Lawyers and what you should know.

Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:33 pm

Here is ALL you need to know about Lawyers. ENJOY and share far and wide.

THE TENDER FOR LAW: LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT THE LIES THEY TELL: An Objective and Fair Analysis of the LAW SOCIETY (c) 2016 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

As of this writing the Roguesupport Initiative, THE TENDER FOR LAW, is 3.75 years old. The project was started on FaceBook for numerous reasons, one of which was that it meets the LEGAL burden of "PUBLIC RECORD". In theory, what I write on Facebook could be read by over one billion people. Here in reality, that's not very likely, but it's also not very likely that you ever went to the classified ads in the newspaper intentionally looking for "LEGAL NOTICES", either. It doesn't matter if people read the notice, it simply has to be "made available" in a manner that one could reasonably access. It's not difficult to go to your public library and look up the contents of an old newspaper. It's even easier to obtain a Facebook account. The "LEGAL BURDEN" has been met.

Oh, the NOTICES that were given! You were NOTIFIED what money is, you were NOTIFIED what LAW is, and you were NOTIFIED what LEGAL is; and as of this writing, THE TENDER FOR LAW has come to a close. It has served its purpose, and when authors are put in Facebook jail for what they write in a private message, it just becomes a little too Draconian for my taste.

If you wish to read THE TENDER FOR LAW, you can find it [HERE], and if I write anything in CAPS it means I am referring to the LEGAL DEFINITION which you should probably look up -- because this article is about LAWYERS, be it a BARRISTER or a SOLICITOR or an ATTORNEY (What does an ATTORNEY ATTORN?). They all fall under the umbrella term "LAWYER", and everything you are about to read applies to them universally.

If a LAWYER says that anything I write about them is untrue, they are explicitly lying to you, with intent. There are no exceptions to this rule. If you happen to be a LAWYER reading this uncomfortable article, and wonder who I am and how I can get away with telling everybody this, investigate the story of the young man who answered "Why?" when called to the BAR. I'm the only one who's LEGALLY allowed to tell you these things. LAWYERS have explicitly sworn NOT to tell you "in the interest of JUSTICE". So let's have a little talk about LAWYERS.

Before we do, we need to establish some facts. You can do your own investigation to confirm this, but some of these facts will be hard to believe at first. However, even the most clumsy investigation will reveal everything I'm about to say is true. The first thing you need to understand about LAWYERS is that they are ALWAYS LYING TO YOU. The very nature of the business relationship that you have with them is riddled with deliberate lies, and lies of ommission. All I ask in return for this valuable information is that you confirm what I say. I don't even want you to "upvote" this. I just want you to confirm that it's true. If you choose to upvote this, it will be deemed a gratuity, because any debt (real or perceived) that you may owe, has already been paid by you confirming what I say here is true.

So, let's cover lies that LAWYERS tell you.

The first lies we'll cover are lies of presumption. By this I mean it is PRESUMED you UNDERSTAND that by retaining a LAWYER, your PERSON becomes a WARD of the COURT. It is PRESUMED you UNDERSTAND that as a WARD of the COURT, you are bound by its RULES, and that ONLY the LEGAL DEFINITION applies. The problem is most people don't know these things. In fact when you read them now, words like "Freeman on the land" and "OPCA Litigant" might be flashing through your mind. LAWYERS planned it that way. The people who coined these phrases have either intentionally or inadvertently given the courts a gift. In the early days, all they had to worry about were people like me; and there were very few of us. If you dig a little deeper though, you'll realize that nobody actually says these things (ONLY the LEGAL definition applies, etc.) are wrong. That's because they're not.

Remember that. ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES. When a lawyer mentions "the common definition" of a word, always look up the LEGAL definition, and you will find it means something VERY different. It's a lawyer's default fraud and they use it constantly. They actually do it so much that they can't stop themselves. You will find it's comically easy to catch them in a lie. The problem is, they don't care! They just move onto the next lie! Try it. They are all the same.

If you are fortunate/unfortunate enough to know a LAWYER, great fun can be had with this article.

The next set of lies we'll cover, are the lies of omission about the business relationship you have with your LAWYER. When you RETAIN a LAWYER, it is very likely that you mistakenly believe your LAWYER is obligated to serve your interests. This is in every measurable way, untrue. Their primary obligation is to the LAW SOCIETY -- ALWAYS. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE!

Did you know the LAW SOCIETY CLAIMS LEGAL OWNERSHIP of all INDIVIDUALS? All LAWYERS are told this, but they're told in a very glossed-over way. Only active participants in the LAW SOCIETY itself study their JURISDICTION's LEGAL DOCTERINE. Everything I taught in THE TENDER FOR LAW, is easily verifiable, and none of it is hidden. This is one of the rare exceptions where you'll need to do a lot of reading, because only the LEGAL definition of the words matter; and LEGAL definitions are not the same as "common" definitions. If you don't think this is true, then perhaps you can explain why LAWYERS need LEGAL dictionaries. LAWYERS literally change the definition of words, and presume you UNDERSTAND their new definition. The LAW SOCIETY that forms this perverse system never anticipated the Internet evolving to its current level. There are online LEGAL dictionaries, and I invite you to look up the LEGAL definition of the words I write in capital letters. LAWYERS lie about this one all the time. Everyone who asks LAWYERS these uncomfortable questions gets hit with, "Everyone knows what the common definition of PERSON is". Never accept this dodge. ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES, and any LAWYER or GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who says otherwise, is lying to you. If you remember nothing else I say -- remember that.
I'll say it one more time just to be sure.


I want you to stop reading right now. Once you've stopped, read the previous paragraph again, because it's the most important thing you've ever been told.

If you could repeat the above process, that would be great.

You'll recall earlier, the fact that a LAWYER's primary obligation is to the LAW SOCIETY, a "society" that CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of YOU. Look at every single court RULING where "SOCIETY" is mentioned. You'll hear weasel-word catch-phrases like, "In a Just Society..." but they never directly refer to "this" society, or "your" society. Society in both the LEGAL and COMMON definitions, always has a name - Humane Society, LAW SOCIETY, etc. Societies, by their very nature, have names. What SOCIETY are you a part of? Some of you might answer, "CANADIAN Society" or "AMERICAN Society"; yet if you look in any court room, right up to the SUPREME COURT, there is nothing to indicate the PROCEEDINGS have anything to do with "CANADIAN Society". LEGALLY, you are PROPERTY of the LAW SOCIETY.

If you doubt this, go look at your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. In every form, be it the extra long form BIRTH CERTIFICATE, CERTIFIED copy of the STATEMENT OF LIVE BIRTH, and the stupidly dangerous and deceptive "wallet-sized" BIRTH CERTIFICATE you all know and love, notice that none of the signatures belong to you or your parents. These are the signatures of strangers. Your parents gave you your name, but the LAW SOCIETY "SECURED" it. The GOVERNMENT is not providing the REGISTRATION SERVICE for your BENEFIT. They are doing it for the BENEFIT of the LAW SOCIETY. LEGALLY you are cattle. The LAW SOCIETY owns that cattle, LEGALLY. Think of the GOVERNMENT, from a LEGAL standpoint, like it was BURGER KING(R). You're the cattle, the GOVERNMENT is BURGER KING...and the CURRENCY is "burgers". They do this exclusively for the BENEFIT of the LAW SOCIETY and the manager and staff at BURGER KING. I chose BURGER KING over MCDONALDS(R) because the LAW SOCIETY is actually the last remnants of the nobility. Real world evidence of this still exists. Look at William and Harry, and Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, and countless other Princes, Dukes, etc. They all have a choice of what they can LEGALLY do. They must choose either military service or LAW School. Go check and confirm what I say is true...and let that one sink in for you. For people with a lot more foresight than you have, set all this in motion five generations ago.

If I may digress here, I've suddenly realized I'm on a whole new medium, talking as if you, the reader, are familiar with THE TENDER FOR LAW. For nearly four years, all the world's dirty little secrets have been spilled there. I'll try to summarize the hidden-in-plain-sight secrets, in a couple of points.

1. LEGAL is simply the LAW of SURETY and ACCOUNTING. Everything LEGAL has a monetary value attached to it, and only exists to determine who owes what to whom.


3. LEGAL TENDER is not money or currency. LEGAL TENDER is attached to currency. Therefore THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW.

4. A LEGAL document that bears two signatures and a TRUSTEE, is LEGALLY a SECURITY.

5. Bank NOTES, STOCKS, BONDS, are LEGAL SECURITIES. Your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a SECURITY, and while you are the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of that SECURITY, and are LEGALLY the only NATURAL PERSON AUTHORIZED to ADMINISTER that SECURITY, it most certainly does not belong to you. When you buy a STOCK or a BOND, that doesn't belong to you either. In fact, none of the SECURITIES you labour for day-in, and day-out, belong to you. That's why LEGALLY, taxation is not theft, although in reality your labour and time are stolen. Thus, in reality, it clearly is theft.

6. LEGALLY you are NOT a PERSON. You "have" a PERSON. Your LEGAL STATUS is essentially the same as "SHAREHOLDER". Notice it's not SHARE OWNER. Seriously, stop and think about it. If you actually "bought" TITLE to anything, you would be the OWNER. So why am I just a SHAREHOLDER of GOOGLE? Why am I not a SHARE OWNER? Well, it's simple. It's because I don't own it, just like I don't OWN my LEGAL NAME. If you are a SHAREHOLDER, LEGALLY you are the only PARTY AUTHORIZED to ADMINISTER that particular SECURITY.

7. The Illuminati are the good guys!

I'll do my best to cover these seven (7) points in later articles. For at least the duration of this particular article, presume these seven things are absolutely true. I encourage you to confirm, or to refute, any of these points, because once you realize that "only the LEGAL definition applies", and you have a current LEGAL dictionary, you'll start to rewrite the words in your head. Once you can UNDERSTAND exactly what LAWYERS are saying, and by extension what GOVERNMENT workers are "parroting" (because nothing gets published by the GOVERNMENT without a LAWYER's APPROVAL), the lies you are being told become clear. This is how they maintain the illusion of CONSENT. They switch the definitions of the words right in front of you, and they even have their own special, little book, that they can wave around to "substantiate" their position - no different than a Bible-thumping Christian yelling, "God hates fags!" or the Jews saying they are "The Chosen People" because it says so in this book they wrote. If you look at Black's LAW 10th Edition, which is the current, and Black's LAW 2nd Edition, which the likes of Dean Clifford and Robert Menard like to wave around, you will see the definitions rapidly mutate over the years with varying levels of demeaning restriction. All "LAW" is prohibitive. Even the Freemen on the land's COMMON LAW is prohibitive. Basically it says, "Don't hurt/kill people", "Don't take their shit", and "Don't lie to them". This is universal in every governing LAW, worldwide. That would be what would make it "COMMON". It is presumed to be true in every JURISDICTION.

Again, that would be what would make it "COMMON" LAW.

Some people are allowed to break this COMMON LAW. In order to do so, they require a LICENCE. A LICENCE is permission to perform an ILLEGAL ACT. Therefore, in order for something to be LICENSED, it must first be DECLARED ILLEGAL. This takes us back to modern LEGAL dictionaries, because in the latest versions they have made ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL interchangeable. If you look up UNLAWFUL it will say, "See ILLEGAL". Until this latest run of dictionaries, it held true that there are no homonyms in LAW, and there are no synonyms in LAW. Blacks LAW, 10th Edition, was the first LEGAL dictionary to change this; and all semblance of actual LAW has disappeared.

The LAW SOCIETY itself, is laid out in such a way, that it is an automated and self-maintaining process. From childhood, mass media has been regulated and controlled by GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT is always ACTING as an AGENT for the LAW SOCIETY. Picture it as the LAW SOCIETY is the same as the Mafia, and the GOVERNMENT are the kneecap-smashing enforcers. It's exactly the same thing - just on a larger scale. But that's not what the mass media they control tells you. How many of you reading this, believe that you have the "RIGHT to a phone call" if you are ARRESTED? Ask yourself where you learned that, and you'll realize you got it from television programs and/or movies. Remember Paul Newman in "The Verdict"? He was awesome, wasn't he? That whole movie was a steaming pile of bullshit, just like every other court room and/or police drama in any medium...EVER. World-wide. There are no exceptions. It's not hard to get into Harvard Law School because the courses aren't difficult. It's an ARTS DEGREE after all. (Yes, a "Law Degree" is an ARTS degree, like "Gender Studies") It's hard to get into Harvard Law School because it costs a shit-load of cash! That's it. A "Harvard Law degree" is the same as a "Community College Law degree". It's all the "brand" you can afford. There are lots of LAWYERS graduating thinking they're going to "change the system from the inside", which has never worked ever...not even once...or they literally don't believe what they've been told, for by the time you're taking your Bar Exam, you have been told all of this.

Some LAWYERS remember it the way you probably remember Trigonometry or Calculus from high school. They learned it, but they don't apply it to reality. I can tell you first hand what happens when you start asking dangerous questions like, "Have we the RIGHT?" By your fourth year of LAW School, at least a third of your instruction is explicitly on how to LEGALLY lie; and the further you dig, the more absurd it gets. It's a fun, but somewhat embarrassing fact, that each week every JUSTICE from THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE in ONTARIO goes to a local Catholic Church where they CLAIM they get their AUTHORITY from - I'm not making that up. They literally drop by the church once a week to "pick up their AUTHORITY".

If you look at the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (which only applies to GOVERNMENT), the very first line mentions God. Not to praise a STATIST document or anything, but the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is the only CONSTITUTION in the world that does not mention "God". In fact, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION acknowledges everyone's SOVEREIGNTY, which no other CONSTITUTION in the world does. In the UNITED STATES there are over 1,000,000 ATTORNEYS. In CANADA, there is only one; the CROWN ATTORNEY. Some of you might be thinking, "But wait, what's the ATTORNEY GENERAL?" A GENERAL is always an AGENT on land for a LEGAL NATION. They execute tasks, run errands, smash kneecaps -- all under the AUTHORITY of the ATTORNEY GENERAL. The ATTORNEY GENERAL is the GOVERNMENT's AGENT tasked with interacting with the LAW SOCIETY. The ATTORNEY GENERAL is purely POLICY-based, and its secondary role is to make money off of you. If you look at any LEGAL ACTION - be it CIVIL, CRIMINAL, or otherwise - look for the two signatures and a TRUSTEE. The TRUSTEE is the ATTORNEY GENERAL. The ATTORNEY GENERAL is part of the GOVERNMENT, and only the GOVERNMENT has the LEGAL RIGHT to create LEGAL TENDER.

Money is being created before your very eyes, and YOU are SURETY for it. You CONSENTED when you RETAINED a LAWYER. This is why it's vitally important you learn the LEGAL definitions of these words, if you are to truly understand anything I'm saying about LAW or MONEY. ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES, yet none of you know what the LEGAL definitions are. LEGAL dictionaries are written only by people LICENSED to PRACTISE LAW. They're always "PRACTISING" they need PERMISSION. The time was anyone could PRACTISE LAW as long as they didn't charge money for it. When you RETAIN services, you must always SUBMIT LEGAL TENDER for it. However, retention is always conditional. If you manage to corner a LAWYER and start asking questions about this, I want you to pay attention to the feigned ignorance or convoluted double-talk they use to justify their "reasonable belief" that you understood these things. Social engineering mechanisms like the LAW SOCIETY and the ATTORNEY GENERAL, are automated and self-maintaining; and for a long time, if you were a PARALEGAL in CANADA and understood enough of the mechanism in CANADA to cash in your ATTORNEY GENERAL money, you could make yourself a very nice living without the burden of LICENSING or REGULATION from the LAW SOCIETY. This changed in the mid 1990's. I speak for ONTARIO of course. PARALEGALS have been REGULATED heavily in the UNITED STATES since the 1970's. PARALEGALS lacked the AUTHORITY to ATTORN anyone. In fact, the UNITED STATES is the only JURISDICTION in the world, where LAWYERS have the AUTHORITY TO ATTORN. And, as with our example of the Google stock, a LAWYER is simply an AGENT. Until you have been ATTORNED to the courts, that LAWYER has SURETY for this PARTY. The AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM is genius in its design, except it wasn't designed for idiots. Americans barely understand anything beyond "GOVERNMENT EQUALS AUTHORITY" much less what money is, and where it comes from. The LEGAL framework in both CANADA and the UNITED STATES causes those "NATIONS" to hemorrhage money, in two very different, and perfectly LEGAL ways. The LAW SOCIETY/BAR and the LAWYERS who serve it, generate the money to hemorrhage and hand the SURETY off to you -- because you're PROPERTY. You're a "beast of burden".

I encourage you to harass LAWYERS and to have them confirm if any of this is true. You can point them here, and you can ACT as JUDGE. While you question the LAWYERS through me, I'll respond to any LAWYER's bullshit double-talk. I'll translate LEGALESE and support my position, each and every time. If you're a LAWYER reading this, and you have no idea what I'm talking about, then I invite you to refute any of this "crazy talk". That's what I'm going to use this account for. Think of this as THE TENDER FOR LAW - The Next Generation. It's just like Star Trek. I'm no longer the swash-buckling Captain Kirk yelling "Fuck the system!", but a refined, yet aging, Captain Picard, who still gets laid and still says, "Fuck the system!"

So this is the general subject of this account. My goal is to expand PUBLIC knowledge of the parasites you call the LAW SOCIETY. I don't even care if you "upvote" this...ever. Any money this account generates will be given to those who dedicate the time, and effort, to verify and disseminate the information I give here. The LICENCE for everything posted here is at the top of this post. As long as you keep everything intact, according to the LICENCE, you are free to repost on STEEMIT, and to make as much money as you possibly can - because you're paid for the upvotes, and not for the document. Not altering it means you're free to make money from it, but for upvotes only (under STEEMIT's Terms of Service).

We at ROGUESUPPORT INC., are trying various media outlets. We'll go where the people listen, and we at ROGUESUPPORT INC., really like the idea of you making money by redistribution. STEEMIT is like nothing that has every existed before. If you kept newspapers intact, and you delivered them to a subscriber's door, at the end of the week you'd have a bunch of money just for distributing the papers. I grew up in a day, and age, where that was possible. It's completely ILLEGAL now...child labour laws, etc. If you distribute it, you should have the revenue from the value of other people's time. It's an idea that's never been implemented before in a day, and age, where we can instantly communicate across the world. The LAW SOCIETY can't keep up. They're all Humanities students with ARTS DEGREES, and we are way past the time where you can learn the fundamentals of Computer Science from scratch. For the first half of my life, I lied and committed crimes just so I could get access to computers. When I think of how determined I was back in those days, to understand those magnificent machines, I'm ashamed of how lazy and sloppy I am now, just because I have more processing power than I could ever have conceived of dreaming. A little switch flipped in my head when I confirmed Moore's Law to be true. Back then, it was a little-known piece of niche knowledge, that was not known by the average consumer. That knowledge was something that could be exploited if you understood the exponential function described in Moore's Law; and I found that as more time passed, the more the truth of Moore's Law was confirmed. You can do some amazing things if you understand the exponential function.

It is a fact that what you believe is money, is actually debt-in-transit rather than a measure of value. LAWYERS who understand monetary theory will acknowlege this negative value. They lie and say that there is a TENDER FOR LAW attached to it that returns value, or is value, depending on which scripted lie the LAWYER is using. LAWYERS are always limited in what they say, lest they become SURETY for it.

So let this first article published on Steemit, SERVE AS PUBLIC NOTICE to every "NATION" with a "LAW SOCIETY", especially in ONTARIO, and specifically, the ATTORNEY GENERAL. Over the next few weeks, I'm telling the world everything. I'm going to show the world where they can confirm it. You see, you, gentle reader, are but the BENEFICIARY. Keep this intact and you're welcomed to republish and make as many upvote bucks as you can. I do not have the RIGHT to make money from my LEGAL knowledge; however, I do have the RIGHT to retain SURETY while you make money off your drooling followers.

