Detax Canada

[EldonG]

Eldon's entire mythology revolves around the idea that

(1) Governments are secretly corporations
AND
(2) That being a corporation MUST MEAN that the policies set forth by it only applies to its own employees.

The problem is that this presupposition is, as has been pointed out by multiple times now, a myth. The reality is that:

(1) Governments are sovereign organizations that routinely and openly form corporations in order to more efficiently carry out their day-to-day operations
AND
(2) These subsidiary corporations exist in conjunction with the government as a sovereign entity whose laws apply to everyone whether they like it or not.

Lets have some documentation to prove I am wrong and you are right. Just saying such by an anonymous poster proves nothing. I already posted numerous court cases and law dictionary definitions proving that your statement is a falsehood.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Regarding the "person v human" argument mentioned previously in this thread, this has been posted on Icke's website:

have you ever heard of Jacques-Antoine: Normandin and his winning case in the Quebec courts, which basically openly admitted and most importantly recognized, the difference between a "PERSON" and a "human being" ?

This is the guy : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11478727898

I've heard his presence in court where the judge validated the FMOTL concept. I can attest to this being real !!

Does anybody have any info on this Canadian court case?

 

[D'rok]

Regarding the "person v human" argument mentioned previously in this thread, this has been posted on Icke's website:

Does anybody have any info on this Canadian court case?

A quick search doesn't reveal very much. I don't have time for a thorough search today. Here's the only case that a quick search reveals:

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2010/2010qccs2146/2010qccs2146.html

My french is terrible, but it appears that in this case, Mr. Normandin tried to intervene by submitting some documents in a dispute about an employment contract. Or maybe the plaintiff tried to submit documents prepared by Normandin. I'm not totally sure. (Normandin was not party to to the dispute. Probably, he was just a friend of the plaintiff and was trying to "help" him with some FOTL submissions). Normandin tried the "I am not a person" thing. The judge rejected the submissions because Normandin was not a proper lawyer and because they had no legal value.

À la suite de l'audience du 1er avril 2010, de multiples télécopies et «procédures» ont été signifiées aux juges de la Cour supérieure du district de Saint-François, à Me Marc Bellemare, au Barreau du Québec, etc. Ces «procédures» ne sont pas signées par un avocat mais par les représentants de la défenderesse et par une « créature humaine de Dieu témoin à décharge », Jacques-Antoine Normandin. Ce dernier, qui n'est pas avocat, est l'auteur du document intitulé « requête du défendeur pour interdiction de plaider art. 183 C.p.c. ».

En conséquence, ces documents n'ont aucune valeur juridique et sont ignorés.

It's important to note that Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction - i.e., no common law in Quebec. (Neither actual common law nor the imaginary FOTL kind). Still, I'm certain that personhood works the same way in civil law.

 

[D'rok]

It's important to note that Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction - i.e., no common law in Quebec. (Neither actual common law nor the imaginary FOTL kind). Still, I'm certain that personhood works the same way in civil law.

Just a follow-up to this.

Any case in Federal Court about the Income Tax Act and persons applies to Quebec too. So, all the Federal Court detax cases that emphatically dismantle the person/human argument apply.

 

[D'rok]

More from Normandin.

Here's a good one. Looks like he tried to get himself declared a natural person (in the FOTL sense - i.e., not subject to the laws of Canada or Quebec) by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The answer? A big fat no. Although, it would have been nice if the tribunal had dismantled the arguments rather than just saying "bugger off we don't deal with this kind of crap".

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/doc/2000/2000canlii11/2000canlii11.html

 

[D'rok]

Still more from Normandin.

Here's one where he gets smacked down by the Quebec Court for submitting incomprehensible documents with no chance of success. Basically, he was unable to show a coherent cause of action, whatever it was he was trying to do.

Le document déposé devant la Cour du Québec, chambre civile, par les demandeurs est totalement informe et ne rencontre aucun des critères procéduraux établis à l'article 76.

[4] De plus, la procédure est incompréhensible et ne contient aucun allégué pouvant donner ouverture aux conclusions recherchées, lesquelles d'ailleurs ne sont aucunement fondées en droit.
[5] Il est manifeste et évident que la procédure instituée par les demandeurs n'a aucune chance de succès.


http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2003/2003canlii54397/2003canlii54397.html

I think it's safe to say that Mr. Normandin has never experienced any success in his FOTL litigation.

 

[Stacey Grove]

More from Normandin.

Here's a good one. Looks like he tried to get himself declared a natural person (in the FOTL sense - i.e., not subject to the laws of Canada or Quebec) by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The answer? A big fat no. Although, it would have been nice if the tribunal had dismantled the arguments rather than just saying "bugger off we don't deal with this kind of crap".

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/doc/2000/2000canlii11/2000canlii11.html

Thanks for that.
The poster at Icke's site although unable to provide details of the case now claims that Normandin no longer pays taxes or has a driving licence. Apparently he has removed himself from the system totally:

No unfortunately I don't have a link. I have listened to the live audio in French of the hearing in court back in late 2008 and yesterday tried looking for it on the web but couldn't find it.

I can assure you that the result was affirmative in regards to the concept being thrown around here. It is not fantasy but reality. The thing is that in order to properly apply the free man rights, Mr. Normandin needed to completely get out of the system.

He has no more drivers' license, pays no more income taxes, no more medicare card, no passport and cannot open any bank accounts, get loans, etc...

I think the problem with many people looking into the basic FMOTL concept is people thinking they can just stay in the system, then pick & choose what they wish to go along with in terms of acts and statutes. I believe such a task isn't realistic as people need to make clear choices as to staying within the statutes and acts system or being completely out of it and assuming a complete "human being" status. Bouncing around between the two is the primary reason that makes people fail in courts.
Most people also don't don't know how to talk or act once in a court or in their dealings with the government and judicial system in general. Details are essential and make the difference between breaking laws within "Admiralty Law" or living free under the basic "Law of the Land".

In his court hearing Mr. Normandin was continuously backing up his position with factual laws in existence. The man basically looked like he knew by heart every single law written through time. He just logically breaked down his position backed by proof of law, throughout his hearing. This isn't hearsay, it was taped and I heard it all !!! If I could find it, I would post it again ASAP...

 

[D'rok]

Thanks for that.
The poster at Icke's site although unable to provide details of the case...

But of course

..now claims that Normandin no longer pays taxes or has a driving licence. Apparently he has removed himself from the system totally:

With no evidence of this forthcoming, naturally.

Here's another good Quebec Court smackdown of some attempted action by Normandin:

le document est illogique, incompréhensible et ne contient aucun allégué pouvant donné ouverture aux conclusions

la soussignée est d'opinion que la présente procédure n'a aucune chance de succès;

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2004/2004canlii25065/2004canlii25065.html

I guess this claim by the Icke numpty...

In his court hearing Mr. Normandin was continuously backing up his position with factual laws in existence. The man basically looked like he knew by heart every single law written through time.

...is just a wee bit incorrect.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I guess this claim by the Icke numpty...


...is just a wee bit incorrect.

Bless 'em.
FOTL maxim: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[arayder]

Lets have some documentation to prove I am wrong and you are right. Just saying such by an anonymous poster proves nothing. I already posted numerous court cases and law dictionary definitions proving that your statement is a falsehood.

How about the court's rejection of your "name game" argument when made by Misters Hardy and Hanna? Arguments made, I must point out, exactly as you directed.

Please don't bother to tell us again that they didn't file using your method. The point is they offered your theory in open court and the rejection of your theory sets precedent.

 

[EldonG]

How about the court's rejection of your "name game" argument when made by Misters Hardy and Hanna? Arguments made, I must point out, exactly as you directed.

Please don't bother to tell us again that they didn't file using your method. The point is they offered your theory in open court and the rejection of your theory sets precedent.

How about you proving that they used my name game defense? And show me proof that, if they did, they still accepted or acknowledged something that the judge said that kept them in the slave status in the mind of the judge. Neither one of these was using my filing method of a $0.00 tax owing T1 return of income. They were just not filing, and didn't know the proper excuse for not filing - Section 150 (1) Exceptions.

Since you were so interested in their welfare, why didn't you offer them some suggestions how not to be ruled over as a slave by a judge? Of course, you wouldn't as you are promoting such slave upon the people and the extortion of the fruits of their labor.

 

[EldonG]

Just a follow-up to this.

Any case in Federal Court about the Income Tax Act and persons applies to Quebec too. So, all the Federal Court detax cases that emphatically dismantle the person/human argument apply.

I definitely show in the info on my website, and my template documents, that the issue is not between the definition of 'person' and 'human' or 'human being'.

A human slave is a human. The scheme is that of status, and not a definition of those two terms. Living mankind can have only one of 2 statuses - free will or slave.

Deriving the meaning of 'person' from etymology, the source was/is the Latin term, 'persona', meaning the role an actor plays - a fiction. In Roman times, the all male actors of stage plays wore a mask that helped amplify speech, and thus, the mask represented the fictional role being played. Thus, a 'person' is a fictional character made up of a fiction name where the family name has been converted into a primary name - as is so directly illustrated in a 'nom de guerre'/war name, and a human attached to that name as an accessory. An accessory attached to another's property becomes the property of the owner of the property attached. An owned man, human, is a slave of the owner. A family name as a primary name is pure fiction, as a family name is merely a referential name for the given names.

The only law dictionary that defines 'human being' is older versions of Ballentyne's Law Dictionary where all the definition given is: "See MONSTER'. When one then goes to MONSTER in that same dictionary we find: "a human being with attributes of a lower animal" - purely circular logic.

Now, I know I have used words here that are much to big for most of the posters on this forum; however, you can GOOGLE any words longer than two letters, if you get lost.

 

[JLord]

The only law dictionary that defines 'human being' is older versions of Ballentyne's Law Dictionary where all the definition given is: "See MONSTER'. When one then goes to MONSTER in that same dictionary we find: "a human being with attributes of a lower animal" - purely circular logic.

Black's Law Dictionary:

person (13c) 1. A human being

 

[arayder]

How about you proving that they [Hardy and Hanna] used my name game defense? .

What a disingenuous response!

You know very well that you bragged on can.taxes about how these two were going to beat the rap using your method. It turns out they didn't beat the rap!

You very well that Hanna's "name game" / detax paper work, which he cut and pasted directly from your website, was all over the Canadian news and was posted at can.taxes.

You saw those posts and we all know it!

Shame on you Eldon.

Shame, Shame, Shame!

 

[EldonG]

Black's Law Dictionary: person (13c) 1. A human being

Very well! And, I suppose there are moose beings, dog beings, cat beings?

What purpose does the word 'being' serve making 'human' an adjective, instead of the fully self explanatory noun that the word 'human' is?

Here is a more detailed exposition of 'Human Being: Quote:

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-difinitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: 'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines." And, "' secularism' n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the *English Language, 1928. 'humanitarian' is defined: n. 'a philanthropist: an anti Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist.: From the above Random House Dictionary, "humanitarianism' is defined: n. 'the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.'

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines 'Person' as, 1."a human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank, N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610A.2d652,654) it states, "For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or juristic person".

So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institututes:... "we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons; for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations,"... (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, " 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate." From the same Dictionary, page 1461, " 'unregenerate' 1. not regenerate; unrepentant. 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked; sinful; dissolute. 5. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as: 'a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world, and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.' and 'naturalist' is defined as: 'One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.'

And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at: 1 Corinthians 3:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a 'human being', they are saying, "I'm an animal; I'm non-religious; I'm unrepentant: I'm wicked, sinful and dissolute; I'm able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I'm subject to man's law, rather than God's Law." Unquote

www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

And, this quoted does not refer to 'the status of man'. Just stating 'man', human, or human being' does not define the basis of legal trickery that entraps man into being subject to having the fruits of his labour confiscated by corporate Government with the use of force and extortion - and that is that living man can only have either the status of free will or slave. A 'free will' man has only one law to obey, the negative form of the Golden Rule/God's Law, and has the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, plus rights to due process of law, as defined in Sections 20 and 39 of the Magna Carta (1225). A man of slave status has no rights nor right to due process of law.

It is common to see in Canada that the victim of crime fairs worse than the perpetrator of the crime - look at the results of the Williams case currently in litigation,as a pure example of what I say.

 

[Sledge]

Have you considered buying up to date books?

 

[JLord]

Very well! And, I suppose there are moose beings, dog beings, cat beings?

Yes, I suppose there are. I really don't see any problem with this fact.

What purpose does the word 'being' serve making 'human' an adjective, instead of the fully self explanatory noun that the word 'human' is?

Well, lots of things can be human but not be a human being. For example if you found a human skeleton you could say it is human but it isn't a human being. The word "being" specifies that it is an individual living human.

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'

I don't have access to a copy of this dictionary, and I'm not sure why you seem to prefer sources that are over 50 years old (the law changes significantly over time often rendering old definitions obsolete). But when a dictionary says "see X" when you look up a word it doesn't necessarily mean that the definition of the word you looked up is identical to the definition of word X that dictionary has told you to "see."

For example, just opening Black's dictionary to a random page I find that the entry for "Intagible property" simply says "See Movable." This means that the entry for "movable" is going to have something to say about intangible property. It doesn't mean that the two words are one in the same and share the same definition. You see this all throughout the dictionary. Under "intagible property" it says "See Property." This doesn't mean all property is intangible property, it means the entry for property has something to say about intangible property.

So I think a fundamental misunderstanding of how dictionaries work might be causing you some confusion here.

In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist.

Why would you say this? No case in the history of American law has ever considered the definition of "natural person,' or are you just going by what you find in various dictionaries?

And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at: 1 Corinthians 3:14

Whatever your personal belief, you must realize that in matter of law (present day law) the "Scriptures" are not the final authority for anything. Nor are they any type of authority at all. It is irrelevant what any religious texts says about the subject other than for your own personal beliefs.

It is common to see in Canada that the victim of crime fairs worse than the perpetrator of the crime - look at the results of the Williams case currently in litigation,as a pure example of what I say

A very "pure" example you picked. What a terrible indictment of the Canadian justice system that the victims (who were raped and murdered) end up fairing worse than the perpetrator.

 

[JLord]

So, you post an ad hominum attack upon me, Eldon Warman, without one iota of proof of your statement. the name 'Hans' tells me that you are likely of NAZI extraction.

This is one the BEST lines I have seen yet. Truly amazing if Eldon was not trying to be comical here because he came up with a great statement. Accuse someone of ad hominum attacks without proof, and then in the next sentence accuse someone of being a NAZI based on their forum handle being Hans. That is brilliant.

 

[D'rok]

Hanna decided to exit Canada rather than continue fighting the 'pit bull tactics' of CRA.

Hanna was convicted of tax evasion thanks to your "help".

A Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000. Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.
He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that he is a free man who owes the government nothing.
In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the government may now assign to that name.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/03/no-name.html#ixzz136pjyfNs

​

Too bad the link to the "Hanna Affidavit" is broken. Anyone have a copy?
​

 

[carlitos]

I can't see how further engaging this poster could be productive, but having this thread here for when people google "detax Canada" probably serves a useful purpose. It's the #4 result currently. As seen in the "magic wand" thread, some people do find these things when they research a given woo, and anyone seeing Eldon's writings here would be highly unlikely to put their tax future in his hands.