All fiat money created by corporate Government (a body politic, as explained by Lord Blackstone in his Commentaries) .
This another classic fallacy that I have seen a lot. The appeal to something like a legal dictionary or in this case Blackstone. This is just someone's opinion, it doesn't make it the law. Court's have accepted the reasoning set out by Blackstone or in dictionaries many times, but that doesn't mean that the dictionary (or Blackstone) can then be used as a source of law. It's a useful resource, but not an accurate description of the law.
is a form of 'ship's script',
Kind of like that, but also much more since money has specific attributes granted by statute. So much so that I would say calling it a form of ship's script is most likely an attempt to be deceptive. It might be possible to draw an analogy between money and ship's script but that doesn't mean one equals the other.
as an incorporated body is a 'make-believe ship at sea' with a captain, officers and (crew)members
No, this isn't the case. The laws relating to corporations in Canada are set out by statute. The Business Corporations Act makes no mention of corporations being "make-believe ships at sea." Again, you might be able to draw a loose analogy between a corporation and a ship at sea, but that doesn't mean one equals the other.
A lawyer's denial of that fact does not negate that fact.
Nor does your assertion make it a fact. I would be interested to see if there are any Canadian decisions that agree with your position.
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.
The court makes no disctinction between a person and their free will being or their alter-ego or whatever you want to call it. Many people have tried to make this argument and the court has never accepted that such a thing exists (again, if I am wrong you can provide us with the decision).
This allows the judge to then impose the Feudal System 'master/servant' law based upon the property right of the slave owner.
The fact that we are all subject to the jurisdiction of the court has nothing to do with slave ownership. Once again you could make a loose analogy in that everyone is subject to jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether they agree or not, just like how slaves were slaves regardless of whether they agreed. But we are talking about two totally different ideas that at best are only marginally related.
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."
This is all totally irrelevant. If you disagree feel free to provide a decision where this was relevant.
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.
No. The above is never applied in any situation, regardless of what a person wants to call himself in court. Again, if you disagree feel free to provide any decision where this reasoning was applied.
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?
There is lots of evidence in court transcripts of them not working. Many decisions have been posted already in this thread. If you disagree then provide some decisions where these tactics have worked.
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.
So you are saying that you have seen a bank accept something that has no value as payment of a mortgage and that you have proof of this? I would be interested in hearing more details and seeing your proof because I highly doubt that a bank would ever accept that.
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 am certainly not using any "fear tactics" and I am willing to explain why people have failed in court. On the simplest level it is the same reason everyone who fails in court has failed, they didn't have a persuasive argument.
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.
I haven't used it in a derogatory sense at all. I just use it to refer to a very wide group of people, not all of which may agree exactly with your ideology. There just aren't many good collective terms for that type of person.
