Tender For Law Likes Us! They Really Like Us!

[Bill Lumbergh]

No, the "law society" (there is more than one in Canada) doesn't claim ownership over anyone. Do you think it does? If so, why?

[noblepa]

Mr. 9111007 seems to be making a mistake that I see many freemen make, when discussing "legal tender".

They like to quote the definition of "tender" as a verb, meaning to put forth or offer. However, the word can also be a noun or an adjective. In the case of "legal tender", it is a noun, not a verb. There is no action implied. It is a THING. So, "legal tender" can not, in any way mean to offer to enter into a contract. THAT would be using it as a verb.

Here is a perfectly correct, if somewhat awkward, sentence that illustrates the difference. "I tendered legal tender to pay my dinner bill at the restaurant".

Freemen always seem to ignore the fact that the law merely says that for any debt, denominated in US dollars, those little green pieces of paper MUST be accepted as payment.

[Fussygus]

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 can see where you are going with this and I too traveled that road. The fundamental flaw is that in such a scenario runs on the premise that you can exist without the other. i.e. I am a man but not a person. A better example I would use is that I am an man and an engineer, but I can't just be an engineer, every engineer is a man (or woman). You can't split the man from the obligations of the engineer. Same as you can't be a spouse, cardholder, father,.....etc, without being a man first. (disregard for a moment the instances when something other than a man is a person, we can save that for another discussion).

So the obligations of say the CARDHOLDER fall upon the man as he agreed to those things. The name on the card is simply the reference to the agreement #----------(card #), it is not a different PERSON, it is just a reference name associated to that agreement. Does the capitalization have meaning? Yes. What is that meaning? The meaning can amount to limitations on obligations and benefits OR it could simply indicative of a document title. Either way you can't simply claim to be disassociated to the PERSON simply because you don't want the association.

Consider if you want to go in the drug trade. So you call Big Ed to supply your product. By doing so you have entered into an agreement/contract. Essentially you have given up some of your rights for benefits (right to not pay someone, drugs to sell), you now have a diminished capacity, diminished freedom. In the legalese world you would indicate as such by CAPITALIZING you name on the agreement in order for a reader to know that the name associates with something in the legal world. Is it necessary to do so for the association to be legally valid? Not at all, it isn't the agreement, it is an attempt to write the agreement as best as possible. Big Ed will still break you legs if you don't abide by his understanding of the terms. Why is it based on his understanding? Because we made the offer to him to go into business together.

How does this apply in society? When you emigrate to Canada, what are you doing? Making an offer to join. You are considered to understand what this society is and how it works and it can only be considered that you agree as such because you are making an offer to join. I will leave it to you to figure out for other cases.

The bottom line is that it is the existence and actions that determine, not the writing and spelling. (Just because I sign my name fuzzy doesn't make it any less applicable to me).

As I tried to make clear earlier, current statutory law isn't an agreement between all of us, it is the collective understanding of what the law is. It isn't the LAW it is the understanding of the law. It is the instruction manual for the law based on problems encountered in applying the law. Same as the instruction manual for your TV, it isn't the operation of the TV, it is the instruction on how to best operate it.

Fuzzy

[Jeffrey]

How does this apply in society? When you emigrate to Canada, what are you doing? Making an offer to join. You are considered to understand what this society is and how it works and it can only be considered that you agree as such because you are making an offer to join. I will leave it to you to figure out for other cases.

I found a great case that talks about this from a "common law" perspective the other day.

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-gibson-239

Blackstone also commented on man's liberty: every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a boon, and obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. Otherwise there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life.

Gibson "entered into" our society when he began to live in it. He has no right to unilaterally withdraw from society, rejecting his obligations to that body, while at the same time retaining the advantages of that society — advantages for which others have sacrificed part of their liberty. John Marshall, the great Chief Justice of the United States, said "the best rule for freemen . . . in the opinion of our ancestors [those who had produced and ratified our constitution], was . . . that . . . of obedience to laws enacted by a majority of" the people's representatives.

That in a nutshell is why Duncan, and every other Guru, is wrong. You guys are part of Canadian society whether or not you like it.

[Fussygus]

Great find Jeffery

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

Already answered on this thread, at least four times (twice by wserra in his post, and twice by me in my prior post). The answer is NO.

No "Law Society" (we don't have them in the U.S., BTW, at least not under that name) claims ownership of individuals (or "INDIVIDUALS," if you think it makes a difference). In fact, nowhere in the modern Western World does any authority of any kind claim ownership of individuals. Governments claim (and have, at least de facto) the power to regulate the conduct of persons (which include both individuals and juristic entities), but that is very different from claiming ownership of them.

[9111007]

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

Once again, thanks for your replies. I will attempt to answer some questions posed.

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?

Even if others don't, my persons always obey the law. Everyone is to obey the law. That is what have been taught by Scott Duncan, and it has served me well. I hope that answers your question.

No, the "law society" (there is more than one in Canada) doesn't claim ownership over anyone. Do you think it does? If so, why?

This is what I said: 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. I never said ownership over anyone, but of INDIVIDUALS. You may give an answer, if you wish. Nobody has answer that yet. Thanks.

[GlimDropper]

Sorta amusing, I strolled over to Scott's fb group and found this:

Pete Daoust
October 24 at 10:41am

Notice of FRAUD

Case No. 700-01-133003-148
UNIDENTIFIABLE ACCUSED.

Ok….

1). They’ve handcuffed me. (Oct. 2014)

2). They’ve brought me into a cage.

3). They’ve searched my pockets and suitcase

4). They’ve found Government ID’s

5). They’ve used these ID’s without my consent and without telling me WHO was the party with surety.
6). They’ve took PICTURES of my face by force

7). They’ve asked me several times for my NAME, I always answered: I am pierre, the man who possess the legal entity named PIERRE DAOUST inscription 1196604112851, and its SOLE authorized Administrator and asked WHERE IS SURETY. They even WROTE this in their police report, trying to make me look like a crazy guy
grin emoticon

. They asked me to follow them so they could take my fingerprints, I said no thanks, they said we are five here, and we will take your fingerprints by force, and rest assure that we will take your fingerprints, like it or not. So I said well, in spite of myself, I will follow you.

9). I NEVER gave my signature to any of their stuff.

10). They’ve wrote four traffic tickets in the name of PIERRE DAOUST. How in the fuck the ACCUSED can be UNIDENTIFIABLE after this ?
grin emoticon

11). I asked for surety again, they laughed and said, what the fuck are you on with this surety thing, I said ARE YOU GOING TO VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO THE SURETY TO ME ?, they said, not only us we will, but the JUDGE will too. I said, thanks for the information.

12) They brought me in front of the judge, I have lost it at that point and yelled WHERE THE FUCK IS SURETY…..they made me sleep there, and the day after, I have managed to get out, without surety…..all that, happened in October 2014.

13). When I got back home, I have sent an AFFIDAVIT, telling them EXACTLY who I am, with a Notice of MISTAKE hook to it, and a SURETY BOND (Birth Certificate) hook to it too. These document has been sent registered mail, attentioned to JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, CASE NUMBER 700-01-133003-148

14) April 24th 2015, I was there, in court, room RC-02, in St-Jerome Quebec. (Some of you can order the transcript, that would be fun )

15). To make a long story short, that was the “pro-forma” The justice told me that the party with surety will be present for the hearing, on nov.16th 2015.

16) I have gave the JUSTICE a copy of these three documents he received via registered mail, because I asked him if he read them, and he said no I haven’t seen them
unsure emoticon

17). Again, that day, I said I AM pierre, the MAN who possesses the juridical personality named PIERRE DAOUST inscription number 1196604112851, no one argued to this…
tongue emoticon

18). They know EXACTLY who I am, they received two AFFIDAVIT on this matter.

19) . OK, so my wife received this week a “Subpoena to Witness”
grin emoticon
They are COMMANDING my wife to be there on Nov. the 16th, so she can act as a witness for the crown. For the case number 700-01-133003-148 that has an UNIDENTIFIABLE ACCUSED.

20) I am not making that up, they, as of October the 16th 2015, still have a fucking UNIDENTIFIABLE ACCUSED…..look, I’ll post pictures of the subpoena….
grin emoticon

21). Now, I wonder what these Quatloos super genius will think of that ? …..please share this, as far as you can….this shit will be FULLY PUBLIC as of now….

22). THIS IS PURE FRAUD……not only there’s a huge mistake with this case, but now they are committing FRAUD….the crown thinks that my wife is one of their slaves, maybe they haven’t studied the MARRIAGE TRUST. My wife’s person gets administrate by ME, They will have to go over me to get to my wife. The only option for them now is to declare PUBLICLY that I am their property, there’s no way out.

This will make one heck of an exciting ENDING, for the book I am almost finished with….

No really, they, after a full year, tons of pictures, traffic tickets written, finger prints taken, affidavit received, birth certificate received, ME telling them in their face WHO THE FUCK I AM, they still have a FUCKING UNIDENTIFIABLE ACCUSED….

HERE: ….you fucking FRAUDSTERS….

I AM Pierre, I am the man who possesses the Juridical Personality named PIERRE DAOUST inscription number 1196604112851.

THIS IS WHO THE FUCK I AM, Her Majesty the Queen ENACTED this, in the Quebec’s Charter of Rights and Freedom……..bunch of LIARS…..

I-AM-COMING !!!!!!!!!!!.....you will bring ALL the proofs I need that you really believe that I AM YOUR SLAVE……..and it will be PUBLIC RECORD.

AGAIN, WHO IS THE PARTY WITH SURETY for case n. 700-01-133003-148. That’s ALL there is, SURETY and who accounts for it……bring it on, IT’S YOUR JOB, that’s why we are PAYING you for, dear JUSTICE.

FRAUD = CRIMINAL CHARGES, right?

If you just substitute the specific magic words Mr. Daoust could easily be parroting Rob Menard or Dean Clifford instead of Scott Duncan. It looks like the trial should be tomorrow, perhaps Pete will oblige us with the outcome.

One question I'd ask is why is being subject to law somehow equated with being a slave? Confusing the two is almost perfect proof that you are not and have never been a slave or even thought very deeply on the issue.

This is over traffic tickets? Seems like Pete used word salad magic to transform a mail in your fines sort of thing into at least one night in lockup (so far) and if i were a betting man I'd say he's still going to pay those fines and a few more to boot.

9111007, is what Mr. Daoust wrote in any way a representative sample of Scott's "tender for law" ideas? Thanks again.

On edit:

9111007: <<Does the Law Society claim ownership of "INDIVIDUALS"?

<<No.>> That simple.

[Dr. Caligari]

This is what I said: 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. I never said ownership over anyone, but of INDIVIDUALS. You may give an answer, if you wish. Nobody has answer that yet. Thanks.

For the fifth (and last) time: NO.

If you continue to pretend no one has answered you, you go on my "ignore" list.

[Burnaby49]

This is what I said: 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. I never said ownership over anyone, but of INDIVIDUALS. You may give an answer, if you wish. Nobody has answer that yet. Thanks.

For the fifth (and last) time: NO.

If you continue to pretend no one has answered you, you go on my "ignore" list.

Actually he's on my troll list. He's just baiting for amusement, asking one stupid question after another regardless of the answers. Nothing we haven't seem numerous times before.

[Hanslune]

Me: <<Does the Law Society claim ownership of "INDIVIDUALS"? You: <<No.>>

Did I do it right? lol

I did the above to see if doing it the way he wants evokes some magical words, actions or oratorical traps.

[Dr. Caligari]

Actually he's on my troll list. He's just baiting for amusement, asking one stupid question after another regardless of the answers. Nothing we haven't seem numerous times before.

Oh, I'm quite sure that's right. I just want any lurkers on this site to see that we give these trolls honest and direct answers, which they pretend not to have seen.

[Slowpoke]

I'm still rather new to this site ( stumbled onto it by accident ), I mainly read and have followed one or two UK stories (probably too much). However, I am starting to think I need to expand my horizons as this is some funny s**t..

[The Observer]

Now, I wonder what these Quatloos super genius will think of that ? …

I can't claim to speak for any other Quatloosians, but I can tell you what I think. I think you have no clue as to how much you have messed things up for yourself. I think you are going to lose.

[LordEd]

Answer: no they don't claim ownership of INDIVIDUALS.

Question: what is the difference between 'INDIVIDUALS' and 'anyone' as was answered and rejected. They mean the same thing in normal thinking.

[noblepa]

Even if others don't, my persons always obey the law. Everyone is to obey the law. That is what have been taught by Scott Duncan, and it has served me well. I hope that answers your question.

Okay, but who is the arbiter of what the law is? In the event of a disagreement between say, you and a judge, whose interpretation of the law takes precedence?

This is the trick that freemen always try to pull. THEY and THEY ALONE know the law. The judges, police and prosecutors are completely ignorant of the true law. When arrested, the freeman almost always tries to "educate" the police, prosecutors and judges as to the true (usually "common") law.

When told that they are wrong, they refuse to accept that. The judge is obviously corrupt or in the pockets of the bankers or some other nefarious group.

So, Mr. 9111007, in the event of a disagreement, who makes the final decision? As you have insisted we answer your questions with a simple yes or no, I respectfully insist that you answer this with at most a single sentence, identifying a person or position (such as a judge), who makes the decision.

I await your reply.

[GlimDropper]

Now, I wonder what these Quatloos super genius will think of that ? …

I can't claim to speak for any other Quatloosians, but I can tell you what I think. I think you have no clue as to how much you have messed things up for yourself. I think you are going to lose.

Yet to the best of my understanding Mr. Daoust is following the Scott "Always Right" Duncan script the a veritable T, Scott replied several times in the topic I quoted from never once offering corrections. In Scott's words (elsewhere):

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

So it's safe to presume that Pete will open up a can of Tender for Law whoop ass in court tomorrow and much like his hero terrorize "JUSTICES and LAWYERS alike," all over traffic tickets. And if he doesn't it just means he didn't speak the magic incantation correctly so it isn't that Menard Clifford Wilson Lentz Duncan is wrong, far from it, it just means that Pete didn't pay close enough attention to what Menard Clifford Wilson Lentz Duncan tried to teach him.

This is precisely why guys like Menard Clifford Wilson Lentz Duncan take such great pains to provide independently verifiable proof of all of their court room victories. It's only the foolish "FREE-DUMBERS" who believe exceptional claims without a shred of proof, any idiot can claim to terrorize "JUSTICES and LAWYERS alike" so the guys who really can do it give you case names, dates, docket numbers and venues so you can find proof of their ever so many victories over the courts on those courts very own websites. Because if they didn't you'd have rational cause to question if the problem wasn't how you spoke them so much as the magic incantations (and the guy teaching them) themselves.

[Pottapaug1938]

This is what I said: 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. I never said ownership over anyone, but of INDIVIDUALS. You may give an answer, if you wish. Nobody has answer that yet. Thanks.

For the fifth (and last) time: NO.

If you continue to pretend no one has answered you, you go on my "ignore" list.[/quote]

Actually he's on my troll list. He's just baiting for amusement, asking one stupid question after another regardless of the answers. Nothing we haven't seem numerous times before.[/quote]

He's already on mine, because he has yet to say anything which merits a response. He is a classic troll, who like so many other trolls waltzes in here, in "just asking" mode, and will soon switch into "moving the goalposts" mode.

I might add that, on my Scouting forays into Canada, I teach the Scouts a bit about Canadian money. The banknotes have "this note is legal tender/ce billet a cours legal" on them; but I point out that it is only in Canada where the laws give legal sanction to those words.In the US, unless you are close to the border or in a place like Old Orchard Beach, Maine, good luck with getting a store to accept Canadian money, because in the US the laws do not make it legal tender. In Canada, it is rare to find a place which does not accept US currency; but they do so as a courtesy (and at an unfavorable exchange rate) because they can deposit the funds in their banks, either as US dollars or in Canadian dollars after conversion.

[Arthur Rubin]

If we can convince some of Free-dumb-ers that possession of currency binds one to the laws of the country, perhaps we can convince them to bind us....

[notorial dissent]

The thing I have noticed in the sovrun and Footl crowd is that the greater majority of them seem to be marginally tor functionally illiterate, and it seems to carry over in to other real world functions as well, certainly the lack of understanding of law and government seems to carry over, as case in point. They will relay on someone elses wild and outlandish claims, but not bother to actually try and find out for themselves what these things are or how they work.