Lawyers and what you should know.

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:35 am


The circle-jerkers at Quatloos have been scouring the 1960 CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS for what is supposedly my own "crazy" position that for a CRIME, there must be an INJURED PARTY. They LOVE cherry-picking, or just plain ignoring the maxim of CORPUS DELICTI! Even their precious "Justices" agree with me!
That's a MAXIM OF LAW, and they are reading the WRONG DOCUMENT, but let's just cover the CASE LAW. These are the first few I found. There are literally THOUSANDS. Go look.
I tell people to STAND UNDER THE 1960 CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, because THE FUCKING CHARTER REMOVES CORPUS DELICTI! THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (UK CANADA ACT - 1982) REMOVED CORPUS DELICTI in those sections they don't teach in school. They actually CENSOR the sections after the "APPLICATION OF THIS CHARTER" section in Canadian Public Schools.
You idiot Quatloos readers can go fucking look for yourselves. At least look at the RIGHT DOCUMENT, and fucking google before you talk out of your asses. AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE STOP FUCKING LYING ABOUT ME!
And don't "paraphrase" me, because I am VERY precise with my words. The very ACT of paraphrasing makes it A LIE. You do not get to lie about what I say.
It took me FIVE FUCKING SECONDS. Here is all the proof you need on a bunch of magic fucking parchments, written by old men wearing dresses! Just the way you fucking like them!
This took FIVE SECONDS to find:
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.” Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
“With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512
Supreme courts ruled “Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime”“In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. ” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
There are seven elements of jurisdiction and every element MUST be met in order for the court to proceed.
1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown vs. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v. Lawson 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
“The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend. “Simon v. Craft, 182 US 427.
“one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal. “Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge. Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant’s duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, “McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in “MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
...WOW. That's enough copypasta to give Derek Moran a fucking woody!
CORPUS DELICTI - Look it the fuck up.

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW June 21, 2015]
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:48 am


ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED on 23 February 2013 · in THE TENDER FOR LAW:ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF) Part ONE (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF) ...You'll notice I didn't use the word TRUST.
Scams like this diminish the word in much the same way GOVERNMENTS have diminished the words “human rights”. As this is my forum, I think I will prevent the concept of TRUSTS being diminished any further by this scam.
So OPPF it is.
Before I get started about this, I'm going to raise another TRUST system. It should have died at the outset because one guy ends up with the money. I'm talking about bitcoin, except you can TRUST and VERIFY bitcoin. It is a mathematical process that requires no trust. You don't need to trust bitcoin any more than you need to trust 2 + 2 = 4; and that's why bitcoin is a perfectly viable currency until the guy who started it gets all the money.
It is an automated-accounting, self-regulated currency. Bitcoin is the by-product of our knowledge of fundamental universal truths regarding numbers. For math is a pure discipline. There's nothing more to learn about it, and trillions of undiscovered things you can do with what we know.
I see a beauty and elegance, and even humour for those who can read the math in bitcoin. And that's why you can TRUST, because you get to VERIFY.
Now let's look at the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD.
Those that can't be bothered clogging up valuable intellect with bullshit, can reduce OPPF to its base components...and it basically goes like this...
Three guys “reclaim” the world's wealth by way of the UCC, backed by the people in the TRUST. Except in every context with the UCC SERVICING NOTICE, etc., they are all LEGAL CLAIMS. The mere fact that you are GIVING NOTICE acknowledges the process. A TRUST cannot make aggressive moves like SERVING NOTICE and MAKING A CLAIM. A TRUST has AUTHORITY over what it RECEIVES. TRUSTS exist to fulfill a purpose based on ASSETS it has RECEIVED.
And a TRUST can only RECEIVE.
The AQUILAE TRUST, for example, has a PRIMARY MANDATE to restore EXECUTIVE POWER to The House of Windsor. This is a relatively unattainable goal. I don't think I'll see Queen Elizabeth II saying, “Off with his head” in my lifetime, but that is, in fact, its PRIMARY MANDATE.
As it is a PRIVATE TRUST (PRIVATEER) we stand by to SERVE The House of Windsor. The House of Windsor can give AQUILAE an ORDER, and can TRUST that the ORDERS will be followed, even though The House of Windsor has no LEGAL or LAWFUL AUTHORITY over AQUILAE.
Every TRUSTEE is aware of this, and if 'Liz says, “Suit up and go to war”, we “Suit up and go to war”, because we said we would and she can TRUST us to do so.
PROMISARY NOTES have the CREDIT and WORTH of those making the promises. ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD are making promises they cannot LEGALLY AND/OR LAWFULLY keep.
It is therefore reasonable to presume, based on the preponderance of EVIDENCE, that the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD exists SOLEY for the purpose of profiting from your credulity.
You have often heard me speak ill of Robert Menard, but I want you to pay close attention to what I speak. Robert Menard tells the absolute TRUTH about the law. In fact, I dare say you can almost (but not quite) TRUST what he says about law. If it's the TRUTH it doesn't matter who says it. 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't matter if I say it, or if Robert Menard says it, or if Charles Manson says it...2 + 2 will still equal 4.
However, Robert Menard lies through omission. If you ever want to see Robert Menard fumble around, and ask bullshit-deflecting questions, just ask him what “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER” means.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD is FRAUD at the outset. Always remember the noble lie. If it requires BELIEF in anything, spirits, gods, fairies, etc., you are being sold FRAUD. There are no exceptions to this rule.
From childhood you are sold the lie that faith and trust are equal, and they reinforce it with other lies like, “You must respect the beliefs of others.” Think about that for a second. Why must I respect the beliefs of others? Why have belief at all? If you examine the concept, belief is an end. It means you don't have to go looking any further. It means you can “just assume”, never having once examine WHY it should be believed.
Observe the threads in this very forum. My mere public position that “your ignorance does not equal my knowledge” immediately gets a million ad hominem attacks. I collect the names you call me like trophies, and all of you that call me these things remind me that none of you are capable of having original thought.
All because I have offended your “beliefs”.
And you enter with the arrogant position that if I don't believe what you do, there must be something wrong with me, which reveals your hypocrisy. You see, in order for you to have the opportunity to say these things about me, you most certainly would have had to initiate the communication; because the only reason you would talk to me is because you want my knowledge.
I would not talk to you. Your very beliefs negate the possibility of UNDERSTANDING. You have nothing of VALUE for me, and presenting an “alternate view” which focuses on bullshit always seems to neglect to mention the fact that it is, in fact, focused on bullshit.
