for a bit.

I thought I was understanding what I was reading, but not so sure now.

It is my persons account, so my person is the one receiving the benefit. I just have use of it.

I am not a person, I have a person, and as the administrator, I am supposed to be able to use the security of the person to settle things. I know I have to notify the government and Bank of Canada about using the security of the person and asking if I am correct.

When I get an invoice I turn the remittance part into a BOE, endorse it and send instructions stating that it is a BOE and where to send it in order to have it discharged.

using legal tender is paying debt with debt

I think I complicated things here by not being clear in my intentions and using the wrong words.

I thought everything about credit cards was money of account. I didn't know the merchant's got money of exchange.

I know both money of account and money of exchange are debt.

I knew money of exchange can get you money of account, but I didn't know money of account can't get you money of exchange. So that one has my brain going trying to figure out why that is.

My brain is fried... Sitting here thinking isn't bringing up anything different. I'm missing something and it's right in front of me, but I don't see it.

Anibal Jose Baez

Ok Jim Nicoll, let me tell you that you have a mess in your head. You have some information correct, but most incorrect, because of a faulty thought process. As you mentioned at the end of your comment, you don't see it. But here is the place to learn.

Can I ask you complete ERASE anything you BELIEVE to know about .law/money? Can you start from scratch? :/

Jim Nicoll

I left after I posted. I needed to get off the computer. The answer is yes, I want to erase what I thought was right.

I do accept your offer Anibal, thank you

I have to work on some things for tomorrow, so I am staying offline for the day. I think I will even shut down facebook and come back tomorrow and make a fresh start.

Scott Duncan

Remember Pete and Anibal; If they don't know any better, their intent is not hostile. This is the hardest and most annoying part. There is no INTENT. They cannot be blamed.

Those that are lying about me, DO know better. Redirect your annoyance at poor Mr. Nicoll, to something that deserves the contempt you feel, because THEY are why Mr. Nicoll even exists in his current mindset.

This isn't Sewer Ellie, or the Piece-of-Shit Christians. Don't harm the victims, no matter how right you are to feel contempt. They don't know any better, and it's probably cruel for them to know anything else, but I don't really care. I DO know something else, and I have lived my live there. It's dying and needs fresh minds to bring it back to life.

I'm going to show you how to bring the whole corrupt mess down, and then I will show you how to build what you are looking for. Didn't you know? I have THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. :D

True Story! :D

Anyway, TL;DR: Ignorance is not hostility. TRY not to beat up the ignorant. I REALLY know what you are feeling... you have all made me feel it at one time or another.

Scott Duncan

When will people realize that Zombie Rape-Baby-on-a-stick is the cause if their current ignorance?

You don't get to pick and choose your "belief" when you are seeking the truth. If you believe that Zombie Rape-Baby-on-a-stick is real, then you are NOT seeking truth and have NO business being here.

Jim Nicoll

Scott: Your comment about me running before learning to walk is quite accurate. I have been trying to play catch up. I read and read and read, but I don't stop and take the time to absorb what I'm reading, so it ends up being time wasted.

Hopefully Anibal, you can help me slow down and focus on one thing at a time.

Since I am starting from the beginning again, I should go back to Scott's articles, but this time, read only one at a time and then reread it.

Pete Daoust

So you wanted to avoid paying a Bell debt. You have Martin Sutton on your facebook friendlist.

You want to fully cooperate in here, you don't seems to be mad at all.

You're ready to flush everything you've learned and start from scratch.

You are a very special kind of fucktard from what I have seen so far :D

I was mad when I joined the Tender for Law and was looking for answers. I was the most ignorant/fucktard in here.

I am having a hard time believing you want to invest all this time for a Bell debt :D

Sorry, I suspect you being a something else than a fucktard :P

Jim Nicoll

If Martin is on my friends list, he is from legal deception. I added a couple people from there, then I stopped because they all think I have answers, when I don't. I used to be very mad, but being mad doesn't help me. I never said I didn't want to pay a debt. I was pissed that they didn't send me a proper bill when I asked. This is not about a Bell debt. I spoke with Bell again today and they would send a proper bill.

Anibal Jose Baez

Ok, let me explain something to you, Jim Nicoll.

All money is DEBT IN TRANSIT. So there is no magical accounts with cash waiting to be retrieved. It's all DEBTS, in negative accounting.

You can either BUY debts (by PAYING), OR DISCHARGE them using the surety of your person. The question is: how do you know which debts you MUST pay, and which ones you may DISCHARGE?

You have private debts, and public debts. All debts.

A private debt is, for example, a credit card, a loan or mortgage to a bank, or a cell phone service. For those you VOLUNTARILY ASKED FOR THEM, and signed a contract PROMISING you would PAY. NOT discharge! And your SIGNATURE it's PROOF of CONSENT, and UNDERSTANDING.

