Detax Canada

[EldonG]

Don't worry there will be plenty of gold for all when the Iranians start to flood the market with their radioactive gold to bust the Zionist Bankers...

Oops sorry, wrong woo in the wrong woo thread.

They are all so mad it gets confusing sometimes.

This is the one about the Vatican controlling it all not the Zionists isn't it?

Which one is right?

I like a Zionist banker conspiracy but then, I also like a Vatican banker conspiracy, which one is best?

Only one way to find out ...

Fight?

You obviously are not a student of history. ZIONISM is the name of the Philosophy of the Ancient Chaldean/Sumarian Elitists who have ruled the Middle East and North Africa, and surrounds of the Mediterranean Sea as king /priests for some 13 millennia. The other spellings are Ion and Sion.

This King/Priesthood ruled Egypt for some 8,500 years before abandoning Egypt and migrating back to the Chaldean homeland and establishing Babylon around 1500 BC. There they ruled the world of commerce for about 1,000 years, until driven out by a Persian King around 500 BC. The King/Priests established a headquarters in what is now Turkey for some 200 years, before moving on to the Hill of Sacrifice (Vatican), and established Rome. The elitist republic they established there reverted to full dictatorship in 69 BC as the Roman Empire. The religion, used to keep slaves in line by superstition and fear, was called Mithraism, lasted until the Emperor Constantine ordered the King/Priests (Cardinals - meaning the primary ones) to accept Christianity around 350 AD. The Roman Empire died out as a result of the loss of all their gold to the banksters of the Lavant, around 500 AD, and the King/Priest and Bishop of Rome assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus (Pontiff) and re-established the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire, and used the Christian Church as the facade to hide the real secular nature of the King/Priests Empire in Europe and America.

The Judeans, the mixed race of Hebrew and Arabic people living in what is now Israel were taken captive by the King/Priests in 580 BC for a 40 year period, and re-introduced to the Chaldean Philosophy of Zionism. The common peoples' language of Palestine at the turn of the millennium was Aramaic, and not Hebrew, and was a colloquial form of the Chaldean language.

The scheme of corporatism/fascism comes from the King/Priests, as they made all human institutions into make-believe ships, called incorporated bodies, with administration systems totally resembling that of a ship at sea. This scheme makes the corporation the primary body, and the humankind become subservient body parts of the corporate body and subject to the CEO. However, in the fascist system of tiered corporations, the CEO of one corporation is subservient to the CEO of the superior corporation. This goes all the way up to the top corporation of the World, the Holy Roman Empire, where the Pontiff is CEO. Now, you can see why, when a new Pope is Crowned with the triple tiara crown, signifying 'King of Heaven, Earth and Purgatory/Hell' that this statement is made: "You are Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World and Vicar of Jesus Christ the Savior."

Although those calling themselves Jews, a term invented in the 17th century AD, with many calling themselves Zionists, they gained that philosophical ideology from the Priest/Kings of Babylon, where their holy scripture, the Talmud was begun to be written. And, they have become a veil and a scapegoat for the Vatican when the light of truth shines upon the Vatican. When any anti-Vatican info comes to light, watch the anti-Jew rhetoric cranked up by those of Jesuit or Knight of Malta affiliations and loyalties.

 

[EldonG]

No, this is the one with the Red-Robed Priests of Isis who just pretend to be every other religion since ancient Egypt ruled the Earth.
Or something.

If you don't know, or haven't learned any history, why do you think you have to add your comment to this thread? There is certainly no substance to your comments. I am not talking or writing about religion, but about secular/worldly control. If you think the Vatican is all about religion, then you haven't been paying attention, nor have you done any research based upon the clues I have posted on this thread. If that is the way you think, then that is your prerogative, but then, why don't you migrate to a thread discussing religion.

 

[Stacey Grove]

It seems strange that Government is created and manned by men, who obviously wish to apply their statutes to men, that they would consider it 'piddly' to mention 'men and women' in their supposed LAW which are in the form of corporate statutes, rather than use a vague term that means, and is derived from a Latin term meaning a 'fictional role' (persona).

What is your belief, EldonG?
Do you believe these laws that are made by men are constructed deliberately to exclude men and women? If so why?
Or do you believe it is just an oversight by the law makers?

 

[D'rok]

The first step to wisdom is getting things by their right names - R. v. Galbraith

Obviously, you are 'cherry picking' from my post, of only that which supports your opinion on the matter.

""In common speech, person is generally used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a 'person' as evident from the reasoning of that judgment, is the subject of legal rights and duties. The usual form of a juristic 'person' at common law, was a corporation, ie: corporations aggregate or sole."
Vancouver Machinery Depot Ltd. v United Steel Workers of America 1948 (BC Court of Appeal)

Notes by another party: One can immediately see that a 'person' is a term of law, not common usage in a court, or in statutes of the legislative branch of Government. Dowdall J., KC, conceded that there are 4 recognized types of 'persons' - common use, theology, psychology and LAW. Each has its own distinct meaning and application."

By reading the parts that concern a human who is claimed by Government to be a 'taxpayer' , that claim is made upon 'legal' procedure of legislative enacted LAW, and does not use 'common or colloquial usage of terms' as invariably, such common usage is vague, at best.

Now, lets see you find in any Act, Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation the definition of 'person wherein a man (male or female) is specifically named. Individual what? They want us to assume they mean man or woman by using 'individual', but they never say so anywhere. What is Government's 'distinct meaning' of the term person in their 'LAW' system?



If so, where in the Income Tax Act is that stated. Section 248 certainly doesn't define a man or woman of free will status as being a 'person' subject to the income tax.

I know you would like to impress readers that 'it is in there somewhere', but, it seems strange that with many people using my $0.00 tax owing filing method, or not filing at all based upon Section 150 where it says 'no return is required if no tax is owed', (US Title 26 says the same thing), there has not been one man or woman that I have heard of who have been summoned to court for failing to file or filing a frivolous return, although CRA has been trying other extortion methods on a few, they have been futile, unless they could convince others to violate their trust - an act which the violated party could use serious force for remedy, as there is no recourse through the corporate justice system to enforce trust laws within their CCC Statute. Many of those who commit breach of trust are fortunate that Canadians are more docile than many of the people of this world. I guess a diet of fluoride and MSG will do that to people. And, isn't that what those additives are all about?

Let's see...

"I have no great doubt myself, for instance, that the word "person" may very well include both a natural person, a human being, and an artificial person, a corporation."
The Pharmaceutical Society v. The London and Provincial Supply Association Ltd. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 857 (H.L.),

"Who is a "person" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act? ... The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) gives as the primary meaning of the word "an individual human being"...Dictionaries are a recognized aid to the court in determining the ordinary meaning or common or popular sense of a word used in a statute...

These definitions taken from dictionaries including dictionaries of legal terms are uniform and clear. A "person" in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. The primary sense of the word is a natural person; the secondary sense, an artificial person such as a corporation.

I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that in its ordinary meaning and in its common or popular sense, the word "person" in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations.

I am also driven to the conclusion that there is nothing in the context of the Income Tax Act, or in the authorities to which Mr. Lindsay has referred me, that would support the interpretation that in the Income Tax Act, Parliament intended the word "person" to be used in the narrower sense of comprising only corporations or other artificial persons. "
Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency [2000] O.J. No. 3313

"I am bound to decide, but would in any event decide, that the defendant is a "person" and a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act."
R v. Dick 2003 BCPC 0013

"[T]he ordinary meaning of “person” is a natural person (including, I would have thought, a “free will, full liability flesh and blood living man”) and that the purpose of statutory definition is to extend the meaning to include other specified legal entities as well. Mr. Lindsay’s position that he is not a “person” for purposes of the Income Tax Act is simply not tenable.”
R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 146

"[A] natural person, acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit, is directly included within the definition of the word “person” at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

The term “natural person” is but a term, among others, that is descriptive of a tangible reality, described in a more tangible fashion by the term “human being”. The Dictionary of Canadian Law[3] defines the term “natural person” with nothing more than the words “a human being”. Indeed, nothing more is required to adequately define the notion. As accurately characterised by Justice Dysart in Hague, a person can be either natural or legal. When a person is natural, it is a human being. Therefore, every human being is a natural person.

When one uses simply the term “person”, one necessarily includes the notion of the human being, as it is the very essence of the reality represented by this term. This explains why, in the Act, subsection 248(1) does not specifically mention the term “human being” in its definition of the term “person”.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, [2009] 3 C.T.C. 65

"[T]he Kions deliberately chose to embrace the ‘natural person’ argument, honed their knowledge of it and put theory into practice. They steadfastly pursued that path notwithstanding the Minister’s timely explanation of the dangers of relying on questionable tax advice and of their obligations under the legislation. They blatantly continued their partnership operations as before, generating income on which, from past practice and experience, they well knew they were obligated to pay tax. They reported “zero” income in both taxation years; they provided false information to the Minister to cause the partnership to be deregistered for GST and made no returns. They deliberately kept no records of their income-generating activities and modified existing bank records to conform to ‘natural person’ theory. All of this was done, not out of indifference, but with the clear intention of not complying with what they knew to be the law.

In these circumstances, I am persuaded by the evidence that the Kions knowingly made false statements and omissions in their income tax returns filed under the Income Tax Act and in their returns under the Excise Tax Act; accordingly, the Minister was justified in levying gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act and section 285 of the Excise Tax Act."
Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447 (CanLII)

"The bankrupt admitted to attending a seminar on the non-payment of income taxes but denied involvement in the “detax” movement. The bankrupt freely admits, however, his belief that he is a “natural person”. Like many of the bankrupt’s ilk he is prone to write nonsensical letters to the Minister’s representatives invoking the Magna Carta, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the reason for non-payment of income taxes. After carefully observing a number of these individuals over the last few years I can safely say that the “detax” movement attracts either the naive or opportunists searching for a faint thread of justification for their stand on the non-payment of taxes. I have no doubt that the bankrupt belongs to the latter group. He is too intelligent to considered naive. He willingly latched onto this excuse to enforce his predisposition toward non-payment of his tax obligations. I wish to reiterate that it is an excuse and not a rational reason."
Proteau, Re, 2006 SKQB 324 (CanLII), 24 C.B.R. (5th) 151

"The final ground advanced by Mr. Lindsay, in support of the application, is that Mr. Galbraith is not a "tax payer" or "person" and accordingly, the Income Tax Act does not apply to him.

The first step to wisdom is getting things by their right names.

Mr. Lindsay advanced this same argument before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), [2000] O.J. No. 3313 on 20 July 2000. The argument was not accepted. I find the reasoning in Kennedy dispositively compelling. This is not a reasonably arguable ground."
R. v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII)

Get a life, Eldon.

 

[Blue Mountain]

You obviously are not a student of history.

[snip]

When any anti-Vatican info comes to light, watch the anti-Jew rhetoric cranked up by those of Jesuit or Knight of Malta affiliations and loyalties.

I love alternate histories. Maybe next week Eldon can pontificate on how it was that two Hobbits saved the world by casting a ring into a volcano.

 

[EldonG]

What is your belief, EldonG?
Do you believe these laws that are made by men are constructed deliberately to exclude men and women? If so why?
Or do you believe it is just an oversight by the law makers?

No. Neither. I see it as a long time pre-conceived scheme to impose the status of slavery upon mankind. As the reasoning of the Boston lawyer, Lysander Spooner, said in his blogs in the 1870 period, there is no right for a group of men, regardless what they wish to call their group, or what title they wish to bestow upon themselves, to be able to strip other men of their right to life, liberty (freedom) and property by means of extortion, piracy or theft without the subject humankind allowing this voluntarily and with full knowledge. Did you ,or any of your ancestors ever get to vote for the creation and imposition of a corporate structure (body politic) that has the powers that law does not allow?

The common or natural law that encompasses the physical as well as the philosophical realms is totally adequate to govern a free will man on Planet Earth. "Do not unto others as you would others not do unto you."

You should go to this website, and read some of his works: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

 

[Andy_Ross]

As you claim they have been trying to 'enslave' mankind for the last 4000 years or so I would say they aren't very good at it.

 

[EldonG]

Let's see...

Get a life, Eldon.

The 'LIFE' I desire is one of 'free will status'. And, not one of slave status, subject to extortion, black robed thugs, and pigs (people in government service).

Your posted quotes are 'off topic', illogical and 'irrelevant'.

Of all your quoting expertise, you never once mentioned that the concerns of legitimate 'detaxers' being one of 'status' and not of 'specie' of creature. Mankind, or 'human being' (defined in one American law dictionary as 'A Monster' - a man with physical traits or parts of a lower animal') as you are wont to push, as a living creature, can have one of two status - free or (bond) slave.

None of your examples address that primary issue. In my posts, my question always is, "Where in any statute of any level of legislature is a man of free will status named or referred to. If imposition of licenses, obedience to obligations, or paying over the fruits of one's labour is in legislation (Acts, statutes, law, rules, regulations) that it cannot be applicable to a free will adult living man, male or female. Otherwise, free will is negated.

And, where is the rule in Natural Law that says an group of men, under any fictitious organizational name or with any title they choose to call themselves, have the right or authority to impose duties, obligations and impose debts upon free will living adult men and women. From where does such supposed authority come?

And if the 'human being' is the 'person' named as being subject to the provisions of a statute, from where did the authority arise to make the subject 'human being' having slave status imposed upon him or her?

 

[EldonG]

I love alternate histories. Maybe next week Eldon can pontificate on how it was that two Hobbits saved the world by casting a ring into a volcano.

Sorry. Guess my knowledge of history went over your head. Maybe you should get on the forum discussing the sex preferences of Tinky Winkie on the Teletubby TV program.

 

[EldonG]

As you claim they have been trying to 'enslave' mankind for the last 4000 years or so I would say they aren't very good at it.

Well, if you open your eyes, and quit smoking weed, you might have noticed.

 

[D'rok]

None of your examples address that primary issue. In my posts, my question always is, "Where in any statute of any level of legislature is a man of free will status named or referred to. If imposition of licenses, obedience to obligations, or paying over the fruits of one's labour is in legislation (Acts, statutes, law, rules, regulations) that it cannot be applicable to a free will adult living man, male or female. Otherwise, free will is negated.

Keep digging, Eldon:

"[T]he ordinary meaning of “person” is a natural person (including, I would have thought, a “free will, full liability flesh and blood living man”) and that the purpose of statutory definition is to extend the meaning to include other specified legal entities as well. Mr. Lindsay’s position that he is not a “person” for purposes of the Income Tax Act is simply not tenable.”
R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 146

 

[bikerdruid]

Well, if you open your eyes, and quit smoking weed, you might have noticed.

what's the use of being a 'free man' if we can't smoke weed?

 

[EldonG]

Keep digging, Eldon:

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.

 

[Stacey Grove]

No. Neither. I see it as a long time pre-conceived scheme to impose the status of slavery upon mankind.

Sorry I don't understand.
You say it isn't deliberate nor is it accidental?

 

[EldonG]

what's the use of being a 'free man' if we can't smoke weed?

I could care less how much weed you smoke. That is your right as a free man. But, when smoking weed AND then posting on this thread to supposedly 'debunk' a man who is dedicated to your right to smoke weed, or anything else you may wish to do that has no affect on others, as well as save you from having the fruits of your labour extorted confiscated under threat of fine and/or punishment is cause to suggest that maybe you should back off the wacky weed a bit.

But, I suppose, if you enjoy being ripped off in your paycheque by a gang of thugs who are paid to confiscate and destroy the phony money you are paid for your labour, then, that is your free will choice. Isn't it?

 

[D'rok]

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.

Squawk all you want Eldon. You are a person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act and, indeed, for any other act of any Canadian legislature.

A natural person is a legal person.
A human being is a legal person.
A free-will man is a legal person.

All of the above are synonyms.

A corporation is a legal person.
A union is a legal person.

You, Eldon Warman, are a legal person.

 

[bikerdruid]

I could care less how much weed you smoke. That is your right as a free man. But, when smoking weed AND then posting on this thread to supposedly 'debunk' a man who is dedicated to your right to smoke weed, or anything else you may wish to do that has no affect on others, as well as save you from having the fruits of your labour extorted confiscated under threat of fine and/or punishment is cause to suggest that maybe you should back off the wacky weed a bit.

But, I suppose, if you enjoy being ripped off in your paycheque by a gang of thugs who are paid to confiscate and destroy the phony money you are paid for your labour, then, that is your free will choice. Isn't it?

i'm retired, on pension.
smoking weed is one of my hobbies.

 

[D'rok]

Sorry, it is not I who is the one here doing the digging. You have not yet presented any evidence that any group of men have the right to impose slavery, extortion, and theft of the unalienable rights on mankind.

Your quotes in your previous post were about as relevant as if you quoted the 'price of rice in China' when posting on this thread.

I should add that the learned judge in your own assault trial gave you a very eloquent response to this very question:

[12] As I have done my very best to listen respectfully to Mr. Warman and to understand the position he articulates, I hope he, and this room full of his like-minded supporters, will do the same as I respond briefly.
[13] As I reflected on Mr. Warman's submissions my mind travelled to the fact that on April 15th, next month, it is going to be my great honour to preside at the swearing of a number of new Canadian citizens. Will they become members of a club? Perhaps so, but in my respectful view how fortunate they will be.

​

[14] How fortunate are all of us that have been born into that club, if such it be, because it is my view, and in this regard I understand myself to articulate the perspective of the Canadian courts, that citizens of Canada enjoy assurances of fundamental rights and freedoms, in part but not entirely as enunciated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

​

[15] Those rights and freedoms are largely parallel to the inalienable rights granted under Magna Carta. Because of the relatively peaceful nature of our society, many Canadians have little awareness of the existence of the Constitution, let alone knowledge of its terms. But it is a measure of that Constitution, I suggest, and its preservation and enforcement through the rule of law, that permits that state of innocent disregard.

​

[16] If we lived in a police state, if we had no courts through which to assert our rights, if the elections of which Mr. Warman is so dismissive suddenly were to vanish, the reality of our present state would be impressed upon each one of us much more clearly.

​

[17] Am I so naïve as to suggest there is no inappropriate conduct by police in this country? Of course not. Do I suggest judges never make mistakes? No, of course not. Do I suggest all political action operates from the purest of motives? No. But do we enjoy freedoms and liberties? Yes, in my respectful view we do, and we do so through the assurances of the Constitution.

​

[18] As for the courts and the office which it is my privilege to discharge, there exists a foundational principle of our Constitution known as judicial independence. It is an oft misunderstood principle, but in Canada with our Constitution flowing from the British Constitution, the assurance of judicial independence has existed since 1701 in the Act of Settlement, which followed just twelve years after the Bill of Rights in 1689, to which I referred earlier.

​

[19] Since 1701 there has existed in the British Constitution, and thereafter in the Canadian Constitution, a healthy tension. That tension on which initially between the king on the one hand, and the individual citizens through their organization called parliament on the other. In the last few hundred years that tension has evolved to being between the legislative and executive branches of government on the one hand, and the individual citizen on the other.

​

[20] The independent courts exist as the fulcrum, if you will, between government on the one hand and the individual citizen on the other. The oft maligned Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists as the mechanism through which power is given to individual citizens enabling them to take to task the government of the day, through an assertion that the conduct of government is inconsistent with individual rights.

​

[21] These are not things that we talk about every day. They are, however, principles with which all of us should struggle. It is that very struggle which I respect in Mr. Warman's submissions, though he and I need to agree to disagree on these points.

​

[22] All that I have said, however, crystallizes in the context of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Warman, as the defendant in this prosecution, enjoys the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and all of the assurances under the Charter.

​

[23] He appears in a court before a tribunal which is not, and need not be, beholden to the state. It is that independent court to which other citizens may turn when their children are taken away by the state and they are cast into an adversarial relationship with extraordinarily high stakes, or to which other citizens may turn when their business is threatened by a regulatory agency or other branch of government.

​

[24] At the outset of this proceeding Mr. Warman articulated a objection to the jurisdiction of this court. I dismissed it then, and I continue to proceed under the understanding that Canada is a society subject to the rule of law and this proceeding forms part and parcel of that Rule.


http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00_0022.htm

It is a shame that some are too pickled with ineffectual bitterness to realize how good they have it.

 

[ria_rokz]

[12] As I have done my very best to listen respectfully to Mr. Warman and to understand the position he articulates, I hope he, and this room full of his like-minded supporters, will do the same as I respond briefly.
[13] As I reflected on Mr. Warman's submissions my mind travelled to the fact that on April 15th, next month, it is going to be my great honour to preside at the swearing of a number of new Canadian citizens. Will they become members of a club? Perhaps so, but in my respectful view how fortunate they will be.


