Detax Canada

[arayder]

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.

sorry about the multiple posts, folks,

arayder

 

[bikerdruid]

we heard you the first time, arayder.
but..it is a good fantasy.
the anarchist in me likes the concept.

 

[carlitos]

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.”

You are posting here at the JREF in October. Why would you expect us to believe that what you posted was true "as of August 6th, A.D. 2010?"



Not to mention:

take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading

Help me, Mr. Warman, to find this "additional information." Thank you.

...

• 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

Your failure to understand why a search of a business database shows results for a Congressperson's private office is really not important. I'm sorry that you must draw grand conspiracies from such meaningless trivia as the search results from a D&B database.

As D'rok suggested, I hope that you find a way to walk outside and enjoy life once in a while. Not everyone is out to get you, honest. Not to mention, what does a Canadian care about the US Congress anyway?

 

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by EldonG

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.]

[QUOTE by

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 8.

] 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/[/QUOTE}

You have never proven anything, Jack. Why do you ignore the rest of the text of Section 39: "or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon (physically or legally attack) or send upon him (send officers of the corporation to physically or legally attack) --save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

How many people in Canada and the USA are 'HARMED" by having the status of 'plantation slave' imposed upon them. How many are jailed or railroaded in courts because they refuse to submit to the extortion, or for disobedience to the rules of their supposed corporate master? And, then having the majority of the fruits of their labor harvested under the name of tax as collected property of the slave owner, the corporate Crown or State? Is there any semblance of that imposition and extortion being approved by a jury of peers or by the Law of the Land - "Do no harm"?

 

[Sledge]

Seriously, seek help. I appreciate you've had a rough life, but this drivel is not the answer.

 

[EldonG]

It isn't a matter of convincing anyone of anything. The government doesn't care if you are convinced that you are a person or not. The courts have upheld the fact that "person" has includes "free will man" or "sovereign man" or "human being" or whatever else people like to call themselves. A law applying to a person applies to a human being regardless of what they call themselves or whether the government can convince them of anything.

That's a pretty weak argument, John. You know very well that 'the Courts' are administrative part of the corporation, and thus, a judge can only see a 'corporate' member, which, like crew-members on a ship at sea, are called 'person's (personnel). What yo say just supports my stand that all incorporated bodies, including 'bodies politic' are 'make-believe ships at sea', and administered as such.

 

[EldonG]

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.

You are talking BS again Jack. The Monarch of England was always a facade, and the Colonies of Britain (a vassal State of the Holy Roman Empire) were ruled by the Crown of the City of London, an independent city/state within England, and that rule was by and through the British Board of Trade.

Ownership of America/Virginia was never severed from the Holy Roman Empire. You obviously haven't read my post on the Manta.com website (Dunn & Bradstreet) that shows that the Archbishop Deric R. McLeod of the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Washington, DC is the listed OWNER
of the Government of the UNITED STATES, and since Roman Catholic Archbishops are priests that vow poverty, that means that this Archbishop is acting as agent for the head Fascist corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[EldonG]

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.

Guess that is OK, if you ignore: "the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And this: A LAW DICTIONARY by John Bouvier

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=117&invol=151#154

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420(1837)

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&page=420

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for
the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the grant or charter of the separate states;"

 

[EldonG]

You are posting here at the JREF in October. Why would you expect us to believe that what you posted was true "as of August 6th, A.D. 2010?"

The August 6th is part of the quote of the other researcher, not mine.

Help me, Mr. Warman, to find this "additional information." Thank you.

Does the author of the blog not tell you that you have 'to sign up' to get into that info?

Your failure to understand why a search of a business database shows results for a Congressperson's private office is really not important. I'm sorry that you must draw grand conspiracies from such meaningless trivia as the search results from a D&B database.

As D'rok suggested, I hope that you find a way to walk outside and enjoy life once in a while. Not everyone is out to get you, honest. Not to mention, what does a Canadian care about the US Congress anyway?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 8.

However, you may do well in researching "Canada", "Ontario" in that Manta.com website.

 

[EldonG]

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?

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?

 

[EldonG]

Don't know if anyone bothered to do this (at work). The inquisition occurred between 1200ce and 1400ce. The estimated world population for 1400ce according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates is between 350 and 375 million. That would mean inquisition killed about 1/7th of the entire world population right? The OP did also say 50 million was conservative.

You obviously quit reading when you got to the end of the Spanish Inquisition. The Massacre of the Huguenots in Paris was 1572, and the Protestant Irish massacred in the early 1600s, the 30 Years war, the massacre of the Anabaptists in central Europe, WW1, WW2, the Croatian Massacre, the Bosnian massacre.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope), as head of the re-named Inquisition before becoming Pope - under the name Doctrinal Correctness.

 

[LashL]

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?

What exactly does that have to do with taxation in Canada?

 

[EldonG]

Eldon is a different anti-Semite. He's rather fond of calling people who contradict him a "stinking Traitor Zionist Jew Bastard". Just read what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has to say about him.
Nor did his drivel do his much good when he was tried for assault and then lost his appeal.

Wrong, I am not at all 'anti-Semitic'. I think the Palestinian People are a wonderful and brave people. And, they are the only 'Semites' that I know of.

Strange how you've never had the courage to take your "method" to court yourself, always leaving it to others to try your tax evasion nonsense.

Why do you think that I should submit myself to such a fictional entity. How am I supposed to 'take my METHOD to court'? Kick some CRA agent in the shins? You write nonsense.

 

[EldonG]

What exactly does that have to do with taxation in Canada?

If you would take the time to read my post that you quote, you would see that I am responding to the

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 8.

If you don't like American content, then don't read it.

 

[LashL]

This thread, however, is about taxation in Canada. So, I'll ask again: what does your post have to do with the subject matter of the thread?

(ETA: It would be far preferable for you to address the subject matter of the thread than to go off on tangents and/or flights of fancy. The subject matter of the thread is actually taxation in Canada. Have you anything to say about that?)

 

[D'rok]

Still sunny and beautiful here in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec. Eldon, it looks like you had a spectacular weekend in Calgary, weather-wise. Did you make it out to Banff? Your taxes pay for that National park, you should enjoy it.

Didn't take any pictures this time, but Mrs. D'rok and I had a lovely time hiking around Lac Phillippe.

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/Central/Quebec/Lac_Philippe/

I'm so glad that Crown corporations like the National Capital Commission exist and maintain natural areas like Gatineau Park. Aren't you?

 

[arayder]

Originally Posted by EldonG

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.]

[QUOTE by

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content

] 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/[/QUOTE}

You have never proven anything, Jack. Why do you ignore the rest of the text of Section 39: "or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon (physically or legally attack) or send upon him (send officers of the corporation to physically or legally attack) --save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

How many people in Canada and the USA are 'HARMED" by having the status of 'plantation slave' imposed upon them. How many are jailed or railroaded in courts because they refuse to submit to the extortion, or for disobedience to the rules of their supposed corporate master? And, then having the majority of the fruits of their labor harvested under the name of tax as collected property of the slave owner, the corporate Crown or State? Is there any semblance of that imposition and extortion being approved by a jury of peers or by the Law of the Land - "Do no harm"?

Eldon, I am sorry to have to drag you through this again, but I recognize that some folks just need repeated corrections.

Your twisted logic relies on redefining “harm” to meet your needs. Unfortunately for you the law does not depend on individuals developing their own personal definitions. You can’t find a single instance in the law or history of western democracies in which lawful taxation has been considered “harm”, as you define it or the “imposition of slavery”.

Not that you haven’t been asked for the basis in law or history for your private definitions and personal law over the years.

Although I can understand how some dysfunctional individuals may consider the consequences of cheating on their taxes and threatening the authorities when they get called on it to be a sort of slavery.

 

[arayder]

Guess that is OK, if you ignore: "the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And this: A LAW DICTIONARY by John Bouvier

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=117&invol=151#154

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."

And this: U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420(1837)

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&page=420

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for
the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the grant or charter of the separate states;"

Eldon, once again you play games. This time you cite the fact that nations incorporate in forming themselves knowing that your free men on the land friends won’t notice that the use of the term incorporate in this context does not mean that a democratic nation has no more authority than the bug man.

Your incomplete argument makes one wonder what else you never finish?

And we have covered your use of the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle to make your case countless times.

Need I go over this with you again?

 

[twinstead]

And we have covered your use of the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle to make your case countless times.

I looked up that fallacy on Wiki...It appears that Eldon's grandfather wears a backpack. What's up with that?

 

[arayder]

Don't you recall that President George W. Bush, a Republican, said that "the CON-stitution is just a G-d D---ed piece of paper!" Surely, the President of the UNITED STATES wouldn't lie?

Eldon, that’s pointless dribble. The offhand comments of a subpar President don’t make law any more than do the rants of mad detaxer.

Let’s back up and remind the reader that you are trying to tell us that some language you think you saw at some website trumps the U.S. Constitution.

Frankly, that argument is nuts.