LesActive

Welcome to the 21st century, where your body is collateral and you have (seemingly) no choice but to obey or be dealt with at the point of a gun. Good faith and violence are mutually exclusive concepts. As Marc Stevens says, if they are going to prosecute under administrative law where no one is injured then one of those has to go. Diogenes had one advantage over us in that he knew who he was whereas I am only discovering who I am and the name on the Birth Certificate ain't me. I think that if there is a fraud here, and I'm not sure that there is but evidence and the lack thereof suggests such a possibility, the perpetrators should be held accountable. *sigh* Lest we forget........Canada was also involved in WW1 and instituted the Income War Tax Act of 1917 to help defray costs. Of course, like all 'good' things, such as the GST, it proved far too profitable to let go.

Yeah, I didn't want to touch that one just yet but I will. That's part of the fraud that I'm acting on. I don't like to contribute to the fractionalization of the dollar. Oh and thanks for chiming in!

Sorry, this post was too complicated to separate into proper quotations, I tried. The affidavit (thanks for the sp correction) I use states I am a living, breathing human being and not a corporation/person in commerce. How would one go about rebutting the affidavit when the truth stands before them? Unless I've consented to the labels of 'person' or 'corporation' of course. Their other option would be to try and create joinder between me and the person, hence the need to divest yourself of the governments creation. Thanks, that's how I sign traffic tickets, along with TDC (see below) and all rights reserved. They are a part of my autograph now when dealing agencies in commerce. Excellent. Source please. When one is ticketed and the event has taken place in the Province of Ontario, as the ticket says, which is it talking about? Did I commit an offense on the land by my body or did the alleged offense occur in the legal fiction known as the Province of Ontario. My body cannot exist in a fiction. Remember the citation pad of the by-law officer mentioned earlier which stated, "THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON". It was not talking of the land mass. Land is not fiction. Was the Province ever incorporated? See above. Ok, I was speaking of legal title. You registered your car, your house, your dog, your children. They have their fingers on everything. How is it that they can take your property without your consent unless you have contracted with them. You register your car, your home, even your bank account has a SIN # attached to it. See where it says "PROVINCE OF (YOUR CHOICE)" on the vehicle registration. They've laid partial claim to it and you did it willingly. Look up 'registration' and its etymology. Who holds the NVID on your car? see above Homework assignment: find how many definitions there are for the word 'person' in the statutes and see if ANY of the statutory definitions include, 'woman', 'man', 'human' or people (persons is the plural of person) and please let me know, this info is critical. And don't tell me that 'individual' denotes a human. 'Individual' what? The word is an adjective that describes one of something apart from the rest of the somethings. It's the 'what' that I want to know. How about for travelling on the road. If you say I need a licence to drive then you are correct. BUT, I am not a driver in commerce. I'm travelling on the road in my private capacity and have no obligation to hold a license or insurance. I will put up a bond for a certain amount that will cover any liability for damage I may cause through an unintentional collision. My bike is not for hire and I don't carry passengers. The legal definitions of 'highway' and 'traffic' might be interesting for you to look up as they are commercial terms. As I am trying to separate my body from the gov't issued person you may infer why I ask. I can see that you don't believe there is a distinction, oh well. Such as? The artificial, legal entity that has a name that when pronounced sounds like mine but does not represent me anc is improperly spelled. Quite the opposite actually as I am presumed to be the surety for that person. Derivatives such as the SIN #, drivers licence, passport etc. As FTA said, the preamble is unnecessary though it is helpful in understanding the scope of the Act. The Act does however need Royal assent (the final step) for the statute to become 'law'. See snip from the Interpretation Act below: How so? Why would a judge speak on my behalf if I don't wish to 'plea' or beg? Am I obliged to beg? I don't hold the judge out to be an authority over me. Excellent. Please explain 'incorrect premise' and 'malformed' in regard to my questions. How is a question like, "Who is the injured party on a charge under the Highway Traffic Act or Narcotic Control Act?" based on an incorrect premise or malformed. Seems pretty straight forward. Thanks for attempting the list.

Does anyone know how to access files at Archives Canada? I'm getting hits back to the 1917 Income Tax War Act but when I click on the link the page displays a list of reference #'s and a note that states, "Restricted by Law". They're not making it easy. Does anyone get the point that we aren't persons or taxpayers unless we consent to labelled such? Are you a corporation or a partnership? Haven't given up my search yet... To me this isn't about being anti-gov't or being a freeloader. I feel I've been duped somehow and I'm just trying to figure it out. I don't agree with all of Rob Menards theories so please don't think that I speak for him. I could either relax and let the gov't continue building more statutes and making criminals out of more people or I can continue doing what I have been doing....sleuthing. Lawyers may like to check out Marc Stevens' website, Adventures in Legal Land. He has an interesting view which challenges presumptions. I referenced his work when I was stopped by the by-law officer I mentioned previously. His questions are very tough to get around.

Well, this is interesting. The Income Tax Act is no longer on the Justice Laws site (it was there a couple of months ago) and instead directs you to CanLII for the 2004 version, which doesn't display the enacting clause. The Canada Gazette, however, does have enacting clauses for multiple amendments to the ITA but I can't find the 1985 ITA as the Gazette archives only go back as far as 1998. Any other ideas as to where I might look for an official and complete ITA without travelling to Ottawa? I would point out that section 2 of the ITA states: 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. From the definitions section of the ITA it states:"taxpayer" includes a partnership. There's that tricky word again, 'includes'. I've only given it a cursory look but the definition seems in line with the spirit of the Interpretation Acts definition of a person as a corporation. I'll keep looking though.

FTA, I apologize. A personal remark was uncalled for. As you didn't specify I assumed. My bad. I guess you have to see the oppositional comments through my eyes to understand my reaction. Not exactly a glowing reception. The comment about the wasted money was directed more toward the cost of putting on the trial in the first place and dragging it out like that. Money that comes from people who work for it. Not implying anything disparaging about you in particular. I understand your reticence from your perspective and I find it reasonable if a little disappointing. I'll have to look elsewhere is all. Thanks for your time.

Careful geoffrey, that's how I got started on this whole thing. You wouldn't want to be too inquisitive, they might slap your wrist.

Arrogance? Perhaps. I can take a hit and have on this thread, gawd, take a joke. That FTA would charge money to answer 2 questions in a PM seems arrogant. Why not let us all know? I apologize to the posters reading this if post #31 has upset them in any way, didn't realize nerves were so close to the surface where lawyers need to be defended. To disparage any integrity this thread may have over a minor slight in a lightly sarcastic and generalized way, when the general tone of the thread is derisive and all too common on forum boards. I expected opposition and I got it. I wasn't trolling for it, not trying to pick a fight. Wasn't my intent anyway. There is no substance to this kind of interruption and is simply meant to distract. This isn't arrogance?: or this: or this: or this: or this: Arrogance abounds here.

Fair enough FTA. I posted that many so you can see the kind of range of questions I have and I never expected you to answer all of them but I was hoping for one or two. Hmmm, I don't really feel like paying you so I guess that's out. Your story of a 6 month battle for a guy who simply didn't want his picture taken was really sad. How much did that cost? Part of the problem, a big part, is that there is so much money to be made and it's all a one way street. Thousands of $$$ spent on a simple rule that should maybe not have been written in the first place or at least had a provisional clause for cases like his. The HTA purports to be in our interest in the guise of keeping us safe. Ok, fine, rules of the road aside, it's a money making scheme, as are the courts, IMO. If you don't want to answer this that's fine, I know you have your eye on a new pair of Prada sunglasses for springtime and I can't afford to donate to your cause because I'm too much of an idiot (in the eyes of the law because I'm not a member of the bar). In an HTA case where no damage is caused (say 20kph over limit), is there evidence of an injured party? Is it considered a tort or a contract dispute? If you seriously think I'd use advice/replies from a forum such as this and bring it into court without validating it you're mistaken. Anyone else who would do such a thing is being foolish. These are 2 simple questions and only require one word answers at least and maybe a full sentence for the second one. You want to charge me $50 per word? here ya go: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The rest you can put on credit for me. I mean, hey if you think this info is going to up and destroy your comfortable way of life and society as we know it then don't bother. I wouldn't want to put you at risk or have your answers skewed by those who'd go out and test them.

Adieu geoffrey. Enjoy your 'greater' standard and your world view.