A public debt you DID NOT asked for it. Those are debts like income taxes, criminal charges, property taxes, etc. Those debts are IMPOSED on your person. You did not asked for taxes, that was imposed via legislation. You did not asked to get charged with "resisting arrest." A cop (THE PUBLIC) did. See how it is?

It is ONLY PUBLIC DEBT that you may DISCHARGE using the surety of your person. You read that? ONLY PUBLIC DEBT.

BUT... there is a catch! By ignorance, we can BELIEVE that the only way to deal with this public debt is by PAYING. Some AGENCY sends YOU some paper saying your person owes a debt, and then by IGNORANCE you go and GIVE your SIGNATURE in that paper as PROOF of CONSENT, and UNDERSTANDING that NOW YOU are going to be the responsible party for that debt. If you give your signature, you NO LONGER can discharge that debt, because you PROMISED to PAY for it.

Was that clear, Jim Nicoll?

Anibal Jose Baez

Remember, MONEY means LEGAL. And LEGAL is SURETY and ACCOUNTING. It's ALL about the MONEY.

This is not the definition of money of exchange and money of account, rather a simple explanation of their mechanics.

MONEY OF EXCHANGE, is money you have the BENEFIT of using WITHOUT being SURETY for the it. For example, a $20 dollar bill. Your signature is NOT on it, right?

MONEY OF ACCOUNT is money you have the benefit of using, but YOU ARE SURETY for it. Like a CHECK, or a CREDIT CARD, you must SING to use, so YOU become SURETY for that money.

Anibal Jose Baez

<<So using money of exchange, I am not surety, but by using it, I am bound by acts and statutes?>>

Yes! BOTH forms of money are LEGAL TENDER. They bound the user to the rules. But with money of exchange, you are just not SURETY for the NOTE/BILL/MONEY. For the other kind, you ARE surety if that check bounces. Rules still apply.

Is that clear?

Anibal Jose Baez

ALWAYS FOCUS in SURETY, and ACCOUNTING when dealing in LEGAL. Remember, it's all DEBTS (ACCOUNTING), and who accounts for that debt SURETY (the responsible party for those debts). That is all "law" you want to focus on.

Anibal Jose Baez

Ok, so now that you know that MONEY is DEBT IN TRANSIT, and that MONEY = LEGAL, and LEGAL = SURETY and ACCOUNTING, when CHARGES are created in court, a DEBT is been created. That is ALL that is happening in reality.

ALL you want to be concerned about in "law" is: if CHARGES = DEBT, you want to find where is the SURETY for that DEBT. Who is the responsible party to either PAY or DISCHARGE that DEBT? That is ALL "law" you need to be concerned about.

Do you get that? Everybody get that?

Anibal Jose Baez

The PRINCIPAL is SURETY. The maker of the Birth Certificate/SECURITY/PERSON and whoever signs, is the responsible party for your person. You can only ACT as AGENT for your PERSON. Unless you admit to being the NAME/PERSON, which is the equivalent of you saying that YOU are the PRINCIPAL, therefore SURETY. Any attempt of saying you are HIM (The PRINCIPAL) is FRAUD.

The LAW OF AGENCY. In the relationship of AGENCY, the AGENTS perform for the PRINCIPAL, the PRINCIPAL being the ultimate responsible party for HIS/HER AGENTS.

Anibal Jose Baez

The Administrator is an AGENT. Is not separate. You can only be HIM (The PRINCIPAL), or ACT as AGENT for HIM. What you want is to always give notice, and qualify your signature to avoid being an agent with surety. You can sign as Administrator/Agent without surety. You can act as agent, and still not be surety, ONLY if you know what you are doing.

Did you get that?

Anibal Jose Baez

It should not hurt. You should be happy you now know the TRUTH about a few things. That makes me happy always. What should anger you is the deception others use to hurt you, and others. That rage you should use to learn, and find solutions.

Anibal Jose Baez

And here is the ONLY place in the entire Internet where at least one man will ALWAYS tell you the truth, and that man is Scott Duncan.

Everything I shared with you, does not come from me. It was gifted by Scott to me, and now I am just paying back a debt. A very cool, but scary debt.

Anibal Jose Baez

Later, we can talk about the PROGRAM Scott mentioned to you. Understand why do you think wrong, and how to fix it, on your own. Here are the tools, the pieces of the puzzle. You have to join the dots, and do the leg work.

Anibal Jose Baez

Anger is not bad, if it towards an aggressor. How can you fight back an aggressor, if you don't feel angry enough to fight back for your life?

Use the anger towards your advantage. Use it to acquire knowledge, knowledge that can both free you up a bit, and be used against the aggressor.

Anibal Jose Baez

I think it's time for you to go do something else, and we can continue tomorrow. You are starting to get all that PROGRAM "feel good" stuff out, and I don't want any shitstains in this thread, Jim. Later!