Lawyers and what you should know.

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:59 am

(c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
What is the difference between LEGAL and LAWFUL?
To answer this question one must first answer the question, “What is LAW?”
Social conditioning and the public discourse of lawyers is intentionally designed to stop you from asking this question. Here in reality there have been many attempts to define it. Law is just a weasel-word catch-phrase, like “Due Process“. It doesn’t actually exist.
The works of Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, most notably “Introduction to Jurisprudence”, poses the question whether it’s possible, or desirable to define LAW. By 1972, when these works were written, there was no accepted definition. There are, however, “proposed” definitions.
One definition is that “LAW” is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.
Queen’s Counsel Glenville Williams, said the meaning of the word law depends on the context in which the word is used. For example, early Customary law and Municipal law are contexts where the word “LAW” have conflicting and irreconcilable meanings. A devout Muslim will consider the Q’uran and the Hadiths LAW; however a quick examination of these “LAWS” will show that they’re incompatible with anything resembling a civilized society.
In the end a conclusion is that LAW is anything that’s written down and upheld by the adherents of that writing. It is the first MAXIM of LAW;”If it is written, it is Law.” It simply boils down to how many people are willing to enforce it.
Some “LAWS” are considered universal. Don’t harm others. Don’t steal from others; and don’t deceive others. Left at that point, the concept of LAW would be pretty simple, as these are things that most of us do as a matter of course.
If you are taking the time to read this article, I think it’s a safe assumption that you aren’t doing it between bouts of robbery and murder. Human beings, by their very nature (with some notable exceptions), are inherently altruistic, and have empathy; thus making the whole not killing people, not robbing people and not defrauding people, the de facto state of the average Homo sapien.
These universal laws are essentially all Homo sapiens need to interact with each other. If you’re not killing somebody, and you’re not robbing somebody, and you’re not deceiving somebody, it is safe to presume that whatever you do is, in fact, LAWFUL.
So what does LEGAL mean?
In Western society LEGAL means Acts and Statutes enacted by Parliament/Congress with the FORCE OF LAW, and with the consent of the governed.
I created THE TENDER FOR LAW to educate the general public as to what money is; and the reason this is so important is that money is what indicates your consent to be governed by LEGAL Acts and Statutes.
If you are unfortunate enough to know a banker or a lawyer, great entertainment can be had by asking the question, “What does this note is LEGAL Tender mean?”, and watching them trying to sputter out an answer. Lawyers will give long, convoluted explanations with bullshit piled on top of bullshit. When they are finished with their deliberately wrong answer, point to the words and ask, “Which word says all that? Is it the words, “this note”? No? What about the words, LEGAL Tender? What does that mean?” That is why this group is called THE TENDER FOR LAW.
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW.
If you partake in any financial transaction, LEGALLY the only consideration is who must pay.
LEGAL = Accounting and Surety
Surety simply means “responsible party”.
None of this is ever taught to you in school, and as the Money as Debt series has taught you, neither is monetary theory. This is done with a very insidious intent. To understand what this insidious intent is, I must explain how I managed to avoid it.
To do this I must snap back to a childhood vignette.
Many readers will know the familiar feeling of having contempt for your parents. Allow me to give you a few more. My father (John Wayne Duncan), was in his mid-twenties and living in Belleville, Ontario. He had moved there from London, Ontario, to take a job with Canadian National Railways. We lived at 67 Village Drive, and my phone number was 962-0377. I remember these salient details because they were hammered into my head, in case I was found wandering around, which I tended to do. My grandmother (Olga Jean Duncan), thought I was the greatest thing that had ever blessed the earth; and whenever she was around my whims were catered to, in excess. From that time forward, she was never shy about stating that “I was the favourite!” From a child’s perspective, comparatively, my parents seemed to actually resent my existence. At that point in life, I had adopted several axioms which hold true to this day.
If you are under 20 years old, like it or not, you are a child. If you’re fortunate enough to be this age, let me give you these axioms, and I guarantee your life will be of higher quality. Notice I call them axioms, and not laws (although since I’m writing them down here, for this article, technically they are);
1. EVERY ADULT IS LYING TO YOU – There are no exceptions to this rule. Most lie because they don’t want to admit they are ignorant of the questions you’re asking them. Many lie because they don’t want you to know certain things. But in the end, they are all lying to you. A lie of omission is still a lie. It’s intent is to deceive. I think I covered that earlier in this article – see unlawful.
2. IF YOU POINT OUT TO THESE ADULTS THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, LYING TO YOU, THEY WILL INTENTIONALLY SEEK TO HARM YOU – There are no exceptions to this rule. Nobody’s feelings are more hurt than when their lies are exposed. You may think this sounds hostile, but that’s simply because you can’t tell the difference between what’s true, and what feels good.
Back to the childhood vignette…
One day my father vetoed a purchase that my grandmother had made, saying, “He needs to know the value of money.” Unfortunately for all parties involved, I was at the stage in my intellectual evolution where I had reached the conclusion that the only way to successfully navigate the world of liars, which I appeared to have been born into, was to lie to them. I mastered the art of deception at a very early age; and as long as you focus on the fact that the deception is there to misdirect, you can still see the world very clearly. For one of the other advantages I had at that point, was that I knew that knowledge is power. The trick is not to let anyone know you’re learning it.
When my grandmother agreed with my father’s position, I was shocked and hurt, until I remembered, “They’re all lying to me”. My only question is, “Why are they all lying to me”? It was shortly after that point that I learned I wasn’t criminally accountable for my actions. Wait…what were those words? CRIMINALLY ACCOUNTABLE. What the hell does CRIME have to do with ACCOUNTING? I had just spotted a trinity. Money, crime, accounting.
Whenever I spotted interactive trinities I studied each part, knowing they were connected to the other two parts. I dedicated the next two years, with the limited resources that I had, to the study of these things. I knew NEVER to reveal that I was actually thinking, because I saw what happened to kids that were discovered doing that. That’s when I discovered what money actually was.
At that time I was attending Parkdale Public School. In those early days (Late 70’s), “Truancy” was considered an offence; but it turns out that nobody in a public library cares about truancy. The librarians at the Belleville Public Library, seeing me reference but never checking out books, constantly checking references, looking up definitions of words, and reading law, simply saw me as a smart, ambitious young man who’s “really going to go places when he grows up”. The lesson I hadn’t learned at that time was NEVER LET THEM TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
Here’s my example.
Since my father was a Civil Engineer, designing a “dream house” and building it across town, was a matter of simplicity. That house had been constructed, and we were living there. By that point I was a little terror, because somehow this man had convinced my grandmother that “learning the value of money” was important. When I stated that it had no value, and was in fact debt, I found myself in a permanently hostile environment. By that time my brother and sister had been born, because my father was figuring out that he’d married a worthless bimbo, and said worthless bimbo loved babies, but couldn’t stand children. When it looked like my father was going to call it quits, she invariably got “knocked-up”. My sister was an exact clone of her mother; and I didn’t know it at a time, but my brother would grow up to be one of the bravest men I had ever known. Sadly, I got all the brains. Many things were denied me, because I dared declare that “money has no value”.
All I ever heard about was how they didn’t have any money. But I knew money was worthless, and it bound you to a whole bunch of rules that nobody in their right mind would want. I continued ignoring school and studying what was interesting to me; nobody had caught on to the library scam yet. Nobody knew where I went during the day when I was “truant”, and since I was a child who didn’t know counter-surveillance techniques, I was unaware that my mother had commissioned a neighbour’s kid to follow me. The little droplets of knowledge that I had, ended when the police showed up and terrorized the librarians. I was brought home, the police commented on what a smart kid I was, and in the preparation for some form of corporal punishment that my mother had thought up, I pointed out that injuring me is a crime, but if I injured her, it was not. I told her I would never forgive her for what she had taken away, and that if she ever denied me any knowledge ever again, I would kill her…
…and then I went back to playing dumb.
For the first time in my life, everyone thought my mother was lying. To this day, it is my fondest childhood memory. Nobody would accept that I could put these concepts together. I got my first erection when I saw fear in her eyes. I was flooded with a flurry of emotion. Nobody believed her. Everything she was saying was true, and nobody believed her. They believed ME. I was just a dumb rebellious child, not someone who’d figured out things, far too soon for their liking.
From the perspective of an adult it’s pretty easy to play “dumb kid” as the adults in question, had forgotten what it’s like to be a child, and had certainly forgotten how much their parents underestimated them.
Nobody believed her. Why didn’t anyone believe her? She was an adult. That’s when I realized I didn’t need a library, I had a laboratory.
Be offensive, deceptive, and stupid – because that’s what they expected; which means they were always looking in the wrong direction. I studied that trinity. I studied law, I studied crime, and I studied money, because I was “not criminally accountable for my actions.”
As I was going down this path to enlightenment, there was a disproportionate air of concern from my grandmother. I wouldn’t find out until I was thirteen exactly what that was. At the time it was just, if you keep doing what you’re doing, apparently you’re going to miss out on something. Something very important. But when pressed on the issue, every party would lie about it. By that point I could spot liars from a mile away. Sometimes I couldn’t spot what the lie was, I could simply spot that when they said something that they knew wasn’t true, they couldn’t hide it from me. I learned more from people’s lies than I ever did from honesty. I resented my parents for this. Why would they bring me into this world, filled with deception and lies, where everyone thinks wrong, and values the wrong things?
I knew the value of money. It had none. And I also found that it had conditions – see THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER.
Those of you seeking liberty must learn law and accounting, because if you don’t you will believe a million lies. We’ve often heard the phrase, “No one is above the law”! In reality, there are lots of people above the law. A Justice, for example, in Canada, has absolutely no criminal liability for their actions; yet you are told we are all equal under the law. And you’ll be told that it’s necessary, etc., in order to distract you from the actual mechanics.
If someone is “above the law”, then there is no law. It’s fraud. A man/woman in a black dress and a red sash doesn’t have magical super-powers that puts him/her “above the law” or above you; and these people possess no mental powers that you don’t; yet everyone blindly accepts their “authority”. Thank your early childhood programming, and ESPECIALLY religion. It is your early programming that makes you “believe” people are “above” you.
Legally, “authority” simply refers to the author of a document. You’ll find many of these contrary definitions throughout legal jurisprudence. These are hidden-in-plain-sight lies that everyone BELIVES. So if you’re a young man, or woman reading this, and you want the answer to all the questions you may have about life, start with a foundation of ALL BELIEF IS EVIL.
If you BELIEVE something, it means you’ve stopped investigating, or questioning it. It means any research or thought you had once intended to put into it – has ended.
Belief is the end of thought. Those that believe, know this. I can guarantee, despite the fact that you, the reader, are just one of seven billion people on this planet, you have at least once in your life heard the phrase, “You think too much”.
Take a moment and try and recall who told you that; and then you can tell me why all belief is evil.
For those digging up records, the dream house my father built was at 84 Edgehill Road, Belleville, Ontario. I used to attend Harry J. Clarke Public School, and regularly robbed Moira Secondary School for items and materials needed for my actual education, not the public fool system. Those doing serious digging, will see me as “Scott Duncan”, in yearbooks and records, etc.
Because I love giving away the ending of the story at the beginning, I will tell you right now that John Scott Duncan was my legal name, but it was also a TITLE, and therefore could not be used whilst I was a child in commerce. This “TITLE” is not something everyone gets, and it must be CLAIMED, and the claimant must be “worthy”. There is a reason you are referred to as MASTER as opposed to MISTER when you are a child. We’ll cover that, and a bunch of shit attached to that, in a future article. It turned out for ME, that my name, itself, had a different standing legally. All this knowledge I had as a child. Now you are getting it; and you didn’t even have to work for it.
Let’s snap back to the present again.
At this writing, the year is 2014 of what is generally known as the Common Era. It used to mean Anno Domini, which apparently referred to a rape-baby that had a bad weekend for your “sins” (He didn’t “die”, according to the evil fairy tale. He “came back to life”). Let me take a second and do my regular bout of Christian-bashing and point out that if you’re Christian your ideology is based on what is allegedly the word of a man who declared “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and then went on to knock-up some other guy’s wife in her sleep; which has the added bonus of being rape. If you’re a Christian, you won’t understand why I think you’re just an evil piece-of-shit.
All belief is evil. Christian belief is particularly bad.
Say what you want about Muslims, but their beliefs are based on the teachings of someone that actually existed.
…but I digress…
All belief is evil. I’ve simply mastered the art of showing you why.
The founders of the United States actually formed their Republic to escape the “money as debt” system. They failed. At this writing there is over a trillion dollar Trade Deficit, and this once-free Republic that was the bastion of invention, innovation and productivity is now just a nation of debt, and the enforcement thereof. Virtually half the employed Americans today directly or indirectly work for the government, doing nothing but creating and enforcing policy. Canada is not far behind.
Look at where the United States was twenty years ago, and that’s where Canada is now.
I seem to have entered a period of my life where those in my past, who said I was crazy, are now coming back and saying, “You were right”!
Verily I say to those that knew me in the past, who are now coming out of the woodwork seeking answers from me; stop now, because “I’m sorry” isn’t good enough any more. I already spent the time trying to teach you; TIME I WILL NOT GET BACK, and you couldn’t be bothered to listen. If you make the attempt, I WILL harm you. Consider that PROPER NOTICE and govern yourselves accordingly. You’re lucky you are even getting this. Be grateful. (Because I don’t get that time back, you will PAY me first. Not with fiat currency, but in labour. HARD labour. A navy doesn’t maintain itself, and there is a LOT of nasty/dangerous shit to do on a boat, that is just perfect for someone who dared waste my precious time!)
Because as I said before, I don’t possess any mental powers you don’t; and if you couldn’t be bothered to listen the first time, then you have already chosen your side. In the end, war is coming, and it will be a war between “thinkers” and “believers”, not good and evil. To quote Ben Stiller in Zero Effect, “There aren’t any good guys. You realize that don’t you? I mean you realize there aren’t evil guys, and innocent guys.
It’s just, it’s just…it’s just a bunch of guys.”
Thinking and believing are mutually exclusive. They shall forever be in conflict. All that is “legal” relies on belief. Legal has nothing to do with right and wrong. It always has to do with money.
REMEMBER THE REQUIRED VIEWING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=3P7izAUe3ZM

[By: Scott Duncan
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:21 am

I proudly stand with Tommy Robinson!
Oh Tommy Tommy, Tommy Tommy Tommy Tommy Robinson!