[14] How fortunate are all of us that have been born into that club, if such it be, because it is my view, and in this regard I understand myself to articulate the perspective of the Canadian courts, that citizens of Canada enjoy assurances of fundamental rights and freedoms, in part but not entirely as enunciated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


[15] Those rights and freedoms are largely parallel to the inalienable rights granted under Magna Carta. Because of the relatively peaceful nature of our society, many Canadians have little awareness of the existence of the Constitution, let alone knowledge of its terms. But it is a measure of that Constitution, I suggest, and its preservation and enforcement through the rule of law, that permits that state of innocent disregard.


[16] If we lived in a police state, if we had no courts through which to assert our rights, if the elections of which Mr. Warman is so dismissive suddenly were to vanish, the reality of our present state would be impressed upon each one of us much more clearly.


[17] Am I so naïve as to suggest there is no inappropriate conduct by police in this country? Of course not. Do I suggest judges never make mistakes? No, of course not. Do I suggest all political action operates from the purest of motives? No. But do we enjoy freedoms and liberties? Yes, in my respectful view we do, and we do so through the assurances of the Constitution.


[18] As for the courts and the office which it is my privilege to discharge, there exists a foundational principle of our Constitution known as judicial independence. It is an oft misunderstood principle, but in Canada with our Constitution flowing from the British Constitution, the assurance of judicial independence has existed since 1701 in the Act of Settlement, which followed just twelve years after the Bill of Rights in 1689, to which I referred earlier.


[19] Since 1701 there has existed in the British Constitution, and thereafter in the Canadian Constitution, a healthy tension. That tension on which initially between the king on the one hand, and the individual citizens through their organization called parliament on the other. In the last few hundred years that tension has evolved to being between the legislative and executive branches of government on the one hand, and the individual citizen on the other.


[20] The independent courts exist as the fulcrum, if you will, between government on the one hand and the individual citizen on the other. The oft maligned Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists as the mechanism through which power is given to individual citizens enabling them to take to task the government of the day, through an assertion that the conduct of government is inconsistent with individual rights.


[21] These are not things that we talk about every day. They are, however, principles with which all of us should struggle. It is that very struggle which I respect in Mr. Warman's submissions, though he and I need to agree to disagree on these points.


[22] All that I have said, however, crystallizes in the context of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Warman, as the defendant in this prosecution, enjoys the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and all of the assurances under the Charter.


[23] He appears in a court before a tribunal which is not, and need not be, beholden to the state. It is that independent court to which other citizens may turn when their children are taken away by the state and they are cast into an adversarial relationship with extraordinarily high stakes, or to which other citizens may turn when their business is threatened by a regulatory agency or other branch of government.


[24] At the outset of this proceeding Mr. Warman articulated a objection to the jurisdiction of this court. I dismissed it then, and I continue to proceed under the understanding that Canada is a society subject to the rule of law and this proceeding forms part and parcel of that Rule.


http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/00/p00_0022.htm

Hear, hear.

 

[EldonG]

Sorry I don't understand.
You say it isn't deliberate nor is it accidental?

Don't think I said that. The imposition of slave status is most deliberate. And, there is nothing 'accidental' about that imposition of slavery upon Canadians or Americans.

Slavery was imposed upon the English people in 1302 with the Papal Edict (Papal Bull) Unam Sanctam wherein, the last sentence says: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." If you care to look it up, you will see that 'subject to' = 'slave of' where 'slave' means being under the control of another party. (for those who suffer under the 'dumbed down' education system in Canada over the last 50 years.) The Pontiff of Rome became the 'OVERLORD' of England, and later, Great Britain, FOREVER, in 1213.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

From Para. 7 of the link below:
"He (King John) went still further, and on 13 May, 1213, probably of his own initiative, surrendered the English kingdom through Pandulph into the hands of the Pope to be returned to him as a fief. The document of the surrender states that henceforth (forever) the kings of England were to rule as vassals of the Pope and to pay an annual tribute of 1000 marks to the See of Rome."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm

This was a 'secular' treaty, and had nothing to do with the religious organization, the Roman Catholic Church, nor was it influenced by King Henry VII's separation of the Anglican Church out of the RC Church.

The British Monarchs are still vassal Monarchs under the Overlord of Great Britain, the Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus) of the Vatican city/state.