{
  "trx_id": "98ba457018578e86051363435424ab841f567e23",
  "block": 35336432,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-08-07T06:19:54",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "harrywombat",
      "parent_permlink": "lies-and-the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-the-lies-they-tell-an-objective-and-fair-analysis-of-the-law-society",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-harrywombat-20190807t061953000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @harrywombat! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@harrywombat/birthday3.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 3 years!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@harrywombat) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=harrywombat)_</sub>\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "eaf72dd18a37dcd486b6935ae5d9c477b0b0b824",
  "block": 19445219,
  "trx_in_block": 60,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-01-31T00:20:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "lawyers",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lies-and-the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-the-lies-they-tell-an-objective-and-fair-analysis-of-the-law-society",
      "title": "LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT THE LIES THEY TELL: An Objective and Fair Analysis of the LAW SOCIETY",
      "body": "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.\n\nAs 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.\n\nOh, 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.  \n\nIf 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.\n\nIf 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.\n\nBefore 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.\n\nSo, let's cover lies that LAWYERS tell you.\n\nThe 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.\n\nRemember 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.\n\nIf you are fortunate/unfortunate enough to know a LAWYER, great fun can be had with this article.  \n\nThe 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! \n\nDid 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. \nONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES.  There are no exceptions to this rule.  If you're dealing with GOVERNMENT, ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES.  If you're dealing with BANKING or FINANCE, ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES.  If you're dealing with the LAW SOCIETY, ONLY THE LEGAL DEFINITION APPLIES. \n\nI 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.  \n\nIf you could repeat the above process, that would be great.  \n\nYou'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.  \n\nIf 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.  \nIf 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.  \n\n1. 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.  \n2. ACCOUNTANTS set PUBLIC POLICY.  \n3. 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.  \n4. A LEGAL document that bears two signatures and a TRUSTEE, is LEGALLY a SECURITY.\n5. 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.\n6. 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.  \n7. The Illuminati are the good guys!  \n\nI'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.  \nAgain, that would be what would make it \"COMMON\" LAW.  \n\nSome 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.  \n\nThe 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.  \n\nSome 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\".  \n\nIf 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.  \n\nMoney 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\"...so 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\".  \n\nI 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!\"  \n\nSo 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).  \nWe 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.  \n\nIt 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.  \n\nSo 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.  \nWe 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.  \n\nYou, 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.\n\nTL;DR WE ARE HERE!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"lawyers\",\"lieslawyerslell\",\"thelawsociety\",\"society\",\"law\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3aea39567edad3797cb347af96cab8531b50fd72",
  "block": 16229067,
  "trx_in_block": 40,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-10-11T06:22:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "esglobeiii",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "871b902fcfd69cd17fd2bfa9c7b288c7674b4bd3",
  "block": 4696433,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-09-05T05:46:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "stickman",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "06b683df33c7d128cbe4ae2b41e85aede8355a46",
  "block": 4425381,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T19:02:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "pauloshea",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8ebcd4ba20a6b65dcb47e40f843c408a775f1fd8",
  "block": 4425376,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T19:01:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "pauloshea",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0ce9356795369bfe61615639943e4fd989c5e0cc",
  "block": 4425373,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T19:01:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "pauloshea",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d5ed6a31b069470e2aab2359b67ae7d44baa6972",
  "block": 4425372,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-26T19:01:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "pauloshea",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "019cd63bde30bf1f223424f506d83b100c8e8d07",
  "block": 4168785,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T19:21:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "davejo",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "14b5e78b4d6a5367c07d926bd7c67ecf6790135e",
  "block": 4168780,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-17T19:21:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "davejo",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "59e14221768957707aecb3ffc0158406ccedbbb8",
  "block": 4047449,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "51e9d08cd3e08fd5090768d6018285b280dfd745",
  "block": 4047447,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:36",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "persons-for-idiots",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b732c9bc84178d303d2e785f752b90690e972f37",
  "block": 4047446,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0c4319df44cc11c2e482dd4b91918dc04b179019",
  "block": 4047445,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5d9b81e737853b7a9431fd343c05428f7cd6db7f",
  "block": 4047444,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:27",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "children-s-aid-society-c-a-s-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b44f237d73136f5a5c792e464c678f47af0c0363",
  "block": 4047443,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:24",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a9cd06c9559f7f3d89643f409ee9582b313a6b56",
  "block": 4047437,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-13T13:39:06",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shibetan",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "what-is-the-difference-between-legal-and-lawful-scott-duncan-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "f498308be72436e2e5967e62170e9e8e7bae592c",
  "block": 3996038,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:36:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "davejo",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "what-is-the-difference-between-legal-and-lawful-scott-duncan-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0b6e35bcf588dc4e5ab0242682e7715f1e6dc970",
  "block": 3961377,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T13:38:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "children-s-aid-society-c-a-s-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "286b1d9c99b20ec5c72a0adf874c4c99d6d6789b",
  "block": 3961373,
  "trx_in_block": 7,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T13:38:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "corpus-delicti-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9ed1c5000728413c07763d4f09001910d202280f",
  "block": 3961315,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T13:35:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "what-is-the-difference-between-legal-and-lawful-scott-duncan-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3bbb97086ea6116b8c7cad0309e0eba16f308a65",
  "block": 3946298,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T01:02:30",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "leagal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "corpus-delicti-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "CORPUS DELICTI (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p> </p>\n<h5><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\" rel=\"noopener\">Scott Duncan </a><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\" rel=\"noopener\">June 20, 2015</a><br />\n<br />\n“CORPUS DELICTI” The MOST IGNORED LEGAL CONCEPT!   </h5>\n<h5> </h5>\n<p>The circle-jerkers at Quatloos have been scouring the 1960 CANADIAN  BILL OF RIGHTS for what is supposedly my own &quot;crazy&quot; 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  &quot;Justices&quot; 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. </p>\n<p>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 &quot;APPLICATION OF THIS CHARTER&quot; section in Canadian  Public Schools. </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>And don't &quot;paraphrase&quot; 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.   </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>This took FIVE SECONDS to find: </p>\n<p>“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: </p>\n<p>“With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512  </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>“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.]. </p>\n<p>“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.  </p>\n<p>“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.</p>\n<p> There are seven elements of jurisdiction and every element MUST be met in order for the court to proceed. </p>\n<p>SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:  </p>\n<p>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.) </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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) </p>\n<p>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.<br />\n<br />\nLacking 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. </p>\n<p>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</p>\n<p> ...WOW. <br />\n<br />\nThat's enough copypasta to give Derek Moran a fucking woody! </p>\n<p>CORPUS DELICTI - Look it the fuck up. </p>\n<p>FOR THERE TO BE A FUCKING CRIME, THERE MUST BE A FUCKING INJURED PARTY! </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"crime\",\"accounting\",\"surety\",\"\",\"leagal\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\",\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "92692bd7b38f3adaa42ca60411d102a640b99133",
  "block": 3946285,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T01:01:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "leagal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "corpus-delicti-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "CORPUS DELICTI (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p> </p>\n<h5><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\" rel=\"noopener\">Scott Duncan </a><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\" rel=\"noopener\">June 20, 2015</a><br />\n<br />\n“CORPUS DELICTI” The MOST IGNORED LEGAL CONCEPT!   </h5>\n<h5> </h5>\n<p>The circle-jerkers at Quatloos have been scouring the 1960 CANADIAN  BILL OF RIGHTS for what is supposedly my own &quot;crazy&quot; 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  &quot;Justices&quot; 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. </p>\n<p>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 &quot;APPLICATION OF THIS CHARTER&quot; section in Canadian  Public Schools. </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>And don't &quot;paraphrase&quot; 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.   </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>This took FIVE SECONDS to find: </p>\n<p>“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: </p>\n<p>“With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512  </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>“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.]. </p>\n<p>“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.  </p>\n<p>“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.</p>\n<p> There are seven elements of jurisdiction and every element MUST be met in order for the court to proceed. </p>\n<p>SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:  </p>\n<p>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.) </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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) </p>\n<p>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.<br />\n<br />\nLacking 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. </p>\n<p>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</p>\n<p> ...WOW. <br />\n<br />\nThat's enough copypasta to give Derek Moran a fucking woody! </p>\n<p>CORPUS DELICTI - Look it the fuck up. </p>\n<p>FOR THERE TO BE A FUCKING CRIME, THERE MUST BE A FUCKING INJURED PARTY! </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"crime\",\"accounting\",\"surety\",\"\",\"leagal\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\",\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7a8094ab905125066ea26759145d81695fd34a50",
