• 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:
No. Not tax avoidance. Not tax evasion. Not a tax loophole.

I just teach people that they are a free will living adult man, male or female.
Click to expand...
For someone who is so pedantic about definitions and etymology, Eldon seems positively cavalier about gender identity.
 
carlitos said:
Here's what Urantia says about that. Kinda vague.

“Let man enjoy himself; let the human race find pleasure in a thousand and one ways; let evolutionary mankind explore all forms of legitimate self-gratification, the fruits of the long upward biologic struggle. Man has well earned some of his present-day joys and pleasures. But look you well to the goal of destiny! Pleasures are indeed suicidal if they succeed in destroying property, which has become the institution of self-maintenance; and self-gratifications have indeed cost a fatal price if they bring about the collapse of marriage, the decadence of family life, and the destruction of the home—man’s supreme evolutional acquirement and civilization’s only hope of survival.”(943.1) 84:8.6​
Click to expand...

You obviously use this quote to denigrate the concept of categories of 'human institutions', but the subject is often used in the URANTIA Book. Example:

QUOTE From Paper 69: 69:1.1 All human institutions minister to some social need, past or present, notwithstanding that their overdevelopment unfailingly detracts from the worth-whileness of the individual in that personality is overshadowed and initiative is diminished. Man should control his institutions rather than permit himself to be dominated by these creations of advancing civilization.

69:1.2 Human institutions are of three general classes:

1.69:1.3 The institutions of self-maintenance. These institutions embrace those practices growing out of food hunger and its associated instincts of self-preservation. They include industry, property, war for gain, and all the regulative machinery of society. Sooner or later the fear instinct fosters the establishment of these institutions of survival by means of taboo, convention, and religious sanction. But fear, ignorance, and superstition have played a prominent part in the early origin and subsequent development of all human institutions.

2.69:1.4 The institutions of self-perpetuation. These are the establishments of society growing out of sex hunger, maternal instinct, and the higher tender emotions of the races. They embrace the social safeguards of the home and the school, of family life, education, ethics, and religion. They include marriage customs, war for defense, and home building.

3.69:1.5 The institutions of self-gratification. These are the practices growing out of vanity proclivities and pride emotions; and they embrace customs in dress and personal adornment, social usages, war for glory, dancing, amusement, games, and other phases of sensual gratification. But civilization has never evolved distinctive institutions of self-gratification.

69:1.6 These three groups of social practices are intimately interrelated and minutely interdependent the one upon the other. On Urantia they represent a complex organization which functions as a single social mechanism. UNQUOTE

The object of my previous post was not to discuss the URANTIA Book, but to bring to the attention of the readers of this forum that the Roman system has converted all of these institutions into make-believe ships at sea called incorporated bodies, with 'members' or body parts composed of individual men. Guess that is too heavy philosophically for the small minds of trolls and shills.
 
drkitten said:
Whups. Missed this gem the first time around.

So the 'Red Robed Priests of Isis' ruled Egypt starting in 11,500BCE?

That's really interesting, considering that we have no evidence whatsoever of any long-term human habitation earlier than 8,000 BCE. The earliest Egyptian agricultural settlements known date from only about 5200 BCE. Before that, we have evidence of neolithic hunter-gatherers dating back another three thousand years or so, which still leaves your Priests of Fashion hanging for more than 3,000 years.

Of course, since Isis herself only dates back (as far as we can tell) to the Fifth Dynasty (2494 to 2345 BC), a rational human being would conclude that the Neolithic tribes were not ruled by priests of a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years.

But I'm sure you'd not going to let multi-thousand-year anachronisms stop you. After all, the idea that a group of priests would worship a goddess who wouldn't be invented for five thousand years is, by your standards, rather credible.

At least in comparison to the rest of your "ideas."
Click to expand...

Well, if that is what you believe, who am I to argue with beliefs. Bye the way, I've got some good mountain property in Florida that I am selling cheap, and some ocean front property in Saskatchewan at give away prices. Any interest?
 
^^^

Hey Eldon,

Those are facts, not beliefs. Knowing the difference could really be helpful for you.
 
Praktik said:
depressing to read the comments - the woo brigade is out in full effect!
Click to expand...

He did not use my DetaxCanada method of filing. Yes, my method is always '$0.00 tax owing', but, there is much more to the method than that entry on the T1 form. And, no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.
 
I wish I could get paid to point out when people are talking crap. I could become a rich man just in FOTL threads.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Last I checked, shills were paid. I'm not being paid to ask you to back up your claims.


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made a claim—you back it up.

Otherwise, I could just claim you owe me $1,000 and force you to disprove it. And then claim that a lack of evidence (e.g. you not being able to find anything written down anywhere saying you don't owe me $1,000) is proof you do, and demand you pay up.


Again, you claimed that all 50,000 of the original shares of the Bank of Canada were sold to the U.S. Federal Reserve, converted to non-voting shares (how?), then sold back to Canada. But you provided no credible evidence to support this claim, aside from a self-published book that you no longer have in your possession.

But in any event, the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and is now a public institution.
Click to expand...

Wow! I think we have another suitable candidate for some ocean front property in Saskatchewan. Have I got a deal for you!

Ever wondered why the Government of Canada has no voting member of the Board of Directors for the Bank of Canada. The Deputy Finance Minister gets to sit in on board meetings, but has no vote or say - just an observer. How could that be, if the Government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada? The Bank of Canada is about as much of a National Institution as is the Federal Reserve of the USA. But then, I suppose, because it has 'Federal' in the name, it belongs to the Federal Government of the USA, as does Federal Express, Federal Department Stores, and the city of Federal Way, WA.
 
carlitos said:
For someone who is so pedantic about definitions and etymology, Eldon seems positively cavalier about gender identity.
Click to expand...

Seems that you are the ignorant one.

A law dictionary defines man as:

Man, A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children;

The form of slavery imposed upon adult Canadians by Government is not particular to one sex, and thus is not about sex, so the generic use of 'man' as being either or both sexes is immaterial to the thread topic. I add the differentiation because I suspect that there are some or most trolls posting here who only think there are male humans.
 
EldonG said:
I just teach people that they are a free will living adult man, male or female. And, that the income tax only applies to a fictional entity called a 'person'. And, it has already been discussed that 'person' comes from the Latin, 'persona' - the fictional role played by an actor.
Click to expand...
And, no matter how many times the courts smack this argument down in the clearest possible terms, you'll keep pushing this crap, eh? Here's a partial list:

HMTQ v. Galbraith (2001) BCSC 675
R. v. Lemieux, [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291
R. v. Dick (2003) BCPC 0013 (B.C. Prov. Ct.)
R. v. Carew [1992] B.C.J. No. 995 (BCSC)
R. v. Sullivan [1991] S.C.R. 489
PPG Industries Canada Ltd v. Canada [1983] B.C.J. No. 2260 (BCSC)
Kennedy v. Canada Customs & Revenue Agency [2000] O.C.J. No. 3313 (Ontario Supreme Court of Justice)
R. v. Lindsay [2006] BCCA 150
R. v. Sydel, [2006] 5 C.T.C. 88


Thus, I teach that one is NOT subject to the income tax, or any legislated act of any level of Government, as they all specifically state that they apply to 'persons'.
Click to expand...
See above.

But guess who also argued that? Your pal Dr. Klundert.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22natural+person%22+%22income+tax%22&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

What happened to him again? Oh yeah, jail and a half-million dollar fine.

You are a fraud.
 
Last edited:
That's right D'rok come out with reason and logic to refute the guy. But you seem to forget that he is a 'nut'. Nuts don't response to logic and reason.

I recommend that he be chastened by Japanese herbal laxatives and the visit from a snotty Jesuit who will read to him a stern letter from the Green Cardinal about his misdeeds.
 
Hans said:
That's right D'rok come out with reason and logic to refute the guy. But you seem to forget that he is a 'nut'. Nuts don't response to logic and reason.

I recommend that he be chastened by Japanese herbal laxatives and the visit from a snotty Jesuit who will read to him a stern letter from the Green Cardinal about his misdeeds.
Click to expand...
Perfect!

I'm gonna miss Eldon after he gets himself banned.
 
EldonG said:
...no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.
Click to expand...


How many people have actually used your method?
 
EldonG said:
He did not use my DetaxCanada method of filing. Yes, my method is always '$0.00 tax owing', but, there is much more to the method than that entry on the T1 form. And, no one has ever been taken to court for using my method, so there must be something much different in my method than that used by the Doctor.
Click to expand...

No one really went to court in the ring I saw busted.

People just paid through the nose. Usually there's deals offered by the CRA.

How many people have had to file T1-ADJ forms and replace the "$0.00" with their real amount owing?

How many of them have had to pay penalties as a result?
 
Isn't this yet again another attempt to find a 'magical' way to not pay taxes?

Strange they all fail - I wonder why? LOL
 
EldonG said:
Wow! I think we have another suitable candidate for some ocean front property in Saskatchewan. Have I got a deal for you!

Ever wondered why the Government of Canada has no voting member of the Board of Directors for the Bank of Canada. The Deputy Finance Minister gets to sit in on board meetings, but has no vote or say - just an observer. How could that be, if the Government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada? The Bank of Canada is about as much of a National Institution as is the Federal Reserve of the USA. But then, I suppose, because it has 'Federal' in the name, it belongs to the Federal Government of the USA, as does Federal Express, Federal Department Stores, and the city of Federal Way, WA.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, we're going to have to feed you another fact!

Bank of Canada said:
... The Board is composed of 12 Directors from outside the Bank, plus the Governor and the Senior Deputy Governor. The Deputy Minister of Finance sits on the Board as a non-voting member. The outside Directors come from across Canada and provide an important link to the various regions of the country. Directors are appointed for three-year terms by the Minister of Finance and may be reappointed at the end of their terms. If an appointment decision is delayed,
Click to expand...

Source

So it appears that although the Minister of Finance has no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Bank of Canada, he/she certainly has a lot of say in its board, seeing as how every board member is appointed by the Minister.
 
It won't matter. Darat will simply reply with:
EldonGs required: 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom