Detax Canada

[Blue Mountain]

You have no argument from me on that point. A lady who now lives in Langley, BC, did some major research on the founding of the Bank of Canada that happened in the mid 1930s.
Who is this lady? When did she do the research? Where is her report?

She found that the Bank of Canada (central bank) was incorporated with 50,000 voting shares. Those voting shares were promptly sold to the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, where they were stripped of the voting rights, and the then 50,000 non-voting shares were sold back to the Crown in Right of Canada, making it appear as if the Crown in Right of Canada was the owner of the Bank of Canada. The result was that the Bank of Canada was wholly put under the control of the Federal Reserve of the USA. As D. Rockefeller said, it matters not who owns a property, but who controls it.
Fascinating. I trust you can back all of this up. Is it published in a book somewhere? Or is there a link to a site on the web that contains this evidence?

[D'rok]

Hehe great!

Eldon, do you know Murray Guavreau?
Relevant:

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm

So much wrong in such a short document. I particularly like this one on ss. 91 and 92 of the BNA Act:

The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.

Hmmm...lets check that:

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

s. 91.3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html#distribution


Oops. Guess Murray was wrong

Do people really follow these idiots?

[dirtywick]

Geee.... I'm sorry about that. Go to source, copy it, and re-design it for me will you? Since I don't charge anyone for the info I have or offer on it, I am not about spending my money of 'gussying it up' for the snooty ones, especially those who reject its info, and wish to continue to be good milk cows to the corporate Crown, the (tax) farmer - or, those who are to cowardly to fight back.

If your opinion is putting bare minimum effort into something isn't worth the time I'm not surprised you haven't found much success in convincing people to bury themselves in debt because of black robe priests of baal and the HRE.

[EldonG]

Hehe great!

Eldon, do you know Murray Guavreau?

Yes, quite well. As a matter of fact, I began my detax program as a result of what he taught about income tax. I saw the errors within the program he was teaching in the early 1990s - the Gerry Hart System of Tax Avoidance, and the argument that income tax was unconstitutional.

From those early days of my program, I realized that one was subjected to slavery by some form of 'assumed contract', or other assumption, but didn't get the information on the name game until early 2003. That is when I realized that 'contract', express or implied, had nothing to do with the imposition of the status of slavery upon Canadians and Americans (and all those under the domination of the Holy Roman Empire) - it was the 'property right' and the legal maxim arising out of the property right - accessio cedit principali - that was the means of enslavement.

The Americans had to go a bit further than the Crown in Right of Canada, by first authorizing the UNITED STATES corporate body to own slaves (citizens) (14th Amendment), and the means to convert 'privileged slaves/citizens' into 'non-privileged slaves/involuntary servitude' by the 13th Amendment (second edition). President FDR made all Americans criminals and enemies of the UNITED STATES in his Presidential Edict - The Emergency Powers Act.

If you are an American and wish to see that Edict, and you cannot find it on the Internet, then GOOGLE 'Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917' and, when reading it, delete Section 5. That is what Roosevelt did.

[carlitos]

Roosevelt had GOOGLE?

[D'rok]

That, nor Murray Gauvreau have absolutely nothing to do with the Detax Canada detax program.Other than this, you mean?
I began my detax program as a result of what he [Murray Gauvreau] taught about income tax.
Hmmm...well your method is a little different than his. Both are equally successful, though!

Nice try! How many more balls of crap do you have to throw?
Here's one:


Recent problems encountered by those who file a T1 using my method.


So-called 'employees' are having CRA re-assess their returns based upon the T-4 slip sent to CRA by the 'employer'. That is the document the employer sends to you sometime during January or February stating 'employee 'income'.

Conclusion: I don't currently have a solution to this problem

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filing%20problems.rtf

[Praktik]

Hehe great!

Eldon, do you know Murray Gauvreau?

Yes, quite well. As a matter of fact, I began my detax program as a result of what he taught about income tax. I saw the errors within the program he was teaching in the early 1990s - the Gerry Hart System of Tax Avoidance, and the argument that income tax was unconstitutional.

So - curious here Eldon, are you in any way involved with Christian Identity? Cause Gauvreau seems to be:

This Albertan and his links to White Power here in Canada were found in about 2 mins after searching for his name and "Christian Identity".

- White Power Website Specifically Lists His Name as a "White Racialist" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/notable-canadians-58573.html) (be warned link takes you to stormfront boards)

A Canadian White Power website, Murray Gauvreau is specifically listed as a "White Racialist" (aka, White Power Activist) defended in court by a lawyer the poster selected for a "Notable Canadians" nod in a thread there to celebrate the best White Power activists, or "Notable Canadians". Apparently that lawyer represented Gauvreau and many more to earn such high praise.

Here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/087.html) is one of a few sources where people mention Gauvreau handing out Christian Identity literature.

[EldonG]

Other than this, you mean?

Hmmm...well your method is a little different than his. Both are equally successful, though!

Here's one:

Recent problems encountered by those who file a T1 using my method.

So-called 'employees' are having CRA re-assess their returns based upon the T-4 slip sent to CRA by the 'employer'. That is the document the employer sends to you sometime during January or February stating 'employee 'income'.

Conclusion: I don't currently have a solution to this problem

That does not invalidate, disprove or show any lack of success of the Detax Canada program, but only those who have a T-4 report associated with their receiving exchange for their labour as an 'employee' may have this problem in dealing with the CRA income tax extortion goons. Anyone who works as a contractor, contract for hire or their own business do not have this problem, that only affects a very few of the people who work as employees and who use the Detax Canada program in filing.

People understand that the extortion racket has been operating in Canada for a long time, and during that time, nobody offered the information about it being an extortion racket until I came along with my Detax program, and posted it on the Internet - for free. Thus, I use the analogy of tourists feeding the bears in Banff park. The bears don't understand when the tourist runs out of sandwiches. Thus, with police being ignorant of the criminal extortion racket run by the former Revenue Canada and now, CRA, or they operate in fear to themselves and to their careers, there is not many avenues or redress against CRA disregarding perfectly good legal notices and such, and thus they continue their extortion scheme.

But, since Federal Ministers cannot even enforce the prohibitions against attachment of pension funds 'in law or in equity' that are in the OAS, CPP and Military Pension (superannuation ) Acts, when the Income Tax Act overrules those acts in violation of the basic rule that one statute cannot contradict or nullify the provisions of another statute is ignored, then how can any counter-program hope to be 100% effective. The only 100% about the Detax Canada system is that it exposes the unlawful nature of the income tax, the CRA , the Government of Canada, the Queen and the Pope 100%. And, the 'unlawful' is in regard to God's Law, not 'man's make-believe ship rules', falsely called laws. For those ignorant of God's Law, it is: "Do not unto others as you would others not do unto you." The Detax Canada program is the only 'tool' or 'weapon' out there to defend oneself against this extortion racket, and it may only be a 'sword' rather than an AK-47, but that is currently all there is. However, I am writing this where it is likely only to be read by those who are happy in their slave status, so my words are likely reflected in the Country Western song - 'pissin in the wind'. youtube.com/watch?v=DjPJVTf05ro

Bye the way, when the Pope declares that he is vicar of the Jesus Christ, he is telling you that he is the vicarious or Earthly presence of the 'Greased Pig'. Thus, the 'Greased Pig' is the god of the Vatican, and the symbol of that is the 'peter', the giant penis that stands in the vagina in the middle of the square that is blessed every morning by the Pope.

[carlitos]

EldonG,

Perhaps you missed it with my other snark, but I'm actually serious.

God / "Father in Heaven" = no evidence
Government = lots of evidence all over the place

Your reality appears disconnected from mine. Any idea how to reconcile this?

[drkitten]

I, sir, do not have to back up anything I say or write to a shill.

That's good, because you can't back up anything you say or write to anyone, shill or not.

But, until you prove me wrong by detailed facts, the truth of my statements stand.

"Detailed facts" like "Canada is a different country than the United States"?

:lol2:

[grmcdorman]

Relevant to this: Ontario tax protester jailed for one year and fined $522,346: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2010/09/21/windsor-tax-evasion-klundert.html

He reported his income as 'nil' for '93-'97.

He also has a pending trial for the 2000-2005 period for similar offenses.

[D'rok]

That does not invalidate, disprove or show any lack of success of the Detax Canada program, but only those who have a T-4 report associated with their receiving exchange for their labour as an 'employee' may have this problem in dealing with the CRA income tax extortion goons.That would be the vast majority of working Canadians.

Some system.

Bye the way, when the Pope declares that he is vicar of the Jesus Christ, he is telling you that he is the vicarious or Earthly presence of the 'Greased Pig'. Thus, the 'Greased Pig' is the god of the Vatican, and the symbol of that is the 'peter', the giant penis that stands in the vagina in the middle of the square that is blessed every morning by the Pope.
This may be the greatest paragraph that I have ever read in the entire time I have been a member of this forum.

Bravo.

[D'rok]

Relevant to this: Ontario tax protester jailed for one year and fined $522,346: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2010/09/21/windsor-tax-evasion-klundert.htm

He reported his income as 'nil' for '93-'97.

He also has a pending trial for the 2000-2005 period for similar offenses.

Link is broken. Here is the working one:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2010/09/21/windsor-tax-evasion-klundert.html

[D'rok]

More info on the above decision:


Dr. Jack Klundert was found guilty in May for not paying more than $348,000 in taxes. Judge Terrence Patterson said he intended the sentence to be a deterrent because tax evasion is a “serious crime and not just a social misbehaviour.”

Federal prosecutor Ed Posliff said he hopes other people get the picture.
“Even though he’s a first offender, other potential tax evaders should understand that there’s a real chance they’ll go to jail,” Posliff said outside court. “It’s not just going to be a monetary penalty. The idea is that will serve as a deterrence against them embarking on a course of tax evasion.”


http://www.windsorstar.com/news/UPDATE+Klundert+jailed+fined+income+evasion/3550071/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

[EldonG]

So - curious here Eldon, are you in any way involved with Christian Identity? Cause Gauvreau seems to be:

No. I am a long time student of the URANTIA Book, so, I really have nothing to do with Christian beliefs, and little interest in the Bible, except for a few philosophical passages that are of a positive nature.

This Albertan and his links to White Power here in Canada were found in about 2 mins after searching for his name and "Christian Identity".

- White Power Website Specifically Lists His Name as a "White Racialist" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/notable-canadians-58573.html) (be warned link takes you to stormfront boards)

A Canadian White Power website, Murray Gauvreau is specifically listed as a "White Racialist" (aka, White Power Activist) defended in court by a lawyer the poster selected for a "Notable Canadians" nod in a thread there to celebrate the best White Power activists, or "Notable Canadians". Apparently that lawyer represented Gauvreau and many more to earn such high praise.

Here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/087.html) is one of a few sources where people mention Gauvreau handing out Christian Identity literature.

I find most, if not all such organizations are supportive of the fascists, which is why they are so offensive to those of the communistic/collectivist mindset.

From my viewpoint, I see both ideologies as being a road leading to the same foul destination, and having been created by the same source, the Zionism of the Vatican, [a very ancient pre-Jew ideology] where the 'left wing' and the 'right-wing' are on the same dirty bird.

For those who are ignorant of the facts regarding the king/priesthood of the Vatican 'Red Robed Priests of Isis', it ruled Egypt for some 10,000 years, until about 1500 BC. The explosion of the super-volcano on the Island of Santorini, Greece, ended their reign of Egypt. They then moved and re-established in Babylon (now in Iraq), and reigned the commercial world from there for 1,000 years. From there, they re-established themselves in what became Rome, and have ruled from there for the last 2300 years. They have always used the Trinity of Despotism to rule - Fear, Force and False Hope. When establishing Rome, they made use of the ancient Persian scheme of making human institutions into make believe ship's at sea, where man's fear of the sea (maritime - mara timeos) system of law was/is used to control the slave population. From the URANTIA Book one learns that the 3 human institution categories are: self-maintenance, self-protection, and self-gratification.

[D'rok]

From the URANTIA Book one learns that the 3 human institution categories are: self-maintenance, self-protection, and self-gratification.I appoint myself Minister of Masturbation.

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by grmcdorman
Relevant to this: Ontario tax protester jailed for one year and fined $522,346: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/sto...n-klundert.htm

He reported his income as 'nil' for '93-'97.

He also has a pending trial for the 2000-2005 period for similar offenses.
Link is broken. Here is the working one:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/sto...-klundert.html
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

Today, 12:54 PM #518
D'rok
Illuminator



Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,976
More info on the above decision:

Quote:
Dr. Jack Klundert was found guilty in May for not paying more than $348,000 in taxes. Judge Terrence Patterson said he intended the sentence to be a deterrent because tax evasion is a “serious crime and not just a social misbehaviour.”

Federal prosecutor Ed Posliff said he hopes other people get the picture.
“Even though he’s a first offender, other potential tax evaders should understand that there’s a real chance they’ll go to jail,” Posliff said outside court. “It’s not just going to be a monetary penalty. The idea is that will serve as a deterrence against them embarking on a course of tax evasion.”


http://www.windsorstar.com/news/UPDA...megadrop_story

Nothing to do with the Detax Canada detax program

In fact, I have always had warnings on my website regarding such programs as this one to which this Doctor fell victim. In fact, I have identified most as being 'sting operations' established by CRA, or some organization higher up in the enclaves of the Vatican despotism system, such as the Jesuits or Knights of Malta.

[D'rok]

Nothing to do with the Detax Canada detax program

In fact, I have always had warnings on my website regarding such programs as this one to which this Doctor fell victim. In fact, I have identified most as being 'sting operations' established by CRA, or some organization higher up in the enclaves of the Vatican despotism system, such as the Jesuits or Knights of Malta.Ah, you have the real tax avoidance scheme.

Good to know.

[carlitos]

I appoint myself Minister of Masturbation.

Here's what Urantia says about that. Kinda vague.

“Let man enjoy himself; let the human race find pleasure in a thousand and one ways; let evolutionary mankind explore all forms of legitimate self-gratification, the fruits of the long upward biologic struggle. Man has well earned some of his present-day joys and pleasures. But look you well to the goal of destiny! Pleasures are indeed suicidal if they succeed in destroying property, which has become the institution of self-maintenance; and self-gratifications have indeed cost a fatal price if they bring about the collapse of marriage, the decadence of family life, and the destruction of the home—man’s supreme evolutional acquirement and civilization’s only hope of survival.”(943.1) 84:8.6

[D'rok]

Here's what Urantia says about that. Kinda vague.
“Let man enjoy himself; let the human race find pleasure in a thousand and one ways; let evolutionary mankind explore all forms of legitimate self-gratification, the fruits of the long upward biologic struggle. Man has well earned some of his present-day joys and pleasures. But look you well to the goal of destiny! Pleasures are indeed suicidal if they succeed in destroying property, which has become the institution of self-maintenance; and self-gratifications have indeed cost a fatal price if they bring about the collapse of marriage, the decadence of family life, and the destruction of the home—man’s supreme evolutional acquirement and civilization’s only hope of survival.”(943.1) 84:8.6
So, we can only pull it for private property?

I was kind of hoping Monica Bellucci could be in there somewhere.

[gupwalla]

Nothing to do with the Detax Canada detax program

In fact, I have always had warnings on my website regarding such programs as this one to which this Doctor fell victim. In fact, I have identified most as being 'sting operations' established by CRA, or some organization higher up in the enclaves of the Vatican despotism system, such as the Jesuits or Knights of Malta.

No True Scotsman, flawlessly transitioning into We Have Always Been At War With Eurasia, and then a perfectly executed dismount into They Are All Out To Get Me.

That, my friend, is worth at least a 9.8, maybe a 9.9.

[Praktik]

No. I am a long time student of the URANTIA Book, so, I really have nothing to do with Christian beliefs, and little interest in the Bible, except for a few philosophical passages that are of a positive nature.


Did Gauvreau try to push any of that Christian Identity stuff on you when you guys were talking taxes?

(thanks for your detailed reply btw!)

[drkitten]

For those who are ignorant of the facts regarding the king/priesthood of the Vatican 'Red Robed Priests of Isis', it ruled Egypt for some 10,000 years, until about 1500 BC.

Whups. Missed this gem the first time around.

So the 'Red Robed Priests of Isis' ruled Egypt starting in 11,500BCE?

That's really interesting, considering that we have no evidence whatsoever of any long-term human habitation earlier than 8,000 BCE (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212131300.htm). The earliest Egyptian agricultural settlements known date from only about 5200 BCE. Before that, we have evidence of neolithic hunter-gatherers dating back another three thousand years or so, which still leaves your Priests of Fashion hanging for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, since Isis herself only dates back (as far as we can tell) to the Fifth Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Early_history) (2494 to 2345 BC), a rational human being would conclude that the Neolithic tribes were not ruled by priests of a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years.

But I'm sure you'd not going to let multi-thousand-year anachronisms stop you. After all, the idea that a group of priests would worship a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years is, by your standards, rather credible.

At least in comparison to the rest of your "ideas."

[D'rok]

Whups. Missed this gem the first time around.

So the 'Red Robed Priests of Isis' ruled Egypt starting in 11,500BCE?

That's really interesting, considering that we have no evidence whatsoever of any long-term human habitation earlier than 8,000 BCE (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212131300.htm). The earliest Egyptian agricultural settlements known date from only about 5200 BCE. Before that, we have evidence of neolithic hunter-gatherers dating back another three thousand years or so, which still leaves your Priests of Fashion hanging for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, since Isis herself only dates back (as far as we can tell) to the Fifth Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Early_history) (2494 to 2345 BC), a rational human being would conclude that the Neolithic tribes were not ruled by priests of a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years.

But I'm sure you'd not going to let multi-thousand-year anachronisms stop you. After all, the idea that a group of priests would worship a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years is, by your standards, rather credible.

At least in comparison to the rest of your "ideas."Spoilsport.

[D'rok]

No True Scotsman, flawlessly transitioning into We Have Always Been At War With Eurasia, and then a perfectly executed dismount into They Are All Out To Get Me.

That, my friend, is worth at least a 9.8, maybe a 9.9.He has set the woo-bar rather high. It will be a difficult score to beat.

[Praktik]

Relevant to this: Ontario tax protester jailed for one year and fined $522,346: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2010/09/21/windsor-tax-evasion-klundert.html

He reported his income as 'nil' for '93-'97.

He also has a pending trial for the 2000-2005 period for similar offenses.

depressing to read the comments - the woo brigade is out in full effect!

[Horatius]

No True Scotsman, flawlessly transitioning into We Have Always Been At War With Eurasia, and then a perfectly executed dismount into They Are All Out To Get Me.

That, my friend, is worth at least a 9.8, maybe a 9.9.



Dude, good first post!


So, Jesuit or Knight of Malta?


:D

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid
income tax is already deducted from my pensions cheque.
the only way i can get any back is to file.
and i always get money back. sometimes a lot.

since i paid into pension my entire working life and had no choice, you can call me a parasite if you wish.....
however, if you claim to pay no income tax....
and ever access the medical system,
or call the RCMP,
or use a passport to travel to another country,.
or accept anything form the government, ever.....you are the parasite.



And, when you get your rotten bread and pig guts as your 'benefit' from your slave master, you get on your knees and say: "Thank you Massah! Youze a mighty good Massah!" Must be nice to know in your heart that you are a son of the Father in Heaven, and yet have to 'suck-hole' and 'brown-nose' some fictional entity, and those who are evil enough to operate the levers within that fictional body. What a sad diminution of your real status within this Universe. Where is that Chinese man who stood in front of the tanks on Tienanmen Square a few years ago. Are there no Canadians with that level of bravery and dedication to cause? Resistance against CRA thugs and their Communist income tax (see 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto - criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html ), and the Communist thugs driving those tanks would seem to be very comparable to me.

And, if you have the honesty to peruse the US GRACE COMMISSION REPORT, you will see their statement: Quote: "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." unquote And, don't bother spewing the retort that the report only applies to the USA. You'd better believe - it applies to Canada as well.

did you even read my post?
your answer is irrelevant to what i said.:confused:
...and please don't assume that i'm christian.

btw...my pension is hardly 'rotten bread and pig guts'.
i live quite well on a healthy pension.

[BaaBaa]

Thus, the 'Greased Pig' is the god of the Vatican, and the symbol of that is the 'peter', the giant penis that stands in the vagina in the middle of the square that is blessed every morning by the Pope.

Oh crap, we've been rumbled!

I, sir, do not have to back up anything I say or write to a shill.

Of course, anybody who disagrees with or contests you is a shill, right?

