Detax Canada

[arayder]

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.

It’s always the same thing with Warman. He says he has documentation of successful users of his methods. But when asked to produce documentation he always avoids proof of his claims.

He’s been doing this for decades.

[arayder]

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.

That is simply untrue, Eldon.

The harm done your own family and the detaxers ruined by your methods is a well documented fact.

Your denial of that reality is a sort of artifice constructed in your mind.

[arayder]

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?

If our subject realizes he is wrong the reality of what he has done to his family and his responsibility for it will set in. . . and the subject’s psyche can’t handle that.

That explains the rants and the circular logic.

[arayder]

Jean Proteau['s] . . . is an x-fighter jock, and likes a good dog fight.

So he is Eldon's version of Mimi Me!

[arayder]

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?

The document is a word for word cut and paste from Warman's website. The poor old soul is working overtime to deny it, but that is the truth.

[Stacey Grove]

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.

Eldon, why not prove that those of us on here who fit your description above are miserably wrong and show us your examples?

[D'rok]

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?Well done!

There it is Eldon. Yet more clear evidence that your Name Game fails.

[ria_rokz]

Good Lord what is on that page it got blocked by the Kingdom of Brahain server!

Nothing bad, honest! Maybe it's because it's a web archived file? Or maybe the Kingdom of Bahrain doesn't want you to have a (failed) example of how to avoid taxes! Mwa ha ha... wait. I just realized I'm not very good at making PDF files smaller, but if youa re really curious and you can't access the link here is a copy for you to look at. Sorry for the poor quality. 19860

[Sledge]

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.
So you've got no cases you can cite. Duly noted.
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.No. Why on Earth would you think that? Unless of course you're constructing some sort of obvious strawman to attack. You wouldn't be so dishonest as to do that, would you?
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.
You could not have missed my point more if you tried. Stockpiling any form of currency in the event of a civilisation-shattering apocalypse is stupid. Money has no value outside of a civilisation. Precious metals, whether they be gold bars or coins will be of little practical value. Paper money might at least be useful as kindling for lighting fires. If you have money to spare and honestly think some sort of apocalypse is coming, spend it on useful items. Don't horde it in the hope that people will be stupid enough to trade food for worthless gold bricks.

[Hans]

Nothing bad, honest! Maybe it's because it's a web archived file? Or maybe the Kingdom of Bahrain doesn't want you to have a (failed) example of how to avoid taxes! Mwa ha ha... wait. I just realized I'm not very good at making PDF files smaller, but if youa re really curious and you can't access the link here is a copy for you to look at. Sorry for the poor quality. 19860

Thanks I was able to download that.

Websites get bans for being associated with Israel, having anti-Islamic materials or political opinions that don't agree with the Sunni Majority here.

Bahrain is fairly liberal but one never knows when SAPPIR will raise its ugly head.

[ria_rokz]

Thanks I was able to download that.

Websites get bans for being associated with Israel, having anti-Islamic materials or political opinions that don't agree with the Sunni Majority here.

Bahrain is fairly liberal but one never knows when SAPPIR will raise its ugly head.

Well I'm glad that my file worked for you, it was a pain in the butt to figure out! The website is basically an archive of the interwebz, so it's reasonable that it might have that kind of stuff on it. Even things that have been deleted could be found there (such as the document I produced).

[EldonG]

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?

How do you propose that I do that? If there has not been a court case dealing with my methods of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing tax return since its inception in 2003, I cannot provide a transcript of a court case.

And, since I have no control over who uses my program, and certainly no reporting back from anyone, other than those who choose to do so, I have no way of giving examples. And, under the privacy laws that now exist, I could not reveal anyone's private business, even if I could.

Edited to remove personal remarks.None of you intend to free yourselves from the Government imposed slave status anyway.

[jargon buster]

How do you propose that I do that? If there has not been a court case dealing with my methods of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing tax return since its inception in 2003, I cannot provide a transcript of a court case.


So your method is simply not declaring your earnings?

Well done eldon, thats a foolproof method for sure.

[EldonG]

So Eldon are you claiming that if you use just currency backed by metals you'll not have inflation? Ever heard of Spain?

Spain uses the Euro - totally fiat. And, there is a difference in 'metal backed' and 'metal based' money. To see the meaning of 'metal based', GOOGLE "US Coinage Act 1793". Gold and silver is the money, and paper is a promissory note for a measured amount of the metal money.

To see what 'metal backed', check out Federal Reserve Notes between 1933 and 1973 - where the paper is the money, and gold and silver were given a value amount in the paper money. That system became untenable when De Gaulle of France started to turn in US FRNs for $35.00 oz gold, when it was already worth much more because of the devaluation of the FRN by having too much of the FRNs in circulation.

The only thing that could inflate prices in a metal based economy is a scarcity of some specific goods, causing an auction effect. The hoarding of gold by the Vatican's banksters caused the 1929 depression, as previous depressions in the late 1800s. It was a contrived shortage of gold that caused the depression, and not a result of the free market. When there is a shortage of some product, and the price in metal money goes up, increased production of the product then brings the price back in line with production costs and a reasonable profit for the manufacturer.

[EldonG]

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.

On a quick glance over this document, I see that there is a common misunderstanding that exists by many of those seeking remedy. He uses statutory law as a basis for his arguments (contrary to my Name Game Blog), when the whole income tax issue is one of the violation of the property right of the corporate Crown of the City of London by an owned slave of that corporate Crown, and thus, tax cases are litigated in Provincial or Territorial court as a tort arising out of the property right - the jurisdiction of the courts of a Province or Territory. If it were a statutory violation of the Federal government, then the jurisdiction would be in Federal Court. Same goes for the USA.

And, why is it 'dirty' if a man fights against having the 'slave status imposed upon himself' and trying to prevent the extortion of the fruits of his own labour - his unalienable property right and owned property, by way of a fraudulently imposed false status? Seems to me that only an ardent collectivist who like his own slave status could rationalize against such a free thinking man. Property right supersedes common, statutory and constitutional law

I have had no correspondence with Hanna since he left Canada.

[twinstead]

The hoarding of gold by the Vatican's banksters caused the 1929 depression, as previous depressions in the late 1800s. It was a contrived shortage of gold that caused the depression, and not a result of the free market. When there is a shortage of some product, and the price in metal money goes up, increased production of the product then brings the price back in line with production costs and a reasonable profit for the manufacturer.

What would you say to the many professional economists who would disagree with you on this one? I know some personally, and I respect their opinion a hell of a lot more than I do yours. Are you one of those lucky few who have it 'all figured out' and everybody else is just a sheep?

[Stacey Grove]

Removed quote of and response to moderated content

[EldonG]

So your method is simply not declaring your earnings?

Well done eldon, thats a foolproof method for sure.

No. Earnings, in the form of a 'fee for services as agent in commerce' are declared. I recommend $3,500.00 as a reasonable fee for the use of a name, paid for by promissory note. That amount gets one under the wire for CPP contributions.

First off, you obviously don't know the meaning of 'earnings'. It is defined in a law dictionary as being: "EARNINGS, Money or property gained by labour or services; as, the earnings of a wife, minor, servant, insolvent debtor, corporation." In which category do you fit?

The money or other assets collected and held in trust by the agent in commerce, the Crown owned legal name, are not declared because they are the property of the 'undeclared principal', the free will adult living man who is not a 'taxpayer', and thus, none of CRA's business nor within their authority. Look up the definition of 'taxpayer' in the Income Tax Act. And, unless you ignorantly 'assume' that 'person' means any man, regardless his status, you will see that one can be NOT a 'taxpayer'. So, if any of you wish to be a 'taxpayer', then don't cry about those who do not choose to be a taxpayer not paying their fair share. The share of taxpayers is only relative to those who stupidly allow themselves to be 'taxpayers'.

[EldonG]

What would you say to the many professional economists who would disagree with you on this one? I know some personally, and I respect their opinion a hell of a lot more than I do yours. Are you one of those lucky few who have it 'all figured out' and everybody else is just a sheep?

If you are so readily convince by fallacy, then, I suppose that is your choice. Have you checked out where those 'brilliant economists' went to school and learned their fantasies?

[Sledge]

How do you propose that I do that? If there has not been a court case dealing with my methods of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing tax return since its inception in 2003, I cannot provide a transcript of a court case.
So how do you know
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.
? And how do you know it's working?

[EldonG]

Removed further quote of and response to moderated content

[Sledge]

So you're making it all up. Just so as we're clear on that.

Oh, and do knock off the insults. They don't bother me, but they'll get you suspended or banned, and we would all miss laughing at your posts.

[EldonG]

You could not have missed my point more if you tried. Stockpiling any form of currency in the event of a civilisation-shattering apocalypse is stupid. Money has no value outside of a civilisation. Precious metals, whether they be gold bars or coins will be of little practical value. Paper money might at least be useful as kindling for lighting fires. If you have money to spare and honestly think some sort of apocalypse is coming, spend it on useful items. Don't horde it in the hope that people will be stupid enough to trade food for worthless gold bricks.

Well, from my perspective, there is not going to be such an apocalyptic event, but it surely looks like this round of fiat currency is going to blow away with the wind. A Russian acquaintance tells me that he and his family would have had a desperate time living in Russia/USSR after the fiat Ruble collapsed if his grandfather had not had a stash of gold coins. His share got him and his family (children and parents) to Canada. And, most farmers would sell vegetables (especially the Huttarites) for gold, regardless the circumstance of the economy.

[jargon buster]

The bigger question is: Why are you here? You are obviously happy with your slave chains firmly attached to your ankles. If you have read all the posts of ALL the other posters on this thread, you will see that they have judged, to a man or woman, that Eldon Warman is a 'Nut Job' and his website is a thing of great comedial content.

Eldon, in case it escaped your attention, this site is not a freeman, commercial redemption whack job site.
If anyone is not in the right place its you.
But please stay , you are marvelous entertainment. :)

[Stacey Grove]

The bigger question is: Why are you here? You are obviously happy with your slave chains firmly attached to your ankles. If you have read all the posts of ALL the other posters on this thread, you will see that they have judged, to a man or woman, that Eldon Warman is a 'Nut Job' and his website is a thing of great comedial content.
You know absolutely nothing about me. Your description of "slave chains" is just an assumption on your part.

Why am I posting here: Because GOOGLE has conveniently posted this forum when one searches 'Detax Canada', and I wish to make sure that those who happen to use GOOGLE do get an alternate picture than the one posted by the OP and all the other posters on this thread who fully intended on having their way to make this a convenient damage control mechanism for their Vatican and Bankster overlords. Of course, many posters are likely just one party using different pseudonyms. Would like to see the MODS check out some of the source posting IPs.

Oh right. If that is the case why not post up examples of successes so that those who chance upon this thread via google will instantly see that you are right and us "cowards, imbeciles, traitors and other assorted scum" are wrong?

[Sledge]

Well, from my perspective, there is not going to be such an apocalyptic event, but it surely looks like this round of fiat currency is going to blow away with the wind. A Russian acquaintance tells me that he and his family would have had a desperate time living in Russia/USSR after the fiat Ruble collapsed if his grandfather had not had a stash of gold coins. His share got him and his family (children and parents) to Canada. And, most farmers would sell vegetables (especially the Huttarites) for gold, regardless the circumstance of the economy.

We're not talking about a country's economy failing, are we? We're discussing the collapse of a global economy. What value does gold have then?

[Stacey Grove]

None of your business. If you were not posting as a traitor and cowardly slave of the Crown, I might be able to provide more info. But, obviously, that is not the case.

So you will just keep telling us you are right and we are wrong but you will not provide proof because we are all slaves.
Is that about right?

[arayder]

How do you propose that I do that? If there has not been a court case dealing with my methods of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing tax return since its inception in 2003, I cannot provide a transcript of a court case.

Your story is not really believable, Eldon.

From the late 1990’s until 2005 your claimed to be using your constructive notice method. During 2003, 2004 and part of 2005 you claimed that method was 100% effective.

After Proteau’s 2003 tax evasion conviction came to light in 2005 you came up with the story that you had secretly been field testing your zero filing method and had used it to avoid paying taxes on your American Airline pension pay out in 2003.

The problem comes when we realize that even if we believe your story that means:

1.You were, for two years, telling the untruth that your were using your constructive notice method.
2, Concealing the information about Proteau’s 2003 tax evasion.
3. Telling folks your constructive notice method was 100% effective when it clearly wasn’t.
4. The real problem is that for years you played the victim and told folks that you had lost your American Airline pension during your 1984-1985 tax evasion and terroristic threatening dust up with the IRS and the FBI.

In short, you have changed your story too many times to be believable, Eldon.

[ria_rokz]

Another jerk who likes his Government imposed slave status. Guess, education does not go beyond kindergarten in Whitehorse, if you are supposed to be an example of the residents of that 'one Whitehorse town'.

Did you call me a jerk because I provided evidence that you strawman theory doesn't work? That was kind of uncalled for. I like how you resort to character attacks when you have no reasonable response to an argument. You poopyhead.

Furthermore, I am female.

Finally, I am not from the Yukon. It may surprise you to know that people drive. Which is an interesting point, that Cliff Hanna tried to weasel out of his taxes but uses public roads to drive from the Yukon down to Alberta. How is infrastructure paid for again? I didn't really understand your explanation earlier in the thread.

I am also educated well beyond kindergarten, but nice try. I guess next you'll say I was taught by a bunch of communists.

[ria_rokz]

And, why is it 'dirty' if a man fights against having the 'slave status imposed upon himself' and trying to prevent the extortion of the fruits of his own labour - his unalienable property right and owned property, by way of a fraudulently imposed false status? Seems to me that only an ardent collectivist who like his own slave status could rationalize against such a free thinking man. Property right supersedes common, statutory and constitutional law

I have had no correspondence with Hanna since he left Canada.

It is "dirty" if that person continues to leech upon the rest of society, using services that my tax dollars pay for. As I said, if you don't like it, then get out. At least Hanna did, although it appears he's back.

Lots of countries would loooooooooooooooooooooooove to have you, I'm sure.

[ria_rokz]

The bigger question is: Why are you here? You are obviously happy with your slave chains firmly attached to your ankles. If you have read all the posts of ALL the other posters on this thread, you will see that they have judged, to a man or woman, that Eldon Warman is a 'Nut Job' and his website is a thing of great comedial content.

Actually, as someone who has read through the entire thread fairly recently (yesterday), I find Eldon Warman to be someone who:
*avoids questions that he cannot answer
*defines words to suit his purposes
*resorts to name-calling when proven wrong
*has some pretty bizarre beliefs when it comes to history
*encourages others to be sponges in their society

These do not all necessarily add up to "nut job".

[ria_rokz]

Well, from my perspective, there is not going to be such an apocalyptic event, but it surely looks like this round of fiat currency is going to blow away with the wind. A Russian acquaintance tells me that he and his family would have had a desperate time living in Russia/USSR after the fiat Ruble collapsed if his grandfather had not had a stash of gold coins. His share got him and his family (children and parents) to Canada. And, most farmers would sell vegetables (especially the Huttarites) for gold, regardless the circumstance of the economy.

I like your grand generalizations, and now you've brought Hutterites into it. How do you know this? Have you asked them, "In the case of an economical meltdown, would you take gold for your vegetables even if gold is worthless?" Are you just speculating? And even so, why does it matter what the Hutterites would do? My perspective based on the Hutterite colonies up here is that they are much smarter than that, and would trade their vegetables for things that they could actually use to support their families. That is, if they had enough to spare.

My father is a farmer, and I have grown up in a community of farmers, and there is noooo way they would sell their grain or beef for gold if gold was worthless. They have families to feed too.

[Blue Mountain]

Aww, Eldon got suspended again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189563), this time for a month.

Although I must say he did much better than expected this time around. I said he'd be suspended within three days, and he lasted 13 (October 11 to 24th).

[ria_rokz]

Aww, Eldon got suspended again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189563), this time for a month.

Although I must say he did much better than expected this time around. I said he'd be suspended within three days, and he lasted 13 (October 11 to 24th).

I just noticed that he got suspended. And I just got going on the thread too! Oh well, I have enough homework over the next month that I don't need to be wrapped up in a debate like this. I actually spent a weeeee bit too much time on the forum this weekend... heh heh.

[LightinDarkness]

Even though Eldon has been suspended (again), can we get an update on his tax dodging method - it appeared all he was doing was simply filing a fraudulent return claiming he owed no taxes or an amount under what could be taxed, then declaring victory when he didn't pay taxes.

For those of us operating in reality, all this means is that he lied to the revenue collection agency: he may indeed get away with it depending on how much his real income is, since tax collectors tend to go after the big fish in the pond first.

So instead of "lawfully not paying taxes he doesn't owe" hes really just "telling a lie on my tax forms and hoping I don't make enough to get audited or draw attention."

[Hans]

Spain uses the Euro - totally fiat.

The only thing that could inflate prices in a metal based economy is a scarcity of some specific goods, causing an auction effect.

Nope, if you have any knowledge of metal based currency you would know what I was referring to. I was speaking of the effect on Spain on bringing in tons of gold and silver from their colonies in the new world.

With disasterous results. You might want to read about reality.That is if you ever come back from you suspension.

[Horatius]

Even though Eldon has been suspended (again), can we get an update on his tax dodging method - it appeared all he was doing was simply filing a fraudulent return claiming he owed no taxes or an amount under what could be taxed, then declaring victory when he didn't pay taxes.

For those of us operating in reality, all this means is that he lied to the revenue collection agency: he may indeed get away with it depending on how much his real income is, since tax collectors tend to go after the big fish in the pond first.

So instead of "lawfully not paying taxes he doesn't owe" hes really just "telling a lie on my tax forms and hoping I don't make enough to get audited or draw attention."



I think this exchange sums it up:



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} )

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

[twinstead]

If you are so readily convince by fallacy, then, I suppose that is your choice. Have you checked out where those 'brilliant economists' went to school and learned their fantasies?

I'm be more concerned about where you went to school and learned your fantasies, so I can warn people away from it.

[ArmillarySphere]

Nope, if you have any knowledge of metal based currency you would know what I was referring to. I was speaking of the effect on Spain on bringing in tons of gold and silver from their colonies in the new world.

Indeed. They pretty much vanished as a force to be reckoned with for a couple of hundred years after that.

[ria_rokz]

Even though Eldon has been suspended (again), can we get an update on his tax dodging method - it appeared all he was doing was simply filing a fraudulent return claiming he owed no taxes or an amount under what could be taxed, then declaring victory when he didn't pay taxes.

For those of us operating in reality, all this means is that he lied to the revenue collection agency: he may indeed get away with it depending on how much his real income is, since tax collectors tend to go after the big fish in the pond first.

So instead of "lawfully not paying taxes he doesn't owe" hes really just "telling a lie on my tax forms and hoping I don't make enough to get audited or draw attention."

Yes, I think so. It merely comes down to lying about your income.

It also appears that his "strawman" theory his just a load of fluff that he uses to fill people's heads with. He even implied that he had been in contact with Hanna prior to his leaving Canada, so there must have been some coaching going on there. Anyone who has tried it up to this point has been laughed out of court. At least, when I was trying to find the affidavit for the Hanna case it was this big joke all over the internet in 2006 and posted on weird news sites and attributed to foolish people.

[Hans]

I saw an excellent PHd thesis that pointed out that to date the Spanish have not recovered from the disaster of receiving tons of gold and silver and spending it - oddly enough much of the money flowed into the pockets of the English, Dutch and French - who used it to create their own colonial empires and beat the 'stuff' out of the Spaniards. The inflation of that period was well over 300%. In a brief search I couldn't find a good graph of the inflation from the 1540 to today - any finance people have that?

[ria_rokz]

This may not be the best place to discuss this but the detaxcanada website has this at the top:

We are anticipating the soon appearance of the
100th MONKEY who uses the Detax Canada method
of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing Return of Income.
Will 'YOU' be the 100th Monkey ?

http://www.detaxcanada.org

When you mouseover 100th Monkey, it links to this site Hundredth Monkey (http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm) but that's not the origin of the hundredth monkey story, although apparently this Keyes fellow believed in it.

I was reading a book on skepticism lately that talks about the 100th monkey and only by reading the theory behind it, I was pretty sure it was hogwash. Upon further exploration, I find that it is attributed to Rupert Sheldrake, a fellow who seems to be a biologist but prefers metaphysics to science (http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html). It is just as a suspected, hogwash.

The other flaw with Warman's argument re: the hundredth monkey is that even if the phenomenon is real, we can be nowhere near the hundredth one... there is only one monkey, and it's a questionable one at that.

[drkitten]

Actually, as someone who has read through the entire thread fairly recently (yesterday), I find Eldon Warman to be someone who:
*avoids questions that he cannot answer
*defines words to suit his purposes
*resorts to name-calling when proven wrong
*has some pretty bizarre beliefs when it comes to history
*encourages others to be sponges in their society

These do not all necessarily add up to "nut job".

I thought that "has some pretty bizarre beliefs" was pretty much the definition of "nut job."

To be fair, you should also recognize that he has some pretty bizarre beliefs when it comes to politics and law, too.

[arayder]

Yes, I think so. It merely comes down to lying about your income.

It also appears that his "strawman" theory his just a load of fluff that he uses to fill people's heads with. He even implied that he had been in contact with Hanna prior to his leaving Canada, so there must have been some coaching going on there. Anyone who has tried it up to this point has been laughed out of court. At least, when I was trying to find the affidavit for the Hanna case it was this big joke all over the internet in 2006 and posted on weird news sites and attributed to foolish people.

If one can hide one’s income one might make it work. If all you are getting is cash in hand and you don’t live too large I suppose you can fly under the taxman’s radar. But Eldon doesn’t seem to have and answer for, or even care about, folks whose employers report their income.

A few years ago a guy named Brian Lockheart got on the now defunct guest book at Warman’s website and begged for help after he used Warman’s old “constructive notice” method and as prescribed he notified the agency that his income was not theirs to tax. It seems the CRA caught on when his employer’s reported his income and Lockheart was reassessed.

Warman called him a fool who had not used his method correctly and eased the message so the failure of his method won’t have any tracks.

At his website he now has some mumbo jumbo about getting around the problem, but it makes even less sense that his usual stuff.

[ria_rokz]

I thought that "has some pretty bizarre beliefs" was pretty much the definition of "nut job."

To be fair, you should also recognize that he has some pretty bizarre beliefs when it comes to politics and law, too.

Ah, fair enough. Also when it comes to linguistics! I just didn't want him to put words in my mouth - I seriously didn't consider him to be a "nut job".

I suppose I was trying to respect people with mental illnesses. I know people who fit all of the criteria I described, and yet are not actually mentally ill. They are just selfish and lack good critical thinking skills. My father-in-law comes to mind (he's a 9/11 CTist because he watched a video about how it was a controlled demolition and suddenly he's a demolition expert).

[ria_rokz]

If one can hide one’s income one might make it work. If all you are getting is cash in hand and you don’t live too large I suppose you can fly under the taxman’s radar. But Eldon doesn’t seem to have and answer for, or even care about, folks whose employers report their income.

As far as I know, Hanna was self-employed. Plus, he lived in the Yukon, so how much further under the radar can you get!

[ria_rokz]

Of course, he probably made some other rookie mistake that we are unaware of.

[D'rok]

I just noticed that he got suspended. And I just got going on the thread too! Oh well, I have enough homework over the next month that I don't need to be wrapped up in a debate like this. I actually spent a weeeee bit too much time on the forum this weekend... heh heh.Way to push Eldon over the edge, new kid!

:p

[ria_rokz]

Way to push Eldon over the edge, new kid!

:p

lol Wow, I'm the new kid! Yeah, he was pretty mean to me, I must have found a button (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=9644). I know it says not to push it but I just couldn't help myself.

[arayder]

The thought process used by our subject to agree to the rules of this forum and then disregard them is the same mental gymnastics used to rationalize the enjoyment of services paid for by tax money without ever paying one’s own taxes.

Our subject also tells us that because money isn’t real it’s perfectly all right to run out on a loan and steal donuts off the shelf at Tim Horton’s!

The real self-developed rule applied by our subject is that he is not required to honor any law or commonly accepted code of behavior that inconveniences him.

[D'rok]

That seems to be a common trait of all detax/freeman-on-the-land/sovereign citizen types.

[twinstead]

I still wish to formally ask the mods to change the thread title to Detox Canada

:boxedin:

[blobru]

Detached Banana

[D'rok]

Beeswax Bandanna.

[blobru]

La Vida Loca

[twinstead]

I LOVED that song, Livin' the Beeswax Bandanna

[blobru]

Throw your T4s out
Livin la vida loca
The Pope is a kraut
Livin la vida loca
Hundredth monkey tote?
Livin la vida loca
Detax and redoubt
Livin la vida loca / Wearing beeswax bandannas / Here at Detax Canada / Livin la vida locaaa!!!

:Banane09:

[D'rok]

Throw your T4s out
Livin la vida loca
The Pope is a kraut
Livin la vida loca
Hundredth monkey tote
Livin la vida loca
Detax and redoubt
Livin la vida loca / Wearing beeswax bandannas / Here at Detax Canada / Livin la vida locaaa!!!

:Banane09:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a1500730.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6323)

[blobru]

:shy: All [accumulated tax] credit to our absent muse. :pixie2

[catsmate1]

Good Lord what is on that page it got blocked by the Kingdom of Brahain server!
Ahhhhhhhhhh. They're onto you.:D

[catsmate1]

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?
Slightly off topic. What is it with dentists and conspiracy theories? There seems to be a higher than expected number of dentists buying into varios types of nonsense. Sniffing the nitrous?


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.
:blush: Not that I've done much myself.

[catsmate1]

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.
Persecution delusions again.

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.
Usual anti-semitic rubbish, but extra points for bringing the HRE into your little fantasy.

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'.
You really should read the Magna Carta sometime.

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.
Responding to exposure of ignorance with abuse.


The only thing that could inflate prices in a metal based economy is a scarcity of some specific goods, causing an auction effect. The hoarding of gold by the Vatican's banksters caused the 1929 depression, as previous depressions in the late 1800s. It was a contrived shortage of gold that caused the depression, and not a result of the free market. When there is a shortage of some product, and the price in metal money goes up, increased production of the product then brings the price back in line with production costs and a reasonable profit for the manufacturer.
You do know this is nonsense don't you? This was shown to be a lie at least two years ago.

[catsmate1]

Actually, as someone who has read through the entire thread fairly recently (yesterday), I find Eldon Warman to be someone who:
*avoids questions that he cannot answer
*defines words to suit his purposes
*resorts to name-calling when proven wrong
*has some pretty bizarre beliefs when it comes to history
*encourages others to be sponges in their society

These do not all necessarily add up to "nut job".
I don't know they meet my criteria for nut job. Especially when you add his demonstrated anti-semitism, defense of holocaust deniers and involvement in a gold scam.

[catsmate1]

This may not be the best place to discuss this but the detaxcanada website has this at the top:

http://www.detaxcanada.org

When you mouseover 100th Monkey, it links to this site Hundredth Monkey (http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm) but that's not the origin of the hundredth monkey story, although apparently this Keyes fellow believed in it.

I was reading a book on skepticism lately that talks about the 100th monkey and only by reading the theory behind it, I was pretty sure it was hogwash. Upon further exploration, I find that it is attributed to Rupert Sheldrake, a fellow who seems to be a biologist but prefers metaphysics to science (http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html). It is just as a suspected, hogwash.

The other flaw with Warman's argument re: the hundredth monkey is that even if the phenomenon is real, we can be nowhere near the hundredth one... there is only one monkey, and it's a questionable one at that.
Yes the hundredth monkey effect is nonsense, at least in the sense of a instantaneous, paranormal spreading of an idea throughout a group when s certain threshold portion of the group have heard of the idea.

[catsmate1]

Aww, Eldon got suspended again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189563), this time for a month.

Although I must say he did much better than expected this time around. I said he'd be suspended within three days, and he lasted 13 (October 11 to 24th).
So he should be back on 26NOV2010, will he last 'till xmas?

[ria_rokz]

Slightly off topic. What is it with dentists and conspiracy theories? There seems to be a higher than expected number of dentists buying into varios types of nonsense. Sniffing the nitrous?



LOL Well as far as I know, horse dentists don't use nitrous on account of the difficulty attaching a mask to the horse's face, and inherent difficulty in dealing with a laughing horse. ;) They're also significantly less educated than people dentists.

[arayder]

More news on our boy:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=de1c18e2-11a7-4620-a416-f5391b95f0eb

[JLord]

More news on our boy:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=de1c18e2-11a7-4620-a416-f5391b95f0eb

Interesting. If I were running a scam mining operation and had to convince people that we shouldn't independantly examine the mine because doing so would allow a zionist conspiracy to take over the mine, I couldn't think of a better person to be involved than Eldon Warman.

[catsmate1]

More news on our boy:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=de1c18e2-11a7-4620-a416-f5391b95f0eb
That particular scam is coming apart http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Promoter+death+leaves+Cranbrook+gold+mine+million+ limbo/3366014/story.html

[blobru]

More news on our boy:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=de1c18e2-11a7-4620-a416-f5391b95f0eb


G willikers, batman! (another verse, perhaps?):

Gallowai Bul gold
Livin la vida loca
Our tour guide's been paroled?
Smells like a pig in a poka
Jesus has foretold
Where there's hellfire there's smoka
Thousands of shares sold
Everyone's gonna go broka
Wish I'd invested in Coca
Dancin the beer barrel polka
Livin la vida locaaa!!!

:Banane09: :Banane18:

[arayder]

If you go to Warman's website you can see that he is advising visitors who come from this forum to disregard the posts refuting him here.

I guess we made an impression on the old boy. He rarely uses his web site to cover his rear after he gets it kicked.

Lately our subject has been looking for friendlier confines and is hanging out here: http://freemenofaustralia.ning.com/forum/topics/the-great-fire-of-london-1666?xg_source=activity

[Captain_Swoop]

I saw an excellent PHd thesis that pointed out that to date the Spanish have not recovered from the disaster of receiving tons of gold and silver and spending it - oddly enough much of the money flowed into the pockets of the English, Dutch and French - who used it to create their own colonial empires and beat the 'stuff' out of the Spaniards. The inflation of that period was well over 300%. In a brief search I couldn't find a good graph of the inflation from the 1540 to today - any finance people have that?

BBC Radio4 have been running a series in conjunction with the British Museum. 'History of the World in a Hundred Objects'
One prog about each object. One of them was a 'Piece of Eight' made from Aztek Silver. It went into the 'Spanish Inflation' and how it bankrupt the Empire.

[Tolls]

I saw an excellent PHd thesis that pointed out that to date the Spanish have not recovered from the disaster of receiving tons of gold and silver and spending it - oddly enough much of the money flowed into the pockets of the English, Dutch and French - who used it to create their own colonial empires and beat the 'stuff' out of the Spaniards. The inflation of that period was well over 300%. In a brief search I couldn't find a good graph of the inflation from the 1540 to today - any finance people have that?

Fernand Braudel's big 3 volume work (Civilisation and Capitalism), covering the 15th through 18th centuries, has several graphs in it, showing the effects of inflation. Sadly they're in the roof, but it might give you something to Google for.

[EldonG]

All Acts, statutes, laws, rules and regulations from any level of Government apply ONLY to 'persons'. You have seen a lot of poo-pooing by the participants on this thread against any interpretation of the term 'person' other than it being a synonym for someone of the human species, and without regard to status of the man or woman involved.

Well, here is an interesting court cite from a British Columbia court case (Appeal Court, I believe):

"In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application.

Where an artificial 'person' is "subject to legal rights and duties", a 'natural person' is a man with the capacity for rights and duties, a fundamental distinction of great importance.

Capacity = the power to effect legal relations, or the power of choice, and that power of course being in YOU. Succinctly put, you have the power to decide to accept rights and duties of the ITA (or any other legislated statute) or not. Once you do accept, then you are bound by them, until you cancel them. Any claim against you that you cannot cancel when you find evidence that such a claim is fraudulent or not fully disclosed as to the authority or the right of the claimant, then becomes a declaration of the imposition of slave status upon you, or, a denial of contractual rights. It is also a fundamental breach of the Coronation Oath of the Queen.

My note: In my www.detaxcanada.org detax program, I have refrained from the practice of referring to oneself as a 'natural person', because it still causes the imposition of the relationship to the corporate structure of government, as either a subject member of the corporation or an owned slave of that corporate structure, and thus, leaving you without rights, including the right of 'due process of law.'

[bikerdruid]

eldon! where ya been?

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by EldonG

The only thing that could inflate prices in a metal based economy is a scarcity of some specific goods, causing an auction effect. The hoarding of gold by the Vatican's banksters caused the 1929 depression, as previous depressions in the late 1800s. It was a contrived shortage of gold that caused the depression, and not a result of the free market. When there is a shortage of some product, and the price in metal money goes up, increased production of the product then brings the price back in line with production costs and a reasonable profit for the manufacturer.

You do know this is nonsense don't you? This was shown to be a lie at least two years ago.

It was?? Please offer some proof? A link, maybe? Also, it would be enlightening to all to hear about your expertise on the matter, since you so harshly judged my views on the value of a metal based money system?

[EldonG]

eldon! where ya been?

Freezing my ass off in Calgary, and shoveling snow. So much for Global warming.

[EldonG]

That particular scam is coming apart http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Promoter+death+leaves+Cranbrook+gold+mine+million+ limbo/3366014/story.html

The view of the scammer depends on which side of the fence one stands.

Bye the way, now that Ireland has been sold out to the Banksters, and will be put under IMF 'conditionalities', are we going to see another 'potato famine' in Ireland and a horde of Irishmen paddling their dingys across the Atlantic to enjoy the largesse of the Canadian Government? You could even become a Newfie!

[EldonG]

Fernand Braudel's big 3 volume work (Civilisation and Capitalism), covering the 15th through 18th centuries, has several graphs in it, showing the effects of inflation. Sadly they're in the roof, but it might give you something to Google for.

Aren't you aware that there are: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[EldonG]

If you go to Warman's website you can see that he is advising visitors who come from this forum to disregard the posts refuting him here.

I guess we made an impression on the old boy. He rarely uses his web site to cover his rear after he gets it kicked.

Lately our subject has been looking for friendlier confines and is hanging out here: http://freemenofaustralia.ning.com/forum/topics/the-great-fire-of-london-1666?xg_source=activity

All the supposed 'ass kicking' you claim against me on the various forums you troll seeking me out hasn't hurt the response I get from my website by both Canadians, and Americans, as well as the many repeated hits from England, Australia and France. So, your supposed 'ass kicking' has been totally a wasted effort.

And, since I am not supporting or maintaining my website, and providing for those who request help and info as a commercial venture, all publicity that I get is 'GOOD Publicity'. I only seek out those smart enough to see through what you, (and the posters on this thread) are attempting to do in support of the enslavement program, and, extortion racket, and thus, understand that I am a target of attack 'for good reason' - that my program works. www.detaxcanada.org If my detax program is useless, I would get no attention. If my program was causing people to be further entrapped into the CRA and IRS extortion racket, then, I would get nothing but support on this, and other forum thread where you so rapidly find my posts, by your Megaphone alerting program.

[Hans]

So tell us then - what caused the inflation in Spain during that time if it wasn't the large amounts of gold and silver coming from the Americas...do tell

[Tolls]

Aren't you aware that there are: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Hey, if you're going to ignore the work of one of the great historians of the last century and choose to remain ignorant of the history of capitalism then that's your choice...but don't expect us to take you seriously.

[D'rok]

All Acts, statutes, laws, rules and regulations from any level of Government apply ONLY to 'persons'. You have seen a lot of poo-pooing by the participants on this thread against any interpretation of the term 'person' other than it being a synonym for someone of the human species, and without regard to status of the man or woman involved.

Well, here is an interesting court cite from a British Columbia court case (Appeal Court, I believe):

"In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)
Sigh. The case is from the BC Supreme Court (which is the BC trial court), not the Court of Appeal. The issue to which the passage refers is whether or not the defendants were properly served. The defendants, (the union and two of its locals), tried to argue misjoinder and that they were not persons capable of being sued:

"...[t]he respective defendants are organizations of workers and not an entity or person of any kind which can be sued in the name of the organization"

The court found that the parent union was not a jurisitic person, but that the two locals were:

"...t has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23DLR%23sel2%254%25year%251947%25p age%25159%25sel1%251947%25vol%254%25&risb=21_T10702818156&bct=A&service=citation&A=0.5022809659231001), that trade unions certified as bargaining agents under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic persons. The two remaining defendants are such...The Legislature has created a new type of juristic person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is good service."

On appeal, the BCCA found that the law had been misapplied and that both the parent union and the locals were juristic persons and were capable of being sued:

"The matter of the status of a union as a legal entity, either at large or limited in purpose, depends upon the recognition and definition by the Legislature of its capacity...I therefore hold that the international union is created a persona juridica by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1947, for the purpose of implementing that Act and for causes of action that may possibly be founded directly upon its provisions or a breach thereof."

In short, [I]the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.

As usual, you get it completely wrong. All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

My note: In my www.detaxcanada.org (http://www.detaxcanada.org) detax program, I have refrained from the practice of referring to oneself as a 'natural person', because it still causes the imposition of the relationship to the corporate structure of government, as either a subject member of the corporation or an owned slave of that corporate structure, and thus, leaving you without rights, including the right of 'due process of law.'You can call yourself whatever you want, but you are still a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. As has been proven over and over with multiple citations to multiple cases, all of which are directly on point and all of which are more recent than 1948.

(Both cases cited above are attached)

[Horatius]

In short, the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.




I think this bit needs to be highlighted. Once again, EldonG is engaging in equivocation - the judge was discussing the definition of "juristic persons", not the more general term "persons".

This is one of the loopholes that fraudsters like to use - court decisions like this usually only discuss the very narrow circumstances of the case that is before them. The judge had no intention of discussing the more general definition of "person", and had no reason to suppose that 60 years later, someone would be mis-quoting him to support an absurd position like "human beings aren't persons".



And in a more general sense, I'd like to highlight a passage from later in the paragraph EldonG quoted:

16 As to this argument, it has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry
Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159, that trade unions certified as bargaining agents
under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic
persons. The two remaining defendants are such. It has also been there held that they can be served
as such. The substantial question is then only as to the method to be followed in serving them. In
common speech "person" is generally used as meaning a human being but the technical legal
meaning of a "person," as is evident from the reasoning of that judgment is a subject of legal rights
and duties. The usual form of juristic person, at common law, was a corporation, i.e., corporations
aggregate or sole. Before the provisions now contained in our Rules were adopted, at common law,
the method of serving a writ on a corporation aggregate was to serve it on a proper officer so that it
came to the knowledge of the corporation. The object of service was to bring the writ to the notice
of the corporation. The provisions contained in our Rules (e.g. Rule Marginal No. 55, O. IX, rr. 8
and 8A) are, I think, supplemental to and not in derogation of the methods of service available at
common law. While these Rules do not provide for service on juristic persons, and while in fact the
Rules make no such provision, O. 71, r. 2 does provide that in cases not provided for by the Rules
the practice shall, as far as may be, be regulated by analogy thereto. One recalls the words of the
late Chief Justice Hunter in Bell v. Wood & Anderson, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 827 at p. 829, 38 B.C.R. 310
at p. 311, "that the Court has a discretion to make any order about a matter of procedure, which it
considers the circumstances require, when the rules are silent on the subject... The rules are made to
promote justice and not to impede it or to render the Court powerless to prevent injustice and it
would of course be impossible for any set of rules, however elaborate, to cover every conceivable
case". Here we are dealing with a new situation. The Legislature has created a new type of juristic
person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons
known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most
effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is
good service.


One of the common complaints that people like EldonG make is that the law doesn't define every single piddly little option that they wish to weasel around with. But everybody else recognizes that it is impossible for the law to specify every single possibility that might ever occur - and so we empower judges to make - get this! - judgements in those cases that are not explicitly enumerated.

[Captain_Swoop]

Don't worry there will be plenty of gold for all when the Iranians start to flood the market with their radioactive gold to bust the Zionist Bankers...

Oops sorry, wrong woo in the wrong woo thread.

They are all so mad it gets confusing sometimes.

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?

I like a Zionist banker conspiracy but then, I also like a Vatican banker conspiracy, which one is best?

Only one way to find out ...

Fight?

[Horatius]

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?




No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6281129#post6281129) who just pretend (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6285979#post6285979) to be every other religion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6357848#post6357848) since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.



Or something.

[TjW]

No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6281129#post6281129) who just pretend (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6285979#post6285979) to be every other religion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6357848#post6357848) since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.



Or something.

Then let us bow and worship Isis
She helps us in a crisis
And she's never raised her prices
So she's good enough for me.

[EldonG]

So tell us then - what caused the inflation in Spain during that time if it wasn't the large amounts of gold and silver coming from the Americas...do tell

I suppose the answer would lie in economics, where, at the time, Spain wasn't exactly a powerhouse of technology or industrial output, and many of the industrial and medical uses of gold didn't make a basis of value support for gold. Thus, the rule of too much money available for too few goods. But, that has all changed in this modern world , where there is a myriad of valuable uses of gold beyond the making of jewelery.

But, as can be seen by what the US FED is now doing - flooding the world with computer numbers or some paper with numbers on it. This is primarily a tax where the savings of the earlier generation get watered down like cheap soup, and the labor expended by that generation to get those fiat dollars goes into nothingness like steam from a vented boiler. I remember in the 1950's a retired man with $100,000 in the bank was very adequate to give him a decent style of living for the remainder of his life without a Government pension. Now, that will little more than purchase a car that does very little more than a 54 Chevvy that cost maybe $1500.00 new.

Other than an anomaly that was Spain in their plundering the gold of the Amerinds, creating a surplus of gold and silver, in most cases, such as America, the gold based money system was very stable in purchasing power during its entire period of usage, except when the Rothschild and associated banksters were able to hoard the supply and then refuse to print the IOUs that make the currency in such a metal based system - the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s.

The fiat money system is strictly a tool to control the population, who have been converted into plantation slaves, under the policy of the Pontiff's Holy Roman Empire. If you don't learn from the mistakes and evil schemes of history that has been imposed upon mankind, then, you are doomed to repeat it - is sound wisdom.

[EldonG]

Sigh. The case is from the BC Supreme Court (which is the BC trial court), not the Court of Appeal. The issue to which the passage refers is whether or not the defendants were properly served. The defendants, (the union and two of its locals), tried to argue misjoinder and that they were not persons capable of being sued:

"...[t]he respective defendants are organizations of workers and not an entity or person of any kind which can be sued in the name of the organization"

The court found that the parent union was not a jurisitic person, but that the two locals were:

"...t has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23DLR%23sel2%254%25year%251947%25p age%25159%25sel1%251947%25vol%254%25&risb=21_T10702818156&bct=A&service=citation&A=0.5022809659231001), that trade unions certified as bargaining agents under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic persons. The two remaining defendants are such...The Legislature has created a new type of juristic person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is good service."

On appeal, the BCCA found that the law had been misapplied and that both the parent union and the locals were juristic persons and were capable of being sued:

"The matter of the status of a union as a legal entity, either at large or limited in purpose, depends upon the recognition and definition by the Legislature of its capacity...I therefore hold that the international union is created a persona juridica by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1947, for the purpose of implementing that Act and for causes of action that may possibly be founded directly upon its provisions or a breach thereof."

In short, [I]the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.

As usual, you get it completely wrong. All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

Obviously, you are 'cherry picking' from my post, of only that which supports your opinion on the matter.

""In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application."

By reading the parts that concern a human who is claimed by Government to be a 'taxpayer' , that claim is made upon 'legal' procedure of legislative enacted LAW, and does not use 'common or colloquial usage of terms' as invariably, such common usage is vague, at best.

Now, lets see you find in any Act, Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation the definition of 'person wherein a man (male or female) is specifically named. Individual what? They want us to assume they mean man or woman by using 'individual', but they never say so anywhere. What is Government's 'distinct meaning' of the term person in their 'LAW' system?

You can call yourself whatever you want, but you are still a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. As has been proven over and over with multiple citations to multiple cases, all of which are directly on point and all of which are more recent than 1948.

(Both cases cited above are attached)

If so, where in the Income Tax Act is that stated. Section 248 certainly doesn't define a man or woman of free will status as being a 'person' subject to the income tax.

I know you would like to impress readers that 'it is in there somewhere', but, it seems strange that with many people using my $0.00 tax owing filing method, or not filing at all based upon Section 150 where it says 'no return is required if no tax is owed', (US Title 26 says the same thing), there has not been one man or woman that I have heard of who have been summoned to court for failing to file or filing a frivolous return, although CRA has been trying other extortion methods on a few, they have been futile, unless they could convince others to violate their trust - an act which the violated party could use serious force for remedy, as there is no recourse through the corporate justice system to enforce trust laws within their CCC Statute. Many of those who commit breach of trust are fortunate that Canadians are more docile than many of the people of this world. I guess a diet of fluoride and MSG will do that to people. And, isn't that what those additives are all about?

[EldonG]

I think this bit needs to be highlighted. Once again, EldonG is engaging in equivocation - the judge was discussing the definition of "juristic persons", not the more general term "persons".

This is one of the loopholes that fraudsters like to use - court decisions like this usually only discuss the very narrow circumstances of the case that is before them. The judge had no intention of discussing the more general definition of "person", and had no reason to suppose that 60 years later, someone would be mis-quoting him to support an absurd position like "human beings aren't persons".

'Human Beings' (not logically defined in any law dictionary) may be 'commonly' referred to as 'persons', but why is that used, when it originally meant a 'fictional role'. What is there about men and women that is fictional so as to apply a term that means 'fictional role'? And, in statutory law, there is no other applicably stated subject party in any statute that is other than 'person'. If it has at least 4 exclusive meanings, as stated by Dowdall J. KC (King's Council), then why does Government (Men in council) created Statutes not define which meaning of the term is to be construed in its usage? It would seem a simple and problem saving solution to what now is completely vague, except, of course, to those who wish to see and to maintain mankind in the status of subject/slavery to Government.

And in a more general sense, I'd like to highlight a passage from later in the paragraph EldonG quoted:

One of the common complaints that people like EldonG make is that the law doesn't define every single piddly little option that they wish to weasel around with. But everybody else recognizes that it is impossible for the law to specify every single possibility that might ever occur - and so we empower judges to make - get this! - judgements in those cases that are not explicitly enumerated.

It seems strange that Government is created and manned by men, who obviously wish to apply their statutes to men, that they would consider it 'piddly' to mention 'men and women' in their supposed LAW which are in the form of corporate statutes, rather than use a vague term that means, and is derived from a Latin term meaning a 'fictional role' (persona). If men and women are not important enough to warrant a direct recognition, why are men and women the main participants in a courthouse? I haven't seen a corporation walk into a courthouse yet. I would say that your reasoning leaves much to be desired.

[EldonG]

Don't worry there will be plenty of gold for all when the Iranians start to flood the market with their radioactive gold to bust the Zionist Bankers...

Oops sorry, wrong woo in the wrong woo thread.

They are all so mad it gets confusing sometimes.

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?

I like a Zionist banker conspiracy but then, I also like a Vatican banker conspiracy, which one is best?

Only one way to find out ...

Fight?

You obviously are not a student of history. ZIONISM is the name of the Philosophy of the Ancient Chaldean/Sumarian Elitists who have ruled the Middle East and North Africa, and surrounds of the Mediterranean Sea as king /priests for some 13 millennia. The other spellings are Ion and Sion.

This King/Priesthood ruled Egypt for some 8,500 years before abandoning Egypt and migrating back to the Chaldean homeland and establishing Babylon around 1500 BC. There they ruled the world of commerce for about 1,000 years, until driven out by a Persian King around 500 BC. The King/Priests established a headquarters in what is now Turkey for some 200 years, before moving on to the Hill of Sacrifice (Vatican), and established Rome. The elitist republic they established there reverted to full dictatorship in 69 BC as the Roman Empire. The religion, used to keep slaves in line by superstition and fear, was called Mithraism, lasted until the Emperor Constantine ordered the King/Priests (Cardinals - meaning the primary ones) to accept Christianity around 350 AD. The Roman Empire died out as a result of the loss of all their gold to the banksters of the Lavant, around 500 AD, and the King/Priest and Bishop of Rome assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) and re-established the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire, and used the Christian Church as the facade to hide the real secular nature of the King/Priests Empire in Europe and America.

The Judeans, the mixed race of Hebrew and Arabic people living in what is now Israel were taken captive by the King/Priests in 580 BC for a 40 year period, and re-introduced to the Chaldean Philosophy of Zionism. The common peoples' language of Palestine at the turn of the millennium was Aramaic, and not Hebrew, and was a colloquial form of the Chaldean language.

The scheme of corporatism/fascism comes from the King/Priests, as they made all human institutions into make-believe ships, called incorporated bodies, with administration systems totally resembling that of a ship at sea. This scheme makes the corporation the primary body, and the humankind become subservient body parts of the corporate body and subject to the CEO. However, in the fascist system of tiered corporations, the CEO of one corporation is subservient to the CEO of the superior corporation. This goes all the way up to the top corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire, where the Pontiff is CEO. Now, you can see why, when a new Pope is Crowned with the triple tiara crown, signifying 'King of Heaven, Earth and Purgatory/Hell' that this statement is made: "You are Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World and Vicar of Jesus Christ the Savior."

Although those calling themselves Jews, a term invented in the 17th century AD, with many calling themselves Zionists, they gained that philosophical ideology from the Priest/Kings of Babylon, where their holy scripture, the Talmud was begun to be written. And, they have become a veil and a scapegoat for the Vatican when the light of truth shines upon the Vatican. When any anti-Vatican info comes to light, watch the anti-Jew rhetoric cranked up by those of Jesuit or Knight of Malta affiliations and loyalties.

[EldonG]

No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6281129#post6281129) who just pretend (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6285979#post6285979) to be every other religion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6357848#post6357848) since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.
Or something.

If you don't know, or haven't learned any history, why do you think you have to add your comment to this thread? There is certainly no substance to your comments. I am not talking or writing about religion, but about secular/worldly control. If you think the Vatican is all about religion, then you haven't been paying attention, nor have you done any research based upon the clues I have posted on this thread. If that is the way you think, then that is your prerogative, but then, why don't you migrate to a thread discussing religion.

[Stacey Grove]

It seems strange that Government is created and manned by men, who obviously wish to apply their statutes to men, that they would consider it 'piddly' to mention 'men and women' in their supposed LAW which are in the form of corporate statutes, rather than use a vague term that means, and is derived from a Latin term meaning a 'fictional role' (persona).

What is your belief, EldonG?
Do you believe these laws that are made by men are constructed deliberately to exclude men and women? If so why?
Or do you believe it is just an oversight by the law makers?

[D'rok]

Obviously, you are 'cherry picking' from my post, of only that which supports your opinion on the matter.

""In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application."

By reading the parts that concern a human who is claimed by Government to be a 'taxpayer' , that claim is made upon 'legal' procedure of legislative enacted LAW, and does not use 'common or colloquial usage of terms' as invariably, such common usage is vague, at best.

Now, lets see you find in any Act, Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation the definition of 'person wherein a man (male or female) is specifically named. Individual what? They want us to assume they mean man or woman by using 'individual', but they never say so anywhere. What is Government's 'distinct meaning' of the term person in their 'LAW' system?



If so, where in the Income Tax Act is that stated. Section 248 certainly doesn't define a man or woman of free will status as being a 'person' subject to the income tax.

I know you would like to impress readers that 'it is in there somewhere', but, it seems strange that with many people using my $0.00 tax owing filing method, or not filing at all based upon Section 150 where it says 'no return is required if no tax is owed', (US Title 26 says the same thing), there has not been one man or woman that I have heard of who have been summoned to court for failing to file or filing a frivolous return, although CRA has been trying other extortion methods on a few, they have been futile, unless they could convince others to violate their trust - an act which the violated party could use serious force for remedy, as there is no recourse through the corporate justice system to enforce trust laws within their CCC Statute. Many of those who commit breach of trust are fortunate that Canadians are more docile than many of the people of this world. I guess a diet of fluoride and MSG will do that to people. And, isn't that what those additives are all about?Let's see...

"I have no great doubt myself, for instance, that the word "person" may very well include both a natural person, a human being, and an artificial person, a corporation."
The Pharmaceutical Society v. The London and Provincial Supply Association Ltd. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 857 (H.L.),"Who is a "person" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act? ... The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) gives as the primary meaning of the word "an individual human being"...Dictionaries are a recognized aid to the court in determining the ordinary meaning or common or popular sense of a word used in a statute...

These definitions taken from dictionaries including dictionaries of legal terms are uniform and clear. A "person" in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. The primary sense of the word is a natural person; the secondary sense, an artificial person such as a corporation.

I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that in its ordinary meaning and in its common or popular sense, the word "person" in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations.

I am also driven to the conclusion that there is nothing in the context of the Income Tax Act, or in the authorities to which Mr. Lindsay has referred me, that would support the interpretation that in the Income Tax Act, Parliament intended the word "person" to be used in the narrower sense of comprising only corporations or other artificial persons. "
Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency [2000] O.J. No. 3313"I am bound to decide, but would in any event decide, that the defendant is a "person" and a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act."
R v. Dick 2003 BCPC 0013"[T]he ordinary meaning of “person” is a natural person (including, I would have thought, a “free will, full liability flesh and blood living man”) and that the purpose of statutory definition is to extend the meaning to include other specified legal entities as well. Mr. Lindsay’s position that he is not a “person” for purposes of the Income Tax Act is simply not tenable.”
R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 146 "[A] natural person, acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit, is directly included within the definition of the word “person” at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

The term “natural person” is but a term, among others, that is descriptive of a tangible reality, described in a more tangible fashion by the term “human being”. The Dictionary of Canadian Law[3] defines the term “natural person” with nothing more than the words “a human being”. Indeed, nothing more is required to adequately define the notion. As accurately characterised by Justice Dysart in Hague, a person can be either natural or legal. When a person is natural, it is a human being. Therefore, every human being is a natural person.

When one uses simply the term “person”, one necessarily includes the notion of the human being, as it is the very essence of the reality represented by this term. This explains why, in the Act, subsection 248(1) does not specifically mention the term “human being” in its definition of the term “person”.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, [2009] 3 C.T.C. 65 "[T]he Kions deliberately chose to embrace the ‘natural person’ argument, honed their knowledge of it and put theory into practice. They steadfastly pursued that path notwithstanding the Minister’s timely explanation of the dangers of relying on questionable tax advice and of their obligations under the legislation. They blatantly continued their partnership operations as before, generating income on which, from past practice and experience, they well knew they were obligated to pay tax. They reported “zero” income in both taxation years; they provided false information to the Minister to cause the partnership to be deregistered for GST and made no returns. They deliberately kept no records of their income-generating activities and modified existing bank records to conform to ‘natural person’ theory. All of this was done, not out of indifference, but with the clear intention of not complying with what they knew to be the law.

In these circumstances, I am persuaded by the evidence that the Kions knowingly made false statements and omissions in their income tax returns filed under the Income Tax Act and in their returns under the Excise Tax Act; accordingly, the Minister was justified in levying gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act and section 285 of the Excise Tax Act."
Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447 (CanLII)"The bankrupt admitted to attending a seminar on the non-payment of income taxes but denied involvement in the “detax” movement. The bankrupt freely admits, however, his belief that he is a “natural person”. Like many of the bankrupt’s ilk he is prone to write nonsensical letters to the Minister’s representatives invoking the Magna Carta, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the reason for non-payment of income taxes. After carefully observing a number of these individuals over the last few years I can safely say that the “detax” movement attracts either the naive or opportunists searching for a faint thread of justification for their stand on the non-payment of taxes. I have no doubt that the bankrupt belongs to the latter group. He is too intelligent to considered naive. He willingly latched onto this excuse to enforce his predisposition toward non-payment of his tax obligations. I wish to reiterate that it is an excuse and not a rational reason."
Proteau, Re, 2006 SKQB 324 (CanLII), 24 C.B.R. (5th) 151"The final ground advanced by Mr. Lindsay, in support of the application, is that Mr. Galbraith is not a "tax payer" or "person" and accordingly, the Income Tax Act does not apply to him.

The first step to wisdom is getting things by their right names.

Mr. Lindsay advanced this same argument before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), [2000] O.J. No. 3313 on 20 July 2000. The argument was not accepted. I find the reasoning in Kennedy dispositively compelling. This is not a reasonably arguable ground."
R. v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII)Get a life, Eldon.

[Blue Mountain]

You obviously are not a student of history.

[snip]

When any anti-Vatican info comes to light, watch the anti-Jew rhetoric cranked up by those of Jesuit or Knight of Malta affiliations and loyalties.

I love alternate histories. Maybe next week Eldon can pontificate on how it was that two Hobbits saved the world by casting a ring into a volcano.

[EldonG]

What is your belief, EldonG?
Do you believe these laws that are made by men are constructed deliberately to exclude men and women? If so why?
Or do you believe it is just an oversight by the law makers?

No. Neither. I see it as a long time pre-conceived scheme to impose the status of slavery upon mankind. As the reasoning of the Boston lawyer, Lysander Spooner, said in his blogs in the 1870 period, there is no right for a group of men, regardless what they wish to call their group, or what title they wish to bestow upon themselves, to be able to strip other men of their right to life, liberty (freedom) and property by means of extortion, piracy or theft without the subject humankind allowing this voluntarily and with full knowledge. Did you ,or any of your ancestors ever get to vote for the creation and imposition of a corporate structure (body politic) that has the powers that law does not allow?

The common or natural law that encompasses the physical as well as the philosophical realms is totally adequate to govern a free will man on Planet Earth. "Do not unto others as you would others not do unto you."

You should go to this website, and read some of his works: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

[Captain_Swoop]

As you claim they have been trying to 'enslave' mankind for the last 4000 years or so I would say they aren't very good at it.

[EldonG]

Let's see...

Get a life, Eldon. The 'LIFE' I desire is one of 'free will status'. And, not one of slave status, subject to extortion, black robed thugs, and pigs (people in government service).

Your posted quotes are 'off topic', illogical and 'irrelevant'.

Of all your quoting expertise, you never once mentioned that the concerns of legitimate 'detaxers' being one of 'status' and not of 'specie' of creature. Mankind, or 'human being' (defined in one American law dictionary as 'A Monster' - a man with physical traits or parts of a lower animal') as you are wont to push, as a living creature, can have one of two status - free or (bond) slave.

None of your examples address that primary issue. In my posts, my question always is, "Where in any statute of any level of legislature is a man of free will status named or referred to. If imposition of licenses, obedience to obligations, or paying over the fruits of one's labour is in legislation (Acts, statutes, law, rules, regulations) that it cannot be applicable to a free will adult living man, male or female. Otherwise, free will is negated.

And, where is the rule in Natural Law that says an group of men, under any fictitious organizational name or with any title they choose to call themselves, have the right or authority to impose duties, obligations and impose debts upon free will living adult men and women. From where does such supposed authority come?

And if the 'human being' is the 'person' named as being subject to the provisions of a statute, from where did the authority arise to make the subject 'human being' having slave status imposed upon him or her?

[EldonG]

I love alternate histories. Maybe next week Eldon can pontificate on how it was that two Hobbits saved the world by casting a ring into a volcano.

Sorry. Guess my knowledge of history went over your head. Maybe you should get on the forum discussing the sex preferences of Tinky Winkie on the Teletubby TV program.

[EldonG]

As you claim they have been trying to 'enslave' mankind for the last 4000 years or so I would say they aren't very good at it.

Well, if you open your eyes, and quit smoking weed, you might have noticed.

[D'rok]

None of your examples address that primary issue. In my posts, my question always is, "Where in any statute of any level of legislature is a man of free will status named or referred to. If imposition of licenses, obedience to obligations, or paying over the fruits of one's labour is in legislation (Acts, statutes, law, rules, regulations) that it cannot be applicable to a free will adult living man, male or female. Otherwise, free will is negated.Keep digging, Eldon:

"[T]he ordinary meaning of “person” is a natural person (including, I would have thought, a “free will, full liability flesh and blood living man”) and that the purpose of statutory definition is to extend the meaning to include other specified legal entities as well. Mr. Lindsay’s position that he is not a “person” for purposes of the Income Tax Act is simply not tenable.”
R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 146

[bikerdruid]

Well, if you open your eyes, and quit smoking weed, you might have noticed.

what's the use of being a 'free man' if we can't smoke weed?:boggled:

[EldonG]

Keep digging, Eldon:

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.

[Stacey Grove]

No. Neither. I see it as a long time pre-conceived scheme to impose the status of slavery upon mankind.
Sorry I don't understand.
You say it isn't deliberate nor is it accidental?

[EldonG]

what's the use of being a 'free man' if we can't smoke weed?:boggled:

I could care less how much weed you smoke. That is your right as a free man. But, when smoking weed AND then posting on this thread to supposedly 'debunk' a man who is dedicated to your right to smoke weed, or anything else you may wish to do that has no affect on others, as well as save you from having the fruits of your labour extorted confiscated under threat of fine and/or punishment is cause to suggest that maybe you should back off the wacky weed a bit.

But, I suppose, if you enjoy being ripped off in your paycheque by a gang of thugs who are paid to confiscate and destroy the phony money you are paid for your labour, then, that is your free will choice. Isn't it?

[D'rok]

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.Squawk all you want Eldon. You are a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act and, indeed, for any other act of any Canadian legislature.

A natural person is a legal person.
A human being is a legal person.
A free-will man is a legal person.

All of the above are synonyms.

A corporation is a legal person.
A union is a legal person.

You, Eldon Warman, are a legal person.

[bikerdruid]

I could care less how much weed you smoke. That is your right as a free man. But, when smoking weed AND then posting on this thread to supposedly 'debunk' a man who is dedicated to your right to smoke weed, or anything else you may wish to do that has no affect on others, as well as save you from having the fruits of your labour extorted confiscated under threat of fine and/or punishment is cause to suggest that maybe you should back off the wacky weed a bit.

But, I suppose, if you enjoy being ripped off in your paycheque by a gang of thugs who are paid to confiscate and destroy the phony money you are paid for your labour, then, that is your free will choice. Isn't it?

i'm retired, on pension.
smoking weed is one of my hobbies.;)

[D'rok]

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.I should add that the learned judge in your own assault trial gave you a very eloquent response to this very question:


[12] As I have done my very best to listen respectfully to Mr. Warman and to understand the position he articulates, I hope he, and this room full of his like-minded supporters, will do the same as I respond briefly.
[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.

[18] As for the courts and the office which it is my privilege to discharge, there exists a foundational principle of our Constitution known as judicial independence. It is an oft misunderstood principle, but in Canada with our Constitution flowing from the British Constitution, the assurance of judicial independence has existed since 1701 in the Act of Settlement, which followed just twelve years after the Bill of Rights in 1689, to which I referred earlier.

[19] Since 1701 there has existed in the British Constitution, and thereafter in the Canadian Constitution, a healthy tension. That tension on which initially between the king on the one hand, and the individual citizens through their organization called parliament on the other. In the last few hundred years that tension has evolved to being between the legislative and executive branches of government on the one hand, and the individual citizen on the other.

[20] The independent courts exist as the fulcrum, if you will, between government on the one hand and the individual citizen on the other. The oft maligned Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists as the mechanism through which power is given to individual citizens enabling them to take to task the government of the day, through an assertion that the conduct of government is inconsistent with individual rights.

