Tender For Law Likes Us! They Really Like Us!

[LordEd]

Since they're watching, I'll give them an answer. I'm not a lawyer and don't have an oath.

I believe that given enough time, many of the freeman style arguments (term used loosely to describe everything under meads or here) will reach a self contradition that can't be broken. I learned about the Freeman style thinking in a different forum, and that "person" couldn't stand up to the scrutiny.

I wound up here because there is a crew that not only spots cases, but researches, finds case decisions, and even visits court live in the case of Burnaby49.

It's nice to have a home base where many of the other participants have also been labeled sleeping government lawyer shill trolls for having an opposing view.

Occasionally opposing views come and visit here and I can have my chat to seek the self contradiction.

[JamesVincent]

Funny thing about the whole IANAL on here. Very few of us are lawyers. It's something that I find amazing with idiots like Duncan. Even a non-college graduate can see he's full of merde just by common sense alone, no expansive legal training needed. As far as being compensated I don't know how many times I have to send in my request for a Dodge 3500 Big Horn edition before someone answers me.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49 gets recognition and Praise from Scott Duncan himself!

Scott Duncan

They do NOT want people reading my Meads article, so they BLATANTLY LIE about the content! "It's not worth your time" he doesn't say anything. It says it RIGHT IN THE TITLE! "Obiter dictum". JUST LOOKING THAT UP will give you a MILLION ways to destroy that crap!

They REALLY do not want people reading it!

That gave me an idea!

Obiter dictum

Scott is of course referring to his magnum Opus MEADS v. MEADS FOR IDIOTS

https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-du ... cation=ufi

where he purports to dissect Meads and show how any idiot can defeat it in court if it is used as precedence against said idiot's position.

Scott then moved on to a discussion of my review of his work!

Scott Duncan

"The normal Scott Duncan Gibberish. I haven't yet bothered to read the Facebook posting all the way through so I don't know if he actually has anything relevant to say about Meads."

- REALLY?

Did ANY of you have this hard of a time reading that article? Did ANY of you "stop halfway through"?

Can ANYONE except the liar who wrote this, relate to that "experience". Message me, if you gave up halfway through.

I want to know if ANYONE exists that can honestly use the following as a REALISTIC statement?

Was ANY LIVING MAN OR WOMAN EVER in the position where the couldn't make it through, and don't know if there's a point.

I demand 3 people declaring this as their experience, before I'll even accept it as a POSSIBILITY! Do you see the fantasy puppets they try to make you into?

Why would you invent a story like that and act like "it's perfectly normal"? THAT is TRULY a psychopath. No REAL WORLD empathy, just bullshit you are supposed to accept as "normal" because he said so.

Am I the only one who sees a REAL diseased mind here?

The "normal Scott Duncan gibberish" quote was from a recent posting I made in this discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9968#p195016

Where I admitted to some difficulty in understanding his incisive insight into the errors of and weaknesses of Meads.

A psychopathic liar with a diseased mind! Admit it Scott, you've been discussing my little quirks with Mrs. Burnaby49. If not and this is your own heartfelt opinion, many thanks. We internet scriveners always appreciate a bit of flattery from time to time. Even a few scraps of praise motivate us to keep going.

However I stand by my opinion of your work. I find it, in the word used often by Canadian courts in respect to Freeman pleadings "impenetrable". I of course stand to be corrected and abjectly humiliated at such time as Freemen across Canada enter your majestic analysis in court as evidence that Meads cannot be used as precedence and the courts agree.

Scott Duncan

The normal Scott Duncan Gibberish" <---Nothing to see here. It's NORMAL that this "NOBODY" "LOON" THAT YOU "HAVEN'T HEARD OF" says "Gibberish". Nothing to see. Don't waste your time going to the link. It's only there to present the "air of objectivity". Just accept the lie. Don't look. The fact that I put a link is enough.

Kent Barrett

There's nobody in a position to have even heard of MEADS v MEADS who doesn't finish that article.

Kent Barrett

MEADS showed up in courts and newspapers so fast, the Law Society must have faxed it to every law office and city desk in the country with a cover page of exclamation marks.

You might have a point there Kent. Meads did indeed become a standard reference very quickly.

