Detax Canada

[arayder]

If you go to Warman's website you can see that he is advising visitors who come from this forum to disregard the posts refuting him here.

I guess we made an impression on the old boy. He rarely uses his web site to cover his rear after he gets it kicked.

Lately our subject has been looking for friendlier confines and is hanging out here: http://freemenofaustralia.ning.com/forum/topics/the-great-fire-of-london-1666?xg_source=activity

 

[Andy_Ross]

I saw an excellent PHd thesis that pointed out that to date the Spanish have not recovered from the disaster of receiving tons of gold and silver and spending it - oddly enough much of the money flowed into the pockets of the English, Dutch and French - who used it to create their own colonial empires and beat the 'stuff' out of the Spaniards. The inflation of that period was well over 300%. In a brief search I couldn't find a good graph of the inflation from the 1540 to today - any finance people have that?

BBC Radio4 have been running a series in conjunction with the British Museum. 'History of the World in a Hundred Objects'
One prog about each object. One of them was a 'Piece of Eight' made from Aztek Silver. It went into the 'Spanish Inflation' and how it bankrupt the Empire.

 

[Tolls]

I saw an excellent PHd thesis that pointed out that to date the Spanish have not recovered from the disaster of receiving tons of gold and silver and spending it - oddly enough much of the money flowed into the pockets of the English, Dutch and French - who used it to create their own colonial empires and beat the 'stuff' out of the Spaniards. The inflation of that period was well over 300%. In a brief search I couldn't find a good graph of the inflation from the 1540 to today - any finance people have that?

Fernand Braudel's big 3 volume work (Civilisation and Capitalism), covering the 15th through 18th centuries, has several graphs in it, showing the effects of inflation. Sadly they're in the roof, but it might give you something to Google for.

 

[EldonG]

What is a 'person'?

All Acts, statutes, laws, rules and regulations from any level of Government apply ONLY to 'persons'. You have seen a lot of poo-pooing by the participants on this thread against any interpretation of the term 'person' other than it being a synonym for someone of the human species, and without regard to status of the man or woman involved.

Well, here is an interesting court cite from a British Columbia court case (Appeal Court, I believe):

"In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application.

Where an artificial 'person' is "subject to legal rights and duties", a 'natural person' is a man with the capacity for rights and duties, a fundamental distinction of great importance.

Capacity = the power to effect legal relations, or the power of choice, and that power of course being in YOU. Succinctly put, you have the power to decide to accept rights and duties of the ITA (or any other legislated statute) or not. Once you do accept, then you are bound by them, until you cancel them. Any claim against you that you cannot cancel when you find evidence that such a claim is fraudulent or not fully disclosed as to the authority or the right of the claimant, then becomes a declaration of the imposition of slave status upon you, or, a denial of contractual rights. It is also a fundamental breach of the Coronation Oath of the Queen.

My note: In my www.detaxcanada.org detax program, I have refrained from the practice of referring to oneself as a 'natural person', because it still causes the imposition of the relationship to the corporate structure of government, as either a subject member of the corporation or an owned slave of that corporate structure, and thus, leaving you without rights, including the right of 'due process of law.'

 

[bikerdruid]

eldon! where ya been?

 

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by EldonG

The only thing that could inflate prices in a metal based economy is a scarcity of some specific goods, causing an auction effect. The hoarding of gold by the Vatican's banksters caused the 1929 depression, as previous depressions in the late 1800s. It was a contrived shortage of gold that caused the depression, and not a result of the free market. When there is a shortage of some product, and the price in metal money goes up, increased production of the product then brings the price back in line with production costs and a reasonable profit for the manufacturer.

You do know this is nonsense don't you? This was shown to be a lie at least two years ago.

It was?? Please offer some proof? A link, maybe? Also, it would be enlightening to all to hear about your expertise on the matter, since you so harshly judged my views on the value of a metal based money system?

 

[EldonG]

eldon! where ya been?

Freezing my ass off in Calgary, and shoveling snow. So much for Global warming.

 

[EldonG]

That particular scam is coming apart http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Pr...ok+gold+mine+million+limbo/3366014/story.html

The view of the scammer depends on which side of the fence one stands.

Bye the way, now that Ireland has been sold out to the Banksters, and will be put under IMF 'conditionalities', are we going to see another 'potato famine' in Ireland and a horde of Irishmen paddling their dingys across the Atlantic to enjoy the largesse of the Canadian Government? You could even become a Newfie!

 

[EldonG]

Fernand Braudel's big 3 volume work (Civilisation and Capitalism), covering the 15th through 18th centuries, has several graphs in it, showing the effects of inflation. Sadly they're in the roof, but it might give you something to Google for.

Aren't you aware that there are: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

[EldonG]

Response to arayder's post

If you go to Warman's website you can see that he is advising visitors who come from this forum to disregard the posts refuting him here.

I guess we made an impression on the old boy. He rarely uses his web site to cover his rear after he gets it kicked.

Lately our subject has been looking for friendlier confines and is hanging out here: http://freemenofaustralia.ning.com/forum/topics/the-great-fire-of-london-1666?xg_source=activity

All the supposed 'ass kicking' you claim against me on the various forums you troll seeking me out hasn't hurt the response I get from my website by both Canadians, and Americans, as well as the many repeated hits from England, Australia and France. So, your supposed 'ass kicking' has been totally a wasted effort.

And, since I am not supporting or maintaining my website, and providing for those who request help and info as a commercial venture, all publicity that I get is 'GOOD Publicity'. I only seek out those smart enough to see through what you, (and the posters on this thread) are attempting to do in support of the enslavement program, and, extortion racket, and thus, understand that I am a target of attack 'for good reason' - that my program works. www.detaxcanada.org If my detax program is useless, I would get no attention. If my program was causing people to be further entrapped into the CRA and IRS extortion racket, then, I would get nothing but support on this, and other forum thread where you so rapidly find my posts, by your Megaphone alerting program.

 

[Hans]

So tell us then - what caused the inflation in Spain during that time if it wasn't the large amounts of gold and silver coming from the Americas...do tell

 

[Tolls]

Aren't you aware that there are: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Hey, if you're going to ignore the work of one of the great historians of the last century and choose to remain ignorant of the history of capitalism then that's your choice...but don't expect us to take you seriously.

 

[D'rok]

All Acts, statutes, laws, rules and regulations from any level of Government apply ONLY to 'persons'. You have seen a lot of poo-pooing by the participants on this thread against any interpretation of the term 'person' other than it being a synonym for someone of the human species, and without regard to status of the man or woman involved.

Well, here is an interesting court cite from a British Columbia court case (Appeal Court, I believe):

"In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Sigh. The case is from the BC Supreme Court (which is the BC trial court), not the Court of Appeal. The issue to which the passage refers is whether or not the defendants were properly served. The defendants, (the union and two of its locals), tried to argue misjoinder and that they were not persons capable of being sued:

"...[t]he respective defendants are organizations of workers and not an entity or person of any kind which can be sued in the name of the organization"

The court found that the parent union was not a jurisitic person, but that the two locals were:

"...t has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159, that trade unions certified as bargaining agents under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic persons. The two remaining defendants are such...The Legislature has created a new type of juristic person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is good service."

On appeal, the BCCA found that the law had been misapplied and that both the parent union and the locals were juristic persons and were capable of being sued:

"The matter of the status of a union as a legal entity, either at large or limited in purpose, depends upon the recognition and definition by the Legislature of its capacity...I therefore hold that the international union is created a persona juridica by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1947, for the purpose of implementing that Act and for causes of action that may possibly be founded directly upon its provisions or a breach thereof."

In short, the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.

As usual, you get it completely wrong. All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

My note: In my www.detaxcanada.org detax program, I have refrained from the practice of referring to oneself as a 'natural person', because it still causes the imposition of the relationship to the corporate structure of government, as either a subject member of the corporation or an owned slave of that corporate structure, and thus, leaving you without rights, including the right of 'due process of law.'

You can call yourself whatever you want, but you are still a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. As has been proven over and over with multiple citations to multiple cases, all of which are directly on point and all of which are more recent than 1948.

(Both cases cited above are attached)

 

[Horatius]

In short, the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.

I think this bit needs to be highlighted. Once again, EldonG is engaging in equivocation - the judge was discussing the definition of "juristic persons", not the more general term "persons".

This is one of the loopholes that fraudsters like to use - court decisions like this usually only discuss the very narrow circumstances of the case that is before them. The judge had no intention of discussing the more general definition of "person", and had no reason to suppose that 60 years later, someone would be mis-quoting him to support an absurd position like "human beings aren't persons".



And in a more general sense, I'd like to highlight a passage from later in the paragraph EldonG quoted:

16 As to this argument, it has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry
Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159, that trade unions certified as bargaining agents
under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic
persons. The two remaining defendants are such. It has also been there held that they can be served
as such. The substantial question is then only as to the method to be followed in serving them. In
common speech "person" is generally used as meaning a human being but the technical legal
meaning of a "person," as is evident from the reasoning of that judgment is a subject of legal rights
and duties. The usual form of juristic person, at common law, was a corporation, i.e., corporations
aggregate or sole. Before the provisions now contained in our Rules were adopted, at common law,
the method of serving a writ on a corporation aggregate was to serve it on a proper officer so that it
came to the knowledge of the corporation. The object of service was to bring the writ to the notice
of the corporation. The provisions contained in our Rules (e.g. Rule Marginal No. 55, O. IX, rr. 8
and 8A) are, I think, supplemental to and not in derogation of the methods of service available at
common law. While these Rules do not provide for service on juristic persons, and while in fact the
Rules make no such provision, O. 71, r. 2 does provide that in cases not provided for by the Rules
the practice shall, as far as may be, be regulated by analogy thereto. One recalls the words of the
late Chief Justice Hunter in Bell v. Wood & Anderson, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 827 at p. 829, 38 B.C.R. 310
at p. 311, "that the Court has a discretion to make any order about a matter of procedure, which it
considers the circumstances require, when the rules are silent on the subject... The rules are made to
promote justice and not to impede it or to render the Court powerless to prevent injustice and it
would of course be impossible for any set of rules, however elaborate, to cover every conceivable
case". Here we are dealing with a new situation. The Legislature has created a new type of juristic
person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons
known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most
effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is
good service.

One of the common complaints that people like EldonG make is that the law doesn't define every single piddly little option that they wish to weasel around with. But everybody else recognizes that it is impossible for the law to specify every single possibility that might ever occur - and so we empower judges to make - get this! - judgements in those cases that are not explicitly enumerated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't worry there will be plenty of gold for all when the Iranians start to flood the market with their radioactive gold to bust the Zionist Bankers...

Oops sorry, wrong woo in the wrong woo thread.

They are all so mad it gets confusing sometimes.

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?

I like a Zionist banker conspiracy but then, I also like a Vatican banker conspiracy, which one is best?

Only one way to find out ...

Fight?

 

[Horatius]

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?

No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis who just pretend to be every other religion since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.



Or something.

 

[TjW]

No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis who just pretend to be every other religion since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.



Or something.

Then let us bow and worship Isis
She helps us in a crisis
And she's never raised her prices
So she's good enough for me.

 

[EldonG]

So tell us then - what caused the inflation in Spain during that time if it wasn't the large amounts of gold and silver coming from the Americas...do tell

I suppose the answer would lie in economics, where, at the time, Spain wasn't exactly a powerhouse of technology or industrial output, and many of the industrial and medical uses of gold didn't make a basis of value support for gold. Thus, the rule of too much money available for too few goods. But, that has all changed in this modern world , where there is a myriad of valuable uses of gold beyond the making of jewelery.

But, as can be seen by what the US FED is now doing - flooding the world with computer numbers or some paper with numbers on it. This is primarily a tax where the savings of the earlier generation get watered down like cheap soup, and the labor expended by that generation to get those fiat dollars goes into nothingness like steam from a vented boiler. I remember in the 1950's a retired man with $100,000 in the bank was very adequate to give him a decent style of living for the remainder of his life without a Government pension. Now, that will little more than purchase a car that does very little more than a 54 Chevvy that cost maybe $1500.00 new.

Other than an anomaly that was Spain in their plundering the gold of the Amerinds, creating a surplus of gold and silver, in most cases, such as America, the gold based money system was very stable in purchasing power during its entire period of usage, except when the Rothschild and associated banksters were able to hoard the supply and then refuse to print the IOUs that make the currency in such a metal based system - the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s.

The fiat money system is strictly a tool to control the population, who have been converted into plantation slaves, under the policy of the Pontiff's Holy Roman Empire. If you don't learn from the mistakes and evil schemes of history that has been imposed upon mankind, then, you are doomed to repeat it - is sound wisdom.

 

[EldonG]

Sigh. The case is from the BC Supreme Court (which is the BC trial court), not the Court of Appeal. The issue to which the passage refers is whether or not the defendants were properly served. The defendants, (the union and two of its locals), tried to argue misjoinder and that they were not persons capable of being sued:

"...[t]he respective defendants are organizations of workers and not an entity or person of any kind which can be sued in the name of the organization"

The court found that the parent union was not a jurisitic person, but that the two locals were:

"...t has been held in Re Patterson and Nanaimo Dry Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union, Local No. 1, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 159, that trade unions certified as bargaining agents under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act are personae juridicae, otherwise juristic persons. The two remaining defendants are such...The Legislature has created a new type of juristic person and I think that service analogous to that established at common law for the juristic persons known to it should be good service. All the facts here show that service was made in the way most effective in bringing notice immediately to the attention of the defendants and I would rule that it is good service."

On appeal, the BCCA found that the law had been misapplied and that both the parent union and the locals were juristic persons and were capable of being sued:

"The matter of the status of a union as a legal entity, either at large or limited in purpose, depends upon the recognition and definition by the Legislature of its capacity...I therefore hold that the international union is created a persona juridica by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1947, for the purpose of implementing that Act and for causes of action that may possibly be founded directly upon its provisions or a breach thereof."

In short, the issue was not whether a human being could be a juristic person, but whether a union could be a jurisitic person. It was found that if the legislature enacts a law that says unions are juristic persons, then they are juristic persons.

As usual, you get it completely wrong. All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

Obviously, you are 'cherry picking' from my post, of only that which supports your opinion on the matter.

""In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application."

By reading the parts that concern a human who is claimed by Government to be a 'taxpayer' , that claim is made upon 'legal' procedure of legislative enacted LAW, and does not use 'common or colloquial usage of terms' as invariably, such common usage is vague, at best.

Now, lets see you find in any Act, Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation the definition of 'person wherein a man (male or female) is specifically named. Individual what? They want us to assume they mean man or woman by using 'individual', but they never say so anywhere. What is Government's 'distinct meaning' of the term person in their 'LAW' system?

You can call yourself whatever you want, but you are still a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. As has been proven over and over with multiple citations to multiple cases, all of which are directly on point and all of which are more recent than 1948.

(Both cases cited above are attached)

If so, where in the Income Tax Act is that stated. Section 248 certainly doesn't define a man or woman of free will status as being a 'person' subject to the income tax.

I know you would like to impress readers that 'it is in there somewhere', but, it seems strange that with many people using my $0.00 tax owing filing method, or not filing at all based upon Section 150 where it says 'no return is required if no tax is owed', (US Title 26 says the same thing), there has not been one man or woman that I have heard of who have been summoned to court for failing to file or filing a frivolous return, although CRA has been trying other extortion methods on a few, they have been futile, unless they could convince others to violate their trust - an act which the violated party could use serious force for remedy, as there is no recourse through the corporate justice system to enforce trust laws within their CCC Statute. Many of those who commit breach of trust are fortunate that Canadians are more docile than many of the people of this world. I guess a diet of fluoride and MSG will do that to people. And, isn't that what those additives are all about?

 

[EldonG]

I think this bit needs to be highlighted. Once again, EldonG is engaging in equivocation - the judge was discussing the definition of "juristic persons", not the more general term "persons".

This is one of the loopholes that fraudsters like to use - court decisions like this usually only discuss the very narrow circumstances of the case that is before them. The judge had no intention of discussing the more general definition of "person", and had no reason to suppose that 60 years later, someone would be mis-quoting him to support an absurd position like "human beings aren't persons".

'Human Beings' (not logically defined in any law dictionary) may be 'commonly' referred to as 'persons', but why is that used, when it originally meant a 'fictional role'. What is there about men and women that is fictional so as to apply a term that means 'fictional role'? And, in statutory law, there is no other applicably stated subject party in any statute that is other than 'person'. If it has at least 4 exclusive meanings, as stated by Dowdall J. KC (King's Council), then why does Government (Men in council) created Statutes not define which meaning of the term is to be construed in its usage? It would seem a simple and problem saving solution to what now is completely vague, except, of course, to those who wish to see and to maintain mankind in the status of subject/slavery to Government.

And in a more general sense, I'd like to highlight a passage from later in the paragraph EldonG quoted:

One of the common complaints that people like EldonG make is that the law doesn't define every single piddly little option that they wish to weasel around with. But everybody else recognizes that it is impossible for the law to specify every single possibility that might ever occur - and so we empower judges to make - get this! - judgements in those cases that are not explicitly enumerated.

It seems strange that Government is created and manned by men, who obviously wish to apply their statutes to men, that they would consider it 'piddly' to mention 'men and women' in their supposed LAW which are in the form of corporate statutes, rather than use a vague term that means, and is derived from a Latin term meaning a 'fictional role' (persona). If men and women are not important enough to warrant a direct recognition, why are men and women the main participants in a courthouse? I haven't seen a corporation walk into a courthouse yet. I would say that your reasoning leaves much to be desired.