Detax Canada

[JLord]

I work as a lawyer in Canada and my area of practice is basically what you call poverty law. So helping people out who are getting evicted, wrongful dismissal, human rights stuff, debts and collections, criminal stuff, government benefits, wills and estates, etc. Bascially I deal with any sort of legal trouble that poor people get into and try to help them out in ways that don't require them having a lot of money.

This area of practice involves dealing with a lot of people who are of low intelligence. (Probably a higher proportion than when dealing with the wealthy.) And these are the people most likely to buy into the claims of the "Freeman Movement" or in this case the closely related "detaxer" movement. For some reason these people are convinced that through verbal or grammatical gymnastics they can "outsmart" the system to avoid paying taxes, paying their mortgage, paying speeding tickets, paying child support, avoid shoing up for court, etc.

These people generally fall into two categories. The first are people who see this sort of material, believe it, and decide not to pay taxes or not pay their mortgage and then wind up with a big debt. The second are people who find themselves in some desperate financial situation and are looking for anything to help. The detaxers seem to have a magic solution to all their problems so they buy in to the nonsense in the hopes it will get them out of a jam. I have a bit more sympathy for the second group because they are acting out of desparation to solve some problem in their life, as opposed to the first group who cause the problem themselves by buying in and are really the authors of their own misforture.

A lot of people would say that these people are idiots and deserve what is coming to them and it is their fault for buying in to such retarded ideas. Other might look at those promoting these ideas and blame them for tricking people into these situations. (The same sort of debate occurs about who should be blamed when someone wastes a lot of money on a psychic) But regardless of where you stand, it is clear that these type of groups are not helping anyone.

The courts in my city (and I assume accross Canada) are well aware of the detax crowd and have procedures in place to deal with them. Judges of course have never had a problem shooting down their ridiculous arguments and there are many reported cases in which this happens (they can often be entertaining reading). But the detaxers will pull the same sort of arguments with court clerks and other employees. Like for instance, imagine that you are a clerk, you send notice to someone that they are to appear in court and you get this response (from the detax Canada website):

Quote:

There are no records available for the fictional entity,
Kevin E. Jones, AKA: KEVIN E JONES, at the address
noted on you demand. For any such records, you will
need contact the owner of KEVIN E JONES, the
fictional entity, which I believe to be the CROWN
in right of (your birth province).
The terms of the private contract of agency between
the free will man commonly called Kevin of the Jones
family, the principal, and the fictional entity/person
whose legal identity is KEVIN E JONES, the agent in
commerce for the principal, is not subject to the
scrutiny of a third party, and therefore, any
business dealings between the principal and agent
will not be released to CRA. The principal is not
a 'person', and therefore, not subject to provisions
of the Income Tax Act of Canada, to the Minister
of National Revenue or to Canada Revenue Agency.

I, commonly called Kevin of the Jones family, in own right,
for KEVIN E JONES for Her Majesty in right of Canada
[Hand write: KEVIN E JONES. The remainder may be typed]

What a mess.

Anyways, the detax Canada website (which I find to be quite comical) is located at:

http://www.detaxcanada.org


This thread is inspired by a similar one calling for stories of failures of US freeman movement people. I thought I would start one for the Canadian equivalent and post some of my stories here. This is a long post already but I will post some stories here in the near future. Meanwhile, if anyone has any comments or stories feel free.

[D'rok]

Thanks for this. I also find this stuff fascinating/amusing/enraging. IANAL, but I do have a law degree. (No desire to practice. Prefer to do policy work). I hadn't heard of detax Canada before. Not nearly as slick as the sales pitch by Robert Menard and co., but still amusing based on a first glance.

It's amazing how similar all of the legal woo is, whether it manifests as "sovereign citizens", FOTL, or whatever. Menard, for example, actively translates American redemption scams into Canadian terms and sells DVDs and study packages. But it's all the same crap.

Thanks for the new excuse to procrastinate!

[D'rok]

Yowza. This Warman chap is a real piece of work:

"In the early ’80s, Warman – a Canadian by birth – was living in the San Francisco suburb of Benicia. While working as a pilot for American Airlines, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service audited him and determined he owed a substantial amount of unreported tax dollars. Things went downhill fast.

Allegedly, Warman threatened the IRS agents with violence if they tried to collect. This was an imprudent action – around the same time, Gordon Kahl, a member of the Posse, made headlines for getting in a deadly shootout with U.S. federal marshals when they tried to arrest him for violating his parole. Kahl did time for not paying his taxes. Suffice to say, the authorities may have been a bit touchy. Warman was arrested, lost his pilot’s licence, was fired from his job and found his wife had committed suicide (Warman maintains IRS agents murdered her). The trauma and legal problems caused him to hightail it back to Canada."


http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2003/0807/cover.htm

Typically, he's also a raging anti-semite.

[D'rok]

Curses! Foiled again!

"So-called 'employees' are having CRA re-assess their returns based upon the T-4 slip sent to CRA by the 'employer'. That is the document the employer sends to you sometime during January or February stating 'employee 'income'.

In my filing instructions, I suggest that you amend the copy of the T-4, which shows 'income' and wages withheld and sent to CRA by the 'employer'. The amendment is to cross out the term 'employee', and print in beside it, 'agent', and initial the change.
However, CRA is disregarding this amendment, and using the T-4 slip sent to them directly by the 'employer' showing that the 'legal identity' strawman name 'is the employee earning the money', and using that income number to issue their re-assessment.

Conclusion: I don't currently have a solution to this problem (peaceful, anyway), so if someone out there can come up with an idea how to deal with it - that is, for those who are trapped into being an 'employee' , please let me know."

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filing%20problems.rtf

[ktesibios]

Umm... something I found on Wiki:

Quote:

Canadian content (abbreviated CanCon, cancon or can-con) refers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission requirements that radio and television broadcasters (including cable and satellite specialty channels) must air a certain percentage of content that was at least partly written, produced, presented, or otherwise contributed to by persons from Canada. It also refers to that content itself, and, more generally, to cultural and creative content that is Canadian in nature.

Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA- or at least get Alex Jones to put on a toque and start doing a regular "Great White Conspiracy" show?

As for the "freeman" who is unhappy about being an employee, I might suggest that he simply quit his job and let some poor bugger who's spent a few months trying desperately to get "trapped into being an employee" have it. He can check back in a year or so and let everybody know how that worked out.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by ktesibios

Umm... something I found on Wiki:



Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA.

Yeah, dammit! Where's the Rush of CTists? Hell, I'd settle for the Guess Who of FOTL CTists. They could use this as their theme song:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Corsair 115]

I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.

Well, he (the detax guy) did avail himself of the prison system after being convicted of assault. That's confirmation that my tax dollars are being well spent.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by ktesibios

Umm... something I found on Wiki:



Perhaps you guys could do something similar for CTs being marketed in Canada instead of relying on recycled content from the USA- or at least get Alex Jones to put on a toque and start doing a regular "Great White Conspiracy" show?

As for the "freeman" who is unhappy about being an employee, I might suggest that he simply quit his job and let some poor bugger who's spent a few months trying desperately to get "trapped into being an employee" have it. He can check back in a year or so and let everybody know how that worked out.

The problem is, most of the conspiracies involving Canadians are actually true.

Teh Evidences:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It's from the CBC, it's True!

[JLord]

Here are some nice snippets of what some Canadian judges have had to say about detaxers:

LINK

Quote:

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.

LINK

Quote:

Briefly stated, their contention was that each human creature comprises both a physical being (i.e., the ‘natural person’) and some sort of other legal entity created upon the government’s issuance to the human creature of a social insurance number. Conveniently, any income earned by the human creature is attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rests exclusively with its legal doppelganger

The Kions are not the first to hang their hats on the ‘natural person’ argument and, regrettably, are unlikely to be the last. Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system. Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.

This judge wasn't the first to point out the obvious contradiction with not paying taxes, but using services and in this case collecting tax benefits and credits. The people in this case (the Kions) were also hit with additional penalties for gross negligence.

And if you want a longer read, here is Warman's assault conviction.

LINK

He of course appealed the decision and lost, but this is a pretty good decision in my opinion because the judge gives Warman every benefit of the doubt and deals with his issues rather than dismissing them as often happens. Often if a judge dismisses a ridiculous argument out of hand, this is cited as further proof that they all know they are wrong but are just afraid to enforce the detaxer's position because of pressure and what have you.

For further reading if you are interested:

A case dissecting the "natural person" argument: LINK

Another "natural person" case where the guy tried to build on the above case with more ridiculous arguments: LINK

Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign. Not a classic detaxer argument but along the same lines in terms of logic: LINK

Another pretty comical one: LINK

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by JLord

And if you want a longer read, here is Warman's assault conviction.

LINK

He of course appealed the decision and lost, but this is a pretty good decision in my opinion because the judge gives Warman every benefit of the doubt and deals with his issues rather than dismissing them as often happens. Often if a judge dismisses a ridiculous argument out of hand, this is cited as further proof that they all know they are wrong but are just afraid to enforce the detaxer's position because of pressure and what have you.

I agree. The obiter in that decision is really quite inspiring. He could have just brushed all the freemanism aside and dealt with the main issue (the assault), but he wrote a passionate, yet respectful affirmation of the justness of Canadian society and of our legal system.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by JLord

Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign.

Best. Argument. Ever.

[LightinDarkness]

Thanks for posting your experience with this, OP. I think what this shows is that there is a real cost to us all for the Freeman/Anti-Tax woos. Its not only the people who believe in this stuff that end up paying far more in the end than if they simply embraced reality, but there is a cost to deal with all this that all tax payers end up paying for. It, again, reminds me that Freeman on the Land mythology is the perfect answer for the "But what harm could it cause to let them believe?" line of thinking.

As always, I am astounded that anyone could think this would work. Everyone has been at points in their life when they needed money and wanted simple answers...but even at those low points, I just do not understand how Freeman woo becomes attractive. The entire thing is based on the idea that there is a massive, global cabal so evil and so powerful that they can trick us all into believing that we have to obey the law when we really don't...but the vast cabal simply lays down and gives up if we utter the words "strawman" and "I do not consent." If this were true, this vast legal conspiracy cabal is both so powerful and so utterly stupid that we have nothing to worry about from them to begin with.

[EldonG]

It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by EldonG

It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by EldonG

It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

Go ahead and put your case here. Laughs are always good.

[LightinDarkness]

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...sues/2010/fall

A look at the "Sovereign Citizen" killers in the US.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by EldonG

It is sad that even on a public forum such as this that lawyers resort to the use of the Aristotleian 'Fallacies of Philosophy' to present their opinion, rather than putting up an honest debate on the issues presented on such websites as 'detaxcanada.org'.

Stick around. Should be fun.

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I'd be interested to know if any of these Canadian 'detaxers' (I honestly didn't know there was a Canadian version of this American phenomenon) have used the public health care system at any point.

Go to the detaxcanada website linked by OP, and use the search feature. Search: fairshare, and from there, follow the link to Ruml. You might find this extremely interesting.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by JLord

Here a guy tried to pay his taxes in Columbian Pesos based on the difference between the one stroke dollar sign ($) and the two stroke dollar sign. Not a classic detaxer argument but along the same lines in terms of logic: LINK

I dunno.

In my opinion, it doesn't top the guy who tried to pay a mortgage with Italian Lira (I think it was), based on his interpretation of the mortgage contract

[Zep]

Ah, no, Eldon. Post your evidence here. We will wait.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by EldonG

Go to the detaxcanada website linked by OP, and use the search feature. Search: fairshare, and from there, follow the link to Ruml. You might find this extremely interesting.

Corsair 115 asked if you use the Canadian health care system.

Do you use the Canadian health care system?

[lopeyschools]

Quote:

[3]** ** ** ** ** In his respondent record, Mr. Stanchfield included two affidavits. The first is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” while the second one is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)”. In that second affidavit, the affiant states: “Given our similar names, the same date of birth of March 17, 1971; signature, and mailing address. It is my intent to clarify this confusion as to the true ownership of any property and/or activities that are mistakenly assumed to be the Respondent’s.” Also, at paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, the affiant indicates that when the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) agents came to his residence to serve the respondent, “I answered the door and advised them
that I was not the person they were
looking for. And at both times, documents were dropped before me or were thrown into my private residence before agents walked away. In both
instances, I forwarded these legal documents to the Respondent” (emphasis added). *At the direction of
the Court, the signatories of each affidavit were to be present at the hearing. It quickly became apparent that there was only one human being involved and that Cory Stanchfield who appeared
and argued the case before me had signed both affidavits himself.

These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!

Welcome to the weird and wacky world of tax deniers, sovereign citizens, and freemen-on-the-land. 'Tis a silly place.

