The Templars of the Crown
The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America and Canada, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the “Crown,” which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown” and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.” From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.
First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple “Church” is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution.
All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) – in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.
The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800’s, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people. These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the “Crown.” Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers.
The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.
The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent “legal” - but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people. The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s judiciary.
Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”-Matthew 23:27
By what authority has the “Crown” usurped the natural sovereignty of the American people? Is it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in the U.S.A? How can it be considered in any manner as being “constitutional” when this same Supreme Court is appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? As you will soon see, the land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple.
The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London. The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.
Definitions you likely never knew:
ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESQUIRE, n [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
RULE n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.
REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what cannot. 2 [U] the general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode. ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine, LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls, from cortis court. See Court.] 4 A flag; an ensign; -- in contempt. [Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple, a house near the Thames, which originally belonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some deity. Among pagans, a building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people assembled to worship. Originally, temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England, the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the Middle Temple. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled; and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.
INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college of municipal or common law professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop or other distinguished personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys, solicitors, etc.
INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an inner chamber; the inner court of a temple or palace. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. -- Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. -- Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. -- Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters patent. 4. Apparent; conspicuous. PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great Britain grants lands, honors and franchises.
PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a thing to a person
LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. – A Dictionary of Law 1893.
LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". - 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).
STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which anything is already. The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place, matters return to the status quo ante bellum, or are left in statu quo ante bellum, i.e., the state (or, in the state) before the war.
-1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple
Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of the Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs; secret societies of world power in commerce. They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200’s. The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).
Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations, none of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated - for a definite and purposeful reason: You can’t make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, and their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation. In other words, they exist as secret societies without a public “front door” unless you’re a private member called to their Bar.
While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to steal from Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.
From THE HISTORY OF THE INN, Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the Bar Association franchises and its Crown signatories in America:
“Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn's records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come here until the War of 1812”.
All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or “called to Bar” at any of the King’s Inns. Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made to the Crown Temple.
It’s a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple has publicly acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under solemn oath only to the Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of Independence. This simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the same origin, the Crown Temple. In case you don’t understand the importance of this, there is no international agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful effect, when the same party signs as both the first and second parties. It’s merely a worthless piece of paper with no lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the same. In reality, the American Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an internal memo of the Crown Temple made among its private members.
By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars who was called to their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which was funded by members of the London King’s Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he became a personal aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American Revolution.
In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany, New York, and within six months had completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and was admitted to the New York Bar. Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a franchise of the Crown Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress during the 1782-1783 session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander Hamilton, Esqr. In February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member of, the Bank of New York, the State's first bank.
He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia. In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated “an Executive for life will be an elective Monarch”. When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues withdrew from the Convention in protest, he alone signed the Constitution for the United States of America representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).
One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the people, but a State is a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony. This is an example of the deceptive ways the Crown Temple - Middle Templars - have taken control of America since the beginning of our settlements.
Later, as President Washington’s U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone laid the foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans through Crown banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the Federal Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had never made a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies of Great Britain.
Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony.
Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but “legal”, Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our so-called “judiciary” in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.
The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as “the rule of law”. In reality, it is not about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations. For example, just read what President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the “rule of law:”
“Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law.” - Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on 11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C.
What happened in 1776?
"Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." - Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.
1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called “States” as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done).
The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word “State” to signify a “legal estate of possession.” Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word “states”. By the use of “State,” the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.
All “Constitutional Rights” in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a “State Citizen” attempts to invoke his “constitutional”, natural, or common law “rights” in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don’t apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown “law”. Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of Yahweh’s Law.
The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by Yahweh’s Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn’t legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction).
Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of Yahweh into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no “law” within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal “Person” of fictional “status” (another legal term) in order for their legal - but completely unlawful – State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him. Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of “justice” are decided by 3 “judges”. This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts.
“It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.
The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted “independence.” Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution.
To have this “Declaration” recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, “between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States”. The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate “United States”, the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation “Esqr.” following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies “Officers of the King’s Courts”, which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).
The Crown was represented in signature by “David Hartley, Esqr.”, a Middle Templar of the King’s Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was “John Adams, Esqr”, “Benjamin Franklin, Esqr.” and “John Jay, Esqr.” The signatories for the “United States” were also Middle Templars of the King’s Court through Bar Association membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them!
It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part,
“to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects.”
The Crown Colonies were granted to “persons” and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown.
Now, here’s a real catch-all in Article 4:
“It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can’t begin to describe what had taken place.
So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,
“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit…”
That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton’s U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.
An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.
The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon
Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church.
This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213.charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same,
“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.”
Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:
We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to Yahweh and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.
The following definitions are all taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:
FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty. Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.
FEE, n. [In English, is loan. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.
FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or hereditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.
By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British-English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies in America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the “United States.”
ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate.
Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church, by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land.
CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c. The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter-governments.
By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope.
The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. He who controls the gold controls the world.
The Crown Temple Today
The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious, yet somewhat hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note.
Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple. That’s when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member.
The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple
This is not a mere child’s story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol does “Oz” stand for? Ounces.Gold What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.
The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS legal fiction - a PERSON - the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your Christian birth name. Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a Certificate in place of a brain of common sense.
What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He’s the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as if he was already dead. He’s the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may get a hold of.
The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he was. They act as if they have great courage, but they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to back them up. When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of “official” recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a coward he still was, his official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority. He’s just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? They weren’t real people, so drugs had no effect on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged? The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was? Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means “in total, all together; Latin in toto.” Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard’s theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram images were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard of Oz commanded. Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain – the court - (see the definition for curtain above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Just an ordinary person controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard’s power and authority. The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed. The Wizard’s game was up. It’s too bad that people don’t realize how loud a bark from a little dog is. How about your bark? Do you just remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, your legal master gives you?
Let’s not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical creature to symbolize the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control all the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz - Gold.
What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court veil for what they really are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage. Then, and most importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only “in toto,” working together as one Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given under Yahweh’s Law.
Mystery Babylon Revealed
There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those who discern His Truth:
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.-Revelation 17:5
Yahweh has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome, the chief seat of all idolatry, that rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the worship of her idols (see Revelation 17:1-4). The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the Temple throne at the Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of ungodly deities are the Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of commerce.
One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World Order (a Bush family favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the Illuminati, Triad, Triangle, Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the EU, the US, or many dozens of other names. However, they all point to one origin and one beginning. We have traced this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. Because the Pope created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception) and established their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the Pope and his Roman Capitols who control the world.
“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication”
-Revelation 17:4
This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His Bishops for the past 1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and silver; the iron and soft metals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are under the control of the Crown Temple; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of Babylon; attended to by his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry.
“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of harlots] sitteth” - Revelation 17:9
The only mention of “seven mountains” within our present-day Bible is at Revelation 17:9, so it’s no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of the Messiah. The 1611 King James (who was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early Congregation (“church” in Latin ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). This in itself is no mystery as history records the existence and destruction of these early Congregation writings; just as history has now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt, among many other recent Greek language discoveries within the past 100 years.
The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times:
By faith Enoch was taken away so that they did not see his death, "and was not found, because Yahweh had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased Yahweh.
- Hebrews 11:5
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."- Jude 1:14-15
The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Congregation included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after the Messiah. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.
At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries.
The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.
Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added):
[CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead.
6 These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired. 9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.’
[CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled the throne.
[CHAPTER 25] 3 And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of Yahweh, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgment when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy place shall they enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment, or calamity touch them.’
The present wealth and power of all the world’s gold, silver, tin, bronze, pearls, diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and held in the treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be able to save them at the time of Yahweh’s judgment.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
– Matthew 23:13
Where do we go from here?
Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the Kingdom of Heaven? To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained of Yahweh, there is an imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil. The problem is, most believe they have the knowledge of Yahweh when what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as gods. The only way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek the Knowledge that comes only from Yahweh, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim as earthly rulers and gods.
The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world to believe that they are of the Lord Yahweh and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom. What they hold within their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the “Holy Church,” but which holy church? The real one or the false one? Are the Pope and his Roman Church the Temple of Yahweh, or is this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains?
They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they have applied: The State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman Church is not the Congregation (ekklesia). There is the Crown of Yahweh; and a Crown of that which is not of Yahweh. All imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes. Those who are truly seeking the genuine Kingdom of Yahweh must allow Yahweh to show them the discernment between the genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by His Holy Spirit, all will remain fooled by the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the Wizards.
Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of Yahweh is within you.
- Luke 17:21
Yah’shua said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is within you and it is outside you."– Gospel of Thomas 3
Don’t you know that you are the temple of Yahweh, and that the Spirit of Yahweh lives in you?
– 1 Corinthians 3:16
Yah’shua said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]– Gospel of Thomas 5.
TOP ^
Illusions on Freedom
Canadians, Americans and others living in defined “democracies” live under some delusion that they enjoy “freedom”. In the wake of his re-election for example, President Bush announced that he remained committed to bringing democracy to the Middle East, which included the indefinite military occupation of Iraq. In the president's mind, indeed in the minds of most public officials in North America or the rest of the world for that matter, “democracy” is freedom.
They would have us believe that since we voted in the recent election, or any previous one in our hailed democracies, that we are free. Or since we have a piece of paper at our disposal - allegedly a "Constitution", that allegedly proclaims our rights and freedoms, that we are therefore free. But are we?
Let's see. Government officials in every known democracy have the power to take away our income by simply raising the percentage of tax allowing them to take from us to whatever extent they wish. So they have the power to destroy us by the unlimited power to tax us. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will put us in jail if we ingest substances that deem to be harmful to our health. Okay, not just any harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco, but certainly harmful substances that our public officials don't approve of. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to subject our children to a government-approved education. Or they force us to pay for the government-approved schooling of other people's children. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy unduly coerce us to subject our children to invasive, proven ineffective and dangerous vaccination programs. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to adhere to prescribed methods of dealing with the death of loved ones. We must subject our loved ones to autopsies at the state’s discretion, we must bury them in accordance to state rules and licensing and we must pay prescribed duties and taxes on these expenses as well as on any belongings they may have left behind. Failure to do any which may result in significant fines and or imprisonment of those of us that did not die. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy confiscate our wealth simply by debasing the currency by printing lots of it to finance out-of-control government expenditures. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy have stolen children from their families under the guise of protecting the child’s fundamental rights (Child Welfare Rights in Canada for example), simply because the parents did not want their children subjected to public programs including school programs that may be against their religious beliefs, such as evolution or homosexuality. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy regulate and license our economic activities with other people. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for traveling to non-approved countries. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us without regard to any alleged rights or protections and punish us for publicly speaking out against them or their actions. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us and restrict our right to travel freely without regard to any alleged rights or protections simply because of our religious beliefs. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us and restrict our right to travel freely without regard to any alleged rights or protections simply because of our cultural heritage. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us if we help by hiring an undocumented worker or even permit him to spend the night in our home. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for buying, selling, or trading with unapproved people overseas. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for engaging in an occupation or business without official permission in the form of a government license or permit. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to be good, caring, and compassionate by confiscating our money in order to give it to other people. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will take our home away from us if we don't make tax payments to them. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will deny us right to counsel, due process of law, and habeas corpus by simply labeling us an "enemy combatant" before executing us. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy, particularly in America, start wars on the declaration of only one person, our ruler. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can seize us against our will and force us to work for them and even send us thousands of miles away to die for them. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can prohibit us from owning assault weapons and other means of self-defence. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can prohibit us from possessing the money that we earned from the sale of our labour or production in amounts over $5,000 or if they catch us with amounts over $5,000 they can confiscate it merely by making an unsupported accusation that we could be terrorists or drug dealers. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can illegally search, seize, apprehend, detain or imprison us under the auspices of their “Customs” authorities, because Customs authorities are always empowered to operate outside of the jurisdictional protections of our nation’s laws – meaning beyond our alleged “rights”. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
The great German thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once wrote, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." I wonder what he meant by that. I'm free because I voted, right? So I wonder why they don’t vote in North Korea?
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] (Minutes archived and publicly available.)
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property [their body] in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. "Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living.
"They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
"They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
"After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
"This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. "The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation (“The United States of America”) to foment this plot against Americans."
This was spoken to Woodrow Wilson almost 80 years ago by Edward Mandel House. TOP ^
“The Truth about Non-Canada!”
When we refer to our current alleged Canadian government as de jure, we no doubt mean de facto, since de facto means “in fact”, but not “by law”, which is what de jure means. In other words, a lawful government is a de jure government. A government that exists by deception and fraud, and not by lawful authority, is a de facto government.
It's highly unlikely that the Canadian establishment, with political millionaire shysters as its vanguard, is ignorant of the actual history of Canada and its fake government. The fake version taught in our schools has nothing in common with 135 years of reality; of government by millionaires, of millionaires, for millionaires.
Canada is neither a federation nor does its government operate with legitimate authority. Knowing this and keeping mum about it makes politicians and the entire Bar Association criminal offenders by default, if not by design...all of them, past and present. Which doesn't matter much these days because it's obviously cool (and very profitable) to be lawless, as far as those at the trough are concerned.
Judging by politicians, and the legal community's visible conduct, their strategy seems to be one of perpetually reinforcing the nixing of the UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGITIMATE EXISTENCE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS (DE JURE) by teaching and celebrating a Canadiana, pickled in bald-faced lies, with much ado and hoopla.
It takes a lot of time and effort to separate the facts from the myths about Canada's "creation." Fortunately, there have been many dedicated Canadians doing the arduous research. By learning how constitutions and nations are properly created and then comparing this with Canada's (and Britain's) records of the time (and since then), these researchers have accurately re-created a chronology of what actually happened since 1864 and what Canada's status is today...which isn't news, it's just information that is rigorously suppressed.
Few people would suspect that educational faculties, politicians, judges, media and the entire membership of the Canadian Bar Association would intentionally deny the existence of such a fundamentally important matter. With few notable exceptions, the public has unquestioningly accepted the official fairytale as gospel. Professionals, privy to the truth, are simply too busy chasing the buck and drop the truth from their conscience.
Politicians have banked on such developments with astonishing success since "confederation." Today, nobody in his right mind (while ignorant of the facts) will believe that Canada has actually been under the control of impostors for 135 years; which continues to be so, as long as most Canadians are content to trudge through the dark, thinking they are soaring in the light.
Nowhere are the consequences of this massive deception more embodied than in the diligence with which Canadian judges help the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to ruthlessly administer a tax extraction racket as fraudulent and criminal as Canada's C-36 protection racket. Faced with having to rule inescapably in favour of the aggrieved (tax victims), Canadian judges, spineless without exception, have turned into legal eels, symbiotically corrupted by their addiction to prestige, special privileges and highly salaried appointments for life.
Citizens, pay for judicial privileges with the erosion of their "constitutional" rights and speedy redress, while judges hide their bottomless cowardice to uphold the principles of the BNA Act behind overbearing pomposity, intimidation and self-serving and criminal bias, in an effort to protect the hand that feeds them.
There is no such thing as arm’s-length freedom of judges from government interference. When it comes to the constitution and taxes, judges are deathly afraid to reveal their knowledge of the BNA Act's illegitimacy. Instead they improvise slick Catch 22 procedures and set obstructive precedents based on legal sophistry; ostensibly, to "avoid the chaos" that would ensue if they were inclined to respect the (non-) constitutional rights of the people. They maintain that, by enlightening the public about Canada's constitutional reality and by ruling fairly and with integrity, they would "unleash" real nation building reforms by a liberated public, while curtailing for themselves Ottawa's munificence, which they view as anarchy.
Compounding their crimes, judges find nothing wrong with the massive counterfeiting of credit and the collection of interest from it by private banks. Nor does it bother them that this occurs without the blessings of the BNA Act and under the auspices of impostors with pretensions of governmental authority...all of which has become "real" under the umbrella of fake legitimacy.
Canada is joined in this constitutional dilemma by Australia and New Zealand. But, unlike Canada's, their legal communities have acknowledged that a constitutional problem exists and they deal with it, viewing it as a grand opportunity of change for the better.
To understand why the BNA Act and the Canadian Federation are fake, here is a quick, nutshell explanation of how and by whom constitutions and sovereign democratic countries are properly created.
The "infamous socialist agenda". The creation of a democratic nation is for sane people simply a matter of common sense and decency; for the established elites, it's a leading cause of apoplexy and a matter of subversion, terrorism and communism...if not downright anarchy.
But assuming that a sovereign democratic federation is socially desirable - in other words, liberal rhetoric transformed into actual reality – no supernatural abilities or special law degrees are necessary to create it.
It requires merely a public consensus about the purpose of the nation and how to best achieve it.
a) First, there has to be a territory (like a Canadian province) who's people desire to be a sovereign and democratic nation.
b) From among themselves the people select, by vote or appointment, a temporary assembly and charge it with the formulation of a constitution.
c) A first draft of the constitution is submitted by the assembly to the people for review and public debate, to provide an opportunity for changes.
d) After a first public debate the assembly retires to work out the changes, after which it is submitted again to the people for review and further changes, if necessary.
e) This process is repeated until the constitution has become a formula acceptable to a substantial majority of the people.
f) Now the people vote in a referendum to accept (or reject) the constitution with a pre-determined majority (75% for example).
g) If the required majority cannot be achieved, further changes must be made until the formula becomes acceptable to the required number of people.
h) The entire process is recorded and documented as proof of the constitution's authority.
i) On the basis of the constitution a government is then formed, which is contractually bound (social contract) to respect it and conduct itself in accord with it.
j) Now this sovereign nation can form a federation with other nations, if it wishes to do so.
Note, that no consideration has been given to the manipulative interference from privately owned media monopolies.
Note, that the constitution is created first, then the government. To create a democratic nation for the people, by the people, of the people, it cannot be any other way.
Note, no foreign government can formulate (or create) the constitution of another country. It has to be created by the people themselves and becomes thus, for all intents and purposes, their protective property. It's not only the law but it is a contract which subjugates the government to the people. The government derives a limited authority to govern from it, always subject to the people's authority.
Note, ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN FORM A FEDERATION. For example, a dominion is the subject of an empire, un-free, and cannot determine anything, much less federate, without the empire's approval. A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANYONE. In other words, it is free to design its socio-economic organization or enter into federations in any way it wants.
A sovereign, democratic dominion?! But that's not what happened in 1867. When we ask, did Canada become then a sovereign, democratic dominion, we must also ask, of whom or of what? The Crown? Rothschild? The IMF? Thus the incongruity becomes unmistakably self-evident.
In 1867 we-the-people didn't exist, as far as political "participation" was concerned. In the exalted view of our betters, the colonial millionaire paragons of civilization, we were practically indistinguishable from the stinking squalor surrounding us. They habitually referred to us as “scum." They were the landed gentry, lording it over us, the rabble, with style, opulence...and vastly refined superiority.
In 1864 an assembly of such unelected "colonial representatives of the Crown" (appointees and careerists) convened in Quebec and began to draft the Quebec Resolutions under the wise guidance of the Hon. John A. Macdonald, all of them men of substance, inspired by self-interest. The general "scum" of the day didn't even know that this was going on, not being wealthy enough to vote and all....
Note, that the original draft was created by an unelected assembly of colonial appointees without the knowledge of the general public. In 1867 the "Quebec scheme of 1864" was submitted to the Colonial Office in London for Royal assent, to be enacted by the British legislature. In between readings in the House of Lords and the House of Commons the wording of the preamble (the most important page of a constitution) was changed (a fraudulent slight of hand), without the knowledge of the delegation from Canada or anybody in both houses, into the oxymoron it has remained to this day. At this point there existed no printed copy of the original.
Remember, no foreign government can create a legally valid constitution for another country. What eventually emerged from the British legislature was a statute as phoney as a three dollar bill, with the first page missing entirely. The list of experts who attested to this fact in 1935 is impressive, indeed:
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs;
Dr. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Commons;
Dr. W. P. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto;
Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University;
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.
And it doesn't end there. Note, that there exists no documented record of a mandated assembly or debates by neither the elites nor the "scum," nor a binding referendum in 1867 or since.
On November 8, 1945, the MP for Jasper-Edson, Walter F. Kuhl, widely respected as the pre-eminent authority on constitutional matters at the time, tried to revive the issue of Canada's non-constitution/non-federation in the House. He stressed that UNTIL 1931 CANADA WAS NOT, AND COULDN'T HAVE BEEN, A FEDERATION since, until then, it was still a dominion of the crown.
Only in 1931 did the British Crown abrogate its authority over the Canadian Dominions (provinces) with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. This provided a most auspicious opportunity for Canada to become a truly sovereign, democratic federation. Instead Ottawa created the Bank of Canada, a central bank.
Once again the elite studiously "ignored" the opportunity Mr. Kuhl's argument offered to create a bona fide federation based on a bona fide constitution. It created the Maple Leaf Flag instead; more focussed on image than on substance in order to maintain the deliberate deception. There exists no record of any constitutional assembly, any public debates or any constitutional referendum nor any confederation efforts since 1931, other than Ottawa's denial of Quebec's sovereignty, which is a fact.
Since 1931 the rest of Canada has been akin to a wreck, loaded to the hilt with gold, adrift at sea, under the control of pirates who gut and plunder it to their hearts' content. There are even rumours, that the Rothschild Clan secretly claimed Canada as an object of salvage and is managing it and extracting its wealth from behind complex banking fronts within fronts, like a Russian Egg, with the outer, visible shell being the "federal government."
But, people ask, didn't Trudeau “patriate” the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982? Well, he actually did patriate, in a fashion...and a unified chorus of the public, the media, the judiciary and educational institutions all went "Aahh" and "Oohh" and "isn't that nice of him?" It seemingly never dawned on anybody to ask who gave him the authority to draft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The problem here, is the word "patriate." It didn't exist in the English language until 1981, nor does it exist in any other language, ancient or contemporary, to this day. It is meaningless gibberish invented by Trudeau and his cabinet. The question "What does it mean?" is unanswerable. Perhaps it was intended to be rooted in the Latin word patris. Which could mean, by a wild stretch of the imagination, that Father Pierre fathered the Bill of Rights and Freedoms and generously bestowed it upon Canadians as an (unconstitutional) gift. More likely, the word simply exists to invoke a sense of constitutional incomprehension in order to discourage deeper probings by a mystified public.
Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a semantic mistake, and what was meant was that Trudeau repatriated the constitution. That would mean he brought it home in 1982. We must ask then, from where?! Where was it until 1982 if not in this "sovereign, democratic and federated dominion?" In Britain?
Why? In comparison with the proper process explained above, it's practically impossible to believe that Canada is a legitimately sovereign and democratic federation, unless one is deranged or in the grasp of opiate dreams. Since most Canadians DO believe the impossible, what does this say about their mental and moral disposition?
No matter how we slice it, the Canadian Federation remains a fiction. The federal government is a cabal of impostors; its authority to govern being non-existent until such time as Canadians wake up to the fact that EVERY TREATY ENTERED INTO (NATO, GATS, NAFTA, FTA, FTAA etc.) AND ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (ITA, GST, C36, PRIVATIZATION, DOWNSIZING, etc.) PASSED SINCE 1867 ARE NULL AND VOID...just as null and void as the non-constitutional authority of Canada's community of bottom feeders...the judiciary and the Canadian Bar Association, including their bloated and subversive court procedures.
And let's not forget the law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP, the police and CSIS, which have no non-constitutional authority to enforce (or protect) anything, much less the dictates (legalized crime) of impostors.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BOSS, YOU ARE! SO ACT LIKE ONE! Knowing all this, perhaps it becomes a bit more attractive for Canadians to get a taste of real nationhood and real sovereignty (i.e. freedom), instead of oppressive despotism and wage slavery, by adopting the purely Canadian concept of PARTICIPATION.
To sum it up, CANADA IS A GIGANTIC FAKE, an embarrassment of giant proportions. All centralized governments are imposed by non-legal force and their constitutions are not worth the paper they are not written on, nor are their laws, as we can clearly see now. It will stay that way until such a time when nation building is again considered a project worthy of the creative and liberating efforts of free people...inclusive, consensual, universal and truly democratic.
As it stands now, Canada is a fake in every respect, in the hands of despotic individuals bent on pulling off the biggest crime in the universe...THE GLOBALIZATION OF FAKENESS...and again the establishment's cheerleaders go "Oohh" and "Aahh," duly recorded and endlessly re-cycled in the closed loop of the media monopolies until all alternatives have moved beyond the vanishing point...out of sight.
Oh, and what was that you were saying about fighting your tax assessment (or this or that alleged law) on grounds that it is unconstitutional? Perhaps you should consider moving to a real Country, or at least one that has a real constitution!
We, as alleged Canadians are living in an un-country with no law because we have no basis from which to frame any law, hence we have absolutely no fundamental rights, real or feigned! Everything is merely an “act” (no pun intended) designed to keep us un-informed, un-protected, and un-able to object.
We are nearly as far away from true reality, as our American neighbors!
TOP ^
Conspirators, Money, Constitutions and Dummies:
Many people in North America may be familiar with the term “Living Constitution.” This is the idea that the meaning of a Constitution has to change with the times. The original writers, truthfully the “Conspirators”, lived in the horse-and-buggy era. We live in the spaceship era.
Obviously, an alleged Constitution has to somehow evolve intellectually to deal with those changes. In effect, this reduces any Constitution to whatever the politically powerful find it expedient to mean from time to time. You could call that “situation law.” Or maybe you’ve heard of being “railroaded”? They railroad their ideas through, and like many traditional religious organizations, they expect us to accept it on blind faith.
Let us give you an example in the monetary field. Basic question: “What is a dollar?” Interesting question: “What is a dollar?” That’s the unit of our currency. What is it? Well, if you ask most people, some Americans would pull out a little silver coin and say, “This is a dollar.” Or more likely they would probably pull out one of these, a George Washington Federal Reserve Note, and say, “This is a dollar.” Canadians would do similar with a piece of gold colored metal commonly called a “Loonie” – how appropriate!
And if you asked any of them, “Well, why is this thing a dollar?” he or she would probably say, “Well, it’s because Congress says so,” or “the Treasury says so,” or “the Federal Reserve (or Bank of Canada) System says so,” or “the Supreme Court says so”, or “the banks say so”, or the Government says so” - begging the question of whether Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the ‘banks’, or the Government has the authority to say so. Is this simply a matter of raw power?
Let’s have a quick reality check. Pretend we have a card that says, “One cow.” Is this a cow? Next step: here’s a card that says, “By order of Congress: one cow.” Is this a cow? You’re getting the picture, aren’t you?
Here we go, the next step: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow.” And then the final absurdity: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.” You don’t have to be a farmer to understand the meaning of this little demonstration. But you’d certainly have to be a dummy to accept it! But then, that is what “they”, the conspirators, counted on!
Let’s take it to another level. “One dollar.” Is it a dollar? “By order of Congress: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar.” “By order of the Bank of Canada: one dollar. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.”
Do you follow this? This is kindergarten material. As the Gershwins told us in Porgy and Bess, “it ain’t necessarily so” simply because someone writes it on a piece of paper. Where should we look to find Congress’ or anyone else’s powers and disabilities in this regard? Well, suppose you look in an alleged Constitution.
The American Constitution is a good example, it actually mentions the word “dollar” in Article One, Section Nine, Clause One, the famous slave tax provision, that provided a tax or duty might be imposed on the importation of slaves, not exceeding ten dollars for each slave.
Do you think that was important at the time? It was one of the provisions that was put in as part of the compromise between the Southern slave-owning states and the Northern states. If something like that hadn’t been put in, the American Constitution probably would never have been ratified by the original colonies.
It’s also found in the Seventh Amendment, the word “dollars”: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
Do you think that was important to those people at that time? Trial by jury was known in that era as the palladium of British liberty, going back to Magna Carta. Do you think those people knew what the word “dollar” meant? Do you think they thought it meant a modern Federal Reserve Note or Bank of Canada Loonie, or did they just make it up because it sounded nice? It must have had an accepted meaning at that time.
The proponents of the “Living Constitution” in America will say: “That time has passed, and now we have Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, whatever, to make a new determination of what a dollar is”—of course begging the question of whether the definition of the “dollar” can be changed. Let’s look at what we feel is a conclusive analogy on this point.
If you read a Constitution, any Constitution, you’ll find the word “year” used. For instance: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of ….” “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature, for six years.” If the meaning of “dollar” can be changed by Congress or whatever body is suggested as expedient, why can’t the meaning of “year” be changed just as easily?
The principle is exactly the same. Yet we all know that if the Congress passed a statute, and the Supreme Court upheld it, saying that for constitutional purposes the word “year” will no longer mean three hundred and sixty-five days, but seven hundred and thirty days, or fourteen hundred and sixty days, or some arbitrary number, they would he howled down in hoots of ridicule. No one in any country with an alleged Constitution would accept that.
In fact, even we the people – speaking of Americans, amending the Constitution as they can do under Article Five, could not change the true definition of the word “year.” They could change the length of the term for a Representative to something other than two years, the Senator to something other than six years; but they could not amend the Constitution to say that a “year” is something other than what it is. We cannot fly in the face of astronomical reality. Well, if it’s obvious for the word “year,” why isn’t it just as obvious for the word “dollar”?
You all know what the word “year” means in its astronomical significance, and therefore you know what it means in its constitutional significance. And if you knew what the word “dollar” meant in its historical significance, you would therefore know what it meant, or what it must mean, in its constitutional sense.
What did that word mean to the Founding Fathers – "Founding Fathers," sounds so warm and fuzzy and “Grand Fatherly" don't they, those original conspirators! It certainly didn’t mean the Sacagawea silver dollar coin, the paper dollar or the Loonie! For North Americans, and in fact for all British Colonies at the time, it meant this: the “Spanish milled dollar”. And not just in the late 1700s.
The Spanish milled dollar was made the unit or standard for all foreign silver coins in the American colonies (now US and Canada) in 1704 by Queen Anne (there was a British Parliamentary statute in 1707). It was adopted as the standard by early Canadians and made the standard for the United States by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, before their alleged Constitution was even written. So in fact the dollar preceded the writing of either of the alleged Constitutions. It preceded the ratification of either Constitution. It preceded the first Canadian parliament, the first Congress, the first President, the first Prime Minister, the first Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of Canada and everything else. Do you think it might be independent of all those things and thus pre-defined, having preceded them?
As an historical fact, the dollar and its lawful definition is independent of either of the Constitutions. The father of the American or US dollar, in our current system, was Thomas Jefferson. He was the one who proposed it to the Continental Congress. In the first government under the alleged US Constitution, Jefferson was Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. They didn’t agree on very much, if anything, except this: They both agreed on the monetary system. These types of conspirators usually do.
The Federalists and the Anti-federalists were in complete agreement. And what did Congress and the Treasury do in 1792 with the first coinage act? They went out to determine what the value of this “dollar” was.
How did they do that? They went to the marketplace. In what we would call a statistical analysis, they collected a large sampling of Spanish milled dollars that were circulating, and they did a chemical analysis of them to determine on average how much silver they contained. Canadians were either less curious or simply more accepting of the value of the Spanish milled dollar, as they did not take the effort to analyze the ones in circulation in their alleged jurisdiction.
This appears in the Coinage Act of 1792 where they wrote: “The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,” that is, running in the market, “to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.”
Now you know something that 99.999% of Canadians or Americans do not know, and probably a higher percentage of their lawyers. The “dollar” is a silver coin containing three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver—and it's definition cannot be changed by constitutional amendment, any more than the term “year” can. And yet, as mentioned before, if you ask the average person what a dollar is, he’ll probably hold up a Federal Reserve Note or a Loonie! Is there something wrong here? Do we see some kind of cognitive dissonance when we have a problem with this? We should hope so!
The second area in which the misuse of monetary powers and the disregard for monetary disabilities has corrupted these alleged Constitutions, as we have said before, is the over extension of powers. We won’t go into these in great detail. If you look at the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the alleged American Constitution, which has been wildly expanded to give fantastic powers to Congress, what is the foundational case for that expansion? It’s usually cited to be McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. What was that case about? It was about the Bank of the United States. It was a money case. Imagine that!
If we go to the American doctrine of “Emergency Powers,” which is having a great uplift today, for reasons allegedly related to "foreign" terrorism, what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War. If we go to the doctrine of “Aggregate Powers,” the doctrine that says, “You can take a little here and a little there and kind of sum them all up, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” again we go back to the Knox case, a monetary case.
What’s very interesting is to read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice in the history of the American Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government [not unlike a monarchy or dictatorship].”
You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. He said it would and was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government. Dummies usually think of totalitarian governments as “dictatorships, or “communists”, or "monarchies", but then dummies are dummies!
The philosopher Richard Weaver, made this familiar statement, “Ideas have consequences.” He could have gone further than that. He could have said that bad ideas, once they are politicized, almost inevitably generate crises and catastrophes.
If we look throughout North American history, we will see that failures of various unconstitutional currency and banking situations, and we’ve had different ones over different periods, have inevitably led to crises and catastrophes. Pre-Civil War, we had a series of cycle collapses (they called them panics in those days), which were brought about by the unstable system of state banks and, to a certain extent, by the national banks that Congress created, the two Banks of the United States.
If you go into the Civil War, you have the crisis of massive inflation that was caused by the emission of the greenbacks, and then the tremendous political controversy over the continuation or the termination of paper money inflationism. Then we come to the Federal Reserve System. Some people may know of the arguments that were made in favor of the Federal Reserve System: "It would have an elastic currency." "Through scientific management of the monetary system, depressions would be eliminated." "There would be stability in the banking system." What happened?
The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest monetary collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. And so was the equally spurious Bank of Canada. In fact they were both created just in time to practice these two well-known methods of total economic manipulation.
In that period what happened? Think of problem, reaction and solution. Problem: monetary system is not working for the exclusive benefit of the rich. Reaction: we need a new monetary system. Solution: bring in the private Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada systems. Actual result: The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then. Canadians, just followed suit using slightly different verbiage.
We will not say, and we doubt that anyone could say, or defend the idea, that if the proper constitutional monetary system had been strictly enforced throughout North American history there would have been no economic crises, because we all know that economic crises are not caused solely by bad monetary and banking arrangements – they were caused by manipulative politicians influenced by bankers- perhaps summed up as conspirators. But, as sure as we are reading this, we can say that if the true intent of the alleged Constitution had been observed during that period, there would have been none of the crises that did in fact occur. They would have been essentially impossible, bringing us back to the point we made earlier about the primacy of law.
How should that have been done? Well, Canadians or Americans would have had to first understand their alleged Constitutions, and then understand that it was their obligation to enforce their alleged Constitutions. You notice we say Canadians or Americans, not the Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the government, because who is the final arbiter of these agreements? It is not Congress, it is not parliament, it is not a government, and it is not the Supreme Court, nor is it any of the myriad police forces we find existing in our countries today. It is “we the people.” Read the things. How do they start? Everyone has heard this: “We the people”! “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges,” not "we the government”, not "we the parliament”, not “we anyone”, but "we the people!" Those alleged authoritative groups of people are merely the agents of “the people”. We the people are the principals.
The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the alleged Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take our word for it. Let’s go back to the alleged Founding Fathers.
The alleged Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly in the United States.
What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
We the people are the alleged Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. But we all know that no people leads itself. Every people, for whatever reason, needs leadership. We call out to and look out upon you people reading this now, here today.
You are representatives, or a cross-section, if you will, of your country’s elite. We don’t say that to be flattering. We don’t say that to be patronizing. In fact, we are merely a messenger who, in a sense, is bringing you some bad news, because the majority of “we the people” out there have to depend on a minority of “we the people” like you that are reading and comprehending this right now, here and with others like you, for proper leadership.
There’s a very simple reason for that. Except by default, there is no one else. If you default, then we will continue to be stuck with the evil intentions of the conspirators that continue to feign democratic leadership over us. Therefore, here’s the bad news: it ultimately is your responsibility to find out what your alleged Constitution means with respect to monetary powers and disabilities, and then to do something about it, before history takes the opportunity permanently out of your hands, and we all suffer the consequences.
Here are some closing thoughts: Our monetary system is an abomination. It violates almost all of the principles that civilized people hold dear.
From the Biblical point of view, our monetary system violates the admonitions in Deuteronomy not to tamper with weights and measures, and, as clergymen pointed out after the American Civil War, it violates the Eighth Commandment not to steal.
From a moral point of view, mindful that our alleged money is legal tender, Salmon Chase, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1869, wrote that "the legal tender quality of money is only needed for the purposes of dishonesty."
Economically, fiat monetary systems such as ours have been collapsing for nearly 1,200 years wiping out savings and promises of future payments, such as pensions and annuities. There have been no successes, unless the creation of countless impoverished families living in countries possessing the most impressive lists of natural resources was the goal.
From a scientific viewpoint, Isaac Newton put the kabaach on fiat money at the end of the 17th century when he declared that such money would have no defined unit of measure. That is, our money has nothing to tie it to reality. It is part of the ethereal world. Today, economists describe money as a convenient “illusion”, while our courts quietly admit it is a "legal fiction".
In terms of personal relationships, our monetary system violates the sanctity of contracts, because one does not know what will be the value of future payments. That is, it violates the notion of keeping promises, of keeping one's word, which is the glue that holds civilization together.
Our monetary system violates the Rule of Law, something that we all should hold dear and that our politicians give lip service to. Particularly, it violates the supreme law of our land: the alleged Constitutions, but then even the alleged Constitutions are really a hoax. They are simply the tools crafted by our conspiratorial fathers and employed with much smoke and mirrors to their self-serving benefit.
In and of themselves, they – these alleged Constitutions are not lawful and true! They were not crafted by “we the people”, they were crafted, as history has well established, by a self-appointed few, for the sole purpose of profiteering – a modern more sophisticated version of land-piracy, conducted by herding “we the people” into and under their illusion of freedom. TOP ^
“Rights” or “Freedoms”
To speak of "rights" invites division - abstraction - deletion - distortion. Let us take the right direction and speak of "dutiful freedoms". To speak of dutiful freedoms implies speaking of "sharing". We all, whatever our religion, sex, age, gender, location... share dutiful freedoms.
A simple glance at the globe shows water, earth, air, lines of latitude and lines of longitude. One mechanism used by the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] and other "power elites" to divide and conquer rests simply on using crayons to write and to draw "political" or "state" or "national" boundaries creating divisions; universal location devices, without factual "division", without factual "political" boundaries, but with "piss-marker-mentalities".
A simple glance at the roster of United Nations, reveals hundreds of "nations" or "states"... each occupied by so-called "oath takers and law makers", euphemistically described as "public servants". This phrase draws a distinction between "the private sector" and "the public sector"... creating an unwholesome division and an apartheid.
The United Nations' Charters decry apartheid yet the very phrase United "Nations" provides us with a useful oxymoron. A simple introduction to the logic of “law", illustrates how simple “lines” function to create adversaries amongst people, organizations, nations, states, religions and families.
To speak of "the rights of x" automatically creates "the rights of non-x" - whether we speak of churches, religions, political bodies or nation-states. North American Natives claim “First Nation” status, as victims of this same piss-marker-mentality. These mis-guided but well intentioned people are victims of their own self-created apartheid.
Many folks get educated to believing "laws" end where the national boundaries end... giving us ideas such as "the laws of the x" v. "the laws of y", as if Law adopts and abides by political boundary lines... as if Law adopts a "piss-marker-mentality"... creating the belief-habit that somehow the laws of nation x can be distinguished from the laws of nation y... yielding a so-called discipline called "international law" or "the conflict of laws".
In dealing with law, some people react by saying:
1. well, that's British Columbia law, but I live in x, and we have different laws.
2. well, that may be how it is there, but I live in y, and we don't have one of those laws.
This belief-habit reveals the depth and breadth of propaganda - leading people [i.e. brothers and sisters] to believe somehow the "laws" inside their specific territory, republic, nation, territory, state, country function like "property", as if a nation can control "laws". As if self-defined “Natives” have ownership of rights or laws that do not apply to any other natives. As if minorities such as gays or blacks or Orientals have ownership of rights or laws that others do not.
This mind-set offers plenty of ammunition for "the power elites" to justify invasions, wars, pre-emptive strikes and the latest version of global domination expressed in such documents as:
1. "Rebuilding America's Defences" - The Project for the New American Century
2. "National Security Strategy: 2002"
3. "Vision for 2020" [The U.S. Space Command]... expressing the logo, the motto: IN YOUR FACE FROM OUTER SPACE
Each of these documents espouse "full spectrum dominance"... and proclaim The American Empire run by The Imperial Presidency [see articles by Noam Chomsky and the book by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. using this title].
Students of history will be familiar with the phrase pax Romana = The Roman Peace. MicroSoft Word users need only to pause before creating documents and notice the intriguing headline on their computer screens:
TIMES NEW ROMAN 12
Brains wired to understand and to appreciate English grammar, will automatically engage in some inner space maneuvers. The phrase Times New Roman hits the eye, hits the brain... and the brain re-orders the words into proper grammatical format : NEW ROMAN TIMES.
Now. Imagine 900 million computer screens, 900 million Microsoft Word users, turning on their computers to write their latest diatribe against corruption, unaccountability, oppression, dissent... Their brains will experience what psychologists call subliminal seduction. The brain will believe the words... will re-order the words... will adopt the truth of the words... creating the belief/thought habit that indeed we all live in New Roman Times...
So let it be written so let it be done. Adherents of Napoleon Hill's precise statement will appreciate the full impact and import of this re-ordering: What we can conceive and believe we can achieve!
So. Folks. Welcome to the New World Order. The NWO. Complete with the New Word Order. Accept it, Folks! Bill Gates and Microsoft cannot be wrong! We do live in NEW ROMAN TIMES, where almost all of us are victims of our own self-appointed apartheids.
A simple glance at The New Testament and other 1st Century A.D. writings and we will understand the political climate 2000 years ago. A multi-faceted, multi-leveled taxation system, where people were subject to paying a) The Temple Tax [to High Priests], b) regional/county taxes [to King Herod and his brothers, and c) federal Roman taxes [to Caesar].
These oppressive tax schemes provided fodder for reformers. The legal structure 2000 years ago does not appear any different than legal structures today. For example, here is a little story, a brief vignette from The Book of Acts in The New Testament, revealing discussions and disagreements about the word so often tossed about today, like a cork on the water: jurisdiction:
And when Gallio was proconsul of Achiaia
the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul [a.k.a. "Saul"], and they brought him to the judgment seat…Saying, This fellow persuades men to worshipYahweh contrary to the law… And as Paul was desirous to open his mouth and speak, Gallio said to the Jews, If your accusations were based on something criminal, fraudulent or vicious, I would welcome you properly, O Jews: But if they are a mere question of words and names and concerning your law, you can settle it better among yourselves; for I do not wish to be a judge of such matters… And he drove them from his judgment seat… [Acts of The Apostles, chpt. 18: 12-16]
The refusal to take jurisdiction over questions relating to "words" or "names" sounds familiar to many who have entered Courtrooms asking for redress and recourse... How many times do you hear judges say... I do not have jurisdiction to decide this matter? Go elsewhere? It belongs not in court x but in court y or court z...?
Interestingly, a simple read of section 31 of the British North America Act, 1867 reveals exactly the same principle... there, the Constitution for Canada talks about "felonies", "infamous crimes" and "attainment of treason"... each element includes a) a victim and b) a harm. Section 31 outlines how Senators, and therefore by definition, any federal officer occupying federal office can lose his or her seat...
Principles of interpretation [i.e. called "hermeneutics" in theological and religious circles], indicate that the word "crime" must be distinguished from the word "misdemeanor" [see the above judgment by Gallio]. A court of law must limit its jurisdiction to crimes and victims of crime, i.e. there cannot be any "crime" called "victimless".
Yet, in Canada, Parliament [i.e. federal Members of Parliament] enacted so-called "crime" laws against the people, by criminalizing the growing and possessing and distribution of hemp. Readers will do well to read the book and research "Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine" to get an idea about the reasons and the causes and the motives for this illegal legislation.
I say "illegal" with good reason. Readers ought to familiarize themselves with the Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Southin, in 2003 BCCA 364 [British Columbia Court of Appeal], where the most senior jurist in that province states categorically that "lawyers" licensed to participate in a "legal money making monopoly" have deceived the people into believing the "words" criminalizing marijuana... have committed crimes in so doing.
The same holds for all laws criminalizing marijuana anywhere on the globe... and for all gun registry and gun control laws. Just because politicians turned legislators are given "power to make laws" does not mean they can enact or pass just any law they like. Courts function and Courts exist for one function only, to engage in judicial review of legislation... Did the governing agency enact a law outside its jurisdiction? If so, the law can be struck down and the enactors can be held personally liable, responsible, accountable and punishable for doing so.
Effectively, any person incarcerated under the "illegal" word-law has recourse and redress to sue all those participating in the incarceration... including judges, lawyers, and politicians (unless we believe in the “legal-apartheid” we have imposed upon ourselves).
A vehicle to do just that was created in a case called Brouwer/Kuiper v. Her Majesty The Queen [i.e. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources] filed on Feb. 12, 1999 in British Columbia Supreme Court, by filing pleadings that a) ask for class certification for an aggrieved group, b) combined with an application for judicial review and c) using Rule 31 of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules [Notice to Admit the Truth of Facts and Authenticity of Documents].
Those pleadings gave the Court, any Court anywhere in any common-law jurisdiction no choice; either grant the relief and the recourse asked for under The Law and Equity Act, or by definition, be complicit in the crimes against the elderly, the environment, the California Bighorn Sheep, and all other relations impacted by a Government fraud.
The pleadings resulted in the Law Society of British Columbia offering the lawyer involved a bribe... dump your clients, tell them [188 seniors] they got screwed, and you will have a chance to keep your "license" to practice law... he refused. It cost him a willing sacrifice... his license, his career, his reputation, his finances... such as illustrated in the movie Civil Action with John Travolta.
The principle remains, however. He did not commence a "class action" for that ‘apartheid-like’ maneuver would deprive many people of all available recourse and redress, including holding politicians and legislators personally liable for wrongdoing... based on the principles in the British North America Act, 1867 that make every public officer holding public office, accountable, liable, responsible and punishable for wrongdoing, i.e. for enacting "illegal" legislation, which applies to all people, not just to splinter groups defined by some apartheidists.
Many readers may oppose this view by arguing the so-called principle of "parliamentary sovereignty" or "executive privilege" or some other such belief that somehow someway, some entities are "above the law", including judges. Apartheid?
Indeed, a Superior Court Justice took his pen, and rewrote that specific indictment against 3 levels of government - editing out names, editing out "causes of action" and editing out "suppression of truth" and editing out obstruction of justice... all so the Liberal Party in British Columbia would not be impacted in the 2001 Provincial Election... an election "rigged" by some power elitists who needed a Liberal Party victory to ensure the 2010 Winter Olympics would yield their true purpose; developing Offshore Natural Gas next to aboriginal Haidi Native lands...
The usual argument raised by those engaged in political decision making, those enacting laws to further and to foster "policy"... yields the argument that legislatures can enact whatever laws they want... without any oversight. TOP ^
"License" - Definition
License: The lawful definition of a license is, "A permit to do that which, without the license, would be illegal to do". In other words, the government suddenly makes something that was otherwise naturally lawful to do, "illegal" by decree, so that they can then demand you pay them a bribe, ostensibly a "fee" to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to perform this act that they just said was illegal to do!
“Licence” is rooted in and derived from the word, “licentious”, which simply means unlawfully evil.
Grace and peace to you, from our Father, Yahweh, and Yah'shua our Messiah!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Do our banks really loan us money or not?
Banketeering
by
Dave Patterson
Sept 2008
The Canadian banks, in collusion with the most senior levels of your government, have engineered one of the greatest frauds in Canadian history over the last 30 years, and stolen over two trillion dollars from Canadian taxpayers, and the tap is still running.
Click on the poster to download
a 2-page summary PDF to print and share...
banketeering poster Private banks create almost all of the Canadian money supply through made-from-thin-air 'loans' deposited in the loanee's bank account. And that's a lot of money, a lot of debt - currently close to three trillion dollars a year in Canada. And banks collect interest on money they create - and that is a hell of a lot of interest for the privilege of creating money out of thin air. To put it in perspective, the government, through the Bank of Canada, creates about $50 billion per year (banknotes and coins), about 2% of the Canadian money supply. Constitutionally (BNA Act, Bank of Canada Act) the government could and should be creating much more, if not all, of the money supply. Contrary to the mythology spread around by the banks and their servants, this would not be inflationary, but would actually be much less inflationary, and lead to a much more stable economy overall.
Letting banks create our money supply is bad for many reasons (bad for us, that is to say, obviously pretty good for them):
* huge windfall profits to a small privileged group of private citizens (bank owners/'investors'), paid for by all other citizens both directly and through taxes to pay for interest on unnecessary government borrowing, which is very unfair to most Canadians who must actually work for their money
* a country that does not control its own money can hardly be called sovereign - how many policies have we seen put in place the last few decades justified through 'economic imperatives'? We have gutted many programs Canadians did/do not want gutted in the name of paying interest on the government debt, a debt which would not have been incurred if we were creating our own money - bank profits trump sovereignty.
* very important financial policies carried out without the knowledge or approval of the people, and thus highly undemocratic
* systemic, serious inflation because we must pay interest every year on our money supply leading to reduced living standards for most, as costs always rise faster than incomes
* ongoing bank bailouts as the banks abuse their money-creation powers, leading to bubbles and crashes from which they must be rescued with yet more taxpayer dollars, creating a very unstable economy and also making the inflation mentioned in the last point much more serious
* the slow but inevitable turning over of all of the country's assets to those creating the money through their collection of collateral and as governments scramble to sell things, usually at well-below-market value, to get money to pay their debts and interest, as we have been seeing with the selloff of public infrastructure to private interests the last 30 years
* and the $$2 trillion theft mentioned in the title - the infamous Canadian national debt resulted from a major financial policy change in the 1970s which allowed banks to create virtually all of our money, including for the government to borrow, through which, over the last 30 years, over two trillion dollars of Canadian taxes have been funneled to those banks and other 'investors' as 'service charges' on the debt, all of it completely unnecessary, as the government could have created enough money itself (~$100 billion) through the Bank of Canada, either at zero or nominal interest, to avoid incurring any private bank debt at all (the two trillion includes interest paid on provincial and municipal debt, which could and should also be funded by the Bank of Canada at no or nominal interest). Because of this 'terrible crushing burden' the national government, beginning with Mulroney/Wilson and then put on steroids by the tagteam of Chretien/Martin, claimed the necessity of gutting our social programs, etc, thus the current healthcare crisis, crumbling infrastructure, selloff of public assets, etc. You can believe the involved government officials incurred this debt out of stupidity, or they were well-meaning officials who simply made poor decisions, but most non-naive people would be more inclined to say that the financially smartest people in our governments and banks knew and know very well what they do, and were doing, and thus the title of this piece - the intentional changing of a central government financial policy that lead to this huge turning over of money to banks and other investors, when a much more fiscally responsible policy had been used in the past and was/is still available, and with which this debt would not have been incurred, thus the two trillion would not have been paid. Fraud - using some type of 'creative accounting' you have available to you because you have a fiduciary responsibility to someone, then betraying that trust to funnel money from its proper owners to some other entity. Criminal fraud. Massive criminal fraud. It's a hard thing to accept of our leaders, but no other explanation fits the facts once you understand the situation.
(the notion that governments creating money is wildly irresponsible and leads to immediate crushing inflation is simply nonsense, and actually contrary to the facts, as it is private banks, whose motive is private profit rather than fiscal stability, creating money which is inflationary, and it was/is highly irresponsible of the government to give the private banks this power - irresponsible or even criminal, as I believe it to be when done for fraudulent reasons, as any honest, knowledgeable assessment indicates must have been the case here).