  "block": 3941906,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T21:22:09",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thefeature",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "what-is-the-difference-between-legal-and-lawful-scott-duncan-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "923c417899f582cf05d77da188fe36e86fb143bb",
  "block": 3941533,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T21:03:27",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "legal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "what-is-the-difference-between-legal-and-lawful-scott-duncan-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "What is the difference between LEGAL and LAWFUL? (Scott Duncan - THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p> <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\" rel=\"noopener\">Scott Duncan </a></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/606995862669683/\" rel=\"noopener\">January 1, 2014</a> · <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/pages/Toronto-Ontario/110941395597405\" rel=\"noopener\">Toronto</a><br />\n<br />\nFROM <a href=\"http://thetenderforlaw.com/\" rel=\"noopener\">http://thetenderforlaw.com</a> (No it's not done yet, but I can feed articles in the meantime): <br />\n<br />\nWhat is the difference between LEGAL and LAWFUL? </p>\n<p>To answer this question one must first answer the question, “What is LAW?”  </p>\n<p>Social conditioning and the public discourse of lawyers is  intentionally designed to stop you from asking this question.  Here in  reality there have been many attempts to define it.  Law is just a  weasel-word catch-phrase. </p>\n<p>The works of Lord Lloyd of Hampstead,  most notably “Introduction to Jurisprudence”, poses the question whether  it's possible, or desirable to define LAW.  By 1972, when these works  were written, there was no accepted definition.  There are, however,  “proposed” definitions.   </p>\n<p>One definition is that “LAW” is a  system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social  institutions to govern behaviour.   </p>\n<p>Queen's Counsel, Glenville  Williams, said the meaning of the word law depends on the context in  which the word is used.  For example, early Customary law and Municipal  law are contexts where the word “LAW” have conflicting and  irreconcilable meanings.  A devout Muslim will consider the Q'uran and  the Hadiths LAW; however a quick examination of these “LAWS” will show  that they're incompatible with anything resembling a civilized society.    </p>\n<p>In the end a conclusion is that LAW is anything that's written  down and upheld by the adherents of that writing.  It is the first MAXIM  of LAW;”If it is written, it is Law.”  It simply boils down to how many  people are willing to enforce it. </p>\n<p>Some “LAWS” are considered  universal.  Don't harm others.  Don't steal from others; and don't  deceive others.  Left at that point, the concept of LAW would be pretty  simple, as these are things that most of us do as a matter of course.    </p>\n<p>If you are taking the time to read this article, I think it's a safe  assumption that you aren't doing it between bouts of robbery and murder.   Human beings, by their very nature (with some notable exceptions), are  inherently altruistic, and have empathy; thus making the whole not  killing people, not robbing people and not defrauding people, the de  facto state of the average Homo sapien.   </p>\n<p>These universal laws  are essentially all Homo sapiens need to interact with each other.  If  you're not killing somebody, and you're not robbing somebody, and you're  not deceiving somebody, it is safe to presume that whatever you do is,  in fact, LAWFUL.   </p>\n<p>So what does LEGAL mean? </p>\n<p>In Western  society LEGAL means Acts and Statutes enacted by Parliament/Congress  with the FORCE OF LAW, and with the consent of the governed. </p>\n<p>I  created THE TENDER FOR LAW to educate the general public as to what  money is; and the reason this is so important is that money is what  indicates your consent to be governed by LEGAL Acts and Statutes.    </p>\n<p>If you are unfortunate enough to know a banker or a lawyer, great  entertainment can be had by asking the question, “What does this note is  LEGAL Tender mean?”, and watching them trying to sputter out an answer.   Lawyers will give long, convoluted explanations with bullshit piled on  top of bullshit.  When they are finished with their deliberately wrong  answer, point to the words and ask, “Which word says all that? Is it the  words, “this note”?  No?  What about the words, LEGAL Tender?  What  does that mean?”  That is why this group is called THE TENDER FOR LAW.   </p>\n<p>THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW.   </p>\n<p>If you partake in any financial transaction, LEGALLY the only consideration is who must pay.   </p>\n<p>LEGAL = Accounting and Surety </p>\n<p>Surety simply means “responsible party”.    </p>\n<p>None of this is ever taught to you in school, and as the Money as Debt  series has taught you, neither is monetary theory.  This is done with a  very insidious intent.  To understand what this insidious intent is, I  must explain how I managed to avoid it. </p>\n<p>To do this I must snap back to a childhood vignette.    </p>\n<p>Many readers will know the familiar feeling of having contempt for your  parents.  Allow me to give you a few more.  My father (John Wayne  Duncan), was in his mid-twenties and living in Belleville, Ontario.  He  had moved there from London, Ontario, to take a job with Canadian  National Railways.  We lived at 67 Village Drive, and my phone number  was 962-0377.  I remember these salient details because they were  hammered into my head, in case I was found wandering around, which I  tended to do.  My grandmother (Olga Jean Duncan), thought I was the  greatest thing that had ever blessed the earth; and whenever she was  around my whims were catered to, in excess.  From that time forward, she  was never shy about stating that “I was the favourite!”  From a child's  perspective, comparatively, my parents seemed to actually resent my  existence.  At that point in life, I had adopted several axioms which  hold true to this day. </p>\n<p>If you are under 20 years old, like it or  not, you are a child. If you're fortunate enough to be this age, let me  give you these axioms, and I guarantee your life will be of higher  quality.  Notice I call them axioms, and not laws (although since I'm  writing them down here, for this article, technically they are);   </p>\n<p>1. EVERY ADULT IS LYING TO YOU – There are no exceptions to this rule.   Most lie because they don't want to admit they are ignorant of the  questions you're asking them. Many lie because they don't want you to  know certain things.  But in the end, they are all lying to you.  A lie  of omission is still a lie.  It's intent is to deceive.  I think I  covered that earlier in this article – see unlawful. </p>\n<p>2. IF YOU  POINT OUT TO THESE ADULTS THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, LYING TO YOU, THEY  WILL INTENTIONALLY SEEK TO HARM YOU – There are no exceptions to this  rule. Nobody's feelings are more hurt than when their lies are exposed.   You may think this sounds hostile, but that's simply because you can't  tell the difference between what's true, and what feels good. </p>\n<p>Back to the childhood vignette...  </p>\n<p>One day my father vetoed a purchase that my grandmother had made,  saying, “He needs to know the value of money.”  Unfortunately for all  parties involved, I was at the stage in my intellectual evolution where I  had reached the conclusion that the only way to successfully navigate  the world of liars, which I appeared to have been born into, was to lie  to them.  I mastered the art of deception at a very early age; and as  long as you focus on the fact that the deception is there to misdirect,  you can still see the world very clearly.  For one of the other  advantages I had at that point, was that I knew that knowledge is power.   The trick is not to let anyone know you're learning it. </p>\n<p>When my  grandmother agreed with my father's position, I was shocked and hurt,  until I remembered, “They're all lying to me”.  My only question is,  “Why are they all lying to me”?  It was shortly after that point that I  learned I wasn't criminally accountable for my actions.  Wait...what  were those words?  CRIMINALLY ACCOUNTABLE.  What the hell does CRIME  have to do with ACCOUNTING?  I had just spotted a trinity.  Money,  crime, accounting. </p>\n<p>Whenever I spotted interactive trinities I  studied each part, knowing they were connected to the other two parts.  I  dedicated the next two years, with the limited resources that I had, to  the study of these things. I knew NEVER to reveal that I was actually  thinking, because I saw what happened to kids that were discovered doing  that. That's when I discovered what money actually was. </p>\n<p>At that  time I was attending Parkdale Public School.  In those early days (Late  70's), “Truancy” was considered an offence; but it turns out that nobody  in a public library cares about truancy.  The librarians at the  Belleville Public Library, seeing me reference but never checking out  books, constantly checking references, looking up definitions of words,  and reading law, simply saw me as a smart, ambitious young man who's  “really going to go places when he grows up&quot;.   The lesson I hadn't  learned at that time was NEVER LET THEM TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.   </p>\n<p>Here's my example.  </p>\n<p>Since my father was a Civil Engineer, designing a “dream house” and  building it across town, was a matter of simplicity.  That house had  been constructed, and we were living there.  By that point I was a  little terror, because somehow this man had convinced my grandmother  that “learning the value of money” was important.  When I stated that it  had no value, and was in fact debt, I found myself in a permanently  hostile environment. By that time my brother and sister had been born,  because my father was figuring out that he'd married a worthless bimbo,  and said worthless bimbo loved babies, but couldn't stand children.   When it looked like my father was going to call it quits, she invariably  got “knocked-up”.  My sister was an exact clone of her mother; and I  didn't know it at a time, but my brother would grow up to be one of the  bravest men I had ever known.  Sadly, I got all the brains. Many things  were denied me, because I dared declare that &quot;money has no value&quot;.  </p>\n<p>All I ever heard about was how they didn't have any money.  But I knew  money was worthless, and it bound you to a whole bunch of rules that  nobody in their right mind would want.  I continued ignoring school and  studying what was interesting to me; nobody had caught on to the library  scam yet.  Nobody knew where I went during the day when I was “truant”,  and since I was a child who didn't know counter-surveillance  techniques, I was unaware that my mother had commissioned a neighbour's  kid to follow me.  The little droplets of knowledge that I had, ended  when the police showed up and terrorized the librarians.  I was brought  home, the police commented on what a smart kid I was, and in the  preparation for some form of corporal punishment that my mother had  thought up, I pointed out that injuring me is a crime, but if I injured  her, it was not.  I told her I would never forgive her for what she had  taken away, and that if she ever denied me any knowledge ever again, I  would kill her... </p>\n<p>...and then I went back to playing dumb.  </p>\n<p>For the first time in my life, everyone thought my mother was lying.   To this day, it is my fondest childhood memory. Nobody would accept that  I could put these concepts together. I got my first erection when I saw  fear in her eyes.  I was flooded with a flurry of emotion.  Nobody  believed her.  Everything she was saying was true, and nobody believed  her. They believed ME. I was just a dumb rebellious child, not someone  who'd figured out things, far too soon for their liking. </p>\n<p>From the  perspective of an adult it's pretty easy to play “dumb kid” as the  adults in question, had forgotten what it's like to be a child, and had  certainly forgotten how much their parents underestimated them.</p>\n<p>Nobody believed her.  Why didn't anyone believe her?  She was an adult.   That's when I realized I didn't need a library, I had a laboratory.  </p>\n<p>Be offensive, deceptive, and stupid – because that's what they  expected; which means they were always looking in the wrong direction.  I  studied that trinity.  I studied law, I studied crime, and I studied  money, because I was “not criminally accountable for my actions.”    </p>\n<p>As I was going down this path to enlightenment, there was a  disproportionate air of concern from my grandmother.  I wouldn't find  out until I was thirteen exactly what that was.  At the time it was  just, if you keep doing what you're doing, apparently you're going to  miss out on something.  Something very important.  But when pressed on  the issue, every party would lie about it.  By that point I could spot  liars from a mile away.  Sometimes I couldn't spot what the lie was, I  could simply spot that when they said something that they knew wasn't  true, they couldn't hide it from me.  I learned more from people's lies  than I ever did from honesty.  I resented my parents for this.  Why  would they bring me into this world, filled with deception and lies,  where everyone thinks wrong, and values the wrong things? </p>\n<p>I knew the value of money.  It had none.  And I also found that it had conditions – see THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER.    </p>\n<p>Those of you seeking liberty must learn law and accounting, because if  you don't you will believe a million lies.  We've often heard the  phrase, “No one is above the law&quot;!  In reality, there are lots of people  above the law.  A Justice, for example, in Canada, has absolutely no  criminal liability for their actions; yet you are told we are all equal  under the law.  And you'll be told that it's necessary, etc., in order  to distract you from the actual mechanics.   </p>\n<p>If someone is “above  the law”, then there is no law. It's fraud. A man/woman in a black  dress and a red sash doesn't have magical super-powers that puts him/her  “above the law” or above you; and these people possess no mental powers  that you don't; yet everyone blindly accepts their “authority”. Thank  your early childhood programming, and ESPECIALLY religion. It is your  early programming that makes you &quot;believe&quot; people are &quot;above&quot; you.  </p>\n<p>Legally, &quot;authority&quot; simply refers to the author of a document.  You'll  find many of these contrary definitions throughout legal jurisprudence.  These are hidden-in-plain-sight lies that everyone BELIVES.  So if  you're a young man, or woman reading this, and you want the answer to  all the questions you may have about life, start with a foundation of  ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. </p>\n<p>If you BELIEVE something, it means you've  stopped investigating, or questioning it.  It means any research or  thought you had once intended to put into it – has ended. </p>\n<p>Belief  is the end of thought.  Those that believe, know this.  I can guarantee,  despite the fact that you, the reader, are just one of seven billion  people on this planet, you have at least once in your life heard the  phrase, “You think too much”. </p>\n<p>Take a moment and try and recall who told you that; and then you can tell me why all belief is evil.   </p>\n<p>For those digging up records, the dream house my father built was at 84  Edgehill Road, Belleville, Ontario.  I used to attend Harry J. Clarke  Public School,  and regularly robbed Moira Secondary School for items  and materials needed for my actual education, not the public fool  system.  Those doing serious digging, will see me as “Scott Duncan”, in  yearbooks and records, etc.  </p>\n<p>Because I love giving away the  ending of the story at the beginning, I will tell you right now that  John Scott Duncan was my legal name, but it was also a TITLE, and  therefore could not be used whilst I was a child in commerce. This  &quot;TITLE&quot; is not something everyone gets, and it must be CLAIMED, and the  claimant must be &quot;worthy&quot;. There is a reason you are referred to as  MASTER as opposed to MISTER when you are a child.  We'll cover that, and  a bunch of shit attached to that, in a future article. It turned out  for ME, that my name, itself, had a different standing legally.  All  this knowledge I had as a child.  Now you are getting it; and you didn't  even have to work for it. </p>\n<p>Let's snap back to the present again.  </p>\n<p>At this writing, the year is 2014 of what is generally known as the  Common Era.  It used to mean Anno Domini, which apparently referred to a  rape-baby that had a bad weekend for your “sins” (He didn't &quot;die&quot;,  according to the evil fairy tale. He &quot;came back to life&quot;).  Let me take a  second and do my regular bout of Christian-bashing and point out that  if you're Christian your ideology is based on what is allegedly the word  of a man who declared “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and then went  on to knock-up some other guy's wife in her sleep; which has the added  bonus of being rape.  If you're a Christian, you won't understand why I  think you're just an evil piece-of-shit. </p>\n<p>All belief is evil.  Christian belief is particularly bad. </p>\n<p>Say what you want about Muslims, but their beliefs are based on the teachings of someone that actually existed.   </p>\n<p>...but I digress... </p>\n<p>All belief is evil.  I've simply mastered the art of showing you why.    </p>\n<p>The founders of the United States actually formed their Republic to  escape the “money as debt” system.  They failed.  At this writing there  is over a trillion dollar Trade Deficit, and this once-free Republic  that was the bastion of invention, innovation and productivity is now  just a nation of debt, and the enforcement thereof.  Virtually half the  employed Americans today directly or indirectly work for the government,  doing nothing but creating and enforcing policy.  Canada is not far  behind. </p>\n<p>Look at where the United States was twenty years ago, and that's where Canada is now.  </p>\n<p>I seem to have entered a period of my life where those in my past, who  said I was crazy, are now coming back and saying, “You were right”!    </p>\n<p>Verily I say to those that knew me in the past, who are now coming out  of the woodwork seeking answers from me; stop now, because &quot;I'm sorry&quot;  isn't good enough any more. I already spent the time trying to teach  you; TIME I WILL NOT GET BACK, and you couldn't be bothered to listen.  If you make the attempt, I WILL harm you.  Consider that PROPER NOTICE  and govern yourselves accordingly.  You're lucky you are even getting  this. Be grateful. (Because I don't get that time back, you will PAY me  first. Not with fiat currency, but in labour. HARD labour. A navy  doesn't maintain itself, and there is a LOT of nasty/dangerous shit to  do on a boat, that is just perfect for someone who dared waste my  precious time!) </p>\n<p>Because as I said before, I don't possess any  mental powers you don't; and if you couldn't be bothered to listen the  first time, then you have already chosen your side.  In the end, war is  coming, and it will be a war between “thinkers” and “believers”, not  good and evil.  To quote Ben Stiller in Zero Effect, &quot;There aren't any  good guys.  You realize that don't you?  I mean you realize there aren't  evil guys, and innocent guys. <br />\n It's just, it's just...it's just a bunch of guys.&quot;  </p>\n<p>Thinking and believing are mutually exclusive.  They shall forever be  in conflict.  All that is “legal” relies on belief.  Legal has nothing  to do with right and wrong.  It always has to do with money. </p>\n<p>REMEMBER THE REQUIRED VIEWING </p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3P7izAUe3ZM&amp;h=DAQEkE_XTAQHLJtQoRvv1xUGDcvVymluQPmPd7lwHDlKsSw&amp;enc=AZNQyUd32woxHBATnmHif5gRI2ApE4br4TAPTUqHrtNhUK41OLD3Ep3Uu2AGIu55xiIKC05kaQM9FbnCQXc6JKXRV4AMLWnQAXX4TYEmlXcJmfGxFy_gimF5sCZRB8EmMsM-r8KTDkEJfLk-6o0-8bjEjaaVnGuxf_FWYkQiPcJDZA&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">https://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM</a> </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"legal\",\"lawful\",\"belief\",\"evil\",\"accounting\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\",\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/606995862669683/\",\"https://www.facebook.com/pages/Toronto-Ontario/110941395597405\",\"http://thetenderforlaw.com/\",\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3P7izAUe3ZM&h=DAQEkE_XTAQHLJtQoRvv1xUGDcvVymluQPmPd7lwHDlKsSw&enc=AZNQyUd32woxHBATnmHif5gRI2ApE4br4TAPTUqHrtNhUK41OLD3Ep3Uu2AGIu55xiIKC05kaQM9FbnCQXc6JKXRV4AMLWnQAXX4TYEmlXcJmfGxFy_gimF5sCZRB8EmMsM-r8KTDkEJfLk-6o0-8bjEjaaVnGuxf_FWYkQiPcJDZA&s=1\",\"https://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "244f7b4364c240b7e38c81d6f83f2c52450fe98d",
  "block": 3939229,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T19:07:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "leagal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "corpus-delicti-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "CORPUS DELICTI (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p> </p>\n<h5><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\" rel=\"noopener\">Scott Duncan </a><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\" rel=\"noopener\">June 20, 2015</a><br />\n<br />\n“CORPUS DELICTI” The MOST IGNORED LEGAL CONCEPT!   </h5>\n<h5> </h5>\n<p>The circle-jerkers at Quatloos have been scouring the 1960 CANADIAN  BILL OF RIGHTS for what is supposedly my own &quot;crazy&quot; 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  &quot;Justices&quot; 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. </p>\n<p>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 &quot;APPLICATION OF THIS CHARTER&quot; section in Canadian  Public Schools. </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>And don't &quot;paraphrase&quot; 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.   </p>\n<p>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! </p>\n<p>This took FIVE SECONDS to find: </p>\n<p>“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: </p>\n<p>“With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512  </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>“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.]. </p>\n<p>“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.  </p>\n<p>“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.</p>\n<p> There are seven elements of jurisdiction and every element MUST be met in order for the court to proceed. </p>\n<p>SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:  </p>\n<p>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.) </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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) </p>\n<p>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.<br />\n<br />\nLacking 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. </p>\n<p>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</p>\n<p> ...WOW. <br />\n<br />\nThat's enough copypasta to give Derek Moran a fucking woody! </p>\n<p>CORPUS DELICTI - Look it the fuck up. </p>\n<p>FOR THERE TO BE A FUCKING CRIME, THERE MUST BE A FUCKING INJURED PARTY! </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"leagal\",\"crime\",\"accounting\",\"surety\",\"jurisdiction\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott?fref=nf\",\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/844734415562492/\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "44c3c5507781fc588df61f53738bdfae9b664a16",
  "block": 3937926,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T17:59:36",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "brucemasters",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "482dc9dd70ed8f5b8baefd01e86a9570fa3a498d",