In short, belief has no VALUE. Those who say it does are selling you FRAUD, and you must always suspect the motives of those selling demonstrable FRAUD as TRUST.
The most primitive example of the self-imposed ignorance of belief can be found in Roman Numerals; and before I start with this I just want to remind everyone that the Ancient Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth, so the concept of zero was well-known throughout history. If you BELIEVE otherwise, examine the source of that belief and you will discover it is, in fact, bullshit.
The number zero represents fifty percent of all math in existence. If you do not understand that statement, and do not understand why that is, you are not qualified to speak of math. I digress...
I think of my own personal knowledge of computer science, and the vast technological powers I wield simply because “nobody else knows how to do it.” I cringe in empathetic fear for humanity when I look upon its seven billion souls, all in some way, intimately tied to science and technology, and knowing nothing about science and technology. Even the most simple-minded among you cannot be so stupid that they cannot see this situation is a recipe for disaster.
And every day, I'll hear some ignorant, credulous adult, with an imaginary friend, declare that I am ignorant, and that I am “closed-minded”, of course; and this is my personal favorite, that I'm “mentally ill” or some sub-category therein.
These people truly believe that their ignorance is wisdom, and that their belief equals my knowledge; and that is precisely why I DO NOT RESPECT THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
Let's jump back in time to the Romans. The Romans had a technologically-evolving society. Mathematics and computer science were actually in heavy use, and numeric policy and process allowed those that could conceptualize the math to engineer aqueducts that are working to this day.
Computer Science is profoundly powerful knowledge. I have the ability to literally speak to the universe, and it will speak back – in numbers. The test for intelligence is the test of understanding prime numbers, for these things are universal, and all of it requires not one scrap of belief.
Those who don't see that only prove my point, because it's as true as 2 + 2 = 4...
...and I'll demonstrate with the Romans.
Bookkeeping's a boring job, isn't it? Those who have been saddled with such a task will know what I'm describing when I speak of numbers dancing in your head, and you, being a pattern-seeking mammal, indulge yourself in the boredom by seeing how you make these numbers dance in a pattern you have not yet seen.
This is actually a very profound process and a lot of people miss it. The last thing the Romans wanted were smart bookkeepers. Bookkeepers make the rules. None of you see that. Watch “The Agenda” with Steve Paikin. VALE and the Chartered Accountants of Ontario sponsor the show, and they'll proudly tell you how long they've been setting PUBLIC POLICY.
None of you are aware of this, because none of you think; and Steve Paikin's shows are for people who can think, so there's zero risk of discovery.
You can see for yourself, your masters laughing at your idiocy.
All the belief in the world is not going to change that reality....
...back to the Romans.
A society that's growing as a result of computer science needs to hide the computer science part. I know more than you do by default. I've simply dedicated more time to any subject you raise than you have to studying it. It doesn't matter what you believe...this is simply true.
I don't possess any mental powers you don't; and I don't possess any mental powers that the bookkeeper with “dancing-numbers-in-his-head” has.
You can see where this is going.
Discovery of computer science is inevitable, and accountants will find it first. I'm not going to find any gold in the Klondike if I don't go to the Klondike. You're not going to find computer science if you don't go to where math is used constantly.
So, the problem is reduced to one simple goal. How do you stop a smart, little bookkeeper from discovering computer science, without affecting the quality of his work? Enter the Roman Numeral system.
Literacy was restricted to the upper casts; and the ignorant will leap and cling to what they can understand. In less than one generation the Roman Numeral system was injected into society with the DECLARATION, “This is math!”
...and there you have it. The next generation will truly believe that Roman Numerals are actual numbers. They show the math function, and thus no one has reason to believe that the declaration, “This is math” was a lie, or that anyone's agenda was being served by believing that lie.
Such beliefs cause the believers of Roman Numerals to say that those “crazy people” who have no faith in the Roman Numeral system and their kooky religious terms like fast Fourier transform (FFT), Fibonacci Sequences, and calculus are just products of their ignorance... this sounding familiar?
Do you get the idea?
And so we return to ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD.
In the comments below I'll go step-by-step through the very base principles your beliefs have made you blind to. Unlike any other time in history, we all have the wealth of human knowledge at our fingertips. The ONLY weapon that those who work against your interests possess, is your ignorance. Belief is what gives ignorance VALUE to them.
Ignorance serves those working against your interests.
The people who sell you these FRAUDS are so effective because they truly believe in them, and of course that belief serves another unseen agenda...
...because the people that mean you harm, don't actually know you. It's not personal. You're a cow to be herded, because THEY took the time to learn things YOU didn't.
And to the adults with imaginary friends, I dare say you attribute every “good” quality in you to that imaginary friend; and all the bad qualities in you, you attribute to yourself, because you're “a horrible wretched sinner” that needs “forgiving” for some unknown crime called “sin”.
There really are people that laugh at the fact that immorality is sold as morality. It gives them comfort that in 2013, declaring that you're an adult with an imaginary friend is not only “normal”, but is in fact a prerequisite for becoming President of the United States.
I'm told that Governor of Alaska is another possibility too.
I'm still trying to figure out why stating the truth is “ego”. It is always the first motivator that I'm accused of. I suspect it's loosely connected to the other strange belief that people's hurt feelings make my position wrong; and if they're Christian they seem to think some sort of harm should come to me as a result. They counter this vile thought with some empty expression of “love”, because Love hasn't been diminished by belief enough!
You have to see things from my perspective as well. When you declare that you're “offended”, there's an automatic process that I programmed, with intent in my head, and it routes all data from that point on, to the same place in my head that I route whining. For, in the end, when you say that you're offended, you should just presume that my response is, “So what?” You're whining, but it does not change what I said, or diminish its truth in any way. Hurt feelings does not actually refute the point.
All that being said, I request you, friends, comrades, brothers, sisters, to try to keep the banter to a minimum; and I know I'm as guilty as you are for this...
I've had a good stern talk with myself on the subject regarding this thread.
I am going to go through this whole document of THE ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD. We're going to play “Biology Class” with this piece of LEGAL BULLSHIT.
I am going to put this fake “living document” (powered by “Belief”) on the stainless steel table, and while it cries out for mercy, I shall carve out its entrails, piece-by-piece. And we shall examine these entrails while it writhes in pain.
And then we'll toss away those pieces because they don't survive the light of understanding. At the end of our little legal biology class, with two goals accomplished, you will see the ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD for what it is, and I will have given it the slow and painful execution it so richly deserves.

