PDA

View Full Version : Detax Canada


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

JLord
26th August 2010, 11:28 AM
I work as a lawyer in Canada and my area of practice is basically what you call poverty law. So helping people out who are getting evicted, wrongful dismissal, human rights stuff, debts and collections, criminal stuff, government benefits, wills and estates, etc. Bascially I deal with any sort of legal trouble that poor people get into and try to help them out in ways that don't require them having a lot of money.

This area of practice involves dealing with a lot of people who are of low intelligence. (Probably a higher proportion than when dealing with the wealthy.) And these are the people most likely to buy into the claims of the "Freeman Movement" or in this case the closely related "detaxer" movement. For some reason these people are convinced that through verbal or grammatical gymnastics they can "outsmart" the system to avoid paying taxes, paying their mortgage, paying speeding tickets, paying child support, avoid shoing up for court, etc.

These people generally fall into two categories. The first are people who see this sort of material, believe it, and decide not to pay taxes or not pay their mortgage and then wind up with a big debt. The second are people who find themselves in some desperate financial situation and are looking for anything to help. The detaxers seem to have a magic solution to all their problems so they buy in to the nonsense in the hopes it will get them out of a jam. I have a bit more sympathy for the second group because they are acting out of desparation to solve some problem in their life, as opposed to the first group who cause the problem themselves by buying in and are really the authors of their own misforture.

A lot of people would say that these people are idiots and deserve what is coming to them and it is their fault for buying in to such retarded ideas. Other might look at those promoting these ideas and blame them for tricking people into these situations. (The same sort of debate occurs about who should be blamed when someone wastes a lot of money on a psychic) But regardless of where you stand, it is clear that these type of groups are not helping anyone.

The courts in my city (and I assume accross Canada) are well aware of the detax crowd and have procedures in place to deal with them. Judges of course have never had a problem shooting down their ridiculous arguments and there are many reported cases in which this happens (they can often be entertaining reading). But the detaxers will pull the same sort of arguments with court clerks and other employees. Like for instance, imagine that you are a clerk, you send notice to someone that they are to appear in court and you get this response (from the detax Canada website):

There are no records available for the fictional entity,
Kevin E. Jones, AKA: KEVIN E JONES, at the address
noted on you demand. For any such records, you will
need contact the owner of KEVIN E JONES, the
fictional entity, which I believe to be the CROWN
in right of (your birth province).
The terms of the private contract of agency between
the free will man commonly called Kevin of the Jones
family, the principal, and the fictional entity/person
whose legal identity is KEVIN E JONES, the agent in
commerce for the principal, is not subject to the
scrutiny of a third party, and therefore, any
business dealings between the principal and agent
will not be released to CRA. The principal is not
a 'person', and therefore, not subject to provisions
of the Income Tax Act of Canada, to the Minister
of National Revenue or to Canada Revenue Agency.

I, commonly called Kevin of the Jones family, in own right,
for KEVIN E JONES for Her Majesty in right of Canada
[Hand write: KEVIN E JONES. The remainder may be typed]

What a mess.

Anyways, the detax Canada website (which I find to be quite comical) is located at:

http://www.detaxcanada.org


This thread is inspired by a similar one calling for stories of failures of US freeman movement people. I thought I would start one for the Canadian equivalent and post some of my stories here. This is a long post already but I will post some stories here in the near future. Meanwhile, if anyone has any comments or stories feel free.

D'rok
26th August 2010, 11:39 AM
Thanks for this. I also find this stuff fascinating/amusing/enraging. IANAL, but I do have a law degree. (No desire to practice. Prefer to do policy work). I hadn't heard of detax Canada before. Not nearly as slick as the sales pitch by Robert Menard and co., but still amusing based on a first glance.

It's amazing how similar all of the legal woo is, whether it manifests as "sovereign citizens", FOTL, or whatever. Menard, for example, actively translates American redemption scams into Canadian terms and sells DVDs and study packages. But it's all the same crap.

Thanks for the new excuse to procrastinate!

D'rok
26th August 2010, 12:02 PM
Yowza. This Warman chap is a real piece of work:

"In the early ’80s, Warman – a Canadian by birth – was living in the San Francisco suburb of Benicia. While working as a pilot for American Airlines, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service audited him and determined he owed a substantial amount of unreported tax dollars. Things went downhill fast.

Allegedly, Warman threatened the IRS agents with violence if they tried to collect. This was an imprudent action – around the same time, Gordon Kahl, a member of the Posse, made headlines for getting in a deadly shootout with U.S. federal marshals when they tried to arrest him for violating his parole. Kahl did time for not paying his taxes. Suffice to say, the authorities may have been a bit touchy. Warman was arrested, lost his pilot’s licence, was fired from his job and found his wife had committed suicide (Warman maintains IRS agents murdered her). The trauma and legal problems caused him to hightail it back to Canada."


http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2003/0807/cover.htm

Typically, he's also a raging anti-semite.

D'rok
26th August 2010, 12:09 PM
Curses! Foiled again!

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

In my filing instructions, I suggest that you amend the copy of the T-4, which shows 'income' and wages withheld and sent to CRA by the 'employer'. The amendment is to cross out the term 'employee', and print in beside it, 'agent', and initial the change.
However, CRA is disregarding this amendment, and using the T-4 slip sent to them directly by the 'employer' showing that the 'legal identity' strawman name 'is the employee earning the money', and using that income number to issue their re-assessment.

Conclusion: I don't currently have a solution to this problem (peaceful, anyway), so if someone out there can come up with an idea how to deal with it - that is, for those who are trapped into being an 'employee' , please let me know."

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

ktesibios
26th August 2010, 12:49 PM
Umm... something I found on Wiki:

Canadian content (abbreviated CanCon, cancon or can-con) refers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission requirements that radio and television broadcasters (including cable and satellite specialty channels) must air a certain percentage of content that was at least partly written, produced, presented, or otherwise contributed to by persons from Canada. It also refers to that content itself, and, more generally, to cultural and creative content that is Canadian in nature.

Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA- or at least get Alex Jones to put on a toque and start doing a regular "Great White Conspiracy" show?

As for the "freeman" who is unhappy about being an employee, I might suggest that he simply quit his job and let some poor bugger who's spent a few months trying desperately to get "trapped into being an employee" have it. He can check back in a year or so and let everybody know how that worked out.

D'rok
26th August 2010, 01:01 PM
Umm... something I found on Wiki:



Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA.
Yeah, dammit! Where's the Rush of CTists? Hell, I'd settle for the Guess Who of FOTL CTists. They could use this as their theme song:

rLQJ4toj-JY

Corsair 115
26th August 2010, 01:18 PM
I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.

D'rok
26th August 2010, 01:32 PM
I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.Well, he (the detax guy) did avail himself of the prison system after being convicted of assault. That's confirmation that my tax dollars are being well spent.

Horatius
26th August 2010, 02:36 PM
Umm... something I found on Wiki:



Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA- or at least get Alex Jones to put on a toque and start doing a regular "Great White Conspiracy" show?

As for the "freeman" who is unhappy about being an employee, I might suggest that he simply quit his job and let some poor bugger who's spent a few months trying desperately to get "trapped into being an employee" have it. He can check back in a year or so and let everybody know how that worked out.



The problem is, most of the conspiracies involving Canadians are actually true.

Teh Evidences:

b04RzmSJyJE


It's from the CBC, it's True!

JLord
26th August 2010, 02:53 PM
Here are some nice snippets of what some Canadian judges have had to say about detaxers:

LINK (http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=detaxer&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/sk/skqb/doc/2006/2006skqb324/2006skqb324.html)

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.

LINK (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2009/2009tcc447/2009tcc447.html)

Briefly stated, their contention was that each human creature comprises both a physical being (i.e., the ‘natural person’) and some sort of other legal entity created upon the government’s issuance to the human creature of a social insurance number. Conveniently, any income earned by the human creature is attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rests exclusively with its legal doppelganger

The Kions are not the first to hang their hats on the ‘natural person’ argument and, regrettably, are unlikely to be the last. Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system. Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.

This judge wasn't the first to point out the obvious contradiction with not paying taxes, but using services and in this case collecting tax benefits and credits. The people in this case (the Kions) were also hit with additional penalties for gross negligence.

And if you want a longer read, here is Warman's assault conviction.

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

He of course appealed the decision and lost, but this is a pretty good decision in my opinion because the judge gives Warman every benefit of the doubt and deals with his issues rather than dismissing them as often happens. Often if a judge dismisses a ridiculous argument out of hand, this is cited as further proof that they all know they are wrong but are just afraid to enforce the detaxer's position because of pressure and what have you.

For further reading if you are interested:

A case dissecting the "natural person" argument: LINK (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2000/2000canlii22837/2000canlii22837.html)

Another "natural person" case where the guy tried to build on the above case with more ridiculous arguments: LINK (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc99/2009fc99.html)

Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign. Not a classic detaxer argument but along the same lines in terms of logic: LINK (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2000/2000canlii14993/2000canlii14993.html)

Another pretty comical one: LINK (http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/00/p03_0013.htm)

D'rok
26th August 2010, 08:00 PM
And if you want a longer read, here is Warman's assault conviction.

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

He of course appealed the decision and lost, but this is a pretty good decision in my opinion because the judge gives Warman every benefit of the doubt and deals with his issues rather than dismissing them as often happens. Often if a judge dismisses a ridiculous argument out of hand, this is cited as further proof that they all know they are wrong but are just afraid to enforce the detaxer's position because of pressure and what have you.

I agree. The obiter in that decision is really quite inspiring. He could have just brushed all the freemanism aside and dealt with the main issue (the assault), but he wrote a passionate, yet respectful affirmation of the justness of Canadian society and of our legal system.

D'rok
26th August 2010, 08:12 PM
Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign. Best. Argument. Ever.

LightinDarkness
26th August 2010, 09:01 PM
Thanks for posting your experience with this, OP. I think what this shows is that there is a real cost to us all for the Freeman/Anti-Tax woos. Its not only the people who believe in this stuff that end up paying far more in the end than if they simply embraced reality, but there is a cost to deal with all this that all tax payers end up paying for. It, again, reminds me that Freeman on the Land mythology is the perfect answer for the "But what harm could it cause to let them believe?" line of thinking.

As always, I am astounded that anyone could think this would work. Everyone has been at points in their life when they needed money and wanted simple answers...but even at those low points, I just do not understand how Freeman woo becomes attractive. The entire thing is based on the idea that there is a massive, global cabal so evil and so powerful that they can trick us all into believing that we have to obey the law when we really don't...but the vast cabal simply lays down and gives up if we utter the words "strawman" and "I do not consent." If this were true, this vast legal conspiracy cabal is both so powerful and so utterly stupid that we have nothing to worry about from them to begin with.

EldonG
27th August 2010, 08:19 PM
It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

Gord_in_Toronto
27th August 2010, 08:25 PM
It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

:dl:

lionking
27th August 2010, 08:39 PM
It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

Go ahead and put your case here. Laughs are always good.

LightinDarkness
27th August 2010, 08:55 PM
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall

A look at the "Sovereign Citizen" killers in the US.

D'rok
27th August 2010, 09:05 PM
It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.Stick around. Should be fun.

EldonG
27th August 2010, 09:15 PM
I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.

Go to the detaxcanada website linked by OP, and use the search feature. Search: fairshare, and from there, follow the link to Ruml. You might find this extremely interesting.

KDLarsen
27th August 2010, 09:21 PM
Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign. Not a classic detaxer argument but along the same lines in terms of logic: LINK (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2000/2000canlii14993/2000canlii14993.html)
I dunno.

In my opinion, it doesn't top the guy who tried to pay a mortgage with Italian Lira (I think it was), based on his interpretation of the mortgage contract :D

Zep
27th August 2010, 09:27 PM
Ah, no, Eldon. Post your evidence here. We will wait.

D'rok
27th August 2010, 09:39 PM
Go to the detaxcanada website linked by OP, and use the search feature. Search: fairshare, and from there, follow the link to Ruml. You might find this extremely interesting.Corsair 115 asked if you use the Canadian health care system.

Do you use the Canadian health care system?

lopeyschools
27th August 2010, 09:46 PM
[3]** ** ** ** ** In his respondent record, Mr. Stanchfield included two affidavits. The first is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” while the second one is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)”. In that second affidavit, the affiant states: “Given our similar names, the same date of birth of March 17, 1971; signature, and mailing address. It is my intent to clarify this confusion as to the true ownership of any property and/or activities that are mistakenly assumed to be the Respondent’s.” Also, at paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, the affiant indicates that when the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) agents came to his residence to serve the respondent, “I answered the door and advised them
that I was not the person they were
looking for. And at both times, documents were dropped before me or were thrown into my private residence before agents walked away. In both
instances, I forwarded these legal documents to the Respondent” (emphasis added). *At the direction of
the Court, the signatories of each affidavit were to be present at the hearing. It quickly became apparent that there was only one human being involved and that Cory Stanchfield who appeared
and argued the case before me had signed both affidavits himself.


These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!

D'rok
27th August 2010, 10:15 PM
These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!Welcome to the weird and wacky world of tax deniers, sovereign citizens, and freemen-on-the-land. 'Tis a silly place.

EldonG
28th August 2010, 07:56 AM
Ah, no, Eldon. Post your evidence here. We will wait.

Excerpt from " /fairshare " on the DetaxCanada website linked by OP:

In 1946, Beardsley Ruml - then Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, told the truth in a speech titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete".

Mr. Ruml explained that, since a government can easily print all the paper money it needs, in any amount, and therefore does not need to tax anyone, an income tax is maintained to siphon excess paper out of circulation, to stabilize the purchasing power of paper money (i.e., regulate inflation) and prevent the hyperinflation that would ordinarily result from printing too much paper!Now you know the truth behind the 'income tax'. Yet, not one American in a million heard Mr. Ruml's speech (And that is a good thing or they might have marched on Washington!).

Ample paper must continuously be taxed (siphoned) out of circulation to keep pace with the interest payments on the national debt, being made to the mostly foreign bankers who designed and control the Federal Reserve System.

In 1982, the prestigious, private-sector Grace Commission, in their cost-cutting report to President Reagan, confirmed the ineptness of the income tax to control inflation. The following quote by the Commission confirms that they do not even understand how the income tax functions, and that the present rate of taxation does not pay the interest for the use of the money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank and thus cannot even begin to affect the growth of the national debt... "100% [of income taxes] collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt ... all income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government."

(This position has no semblance of reality with the position of the Federal Reserve Bank. Anyone care to guess why? )

Shocked? You should be! The Commission's report was apparently written to make certain that most hard-working Americans will never know, or even believe, the hidden connection between fraudulent paper money and the taxes they pay on their own labor (fraudulently seized from their paychecks and bank accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank's "strong arm" collection agency, the IRS).

D'rok
28th August 2010, 08:01 AM
Excerpt from " /fairshare " on the DetaxCanada website linked by OP:

In 1946, Beardsley Ruml - then Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, told the truth in a speech titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete".

Mr. Ruml explained that, since a government can easily print all the paper money it needs, in any amount, and therefore does not need to tax anyone, an income tax is maintained to siphon excess paper out of circulation, to stabilize the purchasing power of paper money (i.e., regulate inflation) and prevent the hyperinflation that would ordinarily result from printing too much paper!Now you know the truth behind the 'income tax'. Yet, not one American in a million heard Mr. Ruml's speech (And that is a good thing or they might have marched on Washington!).

Ample paper must continuously be taxed (siphoned) out of circulation to keep pace with the interest payments on the national debt, being made to the mostly foreign bankers who designed and control the Federal Reserve System.

In 1982, the prestigious, private-sector Grace Commission, in their cost-cutting report to President Reagan, confirmed the ineptness of the income tax to control inflation. The following quote by the Commission confirms that they do not even understand how the income tax functions, and that the present rate of taxation does not pay the interest for the use of the money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank and thus cannot even begin to affect the growth of the national debt... "100% [of income taxes] collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt ... all income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government."

(This position has no semblance of reality with the position of the Federal Reserve Bank. Anyone care to guess why? )

Shocked? You should be! The Commission's report was apparently written to make certain that most hard-working Americans will never know, or even believe, the hidden connection between fraudulent paper money and the taxes they pay on their own labor (fraudulently seized from their paychecks and bank accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank's "strong arm" collection agency, the IRS).

Relevance of conspiracy nonsense about the American Federal Reserve to Canada and the Canadian health care system?

None.

Try again.

The Platypus
28th August 2010, 08:10 AM
Relevance of conspiracy nonsense about the American Federal Reserve to Canada and the Canadian health care system?

None.

Try again.

That's what i was gonna say. Good question, what does that have to do with Canada, EldonG?

EldonG
28th August 2010, 08:10 AM
Welcome to the weird and wacky world of tax deniers, sovereign citizens, and freemen-on-the-land. 'Tis a silly place.

Detax Canada does not promote or support any of those which you mention.

1. Income tax is only applicable to a fictional legal name created by Government by changing the family name to a 'sur' or primary name. It is not applicable to a living adult man, unless that man has , with full knowledge of terms, voluntarily entered into a contract of servitude to be an accessory attached to the Crown or State owned (intellectual property) name.

2. Any 'citizen', using the Roman source definition, is a 'subject/slave of the State. As with 'natural person', the adjective preceding the term does not
change the status of the entity.

3. The term 'freeman' is synonomous with the terms 'citizen, subject, person'; all meaning that the intended subject man to whom it is applied is of slave status. The original Magna Carta of 1215, which was voided by the Pope, the overlord of England, contained the term 'liber homo' (2 separate words meaning free man, or free will man) when claiming the rights to due process of law for a living man. The Pope could have none of this in his fascist world.

EldonG
28th August 2010, 08:24 AM
That's what i was gonna say. Good question, what does that have to do with Canada, EldonG?

Everything. The Bank of Canada voting shares were sold to the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1936. An equal number of non-voting shares were then created and sold back to the Canadian Government. All major banks in Canada have a representatibe of the Federal Reserve on their board of directors.

The corporate business office of the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC.
Look it up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.

CRA operates above and outside Canadian law as proven by the fact that CRA can confiscate Canadian OAS, CPP and military pension when all three of the statutes covering those say 'no attachments of benefits in law or in equity'. Operating under the property right based feudal system 'master/servant law', CRA edicts and demands trump statutory law.

EldonG
28th August 2010, 08:35 AM
These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!

This had nothing to do with the Detax Canada program. The human defendant 'identified' himself as an accessory attached to Crown property (the legal name), and that allowed the judge to apply the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali'.

With that, the judge applied the Roman treatment upon disobedient slaves
that is was succinctly stated in the Fugitive Slave Act (USA) of 1850, section 6: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"

D'rok
28th August 2010, 08:53 AM
Detax Canada does not promote or support any of those which you mention.
You deny the validity of income tax. You advocate individual sovereignty over parliamentary sovereignty. You advocate separating the natural person from the legal person.

That's three for three. I guess you lied.


1. Income tax is only applicable to a fictional legal name created by Government by changing the family name to a 'sur' or primary name. It is not applicable to a living adult man, unless that man has , with full knowledge of terms, voluntarily entered into a contract of servitude to be an accessory attached to the Crown or State owned (intellectual property) name.No. Authoritative cases have already been cited in this very thread that show the idiotic untruth of your legal "analysis".

