Tender For Law Likes Us! They Really Like Us!

[9111007]

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

I appreciate all replies, and questions. I must start with saying that I wish you accept my apologies for the confusion. I did not mean to sound redundant making my question. First of all, by the time I had typed my last comment, other members of the forum had already answered my question. Unfortunately I did not see these comments until after. Then I had to attend some matters, and it was not until now that I was able to comment again. I am not trolling. Some have answered my questions, and I appreciate you taking time to reply.

Since the criminal code of Canada has a specific definition for individuals, I decided to be specific with the words. So I remade my question again, using the word individual. That was the intent behind remaking the question of ownership of individuals. The answer was no, I am clear. So that might had helped to give the impression of redundancy to a few, or trolling. But I am not. So again, I wish you accept my apologies. I know you have it for the "freedumb movement," and that would only be one more thing we have in common. I have a personal contempt for these kind, and as you know, we at The Tender for Law call them "a looming threat."

Thirdly, I have told you that I want for everyone, including my persons, to obey the law. And that means to obey ALL laws, included, but not limited to, acts, codes, and statutes of the whichever jurisdiction my persons happen to be in, should they apply. Let's say I travel to the United States with a Canadian passport. While in the US, I will make sure my persons obey the local laws. I promised to. It's right there in the signature of the passport. In that particular case, I am surety if my persons don't obey the law. Freedumbers don't want to obey the law, and want to break their promises, and I come here saying that I have been taught by Scott Duncan the importance of everyone obeying the law, and to fulfill promises/contracts. I would appreciate if you don't lump me, or Scott Duncan for that matter, with the "freedumb movement."

In The Tender for Law Scott has NEVER charged, and/or asked for any kind of money. We don't like what the deluded "freedumbers" do, charge and pay money for information. That is FRAUD! And we do not like fraud. We are taught everyone is to obey the law. We are taught to fulfill our promises. We are taught the value of truth, and the perils of lying. We are not running "discharging/set-off" scams to get free shit. What is not to like about that? Why are some here trying very hard to lump me/us with fraudsters?

There are a few questions some of you have posed. I intend to answers them, but in another comment. It takes time. I wanted to at least settle the confusion of my seemingly redundant question, that I acknowledge some have answered with no. Are any of the ones that replied "no," to the question of ownership of individuals, a lawyer? I would appreciate an answer.

Before I leave, since Pete Daoust has been brought to the discussion, and he has some pending matters today, he asked me to pose this question here:

Can Pete use the surety of his person, so this surety can discharge public debt sent to his person? Yes, or no? Thank you.

[NYGman]

Before I leave, since Pete Daoust has been brought to the discussion, and he has some pending matters today, he asked me to pose this question here:

Can Pete use the surety of his person, so this surety can discharge public debt sent to his person? Yes, or no? Thank you.

No, as there is no such thing as a surety of his person, in the way I think you believe it to be.

[Llwellyn]

Ok, as far as I understand, SURETY OF (a) PERSON is an action usually taken by someone posting bail/bond/(some form of surety) for someone else. - A Surety, is 'lost' or 'relinquished' in case of failure of court/stipulations. (This is, in essence to promote the PERSON to return/be available.)

So your question of a Surety Of Person .. is a little confusing.. because in that phrasing, it means, Is he responsible for his actions.. YES, and does he need to pay/post value/asset etc.. YES...
In doing so, could he use that, to pay the debt? - No, it is a 'lost' item/value, unless he fulfills all the conditions and it is then returned, wherein it could be used.. but once it is posted as a Surety, it has no accessible/tangible ?value? until it is released.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

[wserra]

my persons

You and the mice in your pockets?

Are any of the ones that replied "no," to the question of ownership of individuals, a lawyer?

Doc C and I are US lawyers. I believe that at least one of the others who responded is also a lawyer.

Can Pete use the surety of his person, so this surety can discharge public debt sent to his person? Yes, or no? Thank you.

A question worthy of the gibberish generator. "Can Pete use the surety of his person, so the surety of his surety of his surety of his person, so this person, so this person?"

There. That's better. You're welcome.

[Fussygus]

Thirdly, I have told you that I want for everyone, including my persons, to obey the law. And that means to obey ALL laws, included, but not limited to, acts, codes, and statutes of the whichever jurisdiction my persons happen to be in, should they apply. Let's say I travel to the United States with a Canadian passport. While in the US, I will make sure my persons obey the local laws. I promised to. It's right there in the signature of the passport. In that particular case, I am surety if my persons don't obey the law. Freedumbers don't want to obey the law, and want to break their promises, and I come here saying that I have been taught by Scott Duncan the importance of everyone obeying the law, and to fulfill promises/contracts. I would appreciate if you don't lump me, or Scott Duncan for that matter, with the "freedumb movement."

So if you obey the laws then what is the significance of your ....thingy Mr.Duncan promotes? Is more along the lines of being related to evidence proofing (Per Marc Stevens "can't prove anything")? It seems to me to be similar to Porisky in the sense of PERSON, INDIVIDUAL, name from argument, but I could be wrong on that. Or is it a trust thing similar to Clifford? Or a surety thing similar to Croft? I guess the question is what is basis for "Tender for Law" teachings? Is it based on the concept that one is not a fiduciary to their PERSON unless they agree to be?

In corporate law the directors are fiduciaries to the corporation and as such have liabilities to the Corp. If they breach the law of the corp and or induce the corp to brake the law of the land, they can be held to account. So is this sort of where you put the Individual relative to the PERSON? To comport a sort of limited type liability thingy?

Also what i significance of your unusual headnote (Unport)?

ON another note I received the following message that I thought was amusing but illustrative of how "the law" evolves with society (note I never confirmed the specific passages but have read bible versus with similar interpretation, CORRECTION Passages confirmed) (also I didn't confirm Dr.Laura said such a thing but point is more on how these clauses no longer comport with "this" societies laws).

> On her US radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
> ​
> The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:
>
> Dear Dr. Laura:
>
> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
>
> 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
>
> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
>
> 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
> 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
> 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
>
> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
>
> 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
>
> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
>
> 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
>
> I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
>
> Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
>
> Your adoring fan,
> James M Kauffman
> ​ ​
> Ed, Professor Emeritus
> ​ Dept of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia
>
> P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.

Sincerely,
Fuzzy

[Fussygus]

Thirdly, I have told you that I want for everyone, including my persons, to obey the law. And that means to obey ALL laws, included, but not limited to, acts, codes, and statutes of the whichever jurisdiction my persons happen to be in, should they apply. Let's say I travel to the United States with a Canadian passport. While in the US, I will make sure my persons obey the local laws. I promised to. It's right there in the signature of the passport. In that particular case, I am surety if my persons don't obey the law. Freedumbers don't want to obey the law, and want to break their promises, and I come here saying that I have been taught by Scott Duncan the importance of everyone obeying the law, and to fulfill promises/contracts. I would appreciate if you don't lump me, or Scott Duncan for that matter, with the "freedumb movement."

So if you obey the laws then what is the significance of your ....thingy Mr.Duncan promotes? Is more along the lines of being related to evidence proofing (Per Marc Stevens "can't prove anything")? It seems to me to be similar to Porisky in the sense of PERSON, INDIVIDUAL, name from argument, but I could be wrong on that. Or is it a trust thing similar to Clifford? Or a surety thing similar to Croft? I guess the question is what is basis for "Tender for Law" teachings? Is it based on the concept that one is not a fiduciary to their PERSON unless they agree to be?

In corporate law the directors are fiduciaries to the corporation and as such have liabilities to the Corp. If they breach the law of the corp and or induce the corp to brake the law of the land, they can be held to account. So is this sort of where you put the Individual relative to the PERSON? To comport a sort of limited type liability thingy?

Also what i significance of your unusual headnote (Unport)?

ON another note I received the following message that I thought was amusing but illustrative of how "the law" evolves with society (note I never confirmed the specific passages but have read bible versus with similar interpretation, CORRECTION Passages confirmed) (also I didn't confirm Dr.Laura said such a thing but point is more on how these clauses no longer comport with "this" societies laws, APPARENTLY per her Blog she didn't say the following (but point is about is that the bible technically says these things).

> On her US radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, The bible says homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
> ​
> The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:
>
> DearDr. Laura:
>
> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
>
> 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
>
> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
>
> 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
> 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
> 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
>
> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
>
> 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
>
> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
>
> 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
>
> I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
>
> Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
>
> Your adoring fan,
>James M KauffmanApparently this guy didn't write the letter either
> ​ ​
> Ed, Professor Emeritus
> ​ Dept of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia
>
> P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.

Therefore, just to clarify the point being to show that all societies laws evolve just the same as the human race itself.

Sincerely,
Fuzzy

[LordEd]

The phrase 'my persons' used in that context says freemanism to me.

The issue with freemen is more that they try to change what the law is and claim portions don't apply for whatever reason. For example, by claiming to have a person that is separate and the court should punish that fiction for what the real flesh did.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Since the criminal code of Canada has a specific definition for individuals, I decided to be specific with the words.

It does? Where? Can you post it?

[LordEd]

On quick search it uses the word individual(s) (not in all-capitals), but doesn't seem to use an un-ordinary use of it.

[Jeffrey]

Let's say I travel to the United States with a Canadian passport. While in the US, I will make sure my persons obey the local laws. I promised to. It's right there in the signature of the passport. In that particular case, I am surety if my persons don't obey the law.

You don't have any persons, you ARE a person. ONE, singular, mono. If you're selling drugs by day under the alias T-Bone then pimping prostitutes by night under the alias Sweet-T, then buying stuff with stolen credit cards with the stolen identity "John Smith", then those aren't separate persons, you're all the same guy, which is why courts use AKA. They won't separately charge each of your aliases, they charge the one physical human being.

Closest to what you're describing would be if you created a corporation, that sells widgets, which would be an artificial person. However you as a human being would still be responsible if you start using the corporation to launder money or break the law in however way you can imagine.

[NYGman]

A passport is signed because it is an identity document. There is no surity there. Just like your license or is card. It allows you to travel and may make you aware of certain rights you may have but where are you getting that you the person are acting as a surity for your name. this seems like Freeman woo to me.

[9111007]

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

I appreciate all other replies. I thank wserra, from the US, for answering my question. The legal system of the US is similar to the one of Canada, but not the same. Since you are in the US, you are probably an attorney. I would like to ask a few questions concerning attorneys in the US.

wserra, what is it that an attorney attorns? What is legal title of attorney? What are you attorning, and who are you attorning? I appreciate your reply.

Also, I couldn't help to notice a comment by NYGman concerning the signature on a passport. NYGman, I found your answer unacceptable.

A passport is signed because it is an identity document. There is no surity there. Just like your license or is card. It allows you to travel and may make you aware of certain rights you may have but where are you getting that you the person are acting as a surity for your name. this seems like Freeman woo to me.

Legally a signature in a passport, or any other legal document, is proof of consent/understanding. If a signature has been used for any other reason, who ever signed is either lying, or is getting scammed. The signatory party holds surety. That might SEEM to be "freeman woo," but I think not. Would anyone here disagree?

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. A judge holds a position of public trust via elections. "justices" and "magistrates" are administrators appointed by the government. Quebec is civil law, instead of common law. They use the term "judge" to refer really to a "justice." But that's Quebec, and they have a different word for everything!

Other questions asked concerned, what would I do if a controversy arises between my person (I will please the crowd and use singular, if that is your shtick) and another party? If it's a claim against my person, I will make sure to respond. 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.

Again, thanks for your comments/replies. And by the way, Pete it's just fine. He sends his regards. Thank you.

[wserra]

wserra, what is it that an attorney attorns? What is legal title of attorney? What are you attorning, and who are you attorning?

Nothing. None. Nothing, and no one.

I appreciate your reply.

No problem.

The signatory party holds surety. That might SEEM to be "freeman woo," but I think not. Would anyone here disagree?

OK, it's not freeman woo. It's just gibberish.

[GlimDropper]

You don't have any persons, you ARE a person. ONE, singular, mono.

That just proves how little you know about avoiding joinder.

THE TENDER FOR LAW: PERSONS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC.
July 12, 2014 at 6:17am

THE TENDER FOR LAW: PERSONS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.



All of you reading have, at one point or another, encountered the term "PERSON". After very little investigation, you are forced to accept the realization that you are not a PERSON, rather you HAVE a PERSON. This distinction is the first "lie of ommission" that you will encounter in the world of the "LEGAL". THE TENDER FOR LAW axiom "LEGAL=SURETY AND ACCOUNTING" makes navigating "law" a lot simpler, and it's very easy to spot the lies of ommission/ambiguity.



You did not create this PERSON and it has nothing to do with you. THIS ONE FACT is lost on most, and can lead to JOINDER if you are not careful.

facebook link to the document in question.

Without a doubt the most tiresome thing about Scott's writings is about a 90/10 ratio of him sucking his own dick to him actually saying anything, that link is an almost refreshing change of pace from him. It also touches upon a few of the topics our new visitor has brought up in Scott's own words so I'll quote a few.

When asked if you are a PERSON, some of you will answer that you are a NATURAL PERSON. This is a really dumb thing to claim in COURT because you are making several DECLARATIONS by saying so! First, you are DECLARING that you are in their JURISDICTION. Not only are you DECLARING that you are in their JURIDICTION, but you are also DECLARING that you do NOT enjoy LIMITED LIABILITY. This, of course, means you have 100% SURETY. Let me say that again: If you DECLARE in COURT that you are a NATURAL PERSON, you DECLARE that you accept 100% SURETY. NATURAL PERSON = "picking up the tab". INDIVIDUAL=SURETY

First the ubiquitous sovereign/freeman notion that jurisdiction is something you have to be "tricked" into and presumably if you know they real secrets then the law and the courts hold no power over you. I wouldn't go as far as saying this is the core delusion of sovereign/freeman thought but it is certainly one of them. One which clearly explain why these notions implode on contact with real world legal systems.

Which brings us back to the topic of this article. "The Fender" knew he was not going to trip me up with that knowledge, so he turned to THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, and we went through a surreal walk through The Enchanted Forest of the Fucking Obvious. It starts with a single question: "Who does THE LAW SOCIETY claim JURISDICTION over?" While a quick look at their bullshit-ese CHARTERS will reveal that they CLAIM JURISDICTION over "ALL INDIVIDUALS", I seem to have missed this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THING. I KNEW it, but it was just data. No connection had been made, because it was hidden in plain sight. Using the LAW dictionary of your choice, you will find that "INDIVIDUAL" is distinctly a "PRIVATE or NATURAL PERSON" (One OR the other! NO LIABILITY or FULL LIABUILITY), and the LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS JURISDICTION. Continuing in the LAW dictionary of your choice, you will find that "NATURAL PERSON" is defined as "a human being, naturally born" and will in some way indicate that it is distinct from a LEGALLY generated, JURIDICAL PERSON.



I'll let that sink in.



INDIVIDUAL = NATURAL PERSON.




THEREFORE: THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA CLAIMS JURISDICTION over ALL NATURAL PERSONS. (that's you)



None of this is hidden, you can go look yourself, they tell you. THE LAW SOCIETY has CLAIMED JURISDICTION over all of you and I didn't even notice. A CROWN ATTORNEY exists to ATTORN the INDIVIDUAL to the GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION. All CROWN ATTORNEYS are members of THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA. And there is the JOINDER in the LEGAL MATRIX. The trinity is formed when the COURT hands you the BILL, and you have a good old-fashioned CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. None of this is hidden, and I didn't see it. Let that serve as a warning to all of you. None of you could ever hope to be half as good at this as I am, and even I missed these hidden in plain sight and blatantly obvious things.

And we have the source of 9111007's questions about the Law Society and the word Individual, it's just Duncan's personal rehash of much older sovereign gibberish. But first someone please do correct me if I'm wrong:

A: The Law Society of Upper Canada is not the only law society in Canada so not all Crown Attorneys are members if it.
B: Law Societies in Canada regulate attorneys practicing in their jurisdiction, if you are not trying to practice law they have no jurisdiction over you.
C: Persons, natural, otherwise of flat out just plain Individuals, the status makes not one whit of difference, as long as you are not trying to practice law (on the behalf of anyone but yourself I should add) in Canada, the law societies of Canada have no powers, magic or otherwise, over you.

I keep looking for something to refute the notion that Scott Duncan just took a bunch of old freeman fables and dressed them up in his own particular style without functionally altering them. Perhaps someone can point out what I'm missing. Of course he boasts on many many court room victories using his methods but when asked to provide proof he turns from ranting megalomaniac to shrinking violet. And in that he is also in no way unique.

Even his obsession with the Law Society of Upper Canada is just a rehash of sovereign mythologizing about the dreaded Bar Association. Psychologists and Psychiatrists became evil incarnate to Scientology because L Ron Hubbard called his Dianetics the "modern science of mental health." It was natural that people (persons, natural, otherwise and individuals) working in the field were the first ones to point out "this is a bunch of horse sh!t." In the same way people with actual legal knowledge and professional experience are among the most qualified to point out to the sovereign/freeman gurus that they're teaching a bunch of horse sh!t.

And by the way, Pete it's just fine. He send his regards. Thank you.

Most excellent, thank you. I presume all charges dropped and he's free to go, a true court room "Tender for Law" victory? Could you ask him to share the court documents? I'm sure we can have them translated to English. If Scott is too modest to share any of his victories perhaps Pete will do so instead, we do wish to keep accurate records around here.

[Slowpoke]

Legally a signature in a passport, or any other legal document, is proof of consent/understanding. If a signature has been used for any other reason, who ever signed is either lying, or is getting scammed. The signatory party holds surety. That might SEEM to be "freeman woo," but I think not. Would anyone here disagree?

Really? So what you are saying is you are the surety for yourself the person whos photo is on the passport. Or is the photo just to identify who holds the surety? When you say proof of consent / understanding, what is it you are consenting to and what exactly is it that you understand? If a crime is committed who pays for that crime, the surety or the person in the photo that has signed saying they understand and consent ( what is the difference between the two )? Furthermore, if you sign it consenting and understanding, are you not signing that you understand that you are the human being identified, and that your human body is therefore subject to all laws whether you be in Canada or any other country?

[NYGman]

Sorry, just too much of the "stupid" here in this one. This is someone who has sucked on the Freman Teet of Woo for just way too long. To be honest, reading his response hurts my head. As an attorney myself, I will be honest and say I have never referred to what I do as attorns. Frankly I don't even think that word is even in common Use today.

I will refer to the appropriate response from Wserra. And on that note, I am out. Someone else that cares can respond, I think I well return to the Allen Boisjoli thread. While he is currently MIA at least his drivel I could tolerate.

[9111007]

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!

[Jeffrey]

Why are doctors called doctors if they don't doct anything?

[NYGman]

I actually prefer Lawyer. Lawyering is much better the attorning. Doing some good Lawyering is very fulfilling.

Sorry, I was planning on staying away but come on

If an attorney has no legal title, why does it have a name at all?

What does that even mean?? A Lawyer is not a house or car, no one has a legal title, this is a bunch of pseudo legla babble

Why are attorneys called attorneys if they don't attorn anything?

Why are dogs called dogs, cats called cats, Zebras called zebras, who the heck cares, it isn't relevant to the practice of law, and again, I prefer Lawyer.

Isn't that like saying "None" to what"Organization does a trustee serve"?

no, but again you comment makes little sense, is out of context, and means relatively little.

Why have a name (attorney) if it has no legal title?

So people know what I do. When people know I am a Lawyer, they ask me legal questions. If I Said I was a doctor, I would not get questions I can answer. So the name implies a job that I do, again, that Lawyering stuff I do, not the incoherent pseudo legal babble you do.

The crown attorney doesn't have legal title? The Attorney General doesn't have legal title?

You fail to define legal title, or state its relevance. As I view legal title a real property issue, and not relevant to employment, I don't view the people having legal title to anything. However, if you mean the title has some legal meaning, I guess in a way you can say that is true,but again, like so many other things, not it the way you believe.

Again, I find all your answers unacceptable, and I extend the courtesy of having you attempt to answer all questions again.

“You’re outta order. You’re outta order. This whole trial is outta order.”

[9111007]

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

I will attemp to answer the questions posed by Slowpoke.

- So what you are saying is you are the surety for yourself the person whos photo is on the passport?
I never said that. Where do you get that? Please refer back to my answer.

- Or is the photo just to identify who holds the surety?
I never mentioned anything about a photo. Where do you get that?

- When you say proof of consent / understanding, what is it you are consenting to and what exactly is it that you understand?
In the specific case of the passport, the signature means consent to/understand the terms, and conditions of use of the passport.

- If a crime is committed who pays for that crime, the surety or the person in the photo that has signed saying they understand and consent ( what is the difference between the two )?
I am not sure I understand your question. But, something I am certain of. Whoever is surety, is the responsible party.

- Furthermore, if you sign it consenting and understanding, are you not signing that you understand that you are the human being identified, and that your human body is therefore subject to all laws whether you be in Canada or any other country?
If you sign a passport, you are accepting the terms, and conditions of use. Should the signatory party not reserve all rights, then others will know what to do with those rights.

I hope that answered your questions, thanks Slowpoke!