What's Next?


D

Diablo

Well, now that Raider has been exposed for who he really is, what's
next? How do we proceed with getting the TRUTH out?!

Alan is doing a fantastic job exposing CCRA and their agenda! It's time
we all step up and take back our Rights!

We have proven that it can be done.

Raider has been run off this wall! He has proven that he is a danger to
himself, and the public at large. If anyone actually knows Raider please
make sure he gets the help he truly needs!

Raider, please don't come back to this wall and insult the Reader's here
by using a NEW persona.

You can try posting under your 'Austin Rayder' persona, but you owe
EVERYONE here an apology for your LIES! You LIED about the alleged
threats, and you LIED when you falsly posted threats to your self under
an assumed persona (willkill).

Gramps, the time has come for you to put up or shut up! Personally, I
feel pity for you! What I'd really like to know is what you expected to
gain from all of your BS?! What was your true agenda?!

Fred, by your silence, you have proven that you are a hypocrite! Raider
has been exposed, and you sit there with your head in the sand! Rookard,
Jenuths, the two of you are no better than Raider. Same goes for you,
Dan Evans and Paul "Moron" Maf!

You obviously ALL condone Raider's LIES! You either support him and his
LIES, or you support us in exposing his LIES! Where do you stand?!
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fred Grosby

Diablo said:
Fred, by your silence, you have proven that you are a hypocrite! Raider
has been exposed, and you sit there with your head in the sand!
Huh?

I quit reading Rayder's stuff a while back, just as I said I would.
And since most of your stuff lately has been addressed to him, I
haven't read much of your stuff, either. I almost skipped this
message on the assumption that it was another topic-switched
continuation of that inane meeting crap, in which I have absolutely no
interest.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
N

Nemesis

The ironic exposure of this Raider sociopath is probably the most
amusing event ever on can.taxes.

Never thought I would get so involved here but I find myself chuckling
about it several times a day.

But on a more serious note, the detax movement must become better
organized and concentrate on several fronts of attack.

#1. The corrupt expenditures of our tax dollars needs to be
exposed. We are talking about a federal deficit that is essentially a
fraud, money spent on covert and illegal survailance of the
population, illegal anti terrorist legislation, then we have the
poisoneering program, the bribing of third world leaders via corrupt
financial assistance, illegal hostile military agression towards other
countries at our expense on behalf of multi national corporations, and
the list goes on endlessly.

Paying taxes to this lunatic government is merely a form of aiding
and abetting in criminal activity against yourself. To prove this
point in court is to render income tax unconstitutional.

#2. The historical legal precedent frauds established to
legitimize an otherwise unconstitutional direct tax by the federal
government is another key thrust of attack.

#3 The British Crown and its government has been muddying the
common law waters for several decades now. Common law rights,
maxims, and fundamentals once recognized as the law of the land have
been discarded in favor of illegal draconian dictatorship mechanism
that make the administration of the corrupt income tax system
possible.

There are many common law approaches to subverting this system but
this can not be done without an expose of the history of degeneration
this most precious system of fundamental legal principles has been
purposefully subjected to by those who are not happy with the shackles
this represents to their power.

Seminars, public awareness campagins, legal action, organized
demonstrations and fundraising drives are the key to success.

We must publish and distribute information in the form of detailed and
credible reports written by experts in the various areas of history,
fraudulent government expeditures, illegal and covert government
activity, common law & constitutional law, and the links between
banking, multinational corporations and government.

The movement must become politically active and either support a key
group on the plantform of income tax eradication, a new constitutiona
for canada or launch a new party on a republican platform. Let's get
rid of the old Lady from England because she is essentially the cause
of it all.

Nemesis.
 
N

Nemesis

Well in defence of Fred and I still don't agree with his drinking
problem I do remember him denouncing goon Herby for his unethical
conduct here.
 
R

Ron

Nemesis said:
The ironic exposure of this Raider sociopath is probably the most
amusing event ever on can.taxes.

