Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[LesActive]

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...

[M.Dancer]

If I can add one to FTA

How much can I expect to receive from a corporation who wishes to buy the apartment building I live in and turn it to condos.....I have been a resident for 18 years....in Toronto.........

[geoffrey]

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.

You have no ability to hold anyone accountable if you exist outside of the system. No right to complain about government (unless of course they enter your life) and no right to anything the government provides (roads, health care, education).

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.

It's actually just flattly a rejection and a new offer under Canadian law. People can't invent their own law at whim.

He says the federal government stole his baby becuase he created the legal entity of the baby's "person" as chattel property (like any book or cowboy hat or bag of weed he may own) and then abandoned that property by the act of registration of the baby's birth, allowing the Federal government the legal right to seize that property.

Okay...that's fine logic...

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.

You want to know what I think. Your getting a half story about why the child was taken. Until I see the order from Child Services (or whatever they call it in BC), I call BS. He didn't go to court because he was scared... yet he encourages everyone in Canada to do what he didn't have the balls to do. I know he didn't go to court, I've searched all of his legal dealings on CanLii... he's fought against the extradition of a pot lord, but other than that... nothing. Here is the case so you don't think I'm BSing you: United States of America v. Emery et al., 2005 BCSC 1192

I also like how he used Maritime Salvage as the reason that his child was taken. I've never in my life of listening to all the crazy conspiracy theorists on this forum heard something so absurd. Was his daughter an abandoned ship in international waters? No. Then this guy is full of it.

Floating bonds for loans. That doesn't even make sense. This guy is making it up.

He's a piece of work, full of hypocracy and flat out lies.

--

As a final reflection, if I must make such sacrifices to have absolute freedom, I'll take my slightly limited freedom and enjoy my much greater standard of living within society.

[LesActive]

As a final reflection, if I must make such sacrifices to have absolute freedom, I'll take my slightly limited freedom and enjoy my much greater standard of living within society.

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

[FTA Lawyer]

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...

I seriously have no idea what I am supposed to do with this...

Look, there are literally thousands of common-law decisions out there that answer most of these questions from a legal standpoint (and not all in harmony I might add). I hate to seem too much a slave to the system, but if I asnwer the above in point form like you've posed them, I am opening my insurer to a pile of claims when you or your brethren start refusing to pay taxes or speeding tickets on the advice of your legal counsel...and claim that to be me.

In all honesty, I can give you a thorough legally reasoned response to all of these (I'm having flashbacks to law school exams) but it is way beyond the scope and purpose of this forum. Pick one or two that you are most in need of answers for, PM me and I'll quote you a fee.

FTA

P.S., this is not a cop-out...your list is simply an overwhelming burden in a spare-time discussion forum.

I once called 6 hours of evidence in a Charter challenge of the constitutionality of the motor vehicle licensing regulations in Alberta that obligate drivers to have their photo taken. My client was a traditional native spiritualist who refused to renew his drivers license because the government would not allow him to do so without taking a digital photograph of him.

When the trial court refused to rule on the issue (seriously, after 6 hours the judge asserted he had no jurisdiction to make the ruling) we appealed. The appeal court said it had no jurisdiction too. They were wrong, and we knew it, but the client had no resources to appeal further. A year later, the SCC would hand down a decision that confirmed we were right (about the jurisdiction issue) and only about a year or so ago, a group of Hutterites successfully fought the government on the exact same legal argument that we were making in 2001.

Personally, I have refused to change the address on my driver's license from when I lived with my parents in high school. I am waiting to be ticketed under the Traffic Safety Act for this infraction (failing to report a change of residence)...so I can challenge the constitutionality of that law. In my view, the government has no right to track my address disguised in a law regarding traffic safety...where I live has nothing to do with traffic safety or my legal ability to drive or register or insure a vehicle.

I know how to fight these fights, and am prepared to do so where there is merit to it...I just have trouble with the overall premise of the videos that started this thread.

[LesActive]

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.

[Charles Anthony]

I know you have your eye on a new pair of Prada sunglasses

????

Anyone up for some honest discussion or debate?

Personally, I have a LOT of disdain for people who are presumptuous about the incomes of various professionals.

[M.Dancer]

I know you have your eye on a new pair of Prada sunglasses

????

Anyone up for some honest discussion or debate?

Personally, I have a LOT of disdain for people who are presumptuous about the incomes of various professionals.

Really. I know a fair number of lawyers and being very practical people they tend towards Ray Ban, Serengeti and Bolle......

[Charles Anthony]

Really. I know a fair number of lawyers and being very practical people they tend towards Ray Ban, Serengeti and Bolle......

Yes, really. I suppose that "a fair number of lawyers" are zillionaires with money over-flowing their pockets too.

I have a LOT of disdain for people who automatically assume that lawyers are rich.

At first, I thought the Opening Post was not serious and would only lead to a foolhardy thread. Then, I thought I was wrong because the thread started to get serious and reasonable. The arrogance of post #31 confirms my first thought.

[fellowtraveller]

This video is much, much better if you view it in a buried bunker surrounded by sealed canisters of rice. Convincing , even.

[guyser]

Personally, I have refused to change the address on my driver's license from when I lived with my parents in high school. I am waiting to be ticketed under the Traffic Safety Act for this infraction (failing to report a change of residence)...so I can challenge the constitutionality of that law.

Did you at least notify your insurer? Material change in risk?

[LesActive]

Yes, really. I suppose that "a fair number of lawyers" are zillionaires with money over-flowing their pockets too.

I have a LOT of disdain for people who automatically assume that lawyers are rich.

At first, I thought the Opening Post was not serious and would only lead to a foolhardy thread. Then, I thought I was wrong because the thread started to get serious and reasonable. The arrogance of post #31 confirms my first thought.

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?:

geoffrey-

You agree to the laws of Canada by being in Canada. If you don't agree, then you can leave. It's as simple as that.

or this:

Riverwind-

However, you do have choices: work within the system to change the rules or leave the society.

or this:

Charles Anthony-

In the city, freemen abound. They are effectively living and earning their living on the street -- hobos and prostitutes -- for whom anarchy is a reality.

or this:

Charles Anthony-

Je m'en fous fiche -- pardon my French.

Un internaute qui nous demande de discuter un sujet d'apres un video qui dure de plus d'une heure (et sans scenario!) n'est pas serieux. Ce n'est pas comme ca qu'on echange l'information sur l'internet.

De plus, il y en a assez de fils absurdes dans ce forum qui debute d'une telle maniere.

Vous etes genereux.

or this:

Figleaf-

If there isn't a name for the psychological condition wherein the sufferer compulsively voices nonsensical content in a particular dialectical form, e.g. legalese, there should be. 'Jargolalia', perhaps. You can see this kind of thing in other specialized dialects as well. A famous example is the Book of Mormon.

Arrogance abounds here.

[geoffrey]

FTA or other lawyers here,

Something I've never taken a look at in my law classes (it's business law, I haven't seen much outside contracts, property and tort), is this business of an act not having a preamble/enacting clause.

It's the only thing that remotely interests me from this guy's hour long rant against society.

Why do some acts have preambles/enacting clauses and others don't? Is there actually a validity issue there?

If this is a long or complex answer, don't worry about it, I'll go harass a law prof with it.

[LesActive]

Why do some acts have preambles/enacting clauses and others don't? Is there actually a validity issue there?

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.

[Riverwind]

Why do some acts have preambles/enacting clauses and others don't? Is there actually a validity issue there?

The Manitoba government violated the constitutional provision requiring french translations of statutes for years. Some francophones contested this issue in court and there was some discussion about how every law in the province would be rendered null and void. This never happened - the government negotiated a remedy with the court that gave the government time translate all current laws. I believe the parking tickets that started the process were dismissed but no one else was allowed to get away with ignoring laws because of the technicality. I suspect the same would happen with the enacting clauses if a court did rule in favour of someone.

[FTA Lawyer]

Why do some acts have preambles/enacting clauses and others don't? Is there actually a validity issue there?

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.

Les,

You have to understand that my profession is answering questions like those you posed to me in the laundry list. I am obligated to provide legally correct answers to someone in a solicitor-client relationship, or give them a thorough explanation of why no one "correct" answer exists. If I give summary answers to a client without proper consideration, I am exposed to negligence claims.

Of course, people on this board are not my clients if they simply ask a question for the purpose of debate...but your list of questions were very specific and very obviously some of the key talking points professed by buddy in his presentation.

I'm sorry, but where things approach the line of a risk that someone might take my answers as legal advice and act upon them, I have to back away. And no offence, but how can I know whether or not you are someone who would do that?

As for the piles of cash you think I was motivated by in the example I gave you...I ran that case as part of a volunteer legal clinic providing services to people who literally had no money...So my Prada sunglasses are on layaway.

I can handle the odd jab about lawyers and the professsion...I won't go home and cry tonight, but you really did your cause a huge disservice in my mind with your stance in post #31. It's hard to maintain an open mind and participate in meaningful discussion with someone who defends their position with attacks on my presumed bank statement.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

Personally, I have refused to change the address on my driver's license from when I lived with my parents in high school. I am waiting to be ticketed under the Traffic Safety Act for this infraction (failing to report a change of residence)...so I can challenge the constitutionality of that law.

Did you at least notify your insurer? Material change in risk?

Yup. For all purposes that matter, my address is up to date...including my insurance.

And, it's important to note that my old address is still valid in that my parents still live there and are completely reliable for passing on any notices / tickets etc.

FTA

[LesActive]

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.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA or other lawyers here,

Something I've never taken a look at in my law classes (it's business law, I haven't seen much outside contracts, property and tort), is this business of an act not having a preamble/enacting clause.

It's the only thing that remotely interests me from this guy's hour long rant against society.

Why do some acts have preambles/enacting clauses and others don't? Is there actually a validity issue there?

If this is a long or complex answer, don't worry about it, I'll go harass a law prof with it.

I know of no legal requirement for a statute to have a preamble. As for an enacting clause, you must ensure that you are working from the official text of a statute as printed in Part III of the Canada Gazette. Many reproductions of statutes cut out the flowery crap at the beginning and just show you the substantive sections...but when you go to the Gazette, the enacting clause is there.

If Les or others can find the actual Canada Gazette printing of the Income Tax Act and show me the absence of an enacting clause, then I will dig further.

FTA

[LesActive]

If Les or others can find the actual Canada Gazette printing of the Income Tax Act and show me the absence of an enacting clause, then I will dig further.

FTA

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.

[Figleaf]

Questions for a lawyer.

Let me try anyway...

1) Does an unrebutted affadavit stand as truth?

No, the finder of fact can evaluate the credibility of an unrebutted affidavit, just like unrebutted testimony.

3) Do the words, "without prejudice" have any effect when placed before an autograph on a legal document. If so, what is that effect?

The words indicate that the document is not intended to bind the signer to that position in a court of law. A counterparty who gets a document signed 'without prejudice' can refuse to acknowledge it as affecting them. A contract in which a party purports to sign without prejudice would be void.

4) Is a contract valid if it's signed under threat, duress or coercion?

No.

5) What is The Province of Ontario? Does it differ from the geographical area known as Ontario?

An entity created under the constitution of Canada; the split-sovereign government over the geographical area known as Ontario.

7) Are either of those entities listed anywhere as corporations?

They are not corporations.

8) Do we own anything if possession is only 9/10's of the law?

Possession is not 9/10s of the law. That's just an old saying that doesn't reflect much truth anymore.

9) Why does the gov't retain legal title to everything and relegate us to the status of mere user?

You are refering to land (real property). I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you ask 'why'. Do you mean how did it evolve that way? Or do you mean why hasn't the government changed it to something else? Or what?

10) Why do certain commonly understood words have meanings that differ so greatly when lawyers use them?

Lots of books available on this subject. Basically, all specialized areas of knowledge develop jargon because it's efficient for those within them. Consider computers: 'application', 'menu', 'location', 'business analyst' ...

11) Do we have an obligation to have ID?

Just walking down the street, no.

14) Can a lawyer appoint or become a trustee for a person?

Lawyers can do whatever a normal citizen can do in terms of creating trusts or being trustees.

They also have license to hold client money or property in trust under the terms of retainer agreements.

15) Is the gov't issued Birth Certificate the base document from which all other forms of gov't ID are derived?

Other methods can be used if Birth Certificates are unavailable.

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?

This question is nonsensical, so far as I can tell. Trustee for what person? What "derivatives"?

18) Why do many Acts of Parliament not have a preamble or an enacting clause, such as the Income Tax Act?

Why would they?

24) Is a judge who enters a plea on my behalf without my consent presuming to represent me?

No.

25) Can a judge recuse him/herself if they are seen to be biased in a proceeding?

Yes, if he/she thinks so.

Many of your questions pertain to information you could look up in legal materials. Other are malformed or assume an incorrect premise.

[LesActive]

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.

[PolyNewbie]

FTALawyer:Anyway, I know I am just a willing slave who has been brainwashed

Thats true - all you have to do is learn about how the banks create money and where your income tax goes to know that.

The Money Masters

History of US and world banking & how the Federal Reserve took over the USA in 1913. Its filled with historical quotes and facts not part of mainstream history. Very well done documentary.

The Capitalist Conspiracy

-Carrol Quigley the famous Georgetown professor who was mentioned by Bill (the war criminal) Clinton in his inaugeration address as one of his lifetime mentors is interviewed in this movie

Money As Debt (cartoon & only 1 hour)

There are many more videos and books on this. The best book is by Stephen Zarlenga on the history of banking & money. It looks and reads like a text book.

-Great Post by the way. I'll watch the video later but I already know that the banks own us and our birth certificates and the government uses them as collateral. We don't really have habeus Corpus either because lawyers can use tricks to take it away. This is all from a Canadian Lawyer.

FTA there is no way you can tell us the dark secrets of the legal profession on here. You are a crown representative.

[ScottSA]

You have no ability to hold anyone accountable if you exist outside of the system. No right to complain about government (unless of course they enter your life) and no right to anything the government provides (roads, health care, education).

That's the crux of the matter. Civil society, quite aside from the political regime, has always, since Ur, traded obligation for obligation. In fuedal times, the true stystem (as opposed to 20th century renditions of it) was service for noblesse oblige, the latter term taken very seriously indeed by the Lord. In Asiatic despotism, the same thing applied. Today we trade the potentiality of anarchistic freedom for rule of law and public goods, for the simple reason that Rousseau's stag hunt makes more sense than hunting hares alone.

If someone chooses to live as an alleged Freeman and withdraw from all obligation to the state, then one must also logically withdraw all demands upon the state. That includes the use of public goods of all kinds, including protection under the law. If we escew the state and simply ignore it, it WILL in fact wither away, but then there is absolutely nothing to stop the strong from despoiling the weak. There will be nothing but a state of nature, and from all historical indications it will be closer to Hobbe's state of nature than Locke's.

It's always amusing, for example, to watch the Indians claim they need to continue living in a state of nature as it was before it became sullied by the white man, then drive away in a car on a highway to their electrically maintained woodframe houses. Indians are not dumb, that's for sure.

What this guy is really doing is doing a postmodern deconstructive rehashing of the cynicism of Diogenes as it existed in it's original form. At least Diogenes had the courtesy to recognize that if he chose to live outside of civil society he could claim none of it's fruits. Yet he did, by default, claim all sorts of its fruits, simply by living in Athens itself. And that's the cunundrum. If this guy had stood in a forest, naked except for whatever skins he had managed to take from animals he killed, ridden with various deseases he couldn't cure through modern medicine, and unversed in language, we could take him as credible, but he is practising the hieght of hypocrisy by utilizing all that civil society has to offer, including civil protection, education (although apparently not much of it), and a videocamera, while claiming he owes no obligation. It's rather a silly and transparent exercize.

[ScottSA]

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.

Perhaps Archives Canada archives Canadian laws and not United States laws? The War Revenue Act of 1917 was an American law.