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by Zep

Ah, no, Eldon. Post your evidence here. We will wait.

Excerpt from " /fairshare " on the DetaxCanada website linked by OP:

In 1946, Beardsley Ruml - then Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, told the truth in a speech titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete".

Mr. Ruml explained that, since a government can easily print all the paper money it needs, in any amount, and therefore does not need to tax anyone, an income tax is maintained to siphon excess paper out of circulation, to stabilize the purchasing power of paper money (i.e., regulate inflation) and prevent the hyperinflation that would ordinarily result from printing too much paper!Now you know the truth behind the 'income tax'. Yet, not one American in a million heard Mr. Ruml's speech (And that is a good thing or they might have marched on Washington!).

Ample paper must continuously be taxed (siphoned) out of circulation to keep pace with the interest payments on the national debt, being made to the mostly foreign bankers who designed and control the Federal Reserve System.

In 1982, the prestigious, private-sector Grace Commission, in their cost-cutting report to President Reagan, confirmed the ineptness of the income tax to control inflation. The following quote by the Commission confirms that they do not even understand how the income tax functions, and that the present rate of taxation does not pay the interest for the use of the money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank and thus cannot even begin to affect the growth of the national debt... "100% [of income taxes] collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt ... all income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government."

(This position has no semblance of reality with the position of the Federal Reserve Bank. Anyone care to guess why? )

Shocked? You should be! The Commission's report was apparently written to make certain that most hard-working Americans will never know, or even believe, the hidden connection between fraudulent paper money and the taxes they pay on their own labor (fraudulently seized from their paychecks and bank accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank's "strong arm" collection agency, the IRS).

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by EldonG

Excerpt from " /fairshare " on the DetaxCanada website linked by OP:

In 1946, Beardsley Ruml - then Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC, told the truth in a speech titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete".

Mr. Ruml explained that, since a government can easily print all the paper money it needs, in any amount, and therefore does not need to tax anyone, an income tax is maintained to siphon excess paper out of circulation, to stabilize the purchasing power of paper money (i.e., regulate inflation) and prevent the hyperinflation that would ordinarily result from printing too much paper!Now you know the truth behind the 'income tax'. Yet, not one American in a million heard Mr. Ruml's speech (And that is a good thing or they might have marched on Washington!).

Ample paper must continuously be taxed (siphoned) out of circulation to keep pace with the interest payments on the national debt, being made to the mostly foreign bankers who designed and control the Federal Reserve System.

In 1982, the prestigious, private-sector Grace Commission, in their cost-cutting report to President Reagan, confirmed the ineptness of the income tax to control inflation. The following quote by the Commission confirms that they do not even understand how the income tax functions, and that the present rate of taxation does not pay the interest for the use of the money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank and thus cannot even begin to affect the growth of the national debt... "100% [of income taxes] collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt ... all income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government."

(This position has no semblance of reality with the position of the Federal Reserve Bank. Anyone care to guess why? )

Shocked? You should be! The Commission's report was apparently written to make certain that most hard-working Americans will never know, or even believe, the hidden connection between fraudulent paper money and the taxes they pay on their own labor (fraudulently seized from their paychecks and bank accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank's "strong arm" collection agency, the IRS).

Relevance of conspiracy nonsense about the American Federal Reserve to Canada and the Canadian health care system?

None.

Try again.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Relevance of conspiracy nonsense about the American Federal Reserve to Canada and the Canadian health care system?

None.

Try again.

That's what i was gonna say. Good question, what does that have to do with Canada, EldonG?

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Welcome to the weird and wacky world of tax deniers, sovereign citizens, and freemen-on-the-land. 'Tis a silly place.

Detax Canada does not promote or support any of those which you mention.

1. Income tax is only applicable to a fictional legal name created by Government by changing the family name to a 'sur' or primary name. It is not applicable to a living adult man, unless that man has , with full knowledge of terms, voluntarily entered into a contract of servitude to be an accessory attached to the Crown or State owned (intellectual property) name.

2. Any 'citizen', using the Roman source definition, is a 'subject/slave of the State. As with 'natural person', the adjective preceding the term does not
change the status of the entity.

3. The term 'freeman' is synonomous with the terms 'citizen, subject, person'; all meaning that the intended subject man to whom it is applied is of slave status. The original Magna Carta of 1215, which was voided by the Pope, the overlord of England, contained the term 'liber homo' (2 separate words meaning free man, or free will man) when claiming the rights to due process of law for a living man. The Pope could have none of this in his fascist world.

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by The Platypus

That's what i was gonna say. Good question, what does that have to do with Canada, EldonG?

Everything. The Bank of Canada voting shares were sold to the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1936. An equal number of non-voting shares were then created and sold back to the Canadian Government. All major banks in Canada have a representatibe of the Federal Reserve on their board of directors.

The corporate business office of the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC.
Look it up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.

CRA operates above and outside Canadian law as proven by the fact that CRA can confiscate Canadian OAS, CPP and military pension when all three of the statutes covering those say 'no attachments of benefits in law or in equity'. Operating under the property right based feudal system 'master/servant law', CRA edicts and demands trump statutory law.

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

These reads like a Monty python sketch! I couldn't stop laughing!

This had nothing to do with the Detax Canada program. The human defendant 'identified' himself as an accessory attached to Crown property (the legal name), and that allowed the judge to apply the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali'.

With that, the judge applied the Roman treatment upon disobedient slaves
that is was succinctly stated in the Fugitive Slave Act (USA) of 1850, section 6: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by EldonG

Detax Canada does not promote or support any of those which you mention.

You deny the validity of income tax. You advocate individual sovereignty over parliamentary sovereignty. You advocate separating the natural person from the legal person.

That's three for three. I guess you lied.

Quote:

1. Income tax is only applicable to a fictional legal name created by Government by changing the family name to a 'sur' or primary name. It is not applicable to a living adult man, unless that man has , with full knowledge of terms, voluntarily entered into a contract of servitude to be an accessory attached to the Crown or State owned (intellectual property) name.

No. Authoritative cases have already been cited in this very thread that show the idiotic untruth of your legal "analysis".

Quote:

2. Any 'citizen', using the Roman source definition, is a 'subject/slave of the State. As with 'natural person', the adjective preceding the term does not
change the status of the entity.

Roman law is irrelevant to Canada. The Roman definition of citizen, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to Canada. All natural persons are also legal persons.

Quote:

3. The term 'freeman' is synonomous with the terms 'citizen, subject, person'; all meaning that the intended subject man to whom it is applied is of slave status. The original Magna Carta of 1215, which was voided by the Pope, the overlord of England, contained the term 'liber homo' (2 separate words meaning free man, or free will man) when claiming the rights to due process of law for a living man. The Pope could have none of this in his fascist world.

The Pope is irrelevant to Canada. The Pope has no say in Canadian law. The Magna Carta, whatever version, is of historical significance only. The only slavery in Canada is of the type that you embody - i.e., hopeless bondage to fear, anger and delusion. You are a slave of your own making.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by EldonG

This had nothing to do with the Detax Canada program. The human defendant 'identified' himself as an accessory attached to Crown property (the legal name), and that allowed the judge to apply the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali'.

With that, the judge applied the Roman treatment upon disobedient slaves
that is was succinctly stated in the Fugitive Slave Act (USA) of 1850, section 6: "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"

Canadian judges don't apply Roman law. Canadian judges don't apply American law, especially American law that is no longer good law even in America.

We can read. We can read that case. We can see how well your doctrine of the natural/legal person distinction holds up to legal scrutiny. It doesn't.

[Alareth]

Originally Posted by EldonG

Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.

Oh I just can't WAIT to see your evidence for this one.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by EldonG

Everything. The Bank of Canada voting shares were sold to the Federal Reserve Bank of NYC in 1936. An equal number of non-voting shares were then created and sold back to the Canadian Government. All major banks in Canada have a representatibe of the Federal Reserve on their board of directors.

The corporate business office of the corporation called Canada is in Washington, DC.
Look it up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

Both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operate under the International Monetary Fund, which is directly owned (behind veils) by the Pontiff of Rome.

CRA operates above and outside Canadian law as proven by the fact that CRA can confiscate Canadian OAS, CPP and military pension when all three of the statutes covering those say 'no attachments of benefits in law or in equity'. Operating under the property right based feudal system 'master/servant law', CRA edicts and demands trump statutory law.

Gee that's interesting, i'm admittedly no expert in this, so i have to look such things up to verify them. And upon looking this all up, none of what your saying seems to be true... go figure, I wonder why?