Questions for a lawyer. Answer any that you'd like if you please. Any response is appreciated, thanks. 1) Does an unrebutted affadavit stand as truth? 2) Does a traffic ticket fall under the definition of a bill of exchange? 3) Do the words, "without prejudice" have any effect when placed before an autograph on a legal document. If so, what is that effect? 4) Is a contract valid if it's signed under threat, duress or coercion? 5) What is The Province of Ontario? Does it differ from the geographical area known as Ontario? 6) What is the Government of Canada? Does it differ from the geographical area known as Canada? 7) Are either of those entities listed anywhere as corporations? 8) Do we own anything if possession is only 9/10's of the law? 9) Why does the gov't retain legal title to everything and relegate us to the status of mere user? 10) Why do certain commonly understood words have meanings that differ so greatly when lawyers use them? 11) Do we have an obligation to have ID? 12) What is the difference between the terms legal and lawful? 13) If a license can be defined as "permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful", why do we need one to run a business or travel on the road if no one is hurt? James Bond has a license, why do I need one? 14) Can a lawyer appoint or become a trustee for a person? 15) Is the gov't issued Birth Certificate the base document from which all other forms of gov't ID are derived? 16) If I endorse and return the BC and resign my position as trustee for that person what effect might that have on all of its derivatives? 17) Is a man worth his labour? 18) Why do many Acts of Parliament not have a preamble or an enacting clause, such as the Income Tax Act? 19) Does the state have a duty to protect us even from itself? 20) Who is the injured party on a charge under the Highway Traffic Act or Narcotic Control Act? 21) Why do certain sections of the Criminal Code apply to 'persons' while others apply to 'every one'? 22) If the Crown represents the state, who does the state represent? 23) If it is presumed by the Crown that I am included in the state then do they not also represent me? 24) Is a judge who enters a plea on my behalf without my consent presuming to represent me? 25) Can a judge recuse him/herself if they are seen to be biased in a proceeding? 26) What is the 'rule of necessity'? 27) Has this rule ever been abused by the courts? I have so many more, but I wouldn't want to be tiring...

He cites statutes and statutory definitions because those are the 'rules of the corporation'. As the statutes apply to them we use the statutes to hold them accountable. What is the ordinary law? What is jurisdiction? What is a person? It is a rejection, of sorts. It is a counter offer, of sorts. It relies on the plaintiff being able prove his case before it gets to court. It's called discussion and it's a way to avoid conflict. Wrong. A Notary Public is used only as a witness who is recognized by the courts to validate documents like affidavits and notices. We are peaceful people and wish to negotiate and discuss rather than dispute and go into dishonour. We are protecting ourselves from them, not each other. And that comment was disingenuous and overtly dismissive considering his other research. Ya know, it's not like he's the only one out there who's been screwed by the gov't for no logical reason nor is he the only one who is following through on his ideals. There is plenty of info on the subject if you'd care to look. There are many resources available. Some are reliable, some are not. We have powers of discrimination, use them. I'm not going to present everything I know into this forum if only for the sake of time. He's not asking that you believe it without researching it. That would be foolish. I'm merely pointing out that this info is out there and you can make of it what you like.

I expect a lawyer to do nothing less than protect his interests and those of his private society. What was the oath that you took?I'll come up with some questions for you after dinner, if you would be so kind as to indulge me.

Are insults the norm with you? Please, let's be rational. Just because the concept of freedom seems alien to all of us in the beginning doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavour. I'm trying to be as specific as I can when I 'randomly shout legalese'. This is a huge undertaking and I'm not a lawyer, none of us are. We can't be. Lawyers pledge an oath to the their private society which is their primary concern before protecting us. We also aren't allowed to interpret the rules that they write. Because of that we can't know the law. Ignorance of the law IS an excuse in that case. Where do you think the rule of law originates? I guarantee you it was a document that everyone could understand. Ignorance of that law is no excuse because it is innate.

It rarely makes it to court unless you're dealing with an overzealous cop who doesn't know the law. If it does get to court the human retains in personam juridiction and is not recognizable to the court as long as the human refrains from giving jurisdiction to them. Most often the ticket never gets written in the first place. When you hand your license to the cop you give your jurisdiction up right there. You can challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Who is the damaged party? It's a civil suit so is the charge in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort? Who does the judge represent? The Crown? The bailiff? The cop? Jurisdiction is in the mind. I sent a by-law officer away simply by asking a series of questions of him as to where he got his authority? He left when he contradicted himself without even knowing it. He claimed that I lived within the City of London. I asked him to factually state what that was and he said I was in it. I asked if he meant the geographical area known as London? He said yes. I then asked where he got his authority from and he said, 'The City of London". I asked if he got his authority from the ground cuz that would be pretty cool if that's all it took. He didn't answer so I pointed out that his citation pad has written at the top, "The Corporation of the City of London". He couldn't prove an equity relationship between me and the corporation and had to leave for some reason. Canada, love it or leave it, eh? The rule of law applies to me. What is that? "This nation is founded upon the principles recognizing the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law." If this is what you're referring to then I would point out section 32 of the Charter, which absent evidence to the contrary, only applies to the Government of Canada and its employees. I would also say that the preamble sets up a hierarchy that places God at the top. Does the rule of law come between you and God? A pension has been ruled as a benefit bestowed upon an employee of a corporation. Do you contribute to CPP? How is it that you come to be an agent for the government?I don't have all the answers. In fact, I have very few. I do, however, have a lot of questions. I was born here and have certain unalienable rights. The right to freedom of association on this land exists apart from gov't approval. They know I exist and that's all they need to know. Why should they be involved in my private affairs? If you find benefit in what the gov't offers in exchange for your subservience then good for you. Keep it up and I hope you live a long and prosperous life. I shouldn't be forced to accept their services at the point of a gun. Why does it always take the threat of violence if it's such a benefit? I do not enjoy all the services of Canada, please don't assume to know what I enjoy. I do pay taxes, lots of them. I just don't pay income tax because I'm not liable, same as thousands of other people living here. I have a private contract as an artist and am not 'employed' (a legal title). If the CCRA attempted to interfere with this private contract I would press criminal charges for attempting to be a 3rd party intervenor. There are ways to continue living without being 'employed'. You can do anything you want and it is excellent, it just takes a lot of work to undo what you've done and a little creativity to protect yourself. Most employers would be leery at the prospect of hiring one of us, sure, doesn't mean it can't be done. You, being an accountant, have more knowledge on securities than I would. That you haven't seen such a security doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not claiming that it exists either, that is yet to be seen. Can you tell me what the floating number on my Birth Certificate represents? Is there a specific reason why the Canada Bank Note Company is chosen to print the document? Is it a security interest or is it worthless paper? Who has legal title to it? Can I do whatever I want with it? Is the name on the BC an intangible security interest recognized by the PPSA? Why won't the gov't answer these straight forward questions that have been repeatedly put to them? Why do they capitalize all or part of the name when that is contrary to the Canadian Style Rules of Grammar? Do you recognize the notarial process of petition for disclosure and the lawful method of obtaining tacit agreement by non-responsive default through silent acquiescence? Many notarial requests tendered, none answered. You got it! Sorta. You can renounce your citizenship and remain in Canada while keeping the peace and remain free of all obligations that you don't consent to. It's the keeping the peace part that's fundamental to the process. Here's an excerpt from the definition of person in Bouvier's Law Dictionary: Can you see the distinction? The law can, you just need indisputable truth as proof. The only form of 'ID' that I'll use is my Statement of Birth and perhaps a personal ID that I'll make and have notarized. The SoB does not have a legal name on it and is proof of an event, my coming into the world, and was NOT issued by the gov't. It is private and protected by the Guardianship Act. Your person is created by the gov't. When you return their property back to them they're now 'it' and liable for it. Did the gov't create you or did they merely create a person and that's the entity they act upon? Law is fiction, a creature of the mind and so can't relate to reality until we agree that it does. I don't know about you but that seems like a nonsense exercise. If you simply assume it and don't question it, it is real to you. Just as no one can claim authority from the ground, no one can be held liable to a benefit that they didn't consent to. That holds especially true for contracts that don't fully disclose their intentions, like signing up for your SIN # before you can even understand what it is that you're doing because you haven't finished your adolescent hormonal rush. Obviously. This isn't about the assumption of power, that's what the gov't does. I don't want to rule anyone. I want them to leave me alone until I choose to interact with them. Sovereign, a king without subjects who follows the rule of law. I will not hurt anyone, deprive anyone of their enjoyment of their property or commit fraud in any contract. That's called keeping the peace and it's a pretty simple concept. Anything after that is administrative procedure and requires my express written and notarized consent.