And that may sound pretty far out, but it is all true. If you think that stealing two trillion dollars of Canadian tax money is serious, maybe you would be interested in reading on. That's only the beginning.
If you're still being resistant, thinking whoa, dude, Canada's a great country, we have honest officials, this could never happen here - I agree, with a caveat or two. Canada once was a great country with dreams to be a really great country, and is still better than most - but they are slowly but surely taking all that greatness away, while doing their best to make you, and everyone else, think things are just fine, as they once were - if you fully understood what was happening here, I expect you and a lot of other people would be beating on some doors, and not with garlands of roses. 'They' being the bankers and a small group of wealthy elite who have the money to make things happen their way, and without much useful public discussion.
This scam is relatively new, and has been initiated by some very clever people who, like any good scam artists, want to have stolen all you have and be safe somewhere beyond your reach before you realise you've been taken, and you are not reading about it in the media because they quite understand the power of the media, and control that too. If that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory - it is. It's also true - conspiracies are real (ask any lawyer about 'conspiracy to do this and that' in the lawbooks), theories explain things (ask Newton or Einstein or Darwin how useful theories can be), and there have always been a few men who desire great wealth and power and are willing to do what it takes to get them, including lying and stealing and worse, and Canada is not immune to their attention, and that's just true, and it would be you who would be crazy if you believed otherwise.
If you have noticed things going downhill a bit, or a lot, in various ways the last few years, but can't really understand why - reading this may enlighten you - pretty much everything is related to money in the modern world, and our problems are very directly related to money-shortage. And it's getting short because it's being leached out of 'our' public accounts into 'their' private ones. And maybe once you understand this a bit better, you might get angry enough to do something to stop this banketeering scam while we still have a country left to save. Like any cancer, the longer you ignore it, the closer to the end you are.
Economy in trouble .... has been for awhile, actually manic-depressive
We all know that the economy is presently in considerable trouble, has been bouncing in and out of trouble for the last 30 years, really, since the banks took over the money supply creation, kind of like a manic-depressive person, alternating between periods of wild highs and terrible depressions. This is not good in people, and it certainly is not good for an economy, at least for most of the people (banks tend to do fine in either state, especially with a sycophantic government ready with taxpayer money when they get too excited with their speculations and require bailouts). They talk endlessly about financial and economical things in the media, inflation, interest rates, taxes, trade, productivity, cost of living, debt, etc and etc. But they never talk about the single most important thing of all - where does the money come from that is at the center of all that stuff? How much is there anyway floating around in Canada? Who decides on how much there should be and creates it? Wouldn't that be important to know as you think about what is happening? Might this have some bearing on everything? Of course it does - we all know the classic definition of inflation - too much money chasing too few goods - so who decides how much money there will be in our economy? Just in general terms, shouldn't you, as a concerned Canadian citizen, understand the source of the money supply in Canada, at least so you can have an opinion as to whether or not it is being handled well? If you don't understand this, aren't you a bit like a child, not questioning the adults about important things? Do you regard that as a suitable attitude for a citizen in a democratic society?
If you assume the government does all this stuff, and of course they are doing the best they can, then you really do need to continue reading - most of our economic problems today result from (a) the one simple fact that the government does NOT create most of our money, nor does it really regulate it very much, and (b) most people have no idea what is really going on with the money supply.
jefferson banking quote The basics ... There are two sources of 'legal' money in Canada - from the government, through the Bank of Canada which has created over the years, and currently maintains (taking in degraded bills and destroying them, issuing new ones), about $50 billion of 'cash' circulating money (bank notes and coins), and from private banks, which create spendable credit money through loans. The most recent figures I can find total to something like 2.5 trillion dollars worth of loans outstanding in Canada (about one trillion in consumer loans, 1 trillion in government debt, and half a trillion in business loans - refs at end, and it's probable the figure is closer to three trillion today). The common belief is that banks take in deposits of 'real' money and loan them out again, but if this were actually true, that would be a very good trick, making 2.5 trillion in loans from 50 billion in 'real' money. In actuality, banks just create money essentially out of thin air. There are some theoretical limits on what banks can do in terms of this money creation power, but effectively what government oversight there is (very minimal, also mostly theoretical) kicks in after the fact, and, relying on great amounts of 'consumer and business confidentiality' and the ability to instantly transfer money all over the globe with modern communication systems, the system results in banks creating pretty much as much money as they want, and the government 'overseers' having very little idea of what they are doing until well after any problems related to over-creation of credit become obvious. The banks have some self-imposed limits, they understand that too much money is inflationary to the point of destabilizing everything and will damage them eventually, but these limits are very amorphous, and tend to the very high side - there is a big grey area between what is ok and what becomes dangerously inflationary, and as investors seeking profits, dominated by the more aggressive types thinking more of making some financial killing rather than the wellbeing of the economy, it's not a challenging question to see which side of that equation the banks tend to play on, and to understand they like to 'push the envelope', which is proven by the current economic situation and a long string of bubbles and bailouts over the last 30 years, all the direct result of too much money being created for speculative purposes.
So in the end, practically speaking, the simple fact is that about 98% of the Canadian money supply - the money that gets shuffled around the country between employers and employees, citizens and governments, between bank accounts through cheques and debit cards, and etc, is almost all created by private banks, in the form of loans to consumers, businesses, and governments .
'Yea, so what? - those are big numbers, but whatever you say, the system seems to work ok ...'
- well, if you'll recall the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, of which various Canadian banks have been involved, and a series of other financial crises dating back to and before the huge Savings and Loan 'scandal' in the US or the major Canadian bank bailouts of the early 80s and 90s, you might see the system is not actually functioning all that well at all, with the current tottering financial infrastructure and millions of small investors losing their life's savings, houses, pensions, etc every time we have one of these bubble-crashes. Such crises are obvious signs that the banks create too much money as credit, creating the bubbles we have been seeing regularly since the late 70s, which inevitably crash, requiring substantial or even huge government bailouts (your tax dollars, that is to say), and also doing often great financial damage to millions of 'little people' who engage trustingly in the 'government overseen' system and get taken to the cleaners. This sort of thing should not be happening, ever, and would not if the money system was under the public control of a responsible democratic government making policy in the interest of 'we the people' rather than in the interest of maximising bank profits (when I say 'democracy' or 'democratic' I do not mean our current system, but actual 'we the people' democracy, wherein politicians are our servants not our masters and decisions made about monetary policy, including the money supply, are made in public not in secret, by 'we the people' rather than mandarins behind closed doors - would you and your fellow citizens, in a town hall meeting, allow a bank you controlled to create a few hundred billion dollars to make an attack on a foreign currency, or to fund something like the current housing bubble crisis? I think most 'average' people would not, yet such vast speculative activities are things private banks seem to eagerly embrace, even seek out, as they search for the maximum 'return on investment'). According to the Canadian constitution, our government is responsible for the money supply, and that they have effectively turned this responsibility over to private banks so that the provision and control of the money supply benefits the few at the expense of the many, and the many don't even know what is going on, is not democracy, or a government responsible to 'we the people'.
media poster A reminder ...
Something to stick in your head from the first as you ponder the existence of such a massive conspiracy is this - wealthy people control banks. The same wealthy people control newspapers and other media, and have significant input into 'your' government - when was the last time you sat down with a cabinet minister as the wealthy do regularly? If the people running the banks and running the newspapers want you to think the financial system is just fine, or at least to keep you looking in certain ways and not in others when problems are talked about, that is what you are going to hear. That's not in any way crazy conspiracy theory, it's just fact. Would you go around slagging your boss if you wanted to keep your job? Why do you think reporters would be any different? If you were running a newspaper and had things you did not want talked about, would you hire a reporter (or managing editor) who insisted on his/her right to talk about such things, or look for somebody more agreeable to your desires? Do you think senior reporters who get lots of good travel budgets to interesting places in the country and around the world and get to meet all the interesting and important people like their jobs and want to keep them? If you had such a job, would you risk it by calling your boss a crook? Or those important people?
It ain't rocket science, none of this is. Just reality in action. And although your media might talk about some real things, there are a few very important things, such as this money supply scam, it obviously prefers to avoid getting into. Actually, what the 'great free Canadian media' in your country gets up to is as bad a story as what the banks get up to, which maybe we'll get to in another essay.
Banks creating money is bad news in pretty much every way, at least for 'we the people' ....
Let me point a few things out to you that you're not getting in the CBC 'backgrounders' or 'economics' courses or government information packages about some problems with letting private banks create most of our money, aside from the obvious one of creating too much and fueling speculative bubbles and the ensuing crashes.
The first and main thing is - banks, of course, demand interest on loans. We all know this - but think about the implications of that, if they are not simply lending out money they already have on deposit, but are actually creating 98% of the nation's 2.5 trillion dollar money supply and charging interest on that.
The thing is - in the big picture, they create that (currently in Canada) approximately 2.5+ trillion bucks, and expect interest on that every year - but they don't create any extra or special money to pay that interest so - what happens? Where is that interest money going to come from? Money gets shuffled a lot in a multi-trillion dollar economy with billions of business and personal transactions every day, and over time, and every year the money supply increases due to natural growth, loans get paid and new ones created, and inflation plays a small role as it reduces the current effective demand of old loans, but eventually there is only one possible outcome - the banks gobble up collateral. It's like a huge game of musical chairs, and as the rules of musical chairs make losers inevitable, so the current rules of money creation make it completely inevitable that every year a group of players loses out as there is no money to shuffle for the unlucky ones, and the banks get their collateral. And over time, if you think of it some more, you can see the result is equally inevitable - the slow but steady turning over of all the real property in the country to the private banks (and individuals who control those businesses, for that's all a bank is, a business) allowed to create the great bulk of the Canadian money supply. As inevitable as night following day. No other outcome is possible but the transfer of all the hard assets of the country created by hard working Canadian people being turned over to those who control the money.
They know this. They prefer you don't.
But why should a small group of highly privileged individuals be given this huge power, to create a nation's money supply out of thin air, through loans to citizens who have no other place to borrow money, demand interest on that money they have created out of thin air, and then collect the property of those citizens who cannot meet that interest demand? What sort of 'democratic' decision ever gave them this power?
Keep this very clear, this is not 'normal' banking as you have been lead to believe, where the banks happily take in the deposits of citizens, and then pay interest on your deposit, and loan out some of the accumulated money to others at interest - these people are creating money, huge amouns of money, out of thin air, and loaning THAT money at interest, and then collecting real property when some of those loanees cannot come up with the interest on their loans. And that is one hell of a racket, when you think about it - and did you ever participate in some discussion about running your country wherein you said you would be happy to have this power of creating YOUR national money be placed in the hands of private banks? This is nothing like the acceptable business of taking deposits and paying interest, and loaning some deposited money back out and collecting interest - this is creating most of the nation's money from thin air and charging interest on the made-from-thin-air money and raking in huge profits thereby, including even creating huge amounts of money to loan to 'our' government - and no sovereign people should be allowing that kind of private power in their country, at their great expense.
But what alternative?
The immediate question, of course, is what alternative is there? - and the answer is equally obvious, We the People, through OUR democracy, create our own money supply, and enter it into circulation essentially interest free. People will still be able to get loans, of course, but from a 'we the people's' bank at much, much smaller rates of interest than banks charge (and therefore available more easily as well), as this is essentially 'we' loaning money to 'us', and there is no benefit to charging ourselves any interest beyond a service charge of some sort to maintain the service. Banks can still operate in the traditional way if they want to - but no money creation, as that is something no private persons or businesses should be allowed to do in a sovereign nation, only We the People acting collectively through OUR government should be creating OUR money.
banketeering illustration The Shyster objects ... and we respond
Those who support the current system of bank-created debt money immediately start mocking this idea, claiming that governments creating money only leads to high inflation. This may indeed be a danger in certain undemocratic and/or irresponsible governments, but a responsible, democratic government under the control of intelligent, well-informed and engaged citizens is highly unlikely to do so (think of yourself at a public meeting talking about our money supply - would you, after all the arguments were on the table and the possible ramifications of all options and proposals well explained, vote for wildly inflationary and risky policies and speculation, or for caution and sanity? The people who object to government controlled money think the average citizen is an idiot who would laughingly try to give him or herself a million dollars hahaha aren't we smart!!!! - I disagree ... actually, it is the out of control bankers who do such things, creating huge amounts of speculative money with no public oversight to fuel their latest speculative frenzy, and do not want democratic oversight getting in their way, as we have been seeing for the last 30 years ...).
But luckily we don't have to rely on theory or rhetoric for examples of the relative merits of the outcomes in Canada of government-controlled vs bank-controlled money creation, as we have a very solid and real example, right from our own modern history. As a quick demonstration of the relative 'responsibilies' of banks and government in terms of controlling the money supply, and a short but necessary history lesson, consider the Canadian money supply from the mid-1930s to the present.
We'll all recall the Great Crash of 29, followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, both caused by unregulated banks first getting very much out of control and creating far too much money, and then not creating enough to keep people working through the depression years (this works ok for the banks, as when there is not enough money circulating, they gobble up collateral like pigs at a trough - not so ok for the millions of people with no work losing property, of course). In those years Canada did have a somewhat more responsible (to the people) government, and the Bank of Canada was instituted for just this reason, to assume at least some money creation power in Canada (as mandated in the original constitution of the country, the British North America act of 1867) and put some controls on the obviously seriously irresponsible private banks. And then after this the Canadian government fought in WWII at huge cost, then oversaw the creation of a very prosperous country following the war with good jobs in a strong economy, a world-class health care system, subsidized first class education, pensions, UI, modern high quality infrastructure, etc and etc - using the Bank of Canada to create a considerable amount of our money, whilst still allowing private banks to augment the money supply, under careful regulation. And the economy during this time of great growth and prosperity was strong, we had no national debt of any significance, and no serious inflation problems.
Then came the 70s, and as part of the 'new economics' that became dominant in those years in the US and spread like a malignant cancer through the world known as the Washington Consensus and its self-serving insistence that 'the market knows best!!', and under the strong prodding of a growing-ever-stronger corporate sector to reduce corporate taxation and become more 'business friendly', the Canadian government (with no useful public discussion, it might be noted, think again of the media here as well - as you ought to be realising, this most important of all government functions is NEVER discussed publicly in the media - they don't want you thinking about this at all) got out of hands-on oversight of the Canadian money supply, including creating some itself for government use. They turned that power over to private banks once again, apparently everyone forgetting the lessons of the 1920s, and it took only a few years until the beginning of the ongoing story that persists today of bank bailouts, serious inflation, speculative bubbles, currency speculation and insecurity, the establishment of the half-trillion-dollar Canadian national debt which has sucked over two trillion dollars of interest out of our taxes since the early 80s, and etc etc etc etc.
So we have, to summarize the main point, a lengthy period of time we can look at in which the government directly oversaw and was involved with the creation of the Canadian money supply, and the economy was strong and stable and non-inflationary, and growing steadily. And then we have an almost equal in length period of time in which the government stood down from their constitutionally mandated fiduciary responsibility to We the People and the banks were allowed to create the nation's money supply with little oversight, and this second period, although showing great economic growth, has also been an ongoing series of major financial problems related directly to the creation of far too much money. (unnatural and uncontrolled rapid growth is not necessarily good - think of cancer, for instance...) Based on these two time periods, you can judge for yourself whether private banks or a responsible (to the people) government is more likely to manage the economy well in the interests of the majority of non-bank-investor citizens. Banks and their investor-controllers have the primary goal of maximising their ROIs, whilst a (truly) responsible government has the goal of a stable economy for its citizens. The two approaches to policy are going to lead to very different results - as a comparison of the two suggested times clearly reveals. (and if you're thinking 'but what about the oil shock?!? of the 70s' - yes, a significant but handleable problem by a responsible government, the problems I speak of in terms of over-creation of money are separate, and much bigger - again, when you have a banking/'investor' sector whose primary goal is maximising their profit, they will deal with something like the oil shock considerably differently than would a money-supply sector under the control of the federal government, acting primarily for the wellbeing of we the people, attempting to control the disruption and maintain stability rather than using it for the financial gain of certain privileged players, and to hell, really, with how many little people suffer during it all ....)
Systemic, and serious, inflation
Aside from the utter insanity of a sovereign people allowing a private entity in their midst to create their money supply at huge profits and with maximising those profits in mind rather than financial stability for the community, thus very seriously compromising both that sovereignty and the financial stability of the community, there are a couple of other very serious related problems resulting directly from allowing private banks to create our money that need to be understood.
Serious, systemic inflation is the first such problem. We know that inflation is not a good thing, although a slow and steady inflation over the years is somewhat inevitable as our economy grows more mature and complex, and need not be harmful to anyone if handled responsibly, but this 'natural', manageable inflation is going to be exacerbated to unnatural and harmful levels when almost all of your money supply demands interest each year - again, a completely inevitable process, but this time benefitting those in certain places and very much negatively impacting everyone else, as we have seen. Either you allow the economy to retract each year by the amount of money taken out of it to pay the interest on that bank-created debt money supply, and businesses allow their profits to fall each year as that interest circulates through their suppliers and their own expenses, or you create more and more money/debt just to pay interest, which is of course inflationary in itself, and everyone who can raises their prices year after year, in that 'inflationary spiral' we have all heard about (for some reason the business writers like to (quite falsely) blame workers demanding small increases in their salaries for such things, but as I pointed out earlier, you need to consider who the business writers are working for when reading or hearing such things).
To borrow from a saying the 'new economists' like to use, modern systemic inflation does not impact all boats equally. We all know that businesses are protected, and more, from inflation - if a business has an expense increase of 3% they raise their prices 5%, and on we go. The main problem with inflation is, of course, that the wages and salaries of 'we the people' NEVER keep up with rising prices (on average; there may be a few powerful unions who seem to do ok for a time, but the majority of workers do not belong to powerful unions, and even the unions fall behind over time), so the more and faster the inflation, the more and faster we fall behind. Many people reading this will remember the first of the two eras I spoke of earlier, the times when a responsible government managed the money supply in the interests of a stable economy, during which time inflation was low, and prices reasonable in relation to income, and one working adult with a half-decent job could support a family, save for retirement, put the kids through university, own their own home and have a comfortable life, and etc - but during the second time, the era of bank-created money and the attendant, systemic hyper-inflation, those days are long gone, and now it takes two working adults with above average jobs to have a comparable lifestyle for their family, prices are high and growing higher for everything, and as you undoubtedly well know, things are falling further and further behind for almost everyone, with significantly lower savings than even ten years ago, and significantly higher average debt for every family.
Which strikes me as a pretty significant problem in terms of 'So what - everything seems to be working ok...' - do you really believe that it's ok that it takes two adults working to support a modern family when one adult working could do so 40 years ago? That you need to consider a new mortgage to put your kid into university when 40 years ago the kid could do it on a summer job? You might consider that maybe it only seems 'ok' because, again, the people controlling the money control the media, and they don't want you comparing what is ok today with what was ok before they took over, and thinking about the roots of this situation, and what is happening in the bigger picture I am showing you here.
If the money supply is created and controlled by a government responsible first and foremost to We the People rather than banks and investors, this built-in, systemic, highly destructive and unavoidable hyper-inflation is removed, as 'we the people' charging interest on money we create for our own use, thereby fueling systemic inflation, would obviously be both a foolish and unnecessary move.
The Canadian national bogey man ....
The second major problem directly related to the government abandoning its money-creation function and turning it over to private banks has been the Canadian national debt, which I mentioned briefly earlier but deserves a closer look. A VERY closer look.
This national debt is almost half a trillion dollars, where it has been hovering for the last 20+ years, since Mulroney, eating up 30-40 billion of our taxes each year in 'interest' payments. Mulroney and the corporate media blamed the acquisition of this debt on 'tax and spend' Liberals (an enduring, and very false, meme, simply the corporate media demonizing those who dare to speak against the corporate agenda, but that too is stuff for a different essay ...) and Canadians living beyond their means, but in reality the debt was the result of the Trudeau government turning over the money-creation powers of the Bank of Canada to private banks during the 70s, shortly followed by a few years of usurious interest rates set by the same Bank of Canada during the early 80s - all completely unnecessary, all completely related to allowing private banks to control the Canadian money supply, and going crazy with their newfound powers (and all exacerbated by the Trudeau government at the same time beginning the era of lower and lower corporate taxes, thus seriously impacting government revenues and practical spending realities, but that too is part of a longer story - a story you need to do some self-study on, as you never get anything useful from your corporate media). But we have paid very close to a trillion dollars in interest on that national debt in the ensuing years, every penny of it unnecessary, if We the People were controlling our own money supply as we did prior to this radical change in policy. (and if you add in provincial and major municipal debt, which can and should also be provided by the Bank of Canada interest free, but they were forced to go to private banks for their needs and incur interest-demanding debt, that figure easily doubles)
Downsizing Canada .... (whilst upsizing bank and corporate profits)
And when you think of what policy changes have been done in the name of that debt, the desperate state of our health care system and other things after 30 years of these 'neoliberal' (or 'neoconservative' - same thing) policies, you can see that the repercussions of allowing private banks this power are very much not trivial - the 'so what?' is very large indeed. (for your information - of the over 500 billion dollar national debt, less than 100 billion was ever borrowed for actual program spending, over several years, which could have easily been accomodated interest free by using the Bank of Canada as earlier governments had done - all of the rest of the debt was simply interest on interest, and money borrowed to pay interest, goosed to the stratosphere during those years of double-digit interest rates I mentioned - about as fiduciarily irresponsible for a government 'of the people' as could be imagined)
And it all goes much further as well ....
Well, if what I have written so far hasn't persuaded you that we need to get control of both our democractically elected but obviously not democratically controlled government and our money supply, there's not much left to say. But consider also the frenetic pace and pressure of modern life - some people seem to thrive on the 'excitement' and insecurity, but most people are feeling considerably more stress and insecurity than they really want in their lives, I think, and it is all related to letting private banks control the economy through their money creation power and the endless feeding of the interest machine that requires, and also the corporate imperative of endless growth and out-of-control speculation anywhere they think there is a buck to be made, based on essentially unlimited 'credit' from the banks whose investors also wish to get in on the feeding frenzy, to rake in maximum takings from all the little people before the whole speculative bubble crashes down around everyone. The environmental destruction we see all over the world is also very much related - if the economy was slower, if we were more interested in simply maintaining a good and peaceful life, a safe and clean environment and community, with slow and steady and stable growth as people devised new and better ways of doing things, rather than feeding that endless growth of the corporate cancer, most of the impetus for this growth-based destruction would be removed.
You just need to ask - is this really necessary? Can we have a modern economy, modern technology, without all this pressure? Is the purpose of our economy, our country, our lives, to maximise the ROI of a small number of (already obscenely wealthy) investors, or to create a good and stable society for all of us to live in? I don't see why we can't have that stable, peaceful, prosperous society, starting simply by removing private banks from the money creation function, which would essentially turn down the heat on everything as a government controlled money supply would provide us with a stable money supply that did not demand all that extra work to pay interest on each year, whilst still providing all the money needed for normal, responsible growth. People will still look to improve their, and our, lives through new inventions and ways of doing things - and we will and can incorporate them into our lives as we wish. People would still be free to invest as they wished - but with money they had already accumulated, not great amounts of speculative money created by out-of-control banks for just that purpose, with no care about the lives of the millions of little average people which will be seriously effected when the ensuing bubbles burst, as they always and inevitably do.
Warning re false path..
There are many who say the solution to our economic problems is a return to the gold standard. I disagree, quite strongly. The problem with fiat money is not that it is not backed by gold or some other thing, it is who controls it, as should be obvious from what I have discussed above. If we control it democratically, and tie its issuance to something substantial such as the value of the infrastructure of the country, and it is simply a means of exchange (with some store of value use, any money will function this way) rather than a commodity itself, which the modern speculators have turned it into, it need not be inflationary at all. A gold standard, whilst perhaps having some value in much earlier times, has many problems in the modern world, I think. First, most gold is currently privately owned, and I don't even want to think of the screaming if some government was to attempt to claim all the gold in the country to set a gold standard - but otherwise, we are simply trading bankers as masters to gold-owners as the controllers of our economy, and neither is democratic. Secondly, the gold supply is somewhat finite, the economy is growing - it seems silly to tie an economy to something that is limited in supply. Third, what if we have a gold standard, and some modern terrorists nuke it or clever thief steals a lot of it? Or the owner of a significant amount gets in a snit and takes out of the country? The economy grinds to a halt? That seems pretty unclever. A strong economy is not based on a hammer over our heads of any sort, or trusting experts in the finance community making decisions in secret based on their 'superior' knowledge, it is based on intelligent, democratic control of our government and money supply, and the ensuing trust we all have in OUR strength and diversity.
Our problems the last 30 years have not been because we use fiat money, they have been because we have had a two-faced monster controlling our money - on the surface, they say they are doing the best for all of us, but in reality they have been concerned primarily with maximising private profits by manipulating the money supply, and not caring how much damage is done to the economy or people of the country.
It is time we put that to a stop. Understanding the money supply is the necessary first step.
Refs
You ought to google around and verify things yourself, but here are a few places to start -
The Money Masters (google if this link doesn't work, things have a way of changing) - an excellent history of the struggle between the bankers and those who preferred democratic contol of the world's money supply. We know who is winning, so far ....
An exact 'authorised' figure is hard to find for Canadian 'legal tender' in circulation (scamsters avoid verifiable stuff like the plague, as you no doubt know), but these two non-conspiracy-theory sources give figures indicating the same ballpark - Taxtips (question 1, about half way through - 40 billion) and Bank of Canada Fact Sheets - Seigniorage Revenue (last para, 35 billion 'in recent years' - prior to 2001, and we've come quite a ways since then in every way - remember, I'm only trying to get you in the ballpark here, not do an academic study of any kind)
Business debt - - Canadian business debts rise
Consumer debt - Where Does the Money Go: The Increasing Reliance on Household Debt in Canada (from the CGA, Certified General Accountants of Canada, probably reliable non-conspiracy theory data)
Government debts - anyone reading this will be aware that the federal debt is something under $500 billion now, but was around $550 billion for many years, and the debts of the provincial governments and major municipalities - all of which can and should have been assumed by the Bank of Canada more or less interest free but were part of all of this banketeering scam - amount to at least as much. Go google.
A few books with more info (there are many more, but these are a starting place):
* Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown
* Grip of Death by Michael Rowbothom - not online, but worth getting your library to order for a very good history of banking and all this money-creation stuff - he has a very good short article introducing it all at Prosperity UK, where you will also find a lot of other good info
* The Lost Science of Money, by Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute - - I haven't read this, but it sounds very good
* James Robertson and the New Economics Foundation - - many books and articles
* Just google Monetary Reform, and you'll get lots of interesting reading
Greenways cover
If you thought this short essay useful, you'd probably enjoy a read of Green Island, a story of a modern social democracy where We the People have finally displaced the bankers from our government, and things work much better. We follow a couple of old Utopians around Green Island as they see how things are done in a truly democratic society - and then follow the excitement as, predictably, the bankers are not about to sit idly by and allow the work of centuries to be undone by a band of hippies, and attempt a regime change with their military arm, the US army. This regime change gets a bit of a shock, however. Green Island too has something a little harder under the green glove.
box cover And don't miss Dave's warning about what is happening to our society - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - wolf in sheep's clothing, iceberg approaching, water getting hotter, think of it how you will, but you need to become aware. (an earlier version of Banketeering appeared in this book)
by
Dave Patterson
Sept 2008
The Canadian banks, in collusion with the most senior levels of your government, have engineered one of the greatest frauds in Canadian history over the last 30 years, and stolen over two trillion dollars from Canadian taxpayers, and the tap is still running.
Click on the poster to download
a 2-page summary PDF to print and share...
banketeering poster Private banks create almost all of the Canadian money supply through made-from-thin-air 'loans' deposited in the loanee's bank account. And that's a lot of money, a lot of debt - currently close to three trillion dollars a year in Canada. And banks collect interest on money they create - and that is a hell of a lot of interest for the privilege of creating money out of thin air. To put it in perspective, the government, through the Bank of Canada, creates about $50 billion per year (banknotes and coins), about 2% of the Canadian money supply. Constitutionally (BNA Act, Bank of Canada Act) the government could and should be creating much more, if not all, of the money supply. Contrary to the mythology spread around by the banks and their servants, this would not be inflationary, but would actually be much less inflationary, and lead to a much more stable economy overall.
Letting banks create our money supply is bad for many reasons (bad for us, that is to say, obviously pretty good for them):
* huge windfall profits to a small privileged group of private citizens (bank owners/'investors'), paid for by all other citizens both directly and through taxes to pay for interest on unnecessary government borrowing, which is very unfair to most Canadians who must actually work for their money
* a country that does not control its own money can hardly be called sovereign - how many policies have we seen put in place the last few decades justified through 'economic imperatives'? We have gutted many programs Canadians did/do not want gutted in the name of paying interest on the government debt, a debt which would not have been incurred if we were creating our own money - bank profits trump sovereignty.
* very important financial policies carried out without the knowledge or approval of the people, and thus highly undemocratic
* systemic, serious inflation because we must pay interest every year on our money supply leading to reduced living standards for most, as costs always rise faster than incomes
* ongoing bank bailouts as the banks abuse their money-creation powers, leading to bubbles and crashes from which they must be rescued with yet more taxpayer dollars, creating a very unstable economy and also making the inflation mentioned in the last point much more serious
* the slow but inevitable turning over of all of the country's assets to those creating the money through their collection of collateral and as governments scramble to sell things, usually at well-below-market value, to get money to pay their debts and interest, as we have been seeing with the selloff of public infrastructure to private interests the last 30 years
* and the $$2 trillion theft mentioned in the title - the infamous Canadian national debt resulted from a major financial policy change in the 1970s which allowed banks to create virtually all of our money, including for the government to borrow, through which, over the last 30 years, over two trillion dollars of Canadian taxes have been funneled to those banks and other 'investors' as 'service charges' on the debt, all of it completely unnecessary, as the government could have created enough money itself (~$100 billion) through the Bank of Canada, either at zero or nominal interest, to avoid incurring any private bank debt at all (the two trillion includes interest paid on provincial and municipal debt, which could and should also be funded by the Bank of Canada at no or nominal interest). Because of this 'terrible crushing burden' the national government, beginning with Mulroney/Wilson and then put on steroids by the tagteam of Chretien/Martin, claimed the necessity of gutting our social programs, etc, thus the current healthcare crisis, crumbling infrastructure, selloff of public assets, etc. You can believe the involved government officials incurred this debt out of stupidity, or they were well-meaning officials who simply made poor decisions, but most non-naive people would be more inclined to say that the financially smartest people in our governments and banks knew and know very well what they do, and were doing, and thus the title of this piece - the intentional changing of a central government financial policy that lead to this huge turning over of money to banks and other investors, when a much more fiscally responsible policy had been used in the past and was/is still available, and with which this debt would not have been incurred, thus the two trillion would not have been paid. Fraud - using some type of 'creative accounting' you have available to you because you have a fiduciary responsibility to someone, then betraying that trust to funnel money from its proper owners to some other entity. Criminal fraud. Massive criminal fraud. It's a hard thing to accept of our leaders, but no other explanation fits the facts once you understand the situation.
(the notion that governments creating money is wildly irresponsible and leads to immediate crushing inflation is simply nonsense, and actually contrary to the facts, as it is private banks, whose motive is private profit rather than fiscal stability, creating money which is inflationary, and it was/is highly irresponsible of the government to give the private banks this power - irresponsible or even criminal, as I believe it to be when done for fraudulent reasons, as any honest, knowledgeable assessment indicates must have been the case here).
And that may sound pretty far out, but it is all true. If you think that stealing two trillion dollars of Canadian tax money is serious, maybe you would be interested in reading on. That's only the beginning.
If you're still being resistant, thinking whoa, dude, Canada's a great country, we have honest officials, this could never happen here - I agree, with a caveat or two. Canada once was a great country with dreams to be a really great country, and is still better than most - but they are slowly but surely taking all that greatness away, while doing their best to make you, and everyone else, think things are just fine, as they once were - if you fully understood what was happening here, I expect you and a lot of other people would be beating on some doors, and not with garlands of roses. 'They' being the bankers and a small group of wealthy elite who have the money to make things happen their way, and without much useful public discussion.
This scam is relatively new, and has been initiated by some very clever people who, like any good scam artists, want to have stolen all you have and be safe somewhere beyond your reach before you realise you've been taken, and you are not reading about it in the media because they quite understand the power of the media, and control that too. If that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory - it is. It's also true - conspiracies are real (ask any lawyer about 'conspiracy to do this and that' in the lawbooks), theories explain things (ask Newton or Einstein or Darwin how useful theories can be), and there have always been a few men who desire great wealth and power and are willing to do what it takes to get them, including lying and stealing and worse, and Canada is not immune to their attention, and that's just true, and it would be you who would be crazy if you believed otherwise.
If you have noticed things going downhill a bit, or a lot, in various ways the last few years, but can't really understand why - reading this may enlighten you - pretty much everything is related to money in the modern world, and our problems are very directly related to money-shortage. And it's getting short because it's being leached out of 'our' public accounts into 'their' private ones. And maybe once you understand this a bit better, you might get angry enough to do something to stop this banketeering scam while we still have a country left to save. Like any cancer, the longer you ignore it, the closer to the end you are.
Economy in trouble .... has been for awhile, actually manic-depressive
We all know that the economy is presently in considerable trouble, has been bouncing in and out of trouble for the last 30 years, really, since the banks took over the money supply creation, kind of like a manic-depressive person, alternating between periods of wild highs and terrible depressions. This is not good in people, and it certainly is not good for an economy, at least for most of the people (banks tend to do fine in either state, especially with a sycophantic government ready with taxpayer money when they get too excited with their speculations and require bailouts). They talk endlessly about financial and economical things in the media, inflation, interest rates, taxes, trade, productivity, cost of living, debt, etc and etc. But they never talk about the single most important thing of all - where does the money come from that is at the center of all that stuff? How much is there anyway floating around in Canada? Who decides on how much there should be and creates it? Wouldn't that be important to know as you think about what is happening? Might this have some bearing on everything? Of course it does - we all know the classic definition of inflation - too much money chasing too few goods - so who decides how much money there will be in our economy? Just in general terms, shouldn't you, as a concerned Canadian citizen, understand the source of the money supply in Canada, at least so you can have an opinion as to whether or not it is being handled well? If you don't understand this, aren't you a bit like a child, not questioning the adults about important things? Do you regard that as a suitable attitude for a citizen in a democratic society?