[21] These are not things that we talk about every day. They are, however, principles with which all of us should struggle. It is that very struggle which I respect in Mr. Warman's submissions, though he and I need to agree to disagree on these points.

[22] All that I have said, however, crystallizes in the context of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Warman, as the defendant in this prosecution, enjoys the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and all of the assurances under the Charter.

[23] He appears in a court before a tribunal which is not, and need not be, beholden to the state. It is that independent court to which other citizens may turn when their children are taken away by the state and they are cast into an adversarial relationship with extraordinarily high stakes, or to which other citizens may turn when their business is threatened by a regulatory agency or other branch of government.

[24] At the outset of this proceeding Mr. Warman articulated a objection to the jurisdiction of this court. I dismissed it then, and I continue to proceed under the understanding that Canada is a society subject to the rule of law and this proceeding forms part and parcel of that Rule.


http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00_0022.htm




It is a shame that some are too pickled with ineffectual bitterness to realize how good they have it.

[ria_rokz]

[12] As I have done my very best to listen respectfully to Mr. Warman and to understand the position he articulates, I hope he, and this room full of his like-minded supporters, will do the same as I respond briefly.
[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.


[18] As for the courts and the office which it is my privilege to discharge, there exists a foundational principle of our Constitution known as judicial independence. It is an oft misunderstood principle, but in Canada with our Constitution flowing from the British Constitution, the assurance of judicial independence has existed since 1701 in the Act of Settlement, which followed just twelve years after the Bill of Rights in 1689, to which I referred earlier.


[19] Since 1701 there has existed in the British Constitution, and thereafter in the Canadian Constitution, a healthy tension. That tension on which initially between the king on the one hand, and the individual citizens through their organization called parliament on the other. In the last few hundred years that tension has evolved to being between the legislative and executive branches of government on the one hand, and the individual citizen on the other.


[20] The independent courts exist as the fulcrum, if you will, between government on the one hand and the individual citizen on the other. The oft maligned Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists as the mechanism through which power is given to individual citizens enabling them to take to task the government of the day, through an assertion that the conduct of government is inconsistent with individual rights.


[21] These are not things that we talk about every day. They are, however, principles with which all of us should struggle. It is that very struggle which I respect in Mr. Warman's submissions, though he and I need to agree to disagree on these points.


[22] All that I have said, however, crystallizes in the context of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Warman, as the defendant in this prosecution, enjoys the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and all of the assurances under the Charter.


[23] He appears in a court before a tribunal which is not, and need not be, beholden to the state. It is that independent court to which other citizens may turn when their children are taken away by the state and they are cast into an adversarial relationship with extraordinarily high stakes, or to which other citizens may turn when their business is threatened by a regulatory agency or other branch of government.


[24] At the outset of this proceeding Mr. Warman articulated a objection to the jurisdiction of this court. I dismissed it then, and I continue to proceed under the understanding that Canada is a society subject to the rule of law and this proceeding forms part and parcel of that Rule.


http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00_0022.htm






Hear, hear. :bigclap

[EldonG]

Sorry I don't understand.
You say it isn't deliberate nor is it accidental?

Don't think I said that. The imposition of slave status is most deliberate. And, there is nothing 'accidental' about that imposition of slavery upon Canadians or Americans.

Slavery was imposed upon the English people in 1302 with the Papal Edict (Papal Bull) Unam Sanctam wherein, the last sentence says: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." If you care to look it up, you will see that 'subject to' = 'slave of' where 'slave' means being under the control of another party. (for those who suffer under the 'dumbed down' education system in Canada over the last 50 years.) The Pontiff of Rome became the 'OVERLORD' of England, and later, Great Britain, FOREVER, in 1213.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

From Para. 7 of the link below:
"He (King John) went still further, and on 13 May, 1213, probably of his own initiative, surrendered the English kingdom through Pandulph into the hands of the Pope to be returned to him as a fief. The document of the surrender states that henceforth (forever) the kings of England were to rule as vassals of the Pope and to pay an annual tribute of 1000 marks to the See of Rome."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm

This was a 'secular' treaty, and had nothing to do with the religious organization, the Roman Catholic Church, nor was it influenced by King Henry VII's separation of the Anglican Church out of the RC Church.

The British Monarchs are still vassal Monarchs under the Overlord of Great Britain, the Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus) of the Vatican city/state.

[EldonG]

Hear, hear. :bigclap

Why are you so happy with what D'rok quoted? Do you like your slave status that much. Do you have a ring in your nose? Or, do you prefer a choke collar and leash?

[jargon buster]

Eldon, you are the only person on the forum who believes they are a slave, doesn't that tell you anything?

[D'rok]

Hey Eldon. I'm curious. Why is it, do you suppose, that women in this country struggled so hard to be recognized as persons under the law? Did they chafe so much under the burden of freedom that they ached for the chains of the state? Please, I'd love to hear your take.

In case you need a reminder, I'm talking about these women. Fellow Albertans, no less.

http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html

[EldonG]

Eldon, you are the only person on the forum who believes they are a slave, doesn't that tell you anything?

Not really. I don't BELIEVE I am a slave. I BELIEVE that Government assumes that I am a slave, and treat me thusly. And, my detax program is to help myself, and others clever enough to understand, break that assumption of Government.

If the posters, and I expect that there are only two or three on this forum but posting under different handles, who are all defending Government imposed slavery, post diatribes against me, who teaches Canadians how to get out of that unlawfully imposed status, it leads me to think that so very many posters cannot be that dumb to so much enjoy and defend their slave status.

I really don't care what other posters believe - if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. If people are subservient to legislation that doesn't apply to a free will man, then they are slaves, whether they believe it or not. The only logical reason I see people not wishing to believe that Government sees them as slaves is if they are on the Government payroll, and enjoy being parasites living of the avails of the people of Canada.

I believe it was Sam Adams (USA) who said: "None are so enslaved as those who think they are free." As things are in Canada, with all tthe ignorant goons, none of us are free, but that doesn't mean that we cannot hold the ideals of freedom and rights, and do what we can to procure them.

[Paul]

It really is quite incredible how someone can be apparently convinced by so much complete nonsense about history, law and society in general.

[EldonG]

Hey Eldon. I'm curious. Why is it, do you suppose, that women in this country struggled so hard to be recognized as persons under the law? Did they chafe so much under the burden of freedom that they ached for the chains of the state? Please, I'd love to hear your take.

In case you need a reminder, I'm talking about these women. Fellow Albertans, no less.

http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html

Because they were ignorant of the fact that there is a different meaning of 'Person' in Law than there is is colloquial usage.

You quoted case law excerpts about me in your 858 post, that happened before I learned about the different meanings of 'person' and the 'name game' I now teach on my website.

You may have had some sort of electronic helmet placed upon your head that imparted your whole knowledge base that is in your mind in one big ZAP, but, for most of we human creatures, education is an ongoing situation, and starts with learning numbers and alphabet in the formal sense.

Your buddy, or alter-ego, Jack Foster keeps spouting the same crap, as if I were supposed to have claimed all knowledge of a scheme that has a beginning thousands of years ago, and then you/he criticizes me for what happened to me long before I had the knowledge acquired to know what was going on against me, such as the court cases and such in the 1990s. I has some, but not adequate knowledge of the name game until the early 2000s.

Should I post stories about you ******** in your pants at 3 years old? Should I therefore say, that you have no sense of sanitation, and cannot be relied upon to know how to use a flush toilet, because you **** in your pants?

[bikerdruid]

It really is quite incredible how someone can be apparently convinced by so much complete nonsense about history, law and society in general.

......i believe that most history, most law and most society...is nonsense.
is that incredible too?

[EldonG]

It really is quite incredible how someone can be apparently convinced by so much complete nonsense about history, law and society in general.

And, it is ever so much more incredible that a man would be too stupid to know that he is seen as a slave by Government, and had that slave status imposed by a trickery of word meanings.

Do you believe that you have to obey the obligations imposed by other men, when there is no injured or hurt party, or damage to any other party's property?

Do you believe that you must pay over the fruit of your labour, which was gained by you expending your life (time on planet Earth), to a fictional entity, that then just deletes it from existence. Income tax pays for nothing? - a fact.

If so, then you believe it is OK to have slavery imposed upon you.

[D'rok]

......i believe that most history, most law and most society...is nonsense.
is that incredible too?Yes. Some history, some law and some society is/are nonsense. "Most" indicates a problem in your thinking.

[D'rok]

Because they were ignorant of the fact that there is a different meaning of 'Person' in Law than there is is colloquial usage.No. They were well aware of that fact. That fact was the very problem. Colloquially, "persons" included women. In law, "persons" excluded women. Thanks to their struggle, this is no longer the case.

Your ignorance is disgusting.

You quoted case law excerpts about me in your 858 post, that happened before I learned about the different meanings of 'person' and the 'name game' I now teach on my website.

You may have had some sort of electronic helmet placed upon your head that imparted your whole knowledge base that is in your mind in one big ZAP, but, for most of we human creatures, education is an ongoing situation, and starts with learning numbers and alphabet in the formal sense.

Your buddy, or alter-ego, Jack Foster keeps spouting the same crap, as if I were supposed to have claimed all knowledge of a scheme that has a beginning thousands of years ago, and then you/he criticizes me for what happened to me long before I had the knowledge acquired to know what was going on against me, such as the court cases and such in the 1990s. I has some, but not adequate knowledge of the name game until the early 2000s.

Should I post stories about you ******** in your pants at 3 years old? Should I therefore say, that you have no sense of sanitation, and cannot be relied upon to know how to use a flush toilet, because you **** in your pants?Your name game is indistinguishable from the contents of my infant diaper. The courts have said as much. Over and over and over.

I guess you just don't learn.

[ria_rokz]

Why are you so happy with what D'rok quoted? Do you like your slave status that much. Do you have a ring in your nose? Or, do you prefer a choke collar and leash?

My preferences regarding bondage implements are really none of your business. :p

But in all seriousness, I am quite content with my lot in life and what the money I shill out to the government pays for. I believe we've discussed this earlier on the board, but you've been gone for a while so maybe you forgot. I'm sure I can't even list everything I've enjoyed for this trade-off, but this year alone I can think of the roads I've driven on (the ones on the east coast too!), the neurologist I've visited, the physiotherapy, pediatrician, allergy tests, speech assessment, hearing tests, and immunizations for my child, the schools that I've visited and worked in, the parks I've visited, the snow being plowed off of the aforementioned streets... well, if you haven't got the idea by now, whatever.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you don't want to pay your taxes, then fine. But stop with the lame excuses, and you'd better not benefit from everything that the rest of us pay for. Maybe you don't do this, but your website encourages this and that is shameful. (Not that you have ever proven to us that your "method" works).

[EldonG]

......i believe that most history, most law and most society...is nonsense.
is that incredible too?

I really don't know what your objectives are in your posts. Whatever you believe of disbelieve is your own 'free will' business.

In my posts with a history lesson, I attempt to show people that it isn't something I just drempt up last week. There is lots of info on the internet from credible sources, such as Fordham University and such, to back up my conclusions. If you don't wish to believe them or me, that is your 'free will' preference.

[EldonG]

Yes. Some history, some law and some society is/are nonsense. "Most" indicates a problem in your thinking.

For sure, that is why Communist USSR had, and Communist China have 're-education' centres - for those who don't believe or accept the Communist propaganda. That's where people who had a bit of a free will mind get their thinking corrected.

[D'rok]

For sure, that is why Communist USSR had, and Communist China have 're-education' centres - for those who don't believe or accept the Communist propaganda. That's where people who had a bit of a free will mind get their thinking corrected.Shockingly, we agree.

Now, where are the Canadian re-education centres? How about forced labour camps? Hmmm? You've been convicted of crimes in Canada, yet the state has not subjected you to these things. You, in fact, are still free to believe whatever you wish about Canadian society. The worst you got was respectful dialogue form a trial judge. Go figure.

[EldonG]

No. They were well aware of that fact. That fact was the very problem. Colloquially, "persons" included women. In law, "persons" excluded women. Thanks to their struggle, this is no longer the case.

Are you sure about that? Did you 'personally' question them on that subject?Or, are you assuming and conjecturing out of your own biased opinion? Those women won nothing, other than to be elevated from a 'non-person' to a 'person' - big deal! "Whopee!" She says. "Now, I can be a bona fide slave owned by the corporate Crown."


Your ignorance is disgusting.

Your name game is indistinguishable from the contents of my infant diaper. The courts have said as much. Over and over and over. Ad hominum statement noted.

[QUOTE=D'rok;6598164I guess you just don't learn.[/QUOTE]

Learn what? That I should be thinking like a good obedient Communist slave?

[Paul]

And, it is ever so much more incredible that a man would be too stupid to know that he is seen as a slave by Government, and had that slave status imposed by a trickery of word meanings.I suppose that if a person had trouble with language and context and a paranoid personality he might come to believe such poppycock.


Do you believe that you have to obey the obligations imposed by other men, when there is no injured or hurt party, or damage to any other party's property?In the limited scope of the democratic government of a free society society I believe it is the preferred option.

Why do you think you can do whatever you like and enjoy the benefits of society while not contributing and whining about how oppressed you are?


Income tax pays for nothing? - a fact.You appear to be using fact in a way that dictionaries are unfamiliar with.


If so, then you believe it is OK to have slavery imposed upon you.You have no idea what I believe, it is quite clear, however, from your comments that what you believe has a very tenuous link to reality.

[EldonG]

My preferences regarding bondage implements are really none of your business. :p

But in all seriousness, I am quite content with my lot in life and what the money I shill out to the government pays for. I believe we've discussed this earlier on the board, but you've been gone for a while so maybe you forgot. I'm sure I can't even list everything I've enjoyed for this trade-off, but this year alone I can think of the roads I've driven on (the ones on the east coast too!), the neurologist I've visited, the physiotherapy, pediatrician, allergy tests, speech assessment, hearing tests, and immunizations for my child, the schools that I've visited and worked in, the parks I've visited, the snow being plowed off of the aforementioned streets... well, if you haven't got the idea by now, whatever.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you don't want to pay your taxes, then fine. But stop with the lame excuses, and you'd better not benefit from everything that the rest of us pay for. Maybe you don't do this, but your website encourages this and that is shameful. (Not that you have ever proven to us that your "method" works).

Well, if you believe all that, (which is your free will right), then so be it. But, where you are in violation of the Creator's Law is your attempting to prevent or divert others from seeking their true God Given rights and freedom by your posts against me and my efforts at educating them on this issue, and that is likely because you don't realize that you have forfeited your rights and freedoms by your lack of knowledge.

[Mashuna]

Are you sure about that? Did you 'personally' question them on that subject?Or, are you assuming and conjecturing out of your own biased opinion? Those women won nothing, other than to be elevated from a 'non-person' to a 'person' - big deal! "Whopee!" She says. "Now, I can be a bona fide slave owned by the corporate Crown."


Your ignorance of history continues to astound.

[EldonG]

I suppose that if a person had trouble with language and context and a paranoid personality he might come to believe such poppycock.

You refer to yourself, of course?

In the limited scope of the democratic government of a free society society I believe it is the preferred option.

It would be, if the government were at the top level of administration, and wasn't an incorporated body owned by the Holy Roman Empire. Your limited understanding of how the present system is created and arranged leaves you with far to simplistic a view to criticize others on their superior knowledge of the subject.

Why do you think you can do whatever you like and enjoy the benefits of society while not contributing and whining about how oppressed you are?

Because it was Creator God who created me and put me on Planet Earth to enjoy 'free will status'. The Government (a group of men) had nothing to do with either. And, Creator God did not creat fictional corporations, unless you consider the Pope to be god - which he thinks he is, apparently.


You appear to be using fact in a way that dictionaries are unfamiliar with.

You dangle your participle. That's a fact.


You have no idea what I believe, it is quite clear, however, from your comments that what you believe has a very tenuous link to reality.

Why would you have such an outburst of ego that you think I care what you think or believe? At least, it is a form of 'reality'.

[EldonG]

Your ignorance of history continues to astound.

I do presume you were looking into the mirror when you wrote that statement.

[Paul]

Are you sure about that? Did you 'personally' question them on that subject?Or, are you assuming and conjecturing out of your own biased opinion?Do you wan to argue with the Oxford English Dictionary too?
person, n.

II. A human being, and related senses.

2. a. An individual human being; a man, woman, or child.
In ordinary usage, the unmarked plural is expressed by the word people; persons emphasizes the plurality and individuality of the referent (see PEOPLE (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=person&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=yYKc-Cb87RW-6801&result_place=1&xrefword=people&ps=n.) n. 2a).
In earliest use: the individual acting in a particular capacity or concerned in some respect (cf. sense 1).
b. A man or woman of high rank, distinction, or importance; a personage. Usually (and now only) with modifying word or phrase. c. In emphatic use: a human being, as distinguished from an animal, thing, etc. In later use also: an individual regarded as having human rights, dignity, or worth. Cf. sense 5.
c. In emphatic use: a human being, as distinguished from an animal, thing, etc. In later use also: an individual regarded as having human rights, dignity, or worth. Cf. sense 5.

Those women won nothing, other than to be elevated from a 'non-person' to a 'person' - big deal! "Whopee!" She says. "Now, I can be a bona fide slave owned by the corporate Crown."I'm sure Dr. Emily Howard Stowe would be delighted with your elegant dismissal of her work.


Ad hominum statement noted.That's not an Ad Hominem, perhaps you should do more research.


Learn what? That I should be thinking like a good obedient Communist slave?Learning to think would be a start.

[Paul]

...the Creator's Law is your attempting to prevent or divert others from seeking their true God Given rights...I thought you were posting on secular issues.

[EldonG]

Shockingly, we agree.

Now, where are the Canadian re-education centres? How about forced labour camps? Hmmm? You've been convicted of crimes in Canada, yet the state has not subjected you to these things. You, in fact, are still free to believe whatever you wish about Canadian society. The worst you got was respectful dialogue form a trial judge. Go figure.

They go by various names here in Canada: 'T.V., Mainline Media, and the formal educational system, especially Universities, Police Academies, and Benchers' Schools.

By the way, that trial judge (Hugh Stansfield) was among some 6 BC judges who's life came to a premature end when word was leaking out about the complicity of judges in the pedophile rings operating in BC. Bet you never saw that on TV.

[D'rok]

Are you sure about that? Did you 'personally' question them on that subject?Or, are you assuming and conjecturing out of your own biased opinion? Those women won nothing, other than to be elevated from a 'non-person' to a 'person' - big deal! "Whopee!" She says. "Now, I can be a bona fide slave owned by the corporate Crown."Yes I'm sure about that. I've read the case. You could too if you had the slightest interest in the truth.


Ad hominum statement noted.That was not an ad hominem.
I attacked your name game, not you personally. Here, this is an example of an ad hominem:

Your name game is crap because you are a massive jackass.

If I had said that, you would have a point.

Learn what? That I should be thinking like a good obedient Communist slave?Heck, if you just learned what ad hominem means you will have at least made some infinitesimal progress.

[Kid Eager]

Ok, read it. That's a nice straw man that the author rode in on: the constitution only applying to the people who were alive at the time of its signing.

Tell me again how this has *any* relevance to any party other than the USA, and to the argument you appear to be trying to create?

[EldonG]

I thought you were posting on secular issues.

When we are referring to Creator God, we are referring to this Planet that He/It
created. That is physical, not ethereal beliefs that have no basis for knowing.

Do you know the difference?

[D'rok]

They go by various names here in Canada: 'T.V., Mainline Media, and the formal educational system, especially Universities, Police Academies, and Benchers' Schools.

Which one of those were you sentenced to?

By the way, that trial judge (Hugh Stansfield) was among some 6 BC judges who's life came to a premature end when word was leaking out about the complicity of judges in the pedophile rings operating in BC. Bet you never saw that on TV.Ah, the judge was a pedophile (of course he wasn't), therefore we shouldn't listen to him.

So you do know what an ad hominem is after all.

[tsig]

Why are you so happy with what D'rok quoted? Do you like your slave status that much. Do you have a ring in your nose? Or, do you prefer a choke collar and leash?

So you're into kinky too.

[EldonG]

Ok, read it. That's a nice straw man that the author rode in on: the constitution only applying to the people who were alive at the time of its signing.

Tell me again how this has *any* relevance to any party other than the USA, and to the argument you appear to be trying to create?

It's all based upon the Roman/English system of corporate governance. The business office for the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC., according to Dunn & Bradstreet. Doesn't Canada supposedly have a Constitution? Did you, or even any Provincial Legislature vote for it?

If you cannot see the relevance of Lysander Spooner's logic to Canada, then you had better go back and sit in on a few fifth grade comprehensive reading classes.

[EldonG]

So you're into kinky too.

Has this thread been converted to a discussion on perverted sex?

[D'rok]

Just to set the record straight about Eldon's vicious lies about Judge Hugh Stansfield:


The The International Institute for Child Rights and Development (IICRD) team was deeply saddened by the recent passing of the Honourable Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield on May 7, 2009 from cancer.

The Chief Judge of the British Columbia Provincial Court was strongly committed to children in the justice system, and a friend and advisor to IICRD.

With a desire to improve the family court system for children and families, Chief Judge Stansfield generously volunteered from 2002 - 2009 as an advisor to IICRD's Hear the Child project advisory team. He strongly supported children and their rights including the right to have their views heard in judicial decision-making. "It is rare for me to find that the information provided by children is not helpful" he said. In 2005 he was appointed to the position of Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and continued his commitment to the project work up until his death.

The late Chief Judge also participated in IICRD conferences including Children as Partners in 2002 and Child Rights in Practice: Tools for Social Change in 2007 where he delivered a key note address on children's rights and the justice system. A special sitting of the Court was held in Chief Judge Stansfield's Honour in Vancouver on June 4, 2009 and attended by IICRD's Legal Director.


http://www.iicrd.org/news/hughStansfield
Eldon truly has no shame.

[bikerdruid]

Tell me again how this has *any* relevance to any party other than the USA, and to the argument you appear to be trying to create?

actually, this is not exactly relevant to the u.s..
eldon is canadian, and these are really discussions of canadian law.

[Paul]

You refer to yourself, of course?Nope.

I was referring quite specifically to you and your continued denial of reality.


It would be, if the government were at the top level of administration, and wasn't an incorporated body owned by the Holy Roman Empire.Well, as that's palpable nonsense we seem to be in agreement.


Your limited understanding of how the present system is created and arranged leaves you with far to simplistic a view to criticize others on their superior knowledge of the subject.Your delusional pontification and arrogant dismissal leaves you with little standing to discuss anything genuinely.


Because it was Creator God who created me and put me on Planet Earth to enjoy 'free will status'. The Government (a group of men) had nothing to do with either. And, Creator God did not creat fictional corporations, unless you consider the Pope to be god - which he thinks he is, apparently.Fundamentalist anti-Catholic ranting is not the best way to persuade others that you have something serious to say.


You dangle your participle. That's a fact.Your evasive use of a childish attempt at insult amuses me.


Why would you have such an outburst of ego that you think I care what you think or believe? At least, it is a form of 'reality'.That's funny.

For someone so arrogant you would think that you could discern the meaning of a simple sentence.

[EldonG]

Which one of those were you sentenced to?
Asking questions of yourself again?

Ah, the judge was a pedophile (of course he wasn't), therefore we shouldn't listen to him.
For sure. Anyone who would say nice things about me must have been seeing me as one of his favorite boys.

So you do know what an ad hominem is after all.

Removed inappropriate content

[EldonG]

actually, this is not exactly relevant to the u.s..
eldon is canadian, and these are really discussions of canadian law.

Immaterial! Both are based upon English Common Law. And, since English common law is, in reality, Roman Municipal Law, and thus a type of Maritime Law, the rules of Maritime Law prevail in the corporate structure.

For those for whom this response is too complicated: "Yah! It Do!.

[D'rok]

Asking questions of yourself again? Have you forgotten already? Those were your examples of how Canada is just like the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Maybe you should be sentenced to University. You might actually learn something.

[Paul]

When we are referring to Creator God, we are referring to this Planet that He/It
created.You are the only one referring to god. If you have a special definition that you like to use for juvenile word games, that is your problem.


That is physical, not ethereal beliefs that have no basis for knowing.If you don't want to include ethereal beliefs, don't start bringing deities into the discussion.


Do you know the difference?Between what? The usual meaning and yours?

[Paul]

...thrown at me on this thread by the 2 or 3 posters posting with different handles...Have you considered the reality that it's more posters with 1 handle that don't agree with you?

[Mashuna]

I do presume you were looking into the mirror when you wrote that statement.

I know you are, but what am I?

[ria_rokz]

Well, if you believe all that, (which is your free will right), then so be it. But, where you are in violation of the Creator's Law is your attempting to prevent or divert others from seeking their true God Given rights and freedom by your posts against me and my efforts at educating them on this issue, and that is likely because you don't realize that you have forfeited your rights and freedoms by your lack of knowledge.

So uh... what "rights and freedoms" do you gain with this silly little ineffective loophole of yours? I mean, besides weaseling out of taxes. Do you get to run around nekkid on the beach or something? Do you get to eat your pudding if you don't eat any meat?

[Captain_Swoop]

1302 with the Papal Edict (Papal Bull) Unam Sanctam

You seem to think this renders any other law, treaty, decleration and constitution invalid.
What is so special about this that it renders (for example) the US Constitution invalid?
What about the fact that later English Monarchs and Parlaiments passed laws and declerations removing any power from the Vatican in Britain?
If these later acts, laws etc are invalid why are they? what gives this Papal Edict any special power over later laws etc? Magic?

What if I find an earlier legal document or law, would that have any power over this later Papal Edict? The Kingdoms of Northumbria and East Anglia, and the lands of the Five Boroughs of Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford and Lincoln were all subject to Danelaw, signed by Alfred the GReat. WHy is that any less lawful than a later 'Edict' from the Pope? What about Mercian and Saxon Law? WHat makes them invalid but your 'Edict' still valid?

[Horatius]

pigs (people in government service).




Serious Question Time: How many evenings in a typical week do you spend thinking up these inventive word games?

[D'rok]

And, that's all folks. I'm gonna miss him.

[bikerdruid]

banned?....for good?....

[D'rok]

Yup. I'm surprised he lasted this long.

[blobru]

:cry1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn4Vy8JHVfs)

Qn4Vy8JHVfs
Because I couldn't find the Beatles' "Taxman" on kazoo.

[Horatius]

Serious Question Time: How many evenings in a typical week do you spend thinking up these inventive word games?



Well, damnit, now I'll never know!

[ria_rokz]

I missed it! :( What happened? Where did he go? :confused: He actually seemed a little more pleasant this time. I was seriously looking for his answer to my question. Oh well. I need to go to bed anyway.

[Blue Mountain]

Bye-bye, Eldon. You now have another feather in your "the evil world is out to get me" head-dress.

[Captain_Swoop]

WHat was he banned for?

Is there a thread anywhere that keeps a track of bannings and uspsensions like we have on BAUT?

[catsmate1]

WHat was he banned for?

Is there a thread anywhere that keeps a track of bannings and uspsensions like we have on BAUT?
Only Public Notices (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=53) in Forum Management.

[Horatius]

WHat was he banned for?

Is there a thread anywhere that keeps a track of bannings and uspsensions like we have on BAUT?

EldonG has been banned for breaching the Membership Agreement while on probation. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6598860#post6598860)



The Mod box up thread is probably what did him in.

[Hans]

Wow he was kinda fun - makes one think we might have need of a 'flame on' subsidiary forum, but then again probably not

[Blue Mountain]

You obviously are not a student of history. ZIONISM is the name of the Philosophy of the Ancient Chaldean/Sumarian Elitists who have ruled the Middle East and North Africa, and surrounds of the Mediterranean Sea as king /priests for some 13 millennia. The other spellings are Ion and Sion.

This King/Priesthood ruled Egypt for some 8,500 years before abandoning Egypt and migrating back to the Chaldean homeland and establishing Babylon around 1500 BC. There they ruled the world of commerce for about 1,000 years, until driven out by a Persian King around 500 BC. The King/Priests established a headquarters in what is now Turkey for some 200 years, before moving on to the Hill of Sacrifice (Vatican), and established Rome. The elitist republic they established there reverted to full dictatorship in 69 BC as the Roman Empire. The religion, used to keep slaves in line by superstition and fear, was called Mithraism, lasted until the Emperor Constantine ordered the King/Priests (Cardinals - meaning the primary ones) to accept Christianity around 350 AD. The Roman Empire died out as a result of the loss of all their gold to the banksters of the Lavant, around 500 AD, and the King/Priest and Bishop of Rome assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) and re-established the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire, and used the Christian Church as the facade to hide the real secular nature of the King/Priests Empire in Europe and America.

The Judeans, the mixed race of Hebrew and Arabic people living in what is now Israel were taken captive by the King/Priests in 580 BC for a 40 year period, and re-introduced to the Chaldean Philosophy of Zionism. The common peoples' language of Palestine at the turn of the millennium was Aramaic, and not Hebrew, and was a colloquial form of the Chaldean language.

The scheme of corporatism/fascism comes from the King/Priests, as they made all human institutions into make-believe ships, called incorporated bodies, with administration systems totally resembling that of a ship at sea. This scheme makes the corporation the primary body, and the humankind become subservient body parts of the corporate body and subject to the CEO. However, in the fascist system of tiered corporations, the CEO of one corporation is subservient to the CEO of the superior corporation. This goes all the way up to the top corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire, where the Pontiff is CEO. Now, you can see why, when a new Pope is Crowned with the triple tiara crown, signifying 'King of Heaven, Earth and Purgatory/Hell' that this statement is made: "You are Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World and Vicar of Jesus Christ the Savior."

Although those calling themselves Jews, a term invented in the 17th century AD, with many calling themselves Zionists, they gained that philosophical ideology from the Priest/Kings of Babylon, where their holy scripture, the Talmud was begun to be written. And, they have become a veil and a scapegoat for the Vatican when the light of truth shines upon the Vatican. When any anti-Vatican info comes to light, watch the anti-Jew rhetoric cranked up by those of Jesuit or Knight of Malta affiliations and loyalties.

What's so sad about the above drain dump is that it's so demonstrably wrong.




































































































Everyone knows the Kings/Priests of Isis are controlled by the Reptoids. :p

[Kid Eager]

It's all based upon the Roman/English system of corporate governance. The business office for the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC., according to Dunn & Bradstreet. Doesn't Canada supposedly have a Constitution? Did you, or even any Provincial Legislature vote for it?

If you cannot see the relevance of Lysander Spooner's logic to Canada, then you had better go back and sit in on a few fifth grade comprehensive reading classes.

Bother! My cutting riposte is wasted, as Eldon has left the building. After all, I am Australian and yes, our provinces *did* vote to adopt the Constitution that formed Australia.

I also love the way he answered my question with an answer to another question entirely. I guess that means I stay deluded and sheepled forevermore...

[Paul]

I guess that means I stay deluded and sheepled forevermore...Must...Resist...Sheep...Joke




:sheep:

[carlitos]

No. Neither. I see it as a long time pre-conceived scheme to impose the status of slavery upon mankind. As the reasoning of the Boston lawyer, Lysander Spooner, said in his blogs in the 1870 period, there is no right for a group of men, regardless what they wish to call their group, or what title they wish to bestow upon themselves, to be able to strip other men of their right to life, liberty (freedom) and property by means of extortion, piracy or theft without the subject humankind allowing this voluntarily and with full knowledge.
Lysandar Spponer was blogging in the 1870's? Talk about alternative history.


Not really. I don't BELIEVE I am a slave. I BELIEVE that Government assumes that I am a slave, and treat me thusly. And, my detax program is to help myself, and others clever enough to understand, break that assumption of Government.

If the posters, and I expect that there are only two or three on this forum but posting under different handles, who are all defending Government imposed slavery, post diatribes against me, who teaches Canadians how to get out of that unlawfully imposed status, it leads me to think that so very many posters cannot be that dumb to so much enjoy and defend their slave status.
Paranoia will destroy ya. Really, each of the usernames here is one unique person. You're welcome for this clarification of reality.


I believe it was Sam Adams (USA) who said: "None are so enslaved as those who think they are free." As things are in Canada, with all tthe ignorant goons, none of us are free, but that doesn't mean that we cannot hold the ideals of freedom and rights, and do what we can to procure them.
Surprisingly, EldonG has the provenance of this quote wrong. Goethe said "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Wait, banned?

[Abe_the_Man]

He was interesting and incredibly frustrating to listen to. I am simultaneously happy and sad that he is gone.

[ria_rokz]

Wait, banned?

Yes, I'm afraid he has juiced his last piglet on this forum.

[Tolls]

Paranoia will destroy ya. Really, each of the usernames here is one unique person. You're welcome for this clarification of reality.


No, no no...
You don't understand.
I'm you.

Or are you me?

Maybe we're both Hans?

I'm a bit confused...maybe I should log out and log back in again.
:confused:

[Horatius]

No, no no...
You don't understand.
I'm you.

Or are you me?

Maybe we're both Hans?

I'm a bit confused...maybe I should log out and log back in again.
:confused:



It's simple, really....


mII6-IyaT3o

[TSR]

No, no no...
You don't understand.
I'm you.

Or are you me?

Maybe we're both Hans?

I'm a bit confused...maybe I should log out and log back in again.
:confused:
.
You are the Eggman, I am the Walrus.

Goo Goo ga Joob.

or is that Jew....
.

[Paul]

or is that Jew....
.Must be. Muslim, communist, progressive or bankster don't rhyme

[catsmate1]

Bother! My cutting riposte is wasted, as Eldon has left the building. After all, I am Australian and yes, our provinces *did* vote to adopt the Constitution that formed Australia.

I also love the way he answered my question with an answer to another question entirely. I guess that means I stay deluded and sheepled forevermore...
Well you are Australian:D

I'll miss Eldon, he was a fascinating addition to my collection of loons and my attempt to develop a system for categorising such people.

[D'rok]

Bumpity bump.

Good old Eldon has shown up on the WFS forums and is in fine form. The best part is that he's too crazy even for the FOTLers on WFS. Grab a coffee and enjoy:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=6526&start=80

[Tolls]

I like his obssession with the Pope controlling everything since the 13th century to the point of actually owning Britain and America.

[D'rok]

I like his obssession with the Pope controlling everything since the 13th century to the point of actually owning Britain and America.I like how some of the FOTLers manage to see right through him:

As in, you're not the first one (and won't be the last one) to think you've found the Holy Grail of some sort in some ancient scriptures and laws written thousands of years ago that somehow apply today as well.

He said, she said 800 years ago, he did this and that 500 years ago and all... sorry to break it down to you, but none of that applies in modern society. You can't even use the Bible to make an argument of any sort (convincing), as half the people you try to argue with will look at you like you're a loony, following a book written by God knows who with who knows what intentions and perverted and re-written over the last 2,000 years so many times by people who had their own hidden agendas, that the best you can use it for is to start a camp fire...

As far as any believable arguments and points you want to make, again, just try to stay focused here and stop drifting all over the place, and I'm sure me and a few others here might start siding with you.

However, when you bring in ancient Kings, Popes, fictional entities, strawman, slaves, artificial persons, Canada as a hoax, etc, etc. you'll lose most people... Hell, even those who you semi-convert and convince that some of that is true, most of them would never bother using it as an argument in a court of law, in front of a jury of their peers or in public in general. Why? Because it's way too far fetched and based on assumptions that haven't been proven (most of the time) or have been proven wrong by Superior Courts of this country already.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=58863#p58863


Too bad they aren't better at looking at themselves in the mirror.

[jargon buster]

I might sign up again :D
Now I just need a name.........

[JLord]

When I started this thread I didn't expect Eldon to show up here. But it turned into a much more entertaining thread as a result. I am sad to see he is now banned.

[ria_rokz]

Hey, you guys are all the same person using different usernames, remember? You can stop the charade, he's gone now. :rolleyes:

[Hans]

Maybe we're both Hans?

I'm a bit confused...maybe I should log out and log back in again.


What is this? Hansfalsification?

There is only one Hans (disregard that intellectual pudding luddite MRC-Hans) and may I say I have the genitals to prove it.......

Hey since we're all the same people would someone like to take Eldon's place?

[Aitch]

Eldon's place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_Square)? ;)

[Rogue1stclass]

Wow, this was the most fun I've had reading a thread in a long time, and I didn't even find it in time to join in!

I want to thank everyone who made it possible, even if it was just one person on 20 different accounts.

[Hans]

Wow, this was the most fun I've had reading a thread in a long time, and I didn't even find it in time to join in!

I want to thank everyone who made it possible, even if it was just one person on 20 different accounts.

We, the collective, thank you

[Tolls]

Join us.
Join ussssss....

[Rogue1stclass]

Wait, am I the same person logging onto yet another account to praise myself?

I can't keep track anymore.

[TjW]

Another convert to autosycophantisolipsism.
Or the same one.

[D'rok]

I am the Egg Man. They are the Egg Men. I am the Walrus.

[bikerdruid]

I am the Egg Man. They are the Egg Men. I am the Walrus.

koo koo kachoo

[Rogue1stclass]

So, can anyone tell me why they are Red Robed Priests of Isis if they didn't wear red robes and weren't priests of Isis for the majority of their history?

I mean, that whole Isis thing was just a blip on their long and sorted careers which predates the Recent geological epoch and continues even today.

[Horatius]

So, can anyone tell me why they are Red Robed Priests of Isis if they didn't wear red robes and weren't priests of Isis for the majority of their history?




Quite simply, EldonG seem to believe that any time anyone says, "It will be this way FOREVER!", that's actually binding on all of humanity for all time to follow, no matter what anyone else ever says or does on the issue.


Why that doesn't mean that they're actually the mastodon-fur robed medicine men of Ugg the Caveman God is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Dazed]

The detaxcanada website looks like a geocities site from 1996, which, in my opinion is more damning than any case law or logic.

[Border Reiver]

I'm really story I missed this guy. He seemed like a hoot. Like Rob, but more hate and delusional ideas about law and history.

[catsmate1]

I'm really story I missed this guy. He seemed like a hoot. Like Rob, but more hate and delusional ideas about law and history.
He has a nasty streak; anti-semite and involved in some frauds.

[BaaBaa]

Thanks to dood, I had my first custom title, "Red-robed Priest of Isis"