Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Detax Canada
- Thread starter JLord
- Start date
While ignoring responses to the rest of what you have said? Ok, I will assume you are conceding my other points.
If you would like any further explanation or clarification of anything I have said let me know. I have no problem offering further explanations if something is unclear to you.
I assume that by "research" you mean that you looked at a $5 bill and found that it no longer had the same wording that was being discussed in the case. Because I suspect that if someone told you currency had changed since that decision, they were probably referring to the removal of this language. Something which is evident by looking at any bill.
Under the same circumstances as any laws in Canada are made or varied.
No. Parliament changed the law by making an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act stating:
25.(6) Notes of the Bank are neither promissory notes nor bills of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.
As you can see there is no reference to reference to a ship at sea or a make-believe vessel. There is no need to reference a ship's script situation because fiat currency was a well known concept when this law was changed. Again, the fact that we have a fiat currency and that a ship's script could also be considered like a form of fiat currency does not mean the two are one in the same. Nor does it imply that parliament considered Canadian currency to be a form of ship's script.
There are specific definitions of "ship's script" and "fiat currency" that will show you the difference. Ship's script only applies to the specific situation of being on a ship. It doesn't mean that any other type of fiat currency not relating to ships has to be described in the terms of ship's script.
A ship's script is a form of fiat currency, that doesn't mean fiat currency is a ship's script. It is similar in some ways and different some ways. Similarly schizophrenia is a form of mental illness, but that doesn't mean a mental illness is always schizophrenia. You wouldn't look at a person with depression and say "he's got some wierd form of make-believe schizophrenia." You would just call it by the more accurate description "depression." So when faced with Canada having a fiat currency I am at a loss why anyone would try to describe it as "Canada has some wierd form of ship's script as currency where the country is a make believe ship and the citizens are like slave crewmembers." Just describe what is happening by the correct and most accurate English words that have been widely used for decades to describe the situation and say "Canada uses a fiat currency."
Last edited:
Hebrew = Jeshua / Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."
Greek = Iesous
Latin = Jesus
I think that "pig" in Latin is just sus, and "pig" in Greek is panoli.
FOREVER? You don't say. The Acts of Union in 1707 might have mentioned it.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Not really weird. After all, one poster to this thread should take more water with it.
same here.
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 397
Really? I thought it was a clever way to demonstrate the impotence of organizations like Opus Dei in the modern world. The peanut gallery has more cultural significance and influence then some obscure catholic group. Nevermind the fact you didn't address my previous points in the slightest.
I could use a payraise from the pope, I am a little short on innocent souls lately.
Out of curiousity, do you read a lot of Dan Brown books?
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Remember folks, if you state something and the "freeman" doesn't respond, according to how things work in the "freeman" fantasy, their non-response means that they are in agreement, that what you said is valid, and they are then bound by it.
This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.
This is the how they say their game works when they send their bizarre letters to others, they claim that they are in agreement if they don't respond.
Last edited:
Up until the 2nd edition of the KJV Bible, the name was 'IESUS'. The Latin abbreviation 'IE' means 'That Is' or 'It is'. The 'J' wasn't used in the Latin alphabet until the late 1600s AD. Phonetically, the 'je' = ge or geo, meaning physical earty or earthly material. See geologist, geology.
The Latin word for 'pig, swine, hog = sus. The domestic pig has the biologic name: sus domestica
Your statement is the common ' cover story' to hide the fact that the Red Robed Priesthood of Isis were really behind the early death of Yehsua, in that their students from the Babylonian Captivity, the Pharisees carried out their 'elimination of a man with the poison against their fascist system.
And, you insinuate that 1707 was the end of FOREVER? Interesting!
Last edited:
Never heard of the fellow. Well, if you were to open your eyes and clear the wax from your ears, you might notice that many of the influential politicians in Canada and the USA, as well as in GP, are Knights of Malta. That organization has its own city/state within Rome.
Previous points? Obviously they weren't worthy of an intelligent answer.
I didn't acquiesce to any such thing. Why should I respond to your ignorance or attempted deceit? I do not promote the 'freeman' idea, and never have. 'Freeman' means exactly the same as 'citizen', 'subject' or 'person'- a slave granted privileges by the slave owner, privileges, such as 'due process of law' that can be removed at the slightest suggestion of disobedience to the slave owner's rules. 'Free man' (liber homo) means 'free will man', the proper status of Creator God's Children on Planet Earth. The counter to this status is 'slave status' - under the control of another, as a barge is slave to the tugboat.
What does 'due process mean? From the original Magna Carta that the Pope voided, for this very reason:
20. For a trivial offence, a free man (liber homo) shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (Grand Jury)
24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown. [Note: That was before the Crown became an incorporated body politic.]
38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.
39. No free man (liber homo) shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [Note: The Law of the Land, the abode of mankind, is the negative form of the Golden Rule - Do no harm. Statute law is a form of Maritime Law - Law of the Sea, used in incorporate bodies politic.]
Last edited:
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
How could you be so silly? You thought Eldon was a "freeman" when he's actually a "free man". Can't you see that the space between the two words makes all the difference?
Interesting you should point this out...
From the detax Canada website:
First of all this is obviously not a situation where silence constitutes acquiescence for obvious reasons. That idea only applies to situations where a person had a duty to speak up if they objected to something. There is no general duty to respond to letters, statements, or random internet postings. Those can be ignored.
The actual application of this idea applies in a few different situations. One is in contract law where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between parties where silence has been understood to constitute acceptance then you have a duty to speak up if you want to change this arrangement. The other contract law situation where it could apply is if you are offered something, you have reasonable chance to refuse the offer, but instead you act as though you have accepted and take ownership of the thing being offered. These would be the types of situations where a contract can be acecpted through silence.
Another area where this idea comes up is in the context of the equitable rule of estoppel. This would apply if you could assert some right, you choose not to, another person relies on the fact you have remained silent, and you then try assert your right against them. So for example you walk accross you neighbour's lawn every day on your way to work. He always smiles and waves as you walk by. Over the years the grass becomes ground down. The neighbour then sues you for the damage to his lawn. He could get token damages for that first time you walked accross, but he would be estopped from collecting the ongoing damages because you nveer said anything all those years.
I just explain these concepts to ensure I am not misundrestood. Because I think it should be self evident to most people that the law would apply to allow people to foist letters onto another party such that if they don't respond they have accepted something by silence. This would obviously be ridiculous and would force people to respond to dozens of letters every day just to stay out of unwanted agreements. The idea that someone could be bound to accept something they aren't even aware of on an internet site is even more absurd.
Back to the detax website, the above statement is immediate followed by:
This has been proven incorrect in court. The Canada Revenue Agency also declares this to be false on their website. The author of the site is surely aware of these facts yet continues to assert that "no government department has offered proof of error. I can only conclude that the author of the website is deliberately trying to decieve people because the CRA and several Canadian courts (all of which are government agencies) have offered proof of error. The author of the site is ignoring this fact and deliberately stating false information on his site.
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Could this be used as a basis for a complaint to Industry Canada?
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
No, it's because if they wore white robes the would look like angels, and in Canada's increasing secular society we don't want to make it look like justice is dispensed by angels.
(See? I can make up stuff too!)
Unless you can point to the appropriate section of the Vital Statstics Act (any province's will do), I'd say "no."
Which god? The Babylonians weren't monotheists.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Dammit. Now I regret not sitting for the bar. Being a lawyer is just like getting paid to LARP!
Do you mean to say that CRA has a different version of the Income Tax Act of Canada than the one that is posted on the Internet by the Canadian Government and CANLII?
I find this on the CANLII website: They haven't yet posted the version that shows the amendments after the middle of July, 2010.
Quote:
Liability for Tax
Tax payable by persons resident in Canada
2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year. Unquote
Is it possible that the latest revision to the ITA of Canada has changed 'persons resident in Canada to: 'free will men, male and female, living on the land commonly called Canada'
And, 'persons resident in Canada' ? Would that not mean 'an inanimate 'thing' sitting somewhere, and 'in Canada' means within something, like a vessel, and not ON the land.
[Emphasis by bold and size is mine.]
Last edited:
in English courts, lawyers (barristers) wear black because they went into mourning at the death of (I think) Queen Caroline. and never bothered changing back.
Judges generally, IIRC, wear black, but wear red in certain courts.
If there are children present (Family court) or the weather is exceptonally hot, court dress may be dispensed with.
And yet you provide no response? How do you expect people believe your position when you provide only bare denials and no argument to respond to points others have raise?
That insn't the case. Lawyers have a duty to their client. Their duty to the crown only extends to the fact they have to abide by the laws and abide by the rules of court and the like. It doesn't prevent a lawyer from representing an individual in a dispute against the crown, as countless numbers of lawyer do succesfully all hte time.
No it isn't. I guess anyone can take any colour to represent anything they like, but this was not the reasoning behind wearing black robes at any point in history.
No, this isn't true either. You might be getting the seven years from other laws that allow a court to make a determination that a person is dead if nobody has been in contact with them for seven years and you have reason to think they might be dead. Like for instance if your spouse is missing for seven years you can usually get out of the marriage on this basis. But there is no possible application of the law that works the way you are stating here. No law says so, and it obviously wouldn't make sense if the law did apply as you state.
No. A person who is actually appearing in court would never under any circumstance be considered "legally dead." Also, a person is not a corporation and does not have a corporate name. Corporations are entities created by statute. They are defined in the Business Corporations Act and are seperate from living humans.