Detax Canada

[JLord]

Yes, but if enough people start doing this....

It is a fairly common tactic among "detaxers" to show up to court in large groups. I'm not sure what they think this will accomplish but often it seems like if you see one there will be 3 or 4 others. They often will have one detaxer act as agent for another, and another few watching the proceedings. Or they will have some random detaxer swear an affidavit because the actuall perosn involved doesn't want to attorn to the jurisdiction of the court by filing his own affidavit. I agree if there were always say 50 people it would cause some disruption because a courtroom might not seat that many people. But it would still be minor disruption, like some people would have to stand. I'm not sure of any possible scenario where they accomplish any significant disruption other resorting to illegal tactics like bomb threats or somehting like that.

 

[D'rok]

We have far worse now in Canada and the USA than the Germans had under Hitler in the 1930s.

Well, just when you thought the stupid couldn't get piled any higher.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, if that is your honest opinion, I suppose you are welcome to it.

It's the non-mythical opinion.


Still waiting for you to explain how the infrastructure is maintained if we don't pay our taxes.

 

[KDLarsen]

I am quite sure that he was fully aware of his position and status. Do you think he did not notice the simple fact that he had the authority to grant or deny the Monarch of Great Britain the privilege of entering 'The City", and see to it that the Monarch was not wearing the regalia of Monarch when in The City?

That 'authority' certainly didn't originate with the Lord Mayor of the City of London.

What, you mean neither Sir David, Sir Michael, Sir Gavyn, Sir Robert, Sir Michael (the other one), Sir David (the other one), Sir John, nor Sir David (the third one), had that authority to begin with?

 

[tsig]

50,000,000 Europeans murdered by the Inquisition seems to represent a bit more than a claim.

75,000 Hugenot Frenchmen murdered in Paris at the command of the Pope in the St. Barthemolew Massacre in Paris in 1572 also seems a bit more than an empty claim.

Bit off on the numbers there. Check the spelling also.

Modern estimates for the number of dead vary widely between 5,000 and 30,000 in total.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

 

[tsig]

There has been no way to pay for anything in the USA or Canada since the early 1930s. All there is available is to 'settle' a debt by way of exchange of debt. Do your research. Read what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC said to the Chamber of Commerce in 1946. Just go to OP's link to detaxcanada website and search 'fairshare'. I didn't write the article.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a court case "Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal" in the late 1970s that Canadian (holds equally true with FRNs) are only 'promissory notes' as per the Bills of Exchange Act, Canada, Section 176.

A short time later, Canada changed the currency by removing any 'promise to pay', making the Canadian currency 'ship script' on a make believe ship at sea (as are all incorporated bodies) that will never reach home port where the 'ship script' promissory notes can be redeemed for real asset value money.

??

 

[tsig]

What the Hell do you think the foreign corporation, the UNITED STATES, ruling over America is now doing. China, Japan and the Arabs are not buying the American bond crap. Thus, the Federal Reserve, on behalf of the corporation called the UNITED STATES, are running the money printing 'red hot' for the last while.

For the word censors, the word you replaced with stars means 'Store High In Transit'. When England used to ship dried bull menure to the colonies for fertilizer, it had to be stored high enough in the hold so as not to get wet. Wet dung creates methane, and gets rather explosive. So, the crates were stamped with the acronym. It is not a swear word.

dlete

 

[EldonG]

I am certainly prepared to engage in honest debate. I will stand by the posts I have made so far as well. If you think I have said anything that is untrue or dishonest feel free to quote it and provide your reasoning.

OK!

This is a very popular decision among the "detaxer" crowd. I have spoken to more than one person who has attempted to use this decision to make the claim that they can pay their mortgage (or some other debt) with their own "promissory note." The argument is that since currency is also a promissory note, then if I write my own promissory note it is currency. So I write a promissory note for $200,000 grand, give it to the bank, and they can't forclose on me anymore because the mortgage is now fully paid.

The case was about a bunch a bunch of money ($5 bills) that were destroyed when the bus they were being transported in caught fire. The court described the legal questions as follows:

The eventual decision was that the $5 bill is legal currency and also a promissory note.

It is explained in the decision but basically the court determined that because of the wording on the bill it was a promissory note. The effect of this was that you could go into a bank with a $5 bill and demand $5 and the bank was obliged to give you another $5 bill. So in a very technical way, Canadian $5 bills used to be promissory notes in addition to currency. This of course in not the case anymore as bills no longer say "will pay the bearer on demand..." But for whatever reason people still rely on this case to make all sorts of ridiculous arguments that obviously have never been accepted by the courts.


For example this case where a person tried to argue they had satisfied their child support obligation by giving some "bonds" that the person had made themselves and which were obviously worthless. The court said:

In the end we have a fiat currency. The paper has no intrinsic worth beyond other pieces of paper. Yet if you see $20 on the ground you probably pick it up everytime, wheras if you see a similar sized piece of scrap paper you leave it or throw it in the garbage. So money has worth. Everyone agrees with this. If you are the one person who doesn't believe it, even if your arguments are all correct you are still wrong in the sense that your views don't line up with reality. Even if there were some academic argument that made complete sense and money should be worthless, it isn't. Reality says otherwise.

All fiat money created by corporate Government (a body politic, as explained by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries) is a form of 'ship's script', as an incorporated body is a 'make-believe ship at sea' with a captain, officers and (crew)members. A lawyer's denial of that fact does not negate that fact.

All cases that can be cited from Canadian or American courts show that the man was, by self incrimination, or by legal trickery of the judge, 'identified' as being one and the same as the Crown or State owned legal name. This allows the judge to then impose the Feudal System 'master/servant' law based upon the property right of the slave owner. The American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 wording shows the Roman ideals of slave control in Section 6, where it says: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." So, when a man who has identified himself as being property of the Crown through unlawful attachment to the Crtown owned legal name, the above is applied, and any arguments presented by the defendant are ignored by the judge.

I agree there are no such cases. However, there is no reason why there couldn't be if in fact your argument had any merit. There are hundreds of reported cases where charges have been dismissed for want of prosecution. None of these were situations where the court agreed that it had no jurisdiction over a free will man. Every time that argument has been tried it has failed. If you have reason to believe otherwise please post the case because I would be very interested in reading it.

Once again though, even if your argument were 100% correct, the fact is it won't work in court. We know that for a fact it won't. There is 0% chance of that argument being succesful. So my question is, even if you are correct, why would try to convince people to do something that you know has zero chance of success and will only wind up costing them?

It could be they incur court costs and waste everyone's time. But there are also people who forego actual legal arguments that might be succesful in favour of something that has no chance. If it has no chance of success then surely you should not try to advance this argument even if it 100% correct and the courts are all wrong.

How do you know that such tactics have not worked? If you cannot find evidence in court transcripts or precedents, what would be your source of knowledge to deny my propositions on stopping court actions?

You mention people now using promissory notes. I have seen proof of three parties in Vernon, BC who have paid off their complete mortgages with promissory notes. A lady here in Calgary had 2 years property tax ($5,000) given a 'paid in full' notice from the City of Calgary, plus a notice that the tax lien on her home was removed at Land Titles. I say the City documents.

Remember, the Trinity of the Holy Roman Empire is Fear, Force, and False Hope. You seem to be freely using the 'fear' tactic here without any explanation as to why certain people have failed in ccourt in defending their god Given rights. I provide those answers.

 

[tsig]

So apparently Stalin was now a member of the Inquisition.

This just gets better and better, doesn't it?

Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

 

[EldonG]

It is a fairly common tactic among "detaxers" to show up to court in large groups. I'm not sure what they think this will accomplish but often it seems like if you see one there will be 3 or 4 others. They often will have one detaxer act as agent for another, and another few watching the proceedings. Or they will have some random detaxer swear an affidavit because the actuall perosn involved doesn't want to attorn to the jurisdiction of the court by filing his own affidavit. I agree if there were always say 50 people it would cause some disruption because a courtroom might not seat that many people. But it would still be minor disruption, like some people would have to stand. I'm not sure of any possible scenario where they accomplish any significant disruption other resorting to illegal tactics like bomb threats or somehting like that.

You use the term'detaxer' as being a derogatory ephitet. We are free will adult men and women who have learned that we have been fraudulently subjugated by forces of the Vatican, using fictional organizations called corporations to deprive us of our Creator God given rights and freedoms.

As time goes on with more and more enlightening facts appearing , such as on the internet medium, humankind will wake up to the fact that they have been , and are victims of a vile scheme by the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis currently resident in the Vatican.

 

[D'rok]

Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

 

[Sledge]

We are free will adult men and women

Chronologically, perhaps. Mentally, no. Mentally, you're a bunch of children who think something is so unfair, but saying the right magic words will change it.

 

[tsig]

Well, the idea of 2 names is a deception that a lot of people have bought into - put out by the shills of the Vatican's system.

A child is 'given' names by the parents, who, in registering (offering up to the king) the newborn child 'identify themselves as being slaves owned by the corporate Crown (The corporate Crown has ruled GB since 1297, with the Monarch being just the CEO of the corporation, itself being a sub-corporation of the administrative corporation of the City of London, also called the Crown.
The City of London, n independent city /state within England is owned by the Pontiff of Rome. The Crown of the City is a sub-corporation of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, of which the pontiff of Rome is CEO.

A 'child, being without a mature and moral thinking mind, is thus property, as a 'ship or vessel under construction in a drydock. Thus, a child, as property, can have an identifying name. The family name is referential to the given names and is NOT a man's name.

The registry of the Child with the Crown gives up claim to the child, and it thus becomes a ward of the Crown. The parents become merely 'foster parents' to it. Thus, the powers of the Crown's Social Services, who can bypass due process of law in dealing with parent/children relations.

When the child reaches the age of majority, the vessel is launched upon the sea of life, and a supreme authority captain (cap = latin for head) comes on board. Thus, regardless who claims the physical (Crown or State claims all dead bodies) body, the captain, whilst at sea is supreme. This we refer to
free will'. For the sceptic, free will does not mean 'free to do anything to anyone' , as the negative Golden Rule governs all mankind - Do no harm.

Thus, as with a vessel, the only way another vessel can take control (lawfully) of another vessel is by the consent of the captain of the 'to be controlled' vessel.

The scheme is to have the free will man 'identify' himself as being one and the same as a name conconcocted by people within the corporate Crown where the family name has been converted into a primary or 'sur' name.
The 'all caps' spelling one sees often just means that the property (intellectual property of the Crown) has been pledged as chattel in the bankruptcy declared by all nations directly under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire. It does not create the strawman/legal name. The property right legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, is used to entrap the free vessel into being a slave vessel under tow.

In the USA, the corporate UNITED STATES, the administrating corporation of the Vatican owned city/state called DC or Washington, assumed the Constitution of the united States of America as its Articles of incorporation.
They instituted the 14th Amendment to allow the corporation to own slaves, deceptively called 'citizens'. The 13th Amendment gave the corporation the means to deprive citizens/freemen status slaves of their rights to due process of law, -convicted criminals allows to have involuntary servitude imposed upon them. A corporations are under maritime law, an accused crewmember/corporate member is guilty unless proven innocent by an officer of the vessel or corporation. Thus, the unauthorized use of the State owned name is theft, a felony. Guilty and convicted as charged.

So, getting to 'My name' versus the Crown's or State owned name, a mind is not a physical thing, and thus cannot have an 'identifying' name. All a mind of a free will adult man can have are words or terms that gain that mind's attention. This is called an 'appellation' - where 'appel' in French means 'call'.

Thus, in the normal logic of names, we, as adult men, male or female, can have no identifying name. Anyone who disputes this are free to 'identify' themself by a name, but, know that, as 'property' you are an owned creature.

The religious few chime in with: "well, we are God's property." No, Creator God recognizes our rights and privileges as 'captain of our vessel' - our free will. That is why we have choices in life - many of which are likely not pleasing to Creator God.

Does this include Piracy and Parrots?

 

[EldonG]

It's good to hear that courts have effective policies to deal with the problem. Some freeman types are quite open about their desire to swamp the courts with bogus filings. Like this numpty who lost his guru and is pleading for help from the outpatients at WFS:

Also, Raymond St. Clair in the UK is notorious for obstructionism in various proceedings which he surreptitiously records and posts on youtube.

It's all kind of pathetic, really.

Why? It is the court system that is imposing the statutory 'slave' rules on free will man. Imposing punishments for disobedience to slave rules (persons) is a total violation of our Creator God Given Rights for Creator God's children on Planet Earth, where there is no victim or harm to anyone.

I know that is not within the capacity of a collectivist's narrow mind, but it is a fact.

 

[EldonG]

Well no one expects the Communist Inquisition.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[EldonG]

Chronologically, perhaps. Mentally, no. Mentally, you're a bunch of children who think something is so unfair, but saying the right magic words will change it.

And, being a good subservient slave to a corporate body is somehow supposed to be 'wise and enlightened'? Don't think so.

 

[EldonG]

Does this include Piracy and Parrots?

Meaning what?

 

[Sledge]

And, being a good subservient slave to a corporate body is somehow supposed to be 'wise and enlightened'? Don't think so.

Please, keep going. Unlike trying to get a five year old to go to bed when she's come back downstairs for the third time, watching your histrionics is highly amusing. For a good giggle, why don't you answer my question and tell me who you think lopeyschools is being paid by?

 

[tsig]

Meaning what?

Meaning that if we're all ships do some resort to piracy.

 

[tsig]

What is that supposed to mean?

Spanish Inquisition/Communist Inquisition are they the same? You seemed to indicate that Stalin was ruled by the Jesuits and had some relation to the SI.

Did you know that the Inquisition was conducted by the Dominicans (gods' dogs) and not by the Jesuits?