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW August 21, 2014 at 10:59am]
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:49 am


ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED on 24 February 2013 · in THE TENDER FOR LAW: ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD (OPPF) Part TWO: The UCC for Idiots (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
As promised, I am now going to cover the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (or UCC, for you idiots who type with your thumbs.)
FUCK! Myths about THIS shit, sure has “done the rounds”, hasn't it? No more myths have been generated, out of a piece of regulation, than the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE!
The dumbed-down, but very accurate, explanation is that the UCC is a standardized LEGAL mechanism, to resolve disputes in commerce, where such commerce utilizes the world reserve currency.
At the moment, the world reserve currency is the US DOLLAR. This doesn't mean it's American law, but it most certainly covers the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and all the US shores and waterways.
If you watched Money as Debt III, you saw a brief explanation as to WHY gold became a world currency. It was universally accepted, around the world.
The UCC provides this very same function by being the very LAW you TENDERED when you used the US DOLLAR. This effectively means the UCC covers the UNITED STATES and any JURISDICTIONS, real or implied, which can and/or do use the US DOLLAR.
In order to make use of the UCC, you must either be in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and/or in one of the waters, shores or tributaries of the UNITED STATES, and/or conducting business in US DOLLARS.
I, for one, love the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. If you have a fleet of ships and you do business in AMERICAN DOLLARS, and don't have any debt, you're pretty much as free as a human being can get in 2013.
If there is anyone that says the UCC is anything else, they are, in fact, lying to you. The purpose behind the UCC is to have COMMON INTERNATIONAL LAW regarding COMMERCE. ABOVE ALL;ITS DEFAULT ROLE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!
...idiots. (Yes, as a matter of fact I DO have to say that! FUCK OFF!)
The UCC allows certain presumptions regarding accounting that would simply be impractical in a corporate environment. The fact that roles are clearly defined, and MARITIME ADMIRALTY LAW is heavily integrated, makes owning a ship, or even better, a fleet of ships, a very liberating idea, for the UCC protects you. The UCC guarantees that other users of THE TENDER FOR LAW that offered this JURISDICTION, will protect your interests by presumption.
This whole “Dean arrest thing” has distracted me from my larger goal, and now I have to stop and dumb things down. I certainly hope my explanation of the UCC is clear enough.
Now ponder how stupid a CLAIM against such “constructs” actually is.OK, you know what?'re all too stupid...I'm going to have to explain it.
Let's cover a few fundamentals. I'll try not to use large words so the “BELIEVERS” won't get confused.
A human that is registered with the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON.
A human, and that stripper they fucked last year and has since squirted out a NEW human, and THEREFORE, said NEW human is registered with the NON-PERSON GOVERNMENT ...IS A PERSON. (That's what you get for fucking strippers)
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD poses as a “TRUST”. A TRUST cannot make a CLAIM. Only a PERSON can make a CLAIM.
The GRANTORS of the TRUST have NO STANDING to make a CLAIM once the TRUST is commissioned. They have no more power to do so than the guy, whose signature is on a Ten Dollar bill, has the AUTHORITY to tell you how to spend it.
ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, and their ilk, will happily talk as EXPERTS on the UCC, and I'm pretty sure NONE of them has actually used the UCC.
So, let's do a side-by-side comparison as to who is more qualified to speak on this subject:
I, unlike OPPF and “FREELOADERS-ON-THE-LAND”, have actual VALUE. As I type this the general consensus of the LEGAL AND BANKING SYSTEM says that I can, without question, UNDERWRITE half a Billion Dollar's worth of BONDS converted to MONEY OF EXCHANGE. Think about that. On a whim, I could inject half a Billion Dollars into the economy. This means that unless you use those dollars to purchase my value, the entire net worth of the country will drop by half a Billion Dollars.
If you think it's frightening that one privileged man wields the power to do this sort of thing, pat yourself on the back because that is the proper response. Ethics is the only thing that stops me from doing that. But that doesn't really help much in COMMERCE. An ethical guy with a gun, in the end, is still just a guy with a gun....
….Enter the UCC.
The UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE in COMMERCE, only recognizes whatever currency is the world reserve currency. This of course is the US DOLLAR. This means that every other currency touched by the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND is simply “acting” as a US DOLLAR (or part thereof).Muammar Gaddafi was wiped off the face of the earth, because he dared point out that the world's currencies are propping-up the dead, hollowed-out carcass that is the UNITED STATES. He raised the point that, according to the little, green book that got him into office, He was pretty sure that LIBYA'S economic wealth was to go to its people.
I hear people stating that the war on LIBYA was ILLEGAL. Sadly it wasn't. The UCC made it perfectly LEGAL.
LAW IS A TRUST. According to the TRUST, Gaddafi's attempt to change the currency was a BREACH OF THAT TRUST.
THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE can be viewed as the grand, de facto law that exists where no other de facto law exists.
Therefore according to IMF TREATIES, if there's no law at a particular place, the UCC is DEEMED to be the de facto law.
You will notice that there is nothing to LIEN or FORECLOSE ON in the UCC. UCC is a “legal traffic cop”, directing traffic to its appropriate JURISDICTION.
Treating a TRUST like a PERSON makes any further documents produced as a result, FRAUD. Such documents are OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT.
In short, ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD is, by its very nature, based on an ILLEGAL concept.
...but that's not the worst of it. UCC, like any OTHER TRUST is based on CONSENT. Let's look into LEGAL UTOPIA! We needn't bother with silly things like consent. IT'S LEGAL PARADISE! First we must get into the right “headspace”.
Since all of you like to form uninformed opinions of me, and what a bad man I am, I'll put this next scenario in the context of “me”, because your self-created loathing of me will allow you to accept this concept, in your empty little heads.
SO, Imagine if you will that I, the KEEPER OF THE AQUILAE TRUST, decided that I wanted to do something FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, because you're too stupid to do it yourself. With the arrogant presumption that I even have STANDING to do so, I, without your CONSENT, make a DECLARATION that you get a “chunk of the world's wealth”; and to ENFORCE that I drafted some AWESOME LAWS, as I do not “believe” (belief is the only thing that would cause a rational human being to think this way) you are capable of managing your own affairs...
...hey wait, this is starting to sound familiar. But I'm not like the GOVERNMENT, I know what's best for you! I'm just here to help; and anybody who doesn't want that help is clearly a “hater”, and are jealous... maybe even criminals and psychopaths. Why, anybody who doesn't want my help is mentally ill. That's safe to say! In fact, I'd better amend my awesome laws so that I may lovingly and humanely dispose of these mentally ill.
Got the picture?
Now just replace “me” with those “three guys” in ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD, and that is what is being sold to you. I cannot make this any clearer.
I have just explained what the UCC is. If you think it's anything else, you're “making shit up”.
I use the UCC daily. AQUILAE has points-of-presence in CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE, SCOTLAND and ICELAND. So anybody who dares say they know more about the UCC is publicly declaring that I am LEGALLY INCOMPETENT TO MANAGE A TRUST, which is DEFAMATORY; and I deal with that in MY JURISDICTION, and there's a nice “legal traffic cop” that says I can. People who want to continue spreading bullshit may find themselves on my “LEGAL AUTOPSY TABLE” where they are used as a live example...
...Because ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD has a lot more than the UCC. I could show mercy right now and let this FRAUD die as it is; and even though I made some grandiose promises about this document's horrible fate, I remind you all that mercy is the mark of a GREAT MAN!
...The problem is, I'm just a GOOD man.
In my next major post I shall cover the procedural FRAUD within the TRUST itself as laid-out in its CHARTER DOCUMENTS.
Watch how it writhes in pain. * maniacal giggling is permitted *Note: Since this was written, the fraud was exposed and is now effectively dead. My work is done.

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW August 21, 2014 at 11:18am]
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:54 am

THE TENDER FOR LAW: "OH, SAY CAN'T YOU SEE? - A Primer on Citizenship"

THE TENDER FOR LAW: "OH, SAY CAN'T YOU SEE? - A Primer on Citizenship" (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
In one of our many lively discussions, on the many lively forums that my captains and I chat in and/or frequent, the erstwhile Captain Wentz revealed a small but interesting factoid that surprised a few people; He pointed out that from 1992 to 2002, he was in fact, the Admiral of the AQUILAE Navy. I spent most of those years as a specialist and/or non-commissioned officer. That's right, for a while I was "Scotty" in the engine room. The reason I'm not doing it today (despite how much I enjoyed it), is that I don't think I could endure everyone who meets me, making a "Scotty in the engine room joke", followed by a strange smug demeanour, like he/she was the first one to ever come up with a "Scotty in the fucking Engine Room" joke.
Sometimes I make life-altering decisions based on shit like that.
I can do what I want! ...go fuck yourself!
I digress...
So, yes it's true, Captain Wentz was once Admiral Wentz, and I used to call him "sir" in the JURISDICTION. World circumstances changed. All of AQUILAE unanimously agreed that Admiral Wentz was an Admiral of Peace and Knowledge. For the TRUST to survive AQUILAE needed an Admiral of WAR and Knowledge...
...and so the role was bestowed upon me. Dan himself said of the switch, "He's a monster, but he's proven time and time again, that he is a good monster, and that's what we need in days to come". Who am I to disagree with such wise words?
When ratified with AQUILAE you swear to a covenant. The TRUST has a primary mandate, but also imposes duties, obligations, and UNDERTAKINGS to the TRUSTEES. This is, in fact, the core of a CONVICTION. If you have not read THE TENDER FOR LAW article, "My Belief is my Conviction" you should probably do it now. "Skipping to the end" won't help you in THE TENDER FOR LAW. Many are forced to be guests of HER MAJESTY because they did that. Which nicely segues into...
This will be the final TENDER FOR LAW article posted on FACEBOOK. All further articles will be published on Site members are welcome to repost articles here. Tara and I have been publicly posting to FaceBook for two years. I think that's more than enough.
Collectively you are mostly failures doomed to be victimized by strangers claiming "authority". Even the "smartest" among you, are too stupid to break free. Example: Dean Clifford approached us to be ratified into the AQUILAE TRUST. He knew we were onto something. HE CAME TO US. NEVER forget that. He fulfilled none of his UNDERTAKINGS, as small as they were, and I fulfilled all of mine. That "negative accounting" has occurred far too many times. I'm done. I've done my bit for 'Queen and Country' and my little venture to collapse the banking system and start a war is starting to become unwieldy to manage. My little empire requires a little more of my attention. Don't worry though, all of you will be able to use your FaceBook membership to sign-up and/or log in. This only applies to TENDER FOR LAW members. The general public is "shit-out-of-luck".
Members of the new site may "invite" as many people as they like. We will have a public set of rules that's sure to make FREE-DUMBERS cry. We'll even give people the option to pay 'money' to join. They will of course be assigned the absolute lowest rank on the site, which is of course, CITIZEN. (*YOU! CITIZEN! Pick up that can*) [That was totally an awesome Half Life 2 reference, lame-ass!]
Why is CITIZEN the lowest rank? Is it some arbitrary rule I just made up? Am I "arrogantly stroking my ego" by making CITIZENSHIP a demeaning term? FREE-DUMBERS and Christians would like to think so, but here in reality I'm afraid it's very accurate.
Those who have been following my writings over the past two years in this particular medium, have learned what money is, and have learned that the foundation of the LEGAL MATRIX is SURETY AND ACCOUNTING. This means everything "LEGAL" can be reduced to these two things; SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.
You've learned that government, and lawyers do not speak the common language of the Angols (English), but rather a bastardized "fork" of English commonly referred to as "LEGALESE".
In your lessons about SURETY and ACCOUNTING you learned that legally you are NOT a PERSON. You HAVE a PERSON and you are PRESUMED to be SURETY for that PERSON.
You've learned what money is, and that there are two kinds of money; MONEY OF ACCOUNT (created from debt) and MONEY OF EXCHANGE (LEGAL TENDER/debt-in-transit, where you are only the beneficiary.), and that MONEY OF ACCOUNT directly competes with MONEY OF EXCHANGE, AND IS WHAT MAKES UP 95% OF ALL MONEY.
You've learned about the LEGALESE term "JOINDER" and the SURETY-dodging "AGENCY" concept, showing you how the worst parts of the government do what they do.
Above all you learned that there is a viable alternative, and possibly that nobody likes the people who actually get shit done. It's time to get some shit done. Government is NOT going to like us for this, so we have to prepare. I'm not going to publish how to prepare on FACEBOOK.
Here's what we WILL say:
Most of you don't know that we have several "puppet" corporations operating in LEGAL JURISDICTION as well as on the block chain-based economies. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for (which you don't), there is absolutely no connection to myself or Tara. We control all of it at the microscopic level - make no mistake. In fact I'm so sure these companies are so well hidden in plain sight, I will actually answer honestly if you guess right. How's that for arrogant? That should take a few infiltrators a few weeks of searching, until they give up in frustration. While you are building, NEVER let them take you seriously. I cannot stress that enough!
...but I digress.
Stepping out of my arrogant little empire, let's travel to the other side of the planet. Throughout the Third World famine is a daily occurrence. Over a billion people don't have access to clean water. At the mercy of the elements, the more aggressive seize all the resources, and the majority starves. Disease and famine are still very real things in 2014. When the least ethical/most aggressive get organized, life becomes hell for anyone who doesn't work for the government. There's no shortage of examples.
In this example we're going to use the Phillipines. The majority of the population survives below subsistence living; a near-theocracy dominated by the Catholic church is clashing with violent, organized, Muslims called "MILF".
...No really, look it up []. I put a Wikipedia link, because if you google "MILF", you'll find "Moro Islamic Liberation Front", right after the 30 pages of 40 year-old women doing porn, which is hysterical on so many levels that would upset a Muslim. The only better irony would be a Muslim MILF who was also a member of The "MILF". If that were to happen I feel I must make it mandatory for all male AQUILAE officers and/or crew to jerk off to the "MILF MILF" at least once a week. Possibly posting a video of it...
I digress...
The average Phillipino just wants to make sure his family is fed and have a roof over their heads. They have little interest in the larger issues, or even the violent clashes between religions occurring around them. Eventually he ends up in the center of the fighting and he flees his home. Through connections of his family he manages to take what little he has by getting passage on a vessel bound for CANADA. On CANADA's shores he is met by Customs and promptly claims "Refugee Status". Most refugee CLAIMS, especially from that region, are almost always accepted, as they should be. Here in reality, this refugee is protecting his life and his family from violent adults with imaginary friends. To turn someone away who is in need of shelter, is the basest of evil. You contribute to harming a stranger who deserves no harm. Their circumstances were none of their doing, and so (at least so far), we have had a compassionate refugee POLICY in CANADA.
Urban areas such as Cebu and Manila don't see any of the violence, but they are aware of it through news sources and family networks. In our hypothetical refugee scenario, our protagonist suddenly finds himself in a position that many Phillipinos are trying very hard to attain. They want to work in CANADA where our minimum wage is actually a fortune in the Phillipines. Many Phillipino women come to CANADA as nannies and/or caregivers, usually privately employed or through agency. As their entire lives tend to revolve around work, most of their wages are sent home to their families. Anything beyond "basic needs" is too expensive anyway, and the buying power of the dollar is higher "back home".
In both scenarios, the protagonists, if successful in their ventures, will both eventually have the same goal; CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP.
Let's return to the base mechanics of the LEGAL MATRIX; SURETY and ACCOUNTING.
Though this is the base of all that is "LEGAL" there is a lower, more fundamental mechanism in play; What is created, by its very nature, cannot be greater than its creator. I am almost certain that the exception to this rule is computer science. It is the ANSWER TO EVERYTHING after all! That said, Pieces of paper are not "greater than you" in ANY scale. THAT is the lie that "LEGAL" sells though!
This applies to ALL that is LEGAL. No matter how hard you try you cannot create a piece of paper that's greater than you. This very obvious and fundamental truth is deliberately obscured from childhood. From the moment you are capable of understanding speech, no matter where you are in the world, there will be some ass-hat with an imaginary friend trying to convince you that his book of bound pieces of paper are "greater than you". If you think this sounds ridiculous just look at the violent reaction that will occur if you burn a Qu'ran. These people who would inflict violence on you, truly BELIEVE you burnt pieces of paper that are "greater than you". Let that sink in. It doesn't matter how much you believe, or how violent you get about it, or even if society turns a blind eye to that violence in the name of "Community Cohesion"; no piece of paper with scribblings on it is "GREATER THAN YOU". All "LAW" and government operate on the presumption that they are "greater than you", and so are their "LEGAL" documents, and if you mention that this idea is absurd, you will be "punished". This of course does not survive the reality test for even a nanosecond; therefore they need CONSENT and they need your "UNDERSTANDING".
If you APPLY for CITIZENSHIP you are effectively begging for something from the government. They'll make you jump through a bunch of hoops to make sure you're serious, but in the end a JUSTICE will ACCEPT your OATH and ATTORN you to the LAW SOCIETY. It's his RIGHT to do so because you figuratively and literally "Asked for it". You even signed a piece of paper and gave them your picture for your CITIZENSHIP card, which you are now obligated to update every five years.
I, on the other hand, am fifth-generation Canadian, of Scottish descent. I am automatically GRANTED CITIZENSHIP because I was born here. I don't have to APPLY, beg or swear to anything. Apparently my CITIZENSHIP is PRESUMED.
But I can't help noticing how my CITIZENSHIP seems different than the CITIZENSHIP a hard-working and determined immigrant struggles so hard to attain. When the Charter was ratified in 1982, and we got a receipt for the UK CANADA ACT called THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, which effectively converted CITIZENS into GOVERNMENT AGENTS. You cannot be EMPLOYED in CANADA without a Slave Identification Number (SIN). Did I just say that? I meant the much more reassuring and/or warm-and-fuzzy "Social Insurance Number"! I don't know why I said that! I don't mean to imply and/or infer that GOVERNMENT AGENTS are "slaves", I mean to implicitly and/or explicitly say that GOVERNMENT AGENTS are pieces of garbage who PRESUME they are superior because a piece of paper says so.
That's the FRAUD that is GOVERNMENT.
When you APPLY for CITIZENSHIP it's not disclosed to you that you are APPLYING to be an AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT. If you are GRANTED CITIZENSHIP by birth, try asking the GOVERNMENT for YOUR CITIZENSHIP card. They'll try to tell you that you don't need it, and you should reply that you WANT one. They still haven't lied to you, but after saying that you want one, they will start accusing you of "abusing PROCESS", or some other bullshit so they don't have to comply. They'll say your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is PROOF of CITIZENSHIP, but a CITIZENSHIP card looks official and has your picture on it.
Why don't they want you to have a cool-looking CITIZENSHIP card with your picture on it? How come the immigrants get a cool card, and we don't? You'll know you've trapped them when they ask if YOU have a Social Insurance Number. Just because you're a CITIZEN doesn't mean you have a Social Insurance Number, and the government is NOT allowed to PRESUME it. The GOVERNMENT will tell you that the only parties LEGALLY ALLOWED to ask you for your SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER are employers (after hiring), Banks/Trust Companies, and the CANADA REVENUE AGENCY. Notice that GOVERNMENT is not in that list. This is an account number in an ORGANIZATION of AGENTS, and the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INTERFERE with its AGENTS. It can't. It's a piece of paper, just like ALL GOVERNMENTS are just a piece of paper. A CHARTER/CONSTITUTION is the FOUNDATION DOCUMENT for an ORGANIZATION, just like your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the FOUNDATION DOCUMENT for your LEGAL NAME (Crown Organization).
All of GOVERNMENT is an ORGANIZATION that EXECUTES POLICY through AGENCY. The GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PERSON. LEGALLY the GOVERNMENT is RECOGNIZED as a "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL" which reveals the FRAUD of the courts. A "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL" has no SURETY because a "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL" is, by its very nature, an AGENT. It is PRESUMED you are a GOVERNMENT AGENT with AUTHORITY to ACT as SURETY for the PERSON. This means that as a GOVERNMENT AGENT you have volunteered to pay some PUBLIC DEBT. As far as the "LEGAL PERSON" is concerned, you are now responsible for that PUBLIC DEBT (SURETY); the LEGAL MATRIX says so. However, in the sinister realm of LEGALESE, the burden is "BELIEF" and PRESUMPTION. Some of you may have guessed over these past two years that I have a nice, healthy contempt for both.
I know from personal experience that the GOVERNMENT NEVER keeps their promises, EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT IN WRITING. As INSURANCE, in 1982 I PUBLICY RESIGNED from GOVERNMENT SERVICE as part of my TRUST obligations; as did every other PARTY who COMMISSIONED the AQUILAE TRUST. This means my only possible interaction with the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA and/or its PROVINCES (ADMINISTRATIVE ZONES) that I can possibly have is through TENDER and/or CONTRACT; just like the GOVERNMENT TENDERS CITIZENSHIP and you CONTRACT to become a CITIZEN (JOINDER).
If you're ever asked by a "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL" if you are a CITIZEN, they don't want you to "PROVE" you are a CITIZEN; they want you to ADMIT you're a CITIZEN. And a CITIZENSHIP card with your smiling mug on it, is PROOF of what you have admitted. Your PERSON is GUILTY of breaking the rules of CITIZENSHIP. When you APPLY for CITIZENSHIP, you are begging for JOINDER. If you APPLY for CITIZENSHIP, and it's a LEGAL TITLE, then by default you are literally APPLYING to pay PUBLIC DEBT.
I FORMALLY RESIGNED from GOVERNMENT SERVICE in 1982 which means it is both ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL to PRESUME that I, and/or my PERSON, am a CITIZEN. They can no longer PRESUME I am a CITIZEN because of my place of birth. I can produce to any GOVERNMENT officials who ask, PROOF of this CLAIM, removing any and all PRESUMPTION. This also means they cannot PRESUME JOINDER.
My contempt for the FREE-DUMBERS is not exactly a "State Secret". People presume because of my openly-hostile stance toward GOVERNMENT and their PRESUMED CONTRACTS, that I must agree with the FREE-DUMBERS, and I MOST CERTAINLY DON'T. Every single FREE-DUMBER I have had the misfortune of meeting, has always turned out to be a different version of duplicitous FRAUD.
If you have a SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER and are "UNEMPLOYED", and you intend to resign from GOVERNMENT SERVICE, I strongly recommend the following ACCOUNTING; using all your Income Tax Returns calculate a lifetime projection of earnings as accurately as you can, presuming a life span of 75 years. Since the GOVERNMENT doesn't have any more RIGHTS than you do, and you are acting in good faith, you also don't want to do anything "ILLEGAL" and/or "UNLAWFUL". Since we're dealing with MONEY OF ACCOUNT here, you must abide for the TENDER FOR LAW that money provides (even if the GOVERNMENT doesn't), but this kind of works in your favour. As of 2002, banks can fractionally reserve 32 times the principal! This means you should do the same. Calculate your lifetime earnings, multiply it by 32 (be sure to cite the ACTS and STATUTES relied upon, because as you're drafting your formal resignation you are still and AGENT of HER MAJESTY, and therefore it is paramount you remain LEGAL), and LIEN your SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER and BIRTH CERTIFICATE for that amount, citing "FORMAL RESIGNATION" on the LIEN. This renders these accounts unusable and ACTS as PUBLIC RECORD for your RESIGNATION (PROOF).
Let's return to that base mechanism because it's very, very important.
You cannot create something that's greater than its creator. In no real, measurable way, is a piece of paper with scribblings on it "greater" than you. With the possible exception of computer science, you cannot create something "greater than you". This is a fundamental TRUTH and does not suddenly evaporate when it comes to CITIZENSHIP. It is codified slavery, resulting from codified feudalism, which all of your parents in CANADA cheered for in 1982. Which brings us to what is possibly the greatest segue in the history of THE TENDER FOR LAW...
As I publish this I would like to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE the AQUILAE Navy's LEGAL WIKI:
Those who have technical sleuthing abilities will note that this domain was registered on the day I met Dean Clifford, which means by default, the LEGAL library which is all but guaranteed to become your only "go-to LEGAL reference" will also serve as a PUBLIC RECORD of when that event occurred. Dean Clifford sat in my living room and watched me REGISTER it. It marked the event. It wasn't FOR him though; It was for those witnessing. The plan was for this to be the FREE MAN'S "CANLII", and function as a DIRECT assault on the Law Society who dares claim ownership of YOU. that's the announcement. (*APPLAUSE*) All of this will go live November 23rd 2014. Yes. The anniversary of Dean Clifford's Arrest, (which we, affectionately call "Operation:R.O.P.E.-a-DOPE") because I want EVERYONE paying attention to how Dean is connected to all of this, and the things you've seen so far, will be put into context.
...but I digress.
Let's go back to a previous article, wherein I covered the concept of an ORGANIZATION. That's what your birth certificate is! It is a record (and CERTIFICATION) of A CROWN ORGANIZATION BEING ORGANIZED. (HER MAJESTY and an ORGANIZATION) When you USE this ORGANIZATION, you are by default, ACTING as HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION...
...but only if you are born here. If you APPLY, you are being ASSIMILATED, and there IS NO ORGANIZATION! YOU ARE JOINING an ORGANIZATION! You are NOT causing that organization TO BE ORGANIZED. In short; when you APPLY for CITIZENSHIP, you are APPLYING TO PAY PUBLIC DEBT. Nothing needs to be ORGANIZED because you are, in fact, a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. They just don't tell you that part. It's always been there, though. SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. READ THOSE WORDS! NOW DO IT AGAIN. ACTUALLY READ THEM applying what you have learned. You will see that NOTHING has changed in CENTURIES. That's why a FIRST CLASS CITIZEN (I was here first.) cannot get a groovy "official citizenship" card, like a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN can.
To summarize: If you are BORN IN CANADA, a RECORD of a CROWN ORGANIZATION BEING ORGANIZED is created, and a CITIZENSHIP IS AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED.If you COME to CANADA and APPLY for CITIZENSHIP, you are JOINING an EXISTING CROWN ORGANIZATION. This distinction will be VERY important in the future. Just remember that a CITIZEN is a CITIZEN. First or Second Class, doesn't really matter. It's still indentured slavery either way. The key is to focus on CROWN ORGANIZATIONS. I'll say it again (because you're stupid); The key is CROWN ORGANIZATIONS. As an interesting note: Birth Certificates NO LONGER WARN YOU NOT TO USE IT AS ID, have ONLY ONE signature, and have reference to it being a "FOUNDATION DOCUMENT", as if that constitutes "notice" of the same thing as was once there.
ALL of these things are PIECES OF FUCKING PAPER! ALL OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON; THEY ALL HAVE THE PRESUMPTION OF BEING "GREATER THAN YOU", BECAUSE YOU CONSENTED FOR THIS ABSURDITY TO BE SO. You are taught from childhood that pieces of paper with scribblings on them, have some sort of magic "authority" that makes them greater than its creator, and therefore "greater" than YOU. If you point out this absurdity, people call you "criminal" even though you haven't actually harmed anyone. This too was PROGRAMMED INTO YOU. Somebody PAID to make this a reality. That is how you "prove" government is hostile. Follow the money. Find who pays. More often than not, it's the CITIZEN. You pay for your own slave chains.
Since the LAW SOCIETY gets to change the meaning of words, and we are all supposedly "equal under the law", I claim the right to do the same thing. Maybe it will end up in Pete's Law Dictionary!
CITIZEN (n.): a) An INDIVIDUAL who revels in their own ignorance.
b) A GOVERNMENT AGENT who thinks they are "greater" than you.
Why would you APPLY(beg) for such a thing?

[By: Scott Duncan originally posted on Scott Duncan to THE TENDER FOR LAW September 15, 2014 at 3:03pm]
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:17 pm

Hate Speech

FEB 8, 2017, 1:20:16 AM

The title of this article is not just a title, it's intent. By intent, I mean that I intend to make this article qualify as "hate speech" according to every Western Law on the books. That's right, I intend to commit the "crime" of "hate speech".

"Hate speech" is one of the invented crimes of the 1970's. It is one of the many LEGAL mechanisms used to suspend your critical thought. Legally, "hate speech" is defined, but "hate" itself is not legally defined. There's a reason for this. If "hate" were legally defined, even the most dull-witted reader would realize that any legislation that bore this definition, would literally be criminalizing an emotion.

Often what is branded "hate", on further examination is merely just offense. It OFFENDS me that the black community is literally a caricature of itself, who seem hell-bent on convincing the world that stereotypes exist because they're true; and I "hate" all the damage it causes.

I am OFFENDED by the Jewish community, who through AGENCY commit the most reprehensible crimes against society, and then play the victim. I "hate" all the damage it causes.

I am OFFENDED that the Islamic community takes a page from the Jewish playbook and tries to sell their evil, ignorant, mysoginistic ideology as being a "race". I "hate" all the damage that it causes.

I "hate" that a bunch of strangers have decided that certain words can't be spoken. Let's take the word "nigger" for example. It may surprise people living in North America to learn that the word "nigger" has absolutely no context outside of North America. It has no de facto "racism", and is regarded more as a "silly" word as opposed to "hate" speech. If I were to make a post on Facebook, called "I Hate Niggers" or "I Hate Jews", my account would be suspended for yet another thirty days for "hate speech". I find this OFFENSIVE.

My parents sold me to an obscene government program. For that crime (and it was a crime for which all participants would be serving 20 years to life, were they to attempt it nowadays - the 1970's were fucked up don't let anyone tell you different) my parents have earned my justifiable "hatred". I could put a bullet in my mother, and feel nothing but the self-righteous satisfaction that I've made the world a better place. I mention this, because I want you, the reader, to be sure of my qualifications when I declare that I know what it is to hate.

Here's the irony. From the Federal level to the Terms of Service on Facebook, you will find no ACT, CODE, STATUTE, REGULATION, RULE or POLICY that in any way impedes my ability to say "I hate my parents". I can write paragraph after paragraph, with the intent to foster hatred and contempt for my parents, in the general public. In fact, I may even endorse a reader killing them, two distinctly identifiable parties, and I will not be charged with "hate speech".

So why does this imaginary "crime" exist? Because in the past two decades, every Western Nation managed to criminalize a human emotion. You people have actually gotten to the point, where killing somebody is somehow less of a crime, than killing somebody because of their skin colour, or their evil culture. So why do it? Why do these laws exist? Is it to "protect the minorities"? Because if you look at the world population, the northern countries are the last bastion of "white people". White people are the minority, and they have been for some time. Are these identifiable groups so weak and ignorant and incapable, that we need a government gang enforcing how we speak? Every lawyer you speak to considers this concept "legally sound", because that's the big lie of the Law Society. They've convinced the world that LEGAL and right are synonymous. This is programmed into you from childhood, although it's a lie fewer people are believing any more.

When one of these programs exists, somebody, usually a church or a Law Society, benefits directly and/or indirectly. It also costs them a shit-load of money to do it. So let's look at the cause and effect of "hate speech", and all the other imaginary "hate crimes". This is something everyone should pay attention to, because as we speak, Europe is being ripped apart from the inside. Their "hate crime" laws have had members of parliament criminally charged. The problem with "hate crime" laws is that truth is not a defence, and it's not even allowed in your defence. The Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, found this out the hard way. These laws get put into place quietly, or in the middle of civil disruption, for the sole purpose of removing your rights. Geert Wilders, a man who was literally part of the law-making process, was quite surprised to find out that basic rights such as "Truth is a defence", had been removed from the general population by a gang of banker's lawyers claiming "AUTHORITY".

Here's the other problem with "hate" crime. If you criminalize speech, those with the motivation to speak these "criminal words" do so behind closed doors. And, whenever I bring a "Hitler" reference into one of my articles, it's actually relevant, because the world's first "hate speech" laws appeared in Germany in the 1920's. "Hate speech" laws are right out of the Communist Manifesto. Regulating what people say, criminalizing what people feel, sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

This is just a vanguard policy. Canada still has a couple of blasphemy and witchcraft laws that Muslim communities would gladly bring back to life.

I tell you this now, so it isn't used against you later; because "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are lies sold as fact. It's no different than a church selling "faith" and "belief" as being equal to trust and understanding. They reward you for accepting these lies and make it "easier". Truth and understanding are a lot harder to attain, than faith and belief. One requires work, the other doesn't. Your owners know this and will leverage it at every opportunity. Most of you read what I have to say, because I'm in a unique position to tell the truth. It serves my agenda to do so. You are the beneficiary of my work, and your owners mean to take that benefit away from you.

I can't be the only one who has noticed the ugly trend that opposing absolute bullshit and nonsense, will earn you the label of "hater". I have no control over the labels that gangs of strangers choose to apply to me on any given week. So this "hater" one, I'm going to own.

Hate is why you know who I am. Hate is why you can rely on me telling the truth. Hate is what caused me to do the amazing things that I did. Hate sustained me through the darkest of times. I dare say hate allowed me to change the world. I have hate. I have love. I have every emotion you do; and I dare say I experience them more honestly than you do. Hate is not a bad thing. Hate is part of the book-keeping system that motivates all of us. Hate creates an automated and self-maintaining accounting system for justice, and if managed correctly and honestly, can change the conditions of the test.

It sounds ridiculous when you read it, but I have to ask. If you think it's reasonable to criminalize one emotion, where do you draw the line? Are you going to regulate love as well? How about jealousy, envy, greed, lust...I've got lots of those.

These things that I point to have already happened, and there's nothing you can do about it. Through your own self-imposed ignorance and apathy, your rights are slowly being taken away. Instead of making up retarded terms like, "hater", ask yourself why you think this idiotic concept is rational. Would you have thought "hater" was a rational concept twenty years ago? For, let me assure you as the only man who has ever told you the truth, that society is not more "enlightened", and you haven't gained any magical insight that your parents and grandparents lack. It's just that the people manipulating you got better at what they did, and have a far larger reach thanks to science and technology; which of course will be immediately attacked thanks to Donald Trump and his idiot whack-job VP.

Your owners pushed too hard south of the border, and Donald Trump is the "Plan B" should the populace decide that they don't like being accused of "hate speech" or being accused of being "racist" for daring to speak the truth.

This is the inevitable result when you "criminalize" an emotion. Hate, like respect, is often earned; but with our PC culture protecting our precious snow-flakes from the perils of "hate speech" respect is now supposed to be presumed, and not earned. The term, "disrespect", has the same imaginary crime status as "hate speech", and this is simply for the "crime" of refusing to grant respect that wasn't earned.

All of this, "bad is good", "black is white" social engineering comes at a price, and it has an expiry date. So let me do everything that Canada's "hate speech" laws say is an OFFENCE, and recall how OFFENDED I was in earlier paragraphs, because I'm showing you a part of the LEGAL MATRIX here.

Since this is technically an article attached to THE TENDER FOR LAW, it's important that I remind you of the RULES. If I am discussing anything to do with SURETY and ACCOUNTING (LEGAL), words that I write in CAPS are words for which you should look up the LEGAL definition. Today's LEGAL word is OFFENCE.

OFFENCE: A crime; an act which contravenes the criminal law of the state in which it occurs.

Spelled offence in many jurisdictions.

In R. v M., Judge Karswick of the Ontario Provincial Court adopted these words to define offence:

"(T)he word offence has evolved to define a concept which involves the prohibition of some definable conduct by the State and the imposition of some definable punishment for failure to comply with the duty imposed.

"... an act contrary to, offending against, and punishable by, law, but particularly one made to by statute rather than by common law, the latter being usually called crimes, and also particularly one punishable on summary conviction."

In case you were wondering, this is why being "offended" makes you LEGALLY a special cupcake snowflake in need of protection. As you can see from the above quotation, CASE LAW, and OFFENCE is essentially a codeified process for specific conduct. Its initial intent was for actual crimes where there was an INJURED PARTY. In LEGAL PROCESS if someone states they are OFFENDED, they are CLAIMING a crime has occurred. This made the original intent of codified OFFENCES vulnerable to ever-broadening definitions of what constituted "OFFENCE", and therefore a crime. Keep in mind that these "LAWS" are created by GOVERNMENT workers. People who work for the GOVERNMENT because they have no value and aren't wanted in the real world. These are the people who are deciding that what you say, think and feel, are crimes, while actual crimes are excused with insulting concepts like "cultural relativism". Google that! Once you've absorbed what an absurd idea that is, know that it is POLICY throughout the European Union.

As I write this, today, I could theoretically be charged with a crime, for daring to say something like, "I hate niggers", or "I hate Jews". Let that sink in. I could be criminally charged simply for discussing this issue in the manner that I do. That's not the most frightening part. The most frightening part is that a sizeable portion of the population is OK with this. There's no actual INJURED PARTY in these "crimes", but they have made it a crime to say, "I hate niggers". Corporate political correctness, in a vain effort to comply, follows suit. Facebook itself has automated censorship. That's why I post on Chris Rock hates niggers too, BTW

If I feel any negative feelings toward people because they have a different skin colour, that's simply irrational. That doesn't give the state the right to regulate it, much less declare it "hate speech". I focus on the "nigger" aspect, not because of any imaginary "racism"; rather I focus on it to draw to your attention that "nigger" is very much a regionally-specific word. It doesn't mean anything outside of North America. If I really wanted to be "racially offensive", I would not use the word "nigger" to describe a dark-skinned man/woman of African origin. I would use the much wider accepted and globally used word, "kaffir".

I'm going to make a quote that uses this word, "kaffir", but I'm going to replace it with "nigger", because the words are literally interchangeable in their meaning and intent:

"Niggers are as a rule uncivilized; the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of being thrown into such company". - MAHATMA GANDHI

As with all men who "preach peace" it doesn't take much investigation to see their true intent. You can verify this quotation easily; in fact entire volumes of GANDHI's writing are just lousy with the word, "kaffir". Replace that word with the word, "nigger", and you will be tempted to report the aforementioned volumes as "hate speech". GANDHI was free to write these things because ridiculous, imaginary crimes like "hate speech" didn't exist. Have any of you thought what would happen if such things were criminalized? How much won't you know? How much knowledge will be taken away? How much intent will be hidden? How many "real crimes" will go unpunished because all the threats to civilization have gone underground? And in another imaginary "racist" comparison, why would the phrase "I hate Jews" implicate me in a "hate crime"? Jews have been trying to sell themselves as a "race" for as long as there have been Jews, which is why they always throw "identifiable group" into these "hate speech" laws. It doesn't matter if you're talking about stupid niggers or piece-of-shit Jews, it's "hate speech".

Notice that no Indians (South Asian Indian, not British East India Trading Company, Indian), kaffirs, niggers, Jews, or any other "identifiable group" was harmed by anything I wrote here. I even demonstrated that one of the people the politically-correct revere, is in fact, everything they claim to be fighting. It is a sad, ugly, disgusting reality that there's a mental midget reading this right now, who thinks that I have committed a "crime".

So, what if I said, "I hate Jews"? Unlike the aforementioned, "I hate niggers", there's no direct threat of violence from your average "Jew", with Israel being a notable exception. Most Jews would actually ask, "Why?" Asking that question tends to make irrational arguments sound exactly that; irrational. It also identifies you as a threat. That's why Jews have been around so long, and are so over-represented in our culture. They didn't get that far by being stupid. You would be hard-pressed to find a Jew who supports "hate speech" laws. They'll happily jail you for daring to question the official historic record of the Holocaust, but they certainly don't want "hate speech" censored. If it is, then all the "Nazis" go into hiding, and communicate/network in secret.

No matter how expansive or intrusive law and/or government get, the threats to their existence can never be purged. Ask anyone from the former Soviet Union. Censoring speech is not, and never has been, an answer. In fact, we used to make fun of other countries for having such a ridiculous idea.

Criminalizing an emotion LEGALLY negates ANY AGENCY you may have. It doesn't matter if it's a CORPORATION or the STATE. Censoring thought or speech is never, ever, the answer. It's about to become the norm.

Is THIS what my Grandfather went to war for?


Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:00 am


THE TENDER FOR LAW: ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY BY Lou Manotti (c) 2016 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
It was mentioned by a member, that the concept of ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY was not well known; so this is to clean up any misconceptions and to make a few things clear.

In order for any money to be useful, it must be ACCEPTED by all PARTIES. Since every country that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) touches is in receivership, any money created must comply with the IMF’s receivership rules. As with everything the U.S. dollar touches, the rules are designed to exploit the ignorant. For hundreds of years corporations have made their own money as a matter of course. What did you think “in-store credit” was? However, in order for money to be “LEGAL” it MUST have the following:

It must have a signature making a promise
It must have a signature endorsing that promise
It must be received by a TRUSTEE

Every document you submit for court is stamped “Received”. As you were taught, there are no homonyms in law, and there are no synonyms in law. Legally, “Received” is a banking term. The only PARTIES LEGALLY allowed to exchange this money are LAWYERS. This ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY makes up the bulk of a lawyer’s fee, and it comes directly out of your share of the CONSOLIDATED RESERVE FUND. That guy, Derek Moran (who likes to circle-jerk to ACTS, CODES and STATUTES) will likely be able to point you to where you can substantiate this; but trust me when I say, that the primary mandate of GOVERNMENT is CHARITY. If you really want to send your head for a spin, look up the LEGAL definition of “charity”. Then ask yourself why there needs to be a legal definition for a distinctly common word.

The GOVERNMENT is obligated to look after the cattle owned by the LAW SOCIETY. ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY is literally open betting with your lives. It’s all happening right in front of you, and you didn’t even see the money. This is true universally. If there are two signatures, and the TRUSTEE is MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, then that is MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MONEY. All of these are simply the trading of SECURITIES. Nothing is being traded except your future time. The money must come from somewhere, but it always ends up in the pocket of a lawyer. Their client may pay them a million dollars, but from that they’ll get another nine million in ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY. That’s why trials cost as much as they do. A wedding is harder to arrange than a court hearing, and you can do that for less than fifty thousand dollars – and that’s with food and catering. The bill you get from a lawyer gets multiplied the second you pay it. Because a lawyer can cash that paid invoice in for all the ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY he generated.

You, the lowly CITIZEN and loyal tax payer, are the ones who pick up the tab. You’ve already contributed to the “loose change bowl” that is the CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND. Since Scott Duncan has been so public about all of these things, you will find that the courts dislike the modern pro se litigant, as they ask too many uncomfortable questions. People are saying this is wrong, and they always seem to do it through AGENCY. After three years it should become obvious that no lawyer, ACTING as a LAWYER, and no government official, ACTING as a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, will ever say Scott Duncan is wrong – but they will never say he is right. The minute they say he is right, they are admitting to FRAUD. Scott Duncan knows this. In fact, he briefed the LAW SOCIETY and the ATTORNEY GENERAL four years ago as to what he intended to do.

I hope this little expansion regarding the nature of ATTORNEY GENERAL MONEY, has also expanded your knowledge; and will prompt you to start asking GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and the LAW SOCIETY the really uncomfortable questions. If you truly want to give Scott Duncan VALUE, this is how you do it. Remember what he told you about receiving VALUE:

“Take what you need and give the rest to everyone.”

Start asking questions. If you get stuck, post your questions here. Inform all PARTIES you communicate with, that you intend to publish. You should not have to hide your intent, because as Scott also says, “The good guys don’t hide.”
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:44 pm

June 26, 2017
"Try to imagine, having NO talent of ANY sort.

You can't do anything in the Science field because you got C's and D's in school.

You are too lazy/stupid to acquire a skill to create/build anything, and if you did, there's too much ACTUAL talent competing against you.

What do you do?


You can't get a job in the real world, so the government gives you a job. You are working for a few years, and any possibility of surviving in the private sector is GONE.

Try to picture that! You are a worthless sack of shit living off of the labour of others. How do you live with yourself? You delude yourself, of course!

You have 2 choices:

1: Make yourself think you are "doing important work". Every day you tell yourself that what you do is "essential" and you start to adopt government acronym lingo. Words are replaced with other words so you can ignore the fact you are harming others. Your only goal is to get that pension.

2: Believe you are "Better" than the "poor ignorant masses" and what you are doing is "for the greater good" and "community cohesion".

These sacks of shit think it's their "right" and/or "entitlement" and nothing any of you say or do will change that. There's a pension involved, and they have children to feed. Like the Cuckoo Bird, they raise their children off of YOUR labour, and will kill YOUR children to feed theirs.

Don't be confused. They ALL know.

We (The Nobility) created this system. They don't think like you. They can't, otherwise they'd all end up killing themselves. It's why you are considered a "terrorist". Name calling is all they CAN do.

Don't think they will "wake up" when they imposed their own blind spots.REMEMBER; We’re all supposedly “equal under the law”, but reality doesn't seem to play that out exactly. It seems everyone is OK with their rights and liberties violated by those holding the public trust. All they do to justify that is spout weasel-word catch phrases:
“There is a court ORDER” (It doesn't matter if there IS. It just has to be “believed”)
“I'm just doing my job”
“It’s all perfectly legal”
So, all of us being equal under the law, does that mean you, the average man/woman can use the same bullshit excuses?
Why not? It’s not like anyone is ever called to account for this shit. Those that do, get “paid leave”.
When do we get what we've paid for?
Never, of course.
This was done in Nazi Germany in the early 30’s. There was a free press, LGBT advocacy, and over 30 Publishers that reached over 50,000 subscribers. As rights declined, the “citizens” noticed and started speaking up. The response was a more aggressive authoritarian policy, where violence against citizens was commonplace. Finally, when people started fighting back, it was merely used as an excuse for even MORE restrictions, and the “Authorities” were even MORE blatant…
...and you know what happens THEN.
At NO time in history has “Protesting” EVER worked.
Stop thinking that’s the answer.
It isn't.
They don’t care how “peaceful” you are. You are just noisy cattle to them. People work for the government because they can’t get a job in the real world, and because they get PAID (It USED to be a PRIVILEGE and an HONOUR to hold these positions), they actually consider you “less” than them, and that they are entitled to harm those people who pay their salaries INVOLUNTARILY. REMEMBER, EVERY CENT A COP MAKES WAS TAKEN BY FORCE FROM YOU. Since they got away with that, they feel it’s their “right” to deny you your rights.
This is happening RIGHT NOW, and nobody notices, or cares.
Stop “protesting”! To do so, BY DEFAULT, acknowledges their “Authority” and they are trying to get you to “fight back” in a REAL way so they can take the rest of your freedoms away.
War is coming. Get used to “change”
... and not the good kind.

~Scott Duncan
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am


Return to Notaries Public & Solicitors Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest