• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Detax Canada

EldonG said:
OK, All. Enjoy your slave chains. They all seem to clank in unison.
Click to expand...
Hey Eldon. Why did the court in Guelph go ahead and convict Keith even though he didn't identify himself by his "legal name"?
 
A recent win against the IRS bodes poorly for Canada's CRA. Here is a quote from another forum:

99.99% OF AMERICANS DO *NOT* OWE **ANY** FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

the irs got their asses wiped last month in a large tax case in las vegas. read here ..

Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system. Unquote

You, the trolls posting here, can view the whole sad story at:

portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml
 
D'rok said:
Hey Eldon. Why did the court in Guelph go ahead and convict Keith even though he didn't identify himself by his "legal name"?
Click to expand...

Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?
 
Horatius said:
So, maybe you can clear something up for me - how is any of this different from them just lying about their income? Is anyone really surprised that someone with a declared income of $3500 had no tax owing?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could further explain for all here what you mean by: "about their income" ??

What is "income" ??

A man exchanging his labour for what is supposed to represent money, the Canadian Monopoly money, is an exchange. There is no gain or increase to the working man. One of the very few court cases one can find was a 1921 US Court case, where 'income' was defined as a gain or profit of a corporation. Nowhere does any Statute say that 'income' is a free man's wages. I would cite a Canadian court case - if one could be found defining 'income' as being a man's wages.

Queen Victoria certainly didn't think it was income subject to taxation in 1870. (An Act to abolish Attachment of Wages: {14th July 1870} )
 
EldonG said:
Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?
Click to expand...

Can I get one of those? It would go really well with my mace and my leather helmet.

Just to remind you, you said this:
The only way a court and a judge can gain authority over a man is to directly or deceptively have the man 'identify' himself by the 'legal name' as found on a birth certificate, where the family name has been converted into a primary or sur name. Until they have accomplished that, they cannot proceed.
Click to expand...
Which was clearly proven false by one of your own disciples. Well done.
 
arayder said:
For the millionth time, Eldon, there is a difference between the sort of incorporation a city or a nation does when it forms itself and the sort of incorporation a public or private business does.
Click to expand...

For the million and one time, Jack. You have absolutely no proof for that statement. A presumed authority would be Lord Blackstone, in his Commentaries: "artificial persons are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

My point has always been that an artificial person, whether it be body corporate or body politic, is an artificial construct patterned after, and administered exactly the same as a 'ship at sea'. It matters not, for the purposes of my website as to whether one has a different purpose than the other. The articles of incorporation sort out that detail.


arayder said:
In Canada when a city forms, that is a crown corporation and the city has the authority to make and enforce law.
Click to expand...

Against whom? Every statute of an incorporated body politic that I have ever see make laws applicable to 'person's' - members of, or property of, the body politic making such laws.

arayder said:
A public company or corporation is developed by investors under the rules of Canada’s security exchange commission. A private corporation is a business established by a person's with no public offering to join as investors.
Click to expand...

So? What does that have to do with having the fruits of a man's labour extorted from him by agents of the Crown by him being assumed to be an owned slave of the corporate Crown?

arayder said:
Again, you are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to make it seem that cities are the same as public or private businesses.
Click to expand...

And, you have been shown to be a liar countless times, Jack.

arayder said:
You have been corrected on this point countless times!
Click to expand...

And, your countless 'corrections' have always been lies, coupled with innuendo, slander, ad hominum attacks, defamation of character.

Do not use insults and personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EldonG said:
A recent win against the IRS bodes poorly for Canada's CRA. Here is a quote from another forum:

99.99% OF AMERICANS DO *NOT* OWE **ANY** FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

the irs got their asses wiped last month in a large tax case in las vegas. read here ..

Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system. Unquote

You, the trolls posting here, can view the whole sad story at:

portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml
Click to expand...
It's a conspiracy!

Actually, it seems as if the trial is ongoing. Or, rather a new one is ongoing. Here's a bit of background from one of Kahre's denied motions in the new trial.

United States v. Kahre said:
On April 5, 2005, the United States filed two indictments against Robert Kahre, various family members, and other associates of his businesses, initiating the instant criminal case. The defendants were charged with numerous counts of Willful Failure to Collect/Pay Over Tax, Conspiracy to Attempt to Evade [*2] or Defeat Tax, Attempt to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Law, and Wire Fraud. The case went to trial in May 2007 and, on September 17, 2007, the jury returned no verdict as to any counts against defendants Robert Kahre, Lori Kahre, and Alexander Loglia. See Minutes of Proceedings (# 1626).


Subsequently, on November 20, 2007, the United States filed a Third Superseding Criminal Indictment, charging the defendants with 79 criminal counts (59 as to Robert Kahre), including Conspiracy to Defraud, False Statement to a Bank, Wire Fraud, Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax, Willful Failure to Collect or Pay Over Tax, Filing a False U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Attempts to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws. See Third Superseding Indictment (# 1671).
Click to expand...


Some interesting opinions on some of Kahre's arguments are in there too. Here's the decision on the motion:
 

Attachments

Last edited:
EldonG said:
Maybe you could further explain for all here what you mean by: "about their income" ??

What is "income" ??

A man exchanging his labour for what is supposed to represent money, the Canadian Monopoly money, is an exchange. There is no gain or increase to the working man. One of the very few court cases one can find was a 1921 US Court case, where 'income' was defined as a gain or profit of a corporation. Nowhere does any Statute say that 'income' is a free man's wages. I would cite a Canadian court case - if one could be found defining 'income' as being a man's wages.

Queen Victoria certainly didn't think it was income subject to taxation in 1870. (An Act to abolish Attachment of Wages: {14th July 1870} )
Click to expand...



So it's not just lying about your income, it's also equivocating about the definition of the word "income". Gotcha!
 
Horatius said:
So it's not just lying about your income, it's also equivocating about the definition of the word "income". Gotcha!
Click to expand...

Indeed. "When in doubt, redefine the word doubt" appears to be Eldon's credo.

Eldon, I mean this with the most respect--frankly IMO your arguments are ridiculous. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but it had to be said.
 
twinstead said:
Indeed. "When in doubt, redefine the word doubt" appears to be Eldon's credo.

Eldon, I mean this with the most respect--frankly IMO your arguments are ridiculous. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but it had to be said.
Click to expand...
And don't forget to splash around lots of irrelevent verbiage.........
 
Does EldonG refer to everyone as "Jack," or is he trying to identify the poster 'arayder' as such?
 
exsqueeze me?

EldonG said:
Are you accusing Keith Thompson for his attempt at defending his rightful free will 'God Given' status? Or, are you accusing the black robed thug who ignored the true law of the land, the jerk dressed in his cannibal robe smoked black from the sacrifice of human flesh?
Click to expand...
:woowoo

:what:
 
arayder 1) For the millionth time, Eldon, there is a difference between the sort of incorporation a city or a nation does when it forms itself and the sort of incorporation a public or private business does.

Eldon 1) For the million and one time, Jack. You have absolutely no proof for that statement.

arayder 2) That an embarrassing statement for you to make. Do you mean to say that you have not read enough Canadian law to understand that nations, public companies and private corporations have different authority?

Eldon 1) A presumed authority would be Lord Blackstone, in his Commentaries: "artificial persons are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

arayder2) I am not arguing that nations, public companies and private corporations are not created by men and women gathered in societies, or that they are not artificial. The question is what authority each has. You have side stepped that point because you want to use the only logical fallacy you seem to understand. . .the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Your ploy is that you want the reader to believe that that the artificial entities created by the law are the same in every way because they are all artificial.. . .the same way you want us to believe that nations, public companies and private corporations are the same in every way because they have incorporated.

Let’s show the reader how you use the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
The fallacy goes like this: All students carry backpacks. My grandfather is a student. Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack.

You say that participation in private corporations is voluntary. Nations are incorporated. Therefore, participation in nations is voluntary and one may ignore the law if one chooses.

But your fallacy falls apart when we see that democratic nations are empowered by the people to make and enforce binding law that applies to all people in their geographic area.

You are busted, Eldon.

Eldon 1) My point has always been that an artificial person, whether it be body corporate or body politic, is an artificial construct patterned after, and administered exactly the same as a 'ship at sea'. It matters not, for the purposes of my website as to whether one has a different purpose than the other. The articles of incorporation sort out that detail.

arayder 2)Well, Eldon, all you did was to repeat the logical same fallacy. You say nations, public and private corporations (and now laughingly ships at sea) are all the same because they have been incorporated. Then you turn around and say they have differences. . .but infer that those differences don’t count.
But the differences do count. Nations may make and enforce binding law.

arayder 1)In Canada when a city forms, that is a crown corporation and the city has the authority to make and enforce law.

Eldon 1) Against whom? Every statute of an incorporated body politic that I have ever see make laws applicable to 'person's' - members of, or property of, the body politic making such laws.

arayder 2) Who? You! Nations and cities have the authority to make bind law that applies to all people in their geographic area. And you know it’s true because you pay your property taxes.

arayder 1) A public company or corporation is developed by investors under the rules of Canada’s security exchange commission. A private corporation is a business established by a person's with no public offering to join as investors.

Eldon 1) So? What does that have to do with having the fruits of a man's labour extorted from him by agents of the Crown by him being assumed to be an owned slave of the corporate Crown?

arayder 2) What does it have to do with? It shows that nations, public companies and private corporations have different members, are formed differently and different authority.

That’s a complete refutation of your theory.

arayder 1)Again, you are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to make it seem that cities are the same as public or private businesses.

Eldon 1) And, you have been shown to be a liar countless times, Jack.

arayder 2) I’d watch that talk if I was you, old son. ;-)

arayder 1) You have been corrected on this point countless times!

Eldon 1) And, your countless 'corrections' have always been lies, coupled with innuendo, slander, ad hominum attacks, defamation of character.

arayder 2) Now, what did I just say?
 
carlitos said:
Does EldonG refer to everyone as "Jack," or is he trying to identify the poster 'arayder' as such?
Click to expand...

Eldon thinks I am some guy named Jack Foster. How he got that notion I don’t know. I don’t really care, except that the claim might open all the Jack Fosters of the world to the petty harassments of his detax cult.
 
arayder said:
Let’s show the reader how you use the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The fallacy goes like this: All students carry backpacks. My grandfather is a student. Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack.
Click to expand...
That's not fallacious. This is:

All students carry backpacks
My grandfather carries a backpack
Therefore, my grandfather is a student
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom