Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[PolyNewbie]

Les Active: 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.

I've got that book too. It looked like a fun read as I looked through it but I haven't read it yet.

Not surprising that they want to keep the law around income tax secret. If you can afford a lawyer you can probably get answers. I know that lawyer tax structure is different from everyone else in Ontario.

[geoffrey]

Not surprising that they want to keep the law around income tax secret. If you can afford a lawyer you can probably get answers. I know that lawyer tax structure is different from everyone else in Ontario.

That's untrue. I've done returns for lawyers, they pay like the rest of us.

[PolyNewbie]

That's untrue. I've done returns for lawyers, they pay like the rest of us.

The lawyers getting a special tax break was in the paper around 2001. It applied to Ontario lawyers I also had a lawyer confirm that for me- bragg about it actually. The idea was to lower costs of people hiring lawyers.

I know from my own experiences and what I have heard from lawyers that this guy is correct in his thinking. It really is all smoke and mirrors and that Canadian lawyers can do whatever they want. They have tricky definitions as to who is a person and who isn't. The legal rights apply to persons. I don't know if I am one or not - I just know the system is all corrupt from dealing with lawyers - I've never been to court nor would I ever want to. If the lawyers are corrupt then so are the judges & courts. Being a lying criminal doesn't prevent someone from being a member in good standing at the law society.

We must take this self governance away.

The fact that the legal system is based in corruption is proven by the fact that our monetary system is based in corruption. We can't get monetary reform from the courts because they are in kahoots with the bankers and empowered by them to maintain an illusion that they ultimately control. Those who print the money make the rules and direct society, not our dog and pony show "go along to get along" politicians that sign bills written by corporations into law with out even reading the legislation.

[LesActive]

Sorry, this post was too complicated to separate into proper quotations, I tried.

Questions for a lawyer.

Figleaf---sad.gif Let me try anyway...

Les---1) Does an unrebutted affadavit stand as truth?

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

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.

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

Figleaf---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.

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.

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

Figleaf---No.

Excellent.

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

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

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?

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

Figleaf---They are not corporations.

See above.

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

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

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?

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

Figleaf---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?

see above

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

Figleaf---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' ...

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.

11) Do we have an obligation to have ID?

Figleaf---Just walking down the street, no.

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.

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

Figleaf---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.

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.

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

Figleaf---Other methods can be used if Birth Certificates are unavailable.

Such as?

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?

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

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.

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

Figleaf---Why would they?

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:

Enacting clause

4. (1) The enacting clause of an Act may be in the following form:

“Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”.

Order of clauses

(2) The enacting clause of an Act shall follow the preamble, if any, and the various provisions within the purview or body of the Act shall follow in a concise and enunciative form.

R.S., c. I-23, s. 4.

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

Figleaf---No.

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.

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

Yes, if he/she thinks so.

Excellent.

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

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.

[geoffrey]

I can't read/make sense of any of the above.

[LesActive]

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

Yeah, I didn't want to touch that one just yet but I will.

I already know that the banks own us and our birth certificates and the government uses them as collateral.

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!

[LesActive]

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.

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.

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

*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.

[August1991]

*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.

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.

[LesActive]

*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.

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.

Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities. -Allan Bloom

STFU, nice response.

[geoffrey]

August is right. There are many places you can go if you want to be some free person, with no government interference. Canada doesn't happen to be one of them.

Let me ask you, if you got sick today, God forbid, would you go to a hospital or would you continue your fight and die instead?

[LesActive]

Let me ask you, if you got sick today, God forbid, would you go to a hospital or would you continue your fight and die instead?

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:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

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

[FTA Lawyer]

Canada is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (note the word 'human'), which states in part:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

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

What is this thing you call Canada? Is it the physical ground we walk on or the fictional corporate entity? Because physical land can't very well sign a document, and I'm not a shareholder in the corporation of Canada so really, nothing you have quoted above even exists except in the minds of evil bankers and corrupt lawyers...

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I owed you one.

In all seriousness, don't you get that you can't use the concept of a nation (formalized society) committing to an international treaty (many formalized societies working together) as the authority upon which you assert that it is unlawful for society to commit fraud and enslave you?????

Put another way, the argument you make is that the government of Canada has no authority to impose itself upon your being and force you to be the trustee for the "person" created by the fraudulent birth certificate becuase you are protected from such involuntary societalization (is that a word?) by the very laws created by and adhered to by the society known as Canada (which you want no part of).

If you cannot ground your argument in some principle of inherent human liberty without any reliance whatsoever on societal law then your argument fails completely...full stop.

If you need the laws and principles that society has developed to prove that societal laws are not valid without your consent, then your logic is circular at best.

Don't cite the Charter, the UN Declarations, our Constitution, any statute or common-law jurisprudence (all products of societal development) and state your case...and I'll reconsider the merits of your position. If you cannot do that, then surely you will have to concede that your entire argument is fatally flawed.

Maybe you can resort to theology, maybe John Stuart Mill, maybe Descartes, maybe Darwinism...hell, I don't know, it's your argument. All I know is that the moment you need to point to the Interpretation Act or a legal definition in an Act of Parliament etc. you have blown it.

FTA

[PolyNewbie]

FTA Lawyer: ..nothing you have quoted above even exists except in the minds of evil bankers and corrupt lawyers...

You must admit that our money system is corrupt. You must know that the Canadian government borrows money from private bankers and the private bankers create money from nothing and lend it to us at face value. Despite all the complex economic theory that is taught in schools, they don't teach banking for a good reason.

This country pulled itself out of depression by using the Bank Of Canada to borrow money. In the 70's Trudeau shut that valve off and we are back on our way towards a depression - the rising national debt since the 70's shows that we send more and more tax dollars to private banks in return for creating their money every year and there is only one direction for the economy to go - bankruptcy. Now we pay 28 % of our income tax to private bankers. The economy now, the way it is managed with private bankers absolutely must go bankrupt there is nothing else that can happen - mathematically speaking.

There is an easy way to fix this - the politicians have the government start going back to the Bank Of Canada for financing but that would save us from bankrupcy and saving the country is not part of the plan. The globalist plan is to flush the economy down the toilet and create another third world economy so that we can be controlled more easily. This is where the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc, & places like the RAND & the Tavistock Instiutute get all their money - our tax money.

This is what the IMF & World Bank do all over the world. People living in cardboard homes are easier to control and there is less of a chance of them taking power away from you.

If you don't believe what I am saying I suggest you check into oit. Some accountants understand it, some do not. Phd economists can't really deny it. If you don't believe how much control the banks have over us I would suggest reading John Kenneth Galbraiths book called "Money: Whence It Came; Where It Went".

You could get a copy of a new book called " A Game As Old As Empire", edited by Stephen Hiatt, an ex world banker. The book is a collection of writings from people that are/were part of the money system. It has a foreward by John Perkins, author of Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man.

There is no shortage of books and videos about the banks and the corrupt system under which they operate. Its the basis for the whole Monetary Reform movement here, in the USA and in the UK as well as other places.

"By the time the people wake up to see the bars around them,the door will have already slammed shut."

Texx Mars

[LesActive]

What is this thing you call Canada? Is it the physical ground we walk on or the fictional corporate entity? Because physical land can't very well sign a document, and I'm not a shareholder in the corporation of Canada so really, nothing you have quoted above even exists except in the minds of evil bankers and corrupt lawyers...

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I owed you one.

In all seriousness, don't you get that you can't use the concept of a nation (formalized society) committing to an international treaty (many formalized societies working together) as the authority upon which you assert that it is unlawful for society to commit fraud and enslave you?????

Put another way, the argument you make is that the government of Canada has no authority to impose itself upon your being and force you to be the trustee for the "person" created by the fraudulent birth certificate becuase you are protected from such involuntary societalization (is that a word?) by the very laws created by and adhered to by the society known as Canada (which you want no part of).

If you cannot ground your argument in some principle of inherent human liberty without any reliance whatsoever on societal law then your argument fails completely...full stop.

If you need the laws and principles that society has developed to prove that societal laws are not valid without your consent, then your logic is circular at best.

Don't cite the Charter, the UN Declarations, our Constitution, any statute or common-law jurisprudence (all products of societal development) and state your case...and I'll reconsider the merits of your position. If you cannot do that, then surely you will have to concede that your entire argument is fatally flawed.

Maybe you can resort to theology, maybe John Stuart Mill, maybe Descartes, maybe Darwinism...hell, I don't know, it's your argument. All I know is that the moment you need to point to the Interpretation Act or a legal definition in an Act of Parliament etc. you have blown it.

FTA

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:

A workman is worthy of his hire. - It against equity for freemen not to have disposal of their own property. (taxed labour)

In commerce, truth is sovereign. - To lie is to go against the mind. (person or human)

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in Commerce. - silence implies consent (cannot deny the truth of my humanity)

A matter must be expressed to be resolved. - He who fails to assert his rights, has none. (why else would I bring this up?)

Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract. - (Not the statutes!)

A contract founded on an unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. - (SIN # anyone?)

Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights. - (am I being slothful?)

The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived. - (The crux- Gov't didn't create me, my parents did and I obey my mother)

Facts are more powerful than words. - (human or person)

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. (Or consideration)

Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law. (how can we possibly know the law when the bar has exclusive rights to interpret it?)

The contract makes the law. - (no consent, no law)

The law always gives a remedy. (hooboy, that's a doozy! Where's the remedy in behaviour control?)

The law regards the order of nature. (Natural law, not statutes)

Necessity gives a preference with regard to private rights. - (My how the Ontario Rules of Court Procedure has bastardized that one, eh!)

No one is bound to accuse himself. (not according to Ontario)

If you know not the names of things, the knowledge of things themselves perishes. - (If the court can't recognize the name on my Statement of Birth they can't know me, ya right)

The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into. - (like liability to the state)

Laws which derogate from the Common Law ought to be strictly construed. - (certainly not the case today)

What is necessary is lawful. - (I need to travel on the road, marijuana eases my back spasms. Necessity should not be mitigated by intrusive statutes)

Rights never die. - (freedom of association, for one)

The meaning of words is the spirit of the law. - (person is a mask)

Power should follow justice, not preceed it. - (whoa, where'd that come from?)

When the common law and statute law concur, the common law is to be preferred. - (right to travel?)

Everything is permitted, which is not forbidden by law. - (no statute mentioned)

Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred. - (interpret as you will)

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.

[PolyNewbie]

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Whats 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 ?

[LesActive]

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

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.

[FTA Lawyer]

Les,

I understand that if you go into traffic court tomorrow and you want to start arguing your way out of things you will have to use the current statutes and common law to do it...after all, I am a criminal lawyer. I'm trying to get at the root of your arguments to see if I can (1) wrap my head around them completely, and (2) accept their validity. Therefore, I am asking you to build the argument from its elemental form and show me the way to Freeman status without relying on societal laws to get there.

My criticism was that, if the only basis for your theories is the very law you seek to impugn, then you are sunk from a logic standpoint...and I stand by that.

The philosophers you list would not get you far in a societal court of law...so good thing this discussion board is no such place. The "maxims" you list are going in the right direction, but I rather hasten to say that many of them are just paraphrased examples of common-law principles (developed by society) such as, "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce". I'm pretty sure in elemental inherent human rights there are no affidavits.

Why not start from "I think therefore I am" and add in a little bit about "free will" and a few other things that are inherent to human existence and you may just convince me yet (not to quit the bar and come live with you in a commune in the wilderness...but that your argument actually works from an analytical perspective).

And by the way, I am not engaging you in this as Her Majesty's loyal subject bound to honour and defend the Crown in all that is good and Holy...All I'm doing is asking you to meet the standard of knowledge and ability to justify your position that the guy in the video purports to have imposed on some CCRA desk clerk. So, comments like these are really not necessary or of value:

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.

I eagerly await your response.

FTA

[LesActive]

I eagerly await your response.

FTA

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....

[ScottSA]

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

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.

Without debt, it is argued by many that Britain could not have won even the Napoleonic wars nor leveraged the capital necessary to drive ahead of the rest of Europe in the industrial revolution. It's not all a one way street here. It's all very well not to borrow, but there are certain benefits to entering debt evenm on a personal level, in that living in a house while paying a mortgage beats living on the street or paying rent until you can afford a house.

[LesActive]

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.

[LesActive]

And by the way, I am not engaging you in this as Her Majesty's loyal subject bound to honour and defend the Crown in all that is good and Holy...

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?

[FTA Lawyer]

And by the way, I am not engaging you in this as Her Majesty's loyal subject bound to honour and defend the Crown in all that is good and Holy...

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?

Not the oath...just plain sarcasm...I have a transcript somewhere of my call to the Bar ceremony...when I find it, I'll post the oath to be debated.

FTA

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA: Without debt, it is argued by many that Britain could not have won even the Napoleonic wars nor leveraged the capital necessary to drive ahead of the rest of Europe in the industrial revolution. It's not all a one way street here. It's all very well not to borrow, but there are certain benefits to entering debt evenm on a personal level, in that living in a house while paying a mortgage beats living on the street or paying rent until you can afford a house.

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..

[LesActive]

ScottSA: Without debt, it is argued by many that Britain could not have won even the Napoleonic wars nor leveraged the capital necessary to drive ahead of the rest of Europe in the industrial revolution. It's not all a one way street here. It's all very well not to borrow, but there are certain benefits to entering debt evenm on a personal level, in that living in a house while paying a mortgage beats living on the street or paying rent until you can afford a house.

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?

[PolyNewbie]

Not the oath...just plain sarcasm...I have a transcript somewhere of my call to the Bar ceremony...when I find it, I'll post the oath to be debated.

How about telling us everything FTA ? Is this the only promise you make or are there other secret promises ? Are you a representative of the crown ?