That's your opinion. The Highway Traffic act applies to persons (a legal title), not people. It also applies to motor vehicles (a legal title) and not conveyances. A driver is a person in commerce, that's why they have licenses. 'Person' isn't defined in the HTA. The Interpretation Act defines it thus:" "person" , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;". Look up the legal definition of 'includes'. Too simplistic. If you deny your consent to be represented in gov't no statute has the force of law. It does work, I've seen it in action. It's quite simple to expose the state for the scam that it is really. As it's the person that 'exists' within the system there is no contradiction. It's the human that lives outside of it. The person 'acts' in commerce while the human acts in equity. There is equity, common law and commerce. When you recognize the person for what it is you'll see that mixing commerce and common law as they do with the HTA is unlawful without your consent. He's already spoken with the CCRA, as have many others who simply resign their SIN and all the other gov't issued ID. Relieve them of their duties to interfere in your life. Where there's a will there's a way. Learn the questions that they can't answer and expose the fraud. How do you know this? Educated statists bely the gift with which they were born by signing themselves into slavery and calling it a benefit.

So when does Stephen Harpkonnen wear his floaty suit?

Sorry, the name's not french, it's an english pun. Too bad you couldn't get past 5 minutes, you may have learned something had you spent more time. You may find that he is a little annoying in his character but he knows what he's talking about. The gov't stole his daughter, he wanted to find out how they could do such a thing when it's a maxim of law that no man has authority over another without his consent. He found out how he unwittingly gave his consent away and how he could claim back his sovereignty. When I met him I thought he was a little out there myself. The concept is very strange at first, being conditioned to accept everything the gov't tells us as being in our best interests. Try watching it again, this time with an ear to listening to the words he's employing and not his physical antics. You may come away with a different attitude. I've no idea whether Charles Anthony considers himself a Freeman or not. I can assume from his posts here that he would probably be a voluntaryist/libertarian. Great! He'd love this video. We need more people taking responsibility for themselves. cheers, Les

Rob Menard is a Freeman and has put together a couple of videos of his seminars. Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception (#1 on the googlevideo.ca top 10) is an hour and forty minute introduction to the notion of our individual sovereignty, how we've signed it away and how to claim it back, and The Magnificent Deception, a continuation on the philosophy, law, love, the truth of our predicament and the remedy available to all who want it. Whatever your beliefs on the subjects of statism, liberty, peace and money, you will find this interesting. I'm about to rescind all of my gov't issued ID. Wanna know why someone would do that....enjoy Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception Magnificent Deception

I assure you that I have no intention of disobeying any law that is obligatory upon me, however, I think it's my duty to question the authority on which these statutes are based, how they are administered and to whom or what they will eventually apply. My starting point in this particular exercise is how a statute can be lawfully enforced while circumventing the constitutional requirement for royal assent. To me it's kinda like saying, "well, we enacted it so we don't need the enacting clause". Very much like the private policies of a private corporation that are to be adhered to through a contract of some sort. If it's not enacted then to whom does it apply? All this started when I was approached by a by-law officer for not having a licence on my dog. He claimed authority to impose a fee for a service I didn't want. I questioned his authority and he failed to answer some very basic questions and yet still proceeded to cite. I was threatened then coerced into a contract with a private corporation hired by another calling itself the Corporation of the City of London. All I wanted to know were the facts and he gave me non-responsive replies. Some of the discussion went basically as follows: Q: Where do you get your authority to cite? A: City of London. Q:Factually, what is the City of London? A: You're in it. Q: Is the City of London the ground then? A: You're within the boundaries of the City. Q: You get your authority from the ground? A: (change of subject) Q: Is the City of London actually a corporation? A: (looks at citation, in bold at the top, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON) Q: Did I sign anything that holds me liable to these by-laws? A: You live here, you're a resident, you don't get to sign. Q: Do you know for a fact that I'm a resident? A: None. The conversation lasted a good 20 minutes in the same vein. His view based on presumption of facts not in evidence and mine on sticking with only the facts and asking for definitions. At one point he claimed a municipal statute was the law, threatened to call an armed person to compel me to give my name and that if I didn't he could seize my dog and fine me. I restrictively endorsed his citation and am now in discussion with this private corporation by mail. It may cost me, it may not. Either way, the amount wouldn't be much and the experience will be educational. I do feel that if they can't answer my questions and provide a basis in law for it and they still proceed that they would be in dishonour, no? Aren't rules in place for a reason? Thank you for the warning though. I appreciate the intent. Tidbit of what I found in definitions: owner: a person in care and control of an animal person: not defined in the by-law person in the municipal act is defined as: a municipality When a term is not defined we turn to the Interpretation Act, considered the final word on the application of terminology, which defines person: or any term descriptive of a person includes a corporation. I don't know about you but I certainly don't see myself as a corporation. I'll need proof of that as well.

Well, we have a written constitution but I'm not a signatory to it. The question stems from the following: and I'm not a lawyer (whew!) nor a master of this language but it seems there is an obligation to have the Queen or her representative ok the deal through the enacting clause. That there are so many Acts in "force" seemingly without it is bothering me. At the very least the clause isn't shown for some reason not in evidence which leads me to then ask why would some display it and not others? Are there two levels of 'law' in effect?

I like to read statutes for fun (ok not really for fun) and I've noticed that MOST of the statutes are bereft of preambles and enacting clauses. Scanning through the Acts beginning with "a" I noticed that out of 30 of them only 12 had enacting clauses. I wasn't about to go through all 638 Acts just yet. I was just wondering if such omissions could be seen as making those particular statutes non-enforcable. The Interpretation Act requires that all Acts shall have an enacting clause whether there is a preamble or not. Anybody know anything about this?

There seem to be multiple levels of liability when it comes to "justice" in this country. Sure, it's the prosecutors duty to use all the tools available to them to pursue a conviction of an alleged perpetrator. The problem occurs when those tools are jerry-rigged to skew evidence and quite often procedure in support of a seemingly predetermined outcome based more on assumption than the preponderance of evidence. If it's discovered that the prosecutor has been misled by police testimony or either party is found to be purposely misrepresenting the evidence in question then those who are responsible for the fallacious information (or the withholding of salient info) should be held commercially liable for their actions if a tort is committed against the accused. It's for the spectre of this very real possibility that I would never support granting a "governing body" the entitlement of taking the life of a human being for ANY reason. That's just MHO of course, because I believe that equity is paramount before and under the law. The comment about giving more tools to the criminals is disingenuous, I think. That assumes that everyone ("person" or otherwise) is brought into court because they are guilty of the "offence" regardless of prima facie evidence. Perhaps some will 'get away with murder', but I think that is still far preferable to making an error of the magnitude of Guy-Paul Morins case. Has anyone here ever faced a crown prosecutor? They are not happy people. Power does corrupt.

Just gonna pop in here quick, hope y'all don't mind. Freedoms are claimed/demanded/fought for or they aren't had at all. I have great difficulty understanding why there is so much fuss over such an obviously inequitable situation that needed to be remedied. I've not heard one objectively rational criticism of SSM throughout this whole thread. Yes, I have no morals, I whole-heartedly support anyone who loves another consensually and unreservedly, and of a reasonable age, and therefore there's a special place reserved for me in hell. I hear it'll bring out my freckles. It was said earlier, sorry I forget who said it, that morals left with the shift in society to an inclusive model as opposed to an exclusionary one and opened the way to a foundation in ethics. Simply by making it an issue as a 'moral wrong' and attempting to thwart its acceptance based on dogmatic beliefs we enter into the dangerous realm of behaviour judgement. For example, I would never want to claim that parents don't have the right to raise their children as they see fit so long as it's for the good of the child. I don't think it's a good idea to train them from an early age in an exclusionary environment such as an organized (likely fundamentalist) Christian church but I would argue vehemently with anyone who would tell you that you can't. On a side note, the Charter was brought up a few times and I wonder how many people have read it to the end. To whom does it really apply? I'm no lawyer but that warrants a !Yikes! in my book. You may now resume... p.s. pardon the smiley, not intentional