[Hans]

You do realize (speaking to everyone in this thread) that this thread is becoming awfully weird

[BaaBaa]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[D'rok]

You do realize (speaking to everyone in this thread) that this thread is becoming awfully weirdNow, now. Here, have a phallus:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414c995fe99ddf8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21124)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Now, now. Here, have a phallus:

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414c995fe99ddf8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21124)


No thanks. I gave at the office. :(

BTW -- does anyone know how to clean spittle off the inside of my monitor? :covereyes

[BaaBaa]

"the giant penis that stands in the vagina in the middle of the square that is blessed every morning by the Pope. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoni

So the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" is copy-catting from India, too?

[Horatius]

You do realize (speaking to everyone in this thread) that this thread is becoming awfully weird



And you know what they say - when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

[D'rok]

No thanks. I gave at the office. :(

BTW -- does anyone know how to clean spittle off the inside of my monitor? :covereyes

Just use the edge of your Red Robe to wipe it off.

[Blue Mountain]

I, sir, do not have to back up anything I say or write to a shill.
Last I checked, shills were paid. I'm not being paid to ask you to back up your claims.

But, until you prove me wrong by detailed facts, the truth of my statements stand.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made a claim—you back it up.

Otherwise, I could just claim you owe me $1,000 and force you to disprove it. And then claim that a lack of evidence (e.g. you not being able to find anything written down anywhere saying you don't owe me $1,000) is proof you do, and demand you pay up.

I could give you her name, address and e-mail, but since I detect that you are not an honest researcher, but just a troll and/or shill, you can do your own research, as she did.
Again, you claimed that all 50,000 of the original shares of the Bank of Canada were sold to the U.S. Federal Reserve, converted to non-voting shares (how?), then sold back to Canada. But you provided no credible evidence to support this claim, aside from a self-published book that you no longer have in your possession.

But in any event, the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and is now a public institution.

[blobru]

Now, now. Here, have a phallus:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414c995fe99ddf8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21124)


Is that St. Peter's? :jaw-dropp (certainly ain't saltpeter; Christ wasn't kidding about him being a rock; must be quite taxing to maintain, without getting light-headed; etc.)

[D'rok]

Is that St. Peter's? :jaw-dropp (certainly ain't saltpeter; Christ wasn't kidding about him being a rock; must be quite taxing to maintain, without getting light-headed)"On this rock I will build my church"

Is that Bible code for pupr-sticking?

Where's Ducky when you need him.

[EldonG]

Ah, you have the real tax avoidance scheme.

Good to know.

No. Not tax avoidance. Not tax evasion. Not a tax loophole.

I just teach people that they are a free will living adult man, male or female. And, that the income tax only applies to a fictional entity called a 'person'. And, it has already been discussed that 'person' comes from the Latin, 'persona' - the fictional role played by an actor.

Thus, I teach that one is NOT subject to the income tax, or any legislated act of any level of Government, as they all specifically state that they apply to 'persons'.

However, Government would have us think, and unfortunately, have been quite successful in convincing the vast number of the population, that they are part of a combined fictional entity where the Crown or State owned legal name is the principal property, and the adult man who ignorantly identifies him or her self as being one and the same as that legal name, and thus compose the 'person' entity upon which they then impose their statutes and the harvesting of the fruits of their labour because of their slave status..

[carlitos]

No. Not tax avoidance. Not tax evasion. Not a tax loophole.

I just teach people that they are a free will living adult man, male or female.
For someone who is so pedantic about definitions and etymology, Eldon seems positively cavalier about gender identity.

[EldonG]

Here's what Urantia says about that. Kinda vague.

“Let man enjoy himself; let the human race find pleasure in a thousand and one ways; let evolutionary mankind explore all forms of legitimate self-gratification, the fruits of the long upward biologic struggle. Man has well earned some of his present-day joys and pleasures. But look you well to the goal of destiny! Pleasures are indeed suicidal if they succeed in destroying property, which has become the institution of self-maintenance; and self-gratifications have indeed cost a fatal price if they bring about the collapse of marriage, the decadence of family life, and the destruction of the home—man’s supreme evolutional acquirement and civilization’s only hope of survival.”(943.1) 84:8.6

You obviously use this quote to denigrate the concept of categories of 'human institutions', but the subject is often used in the URANTIA Book. Example:

QUOTE From Paper 69: 69:1.1 All human institutions minister to some social need, past or present, notwithstanding that their overdevelopment unfailingly detracts from the worth-whileness of the individual in that personality is overshadowed and initiative is diminished. Man should control his institutions rather than permit himself to be dominated by these creations of advancing civilization.

69:1.2 Human institutions are of three general classes:

1.69:1.3 The institutions of self-maintenance. These institutions embrace those practices growing out of food hunger and its associated instincts of self-preservation. They include industry, property, war for gain, and all the regulative machinery of society. Sooner or later the fear instinct fosters the establishment of these institutions of survival by means of taboo, convention, and religious sanction. But fear, ignorance, and superstition have played a prominent part in the early origin and subsequent development of all human institutions.

2.69:1.4 The institutions of self-perpetuation. These are the establishments of society growing out of sex hunger, maternal instinct, and the higher tender emotions of the races. They embrace the social safeguards of the home and the school, of family life, education, ethics, and religion. They include marriage customs, war for defense, and home building.

3.69:1.5 The institutions of self-gratification. These are the practices growing out of vanity proclivities and pride emotions; and they embrace customs in dress and personal adornment, social usages, war for glory, dancing, amusement, games, and other phases of sensual gratification. But civilization has never evolved distinctive institutions of self-gratification.

69:1.6 These three groups of social practices are intimately interrelated and minutely interdependent the one upon the other. On Urantia they represent a complex organization which functions as a single social mechanism. UNQUOTE

The object of my previous post was not to discuss the URANTIA Book, but to bring to the attention of the readers of this forum that the Roman system has converted all of these institutions into make-believe ships at sea called incorporated bodies, with 'members' or body parts composed of individual men. Guess that is too heavy philosophically for the small minds of trolls and shills.

[EldonG]

Did Gauvreau try to push any of that Christian Identity stuff on you when you guys were talking taxes?

(thanks for your detailed reply btw!)

No.

[EldonG]

Whups. Missed this gem the first time around.

So the 'Red Robed Priests of Isis' ruled Egypt starting in 11,500BCE?

That's really interesting, considering that we have no evidence whatsoever of any long-term human habitation earlier than 8,000 BCE (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212131300.htm). The earliest Egyptian agricultural settlements known date from only about 5200 BCE. Before that, we have evidence of neolithic hunter-gatherers dating back another three thousand years or so, which still leaves your Priests of Fashion hanging for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, since Isis herself only dates back (as far as we can tell) to the Fifth Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Early_history) (2494 to 2345 BC), a rational human being would conclude that the Neolithic tribes were not ruled by priests of a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years.

But I'm sure you'd not going to let multi-thousand-year anachronisms stop you. After all, the idea that a group of priests would worship a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years is, by your standards, rather credible.

At least in comparison to the rest of your "ideas."

Well, if that is what you believe, who am I to argue with beliefs. Bye the way, I've got some good mountain property in Florida that I am selling cheap, and some ocean front property in Saskatchewan at give away prices. Any interest?

[carlitos]

Hey Eldon,

Those are facts, not beliefs. Knowing the difference could really be helpful for you.

[EldonG]

depressing to read the comments - the woo brigade is out in full effect!

He did not use my DetaxCanada method of filing. Yes, my method is always '$0.00 tax owing', but, there is much more to the method than that entry on the T1 form. And, no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.

[EldonG]

Oh crap, we've been rumbled!



Of course, anybody who disagrees with or contests you is a shill, right?

On this forum, FOR SURE!

[Sledge]

I wish I could get paid to point out when people are talking crap. I could become a rich man just in FOTL threads.

[EldonG]

Last I checked, shills were paid. I'm not being paid to ask you to back up your claims.


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made a claim—you back it up.

Otherwise, I could just claim you owe me $1,000 and force you to disprove it. And then claim that a lack of evidence (e.g. you not being able to find anything written down anywhere saying you don't owe me $1,000) is proof you do, and demand you pay up.


Again, you claimed that all 50,000 of the original shares of the Bank of Canada were sold to the U.S. Federal Reserve, converted to non-voting shares (how?), then sold back to Canada. But you provided no credible evidence to support this claim, aside from a self-published book that you no longer have in your possession.

But in any event, the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and is now a public institution.

Wow! I think we have another suitable candidate for some ocean front property in Saskatchewan. Have I got a deal for you!

Ever wondered why the Government of Canada has no voting member of the Board of Directors for the Bank of Canada. The Deputy Finance Minister gets to sit in on board meetings, but has no vote or say - just an observer. How could that be, if the Government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada? The Bank of Canada is about as much of a National Institution as is the Federal Reserve of the USA. But then, I suppose, because it has 'Federal' in the name, it belongs to the Federal Government of the USA, as does Federal Express, Federal Department Stores, and the city of Federal Way, WA.

[EldonG]

For someone who is so pedantic about definitions and etymology, Eldon seems positively cavalier about gender identity.

Seems that you are the ignorant one.

A law dictionary defines man as:

Man, A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children;

The form of slavery imposed upon adult Canadians by Government is not particular to one sex, and thus is not about sex, so the generic use of 'man' as being either or both sexes is immaterial to the thread topic. I add the differentiation because I suspect that there are some or most trolls posting here who only think there are male humans.

[Sledge]

Which law dictionary is that?

[D'rok]

I just teach people that they are a free will living adult man, male or female. And, that the income tax only applies to a fictional entity called a 'person'. And, it has already been discussed that 'person' comes from the Latin, 'persona' - the fictional role played by an actor.And, no matter how many times the courts smack this argument down in the clearest possible terms, you'll keep pushing this crap, eh? Here's a partial list:

HMTQ v. Galbraith (2001) BCSC 675
R. v. Lemieux, [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291
R. v. Dick (2003) BCPC 0013 (B.C. Prov. Ct.)
R. v. Carew [1992] B.C.J. No. 995 (BCSC)
R. v. Sullivan [1991] S.C.R. 489
PPG Industries Canada Ltd v. Canada [1983] B.C.J. No. 2260 (BCSC)
Kennedy v. Canada Customs & Revenue Agency [2000] O.C.J. No. 3313 (Ontario Supreme Court of Justice)
R. v. Lindsay [2006] BCCA 150
R. v. Sydel, [2006] 5 C.T.C. 88


Thus, I teach that one is NOT subject to the income tax, or any legislated act of any level of Government, as they all specifically state that they apply to 'persons'. See above.

But guess who also argued that? Your pal Dr. Klundert.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22natural+person%22+%22income+t ax%22&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

What happened to him again? Oh yeah, jail and a half-million dollar fine.

You are a fraud.

[Hans]

That's right D'rok come out with reason and logic to refute the guy. But you seem to forget that he is a 'nut'. Nuts don't response to logic and reason.

I recommend that he be chastened by Japanese herbal laxatives and the visit from a snotty Jesuit who will read to him a stern letter from the Green Cardinal about his misdeeds.

[D'rok]

That's right D'rok come out with reason and logic to refute the guy. But you seem to forget that he is a 'nut'. Nuts don't response to logic and reason.

I recommend that he be chastened by Japanese herbal laxatives and the visit from a snotty Jesuit who will read to him a stern letter from the Green Cardinal about his misdeeds.Perfect!

I'm gonna miss Eldon after he gets himself banned.

[X]

...no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.


How many people have actually used your method?

[Praktik]

He did not use my DetaxCanada method of filing. Yes, my method is always '$0.00 tax owing', but, there is much more to the method than that entry on the T1 form. And, no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.

No one really went to court in the ring I saw busted.

People just paid through the nose. Usually there's deals offered by the CRA.

How many people have had to file T1-ADJ forms and replace the "$0.00" with their real amount owing?

How many of them have had to pay penalties as a result?

[Hans]

Isn't this yet again another attempt to find a 'magical' way to not pay taxes?

Strange they all fail - I wonder why? LOL

[Blue Mountain]

Wow! I think we have another suitable candidate for some ocean front property in Saskatchewan. Have I got a deal for you!

Ever wondered why the Government of Canada has no voting member of the Board of Directors for the Bank of Canada. The Deputy Finance Minister gets to sit in on board meetings, but has no vote or say - just an observer. How could that be, if the Government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada? The Bank of Canada is about as much of a National Institution as is the Federal Reserve of the USA. But then, I suppose, because it has 'Federal' in the name, it belongs to the Federal Government of the USA, as does Federal Express, Federal Department Stores, and the city of Federal Way, WA.
Oh dear, we're going to have to feed you another fact!

... The Board is composed of 12 Directors from outside the Bank, plus the Governor and the Senior Deputy Governor. The Deputy Minister of Finance sits on the Board as a non-voting member. The outside Directors come from across Canada and provide an important link to the various regions of the country. Directors are appointed for three-year terms by the Minister of Finance and may be reappointed at the end of their terms. If an appointment decision is delayed,

Source (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/about/board.html)

So it appears that although the Minister of Finance has no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Bank of Canada, he/she certainly has a lot of say in its board, seeing as how every board member is appointed by the Minister.

[Blue Mountain]

Perfect!

I'm gonna miss Eldon after he gets himself banned.
I've got the protest thread pretty much ready to go once it happens :p

[TjW]

It won't matter. Darat will simply reply with:
EldonGs required: 0

[JLord]

I thought this thread had died out, so I haven't checked it for a while. It seems to be back from the dead.

However, Government would have us think, and unfortunately, have been quite successful in convincing the vast number of the population, that they are part of a combined fictional entity where the Crown or State owned legal name is the principal property, and the adult man who ignorantly identifies him or her self as being one and the same as that legal name, and thus compose the 'person' entity upon which they then impose their statutes and the harvesting of the fruits of their labour because of their slave status..

It isn't a matter of convincing anyone of anything. The government doesn't care if you are convinced that you are a person or not. The courts have upheld the fact that "person" has includes "free will man" or "sovereign man" or "human being" or whatever else people like to call themselves. A law applying to a person applies to a human being regardless of what they call themselves or whether the government can convince them of anything.


I could just claim you owe me $1,000 and force you to disprove it. And then claim that a lack of evidence (e.g. you not being able to find anything written down anywhere saying you don't owe me $1,000) is proof you do, and demand you pay up.

This seems like a pretty good argument right?

[carlitos]

Which law dictionary is that?


From teh googlenet, I see this. Oh, and never mind about part 2 of the same definition. :rolleyes:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: "of offences against man, some are more immediately against the king, other's more immediately against the subject." Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offences against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man." Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2.

2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

[Abe_the_Man]

50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

Don't know if anyone bothered to do this (at work). The inquisition occurred between 1200ce and 1400ce. The estimated world population for 1400ce according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates is between 350 and 375 million. That would mean inquisition killed about 1/7th of the entire world population right? The OP did also say 50 million was conservative.

[carlitos]

Holy carp. 50 million? Maybe he mis-typed 50 thousand?

[catsmate1]

Well I go off and talk dirigibles for a few days and our chew-toy is back.:D

Hey, we have to earn our Red Robes somehow. The Priesthood of Isis doesn't just hand those things out, you know!
It took me three hard years to earn my red robe.

That's good, because you can't back up anything you say or write to anyone, shill or not.

"Detailed facts" like "Canada is a different country than the United States"?

:lol2:

Don't try and confuse Eldon with mere facts.

So - curious here Eldon, are you in any way involved with Christian Identity? Cause Gauvreau seems to be:

This Albertan and his links to White Power here in Canada were found in about 2 mins after searching for his name and "Christian Identity".

- White Power Website Specifically Lists His Name as a "White Racialist" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/notable-canadians-58573.html) (be warned link takes you to stormfront boards)

A Canadian White Power website, Murray Gauvreau is specifically listed as a "White Racialist" (aka, White Power Activist) defended in court by a lawyer the poster selected for a "Notable Canadians" nod in a thread there to celebrate the best White Power activists, or "Notable Canadians". Apparently that lawyer represented Gauvreau and many more to earn such high praise.

Here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/087.html) is one of a few sources where people mention Gauvreau handing out Christian Identity literature.
Eldon is a different anti-Semite. He's rather fond of calling people who contradict him a "stinking Traitor Zionist Jew Bastard". Just read what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=639&lg=_e&isruling=0)has to say about him.
Nor did his drivel do his much good when he was tried for assault (http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00%5F0022.htm) and then lost his appeal (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/01/05/2001bcca0510.htm).

Whups. Missed this gem the first time around.

So the 'Red Robed Priests of Isis' ruled Egypt starting in 11,500BCE?

That's really interesting, considering that we have no evidence whatsoever of any long-term human habitation earlier than 8,000 BCE (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212131300.htm). The earliest Egyptian agricultural settlements known date from only about 5200 BCE. Before that, we have evidence of neolithic hunter-gatherers dating back another three thousand years or so, which still leaves your Priests of Fashion hanging for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, since Isis herself only dates back (as far as we can tell) to the Fifth Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Early_history) (2494 to 2345 BC), a rational human being would conclude that the Neolithic tribes were not ruled by priests of a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years.

But I'm sure you'd not going to let multi-thousand-year anachronisms stop you. After all, the idea that a group of priests would worship a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years is, by your standards, rather credible.

At least in comparison to the rest of your "ideas."
Again with the facts, don't you know Eldon is always right. Even when he contradicts himself.

He did not use my DetaxCanada method of filing. Yes, my method is always '$0.00 tax owing', but, there is much more to the method than that entry on the T1 form. And, no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.
Strange how you've never had the courage to take your "method" to court yourself, always leaving it to others to try your tax evasion nonsense.

Yes, he was called on that ridiculous claim a while back. He's suspended now, and will be on probation when he returns. I'll wager he won't last a week before he breaches his suspension and is banned.
Yep.

[carlitos]

Eldon is a different anti-Semite. He's rather fond of calling people who contradict him a "stinking Traitor Zionist Jew Bastard". Just read what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=639&lg=_e&isruling=0)has to say about him.


While I find Eldon's ideas offensive, there is no reason that, in a Western democracy in 2010, we should be prosecuting thought crime. Richard Warman did essentially the same thing as Eldon Warman did, when entrapping online "criminals" for the CHRT. The trial took place in a kind of Star Chamber, as Mark Steyn put it. I hope that Canada takes steps to rectify their law so that future real world and online "criminals" are not abused merely for spouting their beliefs.

If EldonG could abide by the membership agreement here, that would be progress, too.

[D'rok]

While I find Eldon's ideas offensive, there is no reason that, in a Western democracy in 2010, we should be prosecuting thought crime.We don't. That's Alex Jones style FUD. There is, however, room for debate on what actually happens.

If EldonG could abide by the membership agreement here, that would be progress, too.Not bloody likely.

[carlitos]

I don't know what FUD is, but I suspect it's not a compliment to my analytical skills. Look, I followed the Steyn and Ezra Klein cases very closely. If these types of prosecutions were leveled against people without resources, for instance a non-tax-filing retiree named Eldon, there is no way for them to fairly defend themselves.

I could list numerous posts of Richard Warman that were just as offensive as what the other Warman posted. The difference being that he was working at the government's behest, therefore not prosecuted by the CHRT. That's thought crime to me.

ETA - we are probably off topic. Was / is there a thread here to discuss this?

[D'rok]

I don't know what FUD is, but I suspect it's not a compliment to my analytical skills. Look, I followed the Steyn and Ezra Klein cases very closely. If these types of prosecutions were leveled against people without resources, for instance a non-tax-filing retiree named Eldon, there is no way for them to fairly defend themselves.

I could list numerous posts of Richard Warman that were just as offensive as what the other Warman posted. The difference being that he was working at the government's behest, therefore not prosecuted by the CHRT. That's thought crime to me.

ETA - we are probably off topic. Was / is there a thread here to discuss this?FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

There were no prosecutions. There were administrative investigations that concluded there were no basis to the complaints. The CHRT is statutorily bound to investigate, or at least evaluate, when someone complains. You have bought the FUD, sold, ironically by Klein and Steyn to further their own particular crusades.

Yeah, it's off-topic and there's probably a thread somewhere.

[carlitos]

Sorry, I should have said administrative investigations, not prosecutions. You are right; someone like Jones would say "prosecutions" to refer to this stuff. My mistake, and I did it more than once in my posts. I did know that they were administrative, but it's been a few years.

[LightinDarkness]

Eldon is a different anti-Semite. He's rather fond of calling people who contradict him a "stinking Traitor Zionist Jew Bastard". Just read what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=639&lg=_e&isruling=0)has to say about him.
Nor did his drivel do his much good when he was tried for assault (http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00%5F0022.htm) and then lost his appeal (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/01/05/2001bcca0510.htm).


You won the thread by providing those links. There is really nothing more to be said about EldonG: hes a kook who keeps preaching woo while ignoring that the woo has failed in the above 3 cases. Of course, I'm sure it was just a massive conspiracy against him....and not that he has no idea of how the law works...

[carlitos]

The assault charge in particular shows how dangerous these beliefs can be for society as a whole. If, in the back of your mind, the "peace officer" is some manifestation of a dark conspiracy from the Red Robes of Isis, you are already more likely to do something irrational.

[tsig]

While I find Eldon's ideas offensive, there is no reason that, in a Western democracy in 2010, we should be prosecuting thought crime. Richard Warman did essentially the same thing as Eldon Warman did, when entrapping online "criminals" for the CHRT. The trial took place in a kind of Star Chamber, as Mark Steyn put it. I hope that Canada takes steps to rectify their law so that future real world and online "criminals" are not abused merely for spouting their beliefs.

If EldonG could abide by the membership agreement here, that would be progress, too.

He contracted with the MA so according to his own logic he should follow it.

[D'rok]

Sorry, I should have said administrative investigations, not prosecutions. You are right; someone like Jones would say "prosecutions" to refer to this stuff. My mistake, and I did it more than once in my posts. I did know that they were administrative, but it's been a few years.No worries. Personally, I'm not a fan of the human rights tribunal system, but debate on the subject always seems to get poisoned right from the start.

[LightinDarkness]

The assault charge in particular shows how dangerous these beliefs can be for society as a whole. If, in the back of your mind, the "peace officer" is some manifestation of a dark conspiracy from the Red Robes of Isis, you are already more likely to do something irrational.

I love how the opinion opens too..


[1] The defendant in this criminal assault trial, Eldon Gerald Warman, is in the unhappy position of being tried in a forum whose jurisdiction he does not recognize, in a court which he asserts is a creature of a usurper or hoax government.

[2] Before going any further beyond that observation I pause to observe that through the course of this proceeding I have gained some considerable respect for Mr. Warman, for having the courage of his convictions, and most especially for the courtesy he has shown to a court whose authority he does not acknowledge.

[3] It has occurred to me that were I in the position of being tried in a court whose authority I did not acknowledge, it would be a very difficult experience. Imagining that experience for Mr. Warman, it is significant that he has acted with such courtesy throughout.


I swear, Canadian judges seem just so polite in the best way possible. They just sit there and flatter the guy for not going crazy on them while still acknowledging that hes pushing fact-less woo.


[8] One might ask why I mention all of this when Mr. Warman is before me charged with a relatively minor criminal offence. I do so because the very expression of that viewpoint is an exercise of what I understand to be the right of every citizen of Canada and indeed every resident of Canada.

[9] It is clear to me, however, that Mr. Warman's perspective on the Constitution is profoundly inconsistent with the prevailing view of Canadian society, and just as inconsistent with my understanding of the Canadian Constitution and the laws enacted thereunder by which I am bound. But it is important and significant that he and indeed any other person brought before these courts have the right to articulate their views.


It makes me just want to go hug this guy.


[13] As I reflected on Mr. Warman's submissions my mind travelled to the fact that on April 15th, next month, it is going to be my great honour to preside at the swearing of a number of new Canadian citizens. Will they become members of a club? Perhaps so, but in my respectful view how fortunate they will be.

[14] How fortunate are all of us that have been born into that club, if such it be, because it is my view, and in this regard I understand myself to articulate the perspective of the Canadian courts, that citizens of Canada enjoy assurances of fundamental rights and freedoms, in part but not entirely as enunciated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[15] Those rights and freedoms are largely parallel to the inalienable rights granted under Magna Carta. Because of the relatively peaceful nature of our society, many Canadians have little awareness of the existence of the Constitution, let alone knowledge of its terms. But it is a measure of that Constitution, I suggest, and its preservation and enforcement through the rule of law, that permits that state of innocent disregard.

[16] If we lived in a police state, if we had no courts through which to assert our rights, if the elections of which Mr. Warman is so dismissive suddenly were to vanish, the reality of our present state would be impressed upon each one of us much more clearly.

[17] Am I so naïve as to suggest there is no inappropriate conduct by police in this country? Of course not. Do I suggest judges never make mistakes? No, of course not. Do I suggest all political action operates from the purest of motives? No. But do we enjoy freedoms and liberties? Yes, in my respectful view we do, and we do so through the assurances of the Constitution.


Eldon is SO lucky he got this guy...I can only imagine what would have happened if he pulled this woo stunt on someone with a more jaded view of the world...

Then Eldon literally punches a police officer after his tour bus was pulled over because the guy didn't buy the whole "this is a private conveyance" FMOTL woo they use to avoid paying taxes on their vehicles. After the officer recovered and began writing a ticket:

[36] Mr. Warman confirmed Mr. Harris was going to write a ticket even after Mr. Warman had stressed this was a private, not a public, transportation coach. He expressed the opinion that issuing tickets at the side of the road is to conduct a roving court not permitted by Section 17 of Magna Carta. He expressed the opinion that a peace officer is someone who keeps the peace, not a warden. He likened his own righteous indignation to that of Jesus confronting the money changers in the temple.


For such a ego, Eldon sure does appear to be losing every single battle...

[tsig]

You won the thread by providing those links. There is really nothing more to be said about EldonG: hes a kook who keeps preaching woo while ignoring that the woo has failed in the above 3 cases. Of course, I'm sure it was just a massive conspiracy against him....and not that he has no idea of how the law works...

It is a massive conspiracy against him unfortunately his mind is in on it.

[tsig]

I love how the opinion opens too..



I swear, Canadian judges seem just so polite in the best way possible. They just sit there and flatter the guy for not going crazy on them while still acknowledging that hes pushing fact-less woo.



It makes me just want to go hug this guy.



Eldon is SO lucky he got this guy...I can only imagine what would have happened if he pulled this woo stunt on someone with a more jaded view of the world...

Then Eldon literally punches a police officer after his tour bus was pulled over because the guy didn't buy the whole "this is a private conveyance" FMOTL woo they use to avoid paying taxes on their vehicles. After the officer recovered and began writing a ticket:


For such a ego, Eldon sure does appear to be losing every single battle...

All preachers want to be Jesus just without the Crucifixion.

[catsmate1]

He contracted with the MA so according to his own logic he should follow it.
"Freeman" "logic" is a fluid concept.


You won the thread by providing those links.
Gee thanks:)

[Blue Mountain]

... I think I would put the over/under on two weeks, so we're largely in agreement.
In his first posting period (27 August-1 September), Eldon lasted 88 hours between his first post and his last before being suspended.

The second active period (5-11 September) as his best, going 149 hours—just over six days—before the admins intervened again.

The last time he was active (20-22 September), he managed only 34 hours between his initial and last posts before being suspended again, and eight of those posts ended up in AAH.

Unless he changes his ways, it seems likely the next time he returns he'll be suspended again or banned within three days.

[Mashuna]

You won the thread by providing those links. There is really nothing more to be said about EldonG: hes a kook who keeps preaching woo while ignoring that the woo has failed in the above 3 cases. Of course, I'm sure it was just a massive conspiracy against him....and not that he has no idea of how the law works...

Yes, I think my favourite sections were these, from the appeal hearing:

[13] The submissions of the appellant on the issue of jurisdiction are, as I see them, a complete denial of the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law.

[14] The submissions of the appellant must be and are rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever.

[arayder]

I would suggest that the fact that the Monarch of England has to 'down-dress' and ask the Lord Mayor of London for permission to enter the City (City of London) should be a clue as to the servitude status of the British Monarchs to the Holy Roman Empire and its sub-capitol for banking, Temple Bar (lawyers) and Professional standards (educational degrees).

I can’t speak with authority on the law in other countries, but the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2) trumps all these claims that Vatican, or Roman or whatever law still is in the primary law in effect in the U.S.

It’s really quite simple.

All our friend has done is to pour back through old law and history to find a few old, dead bits of history and law and declare them to be the rationale for his theories.

If old law is what counts then why don’t we go back to Hammurabi Code and pretend it is applicable law.

I like number 11: “If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.”

[Horatius]

I can’t speak with authority on the law in other countries, but the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2) trumps all these claims that Vatican, or Roman or whatever law still is in the primary law in effect in the U.S.

It’s really quite simple.

All our friend has done is to pour back through old law and history to find a few old, dead bits of history and law and declare them to be the rationale for his theories.




Yes, it really is that simple. He simply refuses to believe that any later act, entity, events, laws, wars or revolutions can have any effect whatsoever on established legal powers. He also applies these rules to the definitions of words - they must be used only in their original sense, without regard to adoption by other languages, or adaptations of meanings to new circumstances.

It's a very specific sort of delusion he's got going on here.

[catsmate1]

Well Eldon's suspension will be over in a couple of days, I'm sure he'll be back to answer everyone's questions.

[Sledge]

His posting history would suggest otherwise. ;)

[catsmate1]

Would it be wrong to start a pool on how long he'll last?

[drkitten]

Would it be wrong to start a pool on how long he'll last?

Yes. I bet thirty days.

[Blue Mountain]

Next suspension within a week, probably three days. If that doesn't result in a banning, the suspension will likely be a long one, and then an instaban for the next infraction.

[/mode=second_guess_the_mods] :p

[Mongrel]

Next suspension within a week, probably three days. If that doesn't result in a banning, the suspension will likely be a long one, and then an instaban for the next infraction.

[/mode=second_guess_the_mods] :p

I'm with this one :)

I'll put a beer (collection only) on 3 days back - suspension then 2 days back and ban.

[Hans]

When is our lord of crankdom expected to appear again?

[drkitten]

When is our lord of crankdom expected to appear again?

I think he is allowed back today.

[EldonG]

This blog was recently received from a fellow researcher from the USA. [One would likely find similar info regarding the Government of Canada Inc. - I haven't taken the time to check that out.] Quote:

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.

The Manta.com website www.manta.com
You might be surprised

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million U.S. and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.
But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.
For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.
The first “company” on the list is:

“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
The u.s. Capitol Washington DC” The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”. Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”. That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information. For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at:

“the u.s. capitol
“Washington, DC 20515-0001” Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121”. Business Hours are “24/7”. You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC. None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”).

But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read: “government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”. [My note: See Wikipedia on 'Basilica Shrine'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Immaculate_ Conception

Continuing quote:
Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Q: Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?
A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):

“all recipients [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by Barack Obama administration.”

The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States” that we all so love and admire. (Don’t forget that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies.)

It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company and “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.
Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:
1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and
2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.
Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”
Whut th’ . . . ?!
The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?
More?
Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”
The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?
Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.
Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”? Unquote

-----------------------

This certainly shows that the phony CON-stitution of the corporate UNITED STATES is certainly NOT the Supreme Law of America. The CON-stitution [yes, the original was also a 'CON'] - which he quotes, was never ratified by the sovereign people of America, as the dumb Americans have been led to believe. It was only ratified by other corporations/States, where the people were already of slave status in the eyes of the administrators of those States. Do employees of Buick Division or employees of General Motors have any vote or authority over those 'private' corporations? No different with incorporated States or provinces.

Apparently, Americans, and Canadians can be convinced of anything, including the fact that they are free will men and women, when they actually have been made plantation slaves, subject to the corporate Vatican owned Crown of the City of London and the Vatican owned Rothschild banking empire. And, the sad part is that so very many of them will lie, cheat and steal to defend their slave status and do character defamation on those who show them their slave chains.

[Sledge]

You should try talking to a doctor about this. I'm sure s/he could prescribe some tablets to help.

[arayder]

39. No free man (liber homo) shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [Note: The Law of the Land, the abode of mankind, is the negative form of the Golden Rule - Do no harm. Statute law is a form of Maritime Law - Law of the Sea, used in incorporate bodies politic.]

We have already covered this ground, Eldon. A tax is not the same as a disseize.

Disseize: to deprive (a person) of seizin, or of the possession, of a freehold interest in land, esp. wrongfully or by force; oust.

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Source: dictionary.reference.com/

[arayder]

[QUOTE=EldonG;6429218]

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.. . .

. . . .This certainly shows that the phony CON-stitution of the corporate UNITED STATES is certainly NOT the Supreme Law of America.. . .QUOTE]

So the U.S. Constitution is not the Law of the Land. . .but Dunn & Bradstreet is?

[LightinDarkness]

This blog was recently received from a fellow researcher from the USA. [One would likely find similar info regarding the Government of Canada Inc. - I haven't taken the time to check that out.] Quote:

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.

The stupidity of the conspiracy theorists never fails to amaze.

The government is both engaging in a massive global conspiracy to keep secret that its a corporation AND dumb enough to register on D&B? Really?

The truth is that the government IS NOT A CORPORATION, but the government HAS corporations and NO ONE has ever tried to hide this or is surprised by this except the conspiracy loons. In reality, using a corporation is simply a legal practicality since the word "corporation" does not mean what you think it does. The government, which is a sovereign state, forms subsidiary corporations to carry out its daily business because (1) it provides people the ability to hold government accountable by letting them sue the corporation and (2) because it allows people to work with the government without being sued in their personal capacity every time someone has a problem with the government at large.

Without a corporation, if I had a problem with the government I would have no easy way to sue except for suing employees in their personal capacity. If I'm dealing with a large bureaucracy, it may be impossible to practically find who is responsible for my problem so I'd have to include hundreds of thousands of people/employees in every lawsuit. The legal system would grind to a halt and I'd never get relief.

Without a corporation, no one would work for government because in the aforementioned never ending lawsuits every employee would have their personal assets at risk. By having a corporation, you get relief from the assets of the government instead of the people working for it.

THESE are the facts, Eldon. THIS is the reality that debunks your conspiracy propaganda..er.."research." YES, governments have corporations and not only is there nothing wrong with it, its a legal structure that lets loons like you sue it. You should be thanking them. Over here in reality we've understood that the government has a corporation and what it means for quite some time.

And really, the whole Vatican thing? You guys are pathetic. The Basilica its talking about is also a corporation..for the same, good, legitimate reasons stated above, and it lists the Archbishop as the owner. Hes just as much the "owner" of that corporation that manages the Basilica as Barack Obama is "owner" of the United States.

[arayder]

Again, our friend Eldon misrepresents the Treaty of Paris despite having been educated on the matter several times over the years on can.taxes.

Certainly we can see clearly that in the initial treaty document the King lists the colonies as one of his holdings. This is not surprising since the King can't enter into a treaty regarding land he doesn't hold, or claim to hold.

Setting aside selective reading and incomplete scholarship, we see that later on in the document the King gives up all claims to the former colonies. In fact the treaty ratification document does NOT list the former colonies as one of the King's holdings. This is logical since the King had just relinquished all claims to them.

Furthermore we see that subsequent treaties like the one that ended the War of 1812 the King does not list the U.S. as one of his holdings, again, since he had relinquished all claims to them.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

About Manta

Manta is the largest free source of information on small companies, with profiles of more than 64 million businesses and organizations.

http://www.manta.com/coms2/page_about_manta

'Nuff said. :cool:

[D'rok]

Happy Thanksgiving, Eldon.

The leaves are beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec this time of year.

See: (Pic taken last weekend)

http://i.imgur.com/gQ0kb.jpg

Can you still appreciate these sorts of things? Or have your obsessions robbed you of all of life's joys?

[arayder]

The stupidity of the conspiracy theorists never fails to amaze.

The government is both engaging in a massive global conspiracy to keep secret that its a corporation AND dumb enough to register on D&B? Really?

The truth is that the government IS NOT A CORPORATION, but the government HAS corporations and NO ONE has ever tried to hide this or is surprised by this except the conspiracy loons. In reality, using a corporation is simply a legal practicality since the word "corporation" does not mean what you think it does. The government, which is a sovereign state, forms subsidiary corporations to carry out its daily business because (1) it provides people the ability to hold government accountable by letting them sue the corporation and (2) because it allows people to work with the government without being sued in their personal capacity every time someone has a problem with the government at large.

Without a corporation, if I had a problem with the government I would have no easy way to sue except for suing employees in their personal capacity. If I'm dealing with a large bureaucracy, it may be impossible to practically find who is responsible for my problem so I'd have to include hundreds of thousands of people/employees in every lawsuit. The legal system would grind to a halt and I'd never get relief.

Without a corporation, no one would work for government because in the aforementioned never ending lawsuits every employee would have their personal assets at risk. By having a corporation, you get relief from the assets of the government instead of the people working for it.

THESE are the facts, Eldon. THIS is the reality that debunks your conspiracy propaganda..er.."research." YES, governments have corporations and not only is there nothing wrong with it, its a legal structure that lets loons like you sue it. You should be thanking them. Over here in reality we've understood that the government has a corporation and what it means for quite some time.

And really, the whole Vatican thing? You guys are pathetic. The Basilica its talking about is also a corporation..for the same, good, legitimate reasons stated above, and it lists the Archbishop as the owner. Hes just as much the "owner" of that corporation that manages the Basilica as Barack Obama is "owner" of the United States.

Whether they care to admit it or not the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land (or whatever they are calling themselves today) crowd is trying convince themselves that democratic governments are nothing more than private businesses with whom one can dissolve a contract and end the relationship the same way one fires an exterminator.

No matter how many times they are told that their theories don’t match up with the reality of history or law they just keep on repeating the same old fairy tale.

No matter how many times they get pole axed in court they just go on and on with this fantasy.

[drkitten]

Whether they care to admit it or not the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land (or whatever they are calling themselves today) crowd is trying convince themselves that democratic governments are nothing more than private businesses with whom one can dissolve a contract and end the relationship the same way one fires an exterminator.

Actually, the sovereign citizen crowd doesn't even know how one fires an exterminator. If you tried some of this heads-I-win-tails-you-lose theory of contracts on an actual businessman, you'd get your arse handed to you on a plate. The exterminator (or whoever) would invoke the necessary legal "magic words" (in this case, specifically "mechanic's lien") and the local sheriff will seize their house and sell it at auction.

Of course, from the Freeman point of view, that's probably a "win." Not only have they proven the injustice inherent in the system ("Come, see the injustice inherent in the system!"), but by the time they've fought their way through the courts with their own set of magic words, they've probably also arranged themselves free room and board at someone else's expense for a number of months.

[arayder]

Actually, the sovereign citizen crowd doesn't even know how one fires an exterminator. If you tried some of this heads-I-win-tails-you-lose theory of contracts on an actual businessman, you'd get your arse handed to you on a plate. The exterminator (or whoever) would invoke the necessary legal "magic words" (in this case, specifically "mechanic's lien") and the local sheriff will seize their house and sell it at auction.

Of course, from the Freeman point of view, that's probably a "win." Not only have they proven the injustice inherent in the system ("Come, see the injustice inherent in the system!"), but by the time they've fought their way through the courts with their own set of magic words, they've probably also arranged themselves free room and board at someone else's expense for a number of months.

sorry about the multiple posts, folks,

arayder

[bikerdruid]

we heard you the first time, arayder. :D
but..it is a good fantasy.
the anarchist in me likes the concept.

[carlitos]

This blog was recently received from a fellow researcher from the USA. [One would likely find similar info regarding the Government of Canada Inc. - I haven't taken the time to check that out.] Quote:

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.

The Manta.com website www.manta.com
You might be surprised

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million U.S. and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.
But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.
For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.
The first “company” on the list is:

“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
The u.s. Capitol Washington DC” The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”. Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”. That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information. For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at:

“the u.s. capitol
“Washington, DC 20515-0001” Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121”. Business Hours are “24/7”. You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC. None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”).

But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read: “government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”. [My note: See Wikipedia on 'Basilica Shrine'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Immaculate_ Conception

Continuing quote:
Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Q: Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?
A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):

“all recipients [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by Barack Obama administration.”

You are posting here at the JREF in October. Why would you expect us to believe that what you posted was true "as of August 6th, A.D. 2010?"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674cb37419694a7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21299)

Not to mention:
take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674cb374843d73c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21300)
Help me, Mr. Warman, to find this "additional information." Thank you.

...

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:
1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and
2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.
Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”
Whut th’ . . . ?!
The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?
More?
Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”
The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?
Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.
Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”? Unquote

Your failure to understand why a search of a business database shows results for a Congressperson's private office is really not important. I'm sorry that you must draw grand conspiracies from such meaningless trivia as the search results from a D&B database.

As D'rok suggested, I hope that you find a way to walk outside and enjoy life once in a while. Not everyone is out to get you, honest. Not to mention, what does a Canadian care about the US Congress anyway?

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by EldonG

39. No free man (liber homo) shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [Note: The Law of the Land, the abode of mankind, is the negative form of the Golden Rule - Do no harm. Statute law is a form of Maritime Law - Law of the Sea, used in incorporate bodies politic.]

[QUOTE by Removed breach of Rule 8.] We have already covered this ground, Eldon. A tax is not the same as a disseize.
Disseize: to deprive (a person) of seizin, or of the possession, of a freehold interest in land, esp. wrongfully or by force; oust.
Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/[/QUOTE}

You have never proven anything, Jack. Why do you ignore the rest of the text of Section 39: "or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon (physically or legally attack) or send upon him (send officers of the corporation to physically or legally attack) --save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

How many people in Canada and the USA are 'HARMED" by having the status of 'plantation slave' imposed upon them. How many are jailed or railroaded in courts because they refuse to submit to the extortion, or for disobedience to the rules of their supposed corporate master? And, then having the majority of the fruits of their labor harvested under the name of tax as collected property of the slave owner, the corporate Crown or State? Is there any semblance of that imposition and extortion being approved by a jury of peers or by the Law of the Land - "Do no harm"?

[Sledge]

Seriously, seek help. I appreciate you've had a rough life, but this drivel is not the answer.

[EldonG]

It isn't a matter of convincing anyone of anything. The government doesn't care if you are convinced that you are a person or not. The courts have upheld the fact that "person" has includes "free will man" or "sovereign man" or "human being" or whatever else people like to call themselves. A law applying to a person applies to a human being regardless of what they call themselves or whether the government can convince them of anything.


That's a pretty weak argument, John. You know very well that 'the Courts' are administrative part of the corporation, and thus, a judge can only see a 'corporate' member, which, like crew-members on a ship at sea, are called 'person's (personnel). What yo say just supports my stand that all incorporated bodies, including 'bodies politic' are 'make-believe ships at sea', and administered as such.

[EldonG]

Again, our friend Eldon misrepresents the Treaty of Paris despite having been educated on the matter several times over the years on can.taxes.

Certainly we can see clearly that in the initial treaty document the King lists the colonies as one of his holdings. This is not surprising since the King can't enter into a treaty regarding land he doesn't hold, or claim to hold.

Setting aside selective reading and incomplete scholarship, we see that later on in the document the King gives up all claims to the former colonies. In fact the treaty ratification document does NOT list the former colonies as one of the King's holdings. This is logical since the King had just relinquished all claims to them.

Furthermore we see that subsequent treaties like the one that ended the War of 1812 the King does not list the U.S. as one of his holdings, again, since he had relinquished all claims to them.

You are talking BS again Jack. The Monarch of England was always a facade, and the Colonies of Britain (a vassal State of the Holy Roman Empire) were ruled by the Crown of the City of London, an independent city/state within England, and that rule was by and through the British Board of Trade.

Ownership of America/Virginia was never severed from the Holy Roman Empire. You obviously haven't read my post on the Manta.com website (Dunn & Bradstreet) that shows that the Archbishop Deric R. McLeod of the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Washington, DC is the listed OWNER
of the Government of the UNITED STATES, and since Roman Catholic Archbishops are priests that vow poverty, that means that this Archbishop is acting as agent for the head Fascist corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire.

[EldonG]

Whether they care to admit it or not the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land (or whatever they are calling themselves today) crowd is trying convince themselves that democratic governments are nothing more than private businesses with whom one can dissolve a contract and end the relationship the same way one fires an exterminator.

No matter how many times they are told that their theories don’t match up with the reality of history or law they just keep on repeating the same old fairy tale.

No matter how many times they get pole axed in court they just go on and on with this fantasy.

Guess that is OK, if you ignore: "the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And this: A LAW DICTIONARY by John Bouvier

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=117&invol=151#154

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420(1837)

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&page=420

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for
the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the grant or charter of the separate states;"

[EldonG]

You are posting here at the JREF in October. Why would you expect us to believe that what you posted was true "as of August 6th, A.D. 2010?"

The August 6th is part of the quote of the other researcher, not mine.

Help me, Mr. Warman, to find this "additional information." Thank you.

Does the author of the blog not tell you that you have 'to sign up' to get into that info?

Your failure to understand why a search of a business database shows results for a Congressperson's private office is really not important. I'm sorry that you must draw grand conspiracies from such meaningless trivia as the search results from a D&B database.

As D'rok suggested, I hope that you find a way to walk outside and enjoy life once in a while. Not everyone is out to get you, honest. Not to mention, what does a Canadian care about the US Congress anyway?

Removed breach of Rule 8. However, you may do well in researching "Canada", "Ontario" in that Manta.com website.

[EldonG]

[QUOTE=EldonG;6429218]

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.. . .

. . . .This certainly shows that the phony CON-stitution of the corporate UNITED STATES is certainly NOT the Supreme Law of America.. . .QUOTE]

So the U.S. Constitution is not the Law of the Land. . .but Dunn & Bradstreet is?

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?

[EldonG]

Don't know if anyone bothered to do this (at work). The inquisition occurred between 1200ce and 1400ce. The estimated world population for 1400ce according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates is between 350 and 375 million. That would mean inquisition killed about 1/7th of the entire world population right? The OP did also say 50 million was conservative.

You obviously quit reading when you got to the end of the Spanish Inquisition. The Massacre of the Huguenots in Paris was 1572, and the Protestant Irish massacred in the early 1600s, the 30 Years war, the massacre of the Anabaptists in central Europe, WW1, WW2, the Croatian Massacre, the Bosnian massacre.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope), as head of the re-named Inquisition before becoming Pope - under the name Doctrinal Correctness.

[LashL]

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?


What exactly does that have to do with taxation in Canada?

[EldonG]

Eldon is a different anti-Semite. He's rather fond of calling people who contradict him a "stinking Traitor Zionist Jew Bastard". Just read what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=639&lg=_e&isruling=0)has to say about him.
Nor did his drivel do his much good when he was tried for assault (http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00%5F0022.htm) and then lost his appeal (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/01/05/2001bcca0510.htm).

Wrong, I am not at all 'anti-Semitic'. I think the Palestinian People are a wonderful and brave people. And, they are the only 'Semites' that I know of.

Strange how you've never had the courage to take your "method" to court yourself, always leaving it to others to try your tax evasion nonsense.

Why do you think that I should submit myself to such a fictional entity. How am I supposed to 'take my METHOD to court'? Kick some CRA agent in the shins? You write nonsense.

[EldonG]

What exactly does that have to do with taxation in Canada?

If you would take the time to read my post that you quote, you would see that I am responding to the Removed breach of Rule 8. If you don't like American content, then don't read it.

[LashL]

This thread, however, is about taxation in Canada. So, I'll ask again: what does your post have to do with the subject matter of the thread?

(ETA: It would be far preferable for you to address the subject matter of the thread than to go off on tangents and/or flights of fancy. The subject matter of the thread is actually taxation in Canada. Have you anything to say about that?)

[D'rok]

Still sunny and beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec. Eldon, it looks like you had a spectacular weekend in Calgary, weather-wise. Did you make it out to Banff? Your taxes pay for that National park, you should enjoy it.

Didn't take any pictures this time, but Mrs. D'rok and I had a lovely time hiking around Lac Phillippe.

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/Central/Quebec/Lac_Philippe/ (http://www.realontario.ca/index.php/ontario-tourism-listing?pid=8698)

I'm so glad that Crown corporations like the National Capital Commission exist and maintain natural areas like Gatineau Park. Aren't you?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by EldonG

39. No free man (liber homo) shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [Note: The Law of the Land, the abode of mankind, is the negative form of the Golden Rule - Do no harm. Statute law is a form of Maritime Law - Law of the Sea, used in incorporate bodies politic.]

[QUOTE by Removed quote of moderated content] We have already covered this ground, Eldon. A tax is not the same as a disseize.
Disseize: to deprive (a person) of seizin, or of the possession, of a freehold interest in land, esp. wrongfully or by force; oust.
Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/[/QUOTE}

You have never proven anything, Jack. Why do you ignore the rest of the text of Section 39: "or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon (physically or legally attack) or send upon him (send officers of the corporation to physically or legally attack) --save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

How many people in Canada and the USA are 'HARMED" by having the status of 'plantation slave' imposed upon them. How many are jailed or railroaded in courts because they refuse to submit to the extortion, or for disobedience to the rules of their supposed corporate master? And, then having the majority of the fruits of their labor harvested under the name of tax as collected property of the slave owner, the corporate Crown or State? Is there any semblance of that imposition and extortion being approved by a jury of peers or by the Law of the Land - "Do no harm"?


Eldon, I am sorry to have to drag you through this again, but I recognize that some folks just need repeated corrections.

Your twisted logic relies on redefining “harm” to meet your needs. Unfortunately for you the law does not depend on individuals developing their own personal definitions. You can’t find a single instance in the law or history of western democracies in which lawful taxation has been considered “harm”, as you define it or the “imposition of slavery”.

Not that you haven’t been asked for the basis in law or history for your private definitions and personal law over the years.

Although I can understand how some dysfunctional individuals may consider the consequences of cheating on their taxes and threatening the authorities when they get called on it to be a sort of slavery.

[arayder]

Guess that is OK, if you ignore: "the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And this: A LAW DICTIONARY by John Bouvier

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=117&invol=151#154

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420(1837)

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&page=420

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for
the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the grant or charter of the separate states;"

Eldon, once again you play games. This time you cite the fact that nations incorporate in forming themselves knowing that your free men on the land friends won’t notice that the use of the term incorporate in this context does not mean that a democratic nation has no more authority than the bug man.

Your incomplete argument makes one wonder what else you never finish?

And we have covered your use of the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle to make your case countless times.

Need I go over this with you again?

[twinstead]

And we have covered your use of the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle to make your case countless times.


I looked up that fallacy on Wiki...It appears that Eldon's grandfather wears a backpack. What's up with that?

[arayder]

[QUOTE=arayder;6429376]

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?

Eldon, that’s pointless dribble. The offhand comments of a subpar President don’t make law any more than do the rants of mad detaxer.

Let’s back up and remind the reader that you are trying to tell us that some language you think you saw at some website trumps the U.S. Constitution.

Frankly, that argument is nuts.

[arayder]

I looked up that fallacy on Wiki...It appears that Eldon's grandfather wears a backpack. What's up with that?

Basically the sleight of hand used by Eldon is to pretend that democratic nations have no more authority than the business down the street since in the forming of both the word “incorporate” is used.

This foolishness is the freeman on the land’s pseudo-scholarship which would have us believe that words have only one meaning and usage.

[arayder]

You are talking BS again Jack. The Monarch of England was always a facade, and the Colonies of Britain (a vassal State of the Holy Roman Empire) were ruled by the Crown of the City of London, an independent city/state within England, and that rule was by and through the British Board of Trade.

Ownership of America/Virginia was never severed from the Holy Roman Empire. You obviously haven't read my post on the Manta.com website (Dunn & Bradstreet) that shows that the Archbishop Deric R. McLeod of the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Washington, DC is the listed OWNER
of the Government of the UNITED STATES, and since Roman Catholic Archbishops are priests that vow poverty, that means that this Archbishop is acting as agent for the head Fascist corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire.

Eldon, I think you need to pick and argument and stick to it.

First you tell us that the Pope rules the U.S. through the English monarchy. But when it gets pointed out to you that George III really did give up the colonies you change tact and tell us that the Pope never really gave up Virginia because Manta.com says so.

Of course this argument is contradicted by your own admission that the U.S. formed itself when it “incorporated” with the ratification of the Constitution.

[carlitos]

You are posting here at the JREF in October. Why would you expect us to believe that what you posted was true "as of August 6th, A.D. 2010?"

The August 6th is part of the quote of the other researcher, not mine.
Well, in that case, you can rejoice in that the "other researcher" was apparently wrong. Not that it would change anything in the real world, but the database you cited does not show that a mysterious church is behind the "Government of the United States." Congratulations.

Help me, Mr. Warman, to find this "additional information." Thank you.

Does the author of the blog not tell you that you have 'to sign up' to get into that info?
I am signed up; I have an account at Manta.com and there is no such section visible on that page. You may wish to do primary research in the future before presenting such information here. You are welcome.

Your failure to understand why a search of a business database shows results for a Congressperson's private office is really not important. I'm sorry that you must draw grand conspiracies from such meaningless trivia as the search results from a D&B database.

As D'rok suggested, I hope that you find a way to walk outside and enjoy life once in a while. Not everyone is out to get you, honest. Not to mention, what does a Canadian care about the US Congress anyway?

Removed quote of moderated contentHowever, you may do well in researching "Canada", "Ontario" in that Manta.com website.
Here is a news flash for you - Manta.com is a private website that uses logical algorithms and public records to provide information on businesses. I wouldn't use that website to search for government anything, and I have no idea why anyone would. That you misinterpret the results of such a search does not surprise me, but again, it says more about your lack of understanding of how the world works than anything else. Take heart, there is no conspiracy. Heck, there is no Roman Empire. Congratulations, you are free from their oppressive yoke!

[carlitos]

arayder put it a little more succinctly than I did. Thanks.


Let’s back up and remind the reader that you are trying to tell us that some language you think you saw at some website trumps the U.S. Constitution.

Frankly, that argument is nuts.

[Praktik]

Happy Thanksgiving, Eldon.

The leaves are beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec this time of year.

See: (Pic taken last weekend)


Can you still appreciate these sorts of things? Or have your obsessions robbed you of all of life's joys?

King Mountain??

Love that place..;)

[D'rok]

King Mountain??

Love that place..;)Close! Tawadina lookout. It's the payoff point of Sentier des Loups (Wolf Trail) which starts at Meech Lake.

[JLord]

That's a pretty weak argument, John. You know very well that 'the Courts' are administrative part of the corporation, and thus, a judge can only see a 'corporate' member, which, like crew-members on a ship at sea, are called 'person's (personnel). What yo say just supports my stand that all incorporated bodies, including 'bodies politic' are 'make-believe ships at sea', and administered as such.

So it looks like you're trying to make some kind of analogy that the country is like a corporation and the citizens of the country are shareholders in a corporation. I don't think most corporations have any administrative body similar to a court, but we can assume they do for the sake of argument. The thing is the court has authority over non-citizens as well as citizens. It also has authority over the government itself.

So whether they call people "people" or "free will man" or any other term, the court has and always will have authority over human beings in Canada. They follow the law as set out by government that says you and I are persons. If the law had used a different term instead of persons like "free will man" or something like that we would still be in exactly the same situation. The terminology itself is irrelevant.

[arayder]

So it looks like you're trying to make some kind of analogy that the country is like a corporation and the citizens of the country are shareholders in a corporation. I don't think most corporations have any administrative body similar to a court, but we can assume they do for the sake of argument. The thing is the court has authority over non-citizens as well as citizens. It also has authority over the government itself.

So whether they call people "people" or "free will man" or any other term, the court has and always will have authority over human beings in Canada. They follow the law as set out by government that says you and I are persons. If the law had used a different term instead of persons like "free will man" or something like that we would still be in exactly the same situation. The terminology itself is irrelevant.

Eldon doesn’t want to accept how democratic governments get their authority or what that authority is. He thinks that if calls himself a free willed man and pretends that countries are like ships under maritime law his fantasy will become true.

Readers are getting a glimpse of the mental gymnastics Eldon has to go through to avoid the simple reality that western democracies are empowered by the people to make binding law. . .and that that law is applied to all citizens and non-citizens in the geographic area under the authority if the nation.

I never cease to be amazed at the ever twisting knot of conspiracy theories that these freemen on the lamb come up with.

IMHO these theories get more complicated and convoluted for two reasons:

1. The older, simpler theories have been disproven in actual practice. The freemen on the lamb figure that they must have missed something the Founding Fathers, or the Pope, or somebody did, or said, or wrote. . . and they think that if they just ferret the supposed facts out they will be free!

2. Freemen on the lamb think that finding what they imagine is the law’s secret code is akin to proving their middle school teachers where all wrong about their abilities.

[EldonG]

This thread, however, is about taxation in Canada. So, I'll ask again: what does your post have to do with the subject matter of the thread?

(ETA: It would be far preferable for you to address the subject matter of the thread than to go off on tangents and/or flights of fancy. The subject matter of the thread is actually taxation in Canada. Have you anything to say about that?)

Correction. The thread is about my website, called Detaxcanada.org, but the vast majority of the posts (by other than myself), are Eldon Warman bashing, and very little discussion on what I have written on my website. And, if there is comment regarding that, it is usually some sort of smirk, without any proof at all for such smirks.

And, it seems that I am the only one posting on this thread being constantly "corrected' or 'censored', when I attempt to defend my character and my intentions in informing Canadians and Americans on the fact that they have had slave status imposed upon them by corporate Government, and as a result, are subject to the forced extortion of the fruits of their labour that is being harvested by the corporate slave master, and its agents.

None of those posting 'off topic' 'ad hominum' crap and 'defamation of character' against myself, Eldon Warman have had posts deleted, censored, or have been banned from this forum.

And, my calling the poster, 'arayder' Removed breach of rule 8. a troll is because he has been sniffing out my posts on all internet forums, and posts totally 'ad hominum' attacks upon me, some disguised to the uninformed reader, and most quite blatant. And, he has been doing this for over 10 years.

Just go back through the pages of this thread and count the number of posts that are totally off topic.

I would very much like to discuss the material I have on my website - in a gentlemanly and civil manner, not my having to respond to smirks, giggles, laughter and attacks upon me. Is there anyone posting here who is intelligent and honest enough to do that?

I really wonder what are you all gaining by supporting the slavery, and results of it upon yourself and your fellow man (or woman - for those who cannot understand that 'man' is also a generic term for a male or female human creature).

[EldonG]

Still sunny and beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec. Eldon, it looks like you had a spectacular weekend in Calgary, weather-wise. Did you make it out to Banff? Your taxes pay for that National park, you should enjoy it.

Didn't take any pictures this time, but Mrs. D'rok and I had a lovely time hiking around Lac Phillippe.

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/Central/Quebec/Lac_Philippe/ (http://www.realontario.ca/index.php/ontario-tourism-listing?pid=8698)

I'm so glad that Crown corporations like the National Capital Commission exist and maintain natural areas like Gatineau Park. Aren't you?

Obviously, you are unaware that all the National Parks in Canada belong to the United Nations, and the park fees are now so high that very few Calgarians go there any more. I haven't been to Banff in 10 years, except to pass through on the Trans Canada highway. So much for the Canadian people enjoying 'their' National Parks.

And, you seem to already have forgotten that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (The bank that owns the voting shares of the Bank of Canada) pointed out in 1946 that Government has no need to impose taxes on the people, and the American Grace Commission (applies to Canada also) reported that "not one cent of income taxes pays for any Government services". But, you obviously choose to ignore that as well. So, what is your point of posting on this thread. Your statements have nothing to do with DetaxCanada.org.

[EldonG]

So it looks like you're trying to make some kind of analogy that the country is like a corporation and the citizens of the country are shareholders in a corporation. I don't think most corporations have any administrative body similar to a court, but we can assume they do for the sake of argument. The thing is the court has authority over non-citizens as well as citizens. It also has authority over the government itself.

So whether they call people "people" or "free will man" or any other term, the court has and always will have authority over human beings in Canada. They follow the law as set out by government that says you and I are persons. If the law had used a different term instead of persons like "free will man" or something like that we would still be in exactly the same situation. The terminology itself is irrelevant.

No analogy intended. It is a simple fact. If you cannot understand such a fact, even when you drive into Ottawa, and read the sign "CITY OF OTTAWA -INCORPORATED IN 1855" - you say to yourself - "That's just an analogy". Are you sure you didn't skip a few classes at law school?

The nature of the Roman style 'ship's administration' emphasizes the pyramid without the capstone (captain) showing. Thus, the Executive, legislative and judicial are separate and equal. The Crown of the City of London represents the capstone over the Canadian colony. Let's see a Canadian court take on the corporate Crown of the City of London, or the Queen, it's visible agent. As in maritime 'ship administration law, the captain is inviolate. Maybe, you should watch the movie, the Mutiny on the Bounty, and then look up the history of what happened to the captain and crew afterwards.

The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name. Until they have accomplished that, they cannot proceed. If the man does accept that he or she is 'one and the same as' that Crown owned intellectual property, called the 'legal name', then he is now considered to be a 'person' (ship crewmember) as a combined entity where the man is considered to be an attachment to the legal name. You say that courts have jurisdiction over 'citizen' [slave granted privileges in exchange for obedience to the slave owner's rules (acts, statutes and laws)] or 'foreign citizen' -
(a slave of another country/make-believe ship at sea) - makes one wonder what lawyers learn in their years of education, doesn't it?

You see, I inform people that the above is exactly what Government intends - have us declared property of the corporate Crown because we ignorantly 'identify' ourselves as being 'one and the same as' the crown owned legal name - yes, I know, this is a re-hash.

However, I teach people that we are 'free will creature's by nature/by Creator God's design and intent, but in the fascist/corporatist world created by the Priesthood of Rome/Babylon, we, being land creatures, must use a communication device to communicate with the maritime corporate world of make-believe ships at sea. Since commerce is trade or business at sea, (and 'barter' is trade or business on the land), we must use an identifying name as our agent in commerce, but not use it to 'identify' ourselves. Actually, it is impossible to 'identify' an adult human anyway. They are a mind existing within a human body, and because a mind is not a physical thing, it cannot be named, or identified by any physical attributes. And, in our use of such an 'agent', we, being un-nameable, become 'an undisclosed principal'. As a lawyer, look up the meaning and liabilities of an 'undisclosed principal'.

[EldonG]

Middle school teachers where all wrong about their abilities.

Jack, I would say you are living proof of that fact. Your seemingly naive understandings of the real world would suggest that you have been one of the more seriously affected victims.

And, why are you repeating the 'freeman of the lamb(sic)'? If you imply that you are commenting on my website, detaxcanada.org, then, you had better go back and do some more reading. I haven't use the term 'freeman' since I found out that it was just another name for 'slave', and that was at least 12 years ago.

And, you must have had a lot of Communist teachers to boot, since you certainly make use of the Communistic technique of defaming character by repeated uses of words and phrases that are supposed to engender 'ill feelings' toward the subject of your slander and liable.

[arayder]

Jack, I would say you are living proof of that fact. Your seemingly naive understandings of the real world would suggest that you have been one of the more seriously affected victims.

And, why are you repeating the 'freeman of the lamb(sic)'? If you imply that you are commenting on my website, detaxcanada.org, then, you had better go back and do some more reading. I haven't use the term 'freeman' since I found out that it was just another name for 'slave', and that was at least 12 years ago.

And, you must have had a lot of Communist teachers to boot, since you certainly make use of the Communistic technique of defaming character by repeated uses of words and phrases that are supposed to engender 'ill feelings' toward the subject of your slander and liable.

It isn’t slander to report that freedmen on the lamb and detaxers (FOLDS) have, over the years, been unable to find any basis in law, history or custom for their claims.

After decades of failure the cult is reduced to surfing the web for factoids they think are a sign of the various conspiracies they imagine are responsible for what is, in reality, their self-immolation.

As has been demonstrated in this thread FOLDS are most comically reduced to feeding the conspiracy Godzilla they have birthed by visiting each other’s websites for the latest gibberish which they repost as scholarly research.

But that’s enough examination of your cult, Eldon.

You can save the day by simply giving us the basis in law for your claims.

Do you need help finding the law?

[arayder]

No analogy intended. It is a simple fact. If you cannot understand such a fact, even when you drive into Ottawa, and read the sign "CITY OF OTTAWA -INCORPORATED IN 1855" - you say to yourself - "That's just an analogy". Are you sure you didn't skip a few classes at law school?

The nature of the Roman style 'ship's administration' emphasizes the pyramid without the capstone (captain) showing. Thus, the Executive, legislative and judicial are separate and equal. The Crown of the City of London represents the capstone over the Canadian colony. Let's see a Canadian court take on the corporate Crown of the City of London, or the Queen, it's visible agent. As in maritime 'ship administration law, the captain is inviolate. Maybe, you should watch the movie, the Mutiny on the Bounty, and then look up the history of what happened to the captain and crew afterwards.

The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name. Until they have accomplished that, they cannot proceed. If the man does accept that he or she is 'one and the same as' that Crown owned intellectual property, called the 'legal name', then he is now considered to be a 'person' (ship crewmember) as a combined entity where the man is considered to be an attachment to the legal name. You say that courts have jurisdiction over 'citizen' [slave granted privileges in exchange for obedience to the slave owner's rules (acts, statutes and laws)] or 'foreign citizen' -
(a slave of another country/make-believe ship at sea) - makes one wonder what lawyers learn in their years of education, doesn't it?

You see, I inform people that the above is exactly what Government intends - have us declared property of the corporate Crown because we ignorantly 'identify' ourselves as being 'one and the same as' the crown owned legal name - yes, I know, this is a re-hash.

However, I teach people that we are 'free will creature's by nature/by Creator God's design and intent, but in the fascist/corporatist world created by the Priesthood of Rome/Babylon, we, being land creatures, must use a communication device to communicate with the maritime corporate world of make-believe ships at sea. Since commerce is trade or business at sea, (and 'barter' is trade or business on the land), we must use an identifying name as our agent in commerce, but not use it to 'identify' ourselves. Actually, it is impossible to 'identify' an adult human anyway. They are a mind existing within a human body, and because a mind is not a physical thing, it cannot be named, or identified by any physical attributes. And, in our use of such an 'agent', we, being un-nameable, become 'an undisclosed principal'. As a lawyer, look up the meaning and liabilities of an 'undisclosed principal'.


Other than the fact that you think the above is so and have posted it on your website, what is the basis in law for your claims?

[arayder]

[QUOTE=EldonG;6436419]

I would very much like to discuss the material I have on my website - in a gentlemanly and civil manner, not my having to respond to smirks, giggles, laughter and attacks upon me. [QUOTE]

Has it occurred to you that the nature of the materials at your website is the source of the laughter? That you might be like the guy who comes out of the toilet stall with a long strand of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe and everyone sees it but him?

[D'rok]

Obviously, you are unaware that all the National Parks in Canada belong to the United Nations, and the park fees are now so high that very few Calgarians go there any more. I haven't been to Banff in 10 years, except to pass through on the Trans Canada highway. So much for the Canadian people enjoying 'their' National Parks.

And, you seem to already have forgotten that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (The bank that owns the voting shares of the Bank of Canada) pointed out in 1946 that Government has no need to impose taxes on the people, and the American Grace Commission (applies to Canada also) reported that "not one cent of income taxes pays for any Government services". But, you obviously choose to ignore that as well. So, what is your point of posting on this thread. Your statements have nothing to do with DetaxCanada.org.You never fail to amuse, Eldon.

Except this is getting tragic. 10 years without going to the UN Banff? You've got to get out more.

[arayder]

And, my calling the poster, 'arayder' Removed breach of rule 8. a troll is because he has been sniffing out my posts on all internet forums, and posts totally 'ad hominum' attacks upon me, some disguised to the uninformed reader, and most quite blatant. And, he has been doing this for over 10 years.



You give me too much credit, Eldon. Even though you may think everyone who gets after you on the web is either me or directed by me, that is not the case.

Ignoring the fact that you have gotten my name wrong and have quite possibly subjected an innocent person to the wrath of your less stable colleagues, one has to wonder what state of mind drives you to believe that, as you have so often claimed, that I am an agent of Israeli intelligence services sent to hound on the internet?

[carlitos]

....I teach people that we are 'free will creature's by nature/by Creator God's design and intent, but in the fascist/corporatist world created by the Priesthood of Rome/Babylon, we, being land creatures, must use a communication device to communicate with the maritime corporate world of make-believe ships at sea. Since commerce is trade or business at sea, (and 'barter' is trade or business on the land), we must use an identifying name as our agent in commerce, but not use it to 'identify' ourselves. Actually, it is impossible to 'identify' an adult human anyway. They are a mind existing within a human body, and because a mind is not a physical thing, it cannot be named, or identified by any physical attributes. And, in our use of such an 'agent', we, being un-nameable, become 'an undisclosed principal'. As a lawyer, look up the meaning and liabilities of an 'undisclosed principal'.

EldonG, you have received about a dozen warnings and a couple of suspensions in your very short history posting at the JREF forums. Given that you can't even follow the rules for a simple internet forum, why would I believe that you have a secret method of avoiding income taxes? Tax law seems far more complex than the JREF membership agreement.

Other than your assertions, none of the information you post appears to be true, or have any basis in fact.

Obviously, you are unaware that all the National Parks in Canada belong to the United Nations, and the park fees are now so high that very few Calgarians go there any more. I haven't been to Banff in 10 years, except to pass through on the Trans Canada highway. So much for the Canadian people enjoying 'their' National Parks.
Banff is a UNESCO "World Heritage Site." That does not mean that it is owned by the United Nations. Again, a simple misunderstanding of reality that does not inspire confidence in you or your methods. More than half of the four million annual visitors to Banff are from the greater Calgary area. Is it your assertion that 2 million is "very few?"

As suggested earlier, you really should get out and enjoy life a bit.

[twinstead]

Eldon's arguments are very similar to my 10 year old daughter trying to get out of getting in trouble for doing something against the rules. She can twist and turn and re-define words all she wants, she can whine and cry all she wants, but in the end the adults recognize it for what it is: just a transparent attempt at not taking responsibility for her actions.

The semantic gibberish these anti-tax folks use to make themselves feel special, aloof, and not subject to any responsibility is amazing to me.

[D'rok]

The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name. Until they have accomplished that, they cannot proceed.There's an FOTL chap named Keith Thompson in Guelph who tried that little move (refusing to identify oneself) and discovered otherwise. Maybe you and he should chat? He must not have performed the ritual correctly, because the court went right ahead without him.

"Keith Thompson failed to show in Guelph’s provincial offences court Thursday but his trial proceeded in his absence. The court found him guilty of two offences of illegally parking a car outside a driveway or a legal off-street parking area."

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/696416



Here's the performance. Maybe you can use your years of legal research and accumulated wisdom to critique it for us.

E3uCaTQO-54

[irishman]

Oh dear, it looks like this detax stuff is contagious.

There's a group of "freemen" in Ireland too. http://tirnasaor.com/

(tir na saor is Irish (Gaeilge) for land of the free)

They even claim in their forums that Irish birth certificates are written on "bond" paper and the Irish gov uses them as collateral to draw down loans from the IMF. They go so far as to suggest that individuals go get their certs and use them to claim their own money, saying up to €2m might be the value of a birth cert!!!

Also, this John of the clan Murphy crap instead of sayig John Murphy, one even trademarked his name (not via internationally recognised registers though) and now invoices the banks everytime the write to him for using his name without his permission.

I suppose they do provide a little humourous distraction from our baning collapse over here in Ireland.

(but it does get a bit nasty when folk are trying to evade drink driving cases using this sort of crap)

[bikerdruid]

Obviously, you are unaware that all the National Parks in Canada belong to the United Nations.

who own's the united nations? the pope, right?

[D'rok]

who own's the united nations? the pope, right?Gotta be.

Eldon, tell us about the UN please?

[bikerdruid]

And, you must have had a lot of Communist teachers to boot, since you certainly make use of the Communistic technique of defaming character by repeated uses of words and phrases that are supposed to engender 'ill feelings' toward the subject of your slander and liable.

hmmm....i never read this in the communist manifesto.
the queen must have had this removed from canadian editions.

[D'rok]

Oh dear, it looks like this detax stuff is contagious.

There's a group of "freemen" in Ireland too. http://tirnasaor.com/

(tir na saor is Irish (Gaeilge) for land of the free)

They even claim in their forums that Irish birth certificates are written on "bond" paper and the Irish gov uses them as collateral to draw down loans from the IMF. They go so far as to suggest that individuals go get their certs and use them to claim their own money, saying up to €2m might be the value of a birth cert!!!

Also, this John of the clan Murphy crap instead of sayig John Murphy, one even trademarked his name (not via internationally recognised registers though) and now invoices the banks everytime the write to him for using his name without his permission.

I suppose they do provide a little humourous distraction from our baning collapse over here in Ireland.

(but it does get a bit nasty when folk are trying to evade drink driving cases using this sort of crap)Freemanism is comprised of a small set of planks that are re-used in every country with only the minor details changed to suit the setting.

The personhood thing is one of them; the birth certificate thing is another, and probably the silliest. The Canadian variation is to re-interpret the phrase "Security of the Person" from our Charter of Rights so that "security" means a financial instrument and "person" means the strawman created by your birth certificate; therefore; "security of the person" actually means "bond of the strawman", and you, the flesh and blood human, can cash it in to pay off your mortgage, or whatever.

The mind boggles.

[JLord]

No analogy intended. It is a simple fact. If you cannot understand such a fact, even when you drive into Ottawa, and read the sign "CITY OF OTTAWA -INCORPORATED IN 1855" - you say to yourself - "That's just an analogy". .

So just to be clear, you are saying that this statement:

"all incorporated bodies, including 'bodies politic' are 'make-believe ships at sea'"

is proven by the fact that the City of Ottawa has a sign saying it was incorporated in 1855.

This is your position?

Are you sure you didn't skip a few classes at law school?

This sounds like you are trying to use the communistic technique of defaming character, rather than showing any legal precedents for your arguments.

The nature of the Roman style 'ship's administration' emphasizes the pyramid without the capstone (captain) showing. Thus, the Executive, legislative and judicial are separate and equal. The Crown of the City of London represents the capstone over the Canadian colony. Let's see a Canadian court take on the corporate Crown of the City of London, or the Queen, it's visible agent. As in maritime 'ship administration law, the captain is inviolate.

There are numerous cases in Canada where people have succesfully obtained judgment against the crown/queen. This fact is easy to confirm if you did a search of caselaw and disproves your above claim.

Maybe, you should watch the movie, the Mutiny on the Bounty, and then look up the history of what happened to the captain and crew afterwards.

Without even seeing the movie I am guessing by the title that there was mutiny agianst the captain. Although I am surprised that this movie is where you are getting your legal knowledge from given that I haven't seen this source used very often by the courts.

The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate

There are numerous examples of judges succesfully exercising authority over people who not identified themselves. One such example would be where a person does not even show up to court but a judge still issues a warrant, finds them guilty, orders judgment against them, etc. So again, there are numerous cases that easily disprove your above statement.

You say that courts have jurisdiction over 'citizen' or 'foreign citizen' makes one wonder what lawyers learn in their years of education, doesn't it?

Not really, because once again numerous cases prove that courts do indeed have this jurisdiction.


Actually, it is impossible to 'identify' an adult human anyway.

I can think of lots of ways to identify an adult human.

and because a mind is not a physical thing, it cannot be named,

Are you saying that only physical things can be named?

As a lawyer, look up the meaning and liabilities of an 'undisclosed principal'

What do you mean "as a lawyer" look up the meaning? I presume that the meaning is the same regardless of who looks it up.

But here are the meanings for those interested. I'll let you explain why this is of any relation to your theories.

Liability: the quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable

Undisclosed principal: a princiapl whose identity is kept secret by the agent

[carlitos]

Without even seeing the movie I am guessing by the title that there was mutiny against the captain. Although I am surprised that this movie is where you are getting your legal knowledge from given that I haven't seen this source used very often by the courts.It would be an interesting court case if one lawyer invoked "Mutiny on the Bounty," and opposing counsel cited "The Caine Mutiny." Stalemate!

[arayder]

There's an FOTL chap named Keith Thompson in Guelph who tried that little move (refusing to identify oneself) and discovered otherwise. Maybe you and he should chat? He must not have performed the ritual correctly, because the court went right ahead without him.



Here's the performance. Maybe you can use your years of legal research and accumulated wisdom to critique it for us.

E3uCaTQO-54

Thompson is using Eldon’s detax method too. And Eldon’s been bragging about it.

You would think that after going 0-1 with the Warman method in traffic court Thompson would catch on. On another forum Thompson did the usual freemen and the lamb thing and tried to pretend that his time in traffic court was just research into the workings of "the corporation" which will serve him and his freemen on the lamb buds well later on.

I can imagine what Eldon’s going to do when the CRA catches up with Thompson.. . .he’ll either say Thompson didn’t do “it” right or that the court was really, really, really oppressive this time!

[arayder]

No analogy intended. It is a simple fact. If you cannot understand such a fact, even when you drive into Ottawa, and read the sign "CITY OF OTTAWA -INCORPORATED IN 1855" - you say to yourself - "That's just an analogy". Are you sure you didn't skip a few classes at law school?

For the millionth time, Eldon, there is a difference between the sort of incorporation a city or a nation does when it forms itself and the sort of incorporation a public or private business does.

In Canada when a city forms, that is a crown corporation and the city has the authority to make and enforce law.

A public company or corporation is developed by investors under the rules of Canada’s security exchange commission. A private corporation is a business established by a person's with no public offering to join as investors.

Again, you are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to make it seem that cities are the same as public or private businesses.

You have been corrected on this point countless times!

[arayder]

I would very much like to discuss the material I have on my website - in a gentlemanly and civil manner, not my having to respond to smirks, giggles, laughter and attacks upon me. Is there anyone posting here who is intelligent and honest enough to do that?

Great, Eldon, let’s talk about the parts of your website where you tell people they can welch on their credit card debt and get away with it without suffering any civil or criminal penalities.

[D'rok]

Thompson is using Eldon’s detax method too. And Eldon’s been bragging about it.That figures.

You would think that after going 0-1 with the Warman method in traffic court Thompson would catch on. On another forum Thompson did the usual freemen and the lamb thing and tried to pretend that his time in traffic court was just research into the workings of "the corporation" which will serve him and his freemen on the lamb buds well later on.

He seems to have become a minor celebrity in FOTL-land. I'm sure bigger failures are still to come.

I can imagine what Eldon’s going to do when the CRA catches up with Thompson.. . .he’ll either say Thompson didn’t do “it” right or that the court was really, really, really oppressive this time!Isn't Keith an amateur musician? Does he have an actual job? The CRA may not even be aware of him.

[arayder]

That figures.



He seems to have become a minor celebrity in FOTL-land. I'm sure bigger failures are still to come.

Isn't Keith an amateur musician? Does he have an actual job? The CRA may not even be aware of him.

Between him posting his Warman style zero detax forms on the web, Eldon touting him as his ticket to relevancy and his traffic court circus show the poor boy is hardly keeping a low profile.

Since he refiled past years as zero tax and used a lot of detax language in his filings he will probably set off some alarms.

[D'rok]

Between him posting his Warman style zero detax forms on the web, Eldon touting him as his ticket to relevancy and his traffic court circus show the poor boy is hardly keeping a low profile.

Since he refiled past years as zero tax and used a lot of detax language in his filings he will probably set off some alarms.Can you point us to where all this is going down? I have an uhealthy obsession with watching these train wrecks.

[arayder]

Can you point us to where all this is going down? I have an uhealthy obsession with watching these train wrecks.

Happy to help:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=6526&start=0

[Horatius]

Happy to help:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=6526&start=0



So, maybe you can clear something up for me - how is any of this different from them just lying about their income? Is anyone really surprised that someone with a declared income of $3500 had no tax owing?

[D'rok]

So, maybe you can clear something up for me - how is any of this different from them just lying about their income? Is anyone really surprised that someone with a declared income of $3500 had no tax owing?Yeah, I have the same question.

If he doesn't have a job and just works in the cash economy doing whatever, there won't be a T4 on record for him. He has to declare his income when he files. Which he appears to have done ($3500 per year).

It just looks like he simply lied and is counting on not getting audited.

[D'rok]

Oh dear. Apparently he's done this after getting audited once already. This ought to be good.

[D'rok]

Someone in that thread makes a pertinent observation:

It proves that if you state your income was $3500 then you dont pay any tax on it, thats all.
You have simply failed to tell the income tax people how much you actually earned,that's not success that's fraud.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=45218#p45218


Truth from the mouth of a freeman!

[D'rok]

This is hilarious! Here's a description of justice, FOTL style:

You have accused the soverign Keith of fraud. King Keith has risen to defend his honour and defend his name. King Keith has invited you to the Pope's court. All the court and King Keith can do is invite you. You don't have to go. But if you don't go, there will most likely be consequences. Court will be held in your absense if King Keith shows up.

So King Keith is at the Pope's court basically wins by default since you didn't show to prove your claim. The court awards King Keith damages and a notice is sent to you to pay him in 30 days. You ignore the notice (as is your choice) and King Keith alerts the court that you have not paid. The court then brands you an outlaw.

Oh, oh. Big problems for King neversay die. As an outlaw you have absolutly no rights or protections from the law. Another soverign can invade your land now and you can't ask for help. The other soverigns may gang up together on you. You may have had mutual protection alliances with some of them but they are banned from dealing with you less they be labbeled outlaws as well

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=45312#p45312


So, in FOTL "common law" courts, if you don't show up, the court can convict you in absentia. And if you decide not to pay your fine, your rights are removed and you and your property are fair game for all the other FOTLers to loot and pillage.

Yeah, I think I'll stick with the laws of Canada, thanks. What a bunch of idiots.

[EldonG]

OK, All. Enjoy your slave chains. They all seem to clank in unison.

[D'rok]

OK, All. Enjoy your slave chains. They all seem to clank in unison.Hey Eldon. Why did the court in Guelph go ahead and convict Keith even though he didn't identify himself by his "legal name"?

[EldonG]

A recent win against the IRS bodes poorly for Canada's CRA. Here is a quote from another forum:

99.99% OF AMERICANS DO *NOT* OWE **ANY** FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

the irs got their asses wiped last month in a large tax case in las vegas. read here ..

Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system. Unquote

You, the trolls posting here, can view the whole sad story at:

portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml

[EldonG]

Hey Eldon. Why did the court in Guelph go ahead and convict Keith even though he didn't identify himself by his "legal name"?

Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?

[EldonG]

So, maybe you can clear something up for me - how is any of this different from them just lying about their income? Is anyone really surprised that someone with a declared income of $3500 had no tax owing?

Maybe you could further explain for all here what you mean by: "about their income" ??

What is "income" ??

A man exchanging his labour for what is supposed to represent money, the Canadian Monopoly money, is an exchange. There is no gain or increase to the working man. One of the very few court cases one can find was a 1921 US Court case, where 'income' was defined as a gain or profit of a corporation. Nowhere does any Statute say that 'income' is a free man's wages. I would cite a Canadian court case - if one could be found defining 'income' as being a man's wages.

Queen Victoria certainly didn't think it was income subject to taxation in 1870. (An Act to abolish Attachment of Wages: {14th July 1870} )

[D'rok]

Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?

Can I get one of those? It would go really well with my mace and my leather helmet.

Just to remind you, you said this:
The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name. Until they have accomplished that, they cannot proceed. Which was clearly proven false by one of your own disciples. Well done.

[EldonG]

For the millionth time, Eldon, there is a difference between the sort of incorporation a city or a nation does when it forms itself and the sort of incorporation a public or private business does.

For the million and one time, Jack. You have absolutely no proof for that statement. A presumed authority would be Lord Blackstone, in his Commentaries: "artificial persons are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

My point has always been that an artificial person, whether it be body corporate or body politic, is an artificial construct patterned after, and administered exactly the same as a 'ship at sea'. It matters not, for the purposes of my website as to whether one has a different purpose than the other. The articles of incorporation sort out that detail.


In Canada when a city forms, that is a crown corporation and the city has the authority to make and enforce law.

Against whom? Every statute of an incorporated body politic that I have ever see make laws applicable to 'person's' - members of, or property of, the body politic making such laws.

A public company or corporation is developed by investors under the rules of Canada’s security exchange commission. A private corporation is a business established by a person's with no public offering to join as investors.

So? What does that have to do with having the fruits of a man's labour extorted from him by agents of the Crown by him being assumed to be an owned slave of the corporate Crown?

Again, you are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to make it seem that cities are the same as public or private businesses.

And, you have been shown to be a liar countless times, Jack.

You have been corrected on this point countless times!

And, your countless 'corrections' have always been lies, coupled with innuendo, slander, ad hominum attacks, defamation of character.

Do not use insults and personal attacks to argue your point.

[D'rok]

A recent win against the IRS bodes poorly for Canada's CRA. Here is a quote from another forum:

99.99% OF AMERICANS DO *NOT* OWE **ANY** FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

the irs got their asses wiped last month in a large tax case in las vegas. read here ..

Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system. Unquote

You, the trolls posting here, can view the whole sad story at:

portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtmlIt's a conspiracy!

Actually, it seems as if the trial is ongoing. Or, rather a new one is ongoing. Here's a bit of background from one of Kahre's denied motions in the new trial.

On April 5, 2005, the United States filed two indictments against Robert Kahre, various family members, and other associates of his businesses, initiating the instant criminal case. The defendants were charged with numerous counts of Willful Failure to Collect/Pay Over Tax, Conspiracy to Attempt to Evade [*2] or Defeat Tax, Attempt to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Law, and Wire Fraud. The case went to trial in May 2007 and, on September 17, 2007, the jury returned no verdict as to any counts against defendants Robert Kahre, Lori Kahre, and Alexander Loglia. See Minutes of Proceedings (# 1626).


Subsequently, on November 20, 2007, the United States filed a Third Superseding Criminal Indictment, charging the defendants with 79 criminal counts (59 as to Robert Kahre), including Conspiracy to Defraud, False Statement to a Bank, Wire Fraud, Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax, Willful Failure to Collect or Pay Over Tax, Filing a False U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Attempts to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws. See Third Superseding Indictment (# 1671).


Some interesting opinions on some of Kahre's arguments are in there too. Here's the decision on the motion:

[Horatius]

Maybe you could further explain for all here what you mean by: "about their income" ??

What is "income" ??

A man exchanging his labour for what is supposed to represent money, the Canadian Monopoly money, is an exchange. There is no gain or increase to the working man. One of the very few court cases one can find was a 1921 US Court case, where 'income' was defined as a gain or profit of a corporation. Nowhere does any Statute say that 'income' is a free man's wages. I would cite a Canadian court case - if one could be found defining 'income' as being a man's wages.

Queen Victoria certainly didn't think it was income subject to taxation in 1870. (An Act to abolish Attachment of Wages: {14th July 1870} )



So it's not just lying about your income, it's also equivocating about the definition of the word "income". Gotcha!

[twinstead]

So it's not just lying about your income, it's also equivocating about the definition of the word "income". Gotcha!

Indeed. "When in doubt, redefine the word doubt" appears to be Eldon's credo.

Eldon, I mean this with the most respect--frankly IMO your arguments are ridiculous. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but it had to be said.

[catsmate1]

Indeed. "When in doubt, redefine the word doubt" appears to be Eldon's credo.

Eldon, I mean this with the most respect--frankly IMO your arguments are ridiculous. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but it had to be said.
And don't forget to splash around lots of irrelevent verbiage.........

[carlitos]

Does EldonG refer to everyone as "Jack," or is he trying to identify the poster 'arayder' as such?

[carlitos]

Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?
:woowoo

:what:

[arayder]

arayder 1) For the millionth time, Eldon, there is a difference between the sort of incorporation a city or a nation does when it forms itself and the sort of incorporation a public or private business does.

Eldon 1) For the million and one time, Jack. You have absolutely no proof for that statement.

arayder 2) That an embarrassing statement for you to make. Do you mean to say that you have not read enough Canadian law to understand that nations, public companies and private corporations have different authority?

Eldon 1) A presumed authority would be Lord Blackstone, in his Commentaries: "artificial persons are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

arayder2) I am not arguing that nations, public companies and private corporations are not created by men and women gathered in societies, or that they are not artificial. The question is what authority each has. You have side stepped that point because you want to use the only logical fallacy you seem to understand. . .the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Your ploy is that you want the reader to believe that that the artificial entities created by the law are the same in every way because they are all artificial.. . .the same way you want us to believe that nations, public companies and private corporations are the same in every way because they have incorporated.

Let’s show the reader how you use the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
The fallacy goes like this: All students carry backpacks. My grandfather is a student. Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack.

You say that participation in private corporations is voluntary. Nations are incorporated. Therefore, participation in nations is voluntary and one may ignore the law if one chooses.

But your fallacy falls apart when we see that democratic nations are empowered by the people to make and enforce binding law that applies to all people in their geographic area.

You are busted, Eldon.

Eldon 1) My point has always been that an artificial person, whether it be body corporate or body politic, is an artificial construct patterned after, and administered exactly the same as a 'ship at sea'. It matters not, for the purposes of my website as to whether one has a different purpose than the other. The articles of incorporation sort out that detail.

arayder 2)Well, Eldon, all you did was to repeat the logical same fallacy. You say nations, public and private corporations (and now laughingly ships at sea) are all the same because they have been incorporated. Then you turn around and say they have differences. . .but infer that those differences don’t count.
But the differences do count. Nations may make and enforce binding law.

arayder 1)In Canada when a city forms, that is a crown corporation and the city has the authority to make and enforce law.

Eldon 1) Against whom? Every statute of an incorporated body politic that I have ever see make laws applicable to 'person's' - members of, or property of, the body politic making such laws.

arayder 2) Who? You! Nations and cities have the authority to make bind law that applies to all people in their geographic area. And you know it’s true because you pay your property taxes.

arayder 1) A public company or corporation is developed by investors under the rules of Canada’s security exchange commission. A private corporation is a business established by a person's with no public offering to join as investors.

Eldon 1) So? What does that have to do with having the fruits of a man's labour extorted from him by agents of the Crown by him being assumed to be an owned slave of the corporate Crown?

arayder 2) What does it have to do with? It shows that nations, public companies and private corporations have different members, are formed differently and different authority.

That’s a complete refutation of your theory.

arayder 1)Again, you are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to make it seem that cities are the same as public or private businesses.

Eldon 1) And, you have been shown to be a liar countless times, Jack.

arayder 2) I’d watch that talk if I was you, old son. ;-)

arayder 1) You have been corrected on this point countless times!

Eldon 1) And, your countless 'corrections' have always been lies, coupled with innuendo, slander, ad hominum attacks, defamation of character.

arayder 2) Now, what did I just say?

[arayder]

Does EldonG refer to everyone as "Jack," or is he trying to identify the poster 'arayder' as such?

Eldon thinks I am some guy named Jack Foster. How he got that notion I don’t know. I don’t really care, except that the claim might open all the Jack Fosters of the world to the petty harassments of his detax cult.

[D'rok]

Let’s show the reader how you use the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The fallacy goes like this: All students carry backpacks. My grandfather is a student. Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack. That's not fallacious. This is:

All students carry backpacks
My grandfather carries a backpack
Therefore, my grandfather is a student

[D'rok]

Eldon thinks I am some guy named Jack Foster. How he got that notion I don’t know. I don’t really care, except that the claim might open all the Jack Fosters of the world to the petty harassments of his detax cult.He thinks I'm Jack Foster too!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6282221#post6282221

[tsig]

OK, All. Enjoy your slave chains. They all seem to clank in unison.

'cause we gots that natural rhythm.:)

[tsig]

He thinks I'm Jack Foster too!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6282221#post6282221

Maybe we're all Jack Foster.

[D'rok]

Maybe we're all Jack Foster.There's a little Jack Foster in all of us.

[carlitos]

'cause we gots that natural rhythm.:)

http://services.edp24.co.uk/norfolk/future50_2010/content/jack-foster-and-archie-lamb.aspx

[arayder]

There's a little Jack Foster in all of us.

Mini me, “Do you have a little midget in you?”

Bounce, “No”.

Mini me, “Would you like to”?

[LightinDarkness]

Eldon's entire mythology revolves around the idea that

(1) Governments are secretly corporations
AND
(2) That being a corporation MUST MEAN that the policies set forth by it only applies to its own employees.

The problem is that this presupposition is, as has been pointed out by multiple times now, a myth. The reality is that:

(1) Governments are sovereign organizations that routinely and openly form corporations in order to more efficiently carry out their day-to-day operations
AND
(2) These subsidiary corporations exist in conjunction with the government as a sovereign entity whose laws apply to everyone whether they like it or not.

[Tolls]

Maybe we're all Jack Foster.

I'm Jack Foster, and so's my wife.

...sorry, but someone had to do it...
:o

[tsig]

There's a little Jack Foster in all of us.

It's like we all created Jack Foster.

[arayder]

It's like we all created Jack Foster.

Our friend also believes that I am an Israeli agent using a computer program called megaphone to track him on the internet and intervene when he joins forums.

[JLord]

He thinks I'm Jack Foster too!


That's funny because I think in an earlier post he called me John. I was wondering if that was just what he calls people for some reason or if he thought he knew me from somewhere.

[D'rok]

I love how close this parody from angrysoba in another thread is to Eldon's connect-the-dots "reasoning":

On the side of this note you see a picture of Mount Fuji, yes? But, notice, in the reflection in the lake is a completely different mountain, oh yes! What is the mountain? It's a mountain in Israel. All the money goes back to Israel, you see! The mountain has the same name as a mountain on Mars, where there is a face. Mars is the colour red. The colour of blood. There are bloodlines you see. It's all about bloodlines. Did you know the cross that the Queen of England has on her crown is the same as the Iron Cross that the Nazis wore and that that is the same as the Maltese cross as in the Knights of Malta...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6444099#post6444099

[EldonG]

Eldon's entire mythology revolves around the idea that

(1) Governments are secretly corporations
AND

I changed your misnomer from 'Light in Darkness' to 'Light to Darkness', as you seem to have lost the meaning of your pseudonym, as seems evident by this post of yours.
Edited for rule 12 and quote boxes fixed. Do not change members' names in quote boxes for the purpose of insult. I'm leaving the above text since it is somewhat explanatory, but if "renaming" becomes a habit the penalties will escalate.

I never suggested for one moment that there was anything secret about the corporate nature of Government. On the contrary, I have quoted court cases and law dictionary definitions to show that there is no secret to the fact that Governments are incorporated bodies. Ma Lord (OP) fails to see that 'evidence' by simple observation shows that all incorporated bodies are 'make believe ships at sea' by their enclosed structure, their use of maritime type of law (as was imposed upon England in 1297 with the incorporation of the English Crown into a body politic) , and the fact that the construct of the governing/administrative body is based directly on the administration of a ship at sea. The only ones who see this as a secret are those who are willing blind and will not see, and those that are willingly deaf and will not hear.

(2) That being a corporation MUST MEAN that the policies set forth by it only applies to its own employees.

Some concentrate on the 'employee' thing, maybe not realizing that 'employee' means someone who has subjected himself to the sole loyalty and subjugation of another party to perform labour. To me, concentrating on that issue is a 'red herring'. I see the conversion of humankind into slave status is by way of deceit in the corporate Crown using the property right claim and ownership of human bodies and the creation of an intellectual property called the 'legal name', whereby, when the man becomes of the age of majority, he, being a mind existing within an earthen vessel, the adult human body, becomes the supreme commander of that vessel, even though it is claimed as being owned by the corporate Crown. However, the unauthorized use of that legal name (as found on a birth certificate) is a 'guilty as charged crime of theft by unauthorized use of Crown property' when the man uses it to 'identify himself'.

As recently as October 9th, a man who was attempting to help a friend in court in London, Ont. as a 'friend of the court' was removed from the courtroom by London Police when he refused to allow the judge to 'identify' him as 'Deric Hill'. He was first taken to the cell in the court house and chocked to near unconsciousness and beaten severely, and then taken to a police station where he was tasered several times and beaten and kicked until he would state that his last name was Hill. But, that is all legal when dealing with disobedient slaves. The Latin term for disobedient slave was 'homo sacer', where such activity by officers of Government could do that with impunity.

The problem is that this presupposition is, as has been pointed out by multiple times now, a myth. The reality is that:

(1) Governments are sovereign organizations that routinely and openly form corporations in order to more efficiently carry out their day-to-day operations
AND

Who gave them such sovereignty? Who had the authority to give Government such authority. The Boston lawyer of 1870, Lysander Spooner, certainly could not find such authority for America. (GOOGLE: "NO TREASON" ) The British Monarchy has never had such authority, especially since the Magna Carta of 1225. (the 1215 version was voided by the Pope).

(2) These subsidiary corporations exist in conjunction with the government as a sovereign entity whose laws apply to everyone whether they like it or not.

Just as there is General Motors Inc. They have subsidiary corporations - a few being Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and others. So, what is your point?
They are all 'make-believe ships at sea' with the limited liability that is natural to ships at sea. if one is out of reach by those on the land, they are safe from attack - legal or physical.

However, what is happening now, with the advent of long range and highly accurate missiles, ships are no longer immune from physical attack, and the internet has provided the long range missile making the corporate thieving Governments no longer immune in their corporate strongholds performing all their unlawful acts against God's Children on planet Earth. Just spend some time watching even the controlled news, and watch them start exploding into smithereens, just as the UNITED STATES is now doing under the guiding hand of Barak Obama.

[carlitos]

Does a Rothschild **** in the woods?

[D'rok]

If a tree falls in the forest, can the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis hear it?

[blobru]

Does a Rothschild **** in the woods?


He conspires to with the Pope (and/or the Queen, the Mob, or the Rockefellers: depends on what hors d'oeuvres the Illuminati were serving at brunch). :mglook

[EldonG]

Edited for breaches of Rule 8 and Rule 12. Stop it. Now.

[carlitos]

Really, you just don't seem to get it. I don't normally report posts, but you agreed to this when you signed up at the JREF.

8. You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion.
That may be the case now, but it wasn't back in the early 2000s. Inability to admit error is common against people with beliefs such as yours. It is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up; it may prove illuminating.

And, from my, and certainly a good many Canadians, view, it is such as you who have a twisted view as to how the world is supposed to work, and how it has been screwed up, and many millions of lives severely harmed or destroyed over some 2,000 years by those Red Robed Priests of Isis situated in Rome.

On this very thread, a timeline was provided that disproved any connection between Isis and Rome. You may have missed it.

I just cannot understand
Now this is clear. You cannot and will not understand, because your next line of commentary includes...

...how your mind could be so warped that you cannot see or understand this? What are you defending? Have you, and your fellow scoffing cohorts posting on this thread, got some title or badge that makes you feel that you have the right to exploit your fellow Canadians?
When you accused my brain of being tainted by the Canadian educational system and the Red Robed Priests of Isis therein, I reminded you (again) that I am not Canadian. This is still true. I am also not John or Jack Foster. I do not use a Mossad computer program to find your posts; rather the JREF sends me a note when this thread is updated. Just so you know.

Or, do you have the "Chosen by God people" complex, allowing you to see others as mere cattle to be exploited? How much 'long pig' do you include in your diet?http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp25/supernaut06/bunny-pancake.jpg

[catsmate1]

Can someone please translate this into sane? I'll have a go
I cannot refute any part of your posts nor can I provide evidence to support my views so I'll dodge the question, accuse you of shilling for <insert group here>, imply you're a racist and otherwise attempt to deflect attention from my stupidity and inability to deal with reality.

[LightinDarkness]

Eldon has been debunked ten ways by at least ten different people now, and he keeps repeating the same things.

I am beginning to think we might be dealing with someone who is either (1) trolling or (2) mentally ill. I thought it was (1), but given his delusions about being tracked by Vatican agents...well...if hes trolling that then hes keeping the story straight across several forums.

I do not attempt to debunk mentally ill people. Its simply not fair nor humane - if they are genuinely suffering as Eldon appears to be, no amount of evidence will convince them anyways.

I hope you get better Eldon. I say this sincerely and without malice: Please seek professional help. You can get better.

[EldonG]

Really, you just don't seem to get it. I don't normally report posts, but you agreed to this when you signed up at the JREF.

8. You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion.
Inability to admit error is common against people with beliefs such as yours. It is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up; it may prove illuminating.

Who are you to say anything I have posted on my website is 'in error'. Jack Foster, regardless the cowardly false name he uses, has NEVER proven 'such', in his diatribes against me. I thought there was a rule on this forum against trolls and intended defamation of character of posters.

On this very thread, a timeline was provided that disproved any connection between Isis and Rome. You may have missed it.

Well, then you may be able to explain what the phallic symbol (oblisk) imported from Egypt, and standing in a circle representing a vagina is doing in St. Peter's Square, and is subject to the Pope's veneration each morning from his balcony? What does that have to do with Christianity? On the other hand, it has everything to do with the continued worship and veneration for Isis, Ra and El Shaddai, the prime false gods of Egypt.

Now this is clear. You cannot and will not understand, because your next line of commentary includes...

When you accused my brain of being tainted by the Canadian educational system and the Red Robed Priests of Isis therein, I reminded you (again) that I am not Canadian. This is still true. I am also not John or Jack Foster. I do not use a Mossad computer program to find your posts; rather the JREF sends me a note when this thread is updated. Just so you know.

OK, so you are just showing yourself as the troll that has been attempting (futilely, I might add) to drive people away from my website, by the use of defamation of character and assorted slander and liable. So, you found this thread, likely by invitation of the lawyer, to continue your sleazy attempts. But, it is failing miserably, as my website hits have continued to increase, and inquiries also continue to increase.

So, this forum thread was set up by whoever JLord is to defame www.detaxcanada.org. Sorry fellas.. You are wasting your time. My backer is bigger that yours.

[Sledge]

Really? Only according to you, we're backed by the powers that secretly run the world. You might want to tone down the attitude before the Vatican comes for you in the night.

Although you're probably safe if you're over ten years old.

[catsmate1]

Eldon has been debunked ten ways by at least ten different people now, and he keeps repeating the same things.

I am beginning to think we might be dealing with someone who is either (1) trolling or (2) mentally ill. I thought it was (1), but given his delusions about being tracked by Vatican agents...well...if hes trolling that then hes keeping the story straight across several forums.

I do not attempt to debunk mentally ill people. Its simply not fair nor humane - if they are genuinely suffering as Eldon appears to be, no amount of evidence will convince them anyways.

I hope you get better Eldon. I say this sincerely and without malice: Please seek professional help. You can get better.
I believe in his case it's mainly a defense mechanism against having to face reality and how badly he's screwed up his life with this rubbish.

