Surrender your equity to the crown

[LesActive]

Hey kids!! Miss me? I figured I'd share a bit of what transpired today as the last time I posted there seemed to be just a wee bit of disbelief in what I was promoting at the time. While I still admire what Rob Menard's intentions were with Bursting Bubbles and thank him wholeheartedly for showing me a different path, I've decided on a different path and acted on it today. Rob's method of redemption, while honourable, is also confrontational. That's just not my style. If you wish to discuss this matter in a mature manner (looking at you M.Dancer) feel free to chime in. This is no fantasy, it's a done deal.

As of today, the legal name that was (unwittingly) requested and given for me to use in commerce is being held in trust by a lawyer while he negotiates with the Canadian government how we (a group of about 60 people) will survive without legal tender. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars' and he no longer has any power over you.

I have given over all equitable claim on my present and future assets to the treasury of Canada. As such, I recognize that Canada, the corporation, is insolvent and that the only way I can help this country pay down its debts is by giving, not pledging, in this way. This is a gift of love. By doing so I make no claim to wealth except that which is my birth right by virtue of being born on this land. I realize that so long as there is a profit motive there will be poverty and that the only way to cure the ills of poverty is to give up everything I "own" for the benefit of all and hope others will see the veracity of my intent and follow suit by eschewing the temptation to hoard said wealth because by holding on to the equitable claim on property we deprive others of the chance to share in the benefits of our collective labour.

Do you honestly think you own anything? Have you ever seen a luggage rack on a hearse?

Because of this gift, CANADA the corporation, is now equitably estopped from punitive action against me barring the unlikely event that I harm or defraud a fellow human. As I have lawfully separated my body from the legal entity/person, any attempt to create joinder between the two (I am real, the person is a fiction of law) by an agent of the state would constitute fraud and they would be held criminally liable for their actions. CANADA has no jurisdiction over this body unless I consent and trust me, that's not going to happen except by force.

No longer a debtor, I am a creditor. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do as we have done as it's up to each of you to decide whether you wish to continue scrambling for legal tender (debt/liability) for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the many or to give over what you can't take with you beyond this mortal coil.

If you have money, spend it, otherwise you're bleeding the country dry and many suffer needlessly.

Some of us have figured this thing out AND we have lawyers backing us. It's not a rebellion, it's quite the opposite. Think of what the Queen did when she took the throne. She surrendered her estate to the treasury and now enjoys unencumbered/untaxed use of same. That's all we want too.

Questions? Comments? Peanuts?

peace

Edited September 24, 2007 by LesActive

[FTA Lawyer]

I think Rob Menard will tell you that I put an honest effort into hearing him out and trying to see his point of view...in fact I met him by chance at the courthouse in Calgary and we had a pleasant chat.

(total aside...for those who doubted that he was actively implementing his Freeman on the Land scheme I can tell you that I saw him do it with my own eyes...I still can't buy it, but he is indeed doing it)

That said, I have no clue what it is that you are saying about your version of separating the legal person from the real you.

How exactly am I a debtor if I have a shit-pile of money?

If indeed you are a creditor because you are proposing to turn over everything you have to the treasury of the Gov't. of Canada, are you not only entitled to the amount of value that you have put in?

What exactly do you think that you are entitled as a birth-right?

What if the Gov't. does not accept your proposed gift...your lawyers do know that a gift requires consent of the recipient don't they? Otherwise, we could just gift the Sydney Tar-Pools to the USA and they could pay to clean them up...

If you have given up your equitable interest in all future assets, do you need to get a chit-sheet signed by the Finance Minister every time you want to by a cheeseburger or a bar of soap?

Can you prove that Canada is insolvent? I mean, Geoffrey might have to chime in on this point, but I don't think the country is insolvent by any definition of that term that I know of.

Please believe me that I am not trying to be condescending or mocking of your chosen way of life...I just don't get it without some more details.

FTA

[Posit]

I think Rob Menard will tell you that I put an honest effort into hearing him out and trying to see his point of view...in fact I met him by chance at the courthouse in Calgary and we had a pleasant chat.

(total aside...for those who doubted that he was actively implementing his Freeman on the Land scheme I can tell you that I saw him do it with my own eyes...I still can't buy it, but he is indeed doing it)

That said, I have no clue what it is that you are saying about your version of separating the legal person from the real you.

How exactly am I a debtor if I have a shit-pile of money?

If indeed you are a creditor because you are proposing to turn over everything you have to the treasury of the Gov't. of Canada, are you not only entitled to the amount of value that you have put in?

What exactly do you think that you are entitled as a birth-right?

What if the Gov't. does not accept your proposed gift...your lawyers do know that a gift requires consent of the recipient don't they? Otherwise, we could just gift the Sydney Tar-Pools to the USA and they could pay to clean them up...

If you have given up your equitable interest in all future assets, do you need to get a chit-sheet signed by the Finance Minister every time you want to by a cheeseburger or a bar of soap?

Can you prove that Canada is insolvent? I mean, Geoffrey might have to chime in on this point, but I don't think the country is insolvent by any definition of that term that I know of.

Please believe me that I am not trying to be condescending or mocking of your chosen way of life...I just don't get it without some more details.

FTA

I think I see his POV.

1. Remove the money and you remove your indebtedness to the government. They cannot extract taxes if you have no income, no assets and no transactions.

2. Regardless of whether the government accepts the gift or not, the handing over of all assets removes the obligation to the state. Eventually under the current law, if the assets are held in trust and the trust goes unclaimed after the death of the owner of that trust (which being no one) and the trustee cannot directly benefit from that trust, then it automatically becomes property of the government, right?

3. One doesn't need one to buy a cheeseburger and could barter any goods or services needed. While the government says they will tax barter on the same rate as income, it is impossible to get taxes from someone who neither has an income or holds assets.....

Actually I find it quite ingenious save and except there is still laws including the Charter, which limit freedoms. And so long as one is self-regulating, there would not appear to be any way that the government could continue to have hooks in him.

I have also heard someone say that the national debt is really just a debt owed to us, as citizens of Canada. If there is no way the government can extract taxes from us legally, then by completely removing our obligation to government a check of the math says that they still legally owe us......

Interesting....

[geoffrey]

I have no debt to the government, why should I need to pay them money?? Ehh?? In fact, the government will owe me a few grand at the end of the year.

I'm a little confused. Giving up all your money and assets and somehow your no longer subject to law? I can't follow. Maybe FTA can chime in on this?

On the insolvent bit, Canada is very very far from it. There is no debt crisis. All debts are being repaid as they mature. No cash crunch. The Treasury is doing fine. The 'corporation' Canada has no cash flow issues. Money abound. Canada has never defaulted on a bond or other debt offering nor will they in the forseeable future.

Posit, what you heard about the debt is misleading, though not entirely untrue. The national debt is owed to those that hold debt issues, mostly institutional investors and individuals, primarily Canadian based funds. Most of the national debt is issue in Canada Savings Bonds and though it's much too complex to discuss the full arrangement here, T-bills (you can look stuff up on that whenever you get a chance). There is also a complex balance of payments between provinces, individuals and the Federal government.

How is this guy going to move around? Surely not on our roads and sidewalks. I hope he doesn't pollute our air with cars or by heating his non-existant home. I hope he doesn't use homeless shelters either. Or sleep on the street. Even though he has no house. Or land. Or clothing or even a cardboard box. You see, all of these are assets, and I'm sure the State is not interesting in taking your dirty underpants, so your stuck under it's control even by your convoluted standards.

This is so silly. Why can people just be rational and play the system to their advantage instead of trying to (impossibly) escape from it? It's fun to read, and debate, but in the end, it's utterly ridiculous.

[Posit]

I have no debt to the government, why should I need to pay them money?? Ehh?? In fact, the government will owe me a few grand at the end of the year.

Then why pay taxes? It is YOUR debt to Canada and they have all means to obtain it if you fail to pay at the time it is due - including seizing your assets and selling them off. And in fact the government doesn't give you money at the end of the year. They return your over-payment of that debt to you. You are still in the hole by tens of thousands of dollars with no expectation that your debt will ever be repaid.

If you have no income, or no assets they cannot ask you for taxes. And for someone who lives in and on the land it is quite possible to never use roads, sewers or any other infrastructure.

The debt is greater than the simple dollar value attributed to it by the reigning government. Instead in order to determine the solvency we also have to look at our government's liabilities. CPC, EI, and other insurance type guarantees plus what we owe through untested treaties and lands claims with First Nations. That is huge. And no amount of assets can be liquidated to generate the needed income to cover our liabilities and debt. In essence if government would need to sell, it would be to us (in which case we are just paying the debt in another way) or the potential for government take-over of a foreign nation, or corporation (which would dissolve our financial independence).

I would agree. I think the government is insolvent.

[LesActive]

Funny that I got what I asked for. Questions from FTA, comments from Posit and flung peanuts from geoffrey. This is a longish post.

I have no clue what it is that you are saying about your version of separating the legal person from the real you.

I did attempt an explanation for the duality of man/person in the previous thread but apparently I failed. It's a huge question which requires an equally expansive answer though mine will be far from comprehensive. Allow me to start from its root.

From Etymology Online

(excerpt)

person

c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask."

(excerpt)

persona

1917, "outward or social personality," a Jungian psychology term, from L. persona "person" (see person). Used earlier (1909) by Ezra Pound in the sense "literary character representing voice of the author." Persona grata (1882) is from L.L., lit. "an acceptable person," originally applied to diplomatic representatives acceptable to the governments to which they were sent; persona non grata is attested from 1904.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)

(excerpt)

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

As an example, the (Ontario) Highway Traffic Act states "“driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway;", yet doesn't define 'person'.

The Interpretation Act defines it thus: "person" , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;

Do maxims of law still apply? If they do, as they should, then I would apply this one to the IA definition: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

You're a lawyer FTA so you either know this and are playing fast and loose or your masters just aren't telling you. If you're born in Canada your parents are required by statute to register your birth with the appropriate registrar in your Province. At that time they are given an option to get either a certified copy of the Statement of Live Birth or a Birth Certificate. The SoLB is a record of the facts so certified. It records an event, not a baby. The BC (derivative of the SoLB) is something else and was never intended to be used as identification. My Black's 3rd edition defines identify (no definition for identification provided) as: 1) to prove the identity of (a 'person' or a thing) 2) to look upon as being associated with. Identity is defined as: the identical nature of two or more things. So, logically, no piece of paper or plastic can ever identify you can it? Only you can identify you, ie. "I am so and so, here I am". The Deputy Registrar for Births and Deaths in Ontario has stated that the Birth Certificate should not be used for identification as it was never intended for that purpose. BC's in England actually have a warning on them in that regard. Apparently, at one time, BC's here had the same warning. What happened? By saying that the document is you you admit to being a person or at the very least, representing a person (more like surety for).

What is one of the first questions, if not the first, that a crown attorney asks the arresting officer in a criminal or quasi-criminal (ie. traffic) case? "How did the accused identify him/herself?" If the answer is a gov't issued ID then that man or woman has represented themselves as a person. How about if that man or woman used a SoLB instead? That document is not admissible as it can't identify anyone by virtue of being merely a record of an event. Should the case continue if the alleged accused refused to use such ID? Once the truth of the document is known, why would they? Do you recall the Picton trial (British Columbia) where he was initially charged with the murder of 27 women but that number was reduced because one of the bodies couldn't be associated with a name? Why was that do you suppose? Truth dispels fiction.

How exactly am I a debtor if I have a shit-pile of money?

Is there an intrinsic value to your money? If there is then why does its value fluctuate? Is it true that goods roughly still cost the same amount as they did in the 1930's but that our legal tender has fairly steadily devalued to to where it's at now making things appear to cost more? What backs that money? Do not banks create money out of thin air by lending many times what they hold in actual assets based upon accounts receivable, or loans? A couple of thousand years ago a Roman soldier could buy a uniform with an ounce of gold. Today an ounce of gold can buy you a new suit. Not much has changed in that time with something of real intrinsic value like gold.

If you have a shit-pile of money as you say then why don't you put it to good use? Instead of increasing your pile, a la Scrooge McDuck, put it back into circulation by buying goods or hiring people to do things for you or your community. You're not selfish are you? What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his own soul?

Debtor is a term I use in my opinion as one who takes but doesn't give back. What value did you put forth to get that pile? I'm not denigrating what you do but you are sworn to uphold the system before the interests of your client and the more legislation that is passed the more work you have to do. In an administrative law framework such as we have there is always room for more statutes, written by lawyers using a language that looks like English but with meanings much different than what the average English-speaking woman or man would understand. Legislation is like a make work project for lawyers. Woe unto you lawyers for you have hidden the key of knowledge.

If indeed you are a creditor because you are proposing to turn over everything you have to the treasury of the Gov't. of Canada, are you not only entitled to the amount of value that you have put in?

Who is going to determine the value of what I put into society? I'll work for free, gimme shelter.

What exactly do you think that you are entitled as a birth-right?

We are all entitled to the necessities of life. That the gov't controls access to those necessities is not my doing. In order to participate in the game they require that I have a person (corporation/business). Is the gov't entitled to take away those necessities or would they be guilty of endangering my life if they did? There is a metaphor in the game of monopoly, simplistic as it is. You can't play the game without your token (person) and everything is there ready for you to play. Money, property, jail, railroads etc.. What happens at the end of the game? Only one token is left, every other token has gone bankrupt. Now, can the tokens play by themselves? Of course not, there must be a mover. The player is the mover, not the token. The only difference is that there is limited supply of cash whereas we have the Bank of Canada which will create money as it sees fit. All mysterious to me. I don't want to play anymore.

What if the Gov't. does not accept your proposed gift...your lawyers do know that a gift requires consent of the recipient don't they?

The gov't created the person for me to play in commerce and I, by signing for it as though it were me, agreed to be the surety. I'm giving the person back and essentially saying "You created this entity and held me liable while I signed for it. I used it to apply for everything you say I need to play the game: Drivers Licence, SIN, Health Card, Passport and etc.. I'm giving the entity back to you and now you're liable for it. Sorry I mismanaged the account but I didn't understand the game." How can the gov't refuse the gift? They created it.

I'm saying that CANADA is a nation founded upon the the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of God (according to the preamble to the constitution). What is the Rule of Law if not the common law and natural law? If God is supreme that sets up a hierarchy with God at the top. My question is, who's number two? Umm, I think that would be me, you and everyone else who was born on this land. If I no longer consent to be represented I'm beholding to none so long as I behave.

If you have given up your equitable interest in all future assets, do you need to get a chit-sheet signed by the Finance Minister every time you want to by a cheeseburger or a bar of soap?

We don't know how this going to work or even if it's going to work. Perhaps we have a debit card. That would make sense but again, I don't know. We'll know better in a month or so. If I want to use a house I imagine that I inform the trustee which one I wish to use and through their magic the means are provided. They don't lose out on anything as the equitable asset value is still held by them and as the property value increases so would the equity, enriching them further. They own everything anyway. Try not paying your property tax and see what happens.

Can you prove that Canada is insolvent? I mean, Geoffrey might have to chime in on this point, but I don't think the country is insolvent by any definition of that term that I know of.

No, I can't prove CANADA is insolvent. That kind of thing is way over my head but I do see that the national debt is forever increasing and our currency is being devalued daily. Why?

Please believe me that I am not trying to be condescending or mocking of your chosen way of life...I just don't get it without some more details.

FTA

I didn't view your questions as mocking, thank you. Geoffrey, OTOH, can't help himself.

And yes geoffrey, I will be in a house, travelling on the roads and wearing clothing. What do you think I am, a barbarian? If only....

Edited September 26, 2007 by LesActive

[kimmy]

What new devilry is this?!

-k

[Posit]

What is interesting is that my read of the natives was that they used to have names given to them when they were born and as they grew their names would change depending on what people saw them as doing. When there was an interaction with the colonials they had a hard time trying to peg them down legally and so gave them (and registered) their own names. That is why there are a lot of Englis, Dutch and French family names among native people.

If we were to revert back to that style of naming (as Smith, Smithson, Jamie, Jamieson etc) I wonder what affect that would have on the Crown's right over us? I mean if we are not a registered name somewhere then do we really even exist as far as they are concerned?

[August1991]

A couple of thousand years ago a Roman soldier could buy a uniform with an ounce of gold. Today an ounce of gold can buy you a new suit.

I know a place in Hong Kong that'll do it for 25 grams.

[LesActive]

What new devilry is this?!

-k

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

peace

[LesActive]

What is interesting is that my read of the natives was that they used to have names given to them when they were born and as they grew their names would change depending on what people saw them as doing. When there was an interaction with the colonials they had a hard time trying to peg them down legally and so gave them (and registered) their own names. That is why there are a lot of Englis, Dutch and French family names among native people.

If we were to revert back to that style of naming (as Smith, Smithson, Jamie, Jamieson etc) I wonder what affect that would have on the Crown's right over us? I mean if we are not a registered name somewhere then do we really even exist as far as they are concerned?

You are a quick learn. Took me quite a while to grasp the concept. You are not a name.

It is ALL about the name that gov't created for you to use. Not that it is vitally important to our mission but it is indicative of the nature of the game how EVERY corporate issued bill, be it taxes, phone, cable and etc., are sent to a name that is not of you but of the gov't. What rule of grammar allows them to change the spelling of the name from John Quincy Public to PUBLIC, JOHN QUINCY or John Q. PUBLIC or other derivative. There is no such rule. The name on your ID is a corporate name and they seem to have to use that name to interact with you in commerce. Corporations and dead people are spelled in all-caps.

There is no statute in CANADA that forbids you from using any name you choose so long as your purpose is not fraud. There is also no statute obliging you to carry gov't issued ID.

[M.Dancer]

What new devilry is this?!

-k

Alcan's marketing strategy to increase their share of hats made with their resilant and micronwave resistant material.

[M.Dancer]

If we were to revert back to that style of naming (as Smith, Smithson, Jamie, Jamieson etc) I wonder what affect that would have on the Crown's right over us? I mean if we are not a registered name somewhere then do we really even exist as far as they are concerned?

Good question, He Who walks with Screws Loose

[M.Dancer]

A couple of thousand years ago a Roman soldier could buy a uniform with an ounce of gold.

Source please.

[LesActive]

Source please.

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

All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

[M.Dancer]

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

I read something recently about the roman legions. I recall a specific passage that talks about the sophistication of a spociety that could arm, armour and train a legion of 5000 plus men. The stated cost was well in excess of one ounce.

In the event that you can't find it (from a reputable history source) it will confirm that you base your hairbrained ideas on false anecdotal items, half understood history etc etc.......

The reason I ridicule you is becasue you don't derserve serious attention. Your tinfoil hattery, if you really do take it to the next level will only clog the courts with the kind of stuff that is best dealt with by a psychiatric doctor or a comedian...and I am not a doctor.

All Freeman stuff passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is laughed at. Third, it is turned intoi a CBC half hour comedy.

Morris Dancer (1958 - 20__)

Edited September 25, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

The word for an individual soldier´s equipment of weapons and armor is panoply. Made from a combination of materials including iron and bronze, it could be very expensive (as much as the equivalent of a modern car according to some experts).

[http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Greek_World/men_weapons.html[/url]

The roman was even better armoured.

A couple of thousand years ago a Roman soldier could buy a uniform with an ounce of gold. Today an ounce of gold can buy you a new suit. Not much has changed in that time with something of real intrinsic value like gold.

Actually a lot has changed except that there are still very gullible chaps around. Did you by any chance, pay for the info you are using? Anyway, one big change would be inflation. Gold is a precious metal as you know. The value of gold is determioned by how much is on the marketplace in any given time. During the spanish conquests of south america, the value of gold dropped quityea bit because Europe was flooded with stolen Inca gold. But this erroneous factoid you present, like all the rest you have offered only confirm that you don't ave to be gullible to be a Freeman, but it certainly helps.

Edited September 25, 2007 by M.Dancer

[LesActive]

Wow! What a cynical and dishonest way to try and distract people from learning a little bit about the world we now live in and the gov't control that is exerted into our lives from an alternative perspective. Definitely, possibly or doubtfully, I'm just offering it for consideration as we've already got the wheels in motion despite your view.

For one thing, the analogy of the uniform being equivalent in value to a modern suit is quite possibly just that, an analogy. You've cast a little doubt on the assertion and that's good, I'm still willing to learn. For another, I wrote uniform and made no mention of full regalia. Did you read briefcase, power tie, writing implement, manicure, cuff-links, laptop, Rolex, and whatever else it takes to fully arm a soldier of commerce today into the word 'suit'?

You don't think that I had my doubts when I first heard about this stuff? Man, do you have any idea how much crap I had to wade through to glean the juicy tid-bits from the tin-hattery that is being spewed alongside it on all the sites out there? I'm sure you do. I know you're not stupid. I've done my due diligence to the best of my abilities by being highly sceptical during this whole process of discovery and I've checked as many facts as I could verify through the means available to me. I do find your cynicism somewhat funny, however, your reference to tin hats and gullibility to describe my psyche and your pointed attempt to sully the pertinent information I'm offering by focusing on a minor analogy is merely insulting and lowers the value of discourse here.

I have an admission to make to you. One for which I'm sure you'll squeal with glee over. I have worn a tin hat you see. Yes indeed. In fact, a couple of times. The first time was during dress rehearsal. The only other time was during the sixth or seventh grade production of the Wizard of Oz at my elementary school. Guess what part I played? It wasn't the Strawman, that's for sure. (ha! beat you to it)

I don't know that aliens have visited us, haven't seen one, never been probed. I don't know that the Masons control the world, not a member, didn't care for Cub Scouts when I was a kid either. I don't know that the House of Rothschilde rules the money market, I don't bank with them. I've never seen George Bush shape-shift into a lizard though I do firmly believe that if he did he'd f**k it up somehow. I don't know that there is a conscious force in the universe but I neither promote nor dispute the possibility. I can't do yogic flying, never tried as I have a bad back and that guy's just plain weird. I certainly don't know whether the gov't is sending subliminal microwave messages directly into my brain but then who would, eh? If they are they're definitely tuning me into the wrong channel don't ya think?.

Those things are not part of the main thrust of this thread so please refrain from alluding to them by including what I'm doing along with them by way of your tin hat device. I politely asked for mature responses. I'll count "Source please." as one. There are plenty of other threads for you to play your diversion games. Go and enjoy yourself, apparently it's your gift to the world.

peace

Edited September 25, 2007 by LesActive

[FTA Lawyer]

LesActive,

I think I finally caught you. Many have just dismissed you as a fool with an affinity for tin-foil, which I admit has been hard for me to resist...but I have chosen to try to dispel your claims by proper debate. As a result, I have been sifting through the piles of rhetoric about lawyers honouring their masters and the Monopoly analogies etc. looking for the fatal flaw to your propositions that I figured must be there but I just couldn't put my finger on...until now.

Your fallacy goes directly to the root of your whole position...when I asked what you think you are entitled to as a birthright, you said:

"We are all entitled to the necessities of life."

Based on our Constitution, or human rights legislation, or common law or some other form of societal norm / more / consensus that has developed in our advanced democracy that is correct...but these are the very restirctions of inherent liberty that you rail against and propose to shed from your existence.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INHERENT BIRTHRIGHT TO THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE

Survival of the fittest hardly has room for communism. If you reject government and society in the manner that you propose, you reject the only thing that prevents me or any other biological creature on this planet from deciding to kill and eat you at my pleasure. Inherently, as things that live on this planet we are in competition with the other living things to obtain what we need to survive...but we sure as hell don't have a "right" to obtain those things.

Just ask a hungry Grizzley bear if you have an inherent right to be left alone to run in the meadow. You have no more right to demand another human (or a group of humans represented by a government) to leave you alone than you do the Grizzley.

Unless you can talk your way out of this one, then I am ready to end my willingness to entertain the validity of your master plan.

FTA

[kimmy]

This thread has not caused me to want to surrender my equity to the crown, but it has caused me to briefly ponder driving my car into oncoming traffic...

-k

[LesActive]

Deflection.

If that's the fatal flaw then I see nothing to fear at all. It's sad for me to see that you can't for a second envision a world of giving unconditionally and taking only what you need. You see chaos and I see harmony. Evolution can be a bitch I guess when you have to give up all the legal illusions that we've built. The process for change has to start somewhere and as crazy/mistaken/duped as you believe us that are doing this to be, you have to understand that we are doing this out of and for love of all. Is that the philosophy angle you were looking for FTA? Because that's all there is to it really. We're not trying to gain anything, we're simply declaring peace with the whole mess and giving over everything to where it belongs. Kind of like a pre-emptive strike on the NWO. Sound Utopian? We can only hope and see what happens with the truth on the table, and it is on the table before the government at this moment. We believe we have a case and that we have the right kind of backing to follow through so what have we got to lose really? A name? So my friends call me by something else, what's the problem? That I'm out a nominal lawyers fee? If this doesn't work then okay, I'll accept that but it's not going to change the central philosophy that we are all born free but that the chains are self imposed. Time to toss them off. It's not like there won't be a need for your services FTA, they'll need you for quite a while I'm sure. You seem to think that we're laying a claim to something and that's not quite right. We are all of the earth as are all the fruits of it. By what right does one group of people lay claim to a resource, either natural or through the sweat of someone else's labour except through force or trickery? Greed and profit motive is laying waste to the only thing we've got to sustain us.

Look, I'm not here to talk my way out of anything or to sway your opinion and never said I would try. I expected this resistance and that's fine too. If you were truly interested in it you'd research it yourself. I'm sharing what we're doing with this board and you just want to pick a fight over what we view as a basic, obvious truth and that is that there is no cost associated with anything except for the labour (sweat equity) that went into it, whatever 'it' is. I find myself in a position in life to follow through on something in which I believe is best for everyone and is not guided by any sort of lust for selfish enrichment. I do quite well in commercial life by your standards as it stands, I think, but I've smelled a rat since I was a kid and this is the opportunity I'm taking to help flush it out, obviously, at all costs as I'm giving up everything most people now hold dear. An illusion. That you believe in it makes it so in a very real sense.

Your concept of natural law is far too simple and animalistic for a rational, loving being to go along with. We're not talking grizzlies here. Deflection again. It's about people caring outside of themselves. And some would call that a crime. It's no longer about survival of the fittest and that's precisely the point.

Everyone sees that you didn't refute any of our beliefs as to what is identity. So you agree then? Did you call your Provincial Registrar and ask whether a Birth Certificate was intended for use as ID? If not then why not?

It's done. I concede this unintentional battlefield in peace and leave you with our mission statement which was part of the package sent to the AG and whoever else might be concerned with it.

I'm not arguing. There's no point.

1

Mission Statement June 20, 2007,

subject to amendment

We are autonomous men and woman who are

recipients/bearers of a birth certificate, not of the

class or status of the person(s), nor do any or all of

us recognize any name registered as if that name

identifies one or all of us, nor is one or all of us a

name. We are with simple minds.

We recognize that it is not our will that birth events

shall be registered and that a birth certificate is

required for us to interface with business,

government, CANADA and PROVINCES.

We have come to recognize a birth

certificate as a trap.

We know from experience that we can be arrested for

failing to identify ourselves with government

identification or name, and that if we do, it will be

used against us more often than not to get

something from us, often under threat and

intimidation. Damned if we have one and damned if

we do not, no apparent neutral ground.

We have heard judges, justices of the peace, crown

attorneys, lawyers, government agents, and others

say that a name has nothing to do with a matter

before the court, or at all for that matter. We

recognize that if a name is not entered onto an

instrument evidencing a debt or other obligation that

the instrument would be of no value and quashed;

thus, as it is at the time of this writing, we recognize

that it is not in our best interest that births/names

are registered and attached to the human body since

it is government, CANADA, PROVINCES, corporations,

banks, those in the know and that issue (create)only

debts (corporate bodies) that benefit directly or

indirectly from our use of a birth certificate and other

government identification founded on it as a required

identifier.

Based on the information we were given or

otherwise obtained from third parties that

should or ought to know the truth and on

an awakening conscience, we recognize

the following to be an accurate account.

We recognize that we the people have not been fairly

compensated for the fruits of our labour (production)

that equates into the assets in

Canada/property/goods and services for sale and

that back government issued debts (Treasury bills,

bonds, etc). We recognize that a birth certificate is

not evidence of the identity of the recipient/bearer,

that the bearers name is not on it, and that the same

identification is used to establish a social insurance

(number) and other accounts in the same name

(registered legal

name/personality), the promise to pay employment

income is paid to. And if the people have been paid

directly, it was with a promise to pay (evidence of

debt), which we recognize as meaning the

obligation to the people has not been fulfilled.

Title in said production has not passed due

the non payment, compounded by the fact

that what is circulated and accepted as

money (legal tender) is nothing more than a

promise to pay and not payment.

Either way, we people recognize that

we hold a claim/interest here. It is our

will and desire, in recognition of the fact that

the governments, CANADA, the PROVINCES,

corporations are insolvent, that same issue

only debt, that the people (recipient of birth

certificate) service said debt, are the source

of the production (goods and

services/collateral) backing that and other

debts, and that CANADA is our ship (estate)

in which we, birth certificate recipients, have

an interest, to give over the value of our claim

(interest/equity) unconditionally in order to

effect release of all affected parties of any or

all outstanding debts and related burdens.

We recognize that we do not own anything

while here on earth but our interests, health,

equitable, liberty, autonomy, uses, life, free

will, treat others as we like to be treated, etc.

We also recognize every recipient/bearer of a

birth certificate issued in Canada as having an

equal share/interest in the assets in CANADA,

our land, and in the prosperity of CANADA,

the PROVINCES and other corporations from

which people and nature (our greatest asset)

reap the same.

We know we can pledge our interests

(equity/estate) we have in the name

appearing on the birth certificate to a bank

for a loan, in order to facilitate the purchaser

(same name), but would rather give it freely

where it serves the greater good. Note what

the Queen did when she took reign as

reported by the Monarchist League of

Canada. "$1.40 is the cost per head of the

Monarchy to residents of the United Kingdom,

in return for which the Queen gives back the

equivalent of $6.69 to each subject in

revenue from the Crown Estate which

the Queen surrendered to the

Treasury at the beginning of her Reign".

It is our will and desire to do the same as the

Queen or that which would bring about

similar results. We recognize it as free energy

and the solution to help our

country (estate) and the people, shy of

continuing as a source of revenue, account

receivable, aiding and abetting in the sinking

of CANADA, due the accumulation of debts,

party to a business plan (not our purpose), or dying

for same.

We know for absolute certain that not one

of us certified or registered any

information that is alleged to have

something to do with the birth of our

body.

We recognize the fruits of our labour (production) as

our birth right and that no man or woman is required

to pay for such rights but by the payment already

made by way of un-compensated sweat equity

(labour so invested). We recognize something for

nothing as unjust enrichment and/or theft. We

recognize that governments, CANADA, the

PROVINCES, Bank of Canada and corporations

(employers) are incapable of paying for the

aforementioned production/collateral (substance) or

claim with substance but with more promise to pay

(debt), therefore: we will settle for the free

unencumbered/untaxed use (peaceful possession

and enjoyment) of the fruits of our production and of

our land (our home) and the necessary fruits of it as

fulfillment of the previously mentioned obligation

(settlement).

Remember the song we sang in school. “This land is

your land, this land is my land, this land is our

land.” No mention of a thing called crown land.

However, that is not to suggest that the crown does

not have and is not entitled to have an interest in our

land.

We recognize that we exist on this planet in a body

that has necessities of life, and that we did enter this

world without legal permits with the birth right of life,

liberty, autonomy, use of our land/mother earth,

nature, water, air, property, labour, to sustain such

(“interests”), and the fruits/uses of same without

permits and/or participation in commercial activity

(buying and selling).

We believe that if our birth rights (“interests”) are

trespassed upon, that the trespasser may subject

him/herself to a charge of attempted murder or other

consequences.

Tendered by us, this calendar date June 20th, 2007,

in good clear conscience, with love, in the pursuit of

oneness, to the one(s) with the power and authority

and conscience, to cause to be done what any

reasonable man or woman of

conscience is likely to, should the knowledge of the

aforementioned circumstances be delivered to him or

her what is happening to his or her family.

Active Note*- the above statement was the one we had to agree with before signing over the name to the trustee and the following fleshes it out a bit.

2

What a judge quoted with respect to

registration of birth and birth certificates

C. Birth certificates

28. Registration of births is governed by the Births

and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (“the 1953 Act”).

Section 1(1) of that Act requires that the birth of

every child be registered by the Registrar of Births

and Deaths for the area in which the child is born. An

entry is regarded as a record of the facts at the time

of birth. A birth certificate accordingly constitutes a

document revealing not current identity but

historical facts.

31. The Government point out that the use of a birth

certificate for identification purposes is discouraged

by the Registrar General, and for a number of years

birth certificates have contained a warning that

they are not evidence of the identity of the person

presenting it. However, it is a matter for individuals

whether to follow this recommendation.

We recognize that we, in Canada, did not

receive the benefit of such warning.

The high cost of working for the Money

Gross pay equates into the cost of goods and services for

sale and delivery, and is what the employer must recover in

order to remain in business, thus the goods and services

must sell for at least the cost of producing them. The

analogy that follows does not take into consideration

profits. The labourer is paid at the wholesale level and the

goods and services produced and made available by the

labourer for the labourer are priced for sale and delivery at

the retail level.

There is not enough money in circulation to allow the

producers of the goods and services (people) to buy them

back and is a reason for debt, bankruptcy and foreclosures.

Why you have to fight tooth and nail to get ahead, but in so

doing someone else looses.

It is taken into consideration here that all labour is pooled.

Meaning, you do what you do, I do what I do and at the end

of the day we do what we do for each

other. In other words, I may not help build cars and you

may not help build homes but it is our collective labour

effort that generates the goods and services (hereafter

“assets”) people desire.

Governments and corporations exist to serve people

although that seems to have been forgotten.

Lets us say that the total amount paid last year by

all employers to all the workers in Canada, that

produce (do the work) the assets was 100 billion

dollars measured as gross pay. The assets

produced as a result must sell for at least 100

billion dollars because the employers have incurred

an expense of that amount. In other words, if the

employer incurred and expense of $1000.00 for

labour contribution, it must pass that cost off into

the assets the same workers (labour pool) may

purchase.

So here we are now with 100 billion dollars worth of

assets for sale, now let’s see if the worker (labour

pool) that did the actual work has the means to buy

back the fruits of his/her own production/assets.

We have covered gross pay but what about net pay.

Net pay is what the pay cheque indicates and what

you may call take home pay. Take home pay is the

after tax portion of the gross pay and is less than

gross pay that represents the minimum pre tax

selling price of the assets people produce.

We used an income tax rate of 25% in these

calculations.

Cost of the assets for sale as we covered above is

100 billion dollars, but the workers (labour pool)

took home only 75 billion due the 25% income tax

rate, so you see, we are all short the means to buy

back the fruits of our own production. Remember,

profit is not considered here and so the actual

inequity is far larger.

In Ontario we have a sales tax and goods and

services tax that together equal 14%

So we add that 14% to the 100 billion making it so

the worker (labour pool) needs 114 billion dollars

to buy back the fruits of our collective production,

assets, and yet only took home 75 billion. In other

words, the labour pool is 39 billion short of having

the ability to buy back the fruits of our production.

Ah, but there is a solution for that shortfall. The

bank will be happy to lend the 39 billion we are

short, plus interest. The bank will lend the principal

amount of 39 billion and wants its interest of say

5% annually, which in this case would be 1.95

billion dollars.

So now the labour pool is 40.95 billion short the

means to buy back the fruits of our production.

Remember there is no profit taking considered here

and so the actual inequity is far larger.

Further, when the bank created and lent the

principal amount in circulation to cover the initial

shortfall of 39 billion, it did not create and lend the

interest of 1.95 billion which means it does not

exist in circulation, but is to be paid, and is a

reason for debt, bankruptcy, foreclosures, and why

you struggle to but never really make get ahead.

Yes some people do get ahead but at the inevitable

cost to others. Working harder is not the solution,

for the harder you work the higher the taxes and

that only contributes to the shortfalls and

inequities. Higher wages equates into higher costs for

goods and services, effectively stealing from one of your

pockets to feed the other.

Now given those circumstances, the labour pool (people)

that produced the assets is liable to repay 40.95 billion to

the bank but there is only 39 billion in circulation and if we

do not pay, and we cannot collectively, the bank will have

the assets/collateral seized and the bank did not do any of

the work.

Fact is, if we were as one body responsible to pay the bank

interest of only 1.95 billion, we could not and the bank will

foreclose on us all. Obviously the labour pool is not one

such body but you see now why there are inequities. One

body or not, every paid worker is subject to the inequities of

gross and net pay.

As it is today, what you know as money is borrowed into

circulation (promise to pay you), except the interest aspect.

Interest on debt is not in circulation and must be paid back,

but how can we pay back the principal and interest when

only the principal amount is created and in circulation?

Now you know the reasons for debt, bankruptcy,

foreclosures, seizure of property, and why you will never

get ahead. Now you know a reason people are stressed

and health issues on the rise. We are trying to perform the

impossible and only we can change what is to a new way. If

we do nothing now what legacy do we leave our children

and future generations?

We people are the producers of all goods and services,

cars, homes, roads, furniture, roads, buildings, appliances,

etc., yet the corporations that exist in name only and that

are incapable of producing anything but debt, reap the

benefits and rewards of our labour force.

Time for change.

[FTA Lawyer]

Les,

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't go do whatever it is you want to do...if you want to be nameless and devoid of assets I will not stand in your way. The fact is, that you have presented your position as an invitation to all of the rest of us to follow suit. I have examined your invitation in good faith and am simply saying that I can't see how anyone can follow you when your whole idea is based on the false premise that you are inherently entitled as of right to the necessities of life.

If you can barter something you are able to produce in exchange for fair market rental of a multimillion dollar operating theatre and the services of a cardio-thoracic surgeon should you ever be in need of such items...all the power to you (your negotiation skills would be far better than mine). I choose to rely on my Blue Cross and Alberta Health care plans and the fees I pay for same. I am satisfied to acquiesce to the fact that my name was registered by my parents at my birth without my consent. I happen to feel I get far more out of participating in society than if I were to take the path you seem to be on.

I hope everything works out the way you expect it to. I just will not spend any more time trying to comprehend what appears to me to be incomprehensible.

FTA

[Posit]

Les,

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't go do whatever it is you want to do...if you want to be nameless and devoid of assets I will not stand in your way. The fact is, that you have presented your position as an invitation to all of the rest of us to follow suit. I have examined your invitation in good faith and am simply saying that I can't see how anyone can follow you when your whole idea is based on the false premise that you are inherently entitled as of right to the necessities of life.

If you can barter something you are able to produce in exchange for fair market rental of a multimillion dollar operating theatre and the services of a cardio-thoracic surgeon should you ever be in need of such items...all the power to you (your negotiation skills would be far better than mine). I choose to rely on my Blue Cross and Alberta Health care plans and the fees I pay for same. I am satisfied to acquiesce to the fact that my name was registered by my parents at my birth without my consent. I happen to feel I get far more out of participating in society than if I were to take the path you seem to be on.

I hope everything works out the way you expect it to. I just will not spend any more time trying to comprehend what appears to me to be incomprehensible.

FTA

Tell me FTA, if you rid yourself of the legal system, then where do your rights come from.....?

I'll give you a clue because the framers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms knew:

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

I do believe that LesActive has those inalienable rights from birth.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Posit

[ScottSA]

I'm sure the State is not interesting in taking your dirty underpants, so your stuck under it's control even by your convoluted standards.

This is so silly. Why can people just be rational and play the system to their advantage instead of trying to (impossibly) escape from it? It's fun to read, and debate, but in the end, it's utterly ridiculous.

Good post...the rest of it too, actually, but this part is funny as hell.

[M.Dancer]

For one thing, the analogy of the uniform being equivalent in value to a modern suit is quite possibly just that, an analogy. You've cast a little doubt on the assertion and that's good, I'm still willing to learn. For another, I wrote uniform and made no mention of full regalia. Did you read briefcase, power tie, writing implement, manicure, cuff-links, laptop, Rolex, and whatever else it takes to fully arm a soldier of commerce today into the word 'suit'?

Analogies to be useful have to have an iota of truth to them. Yours doesn't. So it is a false analogy

Roman legionaires had no uniforms. None. They wore a tunic under their armour.

Without their armour they looked like any other lower class person in the marketplace.

Now trust me, never trust anyone whose arguments are filled with false analogies false premises and tinfoil.

Edited September 27, 2007 by M.Dancer