We are ROGUESUPPORT INC., Keepers of the AQUILAE TRUST, and EXECUTORS of its WILL. We do not exist for profit, but do exist for the benefit of the PUBLIC, specifically the BENEFIT of knowledge. With that knowledge we have built industries that didn't exist twenty years ago. You have super-powers and wealth beyond the wildest dreams of any 15th century King. If you work for the ATTORNEY GENERAL or the LAW SOCIETY, and understand what's being said here, consider this NOTICE. Now's the time to find another career. We at ROGUESUPPORT INC. have determined that exposing these facts is a BENEFIT to the PUBLIC. ROGUESUPPORT INC. retains copyright to this article, which you are AUTHORIZED to distribute on any network, like Steemit and/or Steemit itself, where you are rewarded financially for votes.

You, the reader, are hereby AUTHORIZED to receive 100 percent (100%) of the revenue from the votes, and ROGUESUPPORT INC. waives any and all CLAIMS to any money you may receive from votes.


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

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby MikeThomas » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:59 am

That;s one hell of a post HRP :yes: Links are not working though.
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby iamani » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:04 am

Hi hrp. Thanks for the upload (on your 7th anniversary too!) Hope you'll post some more of these. Already seen most of it but good to be reminded and to have so much available to refer to in one post. Can't wait to find out how the illuminaughty are the good guys though!
law is all is love is all is law
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:04 pm

Does anyone here know where the Maxims of law came from?

The Truth about the Illuminati or Why Piece-of-Shit Christians are such Pieces-of-Shit

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


“Piece-of-Shit Christians” – you hear me say it a lot. I say it so much, and I’ve been saying it for so long, that the prefix “Piece-of-Shit” is automatically inserted in front of it, each and every time I hear the word “Christian”. This is much like the experience of Elliot in “Mr. Robot” with “Evil Corp”. (I also find myself mentally apologizing to Claudia Christian every time I think of her. Shit…there I go again! Sorry Claudia. :/)

This might lead you to believe that I harbour a profound hostility and resentment for Piece-of-Shit Christians, and you would be right. Piece-of-Shit Christians have been harming me, and those like me, for hundreds of years. Those of us who could think, had to form secret societies because…Piece-of-Shit Christians. From the 14th to the 19th century, someone like me ran the very real risk of being burned at the stake for “witchcraft”. Witchcraft also applied to anyone outside the church who could read. It wasn’t until the late 1500’s, when the concept of copyright was established, that it became necessary to have at least a portion of the population literate. Those of us in secret societies became literate on their own, or they were the first of the enlightened nobility. The Illuminati was a private bridge between the commoners and the nobility. The Illuminati was founded on the following principles – according to Wikipedia:

“Historically, the name usually refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. The society’s goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. “The order of the day,” they wrote in their general statutes, “is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them.“[1] The Illuminati—along with Freemasonry and other secret societies—were outlawed through edict, by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1784, 1785, 1787 and 1790.[2] In the several years following, the group was vilified by conservative and religious critics who claimed that they continued underground and were responsible for the French Revolution.”

The next question you have to ask yourself is, “Why?” Why go through all the trouble to improve a society that does not want to be improved. The Illuminati embodied an idea that was ahead of its time. Their intention was to elevate the commoners out of the caste system that the nobility and church impose. Anyone with technical ability, or the capacity for critical thought, anyone who understood higher math, and anyone whose trade applied engineering principles based on that higher math, were all banned. Piece-of-Shit Christians to this day, will make up stories about Freemasons and Illuminati “controlling and enslaving everyone”. So here’s the next bit of “crazy“…

I, the man you know as Scott Duncan, am Illuminati — and it’s not a fucking secret. It’s no more secret than your local Masonic Lodge; but unlike Masons who are unskilled, ignorant parasites who live off the skills and credit of their forefathers, the Illuminati never altered its mandate. The Illuminati was a product of the enlightenment. We support rational thought, understanding, compassion for our fellow man, in the only life we get; and above all we tell the truth, especially when everyone is lying. We deal daily with naysayers, who hear what we say, but claim we waste our time casting ‘pearls before swine’. That doesn’t matter. We’re not part of “your” society; and to be part of a society you make a promise, and you keep that promise if you want to remain part of that society. I kept my promises. I put myself in harm’s way so that better people than you may survive and thrive. Better people than you are working furiously to correct and repair the damage caused by your collective ignorance and apathy. I’ve started a war on “wrong”. I promised to wage it with everything that I have built. A lifetime’s work is coming to fruition, and I intend to wield the power when I have it. I’ll only take what I need to fulfil my mandate, and my agenda, and then will give the rest to everyone…and I’ll do so because I promised to.

So there you have it. This year’s “crazy talk“. I’m posting this note with a limited audience, but you are welcomed to copy and share it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Consider that NOTICE.

This is the latest of years of “crazy talk“. It sounds insane – until it isn’t. Illuminati is one club I’ll never be kicked out of. Your “society” and mine don’t mix. Your LAW SOCIETY quite literally CLAIMS OWNERSHIP of you. They CLAIM the RIGHT to ATTORN you to JURISDICTIONS that BIND you to CONTRACTS to which you did not CONSENT. Sit and ponder the irony that a secret society regards you with more dignity than your society’s masters care to give you.

…and so brothers and sisters, let’s lay out the format for my information dissemination over the next few years.

Up until this point, you could trust me to keep my oaths if nothing else. From 2016 onward, you do not have that luxury. I have the RIGHT to lie, and I intend to flex my RIGHTS. I was trained by your own GOVERNMENT, and I am very good at it. I’d make this document a “secret decoder ring” to determine when, and if, I’m telling the truth, but you idiots can barely keep up with what I’m saying as it is. So I’m going to make it really simple. Places where I promise to tell the truth are at the following domains:


If I say anything anywhere else, I’m probably lying. Pieces-of-Shit like Robert-Arthur: Menard, can lie their asses off, and there will always be a Piece-of-Shit Christian ready to defend those lies. Menard and his ilk, seem to suffer no consequence from all their lies. I’m sure I’ll have an ethical problem with it (lying) at first. There was a time I would have had an ethical problem with the idea of killing cops. That’s certainly not the case now. I kept all my oaths. I kept all my promises. And I got shit on for my trouble. I intend to collect what is rightfully mine.

I’ve made promises that last a lifetime, and I intent to keep them. Fortunately, me lying to the masses, won’t affect those promises in any way.

And so…brothers and sisters, let’s cover what we’ve learned over these past three years, while I am still bound to tell you the truth.

The first thing we learned is that the common English definitions for many words, have nothing to do with the LEGAL definition of those very same words. There are no homonyms in law; there are no synonyms in law. If an act, code or statute has either, it must be repealed in the interest of “justice”. We learned that LEGAL TENDER has nothing to do with money, or currency. We learned that LEGAL TENDER is something attached to a SECURITY – a SECURITY that does not belong to you. Unless a LEGAL document has YOUR signature on it, it DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. You are duty-bound to return this PROPERTY to its rightful owner. If a LEGAL document DOES have your signature on it, KEEP IT. You are under no obligation to give away what’s yours. That’s what makes it yours. That’s why CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES are ACCEPTABLE.

Look at the cash in your wallet. That’s not a 20 dollar bill. It is a CERTIFIED TRUE COPY of a 20 dollar bill. Why the fuck would they give you the original SECURITY? It doesn’t belong to you. If there are two signatures on a LEGAL document, it is a CONTRACT. If there are two signatures and a TRUSTEE, it is a SECURITY. Look at every GOVERNMENT document that you possess. Start with the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Take as much time as you need.

We learned ‘LEGAL’ is just SURETY and ACCOUNTING. To dumb it down even further, LEGAL always boils down to ‘who pays, and how much do they owe’ (SURETY and ACCOUNTING). It is your RIGHT to DEMAND PROOF that you have any OBLIGATION to PERFORM and/or give compensation to, ANY PARTY. This is self-evident and is an inalienable RIGHT legally (that means you can sell it). You exercise this RIGHT with the question, “By what AUTHORITY”?

We learned that LEGALLY, PROOF requires a signature. Everything else including facts and reality, are LEGALLY, just EVIDENCE. Remember that: PROOF REQUIRES A SIGNATURE, and EVERYTHING ELSE is JUST EVIDENCE. Never forget who owns what. If you receive a LEGAL document and it has a signature on it, and the signature is not YOURS, it does not belong to you. VOID the signature that is there, and give it back to whomever signed it – even the envelope it came in. Attach a NOTICE informing this PARTY there has been a MISTAKE, and that their PROPERTY is being returned to them. You may also choose to inform them that as a COURTesy, and to protect their SECURITY, you took the LIBERTY of VOIDING their signature to prevent UNAUTHORIZED PARTIES from CLAIMING and/or exploiting its VALUE. We learned to always be COURTeous. We learned that COURTesies are for COURTesans; and like a COURTesan, if you ACCEPT A COURTesy, you ACCEPT that you’re the one being fucked (everybody get that????).

LEGALLY, the first line of defence is to never be in possession of any LEGAL PROPERTY that belongs to someone else. If a LEGAL document does belong to you (because LEGAL is all documents – it’s SURETY and ACCOUNTING after all), then KEEP IT. Get (or become) a NOTARY, and make CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES of your LEGAL documents to give to other PARTIES if required. Some LEGAL documents such as securities, stocks and bonds, are in fact, owned by you, and you have SURETY while you possess them. It is vitally important that you protect this PROPERTY as it does not belong to you. You simply own it. They’re not the same thing legally. If you own something, you have SURETY for it. Your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a SECURITY you own for life. It is the CLAIM on any VALUE you produce. Unless you CONSENT to that, I suggest you LIEN that SECURITY, thus VOIDING it.

We learned, “In VOID we TRUST”. You have one UNALIENABLE RIGHT. The RIGHT NOT to CONTRACT. This means you have the RIGHT to VOID ANY LEGAL document to which you are the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. LIENING your NAME VOIDS that SECURITY. LEGALLY you are required to provide REMEDY as that SECURITY does not belong to you. If you have LIENED your name for half a billion dollars, the GOVERNMENT had better pay out that SECURITY. You VOIDED it with INTENT. It is your RIGHT to COMPENSATION and CONSIDERATION.

We sure learned a lot didn’t we?

If you haven’t, go read THE TENDER FOR LAW. As always the gold is in the comments, and no you cannot join. I have absolutely NO interest in anything you have to say. There are instruction in the “Description” regarding what you have to do to join. The GOLD IS IN THE COMMENTS. I cannot stress that enough. After you’ve done that, read my notes. Do not attempt ANY communication with me until you have done this. THE TENDER FOR LAW has been around for three years, and there is NO WAY I’m REPEATING 3 years worth of information.

One of my instructions in THE TENDER FOR LAW – a Scottism as it were – is the instruction with the dire warning: “While you are building, NEVER let them take you seriously!” That’s a difficult thing to do without lying. It’s even more difficult to do if you have quite literally sworn a blood oath NOT to lie. Well…I suppose that would be a difficult problem for somebody like you; not for somebody like me. In my society, we don’t have to lie, since our very existence is based on the quest for truth.

Ignorance is a powerful and subtle tool of oppression, and it can always be made to serve the honest. When I say these things, nobody takes me seriously. I literally give NOTICE as to my INTENT. Collective ignorance and apathy will scream in disbelief to avoid dedicating any resources to confirm if what I’m saying is true. When they refer to history, which we are doing now, you will see that I have a long, long history of saying “crazy” things; only to have time show that I was exactly right.


In 2010, it was “crazy” to propose the idea that you could literally make your own bank. You could make your own currency. You could trade that currency on global markets. It sounded “crazy”…until it didn’t. I’m the only one who tells the truth about law and money on the Internet. I keep asking everybody, “Why am I the only one”? None of you can guess, so here it is. Here’s your “crazy” answer…

I am Scott, Keeper of the AQUILAE TRUST, Servant of the House of Windsor, Admiral of the AQUILAE NAVY, and I AM ILLUMINATI.

I AM BETTER. I’m the only one who tells the truth, because I’m the only one who’s allowed to! While I do what I have LICENCE to do, stop fucking LYING about us!

I’m looking at you, you Piece-of-Shit Christians!


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

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby cassandra » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:36 pm

Well, it's been a while since I saw this much bollocks and bullshit on one post. It looks like someone opened the cardboard boxes again and we have an escapee on our hands. Where the fuck is this guy's care worker when you need him?
The idea that a centuries old secret society, created and maintained by undeniably powerful intellects which managed to steal the whole world, would enrol this unzipped banana into their ranks is an hysterical comedy. The insanely comical idea that he would be a spokesman for them is even more hilarious. Jesus, what is this guy on? His semi-literate outbursts are reminiscent of senility patients jotting down their hebephrenic ramblings while waiting for their meds to kick in. Talk about discursive! Jesus, if I were a mod I would ban this guy on principle. He's worse than a joke – he's a fucking insult. I hope they catch him soon.
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:24 pm

What is it that you are refuting???
Can you be more specific, or is it that you are to lazy to confirm what has been presented???
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:29 pm

.July 12, 2014 at 4:17am
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.
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
Now that that's out of the way, I must digress for a minute to testify to an interesting phenomenon that I experienced tonight; I was shown a POINT OF LAW that I had missed. To make it even stranger, this was pointed out to me by a man many of you know as "The Fender". He often plays the role of "Lou Manotti" here on Facebook.
("Lou Manotti" is of course, the CORRECT spelling of the name of the PERSON who controlls the government and the banks. Often mis-spelled "Illuminati", Lou Manotti rules over all, and stops the US from using the metric systems... Plays the HAARP, and eats babies, and stuff. OH, and he's a lizard too! ...and people call ME crazy! :P )
Few people know more about LAW than I do. This is not bragging, it's simply a fact. I have studied LAW since I was 9, but I haven't studied it like "The Fender" has. He has a unique talent of identifying all the players (Using LEGALLY DEFINED Identifiers), and what their roles are. Rather than concentrating on why and how the rules came to be, he studies "who does what" and follows the money. This has the interesting side effect of producing an extremely precise map of the LEGAL MATRIX. One, I dare say, that rivals mine, and today, it was shown to me the advantages of his methodology. My LEGAL knowledge and knowledge of LAW spans the globe, that scale comes at a price. The finer details are lost when you manage knowledge of that scale; here is an example.
One of the standard "Tender For Law" doctrines is to detach yourself from the NAME. It doesn't matter if it's an extreme detachment, like mine, where the name is SECURED by a JURIDICAL PERSON, or like Pete does in an ADMINISTRATIVE capacity only. I've shown you the many ways you can stump the COURT with the questions "what evidence does this court have that I have any SURETY in this matter?", and "by what authority does this court attach ANY name derived from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT to me?". These two questions effectively remove any LEGAL PRESUMPTION as regards the NAME. This, of course, is NOT the classic "I am not a PERSON" argument. The mere fact that the COURT is hearing that DECLARATION means it can be reasonably presumed that the INDIVIDUAL making that DECLARATION is lying. Canada is rife with case law regarding PERSONHOOD. Look for yourself.
In that previous paragraph, you'll notice two words that actually form the LEGAL connection I hadn't noticed until "The Fender" pointed it out. In the "who does what" methodology that he uses, we took a little virtual walk through the world of "who does what", and this is the frustrating part; I know all these things, yet I did not notice this.
We start with the JURISDICTION we're all familiar with; ONTARIO. It's the JURISDICTION I deal with the most, and the one I'm most familiar with. The COURT system in ONTARIO is ADMINISTERED and managed by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of ONTARIO. Walk into any ONTARIO COURTHOUSE and you do not see the word "CANADA", and you only see "ONTARIO" in the context of the ATTORNEY GENERAL. The ATTORNEY GENERAL is a seperate ADMINISTRATIVE BODY from the rest of the province, yet is still "government". The ATTORNEY GENERAL writes a JUSTICE'S paycheck, and it writes a CROWN ATTORNEY'S paycheck. This blatant conflict of interest is rabidly ignored in the same way Christians rabidly ignore the nastier parts of the Bible. Like the Catholic Church, the ATTORNEY GENERAL just makes up the rules as it goes along. Several cases regarding this matter of a blatant and obvious conflict of interest had the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL respond with the very compelling "no it isn't", backed up with the authority-based "because I said so". As far as I know, the argument hasn't continued since because the LOWER COURTS can now simply answer "that issue has been ruled on". And because of THE UK CANADA ACT, the time has long passed that we could legally do anything about it. All of this is public information, and even Christians shouldn't have trouble finding it, and that's the ATTORNEY GENERAL giving a big, public, happy "fuck you" to all INDIVIDUALS...
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.
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.
I mention this because some of you are going into COURT and doing some very, very, stupid things. One of the things I've always objected to Dean Clifford doing, is encouraging people to put themselves in situations where they would end up in COURT. Some of you can't even grasp that your signature equals PROOF OF UNDERSTANDING. This one simple fact seems lost on all of you, and that alone should be enough to convince you that you have no business speaking to a court! None of this is hidden, so none of this is the FRAUD all of you CLAIM. The actual FRAUD, all of you have ignored. And while we're on the topic of frauds, Robert Menard is now publically stating the blatant lie about the definition of "LEGAL TENDER". You'll often hear the piece-of-shit use the words "HONOUR", and "HONOURABLE" which are simply LEGAL TERMS referring to CONTRACTS. He, of course, fails to mention this, because "lying through omission IS his bag, Baby"!
So, covering the many kinds of PERSONS, we have so far encountered the "INDIVIDUAL", which is simply a LEGAL TERM distinguishing a NATURAL PERSON (FULL LIABILITY which may be ATTORNED) from a (LIMITED LIABILITY which IS ALREADY ATTORNED by its creation) JURIDICAL PERSON, which means of course we have seen a JURIDICAL PERSON. A JURIDICAL PERSON is a LEGAL CONTRUCT. This may be a CORPORATION and/or a SECURITY and/or a TRUST. I know what you're thinking; "How can a TRUST be a PERSON?". The COURTS recognise some TRUSTS as "PRIVATE PERSONS". In fact, the COURT recognises the GOVERNMENT as a PRIVATE PERSON, and therefore "HER MAJESTY, AND AN ORGANIZATION" is recognised by the COURTS as a PRIVATE PERSON. Those of you hardcore researchers should have no trouble finding PUBLIC DECLARATIONS that the COURTS recognise the GOVERNMENT as a PRIVATE PERSON. This raises some ugly COMMON LAW JURISDICTION issues that the UNITED STATES simply doesn't have. But that's for another article.
Just remember: While you may be RIGHT, the Gomer Pyle-esque thug with a costume and a gun (NOT A PERSON, LEGALLY) does not know anything outside of the "rules". They are intentionally selected for their limited intellect and the courts have ENDORSED this practice. This man KNOWS he's worthless in the real world, so "keeping his job" and "pension" will ALWAYS trump YOUR RIGHTS. This one point seems lost on most of you. They need stupid, obedient people to keep you stupid, and obedient. Hairdressers have more training to practice their trade, than cops have, regarding legal matters, and/or YOUR RIGHTS. Their "job" trumps your rights, and that what they REALLY mean when they use the cop-out "I'm just doing my job". They are simply an armed gang for those claiming "authority" over you. Driving without a license/plates is JUST STUPID. It attracts the attention of armed thugs following "rules" so they can bring you before a court that SELECTIVELY follows those rules, in much the same way Christians and MuslimsSELECTIVELY follow their own "laws".
Muslims consider the Qu'ran "law".. Read the Qu'ran and you will see these "laws" are in every measurable way, EVIL. The same is true with the Christian/Jewish "laws". Every Christian, Muslim, and Jew KNOWS that rape and slavery are wrong, but their "perfect" and "loving" god couldn't quite grasp the point. To "god" rape and slavery are ok... BUT NO "GRAVEN IMAGES"! You are taught from childhood to "respect" this ethical vacuum of "belief". That's the first seed that's ever planted. The delusion may now be echoed. "AUTHORITY" trumps rights, and you are "bad" if you think otherwise. When they violate your rights, they claim it's "all perfectly legal", and "they're just doing their jobs"... and you are supposed to be OK with that.
The ONLY place the government is recognized as a PERSON, is in court, and ONLY in the capacity of PRIVATE PERSON (no LEGAL liability). You will not change that. "Exposing" them will not change that. NOBODY IN GOVERNMENT HAS SURETY! EVER! When you point this out, you will be accused of "symantics", "word games" or your position will be dismissed as "jibberish"... which is ironic, considering what REALITY shows. Those who work for "government" actually BELIEVE it's their RIGHT to do what they do. THEY REALLY BELIEVE THEY HAVE "AUTHORITY" over you because of GEOGRAPHY. LET THAT SINK IN. This point was, of course, lost on Dean Clifford.
Like the Christians, the Government is ignoring the OLD laws, and replacing them with NEW laws to make their UNLAWFUL actions, "legal". Even Hitler kept things "legal". Hitler did not do ONE "illegal" thing. He just kept the population stupid... Just like the Christians. He made "new Law" to replace the old law... Just like the Christians. He even said, "The old Law still applies", but in practice, is largely ignored... just like the Christians. Then comes the "peaceful" and "loving" CONVERSIONS that you'd better accept and be grateful for...because you'll be sent to a "happy camp" otherwise. See the pattern here? ALL BASED ON BELIEF.
ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. PERSON=BELIEF. Nothing more. You did not create the PERSON. It has nothing to do with you. IT IS NOT YOURS. You are simply the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of the PERSON. You do not OWN a $10.00 BILL. You MAY be the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of a $10.00 bill but YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY BENEFICIARY. This is true with ALL SECURITIES. A PERSON is, in reality A SECURITY. THAT IS NOT "BELIEF", that is simply a FACT.
THE TENDER FOR LAW [ ] is NOT about LAW, it's about MONEY and the TENDER FOR LAW attached to it. THAT TENDER IS A FRAUD. All the group has ever done is teach you WHAT that fraud is, and what WE as thinking humans can do about it! THE RESULTS ARE IN!
...It turns out you're all stupid, and can't really help. we started without you. Two years ago, when I said I intend to teach people to make their own BANKS and CURRENCY, I was of course, labeled "crazy"... Until I taught you to make your own banks and currency. I'm STILL called "crazy" when i say I'm going to collapse the banking system and start a war... but not as much as I was 2 years ago; There is now a growing camp of those who think I might just do that. ;)
PERSONS are going to suffer that fate too, if I have MY way. Just remember who you are. YOU ARE NOT A PERSON. You HAVE a PERSON. This was NOT a choice you made, and it's not your FAULT! You have the RIGHT TO "SECURITY OF THE PERSON"! THIS DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS! THIS IS A LEGAL DECLARATION. NOWHERE does it say the GOVERNMENT has the right to "SECURE THE PERSON". YOU DECIDE what happens to your person, just like YOU DECIDE what happens to that $10.00 bill in your wallet, even though it's NOT YOURS.
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:28 am

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby iamani » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:52 pm

Double thanks to you hrp. i was all set to check out 'the tender for law' until i noticed it was on Facehook - naaa. Cassandra - bit harsh? You don't see anything worth knowing there? Your 'bullshit' comment was funny (and i can see your point re the credibility of someone claiming to be illuminaughty yet engaged in epic bean-spilling while flaunting a massive ego) but calling for a ban? Like someone writing in to the daily mail saying "it shouldn't be allowed"? i'm beginning to suspect a slightly negative attitude on your part. Cheer up - it may never happen! Please keep it coming hrp. Cassandra - if you want to be neg about the info please (if you have the time/inclination) at least be more specific as to the why. None of us want to be taken in by bullshit and bollocks but your calling it such without explanation doesn't help genuine seekers, it just adds to the confusion and i'm sure that is not your intent.
law is all is love is all is law
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby cassandra » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:09 am

Well, it's been a while since I saw this much bollocks and bullshit on one post. It looks like someone opened the cardboard boxes again and we have an escapee on our hands. Where the fuck is this guy's care worker when you need him?
The idea that a centuries old secret society, created and maintained by undeniably powerful intellects which managed to steal the whole world, would enrol this unzipped banana into their ranks is an hysterical comedy. The insanely comical idea that he would be a spokesman for them is even more hilarious. Jesus, what is this guy on? His semi-literate outbursts are reminiscent of senility patients jotting down their hebephrenic ramblings while waiting for their meds to kick in. Talk about discursive! Jesus, if I were a mod I would ban this guy on principle. He's worse than a joke – he's a fucking insult. I hope they catch him soon.

I see no criticism of the content of his post here. I don't even see a reference to the contents. Nor do I see a call for a ban. Do I really have to explain this?
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Lawyers and what you should know.

Postby hrp » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:26 am


THE TENDER FOR LAW – SURETY FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted an article, and I’ve solidified the “For Idiots” concept. Let’s cover SURETY!
One of the most painful things about being on FaceBook is having to endure the fact that people with chronic Dunning–Kruger effect still think that their ignorance has the same standing as my knowledge; and they will happily state many unkind things regarding my character when I challenge their “pulled-out-of-their-ass” mythology.
Some don’t even go that far, and will simply lie about what I said, and claim I don’t post evidence. I don’t have to post “evidence”. I’m not trying to PROVE anything to you.
That said, this is not a debate centre either. You assume ALL LIABILITY when you ask to join this group. This, by default, means you have “SURETY”, because SURETY equals LIABILITY. I don’t need to provide “proof” of this; as my banning you from the group should be compelling enough to show the difference between who’s in charge, and who’s liable. Who could even argue that? grin emoticon
Before we get to the actual issue of SURETY, and why you must avoid it, we must take a quick journey back in time to learn where the legalese that enjoins you came from.
Those of you who endured the content-free 1.2 decades of the Public Fool System, will remember certain things, not the least of which is Shakespeare. The plays of Shakespeare are sold to you as “Olde English”. In fact, it was sold as “Olde English” when these were first-run plays. There is a problem with this, though. Nobody ever spoke in the manner that Shakespeare wrote, and they most certainly never used the words. Shakespeare produced most of his major works between 1589 and 1613, all of which were sold as “Olde English”. Popular periodicals of the time show that you were often considered “learned and of good taste” if you could speak in this “Olde English”.
So let’s go read some really, really Olde English.
Let’s pick a really old English document, completely at random. We’ll pick…The MAGNA CARTA.
A quick read of any translation of (Originally all British Law was written in LATIN) the MAGNA CARTA will swiftly reveal two things. The first is that that it’s pretty readable, not backward and convoluted like a Shakespeare play. There may be a few archaic words you may need to look up (to ascertain their meanings), but it’s still pretty readable, and there are no words that Shakespeare used. There’s also no letter “U”. This is a very important fact to remember, because *spoiler alert*, when courts or legal documents refer to “YOU”, they are in fact, granting you SURETY in the matter. If you look at a WARRANT, or a ticket from a Policy Enforcement Officer, it will have a name and it will then refer to that name as “YOU” from then on. For example, “JOHN Q PUBLIC, YOU have been charged with (insert bullshit offence here)”.
If you’re ever in a courtroom and do not wish to have the “benefit of SURETY”, you have but to object to being addressed as “YOU”. There are many ways to do this. Dean Clifford might say, in response to being addressed as “YOU”, “If I have led the court to believe that I am SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me.” (FUN FACT: A court MUST ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked and/or requested)
Others, like myself, are a lot more succinct. For example, I might respond, “FUCK YOU! You’re a YOU, I’m a ME! By what AUTHORITY do YOU address ME as a “YOU”?”, because I can get away with it. The reason I can get away with it is that I UNDERSTAND the UCC as opposed to ONE PEOPLE’S PUBLIC FRAUD which spreads mythology and bullshit about the UCC.
Now there may be a certain “pretend radio” talk-show host (who speaks in a manner that would suggest he is hosting a show with a dick in his mouth), who would demand “proof of this”, ignoring the fact that the UCC is, in fact, the proof.
Section 1, Subsection 308, of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE covers RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This is a well-known fact, and this is how you use it.
On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you’re the only one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick about it. You don’t RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS! Not just yours, EVERYONE’s. You remove everyone else’s rights and give them to yourself. WHY? Because “Fuck off that’s WHY!” You’re the only one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it…don’t be such a pussy! If you’re entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the “justice” starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, “Point of order!” They will immediately be silent. At that point, state “I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?” As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, “Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected.” At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, “Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?”
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be posed the question, “How do you wish to proceed in this matter?” for that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their master’s wish?
You’ll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste system and how they give instructions.
Now even the talk-show host who sounds like he’s got a dick in his mouth, won’t “demand proof” of the fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none, you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how you “wish to proceed”. Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time you may respond, “I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like he’s got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial PRO SE. But I wouldn’t recommend this…I would simply wish the case to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides “I agree, case dismissed”, you exercise your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES ANSWER. For instance if a “justice” said anything except “I agree. Case dismissed,” you question why they are even speaking. “I’m sure you’ll recall Mr. (insert justice’s name here) that at the beginning of these proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not made my wishes clear?”
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because if you UNDERSTAND, you accept SURETY.
As stated before, the most powerful of these questions is, “Who are you?” UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
Quite possibly one of the most useful documents I have ever published is my NOTICE OF MISTAKE for Dean. This is a useful, powerful document that also instantly removes SURETY. I framed it in such a way that you can replace the name “Dean Clifford” with your name, and you can make a pad of these things. Have lots of copies to hand out to friends and opposing counsel. Hell the court clerk loves these things too…make sure the court clerk has one as well. Just make sure you UNDERSTAND what the document says. Read it carefully and understand what the words mean, because you will be challenged. And remember, the NOTICE by its very nature, presents several questions.
Do not permit the proceedings to move forward without these questions being answered!
Because so many people ask for it, transcribed here is the copy of THE ROGUESUPPORT NOTICE OF MISTAKE.
In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a
by responding to “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or SUCH OTHER
WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive
As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or SUCH
As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT,
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the
TRUST have any SURETY in this matter?
NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE for the
LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE and
have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the
minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or
that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?
As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and
If you truly UNDERSTAND what this document says and/or does, this is one of the most powerful documents you can wield in court. If you have the Dunning–Kruger effect you will likely go to jail. Used properly the NOTICE OF MISTAKE will ALWAYS remove any real or implied SURETY the court believes you may have.
You will notice the court always refers to “belief”. When I say belief is evil, it is not just a disparaging remark against adults with “imaginary friends” (which they totally deserve), it is yet another example of why this statement is profoundly true. All belief is evil.
You are taught from childhood to “respect belief”, and are constantly reinforced with the really dumb freedom that it is your “right to believe what you want”. If I had the authority and/or power to remove just one right from humanity, and no more, the right to “believe” would be the one that I would eradicate. In all my years of studying, and being part of the Nobility, the curtailing of this one “RIGHT” would exponentially increase quality of life for all humanity. I calculate it would take two generations for it to “stick”.
Belief is the end of questioning. Belief is intellectual bankruptcy, and is the exact opposite of knowledge. You will never question if you “believe”.
Let’s leap back to the 1500’s to Shakespeare. This is where the concept of addressing somebody as “YOU” indicated the assignment of SURETY. No writings before this contained any such logistic mechanisms. Don’t “believe me”…go look for yourself. Go look at the MAGNA CARTA yourself; and ask yourself why there’s no “YOU” before Shakespeare. And ask yourself why the MAGNA CARTA, in all its current published forms, no longer has, “To do right by Alexander”.
There may be three readers amongst you who understand what I just said there, and all of them are Scottish I guarantee you.
In any courtroom proceeding in the western world, SURETY IS PRESUMED, and it must be deflected from you. As a “justice” is not a PERSON under the law, the only PARTY that can ACCEPT SURETY is the PARTY making the CLAIM.
There may be certain readers who talk like they have a dick stuck in their mouth, who will demand proof of this…and so I direct you to the Rules of Civil Procedure (wherever you are) to look up SECURITY FOR COSTS.
Let’s zoom back to the present (so we can get as far away from belief as possible) where the word “YOU” is part of the English language, as are the titles, “Mr.”, “Miss”, and “Mrs.”. All of these titles and means of addressing you, are in fact, assigning and/or presuming SURETY…yes, on YOU. The easiest mnemonic exercise you can do to make deflecting these titles second nature is to replace the titles “Mr.”, “Miss”, or “Mrs.” with the word, “bitch”, in your head; and to respond as if they had addressed you as “bitch”, because being addressed as “Mr.”, “Miss”, or “Mrs.” is doing exactly that.
As for the word “YOU”, think of that as a tennis ball which must be served back. Assert your AUTHORITY by questioning whenever they address you as “YOU”; “Are YOU addressing ME?” If they’re stupid enough to say yes, or even to imply the affirmative, be like that guy who talks like he has a dick in his mouth and demand proof; “By what authority do YOU address me as a PARTY OF SURETY?”…or something along those lines. Your only objective is to serve the “YOU” back to them.
So that’s today’s word, “SURETY”. It’s something you don’t want, and I’ve just shown you how to give it back. I’d like to thank my involuntary guests, Dean Clifford, and the guy that talks like he’s got a dick in his mouth. Since I was so liberal with their identities, I certainly have no problem putting in a free plug for a “pretend radio” show.
So here’s a link to Dean Clifford talking about family court rules or something…hosted by a guy who sounds like he’s got a dick in his mouth. And before Pierre thinks I’ve “soft-balled this one in there” for him, I’m now going to presumptively say, “Yes Pierre, I’m pretty sure it’s Dean’s dick he’s sucking”.…/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep…
…because when Scott Duncan does a plug, he does it hard core!
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 2 guests