• 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

Hammurabi Codes?

EldonG said:
I would suggest that the fact that the Monarch of England has to 'down-dress' and ask the Lord Mayor of London for permission to enter the City (City of London) should be a clue as to the servitude status of the British Monarchs to the Holy Roman Empire and its sub-capitol for banking, Temple Bar (lawyers) and Professional standards (educational degrees).
Click to expand...

I can’t speak with authority on the law in other countries, but the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2) trumps all these claims that Vatican, or Roman or whatever law still is in the primary law in effect in the U.S.

It’s really quite simple.

All our friend has done is to pour back through old law and history to find a few old, dead bits of history and law and declare them to be the rationale for his theories.

If old law is what counts then why don’t we go back to Hammurabi Code and pretend it is applicable law.

I like number 11: “If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.”
 
Last edited:
arayder said:
I can’t speak with authority on the law in other countries, but the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2) trumps all these claims that Vatican, or Roman or whatever law still is in the primary law in effect in the U.S.

It’s really quite simple.

All our friend has done is to pour back through old law and history to find a few old, dead bits of history and law and declare them to be the rationale for his theories.
Click to expand...



Yes, it really is that simple. He simply refuses to believe that any later act, entity, events, laws, wars or revolutions can have any effect whatsoever on established legal powers. He also applies these rules to the definitions of words - they must be used only in their original sense, without regard to adoption by other languages, or adaptations of meanings to new circumstances.

It's a very specific sort of delusion he's got going on here.
 
Well Eldon's suspension will be over in a couple of days, I'm sure he'll be back to answer everyone's questions.
 
Next suspension within a week, probably three days. If that doesn't result in a banning, the suspension will likely be a long one, and then an instaban for the next infraction.

[/mode=second_guess_the_mods] :p
 
UNITED STATES Owned By The Vatican

This blog was recently received from a fellow researcher from the USA. [One would likely find similar info regarding the Government of Canada Inc. - I haven't taken the time to check that out.] Quote:

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.

The Manta.com website www.manta.com
You might be surprised

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million U.S. and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.
But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.
For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.
The first “company” on the list is:

“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
The u.s. Capitol Washington DC” The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”. Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”. That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information. For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at:

“the u.s. capitol
“Washington, DC 20515-0001” Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121”. Business Hours are “24/7”. You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC. None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”).

But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read: “government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”. [My note: See Wikipedia on 'Basilica Shrine'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception
Continuing quote:
Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Q: Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?
A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):

“all recipients [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by Barack Obama administration.”

The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States” that we all so love and admire. (Don’t forget that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies.)

It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company and “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.
Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:
1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and
2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.
Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”
Whut th’ . . . ?!
The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?
More?
Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”
The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?
Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.
Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”? Unquote

-----------------------

This certainly shows that the phony CON-stitution of the corporate UNITED STATES is certainly NOT the Supreme Law of America. The CON-stitution [yes, the original was also a 'CON'] - which he quotes, was never ratified by the sovereign people of America, as the dumb Americans have been led to believe. It was only ratified by other corporations/States, where the people were already of slave status in the eyes of the administrators of those States. Do employees of Buick Division or employees of General Motors have any vote or authority over those 'private' corporations? No different with incorporated States or provinces.

Apparently, Americans, and Canadians can be convinced of anything, including the fact that they are free will men and women, when they actually have been made plantation slaves, subject to the corporate Vatican owned Crown of the City of London and the Vatican owned Rothschild banking empire. And, the sad part is that so very many of them will lie, cheat and steal to defend their slave status and do character defamation on those who show them their slave chains.
 
You should try talking to a doctor about this. I'm sure s/he could prescribe some tablets to help.
 
EldonG said:
39. No free man (liber homo) shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [Note: The Law of the Land, the abode of mankind, is the negative form of the Golden Rule - Do no harm. Statute law is a form of Maritime Law - Law of the Sea, used in incorporate bodies politic.]
Click to expand...

We have already covered this ground, Eldon. A tax is not the same as a disseize.

Disseize: to deprive (a person) of seizin, or of the possession, of a freehold interest in land, esp. wrongfully or by force; oust.

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Source: dictionary.reference.com/
 
EldonG said:
OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.. . .

. . . .This certainly shows that the phony CON-stitution of the corporate UNITED STATES is certainly NOT the Supreme Law of America.. . .QUOTE]

So the U.S. Constitution is not the Law of the Land. . .but Dunn & Bradstreet is?
Click to expand...
 
EldonG said:
This blog was recently received from a fellow researcher from the USA. [One would likely find similar info regarding the Government of Canada Inc. - I haven't taken the time to check that out.] Quote:

OOPS! “Government of the United States” listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a Private Corporation.
Click to expand...

The stupidity of the conspiracy theorists never fails to amaze.

The government is both engaging in a massive global conspiracy to keep secret that its a corporation AND dumb enough to register on D&B? Really?

The truth is that the government IS NOT A CORPORATION, but the government HAS corporations and NO ONE has ever tried to hide this or is surprised by this except the conspiracy loons. In reality, using a corporation is simply a legal practicality since the word "corporation" does not mean what you think it does. The government, which is a sovereign state, forms subsidiary corporations to carry out its daily business because (1) it provides people the ability to hold government accountable by letting them sue the corporation and (2) because it allows people to work with the government without being sued in their personal capacity every time someone has a problem with the government at large.

Without a corporation, if I had a problem with the government I would have no easy way to sue except for suing employees in their personal capacity. If I'm dealing with a large bureaucracy, it may be impossible to practically find who is responsible for my problem so I'd have to include hundreds of thousands of people/employees in every lawsuit. The legal system would grind to a halt and I'd never get relief.

Without a corporation, no one would work for government because in the aforementioned never ending lawsuits every employee would have their personal assets at risk. By having a corporation, you get relief from the assets of the government instead of the people working for it.

THESE are the facts, Eldon. THIS is the reality that debunks your conspiracy propaganda..er.."research." YES, governments have corporations and not only is there nothing wrong with it, its a legal structure that lets loons like you sue it. You should be thanking them. Over here in reality we've understood that the government has a corporation and what it means for quite some time.

And really, the whole Vatican thing? You guys are pathetic. The Basilica its talking about is also a corporation..for the same, good, legitimate reasons stated above, and it lists the Archbishop as the owner. Hes just as much the "owner" of that corporation that manages the Basilica as Barack Obama is "owner" of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Again, our friend Eldon misrepresents the Treaty of Paris despite having been educated on the matter several times over the years on can.taxes.

Certainly we can see clearly that in the initial treaty document the King lists the colonies as one of his holdings. This is not surprising since the King can't enter into a treaty regarding land he doesn't hold, or claim to hold.

Setting aside selective reading and incomplete scholarship, we see that later on in the document the King gives up all claims to the former colonies. In fact the treaty ratification document does NOT list the former colonies as one of the King's holdings. This is logical since the King had just relinquished all claims to them.

Furthermore we see that subsequent treaties like the one that ended the War of 1812 the King does not list the U.S. as one of his holdings, again, since he had relinquished all claims to them.
 
Happy Thanksgiving, Eldon.

The leaves are beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec this time of year.

See: (Pic taken last weekend)

gQ0kb.jpg


Can you still appreciate these sorts of things? Or have your obsessions robbed you of all of life's joys?
 
LightinDarkness said:
The stupidity of the conspiracy theorists never fails to amaze.

The government is both engaging in a massive global conspiracy to keep secret that its a corporation AND dumb enough to register on D&B? Really?

The truth is that the government IS NOT A CORPORATION, but the government HAS corporations and NO ONE has ever tried to hide this or is surprised by this except the conspiracy loons. In reality, using a corporation is simply a legal practicality since the word "corporation" does not mean what you think it does. The government, which is a sovereign state, forms subsidiary corporations to carry out its daily business because (1) it provides people the ability to hold government accountable by letting them sue the corporation and (2) because it allows people to work with the government without being sued in their personal capacity every time someone has a problem with the government at large.

Without a corporation, if I had a problem with the government I would have no easy way to sue except for suing employees in their personal capacity. If I'm dealing with a large bureaucracy, it may be impossible to practically find who is responsible for my problem so I'd have to include hundreds of thousands of people/employees in every lawsuit. The legal system would grind to a halt and I'd never get relief.

Without a corporation, no one would work for government because in the aforementioned never ending lawsuits every employee would have their personal assets at risk. By having a corporation, you get relief from the assets of the government instead of the people working for it.

THESE are the facts, Eldon. THIS is the reality that debunks your conspiracy propaganda..er.."research." YES, governments have corporations and not only is there nothing wrong with it, its a legal structure that lets loons like you sue it. You should be thanking them. Over here in reality we've understood that the government has a corporation and what it means for quite some time.

And really, the whole Vatican thing? You guys are pathetic. The Basilica its talking about is also a corporation..for the same, good, legitimate reasons stated above, and it lists the Archbishop as the owner. Hes just as much the "owner" of that corporation that manages the Basilica as Barack Obama is "owner" of the United States.
Click to expand...

Whether they care to admit it or not the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land (or whatever they are calling themselves today) crowd is trying convince themselves that democratic governments are nothing more than private businesses with whom one can dissolve a contract and end the relationship the same way one fires an exterminator.

No matter how many times they are told that their theories don’t match up with the reality of history or law they just keep on repeating the same old fairy tale.

No matter how many times they get pole axed in court they just go on and on with this fantasy.
 
arayder said:
Whether they care to admit it or not the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land (or whatever they are calling themselves today) crowd is trying convince themselves that democratic governments are nothing more than private businesses with whom one can dissolve a contract and end the relationship the same way one fires an exterminator.
Click to expand...

Actually, the sovereign citizen crowd doesn't even know how one fires an exterminator. If you tried some of this heads-I-win-tails-you-lose theory of contracts on an actual businessman, you'd get your arse handed to you on a plate. The exterminator (or whoever) would invoke the necessary legal "magic words" (in this case, specifically "mechanic's lien") and the local sheriff will seize their house and sell it at auction.

Of course, from the Freeman point of view, that's probably a "win." Not only have they proven the injustice inherent in the system ("Come, see the injustice inherent in the system!"), but by the time they've fought their way through the courts with their own set of magic words, they've probably also arranged themselves free room and board at someone else's expense for a number of months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom