Tender For Law Likes Us! They Really Like Us!

[rogfulton]

NYGman, I found your answer unacceptable.

I hope NYGman doesn't mind if I reply succintly.

Boo f-ing hoo.

Correct answers don't require consent or acceptance by someone who appears to think the definition of a word is controlled by its phonemic components and not its etymology.

[grixit]

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....

Oooh, kinky!

[grixit]

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

wserra, again thanks for your reply. However, I found all your answers unacceptable.

1- what is it that an attorney attorns?
Answer: Nothing.
2- What is legal title of attorney?
Answer: None.
3- What are you attorning?
Answer: Nothing.
4- Who are you attorning:
Answer: no one.

If an attorney has no legal title, why does it have a name at all? Why are attorneys called attorneys if they don't attorn anything? Isn't that like saying "None" to what "Organization does a trustee serve"? Why have a name (attorney) if it has no legal title? The prosecutor/crown attorney doesn't have legal title? The District Attorney/Attorney General doesn't have legal title? Again, I find all your answers unacceptable, and I extend the courtesy of having you attempt to answer all questions again.

Thanks wserra!

"Attorny" is a noun. It means "one who is licensed to represent people in court". But that's a mouthful, so we one word instead.

Likewise "engineer" means "one who operates machinery" in some uses, and "one who figures out how to solve problems of physical movement" in others.

"contractor" means "one who fixes various parts of your house".

Functional designators are automatically nouns. Some start as verbs, others spawn verbs, that's the way English works. But usage evolves and related words can grow apart. For instance "sovereign" didn't use to mean, "social parasite who tries to play word games to duck out on their responsibilities".

[Hanslune]

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



If an attorney has no legal title, why does it have a name at all? Why are attorneys called attorneys if they don't attorn anything? Isn't that like saying "None" to what "Organization does a trustee serve"? Why have a name (attorney) if it has no legal title?

Thanks wserra!

Merriam-webster Dictionary:

Origin of ATTORNEY
Middle English attourney, from Anglo-French aturné, past participle of aturner
First Known Use: 14th century

Oxford English Dictionary:

Origin of Attorney
Middle English: from Old French atorne, past participle of atorner 'assign', from a 'toward' + torner 'turn'.

Definition of ATTORN
intransitive verb : to agree to be tenant to a new owner or landlord of the same property

Why are you obsessing over this word?

[notorial dissent]

Because they aren't even remotely functional in modern English, grammar, law, history, and/or reality, and think that archaic words and phrases and definitions from obsolete dictionaries and sources are law and, mostly I think because they really don't know what the archaic sources are saying, trump modern, correct usage and reality????? That and that they think they are clever and cute, when they are anything but, again witness current events.

[9111007]

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

Thank you for your comment, and question Hanslune! I will answer your question now, but before I ask, out of curiosity, why look the definition of a legal word, in a plain English grammar dictionary? Do lawyers have up-to-date legal dictionaries, to look-up the legal definition for legal words? Well, I am assuming you are at least schooled in legal matters. But your response really confuses me. "Freedumbers" are the ones that usually use a plain English grammar dictionary, to base their pseudo-legal non-sense. Like Robert Menard's "Peanut Butter Theory." Or, give "freedumbers" an 1867 legal dictionary, and they are happy campers!

But I digress. The answer to your question.
- Why are you obsessing over this word?
I do not know what exactly your definition for "obsessing" is, but I posed a few questions to wserra, and I think his answers were unacceptable. So I extended him the courtesy of giving him another shot to answers them. I do not consider that obsessive.

Now I ask, Hanslune, have you looked the definition of attorney in an up-to-date legal dictionary? I think is says a lot more than just "Nothing, none, nothing, no one." Thanks!

[9111007]

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

Since maybe a few members to the forum may not know what exactly is "The Tender for Law," and what is the purpose of the group even existing, I will place the description of the group as it appears on Facebook. That shall bring some light, perhaps. As you may clearly see, insisting in trying to lump me/us with fraudsters is not only futile, but a lie.

<<THE TENDER FOR LAW is an examination of what you need to know to fight Judicial corruption, by examining the stuff you are LIED TO about. MONEY, and the hidden-in-plain-sight contract that is tendered daily.

SPOILERS: IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY.

On the subject of liars:IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE! YOUR DELUSIONS ARE WHAT CAUSED ALL OF THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU HARM OTHERS WITH THOSE DELUSIONS. ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS ARE NOT ADULTS! THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S FORUM!


...I digress

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

This forum is where you can ask all your questions, and we don't have to keep typing the same answers over and over. To that end, I am telling you to WATCH THIS FIRST:

http://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM

NOT watching this, and then posting a question and/or making idiotic statements which reveal you HAVEN'T watched this, means you are DELIBERATELY ignoring these instructions, and you will be banned.

And when your examination of these things is done, you will see that we also have a REAL SOLUTION to the problem. YOU CAN'T BUY that shit ANYWHERE! grin emoticon

...no really. You can't. It's copyrighted.

Unless otherwise stated, BY DEFAULT, anything Scott. and/or Tara Duncan publishes, in THE TENDER FOR LAW, is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License:

1) You MUST say where it came from (Tara, Myself, or THE TENDER FOR LAW group)

2) You CANNOT derive works from it

3) You CANNOT MAKE MONEY off it.

Make all the money you like off of "Scottisms"

TL;DR - IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = OFFERING AN UNCONDITIONAL "BENEFIT" OF ACTS, STATUTES AND CODES.

PEREMPTORY NOTICE:

ALL WRITINGS PUBLISHED HERE BY AQUILAE AND/OR ITS TRUSTEES AND/OR ITS GRANTORS, ARE, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, PUBLISHED under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Have you tried to join and been IGNORED? GOOD! That's what's supposed to happen!

If you don't have a ROGUESUPPORT BATTLEFIELD 2142 SOLDIERNAME, YOU DON"T GET IN! You had 2 years. Go fuck yourself. WORK for it. Read the group and figure out how. EARN YOUR VOICE HERE!


Also: Jimmy Hoffa; Call your office.>>

[wserra]

wserra, again thanks for your reply. However, I found all your answers unacceptable.

Oh, most magnificent and merciful majesty, master of the universe, protector of the meek, whose nose we are not worthy to pick, whose very feces are an untrammelled delight, and whose peacocks keep us awake all hours of the night with their noisy lovemaking, we beseech thee, tell thy humble servants, what is it that an attorney attorns?

I extend the courtesy of having you attempt to answer all questions again.

I got it right the first time. I therefore decline your courteous offer.

No contract! You lose! Mwahahahaha!

[9111007]

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

I got it right the first time. I therefore decline your courteous offer.

No contract! You lose! Mwahahahaha!

wserra, under the circumstances, that was the correct answer! You win a copy of a Meriam-Webter's dictionary, courtesy of Hanslune! You made me spill my coffee laughing with your "Oh, most magnificent and merciful majesty, master of the universe..." stuff.

[wserra]

why look the definition of a legal word, in a plain English grammar dictionary?

You mean the way you do with "legal tender"?

In point of fact, the huge majority of words and phrases in legal documents are used in an ordinary dictionary sense. There are, of course, some that are terms of art. Such as "legal tender".

[Fussygus]

<<THE TENDER FOR LAW is an examination of what you need to know to fight Judicial corruption, by examining the stuff you are LIED TO about. MONEY, and the hidden-in-plain-sight contract that is tendered daily.

I went down that road years ago and the thought that you are being lied to or manipulated in just not a reality.

Does anyone doubt that taking a chopstick and driving it in your wife's ear while she is sleeping is against the law? It isn't written in statute LAW that you can't do this but I would say everyone would agree that regardless of what the written LAW says, this is against the law. i.e. doing so is not acceptable in this society.

Reading the LAW and nit-picking over definitions causes you to stray from the actual law, which in the case above is right in line with Mr.Cliffords desire "do not harm". Maybe in time with enough occurrences of people driving chopsticks in their wives ears the legislature will actually put in the LAW that it is specifically unacceptable to do as such because it seems not having this within the societies instruction manual "the LAW" creates confusion.

Therefore, consider if there was no written LAW and you and a bunch of your friends and enemies had to live together. What would be the response when one of your enemies raced through your yard in their truck and nearly killed your daughter? What would be the response when one of your friends raced through your yard and killed your daughter? Would you think it was necessary to create a LAW that no one is to race through your property? Would you let your friend off and lock up your enemy OR vis versa?

Fuzzy

[9111007]

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

You mean the way you do with "legal tender"?

wserra, you are accurate in your observation. However I must say, once in The Tender for Law, Scott gets to explain what is legalese. And then he tells us to look up every definition in the correct places. In Scott' Duncan's notes section, from his Facebook page which by the way is public, you will find a very interesting article regarding legalese, and some of the historical background to it. I have got to tell you, there are plenty of "terms of art," apparently.

Thanks for taking time to answer, and play, wserra!

I apologize for the double posting. I am having some Internet issues.

[9111007]

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

I will attempt to answer FussyGuts' last questions.

Therefore, consider if there was no written LAW and you and a bunch of your friends and enemies had to live together. What would be the response when one of your enemies raced through your yard in their truck and nearly killed your daughter? What would be the response when one of your friends raced through your yard and killed your daughter? Would you think it was necessary to create a LAW that no one is to race through your property? Would you let your friend off and lock up your enemy OR vis versa?

I am NOT for a world without law. At the contrary. The commercial system of law has a long standing tradition. It "works" when everyone obeys the law, and plays by the rules. That is if EVERYONE obeys the law. If no one breaks the rules.

Now we must ask: is there such thing as "judicial corruption"? Are not people holding positions of public trust, and/or lawyers, and/or "justices," as "lawless" as these "freemdumbers," if they do not obey the law? And if I need to use the "justice" system, why would I need to engage in a commercial transaction to assert my person's rights? Sound a bit Kunta Kinteish. Why would the Law Society insist to convince everyone they must attorn/get a lawyer, should they need to use the court system?

I see a few here trying very hard to make baseless allegations/presumptions that I/we do not want to obey the law, when the first thing I said, among other things, was that I have been taught by Scott Duncan that EVERYONE is to obey the law. Have I said here laws do not apply to either me, and/or my person? I do not think so. And if I have, please quote me.

I wish this answers your questions, Fussy! Thanks for your time!

[arayder]

I am NOT for a world without law. At the contrary. The commercial system of law has a long standing tradition. It "works" when everyone obeys the law, and plays by the rules. That is if EVERYONE obeys the law. If no one breaks the rules.

I see a few here trying very hard to make baseless allegations/presumptions that I/we do not want to obey the law, when the first thing I said, among other things, was that I have been taught by Scott Duncan that EVERYONE is to obey the law. Have I said here laws do not apply to either me, and/or my person? I do not think so. And if I have, please quote me.

I believe you when you say you want to obey the law, 9111007.

But I wonder if you know what the law is.

If one believes the law is x,y and z when in fact it is a,b and c then it is entirely possible to disobey, or not follow, or break the law while believing one is obeying it.

[Bill Lumbergh]

However I must say, once in The Tender for Law, Scott gets to explain what is legalese. And then he tells us to look up every definition in the correct places.

Does that include searching for the "special definition" of "individuals" in the Criminal Code? I'm still waiting for you to post that.

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

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

So what happens if I pay for everything using coins? or a credit card?

Additionally, some questions concerned the need of a "judge." Well, it depends what you call a judge. At least in Canada ever since 1982, I do not think there is "judges." In Canada, a "Justice" is NOT a judge.

Bullshit. As an example, let's look at the Criminal Code:

“justice” means a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge, and includes two or more justices where two or more justices are, by law, required to act or, by law, act or have jurisdiction;

“provincial court judge” means a person appointed or authorized to act by or pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a province, by whatever title that person may be designated, who has the power and authority of two or more justices of the peace and includes the lawful deputy of that person;

[JamesVincent]

Kinda reminds me of a music critic I read one time, paraphrased:

This song was an enlightening rendition, the base of rendition being to render which is what they did to this song.

[Burnaby49]

A bit of chatter about Quatloos from the tenderizers. They've noticed that we mentioned them in the Menard discussion;

https://www.facebook.com/groups/8673416 ... 444676208/

First some kind words about us;

Scott Duncan
They just lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and killing lawyers is an ethical thing to do, and is good for humanity.
Like · 6 · November 9 at 9:59am

And a grudging acceptance that we serve at least some marginal purpose;

Scott Duncan
The thing is Quatloos really does expose frauds and scams. Menard, and Clifford are fair game! They charge MONEY.

No problem with that.

I don't even care that they are lying about ME and calling me "crazy"!

I DO have a problem with them doing the same with all of YOU!
Like · 8 · November 9 at 10:29am

They finally realize that Steve Bates posts here;

Lou Manotti
You guys know Steve Bates (Free-Dumb TMZ) is a Quatloser, right?
Like · 2 · November 14 at 5:53am

Scott Duncan
Wait, what?
Like · November 14 at 5:57am

Chris Evan
Yes.
Like · November 14 at 5:58am

Chris Evan
I just found out a couple days ago
Like · November 14 at 5:58am

Lou Manotti
Screen Capping the Dean Clifford threads. I noticed.
Like · 3 · November 14 at 5:58am

Scott Duncan
Well then, I don't feel so bad about him being taken out by scumbag DMCA tactics. Is Master Bates, a law society scum? "Wake Up Productions" doesn't sound very "Pro-Law Society"
Like · 2 · November 14 at 2:34pm

Then on to nefarious scheming;

Pete Daoust
Anibal Jose Baez, have you been able to infiltrate these Quatloos yet?
November 14 at 2:37pm

No, not yet. Unless they've sent 9111007 to play the idiot and clog up this discussion with endless stupid repetitive questions to bait posters into answering. If that's the case they've succeeded splendidly.

[Dr. Caligari]

what is it that an attorney attorns?

I don't know if "attorn" was ever a verb, but it is certainly not used as a verb in modern American English. In fact, I have been an "attorney" since 1979, but I have never heard the word "attorn" (used as a verb or otherwise) except on Freeman websites.

What is legal title of attorney?

Not sure what you are asking. Could you explain that question?

What are you attorning, and who are you attorning?

Since the word "attorn" is not used in American English, the answers are "nothing" and "no one."

[Dr. Caligari]

To what claims concern me, I do not make claims in court. I make sure I do business with parties that will keep their promises, I make sure my person obeys the laws, and that way I avoid controversies that need court intervention.

How would you seek relief if (hypothetically) someone were to break your door down, kick your wife, rape your dog, cut your nose off with a hedge-clipper and defecate on your antique rug?

[GlimDropper]

I had forgotten about the group about the group. From Simu-Drones:

Kent Barrett
Yesterday at 12:28pm

I know we're all hanging on to find out what Quatloos says it is that an attorney attorns, but there is another open question question today. Has Pete been able to help the court find the unidentifiable surety? We know he's very co-operative and will be doing his best to aid them in their quest to find it.
Like Share
Seen by 13
9 people like this.
Comments


Michael Atkins Go Pete !!!!
Like · 2 · Yesterday at 12:37pm


Kent Barrett Yes! Pete will help them get to the bottom of it!

I'm sure he'll show them his t-shit, as a courtesy, and so they can rule HIM out, thus saving much wasted time and paperwork.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 12:44pm


Pete Daoust The judge didn't know what I was talking about, he said there is no surety in criminal matters (unsure emoticon)

I said that this answer goves me good reasons to believe that he might be incompetent (unsure emoticon)

He was not very happy and decided to book another meeting and find a competent judge (unsure emoticon)

I am waiting for the new date....

I'll give more details later on
Like · 4 · Yesterday at 1:34pm

So Mr. Daoust's court adventure wasn't a complete success. It looks like the judge is pretending not to understand the mighty tender for law doctrine that everything (including criminal matters) are just surety and accounting. I'm sure Pete will explain it to them.