  "block": 3937783,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T17:52:27",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "lien",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "lien-your-name-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "LIEN YOUR NAME (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p> </p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott\" rel=\"noopener\">Scott Duncan</a>·<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-duncan/the-tender-for-law-lien-your-name-c-2015-roguesupport-inc/1225577444175392\" rel=\"noopener\">Monday, October 5, 2015</a></p>\n<p><br />\n<strong>THE TENDER FOR LAW – LIEN YOUR NAME (c) 2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.  </strong></p>\n<p>Appointed by: Dan &quot;Lien-Your-Name&quot; Wilson</p>\n<p>... that's just a fancy way of saying he asked for it.</p>\n<p>I'm nearing the end of my run in the public here, so I think I'll stir the financial pot again.  Today we're going to talk about liening your name.   I'll cover the benefits, the drawbacks, and what you will actually need to do to accomplish this.   Let's start off with the basics.</p>\n<p>This article makes several presumptions, the first being that you understand what a PERSON is, LEGALLY.  You are not a PERSON, you HAVE a PERSON.  This PERSON is indicated as an all-capitalized version of your name.  This LEGALLY represents a SECURITY.  This article also presumes that you understand the concept of LEGAL = ACCOUNTING AND SURETY.  You are the LAWFUL HOLDER in DUE COURSE of your PERSON.  You are the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for that PERSON.  This means LEGALLY no other man or woman may use the SECURITY that is your PERSON.   This article also presumes that you understand money is simply DEBT IN TRANSIT.</p>\n<p><br />\n<strong>WHY LIEN YOUR NAME?</strong></p>\n<p>Liening your name creates a PUBLIC RECORD of an undisputed CLAIM.  When a bank mortgages a property for you, it places a LIEN on that property, effectively making it the OWNER.  LEGALLY an OWNER cannot BENEFIT, the only exception being the ATTORNMENT to a TRUST.  I OWN every vessel in the AQUILAE Navy.  The Captains have the benefit of self-determination under the CONDITIONS of the Admiralty. I own the vessels. I own their value. I GIVE that value in exchange for their RIGHTS, which are SECURED.  As I said three years ago, it's as free as you can get in the 21st Century.  Keep that model in mind as I describe liening your name.  </p>\n<p>The GOVERNMENT OWNS your name.  This is self evident. It created it based on INFORMATION from a man and a woman who LEGALLY ACTED as INFORMANTS.  Based on the signed TESTIMONY, the GOVERNMENT SECURED your birth RIGHT.  Using today as an example, a baby born and registered, creates a brand new $17,000 CA debt in CANADA.   A child born (and registered) in the UNITED STATES owes close to $90,000 US.  You are the only man, or woman, who gives the NAME any VALUE.  There is no shortage of case law that supports the position that, if you create value you have the FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL to the BENEFIT.   The same is true with your name, as with anything else where you create value.  If you grow a crop, you get to decide how much you eat, and how much you sell, or even if you want to let the surplus rot. IT’S YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHT (You can sell the right, and it is PRESUMED you have the right to do so).  If you’ve grown VALUE from a CERTIFICATION given to you by strangers, yet still owned by those strangers, you have the RIGHT to CLAIM the VALUE from it.   So you need to decide how much you think you are worth.  Well, I can't advise you on that, but I for one, think I'm pretty fucking valuable.  I showed all of you how to create your own currency, and how to create your own bank.  I own a fucking Navy and I have a big penis.  Fuck it.</p>\n<p>...quarter of a billion it is.</p>\n<p>...and wait until you people see what's coming.  Buying me off is a bargain at twice the price. <br />\n <br />\n...I digress.<br />\n<br />\nSo how do I LIEN my name for a quarter of a billion dollars?  There are several ways.  Married couples have this ability built-in.  The GOVERNMENT doesn't like dealing with functioning married couples because of this ability.  If one party encounters LEGAL trouble, they can transfer all property to the other; and there is nothing a court can, or will, do about it.    </p>\n<p>If you're fortunate enough to have somebody you trust implicitly, you may opt to have them LIEN your name as a second option.  Sadly, this is not really an option very many people have. It’s been programmed/engineered out of you. Most of you are too clueless to have a meaningful relationship with anyone muchless trust someone implicitly.  This option is only for the lucky few.   </p>\n<p>The third option is to have a CORPORATION LIEN your name.  This is by far, <strong>the easiest and best option</strong>. </p>\n<p>Your CORPORATION should be INCORPORATED AS a PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, and those JURISDICTIONS and/or STATES that do not have a LEGAL framework to facilitate a PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, only need have the principles of a PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION in its CHARTER.  That way, the CORPORATION that LIENS you is on the PUBLIC RECORD as doing so for the BENEFIT of the PUBLIC.  As that is in the CORPORATE CHARTER , it can reasonably be DEEMED the motivation and controlling factors behind every public action the CORPORATION takes.  The onus is on outside parties to PROVE standing and the prove the contrary. It’s a HUGE burden to overcome.  </p>\n<p>Make as many shares as you like for the CORPORATION, but maintain the controlling shares.  The CORPORATION, YOU and the GOVERNMENT are the parties in this constructive trust.  THE TENDER FOR LAW that money provides allows this trinity in the LEGAL MATRIX to exist.  You created two of the three parts.  Keep that in mind as I digress...</p>\n<p>In a previous article I introduced you to the concept of the SELF-SIGNED CERTIFICATE.  If you're not familiar with this concept, stop reading and look here: [<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSelf-signed_certificate&amp;h=DAQEkE_XT&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-...</a>], or you're going to miss a vital part.   This is what you are effectively doing LEGALLY when you LIEN your name.  Using self-signed certificates as an example, connecting to <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2F2142.roguesupport.com%2F&amp;h=dAQHna_m0&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">https://2142.roguesupport.com/</a>, you will see that status of our Battlefield 2142 Master Server - but NOT before a bunch of scary warnings. You'll notice that the URL begins with &quot;https&quot; and not the regular &quot;http&quot; that you normally find in a URL.  Since we have to pretend to be an EA Master Server to play Battlefield 2142, it's a foregone conclusion that the certificates being used to encrypt the connection are not going to be &quot;legitimate&quot;.  That is because the server &quot;self-signs&quot; the certificate, and these days your browser will flip-out when you encounter one.  Since you can TRUST me, proceeding has no real consequence.  If you get the same certificate error at your bank, it is likely you are the victim of a &quot;man in the middle&quot; attack; since you consent to the connection, and it's easy to decrypt what comes out.  If, for example, the data that comes out is a &quot;password&quot;,  that server between you and your bank can simultaneously record your clear-text password, and hand off the transaction to your real bank. It will look perfectly normal, except the dire warning at the beginning.    </p>\n<p>I hope I have explained the risks clearly, because that's how every entity in commerce will view you.  Nobody will give you a mortgage because you are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to pay it back.  Your primary obligation is to the SECURED PARTY (Your Public Benefit Corporation).  Loaning money to you is a huge risk!  Loaning money to me is an insane risk!  Except, any qualified actuarial could easily refute that point about me. I have a demonstrable history that shows I CAN be trusted.  If I can be TRUSTED, it doesn't matter if I sign my own certificates.  If you do commerce with me, and the only money I accept is money with two signatures and a TRUSTEE, and both signatures are mine, then you'd better find a way to get that money if you wish to do commerce/contract with ME.  It's up to the CORPORATION what money you're allowed to ACCEPT.  If you only accept your own self-signed certificates, then PARTIES engaging you in commerce, have to suck it up.  Why?  BECAUSE FUCK OFF, THAT'S WHY!  The whole point in SECURING the NAME is to CLAIM ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY over it.  Let the CORPORATION benefit from its CLAIM.  If there's no controversy between you and the CORPORATION, the GOVERNMENT simply doesn't have a CLAIM.  It doesn't even have JURISDICTION, and therefore has NO RIGHT to interfere.</p>\n<p>So how does this help you <strong>LEGALLY</strong>?    </p>\n<p>If you look at a cheque (two signatures and a TRUSTEE), and you look at every document that causes ACTION in a court room, you will see by using that standard, that there is actual MONEY being exchanged.  Your JURISDICTION's ATTORNEY GENERAL really wants lots and lots of papers with two signatures and a TRUSTEE.  Using your NAME as SURETY (remember you're a certificate in receivership), YOU are the one that starts the financial ball rolling in a court process.  Lawyers create and exchange this currency for FEDERAL FIAT CURRENCY.  The fees you pay a lawyer are only a fraction of what they made from the actual court system.  One of the complaints about death-row inmate appeals is that the &quot;trial costs millions&quot;.  For what?  I defy you to spend millions to gather a group of people in a single, wooden room and talk to a guy in a black dress.   I could spend weeks doing it.  I could put on a black dress and save the costs.  I could rent a classy venue at a nice conference centre, and I still won't break the hundred thousand dollar mark.  Well that &quot;cost&quot; must either be settled or discharged.  The lie of omission about the whole &quot;trial costs millions of dollars&quot; is that the ATTORNEY GENERAL gets to CLAIM that &quot;loss&quot; in next year's budget, which the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT gives them. EVERY CLAIM/STATEMENT/MOTION and ANY paper with 2 signatures and a trustee, IS MONEY. MONEY that LAWYERS CAN CASH! THAT is what they mean by “court costs”.  This &quot;cost&quot; is, of course, taken by force from you. (Taxes) <br />\n<br />\nThe only way to stop the LAW SOCIETY from exploiting you in this way is to LIEN your NAME.   When your name is LIENED you do not have the RIGHT to ATTORN yourself.  That would be FRAUD.  Your NAME is the CORPORATION'S PROPERTY, not yours.  ATTORNING yourself, while your NAME is LIENED, is the same as selling somebody's house that you are renting.  You simply do not have the RIGHT.  This puts the GOVERNMENT, and the LAW SOCIETY, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL, in a very awkward position.  All processing and enforcement of any acts, codes or statutes attached to your name, are by their very nature, FRAUDULENT.  This is as self-evident as is a self-signed certificate.  <br />\n<br />\nI've saved the best for last.<br />\n<br />\nLIENING YOUR NAME means you must be trustworthy.  Nobody will give you credit otherwise.  People with good credit who endorse others, pass some of that credit to them.  If I asked you to loan me a million dollars, which I'll pay back when I can, you would not believe that a reasonable proposition.  However, if a bunch of acquaintances and a few people you admire, suddenly popped up and said, &quot;If he won't lend it to you, I will&quot;, it suddenly transitions from unreasonable to unbelievable.  If a bunch of people you trust, publicly TENDER OFFERS, because they TRUST me, a conflict will form in your head.  You don't understand why people you trust are doing this unreasonable thing, but you also don't want people you trust to gain an advantage over you.  Your brain will fall into a false trap, that forms the seed of &quot;mob mentality&quot;.  It's harmless if everyone can be trusted.  It doesn't work otherwise. Suddenly you will feel it’s “worth the risk”. Play it out in your head.<br />\n <br />\nMost of you who do this will starve to death, because even shell corporations must justify their existence and produce value.   If you have/are nothing anybody wants, then like it or not, you have NO VALUE.  In every county the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND touches, you must turn VALUE into CREDIT.  If you have no VALUE,  you get no CREDIT.  You have supreme AUTHORITY over yourself, and nobody wants your &quot;funny money&quot;. So how am I different?  <br />\n<br />\nI accept and trade, and sometimes even launder money, through several currencies.  The currencies themselves all have their own daily value, and my value adds to it.  When I charge you the insane rates that I do, it's because I'm just that fucking valuable...and as soon as you pay me, you are creating a PUBLIC RECORD of that fact.  This causes the smart, and the observant, to go through the following three-step process when they observe it:<br />\n<br />\n1. Trustworthy<br />\n<br />\n2. Valuable<br />\n<br />\n3. Shut-up and take my money<br />\n<br />\nYou don't even break any laws by doing it.  There's a LEGAL TENDER attached to my currency as well.  It starts with the Number One Rule of the Universe.  The rules are pretty easy to figure out from there.  :D  <br />\n<br />\nI attach that TENDER FOR LAW, to the money you need to exchange for my value.  IMF countries do the same thing. This is why the UNITED STATES is never LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as waging an ILLEGAL war, despite all the uneducated declarations to the contrary.    <br />\n<br />\nIf you use the US dollar, the US has the RIGHT to ATTORN you to US JURISDICTION.  If they didn't have that power, why would they give a shit about their currency at all?  The reality is, LEGAL wars are what they say it is.<br />\nYou all know Rothschild's famous quote, &quot;Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws&quot;.  This is not entirely true, because the public's general misunderstanding of the mechanics of money, means they're missing the point of this quote.    <br />\n<br />\nThe LEGAL mechanism that facilitates the laws in question, is how the money supply is controlled. Laws “steer” the economy. but you control a lot when you have the throttle. The Rothschilds have the “throttle”, you don’t get to steer ANYWHERE without their say-so.   <br />\n<br />\nThis is also the most vulnerable point in the money supply, and is susceptible to outside influence.  Of course this problem was solved in 2009,  by our lovely, and wise, and just plain awesome benefactor, Satoshi Nakamoto.  In one fell-swoop, money of account, and money of exchange, got merged, and the hole was closed.  It's only controlled by computer science.  It is not vulnerable to human influence, and automatically self-corrects when humans try.  Nobody controls it, and it can’t be turned off.    </p>\n<p>Let that sink in.   </p>\n<p>We are entering the age of &quot;thinking money&quot;, so if you find yourself in the position where you have NO VALUE, I suggest you start associating with those who do.  For those who really have VALUE, love spreading the wealth. In fact, there’s a CryptoCurrency Based on that very thing! Yes, it’s based on altruism! (WOW! Very Value! Such Currency! Much Doge!)<br />\n<br />\nThis is my final public article for THE TENDER FOR LAW.  I promise to answer all questions in the comments truthfully, and under the oaths and obligations I have on this date henceforth.  This means I will answer questions in 2016, under the rules of 2015. In short: I promise to keep telling you the truth... but only here. ;)</p>\n<p>This is it kids.  I've given you everything you need.  I've done my bit for Queen and Country, and got shit on for all my trouble.  I kept my oaths when absolutely everybody else didn't.  I'm free to claim what is rightfully mine.</p>\n<p>Lead, follow - or get out of the way!  Those who want to follow, are welcomed to do so, but you will find I'm primarily focused on the transactional technology, and the financial weaponry necessary to fulfill my agenda.  Those who have harmed me, have harmed you too.  It is my intention to neutralize them, both LEGALLY and LAWFULLY.  Henceforth articles posted on FaceBook will be in THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.  I'm going to show you how to automate all this shit.  If you pay attention, and understand everything you're doing, it won't be long before cryptocurrency replaces FIAT currency in your life.  I intend to show you by live example how to leverage the trillions of dollars worth of free shit just waiting to be exploited.  If you find you have no value, follow what I'm writing and I guarantee I'll change that.</p>\n<p>This article is dedicated to the memory of Dan &quot;Lien-Your-Name&quot; Wilson, who lives on through his virtual presence on our Battlefield 2142 Server - and is extra fun to shoot.    </p>\n<p>Praise Bob.<br />\n<br />\n</p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"lien\",\"accounting\",\"legal\",\"cryptocurrency\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/roguesupport.scott\",\"https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-duncan/the-tender-for-law-lien-your-name-c-2015-roguesupport-inc/1225577444175392\",\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSelf-signed_certificate&h=DAQEkE_XT&s=1\",\"https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2F2142.roguesupport.com%2F&h=dAQHna_m0&s=1\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "4074d53d66626f7af4e0ba1357ad45b1e5a1dc91",
  "block": 3935195,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T15:42:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "relentvest",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "children-s-aid-society-c-a-s-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cacc25775c0c5cae04ccfb759d08eea4785c3013",
  "block": 3935191,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T15:42:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "relentvest",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9f6b8c2931875a5ac7c8fb2d73a1b9ef68a64b23",
  "block": 3924725,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T06:59:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "mrgreen",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "children-s-aid-society-c-a-s-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2872315b353aaeceb4b34d91c112466dc2bf107d",
  "block": 3924721,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T06:59:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "mrgreen",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "401e65f1eb6be4fe0e4cae48647619bbfa9a53dd",
  "block": 3921643,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:24:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "legal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "children-s-aid-society-c-a-s-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY [C.A.S] FOR IDIOTS (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p>  THE TENDER FOR LAW – CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY [C.A.S] FOR IDIOTS (c)  2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. <br />\n<br />\nThis  article is what we like to call an &quot;emergency article&quot; in as much as  Dean Clifford has publicly and blatantly lied about family services and  the law. Before we get started we are going to refer to the JURISDICTION  I am most familiar with. You will find mirrors of this in any  JURISDICTION that uses a world reserve currency. </p>\n<p>If you live in  Buttfuck Montana I will not be able to point you to the ACT and/or  STATUTE that says what I am going to show you here.  </p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/English/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm\" rel=\"noopener\">http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/…/En…/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm</a> </p>\n<p>The URL above will point you to the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO so you can sing along...  </p>\n<p>Before I start let's review a few LEGAL DEFINITIONS. Those who have  been studying the Maxims of Law will be familiar with the Maxim that  says, &quot;The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of everything else.&quot;  Like all good LEGAL documents I'm going to give away the answer right at  the beginning and explain why this is true.</p>\n<p>Every one who has  been a victim of the CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY has been profoundly aware  that FRAUD is occurring, and has been unaware of how to identify this  FRAUD. In order to have a child removed from a mother and/or father's  custody an ORDER must be issued from the court that cites this very ACT.  There are exceptions to this RULE (imminent physical threat to a child,  WARRANT from a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE inter alia), but that's not what we  are covering here. In this writing I am only going to focus on the  long, drawn-out, cash-producing process laughingly called family law.  </p>\n<p>In every ACT and STATUTE, words are defined in the context of that ACT  and/or STATUTE. If the word &quot;light&quot; is defined in a STATUTE as  &quot;darkness&quot;, then in the context of that STATUTE, light means darkness. A  &quot;JUSTICE&quot; orders the kidnapping (and it is kidnapping) and/or  alienation of a child with an ORDER in the context of the CHILD AND  FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. So let's look at the CHILD AND FAMILY  SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO. What does &quot;ORDER&quot; mean in the context of the  CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO? Let's go see the  interpretations section and its definitions....“ORDER” INCLUDES a REFUSAL to make an ORDER; (“arrêté, ordre et ordonnance”)...WHAT?  </p>\n<p>...just looking through the ACT to see if there's a bit more detail  here ...nope, that's it. That's all it says. I assume the parties who  drafted this ACT were never taught that you should never use the word  you're defining in a definition. </p>\n<p>In THE TENDER FOR LAW our  standard operating procedure is to look up every single word, even if  you think you know what it means; and in every case it always turn out  that you don't. So let's go through that sentence, one word at a time.  In our fresh new definition of &quot;ORDER&quot; we are &quot;INCLUDING&quot; something,  which in legalese means we are EXCLUDING everything else. In this case  we are including a REFUSAL(?) How can you include a refusal? (hey don't  look at me...I didn't write this...I'm just telling you what it says) </p>\n<p>Since refusal is not defined in this ACT we'll have to step up to a  more general level. Let's see what Black's Law 9th Edition has to say  about the word &quot;refusal&quot;: </p>\n<p>&quot;An opportunity to accept or reject  something before it is offered to others; the right or privilege of  having this opportunity.&quot;...well, there's a privilege worth waiving! In  fact I dare say that of all the privileges and benefits one would wish  to waive, this should at least be in your top five. Dean Clifford and  the guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth (&quot;How do I sound&quot;? - Tony Butros, HOW  TO WITH DEAN CLIFFORD-Ep13 <a href=\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogtalkradio.com%2F&amp;h=OAQGZt1WTAQHN9vSVXPhJe1X29GS8FU9LpvcsyXEBRmNrTw&amp;enc=AZPtsOR1ek8quwWYAKwxG_YDO_yaCp95N3IJnssc-9hf0IC56zZOM_PWiFdHn1IqnGS3-TAx1s-icqqm-2sWmniDP5lgKcQhQnA1DD0kaQSRCg0gvlz7gYVgRRfax96eC9BT9scbtwjGQLE3EZLmjiHqjOcnGlu0J5fE-mcfNk9KBD9NPysOfpZrF6msxAoYtT2Z4guRkCHus50gHTedYIOD&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">blogtalkradio.com</a>) are selling this as a benefit.   </p>\n<p>In fact, they're asking you to beg for it when they tell you to use  APPLICATIONS and MOTIONS (...Yeh, you like that don't 'ya bitch!).  </p>\n<p>Rather than begging for your own victimization, a little effort tearing  this apart will serve you much better. Since we're talking about ORDERS  and MAKING ORDERS let's take a quick peek at the word &quot;MAKE&quot; since we  have Black's Law lying open here... </p>\n<p>MAKE, according to Black's  Law 9th Edition, &quot;To legally perform, as by executing, signing, OR  delivering (a document) (to make a contract)&quot; </p>\n<p>Oh look, they use  the word &quot;OR&quot;! Don't you just love it when they give you a selection?  Always remember legalese does NOT actually &quot;lie&quot;, it simply presumes you  know what the words mean (as a CIVILIAN! HAR! Oh, I slay me!).  </p>\n<p>So when a &quot;JUSTICE&quot; MAKES an ORDER he gets a selection from the  &quot;bullshit buffet&quot; that is the LAW, but he can only pick one, OR the  other. Neither of these options actually applies to YOU. By ACCEPTING  the ORDER you are in fact, EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS to &quot;BENEFIT&quot; from it,  before everyone else can. Yes, you are accepting SURETY before anyone  else gets a chance; and while I'm not one to tell you how to run your  affairs, I personally think that that would be a MISTAKE! And we all  know what to do about MISTAKES.  </p>\n<p>Now I want you to &quot;fire up&quot; that  little lump of protoplasm you laughingly call a brain, and ask  yourself, &quot;Which makes more sense? Begging to be part of the  JURISDICTION and all of its &quot;BENEFITS&quot; or following the Number 1 Rule of  the Universe (Scott is ALWAYS right! Especially as regards LAW).  Lawyers used to come to me when they got in over their heads, and I was  shoved A LOT of payola under the table for my services. Single mothers  reading this know how to express their gratitude. You may APPLY to Tara  for the opportunity to provide remuneration. </p>\n<p>So let's go through this fascinating definition one more time, translated to laymen's terms:  </p>\n<p>In the context of the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT OF ONTARIO a  &quot;JUSTICE&quot; will issue an opportunity to ACCEPT a BENEFIT before everyone  else. So basically ORDER in this context actually OFFERS YOU the RIGHT  TO DECLINE. I guarantee that none of you who have had your children  stolen, DECLINED that ORDER. In fact I dare say you ACCEPTED it. That  would be a MISTAKE.  </p>\n<p>Issuing a NOTICE OF MISTAKE will correct  this, because another Maxim of Law says, &quot;That which can be done, can be  undone&quot;. Serving by registered mail a modified NOTICE OF MISTAKE to all  participating PARTIES, will remedy this MISTAKE.  </p>\n<p>And now we will cover our new &quot;word of the day&quot;, &quot;PETITION&quot;: </p>\n<p>PETITION, according to Black's Law 9th Edition, &quot;A formal written request presented to a court or other official body.&quot;  </p>\n<p>Those few of you who actually have a fucking clue who I am, know that  among my many titles is ADMIRAL. I exercise my RIGHTS and DUTIES  strictly through ADMIRALTY, so I totally know what I'm talking about  here. I, as an ADMIRAL, have TRUSTEES SERVING me. I do not bark ORDERS  at my TRUSTEES. I only do that to my inferiors. My TRUSTEES are most  certainly NOT my inferiors. When I need a task performed for AQUILAE I  REQUEST. Returning to the definition of PETITION you will see that this  is also a request. I therefore PETITION my TRUSTEES to execute tasks on  behalf of the TRUST. TRUSTEES do not serve an ADMIRAL; an ADMIRAL SERVES  HIS TRUSTEES. The &quot;payment&quot; for this &quot;service&quot; is the TRUSTEE'S OATH to  GRANT ALL MY REQUESTS. It is the COURT's DUTY to do the same.  </p>\n<p>This group's name &quot;THE TENDER FOR LAW&quot; is actually a translation to  layman's terms of &quot;THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER&quot;. They mean the same thing.  So naturally money comes into the picture. Remember our group's  Maxim...&quot;Follow the money&quot;. In this particular case we don't want to  follow any money, we want to stop the flow of money. </p>\n<p>All of you  have heard the old adage, &quot;The buck stops here.&quot; Translated to legalese,  &quot;the buck stops here&quot; = &quot;NON-NEGOTIABLE&quot;. In the construction of our  PETITION we are going to contain, in its body, a cessation of  negotiation. When dissecting documents that have a financial interest,  we have learned that documents signed by a &quot;PERSON&quot; are considered  NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS under the LAW.  </p>\n<p>Therefore in our PETITION,  the first words that appear should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. This is similar  to putting &quot;WITHOUT PREJUDICE&quot; on the top of a document. NEGOTIATE does  not mean bargain or haggle, it means to EXECUTE a financial transaction.  NON-NEGOTIABLE literally means &quot;the buck stops here&quot;. Reading through  Black's Law will show you numerous types of petitions, and reading them  in the context demonstrated here will make these petitions very, very  clear...even a chick can do it. </p>\n<p>At this point I would like  everyone to know that I DO NOT provide LEGAL service; I only point you  in the right direction. Therefore I cannot draw up a petition for you as  I did with the NOTICE OF MISTAKE. NOTICE OF MISTAKE existed in the real  world before I typed up any document regarding it. Therefore I was  quoting, which means I have not stepped outside of any LEGAL  restriction. When The second I issue a petition you can bet your sorry,  incompetent asses I'll be quoting it here. Until that happens though,  you'd best use the comments section to ask any questions you may have.  For the sake of your children do not listen to Dean and the  guy-with-a-dick-in-his-mouth; they are deliberately misleading you! When  you discover this is true (and you will if you listen to them), you are  welcomed to board any AQUILAE vessel and beg me for forgiveness where I  promise there will be a loyal and capable TRUSTEE standing by to kick  you in the face, and toss you overboard. </p>\n<p>So post your questions and keep on topic. As this is the most important thread, our fun banter is not permitted here! ...except when I do it. </p>\n<p>Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11<br />\n <a href=\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-laws.gov.on.ca%2F&amp;h=GAQFJrWuJAQH1_85RxRyTaVQwZQ-ZqjuRBEagHohfl60eVg&amp;enc=AZMxAujzVjca7_cUH1vevwXs3ZHXd7v1p8AadUjnGmW7vkWNRxglz-L94TJmsJKgEGRBgnw5QpqDqf2t1HtLHgFO2mKQ8PAA0I1T-3u2VZDM_tJnLJXJ5xRsKtJMxox-4L-cXGRVjKsYuFln_O-tJRZwoX9akX4JjJxeaEc4DRz-6Nh_hjXblqqxJSXPymNXgrPCaYXdfAirUV-JW_sA87UD&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">www.e-laws.gov.on.ca</a><br />\n  Last amendment: See Table of Public Statute Provisions Repealed Under  Section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 – December 31, 2011. </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"legal\",\"children\",\"parents\",\"accounting\",\"surety\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/English/elaws_statutes_90c11_e.htm\",\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogtalkradio.com%2F&h=OAQGZt1WTAQHN9vSVXPhJe1X29GS8FU9LpvcsyXEBRmNrTw&enc=AZPtsOR1ek8quwWYAKwxG_YDO_yaCp95N3IJnssc-9hf0IC56zZOM_PWiFdHn1IqnGS3-TAx1s-icqqm-2sWmniDP5lgKcQhQnA1DD0kaQSRCg0gvlz7gYVgRRfax96eC9BT9scbtwjGQLE3EZLmjiHqjOcnGlu0J5fE-mcfNk9KBD9NPysOfpZrF6msxAoYtT2Z4guRkCHus50gHTedYIOD&s=1\",\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-laws.gov.on.ca%2F&h=GAQFJrWuJAQH1_85RxRyTaVQwZQ-ZqjuRBEagHohfl60eVg&enc=AZMxAujzVjca7_cUH1vevwXs3ZHXd7v1p8AadUjnGmW7vkWNRxglz-L94TJmsJKgEGRBgnw5QpqDqf2t1HtLHgFO2mKQ8PAA0I1T-3u2VZDM_tJnLJXJ5xRsKtJMxox-4L-cXGRVjKsYuFln_O-tJRZwoX9akX4JjJxeaEc4DRz-6Nh_hjXblqqxJSXPymNXgrPCaYXdfAirUV-JW_sA87UD&s=1\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "85901237c1dbba5e3c4ea1062393d88baf9c5950",
  "block": 3921553,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:19:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d76d5c0c51186eb0b3fba5bbf4612f64f9dc4fb9",
  "block": 3921544,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:19:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5b77121b8be16eafbafa16d1691eb5d9c95576f0",
  "block": 3921540,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:19:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "persons-for-idiots",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2fde9dce9a0532f6b5aad7aa4040d978d4342cd5",
  "block": 3921537,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:18:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "maximiliam-poe",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cdbda4028246fa40c34b2bb082118304ac0a9e40",
  "block": 3921380,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T04:10:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "legal",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "surety-for-idiots-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "SURETY FOR IDIOTS (THE TENDER FOR LAW)",
      "body": "<p>THE TENDER FOR LAW – SURETY FOR IDIOTS (c) 2013 ROGUESUPPORT INC.  under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported  License.<br />\n<br />\nIt’s been a while since I’ve posted an article, and I’ve solidified the “For Idiots” concept. Let’s cover SURETY!  <br />\n<br />\nOne 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.<br />\n<br />\nSome 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.<br />\n<br />\nThat 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  <br />\n<br />\nBefore 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.<br />\n<br />\nThose 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”.<br />\n<br />\nSo let’s go read some really, really Olde English.<br />\n<br />\nLet’s pick a really old English document, completely at random. We’ll pick…The MAGNA CARTA.  <br />\n<br />\nA 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)”.<br />\n<br />\nYOU=SURETY  <br />\n<br />\nIf 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)  <br />\n<br />\nOthers, 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.<br />\n<br />\nNow 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.<br />\n<br />\nSection 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.<br />\n<br />\nOn 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.<br />\n<br />\nIf 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?”<br />\n<br />\nDo 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?<br />\n<br />\nYou’ll recall in other articles and comments, the levels of the caste system and how they give instructions.<br />\n<br />\nNOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR “WISHES”.<br />\n<br />\nADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING THEIR SUBORDINATES AS “MR”.<br />\n<br />\nGENERALS GIVE ORDERS.  <br />\n<br />\nNow 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.<br />\n<br />\nIf 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?”<br />\n<br />\nAlways 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.<br />\n<br />\nAs stated before, the most  powerful of these questions is, “Who are you?” UNDERSTANDING cannot be  presumed until that question is answered.<br />\n<br />\nAbove all, questioning deflects SURETY.  <br />\n<br />\nQuite 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.<br />\n<br />\nDo not permit the proceedings to move forward without these questions being answered!<br />\nBecause so many people ask for it, transcribed here is the copy of THE ROGUESUPPORT NOTICE OF MISTAKE.<br />\n<br />\n***Begin NOTICE OF MISTAKE NOTICE OF MISTAKE<br />\n</p>\n<p>In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a<br />\nMISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as the<br />\naccused. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR<br />\nSUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT to believe<br />\nby responding to “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or SUCH OTHER<br />\nIDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY<br />\nWITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive<br />\nme. </p>\n<p>As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “DEAN CLIFFORD” and/or SUCH<br />\nOTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY<br />\nASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT ADDRESSING me as such?<br />\nAs the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT,<br />\nWHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the<br />\nTRUST have any SURETY in this matter? </p>\n<p>As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND  (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL 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? <br />\n</p>\n<p>WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal? </p>\n<p>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 CLOSURE.<br />\n</p>\n<p>AUTHORISED BY: </p>\n<p><br /></p>\n<p>***End NOTICE OF MISTAKE  </p>\n<p><br /></p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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”. </p>\n<p>Belief is the end of questioning.  Belief is intellectual bankruptcy, and is the exact opposite of  knowledge. You will never question if you “believe”. </p>\n<p>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”. </p>\n<p>There may be three readers amongst you who understand what I just said there, and all of them are Scottish I guarantee you.  </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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. </p>\n<p>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”. </p>\n<p><a href=\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogtalkradio.com%2F&amp;h=vAQFdHyEZAQFY4BindrxRda4-BV705ziqKSeYgsPeHH6MWQ&amp;enc=AZMHKUGqN7sWpLWPAr8GtZz86gjEudbMJ6sYxwiFANZzSTSZtvn4OXmS2sz0tQj1MKr_9tX58kmoUJQBeNzBdYq2EaTKv-TUoIJsHiY1iVA0iyXAXJ-3ps7caR7mEKijqvn2Ev8yG79Q1UJH9Qe_6yVzcpu2LaOeCaV6cnHhEdwh6vavPTIXMZLae7ysqpINGJbzV-1cLmr_wqDVsCISr65C&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/</a>…/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep… </p>\n<p>…because when Scott Duncan does a plug, he does it hard core! </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"legal\",\"surety\",\"accounting\",\"joinder\",\"law\"],\"links\":[\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogtalkradio.com%2F&h=vAQFdHyEZAQFY4BindrxRda4-BV705ziqKSeYgsPeHH6MWQ&enc=AZMHKUGqN7sWpLWPAr8GtZz86gjEudbMJ6sYxwiFANZzSTSZtvn4OXmS2sz0tQj1MKr_9tX58kmoUJQBeNzBdYq2EaTKv-TUoIJsHiY1iVA0iyXAXJ-3ps7caR7mEKijqvn2Ev8yG79Q1UJH9Qe_6yVzcpu2LaOeCaV6cnHhEdwh6vavPTIXMZLae7ysqpINGJbzV-1cLmr_wqDVsCISr65C&s=1\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "772f053a94556fc3b76d3538f18b5db68f2d4c5c",
  "block": 3919748,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:45:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "cloudreflect",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b0817f47dcbe1c2a11497a73276124ea9cf63af2",
  "block": 3919739,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:44:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "cloudreflect",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "persons-for-idiots",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2996b1032505765784acc9226b7cb41d2645e724",
  "block": 3919735,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:44:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "cloudreflect",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "6b6282a020c63ca25a5f7ee26911b50dd1b36773",
  "block": 3919502,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:33:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "harrywombat",
      "parent_permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "author": "cheetah",
      "permlink": "re-you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law-20160809t023302",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Hi! I am a content-detection robot. This post is to help manual curators; I have NOT flagged you.\nHere is similar content:\nhttp://kentbarrett.com/you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things/",
      "json_metadata": ""
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "24e114d339af24a6127f97866e8de7d6b9fc47c6",
  "block": 3919484,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:32:09",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "law",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "you-think-wrong-and-value-the-wrong-things-the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "YOU THINK WRONG, AND VALUE THE WRONG THINGS (The tender For Law)",