[Hans]

It is always sad to see someone so disconnected with reality that his whole life becomes distorted in trying to make people believe him.

Insanity which unfortunately is funny as hell to watch! Sad and unfortunately but still amusing kinda like a modern version of viewing the inmates at Bedlam.

[EldonG]

Really? Only according to you, we're backed by the powers that secretly run the world. You might want to tone down the attitude before the Vatican comes for you in the night.

Although you're probably safe if you're over ten years old.

Oh! Really! So, I have vastly overestimated your and other anti-Warman posters on this thread. Thought maybe you were Carleton brainwashed promoters of collectivism (My son attended Carleton U in the late 80s, and said that there were more Communists there than in Moscow), but, obviously, it was a mistake on my part to think that some may have been of reasonable intelligence, and some some moral fortitude allowing for some simple reasoning power. I apologize for that error.

Since nothing was ever really said about the basis of the website, www.detaxcanada.org, that was the subject of this thread - the filing of a $0,00 Tax Owing 'return of income' as per the CRA 'The T1 Income tax and Benefits package', then it is obvious that the real design of this thread was to 'KILL THE MESSENGER'. Sorry! Hasn't worked.

Just go to that webpage and down at the bottom is a hit counter available to the public. You will see that, whereas in years past, the normal daily hits were around 25. Notice the increase. Obviously, not all who go to that webpage are interested in fighting the battle against the extortion racket that is income tax, as many are dominated by fear. But, a look at the terms that people use to search GOOGLE tells a whole story.

[EldonG]

Eldon's entire mythology revolves around the idea that

(1) Governments are secretly corporations
AND
(2) That being a corporation MUST MEAN that the policies set forth by it only applies to its own employees.

The problem is that this presupposition is, as has been pointed out by multiple times now, a myth. The reality is that:

(1) Governments are sovereign organizations that routinely and openly form corporations in order to more efficiently carry out their day-to-day operations
AND
(2) These subsidiary corporations exist in conjunction with the government as a sovereign entity whose laws apply to everyone whether they like it or not.

Lets have some documentation to prove I am wrong and you are right. Just saying such by an anonymous poster proves nothing. I already posted numerous court cases and law dictionary definitions proving that your statement is a falsehood.

[Stacey Grove]

Regarding the "person v human" argument mentioned previously in this thread, this has been posted on Icke's website:

have you ever heard of Jacques-Antoine: Normandin and his winning case in the Quebec courts, which basically openly admitted and most importantly recognized, the difference between a "PERSON" and a "human being" ?

This is the guy : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11478727898

I've heard his presence in court where the judge validated the FMOTL concept. I can attest to this being real !!
Does anybody have any info on this Canadian court case?

[D'rok]

Regarding the "person v human" argument mentioned previously in this thread, this has been posted on Icke's website:

Does anybody have any info on this Canadian court case?A quick search doesn't reveal very much. I don't have time for a thorough search today. Here's the only case that a quick search reveals:

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2010/2010qccs2146/2010qccs2146.html

My french is terrible, but it appears that in this case, Mr. Normandin tried to intervene by submitting some documents in a dispute about an employment contract. Or maybe the plaintiff tried to submit documents prepared by Normandin. I'm not totally sure. (Normandin was not party to to the dispute. Probably, he was just a friend of the plaintiff and was trying to "help" him with some FOTL submissions). Normandin tried the "I am not a person" thing. The judge rejected the submissions because Normandin was not a proper lawyer and because they had no legal value.

À la suite de l'audience du 1er avril 2010, de multiples télécopies et «procédures» ont été signifiées aux juges de la Cour supérieure du district de Saint-François, à Me Marc Bellemare, au Barreau du Québec, etc. Ces «procédures» ne sont pas signées par un avocat mais par les représentants de la défenderesse et par une « créature humaine de Dieu témoin à décharge », Jacques-Antoine Normandin. Ce dernier, qui n'est pas avocat, est l'auteur du document intitulé « requête du défendeur pour interdiction de plaider art. 183 (http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/legis/lois/lrq-c-c-25/derniere/lrq-c-c-25.html#art183) C.p.c. ».

En conséquence, ces documents n'ont aucune valeur juridique et sont ignorés.


It's important to note that Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction - i.e., no common law in Quebec. (Neither actual common law nor the imaginary FOTL kind). Still, I'm certain that personhood works the same way in civil law.

[D'rok]

It's important to note that Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction - i.e., no common law in Quebec. (Neither actual common law nor the imaginary FOTL kind). Still, I'm certain that personhood works the same way in civil law.
Just a follow-up to this.

Any case in Federal Court about the Income Tax Act and persons applies to Quebec too. So, all the Federal Court detax cases that emphatically dismantle the person/human argument apply.

[D'rok]

More from Normandin.

Here's a good one. Looks like he tried to get himself declared a natural person (in the FOTL sense - i.e., not subject to the laws of Canada or Quebec) by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The answer? A big fat no. Although, it would have been nice if the tribunal had dismantled the arguments rather than just saying "bugger off we don't deal with this kind of crap".

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/doc/2000/2000canlii11/2000canlii11.html

[D'rok]

Still more from Normandin.

Here's one where he gets smacked down by the Quebec Court for submitting incomprehensible documents with no chance of success. Basically, he was unable to show a coherent cause of action, whatever it was he was trying to do.

Le document déposé devant la Cour du Québec, chambre civile, par les demandeurs est totalement informe et ne rencontre aucun des critères procéduraux établis à l'article 76.

[4] De plus, la procédure est incompréhensible et ne contient aucun allégué pouvant donner ouverture aux conclusions recherchées, lesquelles d'ailleurs ne sont aucunement fondées en droit.
[5] Il est manifeste et évident que la procédure instituée par les demandeurs n'a aucune chance de succès.


http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2003/2003canlii54397/2003canlii54397.html





I think it's safe to say that Mr. Normandin has never experienced any success in his FOTL litigation.

[Stacey Grove]

More from Normandin.

Here's a good one. Looks like he tried to get himself declared a natural person (in the FOTL sense - i.e., not subject to the laws of Canada or Quebec) by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The answer? A big fat no. Although, it would have been nice if the tribunal had dismantled the arguments rather than just saying "bugger off we don't deal with this kind of crap".

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/doc/2000/2000canlii11/2000canlii11.html

Thanks for that.
The poster at Icke's site although unable to provide details of the case now claims that Normandin no longer pays taxes or has a driving licence. Apparently he has removed himself from the system totally:

No unfortunately I don't have a link. I have listened to the live audio in French of the hearing in court back in late 2008 and yesterday tried looking for it on the web but couldn't find it.

I can assure you that the result was affirmative in regards to the concept being thrown around here. It is not fantasy but reality. The thing is that in order to properly apply the free man rights, Mr. Normandin needed to completely get out of the system.

He has no more drivers' license, pays no more income taxes, no more medicare card, no passport and cannot open any bank accounts, get loans, etc...

I think the problem with many people looking into the basic FMOTL concept is people thinking they can just stay in the system, then pick & choose what they wish to go along with in terms of acts and statutes. I believe such a task isn't realistic as people need to make clear choices as to staying within the statutes and acts system or being completely out of it and assuming a complete "human being" status. Bouncing around between the two is the primary reason that makes people fail in courts.
Most people also don't don't know how to talk or act once in a court or in their dealings with the government and judicial system in general. Details are essential and make the difference between breaking laws within "Admiralty Law" or living free under the basic "Law of the Land".

In his court hearing Mr. Normandin was continuously backing up his position with factual laws in existence. The man basically looked like he knew by heart every single law written through time. He just logically breaked down his position backed by proof of law, throughout his hearing. This isn't hearsay, it was taped and I heard it all !!! If I could find it, I would post it again ASAP...

[D'rok]

Thanks for that.
The poster at Icke's site although unable to provide details of the case...But of course ..now claims that Normandin no longer pays taxes or has a driving licence. Apparently he has removed himself from the system totally:With no evidence of this forthcoming, naturally.

Here's another good Quebec Court smackdown of some attempted action by Normandin:

le document est illogique, incompréhensible et ne contient aucun allégué pouvant donné ouverture aux conclusions

la soussignée est d'opinion que la présente procédure n'a aucune chance de succès;

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2004/2004canlii25065/2004canlii25065.html



I guess this claim by the Icke numpty...

In his court hearing Mr. Normandin was continuously backing up his position with factual laws in existence. The man basically looked like he knew by heart every single law written through time.
...is just a wee bit incorrect.

[Stacey Grove]

I guess this claim by the Icke numpty...


...is just a wee bit incorrect.

Bless 'em.
FOTL maxim: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[arayder]

Lets have some documentation to prove I am wrong and you are right. Just saying such by an anonymous poster proves nothing. I already posted numerous court cases and law dictionary definitions proving that your statement is a falsehood.

How about the court's rejection of your "name game" argument when made by Misters Hardy and Hanna? Arguments made, I must point out, exactly as you directed.

Please don't bother to tell us again that they didn't file using your method. The point is they offered your theory in open court and the rejection of your theory sets precedent.

[EldonG]

How about the court's rejection of your "name game" argument when made by Misters Hardy and Hanna? Arguments made, I must point out, exactly as you directed.

Please don't bother to tell us again that they didn't file using your method. The point is they offered your theory in open court and the rejection of your theory sets precedent.

How about you proving that they used my name game defense? And show me proof that, if they did, they still accepted or acknowledged something that the judge said that kept them in the slave status in the mind of the judge. Neither one of these was using my filing method of a $0.00 tax owing T1 return of income. They were just not filing, and didn't know the proper excuse for not filing - Section 150 (1) Exceptions.

Since you were so interested in their welfare, why didn't you offer them some suggestions how not to be ruled over as a slave by a judge? Of course, you wouldn't as you are promoting such slave upon the people and the extortion of the fruits of their labor.

[EldonG]

Just a follow-up to this.

Any case in Federal Court about the Income Tax Act and persons applies to Quebec too. So, all the Federal Court detax cases that emphatically dismantle the person/human argument apply.

I definitely show in the info on my website, and my template documents, that the issue is not between the definition of 'person' and 'human' or 'human being'.

A human slave is a human. The scheme is that of status, and not a definition of those two terms. Living mankind can have only one of 2 statuses - free will or slave.

Deriving the meaning of 'person' from etymology, the source was/is the Latin term, 'persona', meaning the role an actor plays - a fiction. In Roman times, the all male actors of stage plays wore a mask that helped amplify speech, and thus, the mask represented the fictional role being played. Thus, a 'person' is a fictional character made up of a fiction name where the family name has been converted into a primary name - as is so directly illustrated in a 'nom de guerre'/war name, and a human attached to that name as an accessory. An accessory attached to another's property becomes the property of the owner of the property attached. An owned man, human, is a slave of the owner. A family name as a primary name is pure fiction, as a family name is merely a referential name for the given names.

The only law dictionary that defines 'human being' is older versions of Ballentyne's Law Dictionary where all the definition given is: "See MONSTER'. When one then goes to MONSTER in that same dictionary we find: "a human being with attributes of a lower animal" - purely circular logic.

Now, I know I have used words here that are much to big for most of the posters on this forum; however, you can GOOGLE any words longer than two letters, if you get lost.

[JLord]

The only law dictionary that defines 'human being' is older versions of Ballentyne's Law Dictionary where all the definition given is: "See MONSTER'. When one then goes to MONSTER in that same dictionary we find: "a human being with attributes of a lower animal" - purely circular logic.


Black's Law Dictionary:

person (13c) 1. A human being

[arayder]

How about you proving that they [Hardy and Hanna] used my name game defense? .

What a disingenuous response!

You know very well that you bragged on can.taxes about how these two were going to beat the rap using your method. It turns out they didn't beat the rap!

You very well that Hanna's "name game" / detax paper work, which he cut and pasted directly from your website, was all over the Canadian news and was posted at can.taxes.

You saw those posts and we all know it!

Shame on you Eldon.

Shame, Shame, Shame!

[EldonG]

Black's Law Dictionary: person (13c) 1. A human being

Very well! And, I suppose there are moose beings, dog beings, cat beings?

What purpose does the word 'being' serve making 'human' an adjective, instead of the fully self explanatory noun that the word 'human' is?

Here is a more detailed exposition of 'Human Being: Quote:

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-difinitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: 'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines." And, "' secularism' n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the *English Language, 1928. 'humanitarian' is defined: n. 'a philanthropist: an anti Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist.: From the above Random House Dictionary, "humanitarianism' is defined: n. 'the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.'

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines 'Person' as, 1."a human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank, N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610A.2d652,654) it states, "For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or juristic person".

So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institututes:... "we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons; for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations,"... (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, " 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate." From the same Dictionary, page 1461, " 'unregenerate' 1. not regenerate; unrepentant. 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked; sinful; dissolute. 5. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as: 'a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world, and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.' and 'naturalist' is defined as: 'One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.'

And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at: 1 Corinthians 3:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a 'human being', they are saying, "I'm an animal; I'm non-religious; I'm unrepentant: I'm wicked, sinful and dissolute; I'm able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I'm subject to man's law, rather than God's Law." Unquote

www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

And, this quoted does not refer to 'the status of man'. Just stating 'man', human, or human being' does not define the basis of legal trickery that entraps man into being subject to having the fruits of his labour confiscated by corporate Government with the use of force and extortion - and that is that living man can only have either the status of free will or slave. A 'free will' man has only one law to obey, the negative form of the Golden Rule/God's Law, and has the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, plus rights to due process of law, as defined in Sections 20 and 39 of the Magna Carta (1225). A man of slave status has no rights nor right to due process of law.

It is common to see in Canada that the victim of crime fairs worse than the perpetrator of the crime - look at the results of the Williams case currently in litigation,as a pure example of what I say.

[Sledge]

Have you considered buying up to date books?

[JLord]

Very well! And, I suppose there are moose beings, dog beings, cat beings?



Yes, I suppose there are. I really don't see any problem with this fact.


What purpose does the word 'being' serve making 'human' an adjective, instead of the fully self explanatory noun that the word 'human' is?


Well, lots of things can be human but not be a human being. For example if you found a human skeleton you could say it is human but it isn't a human being. The word "being" specifies that it is an individual living human.



From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'


I don't have access to a copy of this dictionary, and I'm not sure why you seem to prefer sources that are over 50 years old (the law changes significantly over time often rendering old definitions obsolete). But when a dictionary says "see X" when you look up a word it doesn't necessarily mean that the definition of the word you looked up is identical to the definition of word X that dictionary has told you to "see."

For example, just opening Black's dictionary to a random page I find that the entry for "Intagible property" simply says "See Movable." This means that the entry for "movable" is going to have something to say about intangible property. It doesn't mean that the two words are one in the same and share the same definition. You see this all throughout the dictionary. Under "intagible property" it says "See Property." This doesn't mean all property is intangible property, it means the entry for property has something to say about intangible property.

So I think a fundamental misunderstanding of how dictionaries work might be causing you some confusion here.



In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist.


Why would you say this? No case in the history of American law has ever considered the definition of "natural person,' or are you just going by what you find in various dictionaries?



And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at: 1 Corinthians 3:14[QUOTE]


Whatever your personal belief, you must realize that in matter of law (present day law) the "Scriptures" are not the final authority for anything. Nor are they any type of authority at all. It is irrelevant what any religious texts says about the subject other than for your own personal beliefs.



[QUOTE]It is common to see in Canada that the victim of crime fairs worse than the perpetrator of the crime - look at the results of the Williams case currently in litigation,as a pure example of what I say


A very "pure" example you picked. What a terrible indictment of the Canadian justice system that the victims (who were raped and murdered) end up fairing worse than the perpetrator.

[JLord]

So, you post an ad hominum attack upon me, Eldon Warman, without one iota of proof of your statement. the name 'Hans' tells me that you are likely of NAZI extraction.

This is one the BEST lines I have seen yet. Truly amazing if Eldon was not trying to be comical here because he came up with a great statement. Accuse someone of ad hominum attacks without proof, and then in the next sentence accuse someone of being a NAZI based on their forum handle being Hans. That is brilliant.

[D'rok]

Hanna decided to exit Canada rather than continue fighting the 'pit bull tactics' of CRA.Hanna was convicted of tax evasion thanks to your "help".


A Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000. Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.
He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that he is a free man who owes the government nothing.
In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the government may now assign to that name.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/03/no-name.html#ixzz136pjyfNs



Too bad the link to the "Hanna Affidavit" is broken. Anyone have a copy?

[carlitos]

I can't see how further engaging this poster could be productive, but having this thread here for when people google "detax Canada" probably serves a useful purpose. It's the #4 result currently. As seen in the "magic wand" thread, some people do find these things when they research a given woo, and anyone seeing Eldon's writings here would be highly unlikely to put their tax future in his hands.

[arayder]

Hanna was convicted of tax evasion thanks to your "help".



Too bad the link to the "Hanna Affidavit" is broken. Anyone have a copy?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Our subject doesn’t seem to understand that the legal precedent set in the Clifford Hanna case is applicable to any detaxer who would be foolish enough to use his method.

He either doesn’t now or refuses to accept the nature of legal precedent.

Upon in court pole-axing's like Keith Thompson is about to get our boy’s method has been to deny reality until his rep gets so bad that it starts to hurt the flow of detaxer honoraria into his pocket book.

When the zero tax vein plays out our pseudo-scholar will surf the net for new material, cobble another theory together and start the game all over again.

[Tricky]

Several rule-breaching posts along with several posts that replied to them. Keep it civil and on-topic, folks. And remember rule 8. "You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion." That includes "don't post e-mail addresses."

[arayder]

Isn't your argument just another logical fallacy, Eldon?

Your ruse is to tell us that parts of the definition of, or the obscure usages of, one word match parts or usages of another word.. . .then you tell us that the words have the exact same meaning and usage when in fact they don't.

By juggling definitions like a bad mechanic trying to make mismatched parts fit you mix and match the meanings of the words monsters, humans, natural persons in the hope you will lead us to the conclusion that so called “free willed men” aren’t subject to the rule of law.

As we have demonstrated on this forum no matter what sort of man one calls himself one is, in fact, subject to the rule of law.

Need I go over the countless times detaxers following your methods have been hauled into court and convicted of crimes?

It may sooth the ego to make believe that one is some sort of special person who is above the law. But my experience has been that this fantasy held by so many, sovereign citizens, free men on the land, free willed men (or whatever they are calling themselves today) is nothing more than a self-deluding attempt to rise above a society in which they simply can’t function.

If one can’t cut the mustard in the gentle, prosperous world of western Canada, I have to wonder where in the world one thinks he could get the job done.

Very well! And, I suppose there are moose beings, dog beings, cat beings?

What purpose does the word 'being' serve making 'human' an adjective, instead of the fully self explanatory noun that the word 'human' is?

Here is a more detailed exposition of 'Human Being: Quote:

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-difinitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: 'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines." And, "' secularism' n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the *English Language, 1928. 'humanitarian' is defined: n. 'a philanthropist: an anti Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist.: From the above Random House Dictionary, "humanitarianism' is defined: n. 'the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.'

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines 'Person' as, 1."a human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank, N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610A.2d652,654) it states, "For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or juristic person".

So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institututes:... "we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons; for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations,"... (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, " 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate." From the same Dictionary, page 1461, " 'unregenerate' 1. not regenerate; unrepentant. 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked; sinful; dissolute. 5. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as: 'a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world, and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.' and 'naturalist' is defined as: 'One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.'

And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at: 1 Corinthians 3:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a 'human being', they are saying, "I'm an animal; I'm non-religious; I'm unrepentant: I'm wicked, sinful and dissolute; I'm able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I'm subject to man's law, rather than God's Law." Unquote

www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

And, this quoted does not refer to 'the status of man'. Just stating 'man', human, or human being' does not define the basis of legal trickery that entraps man into being subject to having the fruits of his labour confiscated by corporate Government with the use of force and extortion - and that is that living man can only have either the status of free will or slave. A 'free will' man has only one law to obey, the negative form of the Golden Rule/God's Law, and has the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, plus rights to due process of law, as defined in Sections 20 and 39 of the Magna Carta (1225). A man of slave status has no rights nor right to due process of law.

It is common to see in Canada that the victim of crime fairs worse than the perpetrator of the crime - look at the results of the Williams case currently in litigation,as a pure example of what I say.

[EldonG]

I can't see how further engaging this poster could be productive, but having this thread here for when people google "detax Canada" probably serves a useful purpose. It's the #4 result currently. As seen in the "magic wand" thread, some people do find these things when they research a given woo, and anyone seeing Eldon's writings here would be highly unlikely to put their tax future in his hands.

Quoting carlitos: "and anyone seeing Eldon's writings here would be highly unlikely to put their tax future in his hands."

What 'tax future'????? People who use my filing method never again have to pay income tax. The method is called 'FILING A $0.00 TAX OWING RETURN OF INCOME'. And, there is an amazing amount of Canadians and Americans, and likely Brits, Aussies and Kiwis, who also are putting their 'NO TAX' future in the system (not the hands) of Eldon Warman, and expressing many thanks for it.

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.Hanna was not using the DetaxCanada method of the 1990s, nor the filing method that came into being in late 2003. I don't believe he was charged with tax evasion, but only 'failure to file', however, both charges arise out of a tort action in Provincial Court where there is a claimed violation of the corporate Crown's property right by the disobedience of an owned slave not accounting for or turning over demanded Crown property (the fruits of the owned slave's labour).

And, your: "having this thread here for when people google "detax Canada" probably serves a useful purpose" was obviously designed as a 'damage control scheme' by Edited to remove inappropriate remark., JLord, as the 'extortion racketeers' obviously watch the hit counter on the Detax Canada website. And, for the purpose of discouraging people from going to the Detax Canada website. It has obviously been a abject failure, even though every poster except myself have been posting bashings of Eldon Warman, and not one word about the filing method taught on the website. The Canadian and American people (that matter) are not as dumb as 'ya'all believe'.

If anyone with half a brain reads the posts of the damage control posters on this thread, they will notice that I, Eldon Warman (and maybe, the OP) am the only one who gives the legal identity strawman name I use in this lifetime. All others use cowardly pseudonyms to hide their identity, so they cannot be held in any way liable or responsible for their actions in their efforts to keep Canadians and Americans in slave status, and thus subject to the extortion of their lives through the extortion of the fruits of their labour.

[Sledge]

So give us some examples from this "amazing number" of people using your methods.

[arayder]

So give us some examples from this "amazing number" of people using your methods.

Don't hold your breath, Sledge.

[arayder]

Again, Eldon.. . listen this time!

I never said that Hanna used your filing method. I said he used its underlying principle, the “name game” theory during the appeal of his tax evasion conviction. And he was shot down big time in the light of open court.

That sets precedent for the dismissal of your latest detax theory by anyone who understands precedent, which you don’t.

The plain fact is there is a well documented trail of losers left in the wake of your tax and legal advice that stretches back to your own disastrous dealing with the IRS and the FBI in the 1980’s.

And there is not one documented case of a detax or legal success on your part or those of your detax clients.

The only thing you and your minions seem good at is fleeing the court's jurisdiction.


Quoting carlitos: "and anyone seeing Eldon's writings here would be highly unlikely to put their tax future in his hands."

What 'tax future'????? People who use my filing method never again have to pay income tax. The method is called 'FILING A $0.00 TAX OWING RETURN OF INCOME'. And, there is an amazing amount of Canadians and Americans, and likely Brits, Aussies and Kiwis, who also are putting their 'NO TAX' future in the system (not the hands) of Eldon Warman, and expressing many thanks for it.

Removed quote of inappropriate remarkHanna was not using the DetaxCanada method of the 1990s, nor the filing method that came into being in late 2003. I don't believe he was charged with tax evasion, but only 'failure to file', however, both charges arise out of a tort action in Provincial Court where there is a claimed violation of the corporate Crown's property right by the disobedience of an owned slave not accounting for or turning over demanded Crown property (the fruits of the owned slave's labour).

And, your: "having this thread here for when people google "detax Canada" probably serves a useful purpose" was obviously designed as a 'damage control scheme' by Removed quote of inappropriate remark, JLord, as the 'extortion racketeers' obviously watch the hit counter on the Detax Canada website. And, for the purpose of discouraging people from going to the Detax Canada website. It has obviously been a abject failure, even though every poster except myself have been posting bashings of Eldon Warman, and not one word about the filing method taught on the website. The Canadian and American people (that matter) are not as dumb as 'ya'all believe'.

If anyone with half a brain reads the posts of the damage control posters on this thread, they will notice that I, Eldon Warman (and maybe, the OP) am the only one who gives the legal identity strawman name I use in this lifetime. All others use cowardly pseudonyms to hide their identity, so they cannot be held in any way liable or responsible for their actions in their efforts to keep Canadians and Americans in slave status, and thus subject to the extortion of their lives through the extortion of the fruits of their labour.

[D'rok]

Again, Eldon.. . listen this time!

I never said that Hanna used your filing method. I said he used its underlying principle, the “name game” theory during the appeal of his tax evasion conviction. And he was shot down big time in the light of open court.

That sets precedent for the dismissal of your latest detax theory by anyone who understands precedent, which you don’t.

The plain fact is there is a well documented trail of losers left in the wake of your tax and legal advice that stretches back to your own disastrous dealing with the IRS and the FBI in the 1980’s.

And there is not one documented case of a detax or legal success on your part or those of your detax clients.

The only thing you and your minions seem good at is fleeing the court's jurisdiction.Jean Proteau might have finally seen the light of day:

The circumstances of this bankruptcy are so egregious that any court could easily justify a refusal of a discharge. I believe, however, that more could be gained by the imposition of a fairly stringent discharge order. I make this statement based upon the age and health of the bankrupt as well as the bankrupt’s assurance that he has changed his ways completely. This has been demonstrated by his payment of all his post-bankruptcy income tax debt and his commitment to collect and remit GST as required.

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2006/2006skqb324/2006skqb324.html

[EldonG]

So give us some examples from this "amazing number" of people using your methods.

I would only provide that to someone who is morally capable of respecting peoples' rights to their inherited free will status and thus unalienable rights to life, liberty and property (primarily, the property being their labour, and the fruits thereof), and the rights to 'due process of law' - no crime if no harm done to another by mens rea.

[EldonG]

Don't hold your breath, Sledge.

Jack Foster, I will gladly supply that number, if you provide the number of people you have convinced to remain good obedient slaves to their corporate masters.

[D'rok]

Oh look. Legal latin used incoherently. The calling card of the crank.

[LightinDarkness]

Looks like we have yet another case of a "successful" detaxer in Canada. Unfortunately for her, by successful I mean that she lost the case completely, is in a worse position than she would have been if she had originally just followed the law, and the judge (who is female) ruled that the defendants claim that she was a Jewish Freemason was not enough to prove a conspiracy against the defendant.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101022/bc_tax_evader_101022/20101022?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Highlights:

A former dentist who says her trial on income tax evasion was fixed by a shadowy conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews has lost her latest bid to get out of paying a quarter-million dollar fine.

Vancouver Dr. Eva Notburga Marita Sydel was convicted of tax evasion four years ago for failing to report a whopping $750,000 in income. She was fined $244,447 and sentenced to jail for 18 months.
....
She filed an appeal of her conviction in 2007, but abandoned it the next year.

In her latest in a long series of appearances in B.C. courtrooms, Sydel petitioned to renew her appeal, claiming that she has found new evidence that provincial court Judge Paul Meyers, a Jew, had discriminated against because she is German by descent.

Acting as her own lawyer, she also argued that Meyers was part of a conspiracy of Freemasons -- an international fraternal organization dating back to the 1600s. Conspiracy theorists often claim that the "invisible empire" of Freemasons has quietly controlled governments and economies worldwide for centuries -- if not millennia.

Sydel claimed that Meyers and the chief investigator for the Canada Revenue Agency used secret Freemason sign language during her trial to communicate with each other and ensure she was convicted.
...
During her original trial, Sydel used the defence that she is a "natural person" -- not a taxpayer -- and therefore not obliged to pay income taxes. The "natural person" argument is a popular one with the so-called "detax" movement in Canada, but it has never been successful in court.

Indeed, the provincial court judge responded to Sydel's argument by suggesting that she was being willfully ignorant of the law.


So much delicious kookery all in one case! Freeman defense, Anti-Mason hysteria, Anti-Semitic...Eldon would be proud. Of course, even though she lost both her original case and the appeal completely, Eldon will tell us this is because of (1) some minor mistake she made in the paperwork or (2) that she did everything right and lost due a massive conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews.

[EldonG]

Again, Eldon.. . listen this time!

I never said that Hanna used your filing method. I said he used its underlying principle, the “name game” theory during the appeal of his tax evasion conviction. And he was shot down big time in the light of open court.

I wonder what is meant by an 'open court'? A man wearing a black robe, that represents a cannibal priest, and is employed by the corporation that is responsible for the enslavement by legal trickery of mankind within the jurisdiction of that corporation, and then enforces the harvesting of the fruits of the labour of the enslaved men and women by his own word, and without due process of law, as stipulated for free will man in the Magna Carta, Sections 20 and 39, such as an unbiased jury, and the production of a damaged party (of course, the corporate Crown or State is the damaged slave owner, I suppose), can hardly be termed an 'open court'. The word 'kangaroo' comes more to mind.

And, from the research I just did on the Yukon case of James Clifford Hanna, he had a bit of my Name Game basis in his argument, but still identified himself as being James Clifford Hanna, and 'identification' is the fatal trick pulled off by the judge. Also, people were, and some still do, state that the all caps spelling is the 'legal name' basis. I have corrected my material some time ago showing that it is the changing of the family name to a primary name that allows for the claim of owned intellectual property by the Crown.

That sets precedent for the dismissal of your latest detax theory by anyone who understands precedent, which you don’t.

No, it doesn't. One has only to look at the case to see the basis upon which the judge was able to continue the disciplining of a slave owned by the Crown, and imposing a fine - which Hanna never paid, as he moved to Costra Rica - now considered the 'most free' and overall happy country in the world.

The plain fact is there is a well documented trail of losers left in the wake of your tax and legal advice that stretches back to your own disastrous dealing with the IRS and the FBI in the 1980’s.

The only debris on my trail is all the lies and false statements and pure BS left by yourself in your failed damage control efforts to keep people in their Government imposed slave status.

And there is not one documented case of a detax or legal success on your part or those of your detax clients.

The only thing you and your minions seem good at is fleeing the court's jurisdiction.

When there are no charges, there are no cases, and no cases means no documentation on positive results. Now, if you, or anyone on this thread has come up with a way to prove a negative, then, let's hear it. The 3 or 4 cases yo keep spouting are not of my doing. There have been, and still are a lot of so-called detax programs out there that are purely mole induced and intended. Because they charge for their programs, they are stupidly seen by many ignorant souls as being more authentic than my free program. Thus, I am continually correcting people on such as AFV, trusts, contract law remedy, UCC remedy, freeman remedy, and such. Thus, I cannot control how people react in court when they are operating under several detax theories.

[EldonG]

Looks like we have yet another case of a "successful" detaxer in Canada. Unfortunately for her, by successful I mean that she lost the case completely, is in a worse position than she would have been if she had originally just followed the law, and the judge (who is female) ruled that the defendants claim that she was a Jewish Freemason was not enough to prove a conspiracy against the defendant.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101022/bc_tax_evader_101022/20101022?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Highlights:
So much delicious kookery all in one case! Freeman defense, Anti-Mason hysteria, Anti-Semitic...Eldon would be proud. Of course, even though she lost both her original case and the appeal completely, Eldon will tell us this is because of (1) some minor mistake she made in the paperwork or (2) that she did everything right and lost due a massive conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews.

Eva Sydel was using the Russ Porisky 'Paradigm Group' program, that I identified as being a CRA sting operation right from the beginning. He started up right after the Canadian detax Group was exposed as being a CRA sting operation. The latter group started up 4 months after I posted my Detaxcanada.org website in early January of 1998.

Both Porisky's and Ken McMordie's programs are typical programs right out of the Jesuit written 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' - 95% factual info, with 5% poison - about the same ratio as beef soup with arsenic - the poison that killed the 3 Popes previous to the current one, most likely because they were going to shut down the whole fascist/corporatist regime of the Holy Roman Empire. And the Cardinals loyal to ancient Chaldean Zionism and its elite King/Priests weren't about to let that happen. No, Zionism is not originally a Jew thing.

Also, I point out very clearly in my info that 'freeman = slave granted privileges, and is synonymous with 'citizen' and 'subject'. The term used in the Magna Carta was 'liber homo' meaning 'free man, or more correctly, 'free will man'.

Removed inappropriate remark.And, I am NOT anti-Semitic.... I think the Palestinian people are wonderful examples of manhood, unlike the cowards that most Canadians and Americans are proving themselves to be.

[EldonG]

Oh look. Legal latin used incoherently. The calling card of the crank.

Oh! I wasn't writing that for you. I wrote it for someone with some morality and intelligence who may chance to read my posts. But, apparently, my post got the attention of the resident crank - so guess it was a crank calling card.

[EldonG]

Jean Proteau might have finally seen the light of day:

Why don't you e-mail me for Jean Proteau's e-mail address and ask him yourself.

We are still on frequent e-mail exchange. And, he certainly has never complained to me about his battles with CRA. Like myself, he is an x-fighter jock, and likes a good dog fight. And, in those, you win some and lose some.

He bailed out of a burning F-104 back in the late 1960s. I flew F-101 Voodoos out of Comox for some 5 years. That surely beat what all you thread posters seem capable of doing - keyboard jockeys, and obedient slaves paying your fair share of the slave's labour harvest, and badmouthing anyone who has other ideas than just being an obedient slave.

[EldonG]

The gold thing is always stupid. I always enjoy the idea of people in a post apocalyptic world wrapping themselves in gold bricks to keep the cold out, lighting some gold on fire to heat a gold pot so they can make a nourishing gold stew whilst laughing at all those suckers who stockpiled water, food, clothing, fuel, ammunition and other frivolities.

And, I suppose that the fiat Monopoly money that now is CDN currency and American FRNs, that is not even a 'bill of exchange', and inflating at an ever increasing rate, is going to be able to be used as porridge when ground up,
or a source of heat when used as fuel in the fireplace of the house that has been taken from you under foreclosure by the banksters.

I think you will find that those who have collected some gold and silver are the ones who also are gathering in water, food, clothing, fuel, ammunition and other frivolities. How many of the latter have you stockpiled? A couple of Big Mac hamburgers? I hear they are just as durable against corrosion as is gold.

[D'rok]

Heck Eldon, if you could just show a single success from your program, think of how easily you could shut us all up! Instead, we see nothing but flaming wreckage after flaming wreckage.

Don't you ever get tired of destroying people's lives with your impotent rage against the machine?

[D'rok]

Why don't you e-mail me for Jean Proteau's e-mail address and ask him yourself.

We are still on frequent e-mail exchange. And, he certainly has never complained to me about his battles with CRA. Like myself, he is an x-fighter jock, and likes a good dog fight. And, in those, you win some and lose some. Yeah, I'd say paying all of your back taxes is a pretty big loss. I guess he didn't follow your system in just the right way either, eh?

Is it possible for any of these universally disastrous failures to falsify your "theories", or are your delusions completely ironclad?

That was a rhetorical question, BTW. We all know what the answer is.

[ria_rokz]

A Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000. Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.
He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that he is a free man who owes the government nothing.
In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the government may now assign to that name.

Okay... I have spent the last few hours reading this thread, largely due to personal interest as a Canadian. My mind was just blow reading about Cliff Hanna. I realize that it's not a highly unusual name, but Whitehorse is a small place... I may have used this guy as an equine dentist. Srsly. I always thought he was an odd duck. Although further research indicates that he is still doing equine dentistry in the area, so it could be a different guy. I also noticed that article is from 2006 so maybe he's back in town?

I would like to commend you folks who have taken up the seemingly futile task of arguing against someone who uses circular logic and bizarre facts. Your patience and knowledge is much stronger than mine. It has helped me gain a lot of clarification on Canadian legal and financial stuff that I wasn't clear on before.

[ria_rokz]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968
All of this FTOL bravo sierra is just using "weasel wording" to try to get out of paying for stuff.

How can you 'pay for stuff' when there is no money to PAY for stuff?

As I was reading through, I became more and more curious how you are paying for "stuff". You know, internet, electricity, toilet paper, bandwidth. Obviously you are playing along with the government's magical money conspiracy somehow.

And, I certainly haven't lived on the street since 1985.

You said you don't live on the street. But apparently there is no money to pay for stuff? Man, I guess I screwed over those guys at Tim Horton's today!

Seriously though, I hope you pay your taxes. I feel quite fortunate to live in Canada. If you don't like it so much because the "slave-owners" are imposing too much on you by asking you to contribute to infrastructure, health care, education, and the like, then why don't you just hop off this imaginary ship at the next stop? I mean, there are countries that won't ask you to pay income tax! Then you can get on with your life.

I feel sorry for your parents. If you carried on like this when they asked you to help around the house, because you felt like their "slave", then that would be sad.

[Hans]

And, I suppose that the fiat Monopoly money that now is CDN currency and American FRNs, that is not even a 'bill of exchange', and inflating at an ever increasing rate

So Eldon are you claiming that if you use just currency backed by metals you'll not have inflation? Ever heard of Spain?

[ria_rokz]

Too bad the link to the "Hanna Affidavit" is broken. Anyone have a copy?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

YEAH I think I found it!

http://www.nationalrepublicregistry.com/public/CANADA.2010.04.14.000001.pdf

[LightinDarkness]

I wonder what is meant by an 'open court'? A man wearing a black robe, that represents a cannibal priest, <snip>

Though we've debunked the whole "employed by a corporation" part of this rant, I keep seeing this whole black robe obsession with you. Strangely, no source I can find references this as a "robe representing a cannibal priest" - I am sure you have non-conspiracy theory oriented sources to back up this outlandish claim, don't you?

Not that you've backed up anything else either, so I'm probably hoping for nothing here.

[ria_rokz]

YEAH I think I found it!

http://www.nationalrepublicregistry.com/public/CANADA.2010.04.14.000001.pdf

Okay so..... the affidavit I found is from March of this year. Looks like the guy signed all of his stuff over to his daughter? Look at the last page, it's particularly entertaining (they use "strawman").

This Hanna guy was almost certainly my horse dentist. His facebook page shows the same birthdate. There are photos of him in central America posted in 2007, so he was there before that. But as I said, it seems that he somehow got back in the country. Maybe it's because he signed all his debt over to his daughter? That's kind of dirty.

[D'rok]

Okay so..... the affidavit I found is from March of this year. Looks like the guy signed all of his stuff over to his daughter? Look at the last page, it's particularly entertaining (they use "strawman").

This Hanna guy was almost certainly my horse dentist. His facebook page shows the same birthdate. There are photos of him in central America posted in 2007, so he was there before that. But as I said, it seems that he somehow got back in the country. Maybe it's because he signed all his debt over to his daughter? That's kind of dirty.Sadly, it's even kookier than that. It looks like his daughter has been infected with Daddy's woo.

That affidavit is his daughter trying to establish a trustee relationship with her own "strawman". In other words, she's used all the usual detax mumbo-jumbo to distinguish between Jaime Hanna (natural person) and JAIME HANNA (strawman). She's trying to set up JAMIE HANNA as a trustee for Jaime Hanna, and then transfer all of her property to JAMIE HANNA. With the condition that if anyone tries to go after JAMIE HANNA's property, they have to pay Jamie Hanna 35 million ounces of gold.

At least that's the best I can do at deciphering it. I'm only semi-fluent in detax crazyspeak.

[D'rok]

Though we've debunked the whole "employed by a corporation" part of this rant, I keep seeing this whole black robe obsession with you. Strangely, no source I can find references this as a "robe representing a cannibal priest" - I am sure you have non-conspiracy theory oriented sources to back up this outlandish claim, don't you?

Not that you've backed up anything else either, so I'm probably hoping for nothing here.
I've been looking forward to hearing that one too.

[ria_rokz]

Sadly, it's even kookier than that. It looks like his daughter has been infected with Daddy's woo.

That affidavit is his daughter trying to establish a trustee relationship with her own "strawman". In other words, she's used all the usual detax mumbo-jumbo to distinguish between Jaime Hanna (natural person) and JAIME HANNA (strawman). She's trying to set up JAMIE HANNA as a trustee for Jaime Hanna, and then transfer all of her property to JAMIE HANNA. With the condition that if anyone tries to go after JAMIE HANNA's property, they have to pay Jamie Hanna 35 million ounces of gold.

At least that's the best I can do at deciphering it. I'm only semi-fluent in detax crazyspeak.

OH yeah... that makes more sense (well, relatively). I was busy trying to attribute it to her dad and didn't think of that spin on it.

[ria_rokz]

YEAH I think I found it!

http://www.nationalrepublicregistry.com/public/CANADA.2010.04.14.000001.pdf

Yeah! I got it for REALS this time! http://web.archive.org/web/20060207023923/http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

So did he use your formula or not, EldonG?

[Hans]

Yeah! I got it for REALS this time! http://web.archive.org/web/20060207023923/http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

So did he use your formula or not, EldonG?

Good Lord what is on that page it got blocked by the Kingdom of Brahain server!