THE TENDER FOR LAW: The Looming Threat of FreeDumb - ADDENDUM
July 15, 2014 at 11:31pm
THE TENDER FOR LAW: The Looming Threat of FreeDumb - ADDENDUM (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. ADDENDUM TO [ https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-duncan/the-tender-for-law-the-looming-threat-of-freedumb/815869621812845 ]
I received a message from a woman today that filled me with both anger and despair. As you may have guessed, I justifiably hold all of you in the highest contempt. Often I find myself longing for the mindset and ethical structure (or lack thereof) that would allow me to take my many extraordinary abilities, and just kill you all. I won't lie to you...it's not for your safety, it's for mine.
This woman is not a stupid woman. She's bilingual and straddles two cultures daily. So this is not an ignorant and/or insular woman. In fact I dare say she is above the national average in intelligence. That's what causes part of the despair of which I speak. Here is one of the things you're probably ignorant of. Throughout history when large organizations become corrupt, and people notice, these large organizations use their resources to invent an extremist threat. The most familiar is Al-Qaeda. There was no Al-Qaeda until the U.S. media started parroting the term. Bin Laden and his violent gang of diaper-heads adopted the name.
That's right! There is no Al-Qaeda - there never was. It's a U.S. invention that was adopted; just like Anonymous adopted the Guy Fawkes mask. "V for Vendetta" didn't really happen. It's not a documentary. It was adopted by a large, loosely-knit organization.
...And so we come to what this woman said to me that caused such anger and despair.
She stated that she sees "similarities" with the "Sovereign Citizen movement" after reading my last article......so let's cover why I would feel anger and despair at such a statement.
Before I do that, though:There are no such thing as "Sovereign Citizens"! A bunch of FREE-DUMBERS with a violent disposition adopted the name after the self-contradictory title "Sovereign Citizen" was fed to the general public by none other than the NSA. The very term itself is a joke, and the people who claim that they are "Sovereign Citizens" are Westboro Baptist-grade stupid. You are either a Sovereign or a Citizen. Just like you are either pregnant or a virgin. On is not off, left is not right, up is not down and Citizens can't be Sovereigns. A first year law student can see that.
I teach truth. I teach law. I teach history. I teach science, and I don't lie about it. My own knowledge has provided for me everything I've ever wanted; beyond my wildest dreams. I am most certainly NOT a violent FREE-DUMBER who doesn't want to pay his bills or to honour his contracts. That's what the "Sovereign Citizens" of today are. You don't get to associate me with "that". It angers me when people try, because those people mean me harm.
Since the 1980's, your collective ignorance and apathy didn't really affect me, and your celebration of ignorance allowed a disease of corruption to spread.
I'm not shy about my violent hostility toward "FREEMEN-ON-THE-LAND", and the same applies to "Sovereign Citizens". You don't get to associate reality, and what I teach with a bunch of violent adults with imaginary friends who don't want to pay their bills or honour their contracts.
The legal system that we have in the West is as Winston Churchill said, "the worst system of all time, except for all the rest". It has produced riches and a standard of living that the most ambitious king of the 1800's could only dream of. It has brought that to each and every one of you. It is your right to know how the system works because LEGALLY it belongs to you. Your collective celebration of ignorance and apathy has caused all this to come to pass. Now YOUR government is killing people and lying to the public about it. Police have gone from "to keep the peace" to "the police have no obligation to protect the public in any way", as they walk around in black soldier's uniforms. (No, really! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia ) ...and those are the people who WANT YOU to associate ME with their made-up "Sovereign Citizens". FREE-DUMBERS will just defraud you of your money. "Sovereign Citizens" think it's their right to take from you under threat of violence; and like every Christian-influenced organization (which is what "Sovereign Citizens are), they'll preach peace and love, while inflicting violence.
I don't bother lying about it. I am NOT a pacifist. I harm those who harm me. I harm those who SUPPORT those who harm me, and if someone signs a piece of paper, that causes those "just following orders" to harm me, they have literally asked for me to harm them. In fact they have literally signed for it.
The people who preach peace and love while inflicting violence, all have one thing in common. They're all adults with imaginary friends. Look at every violent atrocity and injustice throughout history, and you will find adults with imaginary friends committing them. They actually think they have the "divine right" to harm you. Note the parallel with government, police and the courts. The police will commit atrocities while saying, "it's all perfectly legal. I'm just doing my job" The courts will absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming that they didn't do "it", and that what the police did is "all perfectly legal. They're just doing their jobs". When people point this out after events such as virtually every G-20 Summit ever held (where the police inevitably inflict violence on the citizenry), the police will respond as "victims", and will lie about how dangerous their jobs are. And lie about "serving and protecting". They give themselves an excuse to create and imaginary threat, and to arm themselves with free equipment from a "higher authority".
HIGHER AUTHORITY: This is how government works. Every single constitution in the world (With the notable exception of The United States) cites an imaginary sky-daddy with "higher authority" ("God"). They then claim the constitution IS the higher authority; and everyone from that point forward has the "I'm just following orders from a higher authority; I'm just doing my job" cop-out available. The UNITED STATES constitution is the constitution of a REPUBLIC. It derives its AUTHORITY from the very people who granted the TRUST. The only way to usurp the AUTHORITY of such a republic is to systematically dumb-down the population, while acquiring a TRUSTEE'S ROLE. They succeeded in less than 2 generations...In one of Carl Sagan's last writings, he penned what was to become a prophesy:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of Americans is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Well, his prophesy came true. Collectively you are a nation of adults with imaginary friends who are completely incapable of knowledgeably grasping the issues. Pretending that's not the case is just being deliberately obtuse. You did this to yourselves and people who mean you harm have control. We are truly in the information age. It's something U.S. society was forced to adopt. I grew up with it, and with considerable opposition as well. My own father, without shame, often said that there will never be computers everywhere, that I lived in a fantasy world, and that I watched too much Star Trek. It didn't work. I fought them every step of the way, because I had the foresight to see what was inevitable.
By all accounts I am, by far, the most visible officer in the AQUILAE TRUST. I hold my rank because it was bestowed on me. I did not seize it, or claim it through entitlement. All told, there are just over four hundred men and women in the AQUILAE TRUST; and if those men and women feel that I best represent their position in public, that should serve as a warning. Unlike anybody reading this who has the PRIVILEGE and HONOUR of holding AUTHORITY because of TRUST, I attained that through the will and understanding of others. Virtually all AUTHORITY in the general public globally, was seized or obtained through FRAUD and corruption. And now we're at the end of our civilization...and you don't even know it.
I am a man whose life's work is to solve a problem. I am not a "Sovereign Citizen". I am not a "FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND". I'm not a terrorist, and I'm not "crazy". I am BETTER THAN YOU. That is the only label I'll accept. This is not derived from imaginary authority or a banker's "State". It's not even belief. It's just a fact, and you're too stupid and "butt-hurt" to see it. Because if a woman with above-average intelligence can make the prefabricated connection between the true things that I teach and the made-up AstroTurf-Movement "Sovereign Citizens", what hope is there for the ignorant and apathetic collective which passes, in this civilization, for "normalcy"?
I think my anger and despair is justified. Don't you?

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted to THE TENDER FOR LAW July 15, 2014 at 11:31pm]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:30 am

THE TENDER FOR LAW: The Looming Threat of FreeDumb
January 3, 2014 at 11:25pm
THE TENDER FOR LAW: The Looming Threat of FreeDumb (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
In this writing I shall go further into my Noble Title, the Trust I commissioned in 1982, the Constitution, and the term 'Freeman'.
My grandfather (John Clark Duncan) was an extraordinary man. He was of Noble descent, and served the Royal House of Windsor in World War II, training fighter pilots and later joining the 435/436 Burma Star Squadron; where he was remembered for saving a bunch of people's asses (and giving somebody else the credit), and depth-charging a whale off the coast of Vancouver island.Most people are unaware of the events of 1933 and the Treaty of Westminster, a long dry, boring, convoluted document that released the subjects of the Monarchy, demoted Nobles to the status of Subject, and made all of their descendants, and current "Subjects", Freemen. The remaining bills granting that status were signed by John Diefenbaker in 1960, and here's where the legal shell game begins.
Titles and Trusts are always intertwined. After this treaty was signed, an odd thing happened with the Monarchy. Unlike British Monarchs of the past, who COMMANDED their subjects to war, Princess Elizabeth Windsor, in a speech that, in my opinion, is just not famous enough, asked, nay begged her recently released subjects to help Britain in her darkest hour. Of course my grandfather answered the call. We all know how the war turned out, so I have no plot twists for you there. What did change was civil service. For the first time in Canadian history, people who held public office could actually make a living doing it; and people still make a living doing it to this day...and that's the problem.
To hold the PUBLIC TRUST was once an honour, not an occupation. You were expected to make a living on your own. The end of World War II brought an end to that as well. We'll discuss the contemptible things government workers have become in the next chapter.
Currently everyone's favourite source of information is Wikipedia. The hilarious thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the pages, thus encouraging the shell game without actually lying. Let's look at two documents:
First we will look at the above-mentioned document, The Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960, and then we will look at the UK Canada Act, 1982. You don't know it as the UK Canada Act; you know it as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter").
Here's where the hilarity comes in. If you read Wikipedia's explanation, “The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect, but its widely acknowledged ineffectiveness was the main reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982”. That is a pretty amazing sentence. It is filled with presumptions about the Canadian Bill of Rights, the first being it's “ineffectiveness”. Ineffective for whom? Certainly not you, the free man. Read the thing. This is effectively the same as the Charter, yet puts severe onus on the government to demonstrate STANDING. It also applies to everyone who agrees, not just the government. Therefore if you agree with the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the government agrees with the Canadian Bill of Rights, the government's burden is too high to reasonably prosecute a case in court, and that's what they mean by “ineffectiveness”. If you are a Freeman (no commercial debt or mortgage) it is very difficult to establish joinder with the government, thus making prosecutions “ineffective”.
Let's move on to the next weasel words. So why is the Charter more effective? If you actually read the Charter, especially section 32, you will note that the Charter only applies to government. There is no agreement, no joinder, no mention of Freemen. It is just presumed that you work for the ORGANIZATION called "government".
Anyone digging back through public records will see absolutely no record in school of John Scott Duncan. Underneath any of the several, oh-so-adorable pictures of me in my youth, in yearbooks, etc., you will see the name, Scott Duncan. When anybody asked about this strange discrepancy, it was always brushed off as “Scottish tradition”. My father is not commonly known as “John”, he is commonly known as “Wayne”. Thus was true with each eldest son of each generation in the Duncan Clan. As an aside, my grandfather absolutely loathed the name “Clark”, and so was commonly known as “Jack”. For the name, John Duncan ( I am the twenty-third to hold that title), represented Clan Equity protecting the rest of the family from the perils of legal jurisprudence. I'm going to presume that in the distant past, members of my family actually liked each other, as I myself am more likely to put a bullet in my father's head than I am to give him shelter from legal jurisprudence. It is of no concern, I still hold the title. It doesn't mean much under the law, but it does allow you to commission Royal Trusts. In 1982, myself and three other nobles, legally damaged our titles with intent. Like the Trans-Pacific partnership emerging today, we saw the rumbling storm of the UK Canada Act approaching way back then. The Delaware Corporation, TAYLOR, DUNCAN, MCPHERSON AND BELL, was formed to hold a Trust, and act in commerce. (If you don't know why we formed it in Delaware, you have no business acting in commerce, beyond buying shit).
NOTICE was given to the House of Windsor that the TRUSTEES have unanimously declared that we DO NOT CONSENT TO, nor do we ACKNOWLEDGE THE BENEFIT of the UK Canada Act (1982), and we WAIVE ALL BENEFITS therein. To show that we have no DISHONOUR for the House of Windsor or Her Majesty's wishes we commissioned the Royal Trust of AQUILAE, and thus our RESIGNATION FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE would still be HONOURABLE. Those who go digging around for the meaning will discover AQUILAE means “Of the Eagle”. I know you don't get it, you're too stupid. We were all Canadians, and the holding company acting for the Trust is in the UNITED STATES (of the Eagle). Get it?
To understand what the ramifications of this are, you must understand that you are dealing with different legal jurisdictions. AQUILAE effectively lays claim in ALL JURISDICTIONS, thus damaging and/or destroying any monetary instruments from public documents bearing our names. Legally this means any Royal Titles are prorogued. Since Stephen Harper was elected he has prorogued parliament more than any other time in history.
"Prorogued" simply means that "something's fucked up; come back when we've fixed it". With the advent of the Treaty of Westminster I am also effectively a “commoner” as well. If I only acted under noble title the Americans would be perfectly within their rights to kill me. Look at the US Constitution. It has some very specific things to say about the nobility, in somewhat archaic language. Effectively claiming noble title in the United States means you can be summarily convicted of Treason; but they do have separation of church and state, so that's a good thing... I guess.
The only way to effectively survive as Prorogued Nobility is as a PRIVATEER (That's like a pirate, only you get paid). This may come as a surprise to you, but there are more privateers and pirates operating today, than there ever has been in all of history combined. I look at it as one of my greatest accomplishments as I had served in, and now command, a private navy; and nobody even noticed. That is my status – prorogued noble...and pirate.
It really did make my life an adventure.
My first love is computer science, and it is the bulk of what I do to occupy my time. Those that remember me, (and people always remember me) are from all walks of life. CIBC, NCR, WALMART, The Toronto General Hospital, DELOITTE AND TOUCHE, the list goes on... Corporations that are stepping a little out of line, and need correcting, were the targets I was often deployed to. ..and that list is just in the past sixteen years! It required a skill level that very few people had, and each time I did my duty (it wasn't my job, nor was it my employment), I patted myself on the back and said, “Not bad for someone who was told by his father, 'Scott, you live in a fantasy world. You watch too much Star Trek, and there will never be computers everywhere'.” When the first consoles, like the Atari 2600, the ColecoVision, and the Commodore 64 showed up on the scene, my father in his “wisdom” declared that these were toys, and that one could not “make money off of them". That was the day I knew, “I'm smarter than he is”. Pictures of an Atari 2600 bring me back to that moment as if it was yesterday. :D
I had often wondered why my deception was so effective on him; and it was because he was just as stupid as everyone else.
That's when my life truly began. I knew what was coming, and I knew what to do about it. I wasn't accountable to anyone, except Elizabeth Windsor, and she has nine dogs so she's pretty fucking busy. Seriously! Dogs take the same effort/inconvienience as raising children! She has NINE! She's too busy for me, and I had come up with the best answer for me. From 1960 to now, the legal title of Freeman would fade into obscurity in less than two generations, and that's when the Charter was dropped on you.
You still have that title to this day. All of you. It doesn't matter if you're an immigrant, if you're just visiting, or if you're a “citizen”. You also have the title of Freeman.
But why a Navy? Why did I start a Navy? Those of you that have cause to read my writings already know the Charter's dirty little secret, you simply have to know how to read legal documents. This means you must know the Maxims of Law, and there are a lot of them.
Whenever you see the word, INCLUDE and/or INCLUDES you must remember the Maxim of Law that states, “The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of everything else”. When you read the Charter, look up where “CANADA” is, and note the lack of land mentioned. To hold clan equity, means to protect it. The Acts and Statutes by which you are governed are derived from Admiralty Maritime Law. The jurisdiction is established in the real world by the use of “Stone Frigates” (nickname for a naval establishment on land). For instance, in downtown Toronto right next to the old Tip Top Tailor's building, is a building which identifies itself only as HMCS York. This establishes Federal Jurisdiction on the land from which these laws of the water are derived. It's on LAND. I'm not.
By my mid-twenties I was noticing the decay of Canadian society. Religious agendas, and conflict were encouraged. You could get a law degree by mere memory and recitation, and nobody knew who they were. They also didn't realize what they were doing with their children. Children and grandchildren of officers that served in World War II get “special” birth certificates. You can spot these special birth certificates by the way the name is typed out. The name is written in its proper form (John Scott Duncan) and not JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN. This gives you all the benefits of commerce and none of the liability.
Enter the 'Freemen On the Land'
I'm not afraid to admit that the biggest drawback to knowing more than everyone else is that it's profoundly lonely.
Imagine if you will, a world where everybody is 12 years old, or less. You are the only one in your 20's, or 30's or 40's (depending on how old you are), and that's what life is like for me. You see 12 year olds have the benefit of ignorance and gullibility, making them very easy to manipulate. This gets tedious after a while, and it makes it very difficult to look in the mirror. I couldn't figure out why it had to be such a lonely existence. I don't possess any mental powers that you don't, but you all love ignorance and stupidity. You celebrate your ignorance with idiotic phrases like, “Keepin' it real”, while worthless people control you. I know they're worthless, as I've walked among them. It seems the more wealth people have, the more contemptible they are. I've been a millionaire 1.5 times in my life (the .5 is given that designation as it was less than two months – I'd learned my lesson the first time). Only those that have experienced self-made wealth can understand this, but the worst part about being rich is that you have to hang around rich people. It seems I'd flown too high, and nobody had noticed. I longed for a conversation that didn't require two years of education before the party I was conversing with could even grasp the outer edges of what I was saying. I still do.
By 1992 all of you have forgotten what had been taken from you, presuming you were even aware in the first place. But the Internet was just deregulated. This was my world, and now there were no rules. I almost immediately missed the old days of the Internet, where large groups of people who trusted each other could maintain vast communication networks, and where everybody played by the same rules. I have had an Internet presence since 1982.
My idiot family's interpretation of what the Internet was, was that I was “claiming to be part of a secret society”, and was “trying to reinforce my delusions about computers”. That was when I stopped sharing anything with my family, except possibly my desire to kick them in the face for their stupidity, and their profound lack of foresight. I was on my own, and it was lonely.
Life went on until 1997. CIBC was hemorrhaging money by the billions, and they couldn't stop it. The technology existed for inter-bank transactions at the consumer level, “hole in the wall” bank machines were everywhere, and it got so desperate I was sent in to figure out why. A lawyer acting as a third-party representing CIBC had said I would never set foot in CIBC two year's earlier, so when I walked in on my first day I placed my briefcase in the ground, in the Atrium of 901 King Street, and faced every security camera, turning around slowly so everyone knew I was there. (Yes, just like the "Thomas Crown Affair" remake... but years earlier. It attracted the attention of someone who I would spend my life with. More on that later.)I thought I was going to have to do detective work, but the issue soon became obvious. There was nothing wrong with the technology, there was something wrong with the people.
By this time the Internet was a “growing fad”. So I thought I'd use it to solve the bank's problem. I simply named names of the inept and their inept practices, and published it on a Tripod site. Policies were quickly cleaned up after that. Knowing who I was the banks hired Bruce Smith, of Smith Lyons, to deal with this “unusual threat”. It didn't take him long to realize that this was a fight he couldn't win. Law firms do not frighten me. If a law firm says they are going to “take me down”, I agree, but I'll take them down with me; and I can bounce back a lot quicker than they can. Lawyers don't actually have any real-world skill, and they've certainly not ever had an original thought.
These were the things I did to occupy my time. What the fuck have you done lately?
But it was still lonely.
I just wanted to have a conversation. A real conversation, where I don't have to explain anything, I don't have to correct anyone's stupidity or ignorance – just a conversation. Something where new and great ideas are discussed. Just a conversation. I'm nearing half a century on this planet, and I have yet to find it. I gained the most by seeking out people who were smarter than I, and that pool gets smaller and smaller every year. Don't lie to yourselves. After the age of 27, you won't even pick up a book, and everything in your life becomes just presumption and belief. That is a recipe for ignorance; and that's the way it's designed. You see the nobility are not the good guys; they're the bad guys, and they are what engineered all of this legal monstrosity you see today. When I try to explain it to anyone that I like, I very quickly receive the “crazy” label.
I knew I couldn't be the only one, so I went looking. The most aware seemed to be natives. I watched the news coverage of Dudley George and the lies they published and the stories they spun; all to hide the fact that Dudley George was right and all the white guys didn't have the right to be there. This set off alarm bells for me. This had nothing to do with legal or illegal, even though you heard these words. This had to do with treaties, which a commercial entity acting as government, was ignoring. They did so brazenly, because they presumed that the general public was far too ignorant to even grasp the issues. They were right. Everybody bought the story hook, line, and sinker. Dudley George was assassinated on national television, and nobody gave a shit. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, yet there it was. I began seeking out anybody who actually understood the issues, understood what was wrong. I eventually found someone who tried to do something and got shit on for his trouble, an ex-Crown Attorney named Steve Krupnik, and through clever manipulation of circumstances I ended up working in the same company as the man. For ten years we were very close friends. More on that drama later,but for now I'll say that this was a lawyer who suffered from too much history, and who was bound by too many oaths. He often expressed that my being at the company where he worked, made working there bearable. But it wasn't enough. He got the benefit, not me.
And then I saw Robert Menard.
I listened to this man's discourse on law. He wasn't holding back! "Do you know the difference between legal and lawful"? "Did you read the motor vehicle act before you signed that license"? It was as if Jesus Christ had come back, like it says in the Fairy Tale! I didn't expect it, and I was very impressed. This was a man truly standing on his own based on his knowledge. Even better, he was teaching others! This was the epitome of what a freeman should be; except he seemed to have solved nine tenths of the puzzle. He didn't identify himself as a freeman, he identified himself as a "Freeman-on-the-Land". It was the "on the land" part that baffled me. Legal only exists on the land. Accounting only exists on the land. It's also where 'orders' are given. He even explained in one of his videos, the legal definition of 'order'. So why was he making this horrendous error of specifically isolating and binding the freeman title to the land? It made no sense to me. He certainly knew about Admiralty Maritime law, he most definitely knew about the nobility; so reaching out to this man was going to be problematic.
I start out as "the bad guy" in any initial contact. In many ways he's right. It must be in my blood, I don't know, but every time I see somebody who clings to their bullshit, and relies on said bullshit as a substitute for knowledge, I crave the sensation of exploiting them. These articles are just as much for me as they are for you. Consider it PROPER NOTICE. Wake up, or serve - those are your choices.
Robert Menard was awake. I had to meet this man! He seemed to be missing such a small part. It was safe to presume his default position was "beware of nobles, bearing gifts". I didn't want to scare him away!
If he understood this much, how much more does he understand? Could my only wish in life be satisfied? Was I going to have a real conversation?
*SPOILER ALERT*: ...Nope!
Continued Next Article: FREE-DUMB - THE TRUTH & ROBERT MENARD
Because the point of this article is constantly missed, I shall dumb it down for you:The "Rule of Law" got us this far. It is now staffed by the corrupt, violent and inept. The Free-dumb movement are a threat to YOU, because when you study what I teach, it is TRUE and self-evident. The corrupt, violent, and inept, COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT (That's what the Charter IS) want to lump YOU in with the free-dumbers and their half-truths, so they can "legally" dismiss ALL voices that draw attention to the fact that the "People's Government" is in fact corrupt, violent, and inept. They even INVENT made-up groups, that REAL nut-jobs adopt! Al Queda is one! "Sovereign Citizen" is another. REAL NUTS adopt these MADE UP THINGS and make them real. THAT is a BIG part of "The Looming Threat of FreeDumb". SEE: ADDENDUM https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-duncan/the-tender-for-law-the-looming-threat-of-freedumb-addendum/986796628053476