      "body": "<p> THE TENDER FOR LAW: YOU THINK WRONG, AND VALUE THE WRONG THINGS - By Tara Duncan (c) 2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC.<br />\n April 24, 2015 at 4:36pm  THE TENDER FOR LAW: YOU THINK WRONG AND VALUE THE WRONG THINGS - By  Tara Duncan (c) 2015 ROGUESUPPORT INC.  under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.  While  this is predominantly directed at personal friends and acquaintances,  there are perhaps some FB group members who may benefit from the  information in this article, as well. This should not be new information  to most. It does seem, however, to be a repeating theme. <br />\n<br />\nOver  the years I have noticed an interesting trend with friends,  acquaintances and even strangers, who have come to realize (to borrow a  well-used phrase) that they &quot;think wrong and value the wrong things&quot;.  These people arrive at our actual or virtual doorstep asking for  assistance in righting this wrong. Some of these people initially  thought we were too politically incorrect, even &quot;crazy&quot;, and then  returned years later, hats in hand. They recall with nostalgia, the  great resource they discounted in favour of their own personal  limitations. They lament the loss of the unconditional support, the  candor, the concern for their well-being, the relationship advice, the  accurate extrapolations of coming technological changes or world events,  or simply the ease with which their problems could be solved.Many  realize they never learned how to determine what is important, how to  think critically or be happy, how to know what's true, or how to  determine and set their goals. Comparatively speaking this is our  default state. While many in our age group are marking time, we still  ask &quot;why&quot;, we look forward and not backwards, and we still know how to  dream. These same people who discarded us for our perceived  shortcomings, now expect to be delivered the secret to what they view as  a &quot;magical superpower&quot;, preferably in a few easy sentences. To quote  Scott, &quot;I [we] do not have any mental powers you don't&quot;. It is not,  however, trivial to erase a lifetime of dysfunction. Historically,  despite our best efforts and with very few notable exceptions, there is  ultimately at least one deal-breaker concept that keeps most from  succeeding in this endeavor. Here I would be remiss in not mentioning  the &quot;hits&quot; with the &quot;misses&quot;. While greatly dwarfed by the failures, the  successes are glorious, and populated by people forever grateful to  Scott for his time and tutelage, who &quot;pay it forward&quot; to acknowledge a  lifelong debt.For people in the &quot;misses&quot; category, belief in &quot;something&quot;  that has been programmed into them (by themselves or others), is  usually what stops them from being able to intellectually develop,  extrapolate, or achieve their full potential. <br />\n<br />\nIn short, there is  always some misinformation that they love above everything, that compels  them to stop the growth process, and to retreat to the safety of an  otherwise un-fulfilling existence. I have often heard Scott tell those  close to him that he can, and will, take all the time required to assist  them in identifying and eradicating the incumbent roadblocks to their  self-actualization. To these people he has made himself available on any  day, and at any time, for as long as anyone needs his attention. This  has literally been going on for decades, but will shortly come to a  close. In all cases, YOU, have requested assistance. In all cases, you,  and not he, have determined he is qualified for this task. I have  frequently heard him caution adults they are likely &quot;too old&quot; to effect  productive or meaningful change. This caveat notwithstanding, Scott has  never refused his assistance, does not ask for anything, and will not  lie to make you feel good. <br />\n<br />\nIt is important to note that the time  spent on &quot;you&quot; is free, and at your request. We have other things we  could be doing - we don't need money, followers, answers, cult members,  or yes men. We don't change our behaviour to suit others, and we remain  true to our ideals and aspirations. At worst, I have some abhorrent  do-gooder gene that compels me to try to help people, and Scott would  like to one day have a real conversation.By the time you reach adulthood  you have likely stopped reading anything. You may have ingrained  religious training that compels you to favour belief over rational  thought. You may be of the opinion that monetary success equates with  happiness. The quest for youth or physical beauty may be your consuming  passion. Pointless power or prestige might be your narcotic. If  unsuccessful in life or love, you may have fallen into the pattern of  choosing the endorphin rush of failure over the endorphin rush of  success. Not loving yourself you may seek self-actualization through the  validation of friends or strangers. Not trusting yourself, you may  idolize and defer to authority figures, both real and imagined. You  could believe that procreation or any nuclear relationship will validate  your existence or ensure your &quot;immortality&quot;; after which all efforts  are directed to nurturing or perpetuating these obligations. You may  have a deep and pervasive fear of change or the unknown. You may find  yourself making the same unfortunate decisions repeatedly yet expecting a  different result. You may have long ago stopped dreaming. You may have  forgotten, or never learned, how to learn. You might just be lazy. The  commonality for everyone in this category is that they all feel  unfulfilled. <br />\n<br />\nAll of us get one life. It's short and relatively  unimportant in the larger scheme of things. But it's ours. Despite what  you may have been led to believe, it will never come again. Consuming  time frivolously from others and then producing no tangible result, is  one of the worst crimes I can imagine. Money can be replaced,  possessions can be re-acquired...time, once wasted, cannot be restored  and has permanent repercussions. While I say this often, the importance  of this concept cannot be overstressed. <br />\n<br />\nIf you see some aspect of  yourself in this article, think carefully about what you are asking,  and what your success or failure costs those around you. If you have  requested assistance, open your mind and leave your ego at the door. If  you have determined you can't help yourself, you need to listen to  everything being said, trust but verify, and make a concerted effort to  learn. Critical thinking is your goal. Until you achieve it, your  doubts, irrational biases and predispositions, are not of interest. Most  of you will not succeed; but you can succeed if you really want to.  Reprogramming yourself is an all or nothing venture - there is no  picking-and-choosing the things you think are useful, politically  correct or socially acceptable. There is no such thing as part-time  critical thinking. Do not swap one set of beliefs for another.  Appreciate fully, but do not deify, anyone who would assist you in this  endeavor. <br />\n<br />\nMany of you immediately (or eventually) shun this  assistance you have begged for, with ridiculous rationalizations or  &quot;religiously-inspired&quot; personal attacks. Many take umbrage that the  information delivery does not accommodate an apparent requirement for  the previously unascertained, to be eased into your psyche with a  saccharine-sweet consideration for your &quot;emotional well being&quot;. This  behaviour is fairly predictable for people who conceptually believe they  should change their lives, but in actuality recoil from it. If you can  vilify the &quot;attacker&quot;, you have justification not to change.If you could  have done this yourself, you would have done this yourself. I remind  you the catalyst to change almost always starts by shaking up the status  quo. There are no Marquis de Queensbury rules in learning to think  effectively, and your hurt feelings are probably invalid anyway.  <br />\n<br />\nIn the coming months I'm going to &quot;party-up&quot; this process. If you don't  value the free information you are requesting, I'll help you to find the  door. I'm tired of those close to me suffering the personal attacks of  fools, under the guise of your hurt feelings. If you have determined  you're not qualified to direct your own lives, don't attack those who  would show you how to do it. If you don't understand the process, don't  criticize the process. If you aren't making much progress, you aren't  making much effort. A thing is either true or it's not. It's in or out -  there is no half-way.I have noticed that some of the FB group members  are making Mesozoic attempts at critical thinking, demonstrating to  others what they have learned, or defending those who are assisting  them. This is encouraging, even if on a fairly small scale. It should be  reiterated that your incorrect opinions, or hostile attempts at  introducing arguments contrary to what is demonstrably true, are  pointless if you can't also demonstrate how you do NOT &quot;think wrong and  values the wrong things&quot;. When you realize the like-minded cooperate and  do not enter into ludicrous debates, this should be a non-issue. Most  of you are currently unqualified for this privilege; hence most of you  simply can advance no useful information. <br />\n<br />\nOnce you know something  you can't un-know it, and in many cases you'll find the things you  believed are not what things really are. Some people find all knowledge  to be magical and empowering. Others find they preferred the rosy glow  of ignorance, and long for how they perceived things to be. I suggest  anyone reading this take a few minutes to determine if this one-way trip  is really what you want. If/when you encounter that mystical  show-stopping number, and you slink back to your former existence, you  will be no happier, especially in light of the new knowledge that you  have failed at &quot;rudimentary thinking&quot;. All critical thinkers think  critically ALL THE TIME. There is no vacation from logic, and no rest  from constructively using your brain. When you can think effectively,  you're ready to actually learn.Unless and until you are able to think  critically, best shut up and concentrate on acquiring this mechanism; or  to defend against those who would take that resource away from you. We  look forward to some day having a meaningful conversation. <br />\n<br />\nSome  reading this may categorize it as self-aggrandizing or arrogant crap.  You are free to look at it in any way you see fit. This is only for  people who asked for, and received, that which they said they desire.Why  would you seek something you do not value? I have often heard it said  that people don't appreciate what they do not pay for. I see this  demonstrated time, and time, again. It is our privilege to provide  whatever assistance we can for as long as we're able. This privilege  however, is not your right. For those of you still slogging away, I  really hope you find value in the writings we post, or the personal  interactions you have with us. Reality, once embraced, is a wonderful  place. <br />\n<br />\nThose left by the wayside because you love your &quot;bullshit&quot;  (whether or not you have departed of your own volition), should know  the time you have consumed is freely offered only to those who use it  wisely. For those who have squandered what is considered by some of  inestimable value, should there not eventually be an accounting? As a  bonus, practical example of your fate, I recommend a short story by  Harlan Ellison entitled, &quot;The Cheese Stands Alone&quot;. </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"law\",\"surety\",\"accounting\",\"legal\",\"thinking\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "16d29e4c411e9f51a56258d31fbb4fc559054e4b",
  "block": 3919318,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:23:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "harrywombat",
      "parent_permlink": "persons-for-idiots",
      "author": "cheetah",
      "permlink": "re-persons-for-idiots-20160809t022352",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Hi! I am a content-detection robot. This post is to help manual curators; I have NOT flagged you.\nHere is similar content:\nhttp://kentbarrett.com/persons-for-idiots/",
      "json_metadata": ""
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "12793b7dca048c3912fcb782252a21516de9a8f0",
  "block": 3919302,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:23:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "person",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "persons-for-idiots",
      "title": "PERSONS FOR IDIOTS",
