Tender For Law Likes Us! They Really Like Us!

[Hanslune]

- Why are you obsessing over this word?
I do not know what exactly your definition for "obsessing" is,

Doing exactly what you are doing, real life observation of an obsessive fantastical view of reality. People who think there is magical power in words have issues.

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.

Yet it is he gave his answers and you denied them and asked for new ones, since those were acceptable answers what does you denial say about you? I think your answer is unacceptable so I will extend you the courtesy of giving you another shot to answer again.

Now I ask, Hanslune, have you looked the definition of attorney in an up-to-date legal dictionary?

Yes, in your obsession why haven't you looked it up?

I would remind you that you were concerned about 'attorn' and what it means you seem to be imagining some super-secret meaning to the root word. There isn't any and since you cannot counter my postings you concede that point.

English used in legal dictionaries is the same English used in non-legal dictionaries - in case you haven't notice.

I think is says a lot more than just "Nothing, none, nothing, no one." Thanks!

Okay you are making a claim so you provide the evidence that the meaning of attorney has a meaning different in a law dictionary than normal usage. I have my quotes from said dictionaries to compare to yours.

Have fun

[arayder]

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.

It's the same game freemen play at traffic stops, in front of judges and the Crawford crew plays when they harangue beat cops.

Ask questions in the haughty belief that you, the questioner, has the correct answers. When you don't get an answer or the answer you expected the next step is to play professor and fake a bit of pique at the person responding so as to reaffirm your self image as the wise scholar.

It's just a game.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Perhaps the lawyers on here can confirm/correct but as far as I know (from some googling), to "attorn" is to agree to be under the jurisdiction of an entity that otherwise would not have that jurisdiction over you. So if two companies in two different countries enter into a contract, they can include a clause that in the event of a dispute, the laws of one particular jurisdiction will apply. In other words, the two sides "attorn" to the jurisdiction of the one state.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the word "attorney". I suspect the angle our visitor is playing at is that "attorneys" somehow trick you into "attorning" to the jurisdiction of the evil gubmint.

[Hanslune]

Of course, this has nothing to do with the word "attorney". I suspect the angle our visitor is playing at is that "attorneys" somehow trick you into "attorning" to the jurisdiction of the evil gubmint.

Yes the evib gub'mint is so stupid it cannot just pass a law bringing everyone under the jurisdiction of the state. Instead they have to commit silly word games to trick people by using magic phrases. Yeah right.

As noted earlier using money or not using it has no effect whatsoever on whether you are in the jurisdiction of the state.

The mental gymnastics that such folks have to go thru to get to this point is amazing.

[The Observer]

What is even more amazing is that they will head into court with these beliefs thinking that they are going to get a judge to agree with them and rule in their favor. When it does not happen, then they have to come up with the typical excuse that the judicial system is corrupt or crooked. But then at that point they have no other alternative except to go to the graybar hotel or be the recipient of a judgment against them.

[Burnaby49]

What is even more amazing is that they will head into court with these beliefs thinking that they are going to get a judge to agree with them and rule in their favor. When it does not happen, then they have to come up with the typical excuse that the judicial system is corrupt or crooked. But then at that point they have no other alternative except to go to the graybar hotel or be the recipient of a judgment against them.

The one that astounds me is the unilateral contracts and "tacit agreement". Send someone a document saying he owes you $5,000,000 unless he replies in a week with a huge laundry list of reply requirements. When he doesn't reply he has tacitly agreed he owes you the money so you have a binding contract. Canadian Freemen types have been trying that for years with absolutely no success. Yet they keep trying and actually seem to believe it. I linked to that video of Allen Boisjoli merrily mailing off unilateral contract while he babbled on about how they were going to make him rich. He really seemed to believe it. Why? The entire concept makes no sense, it has no basis in law, and it has a well documented history of total failure. Yet it persists. Reality has absolutely no effect on these people.

[Fussygus]

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

...

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?....

the first thing I said, among other things, was that I have been taught by Scott Duncan that EVERYONE is to obey the law.

Just as asside "..everyone is to obey the law.." is same as what was articulated in Paradigm material.

I can understand your position with regards to what appears to be thoughts of a corrupt system of justice. That somehow these attorneys, judges, and bureaucrats are out there to get you to submit to their rule. And that they will all form of nefarious actions to ensure it gets maintained. Through convoluted legalese or presumed intention assessment they will get you to submit to their undeniable authority. I used to buy into that mindset, that all existence of hidden definitions and meanings was simply a ruse to enslave me for the benefit of the ruling elite (which consisted of unscrupulous lawyers mostly). That this ruse was a grand plan by a master builder who enslaves us without us actually knowing it is happening. We are just ignoramuses to our own enslavement.

Well all of which is great gossip for the conspiracist but I'd have to say as much fun as it is, my experience is, such is not possible, feasible or even desirable. Don't get me wrong there are elements within this society that attempt to manipulate situations and conditions to their own means, but the existence of a much larger conspiracy is debunked by it's own deficiency....that it is run by human beings. As much as you might like to think that those who you claim are unaccountable, being judges, lawyers, politicians and bureacrates, those people are still subject to their own consciousness, and as such their human condition does not substantially vary from our own. Don't take this to mean that there aren't bad apples in every basket, but as it stands this is the best basket the people of this society have been able to create and to which a set of rules has been developed in an effort to mitigate the issues that those rotten apples can create for the people. The people who they are empowered BY, FOR.

The best we can ask is that those who are chosen, and willing, to accept the roll of caretakers of the judiciary, are at least thoughtful and considerate of both the individual and the society as a whole.

As yourself if you know a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. and then ask the question are they ALL intent on stealing MY freedom? Or are they doing what they consider is in the best interests of....... I can say I personally know many dozen, and such is definitely not the case (even the ones I was up against). But maybe I'm a gullible fool with regards to peoples motives and intentions. Oh well, I say better to be Forest Gump and happy, than Ebenezer Scrooge and miserable.

Fuzzy

[The Observer]

...f you know a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. and then ask the question are they ALL intent on stealing MY freedom? Or are they doing what they consider is in the best interests of....... I can say I personally know many dozen, and such is definitely not the case (even the ones I was up against).

The sovrun/freeman explanation for your point is that even some of the "decent" cops, judges, lawyers, etc. have been deceived by the puppeteers and sincerely think that what they have been taught is correct and legal. Hence why you see some of these freemen attempting to "educate" a cop on a traffic stop about the evil system that he or she works for.

[arayder]

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

What is even more amazing is that they will head into court with these beliefs thinking that they are going to get a judge to agree with them and rule in their favor. When it does not happen, then they have to come up with the typical excuse that the judicial system is corrupt or crooked. But then at that point they have no other alternative except to go to the graybar hotel or be the recipient of a judgment against them.

It seems to me that until recently Scott Duncan and his crew have been an internet gaggle arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But now tender for law is making the same mistake every detax/free blood/fmotl/sovcit cult eventually makes. . .they think their stuff actually works and one of the faithful fodder tries the woo out in the real world.

[Hanslune]

What is even more amazing is that they will head into court with these beliefs thinking that they are going to get a judge to agree with them and rule in their favor. When it does not happen, then they have to come up with the typical excuse that the judicial system is corrupt or crooked. But then at that point they have no other alternative except to go to the graybar hotel or be the recipient of a judgment against them.

The one that astounds me is the unilateral contracts and "tacit agreement". Send someone a document saying he owes you $5,000,000 unless he replies in a week with a huge laundry list of reply requirements. When he doesn't reply he has tacitly agreed he owes you the money so you have a binding contract. Canadian Freemen types have been trying that for years with absolutely no success. Yet they keep trying and actually seem to believe it. I linked to that video of Allen Boisjoli merrily mailing off unilateral contract while he babbled on about how they were going to make him rich. He really seemed to believe it. Why? The entire concept makes no sense, it has no basis in law, and it has a well documented history of total failure. Yet it persists. Reality has absolutely no effect on these people.

Perhaps we should make up such tacit agreement letters and send them to some of the key freeman gurus and see what they do with them.

[eric]

It seems to me that until recently Scott Duncan and his crew have been an internet gaggle arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But now tender for law is making the same mistake every detax/free blood/fmotl/sovcit cult eventually makes. . .they think their stuff actually works and one of the faithful fodder tries the woo out in the real world.

For those of you who think that a weekly or so visit to the Tender for Law will afford you a summary of what is going on in the tortured minds there, don't make the effort. I sometimes feel they're just screwing with those who they perceive are not members of their closed society. Comments are deleted at will, threads are resurrected from months back, and many of the threads can only be understood if you are a party to the multiple facebook friends and pm's that take place within the group. Scooty's little circle of admirers aren't really interested in spreading the Gospel of Duncan (tm, copyrighted, and whatever left over from a misunderstanding of the push to copyright code that began in 1986 or so). As you implied their group will eventually self destruct as the individual members discover that their ideas simply don't work in the real world.

[GlimDropper]

From time to time impasses are reached. Simu-Drones have gone cloaked leaving the rest of the world no information poorer. Mr.Daoust's court case continues.

Question: If Robert Menard and Dean Clifford never charged a dime for their teachings, would that have made their teachings any less false?

Scott and the Tenderizers, tell us if and when you ever win a court case using tender for Law teachings. Please do provide proof or just plain don't bother. Any half assed freeman guru can pretend they know how to beat the courts as long as no one asks them for proof.

The same is true of full assed freeman gurus.

[notorial dissent]

Scott and the Tenderizers stuff is still crap, of the very boring and poorest thought out kind. It doesn't matter if he charges for it, gives it away, or farts it out his nose, it is still CRAP, and to use a Zulloism, "is of no consequence".

By the way, how's Scotty's Notice of Error fantasy working out for him? Pretty much like all the other BS he peddles which is to say not at all?

I still feel like I need a thorough shower even three days after having gone near that webstye. Just out of curiosity, are all freemanidjits foulmouthed ignoramuses, Scotty certainly bears that out.

I'm really really bored now.

[arayder]

Scott and the Tenderizers stuff is still crap, of the very boring and poorest thought out kind. It doesn't matter if he charges for it, gives it away, or farts it out his nose, it is still CRAP, and to use a Zulloism, "is of no consequence".

By the way, how's Scotty's Notice of Error fantasy working out for him? Pretty much like all the other BS he peddles which is to say not at all?

I still feel like I need a thorough shower even three days after having gone near that webstye. Just out of curiosity, are all freemanidjits foulmouthed ignoramuses, Scotty certainly bears that out.

I'm really really bored now.

There's a line in one of my favorite westerns in which a character says, "Most time, a man will tell you his bad intentions if you listen, let yourself hear."

If you read through enough of Duncan's self-adulating BS you'll eventually see him get to the place all the freemen he holds in such distain arrive. . . the conclusion that his method, if used properly, will deny the courts jurisdiction.

The Notice of Error thing is just his version of Eldon Warman's old Constructive Notice and Menard's Notice of Understanding and Right of Claim.

I think Scott and his disciples understand, either intuitively or rationally, that waving a slightly altered version of already failed magic papers at the courts is a losing proposition. Hence they make a big deal out their practice of staying out of court.

[Hanslune]

It must be a real shock to believers when they come to this website where they get no 'positive reinforcement'. I noticed too that Mr. numbers dropped away probably stunned that his magic words didn't work, lol.