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted to THE TENDER FOR LAW January 3, 2014 at 11:25pm]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:55 am

NOTICE: If you use this and are using a seal, it will be your corporation or trust seal, NOT AQUILAE TRUST SEAL.


NOTICE OF MISTAKE (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.


NOTICE OF MISTAKE – GET THESE TO ME IF I’M ARRESTED
NOTICE OF MISTAKE
TAKE NOTICE THAT: In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as an "accused" and/or a "suspect".
FORGIVE ME: If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.
If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am, in ANY CAPACITY, a Pro Se litigant and/or a LEGAL PERSON in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, as I DO NOT CONSENT and WAIVE THE BENEFIT to such titles (Waiver of the CHANGE OF NAMES ACT OF ONTARIO), and please forgive me.
THEREFORE: As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION ANY COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies [HEREAFTER "YOU"], HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY ARE "YOU" ADDRESSING me as such?
As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT [In the custody of Justice Wailan Low, ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE: Court File Number CV-11-430464], WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as a MAN who is not lawfully entitled to the BENEFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE [PPSACA13078], have any SURETY in this matter?
As GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to ANY NAME?
WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have, that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?
WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?
As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.
[ AUTHORISED BY: ] [ AQUILAE Trust Seal]


[By: Scott Duncan May 5, 2014 Originally posted on Facebook]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 am

Give in Lieu of "Identification"
March 22, 2013 at 12:01am
NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7])
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, have demanded "IDENTIFICATION" from ME, and
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME and/or JOINDER to ME, and
WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENT AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact, waive ALL benefits of the ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.
If I and/or such other parties who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted to THE TENDER FOR LAW March 22, 2013 at 12:01am]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:07 am

THE TENDER FOR LAW: Obiter dictum - MEADS v. MEADS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC.


THE TENDER FOR LAW:Obiter dictum - MEADS v. MEADS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
It's time to stir the pot - disturb some shit as it were, stoke the fire, prime the forge, enrich uranium in a centrifuge, shit like that. In order to accomplish this noble goal I'm going to do something that, on the surface, seems disgusting. I'm going to arm the FREE-DUMBERS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE TO CRUSH MEADS V. MEADS. If you're really lucky, I'll try to squeeze in some "Nazis" too. If this seems a little "rushed, it's because this was published BY APPOINTMENT!
APPOINTED BY: BUSINESS, None of your Fucking.
[Please be patient with typos, and spelling, as it was dictated to very tired women. We are going through it and fixing it when we have the time.]
As the ADMIRAL of "War and Knowledge", this shit is second-nature to me; but it occurs to me that it might not be obvious to you. The thing is, I, like you, am just a semi-evolved chimp that made it this far. I don't possess any mental powers that you don't, and none of what I'm telling you is hidden.
As most of you are aware, the entire JUDICIARY across CANADA cringes when they hear the name "Scott Duncan"; and NOTICE OF MISTAKE has been particularly effective in fighting these parasites. So why does my shit work, and that of the FREE-DUMBERS does not? Simpletons in the GOVERNMENT and the FREE-DUMBERS alike, often try to equate my value system with that of the FREE-DUMBERS. It doesn't take long to find out this is not true, but few people make the effort. No matter. At this particular phase in the engagement, it's largely irrelevant what these people think.
I have become a bit of a problem in the past decade, and the LAW SOCIETY's "Empire Strikes Back" (I'm A New Hope...get it?) is Meads v Meads, declaring a FREE-DUMBER's arguments nonsensical and literally MAKING UP A NAME/LABEL out of thin air ("OPCA Litigant"), and declaring Mr Meads was "one of those". If I was in that JUSTICE's position I would have done it too. There is absolutely no chance of APPEAL without the very arguments in question being nullified. Only a PERSON can be a PARTY in a LEGAL ACTION, and Mr Meads is DENYING that he is a PERSON in the matter before the court. You will remember the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE saying to KOOK OF GAIA, "You are either him, or you are his AGENT". Keep in mind that the courts will try to tell as much truth as they possibly can. The SUPERNUMERARY position of a JUSTICE allows a JUSTICE to be an "activist". JUSTICE Ian NORDHEIMER (Judge*), JUSTICE Lauren MARSHALL and JUSTICE Susan HIMEL are good examples. These "JUSTICES" have demonstrably made a concerted effort to make sure the lie of the LAW SOCIETY affects people in the real world as little as possible.
I hold my title as ADMIRAL because it was bestowed upon me by the very CAPTAINS I command. A JUSTICE is an unaccountable sub-contractor that tries to pass themselves off as the same thing as me. When AUTHORITY is bestowed on you, and you ACCEPT the honour, then those who's AUTHORITY is PRESUMED are, by their very nature, OFFENSIVE. That's the nicest thing you'll ever hear me say about a JUSTICE...so cherish this moment.
...I digress.
So RESERVING MY RIGHT to pander to Star Wars fans as well as Trekkers, I intend this article to be my "Return of the Jedi".
Meads v Meads! It's the "Death-Star" of the FREE-DUMBERS! When this fucker came out it rocked the FREE-DUMB World. The "Death-Star" blew up Alderan! The FREE-DUMBERS won't shut up about it, and there appeared to be no hope. The two heroes, Menard and Clifford, were shown to be "mistaken...about a great many things". Meanwhile the evil pirate, BOBA SCOTT, was laughing at just how fucking right he is (as he does). Well "Suck it Lucas!", I can rewrite this story better than you ever could. You sold Star Wars to DISNEY, so there's my Nazi angle (no really...look it up). I think I'll make BOBA SCOTT the hero now! You won't need a big-ass rebel fleet, you won't have to put innocent people in harm's way, or blow shit up (...don't get me wrong...every once in a while, I like to indulge.), and we can reduce our bloodshed to a minimum. Bloodshed is only useful when the people shedding blood have no money. Otherwise, it's just bad for business.
If you don't have money, MAKE SOME. I showed you how to, YEARS ago.
I have spent these past few years showing you how the LEGAL SYSTEM works, and now I'm going to give you a glimpse into how the PRIVATEER economy works. As of this writing, there are more pirates and privateers on the seas today, than there have been in ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, combined. Aside from Somali pirates, you never hear about them, but if you go looking for them, you can see they're clearly there. So how do they sustain themselves? This is a very important question as all of you are seeking FREEDOM or LIBERTY. Notice I said "or". You can't have both. I want you to pay attention to that mechanic, because it applies in court the same way it applies in my NAVY. Why? Because they're the same fucking thing. It's ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW. It actually works, if everybody follows the fucking rules. Do you think Irene Gravenhorst would give a shit about ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW if the ADMINISTRATORS of that law actually kept their word? Those of you who benefit from ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW are disgustingly ignorant of how much they owe the natives of NORTH AMERICA. I have no stake in this land, and ethically I have no problem with the concept of this land being taken from you by force and returned to the natives. The only laws on the books regarding natives should be new and creative ways to leave them the fuck alone. We could make it a National Tradition every year - new and interesting LEGISLATION which assists and BENEFITS you to leave them the fuck alone. If you're a JUSTICE or a PIECE-OF-SHIT from the LAW SOCIETY and you're reading this, pay very close attention, because the very same law that makes "Meads v Meads" valid, also means that by default, you owe a very, very large debt to the native population of this land. You don't get to have it both ways; Unless you are just going to throw away any remaining pretense, and declare everyone with a PERSON, a slave.
Let's just lay this out in the open so everybody can hear.
You, of the LAW SOCIETY, have a bit of a problem. Snake Oil Salesman of the Menard/Clifford ilk, have taken the Alex Jones position to heart; Tell as much truth as you can, but leave room to intertwine your own lies. This isn't new, virtually every religion does this too. Except the truths told by the likes of Clifford and Menard, are obvious and self-evident to anyone who reads what either of them has to say. This becomes a problem as truth is not exactly welcome in the post-1982 JUDICIARY, which relies on PRESUMPTION and FAITH. TRUTH is corrosive there. I used to say that Robert Menard tells the truth about law, and effectively lies through ommision; this is no longer the case. He used to eloquently lie through omission, but I like to think I showed the world how to call him on his bullshit, and now he's out begging for loose change, while HER MAJESTY is aggressively "inviting" him back to court. Sorry, but in this version of Star Wars, the Han Solo character goes down painfully, while BOBA SCOTT chuckles in delight (Fuck, this a way better story! Suck it, Lucas!). Dean Clifford (the Luke Skywalker character), has a secret rebel base known throughout the empire as the "Fortress of Remand"! Alas his fate is not so good either. The only cool character is BOBA SCOTT, who is a privateer and bounty-hunter, who has a rapidly growing army of disposable...um, SIMU- ...CLONES (something totally different, honest. It's just a story...really!).
...I digress.
The LAW SOCIETY owes me. They and the ATTORNEY GENERAL negotiated a settlement for me in 1989. They breached the terms of that selttlement, and now they are going to pay the price. What I do will be both LEGAL and LAWFUL, even if they aren't. Sound "Far Fetched"? Well so does "I'm going to show you how to make your own currency/bank", but here we are. For my next "far fetched" project (prepped since 2011) I am going to destroy the LEGAL MATRIX. It will benefit EVERYONE EXCEPT the Attorney General, and the Law Society; They will starve, suffer, and die at the hands of the people they exploit, if I get my way. It's too late to stop it. I started in 2011, and I have been a VERY busy man. Want to avoid that? QUIT! Do something that HELPS people. Do something that gives you ACTUAL value. Otherwise, Good Luck,guys. You'll need it. In 2016 WE ARE COMING! You can't say you weren't given NOTICE. Your time for reparations is nearing an end.
Let's blow up The Death Star! But first, let me state some more unexpected shit. FREE-DUMBERS and Piece-of-Shit Christians alike are going to hate this next sentence. Meads vs Meads was the correct LEGAL, LAWFUL, and ethical, RULING on the matter before the court. That's not a typo, and I don't want anyone to think they misread what I just wrote.
As everyone knows, the #1 Rule of the Universe is: SCOTT IS ALWAYS RIGHT. As you appear to be reading this article, it's safe to assume the universe is currently intact. Since the #1 Rule of the Universe is in fact: SCOTT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, the statement that "Meads vs Meads was the correct LEGAL, LAWFUL, and ethical, RULING on the matter before the court", must, by its very nature, be correct. If you don't accept that, stop reading now because you are incapable of comprehending anything that I have to say. I have also told you that you can save yourself a lot of time by presuming that I'm right, and investing the effort saved, into figuring out WHY I'm always right (SPOILER: I have THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING). So let's save ourselves some time and presume that I'm right when I say "Meads vs Meads was the correct LEGAL, LAWFUL, and ethical, RULING on the matter before the courts". Let's figure out WHY I'm right. Remember to avoid focusing on the data, and to focus on the mechanics of what I'm describing. Once you focus on the mechanics, it's very easy to find the root of a problem the LEGAL MATRIX may be causing you and neutralize that. The issue before the COURT in Meads vs Meads was a DIVORCE. Mr. Meads in no way contested this fact, and his RIGHTS to do so cover a very, very, narrow scope. He did not have the RIGHT to challenge the COURT'S JURISDICTION because in order to get a DIVORCE, you must first get MARRIED. To get MARRIED in CANADA you must first get a MARRIAGE LICENSE. A LICENSE is PERMISSION to perform an ILLEGAL AND/OR UNLAWFUL ACT. In COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS it is UNLAWFUL to MARRY without the GOVERNMENT's PERMISSION. You are only the BENEFICIARY of the PERSON bearing your LEGAL Name. You are the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of that PERSON, and you don't get to interfere with the COMMERCE of another PERSON. All SERVICES regarding the PERSON are not for you, they're for THE LAW SOCIETY. You ACCEPTED a TENDER FOR LAW as soon as you used that NAME to BENEFIT in any way.
There are very few people on this planet that understand computers as well as I do. This is not bragging, this is just a fact. Despite having the massive knowledge that I do, I could not go out into the woods with an axe (which could plausibly be a gift, and therefore outside of COMMERCE) and ever hope to send you an email. I cannot build a computer. Babbage and Lovelace knew what to build, they just didn't know how to build it. Now, in 2015 you can walk around with a Terabyte of storage. I couldn't build any of it myself. It was one of my first observations as a youth and was literally the most terrifying thing I had ever thought of. Adults didn't appear to have any mental powers that I didn't, yet all these amazing machines exist. When I was making these observations, I couldn't help but conclude that the only difference between myself and them is experience. I also assumed that this was the motivation behind every adult lying to me - they had so many secrets to keep. Alas, the old adage is true; "Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity".
Many of you are seeking "freedom" (Not LIBERTY), and I recall the day I was "free" when I said out loud: "I'm just smarter than they are". I then spent half a lifetime trying to find outwhy I was smarter than they are. There's no reason for it, I don't have any special mental powers, although I find it really disturbing how receptive people are to the idea that I do have special mental powers. I don't. I make the point as often as I can. I'm no different than you! I simply know more than you, largely because of circumstances that I had absolutely no control over. This allowed unique circumstances that the majority of you would never encounter, much less do on purpose.
I have been a thorn in THE LAW SOCIETY's side for decades. Long before the FREE-DUMBERS ever set foot in a COURT ROOM, I was terrorizing JUSTICES and LAWYERS alike. What they had to spend weeks researching, I had resting comfortably in my head. I didn't PRACTICE LAW, I had MASTERED it (and now I'm kicking myself for not making this article a Doctor Who theme, as THE MASTER is WAY cooler than any Star Wars Character!) I was LICENSED to do it, and I was a key part in neutralizing JUDICIAL power grabs, in the 90's, and 2000's. I did so, because I promised to, as part of the terms that facilitated the dissolving of an earlier obligation. When I sign under oath, I follow the terms to the letter. One might even say "religiously". I don't break the law that I paid for.
I don't know LAW as well as I know Computer Science, but I know a hell of a lot more than you (and most LAWYERS, for that matter). We've established that Meads vs Meads was a DIVORCE case and, even with the widest latitude, I can see no EVIDENCE that MR. MEADS ever CONTESTED the fact that the HEARING was in fact for a DIVORCE. Here's some LEGAL ADVICE (it's the only LEGAL ADVICE I am LEGALLY ALLOWED to give): At any MEETING, HEARING, COURT, or TRIBUNAL, where any MEMBER of THE LAW SOCIETY REPRESENTS any PARTY, ALWAYS ask what the HEARING is! That's not a confusing piece of advice. I can't tell you how many people call me after they've been ARRESTED, and CHARGED, wondering what to do. The first thing that I always ask them is: "when is your next COURT date?", and they always have an answer. When I ask the question "What is the HEARING you are ATTENDING on that date for?", they never seem to have an answer. Even the mighty Fender drops the ball on this one. You may know THAT you're going to COURT, but you never seem to be able to answer WHY you're going to COURT. Why are these HEARINGS even happening? If you don't know what the HEARING you are ATTENDING is for, it is a virtual guarantee that some RIGHTS AND/OR PROPERTY is going to be "LIBERATED by HER MAJESTY". There are no exceptions to this rule, so my LEGAL ADVICE is to CONFIRM BY QUESTIONING; "What is the purpose of this HEARING"? This is no different than asking "What is the NATURE and CAUSE of this PROCEEDING?", which is the proper way to ask. The thing that seems lost on people who are dumb enough to say "What is the NATURE and CAUSE of these PROCEEDINGS" is that if you go to France and order food in a French restaurant, in French, to show off for the hot chick you're trying to stick your dick in, it is reasonable to presume that the waiter is going to speak back to you IN FUCKING FRENCH. You then look very silly when it turns out you've memorized some French phrases that allow you to order food, and you are only pretending to be able to talk to the waiter. So stick to plain English, stop trying "sound smart" because it's offensive to people who are ACTUALLY smart (like me! ALSO: I think I've accidentally stumbled onto why French waiters are rude.)
So keep it simple: "What is the PURPOSE of this HEARING? Am I on TRIAL? Is this a PRELIMINARY HEARING?". Vocalize the actual questions that should be going through your head, and make sure lots of people hear you. Because unlike idiots like Derek Moran, I don't walk into PUBLIC FORUMS making LEGAL DECLARATIONS, I ask questions; Questions that demand answers! If you claim you are "SOVEREIGN" then you should know how to PROPERLY EXECUTE your AUTHORITY, OR CEDE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE MOST QUALIFIED PARTY. I never claimed to be "SOVEREIGN", and I still wield more AUTHORITY than any COURT does. If I were to attempt to wield my AUTHORITY over you, the reader, you would immediately DECLARE "You have no AUTHORITY over me". This is in fact not true, as the ONLY LAWFUL CAUSE for me to COMPEL you under my AUTHORITY would be if you, the reader were in MY JURISDICTION (On an AQUILAE VESSEL, for example). As soon as you step into my JURISDICTION I have SUPREME EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. All your DECLARATIONS to the contrary will not change that fact. You may counter that with "But this ACT/CODE/STATUTE gives the COURT AUTHORITY...blah blah blah" to which I can easily counter with the RULES set out in the COVENANT of the AQUILAE TRUST. In short, whatever the GOVERNMENT can produce as EVIDENCE of their AUTHORITY, I can produce better. Here's the thing about AUTHORITY; I have my AUTHORITY because a bunch of people with boats TRUST me. This is a FACT IN LAW that is REAFFIRMED every 90 days. It needs 100% APPROVAL from every CAPTAIN. If one CAPTAIN votes against me, the fleet MAY ELECT to have their VESSEL DECOMISSIONED. This is how every PRIVATEER NAVY is run. This is how every PIRATE NAVY is run, for that matter. It allows us, collectively, to do AMAZING things.
What I've taken a long time to establish here, is that you can't do all this alone. You LABOURED for some DEBT IN TRANSIT to PURCHASE the magnificent machine you are reading this text on. You know nothing about this machine or how it does what it does, and like most of the population, you believe what it says without question. As I said in THE TENDER FOR LAW (and Dan parroted) the computer is the ultimate LIMITED LIABILITY AGENT. I want you to focus on that: LIABILITY. You will need it.
So let's walk through Meads vs Meads using the SURETY and ACCOUNTING you bought when you accepted the TENDER FOR LAW that MONEY provides. It can be presumed a FACT IN LAW that Meads vs Meads was a DIVORCE ACTION. The AUTHORITY behind this CAUSE OF ACTION is the MARRIAGE LICENSE two PARTIES APPLIED for, and were GRANTED. The UNLAWFUL ACT of MERGING two SECURITIES in RECEIVERSHIP is made LEGAL by a MARRIAGE LICENSE. This means you are BOUND by the RULES of that RECEIVERSHIP. Once you are GRANTED a LICENSE to perform an ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL ACT it is very difficult to ALTER the TERMS after your APPLICATION is GRANTED. If you doubt me on this, I invite you to change the MOTOR VEHICLE ACT after you get your DRIVERS LICENSE. The two are exactly the same. A MARRIAGE is only LEGAL because it's LICENSED, otherwise, according to the COMMON LAW ACCOUNTING (estate), both PARTIES are SEPARATE. Returning MERGED PARTIES to a SEPARATE state is always difficult, and always comes at a price. There are no exceptions to this rule.
DIVORCE is no different. MR. MEADS tried to change the RULES after the BENEFIT was GRANTED, and a JUSTICE seized the opportunity to prop up an illusion. So, the first thing we're going to clear up about Meads vs Meads is that it is NOT FUCKING CASE LAW! This whole "CASE LAW" lie is the most UNOPPOSED lie since "Jesus Loves You", and just like "Jesus Loves You", when you call people out on the lie, people get upset.
FOR THE RECORD: Jesus does not love you. That's because Jesus doesn't exist. Things that don't exist, cannot, by their very nature, feel love. If jesus EVER existed (Unlikely), he was a semi-evolved chimp that didn't make it very far, and as such, did not live long enough to "love you". See how that works?
Those who disagree with the above facts about "Jesus", mean you harm. NO EXCEPTIONS. Clear?...good.
In MEADS v. MEADS, there was no question of LAW, nor was there an INJURED PARTY, nor was there an INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS, nor has the SUPREME COURT taken a look at it. Even if I were to grant the massive latitude required to allow the only "arguable" position MR. MEADS raised, that being one of JURISDICTION (and MRS. MEADS would totally have to be sucking my dick to get THAT kind of latitude!), the ARGUMENT is immediately NULLIFIED by the fact that HE GOT MARRIED. You don't get to change the TERMS of your MARRIAGE LICENSE any more than you get to change the TERMS of your DRIVERS LICENSE. This means that ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE had an open stage to state whatever OPINION he WISHES. Here's the best part; he's not just a "JUSTICE"; The RECORD clearly states that he is an ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE. Kind of like a Walmart ASSOCIATE greeting you at the door. He most certainly is not an EMPLOYEE of Walmart, that would give his PERSON RIGHTS and BENEFITS. No, he's an ASSOCIATE.
So when you APPLY for EMPLOYMENT at Walmart, you are immediately DEMOTED to ASSOCIATE. You CONSENTED in your EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. This ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE CONSENTED to be an ASSOCIATE. The "greeter" at Walmart is most certainly NOT Walmart, he's not even an AGENT of Walmart, he's just an ASSOCIATE. JUSTICE ROOKE isn't the CHIEF JUSTICE you're looking for, he's just an ASSOCIATE. Look at the RULES GOVERNING every JUSTICE and you will notice they are not shy about how UNACCOUNTABLE they are for their CONDUCT. It is difficult to question their OPINIONS at the best of times.
Put a stick-pin here.
Let's jump to the AQUILAE NAVY: You'll recall the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people in the nation of Thailand, and our NAVY was a little tiny thing. It still did the same job back then, as we do now, but what's easy today was extremely difficult back then, not to mention expensive. We will never know how many lives we saved, but we DO know that we couldn't have done it alone. As KEEPER of THE AQUILAE TRUST, I can say without OMISSION, DISTORTION, or CONCEALMENT, that there are a myriad of NON-CONFLICTING, BILATERAL AGREEMENTS with ASSOCIATE TRUSTS worldwide, and intimately connected to AQUILAE. I live and die by those AGREEMENTS, and so does everyone else sworn to the TRUST. That's why it works. There's also huge BENEFIT. These BILATERAL AGREEMENTS allow me to call an ASSOCIATE NAVY whenever I need infrastructure in a hurry. Under those AGREEMENTS I am regarded as an ASSOCIATE ADMIRAL, or ASSOCIATE JAG OFFICER, depending on JURISDICTION/geography. Unlike the DE FACTO stooge COURTS that ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE dwells in, my AUTHORITY is never questioned and it's not because I'm such a nice guy, or my fucking boyish charm! The motivation for people OBEYING my ORDERS without question is always one of two categories; Either they understand, intimately, why I'm issuing the ORDER, or they TRUST me implicitly. The end result is the same, so the motivation is irrelevant. This is something I can claim, but ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE cannot. But he's secured his forum fair and square, and you literally do not have the RIGHT to either question him, or call him to ACCOUNT. LEGALLY or LAWFULLY, it's just a fact. I, on the other hand, DO have the AUTHORITY. This is an uncomfortable fact that the LAW SOCIETY is having difficulty hiding these days.
Here in reality, the LAW SOCIETY has no RIGHT to infringe on the RIGHTS of ANYONE. When the LAW SOCIETY decided that I fell under that category of ANYONE, they didn't bother taking a look at the past RECORD, which to them is understandably confusing and frightening. They now realize that I had invested in a community, and made a home there, and I was expected to be left alone. They didn't, and now their biggest concern is the Streisand Effect, because I keep LEGALLY keep publishing stuff like this, under LICENSE. The damage is already done. Any attempt to resist my efforts draws the wrong type of attention, and gets people asking the "wrong" kind of questions.
So let me give one Dogecoin worth of FREE LEGAL ADVICE to Mr. Meads and the FREE-DUMBERS; if what you seek is FREEDOM, you are simply not entitled to ACT in COMMERCE. In fact the only FREEMAN on RECORD that has ever been wrongfully PROSECUTED by the courts is one MR. JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, XXIII. So if you're CLAIMING to be a FREEMAN, and you're NOT JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, XXIII, then it is a FACT in LAW that I will TESTIFY UNDER OATH to, that aside from myself, there appears to be no wrongfully PROSECUTED FREEMEN. To DECLARE otherwise is simply FRAUD.
Let's look at that handsome lad, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, XXIII. What's with that 23rd thing (I am not a number! I'm a free... nope, I'm a number. :/ )? You see, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN is a PERSON, and all records of that PERSON do not bear my signature. In fact the FOUNDATION DOCUMENT of that PERSON has the signatures of what appears to be two AGENTS REPRESENTING a TRUST. You see, under ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW, even the Nobility are slaves. More so for Scottish Nobility. Your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is, in FACT, a REGISTERED SECURITY, conveniently the date the SECURITY was REGISTERED, also SERVES to CERTIFY that on the REGISTERED DATE a CROWN ORGANIZATION was, in fact, ORGANIZED; and henceforth the child of unknown parentage named, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, was LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to BENEFIT from the COMMERCIAL TRUST, the SECURITY that is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, represents. Why was this event recorded, and attached to a SECURITY? Because the TRUST that SECURITY represents is in RECEIVERSHIP. When you have BENEFIT, you have obligation. It is one of the foundations of CONTRACT LAW itself. There are no exceptions to this rule; and this is why the reboubtable CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE can write such an UNIMPEACHABLE RULING. It is UNIMPEACHABLE.
Mr. Meads is a PERSON some chimp happens to have, and the dumb chimp can't tell the difference between what's true and what feels good. If anybody wishes to BENEFIT from COMMERCE they either contribute VALUE to it, or they consume the byproducts of it. Either way, you are bound by the rules that facilitate it.
My unfortunate life circumstances gave me the unintended benefit of understanding LAW better than any of the current players. Sadly I recall a time when there were both JUSTICES and LAWYERS that understood law as well as I do. They're extinct now. The COURT SYSTEM now exists to facilitate the "Rule of Law" when it favours GOVERNMENT. You, and your PERSON, are a burden/liability when it comes to a TRUST in RECEIVERSHIP. If you want to go the "I am not a PERSON " route, and expect the courts to even entertain the position, let me rejoice in your downfall now. You fucking idiot!
So here's my LEGAL ADVICE, because the COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, doesn't apply to any courts nowadays. You will notice in RULINGS cited in Meads v Meads, the phrase "The time for games is over". Get used to that phrase; you're going to hear it a lot, and it will always come from a GOVERNMENT worker. The phrase itself acknowledges that the SPEAKER has, up to that point, been playing games. Let that sink in. This parasite gets paid with money taken by force, from you, and presumes the RIGHT to play games with you. Well, use their own weapons against them. If they want games, show them one game, and master it. The game is called Jeopardy. It's a game show that has been playing since the 1960's, and is single-handedly responsible for convincing the world that Alex Trebeck is smart. For those who have been living under a rock and don't know what I'm talking about, the only rule in Jeopardy, is that you MUST phrase your answer in the form of a question. If you break that rule, you LOSE.
Remember, your goal is always to form trinities. You do this by connecting two separate paths in the LEGAL MATRIX to one real-world thing. When the layman hears the words 'LEGAL TENDER', they automatically think money and/or currency. You have but to look at Bitcoin, or any other cryptographic currency, to see irrefutable proof that money and LEGAL TENDER are NOT the same thing. To declare otherwise makes you a useful idiot who serves the LAW SOCIETY and the banks.
You can separate trinities that strangers form by asking questions. To understand the mechanism behind this, consider one of the few interactions you, the reader, could possibly have with me. I'm talking about in a "commercial" capacity. One of the services I provide for several corporations is that of Senior System's Engineer. To say that I'm good at that job, is like saying that I'm "ok" at law; It's a gross understatement. It's a job I love doing, because I can make these magnificent machines do something productive - like facilitate the ideas of someone like you, the reader. This means, by default, whatever fictitious project we undertake in this example, it will be presumed fact that we are both motivated and enthusiastic about fulfilling your technological needs. This will provide momentum for any project going forward. Your first interaction with me, I will by default, NOT be qualified to fulfill the task you're asking. Anyone whose career touches Information Technology will agree that one of the biggest headaches in the industry is that the fucking customer has no fucking clue what they want, much less what they actually need. This is a very difficult dynamic to manage, and I find the only way to get around it is to have the client sign over absolute AUTHORITY regarding technical matters in their corporation. I demand SUPREME VETO AUTHORITY over any piece of technology that touches any infrastructure I deploy in the interest of the client. I affectionately call this the "I know better, so shut-the-fuck-up and do what you're told" clause. It virtually guarantees you will never have to buy another solution again, because as my client, I will use the AUTHORITY you signed over, to disect and have a complete and total understanding of the work-flow within your company. Everything I build is scalable to your company's needs. It's only expensive at the beginning.
Now let's look at the mechanics of that. You, as my client, have indisputably the most AUTHORITY in the transaction. If I am ACCEPTING CONTRACTS, the TENDER is available, otherwise you wouldn't be talking to me. It is at that point you request the Terms and Conditions, whereupon you consensually surrender AUTHORITY you're normally entitled to. You do so because I am qualified to understand what you need. This means, that by default, you acknowledge that you are not. This also means that you have NO STANDING to question how I fulfill my obligations under our contract; and I make sure this is clear before anybody signs anything. Now transfer that mechanic to the courtroom in Meads v Meads.
If I am performing the role of ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE, then Mr. Meads appears, by default, as a belligerent client attempting to alter the terms of the agreement. I, as the highest AUTHORITY in this matter, recognize that the attempt to force unilateral conditions on an already-established contract, is not only LEGALLY odious, it is simply UNACCEPTABLE in even the loosest interpretation of CONTRACT LAW. Those of you more familiar with my writings, works, or commercial interests, are already familiar with my primary terms of service. I'm referring of course to the succinct, yet elegant, "Cash up front, or pay with your cunt" clause; because make no misktake, if I'm working for you in commerce, I have no stake in the outcome because I've already been paid. If you can't find where the cash came from, look to your wife/daughter/mother because she covered your tab. Watch for her in upcoming DVD sets.
...I digress.
Where was I? Oh yes! ...Jeopardy.
You will lose the game of Jeopardy if you do not respond in the form of a question. Just like a CONTRACT with me is NULL and VOID if you fail to comply with your UNDERTAKINGS. If you want to change those terms and conditions you are invited to refer to the inevitably required "Tough shit!" clause of our CONTRACT. This effectively, was Mr. Meads' ACTUAL LEGAL position. He wanted to change the terms of a CONTRACT HE CONSENTED TO, and ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE referred him to the "Fuck you!" clause which forms the backbone of the LEGAL MATRIX. So THE JUSTICE decided to make a bunch of ad hominem attacks against Mr. Meads because he was completely LEGALLY and LAWFULLY LICENSED to do so. Mr. Meads granted him that LICENSE when he attempted to change the terms.
Let's go back to me because I'm far more interesting and smarter than Mr. Meads. The ATTORNEY GENERAL and therefore the LAW SOCIETY for which they are AGENT, have clued in that I have effectively let them do to me what they do to everyone else, because I did not IDENTIFY myself by title. They are well-aware that I have volumes and volumes of irrefutable evidence, recordings, of systemic corruption within the COURT SYSTEM, with no raindrop ever being blamed for the flood of corruption. As I have become infamous for saying, "I'm not one of these fucking FREEMEN". I run a TRUST that relies on, and pays for, the LEGAL MATRIX (it forms what you know as "the rule of law").
I did not get what I paid for. It's the only reason you even know my name, or have the honour of reading what I have to say. You learn things you aren't supposed to know, because of ME, and it's THEIR FAULT.
These articles exist under the CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE so you can UNDERSTAND what I am going to do with all this evidence I collected; because I'm going to show you some very interesting things in 2016. I remind the LAW SOCIETY that the excuse "typographical error" exponentially loses its credibility and probability every time you use it. So there's LEGAL ADVICE...at least a Dogecoin worth, and I gave it to you for free.
In ANTI-TRUST LAW, this is what's known as "Product Dumping", and until the LAW SOCIETY makes reparations to the TRUST, I will continue product dumping, and valuing it at one Doge gives it way more value than it deserves. Because that's the one thing all the FREE-DUMB gurus keep missing. And, as I've pointed out before, the pretend hero lawyers suddenly get cagey and evasive just like every other lawyer, when you mention to them, SURETY and ACCOUNTING. LEGAL = SURETY & ACCOUTING. Connect that, to the fact that I value information that I am disseminating, at ONE DOGECOIN. I have now set a MARKET VALUE. That MARKET VALUE is a fucking mark-up that would make Bell Canada blush.
This is not new advice. The reason NOTICE OF MISTAKE is so effective is that you're exercising your AUTHORITY by questioning.
Returning to our hypothetical contract; As my client, you do not have the AUTHORITY to question my technological decisions. You surrendered that RIGHT, or you wouldn't be my client. By surrendering RIGHTS you are surrendering AUTHORITY. I now hold certain specific, and predefined AUTHORITY. I have the AUTHORITY to VETO any piece of technology that touches anything I deploy for you, so don't be buying the latest iPad and expect me to integrate it onto any network I deploy! If you, as my client, wish to question that, I might answer as a courtesy, but I'm under no obligation to do so. However, let's say in another part of our CONTRACT you provide me an expense account, and you find that the only activity on that account, is cheques made out to CASH. You, as my client, most certainly have AUTHORITY to question that. At no time did you FORFEIT any AUTHORITY regarding your ACCOUNTING. I have nothing to do with your accounting, and I am LIABLE if I abuse it.
The allocation of AUTHORITY in any CONTRACT is established before the PARTIES sign. One of Sino General's pass-times is to take credit card applications that are offered, and to read the really odious and creepy "Terms and Conditions", cross them out, and write in his own conditions, or to attach an addendum with his own terms and conditions. Then he signs it, and sends back a NOTARIZED copy. If the idiots send back a credit card, they've done so under his amended "Terms and Conditions". It's not FRAUD to CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT. Sino sets the conditions and signs it. All the credit card company has to do is to endorse that, and there is no FRAUD. Here's where personal responsibility comes into the picture. If you don't like the terms and conditions of your returned offer, don't fucking sign! This applies to ALL PARTIES...and that's why Sino General is such a thorn in their sides. He's not doing anything ILLEGAL and/or UNLAWFUL by RETURNING the AMMENDED OFFER. Real Estate Agents do it for a living!
Mr. Meads, on the other hand, did the equivalent of applying for a credit card, and then trying to change the terms when the first payment came up. These are positions that are not even worth considering, and sadly the term, "vexatious litigant" applies. This is why Meads v Meads is cited so often, because that glaring logic hole that wouldn't survive reality in any circumstance, is what every JUSTICE will focus attention to, thus drowning out any truth Mr. Meads may have spoken in his misguided ramblings.
Meads v. Meads is truly the "Death-Star" of the FREE-DUMBERS, and BOBA SCOTT has come to the rescue. You rebels want to blow up the "Death-Star", then "Shut the fuck up and do what you're told". If you don't, the Empire will blast you out of the sky with their "Death-Star". It exists because Meads is an idiot. The JUDICIAL equivalent of a staff writer saw an opportunity to "make his mark" and he took it. I'm certainly not going to fault him for that. But remember...
Obiter dictum: This is not CASE LAW! This is a RULING against an idiot who tried to foist conditions unilaterally on, not only a pre-existing CONTRACT, but a PERFECTED, CONSENSUAL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (MARRIAGE). There are three PARTIES in a TRUST, which means there are three PARTIES in a MARRIAGE. Crave all the FREE-DUMB you want, but if you're part of such a TRUST, you do not get to fuck around other PARTIES, and you do not get to fuck around the TRUSTEES. So fuck your fucking FREE-DUMB! Obiter dictum rules!
MEADS v. MEADS is indisputably the correct RULING. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE ROOKE availed himself of something his Title provides him, but that is it. It is not CASE LAW. I'm sure if I didn't write this article you'd probably find Derek Moran one day making the DECLARATION that Meads v Meads is not CASE LAW, which they get to ignore. If you're even speaking at CITY HALL, it means you have already ACCEPTED the terms and conditions, and you don't get to foist unilateral CONTRACTS on anyone. The DECLARATION that Meads v Meads is not CASE LAW, while being indisputably true, is not relevant to anything being heard. Derek Moran would be better spending his time at CITY HALL making the DECLARATION that ADMIRAL SCOTT has a large penis; because as Meads v Meads is not CASE LAW is true, it's not really relevant. If Derek Moran DECLARES that I have a large penis (at CITY HALL), while this fact is demonstrably true, DECLARING it is also irrelevant, is wasting people's time, and will frequently be considered "highly inappropriate".
With that being said, I want to go ON RECORD as saying that my penis is ALWAYS RELEVANT.
...I digress.
...ALWAYS RELEVANT!
...Sorry again, about myself. I digress.
So, buried in all of this, are all the tools you need to blow up the "Death-Star" of Meads v Meads. I've now given the FREE-DUMBERS something to fight back with. They're like the disposable zombie army in "Game of Thrones" (Seriously, five seasons went by! Why didn't anybody get on that?). If you're in jeopardy, phrase your response in the form of a question. Only those in AUTHORITY can ask questions. This is the part that all of you seem to miss regarding the wielding of AUTHORITY. As ADMIRAL of a Private Navy I wield a shit-load of AUTHORITY.
It may come as a shock to some of you, but there are those in this world that believe that I have what can only be politely termed an "abrasive" personality - kind of like a GOVERNMENT worker. I wield a bunch of AUTHORITY, and I'm a total dick about it. The difference between me and the GOVERNMENT worker in this thought exercise, is that I can make the CLAIM that people literally asked for that, and I can prove it; whereas a GOVERNMENT worker PRESUMES that RIGHT without your CONSENT. Were I to attempt to IMPOSE my AUTHORITY on you, the reader, you would probably respond violently; and you would be justified in so doing. Yet this is behaviour you find perfectly ACCEPTABLE from GOVERNMENT workers, and when I ask why this is the case, none of you have an answer.
I can make DECLARATIONS that are demonstrably true, such as "Meads v Meads is not CASE LAW", and I can make that DECLARATION with AUTHORITY. I can make that DECLARATION because I'm qualified to do so, because the LEGAL MATRIX of the JUDICIARY, and the LEGAL MATRIX of the JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, are identical. It's like owning a Chrysler New Yorker in 1988; everyone who knew anything about a K-car knew about your car, because underneath the label, and facade, they are exactly the same.
You, however, do not have the RIGHT to make such DECLARATIONS. Using your LEGAL NAME for any BENEFIT obligates you to the terms and conditions attached. Some protect you, and some obligate you. For instance, like a $10 bill, your BIRTH CERTIFICATE does not belong to you. Unlike a $10 bill, you are the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE permanently, and the only PERSON (HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION) with the RIGHT to use and avail yourself of the BENEFIT of the SECURITY that is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It says so in the CHARTER - see the parts regarding "SECURITY OF THE PERSON". It's your RIGHT. But with RIGHTS, come responsibilities. The courts are no longer fulfilling theirs unless it BENEFITS them, and you through your ignorance and apathy, are effectively doing the same.
As most of you don't think beyond next week, the long-term consequences of this reality are inevitably lost on you. The only way you'll learn is by asking questions. That's also how you wield your AUTHORITY. The duties and obligations of those you have AUTHORITY over, are already UNDERSTOOD and PRESUMED. If you had a maid, and she was putting something strange on the floor, you could theoretically exercise your AUTHORITY as her employer, and DEMAND she stop. If, however, it turns out that she was fulfilling her duties as a maid (by putting Varathane on the floor, as stated in her contract), she would be well within her rights to object to your interference. Employees, like a ship's crew, act in the CAPTAIN's interest. It's not the employee's RIGHT or STANDING to ACT in the CORPORATION's INTEREST, unless explicitly instructed to do so, as AGENCY is ALWAYS PRESUMED. BY DEFAULT an employee is to act in the interest of their immediate superior. This is how large ORGANIZATIONS function and maintain themselves in the LEGAL MATRIX. You ignore this mechanism at your own peril.
The key to defeating Meads v Meads, is a complete understanding of what it is, or more specifically, what it isn't. You are well within your rights to ask your "servant" what, or why, they are pouring something strange on your floor. The answer will hopefully reveal that she is simply doing so, in your interest. The rest is just details. The same applies to MEADS vs. MEADS. The parties in that action are both STRANGERS. Treat them as such. Do the same with the court.
A simple question nullifies any misunderstanding. "Are you CLAIMING that I am presenting an ARGUMENT, like Mr Meads? If I have lead you to BELIEVE that to be the case, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me". ;)
NOTICE OF MISTAKE is so effective because it asks pointed questions, the truthful answers to which, will reveal that the GOVERNMENT regards you as PROPERTY. This, of course, happened in GERMANY in the 1930's, where Hitler discovered that there are a lot of angry, useful idiots, who would "just do their jobs", and "just follow orders". That's all it really takes to close up a free society. It's really not that much when you think about it. If you're not breeding, or producing something for the populace to consume, you are of absolutely no value to the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, and are therefore disposable. Hopefully there will never be a reader of this document that thinks I'm stating the obvious there; because that means it's common knowledge and you, and all of your peers, did nothing about it.
So what would I do if Meads v Meads is ever thrown at me? The LAW SOCIETY is actually forking out money to try to spread the idea that I am the same thing as an OPCA Litigant. If you make DECLARATIONS that are contrary to established facts and/or presumptions, you are by your very nature, a litigant. If you wish to litigate with me, you must address me in the capacity of JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. Be warned, I'm very good at that job. It's also why I make sure everybody knows that I am proudly anti-social. This is not a "disorder", because I can state clearly and concisely (and I often do) why I am, in fact, anti-social. As I have previously stated, one of my biggest concerns is that the GOVERNMENT will avail itself, in the INTEREST of JUSTICE (I'm not making that up), of one of the few rights it has left regarding me. It has the RIGHT, on behalf of HER MAJESTY, to compel me to serve as both a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE and a JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. The LEGAL MECHANISM facilitating this is what facilitates a "Peace Officer" and "Policy Enforcer" being the same PERSON. In all LEGAL matters, the only PARTY with STANDING is a PERSON. They may compel me (and my PERSON) to ACT/SERVE as a Justice of the Peace. I don't even get paid. I get a reciept for service. That's it. The Law Society may, at their discretion, BUY that reciept. They never do, from what I hear. It's only a point of interest, because the oath that allows them to compel me to service, ends in 2016, and there is virtually NO chance of them binding me to service/handing over authority between now and 2016.
The idea still creeps me out though.
Were I to be drafted as a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, I would be compelled to fulfill my duties to the best of my abilities. Imagine how compelling that is. The GOVERNMENT and the LAW SOCIETY has somebody with my knowledge of law at their disposal. They have but to set up all their pieces and play by the RULES; and appearing before me will assure victory every time. Any RULING and/or ENDORSEMENT I make will make your victory an immovable FACT IN LAW. You'd think the GOVERNMENT would have leapt all over that years ago, and milked it until I died of old age and stress at the age of 52. They have the de facto AUTHORITY of HER MAJESTY. If they want to be really careful about SURETY, they can literally ORDER the GOVERNOR GENERAL to sign. And here's one of those little gold nuggets that everyone looks for in my writing...
The LEGAL term "GOVERNOR" has absolutely nothing to do with GOVERNMENT. The LEGAL term GOVERNOR always refers to "banking". The UNITED STATES has GOVERNORS for each STATE, because those GOVERNORS decide where the money goes. The wealth of the BRITISH EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY was simply shuffled to the DUTCH EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY, much like ESSO refers to itself as EXXON whenever it runs into anything resembling liability. And, the BRITISH EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY, all but disappeared, yet their flag still flies there, and it's all managed by GOVERNORS. They're now an ORGANIZATION of RECEIVERS commonly known as HOMELAND SECURITY. HOMELAND WHAT?? Security, huh? Wonder what you'll get if you look up the LEGAL definition of "security"? GOVERNOR is a banking term. In every country in the COMMONWEALTH, the CITIZEN has absolutely NO interaction with any GOVERNOR. The GOVERNOR of the BANK OF CANADA, much like the GOVERNOR GENERAL, only has interaction with money. CITIZENS, PERSONS and the like, are irrelevant. To qualify to be a GOVERNOR of any sort, you must have demonstrated that you can responsibly wield the AUTHORITY. If you are a GOVERNOR with AUTHORITY, then you take ORDERS from an ORGANIZATION. That's what GOVERNORS do. GOVERNORS only TAKE ORDERS from an ORGANIZATION. They don't do anything else! The GOVERNOR GENERAL takes ORDERS from an ORGANIZATION called PARLIAMENT. The GOVERNOR of the BANK OF CANADA takes ORDERS from the BANK's Class "A" Shareholders. It doesn't matter what ORGANIZATION is giving the ORDERS, a GOVERNOR, much like a SOVEREIGN interacting with COMMERCE can only TAKE ORDERS. Remember the Nazi cop-out, "I was just following orders?"; well the reason this was so popular, and is an excuse accepted to this day, is that the ORDERS in question are what gave them LICENSE to commit the ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL ACT the ORDERS demand. An ORDER, by its very nature, is a LICENSE. A LICENSE is permission to perform an ILLEGAL and/OR UNLAWFUL ACT.
Put all of that together and make the necessary connections, and watch Meads v Meads vanish in a puff of reality.
But we haven't really ended our "Star-Wars" rewrite. Well the conclusion of that story hasn't been filmed yet, but the current script has Luke Skywalker and Han Solo hiding out at the Jedi FORTRESS OF REMAND for years, while BOBA SCOTT and his SIMU-CLONES avail themselves of their right to hate-fuck Princess Leia for daring to presume authority over us. But don't worry...she was totally into it. BOBA SCOTT dumped all the SIMU-...clones, into the Sarlak Pit, and he and a local gangster named CHUBBY The FATT set off to find the legendary Skinny-Dipping Wolf-Women of Planet Heineken!
...cue Star Wars "Empire" theme...
*More on this later.
FOCUS ON SURETY, ACCOUNTING, and AGENCY. ALWAYS!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum


[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW June 19, 2015 at 9:23am]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:12 am

THE TENDER FOR LAW: DEFAMATORY LIBEL FOR IDIOTS; A Serendipitously, Happily-Coincidental Article (c) 1982-2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC.


THE TENDER FOR LAW: DEFAMATORY LIBEL FOR IDIOTS; A Serendipitously, Happily-Coincidental Article (c) 1982-2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
In case none of you read that LICENSE, that means that no COMMERCE is expected and/or IMPLIED...again, in case you are confused. Only members of THE TENDER FOR LAW will understand why that's so important. ALSO: there are no "answers" here, just a "setting of the scene" as it were...
Since THE TENDER FOR LAW is about LAW and COMMERCE, and more specifically how you don't get what you pay for (especially as regards the law part), I very rarely touch on the "Clubhouse Rules" for the club you clearly are not a part of; and my contempt for the people who worship such things, is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.
Today is a little different. You see it's time to dust off these nasty little artifacts in the past that I am notorious for collecting and doing nothing with. Those of you who follow our adventures will recall a case where transcripts were forged. Two years has passed since I told you about that. It is now time to call people to ACCOUNT. In order to do that we must examine the RULES OF LAW in COMMERCE. This is the JURISDICTION in which most people function. It is from this JURISDICTION that THE ADMIRAL has been attacked. The key word here is ADMIRAL. AQUILAE is not "secret", but it is a TRUST. If you're holding the role of ADMIRAL you are literally holding LEGAL TITLE to every real-world item in the TRUST. Is it because I'm "arrogant", and I need the "AUTHORITY" to stroke my "ego"? If you think that after all this time, close this page and never read another word I ever have to say. You are far too determined to miss the point, and I am no match for your awesome stupidity.
...I digress.
Today we're covering the very interesting CRIMINAL CODE OFFENSE of DEFAMATORY LIBEL. DEFAMATORY LIBEL is covered in Section 300 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. You never hear of people being charged with this as it carries a stupidly large burden to overcome. All successful DEFAMATORY LIBEL complaints have been filed privately. It is an oddity in "Criminal law" that private complaints are rarely successful, except in the cases of DEFAMATORY LIBEL. Those of you who UNDERSTAND THE TENDER FOR LAW know that all laws have the following things in common:
There is always a MONETARY VALUE attached to the REMEDY (LEGAL).
All LAWS are PROHIBITIVE.
A LICENSE is permission to perform an ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL act.
So let's examine Section 300 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.
First let's cover the Legislation:
Punishment of libel known to be false s300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 264.
Punishment for defamatory libel
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.
Extortion by libel
302. (1) Every one commits an offence who, with intent
(a) to extort money from any person, or (b) to induce a person to confer on or procure for another person an appointment or office of profit or trust,
publishes or threatens to publish or offers to abstain from publishing or to prevent the publication of a defamatory libel.
Idem(2) Every one commits an offence who, as the result of the refusal of any person to permit money to be extorted or to confer or procure an appointment or office of profit or trust, publishes or threatens to publish a defamatory libel.
Punishment(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 266.
As I explain this particular hypothetical case, I'm going to use some hypothetical names so you can identify the hypothetical parties.
First we have "THE ADMIRAL", a noble, trust-worthy man.
Next we have "Sanctimonious Chink", a SUPERNUMERARY who is "above the law", because she's "LICENSED".
And finally we have "Libellous Cunt", a giant, gelatinous blob entrusted with BEARING WITNESS to events in a court and recording them.
...At this point I would like to offer the disclaimer that any similarity between characters mentioned here and any PERSONS, living, dead or planning to be dead, is just a happy coincidence. We don't know these people, and if you know people like this, you keep bad company and have far larger issues than I to deal with.
Can I write a disclaimer or what?
...I digress.
Let's begin our story. But before we do, I just want to say that I'm ripping this whole "story shit" off from Ceit. I figured I'd try my hand at it. So here it goes...
Once upon a time the brave, handsome, strapping, noble ADMIRAL found himself in court before "Sanctimonious Chink", which is strange because "Sanctimonious Chink" normally tries criminal cases; but I suppose she's just like any other woman - she just wanted to be near "THE ADMIRAL". Whilst indulging her secret lust, "Sanctimonious Chink" noticed that "THE ADMIRAL" owned his property outright and had no debt. She also noticed that one of her weasely colleagues was attempting to invent "debt" in order to relieve "THE ADMIRAL" of his property. When "THE ADMIRAL" stood and fought he was first branded "crazy", and when all the people who determine that sort of thing told "Sanctimonious Chink" to fuck off with that shit; and if they tried it again, they'd find themselves holding a huge bill. "Sanctimonious Chink" realized there was a problem. A lot of uncomfortable shit was going to be spilled onto the PUBLIC RECORD so she needed to "head this off at the pass". Fortunately for "Sanctimonious Chink" she had the power to direct all underlings that deal with her (its?) "court"!
Meanwhile, down the street, "Libellous Cunt" was oozing into her office chair when the phone rang - A LICENSED SUPERNUMERARY that instructed her to come down for a meeting and sign something she knew wasn't true, to which she responded,"Tee hee?". And...the rest was history.
"Sanctimonious Chink" still had a bit of a problem. She tried issuing WARRANTS for arrest; she tried sending police out to intimidate others who knew "THE ADMIRAL", but suddenly lots of people started ordering the transcript of the hearing she swept under the carpet. She told her ATTORNEY GENERAL underlings to sound the alarm and to eject anyone who referenced this case. Finally a not-white guy named...um. Mart...ian ...um Suttonhotel! Ya, that's it...Martian Suttonhotel! That's who did it! (Again, I totally made that up on the spot so it can't be anybody real!). Anyway, Martian Suttonhotel had previously seen a video recorded at that hearing, and an audio recording of the whole hearing, because the camera man got kidnapped halfway through, by "Sanctimonious Chink's" AGENTS. He fully expected the transcript to match what was being said. Now you, the reader, may not know anything of "THE ADMIRAL", but I assure you that "THE ADMIRAL" is most verbose. Of all the things said of him "silent and reserved" is not one of them. The aforementioned video/audio does nothing to refute this position. ...except the transcript didn't reflect that. In fact when "THE ADMIRAL" did speak on the transcript, the words were either spoken at some other time in the hearing, or were simply fabrications. This of course frightened Martian Suttonhotel, so he went to his only source of guidance, Rape-baby-zombie Jesus! Rape-baby-zombie Jesus, of course, answered his prayer by advising that he run away like a cowardly bitch. ...and we never saw "Martian" again. Presumably he's on Mars with Rape-baby-zombie Jesus.
Fortunately while he was running away like a cowardly, little bitch, who had just witnessed a crime he didn't want to be involved in, he left the transcripts in question.
"Sanctimonious Chink" isn't worried because she is "above the law". You were brought up to believe that "nobody is above the law", and yet you see on a daily basis that there are a whole shit-load of people who are "above the law". Those with the title, "JUSTICE" are a prime example. "Sanctimonious Chink" is indisputably BREACHING the PUBLIC TRUST and committing a crime. There's nothing you can do about it. There is however, somebody in this tale who is not "above the law" in any JURISDICTION, and who is certainly "accountable" for what she "swears is true". That, of course, is "Libellous Cunt". So, using the above legislation, let's just see if she is qualified to be "guilty" of this OFFENSE.
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.
TWO YEARS?? WOW! That's something "THE ADMIRAL" could appreciate! Locking "Libellous Cunt" up for two years really tickles "THE ADMIRAL's" sense of JUSTICE. He's in! So, what do we have to do to convict this "Libellous Cunt"?
Publishing Defamatory Libel Known to be False
To successfuly convict someone of Defamatory Libel you MUST
- identity of the accused as the culprit, the jurisdiction of the incident, the time and date of the incident, AND that the accused published materials AND that the materials are defamatory libel AND the accused knows the materials are false
Publishing Defamatory Libel
ALSO
identity of the accused as the culprit
the jurisdiction of the incident
the time and date of the incident
accused publishes materials
the materials is defamatory libel
"Libellous Cunt" is guilty of one of these two (There is a third; "Extortion by Libel", but it doesn't apply here). Above you see the burden that the CROWN must overcome to successfully prosecute this case. Did "Libellous Cunt" KNOW the materials were false? Of course she did. She "swore" that she used actual audio transcripts. "THE ADMIRAL" KNOWS that even the best audio editor on the planet could not cut/paste phrases "THE ADMIRAL" said, into an audio file, and have it come out anything close to what the transcript said. This becomes glaringly obvious when listening to ACTUAL audio of the court proceedings. It looks like "she's" qualified to be a guest of HER MAJESTY for a term not exceeding two years.
...except that the offence of publishing defamatory libel under s. 301 is of no force and effect as it violates s. 2 of the Charter is not savable under s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
R v Lucas (1995) 129 Sask R 53 (QB)R. v. Byron Prior, 2008 NLTD 80R. v. Gill, 1996 CarswellOnt 1314 (Gen. Div.)
You'll recall at the beginning of this article, it was implied that this particular CRIMINAL CODE OFFENSE is a real bitch to prosecute.
...except "Libellous Cunt" KNEW that what she was SWEARING TO and releasing to the PUBLIC RECORD was, in fact, false. Does that prove INTENT? That's unknown. "Sanctimonious Chink", being "above the law", often threatens her underlings when it looks like they may question her "SUPREME AUTHORITY". This means "Libellous Cunt" was acting UNDER DURESS. This normally would absolve her of LIABILITY, except she holds the PUBLIC TRUST. When you PAY MONEY for a CERTIFIED copy of the PUBLIC RECORD, we at THE TENDER FOR LAW know that the case has been SECURITIZED. In ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW there is only one "crime", and that's INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE. COMMERCE relies on these accurate records. Courts who receive SWORN TRANSCRIPTS as EVIDENCE, ACCEPT them as FACT. "Libellous Cunt's" act is interference with both JUSTICE and COMMERCE!
Fair report of public meeting308. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes in good faith, in a newspaper, a fair report of the proceedings of any public meeting if
(a) the meeting is lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and is open to the public; (b) the report is fair and accurate; (c) the publication of the matter complained of is for the public benefit; and (d) he does not refuse to publish in a conspicuous place in the newspaper a reasonable explanation or contradiction by the person defamed in respect of the defamatory matter.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 272.
I think we can eliminate this as a possibility. So I think we can establish that "Libellous Cunt" is guilty of DEFAMATORY LIBEL on the INSTRUCTION and MALICE of "Sanctimonious Chink".
...and now the problem. Who does "THE ADMIRAL" go to? The courts? Talk about pleading to your rapist! "THE ADMIRAL" has the ability/AUTHORITY to conjure money into existence, except there are two JURISDICTIONS "THE ADMIRAL" frequents, which have very strict rules regarding PERSONS with the ability to do this. In short, monetary gain from a prosecution, or even monetary benefit as a REMEDY is UNLAWFUL in two JURISDICTIONS. Fortunately "THE ADMIRAL" doesn't care about that shit. He wants "Libellous Cunt" locked up. He then wants all the people who KNOWINGLY ACTED on "Libellous Cunt's" publication, to be locked up. Who does "THE ADMIRAL" go to for that? Money doesn't mean much to "THE ADMIRAL", but "Libellous Cunt" relies on money, and fortunately "THE ADMIRAL" has the ability to stop money as well as start it. So "THE ADMIRAL" is going to get a REGISTERED AGENT and file a COMMERCIAL LIEN and a MARITIME LIEN on "Libellous Cunt's" assets. ...except at this point, that would be ILLEGAL. There are CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS here.
As much as AMERICAN television would have you believe, the threat of "give me money or I'll charge you" is the very definition of EXTORTION...except GOVERNMENT does that all the time, especially in criminal cases. Surprisingly they're not doing it ILLEGALLY. As "THE ADMIRAL" is clearly a victim of "Libellous Cunt's" intentional act, "THE ADMIRAL" would be what we refer to in legal circles as the "wronged PARTY". At this point the "wronged PARTY" has absolute discretion as to what they consider ACCEPTABLE REMEDY. Most "wronged PARTIES" waive this SUPREME RIGHT by handing it over to the CROWN. If the CROWN is prosecuting this case as part of a larger case, the CROWN has the AUTHORITY to OFFER IMMUNITY from CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Take note that once this is offered, you no longer have the "RIGHT to remain silent". The reason this right is defined is to comply with the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements regarding self-incrimination. If you are immune from prosecution, you do not have the RIGHT to refuse to answer. In the CIVIL JURISDICTION, THE ADMIRAL has that same AUTHORITY. "THE ADMIRAL" can offer immunity in exchange for a SWORN AFFIDAVIT TESTIFYING as to why "Libellous Cunt" felt compelled to commit the criminal act in question. This will of course fall on "Sanctimonious Chink" and in a perfect world, that would lead to a domino effect, and all the guilty PARTIES would be punished.
...Alas this world is far from perfect. "THE ADMIRAL" is an Admiral because he owns/runs a PRIVATE NAVY filled with people escaping GOVERNMENT corruption. Who the fuck has a navy? Why is this even a thing?
You see all "THE ADMIRAL" can do is PUBLICLY walk through the "right motions" with lots of people viewing, and hopefully enough of you will see that it doesn't matter if you do everything "LEGALLY and LAWFULLY"; the entire system is rigged. Then hopefully people will realize that there's nobody coming to save them, that all this shit is real, and that they'd better wake up and do something fast! This is a big interference in "THE ADMIRAL's" life. He is a very busy man, and he knows that anyone reading his TESTIMONY is too ignorant and/or apathetic to do anything useful. That's ok, because "THE ADMIRAL" is always LEGAL and LAWFUL even when everyone else is not. That's why you always see him looking down his nose as though he's better than you...IT'S BECAUSE HE'S BETTER THAN YOU!
The whole purpose of this little tale is to set the backdrop for the next phase of THE TENDER FOR LAW. Along with telling you the truth and making you drink your own piss (we totally make you do that) THE TENDER FOR LAW will also feature a real-world case that is startlingly similar to this one, although any similarities between these people and the characters in the story are purely coincidental. Honest.
First we'll spill out the damning evidence. As this article is being typed AQUILAE NAVY code-monkeys are furiously typing as we speak, and they are chopping everything up into bite-sized pieces so everyone can follow along. As always, materials published by AQUILAE and/or ROGUE SUPPORT INC. are all released into the CREATIVE COMMONS unless stated otherwise.
As the transcript is in bound hard-copy form, double-spaced on 8X11 paper, we will use that as our format; each page and it's "matching" audio/video. I know this sounds long and drawn out, but you needn't fret. The comparison becomes painful really quickly. In your head you'll have "her" convicted by the second page. I'll keep going, but it will just be for PUBLIC RECORD purposes. I don't encourage "binge watching/reading" as the comments on this article will surely encourage, unless you have taken some sort of alcoholic or pharmacological relaxant to deal with uncontrolled rage. It is not healthy mentally to watch blatant corruption layed out before you. Like "Sanctimonious Chink" in our little story, Wailan LOW, the JUSTICE you will see in the videos and hear in the audio, normally prosecutes criminal cases. This means on her own corrupt whim, she has imprisoned your fellow man to extort value from them. These are the types of people who are "JUSTICES", and they truly believe it's their "RIGHT" to do this.
And as the comments in this article become longer and longer, and more and more gets handed out (which is totally a trick I stole from Edward Snowden), you'll be forced to ask yourselves some very hard questions. You are at the end of your civilization. I am showing you what causes it to fall; because it's not just the piece-of-shit Christians legislating people's RIGHTS away. It's not just the piece-of-shit Muslims threatening violence if you dare mention that they have an evil, ignorant, violent, mysogynist ideology; and it's not about the piece-of-shit Jew who makes an entire "protected" culture out of exploiting your ignorance of commerce; and it's not just about the corrupt by-products of this. It's about your children's future. It's about your civilization's future. These evil, vile, worthless people in GOVERNMENT exist to take all of it from you. Need proof? Just look at "your" birth certificate.
While you're pondering all this, ask yourself what you're going to do about it; because if you don't, then it is reasonable to believe that nobody will. Two years ago Dean Clifford approached AQUILAE and was ratified into the TRUST, and immediately BREACHED it. He is one of your "gurus", who mixes truth and hypocrisy to sell his wares and play imaginary victim. Everyone in AQUILAE is there because they purchased LAW with THE TENDER FOR LAW, and they didn't get what they paid for. AQUILAE is OUR REMEDY, not the GOVERNMENT's.
Consider what you are about to see closely. I have the role of ADMIRAL because my CAPTAINS TRUST me. While you're looking AT me, you're not looking FOR them. I'm very good at my job! And because all of my presence on FaceBook is an UNDERTAKING spelled out in a J.A.G. ORDER, I can honestly say regarding everything that I'm doing, that...
"It's all perfectly LEGAL".
"There was a COURT ORDER".
"I'm just doing my job".
...and the ATTORNEY GENERAL can suck my cock.

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW March 24, 2015 at 11:22pm]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:16 am

February 24, 2013 · Toronto, ON
THE TENDER FOR LAW – THE UCC FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
THIS ALSO SERVES AS PART II of ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF)
As promised, I am now going to cover the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (or UCC, for you idiots who type with your thumbs.)
FUCK! Myths about THIS shit, sure has “done the rounds”, hasn't it? No more myths have been generated, out of a piece of regulation, than the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE!
The dumbed-down, but very accurate, explanation is that the UCC is a standardized LEGAL mechanism, to resolve disputes in commerce, where such commerce utilizes the world reserve currency.
At the moment, the world reserve currency is the US DOLLAR. This doesn't mean it's American law, but it most certainly covers the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and all the US shores and waterways.
ITS DEFAULT ROLE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION
If you watched Money as Debt III, you saw a brief explanation as to WHY gold became a world currency. It was universally accepted, around the world.
The UCC provides this very same function by being the very LAW you TENDERED when you used the US DOLLAR. This effectively means the UCC covers the UNITED STATES and any JURISDICTIONS, real or implied, which can and/or do use the US DOLLAR.
In order to make use of the UCC, you must either be in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and/or in one of the waters, shores or tributaries of the UNITED STATES, and/or conducting business in US DOLLARS.
I, for one, love the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. If you have a fleet of ships and you do business in AMERICAN DOLLARS, and don't have any debt, you're pretty much as free as a human being can get in 2013.
If there is anyone that says the UCC is anything else, they are, in fact, lying to you. The purpose behind the UCC is to have COMMON INTERNATIONAL LAW regarding COMMERCE. ABOVE ALL;ITS DEFAULT ROLE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!
...idiots. (Yes, as a matter of fact I DO have to say that! FUCK OFF!)
The UCC allows certain presumptions regarding accounting that would simply be impractical in a corporate environment. The fact that roles are clearly defined, and MARITIME ADMIRALTY LAW is heavily integrated, makes owning a ship, or even better, a fleet of ships, a very liberating idea, for the UCC protects you. The UCC guarantees that other users of THE TENDER FOR LAW that offered this JURISDICTION, will protect your interests by presumption.
This whole “Dean arrest thing” has distracted me from my larger goal, and now I have to stop and dumb things down. I certainly hope my explanation of the UCC is clear enough.
Now ponder how stupid a CLAIM against such “constructs” actually is. OK, you know what?...you're all too stupid...I'm going to have to explain it.
Let's cover a few fundamentals. I'll try not to use large words so the “BELIEVERS” won't get confused.
A TRUST IS NOT A PERSON.
A GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON, AND
A JUDICIARY IS NOT A PERSON.
A human that is registered with the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON.
A human, and that stripper they fucked last year and has since squirted out a NEW human, and THEREFORE, said NEW human is registered with the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON. (That's what you get for fucking strippers)
A CORPORATION IS A PERSON.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD poses as a “TRUST”. A TRUST cannot make a CLAIM. Only a PERSON can make a CLAIM.
The GRANTORS of the TRUST have NO STANDING to make a CLAIM once the TRUST is commissioned. They have no more power to do so than the guy, whose signature is on a Ten Dollar bill, has the AUTHORITY to tell you how to spend it.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, and their ilk, will happily talk as EXPERTS on the UCC, and I'm pretty sure NONE of them has actually used the UCC.
So, let's do a side-by-side comparison as to who is more qualified to speak on this subject:
I, unlike OPPF and “FREELOADERS-ON-THE-LAND”, have actual VALUE. As I type this the general consensus of the LEGAL AND BANKING SYSTEM says that I can, without question, UNDERWRITE half a Billion Dollar's worth of BONDS converted to MONEY OF EXCHANGE. Think about that. On a whim, I could inject half a Billion Dollars into the economy. This means that unless you use those dollars to purchase my value, the entire net worth of the country will drop by half a Billion Dollars.
If you think it's frightening that one privileged man wields the power to do this sort of thing, pat yourself on the back because that is the proper response. Ethics is the only thing that stops me from doing that. But that doesn't really help much in COMMERCE. An ethical guy with a gun, in the end, is still just a guy with a gun....
….Enter the UCC.
The UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE in COMMERCE, only recognizes whatever currency is the world reserve currency. This of course is the US DOLLAR. This means that every other currency touched by the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND is simply “acting” as a US DOLLAR (or part thereof). Muammar Gaddafi was wiped off the face of the earth, because he dared point out that the world's currencies are propping-up the dead, hollowed-out carcass that is the UNITED STATES. He raised the point that, according to the little, green book that got him into office, He was pretty sure that LIBYA'S economic wealth was to go to its people.
I hear people stating that the war on LIBYA was ILLEGAL. Sadly it wasn't. The UCC made it perfectly LEGAL.
LAW IS A TRUST. According to the TRUST, Gaddafi's attempt to change the currency was a BREACH OF THAT TRUST.
THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE can be viewed as the grand, de facto law that exists where no other de facto law exists.
Therefore according to IMF TREATIES, if there's no law at a particular place, the UCC is DEEMED to be the de facto law.
You will notice that there is nothing to LIEN or FORECLOSE ON in the UCC. UCC is a “legal traffic cop”, directing traffic to its appropriate JURISDICTION.
Treating a TRUST like a PERSON makes any further documents produced as a result, FRAUD. Such documents are OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT.
In short, ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD is, by its very nature, based on an ILLEGAL concept.
...but that's not the worst of it. UCC, like any OTHER TRUST is based on CONSENT. Let's look into LEGAL UTOPIA! We needn't bother with silly things like consent. IT'S LEGAL PARADISE! First we must get into the right “headspace”.
Since all of you like to form uninformed opinions of me, and what a bad man I am, I'll put this next scenario in the context of “me”, because your self-created loathing of me will allow you to accept this concept, in your empty little heads.
SO, Imagine if you will that I, the KEEPER OF THE AQUILAE TRUST, decided that I wanted to do something FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, because you're too stupid to do it yourself. With the arrogant presumption that I even have STANDING to do so, I, without your CONSENT, make a DECLARATION that you get a “chunk of the world's wealth”; and to ENFORCE that I drafted some AWESOME LAWS, as I do not “believe” (belief is the only thing that would cause a rational human being to think this way) you are capable of managing your own affairs...
...hey wait, this is starting to sound familiar. But I'm not like the GOVERNMENT, I know what's best for you! I'm just here to help; and anybody who doesn't want that help is clearly a “hater”, and are jealous... maybe even criminals and psychopaths. Why, anybody who doesn't want my help is mentally ill. That's safe to say! In fact, I'd better amend my awesome laws so that I may lovingly and humanely dispose of these mentally ill.
Got the picture?
GOOD.
Now just replace “me” with those “three guys” in ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, and that is what is being sold to you. I cannot make this any clearer.
I have just explained what the UCC is. If you think it's anything else, you're “making shit up”.
I use the UCC daily. AQUILAE has points-of-presence in CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE, SCOTLAND and ICELAND. So anybody who dares say they know more about the UCC is publicly declaring that I am LEGALLY INCOMPETENT TO MANAGE A TRUST, which is DEFAMATORY; and I deal with that in MY JURISDICTION, and there's a nice “legal traffic cop” that says I can. People who want to continue spreading bullshit may find themselves on my “LEGAL AUTOPSY TABLE” where they are used as a live example...
...Because ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD has a lot more than the UCC. I could show mercy right now and let this FRAUD die as it is; and even though I made some grandiose promises about this document's horrible fate, I remind you all that mercy is the mark of a GREAT MAN!
...The problem is, I'm just a GOOD man.
In my next major post I shall cover the procedural FRAUD within the TRUST itself as laid-out in its CHARTER DOCUMENTS.
Watch how it writhes in pain. * maniacal giggling is permitted *

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW February 24, 2013 · Toronto, ON]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:26 am

SURETY FOR IDIOTS: PART II – WAIVING THE LEGAL NAME

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/494817297220874/
THE TENDER FOR LAW – SURETY FOR IDIOTS – PART II – WAIVING THE LEGAL NAME (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.


THE FOLLOWING is an ENHANCED and TENDER FOR LAW ANNOTATED [In Square Brackets] version of section 2.1 of The ONTARIO “Change of Name Act” [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7… see what I did there? PAY ATTENTION TO CAPS HERE, as these are the words to look for where YOUR “change of name act” is.]
2. (1) For ALL [ALL purposes! Pay attention to that] purposes of ONTARIO LAW,
(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is ENTITLED [Which means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by the NAME appearing on the PERSON’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;
(b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is ENTITLED[Which means you want to WAIVE this.] to be recognized by,
(i) the name appearing on the person’s change of name certificate, if the person’s name has been changed under this Act or a predecessor of it, or
(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing in Ontario,
unless clause (c) applies; and
(c) a person who adopted a name on marriage before the 1st day of April, 1987 is entitled to be recognized by that name unless the person subsequently changed that name under this Act or a predecessor of it. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (1).
So always WAIVE the BENEFIT of section 2.1 of the CHANGE OF NAME ACT.
Any name you are known by is PRIVATE, and NOT DERIVED from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Don’t be surety for a THING.
I WAIVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 2.1 OF THE ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ADDRESS ME BY ANY NAME, AND/OR, ANY INFORMATION DERIVED FROM ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT?


[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW March 21, 2013]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:30 am

THE TENDER FOR LAW – CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY [C.A.S] FOR IDIOTS
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/491707400865197/


(c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
This article is what we like to call an “emergency article” in as much as Dean Clifford has publicly and blatantly lied about family services and the law. Before we get started we are going to refer to the JURISDICTION I am most familiar with. You will find mirrors of this in any JURISDICTION that uses a world reserve currency.
If you live in Buttfuck Montana I will not be able to point you to the ACT and/or STATUTE that says what I am going to show you here.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/…/En…/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm
The URL above will point you to the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO so you can sing along…
Before I start let’s review a few LEGAL DEFINITIONS. Those who have been studying the Maxims of Law will be familiar with the Maxim that says, “The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of everything else.” Like all good LEGAL documents I’m going to give away the answer right at the beginning and explain why this is true.
Every one who has been a victim of the CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY has been profoundly aware that FRAUD is occurring, and has been unaware of how to identify this FRAUD. In order to have a child removed from a mother and/or father’s custody an ORDER must be issued from the court that cites this very ACT. There are exceptions to this RULE (imminent physical threat to a child, WARRANT from a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE inter alia), but that’s not what we are covering here. In this writing I am only going to focus on the long, drawn-out, cash-producing process laughingly called family law.
In every ACT and STATUTE, words are defined in the context of that ACT and/or STATUTE. If the word “light” is defined in a STATUTE as “darkness”, then in the context of that STATUTE, light means darkness. A “JUSTICE” orders the kidnapping (and it is kidnapping) and/or alienation of a child with an ORDER in the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. So let’s look at the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. What does “ORDER” mean in the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO? Let’s go see the interpretations section and its definitions….
“ORDER” INCLUDES a REFUSAL to make an ORDER; (“arrêté, ordre et ordonnance”)…WHAT?
…just looking through the ACT to see if there’s a bit more detail here…nope, that’s it. That’s all it says. I assume the parties who drafted this ACT were never taught that you should never use the word you’re defining in a definition.
In THE TENDER FOR LAW our standard operating procedure is to look up every single word, even if you think you know what it means; and in every case it always turn out that you don’t. So let’s go through that sentence, one word at a time. In our fresh new definition of “ORDER” we are “INCLUDING” something, which in legalese means we are EXCLUDING everything else. In this case we are including a REFUSAL(?) How can you include a refusal? (hey don’t look at me…I didn’t write this…I’m just telling you what it says)
Since refusal is not defined in this ACT we’ll have to step up to a more general level. Let’s see what Black’s Law 9th Edition has to say about the word “refusal”:
“An opportunity to accept or reject something before it is offered to others; the right or privilege of having this opportunity.”…well, there’s a privilege worth waiving! In fact I dare say that of all the privileges and benefits one would wish to waive, this should at least be in your top five. Dean Clifford and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth (“How do I sound”? – Tony Butros, HOW TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD-Ep13 Family Law www.blogtalkradio.com) are selling this as a benefit.
In fact, they’re asking you to beg for it when they tell you to use APPLICATIONS and MOTIONS (…Yeh, you like that don’t ‘ya bitch!).
Rather than begging for your own victimization, a little effort tearing this apart will serve you much better. Since we’re talking about ORDERS and MAKING ORDERS let’s take a quick peek at the word “MAKE” since we have Black’s Law lying open here…
MAKE, according to Black’s Law 9th Edition, “To legally perform, as by executing, signing, OR delivering (a document) (to make a contract)”
Oh look, they use the word “OR”! Don’t you just love it when they give you a selection? Always remember legalese does NOT actually “lie”, it simply presumes you know what the words mean (as a CIVILIAN! HAR! Oh, I slay me!).
So when a “JUSTICE” MAKES an ORDER he gets a selection from the “bullshit buffet” that is the LAW, but he can only pick one, OR the other. Neither of these options actually apply to YOU. By ACCEPTING the ORDER you are in fact, EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS to “BENEFIT” from it, before everyone else can. Yes, you are accepting SURETY before anyone else gets a chance; and while I’m not one to tell you how to run your affairs, I personally think that that would be a MISTAKE! And we all know what to do about MISTAKES.
Now I want you to “fire up” that little lump of protoplasm you laughingly call a brain, and ask yourself, “Which makes more sense? Begging to be part of the JURISDICTION and all of its “BENEFITS” or following the Number 1 Rule of the Universe (Scott is ALWAYS right! Especially as regards LAW). Lawyers used to come to me when they got in over their heads, and I was shoved A LOT of payola under the table for my services. Single mothers reading this know how to express their gratitude. You may APPLY to Tara for the opportunity to provide remuneration.
So let’s go through this fascinating definition one more time, translated to laymen’s terms:
In the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO a “JUSTICE” will issue an opportunity to ACCEPT a BENEFIT before everyone else. So basically ORDER in this context actually OFFERS YOU the RIGHT TO DECLINE. I guarantee that none of you who have had your children stolen, DECLINED that ORDER. In fact I dare say you ACCEPTED it. That would be a MISTAKE.
Issuing a NOTICE OF MISTAKE will correct this, because another Maxim of Law says, “That which can be done, can be undone”. Serving by registered mail a modified NOTICE OF MISTAKE to all participating PARTIES, will remedy this MISTAKE.
And now we will cover our new “word of the day”, “PETITION”:
PETITION, according to Black’s Law 9th Edition, “A formal written request presented to a court or other official body.”
Those few of you who actually have a fucking clue who I am, know that among my many titles is ADMIRAL. I exercise my RIGHTS and DUTIES strictly through ADMIRALTY, so I totally know what I’m talking about here. I, as an ADMIRAL, have TRUSTEES SERVING me. I do not bark ORDERS at my TRUSTEES. I only do that to my inferiors. My TRUSTEES are most certainly NOT my inferiors. When I need a task performed for AQUILAE I REQUEST. Returning to the definition of PETITION you will see that this is also a request. I therefore PETITION my TRUSTEES to execute tasks on behalf of the TRUST. TRUSTEES do not serve an ADMIRAL; an ADMIRAL SERVES HIS TRUSTEES. The “payment” for this “service” is the TRUSTEE’S OATH to GRANT ALL MY REQUESTS. It is the COURT’s DUTY to do the same.
This group’s name “THE TENDER FOR LAW” is actually a translation to layman’s terms of “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER”. They mean the same thing. So naturally money comes into the picture. Remember our group’s Maxim…”Follow the money”. In this particular case we don’t want to follow any money, we want to stop the flow of money.
All of you have heard the old adage, “The buck stops here.” Translated to legalese, “the buck stops here” = “NON-NEGOTIABLE”. In the construction of our PETITION we are going to contain, in its body, a cessation of negotiation. When dissecting documents that have a financial interest, we have learned that documents signed by a “PERSON” are considered NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS under the LAW.
Therefore in our PETITION, the first words that appear should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. This is similar to putting “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” on the top of a document. NEGOTIATE does not mean bargain or haggle, it means to EXECUTE a financial transaction. NON-NEGOTIABLE literally means “the buck stops here”. Reading through Black’s Law will show you numerous types of petitions, and reading them in the context demonstrated here will make these petitions very, very clear…even a chick can do it.
At this point I would like everyone to know that I DO NOT provide LEGAL service; I only point you in the right direction. Therefore I cannot draw up a petition for you as I did with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE. NOTICE OF MISTAKE existed in the real world before I typed up any document regarding it. Therefore I was quoting, which means I have not stepped outside of any LEGAL restriction. When The second I issue a petition you can bet your sorry, incompetent asses I’ll be quoting it here. Until that happens though, you’d best use the comments section to ask any questions you may have. For the sake of your children do not listen to Dean and the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth; they are deliberately misleading you! When you discover this is true (and you will if you listen to them), you are welcomed to board any AQUILAE vessel and beg me for forgiveness where I promise there will be a loyal and capable TRUSTEE standing by to kick you in the face, and toss you overboard.
So post your questions and keep on topic. As this is the most important thread, our fun banter is not permitted here!
…except when I do it.
Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11Last amendment: See Table of Public Statute Provisions Repealed Under Section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 – December 31, 2011.
e-laws.gov.on.ca

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW March 12, 2013 · Toronto, ON, Canada]
hrp
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am
Location: THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, EAST OFF THE ROCKIES

PreviousNext

Return to Notaries Public & Solicitors Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron