dpwozney

The Sovereign's style is set by the Royal Style and Titles Act, which sets her title as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Elizabeth II claims the style and title "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not and has never been recognized by the British North America Act, 1867 which has been amended many times. According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Also, the Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign. Michaëlle Jean does not represent the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The possibility exists that there has been a King and a Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" ever since July 1, 1867 A.D.. With God all things are possible. "And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27). The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...". People have the freedom to believe in a present-day existence of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" if they so choose.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule, which states: "Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

Do you deny that the Governor General of Canada is a corporation sole? Do you disagree with statements claiming that a corporation is a fiction?

According to this web page document, the Governor General of Canada is a "corporation sole". A "corporation sole" is defined and recognized as being a corporation. It is a fiction that a corporation is a person. "A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...", according to Patrick Healy in a statement that can be read here. "A corporation is a 'fiction' as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no 'mind'", according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg.

Do you consider a system, with a federal government debt at the end of 2005-06 of $481.5 billion, to be working fine as is? This system involves high taxes partially due to interest payments on debt. I have been told that this federal debt number does not include deferred maintenance debt for the federal infrastructure assets. This federal debt is not my personal choice.

Whoop-de-do. Corporations issue unsecured debt issues all the time. People eat them up, they are nearly always secure and offer higher returns than secured bonds or commerical paper. What rate of return do Bank of Canada notes in your possession offer? Who is thinking we should store enough gold to back up each note? Do you consider a system, with a per-capita debt for Canadians of $28,390 in 2005, to be working fine as is?

Has any government in Canada ever defined the value of the Canadian dollar? Bank of Canada notes state: "This note is legal tender". This Bank of Canada webpage provides the following answer for the question, "What is 'legal tender'?": "A 'tender' is an offer of payment of a debt. In Canada, legal tender consists of coins issued by the Royal Canadian Mint and bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada. This does not mean that a merchant is obliged to accept bank notes. The method of payment can be whatever is mutually acceptable to both parties - cash, credit card, cheque, etc. Thus, a merchant may refuse to accept bank notes in payment for goods or services, without contravening the law." Bank of Canada notes are not backed by anything of intrinsic value, unlike secured debt notes which are backed by some form of collateral.

Apparently, we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed. Is there proof that we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed?

This is an issue for people who follow New Testament Christian law. "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37, KJV) "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12, KJV)

The footnote states: "(1) Arthur Beauchesne, Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, Fourth Edition, The Carswell Company Limited, Toronto, 1958, citation 15, p. 13. This was apparently done by Instructions passed under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet of 15 June 1905. The question arises as to how a Royal Instruction can legally amend a constitutional provision; it does not appear that this issue has been addressed. According to later editions of Beauchesne’s (see, for example, Sixth Edition, 1989, citation 243), the Oaths of Allegiance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 0-1, permits Members who object to being sworn to make a solemn affirmation, if the taking of an oath is contrary to their religious belief or if they have no religious belief. This, however, does not appear to be correct, as a federal statute cannot override a constitutional provision.".

Carbon dioxide sequestration already occurs naturally. Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.

According to James R. Robertson, "Since 1905, Members of Parliament have been allowed to 'solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm' that, though they cannot take the oath, they are still loyal to the Monarch.(1) The wording of the affirmation as it stands today is as follows: I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.". Queen Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

A claim made on a paper currency note, which contradicts a country's Constitution, is relevant.It it really contradicted the constitution then it would have been raised as an issue long before now.Can you prove that this has not been raised as an issue long before now? Are you claiming I have pulled up "out of context quotes"?

A claim made on a paper currency note, which contradicts a country's Constitution, is relevant. A "Federal Reserve Note" makes the claim that "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...", according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution. The U.S.A. Constitution is claimed to be the "Supreme Law of the land". Article VI, Section 2 states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Trying to make a law which contradicts the U.S.A. Constitution is not making a law "in pursuance" of the U.S.A. Constitution.

The value of the US$ in gold changes daily...Privately-owned corporations may be redefining the value of federal reserve notes, not U.S. dollars, in gold every business day. According to Edwin Vieira, Jr.,"... Most people associate the noun 'dollar' with the Federal Reserve Note ('FRN') 'dollar bill,' engraved with the portrait of President George Washington. This association is mistaken. No statute defines - or ever has defined - the 'one dollar' FRN as the 'dollar,' or even as a species of 'dollar'.".

You can find all the answers to your questions on the federal reserve site. http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqgs.htm Do you know of any current U.S. law defining U.S. dollars as being current U.S. currency? This does not contain a reference to a U.S. law, since 1900, redefining the U.S. dollar as no longer consisting of a fixed mass of gold.

I do not recall making any claims about the convertibility of U.S. notes. Do you know of any U.S. law defining U.S. dollars as being the same things as U.S. notes?

This above quote from Wikipedia does not contain a reference to a U.S. law, since 1900, redefining the U.S. dollar as no longer consisting of a fixed mass of gold.

And that was changed in 1973 I think when they got rid of the gold standard and allowed the cuurency to 'float' at market levels. Do you know of any U.S. law, since 1900, redefining the U.S. dollar as no longer consisting of a fixed mass of gold?

Bank of Canada notes state: "This note is legal tender". This Bank of Canada webpage provides the following answer for the question, "What is 'legal tender'?": "A 'tender' is an offer of payment of a debt. In Canada, legal tender consists of coins issued by the Royal Canadian Mint and bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada. This does not mean that a merchant is obliged to accept bank notes. The method of payment can be whatever is mutually acceptable to both parties - cash, credit card, cheque, etc. Thus, a merchant may refuse to accept bank notes in payment for goods or services, without contravening the law." Bank of Canada notes are not backed by anything of intrinsic value, unlike secured debt notes which are backed by some form of collateral. A "Federal Reserve Note" is not a U.S. dollar. The Coinage Act of 1792 defined the U.S. dollar as containing 371.25 grains (24.06 grams) of pure silver. A "Federal Reserve Note" makes the claim that "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...", according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution.

My understanding, since the mid-1990s, has been that there are no reserve requirements for financial institutions in Canada other than having to meet the demand, of customers with accounts, for Bank of Canada notes and RCM coins. According to Canadian Nickle, "Well, the law allows them to charge a reasonable fee for any of the services they think people will pay a service fee for. They are required to provide coin in exchange for currency, but not to do it for free, just are they are required to hold cash for anyone legally able to open an account, but not required to do so without a monthly fee".

"School District No.17 bans kirpans By MIKELLE SASKAMOOSE Mar 13 2006 KAMLOOPS - Orthodox Sikh students in School District 73 are not permitted to carry a ceremonial kirpan dagger to school." © Copyright 2006 Clearwater Times The rest of the article may be read at http://www.clearwatertimes.com/portals-cod...id=607076&more=