[dtugg]

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by D'rok

You deny the validity of income tax. You advocate individual sovereignty over parliamentary sovereignty. You advocate separating the natural person from the legal person.

That's three for three. I guess you lied..

Wrong. I don't advocate 'sovereignty. I advocate 'free will status'. The only separation I show for natural and artificial/legal person is that natural means a man in servitude to the corporate Crown, and an artificial person being a ship or make believe ship - an incorporated body.

Originally Posted by D'rok

No. Authoritative cases have already been cited in this very thread that show the idiotic untruth of your legal "analysis"..

There is, and cannot be authorative case law for dismissed cases for want of jurisdiction over a free will man.

Originally Posted by D'rok

Roman law is irrelevant to Canada. The Roman definition of citizen, whatever it may be, is irrelevant to Canada. All natural persons are also legal persons..

Canada, as a corporate body is a Province of the Holy Roman Empire of the Pontiff of Rome/Vatican. Incorporation of bodies politic (policy enforcing corporate bodies) is totally a Roman Empire thing, as is statutory law that is applicable to corporate members called 'persons' - slave crewmembers on the make-believe ship at sea.

Originally Posted by D'rok

The Pope is irrelevant to Canada. The Pope has no say in Canadian law. The Magna Carta, whatever version, is of historical significance only. The only slavery in Canada is of the type that you embody - i.e., hopeless bondage to fear, anger and delusion. You are a slave of your own making.

Is that so? The Popes of 1455 and 1493 declared by Papal Bull that all European discovered lands belonged to the Pontiff of Rome. The Papal Bull of 1302 declared all humankind as being 'subjects of (slaves of) the Pontiff of Rome. (look up on GOOGLE). The Protestant separation of King Henry VII's
time only separated the sub-corporate body, the Roman Catholic Church, but did not nullify the treaty between King John and Pope Innocent III of 1213,
which declared England and the Monarch of England vassals FOREVER of the Holy Roman Empire.

When a new Pope is Crowned as King of Heaven, of Earth and of Hell, this declaration is made: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ".

Do you think that the Pope exercises secular 'Ruler of the World' by sprinkling holy water?

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by The Platypus

Gee that's interesting, i'm admittedly no expert in this, so i have to look such things up to verify them. And upon looking this all up, none of what your saying seems to be true... go figure, I wonder why?

Where are you looking? You cannot find such information by looking at the roll of toilet paper by your can.

Is this a thread by Government of Jesuit controlled dupes and dis-information agents?

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

How did you know friday night was my night off from watching children explode?

The Pope lost the majority of his power in a little event known as the Protestant reformation. It has been almost entirely downhill for that "mouthpeice of god" since. The idea that the pope is controlling the IMF is not grounded in reality.

The Declaration made of the powers of the Pope: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ". - Shows both a secular and a religious role for the Pope. He is creator of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World in the secular (worldly) role, and God incarnate on Earth as his religious role.

The making of England - later Great Britain (in 1213) - as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire FOREVER (a secular Empire, not religious/ecclestical) was a secular tie. The English protestant move was just a separation of the sub-corporate Anglican Church from the sub-corporae Roman Catholic Church.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

[EldonG]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Oh I just can't WAIT to see your evidence for this one.

Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)

3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg.113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please do not post lengthy cut and pasted tracts available elsewhere. Instead, just post a short quote and a link to the complete tract. Also, please consult the Membership Agreement, to which you agreed upon becoming a member of the forum.

Posted By:LashL

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by EldonG

The Declaration made of the powers of the Pope: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ". - Shows both a secular and a religious role for the Pope. He is creator of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World in the secular (worldly) role, and God incarnate on Earth as his religious role.

The making of England - later Great Britain (in 1213) - as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire FOREVER (a secular Empire, not religious/ecclestical) was a secular tie. The English protestant move was just a separation of the sub-corporate Anglican Church from the sub-corporae Roman Catholic Church.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

ok,

1. Saying you're the leader of the world, and being the leader of the world are two entirely separate things. The Pop has not held any real power for a very long time. The historical enemies of the papacy made sure of this.

2. English Protestantism was a full blown separation of the churches. Catholics were hunted and burned for being catholic.

I hate to sound arrogant but your knowledge of history is seriously flawed. Take some history courses at an accredited university.