2. Any 'citizen', using the Roman source definition, is a 'subject/slave of the State. As with 'natural person', the adjective preceding the term does not
change the status of the entity.Roman law is irrelevant to Canada. The Roman definition of citizen, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to Canada. All natural persons are also legal persons.

3. The term 'freeman' is synonomous with the terms 'citizen, subject, person'; all meaning that the intended subject man to whom it is applied is of slave status. The original Magna Carta of 1215, which was voided by the Pope, the overlord of England, contained the term 'liber homo' (2 separate words meaning free man, or free will man) when claiming the rights to due process of law for a living man. The Pope could have none of this in his fascist world.The Pope is irrelevant to Canada. The Pope has no say in Canadian law. The Magna Carta, whatever version, is of historical significance only. The only slavery in Canada is of the type that you embody - i.e., hopeless bondage to fear, anger and delusion. You are a slave of your own making.

D'rok
28th August 2010, 08:56 AM
This had nothing to do with the Detax Canada program. The human defendant 'identified' himself as an accessory attached to Crown property (the legal name), and that allowed the judge to apply the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali'.

With that, the judge applied the Roman treatment upon disobedient slaves
that is was succinctly stated in the Fugitive Slave Act (USA) of 1850, section 6: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"Canadian judges don't apply Roman law. Canadian judges don't apply American law, especially American law that is no longer good law even in America.

We can read. We can read that case. We can see how well your doctrine of the natural/legal person distinction holds up to legal scrutiny. It doesn't.

Alareth
28th August 2010, 09:14 AM
Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.


Oh I just can't WAIT to see your evidence for this one.

The Platypus
28th August 2010, 09:35 AM
Everything. The Bank of Canada voting shares were sold to the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1936. An equal number of non-voting shares were then created and sold back to the Canadian Government. All major banks in Canada have a representatibe of the Federal Reserve on their board of directors.

The corporate business office of the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC.
Look it up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.

CRA operates above and outside Canadian law as proven by the fact that CRA can confiscate Canadian OAS, CPP and military pension when all three of the statutes covering those say 'no attachments of benefits in law or in equity'. Operating under the property right based feudal system 'master/servant law', CRA edicts and demands trump statutory law.

Gee that's interesting, i'm admittedly no expert in this, so i have to look such things up to verify them. And upon looking this all up, none of what your saying seems to be true... go figure, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

dtugg
28th August 2010, 09:43 AM
:dl:

EldonG
28th August 2010, 09:53 AM
You deny the validity of income tax. You advocate individual sovereignty over parliamentary sovereignty. You advocate separating the natural person from the legal person.

That's three for three. I guess you lied..

Wrong. I don't advocate 'sovereignty. I advocate 'free will status'. The only separation I show for natural and artificial/legal person is that natural means a man in servitude to the corporate Crown, and an artificial person being a ship or make believe ship - an incorporated body.


No. Authoritative cases have already been cited in this very thread that show the idiotic untruth of your legal "analysis"..

There is, and cannot be authorative case law for dismissed cases for want of jurisdiction over a free will man.


Roman law is irrelevant to Canada. The Roman definition of citizen, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to Canada. All natural persons are also legal persons..

Canada, as a corporate body is a Province of the Holy Roman Empire of the Pontiff of Rome/Vatican. Incorporation of bodies politic (policy enforcing corporate bodies) is totally a Roman Empire thing, as is statutory law that is applicable to corporate members called 'persons' - slave crewmembers on the make-believe ship at sea.


The Pope is irrelevant to Canada. The Pope has no say in Canadian law. The Magna Carta, whatever version, is of historical significance only. The only slavery in Canada is of the type that you embody - i.e., hopeless bondage to fear, anger and delusion. You are a slave of your own making.

Is that so? The Popes of 1455 and 1493 declared by Papal Bull that all European discovered lands belonged to the Pontiff of Rome. The Papal Bull of 1302 declared all humankind as being 'subjects of (slaves of) the Pontiff of Rome. (look up on GOOGLE). The Protestant separation of King Henry VII's
time only separated the sub-corporate body, the Roman Catholic Church, but did not nullify the treaty between King John and Pope Innocent III of 1213,
which declared England and the Monarch of England vassals FOREVER of the Holy Roman Empire.

When a new Pope is Crowned as King of Heaven, of Earth and of Hell, this declaration is made: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ".

Do you think that the Pope exercises secular 'Ruler of the World' by sprinkling holy water?

EldonG
28th August 2010, 09:57 AM
Gee that's interesting, i'm admittedly no expert in this, so i have to look such things up to verify them. And upon looking this all up, none of what your saying seems to be true... go figure, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Where are you looking? You cannot find such information by looking at the roll of toilet paper by your can.

Is this a thread by Government of Jesuit controlled dupes and dis-information agents?

EldonG
28th August 2010, 10:12 AM
How did you know friday night was my night off from watching children explode?

The Pope lost the majority of his power in a little event known as the Protestant reformation. It has been almost entirely downhill for that "mouthpeice of god" since. The idea that the pope is controlling the IMF is not grounded in reality.

The Declaration made of the powers of the Pope: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ". - Shows both a secular and a religious role for the Pope. He is creator of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World in the secular (worldly) role, and God incarnate on Earth as his religious role.

The making of England - later Great Britain (in 1213) - as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire FOREVER (a secular Empire, not religious/ecclestical) was a secular tie. The English protestant move was just a separation of the sub-corporate Anglican Church from the sub-corporae Roman Catholic Church.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

EldonG
28th August 2010, 10:17 AM
Oh I just can't WAIT to see your evidence for this one.

Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)

3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg.113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please do not post lengthy cut and pasted tracts available elsewhere. Instead, just post a short quote and a link to the complete tract. Also, please consult the Membership Agreement, to which you agreed upon becoming a member of the forum.

lopeyschools
28th August 2010, 10:25 AM
The Declaration made of the powers of the Pope: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ". - Shows both a secular and a religious role for the Pope. He is creator of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World in the secular (worldly) role, and God incarnate on Earth as his religious role.

The making of England - later Great Britain (in 1213) - as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire FOREVER (a secular Empire, not religious/ecclestical) was a secular tie. The English protestant move was just a separation of the sub-corporate Anglican Church from the sub-corporae Roman Catholic Church.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

ok,

1. Saying you're the leader of the world, and being the leader of the world are two entirely separate things. The Pop has not held any real power for a very long time. The historical enemies of the papacy made sure of this.

2. English Protestantism was a full blown separation of the churches. Catholics were hunted and burned for being catholic.

I hate to sound arrogant but your knowledge of history is seriously flawed. Take some history courses at an accredited university.

The Platypus
28th August 2010, 10:45 AM
Where are you looking? You cannot find such information by looking at the roll of toilet paper by your can.

Is this a thread by Government of Jesuit controlled dupes and dis-information agents?

Lame childish insults are not helping your credibility. They only make it more obvious your full of crap.

You expect me to just be as gullible as you are and just take your word for it, some anonymous guy on the internet, as you obviously have.

And then because i checked your info and found that it isn't true, you resort to childish taunting as a diversion... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quite the bizarre snake oil sales pitch technique you have there... You've quickly shown me many reasons why i shouldn't believe you, now or ever...

Ian Osborne
28th August 2010, 11:17 AM
The Popes of 1455 and 1493 declared by Papal Bull that all European discovered lands belonged to the Pontiff of Rome. The Papal Bull of 1302 declared all humankind as being 'subjects of (slaves of) the Pontiff of Rome.

And Idi Amin declared himself King of Scotland. Did this make him so?

Ducky
28th August 2010, 12:32 PM
And Idi Amin declared himself King of Scotland. Did this make him so?

I have a perl script that will declare me mayor of EldonG's front lawn on FourSquare. Will he shake his cane at me?

D'rok
28th August 2010, 01:00 PM
Wrong. I don't advocate 'sovereignty. I advocate 'free will status'. The only separation I show for natural and artificial/legal person is that natural means a man in servitude to the corporate Crown, and an artificial person being a ship or make believe ship - an incorporated body.



There is, and cannot be authorative case law for dismissed cases for want of jurisdiction over a free will man.



Canada, as a corporate body is a Province of the Holy Roman Empire of the Pontiff of Rome/Vatican. Incorporation of bodies politic (policy enforcing corporate bodies) is totally a Roman Empire thing, as is statutory law that is applicable to corporate members called 'persons' - slave crewmembers on the make-believe ship at sea.



Is that so? The Popes of 1455 and 1493 declared by Papal Bull that all European discovered lands belonged to the Pontiff of Rome. The Papal Bull of 1302 declared all humankind as being 'subjects of (slaves of) the Pontiff of Rome. (look up on GOOGLE). The Protestant separation of King Henry VII's
time only separated the sub-corporate body, the Roman Catholic Church, but did not nullify the treaty between King John and Pope Innocent III of 1213,
which declared England and the Monarch of England vassals FOREVER of the Holy Roman Empire.

When a new Pope is Crowned as King of Heaven, of Earth and of Hell, this declaration is made: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ".

Do you think that the Pope exercises secular 'Ruler of the World' by sprinkling holy water?

I'm speechless.

Is this a thread by Government of Jesuit controlled dupes and dis-information agents?

Yes.


(Backs away slowly).

D'rok
28th August 2010, 01:45 PM
Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)
Just for ***** and giggles, I looked up the first source that you cited for this claim. Imagine my surprise when I read the case and found that it says no such thing.

Here it is attached so we can all read it.

The Platypus
28th August 2010, 02:06 PM
I'm speechless.



Yes.


(Backs away slowly).

Isn't it funny how so many of these kooks make the accusation of people being "agents" and it somehow doesn't even occur to them that such statements definitely make them look even more like crackpots that are paranoid and delusional...

D'rok
28th August 2010, 02:08 PM
Isn't it funny how so many of these kooks make the accusation of people being "agents" and it somehow doesn't even occur to them that such statements definitely make them look even more like crackpots that are paranoid and delusional...Indeed. But I admit I'm curious to know what on earth a "Government of Jesuit controlled dupes" is supposed to be.

EldonG
28th August 2010, 03:24 PM
And Idi Amin declared himself King of Scotland. Did this make him so?

Idi Amin didn't have the Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits infiltrating all aspects of Government, as does the Pope. Idi Amin didn't have control of the World money system through the banksters of the City of London, as does the Pope. Idi Amin doesn't have all lawyers by the balls as does the Poe through the City of London Lawyers Guild. Idi Amin didn't have have all the PHDs by the balls as does the Pope through the professional standards organizations within the City of London.
Idi Amin doesn't have royalty on a choke chain, as does the Pope.

Alareth
28th August 2010, 03:31 PM
Yes, the Pope has infinite power. That is why he was able to keep child raping and his role in covering it up out of the news.

Ian Osborne
28th August 2010, 03:38 PM
Idi Amin didn't have the Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits infiltrating all aspects of Government, as does the Pope. Idi Amin didn't have control of the World money system through the banksters of the City of London, as does the Pope. Idi Amin doesn't have all lawyers by the balls as does the Poe through the City of London Lawyers Guild. Idi Amin didn't have have all the PHDs by the balls as does the Pope through the professional standards organizations within the City of London.
Idi Amin doesn't have royalty on a choke chain, as does the Pope.

That's what he wanted you to think.

Ducky
28th August 2010, 06:03 PM
Idi Amin didn't have the Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits infiltrating all aspects of Government, as does the Pope. Idi Amin didn't have control of the World money system through the banksters of the City of London, as does the Pope. Idi Amin doesn't have all lawyers by the balls as does the Poe through the City of London Lawyers Guild. Idi Amin didn't have have all the PHDs by the balls as does the Pope through the professional standards organizations within the City of London.
Idi Amin doesn't have royalty on a choke chain, as does the Pope.

Hey. I'm mayor of your front lawn according to FourSquare. You can vacate your house now.

Right? Claiming to be something makes it true?

Gawdzilla
28th August 2010, 06:10 PM
I'm lost on this detax thing.If we don't pay for the infrastructure, who will?

Alareth
28th August 2010, 07:05 PM
I'm lost on this detax thing.If we don't pay for the infrastructure, who will?


Apparently, the Pope.

Gawdzilla
28th August 2010, 07:11 PM
Apparently, the Pope.

At least the money would go for something beside icing for the choirboys.

D'rok
28th August 2010, 07:58 PM
Stick it in the Poper?

Ducky
28th August 2010, 07:59 PM
Stick it in the Poper?

I lol'ed.

D'rok
28th August 2010, 08:45 PM
I lol'ed.My work here is done.

The Platypus
28th August 2010, 11:46 PM
Idi Amin didn't have the Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits infiltrating all aspects of Government, as does the Pope. Idi Amin didn't have control of the World money system through the banksters of the City of London, as does the Pope. Idi Amin doesn't have all lawyers by the balls as does the Poe through the City of London Lawyers Guild. Idi Amin didn't have have all the PHDs by the balls as does the Pope through the professional standards organizations within the City of London.
Idi Amin doesn't have royalty on a choke chain, as does the Pope.

And most of the world could care less about your eurocentric fantasy... There's a big world outside your little delusional bubble, and many other cultures outside of Europe you know. All this nonsense and crap that you regurgitate from kook websites, is not the basis of the entire planet.

Gawdzilla
29th August 2010, 04:41 AM
Stick it in the Poper?

http://rationalia.com/z/090824Nsmprofession20.gif

Sledge
29th August 2010, 05:00 AM
I'm lost on this detax thing.If we don't pay for the infrastructure, who will?

Apparently, governments can create infinite amounts of money.

Gawdzilla
29th August 2010, 05:07 AM
Apparently, governments can create infinite amounts of money.

I love the "I'll only pay for what benefits me directly. ("...and exclusively" being implied in that as well.) I have a paved road in front of my house. If it wasn't there it would be "fun" getting in and out in the spring rains. Trucks use it, fire companies use it, school buses use it, ambulances uses, that moron with the kill-level stereo system uses it. Maybe I should pay only for the bits I use?

Sledge
29th August 2010, 05:13 AM
Does that mean he'll only pay for roads that benefit him directly? If so, where does he draw the line? Are roads he doesn't drive on but the guy delivering his television does something he'll pay for? What about a road being driven on by someone taking food to the supermarket he buys it from? I can't help but think that such an approach would involve so much time crunching numbers he'd be better off just paying road tax and having done with it.

blobru
29th August 2010, 05:20 AM
... What a mess.

Anyways, the detax Canada website (which I find to be quite comical) is located at:

http://www.detaxcanada.org ...


Jesus H Chrétien (the 'H' for Harper), I wonder how much Canadian taxpayer-subsidized cough syrup was ingested to produce that!? :faint:

Ladewig
29th August 2010, 06:55 AM
Idi Amin didn't have the Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits infiltrating all aspects of Government, as does the Pope. Idi Amin didn't have control of the World money system through the banksters of the City of London, as does the Pope. Idi Amin doesn't have all lawyers by the balls as does the Poe through the City of London Lawyers Guild. Idi Amin didn't have have all the PHDs by the balls as does the Pope through the professional standards organizations within the City of London.

Even if every single word of this were true, that doesn't make the Pope King of the World!







Idi Amin doesn't have royalty on a choke chain, as does the Pope.

This part is my favorite. Mr. G, are you aware that current law states that if an heir to the British throne marries a Catholic, he or she is immediately removed from the line of succession?


But leaving aside the powers of the Pope, who should pay for national defense, the national government, and the court system?

Ladewig
29th August 2010, 07:00 AM
through verbal or grammatical gymnastics they can "outsmart" the system to avoid paying taxes, paying their mortgage, paying speeding tickets, paying child support, avoid shoing up for court, etc.

I think I can understand their rationalizing their desire to not pay taxes, but the skipping out on child support throws me? They created the kid, they are responsible for creating the kid, how do they use capital letters and Roman law to justifying not paying for the kid?

Horatius
29th August 2010, 07:57 AM
I think I can understand their rationalizing their desire to not pay taxes, but the skipping out on child support throws me? They created the kid, they are responsible for creating the kid, how do they use capital letters and Roman law to justifying not paying for the kid?



How about this: The kid has a SSN, therefore belongs to The State, and so isn't their problem anymore.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 02:13 PM
Hey. I'm mayor of your front lawn according to FourSquare. You can vacate your house now.

Right? Claiming to be something makes it true?


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

75,000 Hugenot Frenchmen murdered in Paris at the command of the Pope in the St. Barthemolew Massacre in Paris in 1572 also seems a bit more than an empty claim.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 02:23 PM
I'm lost on this detax thing.If we don't pay for the infrastructure, who will?

There has been no way to pay for anything in the USA or Canada since the early 1930s. All there is available is to 'settle' a debt by way of exchange of debt. Do your research. Read what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC said to the Chamber of Commerce in 1946. Just go to OP's link to detaxcanada website and search 'fairshare'. I didn't write the article.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.

A short time later, Canada changed the currency by removing any 'promise to pay', making the Canadian currency 'ship script' on a make believe ship at sea (as are all incorporated bodies) that will never reach home port where the 'ship script' promissory notes can be redeemed for real asset value money.

dudalb
29th August 2010, 02:32 PM
50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

75,000 Hugenot Frenchmen murdered in Paris at the command of the Pope in the St. Barthemolew Massacre in Paris in 1572 also seems a bit more than an empty claim.

Someone cue in Mel Brooks doing "The Inqusition" number from "The History Of The World, Part One", please.......

I have no love for the Inqusition whatsoever, but the Fifty Million number of deahs is pure BS.
And the Protestents have a lot of Catholic Blood on their hands. In the 1500's and 1600"s, no one walks away clean.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 02:36 PM
I love the "I'll only pay for what benefits me directly. ("...and exclusively" being implied in that as well.) I have a paved road in front of my house. If it wasn't there it would be "fun" getting in and out in the spring rains. Trucks use it, fire companies use it, school buses use it, ambulances uses, that moron with the kill-level stereo system uses it. Maybe I should pay only for the bits I use?

Removed inappropriate content. How is it that you think you know so much more about the fiat money economics than did the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC?

Ducky
29th August 2010, 02:41 PM
50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

75,000 Hugenot Frenchmen murdered in Paris at the command of the Pope in the St. Barthemolew Massacre in Paris in 1572 also seems a bit more than an empty claim.

Are you seriously claiming the inquisition killed 50 million people?

Really?

I guess it's true, nobody does suspect the inquisition...

Ok then I claim FourSquare is the rightful judge of who is mayor of your property. As such, you can vacate your house, I'm now the mayor of your front lawn.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 02:52 PM
Someone cue in Mel Brooks doing "The Inqusition" number from "The History Of The World, Part One", please.......

I have no love for the Inqusition whatsoever, but the Fifty Million number of deahs is pure BS.
And the Protestents have a lot of Catholic Blood on their hands. In the 1500's and 1600"s, no one walks away clean.

The 50 million is likely quite conservative, since the Jesuit run Bolcheviks and Stalin murdered that many White Russians and Russian Germans in the Gulags and the Ukraine.

Since I cannot post a link yet, you can complete the URL and read for yourself, and disprove all you like.

one-evil.org/acts_holocaust/acts_vatican_holocaust.htm

reformation.org/bart.html

There's lots more if you care to search GOOGLE.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 02:57 PM
Jesus H Chrétien (the 'H' for Harper), I wonder how much Canadian taxpayer-subsidized cough syrup was ingested to produce that!? :faint:

Well, I am glad my website is serving two good purposes - teaching Canadians and Americans how to get out from under the Pope imposed involuntary servitude (slave) status, and creating some humour for those who have had their heads removed by the guillotine.

dudalb
29th August 2010, 03:10 PM
The 50 million is likely quite conservative, since the Jesuit run Bolcheviks and Stalin murdered that many White Russians and Russian Germans in the Gulags and the Ukraine.


Communism was a Jesuit Conspriacy???????????
:dl::dl::dl:
Congratulations. You just got a Stundie Nomination after just 17 posts with that one.

drkitten
29th August 2010, 03:13 PM
The 50 million is likely quite conservative, since the Jesuit run Bolcheviks and Stalin murdered that many White Russians and Russian Germans in the Gulags and the Ukraine.

So apparently Stalin was now a member of the Inquisition.

This just gets better and better, doesn't it?

Gawdzilla
29th August 2010, 03:17 PM
There has been no way to pay for anything in the USA or Canada since the early 1930s. All there is available is to 'settle' a debt by way of exchange of debt. Do your research. Read what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC said to the Chamber of Commerce in 1946. Just go to OP's link to detaxcanada website and search 'fairshare'. I didn't write the article.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.

A short time later, Canada changed the currency by removing any 'promise to pay', making the Canadian currency 'ship script' on a make believe ship at sea (as are all incorporated bodies) that will never reach home port where the 'ship script' promissory notes can be redeemed for real asset value money.

All "money" is ******** anyway. Value is arbitrary and based in human's opinions of what is valuable. Cowrie shells, anyone?

So your reasoning fails from the fundament. The system on changed how we keep score, nothing more.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

ConspiRaider
29th August 2010, 03:55 PM
So apparently Stalin was now a member of the Inquisition.

This just gets better and better, doesn't it?
Fortunately, Josef went crazy by trying to make very small rocks float, else another 50 million down the tubes.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 04:00 PM
The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.
There you go again. Citing case law while forgetting how easy it us to look up the cases you cite, especially for those of us who have some training in the area. Strangely, those cases don't say what you claim. You seem to have missed the last time you were called on this. Here it is again for your attention:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6275693#post6275693

Let's see of you did any better this time. Here is the case:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1977/1978scr1-1148/1978scr1-1148.html

Now, did the SC rule that Canadian bills are "only promissory notes"? No. In a 5-4 split decision in which the Chief Justice dissented, the Court found that Canadian bills were legal tender but also promissory notes.

Is that still the case? Subtracting the crazy, you give a partial answer:

A short time later, Canada changed the currency by removing any 'promise to pay', making the Canadian currency 'ship script' on a make believe ship at sea (as are all incorporated bodies) that will never reach home port where the 'ship script' promissory notes can be redeemed for real asset value money.The ship garbage is exactly that. But, as you note, the ambiguity that caused the original decision has now been addressed. Our bills no longer say that "The Bank of Canada will pay the bearer on demand". Canadian bills now no longer have a dual identity as legal tender and promissory notes. They are now legal tender and legal tender only. Our currency is the Canadian dollar.

But I suppose the Pope made me say that.

Ladewig
29th August 2010, 04:06 PM
Please correct me if I am misstating any part of your position.

1) There has been an international conspiracy to control the most powerful nations on Earth for over 300 years.

2) These conspirators are so ruthless and power-hunger that they are willing to kill tens of millions of people to achieve their goals.

3) As of 2010, they control virtually all aspects of the governments of England, the U.S. and Canada.

4) As part of their plans, they have instituted income taxes in these three countries.


OK, up to this point, you have described a scenario that may be difficult to believe, but is, at least, internally consistent.


5) These national income taxes are inherently unjust, immoral, and illegal because they violate the natural rights of citizens.

6) There is a way for citizens to avoid these taxes and all subsequent penalties by saying the right words to the right people.

7) People who have discovered these loopholes are permitted to sell (or give away) this information to as many people as they like.

Do you see how this part really looks strange? There is an international cabal willing to kill you and all your relatives at a moment's notice if they think you are a threat, but if you say the magic words (and successfully saying the magic words proves that there is a conspiracy), then you are immune from harm. Why would they allow such an exemption?!

LostAngeles
29th August 2010, 04:23 PM
Of course the magic words work! When spoken to agents of the conspiracy, they successfully cut through the neuro-linquistic programming that has been used to brainwash them and tingle the pineal gland. It's like the old magic behind having two names, a true name and the name you're known by. This is how it works.

Also, Reptoids or some ****.

Ian Osborne
29th August 2010, 04:32 PM
It's because when you know the magic words, you get initiated into the secret cabal run by the Freemasons, the Illuminati and Mossad. President Kennedy got one of the words wrong, that's why they shot him.

catsmate1
29th August 2010, 04:41 PM
50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

Reeeeeally? Given that the best estimates of the population of Western Europe in the early/mid seventeenth century are less than eighty million people, 6-8 million of them in Spain, don't you think the extermination of ~60% of he population of the continent would have been noticed?:D
Perhaps you find better sources for your "facts"?

D'rok
29th August 2010, 04:50 PM
Please correct me if I am misstating any part of your position.

1) There has been an international conspiracy to control the most powerful nations on Earth for over 300 years.

2) These conspirators are so ruthless and power-hunger that they are willing to kill tens of millions of people to achieve their goals.

3) As of 2010, they control virtually all aspects of the governments of England, the U.S. and Canada.

4) As part of their plans, they have instituted income taxes in these three countries.


OK, up to this point, you have described a scenario that may be difficult to believe, but is, at least, internally consistent.


5) These national income taxes are inherently unjust, immoral, and illegal because they violate the natural rights of citizens.

6) There is a way for citizens to avoid these taxes and all subsequent penalties by saying the right words to the right people.

7) People who have discovered these loopholes are permitted to sell (or give away) this information to as many people as they like.

Do you see how this part really looks strange? There is an international cabal willing to kill you and all your relatives at a moment's notice if they think you are a threat, but if you say the magic words (and successfully saying the magic words proves that there is a conspiracy), then you are immune from harm. Why would they allow such an exemption?!Evil empires always have an overlooked exhaust port that plucky rebels can use to destroy the system. It's in the script.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:19 PM
Communism was a Jesuit Conspriacy???????????
:dl::dl::dl:
Congratulations. You just got a Stundie Nomination after just 17 posts with that one.

Didn't say that Communism was a Jesuit conspiracy. I say that Communism arises out of the fascist/corporatist structure of the Holy Roman Empire.

Just search 'fasces' and you will see that the 'fasces' symbol is that of Rome, and is used in every western country as a symbol in the insignia.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:21 PM
And most of the world could care less about your eurocentric fantasy... There's a big world outside your little delusional bubble, and many other cultures outside of Europe you know. All this nonsense and crap that you regurgitate from kook websites, is not the basis of the entire planet.

If you say so, it must be a fact. However, you offer no proof of or with your statement.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:30 PM
Isn't it funny how so many of these kooks make the accusation of people being "agents" and it somehow doesn't even occur to them that such statements definitely make them look even more like crackpots that are paranoid and delusional...

I suppose you would like people you believe that; however, Queen Victoria removed the succession rights of British Monarchy as the Monarchs of Canada from the BNA Act in 1893, and yet we still have Queen Elizabeth II representing herself as Queen of Canada and other former colonies. That can only be as agent Monarch under the authority of the Crown of the City of Londonm which is the over-corporation of the Crown of GB. That arises out of the King John/Pope Innocent III treaty making England and its Monarchs vassals of the Pontiff's HRE and the Crown of GB incorporated in 1297 as a sub-corporation of the Crown of the Pontiff owned City of London. The Queen of GB has to down dress and ask permission to enter the City of London.

"crackpots that are paranoid and delusional" is a common 'ad hominum' term used to kill the messenger, and sideline the message of the messenger.

Fitter
29th August 2010, 05:36 PM
<snip>

"crackpots that are paranoid and delusional" is a common 'ad hominum' term used to kill the messenger, and sideline the message of the messenger.

Possibly. Of course it might also be used to point out that crackpots are paranoid and delusional.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:41 PM
Indeed. But I admit I'm curious to know what on earth a "Government of Jesuit controlled dupes" is supposed to be.

The Jesuit order was created around 1540 as the goon squad of the Pontiff, and controls textbook content, education curricula, colleges of higher education (heavy into the socialist agenda) and indoctrination of government leaders, as was PMs St Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney, and Martin
all were products of Jesuit education and indoctrination. All promoted the
New World Order plans of the Pontiff of Rome. All were of the socialist/liberal bent, regardless the name of the party they served.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:43 PM
And most of the world could care less about your eurocentric fantasy... There's a big world outside your little delusional bubble, and many other cultures outside of Europe you know. All this nonsense and crap that you regurgitate from kook websites, is not the basis of the entire planet.

Your liberal/socialist opinion, I presume - but certainly not the opinion of a lot of Canadians and Americans.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:46 PM
I love the "I'll only pay for what benefits me directly. ("...and exclusively" being implied in that as well.) I have a paved road in front of my house. If it wasn't there it would be "fun" getting in and out in the spring rains. Trucks use it, fire companies use it, school buses use it, ambulances uses, that moron with the kill-level stereo system uses it. Maybe I should pay only for the bits I use?

You stick to the liberal/socialist concepts and propaganda by the 'fruits of the labour of owned slaves' CRA propaganda, but your views are totally refuted by the speech given by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1946.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 05:53 PM
The Jesuit order was created around 1540 as the goon squad of the Pontiff, and controls textbook content, education curricula, colleges of higher education (heavy into the socialist agenda) and indoctrination of government leaders, as was PMs St Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney, and Martin
all were products of Jesuit education and indoctrination. All promoted the
New World Order plans of the Pontiff of Rome. All were of the socialist/liberal bent, regardless the name of the party they served.Damn that Mulroney and his socialist Free Trade Agreement (http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=346). The Jesuits must have got to him! Maybe Karhleinz Schreibe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Schreiber)r was a Jesuit?

blobru
29th August 2010, 05:53 PM
Well, I am glad my website is serving two good purposes - teaching Canadians and Americans how to get out from under the Pope imposed involuntary servitude (slave) status, and creating some humour for those who have had their heads removed by the guillotine.


Well, that's one way to avoid a head tax. (ba-dump-bump?) :covereyes

(Deserved that. Thx for the heads up.)

EldonG
29th August 2010, 05:57 PM
Does that mean he'll only pay for roads that benefit him directly? If so, where does he draw the line? Are roads he doesn't drive on but the guy delivering his television does something he'll pay for? What about a road being driven on by someone taking food to the supermarket he buys it from? I can't help but think that such an approach would involve so much time crunching numbers he'd be better off just paying road tax and having done with it.

You obviously haven't read the speech by Beardsley Ruml, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC , given to the NYC Chamber of Commerce in 1946? Go to the link given by OP and search 'fair share'. That webpage and the linked webpage are from an American who had his website shut down under trumped up charges of 'mail fraud' for selling some product or other on his website. That is a common tool in the USA to shut down undesirable (to Government) websites. They base it upon some shill claiming that he or she didn't get the product ordered.

Income tax does NOT collect 'money'. True money is an asset backed medium. There has been no money since the early 1930s. What they collect/harvest is the 'fruits of the labour of owned slaves'.

All currency is created out of nothing based upon the credit signature of a borrower of money. The banks just convert one form of credit, a promissory note, into another form of promissory note, the currency of the corporate nation. When you get a loan or a mortgage at a bank, you give them a promissory note. They deposit that as a bank asset, and then lend the money you created back to you at interest and demand for full payback of
your own money to the bank, and also take the property purchased with your own created money as pledged chattel for re-payment. The bank has loaned you NOTHING. They have absolutely no liability or danger of loss.

Gawdzilla
29th August 2010, 06:04 PM
You stick to the liberal/socialist concepts and propaganda by the 'fruits of the labour of owned slaves' CRA propaganda, but your views are totally refuted by the speech given by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1946.

Was he dancing around a pentagram drawn with the blood of a hanged man while shaking a rattle made from the funny bones of a coyote?

D'rok
29th August 2010, 06:12 PM
Queen Victoria removed the succession rights of British Monarchy as the Monarchs of Canada from the BNA Act in 1893Um, what?


Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

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

Looks like it's still there to me.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 06:14 PM
I'm lost on this detax thing.If we don't pay for the infrastructure, who will?

The same as is paying it now - nobody. Nothing is being 'paid for'. The whole fiat money thing is just one big CON game.

What does it take to have you realize that 10 Billion NOTHINGS is equal to 1 NOTHING.

The problem that we, the people have is that we accept the 'NOTHINGS' as an equal exchange for our labour or risk (investment). An analogy would be the flimsy plastic bags one gets in which to put fruits and vegetables at the supermarket. They have the name (Safeway) on those bags, just as Canadian or Federal Reserve Notes have the Queen's picture or some dead President.

Supposing we take our selection through checkout and proceed to the parking lot with our purchase. Supposing that Safeway security intercepts us and demands 1/2 of the flimsy plastic bags be given back, as they have Safeway's name on them. Well, that is what CRA (or the IRS) does to
Canadians or Americans by demanding a large portion of the funny money back in April of each year.

And, if it isn't a slave thing, as you insinuate, then why doesn't CRA obey the edict of Queen Victoria made in about 1870 that said "No man's wages will be attached (confiscated)".

The public General Statues
passed in the THIRTY-THIRD AND THIRTY-FOURTH YEARS in the reign of
QUEEEN VICTORIA 1870

An Act to abolish Attachment of Wages: {14th July 1870}
Whereas by an order in Council made on the eighteenth day of November one thousand and sixty-seven, certain of the provisions of "The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854" were extended and applied to all the Courts of Record established under the provisions of "The County Courts Act 1846" and also to the City of London Courts of Record as constituted by "The County Courts Act 1867"

And whereas much inconvenience has arisen by the attachment of wages to satisfy judgements recovered in some of such first-mentioned Courts, and it is expedient to prevent the attachment of wages to satisfy judgements recovered in any Court of Record or inferior Court:

Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parlaiment assembled, and by the authority of the same:
1. That after the passing of this Act no order for the attachment of the wages of any servant, labourer, or workman shall be made by the judge of any Court of Record or inferior 2. That this Act may be cited as "The Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870."

This Act has not been rescinded that I know of.

Horatius
29th August 2010, 06:23 PM
.... as was PMs St Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney, and Martin




etuPF1yJRzg

EldonG
29th August 2010, 06:26 PM
There you go again. Citing case law while forgetting how easy it us to look up the cases you cite, especially for those of us who have some training in the area. Strangely, those cases don't say what you claim. You seem to have missed the last time you were called on this. Here it is again for your attention:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6275693#post6275693

Let's see of you did any better this time. Here is the case:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1977/1978scr1-1148/1978scr1-1148.html

Now, did the SC rule that Canadian bills are "only promissory notes"? No. In a 5-4 split decision in which the Chief Justice dissented, the Court found that Canadian bills were legal tender but also promissory notes.

Is that still the case? Subtracting the crazy, you give a partial answer:

The ship garbage is exactly that. But, as you note, the ambiguity that caused the original decision has now been addressed. Our bills no longer say that "The Bank of Canada will pay the bearer on demand". Canadian bills now no longer have a dual identity as legal tender and promissory notes. They are now legal tender and legal tender only. Our currency is the Canadian dollar.

But I suppose the Pope made me say that.

So? What did you say? Canadian money is a form of promissory note?

I said that. That is the only point I intended to make. I believe I already pointed out that, since the late 1970s, the Canadian currency didn't promise to pay anything, as a specie of ship script wouldn't have to promise to pay anything if it were never going to reach home port. That doesn't change the nature of 'currency, except it takes a leap within the confidence game they play.

What is your proof that a corporate body is NOT a make believe ship at sea.

I was an airline (ship) captain, so I am quite capable of analyzing the basics of both and making the comparison. What are your qualifications?

Gawdzilla
29th August 2010, 06:26 PM
The same as is paying it now - nobody. Nothing is being 'paid for'. The whole fiat money thing is just one big CON game.

What does it take to have you realize that 10 Billion NOTHINGS is equal to 1 NOTHING.

I see you avoided answering my post about arbitrary value. Kinda sticks a pin in your whole tirade.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 06:42 PM
So? What did you say? Canadian money is a form of promissory note?
Incorrect. Read again.

I said that. That is the only point I intended to make. I believe I already pointed out that, since the late 1970s, the Canadian currency didn't promise to pay anything, as a specie of ship script wouldn't have to promise to pay anything if it were never going to reach home port. That doesn't change the nature of 'currency, except it takes a leap within the confidence game they play.If it has no value, I'll take yours off your hands. PM me and we'll work out a transfer.

What is your proof that a corporate body is NOT a make believe ship at sea.What is your proof that the invisible pink unicorn in my garage is NOT named Dave?

I was an airline (ship) captain, so I am quite capable of analyzing the basics of both and making the comparison. What are your qualifications?I can speak several syllables while belching.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:01 PM
Of course the magic words work! When spoken to agents of the conspiracy, they successfully cut through the neuro-linquistic programming that has been used to brainwash them and tingle the pineal gland. It's like the old magic behind having two names, a true name and the name you're known by. This is how it works.

Also, Reptoids or some ****.

Well, the idea of 2 names is a deception that a lot of people have bought into - put out by the shills of the Vatican's system.

A child is 'given' names by the parents, who, in registering (offering up to the king) the newborn child 'identify themselves as being slaves owned by the corporate Crown (The corporate Crown has ruled GB since 1297, with the Monarch being just the CEO of the corporation, itself being a sub-corporation of the administrative corporation of the City of London, also called the Crown.
The City of London, n independent city /state within England is owned by the Pontiff of Rome. The Crown of the City is a sub-corporation of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, of which the pontiff of Rome is CEO.

A 'child, being without a mature and moral thinking mind, is thus property, as a 'ship or vessel under construction in a drydock. Thus, a child, as property, can have an identifying name. The family name is referential to the given names and is NOT a man's name.

The registry of the Child with the Crown gives up claim to the child, and it thus becomes a ward of the Crown. The parents become merely 'foster parents' to it. Thus, the powers of the Crown's Social Services, who can bypass due process of law in dealing with parent/children relations.

When the child reaches the age of majority, the vessel is launched upon the sea of life, and a supreme authority captain (cap = latin for head) comes on board. Thus, regardless who claims the physical (Crown or State claims all dead bodies) body, the captain, whilst at sea is supreme. This we refer to
free will'. For the sceptic, free will does not mean 'free to do anything to anyone' , as the negative Golden Rule governs all mankind - Do no harm.

Thus, as with a vessel, the only way another vessel can take control (lawfully) of another vessel is by the consent of the captain of the 'to be controlled' vessel.

The scheme is to have the free will man 'identify' himself as being one and the same as a name conconcocted by people within the corporate Crown where the family name has been converted into a primary or 'sur' name.
The 'all caps' spelling one sees often just means that the property (intellectual property of the Crown) has been pledged as chattel in the bankruptcy declared by all nations directly under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire. It does not create the strawman/legal name. The property right legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, is used to entrap the free vessel into being a slave vessel under tow.

In the USA, the corporate UNITED STATES, the administrating corporation of the Vatican owned city/state called DC or Washington, assumed the Constitution of the united States of America as its Articles of incorporation.
They instituted the 14th Amendment to allow the corporation to own slaves, deceptively called 'citizens'. The 13th Amendment gave the corporation the means to deprive citizens/freemen status slaves of their rights to due process of law, -convicted criminals allows to have involuntary servitude imposed upon them. A corporations are under maritime law, an accused crewmember/corporate member is guilty unless proven innocent by an officer of the vessel or corporation. Thus, the unauthorized use of the State owned name is theft, a felony. Guilty and convicted as charged.

So, getting to 'My name' versus the Crown's or State owned name, a mind is not a physical thing, and thus cannot have an 'identifying' name. All a mind of a free will adult man can have are words or terms that gain that mind's attention. This is called an 'appellation' - where 'appel' in French means 'call'.

Thus, in the normal logic of names, we, as adult men, male or female, can have no identifying name. Anyone who disputes this are free to 'identify' themself by a name, but, know that, as 'property' you are an owned creature.

The religious few chime in with: "well, we are God's property." No, Creator God recognizes our rights and privileges as 'captain of our vessel' - our free will. That is why we have choices in life - many of which are likely not pleasing to Creator God.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:04 PM
My true name is Ged.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:11 PM
Um, what?


Looks like it's still there to me.

Queen Victoria, the Monarch whose reign brought us the BNA Act 1867 died in 1901. Death usually means the end to any duties that may be inscribed in any document pretaining to the deceased.

Section 2 of the BNA Act was rescinded by the British Statutes Reform Act of 1893. That section said:

2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Without that Section 2, who or by what right would the Monarch of Great Britain be Monarch of Canada, regardless what other sections of the BNA Act may refer to 'the Queen or Her Majesty?

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:13 PM
My true name is Ged.

Moderator, how does this type of silly comment add up to any value
to the topic at hand?

Ducky
29th August 2010, 07:13 PM
Queen Victoria, the Monarch whose reign brought us the BNA Act 1867 died in 1901. Death usually means the end to any duties that may be inscribed in any document pretaining to the deceased.

Section 2 of the BNA Act was rescinded by the British Statutes Reform Act of 1893. That section said:

2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Without that Section 2, who or by what right would the Monarch of Great Britain be Monarch of Canada, regardless what other sections of the BNA Act may refer to 'the Queen or Her Majesty?

You may refer to me as Mayor of your Front Lawn. I'm still waiting for you to vacate the premises.

AJM8125
29th August 2010, 07:16 PM
Trust me EldonG, you don't want to be anywhere near Ducky's backyard either.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:17 PM
Now, did the SC rule that Canadian bills are "only promissory notes"? No. In a 5-4 split decision in which the Chief Justice dissented, the Court found that Canadian bills were legal tender but also promissory notes.


Does this say, or not say, that Canadian currency (bills) are prommisory notes?

Looks very much like it says they are - to me.

Ladewig
29th August 2010, 07:19 PM
The same as is paying it now - nobody. Nothing is being 'paid for'. The whole fiat money thing is just one big CON game.

What does it take to have you realize that 10 Billion NOTHINGS is equal to 1 NOTHING.


You're ignoring the question. Let's assume that we all go back to the gold standard and we overthrown the conspiraators. Who, then, will pay for national defense, roads, and courts?

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:20 PM
You may refer to me as Mayor of your Front Lawn. I'm still waiting for you to vacate the premises.

Explain please? I, nor anyone else reading here, have the foggiest notion as to what message you may be attempting to spew. What does this have to do with the theme of this thread?

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:21 PM
Queen Victoria, the Monarch whose reign brought us the BNA Act 1867 died in 1901. Death usually means the end to any duties that may be inscribed in any document pretaining to the deceased.

Section 2 of the BNA Act was rescinded by the British Statutes Reform Act of 1893. That section said:

2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Without that Section 2, who or by what right would the Monarch of Great Britain be Monarch of Canada, regardless what other sections of the BNA Act may refer to 'the Queen or Her Majesty?

"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:"

http://canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html

Fitter
29th August 2010, 07:23 PM
Explain please? I, nor anyone else reading here, have the foggiest notion as to what message you may be attempting to spew. What does this have to do with the theme of this thread?

I understand it, once again you have uttered a non-truth.

Ducky
29th August 2010, 07:24 PM
Explain please? I, nor anyone else reading here, have the foggiest notion as to what message you may be attempting to spew. What does this have to do with the theme of this thread?

Since you're claiming random stuff as true, so am I. Keep shaking your cane, old man. I'm still mayor of your front lawn.

Alareth
29th August 2010, 07:24 PM
Explain please? I, nor anyone else reading here, have the foggiest notion as to what message you may be attempting to spew. What does this have to do with the theme of this thread?

He's mocking your claim that everything belongs to the Pope because another long dead Pope said so.

It's absurd, but so is everything you have said on these forums.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:26 PM
Does this say, or not say, that Canadian currency (bills) are prommisory notes?
No. You don't read very well do you?

Looks very much like it says they are - to me.Indeed. A lot of things look quite strange to you. We are getting that.

You also cited another case a while back as your authority for the proposition that the IRS is an agency of the IMF. Perhaps you can give a pinpoint reference from within the case? I conveniently attached it for you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6275693#post6275693

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:29 PM
Moderator, how does this type of silly comment add up to any value
to the topic at hand?What? I offer you my true name and you scorn its value?

Hmmmph.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:29 PM
You're ignoring the question. Let's assume that we all go back to the gold standard and we overthrown the conspiraators. Who, then, will pay for national defense, roads, and courts?

First off, Canada (and the USA) are exremely rich in natural resources. Why would a farmer have to resort to robbing a grocery store for milk when he had a field full of milk cows?

One 300 square mile in area mineral claim that I am aware of in British Columbia has more precious metal values making it richer than maybe 80% of the countries of the rest of the World. The Bakkan oil field of the Dakotas, Montana and Saskatchewan has far more oil than all of the Middle East. Same
goes for Alaska and likely the Yukon. Alberta has more oil that Saudi Arabia in the tar sands.

Secondly, if needed, a small new product sales tax would more than cover the Government needs in a proper society - one that is not harnessing a military to help the Vatican banksters steal the worlds oil, gas, and opium crops, as we naow are doing.

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:31 PM
What? I offer you my true name and you scorn its value?

Hmmmph.

Well, if you have an 'identifying name' then you are naught but a 'plantation slave' fully subject to having the labour you possess harvested by the corporate Crow, and you can do damn all about it.

I am commonly called Eldon, but when called, I often answer to 'Dude', several derogatory names , Honey, Dear, Hey You,
and Meow. But, I have NO identifying name, because Motor Vehicles Registry have tried and tried to take a picture of my mind (the one who is punching the keyboard usin my resident body's fingers and eyes), but, so far, they have come up empty. And, it cannot be because my mind is empty, because I found my way to the Registry office.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:41 PM
Well, if you have an 'identifying name' then you are naught but a 'plantation slave' fully subject to having the labour you possess harvested by the corporate Crow, and you can do damn all about it.My true name was given to me by Ogion, the wizard of Gont who held back the earthquake.

Lyrandar
29th August 2010, 07:42 PM
First off, Canada (and the USA) are exremely rich in natural resources. Why would a farmer have to resort to robbing a grocery store for milk when he had a field full of milk cows?

For those of us that are not farmers, this is not helpful.

Secondly, if needed, a small new product sales tax would more than cover the Government needs in a proper society - one that is not harnessing a military to help the Vatican banksters steal the worlds oil, gas, and opium crops, as we naow are doing.

... And what happens when someone else decides they want to steal OUR resources? Or wants to tell us what to do with our lives? Or decides they simply want more land? Or they decide we looked at them funny 200 years ago? History shows that if nothing else - people don't need all that much reason to try and kill each other. I'd rather have the military to guard against such things.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:43 PM
I am commonly called Eldon, but when called, I often answer to 'Dude', several derogatory names , Honey, Dear, Hey You,
and Meow. But, I have NO identifying name, because Motor Vehicles Registry have tried and tried to take a picture of my mind (the one who is punching the keyboard usin my resident body's fingers and eyes), but, so far, they have come up empty. And, it cannot be because my mind is empty, because I found my way to the Registry office.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414c7b1aae15e82.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20926)

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:46 PM
No. You don't read very well do you?

Indeed. A lot of things look quite strange to you. We are getting that.

You also cited another case a while back as your authority for the proposition that the IRS is an agency of the IMF. Perhaps you can give a pinpoint reference from within the case? I conveniently attached it for you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6275693#post6275693

Oh! I read quite well. If you don't mean what you say, then you should edit your post.

And, as far as the IRS being under the IMF, I do know that the USA corporation called the IRS was cancelled some time ago, and they are now a Puerto Rico corporation, but, that likely makes little difference in their harvesting the fruits of the labour of UNITED STATES owned slaves.

I am fully aware that all, or most of that list I posted are the work of shills of the alphabet soup crowd used as 'red herring' diversions to hide the fact that all Americans have been declared under involuntary servitude - I know most of the so-called patriot types definitely do not wish to believe that.

So, the exercise of my post was to have a shill and dis-information agent 'debunk' the 'red herrings' of the shills and dis-nformation agents.
Seems that some took the bait.

D'rok
29th August 2010, 07:50 PM
Oh! I read quite well. If you don't mean what you say, then you should edit your post.

And, as far as the IRS being under the IMF, I do know that the USA corporation called the IRS was cancelled some time ago, and they are now a Puerto Rico corporation, but, that likely makes little difference in their harvesting the fruits of the labour of UNITED STATES owned slaves.

I am fully aware that all, or most of that list I posted are the work of shills of the alphabet soup crowd used as 'red herring' diversions to hide the fact that all Americans have been declared under involuntary servitude - I know most of the so-called patriot types definitely do not wish to believe that.

So, the exercise of my post was to have a shill and dis-information agent 'debunk' the 'red herrings' of the shills and dis-nformation agents.
Seems that some took the bait.
:dl:

EldonG
29th August 2010, 07:51 PM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414c7b1aae15e82.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20926)

No! Just a volunteer teacher and guide helping to promote the light to all those in darkness.

And, it is past my bedtime.......

D'rok
29th August 2010, 08:01 PM
No! Just a volunteer teacher and guide helping to promote the light to all those in darkness.

And, it is past my bedtime.......
Better luck next time.

Gord_in_Toronto
29th August 2010, 08:04 PM
Would someone please tell "Red" Ken Livingstone, some time Lord Mayor of London, that all those years he was really working for the Pope? I'm sure he'll be as amazed as the rest of us. :boggled:

Ducky
29th August 2010, 08:17 PM
No! Just a volunteer teacher and guide helping to promote the light to all those in darkness.

And, it is past my bedtime.......

L.H. PUTTGRASS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_in_Bloom_County#L.H._Puttgrass) SIGNING OFF AND HEADING FOR THE TUB!!!!

lopeyschools
29th August 2010, 09:12 PM
Explain please? I, nor anyone else reading here, have the foggiest notion as to what message you may be attempting to spew. What does this have to do with the theme of this thread?

I understand it.

Furthermore he has the power of Opus Friday, Lamp Chops and the Peanut gallery working for him.

Ian Osborne
30th August 2010, 02:22 AM
Motor Vehicles Registry have tried and tried to take a picture of my mind ... but, so far, they have come up empty.

Why am I not in the slightest bit surprised?

Gawdzilla
30th August 2010, 03:53 AM
ALL values are arbitrary. It's just a means of keeping score. Anything else is just fluff.

JLord
30th August 2010, 09:09 AM
It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

I am certainly prepared to engage in honest debate. I will stand by the posts I have made so far as well. If you think I have said anything that is untrue or dishonest feel free to quote it and provide your reasoning.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.

This is a very popular decision among the "detaxer" crowd. I have spoken to more than one person who has attempted to use this decision to make the claim that they can pay their mortgage (or some other debt) with their own "promissory note." The argument is that since currency is also a promissory note, then if I write my own promissory note it is currency. So I write a promissory note for $200,000 grand, give it to the bank, and they can't forclose on me anymore because the mortgage is now fully paid.

The case was about a bunch a bunch of money ($5 bills) that were destroyed when the bus they were being transported in caught fire. The court described the legal questions as follows:

Is a $5 note issued by the Bank of Canada and intended for circulation a promissory note within the meaning of s. 176(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 15? If so, and in the event of that note being accidentally destroyed, is the holder entitled to claim a duplicate note under s. 156 of this Act, or to obtain judgment in the amount of $5 against the Bank of Canada? Those are the questions in this case.

The eventual decision was that the $5 bill is legal currency and also a promissory note.

like any other promissory note, it can be redeemed in legal tender; and its quality of being itself legal tender is not incompatible with its being a promissory note.

It is explained in the decision but basically the court determined that because of the wording on the bill it was a promissory note. The effect of this was that you could go into a bank with a $5 bill and demand $5 and the bank was obliged to give you another $5 bill. So in a very technical way, Canadian $5 bills used to be promissory notes in addition to currency. This of course in not the case anymore as bills no longer say "will pay the bearer on demand..." But for whatever reason people still rely on this case to make all sorts of ridiculous arguments that obviously have never been accepted by the courts.

For example this case (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2008/2008abca130/2008abca130.html) where a person tried to argue they had satisfied their child support obligation by giving some "bonds" that the person had made themselves and which were obviously worthless. The court said:

She also relies on Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal, 1977 CanLII 36 (S.C.C.), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1148,76 D.L.R. (3d) 385, a case about banknotes destroyed and partially destroyed by a fire while in transit. The issue was whether the banknotes were promissory notes. It is not clear what proposition of law from this case supports her assertion that the Documents satisfied the parties’ agreement given that there is a substantial difference between banknotes and the Documents.




In the end we have a fiat currency. The paper has no intrinsic worth beyond other pieces of paper. Yet if you see $20 on the ground you probably pick it up everytime, wheras if you see a similar sized piece of scrap paper you leave it or throw it in the garbage. So money has worth. Everyone agrees with this. If you are the one person who doesn't believe it, even if your arguments are all correct you are still wrong in the sense that your views don't line up with reality. Even if there were some academic argument that made complete sense and money should be worthless, it isn't. Reality says otherwise.



There is, and cannot be authorative case law for dismissed cases for want of jurisdiction over a free will man.

I agree there are no such cases. However, there is no reason why there couldn't be if in fact your argument had any merit. There are hundreds of reported cases where charges have been dismissed for want of prosecution. None of these were situations where the court agreed that it had no jurisdiction over a free will man. Every time that argument has been tried it has failed. If you have reason to believe otherwise please post the case because I would be very interested in reading it.

Once again though, even if your argument were 100% correct, the fact is it won't work in court. We know that for a fact it won't. There is 0% chance of that argument being succesful. So my question is, even if you are correct, why would try to convince people to do something that you know has zero chance of success and will only wind up costing them?

It could be they incur court costs and waste everyone's time. But there are also people who forego actual legal arguments that might be succesful in favour of something that has no chance. If it has no chance of success then surely you should not try to advance this argument even if it 100% correct and the courts are all wrong.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 09:37 AM
Once again though, even if your argument were 100% correct, the fact is it won't work in court. We know that for a fact it won't. There is 0% chance of that argument being succesful. So my question is, even if you are correct, why would try to convince people to do something that you know has zero chance of success and will only wind up costing them?

It could be they incur court costs and waste everyone's time. But there are also people who forego actual legal arguments that might be succesful in favour of something that has no chance. If it has no chance of success then surely you should not try to advance this argument even if it 100% correct and the courts are all wrong.I think the answer to this is simple. Anything that disrupts the administration of justice in Canadian (or any other) courts is a victory. It's paper terrorism. Hopefully, the detaxers and their ilk won't become violent here like they have in the USA. I'm not optimistic on that point.

JLord
30th August 2010, 10:13 AM
I think the answer to this is simple. Anything that disrupts the administration of justice in Canadian (or any other) courts is a victory.

But it doesn't really disrupt anything. I mean it wastes some time I suppose but from the court's perspective it is just business as usual. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, regardless of how ridiculous their argument is. This is just another of many arguments that are doomed to failure that the court hears day after day. I agree that the court has had to spend more effort and time to deal with these people but I wouldn't say any of them have ever disrupted the administration of justice.

The courts have developped policies to deal with these people and they work pretty well at keeping things running smoothly. A couple of years ago a lady I work with told me this story. She was filing something at the courthouse and while waiting in line she overheard a guy who was apparantly there to swear an affidavit. The clerks of the court are all commissioners of oaths and swear lots of affidavits for self represented people. She looked at the affidavit and said "are you John Smith?" (referencing the name on the affidavit) The guy said "no, I represent John Smith." She responded "oh, you cannot swear an affidavit on behalf of someone else." He went on with "I'm a free will being known as John of the Smith family and I represent the natural person John Smith and blah blah blah..." She came back with "Are you John Smith?" He went on with some more nonsense but was interupted with "I'm sorry sir, but if you do not answer yes to that question I can't swear your affidavit... Next."

I thought this was pretty funny and I followed up with a clerk the next time I was speaking to one. She confirmed that this was basically the policy and that these guys will try different clerks and different tactics but they always get the same response.

In our discussion she described another tactic where people will come to the clerks wanting to serve some kind of notice on the courts. They give some document and say some magic words and then apparently if the court doesn't respond within a certain time they are then immune from prosecution and outside the jurisdiction of courts. The clerks response to when someone tries to leave something like this is "we can't accept anything without an action number, and if you want to start a new action it's $200." People have tried leaving it and walking away, writing an action number for some ongoing action, and come have even paid the $200 just to have a meaningless thing officially filed with the courts.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 10:16 AM
For those of us that are not farmers, this is not helpful.

... And what happens when someone else decides they want to steal OUR resources? Or wants to tell us what to do with our lives? Or decides they simply want more land? Or they decide we looked at them funny 200 years ago? History shows that if nothing else - people don't need all that much reason to try and kill each other. I'd rather have the military to guard against such things.

The only thing the Canadian and American military has been used for is killing a vast amount of the Germanic people of the world as part of the Vatican's program of Inquisition against true Israel. Just research the numbers of Germanic people who have been killed (on both sides of the trenches) since the 30 Year War of (1618 - 1648). Were the Boers of South Africa a threat to Canada? Were the Austro-Hungarians of WW1 a threat to Canada? Was NAZI Germany a threat to Canada (We have far worse now in Canada and the USA than the Germans had under Hitler in the 1930s).
The Russians nor the Japanese or Chinese have never threatened to invade Canada (in a military move anyway). The Americans claimed Canada in their Articles of Confederation (Section 11), and now the business office for the corporations called Canada and each individual Canadian province, is in Washington DC. The NAFTA treaty gave the Americans the rights to all water and resources in Canada. The Bank of Canada is owned by the US Federal Reserve. So, it is too late to fight of the American Invasion.

Doubt the Canadian Water transfer to the USA program? GOOGLE: NAWAPA
and James Bay Project. As well as the construction of dams on all BC wild rivers. Hint: canspiracy.8m.com/article5.htm

drkitten
30th August 2010, 10:18 AM
But it doesn't really disrupt anything. I mean it wastes some time I suppose but from the court's perspective it is just business as usual. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, regardless of how ridiculous their argument is. This is just another of many arguments that are doomed to failure that the court hears day after day. I agree that the court has had to spend more effort and time to deal with these people but I wouldn't say any of them have ever disrupted the administration of justice.

Yes, but if enough people start doing this....


You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony ,they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 10:23 AM
Would someone please tell "Red" Ken Livingstone, some time Lord Mayor of London, that all those years he was really working for the Pope? I'm sure he'll be as amazed as the rest of us. :boggled:

I am quite sure that he was fully aware of his position and status. Do you think he did not notice the simple fact that he had the authority to grant or deny the Monarch of Great Britain the privilege of entering 'The City", and see to it that the Monarch was not wearing the regalia of Monarch when in The City?

That 'authority' certainly didn't originate with the Lord Mayor of the City of London.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 10:25 AM
I understand it.

Furthermore he has the power of Opus Friday, Lamp Chops and the Peanut gallery working for him.

That is a childish response. But, I guess, if one is a shill with nothing to say in rebuttal, your response would be appropriate.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 10:28 AM
Why am I not in the slightest bit surprised?

Are you judging by your own mental inadequacy, or from the fact that you
have no rebuttal to the facts posed?

EldonG
30th August 2010, 10:29 AM
ALL values are arbitrary. It's just a means of keeping score. Anything else is just fluff.

Well, if that is your honest opinion, I suppose you are welcome to it.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 10:30 AM
But it doesn't really disrupt anything. I mean it wastes some time I suppose but from the court's perspective it is just business as usual. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, regardless of how ridiculous their argument is. This is just another of many arguments that are doomed to failure that the court hears day after day. I agree that the court has had to spend more effort and time to deal with these people but I wouldn't say any of them have ever disrupted the administration of justice.

The courts have developped policies to deal with these people and they work pretty well at keeping things running smoothly. A couple of years ago a lady I work with told me this story. She was filing something at the courthouse and while waiting in line she overheard a guy who was apparantly there to swear an affidavit. The clerks of the court are all commissioners of oaths and swear lots of affidavits for self represented people. She looked at the affidavit and said "are you John Smith?" (referencing the name on the affidavit) The guy said "no, I represent John Smith." She responded "oh, you cannot swear an affidavit on behalf of someone else." He went on with "I'm a free will being known as John of the Smith family and I represent the natural person John Smith and blah blah blah..." She came back with "Are you John Smith?" He went on with some more nonsense but was interupted with "I'm sorry sir, but if you do not answer yes to that question I can't swear your affidavit... Next."

I thought this was pretty funny and I followed up with a clerk the next time I was speaking to one. She confirmed that this was basically the policy and that these guys will try different clerks and different tactics but they always get the same response.

In our discussion she described another tactic where people will come to the clerks wanting to serve some kind of notice on the courts. They give some document and say some magic words and then apparently if the court doesn't respond within a certain time they are then immune from prosecution and outside the jurisdiction of courts. The clerks response to when someone tries to leave something like this is "we can't accept anything without an action number, and if you want to start a new action it's $200." People have tried leaving it and walking away, writing an action number for some ongoing action, and come have even paid the $200 just to have a meaningless thing officially filed with the courts.It's good to hear that courts have effective policies to deal with the problem. Some freeman types are quite open about their desire to swamp the courts with bogus filings. Like this numpty who lost his guru and is pleading for help from the outpatients at WFS:

"I still have a couple of weeks before I have to appear, and if Michael were around, he would have me filing all kinds of paperwork that would throw their machinery into a permanent bind, and I'd be well on my way out of this dilemma by now."

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=6866


Also, Raymond St. Clair in the UK is notorious for obstructionism in various proceedings which he surreptitiously records and posts on youtube.

It's all kind of pathetic, really.

Sledge
30th August 2010, 10:30 AM
That is a childish response. But, I guess, if one is a shill with nothing to say in rebuttal, your response would be appropriate.

Who do you think he is being paid by?

JLord
30th August 2010, 10:30 AM
Yes, but if enough people start doing this....


It is a fairly common tactic among "detaxers" to show up to court in large groups. I'm not sure what they think this will accomplish but often it seems like if you see one there will be 3 or 4 others. They often will have one detaxer act as agent for another, and another few watching the proceedings. Or they will have some random detaxer swear an affidavit because the actuall perosn involved doesn't want to attorn to the jurisdiction of the court by filing his own affidavit. I agree if there were always say 50 people it would cause some disruption because a courtroom might not seat that many people. But it would still be minor disruption, like some people would have to stand. I'm not sure of any possible scenario where they accomplish any significant disruption other resorting to illegal tactics like bomb threats or somehting like that.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 10:33 AM
We have far worse now in Canada and the USA than the Germans had under Hitler in the 1930s.

Well, just when you thought the stupid couldn't get piled any higher.

Gawdzilla
30th August 2010, 11:04 AM
Well, if that is your honest opinion, I suppose you are welcome to it.

It's the non-mythical opinion.


Still waiting for you to explain how the infrastructure is maintained if we don't pay our taxes.

KDLarsen
30th August 2010, 11:24 AM
I am quite sure that he was fully aware of his position and status. Do you think he did not notice the simple fact that he had the authority to grant or deny the Monarch of Great Britain the privilege of entering 'The City", and see to it that the Monarch was not wearing the regalia of Monarch when in The City?

That 'authority' certainly didn't originate with the Lord Mayor of the City of London.
What, you mean neither Sir David, Sir Michael, Sir Gavyn, Sir Robert, Sir Michael (the other one), Sir David (the other one), Sir John, nor Sir David (the third one), had that authority to begin with?

tsig
30th August 2010, 11:31 AM
50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

75,000 Hugenot Frenchmen murdered in Paris at the command of the Pope in the St. Barthemolew Massacre in Paris in 1572 also seems a bit more than an empty claim.

Bit off on the numbers there. Check the spelling also.

Modern estimates for the number of dead vary widely between 5,000 and 30,000 in total.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

tsig
30th August 2010, 11:32 AM
There has been no way to pay for anything in the USA or Canada since the early 1930s. All there is available is to 'settle' a debt by way of exchange of debt. Do your research. Read what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC said to the Chamber of Commerce in 1946. Just go to OP's link to detaxcanada website and search 'fairshare'. I didn't write the article.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.

A short time later, Canada changed the currency by removing any 'promise to pay', making the Canadian currency 'ship script' on a make believe ship at sea (as are all incorporated bodies) that will never reach home port where the 'ship script' promissory notes can be redeemed for real asset value money.


??

tsig
30th August 2010, 11:34 AM
What the Hell do you think the foreign corporation, the UNITED STATES, ruling over America is now doing. China, Japan and the Arabs are not buying the American bond crap. Thus, the Federal Reserve, on behalf of the corporation called the UNITED STATES, are running the money printing 'red hot' for the last while.

For the word censors, the word you replaced with stars means 'Store High In Transit'. When England used to ship dried bull menure to the colonies for fertilizer, it had to be stored high enough in the hold so as not to get wet. Wet dung creates methane, and gets rather explosive. So, the crates were stamped with the acronym. It is not a swear word.


dlete

EldonG
30th August 2010, 11:35 AM
I am certainly prepared to engage in honest debate. I will stand by the posts I have made so far as well. If you think I have said anything that is untrue or dishonest feel free to quote it and provide your reasoning.

OK!

This is a very popular decision among the "detaxer" crowd. I have spoken to more than one person who has attempted to use this decision to make the claim that they can pay their mortgage (or some other debt) with their own "promissory note." The argument is that since currency is also a promissory note, then if I write my own promissory note it is currency. So I write a promissory note for $200,000 grand, give it to the bank, and they can't forclose on me anymore because the mortgage is now fully paid.

The case was about a bunch a bunch of money ($5 bills) that were destroyed when the bus they were being transported in caught fire. The court described the legal questions as follows:

The eventual decision was that the $5 bill is legal currency and also a promissory note.

It is explained in the decision but basically the court determined that because of the wording on the bill it was a promissory note. The effect of this was that you could go into a bank with a $5 bill and demand $5 and the bank was obliged to give you another $5 bill. So in a very technical way, Canadian $5 bills used to be promissory notes in addition to currency. This of course in not the case anymore as bills no longer say "will pay the bearer on demand..." But for whatever reason people still rely on this case to make all sorts of ridiculous arguments that obviously have never been accepted by the courts.


For example this case (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2008/2008abca130/2008abca130.html) where a person tried to argue they had satisfied their child support obligation by giving some "bonds" that the person had made themselves and which were obviously worthless. The court said:

In the end we have a fiat currency. The paper has no intrinsic worth beyond other pieces of paper. Yet if you see $20 on the ground you probably pick it up everytime, wheras if you see a similar sized piece of scrap paper you leave it or throw it in the garbage. So money has worth. Everyone agrees with this. If you are the one person who doesn't believe it, even if your arguments are all correct you are still wrong in the sense that your views don't line up with reality. Even if there were some academic argument that made complete sense and money should be worthless, it isn't. Reality says otherwise.


All fiat money created by corporate Government (a body politic, as explained by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries) is a form of 'ship's script', as an incorporated body is a 'make-believe ship at sea' with a captain, officers and (crew)members. A lawyer's denial of that fact does not negate that fact.

All cases that can be cited from Canadian or American courts show that the man was, by self incrimination, or by legal trickery of the judge, 'identified' as being one and the same as the Crown or State owned legal name. This allows the judge to then impose the Feudal System 'master/servant' law based upon the property right of the slave owner. The American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 wording shows the Roman ideals of slave control in Section 6, where it says: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." So, when a man who has identified himself as being property of the Crown through unlawful attachment to the Crtown owned legal name, the above is applied, and any arguments presented by the defendant are ignored by the judge.





I agree there are no such cases. However, there is no reason why there couldn't be if in fact your argument had any merit. There are hundreds of reported cases where charges have been dismissed for want of prosecution. None of these were situations where the court agreed that it had no jurisdiction over a free will man. Every time that argument has been tried it has failed. If you have reason to believe otherwise please post the case because I would be very interested in reading it.

Once again though, even if your argument were 100% correct, the fact is it won't work in court. We know that for a fact it won't. There is 0% chance of that argument being succesful. So my question is, even if you are correct, why would try to convince people to do something that you know has zero chance of success and will only wind up costing them?

It could be they incur court costs and waste everyone's time. But there are also people who forego actual legal arguments that might be succesful in favour of something that has no chance. If it has no chance of success then surely you should not try to advance this argument even if it 100% correct and the courts are all wrong.

How do you know that such tactics have not worked? If you cannot find evidence in court transcripts or precedents, what would be your source of knowledge to deny my propositions on stopping court actions?

You mention people now using promissory notes. I have seen proof of three parties in Vernon, BC who have paid off their complete mortgages with promissory notes. A lady here in Calgary had 2 years property tax ($5,000) given a 'paid in full' notice from the City of Calgary, plus a notice that the tax lien on her home was removed at Land Titles. I say the City documents.

Remember, the Trinity of the Holy Roman Empire is Fear, Force, and False Hope. You seem to be freely using the 'fear' tactic here without any explanation as to why certain people have failed in ccourt in defending their god Given rights. I provide those answers.

tsig
30th August 2010, 11:41 AM
So apparently Stalin was now a member of the Inquisition.

This just gets better and better, doesn't it?

Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 11:41 AM
It is a fairly common tactic among "detaxers" to show up to court in large groups. I'm not sure what they think this will accomplish but often it seems like if you see one there will be 3 or 4 others. They often will have one detaxer act as agent for another, and another few watching the proceedings. Or they will have some random detaxer swear an affidavit because the actuall perosn involved doesn't want to attorn to the jurisdiction of the court by filing his own affidavit. I agree if there were always say 50 people it would cause some disruption because a courtroom might not seat that many people. But it would still be minor disruption, like some people would have to stand. I'm not sure of any possible scenario where they accomplish any significant disruption other resorting to illegal tactics like bomb threats or somehting like that.

You use the term'detaxer' as being a derogatory ephitet. We are free will adult men and women who have learned that we have been fraudulently subjugated by forces of the Vatican, using fictional organizations called corporations to deprive us of our Creator God given rights and freedoms.

As time goes on with more and more enlightening facts appearing , such as on the internet medium, humankind will wake up to the fact that they have been , and are victims of a vile scheme by the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis currently resident in the Vatican.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 11:44 AM
Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

:D

Sledge
30th August 2010, 11:46 AM
We are free will adult men and women

Chronologically, perhaps. Mentally, no. Mentally, you're a bunch of children who think something is so unfair, but saying the right magic words will change it.

tsig
30th August 2010, 11:54 AM
Well, the idea of 2 names is a deception that a lot of people have bought into - put out by the shills of the Vatican's system.

A child is 'given' names by the parents, who, in registering (offering up to the king) the newborn child 'identify themselves as being slaves owned by the corporate Crown (The corporate Crown has ruled GB since 1297, with the Monarch being just the CEO of the corporation, itself being a sub-corporation of the administrative corporation of the City of London, also called the Crown.
The City of London, n independent city /state within England is owned by the Pontiff of Rome. The Crown of the City is a sub-corporation of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, of which the pontiff of Rome is CEO.

A 'child, being without a mature and moral thinking mind, is thus property, as a 'ship or vessel under construction in a drydock. Thus, a child, as property, can have an identifying name. The family name is referential to the given names and is NOT a man's name.

The registry of the Child with the Crown gives up claim to the child, and it thus becomes a ward of the Crown. The parents become merely 'foster parents' to it. Thus, the powers of the Crown's Social Services, who can bypass due process of law in dealing with parent/children relations.

When the child reaches the age of majority, the vessel is launched upon the sea of life, and a supreme authority captain (cap = latin for head) comes on board. Thus, regardless who claims the physical (Crown or State claims all dead bodies) body, the captain, whilst at sea is supreme. This we refer to
free will'. For the sceptic, free will does not mean 'free to do anything to anyone' , as the negative Golden Rule governs all mankind - Do no harm.

Thus, as with a vessel, the only way another vessel can take control (lawfully) of another vessel is by the consent of the captain of the 'to be controlled' vessel.

The scheme is to have the free will man 'identify' himself as being one and the same as a name conconcocted by people within the corporate Crown where the family name has been converted into a primary or 'sur' name.
The 'all caps' spelling one sees often just means that the property (intellectual property of the Crown) has been pledged as chattel in the bankruptcy declared by all nations directly under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire. It does not create the strawman/legal name. The property right legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, is used to entrap the free vessel into being a slave vessel under tow.

In the USA, the corporate UNITED STATES, the administrating corporation of the Vatican owned city/state called DC or Washington, assumed the Constitution of the united States of America as its Articles of incorporation.
They instituted the 14th Amendment to allow the corporation to own slaves, deceptively called 'citizens'. The 13th Amendment gave the corporation the means to deprive citizens/freemen status slaves of their rights to due process of law, -convicted criminals allows to have involuntary servitude imposed upon them. A corporations are under maritime law, an accused crewmember/corporate member is guilty unless proven innocent by an officer of the vessel or corporation. Thus, the unauthorized use of the State owned name is theft, a felony. Guilty and convicted as charged.

So, getting to 'My name' versus the Crown's or State owned name, a mind is not a physical thing, and thus cannot have an 'identifying' name. All a mind of a free will adult man can have are words or terms that gain that mind's attention. This is called an 'appellation' - where 'appel' in French means 'call'.

Thus, in the normal logic of names, we, as adult men, male or female, can have no identifying name. Anyone who disputes this are free to 'identify' themself by a name, but, know that, as 'property' you are an owned creature.

The religious few chime in with: "well, we are God's property." No, Creator God recognizes our rights and privileges as 'captain of our vessel' - our free will. That is why we have choices in life - many of which are likely not pleasing to Creator God.

Does this include Piracy and Parrots?

EldonG
30th August 2010, 11:58 AM
It's good to hear that courts have effective policies to deal with the problem. Some freeman types are quite open about their desire to swamp the courts with bogus filings. Like this numpty who lost his guru and is pleading for help from the outpatients at WFS:

Also, Raymond St. Clair in the UK is notorious for obstructionism in various proceedings which he surreptitiously records and posts on youtube.

It's all kind of pathetic, really.

Why? It is the court system that is imposing the statutory 'slave' rules on free will man. Imposing punishments for disobedience to slave rules (persons) is a total violation of our Creator God Given Rights for Creator God's children on Planet Earth, where there is no victim or harm to anyone.

I know that is not within the capacity of a collectivist's narrow mind, but it is a fact.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 12:00 PM
Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

What is that supposed to mean?

EldonG
30th August 2010, 12:01 PM
Chronologically, perhaps. Mentally, no. Mentally, you're a bunch of children who think something is so unfair, but saying the right magic words will change it.

And, being a good subservient slave to a corporate body is somehow supposed to be 'wise and enlightened'? Don't think so.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 12:02 PM
Does this include Piracy and Parrots?

Meaning what?

Sledge
30th August 2010, 12:07 PM
And, being a good subservient slave to a corporate body is somehow supposed to be 'wise and enlightened'? Don't think so.

Please, keep going. Unlike trying to get a five year old to go to bed when she's come back downstairs for the third time, watching your histrionics is highly amusing. For a good giggle, why don't you answer my question and tell me who you think lopeyschools is being paid by?

tsig
30th August 2010, 12:10 PM
Meaning what?

Meaning that if we're all ships do some resort to piracy.

tsig
30th August 2010, 12:14 PM
What is that supposed to mean?

Spanish Inquisition/Communist Inquisition are they the same? You seemed to indicate that Stalin was ruled by the Jesuits and had some relation to the SI.

Did you know that the Inquisition was conducted by the Dominicans (gods' dogs) and not by the Jesuits?

dudalb
30th August 2010, 12:14 PM
I bet that some Detaxers ,loony as they are,would consider EldonG's obssesion with the Catholic Church to be crazy.
BTW I am betting we are dealing with some kind of Protesent Fundy here......

D'rok
30th August 2010, 12:16 PM
Why? It is the court system that is imposing the statutory 'slave' rules on free will man. Imposing punishments for disobedience to slave rules (persons) is a total violation of our Creator God Given Rights for Creator God's children on Planet Earth, where there is no victim or harm to anyone.

I know that is not within the capacity of a collectivist's narrow mind, but it is a fact.
Your track record with facts on this thread leaves just a bit to be desired. I see you are repeating the same crap to JLord that you tried on me. JLord actually practices law in Canada. Yet you have the idiotic gall to tell him/her that Canadian judges apply the American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, despite the fact that a) Acts of Congress do not apply to Canada, and b) that is no longer good law in the USA.

Will you be repeating your idiocy about the BNA Act and how it only refers to Queen Victoria? How about the IRS and the IMF? Will you ignore JLord's correct explanation of the promissory note case (which was exactly the same as mine)?

Oh, I forgot. Whenever someone checks your facts (which is pathetically easy to do), the falsehoods that are revealed are just evidence of shills planting said falsehoods to discredit your info. It's a foolproof plan! Three cheers for iron-clad delusional unfalsifiability!

You assaulted a police officer. You went to jail. Good. You dodged your taxes when you flew planes in the USA. You were arrested, lost your pilot's licence and your job. Good. I'm sorry about your wife, but wherever she is or isn't right now, she is better off.

I'm glad my taxes pay for both your health care and your just punishments. The system works.

You are ineffectual and do nothing other than provide moderate amounts of trollish entertainment. Keep up the good work.

JLord
30th August 2010, 12:25 PM
All fiat money created by corporate Government (a body politic, as explained by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries) .

This another classic fallacy that I have seen a lot. The appeal to something like a legal dictionary or in this case Blackstone. This is just someone's opinion, it doesn't make it the law. Court's have accepted the reasoning set out by Blackstone or in dictionaries many times, but that doesn't mean that the dictionary (or Blackstone) can then be used as a source of law. It's a useful resource, but not an accurate description of the law.

is a form of 'ship's script',

Kind of like that, but also much more since money has specific attributes granted by statute. So much so that I would say calling it a form of ship's script is most likely an attempt to be deceptive. It might be possible to draw an analogy between money and ship's script but that doesn't mean one equals the other.

as an incorporated body is a 'make-believe ship at sea' with a captain, officers and (crew)members

No, this isn't the case. The laws relating to corporations in Canada are set out by statute. The Business Corporations Act makes no mention of corporations being "make-believe ships at sea." Again, you might be able to draw a loose analogy between a corporation and a ship at sea, but that doesn't mean one equals the other.

A lawyer's denial of that fact does not negate that fact.

Nor does your assertion make it a fact. I would be interested to see if there are any Canadian decisions that agree with your position.

All cases that can be cited from Canadian or American courts show that the man was, by self incrimination, or by legal trickery of the judge, 'identified' as being one and the same as the Crown or State owned legal name.

The court makes no disctinction between a person and their free will being or their alter-ego or whatever you want to call it. Many people have tried to make this argument and the court has never accepted that such a thing exists (again, if I am wrong you can provide us with the decision).

This allows the judge to then impose the Feudal System 'master/servant' law based upon the property right of the slave owner.

The fact that we are all subject to the jurisdiction of the court has nothing to do with slave ownership. Once again you could make a loose analogy in that everyone is subject to jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether they agree or not, just like how slaves were slaves regardless of whether they agreed. But we are talking about two totally different ideas that at best are only marginally related.

The American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 wording shows the Roman ideals of slave control in Section 6, where it says: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."

This is all totally irrelevant. If you disagree feel free to provide a decision where this was relevant.

So, when a man who has identified himself as being property of the Crown through unlawful attachment to the Crtown owned legal name, the above is applied, and any arguments presented by the defendant are ignored by the judge.

No. The above is never applied in any situation, regardless of what a person wants to call himself in court. Again, if you disagree feel free to provide any decision where this reasoning was applied.

How do you know that such tactics have not worked? If you cannot find evidence in court transcripts or precedents, what would be your source of knowledge to deny my propositions on stopping court actions?

There is lots of evidence in court transcripts of them not working. Many decisions have been posted already in this thread. If you disagree then provide some decisions where these tactics have worked.

You mention people now using promissory notes. I have seen proof of three parties in Vernon, BC who have paid off their complete mortgages with promissory notes. A lady here in Calgary had 2 years property tax ($5,000) given a 'paid in full' notice from the City of Calgary, plus a notice that the tax lien on her home was removed at Land Titles. I say the City documents.

So you are saying that you have seen a bank accept something that has no value as payment of a mortgage and that you have proof of this? I would be interested in hearing more details and seeing your proof because I highly doubt that a bank would ever accept that.

You seem to be freely using the 'fear' tactic here without any explanation as to why certain people have failed in ccourt in defending their god Given rights.

I am certainly not using any "fear tactics" and I am willing to explain why people have failed in court. On the simplest level it is the same reason everyone who fails in court has failed, they didn't have a persuasive argument.

You use the term'detaxer' as being a derogatory ephitet. We are free will adult men and women who have learned that we have been fraudulently subjugated by forces of the Vatican, using fictional organizations called corporations to deprive us of our Creator God given rights and freedoms.

I haven't used it in a derogatory sense at all. I just use it to refer to a very wide group of people, not all of which may agree exactly with your ideology. There just aren't many good collective terms for that type of person.

catsmate1
30th August 2010, 04:36 PM
Well, just when you thought the stupid couldn't get piled any higher.
Well his crap about the Spanish Inquisition killing fifty million was my personal favourite.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 04:47 PM
I am certainly prepared to engage in honest debate. I will stand by the posts I have made so far as well. If you think I have said anything that is untrue or dishonest feel free to quote it and provide your reasoning.

I would comment on this:

As I have observed, lawyers commit their primary part in the fraud by 'omission', and not 'commission'.

It's making statements without explaining why the acts or procedures do or do not work.

For instance, I used the website: Ask a lawyer, about the currency being a promissory note thing, as stated in the Bank of Canada currency has change since that court decision or opinion of some of the judges. But, he didn't explain what the changes were.

It took further research by myself to determine that the 'promise to pay' feature that was previously on the currency had been removed.

Under what circumstances could this have been done by Parliament, or whomever made such a decision? Well it seems that whoever or whatever organization did it felt that it was ok to show that Canada was a make believe vessel at sea that would never reach home port, and thus, there was no need to have 'ship script' that would be redeemable by the members (persons) of the corporate body, and since all Canadians were considered to be slave crewmembers on the Canadian war galley, they had no more need for a promissory note to eventually redeem for real asset value money.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 05:00 PM
It's the non-mythical opinion.


Still waiting for you to explain how the infrastructure is maintained if we don't pay our taxes.

Well, if you Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, Beardsley Ruml (1946) - I mistakenly said the speach was before the Chamber of Commerce, but it was the American Bar Association:

"TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE"
-by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.


Speech:

The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: "Why does the government need to tax at all?" This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 05:05 PM
Spanish Inquisition/Communist Inquisition are they the same? You seemed to indicate that Stalin was ruled by the Jesuits and had some relation to the SI.

Did you know that the Inquisition was conducted by the Dominicans (gods' dogs) and not by the Jesuits?

The Inquisition was carried out by orders from the Pontiff of Rome and the Cardinals of the Hill of Sacrifice (Vatican) - (the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis).
It matters not what subdivision of that organization actually wielded the sword and torture devices.

EldonG
30th August 2010, 05:12 PM
I bet that some Detaxers ,loony as they are,would consider EldonG's obssesion with the Catholic Church to be crazy.
BTW I am betting we are dealing with some kind of Protesent Fundy here......

I, Eldon Warman have no quarrel or obsession with the Roman Catholic Church. It mattes not to me how many beads they count or how much holy water they sprinkle, or the fact that they worship a pig (Iesus and later Jesus just means 'pig' in latin).

What I am concerned about is the secular or worldly claim to power that is by the Pontifex maximus (Pontiff) of the Holy Roman Empire, whose claim is to be Ruler of the World. That Rule was made perfectly clear when the Pope of Rome became overlord over England in 1213. And that treaty is FOREVER.

I could care less if any 'detaxers' decide to stay as a slave of the corporation owned by the pontiff of Rome. that is their free will right .

Horatius
30th August 2010, 05:18 PM
And that treaty is FOREVER.



Serious question time. Do you really believe that there is no mechanism, of any sort, by which one power may abrogate a treaty? Ever?

EldonG
30th August 2010, 05:31 PM
I bet that some Detaxers ,loony as they are,would consider EldonG's obssesion with the Catholic Church to be crazy.
BTW I am betting we are dealing with some kind of Protesent Fundy here......

I, Eldon Warman have no quarrel or obsession with or against the Roman Catholic Church. It mattes not to me how many beads they count, how many Holy Marys they chant, or how much holy water they sprinkle, or the fact that they worship a pig (Iesus and later Jesus just means 'pig' in latin).

What I am concerned about is the secular or worldly claim to power that is by the Pontifex maximus (Pontiff) of the Holy Roman Empire, whose claim is to be Ruler of the World. That Rule was made perfectly clear when the Pope of Rome became overlord over England in 1213. And that treaty is FOREVER.

I could care less if any 'detaxers' decide to stay as a slave of the corporation owned by the pontiff of Rome. that is their free will right .

EldonG
30th August 2010, 06:09 PM
Your track record with facts on this thread leaves just a bit to be desired. I see you are repeating the same crap to JLord that you tried on me. JLord actually practices law in Canada. Yet you have the idiotic gall to tell him/her that Canadian judges apply the American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, despite the fact that a) Acts of Congress do not apply to Canada, and b) that is no longer good law in the USA.

Yes, obviously JLord 'practises'. One practises when one attempts to get something right. I suspect that he need to practise more.

I never suggested that Canadian judges invoke the American Fugitive Slave Act. That act was rescinded after the Civil War. I just point out that Congress saw fit to impose a doctrine out of Roman Law in that Act that all judges in Canada and the USA are currently using to 'discipline' disobedient slaves who refuse to turn over the fruits of their labour to the corporate Crown of State - the slave owner.

Will you be repeating your idiocy about the BNA Act and how it only refers to Queen Victoria?

You haven't offered any proof that it my finding is wrong. Just GOOGLE 'Constitution Act of Canada' and read it yourself. Check out Section 2 and Note (3). Hint: laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/index.html

How about the IRS and the IMF? Will you ignore JLord's correct explanation of the promissory note case (which was exactly the same as mine)?

You did a good job in debunking the several websites that show up with the IRS info, posted by American dis-information specialists to provide 'red herrings' for the gullible Americans. As far as JLords verbage on currency and promissory notes, he said exactly what you said - Canadian currency is promissory notes. What is so different than what I said: Canadian currency is a form of promissory note. The banks and Government know this. How come you and JLord don't?


Oh, I forgot. Whenever someone checks your facts (which is pathetically easy to do), the falsehoods that are revealed are just evidence of shills planting said falsehoods to discredit your info. It's a foolproof plan! Three cheers for iron-clad delusional unfalsifiability!)

Well then - Do so! So far, you have provided no evidence for anything you spew.

You assaulted a police officer. You went to jail. Good. You dodged your taxes when you flew planes in the USA. You were arrested, lost your pilot's licence and your job. Good. I'm sorry about your wife, but wherever she is or isn't right now, she is better off.

Moderator, This is a definite 'ad hominum attack upon this bullcrap that a shill from the USA, Jack Foster of Kentucky, has been spewing for several years against Eldon Warman on forums to 'kill the messenger, to detract from the messenger's message of truth. This D'ork is very likely this Jack Foster.

I'm glad my taxes pay for both your health care and your just punishments. The system works.

Income tax pays for nothing. Income tax, once declared and paid is just deleted from existence. As fiat money, it is of no value to the banksters or the Pontiff once the fruits of the labour of the taxed is removed from their possession.

You are ineffectual and do nothing other than provide moderate amounts of trollish entertainment. Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, you fail to even do that. You just waste your time in your futile attempts to be an effective shill.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 06:18 PM
You haven't offered any proof that it my finding is wrong.
You must have missed it. Post #111 on page three. Here it is again for your edification since you can't be bothered to actually read the constitution of your own country:

"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:"

http://canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html



Your stay here is nearing its end methinks. So I'll bid you adieu.

Bosozoku
30th August 2010, 06:24 PM
I must have missed it when Magna Carta became binding legal precedent rather than a quaint interpretive tool. I have a research question - does the Bayeux Tapestry say anything on it that can get rid of my gambling debt? There are some Policy Enforcers who are going to break my thumbs if I don't pay them any of my worthless fiat currency.

Horatius
30th August 2010, 06:28 PM
Moderator, This is a definite 'ad hominum attack upon this bullcrap that a shill from the USA, Jack Foster of Kentucky, has been spewing for several years against Eldon Warman on forums to 'kill the messenger, to detract from the messenger's message of truth. This D'ork is very likely this Jack Foster.




That dastardly D'Rok, lurking here since December 2006, just waiting for his chance to pounce....

D'rok
30th August 2010, 06:35 PM
That dastardly D'Rok, lurking here since December 2006, just waiting for his chance to pounce....I'm a master of the long game.

D'rok
30th August 2010, 06:44 PM
For someone with such strong opinions, Mr. Warman sure seems interested in acquiring plenty of "ship's script".

"Until the mine stopped conducting mine tours for existing shareholders and potential new investors, Eldon Warman was employed by the Stanfield Mining Group as the tour bus driver. On one such tour I was told quietly by Mr. Warman that the ore in the Gallowai mine was worth $20,000 per ton and that the Grand Mineral ore was worth $ 70,000 per ton.

The conversation then wandered into the need for Mr. Stanfield to be very discreet about the mine's true wealth so as not to draw the attention of those who want to take it over. Over the years, shareholders have been regularly cautioned in the company's promotional material as well as by the sales reps about forces actively seeking to take over the mine."

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Stanfield+supporter+embraces+rejects+columnist/3087220/story.html
Looks like our Mr. Warman is all wrapped up in a mining scam set to rival Bre-X. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bre-X) Except it's all coming unraveled with the death of the principal crook (Stanfield).

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Promoter+death+leaves+Cranbrook+gold+mine+million+ limbo/3366014/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/topic.html?t=Person&q=Ross+Stanfield

No wonder Warman is so cranky.

uke2se
30th August 2010, 06:44 PM
Is this thread about FMotL insanity or just about some guy who got caught dodging his taxes and is bumhurt?

TjW
30th August 2010, 06:47 PM
You guys aren't using the NWO Time Machine to play with trolls again, are you? You know how much that irritates the owl.

Horatius
30th August 2010, 06:50 PM
Wow. What a piece of work.....From D'rok's first link (in the quote tags)


I am quite familiar with Warman. He lives in Calgary and he's founder of Detax Canada, an organization that clings to the belief that the federal government cannot legally force citizens to pay taxes.

He is also grossly anti-Semitic. He complains about financial domination "by Zionist Jew banksters," and expresses regret that "we don't have a greater need for soap and lampshades."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Stanfield+supporter+embraces+rejects+columnist/3087220/story.html#ixzz0y8yC49vb

Horatius
30th August 2010, 06:51 PM
Is this thread about FMotL insanity or just about some guy who got caught dodging his taxes and is bumhurt?



Six of one.....

D'rok
30th August 2010, 07:03 PM
You guys aren't using the NWO Time Machine to play with trolls again, are you? You know how much that irritates the owl.Hah! I am D'rok, crypto-JREFer and Manchurian candidate extraordinaire. Use of the time machine is on a need to know basis, and I'm afraid you just didn't need to know. Not even the owl is at my NWO pay grade!

Aitch
30th August 2010, 11:35 PM
That's all very well,D'rok, but I wish you'd clean out the time machine when you've finished using it; I'm fed up of finding half empty drinks cans under the seat and bits of pizza in the glove compartment. :(

LightinDarkness
31st August 2010, 12:02 AM
You use the term'detaxer' as being a derogatory ephitet. We are free will adult men and women who have learned that we have been fraudulently subjugated by forces of the Vatican, using fictional organizations called corporations to deprive us of our Creator God given rights and freedoms.

As time goes on with more and more enlightening facts appearing , such as on the internet medium, humankind will wake up to the fact that they have been , and are victims of a vile scheme by the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis currently resident in the Vatican.

The above quote is the delusion of what you think you are. Note that, just like your conspiracy theories, it is not a real assessment of things as they really are. What you (and your US counterparts) really are is simply nothing but free riders seeking to benefit from a system and pay nothing into it, whose arguments are based on vapid logic with absolutely 0 legal merit.

Name one Canadian or US anti-tax woo that has been successful. Just one. Oddly, you won't find any...why would that be?

LightinDarkness
31st August 2010, 12:03 AM
Is this thread about FMotL insanity or just about some guy who got caught dodging his taxes and is bumhurt?

Both, since the anti-tax woo in this case also subscribes to FMOTL baseless legal arguments (and every other conspiracy theory as well, it seems).

LightinDarkness
31st August 2010, 12:07 AM
By the way, does anyone else notice this pattern:

Step 1: EldonG makes huge sweeping statements about the law based on his googling...er "research".
Step 2: Drok/JLord debunk EldonG using citations/facts that show the stated arguments to be absolutely wrong.
Step 3: EldonG ignores this, and states that anytime hes wrong its simply a massive conspiracy of government shills/disinfo agents to cover up the truth.

Either EldonG is the picture of conspiracy theory delusions or mentally ill...or both?

Sledge
31st August 2010, 01:23 AM
Please, keep going. Unlike trying to get a five year old to go to bed when she's come back downstairs for the third time, watching your histrionics is highly amusing. For a good giggle, why don't you answer my question and tell me who you think lopeyschools is being paid by?

I'm waaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiing.

catsmate1
31st August 2010, 02:45 AM
By the way, does anyone else notice this pattern:

Step 1: EldonG makes huge sweeping statements about the law based on his googling...er "research".
Step 2: Drok/JLord debunk EldonG using citations/facts that show the stated arguments to be absolutely wrong.
Step 3: EldonG ignores this, and states that anytime hes wrong its simply a massive conspiracy of government shills/disinfo agents to cover up the truth.

Either EldonG is the picture of conspiracy theory delusions or mentally ill...or both?

Hey! He completely ignored my correction of his ridiculous fifty million killed by the Spanish Inquisition claim too........

BaaBaa
31st August 2010, 04:42 AM
I'm a master of the long game.

Instruct me in the ways of The Force, Master!

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 04:54 AM
Well, if you Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, Beardsley Ruml (1946) - I mistakenly said the speach was before the Chamber of Commerce, but it was the American Bar Association:

"TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE"
-by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.


Speech:

The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: "Why does the government need to tax at all?" This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety.

If that was supposed to answer my question I think you need remedial reading classes. How do we keep the infrastructure going if we don't pay for it?

kookbreaker
31st August 2010, 05:02 AM
If that was supposed to answer my question I think you need remedial reading classes. How do we keep the infrastructure going if we don't pay for it?

What part of "Hey! Look over there!" don't you understand?!

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 05:15 AM
What part of "Hey! Look over there!" don't you understand?!

The Joseph Heller School of Diversionary Tactics??

Stacko
31st August 2010, 05:17 AM
The Joseph Heller School of Diversionary Tactics??

No, infrastructure fairies only work when you're not looking. Duh!

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 05:21 AM
No, infrastructure fairies only work when you're not looking. Duh!

http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/b/blindfolded-emoticon.gif

D'rok
31st August 2010, 06:05 AM
Hey! He completely ignored my correction of his ridiculous fifty million killed by the Spanish Inquisition claim too........That's because you're probably a red-robed priest of Isis.

D'rok
31st August 2010, 06:07 AM
Instruct me in the ways of The Force, Master!Congratulations! You've taken your first step into a larger world. The first lesson is to never, never, never sign off of the Internet.

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 06:11 AM
The first lesson is to never, never, never sign off of the Internet.

How would one even do that? :eek:

D'rok
31st August 2010, 06:13 AM
How would one even do that? :eek:I'd have to remove my implants, so it's not really an option for me.

Alareth
31st August 2010, 06:24 AM
I never suggested that Canadian judges invoke the American Fugitive Slave Act. That act was rescinded after the Civil War. I just point out that Congress saw fit to impose a doctrine out of Roman Law in that Act that all judges in Canada and the USA are currently using to 'discipline' disobedient slaves who refuse to turn over the fruits of their labour to the corporate Crown of State - the slave owner.


So the law went away and they don use it except as a basis for all their decisions?

The first two sentences are in direct opposition to the third.

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 06:28 AM
I'd have to remove my implants, so it's not really an option for me.

I just got my internal UPS installed. You should look into that, "always on"!

D'rok
31st August 2010, 06:53 AM
I just got my internal UPS installed. You should look into that, "always on"!Way ahead of ya - I'm solar powered. I switch to being lager-powered when my solar batteries run down.

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 06:56 AM
Way ahead of ya - I'm solar powered. I switch to being lager-powered when my solar batteries run down.

I went the hops-power route in the '60s. Now I'm running on fossil.


Fossil fuel. :D

JLord
31st August 2010, 08:14 AM
I would comment on this:

While ignoring responses to the rest of what you have said? Ok, I will assume you are conceding my other points.

As I have observed, lawyers commit their primary part in the fraud by 'omission', and not 'commission'.

It's making statements without explaining why the acts or procedures do or do not work.

If you would like any further explanation or clarification of anything I have said let me know. I have no problem offering further explanations if something is unclear to you.

For instance, I used the website: Ask a lawyer, about the currency being a promissory note thing, as stated in the Bank of Canada currency has change since that court decision or opinion of some of the judges. But, he didn't explain what the changes were.

It took further research by myself to determine that the 'promise to pay' feature that was previously on the currency had been removed.

I assume that by "research" you mean that you looked at a $5 bill and found that it no longer had the same wording that was being discussed in the case. Because I suspect that if someone told you currency had changed since that decision, they were probably referring to the removal of this language. Something which is evident by looking at any bill.

Under what circumstances could this have been done by Parliament, or whomever made such a decision?

Under the same circumstances as any laws in Canada are made or varied.

Well it seems that whoever or whatever organization did it felt that it was ok to show that Canada was a make believe vessel at sea that would never reach home port, and thus, there was no need to have 'ship script' that would be redeemable by the members (persons) of the corporate body, and since all Canadians were considered to be slave crewmembers on the Canadian war galley, they had no more need for a promissory note to eventually redeem for real asset value money

No. Parliament changed the law by making an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act stating:

25.(6) Notes of the Bank are neither promissory notes nor bills of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.

As you can see there is no reference to reference to a ship at sea or a make-believe vessel. There is no need to reference a ship's script situation because fiat currency was a well known concept when this law was changed. Again, the fact that we have a fiat currency and that a ship's script could also be considered like a form of fiat currency does not mean the two are one in the same. Nor does it imply that parliament considered Canadian currency to be a form of ship's script.

There are specific definitions of "ship's script" and "fiat currency" that will show you the difference. Ship's script only applies to the specific situation of being on a ship. It doesn't mean that any other type of fiat currency not relating to ships has to be described in the terms of ship's script.

A ship's script is a form of fiat currency, that doesn't mean fiat currency is a ship's script. It is similar in some ways and different some ways. Similarly schizophrenia is a form of mental illness, but that doesn't mean a mental illness is always schizophrenia. You wouldn't look at a person with depression and say "he's got some wierd form of make-believe schizophrenia." You would just call it by the more accurate description "depression." So when faced with Canada having a fiat currency I am at a loss why anyone would try to describe it as "Canada has some wierd form of ship's script as currency where the country is a make believe ship and the citizens are like slave crewmembers." Just describe what is happening by the correct and most accurate English words that have been widely used for decades to describe the situation and say "Canada uses a fiat currency."

carlitos
31st August 2010, 08:32 AM
I, Eldon Warman have no quarrel or obsession with the Roman Catholic Church. It mattes not to me how many beads they count or how much holy water they sprinkle, or the fact that they worship a pig (Iesus and later Jesus just means 'pig' in latin).
Hebrew = Jeshua / Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."
Greek = Iesous
Latin = Jesus

I think that "pig" in Latin is just sus, and "pig" in Greek is panoli.

What I am concerned about is the secular or worldly claim to power that is by the Pontifex maximus (Pontiff) of the Holy Roman Empire, whose claim is to be Ruler of the World. That Rule was made perfectly clear when the Pope of Rome became overlord over England in 1213. And that treaty is FOREVER.
FOREVER? You don't say. The Acts of Union in 1707 might have mentioned it.

twinstead
31st August 2010, 08:39 AM
Why do I keep seeing detox Canada instead of detax Canada when I look at the thread title?

weird.

Ian Osborne
31st August 2010, 08:42 AM
Why do I keep seeing detox Canada instead of detax Canada when I look at the thread title?

weird.

Not really weird. After all, one poster to this thread should take more water with it.

carlitos
31st August 2010, 08:47 AM
Why do I keep seeing detox Canada instead of detax Canada when I look at the thread title?

weird.

same here.

lopeyschools
31st August 2010, 09:31 AM
That is a childish response. But, I guess, if one is a shill with nothing to say in rebuttal, your response would be appropriate.

Really? I thought it was a clever way to demonstrate the impotence of organizations like Opus Dei in the modern world. The peanut gallery has more cultural significance and influence then some obscure catholic group. Nevermind the fact you didn't address my previous points in the slightest.

I could use a payraise from the pope, I am a little short on innocent souls lately.

Out of curiousity, do you read a lot of Dan Brown books?

The Platypus
31st August 2010, 09:39 AM
Remember folks, if you state something and the "freeman" doesn't respond, according to how things work in the "freeman" fantasy, their non-response means that they are in agreement, that what you said is valid, and they are then bound by it.

This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.

EldonG
31st August 2010, 09:59 AM
Hebrew = Jeshua / Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."
Greek = Iesous
Latin = Jesus

I think that "pig" in Latin is just sus, and "pig" in Greek is panoli.


FOREVER? You don't say. The Acts of Union in 1707 might have mentioned it.

Up until the 2nd edition of the KJV Bible, the name was 'IESUS'. The Latin abbreviation 'IE' means 'That Is' or 'It is'. The 'J' wasn't used in the Latin alphabet until the late 1600s AD. Phonetically, the 'je' = ge or geo, meaning physical earty or earthly material. See geologist, geology.

The Latin word for 'pig, swine, hog = sus. The domestic pig has the biologic name: sus domestica

Your statement is the common ' cover story' to hide the fact that the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis were really behind the early death of Yehsua, in that their students from the Babylonian Captivity, the Pharisees carried out their 'elimination of a man with the poison against their fascist system.

And, you insinuate that 1707 was the end of FOREVER? Interesting!

EldonG
31st August 2010, 10:06 AM
Really? I thought it was a clever way to demonstrate the impotence of organizations like Opus Dei in the modern world. The peanut gallery has more cultural significance and influence then some obscure catholic group. Nevermind the fact you didn't address my previous points in the slightest.

I could use a payraise from the pope, I am a little short on innocent souls lately.

Out of curiousity, do you read a lot of Dan Brown books?

Never heard of the fellow. Well, if you were to open your eyes and clear the wax from your ears, you might notice that many of the influential politicians in Canada and the USA, as well as in GP, are Knights of Malta. That organization has its own city/state within Rome.

Previous points? Obviously they weren't worthy of an intelligent answer.

EldonG
31st August 2010, 10:22 AM
Remember folks, if you state something and the "freeman" doesn't respond, according to how things work in the "freeman" fantasy, their non-response means that they are in agreement, that what you said is valid, and they are then bound by it.

This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.

I didn't acquiesce to any such thing. Why should I respond to your ignorance or attempted deceit? I do not promote the 'freeman' idea, and never have. 'Freeman' means exactly the same as 'citizen', 'subject' or 'person'- a slave granted privileges by the slave owner, privileges, such as 'due process of law' that can be removed at the slightest suggestion of disobedience to the slave owner's rules. 'Free man' (liber homo) means 'free will man', the proper status of Creator God's Children on Planet Earth. The counter to this status is 'slave status' - under the control of another, as a barge is slave to the tugboat.

What does 'due process mean? From the original Magna Carta that the Pope voided, for this very reason:

20. For a trivial offence, a free man (liber homo) shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (Grand Jury)

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown. [Note: That was before the Crown became an incorporated body politic.]

38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

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

D'rok
31st August 2010, 10:27 AM
Remember folks, if you state something and the "freeman" doesn't respond, according to how things work in the "freeman" fantasy, their non-response means that they are in agreement, that what you said is valid, and they are then bound by it.

This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.
How could you be so silly? You thought Eldon was a "freeman" when he's actually a "free man". Can't you see that the space between the two words makes all the difference?

JLord
31st August 2010, 10:28 AM
Remember folks, if you state something and the "freeman" doesn't respond, according to how things work in the "freeman" fantasy, their non-response means that they are in agreement that what you said is valid.

This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.

Interesting you should point this out...

From the detax Canada website:

If there is any representative of any department of government, Canadian or American, who can provide proof that there is any information offered on this website which is incorrect, erroneous or illegal, then please feel free to inform the webmaster, and it will be promptly corrected or removed from this internet website.

As of August 2010, no government department or agency has offered any proof of error or illegality. Therefore, it is my belief that the maxim of law, "silence constitutes acquiescence" prevails.

First of all this is obviously not a situation where silence constitutes acquiescence for obvious reasons. That idea only applies to situations where a person had a duty to speak up if they objected to something. There is no general duty to respond to letters, statements, or random internet postings. Those can be ignored.

The actual application of this idea applies in a few different situations. One is in contract law where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between parties where silence has been understood to constitute acceptance then you have a duty to speak up if you want to change this arrangement. The other contract law situation where it could apply is if you are offered something, you have reasonable chance to refuse the offer, but instead you act as though you have accepted and take ownership of the thing being offered. These would be the types of situations where a contract can be acecpted through silence.

Another area where this idea comes up is in the context of the equitable rule of estoppel. This would apply if you could assert some right, you choose not to, another person relies on the fact you have remained silent, and you then try assert your right against them. So for example you walk accross you neighbour's lawn every day on your way to work. He always smiles and waves as you walk by. Over the years the grass becomes ground down. The neighbour then sues you for the damage to his lawn. He could get token damages for that first time you walked accross, but he would be estopped from collecting the ongoing damages because you nveer said anything all those years.

I just explain these concepts to ensure I am not misundrestood. Because I think it should be self evident to most people that the law would apply to allow people to foist letters onto another party such that if they don't respond they have accepted something by silence. This would obviously be ridiculous and would force people to respond to dozens of letters every day just to stay out of unwanted agreements. The idea that someone could be bound to accept something they aren't even aware of on an internet site is even more absurd.

Back to the detax website, the above statement is immediate followed by:

The primary assertions made on this website are:

1. The income tax applies only to fictional entities called persons.

This has been proven incorrect in court. The Canada Revenue Agency also declares this to be false on their website (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/myths/menu-eng.html#m5). The author of the site is surely aware of these facts yet continues to assert that "no government department has offered proof of error. I can only conclude that the author of the website is deliberately trying to decieve people because the CRA and several Canadian courts (all of which are government agencies) have offered proof of error. The author of the site is ignoring this fact and deliberately stating false information on his site.

EldonG
31st August 2010, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=JLord;6283848]While ignoring responses to the rest of what you have said? Ok, I will assume you are conceding my other points.

I have conceded to nothing that you have spewed. To those desirous of individual unalienable rights, including the right to the fruits of their own labour, you only demonstrate why lawyers are so very frequently called traitors and liers.

As 'officers of the Court' (with 'the Court being part of the administrative organization of the corporate Crown of the City of london), all lawyers have their first obligation and fielty to the corporate Crown, and not to the victim people who pays them their demanded '20 pieces of silver'.

And, why do 'lawyers and judges wear 'black robes' in Court? Is it not because they represent the blackend by smoke of the burned offerings of human sacrifice of the Priests of Baal or Molech. The term, cannibal' means 'priest of baal'. Also, the hjudges wear a blood red collar or sash around their necks, representing the spillage of the blood of their human sacrifices.

Is it also true that the live birth of a child is recorded in Crown records, but at the end of 7 years, the child is declared 'legally dead' if no document is filed declaring that the child is still living, and every 7 years thereafter, until the age of majority?

Do judges not consider the man before him in court is 'legally dead, as dead as the corporate structure he represents, or, as dead as the corporate legal name, he deceitfully imposes on the 'presumed to be dead' human body?

Remember, the name of Babylon's God meant 'wealth', and the overlord of the Priesthood of Isis is the one represented in the Bible as Lucifer or Satan, and, as the black robes suggest, that represents 'death' - a hatred for the individual rights of Creator God's children on Planet Earth.

Blue Mountain
31st August 2010, 10:50 AM
<snip>

Back to the detax website, the above statement is immediate followed by:
The primary assertions made on this website are:

1. The income tax applies only to fictional entities called persons.
This has been proven incorrect in court. The Canada Revenue Agency also declares this to be false on their website (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/myths/menu-eng.html#m5). The author of the site is surely aware of these facts yet continues to assert that "no government department has offered proof of error. I can only conclude that the author of the website is deliberately trying to decieve people because the CRA and several Canadian courts (all of which are government agencies) have offered proof of error. The author of the site is ignoring this fact and deliberately stating false information on his site.

Could this be used as a basis for a complaint to Industry Canada?

Blue Mountain
31st August 2010, 10:57 AM
<snip>

And, why do 'lawyers and judges wear 'black robes' in Court? Is it not because they represent the blackend by smoke of the burned offerings of human sacrifice of the Priests of Baal or Molech. The term, cannibal' means 'priest of baal'. Also, the hjudges wear a blood red collar or sash around their necks, representing the spillage of the blood of their human sacrifices.
No, it's because if they wore white robes the would look like angels, and in Canada's increasing secular society we don't want to make it look like justice is dispensed by angels.

(See? I can make up stuff too!)

Is it also true that the live birth of a child is recorded in Crown records, but at the end of 7 years, the child is declared 'legally dead' if no document is filed declaring that the child is still living, and every 7 years thereafter, until the age of majority?
Unless you can point to the appropriate section of the Vital Statstics Act (any province's will do), I'd say "no."

Remember, the name of Babylon's God meant 'wealth' ...
Which god? The Babylonians weren't monotheists.

D'rok
31st August 2010, 10:58 AM
And, why do 'lawyers and judges wear 'black robes' in Court? Is it not because they represent the blackend by smoke of the burned offerings of human sacrifice of the Priests of Baal or Molech. The term, cannibal' means 'priest of baal'. Also, the hjudges wear a blood red collar or sash around their necks, representing the spillage of the blood of their human sacrifices.
Dammit. Now I regret not sitting for the bar. Being a lawyer is just like getting paid to LARP!

EldonG
31st August 2010, 10:58 AM
Interesting you should point this out...

Back to the detax website, the above statement is immediate followed by:



This has been proven incorrect in court. The Canada Revenue Agency also declares this to be false on their website (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/myths/menu-eng.html#m5). The author of the site is surely aware of these facts yet continues to assert that "no government department has offered proof of error. I can only conclude that the author of the website is deliberately trying to decieve people because the CRA and several Canadian courts (all of which are government agencies) have offered proof of error. The author of the site is ignoring this fact and deliberately stating false information on his site.

Do you mean to say that CRA has a different version of the Income Tax Act of Canada than the one that is posted on the Internet by the Canadian Government and CANLII?

I find this on the CANLII website: They haven't yet posted the version that shows the amendments after the middle of July, 2010.

Quote:
Liability for Tax

Tax payable by persons resident in Canada

2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year. Unquote

Is it possible that the latest revision to the ITA of Canada has changed 'persons resident in Canada to: 'free will men, male and female, living on the land commonly called Canada'

And, 'persons resident in Canada' ? Would that not mean 'an inanimate 'thing' sitting somewhere, and 'in Canada' means within something, like a vessel, and not ON the land.


[Emphasis by bold and size is mine.]

Aitch
31st August 2010, 11:19 AM
And, why do 'lawyers and judges wear 'black robes' in Court? Is it not because they represent the blackend by smoke of the burned offerings of human sacrifice of the Priests of Baal or Molech. The term, cannibal' means 'priest of baal'. Also, the hjudges wear a blood red collar or sash around their necks, representing the spillage of the blood of their human sacrifices.


in English courts, lawyers (barristers) wear black because they went into mourning at the death of (I think) Queen Caroline. and never bothered changing back.

Judges generally, IIRC, wear black, but wear red in certain courts.

If there are children present (Family court) or the weather is exceptonally hot, court dress may be dispensed with.

JLord
31st August 2010, 11:58 AM
I have conceded to nothing that you have spewed.

And yet you provide no response? How do you expect people believe your position when you provide only bare denials and no argument to respond to points others have raise?

As 'officers of the Court' (with 'the Court being part of the administrative organization of the corporate Crown of the City of london), all lawyers have their first obligation and fielty to the corporate Crown, and not to the victim people who pays them their demanded '20 pieces of silver'.

That insn't the case. Lawyers have a duty to their client. Their duty to the crown only extends to the fact they have to abide by the laws and abide by the rules of court and the like. It doesn't prevent a lawyer from representing an individual in a dispute against the crown, as countless numbers of lawyer do succesfully all hte time.

And, why do 'lawyers and judges wear 'black robes' in Court? Is it not because they represent the blackend by smoke of the burned offerings of human sacrifice of the Priests of Baal or Molech?

No it isn't. I guess anyone can take any colour to represent anything they like, but this was not the reasoning behind wearing black robes at any point in history.

Is it also true that the live birth of a child is recorded in Crown records, but at the end of 7 years, the child is declared 'legally dead' if no document is filed declaring that the child is still living, and every 7 years thereafter, until the age of majority?

No, this isn't true either. You might be getting the seven years from other laws that allow a court to make a determination that a person is dead if nobody has been in contact with them for seven years and you have reason to think they might be dead. Like for instance if your spouse is missing for seven years you can usually get out of the marriage on this basis. But there is no possible application of the law that works the way you are stating here. No law says so, and it obviously wouldn't make sense if the law did apply as you state.

Do judges not consider the man before him in court is 'legally dead, as dead as the corporate structure he represents, or, as dead as the corporate legal name, he deceitfully imposes on the 'presumed to be dead' human body?

No. A person who is actually appearing in court would never under any circumstance be considered "legally dead." Also, a person is not a corporation and does not have a corporate name. Corporations are entities created by statute. They are defined in the Business Corporations Act and are seperate from living humans.

JLord
31st August 2010, 12:10 PM
Is it possible that the latest revision to the ITA of Canada has changed 'persons resident in Canada to: 'free will men, male and female, living on the land commonly called Canada'


No but I don't see any distinction between the wording as it stands and the changes you are contemplating. Your version would work fine as well assuming that you had a definition for "free will man" that included all living humans in Canada. But just because you can think of an alternate wording or alternate definitions, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the current definition.

And, 'persons resident in Canada' ? Would that not mean 'an inanimate 'thing' sitting somewhere,

No, a person is a living human being. Not an inanimate thing. This should be self evident, but if not I suggest reading one of the many court decisions posted in this thread where the court confirms this fact.

and 'in Canada' means within something, like a vessel, and not ON the land.

No, it means on the land. Within the boundaries of Canadian territory. I don't really understand what the argument is here because common usage of the English language would disagree with you.

For instance, look at the first definition for the word "in" that is offered by dictionary.com.

in   /ɪn/ Show Spelled [in] Show IPA preposition, adverb, adjective, noun, verb, inned, in·ning.

–preposition

1. (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park.

It would be clear to anyone relaying on accepted English language conventions that "in Canada" means "within the limits of the place called Canada."

[Emphasis by bold and size is mine.]

Thank you for pointing that out. That was very courteous of you to avoid possible confusion.

Alareth
31st August 2010, 12:13 PM
And, 'persons resident in Canada' ? Would that not mean 'an inanimate 'thing' sitting somewhere, and 'in Canada' means within something, like a vessel, and not ON the land.

No.

You are trying to redefine common words to fit your fantasy. Will you next attempt to redefine black as white?

Rational people understand that to mean someone who lives in Canada, but you want to bend the English language until it breaks and becomes meaningless.

Papermache
31st August 2010, 12:20 PM
Cannibal, according to the etymology from the Oxford English Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50032492?query_type=word&queryword=cannibal&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=t7I4-Ng3RhR-8424&hilite=50032492).
Canibales, a. Sp. Canibales, originally one of the forms of the ethnic name Carib or Caribes, a fierce nation of the West Indies, who are recorded to have been anthropophagi, and from whom the name was subsequently extended as a descriptive term. . . . ]
Nothing to do with Ba'al at all.

D'rok
31st August 2010, 12:26 PM
Some homework for Eldon:

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

carlitos
31st August 2010, 12:31 PM
Up until the 2nd edition of the KJV Bible, the name was 'IESUS'. The Latin abbreviation 'IE' means 'That Is' or 'It is'. The 'J' wasn't used in the Latin alphabet until the late 1600s AD. Phonetically, the 'je' = ge or geo, meaning physical earty or earthly material. See geologist, geology.

Well, I think that you are correct about the letter "j," more or less. It's the consonant form of "i." It came into use with French in the 1400's, and other romance languages over the next few hundred years. In English, there were / are rules for where to use "j" and where to use "dg" (jerk vs. hedge, for example). But anyway...

The Latin word for 'pig, swine, hog = sus. The domestic pig has the biologic name: sus domestica

Is your point that Catholics chose a Latin name for their savior which intentionally disrespects the very guy on whom their whole religion is based? Why would they do this?

Your statement is the common ' cover story' to hide the fact that the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis were really behind the early death of Yehsua, in that their students from the Babylonian Captivity, the Pharisees carried out their 'elimination of a man with the poison against their fascist system.So it's a "cover story" to hide this fact. Except that pretty much everyone around spoke Latin at the time and any idiot with a latin dictionary can figure out the big secret? Sort of like when I tell my female boss "C U Next Tuesday?" You are the only one that has this figured out? Do you do numerology too?

FOREVER? You don't say. The Acts of Union in 1707 might have mentioned it.

And, you insinuate that 1707 was the end of FOREVER? Interesting!I insinuated no such thing. It just seems like common sense that, when documenting the Acts of Union, the Parliament of Scotland might have put in a footnote like "by the way, despite all the "Great Britain" stuff in this document, the Pope is overlord of England forever!"

Horatius
31st August 2010, 12:43 PM
I don't really understand what the argument is here because common usage of the English language would disagree with you.




When you get right down to it, wilfully misreading the language of statutes is really all they have going for them (besides the bizarro religious nuttery, of course). They insist on definitions and interpretations that are at odds with those of pretty much everyone else involved in the discussion.

When you have a guy who refuses to accept that the word "person" encompasses a "natural human being", there's really nothing more you can say to him. The mental disconnect is too great.

uke2se
31st August 2010, 01:24 PM
So, red robed priests of Isis something something Roman Law something something City of London something something Jesus is a pig something something Queen Victoria something something equals I don't have to pay taxes?

I'm interested in this. I have never enjoyed paying taxes, and if I can make it so that everyone else pays and I don't, that would be really swell for a lazy SOB like me. So, could you give me any examples of real cases when this argument actually works?

carlitos
31st August 2010, 01:35 PM
'Free man' (liber homo) means 'free will man', the proper status of Creator God's Children on Planet Earth.

I don't think that you should do linguistics, unless it's for the comedy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674c7d6715c7b3b.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20930)

Even if right, it would be homo liber, with the words reversed. Solvo vir, maybe? Any Latin speakers?

lopeyschools
31st August 2010, 02:33 PM
Never heard of the fellow. Well, if you were to open your eyes and clear the wax from your ears, you might notice that many of the influential politicians in Canada and the USA, as well as in GP, are Knights of Malta. That organization has its own city/state within Rome.

Previous points? Obviously they weren't worthy of an intelligent answer.

Aren't they a charity group?

So the Protestant reformation wasn't important to the Popes power? Wow. Just wow... I want to speak to your history teacher old man, right now!

dudalb
31st August 2010, 03:06 PM
Well his crap about the Spanish Inquisition killing fifty million was my personal favourite.

Well, it is easy to kill that many when no one expects you....

Fitter
31st August 2010, 04:15 PM
How could you be so silly? You thought Eldon was a "freeman" when he's actually a "free man". Can't you see that the space between the two words makes all the difference?

Sort of like the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Ottawa Rough Riders?

Gawdzilla
31st August 2010, 04:21 PM
Why do I keep seeing detox Canada instead of detax Canada when I look at the thread title?

weird.

Because, like detaxing Canada, it's a really bad idea? :D

lopeyschools
31st August 2010, 04:23 PM
Sort of like the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Ottawa Rough Riders?

I have some friends who would balk to hear their beloved roughriders ever compared to the rough riders...

dudalb
31st August 2010, 05:15 PM
The only REAL Rough Rider....







http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404b69ef39e59b4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18911)

D'rok
31st August 2010, 05:58 PM
Sort of like the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Ottawa Rough Riders?
Exactly!

twinstead
31st August 2010, 06:04 PM
I can see why courts get exasperated with these folks; imagine simply redefining words as an argument, then staring at you blankly when you explain why they are wrong. "In Canada" simply means inside the geographical borders of the country of Canada. Sheesh.

lopeyschools
31st August 2010, 06:13 PM
I can see why courts get exasperated with these folks; imagine simply redefining words as an argument, then staring at you blankly when you explain why they are wrong. "In Canada" simply means inside the geographical borders of the country of Canada. Sheesh.

+1

not to mention these cases don't help the backlog that is the court system

Horatius
31st August 2010, 06:19 PM
Sort of like the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Ottawa Rough Riders?



Yes, exactly. The existence of the Space Clearly Demonstrates the Far Superior Nature of The One Over the Other.



The fact that they don't exist anymore is irrelevant to the issue.

D'rok
31st August 2010, 06:31 PM
Yes, exactly. The existence of the Space Clearly Demonstrates the Far Superior Nature of The One Over the Other.



The fact that they don't exist anymore is irrelevant to the issue.
Go Renegades! Wait...D'oh!

EldonG
31st August 2010, 06:39 PM
Is your point that Catholics chose a Latin name for their savior which intentionally disrespects the very guy on whom their whole religion is based? Why would they do this?

It wasn't 'Catholics' who made such a decision. It was the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis. That priesthood had brough a conglamorate religion with them to Rome, when they established Rome around 300 BC, called Mythraism. That priesthood has always used 'religion' to implement their true trinity - Force, Fear and False Hope. Mithraism had served them well for this purpose, but when Emperor Constantine (as Pontifex Maximus, ordered the Priesthood to accept Christianity, they had to do some major modifications the Christianity of the first 3 centuries AD they were saddled with, so as to serve their 'slave control' mechanisms as part of the corporate structure for their society that they continued from Egypt, through Babylon and on into Rome.

The Red Robed Priesthood has always been primarly 'priest/kings' where secular rule dominated their existence. Religion was, and always has been a tool to control the subject people under their control.

Those who doubt my stating that all corporate bodies are 'make believe ships at sea' should be aware that 'to govern' means to 'steer, direct or administer a ship at sea. It has nothing to do with a land based world. A land based world has 'servants' to do what individuals are incapable of doing on their own.

So it's a "cover story" to hide this fact. Except that pretty much everyone around spoke Latin at the time and any idiot with a latin dictionary can figure out the big secret? Sort of like when I tell my female boss "C U Next Tuesday?" You are the only one that has this figured out? Do you do numerology too?

I would wonder about that myself, but the evidence strongly suggests that the fear factor didn't allow such inquiry, without one losing one's head by the Inquisitors. Maybe, the explanation from India suggests a reason. Their gurus say that our world has been in a 12,000 year state of darkness, where minds have not been capable of great though or thinking - the Kali Yuga. And, at this period of history, we are emerging from that mental incapacity as evidenced by the great leaps in technology of the last 100 years.

I insinuated no such thing. It just seems like common sense that, when documenting the Acts of Union, the Parliament of Scotland might have put in a footnote like "by the way, despite all the "Great Britain" stuff in this document, the Pope is overlord of England forever!"

All you have to do is read documents on Roman Catholic websites regarding
Pope Innocent III and Pope Boniface VIII.

Innocent III became Overlord of England in 1213. Pope Boniface VIII was
responsible for the incorporation of the English Crown in 1297, and the declaring of 'all humankind' subjects of the Pontiff of Rome in Unam Sanctam of 1302.

If you doubt my explanation that the Vatican is about 90% secular (world control) and only 10% religion, then do your own research. Don't just ignorantly call me names and make derogatory statements about me.
You just deceive yourself by doing that. I am impervious to insults and derogation of my character. I don't have to defend myself against anything
relative attacks against me on forums. I would just like to see people wake-up to reality.

Horatius
31st August 2010, 06:41 PM
Go Renegades! Wait...D'oh!



Now here's a good CT: the names of Ottawa sports teams are intended to conceal the True Nature of Ottawa residents. Rough Riders? Renegades? Please!

How about "The Pencil Pushers"? Or, if we want to get radical, the "Policy Enforcers"!




Don't mention the Senators.....Don't mention the Senators......

Horatius
31st August 2010, 06:45 PM
Those who doubt my stating that all corporate bodies are 'make believe ships at sea' should be aware that 'to govern' means to 'steer, direct or administer a ship at sea. It has nothing to do with a land based world. A land based world has 'servants' to do what individuals are incapable of doing on their own.



See what I mean?

to govern (third-person singular simple present governs, present participle governing, simple past and past participle governed) (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/govern#Verb)

1. (transitive) To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; to exercise sovereign authority in.
2. (transitive) To control the actions or behavior of; to keep under control; to restrain.

Govern yourselves like civilized people.
a student who could not govern his impulses.

3. (transitive) To exercise a deciding or determining influence on.

Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.

4. (transitive) To control the speed, flow etc. of; to regulate.

a valve that governs fuel intake.

5. (intransitive) To exercise political authority; to run a government.
6. (intransitive) To have or exercise a determining influence.
7. (transitive) To require that a certain preposition, grammatical case, etc. be used with a word; sometimes used synonymously with collocate.



We might as well be speaking Klingon to this fellow.

tsig
31st August 2010, 06:56 PM
I didn't acquiesce to any such thing. Why should I respond to your ignorance or attempted deceit? I do not promote the 'freeman' idea, and never have. 'Freeman' means exactly the same as 'citizen', 'subject' or 'person'- a slave granted privileges by the slave owner, privileges, such as 'due process of law' that can be removed at the slightest suggestion of disobedience to the slave owner's rules. 'Free man' (liber homo) means 'free will man', the proper status of Creator God's Children on Planet Earth. The counter to this status is 'slave status' - under the control of another, as a barge is slave to the tugboat.

What does 'due process mean? From the original Magna Carta that the Pope voided, for this very reason:

20. For a trivial offence, a free man (liber homo) shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (Grand Jury)

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown. [Note: That was before the Crown became an incorporated body politic.]

38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

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


The meaning of liber:

li·ber (lī′bər, lē′ber′)

noun pl. libri li′·bri′ (lī′brī′, lē′brē′)
a book; esp., a book of public records, as of mortgages or deeds
http://www.yourdictionary.com/liber

TjW
31st August 2010, 07:00 PM
I didn't acquiesce to any such thing. Why should I respond to your ignorance or attempted deceit? I do not promote the 'freeman' idea, and never have. 'Freeman' means exactly the same as 'citizen', 'subject' or 'person'- a slave granted privileges by the slave owner, privileges, such as 'due process of law' that can be removed at the slightest suggestion of disobedience to the slave owner's rules. 'Free man' (liber homo) means 'free will man', the proper status of Creator God's Children on Planet Earth. The counter to this status is 'slave status' - under the control of another, as a barge is slave to the tugboat.

What does 'due process mean? From the original Magna Carta that the Pope voided, for this very reason:

20. For a trivial offence, a free man (liber homo) shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (Grand Jury)

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown. [Note: That was before the Crown became an incorporated body politic.]

38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

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


The meaning of liber:

li·ber (lī′bər, lē′ber′)

noun pl. libri li′·bri′ (lī′brī′, lē′brē′)
a book; esp., a book of public records, as of mortgages or deeds
http://www.yourdictionary.com/liber

Thus, liber homo -- a man at which a judge should throw the book.

Lyrandar
31st August 2010, 07:02 PM
All you have to do is read documents on Roman Catholic websites regarding
Pope Innocent III and Pope Boniface VIII.

Innocent III became Overlord of England in 1213. Pope Boniface VIII was
responsible for the incorporation of the English Crown in 1297, and the declaring of 'all humankind' subjects of the Pontiff of Rome in Unam Sanctam of 1302.

If you doubt my explanation that the Vatican is about 90% secular (world control) and only 10% religion, then do your own research. Don't just ignorantly call me names and make derogatory statements about me.
You just deceive yourself by doing that. I am impervious to insults and derogation of my character. I don't have to defend myself against anything
relative attacks against me on forums. I would just like to see people wake-up to reality.

... do you have any actual evidence indicating the Vatican retains any control over any parts of the world besides its own city-state? Because without some type of framework in place to make decisions, pass those decisions on to subordinates, and some type of force to enforce the decisions with, the only thing that random comments from officials seven centuries ago proves is that people seven centuries ago were kind of arrogant.

tsig
31st August 2010, 07:09 PM
Well, it is easy to kill that many when no one expects you....

After the first 5 or 10 million someone would notice.

tsig
31st August 2010, 07:13 PM
It wasn't 'Catholics' who made such a decision. It was the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis. That priesthood had brough a conglamorate religion with them to Rome, when they established Rome around 300 BC, called Mythraism. That priesthood has always used 'religion' to implement their true trinity - Force, Fear and False Hope. Mithraism had served them well for this purpose, but when Emperor Constantine (as Pontifex Maximus, ordered the Priesthood to accept Christianity, they had to do some major modifications the Christianity of the first 3 centuries AD they were saddled with, so as to serve their 'slave control' mechanisms as part of the corporate structure for their society that they continued from Egypt, through Babylon and on into Rome.

The Red Robed Priesthood has always been primarly 'priest/kings' where secular rule dominated their existence. Religion was, and always has been a tool to control the subject people under their control.

Those who doubt my stating that all corporate bodies are 'make believe ships at sea' should be aware that 'to govern' means to 'steer, direct or administer a ship at sea. It has nothing to do with a land based world. A land based world has 'servants' to do what individuals are incapable of doing on their own.



I would wonder about that myself, but the evidence strongly suggests that the fear factor didn't allow such inquiry, without one losing one's head by the Inquisitors. Maybe, the explanation from India suggests a reason. Their gurus say that our world has been in a 12,000 year state of darkness, where minds have not been capable of great though or thinking - the Kali Yuga. And, at this period of history, we are emerging from that mental incapacity as evidenced by the great leaps in technology of the last 100 years.



All you have to do is read documents on Roman Catholic websites regarding
Pope Innocent III and Pope Boniface VIII.

Innocent III became Overlord of England in 1213. Pope Boniface VIII was
responsible for the incorporation of the English Crown in 1297, and the declaring of 'all humankind' subjects of the Pontiff of Rome in Unam Sanctam of 1302.

If you doubt my explanation that the Vatican is about 90% secular (world control) and only 10% religion, then do your own research. Don't just ignorantly call me names and make derogatory statements about me.
You just deceive yourself by doing that. I am impervious to insults and derogation of my character. I don't have to defend myself against anything
relative attacks against me on forums. I would just like to see people wake-up to reality.

Why do you think Canada is an "imaginary" ship at sea. It's a real ship actually floating on the sea.

D'rok
31st August 2010, 07:31 PM
Now here's a good CT: the names of Ottawa sports teams are intended to conceal the True Nature of Ottawa residents. Rough Riders? Renegades? Please!

How about "The Pencil Pushers"? Or, if we want to get radical, the "Policy Enforcers"!




Don't mention the Senators.....Don't mention the Senators......

Go Upper Middle-class Public Service Union Members With Two Cars and a Cottage in Gatineau!

Keepin' it real in O-town.

carlitos
31st August 2010, 08:17 PM
It wasn't 'Catholics' who made such a decision. It was the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis. That priesthood had brough a conglamorate religion with them to Rome, when they established Rome around 300 BC, called Mythraism. That priesthood has always used 'religion' to implement their true trinity - Force, Fear and False Hope. Mithraism had served them well for this purpose, but when Emperor Constantine (as Pontifex Maximus, ordered the Priesthood to accept Christianity, they had to do some major modifications the Christianity of the first 3 centuries AD they were saddled with, so as to serve their 'slave control' mechanisms as part of the corporate structure for their society that they continued from Egypt, through Babylon and on into Rome.

Let me get your logic straight.
There were some red robed priests of Isis who brought a religion to Rome.
When they were ordered by Constantine to accept Christianity, they re-named the Savior of the new religion "Iesus," which really meant "Id est Sus," or "he is a pig." Ha ha, funny guys. Byzantium's own Beavis and Butthead.
All the followers of this new religion didn't notice the nickname, falsely assuming it sounded like "Yeshua" or the Greek equivalent.


As for "slave control," perhaps you could share some evidence for this?

<snipped>


I would wonder about that myself, but the evidence strongly suggests that the fear factor didn't allow such inquiry, without one losing one's head by the Inquisitors. Maybe, the explanation from India suggests a reason. Their gurus say that our world has been in a 12,000 year state of darkness, where minds have not been capable of great though or thinking - the Kali Yuga. And, at this period of history, we are emerging from that mental incapacity as evidenced by the great leaps in technology of the last 100 years.
Would you like to present evidence for any of this?


<snip>

If you doubt my explanation that the Vatican is about 90% secular (world control) and only 10% religion, then do your own research. Don't just ignorantly call me names and make derogatory statements about me.
You just deceive yourself by doing that. I am impervious to insults and derogation of my character. I don't have to defend myself against anything
relative attacks against me on forums. I would just like to see people wake-up to reality.
At the risk of repeating myself, perhaps you could post evidence or examples of me "calling you names" and "making derogatory comments" about you?

Thus, liber homo -- a man at which a judge should throw the book.Not that there is anything wrong with that.

lopeyschools
1st September 2010, 12:15 AM
Why do you think Canada is an "imaginary" ship at sea. It's a real ship actually floating on the sea.

Yargh! The HMCS Canada, proud vessel of the artic sea!

None dare travel the frigid waters lest they risk the wrath of the famous pirate ship! Violators of their seas are threatened with a polite apology and maple syrup.

(if only early Canadian history was that interesting...)