David-Paul Sip

"Obiter dictum"...OBITER DICTUM

This reminds me of what "Dan-Lien-Your-Name-Wilson" attempted to do. And just like then things only get worse for them and better for all us "SimuDrones" that gain a deeper understanding of what Scott is teaching.

David-Paul Sip

OBITER DICTUM....Keep talking QuatLoosers! No seriously. Don't stop. Keep it up! Your "E" for effort is highly deserved. Your efforts while pathetic are much appreciated.

David-Paul Sip

OBITER DICTUM...""This isn't a war you can win, and if you find yourself in a hole... Stop digging." That is unless your EGO prevents you from knowing when to shut up

Scott Duncan

Do i have any COURT CASES I've won?

I WON THEM ALL! THE ONLY TIME I DIDN'T WAS WHEN THEY LIED, CHEATED AND ALTERED THE COURT RECORD.

If the Quatlosers wish to "challenge" me on that, I will play the audio recording of the hearing, with Debrah Knight secured in the hold of one of my vessels. I will have a Golf Club with the word ""QUATLOOS" engraved in it, and a crewman (of another navy, of course) will club Deborah Knight with every word she edited or removed. She'll probably survive the first paragraph.

Would THAT be an adequate demonstration?

Actually no, if I understand you correctly. You'll have to be indulgent here, understanding is an issue for me, I take your reference to Deborah Knight to mean a recording of something you did, or will do, in a fake court you set up yourself.

Scott Duncan

have won 21 cases in my lifetime, in case anyone is wondering.

Grand! That means you must have a cornucopia of citations to give us so we can read your victories ourselves rather than just vague unverifiable comments. So, citations please.

Scott Duncan

After the LAST case I won, the Deputy Attorney General sent his assistant with a message; "If you come back, you do so with the understanding that you will be compelled to service".

If I come in with my little "Poor Pro Se Defendant" act again, they'dforce me to be a JP.

...I'd rather be dead.

I never appeared Pro Se after that.

They stopped pretending to follow the rules then.

It turns out they ALWAYS had a Dog-and-Pony show ready for me.

I look at The Fender's record, and the courts were lying sacks of shit since the 1980's. They were "playing straight" for the Reject from the Nobility. It was ALWAYS COMPLETELY corrupt, and they put on a SHOW for me.

Did I WIN?

FUCK YEAH! ALL THE FUCKING TIME! I used to pick fights because I WANTED people to sue me. I ALWAYS won.

...and it was always an act. It doesn't MATTER if I won. It was a lie.

Scott Duncan

Declare Meads "Obiter Dictum", and you are done.

When you hear the word "Meads" in court, OBJECT!

"OBJECTION! Obiter Dictum"!

The follow up with, "THERE IS A QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT, TO WHICH I REQUIRE AN ANSWER", because they should ONLY raise Meads with the QUESTIONS you ask. Make a DECLARATION (like Meads did) and "Obiter Dictum" is irrelevant.

Scott actually makes a bit of a valid point here. Aladdin Sane gives a definition of obiter dictum from Blacks;

Aladdin Sane

obiterdictum (ob-i-tar dik-tam). [Latin "something said in passing"] (18c) A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). Often shortened to dictum or, less commonly, obiter. PI. Obiter dicta. See DICTUM. Cf. HOLDING (1); RATIO DECIDENDI.

[Cases: Courts C=>92.]

"Strictly speaking an 'obiter dictum' is a remark made or opinion expressed by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, 'by the way' that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court; or it is any statement of law enunciated by the judge or court merely by way of illustration, argument, analogy, or suggestion. .. In the common speech of lawyers, all such extrajudicial expressions of legal opinion are referred to as 'dicta,' or 'obiter dicta,' these two terms being used interchangeably." William M. Ule et aI., Brief Making and the Use of Law Books 304 (3d ed. 1914).

BLACKS NINETH

Most of Meads is in fact obiter. Meads itself was in respect to a minor divorce issue. Chief Justice Rooke's analysis of the OPCA movement and its tactics was largely outside of what was necessary to arrive at a decision in the case. Scott's comments about Meads being obiter echo those of some lawyers I've talked to.

However even obiter can be instructive and in Meads it is accompanied by citations which are being used by courts. So the courts are largely using Meads as a reference source. Going to it to show that arguments currently before the court have been used before and rejected by prior courts. Not rejected by Rooke in Meads as much as by the court decisions cited in Meads. Since Meads links its obiter points to prior jurisprudence that jurisprudence can be used as precedence.

[9111007]

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I have come to this forum, because I am looking for what is true, and what is real about law, and money (A quatloo is a monetary unit on the planet Triskelion which was used by the planet's Providers to bet on drill thrall competitions. (Star Trek Original Series: "The Gamesters of Triskelion") ).

I see this forum/place hates some frauds, and fraudsters. I REALLY like that. I know the importance of fulfilling contracts, although I admit I didn't, until I followed Scott Duncan for more than 3 years. Now, I am like "Angel Eyes," "I always follow my job through." I do not want to be one of those "free-dumb" "sovereign citizens" that are always looking to break their promises, not follow the "law," and get "something for nothing." "Everyone MUST obey the Law!" That is something that I learned with Scott Duncan. Although, it is more than clear that not everybody obeys the "law." Even when I follow the law, many folks making, and/or enforcing, making interpretations/opinions/rulings of the law do not. What a pity! Well, I guess that is just the way things are, aren't they? Hopefully, not for long. We all want a world in which EVERYONE obeys the law, don't we?

One of the things that called my attention about The Tender for Law, and Scott Duncan, contrary to ALL other characters from Canada, UK, and the USA like Menard, Clifford, Shrout, Lentz, etc., it's that I have NEVER ever heard Scott Duncan asking for any kind of money! He does not even asks for donations! At the contrary, I have to say I have gained benefit from that "silly computer money" he's been talking about. A market that surpassed 5 BILLIONS just the other day. Crypto currencies' technology are been taught in several universities around the world, like Cyprus and the US. If that is not something completely different to everyone else in the business of charging money for information (fraud), I do not what is. Hell, even lawyers charge for a little chat, no pun intended.

I thought he was "arrogant" when he says "Scott is ALWAYS right!" I must admit I thought that was some huge bullshit when I first heard that. So I set-up to look for information that would debunk Scott Duncan. The only place that I could find in the entire Internet challenging Scott's teachings in money, and law was here. I have read what you have done with ilk like Menard, Clifford, and others, here. I have had great laughs reading your forum, I must admit. I come often to read, and learn, mostly from what is not said than said. Yet I have to say, your critiques to Scott Duncan have been, for a lack of a better term, unfounded of evidence, to not say plain lies. In fact, I have found some members here actually shared the same opinion Scott has proposed, like in Meads vs Meads. I read a lot of things here like "I haven't paid much attention/read much of Scott, but here is this!" and then some name calling, and personal unfounded theory follows. But that is it. :/

So if Scott is lying, I thought "What better place to ask in what instances Scott Duncan is wrong/lying, other than in Quatloos?" I mean, no one would lie to me here, right? So I am bringing my questions here. If Scott is lying, I am sure there will be plenty of evidence to support that claim here. And if he is lying, I will be the first to point it out.

I have read here highlights of a controversy between Robert Menard, and Scott Duncan about what "This Note is Legal Tender" means. I have read here some folks implying that Scott's, and Menard's definition it's crap. Yet, I have never read from anyone here what that notice means.

Here is what Scott says about the notice "This Note is Legal Tender":

"You are BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES when you use MONEY.

On that money are the words THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER:

THIS NOTE - The note the words (NOTICE) is written on.

IS LEGAL - CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES with the force of law.

TENDER - tender verb
ten·dered ten·der·ing
Definition of TENDER

transitive verb
1: to make a tender of
2: to present for acceptance : offer "tendered my resignation"
intransitive verb
: to make a bid or tender
Origin of TENDER
Middle English tendren, from Anglo-French tendre offer
First Known Use: 15th century

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW"

For now I only have one question, and it's easy to answer. Just a simple yes, or no will suffix. If I use a note that has the notice "This Note is Legal Tender" printed on it, does that mean that my person will be BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES with the force of law when used? Yes, or no.

I am grateful if anyone could answer my question. If Scott is lying, then he has to be stopped. But if he isn't, then others are lying, I must assume? I appreciate any reply to this question.

[NYGman]

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This post is not code, so I am not going to abide by that. As you can see, while I have attributed this to you, I have sniped the hell out of it... as is typically done on a forum.

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW"

Every time I read that, I think it sounds like the song Love me tender, or more appropriately, money loves the law tenderly. What I really don't understand is this whole dissection of words in sentences to derive another meaning. [or "Di[e]" short for dice, a random number generator, ssection to cut up = randomly cutting up]

For now I only have one question, and it's easy to answer. Just a simple yes, or no will suffix. If I use a note that has the notice "This Note is Legal Tender" printed on it, does that mean that my person will be BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES with the force of law when used? Yes, or no.

NO, you are bound whether or not you use money.
Money is not causing you to be bound by the law.
Your whole premise is flawed anyway, let me try to show you

Let me ask you a question, Hypothetically, I believe Drinking water causes you to be BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES. Because everyone drinks water, you are binding yourself to the law. Now if you stop drinking water, you can free yourself.

Now you may try to drink Juice, Milk, or any other synthetic artificial drink to rid yourself of Water but, Water is in everyone of them, even the food, so it is impossible. I suggest substituting one form a drink for another is not viable, as it still represents the underlying bad item. I Also suggest that Water has absolutely nothing to do with binding you to the law, it is a false correlation. I Can However demonstrate the truth of my Hypothetically statement, you can't do the same for yours. And I can absolutely guarantee if you give up ALL sources of water for a month, you will no longer be BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES*.



*You would be dead

[Fussygus]

Good day Mr.90120, I can say I am fascinated by your inquiry. The short answer to your question is NO. The long answer is NO because the use of legal tender is only a single element in the larger legal concept of a society. I.e. legal tender is what THIS society has deemed as being a means for transferring consideration between parties with assurance that that consideration will be accepted when you look to transfer it to another source.

In the old days they used to transfer goods for consideration with rocks (gold, or otherwise) which people ended up agreeing would maintain the value of the goods they gave in exchange for those rocks. The only reason they had value was because people generally agreed that they did this, that the value of the rocks would maintain itself.

So that being said, the issue of using legal tender as somehow being the "smoking gun" of assent into societal laws is false. Your existence in society is what invokes the protections and associate obligations. The written laws are simply an attempt to codify the consciousness of the society as organized. They are not the end all and be all of what is allowed or not allowed, they are just writings created by men to try and clarify, in writing, what this society seems to be directing is its consciousness.

Consider for a second other societies around the world. Are their beliefs the same as yours? The same as your families? The same as your friends? The same as the majority of this societies? In many ways I'm sure they are yet in many ways they are not. But are you/we to tell them what their laws are to be?

When we refer to this society as being a Common law society, we are meaning that what is acceptable shall be based on what the people think is acceptable. The judiciary is just the vetting process for reviewing things as this society deems acceptable, then the legislature tasked with codifying such into rules for clarity purposes ONLY. Acts and regulations are simply instructions about what has already been determined as being proper within this society.

Note: I don't really know what Scott Duncan's theories are, so forgive me if I'm off base on the reason for this post, but I though it necessary to answer the question.

Fuzzy

[notorial dissent]

No and no, A ≠ B. Parsing words to pretend to make them mean something they don't is charlatanry.

[LordEd]

Your physical presence binds you to the laws, statutes and acts of the country. If you cross the border, different laws apply, whether you spend their money or not.

As for the attribution note, you should check the terms of use agreement for the forum. There's usually something in there saying your post must be licensed in some way and it may not be compatible with your preference (note to nyg, cc license is often used for creative works, not software)

[9111007]

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

I appreciate the answers so far. I will try to be more specific, and see if I can better present the question. Perhaps using an hypothetical example to narrow down the answer. My question might be too broad.

Part of one of the answers from FuzzyGuts reads this

The short answer to your question is NO. The long answer is NO because the use of legal tender is only a single element in the larger legal concept of a society. I.e. legal tender is what THIS society has deemed as being a means for transferring consideration between parties with assurance that that consideration will be accepted when you look to transfer it to another source.

First thing that comes to my mind is, if the notice "This note is Legal Tender" is not in fact tendering an unconditional offer to contract, why is the notice placed on the notes? :/ Are you implying that the creator of the notes will not impose terms and conditions to the use to it's creation? Really? :/

Then I get to think, well if a person has a US citizenship, but is holding notes from the Bank of Canada while in China, I can see why just having/using the notes there will not necessarily bind the holder of the notes to ACT, CODES, and STATUTES of "Canada."

Let me present a hypothetical scenario. A man is detained by Canadian authorities. The man does not reveal his person's identity, nor gives any information. He is not carrying any "id." But his person is holding about $1,000 cash in Canadian dollars. That is the ONLY thing this man is carrying. In this particular case, would not the holding of this legal tender be the only reasonable evidence to believe he is a person bound by Canadian laws? If he has no other evidence to link him with a person other than holding legal tender, what other evidence, without fabricating it, would any alleged authority have to bind him to Canadian laws? :/ In this case, is not having legal tender in his possession the ONLY thing that could be used as evidence to bind this man's person to Canadian laws?

If this is not the case then, is the Law Society claiming ownership of human beings, just because they are physically within their jurisdiction? You see, if contract law is law, then the "magical" application of the "laws" can be called slavery. Right? Does the Law Society claim ownership of "natural persons" within their commercial zone? :/ Can anyone here define what legal effect the note "this note is legal tender" has over persons if within jurisdiction, if any?

Again, I appreciate any/all replies.

[NYGman]

I transit through Switzerland on my way to an EU Country. I have USD, CAD, EUR, GBP in my wallet. I steal something from the airport gift store, you better believe I will be prosecuted if caught.

A True Example. I went Snowmobiling in Vermont, I had only had my wallet and USD on me, I wondered in to Canada without knowing. Lets say I kill someone while there, am I bound by Canadian law, You better believe it! IF I left my Wallet at home I would still be bound.

And why don't laws apply because you drink water. It is just as arbitrary, except I can prove giving up all water for one month will make you no longe subject to the laws of the country you are in, I can 100% Guarentee that

[Hanslune]

I transit through Switzerland on my way to an EU Country. I have USD, CAD, EUR, GBP in my wallet. I steal something from the airport gift store, you better believe I will be prosecuted if caught.

A True Example. I went Snowmobiling in Vermont, I had only had my wallet and USD on me, I wondered in to Canada without knowing. Lets say I kill someone while there, am I bound by Canadian law, You better believe it! IF I left my Wallet at home I would still be bound.

And why don't laws apply because you drink water. It is just as arbitrary, except I can prove giving up all water for one month will make you no longe subject to the laws of the country you are in, I can 100% Guarentee that

Yep and the only exception is diplomatic immunity...which is why so many odd thinking people try to become "other" nationalities not realizing that other countries actually has to exist and DI doesn't allow residence without permission..ie you can be expelled.

[LordEd]

Alaobon the 'one must be lying'. There can be degrees between those two absolute judgements.

What I've found in my observing of freemanism is what I call the 'injected fact'. Someone explaining it will post a long-winded explanation that contains long statutes, but at some point makes what appears to be a small comment. That comment is unproven, yet becomes the basis of everything to follow.

Will look up legal tender later. There is the currency act that talks about Canadian money being legal tender. That means its use is defined under an act. It doesn't mean you are agreeing to acts. Your physical presence or operation in this country did that.

[Fussygus]

Let me present a hypothetical scenario. A man is detained by Canadian authorities. The man does not reveal his person's identity, nor gives any information. He is not carrying any "id." But his person is holding about $1,000 cash in Canadian dollars. That is the ONLY thing this man is carrying. In this particular case, would not the holding of this legal tender be the only reasonable evidence to believe he is a person bound by Canadian laws? If he has no other evidence to link him with a person other than holding legal tender, what other evidence, without fabricating it, would any alleged authority have to bind him to Canadian laws? :/ In this case, is not having legal tender in his possession the ONLY thing that could be used as evidence to bind this man's person to Canadian laws?

It isn't a specific piece of evidence that comports one to being bound by laws, it is the presence in the society.

Whether a freedom is available is determinate by the society and it's consciousness. Think of it this way, you use to be able to own people (i.e. slaves) but now you can't. Was it wrong before? Is it wrong now? The society deems what is acceptable within it's function. As it stands THIS one has a judiciary that has been tasked with ruling on specific instances as they come up (walking down the street, taking things from old ladies, driving down the street). Each instance can engage members of the society to give their opinion as to whether the actions of another occupier of the society is "out of line". Essentially you are absolutely free to do whatever you want......unless someone else is harmed or put at risk by your doing so.

This society considers that it is in the best interest of us all that everyone wear a seatbelt when traveling in a car. This society has also deemed requiring such IS NOT and unreasonable violation of ones human rights. Similarly, this society used to consider owning slaves was not in any way a violation of human rights (though this society does now).

So getting back to what appears to be your question, AM I FREE? I would say the answer is YES, for so long as the rest of society agrees with your definition of FREE. Just like you have freedom in your marriage....only insofar as your wife agrees .

Note, I really do appreciate where your coming from here 90210 as I went through this thought process myself for years, and accordingly challenged things, before I was able to start figuring out where we stand as individuals.

All the best to your,
Fuzzy

[wserra]

N.B.: this post is based on US law. I believe Canadian law to be the same, but would not swear to it.

if the notice "This note is Legal Tender" is not in fact tendering an unconditional offer to contract, why is the notice placed on the notes?

People who have already taken a position frequently try to force round pegs into square holes. Money is not an offer to contract of any type. Money is money. What is done with it may or may not be such an offer, depending on context. As for why it's there: well, let me take a WAG: to make it clear that it is in fact legal tender?

Are you implying that the creator of the notes will not impose terms and conditions to the use to it's creation?

Is that English? If so, I have no idea what it means.

Let me present a hypothetical scenario. A man is detained by Canadian authorities. The man does not reveal his person's identity, nor gives any information. He is not carrying any "id." But his person is holding about $1,000 cash in Canadian dollars. That is the ONLY thing this man is carrying. In this particular case, would not the holding of this legal tender be the only reasonable evidence to believe he is a person bound by Canadian laws?

No. He's in Canada.

If he has no other evidence to link him with a person other than holding legal tender, what other evidence, without fabricating it, would any alleged authority have to bind him to Canadian laws?

He's in Canada.

In this case, is not having legal tender in his possession the ONLY thing that could be used as evidence to bind this man's person to Canadian laws?

No. He's in Canada. Are you starting to get the picture?

If this is not the case then, is the Law Society claiming ownership of human beings, just because they are physically within their jurisdiction?

No. What does "ownership" have to do with anything?

You see, if contract law is law, then the "magical" application of the "laws" can be called slavery. Right?

(a) No.
(b) Nothing "magical" about it in any event.

Does the Law Society claim ownership of "natural persons" within their commercial zone?

Didn't you just ask that?

Can anyone here define what legal effect the note "this note is legal tender" has over persons if within jurisdiction, if any?

Sure. Any creditor of the bearer of the note is required to accept it in payment of the debt, absent a prior agreement otherwise (and maybe even then).

Again, I appreciate any/all replies.

No problem.

[Dr. Caligari]

Let me present a hypothetical scenario. A man is detained by Canadian authorities. The man does not reveal his person's identity, nor gives any information. He is not carrying any "id." But his person is holding about $1,000 cash in Canadian dollars. That is the ONLY thing this man is carrying. In this particular case, would not the holding of this legal tender be the only reasonable evidence to believe he is a person bound by Canadian laws? If he has no other evidence to link him with a person other than holding legal tender, what other evidence, without fabricating it, would any alleged authority have to bind him to Canadian laws? :/ In this case, is not having legal tender in his possession the ONLY thing that could be used as evidence to bind this man's person to Canadian laws?

No, the man is bound by Canadian laws because he is present in Canada.

If I cross the Canadian border, in possession of no ID and no form of money except U.S. currency, but am also found to have crack cocaine in my suitcase, I will be subject to Canadian laws regardless of my failure to possess Canadian currency. Likewise if I enter Canada with no Canadian currency and no form of ID but I assault someone in Canada, or drive my vehicle at an excessive rate of speed while in Canada, or violate any other Canadian statute.

If this is not the case then, is the Law Society claiming ownership of human beings, just because they are physically within their jurisdiction?

First, it is not the "Law Society" that makes people subject to the laws of Canada. It is the Government of Canada (chiefly its Parliament) which does so. Second, no one is claiming "ownership" of human beings, just the power to regulate some of their conduct while in the territory of that particular country.

You see, if contract law is law,

Contract law is a small part of law. There are many others. Liability for taxes and for violating criminal statutes is not based on contract law.

then the "magical" application of the "laws" can be called slavery. Right?

Wrong.

Does the Law Society claim ownership of "natural persons" within their commercial zone? :/

No.

Can anyone here define what legal effect the note "this note is legal tender" has over persons if within jurisdiction, if any?

Again, I appreciate any/all replies.

The only effect is that, if you want to buy something in Canada, and offer to pay for it in Canadian currency, the seller must accept that currency. If you want to buy something in Canada and offer U.S. currency, bitcoins, a cheque or Krugerrands, the seller has the option of either accepting them or demanding some other forms of payment.

(Edited for clarity.)

[notorial dissent]

If you plonk your sorry ass down in Canada, you are then governed by the laws of Canada, same as you would be in any other country you inflicted your presence on.

You are simply wrong as to all points. Contracts are not law, contracts are bound and based on law, the law(s) of the jurisdiction they exist in.

[GlimDropper]

A question for you 9111007 if you would be so kind. I have a nodding familiarity with the "legal" theories of other sovereign/freeman types but have never spent much time reading what Mr. Duncan has to offer. But let's assume for the moment that his "tender for law" ideas are correct, what is their function?

Imagine I was born in and live in Canada but I have in so far as it is possible, completely divorced myself from Canadian currency. I get paid in and make all my consumer purchases in bitcoin and in every possible way have nothing to do with Canadian legal tender, how is my life different? I'm still in Canada (I hopefully don't own a condo, or cats), in what ways are my legal rights and responsibilities different than if I used Canadian currency every day?

Thanks in advance.

[9111007]

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I have posed a few questions, and I thank the few of you that have taken the time to reply. I think that I am presenting valid legal questions, and I appreciate those that are not dismissing my questions as "crazy freeman looking to make a buck" I mean, after dealing with Dean Clifford grade stuff, maybe these questions are a breath of fresh air, for a change.

I get the point. So let me ask a question using perhaps the right words:

Does the Law Society claim ownership of "INDIVIDUALS"? Please do not answer with a question. Answer yes, or no. For example: Me: <<Does the Law Society claim ownership of "INDIVIDUALS"? You: <<No.>> That simple.

Again thank you, for your answers are giving me a great deal of important information.

[9111007]

A question for you 9111007 if you would be so kind. I have a nodding familiarity with the "legal" theories of other sovereign/freeman types but have never spent much time reading what Mr. Duncan has to offer. But let's assume for the moment that his "tender for law" ideas are correct, what is their function?

Imagine I was born in and live in Canada but I have in so far as it is possible, completely divorced myself from Canadian currency. I get paid in and make all my consumer purchases in bitcoin and in every possible way have nothing to do with Canadian legal tender, how is my life different? I'm still in Canada (I hopefully don't own a condo, or cats), in what ways are my legal rights and responsibilities different than if I used Canadian currency every day?

Thanks in advance.

I make sure, anywhere I go, for my persons OBEY the law. And my expectation is for my persons, and everybody, including the Law Society and folks holding positions of public trust, to OBEY the law as well. Some times I have to be SURETY for things that my person has been bound to, like a contract, for example. I follow thru. I PAY. But other times, as a good AGENT, I expect for the PRINCIPAL to be SURETY for HIS debts being charged to my persons without my explicit consent. Debts my person never signed for, or asked for. So I KNOW the importance of obeying the law. Scott Duncan has taught me to obey the law, and to fulfill all my promises. But I always get disappointed. So many folks not obeying the law it's a problem.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks again.

[The Observer]

o I KNOW the importance of obeying the law. Scott Duncan has taught me to obey the law, and to fulfill all my promises. But I always get disappointed. So many folks not obeying the law it's a problem.

So is there a point where your disappointment becomes so unbearable that you are no longer bound by the law? Or is there a point where so many people are not obeying the law per your interpretation that you are no longer bound by the law?