LesActive

Deflection. If that's the fatal flaw then I see nothing to fear at all. It's sad for me to see that you can't for a second envision a world of giving unconditionally and taking only what you need. You see chaos and I see harmony. Evolution can be a bitch I guess when you have to give up all the legal illusions that we've built. The process for change has to start somewhere and as crazy/mistaken/duped as you believe us that are doing this to be, you have to understand that we are doing this out of and for love of all. Is that the philosophy angle you were looking for FTA? Because that's all there is to it really. We're not trying to gain anything, we're simply declaring peace with the whole mess and giving over everything to where it belongs. Kind of like a pre-emptive strike on the NWO. Sound Utopian? We can only hope and see what happens with the truth on the table, and it is on the table before the government at this moment. We believe we have a case and that we have the right kind of backing to follow through so what have we got to lose really? A name? So my friends call me by something else, what's the problem? That I'm out a nominal lawyers fee? If this doesn't work then okay, I'll accept that but it's not going to change the central philosophy that we are all born free but that the chains are self imposed. Time to toss them off. It's not like there won't be a need for your services FTA, they'll need you for quite a while I'm sure. You seem to think that we're laying a claim to something and that's not quite right. We are all of the earth as are all the fruits of it. By what right does one group of people lay claim to a resource, either natural or through the sweat of someone else's labour except through force or trickery? Greed and profit motive is laying waste to the only thing we've got to sustain us. Look, I'm not here to talk my way out of anything or to sway your opinion and never said I would try. I expected this resistance and that's fine too. If you were truly interested in it you'd research it yourself. I'm sharing what we're doing with this board and you just want to pick a fight over what we view as a basic, obvious truth and that is that there is no cost associated with anything except for the labour (sweat equity) that went into it, whatever 'it' is. I find myself in a position in life to follow through on something in which I believe is best for everyone and is not guided by any sort of lust for selfish enrichment. I do quite well in commercial life by your standards as it stands, I think, but I've smelled a rat since I was a kid and this is the opportunity I'm taking to help flush it out, obviously, at all costs as I'm giving up everything most people now hold dear. An illusion. That you believe in it makes it so in a very real sense. Your concept of natural law is far too simple and animalistic for a rational, loving being to go along with. We're not talking grizzlies here. Deflection again. It's about people caring outside of themselves. And some would call that a crime. It's no longer about survival of the fittest and that's precisely the point. Everyone sees that you didn't refute any of our beliefs as to what is identity. So you agree then? Did you call your Provincial Registrar and ask whether a Birth Certificate was intended for use as ID? If not then why not? It's done. I concede this unintentional battlefield in peace and leave you with our mission statement which was part of the package sent to the AG and whoever else might be concerned with it. I'm not arguing. There's no point. Active Note*- the above statement was the one we had to agree with before signing over the name to the trustee and the following fleshes it out a bit.

Wow! What a cynical and dishonest way to try and distract people from learning a little bit about the world we now live in and the gov't control that is exerted into our lives from an alternative perspective. Definitely, possibly or doubtfully, I'm just offering it for consideration as we've already got the wheels in motion despite your view. For one thing, the analogy of the uniform being equivalent in value to a modern suit is quite possibly just that, an analogy. You've cast a little doubt on the assertion and that's good, I'm still willing to learn. For another, I wrote uniform and made no mention of full regalia. Did you read briefcase, power tie, writing implement, manicure, cuff-links, laptop, Rolex, and whatever else it takes to fully arm a soldier of commerce today into the word 'suit'? You don't think that I had my doubts when I first heard about this stuff? Man, do you have any idea how much crap I had to wade through to glean the juicy tid-bits from the tin-hattery that is being spewed alongside it on all the sites out there? I'm sure you do. I know you're not stupid. I've done my due diligence to the best of my abilities by being highly sceptical during this whole process of discovery and I've checked as many facts as I could verify through the means available to me. I do find your cynicism somewhat funny, however, your reference to tin hats and gullibility to describe my psyche and your pointed attempt to sully the pertinent information I'm offering by focusing on a minor analogy is merely insulting and lowers the value of discourse here. I have an admission to make to you. One for which I'm sure you'll squeal with glee over. I have worn a tin hat you see. Yes indeed. In fact, a couple of times. The first time was during dress rehearsal. The only other time was during the sixth or seventh grade production of the Wizard of Oz at my elementary school. Guess what part I played? It wasn't the Strawman, that's for sure. (ha! beat you to it) I don't know that aliens have visited us, haven't seen one, never been probed. I don't know that the Masons control the world, not a member, didn't care for Cub Scouts when I was a kid either. I don't know that the House of Rothschilde rules the money market, I don't bank with them. I've never seen George Bush shape-shift into a lizard though I do firmly believe that if he did he'd f**k it up somehow. I don't know that there is a conscious force in the universe but I neither promote nor dispute the possibility. I can't do yogic flying, never tried as I have a bad back and that guy's just plain weird. I certainly don't know whether the gov't is sending subliminal microwave messages directly into my brain but then who would, eh? If they are they're definitely tuning me into the wrong channel don't ya think?. Those things are not part of the main thrust of this thread so please refrain from alluding to them by including what I'm doing along with them by way of your tin hat device. I politely asked for mature responses. I'll count "Source please." as one. There are plenty of other threads for you to play your diversion games. Go and enjoy yourself, apparently it's your gift to the world. peace

I'll look for it. It was something I read quite a while ago that stuck and it seems reasonable to me. In the event that I can't find it again will that confirm your opinion of my mental state or discredit everything else I've proposed? Really M., do you equate ridicule of a new idea with maturity?

You are a quick learn. Took me quite a while to grasp the concept. You are not a name. It is ALL about the name that gov't created for you to use. Not that it is vitally important to our mission but it is indicative of the nature of the game how EVERY corporate issued bill, be it taxes, phone, cable and etc., are sent to a name that is not of you but of the gov't. What rule of grammar allows them to change the spelling of the name from John Quincy Public to PUBLIC, JOHN QUINCY or John Q. PUBLIC or other derivative. There is no such rule. The name on your ID is a corporate name and they seem to have to use that name to interact with you in commerce. Corporations and dead people are spelled in all-caps. There is no statute in CANADA that forbids you from using any name you choose so long as your purpose is not fraud. There is also no statute obliging you to carry gov't issued ID.

Not devilry, quite the opposite. If you or anyone else would like to know more details PM me a snail-mail address and I'll send out a CD with a two hour mp3 audio file and a few other docs. Yes, for free and no I'm not a stalker. peace

Funny that I got what I asked for. Questions from FTA, comments from Posit and flung peanuts from geoffrey. This is a longish post. I did attempt an explanation for the duality of man/person in the previous thread but apparently I failed. It's a huge question which requires an equally expansive answer though mine will be far from comprehensive. Allow me to start from its root. From Etymology Online (excerpt) person c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." (excerpt) persona 1917, "outward or social personality," a Jungian psychology term, from L. persona "person" (see person). Used earlier (1909) by Ezra Pound in the sense "literary character representing voice of the author." Persona grata (1882) is from L.L., lit. "an acceptable person," originally applied to diplomatic representatives acceptable to the governments to which they were sent; persona non grata is attested from 1904. From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856) (excerpt) PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. 2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164. 3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178. As an example, the (Ontario) Highway Traffic Act states "“driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway;", yet doesn't define 'person'. The Interpretation Act defines it thus: "person" , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; Do maxims of law still apply? If they do, as they should, then I would apply this one to the IA definition: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. You're a lawyer FTA so you either know this and are playing fast and loose or your masters just aren't telling you. If you're born in Canada your parents are required by statute to register your birth with the appropriate registrar in your Province. At that time they are given an option to get either a certified copy of the Statement of Live Birth or a Birth Certificate. The SoLB is a record of the facts so certified. It records an event, not a baby. The BC (derivative of the SoLB) is something else and was never intended to be used as identification. My Black's 3rd edition defines identify (no definition for identification provided) as: 1) to prove the identity of (a 'person' or a thing) 2) to look upon as being associated with. Identity is defined as: the identical nature of two or more things. So, logically, no piece of paper or plastic can ever identify you can it? Only you can identify you, ie. "I am so and so, here I am". The Deputy Registrar for Births and Deaths in Ontario has stated that the Birth Certificate should not be used for identification as it was never intended for that purpose. BC's in England actually have a warning on them in that regard. Apparently, at one time, BC's here had the same warning. What happened? By saying that the document is you you admit to being a person or at the very least, representing a person (more like surety for). What is one of the first questions, if not the first, that a crown attorney asks the arresting officer in a criminal or quasi-criminal (ie. traffic) case? "How did the accused identify him/herself?" If the answer is a gov't issued ID then that man or woman has represented themselves as a person. How about if that man or woman used a SoLB instead? That document is not admissible as it can't identify anyone by virtue of being merely a record of an event. Should the case continue if the alleged accused refused to use such ID? Once the truth of the document is known, why would they? Do you recall the Picton trial (British Columbia) where he was initially charged with the murder of 27 women but that number was reduced because one of the bodies couldn't be associated with a name? Why was that do you suppose? Truth dispels fiction. Is there an intrinsic value to your money? If there is then why does its value fluctuate? Is it true that goods roughly still cost the same amount as they did in the 1930's but that our legal tender has fairly steadily devalued to to where it's at now making things appear to cost more? What backs that money? Do not banks create money out of thin air by lending many times what they hold in actual assets based upon accounts receivable, or loans? A couple of thousand years ago a Roman soldier could buy a uniform with an ounce of gold. Today an ounce of gold can buy you a new suit. Not much has changed in that time with something of real intrinsic value like gold. If you have a shit-pile of money as you say then why don't you put it to good use? Instead of increasing your pile, a la Scrooge McDuck, put it back into circulation by buying goods or hiring people to do things for you or your community. You're not selfish are you? What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his own soul? Debtor is a term I use in my opinion as one who takes but doesn't give back. What value did you put forth to get that pile? I'm not denigrating what you do but you are sworn to uphold the system before the interests of your client and the more legislation that is passed the more work you have to do. In an administrative law framework such as we have there is always room for more statutes, written by lawyers using a language that looks like English but with meanings much different than what the average English-speaking woman or man would understand. Legislation is like a make work project for lawyers. Woe unto you lawyers for you have hidden the key of knowledge. Who is going to determine the value of what I put into society? I'll work for free, gimme shelter. We are all entitled to the necessities of life. That the gov't controls access to those necessities is not my doing. In order to participate in the game they require that I have a person (corporation/business). Is the gov't entitled to take away those necessities or would they be guilty of endangering my life if they did? There is a metaphor in the game of monopoly, simplistic as it is. You can't play the game without your token (person) and everything is there ready for you to play. Money, property, jail, railroads etc.. What happens at the end of the game? Only one token is left, every other token has gone bankrupt. Now, can the tokens play by themselves? Of course not, there must be a mover. The player is the mover, not the token. The only difference is that there is limited supply of cash whereas we have the Bank of Canada which will create money as it sees fit. All mysterious to me. I don't want to play anymore. The gov't created the person for me to play in commerce and I, by signing for it as though it were me, agreed to be the surety. I'm giving the person back and essentially saying "You created this entity and held me liable while I signed for it. I used it to apply for everything you say I need to play the game: Drivers Licence, SIN, Health Card, Passport and etc.. I'm giving the entity back to you and now you're liable for it. Sorry I mismanaged the account but I didn't understand the game." How can the gov't refuse the gift? They created it. I'm saying that CANADA is a nation founded upon the the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of God (according to the preamble to the constitution). What is the Rule of Law if not the common law and natural law? If God is supreme that sets up a hierarchy with God at the top. My question is, who's number two? Umm, I think that would be me, you and everyone else who was born on this land. If I no longer consent to be represented I'm beholding to none so long as I behave. We don't know how this going to work or even if it's going to work. Perhaps we have a debit card. That would make sense but again, I don't know. We'll know better in a month or so. If I want to use a house I imagine that I inform the trustee which one I wish to use and through their magic the means are provided. They don't lose out on anything as the equitable asset value is still held by them and as the property value increases so would the equity, enriching them further. They own everything anyway. Try not paying your property tax and see what happens. No, I can't prove CANADA is insolvent. That kind of thing is way over my head but I do see that the national debt is forever increasing and our currency is being devalued daily. Why? I didn't view your questions as mocking, thank you. Geoffrey, OTOH, can't help himself. And yes geoffrey, I will be in a house, travelling on the roads and wearing clothing. What do you think I am, a barbarian? If only....

Hey kids!! Miss me? I figured I'd share a bit of what transpired today as the last time I posted there seemed to be just a wee bit of disbelief in what I was promoting at the time. While I still admire what Rob Menard's intentions were with Bursting Bubbles and thank him wholeheartedly for showing me a different path, I've decided on a different path and acted on it today. Rob's method of redemption, while honourable, is also confrontational. That's just not my style. If you wish to discuss this matter in a mature manner (looking at you M.Dancer) feel free to chime in. This is no fantasy, it's a done deal. As of today, the legal name that was (unwittingly) requested and given for me to use in commerce is being held in trust by a lawyer while he negotiates with the Canadian government how we (a group of about 60 people) will survive without legal tender. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars' and he no longer has any power over you. I have given over all equitable claim on my present and future assets to the treasury of Canada. As such, I recognize that Canada, the corporation, is insolvent and that the only way I can help this country pay down its debts is by giving, not pledging, in this way. This is a gift of love. By doing so I make no claim to wealth except that which is my birth right by virtue of being born on this land. I realize that so long as there is a profit motive there will be poverty and that the only way to cure the ills of poverty is to give up everything I "own" for the benefit of all and hope others will see the veracity of my intent and follow suit by eschewing the temptation to hoard said wealth because by holding on to the equitable claim on property we deprive others of the chance to share in the benefits of our collective labour. Do you honestly think you own anything? Have you ever seen a luggage rack on a hearse? Because of this gift, CANADA the corporation, is now equitably estopped from punitive action against me barring the unlikely event that I harm or defraud a fellow human. As I have lawfully separated my body from the legal entity/person, any attempt to create joinder between the two (I am real, the person is a fiction of law) by an agent of the state would constitute fraud and they would be held criminally liable for their actions. CANADA has no jurisdiction over this body unless I consent and trust me, that's not going to happen except by force. No longer a debtor, I am a creditor. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do as we have done as it's up to each of you to decide whether you wish to continue scrambling for legal tender (debt/liability) for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the many or to give over what you can't take with you beyond this mortal coil. If you have money, spend it, otherwise you're bleeding the country dry and many suffer needlessly. Some of us have figured this thing out AND we have lawyers backing us. It's not a rebellion, it's quite the opposite. Think of what the Queen did when she took the throne. She surrendered her estate to the treasury and now enjoys unencumbered/untaxed use of same. That's all we want too. Questions? Comments? Peanuts? peace

If you would deign to demonstrate (on yourself, illustrations would suffice) how you would go about completely encompassing your head without cutting it off I would love to see it. Really weak M.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, besides, the longer this thread stays toward the top the more people may question what's going on and that at least IS a good thing. Enjoy the status quo while it lasts. Go ahead, reply.............. GO THREAD, GO!!!

You have to look past the clothes and see the kid. Our parents intimated the same things . All it is is the style and fashion of the day. Sure some of it is outrageous, but I wouldn't go so far as "growing impatient"....cuz that means you want them to act as a white canadians? The music...?....I like most of it. And I am no kid. Funny that, I had a white gangsta kid come in the tattoo shop who said he wanted a little "sumpin sumpin" on his arm. I asked OK so what was this sumpin sumpin? He said, "c'mon, you know what I'm talkin 'bout. Sumpin sumpin!" Ok, you want that in script or olde english? He had no clue what his own words meant. Hip hop has made kids stupid. Bring back the Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy, these kids need direction and the means to articulate their non-ideas. The video that mikedavid points to as damning evidence of the immigration 'problem' is nothing more than a parade celebrating Sikhism in Canada. Looks like a rather colourful and fun affair to me. Just cuz I see no beavers, moose or maple syrup doesn't make the event any less than purely Canadian.

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics. By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy! "Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty" You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what? Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending?

SWEET! Thank you sooo much for that link! I don't suppose you have more contact information so as I can serve notice and make claim on the head official do you? That would be greatly appreciated. Hey!! You want to race see who can get a letter to him first? Mine will be notarized. Thanks Eh? Seriously thanks... yikes! What did I start now? I thought this would be an interesting thread with this group but .... wow ...so sorry for the hassle Rob. I had no idea this kind of thing would happen. Conflict bites. by the way, Figleaf has us on her ignore list.

Ok ok you're right. It's so much safer not to look, not to question. They built it and we came and now we're stuck with playing the game. The information you need is more in you than it is in the laws you've created. You don't need to be literate to understand it at its base but it does help to unravel the web.

That would be silly. Does General Mills proscribe the rules for Kellogg's? Different corporations.

You might want to send it to this particular corporation that's listed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose address is in Washington, D.C. They should cover all expenses incurred by all-caps names. Notice it says, "Company Information" on the browser tab. Now, why would it say that I wonder?

There will be resistance by the authorities but that's only because they are acting on presumptions, as you are. You presume that I am the same as you, and essentially I am, except I'll have made a claim of right that, witnessed and unrebutted, will stand as truth. Look up claim of right in the Criminal Code. Or does the thought that people can responsible for their own actions actually scare you that much? Statutes are not necessarily law. They kinda look like it with all the pretty fictional colours though.

Rob, thanks for your timely post! As you well know, it's difficult to get these ideas across to some people. Let's see if what you've contributed here today helps a few more to realize that it might just be possible to ThinkFree. I hope that you'll check back and comment again. And uhmmmmm, er, sorry 'bout that "annoying" comment I made earlier. No ill will meant bro! Boy, is my face red. You forgot to mention why the hits on the video spiked so suddenly!?! Figleaf, if you can't make the distinction between a human being (reality) and a person (fictional) then you may never understand the concepts being put forth. This link may help you with some of the basics.

You would never be able to understand how banks operate. What you say is fundamentally true, but explain the advantage of government creating money vs private banker created money. You will say that if governments are allowed to create money inflation will result and I will call you a fool again and explain why. So go ahead.. We're also not at war (not a real one anyway) nor do we have the hubris to colonize the world. Emergency measures are one thing. When does the emergency stop? When did it even begin?

Is that actually part of your oath? Did you happen to find it? I really would like to see it. It seems that if you're sworn to uphold what is good and holy then there must be a basis for those terms to exist. I'd be very interested to know what that is. If I were to affirm on a bible could I use that book as my reference to law?

If only I had the energy to write a treatise on the human condition I might be inspired to do so. Sorry FTA, but this isn't going to be that long winded nor do I think it'll satisfy your question directly, I've had a rough week, this will have to do for now. I would like you and everyone else to understand what it is we're trying to do but part of the problem in this polylogue may be that we who are doing this, a tiny minority, know innately that something is wrong while the majority are just comfortable enough to think that every thing is as it should be because it's always been this way and most other folk seem ok with it too so why rock the boat. To us, it's obvious that can't be true. If it were there would be no need for new (or any) punitive legislation regarding behaviours that harm none and violently limit freedoms using a language that we are forbidden to interpret. Governments should be in place to protect and to promote, not to profit from our imposed ignorance. Just my opinion of course. Even if you don't believe some of our theories regarding the human body acting as surety for a fictional person you must admit that more control and wealth is being taken from the populace at an ever increasing rate by placing more liability for the governments liabilities on our backs. They control the game and we, by being silent, let them. A vote is not a voice. When governments declare war powers on its citizenry; When that which we created has more power than its creators; When the courts are used more often for attacks in equity on its citizenry than mitigating contracts and torts between people; When law becomes a contradiction in term; When governments create contracts that purport to benefit its citizenry and then remove the freedom to let them decide whether or not it is a benefit to them; When we aren't allowed to speak because there is a gun in the room, you can choose to deny or accept. I THINK I am a living, breathing human being who exists on a small piece of the only viable planet within the solar system able to support life, on a geographical land mass, called Canada by the people, who was born with free-will from my mothers' womb, not as an act of the legislature, and that I was endowed by God/Nature/Love/Whateverfloatsyourboat with a conscience to discern good from bad; and THEREFORE I AM existent with the unalienable rights to live peacefully amongst my fellow humans, to acquire what I need to survive through my own labour, to help those I think need to be helped, to have the ability to decide what I think is a benefit to me and my society, to travel freely without hindrance, to contract without coercion or artful/deceitful language and to share equally in all that life has to offer without interference from a group of people who know nothing about me upon my solemn affirmation that I will harm none with intent and adhere to the common-law of the people. Isn't that enough? Governments, being public, should rightfully ignore the private until the private wants to be known or is found to be in breach of the peace. How is a busted tail-light, jaywalking, keeping what you labour for, ingesting anything, skateboarding, having a dog and a myriad of other daily occurences that harm none a breach of the peace? You have no responsibilty to gov't, it has a responsibility to you. It's supposed to offer services on a voluntary basis, not force you into submission. If it doesn't have the funds to offer those services does it have the right to force you to pay for something you may never use. Does it even allow you the ability to pay when money is created out of thin air? Is it right that they go into debt for our 'benefit' and then consign us through trickery to bail them out for their mismanagement of the funds they got from us? I seem to have given you all the mistaken impression that this path leads into isolation. If you can view the total output of our nation of people and see that it belongs to all of us collectively and that there is plenty to go around you may begin to see how wealth can create poverty and division. It's elemental. In a very real sense, everything is already paid for through our labour. Everything gained on top of our labour is taken at the peoples expense for the benefit of the few. If I get paid $100 to make a product that would retail for $350 but only get to spend $65 because of taxes I would have to work for free to obtain it. There is no reason besides greed that keeps the disparity alive. It's fine to be ambitious, but to what end? We have to be social to survive in any kind of comfort but when the powers that control the game hide the rules there can be no equity. If we discover what the rules may be then perhaps we can act on it. The only way to know is to try. I'm not going to be able to convince anyone that what we're doing is the way to go if they don't want to question what the meaning of 'is' is and who they represent to the gov't. That's up to them to decide what may be going on and I'll try not to test their values so long as they allow me the same courtesy. ...meh, that's all for now, too nice outside... cheers, Les p.s. FTA, Rob Menard has an open letter for debate posted on craigslist, Vancouver if you're interested. He knows more of the intricacies than I do and could probably better answer the technical questions you may have. I am still learning.

I will respond when I have some time. Let me just say, again, that I'm not rejecting society, I'm rejecting the form of gov't as we now have it. I am more than willing to live within the common-law. Gov't is not society, people are. There is a distinction between the fictions of law that have to colour an action in reality in order to act on it. A colourable offence, as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, is not one based on facts but on agreement that if I hit you over the head with a bat I agree to call it assault and battery when I merely hit you over the head. Back to work for me....

What's the deal with private banks lending money to governments then, when the Bank Of Canada could lend our money to us. Isn't that the government letting the private banks put Canadians in servitude ? Without private banks lending gov't money the banks wouldn't be able to inflate the dollar, fractionalize further and charge exorbitant interest fees for which there is no relief. A black hole. Usury creates unending debt as the interest charged can NEVER be recouped without a loss of the peoples capital for the benefit of....hmmm, I daren't say. They're bleeding us dry.

It's good to see that you can be cheeky, really quite refreshing, however, I have to disagree with you in that you are a shareholder in Canada (the land mass) and the rest of the planet, as are the rest of us, despite political status. Only a myopic outlook with selfish interests would believe otherwise. You'd just prefer that I'd not use the system of laws that have been set up because then you may have to face the hypocrisy of that very system to which you've sworn an oath. That's the idea. I use the process that you would use to prosecute me against you because that is the system in place. It's an age old method. If that's the only way I can Remember that old story of the little kid who slung a rock at a bully and knocked him down to his level then took the bullys own sword and cut off his head. Same idea, minus the sword, gore and sandals. How long would it take for a judge or prosecutor to call BS if I tried bring theories of Descartes, Hobbes, Russell or even Bastiat into the courtroom? Wouldn't work would it? If you can use your laws against me then I can use them against you, whether or not I'm a member of your 'political' society. All I need is the truth of my being here in corporeal form to counter any administrative/commercial charge. How did we get to here? Does parliament ever stop trying to control our behaviour? If the courts would follow the simple maxims that have been developed over the centuries I would have no problem and be quite content to support the status quo. Problem is, the courts and legislature seemed to have 'forgotten' what law should be, fair. There was a time when the 'law' allowed us to do pretty much as we pleased so long as no one was injured, nothing damaged/stolen and no one was defrauded. Do you remember your maxims? Simple basic rules that can easily be applied to all in the course of justice. A charge under the HTA is hardly in the interest of justice. It's about the money, period. Why are 'drivers' required to renew their licence every 5 years if it's not about the money? Why don't doctors, attorneys and various other professionals who deal with situations where peoples lives are on the line have to renew theirs? I don't know, maybe they do but I've never heard of it. Have you been to traffic court lately? Happen to notice the similarity to a stockyard, the attendees lined up like cattle for the slaughter? Crap. Some of my favourite maxims: So tell me, is this a fair basis from which to continue my search for truth? I'm not an island. THese maxims are consonant with reason and me being a fairly reasonable man with some ability to articulate my thoughts agree with them. If you want a deeper basis from which to work I can go back to the bible, which to me, is a book of law. Read it in the light of being a symbolic treatise on human rights and law as opposed to a book of devotion. Reads quite differently when you think of it in those terms. What is our government but a group of men and women who decide by statutory rules how we are to behave? SOMETHING happened along the way to change that and I'm curious as to how. Whatever you think, I want to be a part of a society, to live in peace, with my fellow brethren in an atmosphere of freedom and good faith and not be limited at the whim of strangers whom I don't support and whose only prerogative seems to be to control and steal our labour through violence and coercion. Is that really so tough to understand? That you think my logic is circular is your misapprehension. I'm using whatever means necessary to proclaim my rights and nothing within reason will keep me from doing so. Deal with it. Oh wait, you can't cuz you're part of it.

Would a hospital turn me away with a compound fracture? I doubt it. A physician requires that all patients have a Health Card and I cannot be refused one nor can I be refused treatment if it's life threatening, even without a Health card. If I have to pay I will. Good thing I'm not a hypochondriac, I haven't been to a hospital in over 8 years and I paid for the services then. I'll bet that the name on the bill will not be mine but rather that of the person. Since the gov't was the creator of that person and I am no longer trustee it is the gov't who is liable. I will not accept joinder between the two if any attempt to do so were made. If by chance that they issued the bill in my proper name I would then pay. Trouble is, EVERY name used in commerce is that of an artificial entity. Look at any corporate bill or gov't document you receive that has some monetary value attached to it and you'll see that the name is in one of the following forms: DOE, JOHN H./JOHN HOWARD DOE/JOHN DOE/John H. DOE etc. I have never seen my name spelled in grammatically correct form on a financial document. Why? Perhaps because it's a commercial derivative of your birth name (Statement of Birth) which correctly spelled, would be either, John-Howard:Doe, John-Howard or John Doe. I would love to see an example of a bill or gov't doc in proper grammatical form if there are any out there. Canada is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (note the word 'human'), which states in part: Please note that the only time in these particular articles where 'person' is used is in Article 30 where they place restrictions on destructive capabilities of those entities. I would infer it is meant to protect humans. I thought you had a final thought a while ago. What is this? Rigour mortis? I thought that was supposed to straighten you out. jk

Don't like government? Income tax? GST? Move to Somalia. They have no functioning government that will ever tax you.If you don't like Somalia, there are many other places where a few small bribes will exempt you from most taxation. If those alternatives are unpalatable, as BlackDog would state much better, STFU. Life is a package deal, with at best a couple of options. That's great August, thanks for your constructive criticism. I was put on this land by the hand of God, by what authority superior to Gods would you banish me. STFU, nice response.