Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews

Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews By Marcy OsterOctober 18, 2010 10:40pm JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat. "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter. Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews. "With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90. An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10. The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday. "Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition." Tags: Top Headlines We've redesigned our website! Now is a critical time for you to support JTA. Please donate today. Marcy Oster is a JTA correspondent in Israel. She worked at the Cleveland Jewish News for nearly 12 years and was senior staff reporter when she made aliyah in 2000. She has won several awards for her writing from organizations including The Press Club of Cleveland, Society for Professional Journalists, Women in Communications and the American Jewish Press Association. Read more: http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews#ixzz2XFBLdbl4

California acts a front man for Monsanto

NaturalNews) Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide -- multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt). The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors." You can read the abstract here. There's a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms: ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb. This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the 'net all weekend. Women were asking things like: "You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?" It doesn't exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don't have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk. But it's not just eating glyphosate that's the problem. You're also DRINKING it. California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at: http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdf The document openly admits: Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources. It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto's quack science team: "Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats." Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of "1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water." Yes, that's 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation. What's even more shocking is that California's allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level -- 700 ppb. Yes, California -- the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else -- actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its "official" report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government! Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier -- in 1995 -- in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded: Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. ...In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors. Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells... reduced sperm counts in male rats... an increase in fetal loss... In other words, California knew -- or should have known -- that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its "Public Health Goal" documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation. Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10% Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view that document here: http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdf It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb -- still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week. This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it's right out of Monsanto's P.R. department: "Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans," it says. Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto's chemicals are killing women Now it's 2013. We've seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We've also now seen the "parts per trillion" study showing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate. We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this -- to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides). Glyphosate is the new DDT Based on what we're seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it's contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies. Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth. And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they've allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors? "Run for the cure!" And don't label GMOs, either, because you don't have a right to know whether you're eating deadly poison in your food. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040808_glyphosate_breast_cancer_drinking_water.html#ixzz2WWRXOZqS

Understanding Jurisdiction

Anonymous Theme: * Income Tax all based on signing an oath / affirmation... * Importance of Learning a Trade... In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be /'anti-government.'/ They do not talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term /'jurisdiction' /was still well understood at that time as meaning /'oath spoken.' 'Juris'/, in the original Latin meaning, is /'oath.' 'Diction',/ as everyone knows, means /'spoken.'/ The protest obviously did not happen here in the USA. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here is what happened: The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies due to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you have been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. /'Feud'/ is Old English for /'oath.' / The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter / gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that is how the nobility made their wealth. No, they did not push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility would not sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you could not have moved out? Then you would have a feel for what feudalism was all about. A tenant was not a freeman. He was a servant to the /(land)/lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring /(extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate)./ That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an /'income tax.' / The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a /'personal and dependent deductions.'/ The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unalleiged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they would also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He would learn a trade. He would never need to become a tenant farmer. He would keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen did not need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he would have learned enough to practice the craft. That is when the contract expired. He was then called a /'journeyman.' / Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is */"Jur-nee-man."/* He was a /'man,'/formerly /("nee")/, bound by oath /('jur')/. He would then go to work for a /'master' (craftsman)/. The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he would be recognized by the market as a /'master'/ /(craftsman)/ and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds /(means 'gold')/ as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths. When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to /'serve gold.' /Only gold. He swore he would only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! /(Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They would love to have you think that the 'G' in the middle of their logo stands for 'God.' The obvious truth is that it stands for 'GOLD' - [some say 'Generation.'])/ Then the Bible came to print. The market for this time wasn’t the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they would also be taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich/(and the priests)/ nobody else knew how to read. These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths /(Matthew 5:33-37)/. This was news to them. For well over a millennia they had been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/, */"Swear not at all..."/* /'oaths.' /Talk about an eye-opener. Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there would have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. /'Livid' /might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the /'Reformation.'/ In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, */"None."/* The churches all said /(and still say)/, */"None, except . . ."/* Who do you think was /(is)/ right? The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new /'reformed' /church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they could not establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term /'you'/ was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. /'Thee' /was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun /'thee' /or by their Christian names, /'George, Peter, Robert, etc.'/ We call these folk /'Quakers.' /That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he would better */"Quake before the Lord, God almighty."/* The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, */"Thee are the quaker here."/* They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer /(as you shall soon see)/, and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new /'Reformed Churches.'/ Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not. But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, cannot go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe /(10%)/. But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax /'without jurisdiction,'/ at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they did not have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was /'no jurisdiction.'/ And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested. That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who had thought the Quakers were /'extremists' /suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes were not enough to offset these further losses. The tithe /(income)/ tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who would then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They had always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals? They began to use the term /'anarchy.'/ But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There is an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, */"jump."/* Everyone jumps. Why do they jump? Simple. Ir is a crime to NOT jump. To /'willfully fail (hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command' /is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement. Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that was not possible. There really was /'no jurisdiction.' /And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally! A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/: /*"swear not at all."*/ They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they were not filled as you would envision them. The men who had refused the oaths were not there. Their children were. There was a /'Stand-in'/ law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings. That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. /(And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.)/ Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they would exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos /(and nearly anarchy: 'no crown')/ came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’ words did not bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an /'affirmation in lieu of oath.'/ The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they had been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations /(Matthew 5:36,37)/, calling the practice an oath */"by thy head." /*Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy! When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here in the United States of America, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an /(overt)/ ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act /'committed' /- it is the opposite, an act /'omitted.'/ In this nation /'doing nothing' /cannot be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession. Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn /(or affirmed) /to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official /'fail'/ to perform his lawful duties, he would evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that is still the situation. It is just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax was not apportioned, and could not be apportioned; that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax was not absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a /'kick back'/ or even a /'return.' /Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that would not be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment did not apply. Make sense? Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs /'standing.' /The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question could not have come up. Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer. That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it is far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That is a very strange concept at law. Actually, it is an impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say /(nor do the statues enacted under it)/. The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress /'no new powers.' /That is absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes /(as benefits of office)/ to their incomes from other sources /(from whatever source derived)./ The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder do not have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to/'willfully fail' /to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception. Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, */"Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that."/* I will bet you $100 that I can prove that you did it, and that you will be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it! Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was /'true'/ that you were /'under penalties of perjury.' /Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath /(or affirmation)/. You know that. It is common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you would need to be under oath, right? Right. There is no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it is a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be /'under penalties of perjury' /is to claim that you are under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim. You have read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you cannot even be placed in jeopardy of penalty /(trial)/ a second time. The term /'penalties' /is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That is why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction /(oath spoken),/ allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury /(especially for a perjury of official oath)/. You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You are not under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You cannot be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government would not try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ where there was none. Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you will be charged with /'willful failure to file,'/ a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something! Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN /(or affirmed) /before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he did not list it, then swore that the form was '/true, correct and complete,' /he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he did not. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the /'gross' /and /'net income'/ lines, forcing a NO answer on the /'tax due'/ line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of /'testimony.'/ Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed /'Under penalties of perjury.' /The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance. *_There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court_.*The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury /(to his official oath)/. The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a /'failure.' /That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason. However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another. The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements */"I am under penalties of perjury"/* and */"I am not a federal official or employee"/* would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. We cannot have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for /'willful failure'/ where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they were not federal persons. Unfortunately, they did not tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at /'willful failure' /trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he is not a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that is surely what he would try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he is not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the /'perjury clause' /on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he is under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It is still a matter of jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/. That has not changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is /'voluntary,' /in the beginning, but /'compulsory' /once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers /(including you)/ would vanish to zero. It is still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you do not immediately realize it. Yes, it is a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You have wondered who are persons /'subject to the jurisdiction' /of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective. The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the /'jurisdiction'/ of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was / is accomplished. After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they could not vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they were not about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that. It ordered that voters had to be /'registered.' /And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, were not about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a /'State had no right to secede.' /The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them did not have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was! Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure /(by oath)/ federal officials, /'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' /by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded. Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors /(indictment)/ or under the oath of office of a federal officer /(information)/. Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It is all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even /'sovereign immunity,' /cannot be extended is ... perjury. You must understand /'jurisdiction.'