      "body": "<p> Scott Duncan<br />\n July 12, 2014 ·<br />\n THE TENDER FOR LAW: PERSONS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC.  THE TENDER FOR LAW: PERSONS FOR IDIOTS (c) 2014 ROGUESUPPORT INC. under  a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported  License.  <br />\n<br />\nAll of you reading have, at one point or another,  encountered the term &quot;PERSON&quot;.  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 &quot;lie of ommission&quot; that you  will encounter in the world of the &quot;LEGAL&quot;. THE TENDER FOR LAW axiom  &quot;LEGAL=SURETY AND ACCOUNTING&quot; makes navigating &quot;law&quot; a lot simpler, and  it's very easy to spot the lies of ommission/ambiguity. <br />\n<br />\nYou 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.  <br />\n<br />\nWhen 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 = &quot;picking up the tab&quot;.  INDIVIDUAL=SURETY.<br />\n<br />\nNow  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 &quot;The Fender&quot;.  He often plays the  role of &quot;Lou Manotti&quot; here on Facebook.       <br />\n<br />\n(&quot;Lou Manotti&quot; is  of course, the CORRECT spelling of the name of the PERSON who controlls  the government and the banks. Often mis-spelled &quot;Illuminati&quot;, 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! <em>:P</em> )  <br />\n<br />\nFew 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 &quot;The Fender&quot; 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 &quot;who does what&quot; 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.    <br />\n<br />\nOne of the standard &quot;Tender For Law&quot; 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 &quot;what evidence does this court  have that I have any SURETY in this matter?&quot;, and &quot;by what authority  does this court attach ANY name derived from a PUBLIC DOCUMENT to me?&quot;.   These two questions effectively remove any LEGAL PRESUMPTION as regards  the NAME.  This, of course, is NOT the classic &quot;I am not a PERSON&quot;  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.   <br />\n<br />\nIn that previous paragraph,  you'll notice two words that actually form the LEGAL connection I hadn't  noticed until &quot;The Fender&quot; pointed it out.  In the &quot;who does what&quot;  methodology that he uses, we took a little virtual walk through the  world of &quot;who does what&quot;, and this is the frustrating part; I know all  these things, yet I did not notice this.   <br />\n<br />\nWe 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  &quot;CANADA&quot;, and you only see &quot;ONTARIO&quot; in the context of the ATTORNEY  GENERAL.  The ATTORNEY GENERAL is a seperate ADMINISTRATIVE BODY from  the rest of the province, yet is still &quot;government&quot;. 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 &quot;no it isn't&quot;, backed up with the  authority-based &quot;because I said so&quot;.  As far as I know, the argument  hasn't continued since because the LOWER COURTS can now simply answer  &quot;that issue has been ruled on&quot;.  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  &quot;fuck you&quot; to all INDIVIDUALS...  <br />\n<br />\nWHEN YOU GO TO COURT, YOU ARE  NOT DEALING WITH &quot;GOVERNMENT&quot;, YOU ARE ONLY DEALING WITH AN ATTORNEY  GENERAL. ALL FARMERS ARE HUMAN, BUT NOT ALL HUMANS ARE FARMERS... And  you semi-evolved chimps, are simply CATTLE, legally. (everybody get  that?) <br />\n<br />\nWhich brings us back to the topic of this article.  &quot;The  Fender&quot; 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: &quot;Who does THE LAW SOCIETY claim JURISDICTION  over?&quot;  While a quick look at their bullshit-ese CHARTERS will reveal  that they CLAIM JURISDICTION over &quot;ALL INDIVIDUALS&quot;, 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 &quot;INDIVIDUAL&quot; is  distinctly a &quot;PRIVATE or NATURAL PERSON&quot; (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  &quot;NATURAL PERSON&quot; is defined as &quot;a human being, naturally born&quot; and will  in some way indicate that it is distinct from a LEGALLY generated,  JURIDICAL PERSON.   <br />\n<br />\nI'll let that sink in. <br />\n<br />\nINDIVIDUAL = NATURAL PERSON. <br />\n<br />\nTHEREFORE: THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA CLAIMS JURISDICTION over ALL NATURAL PERSONS.  (that's you)  <br />\n<br />\nNone 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.   <br />\n<br />\nI  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 &quot;LEGAL TENDER&quot;.  You'll often hear the piece-of-shit  use the words &quot;HONOUR&quot;, and &quot;HONOURABLE&quot; which are simply LEGAL TERMS  referring to CONTRACTS.  He, of course, fails to mention this, because  &quot;lying through omission IS his bag, Baby&quot;!   <br />\n<br />\nSo, covering the  many kinds of PERSONS, we have so far encountered the &quot;INDIVIDUAL&quot;,  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; &quot;How can a TRUST be a PERSON?&quot;.  The COURTS  recognise some TRUSTS as &quot;PRIVATE PERSONS&quot;.  In fact, the COURT  recognises the GOVERNMENT as a PRIVATE PERSON, and therefore &quot;HER  MAJESTY, AND AN ORGANIZATION&quot; 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.   <br />\n<br />\nJust 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 &quot;rules&quot;. 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 &quot;keeping  his job&quot; and &quot;pension&quot; 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 &quot;job&quot; trumps your rights, and that is what they REALLY mean when  they use the cop-out &quot;I'm just doing my job&quot;. They are simply an armed  gang for those claiming &quot;authority&quot; over you. Driving without a  license/plates is JUST STUPID. It attracts the attention of armed thugs  following &quot;rules&quot; so they can bring you before a court that SELECTIVELY  follows those rules, in much the same way Christians and  MuslimsSELECTIVELY follow their own &quot;laws&quot;.  <br />\n<br />\nMuslims consider the  Qu'ran &quot;law&quot;.. Read the Qu'ran and you will see these &quot;laws&quot; are in  every measurable way, EVIL. The same is true with the Christian/Jewish  &quot;laws&quot;. Every Christian, Muslim, and Jew KNOWS that rape and slavery are  wrong, but their &quot;perfect&quot; and &quot;loving&quot; god couldn't quite grasp the  point. To &quot;god&quot; rape and slavery are ok... BUT NO &quot;GRAVEN IMAGES&quot;! You  are taught from childhood to &quot;respect&quot; this ethical vacuum of &quot;belief&quot;.  That's the first seed that's ever planted. The delusion may now be  echoed. &quot;AUTHORITY&quot; trumps rights, and you are &quot;bad&quot; if you think  otherwise. When they violate your rights, they claim it's &quot;all perfectly  legal&quot;, and &quot;they're just doing their jobs&quot;... and you are supposed to  be OK with that. <br />\n <br />\nThe 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. &quot;Exposing&quot; them  will not change that. NOBODY IN GOVERNMENT HAS SURETY! EVER! When you  point this out, you will be accused of &quot;symantics&quot;, &quot;word games&quot; or your  position will be dismissed as &quot;jibberish&quot;... which is ironic,  considering what REALITY shows. Those who work for &quot;government&quot; actually  BELIEVE it's their RIGHT to do what they do. THEY REALLY BELIEVE THEY  HAVE &quot;AUTHORITY&quot; over you because of GEOGRAPHY. LET THAT SINK IN. This  point was, of course, lost on Dean Clifford. <br />\n<br />\nLike the Christians,  the Government is ignoring the OLD laws, and replacing them with NEW  laws to make their UNLAWFUL actions, &quot;legal&quot;. Even Hitler kept things  &quot;legal&quot;. Hitler did not do ONE &quot;illegal&quot; thing. He just kept the  population stupid... Just like the Christians. He made &quot;new Law&quot; to  replace the old law... Just like the Christians. He even said, &quot;The old  Law still applies&quot;, but in practice, is largely ignored... just like the  Christians. Then comes the &quot;peaceful&quot; and &quot;loving&quot; CONVERSIONS that  you'd better accept and be grateful for...because you'll be sent to a  &quot;happy camp&quot; otherwise. See the pattern here? ALL BASED ON BELIEF.  <br />\n<br />\nALL 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 &quot;BELIEF&quot;, that is simply a  FACT. <br />\n<br />\nTHE TENDER FOR LAW [ <a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/\" rel=\"noopener\">https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/</a>  ] 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! <br />\n<br />\n...It turns out you're all stupid, and can't really help.  <br />\n<br />\n...so 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 &quot;crazy&quot;... Until I taught you to make your own banks and  currency. I'm STILL called &quot;crazy&quot; 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. <em>;)</em>  <br />\n<br />\nPERSONS 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  &quot;SECURITY OF THE PERSON&quot;! THIS DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS!  THIS IS A LEGAL DECLARATION. NOWHERE does it say the GOVERNMENT has the  right to &quot;SECURE THE PERSON&quot;. 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. <br />\n<br />\nIT'S YOUR RIGHT. </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"person\",\"law\",\"legal\",\"surety\",\"accounting\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "74de016190de591e3707ab6e7d0c11fcfc80dd72",
  "block": 3918948,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-09T02:05:21",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "law",
      "author": "harrywombat",
      "permlink": "the-tender-for-law",
      "title": "THE TENDER FOR LAW",
      "body": "<p> THE TENDER FOR LAW is an examination of what you need to know to  fight Judicial corruption, by examining the stuff you are LIED TO  about. MONEY, and the hidden-in-plain-sight contract that is tendered  daily.<br />\n </p>\n<p>SPOILERS: IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY.<br />\n </p>\n<p> On the subject of liars:IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME  HERE! YOUR DELUSIONS ARE WHAT CAUSED ALL OF THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU  HARM OTHERS WITH THOSE DELUSIONS. ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS ARE NOT  ADULTS! THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S FORUM!<br />\n </p>\n<p>...I digress<br />\n </p>\n<p>You are BOUND by ACTS, STATUTES, and CODES when you use MONEY. <br />\n </p>\n<p>On that money are the words THIS  NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER:<br />\n </p>\n<p>THIS NOTE - The note the words (NOTICE) is written on.<br />\n </p>\n<p>IS LEGAL - CODES, ACTS, AND STATUTES with the force of law.<br />\n </p>\n<p>TENDER - tender verb<br />\n ten·dered ten·der·ing <br />\n Definition of TENDER<br />\n </p>\n<p>transitive verb<br />\n 1: to make a tender of<br />\n 2: to present for acceptance : offer &quot;tendered my resignation&quot;<br />\n intransitive verb<br />\n : to make a bid or tender<br />\n Origin of TENDER<br />\n Middle English tendren, from Anglo-French tendre offer<br />\n First Known Use: 15th century<br />\n </p>\n<p>THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER = THIS NOTE IS A TENDER FOR LAW <br />\n </p>\n<p> This forum is where you can ask all your questions, and we don't have  to keep typing the same answers over and over. To that end, I am telling  you to WATCH THIS FIRST:<br />\n </p>\n<p><a href=\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3P7izAUe3ZM&amp;h=MAQGc2ML0&amp;s=1\" rel=\"noopener\">http://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM</a><br />\n </p>\n<p> NOT watching this, and then posting a question and/or making idiotic  statements which reveal you HAVEN'T watched this, means you are  DELIBERATELY ignoring these instructions, and you will be banned.<br />\n </p>\n<p> And when your examination of these things is done, you will see that we  also have a REAL SOLUTION to the problem. YOU CAN'T BUY that shit  ANYWHERE! <em>:D</em><br />\n </p>\n<p>...no really. You can't. It's copyrighted.<br />\n </p>\n<p> Unless otherwise stated, BY DEFAULT, anything Scott. and/or Tara Duncan  publishes, in THE TENDER FOR LAW, is under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License:<br />\n </p>\n<p>1) You MUST say where it came from (Tara, Myself, or THE TENDER FOR LAW group)<br />\n </p>\n<p>2) You CANNOT derive works from it<br />\n </p>\n<p>3) You CANNOT MAKE MONEY off it.<br />\n </p>\n<p>Make all the money you like off of &quot;Scottisms&quot;<br />\n </p>\n<p> TL;DR - IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTING AND SURETY. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL  TENDER = OFFERING AN UNCONDITIONAL &quot;BENEFIT&quot; OF ACTS, STATUTES AND  CODES.<br />\n </p>\n<p>PEREMPTORY NOTICE:<br />\n </p>\n<p>ALL WRITINGS PUBLISHED HERE  BY AQUILAE AND/OR ITS TRUSTEES AND/OR ITS GRANTORS, ARE, UNLESS  OTHERWISE STATED, PUBLISHED under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. <br />\n </p>\n<p>Have you tried to join and been IGNORED? GOOD! That's what's supposed to happen!<br />\n </p>\n<p> If you don't have a ROGUESUPPORT BATTLEFIELD 2142 SOLDIERNAME, YOU  DON&quot;T GET IN! You had 2 years. Go fuck yourself. WORK for it. Read the  group and figure out how. EARN YOUR VOICE HERE!<br />\n </p>\n<p>Also: Jimmy Hoffa; Call your office. </p>",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"law\",\"scott\",\"ducan\",\"legal\",\"surety\"],\"links\":[\"http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3P7izAUe3ZM&h=MAQGc2ML0&s=1\",\"http://youtu.be/3P7izAUe3ZM\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3a273393d4cfe172733165bca9358a0801ae1504",
  "block": 3866064,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-07T05:47:00",
  "op": [
    "account_create",
    {
      "fee": "3.000 STEEM",
      "creator": "steem",
      "new_account_name": "harrywombat",
      "owner": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM6B5ANCuFs7JsfEmKC6aLYa99qk7UAkHqS1KvuhAwZ9s79H9Qeg",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "active": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM7kt5RjptiwXgyq9MMGmFLXuXcZtv7SpTUiqBVNmFSJsFkTypLZ",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "posting": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM8HTjxXtfdQhGmZB86ZAC8qVsvMkvN4ekqsQ3ioTfof9cpVugm5",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "memo_key": "STM5eqpBEAciNumSz2yyYYQzjmjikFQjhyPweUJpb3SvCErYWmCpP",
      "json_metadata": ""
    }
  ]
}