If you assume the government does all this stuff, and of course they are doing the best they can, then you really do need to continue reading - most of our economic problems today result from (a) the one simple fact that the government does NOT create most of our money, nor does it really regulate it very much, and (b) most people have no idea what is really going on with the money supply.
jefferson banking quote The basics ... There are two sources of 'legal' money in Canada - from the government, through the Bank of Canada which has created over the years, and currently maintains (taking in degraded bills and destroying them, issuing new ones), about $50 billion of 'cash' circulating money (bank notes and coins), and from private banks, which create spendable credit money through loans. The most recent figures I can find total to something like 2.5 trillion dollars worth of loans outstanding in Canada (about one trillion in consumer loans, 1 trillion in government debt, and half a trillion in business loans - refs at end, and it's probable the figure is closer to three trillion today). The common belief is that banks take in deposits of 'real' money and loan them out again, but if this were actually true, that would be a very good trick, making 2.5 trillion in loans from 50 billion in 'real' money. In actuality, banks just create money essentially out of thin air. There are some theoretical limits on what banks can do in terms of this money creation power, but effectively what government oversight there is (very minimal, also mostly theoretical) kicks in after the fact, and, relying on great amounts of 'consumer and business confidentiality' and the ability to instantly transfer money all over the globe with modern communication systems, the system results in banks creating pretty much as much money as they want, and the government 'overseers' having very little idea of what they are doing until well after any problems related to over-creation of credit become obvious. The banks have some self-imposed limits, they understand that too much money is inflationary to the point of destabilizing everything and will damage them eventually, but these limits are very amorphous, and tend to the very high side - there is a big grey area between what is ok and what becomes dangerously inflationary, and as investors seeking profits, dominated by the more aggressive types thinking more of making some financial killing rather than the wellbeing of the economy, it's not a challenging question to see which side of that equation the banks tend to play on, and to understand they like to 'push the envelope', which is proven by the current economic situation and a long string of bubbles and bailouts over the last 30 years, all the direct result of too much money being created for speculative purposes.
So in the end, practically speaking, the simple fact is that about 98% of the Canadian money supply - the money that gets shuffled around the country between employers and employees, citizens and governments, between bank accounts through cheques and debit cards, and etc, is almost all created by private banks, in the form of loans to consumers, businesses, and governments .
'Yea, so what? - those are big numbers, but whatever you say, the system seems to work ok ...'
- well, if you'll recall the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, of which various Canadian banks have been involved, and a series of other financial crises dating back to and before the huge Savings and Loan 'scandal' in the US or the major Canadian bank bailouts of the early 80s and 90s, you might see the system is not actually functioning all that well at all, with the current tottering financial infrastructure and millions of small investors losing their life's savings, houses, pensions, etc every time we have one of these bubble-crashes. Such crises are obvious signs that the banks create too much money as credit, creating the bubbles we have been seeing regularly since the late 70s, which inevitably crash, requiring substantial or even huge government bailouts (your tax dollars, that is to say), and also doing often great financial damage to millions of 'little people' who engage trustingly in the 'government overseen' system and get taken to the cleaners. This sort of thing should not be happening, ever, and would not if the money system was under the public control of a responsible democratic government making policy in the interest of 'we the people' rather than in the interest of maximising bank profits (when I say 'democracy' or 'democratic' I do not mean our current system, but actual 'we the people' democracy, wherein politicians are our servants not our masters and decisions made about monetary policy, including the money supply, are made in public not in secret, by 'we the people' rather than mandarins behind closed doors - would you and your fellow citizens, in a town hall meeting, allow a bank you controlled to create a few hundred billion dollars to make an attack on a foreign currency, or to fund something like the current housing bubble crisis? I think most 'average' people would not, yet such vast speculative activities are things private banks seem to eagerly embrace, even seek out, as they search for the maximum 'return on investment'). According to the Canadian constitution, our government is responsible for the money supply, and that they have effectively turned this responsibility over to private banks so that the provision and control of the money supply benefits the few at the expense of the many, and the many don't even know what is going on, is not democracy, or a government responsible to 'we the people'.
media poster A reminder ...
Something to stick in your head from the first as you ponder the existence of such a massive conspiracy is this - wealthy people control banks. The same wealthy people control newspapers and other media, and have significant input into 'your' government - when was the last time you sat down with a cabinet minister as the wealthy do regularly? If the people running the banks and running the newspapers want you to think the financial system is just fine, or at least to keep you looking in certain ways and not in others when problems are talked about, that is what you are going to hear. That's not in any way crazy conspiracy theory, it's just fact. Would you go around slagging your boss if you wanted to keep your job? Why do you think reporters would be any different? If you were running a newspaper and had things you did not want talked about, would you hire a reporter (or managing editor) who insisted on his/her right to talk about such things, or look for somebody more agreeable to your desires? Do you think senior reporters who get lots of good travel budgets to interesting places in the country and around the world and get to meet all the interesting and important people like their jobs and want to keep them? If you had such a job, would you risk it by calling your boss a crook? Or those important people?
It ain't rocket science, none of this is. Just reality in action. And although your media might talk about some real things, there are a few very important things, such as this money supply scam, it obviously prefers to avoid getting into. Actually, what the 'great free Canadian media' in your country gets up to is as bad a story as what the banks get up to, which maybe we'll get to in another essay.
Banks creating money is bad news in pretty much every way, at least for 'we the people' ....
Let me point a few things out to you that you're not getting in the CBC 'backgrounders' or 'economics' courses or government information packages about some problems with letting private banks create most of our money, aside from the obvious one of creating too much and fueling speculative bubbles and the ensuing crashes.
The first and main thing is - banks, of course, demand interest on loans. We all know this - but think about the implications of that, if they are not simply lending out money they already have on deposit, but are actually creating 98% of the nation's 2.5 trillion dollar money supply and charging interest on that.
The thing is - in the big picture, they create that (currently in Canada) approximately 2.5+ trillion bucks, and expect interest on that every year - but they don't create any extra or special money to pay that interest so - what happens? Where is that interest money going to come from? Money gets shuffled a lot in a multi-trillion dollar economy with billions of business and personal transactions every day, and over time, and every year the money supply increases due to natural growth, loans get paid and new ones created, and inflation plays a small role as it reduces the current effective demand of old loans, but eventually there is only one possible outcome - the banks gobble up collateral. It's like a huge game of musical chairs, and as the rules of musical chairs make losers inevitable, so the current rules of money creation make it completely inevitable that every year a group of players loses out as there is no money to shuffle for the unlucky ones, and the banks get their collateral. And over time, if you think of it some more, you can see the result is equally inevitable - the slow but steady turning over of all the real property in the country to the private banks (and individuals who control those businesses, for that's all a bank is, a business) allowed to create the great bulk of the Canadian money supply. As inevitable as night following day. No other outcome is possible but the transfer of all the hard assets of the country created by hard working Canadian people being turned over to those who control the money.
They know this. They prefer you don't.
But why should a small group of highly privileged individuals be given this huge power, to create a nation's money supply out of thin air, through loans to citizens who have no other place to borrow money, demand interest on that money they have created out of thin air, and then collect the property of those citizens who cannot meet that interest demand? What sort of 'democratic' decision ever gave them this power?
Keep this very clear, this is not 'normal' banking as you have been lead to believe, where the banks happily take in the deposits of citizens, and then pay interest on your deposit, and loan out some of the accumulated money to others at interest - these people are creating money, huge amouns of money, out of thin air, and loaning THAT money at interest, and then collecting real property when some of those loanees cannot come up with the interest on their loans. And that is one hell of a racket, when you think about it - and did you ever participate in some discussion about running your country wherein you said you would be happy to have this power of creating YOUR national money be placed in the hands of private banks? This is nothing like the acceptable business of taking deposits and paying interest, and loaning some deposited money back out and collecting interest - this is creating most of the nation's money from thin air and charging interest on the made-from-thin-air money and raking in huge profits thereby, including even creating huge amounts of money to loan to 'our' government - and no sovereign people should be allowing that kind of private power in their country, at their great expense.
But what alternative?
The immediate question, of course, is what alternative is there? - and the answer is equally obvious, We the People, through OUR democracy, create our own money supply, and enter it into circulation essentially interest free. People will still be able to get loans, of course, but from a 'we the people's' bank at much, much smaller rates of interest than banks charge (and therefore available more easily as well), as this is essentially 'we' loaning money to 'us', and there is no benefit to charging ourselves any interest beyond a service charge of some sort to maintain the service. Banks can still operate in the traditional way if they want to - but no money creation, as that is something no private persons or businesses should be allowed to do in a sovereign nation, only We the People acting collectively through OUR government should be creating OUR money.
banketeering illustration The Shyster objects ... and we respond
Those who support the current system of bank-created debt money immediately start mocking this idea, claiming that governments creating money only leads to high inflation. This may indeed be a danger in certain undemocratic and/or irresponsible governments, but a responsible, democratic government under the control of intelligent, well-informed and engaged citizens is highly unlikely to do so (think of yourself at a public meeting talking about our money supply - would you, after all the arguments were on the table and the possible ramifications of all options and proposals well explained, vote for wildly inflationary and risky policies and speculation, or for caution and sanity? The people who object to government controlled money think the average citizen is an idiot who would laughingly try to give him or herself a million dollars hahaha aren't we smart!!!! - I disagree ... actually, it is the out of control bankers who do such things, creating huge amounts of speculative money with no public oversight to fuel their latest speculative frenzy, and do not want democratic oversight getting in their way, as we have been seeing for the last 30 years ...).
But luckily we don't have to rely on theory or rhetoric for examples of the relative merits of the outcomes in Canada of government-controlled vs bank-controlled money creation, as we have a very solid and real example, right from our own modern history. As a quick demonstration of the relative 'responsibilies' of banks and government in terms of controlling the money supply, and a short but necessary history lesson, consider the Canadian money supply from the mid-1930s to the present.
We'll all recall the Great Crash of 29, followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, both caused by unregulated banks first getting very much out of control and creating far too much money, and then not creating enough to keep people working through the depression years (this works ok for the banks, as when there is not enough money circulating, they gobble up collateral like pigs at a trough - not so ok for the millions of people with no work losing property, of course). In those years Canada did have a somewhat more responsible (to the people) government, and the Bank of Canada was instituted for just this reason, to assume at least some money creation power in Canada (as mandated in the original constitution of the country, the British North America act of 1867) and put some controls on the obviously seriously irresponsible private banks. And then after this the Canadian government fought in WWII at huge cost, then oversaw the creation of a very prosperous country following the war with good jobs in a strong economy, a world-class health care system, subsidized first class education, pensions, UI, modern high quality infrastructure, etc and etc - using the Bank of Canada to create a considerable amount of our money, whilst still allowing private banks to augment the money supply, under careful regulation. And the economy during this time of great growth and prosperity was strong, we had no national debt of any significance, and no serious inflation problems.
Then came the 70s, and as part of the 'new economics' that became dominant in those years in the US and spread like a malignant cancer through the world known as the Washington Consensus and its self-serving insistence that 'the market knows best!!', and under the strong prodding of a growing-ever-stronger corporate sector to reduce corporate taxation and become more 'business friendly', the Canadian government (with no useful public discussion, it might be noted, think again of the media here as well - as you ought to be realising, this most important of all government functions is NEVER discussed publicly in the media - they don't want you thinking about this at all) got out of hands-on oversight of the Canadian money supply, including creating some itself for government use. They turned that power over to private banks once again, apparently everyone forgetting the lessons of the 1920s, and it took only a few years until the beginning of the ongoing story that persists today of bank bailouts, serious inflation, speculative bubbles, currency speculation and insecurity, the establishment of the half-trillion-dollar Canadian national debt which has sucked over two trillion dollars of interest out of our taxes since the early 80s, and etc etc etc etc.
So we have, to summarize the main point, a lengthy period of time we can look at in which the government directly oversaw and was involved with the creation of the Canadian money supply, and the economy was strong and stable and non-inflationary, and growing steadily. And then we have an almost equal in length period of time in which the government stood down from their constitutionally mandated fiduciary responsibility to We the People and the banks were allowed to create the nation's money supply with little oversight, and this second period, although showing great economic growth, has also been an ongoing series of major financial problems related directly to the creation of far too much money. (unnatural and uncontrolled rapid growth is not necessarily good - think of cancer, for instance...) Based on these two time periods, you can judge for yourself whether private banks or a responsible (to the people) government is more likely to manage the economy well in the interests of the majority of non-bank-investor citizens. Banks and their investor-controllers have the primary goal of maximising their ROIs, whilst a (truly) responsible government has the goal of a stable economy for its citizens. The two approaches to policy are going to lead to very different results - as a comparison of the two suggested times clearly reveals. (and if you're thinking 'but what about the oil shock?!? of the 70s' - yes, a significant but handleable problem by a responsible government, the problems I speak of in terms of over-creation of money are separate, and much bigger - again, when you have a banking/'investor' sector whose primary goal is maximising their profit, they will deal with something like the oil shock considerably differently than would a money-supply sector under the control of the federal government, acting primarily for the wellbeing of we the people, attempting to control the disruption and maintain stability rather than using it for the financial gain of certain privileged players, and to hell, really, with how many little people suffer during it all ....)
Systemic, and serious, inflation
Aside from the utter insanity of a sovereign people allowing a private entity in their midst to create their money supply at huge profits and with maximising those profits in mind rather than financial stability for the community, thus very seriously compromising both that sovereignty and the financial stability of the community, there are a couple of other very serious related problems resulting directly from allowing private banks to create our money that need to be understood.
Serious, systemic inflation is the first such problem. We know that inflation is not a good thing, although a slow and steady inflation over the years is somewhat inevitable as our economy grows more mature and complex, and need not be harmful to anyone if handled responsibly, but this 'natural', manageable inflation is going to be exacerbated to unnatural and harmful levels when almost all of your money supply demands interest each year - again, a completely inevitable process, but this time benefitting those in certain places and very much negatively impacting everyone else, as we have seen. Either you allow the economy to retract each year by the amount of money taken out of it to pay the interest on that bank-created debt money supply, and businesses allow their profits to fall each year as that interest circulates through their suppliers and their own expenses, or you create more and more money/debt just to pay interest, which is of course inflationary in itself, and everyone who can raises their prices year after year, in that 'inflationary spiral' we have all heard about (for some reason the business writers like to (quite falsely) blame workers demanding small increases in their salaries for such things, but as I pointed out earlier, you need to consider who the business writers are working for when reading or hearing such things).
To borrow from a saying the 'new economists' like to use, modern systemic inflation does not impact all boats equally. We all know that businesses are protected, and more, from inflation - if a business has an expense increase of 3% they raise their prices 5%, and on we go. The main problem with inflation is, of course, that the wages and salaries of 'we the people' NEVER keep up with rising prices (on average; there may be a few powerful unions who seem to do ok for a time, but the majority of workers do not belong to powerful unions, and even the unions fall behind over time), so the more and faster the inflation, the more and faster we fall behind. Many people reading this will remember the first of the two eras I spoke of earlier, the times when a responsible government managed the money supply in the interests of a stable economy, during which time inflation was low, and prices reasonable in relation to income, and one working adult with a half-decent job could support a family, save for retirement, put the kids through university, own their own home and have a comfortable life, and etc - but during the second time, the era of bank-created money and the attendant, systemic hyper-inflation, those days are long gone, and now it takes two working adults with above average jobs to have a comparable lifestyle for their family, prices are high and growing higher for everything, and as you undoubtedly well know, things are falling further and further behind for almost everyone, with significantly lower savings than even ten years ago, and significantly higher average debt for every family.
Which strikes me as a pretty significant problem in terms of 'So what - everything seems to be working ok...' - do you really believe that it's ok that it takes two adults working to support a modern family when one adult working could do so 40 years ago? That you need to consider a new mortgage to put your kid into university when 40 years ago the kid could do it on a summer job? You might consider that maybe it only seems 'ok' because, again, the people controlling the money control the media, and they don't want you comparing what is ok today with what was ok before they took over, and thinking about the roots of this situation, and what is happening in the bigger picture I am showing you here.
If the money supply is created and controlled by a government responsible first and foremost to We the People rather than banks and investors, this built-in, systemic, highly destructive and unavoidable hyper-inflation is removed, as 'we the people' charging interest on money we create for our own use, thereby fueling systemic inflation, would obviously be both a foolish and unnecessary move.
The Canadian national bogey man ....
The second major problem directly related to the government abandoning its money-creation function and turning it over to private banks has been the Canadian national debt, which I mentioned briefly earlier but deserves a closer look. A VERY closer look.
This national debt is almost half a trillion dollars, where it has been hovering for the last 20+ years, since Mulroney, eating up 30-40 billion of our taxes each year in 'interest' payments. Mulroney and the corporate media blamed the acquisition of this debt on 'tax and spend' Liberals (an enduring, and very false, meme, simply the corporate media demonizing those who dare to speak against the corporate agenda, but that too is stuff for a different essay ...) and Canadians living beyond their means, but in reality the debt was the result of the Trudeau government turning over the money-creation powers of the Bank of Canada to private banks during the 70s, shortly followed by a few years of usurious interest rates set by the same Bank of Canada during the early 80s - all completely unnecessary, all completely related to allowing private banks to control the Canadian money supply, and going crazy with their newfound powers (and all exacerbated by the Trudeau government at the same time beginning the era of lower and lower corporate taxes, thus seriously impacting government revenues and practical spending realities, but that too is part of a longer story - a story you need to do some self-study on, as you never get anything useful from your corporate media). But we have paid very close to a trillion dollars in interest on that national debt in the ensuing years, every penny of it unnecessary, if We the People were controlling our own money supply as we did prior to this radical change in policy. (and if you add in provincial and major municipal debt, which can and should also be provided by the Bank of Canada interest free, but they were forced to go to private banks for their needs and incur interest-demanding debt, that figure easily doubles)
Downsizing Canada .... (whilst upsizing bank and corporate profits)
And when you think of what policy changes have been done in the name of that debt, the desperate state of our health care system and other things after 30 years of these 'neoliberal' (or 'neoconservative' - same thing) policies, you can see that the repercussions of allowing private banks this power are very much not trivial - the 'so what?' is very large indeed. (for your information - of the over 500 billion dollar national debt, less than 100 billion was ever borrowed for actual program spending, over several years, which could have easily been accomodated interest free by using the Bank of Canada as earlier governments had done - all of the rest of the debt was simply interest on interest, and money borrowed to pay interest, goosed to the stratosphere during those years of double-digit interest rates I mentioned - about as fiduciarily irresponsible for a government 'of the people' as could be imagined)
And it all goes much further as well ....
Well, if what I have written so far hasn't persuaded you that we need to get control of both our democractically elected but obviously not democratically controlled government and our money supply, there's not much left to say. But consider also the frenetic pace and pressure of modern life - some people seem to thrive on the 'excitement' and insecurity, but most people are feeling considerably more stress and insecurity than they really want in their lives, I think, and it is all related to letting private banks control the economy through their money creation power and the endless feeding of the interest machine that requires, and also the corporate imperative of endless growth and out-of-control speculation anywhere they think there is a buck to be made, based on essentially unlimited 'credit' from the banks whose investors also wish to get in on the feeding frenzy, to rake in maximum takings from all the little people before the whole speculative bubble crashes down around everyone. The environmental destruction we see all over the world is also very much related - if the economy was slower, if we were more interested in simply maintaining a good and peaceful life, a safe and clean environment and community, with slow and steady and stable growth as people devised new and better ways of doing things, rather than feeding that endless growth of the corporate cancer, most of the impetus for this growth-based destruction would be removed.
You just need to ask - is this really necessary? Can we have a modern economy, modern technology, without all this pressure? Is the purpose of our economy, our country, our lives, to maximise the ROI of a small number of (already obscenely wealthy) investors, or to create a good and stable society for all of us to live in? I don't see why we can't have that stable, peaceful, prosperous society, starting simply by removing private banks from the money creation function, which would essentially turn down the heat on everything as a government controlled money supply would provide us with a stable money supply that did not demand all that extra work to pay interest on each year, whilst still providing all the money needed for normal, responsible growth. People will still look to improve their, and our, lives through new inventions and ways of doing things - and we will and can incorporate them into our lives as we wish. People would still be free to invest as they wished - but with money they had already accumulated, not great amounts of speculative money created by out-of-control banks for just that purpose, with no care about the lives of the millions of little average people which will be seriously effected when the ensuing bubbles burst, as they always and inevitably do.
Warning re false path..
There are many who say the solution to our economic problems is a return to the gold standard. I disagree, quite strongly. The problem with fiat money is not that it is not backed by gold or some other thing, it is who controls it, as should be obvious from what I have discussed above. If we control it democratically, and tie its issuance to something substantial such as the value of the infrastructure of the country, and it is simply a means of exchange (with some store of value use, any money will function this way) rather than a commodity itself, which the modern speculators have turned it into, it need not be inflationary at all. A gold standard, whilst perhaps having some value in much earlier times, has many problems in the modern world, I think. First, most gold is currently privately owned, and I don't even want to think of the screaming if some government was to attempt to claim all the gold in the country to set a gold standard - but otherwise, we are simply trading bankers as masters to gold-owners as the controllers of our economy, and neither is democratic. Secondly, the gold supply is somewhat finite, the economy is growing - it seems silly to tie an economy to something that is limited in supply. Third, what if we have a gold standard, and some modern terrorists nuke it or clever thief steals a lot of it? Or the owner of a significant amount gets in a snit and takes out of the country? The economy grinds to a halt? That seems pretty unclever. A strong economy is not based on a hammer over our heads of any sort, or trusting experts in the finance community making decisions in secret based on their 'superior' knowledge, it is based on intelligent, democratic control of our government and money supply, and the ensuing trust we all have in OUR strength and diversity.
Our problems the last 30 years have not been because we use fiat money, they have been because we have had a two-faced monster controlling our money - on the surface, they say they are doing the best for all of us, but in reality they have been concerned primarily with maximising private profits by manipulating the money supply, and not caring how much damage is done to the economy or people of the country.
It is time we put that to a stop. Understanding the money supply is the necessary first step.
Refs
You ought to google around and verify things yourself, but here are a few places to start -
The Money Masters (google if this link doesn't work, things have a way of changing) - an excellent history of the struggle between the bankers and those who preferred democratic contol of the world's money supply. We know who is winning, so far ....
An exact 'authorised' figure is hard to find for Canadian 'legal tender' in circulation (scamsters avoid verifiable stuff like the plague, as you no doubt know), but these two non-conspiracy-theory sources give figures indicating the same ballpark - Taxtips (question 1, about half way through - 40 billion) and Bank of Canada Fact Sheets - Seigniorage Revenue (last para, 35 billion 'in recent years' - prior to 2001, and we've come quite a ways since then in every way - remember, I'm only trying to get you in the ballpark here, not do an academic study of any kind)
Business debt - - Canadian business debts rise
Consumer debt - Where Does the Money Go: The Increasing Reliance on Household Debt in Canada (from the CGA, Certified General Accountants of Canada, probably reliable non-conspiracy theory data)
Government debts - anyone reading this will be aware that the federal debt is something under $500 billion now, but was around $550 billion for many years, and the debts of the provincial governments and major municipalities - all of which can and should have been assumed by the Bank of Canada more or less interest free but were part of all of this banketeering scam - amount to at least as much. Go google.
A few books with more info (there are many more, but these are a starting place):
* Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown
* Grip of Death by Michael Rowbothom - not online, but worth getting your library to order for a very good history of banking and all this money-creation stuff - he has a very good short article introducing it all at Prosperity UK, where you will also find a lot of other good info
* The Lost Science of Money, by Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute - - I haven't read this, but it sounds very good
* James Robertson and the New Economics Foundation - - many books and articles
* Just google Monetary Reform, and you'll get lots of interesting reading
Greenways cover
If you thought this short essay useful, you'd probably enjoy a read of Green Island, a story of a modern social democracy where We the People have finally displaced the bankers from our government, and things work much better. We follow a couple of old Utopians around Green Island as they see how things are done in a truly democratic society - and then follow the excitement as, predictably, the bankers are not about to sit idly by and allow the work of centuries to be undone by a band of hippies, and attempt a regime change with their military arm, the US army. This regime change gets a bit of a shock, however. Green Island too has something a little harder under the green glove.
box cover And don't miss Dave's warning about what is happening to our society - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - wolf in sheep's clothing, iceberg approaching, water getting hotter, think of it how you will, but you need to become aware. (an earlier version of Banketeering appeared in this book)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Letter to Director of Alberta motor vehicle licencing
To: firoz.mohamed@gov.ab.ca ; laurie.beveridge@gov.ab.ca
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:09:44 PM
Subject: Religious beliefs, intimidation , obstruction, and nuisance
To: Firose Mohamed....
++Transportation Alberta January 24 of the 2008th year of our Lord Jesus Christ
Dear private man known as Firose Mohamed .
Thank you Firoz for our productive conversation yesterday....You seemed to have taken training on how to control the conversation....It worked!
Now to the matters at hand.
Simply put the department seems to somehow believe they own my Daughters name...
If that is so then certainly they have a law that allows them to alter it for a financial purpose.....One thing though they do need her informed consent to do that and removing her "all rights reserved under God's law" written on her application if altering a security document with intent.....A very serious criminal breach.
I am wishing to see the law that allows you to intimidate my daughter and by the way I think common sense dictates if she says she is intimidated can you or the government lawyers disprove it?
If she says you altered her name without her permission can you prove you had authority to do it.?
Now either I receive a warm logical conceding letter that no such law or authority exists or you will attempt to stall by asking redundant questions...
Answer mine first and then we can further our calm logical disourse with respect for my daughters Christian faith.
You who are innocent , speak out in support of the integrity that the country and it's history has founded itself upon..
Any other response will be seen as further intimidation and will be used to prove it...
I do not mean to be aggressive but have noticed their are certain lawyers who work for the department of Justice who are in conflict to deal with this matter in an unbiased manner. They are Jewish like I am Christian and according to their own text called Talmud , http://www.come-and-hear.com, regard non Jews, Christians, as animals....I am not being Anti Semetic just observational and providing facts that make it unethical for a Jewish lawyer to decide issues related to the Ability of the Christian faith and it's followers to not be intimidated by de facto legislation that Jewish lawyers wrote that only applies to corporate entities..
Go ask the writer of the Alberta Highway Traffic Act. Wes Dunfield, He's Jewish and admitted it only applied to commercial entities. Corporations can only make law that applies to corporate entities..Dead in law legal fictions
The whole of the Alberta government takes a false oath and that is not an opinion but fact, to get their job,but then to add further insult to injury have no idea about what the true allegiance means that they promised to provide.. Simple logic tells you that if the one promising to provide it if not aware of what they are promising to provide does not know what that promised item is then they irrefutably cannot provide it....They lied to get their job....You work for those who lied to get your Job...
I would say logically that puts you in a compromised position..I feel for your dilemna.
Here is proof of the false oath giving credense as to why we need to have our correct names on that license or admit we as ministers do not need one. You will see words used in definitions that lead us to the definitions of those word so please follow closely so you will see the deliberate deception utilizing the average man or woman's lack of knowledge as to what the words mean by their own definitions. .If we are not diligent in reviewing definitions then in reality we have no idea what we are reading but rely usually upon a false premise based upon an assumption which as you will see is also false.
This is not new, we are being sucked up my multinational corporate vested interests that have no respect for God as money is their God and this is a visible arena that the G8 has built.
All the complication and deceit is to be held in check by that oath of allegiance but as no one has ever asked for the meaning of it before to my knowledge. It is violated more out of tradition arrogance and ignorance than, as it is to be, in all seriousness , held up as a high ideal that all must and shall adhere to if they are to gain true sanction of her majesty. All other attempts at using her authority are fraudulent and must be resisted and avoided.
These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
And then the Alberta Version again,
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.?
See the difference? If they are different only one is valid. Guess which one!
Evidently Alberta is behind the times in it's respect for federal law and has not included the Queen of Canada in the oath. That according to federal law shows and proves that Alberta Judges politicians police and all who took that oath are without true sanction or authority as you will notice the federal act ,of precedent regarding oaths to her majesty, is quite explicit and uses the word shall which is an imperative and the words "no other" in reference as to the formation of the oath! The word "Do" is missing from the Alberta oath folks! That makes it grammatically incorrect and an incomplete sentence. Jibberish!
This puts those men and women that have taken that oath in a position of no sanction or authority from the Queen at all and are bogus according to the federal law ! Schedule 5 from the BNAA
That died in 1901along with Dominion of Canada subsequent to the 1893 repeal of the inheritance section 2. It was incorporated as a for profit Business the day after Victoria 's death!
We also have proof the government of Canada is a false illegitimate god..
This from the Governor Generals website'''
http://web.archive.org/web/20070206002725/http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
"Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State."
It's only one word but lets see what the Creditor for Canada has to say.. They own all the assets registered with all the registries reporting to the corporation of Canada as we are in debt close to 1 trillion dollars to that private family owned business... The heritage of those families is not secret the lawyers who are prejudiced against Christians are probably related to them....Islam Christian and Jews all follow the same Ten Commandments....The eleventh is in Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32......do not add to my law!
I cant find the provinces de facto legislation in my Bible but do see Exodus 20:3-5 commanding me to not bow to false gods or serve them..
http://web.archive.org/web/20060628094219/http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/whatnewvirt/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument
July 2001
These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete treatment of the subject.
Dealings with De Facto Governments
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
So now lets go to the law dictionaries the legal staff for the province uses...
De Facto
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
de facto (dë fak'tö). In fact, as distinguished from "de jure," by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.
de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. (like rape)
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
de facto (dë fak'tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognition, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
now you may ask how does all this relate to my Daughters ability to ride in her car rather than Drive..
Lets find out what Drive really means,
This from the original statute regarding drivers needing a license in North America.
Origin Of Driver's Licenses
________________________________________
A 1925 Act Creating Driver's Licenses for those Engaged in Transportation for Hire.
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Passed At The
REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FORTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE
1925
CHAPTER 412
An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and
highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account
of such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith.
[ Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1.**** The words and phrases used in this act
shall for the purposes of this act, unless the same be
contrary to or inconsistent with the context, be
construed as follows:
(a)* The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall
be construed to mean a certificate of public convenience
and necessity granted or issued by the railroad
commission of the State of California, authorizing a
common carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the
conditions prescribed by said commission, and shall
include all amendments to or changes in such certificate
which may be made by said commission.
(b)* The word "operator" shall include all persons,
firms, associations and corporations who operate motor
vehicles upon any public highway in this state and
thereby engage in the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation, but shall not include
any person, firm, association or corporation who solely
transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports his or its own property, or employees, or
both, and who transports no persons or property for hire
or compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying so exempted shall be required to obtain from the
state board of equalization and to display exempt emblems
in the manner herein
an old definition from Bouviers Law Dictionary then a newer one...
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
"Jurisdiction" comes from the Latin "juris" which is the law, and "diction" which means speak. What law is speaking to you? Most people are unknowingly under a corporate statutory jurisdiction because they voluntarily got a drivers license. This comes under maritime/admiralty law, equity law, and/or statutory law and you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Some people refuse to get a "drivers license" to avoid voluntarily relinquishing their fundamental Constitutional Right to Travel.
Some definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition. 1933. Though old, these are current with vehicle codes, revised in 1959.
"Driver" "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car." So a driver is someone who makes their living driving on roads, such as a chauffeur, taxicab driver, or trucker. The state does have the right to regulate commerce on the roads.
"License" "A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort." A license allows you to do something illegal. James Bond Style
"Traffic" (as in court) " Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandize, bills, money, and the like."
Without a doubt, a "drivers license" is a privilege, regulating commerce on our thoroughfares, and not a right. Christians must refuse to get a drivers license to retain their rights.
This from the highway traffic Act of Alberta
"driver" or "operator" means a
person who drives or is in
actual physical control of a vehicle;
"vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or
thing may be transported or drawn on a highway.
now back to Bouviers and Blacks law dictionaries so we can have no argument or foolish intimidating rebuttal to the already accepted definitions in law
Transport,,, Blacks Law first Edition.
"The removal of goods or
persons from one place to another by carrier"
CARRIERS, contracts. There are two kinds of carriers, namely, common carriers, (q. v.) who have been considered under another head; and private carriers. These latter are persons who, although they do not undertake to transport the goods of such as choose to employ them, yet agree to carry the goods of some particular person for hire, from one place to another.
2. In such case the carrier incurs no responsibility beyond that of any other ordinary bailee for hire, that is to say, the responsibility of ordinary diligence. 2 Bos. & Pull. 417; 4 Taunt. 787; Selw. N. P. 382 n.; 1 Wend. R. 272; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 2 Dana, R. 430; 6 Taunt. 577; Jones, Bailm. 121; Story on Bailm, 495. But in Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 Watts & Serg. 285, it was holden that a Wagoner Who carries goods for hire, contracts,the responsibility of a common carrier, whether transportation be his principal and direct business, or only an occasional and incidental employment.
3. To bring a person within the description of a common carrier, he must exercise his business as a public employment; he must undertake to carry goods for persons generally; and he must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire, as a business; not as a casual occupation pro hac vice. 1 Salk. 249; 1 Bell's Com. 467; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 1 Wend. 272; 2, Dana, R. 430. See Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.
d) "commercial vehicle"
(i) means a truck, trailer or semi-trailer, except
(A) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer that is a public
service vehicle, or
(B) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer or any class of
vehicle that by the regulations or by an order of
the Alberta Motor Transport Board
is exempted
from being classified as a commercial vehicle,
and
(ii) includes
(A) a motor vehicle from which sales are made of
goods, wares, merchandise or commodity, and
(B) a motor vehicle by means of which delivery is
made of goods, wares, merchandise or
commodity to a purchaser or consignee of them;
(q.1) "public service vehicle"
(i) means a motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer
operated on a highway by or on behalf of a person
for compensation, whether that operation is regular
or only occasional or for a single trip, and
(ii) includes a motor vehicle kept by a person for the
purpose, subject to the regulations, of being rented
without a driver, but
(iii) does not include a motor vehicle used solely as an
ambulance or hearse or for the transportation of the
Royal Mail;
So to be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and
command me to not show respect to persons as they are
fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4.. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.
2. The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.
3. By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgment, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgment or judgments by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgment or judgments shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.
Jam 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Here are a list of more succinct definitions so no one gets lost.
I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human
I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.
Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?
To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?
Well….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".
Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.
I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...
Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."
Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.
Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.
Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'colored man'!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.
Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.
When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word 'Caucasian', listed for race (they don't seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a 'Caucasian'). So back to the definitions of 'Caucasian".