/ That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what /'jurisdiction'/ means. You did not WILLFULLY claim that you were /'Under penalties of perjury' /on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You did not realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just did not give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you have made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be /'under oath'/ a perjury of which might be /'twice'/ penalized. Explain that you have never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you had ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you will most certainly not make that mistake again! That will be the end of any possibility that you will ever be charged with /'willful failure to file.' /Too simple? No, it is only as simple as it is supposed to be. Jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you are not under oath and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman cannot be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here. It is a matter of history. European history, American history and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you have never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works. Jesus Christ was that Truth. His command that His followers: /*"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34). /That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who would farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with /'sedition'/ for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He would /'tear down the temple' //(a government building)/. At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. /(Matthew 27:14). /That was unheard of! The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question and attempted to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus by accusing Him of sedition; Pilate said: /*"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?"*/ /(Matthew 27:13/). Pilate failed to obtain a compelled oath / jurisdiction over Jesus Christ, as He responded thusly: /*"And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."*/ /(Matthew 27:14)/ He did not /'take' /the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man /(guilty of sedition)/? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he had said so. That is what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, /*"And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, _Thou sayest it._" *//(Mark 15:2). /Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court could not get jurisdiction. Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the /'protection of Rome.' /Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of /'person or persons unknown'/ which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate /*"..marvelled greatly."*/ He had never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the /'great unwashed masses.' /The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that /'failure of jurisdiction' /required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would /'wash his hands.' /Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law could not kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How was that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law could not do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order. In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That /'some of the time'/ regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were/(and still are)/ a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a /'lawful oath.'/ We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves. Jesus said: /*"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34)/, i.e. /'swear no oaths,' /extending that even to oaths which do not name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer /(under oath)/. Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call /'judgement proof.'/ They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court /(without oath)/ by giving the plaintiff their coat. That was not a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense! It is rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It is all a matter of /'jurisdiction'/ /(oath spoken)/, which a Christian cannot abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We cannot serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain. As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly cannot envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy /(no crown)/. Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I cannot envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath. The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos. Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury /(a panel of sworn men)/, to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you cannot, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives. Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath /(of office)/ on those income tax forms. You claimed /'jurisdiction.' /Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It will still work. It is the only thing that will work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you /(or your daughters)/. You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you are not the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there would be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That is only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure /'between the lines'/ of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. *Will it to your grandchildren*. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it will scare the government silly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Food for thought:* */"The world runs on the initiative of about 5% of the people; the rest need orders. /* /*The consensus of the other 95% on the subject of one’s relationship with: government – banks – tax agencies – courts and corporations (all separate realms) is defective in that such inert abstractions have been accorded superiority over living beings.*/ /*Governments are transitory mental contrivances set up by the clever few for the purpose of living off the efforts of the trusting many – a generalization, yes, but also the truth."*/ Top <#> Home Fun Family Education / Facts Religion / Philosophy Famous Quotes NWO Law, Tax, Guns, Money Sovereignty Health

So you want to know what a licence is

From Bouviers law dictionary; LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade. LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. “License” is derived from and rooted in the word; “Licentious” (mine); LICENTIOUSNESS. The doing what one pleases without regard to the rights of others; it differs from liberty in this, that the latter is restrained by natural or positive law, and consists in doing whatever we please, not inconsistent, with the rights of others, whereas the former does not respect those rights. Wolff, Inst. §84 Now, you may notice only one of two belligerent parties claim authority, to give the other party authority, to carry on a specified trade. Who and what is a belligerent party? You would think the word “licentious” would be in here, (Bouviers) not? But it isn’t. Now, who in their right mind would even consider asking for permission to apply (carry on) his trade? You may notice that this definition is pertaining to international law and as such, who then, holds Canada’s license? The Bank of England? Who issued the corporation known as “Canada” a license to carry on a specified trade or any trade? Someone’s gotta have it. Who’s got it…….? Who is the authority? Now, the second one is a contract, a right given by some competent authority. Okay let’s stop right there, we really don’t need to go any further than that! In order to be able to claim competent authority, you, of course, would have to have a license. Right? ALL LEGAL FICTIONS are under license, to someone. If someone, can show me a competent legal fiction, with authorized claim in commerce, to enter common law jurisdiction, contrary to section 39, original Latin version of the Magna Carta 1215, I tell you what: “I will chew on someone’s dirty shorts and air it on UTube.” The third one is self explanatory, the act of “LICENTIOUSNESS”, simply means, “the obtaining and usage of ones license, at one’s pleasure, with total disregard to another’s rights.” Pretty simple isn’t it? Especially when the word “LICENCIOUS” simply means, “unlawfully evil.” Add it up, slice it or dice it any way you can, to go out and apply, make application (beg, plead, implore) to receive a license, then turn around and demand, I do the same as you, is also “unlawfully evil.” Slaves making unlawful claims on freemen, for the simple reason of; “I’m a grateful slave and you should be too” is ignorance at its highest level. A moron, a.k.a. sheep, comes to mind (a person of arrested intelligence whose mentality is judged incapable of developing beyond that of a normal child 8-12 years old). Who’s following the piper??? Taken from my perfected claim of right; I claim that, the Crowns claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim and whereas, Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction. Furthermore, I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings, acting as, persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporate persons such as “The Courts of Saskatchewan” and/or “Government of Saskatchewan” etc. Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines with smoke and mirrors, deception, outright lie’s and too numerous to mention false claims as to the well settled division, between the Crown created legal entity known as the “PERSON” and the flesh and blood creation of the Creator known as a “man”, is nothing short of theft, fraud, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form. Furthermore, I claim that “all persons”, acting as, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof. Furthermore, I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretence of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir. Now, there exists, in this world, only two types of entities; the living kind and the dead. Any assumptions, erroneous beliefs or preconceived notions as to the former statement being untrue had better be backed up by undisputable, irrefutable proof. There are not, any “competent persons” anywhere! Hence, the dead cannot claim authority over the living, PERIOD!! No ifs, no ands no buts!!

