Adda

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true. In that you wear either on your head? I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ). I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid. Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment. It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile. I beleive his intent is good but ditto.

Hooey. I've quoted the whole relevant section of the Criminal Code, above. Now you quote for us exactly which clauses support your ludicrous interpretation. That's not a maxim of law, its a canon of statutory interpretation. This kind of mistake is glaring evidence of your amateurish knowledge of law. Your arrogance convinces you that a complex ancient social artifact that people study for years to know is something you can teach yourself by scattered, untutored, untested, wrongheaded, self-referential dilletantism. What about the laws of the universe. What do laws of man have to do with those real las of life in reality? Okay, back to the normative/descriptive divide... if you are simply saying that that SHOULD BE the law, then that's one thing, but if you are asserting that nonsense as a true representation on the state of the law today, you are utterly fantastically wrong. No judge will ever buy this nonsense. They are two different words, so they may well have two different meanings. Quote the relevant sections you want to compare and show what you mean. The controlled substance is only controlled if you have what is controlled. just because you have what is controlled does not mean it is controlled. You make joinder by recognizing a controoled substance by name. So person is not the only title to trap you. Violence begets violence and is not but an archaic solution (not a solution at all) that leaves humanity no better than it is or will be if attitude does not change. It is violence that got us here so why the heck would one do such a thing. Do you all not know you are part of the one and that vioence affects all. Enough violence. The pen is mightier than the sword and it is the pen the banker uses to take your voluntary pledges. It is the pen you can end your time in the game as a token and enter as a player, off the board. A birth certificate is not personal identification (court case here to that effect), it is a token to play the game of monopoly we are all in. As of now your birth certificare is/was treated as personal identification and is why you are treated as the token. Move token to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200 of funny money, and the man goes for the ride because he thinks he knows the rules of the game but does he? How you use the token decides your fate and no other is responsible. You bring violence upon yourself for your ignorance as do I. Work for money and you are a taxpayer not by law but by voluntary choice to be employed which is to be used under federal jurisdiction under public works like you use a shovel. Employed means not a man or principal but token or trustee. Tokens are used to play games not people, except people that forgot that little bit of life. Recognize that and you learn to play the game not in war but in peace. There is no need for violence, however, if the eyes are of violence then they will see violence as a remedy. Not. A simple use of the pen to the effect. I SO and SO am the principal and heir of the account XXXX you are holding in trust for me. Make the return to the principal, close and release immediatly, works each and everytime to date in criminal cases, thus no need for violence and works for civil matters because its the truth. Of course we include the proof a birth cetificate is not personal identification, also truth. The agent is the agent. Recognize the agent as an agent and yourself as the principal and give your wonderful servant some simple instuctions by pen than argue over your account/wallet he is holding in trust for your benefit. Resistance is futile....and the very cause of your own grief. Violence begets violence

But I was born in Canada - does that mean I was born into slavery? Born into an obligation that I had no say about? Shouldn't I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be a part of their agreement? If I don't get a say, that's tyranny. The Constitution recognizes the birthright of the people. The drafters were people. The constitution does not grant such rights. Canada is a corporation listed with the US Securites and Exchange Commission in Washington District of Columbia. It is by waiving your recognized rights, by not remaining silent for example, that you lose them and no other way except under threat, duress or intimidation. A lot of that going on for sure but likely in ignorance. Those who beleive Canada owns the soil knows not that Canada is a corporation. Those that beleive the crown owns land have not ponderd how it is one takes title that no one had to give, sell or trade. It's a farce. Creator of the dust owns the fruits of it as man claims the fruits of his labour as his own. Give respect where due. I drive on creators roads made of creators dust which he did not include any need for licensing and not on roads owned by any crown that simply made claim to that what cannot rightfully or humanly be claimed.