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.
Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be 'white', but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let's see what an 'older' Black's Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines "Caucasian' As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.
That's interesting, it appears that 'white racist Aryan' groups, like 'Aryan Nations' types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even 'Caucasians' under this definition, so they can't be from the 'White' Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older 'Semitic' language referred to in Black's Law Dictionary).
Back to Noah's Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word 'Caucasian'.
Caucasian - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.
OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are 'persons' and some of them are 'individuals', and some 'Natural persons' do exist, of this I have no doubt, I've met some of them. There are also many that I believe are 'Humans', or 'Human beings', these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However...
My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a 'Caucasian'. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a 'Caucasian male'. I am also a follower of the Scriptural Messiah, commonly called a Christian. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Christian Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a 'Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male'……. or an 'LBCCM' - Cool - Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Christian 'White' Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus..
Now lets see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you.
The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ.
Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
"Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
So I could provide you more but I think you already overwhelmed as I destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massivr criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you know see why my Daughter wants her name corrected and her proviso "All rights Reserved in God's law" under her signature? This destroys any assumptions she has submitted to the false gods running the Alberta Legislature...Remember everyone of them has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority.
So you have seen the proof irrefutable and you can watch the intimidating comments from Lauries office as her illegitimate false oathed lawyers intentionally violate 176 180 and 423 of the criminal code...Oh and violating an act of Parliament to..126 of the criminal code.. The act? the Oaths of Allegiance Act
So either you can see your way to treating us as you did the Hutterites or your back in court only this time with proof your institution is based upon a fraud..
Not opinion factual evidence that makes every lawyer with a Jewish heritage cringe...Did you know that those of that faith take an oath once a year called the KOL NIDRE.....It is so they can disavow any other oaths they have taken during the year in order to deceive others and so God will condone their actions.
Yes it is true. That truth is not, I repeat not, antiSemetic but it is anti Fraud and Lies!
Do you think we all have the ability to complain about such abuse of power ,or should we be shut up as antisemites cause we tell the factual provable truth?
I appreciate your intellectual comments which do not originate from some drone like dialogue you have been trained to say. Do not be played like a puppet as they will attempt to do so...Ask how in law you get to intimidate a man or woman to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs...
If you want next email I will send you all the de facto legal precedentslike the Samur case in Quebec where the civil law of the province lost to 176 of the criminal code and 180 applied as well as 423..Civil law,yours cannot trump criminal code....Tell that one to Jim Leitch.
Blessings upon your willingness to not let our brain be washed in dirty water......
Thankyou for your time....
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:09:44 PM
Subject: Religious beliefs, intimidation , obstruction, and nuisance
To: Firose Mohamed....
++Transportation Alberta January 24 of the 2008th year of our Lord Jesus Christ
Dear private man known as Firose Mohamed .
Thank you Firoz for our productive conversation yesterday....You seemed to have taken training on how to control the conversation....It worked!
Now to the matters at hand.
Simply put the department seems to somehow believe they own my Daughters name...
If that is so then certainly they have a law that allows them to alter it for a financial purpose.....One thing though they do need her informed consent to do that and removing her "all rights reserved under God's law" written on her application if altering a security document with intent.....A very serious criminal breach.
I am wishing to see the law that allows you to intimidate my daughter and by the way I think common sense dictates if she says she is intimidated can you or the government lawyers disprove it?
If she says you altered her name without her permission can you prove you had authority to do it.?
Now either I receive a warm logical conceding letter that no such law or authority exists or you will attempt to stall by asking redundant questions...
Answer mine first and then we can further our calm logical disourse with respect for my daughters Christian faith.
You who are innocent , speak out in support of the integrity that the country and it's history has founded itself upon..
Any other response will be seen as further intimidation and will be used to prove it...
I do not mean to be aggressive but have noticed their are certain lawyers who work for the department of Justice who are in conflict to deal with this matter in an unbiased manner. They are Jewish like I am Christian and according to their own text called Talmud , http://www.come-and-hear.com, regard non Jews, Christians, as animals....I am not being Anti Semetic just observational and providing facts that make it unethical for a Jewish lawyer to decide issues related to the Ability of the Christian faith and it's followers to not be intimidated by de facto legislation that Jewish lawyers wrote that only applies to corporate entities..
Go ask the writer of the Alberta Highway Traffic Act. Wes Dunfield, He's Jewish and admitted it only applied to commercial entities. Corporations can only make law that applies to corporate entities..Dead in law legal fictions
The whole of the Alberta government takes a false oath and that is not an opinion but fact, to get their job,but then to add further insult to injury have no idea about what the true allegiance means that they promised to provide.. Simple logic tells you that if the one promising to provide it if not aware of what they are promising to provide does not know what that promised item is then they irrefutably cannot provide it....They lied to get their job....You work for those who lied to get your Job...
I would say logically that puts you in a compromised position..I feel for your dilemna.
Here is proof of the false oath giving credense as to why we need to have our correct names on that license or admit we as ministers do not need one. You will see words used in definitions that lead us to the definitions of those word so please follow closely so you will see the deliberate deception utilizing the average man or woman's lack of knowledge as to what the words mean by their own definitions. .If we are not diligent in reviewing definitions then in reality we have no idea what we are reading but rely usually upon a false premise based upon an assumption which as you will see is also false.
This is not new, we are being sucked up my multinational corporate vested interests that have no respect for God as money is their God and this is a visible arena that the G8 has built.
All the complication and deceit is to be held in check by that oath of allegiance but as no one has ever asked for the meaning of it before to my knowledge. It is violated more out of tradition arrogance and ignorance than, as it is to be, in all seriousness , held up as a high ideal that all must and shall adhere to if they are to gain true sanction of her majesty. All other attempts at using her authority are fraudulent and must be resisted and avoided.
These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
And then the Alberta Version again,
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.?
See the difference? If they are different only one is valid. Guess which one!
Evidently Alberta is behind the times in it's respect for federal law and has not included the Queen of Canada in the oath. That according to federal law shows and proves that Alberta Judges politicians police and all who took that oath are without true sanction or authority as you will notice the federal act ,of precedent regarding oaths to her majesty, is quite explicit and uses the word shall which is an imperative and the words "no other" in reference as to the formation of the oath! The word "Do" is missing from the Alberta oath folks! That makes it grammatically incorrect and an incomplete sentence. Jibberish!
This puts those men and women that have taken that oath in a position of no sanction or authority from the Queen at all and are bogus according to the federal law ! Schedule 5 from the BNAA
That died in 1901along with Dominion of Canada subsequent to the 1893 repeal of the inheritance section 2. It was incorporated as a for profit Business the day after Victoria 's death!
We also have proof the government of Canada is a false illegitimate god..
This from the Governor Generals website'''
http://web.archive.org/web/20070206002725/http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
"Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State."
It's only one word but lets see what the Creditor for Canada has to say.. They own all the assets registered with all the registries reporting to the corporation of Canada as we are in debt close to 1 trillion dollars to that private family owned business... The heritage of those families is not secret the lawyers who are prejudiced against Christians are probably related to them....Islam Christian and Jews all follow the same Ten Commandments....The eleventh is in Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32......do not add to my law!
I cant find the provinces de facto legislation in my Bible but do see Exodus 20:3-5 commanding me to not bow to false gods or serve them..
http://web.archive.org/web/20060628094219/http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/whatnewvirt/5CE3BA026987F1C78525672C007D07E0?OpenDocument
July 2001
These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete treatment of the subject.
Dealings with De Facto Governments
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
So now lets go to the law dictionaries the legal staff for the province uses...
De Facto
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
de facto (dë fak'tö). In fact, as distinguished from "de jure," by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.
de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. (like rape)
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
de facto (dë fak'tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognition, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
now you may ask how does all this relate to my Daughters ability to ride in her car rather than Drive..
Lets find out what Drive really means,
This from the original statute regarding drivers needing a license in North America.
Origin Of Driver's Licenses
________________________________________
A 1925 Act Creating Driver's Licenses for those Engaged in Transportation for Hire.
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Passed At The
REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FORTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE
1925
CHAPTER 412
An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and
highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account
of such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith.
[ Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1.**** The words and phrases used in this act
shall for the purposes of this act, unless the same be
contrary to or inconsistent with the context, be
construed as follows:
(a)* The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall
be construed to mean a certificate of public convenience
and necessity granted or issued by the railroad
commission of the State of California, authorizing a
common carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the
conditions prescribed by said commission, and shall
include all amendments to or changes in such certificate
which may be made by said commission.
(b)* The word "operator" shall include all persons,
firms, associations and corporations who operate motor
vehicles upon any public highway in this state and
thereby engage in the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation, but shall not include
any person, firm, association or corporation who solely
transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports his or its own property, or employees, or
both, and who transports no persons or property for hire
or compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying so exempted shall be required to obtain from the
state board of equalization and to display exempt emblems
in the manner herein
an old definition from Bouviers Law Dictionary then a newer one...
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
"Jurisdiction" comes from the Latin "juris" which is the law, and "diction" which means speak. What law is speaking to you? Most people are unknowingly under a corporate statutory jurisdiction because they voluntarily got a drivers license. This comes under maritime/admiralty law, equity law, and/or statutory law and you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Some people refuse to get a "drivers license" to avoid voluntarily relinquishing their fundamental Constitutional Right to Travel.
Some definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition. 1933. Though old, these are current with vehicle codes, revised in 1959.
"Driver" "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car." So a driver is someone who makes their living driving on roads, such as a chauffeur, taxicab driver, or trucker. The state does have the right to regulate commerce on the roads.
"License" "A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort." A license allows you to do something illegal. James Bond Style
"Traffic" (as in court) " Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandize, bills, money, and the like."
Without a doubt, a "drivers license" is a privilege, regulating commerce on our thoroughfares, and not a right. Christians must refuse to get a drivers license to retain their rights.
This from the highway traffic Act of Alberta
"driver" or "operator" means a
person who drives or is in
actual physical control of a vehicle;
"vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or
thing may be transported or drawn on a highway.
now back to Bouviers and Blacks law dictionaries so we can have no argument or foolish intimidating rebuttal to the already accepted definitions in law
Transport,,, Blacks Law first Edition.
"The removal of goods or
persons from one place to another by carrier"
CARRIERS, contracts. There are two kinds of carriers, namely, common carriers, (q. v.) who have been considered under another head; and private carriers. These latter are persons who, although they do not undertake to transport the goods of such as choose to employ them, yet agree to carry the goods of some particular person for hire, from one place to another.
2. In such case the carrier incurs no responsibility beyond that of any other ordinary bailee for hire, that is to say, the responsibility of ordinary diligence. 2 Bos. & Pull. 417; 4 Taunt. 787; Selw. N. P. 382 n.; 1 Wend. R. 272; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 2 Dana, R. 430; 6 Taunt. 577; Jones, Bailm. 121; Story on Bailm, 495. But in Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 Watts & Serg. 285, it was holden that a Wagoner Who carries goods for hire, contracts,the responsibility of a common carrier, whether transportation be his principal and direct business, or only an occasional and incidental employment.
3. To bring a person within the description of a common carrier, he must exercise his business as a public employment; he must undertake to carry goods for persons generally; and he must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire, as a business; not as a casual occupation pro hac vice. 1 Salk. 249; 1 Bell's Com. 467; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 1 Wend. 272; 2, Dana, R. 430. See Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.
d) "commercial vehicle"
(i) means a truck, trailer or semi-trailer, except
(A) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer that is a public
service vehicle, or
(B) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer or any class of
vehicle that by the regulations or by an order of
the Alberta Motor Transport Board
is exempted
from being classified as a commercial vehicle,
and
(ii) includes
(A) a motor vehicle from which sales are made of
goods, wares, merchandise or commodity, and
(B) a motor vehicle by means of which delivery is
made of goods, wares, merchandise or
commodity to a purchaser or consignee of them;
(q.1) "public service vehicle"
(i) means a motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer
operated on a highway by or on behalf of a person
for compensation, whether that operation is regular
or only occasional or for a single trip, and
(ii) includes a motor vehicle kept by a person for the
purpose, subject to the regulations, of being rented
without a driver, but
(iii) does not include a motor vehicle used solely as an
ambulance or hearse or for the transportation of the
Royal Mail;
So to be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and
command me to not show respect to persons as they are
fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4.. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.
2. The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.
3. By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgment, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgment or judgments by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgment or judgments shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.
Jam 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Here are a list of more succinct definitions so no one gets lost.
I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human
I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.
Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?
To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?
Well….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".
Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.
I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...
Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."
Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.
Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.
Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'colored man'!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.
Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.
When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word 'Caucasian', listed for race (they don't seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a 'Caucasian'). So back to the definitions of 'Caucasian".
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.
Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be 'white', but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let's see what an 'older' Black's Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines "Caucasian' As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.
That's interesting, it appears that 'white racist Aryan' groups, like 'Aryan Nations' types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even 'Caucasians' under this definition, so they can't be from the 'White' Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older 'Semitic' language referred to in Black's Law Dictionary).
Back to Noah's Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word 'Caucasian'.
Caucasian - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.
OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are 'persons' and some of them are 'individuals', and some 'Natural persons' do exist, of this I have no doubt, I've met some of them. There are also many that I believe are 'Humans', or 'Human beings', these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However...
My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a 'Caucasian'. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a 'Caucasian male'. I am also a follower of the Scriptural Messiah, commonly called a Christian. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Christian Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a 'Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male'……. or an 'LBCCM' - Cool - Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Christian 'White' Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus..
Now lets see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you.
The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ.
Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
"Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
So I could provide you more but I think you already overwhelmed as I destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massivr criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you know see why my Daughter wants her name corrected and her proviso "All rights Reserved in God's law" under her signature? This destroys any assumptions she has submitted to the false gods running the Alberta Legislature...Remember everyone of them has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority.
So you have seen the proof irrefutable and you can watch the intimidating comments from Lauries office as her illegitimate false oathed lawyers intentionally violate 176 180 and 423 of the criminal code...Oh and violating an act of Parliament to..126 of the criminal code.. The act? the Oaths of Allegiance Act
So either you can see your way to treating us as you did the Hutterites or your back in court only this time with proof your institution is based upon a fraud..
Not opinion factual evidence that makes every lawyer with a Jewish heritage cringe...Did you know that those of that faith take an oath once a year called the KOL NIDRE.....It is so they can disavow any other oaths they have taken during the year in order to deceive others and so God will condone their actions.
Yes it is true. That truth is not, I repeat not, antiSemetic but it is anti Fraud and Lies!
Do you think we all have the ability to complain about such abuse of power ,or should we be shut up as antisemites cause we tell the factual provable truth?
I appreciate your intellectual comments which do not originate from some drone like dialogue you have been trained to say. Do not be played like a puppet as they will attempt to do so...Ask how in law you get to intimidate a man or woman to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs...
If you want next email I will send you all the de facto legal precedentslike the Samur case in Quebec where the civil law of the province lost to 176 of the criminal code and 180 applied as well as 423..Civil law,yours cannot trump criminal code....Tell that one to Jim Leitch.
Blessings upon your willingness to not let our brain be washed in dirty water......
Thankyou for your time....
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Poetry to die for.....Taxed to death and beyond!
The Tax Poem
Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table, At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes, Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts, Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has, Then let him know,
That you won't be done, Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, then tax him more,
Tax him till he's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.
Put these words, Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone, Do not relax,
Its time to apply.....
The Inheritance Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Airline Surcharge tax
Airline Fuel Tax
Airport Maintenance Tax
Building Permit Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Death Tax
Dog License Tax
Driving Permit Tax
Employee Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment (UI)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
GST
Gasoline Tax ( too much per litre)
Gross Receipts Tax
Health Tax
Hunting License Tax
Hydro Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Mortgage Tax
Personal Income Tax
Poverty Tax
Prescription Drug Tax
Property Tax
Provincial Income Tax
PST
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Retail Sales Tax
Service Charge Tax
School Tax
Telephone Federal Tax
Telephone Federal, Provincial and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Water Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax ......
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
* Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
* our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world.
* We had absolutely no national debt,
* had a large middle class,
* and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened????
Can you spell 'politicians'????
I hope this goes around CANADA at least 100 times!!!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!!
GO AHEAD - - - be a CANADIAN !!!!!!!!!!
SEND IT AROUND TO EVERYONE AND CHANGE IT !!!!
Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table, At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes, Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts, Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has, Then let him know,
That you won't be done, Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, then tax him more,
Tax him till he's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.
Put these words, Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone, Do not relax,
Its time to apply.....
The Inheritance Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Airline Surcharge tax
Airline Fuel Tax
Airport Maintenance Tax
Building Permit Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Death Tax
Dog License Tax
Driving Permit Tax
Employee Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment (UI)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
GST
Gasoline Tax ( too much per litre)
Gross Receipts Tax
Health Tax
Hunting License Tax
Hydro Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Mortgage Tax
Personal Income Tax
Poverty Tax
Prescription Drug Tax
Property Tax
Provincial Income Tax
PST
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Retail Sales Tax
Service Charge Tax
School Tax
Telephone Federal Tax
Telephone Federal, Provincial and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Water Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax ......
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
* Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
* our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world.
* We had absolutely no national debt,
* had a large middle class,
* and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened????
Can you spell 'politicians'????
I hope this goes around CANADA at least 100 times!!!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!!
GO AHEAD - - - be a CANADIAN !!!!!!!!!!
SEND IT AROUND TO EVERYONE AND CHANGE IT !!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)