big bunch of info strikes home

My video link is at the end and the last link amongst the dozens of others that will open your eyes! Private agreements are always best if you are the one with the facts. Blessings I am glad you saw the video! These links below may help you as well If one continues to surf the site where you find Canada as a trading Corporation listed with the US security; then you will also find "Ontario Province of": http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000074615&owner=include&count=40 "Quebec Province of" http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000722803&owner=include&count=40 "British Columbia Province of" http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=14306 You will see by the *short list* of documents, although voluminous, partially indicates the diligence that has been extended to bring as many private men and women into awareness of our faith as *possible to avert and abate assumption we are corporate entities subject to corporate law.* ** *I have dozens of other communications but suffice to say I think you can see a crime taking place and if not in the knowledge of one involved it absolves him from responsibility, take note that once in the awareness of the crime those participating must stop or misfeasance of public office malicious prosecution, bad faith and criminal intent is implied.* ** http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3993/is_200411/ai_n9467708 A TOPlC RARELY TALKED about in public procurement, or even within governments generally, is the possibility of a government official abusing the powers of their office for improper reasons. Given the currency of the topic, however, in this article we seek to shed some light on what could become tomorrow's headline, the tort of misfeasance in public office. In common law, persons who exercise the legal powers of the Crown (called public officers or public officials) are subject to a tort (civil wrong) action if they abuse their powers. Called in law misfeasance in a public office, this tort was first created in England in a case called Ashby v. White (1703) 92 E.R. 126, where a person, maliciously and fraudulently deprived of their right to vote by an election official, sued the election official for damages and won. The tort came to Canada in a case called Roncarelli v. Duplesis [1959] S.C.R. 121, where the Quebec premier improperly ordered the manager of the Quebec Liquor Commission to revoke Roncarelli's liquor license because Roncarelli had provided bail money to several Jehovah's Witnesses whom Duplessis had had arrested. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found the premier had no grounds for ordering this, did not even have the power to make such an order, and had done so only out of malice. That malice is being demonstrated by the private men and women acting as Judges Police and ministers in ignorance of the communications to them. They have all been served with the private knowledge and had a duty via 180 of the criminal code and as senior officials had a duty to inform others not to intimidate men and women of faith nor obstruct their ability to practice their faith as per 176 and 423 of the code that applies to them.. ** *Minister Donald Christopher Carter has already communicated to Mr. Lufty as of 2003* as you will see when open his document that was sent registered mail to over 70 officials in their private capacity. *It appears we have a deliberate conspiracy taking place*. *This email will be used as evidence of awareness on the part of senior staffers of this fraud and criminal activity that is transpiring on the part of revenue justice and Federal Court judges and clerks alike or anyone who comes into awareness of a crime and ignores their duty to act.* ** I am including a set of links and a Video of myself at the end explaining the situation and educating about God's law his people and what he decreed happen to those who stiff necked refused to follow his law. An Archist is one who follows mans laws. A deist is one who follows God's laws. A or An as a prefix to a word such a moral means the opposite or in the case of Archist an Anarchist ,which means in English opposed to mans laws, like Yahushua, the hebrew name for Christ, was.. Since you spoke of fictions I will refer you to Deuteronomy the great book of law in chapter 1 verse 17 and chapter 10 verse 17 then I will guide you to Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 then finally and definitively to James 2:9. *I or our faiths members can not show respect to or be persons!* I know the meaning of the word persona is with sound. I also know it meant and was used to refer to a mask worn by a player in a stage...a fiction. I am a man not an individual as both person and individual, as written in corporate law , refer to corporate members as in a parternership or a business like commercial relationship. Matthew 6:24 says to not partake of mammon which is commerce which is the corporate dead. We are not to have communion with the dead flesh or formed dead thing . God forbids it!. God makes this clear in the action of Saul in bringing up the dead spirit of Samuel. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=28&version=31 Please take your time read all of this below to grasp how powerful it is and why Canadian treasury was briefed about this by Cameron McEwan senior analyst for Treasury who still works there albeit in a reduced capacity.. They agreed with all of the facts as being irrefutable as of the Queen's letter to them saying she was in receipt of the petition. This is powerful history and some of you may have prejudices that may wish to reject this but the facts got treasury to say uncle!! I in quest of truth have been following the freedom movement since 1999 and have seen some amazing things take place in the battle for supremacy. Of all the most influential was the fact that the Queen, head of all the justice systems with the Governor General as head under her, is sworn to be defending the laws of God. That along with the facts I show you that the laws of the government of Canada or the commonweath do not apply to you are quite startling I hope you will not be blinded by these shockers.. They prove you do not have to go to defacto courts to have problems solved You can only come out of Babylon if you are aware. Now once aware of the following irrefutable facts and you still wish to submit to impostors you may wish to question your logic. Blessings. From Minister Belanger Slavery , and how to stop Codex Alimentarius and removal of Farmers seed by Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger Monday June 28, 2004 at 06:58 AM owlmonone@yahoo.ca or owlmon@gmail.com What is Slavery??? What is forced taxation??? How can parlimentarians sworn allegiant to a Christian Monarch, who is defender of the Christian faith and Biblical law, support gay marriage? How about taking away God's herbs?....... How about making you bow to false law or god????? Is this with God's scriptural approval? Will they proceed to force you to bow to a false god in court if they know of your faith beforehand??> Will the Queen be amused??? Did she as a Christain Monarch take an oath to defend the laws of God of the King James Bible? http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html Was it based upon the words of the 1689 version? Or was it minutely altered with no legal method to do so? http://www.worldfreeinternet .net/parliament/oath.htm< http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/oath.htm > http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16890409.htm Is their a law regarding that faith and the defense thereof by those who took an oath to the King's and Queens? http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=westminster_conf_of_faith.html see section 22 This story is proof positive of what i am saying will take place if you stand in your faith if assaulted by unlawful forces!!! http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1948.html This actually happened as I am first hand witness to the events. The prosecutor backed down immediately!!!! Do not be prejudiced as of God's gift lest you blaspheme his creation Can they our so called sworn allegiant's to the defender of the faith really ban the ability to store seed? Our farmers own seed? The simple answer is yes if we allow it! We allow it by not claiming it as God's gift! All herbs bearing seed are a gift of God with no repentance required. Romans 11:29. How can God's gift to man and woman be outlawed or removed from your ability to possess it in those countries that have Bibles in their courts? Do we get say about this? From whence do they get their authority in those countries that recognise God as Supreme? From the Bible if they are dejure. From thin air if they are de facto! Who will stand for their faith the way Christ himself showed us? I will show you how with registered mail to private men and women as per Matthew 18:15-20 that everything can change in a short time. Class actions against private men and women in charge of bringing in Codex will wake them up as to their inability to get corporate defense. They will also be suffering from an inability to get competent(R. v Mckibbon 1988 Ezekiel 33:6) private defense. Genesis 1:29 and Romans 11:29 ensures the rule of law is clear! The King James Bible has Standing in commonwealth courts! That means it cannot be argued with! That link will expose the underbelly of the beast that drives Codex! Who is responsible for the charging of interest or what God refers to as usury?? Are we compelled to violate God's command and pay interest?? http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/UsuryScriptureList.html http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/conman2.html Is the world bank owned by ethnic affiliation??? http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Rothschild.html http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/SOR-84-431/71221.html#rid-71224 Is the Talmud ruling the world and law? http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/index.html I strongly encourage you to read as much as you can on this site as it will show you how powerful Talmud is and how to circumvent it's power over you.It already has invoked taxes upon you and now is pushing for the Medpharm control of it all with Codex. Yes Talmud was responsible for all that. Are you supposed to bow to false authority??? Exodus 20:3-5 God's word is final . Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 5:7-10; 12:2-3 Are you a child of Israel or a slave?? http://mindprod.com/kjv/Leviticus/25.html25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. God is telling us if we are strangers to his law and do not follow after his law as if we fail to follow we will be enslaved. Have you been bought and sold as a* person*? This below is touted as a Canadian petroleum and gas producers act. Your body produces oil and gas. Why is their a listed value to your life listed there if it is about petroleum ? Please keep in mind the Canadian treasury Board was briefed on this and said I was correct. Notice the buying a selling of persons and the definitions http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/32270.html control status" means, with respect to a person, whether or not the person is Canadian controlled as determined under this Act and the regulations; "direct equity percentage" �pourcentage de participation directe� "direct equity percentage" means, with respect to formal equity owned by a person in any particular person, (a) where the particular person does not have more than one class of formal equity within the meaning of the regulations, the percentage of the formal equity of the particular person that is owned by the person , and "owned" �poss�der� "owned" means, subject to the regulations, beneficially owned, and the words "owner" and "ownership" have corresponding meanings; "person" �personne� *"person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons;* *Individual what? Individual fictions?* *Did you read the word "man" in there? *** Is their a value to your life? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/SOR-84-431/71221.html#rid -71224 < http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/SOR-84-431/71221.html#rid-71224 > Remember 12.7% a year is what is collected on the annuity of your bond. *That bond is what gives value to the currency in circulation as you in a bonded form are used* a*s surety for the* *negotiable instrument of value* internationally. Who or what is a false God ? Exodus 20:3-5 One who writes law in excess of or in derogation to God or acts like a God overwriting YeHoVaH's law, is a false god. Acts 12:21-23 Deuteronomy 4:2 the eleventh commandment and 12:32 chiming in commands what to not do with his law. Does the government of Canada have a legitimate Governor General or an imposter* that has usuped the power*???? Lets examine that. http://www.gg.ca/governor_*general*/role_e.asp < http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp> look for defacto What does de facto mean??? Why must we know? Ignorance is no excuse Hosea 4:6 section 19 of mans criminal code! http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec19.html http://www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/dict-d.htm http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/defacto.html The creditor for Canada defines defacto http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/4b8a4e22c6560e808525672c007d07ce?OpenDocument Can one word like defacto, mean we are under the power of an illegitimate false god usurped government?? Are we supposed to bow to their godless commands? What did Shadrack Meshak and Abednigo do in Daniel Chapter 3? they refused to bow! Did Daniel eat the Kings food? He refused as of God's food ordinance! Daniel Chapter 1 Why does *Michaelle Jean* say she is de facto??? Is she being Honest and truthful? Why does the world bank say de facto means usurped authority and an abrogated constitution ? http://wbln0018.worldbank.org /Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/%200/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument Will you bow to a false god regime???? Will you violate God's first command? Exodus 20:3-5. Have you been royally conned just like millions before you? 2Peter 2:3 Do the provinces tell Church's if they register they have to give up God's law? Yes they do!! This is hard to believe but is true http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/nfpinc/charities.asp#special_religious < http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/nfpinc/charities.asp#special_religious > See section 6.5 Did you know the word constitutor defined in Blacks law dictionary, and others as well, means *one who by simple agreement becomes responsible for anothers debt*? Did you agree to pay anothers debt? When? How? Whose debt was it? Was it lawfully obtained? http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/Britian-Pontiff.html Does Canada's parliament makes laws in excess of God's law? Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32 says no! They do it Every day they sit! I still cannot find the Income tax act in the Bible. * Can't find it in the parliamentary Clerks office nor the Clerk of the Senates Office. Still looking. no original posting in the Canada Gazette either!!!* Ezra 7:23-26 and Numbers 15:15 may help with whose law applies while were looking! Do they as lawmakers also make laws that take away from God's law? Big Drug Case removed the Lord's Day Act http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/116mile.asp Then their is abortion..... Are taxes via usury *and *fraud lawful? What does God say? http://www.reformation.org/moneychangers.html What did Jesus really mean when he said "render unto Caesar" http://sw.jeffotto.com/render.htm Did you know that section 32 of the Canadian supreme law the charter of rights and freedoms says it only applies to the government and that it does not apply to private individuals? ?? Mans law does not apply unless you are government!! http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp -hrp/canada/guide/application _e.cfm < http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm > Are you defacto government?? Are you an individual? Are you a Person , *or God's creation of a man or woman . Choose one*. From the federal court act" person" ? personne ? "person" includes ( means *only what is shown*)a tribunal, an unincorporated association and a partnership. (personne) "plaintiff" ? demandeur ? "plaintiff" includes a person on whose behalf an action is commenced. (demandeur) Do you know where the origin of the word person comes from? Latin. Persona : from greek per=with, sona=sound. A hollow mask worn by a player on a stage used to reverberate and throw the sound of an actors voice to the distant audience; a fiction. Are you a mask? Are you a fiction? Did God create you as man? What does God have to say about persons? Deuteronomy 1:17; 10:17;Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; James 2:9 tells us God has no respect for persons and if we should show respect to persons we commit sin!! What law applies to those who are not deemed government?? Are you government? Do you fit this definition? http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/repository/6legisln /02cc/60211800.html< http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/repository/6legisln/02cc/60211800.html> Numbers 15:15 is the law that applies Re read the preamble at the beginning of Canada's supreme law ,the Canadian Constitution, as you are made an offer there. God's rule of law as supreme!! http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#charte CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" Will you accept the offerOr the other offer of mans law below it......You know sections 1-52 This next, is Canada's master enactment for commerce. The Canadian BIll of Exchange act, mans law ,only applys to government and says in section 55 that if you were under intimidation as in threat and duress Holder in Due Course Holder in due course 55. (1) A holder in due course is a holder who has taken a bill, complete and regular on the face of it, under the following conditions, namely, (a) that he became the holder of it before it was overdue and without notice that it had been previously dishonoured, if such was the fact; and (b) that he took the bill in good faith and for value, and that at the time the bill was negotiated to him he had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it. Title defective (2) In particular, the title of a person who negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the bill, or the acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud. ( altering your name on any bill without your permission for a financial purpose is fraud. You simply were never taught to caplitalize your name nor reverse it and no law of grammer or man allows it! They cannot proceed against God's creation as of their oath to the Queen so they proceed against a fiction hoping you will volunteer yourself by accepting the name change without a quibble.) Tacit consent is nihil dicit he says nothing and is consenting. Look at your drivers license! Everything the government sends is a bill of exchange! R.S., c. B-5, s. 56. Right of subsequent holder 56. A holder, whether for value or not, who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it , has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder. R.S., c. B-5, s. 57. Presumption of value 57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value. Presumed holder in due course (2) Every holder of a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to be a holder in due course, but if, in an action on a bill, it is admitted or proved that the acceptance, issue or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress or force and fear, or illegality, the burden of proof that he is the holder in due course is on him, unless and until he proves that, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill by some other holder in due course . R.S., c. B-5, s. 58. 152. (1) Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it under protest for the honour of any party liable thereon or for the honour of the person for whose account the bill is drawn. If more than one offer (2) Where two or more persons offer to pay a bill for the honour of different parties, the person whose payment will discharge most parties to the bill has the preference. Refusal to receive payment (3) Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment under protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by that payment . ( you read it here first, Wow Eh?) Entitled to bill (4) The payer for honour, on paying to the holder the amount of the bill and the notarial expenses incidental to its dishonour, is entitled to receive both the bill itself and the protest. Liability for refusing (5) Where the holder does not on demand in a case described in subsection (4) deliver up the bill and protest, he is liable to the payer for honour in damages. Can you intimidate or obstruct a man or woman with civil law from doing God's business according to mans law the criminal code? Lets see! Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman 176. (1) Every one who (a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling , or(RonCarelli Vs Duplessis 1959) SupremeCourtCanada http://www.summitconnects.com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/200412_12.pdf ) (b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or (ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process , is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings (2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., c. C-34, s. 172. Idem Intimidation Common nuisance Definition 423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing, (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property ; (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged; Common nuisance 180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or (b) causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Definition (2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada. R.S., c. C-34, s. 176. http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap22 The law regarding lawful oaths that is still in force but not being enforced,,,why??? CHAPTER XXII. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows. I. A lawful oath is a part of religious wors hip, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth. II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken. III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority. IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels. V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care , and to be performed with the like faithfulness. VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto. VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself. So you can follow the Advise of Ephesians 6:10-20 and Jesus at Matthew 18:15-20 and you will be almost there. Blessings So who has used this defense? I have. here a few letters from others. http://melbimc.nomasters.org/news/2003/10/55720.php http://vancouver.indymedia.org /news/?comments=yes&medium=text&keyword=Radau http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:DPMK0yaFZD0J:www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/12 /49131.html+Golden+Jubilee+Petition+Edward-Jay-Robin:+Belanger&hl=en John 5:39, 46-47. Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ... For had ye believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? God is telling us if we are strangers to his law and do not follow after his law we will be enslaved. Have you been bought and sold as a person? This below is touted as a Canadian petroleum and gas producers act. Your body produces oil and gas. Why is their a listed value to your life listed there if it is about petroleum ? Please keep in mind the Canadian treasury Board was briefed on this and said I was correct. Notice the buying a selling of persons and the definitions http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/32270.html control status" means, with respect to a person, whether or not the person is Canadian controlled as determined under this Act and the regulations; "direct equity percentage" �pourcentage de participation directe� "direct equity percentage" means, with respect to formal equity owned by a person in any particular person, (a) where the particular person does not have more than one class of formal equity within the meaning of the regulations, the percentage of the formal equity of the particular person that is owned by the person , and "owned" �poss�der� "owned" means, subject to the regulations, beneficially owned, and the words "owner" and "ownership" have corresponding meanings; "person" �personne� "person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons; Is their a value to your life? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-20/SOR-84-431/71221.html#rid-71224 Remember 12.7% a year is what is collected on the annuity of your bond. That bond is what gives value to the currency in circulation as you in a bonded form are used a negotiable instrument of value internationally. Who or what is a false God ? Exodus 20:3-5 One who writes law in excess of or in derogation to God or acts like a God overwriting YeHoVaH's law, is a false god. Acts 12:21-23 Deuteronomy 4:2 the eleventh commandment and 12:32 chiming in commands what to not do with his law. Does the government of Canada have a legitimate Governor General or an imposter???? Lets examine that. http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp look for defacto What does de facto mean??? Why must we know? Ignorance is no excuse Hosea 4:6 section 19 of mans criminal code! http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec19.html http://www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/dict-d.htm http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom /defacto.html The creditor for Canada defines defacto http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/4b8a4e22c6560e808525672c007d07ce?OpenDocument Can one word like defacto, mean we are under the power of an illegitimate false god usurped government?? Are we supposed to bow to their godless commands? What did Shadrack Meshak and Abednigo do in Daniel Chapter 3? they refused to bow! Did Daniel eat the Kings food? He refused as of God's food ordinance! Daniel Chapter 1 Why does Adrienne Clarkson say she is de facto??? Is she being Honest and truthful? Why does the world bank say de facto means usurped authority and an abrogated constitution ? http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/%200/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument Will you bow to a false god regime???? Will you violate God's first command? Exodus 20:3-5. Have you been royally conned just like millions before you? 2Peter 2:3 Do the provinces tell Church's if they register they have to give up God's law? Yes they do!! This is hard to believe but is true http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/nfpinc/charities.asp#special_religious See section 6.5 Did you know the word constitutor defined in Blacks law dictionary, and others as well, means one who by simple agreement becomes responsible for anothers debt? Did you agree to pay anothers debt? When? How? Whose debt was it? Was it lawfully obtained? http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/Britian-Pontiff.html Does Canada's parliament makes laws in excess of God's law? Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32 says no! They do it Every day they sit! I still cannot find the Income tax act in the Bible. Can't find it in the parliamentary Clerks office nor the Clerk of the Senates Office. Still looking. God condemns homosexuality! http://www.myfortress.org/Sodomite.html Ezra 7:23-26 and Numbers 15:15 may help with whose law applies while were looking! Do they as lawmakers also make laws that take away from God's law? Big Drug Case removed the Lord's Day Act http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/116mile.asp Then their is abortion..... Are taxes via usury fraud and lawful? What does God say? http://www.reformation.org/moneychangers.html What did Jesus really mean when he said "render unto Caesar" http://sw.jeffotto.com/render .htm Did you know that section 32 of the Canadian supreme law the charter of rights and freedoms says it only applies to the government and that it does not apply to private individuals? ?? Mans law does not apply unless you are government!! http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm Are you defacto government?? Are you an individual? Are you a Person , or God's creation of a man or woman . Choose one. From the federal court act" person" ? personne ? "person" includes ( means only as show)a tribunal, an unincorporated association and a partnership. (personne) "plaintiff" ? demandeur ? "plaintiff" includes a person on whose behalf an action is commenced. (demandeur) Do you know where the origin of the word person comes from? Latin. Persona : from greek per=with, sona=sound. A hollow mask worn by a player on a stage used to reverberate and throw the sound of an actors voice to the distant audience; a fiction. Are you a mask? Are you a fiction? Did God create you as man? What does God have to say about persons? Deuteronomy 1:17; 10:17;Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; James 2:9 tells us God has no respect for persons and if we should show respect to persons we commit sin!! What law applies to those who are not deemed government?? Are you government? Do you fit this definition? http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/repository/6legisln/02cc/60211800.html Numbers 15:15 is the law that applies Re read the preamble at the beginning of Canada's supreme law ,the Canadian Constitution, as you are made an offer there. God's rule of law as supreme!! http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#charte CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" Will you accept the offerOr the other offer of mans law below it......You know sections 1-52 This next, is Canada's master enactment for commerce. The Canadian BIll of Exchange act, mans law ,only applys to government and says in section 55 that if you were under intimidation as in threat and duress Holder in Due Course Holder in due course 55. (1) A holder in due course is a holder who has taken a bill, complete and regular on the face of it, under the following conditions, namely, (a) that he became the holder of it before it was overdue and without notice that it had been previously dishonoured, if such was the fact; and (b) that he took the bill in good faith and for value, and that at the time the bill was negotiated to him he had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it. Title defective (2) In particular, the title of a person who negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the bill, or the acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud. ( altering your name on any bill without your permission for a financial purpose is fraud. You simply were never taught to caplitalize your name nor reverse it and no law of grammer or man allows it! They cannot proceed against God's creation as of their oath to the Queen so they proceed against a fiction hoping you will volunteer yourself by accepting the name change without a quibble.) Tacit consent is nihil dicit he says nothing and is consenting. Look at your drivers license! Everything the government sends is a bill of exchange! R.S., c. B-5, s. 56. Right of subsequent holder 56. A holder, whether for value or not, who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it , has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder. R.S., c. B-5, s. 57. Presumption of value 57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value. Presumed holder in due course (2) Every holder of a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to be a holder in due course, but if, in an action on a bill, it is admitted or proved that the acceptance, issue or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress or force and fear, or illegality, the burden of proof that he is the holder in due course is on him, unless and until he proves that, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill by some other holder in due course . R.S., c. B-5, s. 58. 152. (1) Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it under protest for the honour of any party liable thereon or for the honour of the person for whose account the bill is drawn. If more than one offer (2) Where two or more persons offer to pay a bill for the honour of different parties, the person whose payment will discharge most parties to the bill has the preference. Refusal to receive payment (3) Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment under protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by that payment . ( you read it here first, Wow Eh?) Entitled to bill (4) The payer for honour, on paying to the holder the amount of the bill and the notarial expenses incidental to its dishonour, is entitled to receive both the bill itself and the protest. Liability for refusing (5) Where the holder does not on demand in a case described in subsection (4) deliver up the bill and protest, he is liable to the payer for honour in damages. Can you intimidate or obstruct a man or woman with civil law from doing God's business according to mans law the criminal code? Lets see! Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman 176. (1) Every one who (a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling , or(RonCarelli Vs Duplessis 1959) SupremeCourtCanada http://www.summitconnects.com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/200412_12.pdf ) (b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or (ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process , is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings (2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., c. C-34, s. 172. Idem Intimidation Common nuisance Definition 423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing, (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property ; (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged; Common nuisance 180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or (b) causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Definition (2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada. R.S., c. C-34, s. 176. http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of _faith.html#chap22 The law regarding lawful oaths that is still in force but not being enforced,,,why??? CHAPTER XXII. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows. I. A lawful oath is a part of religious wors hip, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth. II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken. III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority. IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels. V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care , and to be performed with the like faithfulness. VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto. VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself. So you can follow the Advise of Ephesians 6:10-20 and Jesus at Matthew 18:15-20 and you will be almost there. Blessings uppn watching my video...! http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=%22Truth+by+Deception%22