Never thought I would get so involved here but I find myself chuckling
about it several times a day.

But on a more serious note, the detax movement must become better
organized and concentrate on several fronts of attack.

#1. The corrupt expenditures of our tax dollars needs to be
exposed. We are talking about a federal deficit that is essentially a
fraud, money spent on covert and illegal survailance of the
population, illegal anti terrorist legislation, then we have the
poisoneering program, the bribing of third world leaders via corrupt
financial assistance, illegal hostile military agression towards other
countries at our expense on behalf of multi national corporations, and
the list goes on endlessly.

Paying taxes to this lunatic government is merely a form of aiding
and abetting in criminal activity against yourself. To prove this
point in court is to render income tax unconstitutional.

#2. The historical legal precedent frauds established to
legitimize an otherwise unconstitutional direct tax by the federal
government is another key thrust of attack.

#3 The British Crown and its government has been muddying the
common law waters for several decades now. Common law rights,
maxims, and fundamentals once recognized as the law of the land have
been discarded in favor of illegal draconian dictatorship mechanism
that make the administration of the corrupt income tax system
possible.

There are many common law approaches to subverting this system but
this can not be done without an expose of the history of degeneration
this most precious system of fundamental legal principles has been
purposefully subjected to by those who are not happy with the shackles
this represents to their power.

Seminars, public awareness campagins, legal action, organized
demonstrations and fundraising drives are the key to success.

We must publish and distribute information in the form of detailed and
credible reports written by experts in the various areas of history,
fraudulent government expeditures, illegal and covert government
activity, common law & constitutional law, and the links between
banking, multinational corporations and government.

The movement must become politically active and either support a key
group on the plantform of income tax eradication, a new constitutiona
for canada or launch a new party on a republican platform. Let's get
rid of the old Lady from England because she is essentially the cause
of it all.

Nemesis.



Can't argue with you on any of the above, but essentially the
information you are providing has also been researched and presented
at http://www.detaxcanada.org

Yet you have said that detaxing does not work. Could you elaborate on
which part of the information at detaxcanada that you either disagree
with or believe is in error?
 
R

Ron

Huh?

I quit reading Rayder's stuff a while back, just as I said I would.
And since most of your stuff lately has been addressed to him, I
haven't read much of your stuff, either. I almost skipped this
message on the assumption that it was another topic-switched
continuation of that inane meeting crap, in which I have absolutely no
interest.

I have no idea what you're talking about.




So you never read *any* of the posts but for some reason decided to
read this particular post by Diablo?

What do you do Freddy, use the google search engine to find instances
of your name in current posts then see what is being said about
yourself and decide whether or not to reply?

Since you are already involved in this thread, tell us what you think
of Rayder's fraudulent postings threatening harm against himself.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Nemesis

Ok, I'm actually glad you brought this up.

I talked to Eldon on numerous occasions about his "strawman"
arguments. I'm not a big fan of Eldon, he gets angry and refuses to
answer the tough questions out of frustration granted but when you
walk into a courtroom you have be back up your argument.

Nobody who has ever followed Eldon's methods in a courtroom, like
refusing to step forward, or refusing to appear has ever had the most
minute impact on any Judge in the country other than to invoke the
wrath of the courts. Eldon himself ended up getting arrested on his
birthday for applying his own methods after this assault matter when
he was driving a tour bus. One of his cronies got stripp searched
in court.

Judges do not understand the strawman issue, they recognize the Quasi
Criminal jurisdiction of law however dubious it may be, and even if
you get a sympathetic judge you can't just refuse to step forward in
defiance of the court. The judge will not make the connection
between the strawman issue and your actions in court.

The constructive notice is the strawman argument applied to a tax
employee, someone even more ignorant than any provincial court judge.
This tactic will be viewed entirely out of context with its
intentions.

The crown probably once had to resort to roping commoners into a
strawman assumpsit contracts to dupe them into submitting to their
illegal measures, today however you have to show the history of common
law erosion in context with the strawman issue to prove your point in
court. This a task of monumental complexity above the capacity of
the most keen legal minds. The tax collecting banking interests
control our university today and they know how to mislead in
education.

This is where Eldon fails. He has not done the research, his
arguments are badly fragmented, conjecturous and therefore inherently
misleading. You have to be a brilliant tactician to expose the
judicial frauds of today. Eldon just doesn't fit into that
category, he's just a frustrated burned out guy filled with hate over
his past. You can't operate like that.

Eldon relies on only this one argument, he fills his web page with
anxillary details instead of focusing on backing up the foundation of
his beliefs. It's a house of cards.

What's even worse is that he claims his method as the only effective
means of detaxing. He rejectsts the many other detax methods that
are not only easier to apply but that have more historical, logistical
and legal validity. He's just not a true advocate of the cause, not
a team player, ill prepared and ill inofrmed. In that condition you
actually do more harm than good to detaxing because such shallow
arguments can so easily be exposed as fraud and as lacking substance.


Nemesis.
 
R

Ron

Nemesis said:
Ok, I'm actually glad you brought this up.

I talked to Eldon on numerous occasions about his "strawman"
arguments. I'm not a big fan of Eldon, he gets angry and refuses to
answer the tough questions out of frustration granted but when you
walk into a courtroom you have be back up your argument.

Nobody who has ever followed Eldon's methods in a courtroom, like
refusing to step forward, or refusing to appear has ever had the most
minute impact on any Judge in the country other than to invoke the
wrath of the courts. Eldon himself ended up getting arrested on his
birthday for applying his own methods after this assault matter when
he was driving a tour bus. One of his cronies got stripp searched
in court.

Judges do not understand the strawman issue, they recognize the Quasi
Criminal jurisdiction of law however dubious it may be, and even if
you get a sympathetic judge you can't just refuse to step forward in
defiance of the court. The judge will not make the connection
between the strawman issue and your actions in court.

The constructive notice is the strawman argument applied to a tax
employee, someone even more ignorant than any provincial court judge.
This tactic will be viewed entirely out of context with its
intentions.

The crown probably once had to resort to roping commoners into a
strawman assumpsit contracts to dupe them into submitting to their
illegal measures, today however you have to show the history of common
law erosion in context with the strawman issue to prove your point in
court. This a task of monumental complexity above the capacity of
the most keen legal minds. The tax collecting banking interests
control our university today and they know how to mislead in
education.

Slow down big fella! Assumpsit contract and assumed debt in equity
court are the two main things that the government uses by color of law
to operate their INCOME TAX ACT upon those it does not apply to.

I hope you haven't been taking lessons from that big, fat, lying blob
of whale blubbe, Stephen Jenuths.

This is the type of stuff he spews.







This is where Eldon fails. He has not done the research, his
arguments are badly fragmented, conjecturous and therefore inherently
misleading. You have to be a brilliant tactician to expose the
judicial frauds of today. Eldon just doesn't fit into that
category, he's just a frustrated burned out guy filled with hate over
his past. You can't operate like that.




His research is brilliant and inclusive.





Eldon relies on only this one argument, he fills his web page with
anxillary details instead of focusing on backing up the foundation of
his beliefs. It's a house of cards.

What's even worse is that he claims his method as the only effective
means of detaxing. He rejectsts the many other detax methods that
are not only easier to apply but that have more historical, logistical
and legal validity. He's just not a true advocate of the cause, not
a team player, ill prepared and ill inofrmed. In that condition you
actually do more harm than good to detaxing because such shallow
arguments can so easily be exposed as fraud and as lacking substance.

Perhaps someone can tell us the results of the Jean Porteau case
which was to continue last JUly.

The prosecution had to answer to an affidavit filed by Porteau and
the case would have been stayed had they failed to do so.
 
N

Nemesis

But Eldon is saying that income tax is derived from an assumed
contract based on the signing of a tax return.

This implies that the government does not have the authority under
common law to force compliance of income tax laws as they are a form
of statute law and do not fall within the scope of either criminal law
or laws falling withing the scope of civil jurisdiction.

The income tax act presumes to deem different forms of income and then
a debt is manufactured out of thin air. But this is different from
the strawman argument which is basically a challenge to legal
jurisdiction.

I don't listen to Jeneuth or anybody else, I do my own research. I
have read Eldon's material and it's full of holes.

I"m not saying that his arguments are not valid, he simply hasn't
compiled sufficient information to make his argument presentable in
court or with the laity for that matter.

Eldon has to prove that under common law the state can not legally
pass laws like the income tax act and the provisions it contains.
Show us how the power of the state has been exceeded. That's
effective detaxing.

Nemesis.
 
S

StaR

But Eldon is saying that income tax is derived from an assumed
contract based on the signing of a tax return.
Correct. One has to remember that the CCRA is simply a corporation
"acting" as an "agent" for the Queen with a mandate to implement the
"income tax "act and to collect the Queen's revenue. Of course this is
a commercial legal venue. The "signing" of a tax return creates the
limited liability known as a "taxpayer" that is, a "person" as so
defined within the "income tax" ACT. A "taxpayer" is a corporative
entity that is, an entity having the character of a corporation.
Remember, a "corporation" and a "person" are equivalent "entities"
under the income tax act and thus share the same "rights" entitled and
"duties" imposed. "Limited liability" within a commercial venue can
only arrive by CONTRACT which in turn creates the terms and
"obligations". People on the most part (fraud) unknowingly enter into
contract of "limited liability". Please note that the contract in
error is not the "paying" of an income tax as some would suggest for
it is simply a duty imposed on a "taxpayer". The contract in error is
that of the "limited liability".
This implies that the government does not have the authority under
common law to force compliance of income tax laws as they are a form
of statute law and do not fall within the scope of either criminal law
or laws falling withing the scope of civil jurisdiction.
The "Income tax Act" is private commercial law.
The income tax act presumes to deem different forms of income and then
a debt is manufactured out of thin air. But this is different from
the strawman argument which is basically a challenge to legal
jurisdiction.
The "performance" of the "person" within the ACT can be whatever the
damn act very well says. If the "act" says that a debt will be
manufactured out of thin air and so it shall be. The contract in error
is that of the "limited liability".
I don't listen to Jeneuth or anybody else, I do my own research. I
have read Eldon's material and it's full of holes.
Care to mention a few?
I"m not saying that his arguments are not valid, he simply hasn't
compiled sufficient information to make his argument presentable in
court or with the laity for that matter.
There's no such thing as a legal argument that is, one can not
"appear" in "person" to argue that he is not a "person". This is a
frivolous argument as evidence of "person" has already been
established.
Eldon has to prove that under common law the state can not legally
pass laws like the income tax act and the provisions it contains.
This is absurd and in total ignorance of what the "system" is.

"Canada" the state is simply the Queen's corporate venture with its
government carried on by the OFFICE of GOVERNOR GENERAL (a CORPORATION
sole). Your "common law" is simply a subset of the roman municipal /
civil law as so adopted and implemented. It is "judge made law" that
is, laws that are created by OFFICERS (whose duties are to serve and
protect the corporation) for the "good order" of the corporate
society. BTW, since the corporation is "notwithstanding", it can do
whatever is damn well pleases.
Show us how the power of the state has been exceeded. That's
effective detaxing.
Bull. Void and nullify the fraudulent contract of "limited liability".
 
N

Nemesis

Based on your argument then, the state has no power to pass any form
of statute at all, unless it falls within the criminal or civil
jurisdiction of law.

The ITA is but a miniscule spec on the tip of the statutory iceberg.
You are saying the state historically lacks the power to pass statutes
under the British Common Law.

The Common law is reasonably well documented yet you keep skirting the
key issue. How under the law is the government barred from passing
statutes such as the ITA and why does the government require your
commercial contractual consent to extract income tax?

There is an argument that can be made to show that he or she is deemed
to be a strawman.

I have already pointed out the major holes in Eldon's material by
demonstrating that he can not prove his strawman argument. Why does
the government have to turn you into a strawman in the first place to
get you roped into taxation? That's the key issue.

Nemesis.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ron

Stephen Jenuth said:
Its perhaps easier to say that I have looked at it and basically cannot
find anything which is not in error, or which is not used to lead people
to errors.



Why are you answering for nemesis?
 
T

Tony Sparr

Stephen Jenuth said:
This is true enough. The CCRA is an agency which has the responsibility
to collect taxes. It is a body corporate and has a separate legal
existance from the government.


There is nothing which suggests this is true. Taxes are not a commerical
operation, rather they are just the way the government collects revuenue
for its operations.

You seem to think that just because an organization is incorporated, it
is somehow commercial in nature. This seems to fly in the face of the
facts. Many organiations are incorporated and are prohibited from engaging
in profit making activities (for example, non-profit and charitable
societies and companies), and various governmental organizations which
have particular purposes. The CCRA is just such an entity: it has
the job of collecting taxes for the government. Being a separate
body corporate gives it more flexibility in hiring, etc., than it
would as a department of the government (as Revenue Canada used to
be).


The signing of an income tax return simply certifies that the information
contained in the return is true.

Taxpayers may be limited liability entities, such as corporations and
other bodies corporate, and they may be normal everyday human beings.


There is nothing which suggests this is true anywhere in the income
tax act, or in any decision rendered by any court. There is no
reputable authority which suggests that this is in any way true.


There is nothing in the income tax act which suggests that corporation
and person are equivalent. While all corporations are persons, not
all persons are corporatations. All persons have the same rights and
liabilities under the income tax act --- although the taxation rates
and some of the rules for corporations are different than for other
types of persons.


No. This was once partially true in the development of joint stock
companies and the law of clubs in the 1800s. But even then, limited
liability corporations were created (by statute or by letters patent).

The creation of limited liability by contract largely disappeared following
the passing of the Companies Act, which allowed people to incorporate
companies.


This is garbage. There is no such contact.


No. The Income Tax Act is a public statute. It is not private commercial
law.
The ITA is private commerical law. And all of the the courts are
courts of private commerce. Money in ... money out ... simply to
maintain the 'revenue stream' and, of course the, 'appearance of
justice is served' in the meantime, which is but simply fodder for
the masses.

Do your research. Is that not what lawyers are renowned for,
research?

Tony
 
T

Tony Sparr

Stephen Jenuth said:
This is true enough. The CCRA is an agency which has the responsibility
to collect taxes. It is a body corporate and has a separate legal
existance from the government.


There is nothing which suggests this is true. Taxes are not a commerical
operation, rather they are just the way the government collects revuenue
for its operations.

You seem to think that just because an organization is incorporated, it
is somehow commercial in nature. This seems to fly in the face of the
facts. Many organiations are incorporated and are prohibited from engaging
in profit making activities (for example, non-profit and charitable
societies and companies), and various governmental organizations which
have particular purposes. The CCRA is just such an entity: it has
the job of collecting taxes for the government. Being a separate
body corporate gives it more flexibility in hiring, etc., than it
would as a department of the government (as Revenue Canada used to
be).


The signing of an income tax return simply certifies that the information
contained in the return is true.

Taxpayers may be limited liability entities, such as corporations and
other bodies corporate, and they may be normal everyday human beings.


There is nothing which suggests this is true anywhere in the income
tax act, or in any decision rendered by any court. There is no
reputable authority which suggests that this is in any way true.


There is nothing in the income tax act which suggests that corporation
and person are equivalent. While all corporations are persons, not
all persons are corporatations. All persons have the same rights and
liabilities under the income tax act --- although the taxation rates
and some of the rules for corporations are different than for other
types of persons.

And where does it state in the ITA that men and women are 'PERSONS' ,
and, that men and women are 'taxpayers'?

As it states in the ITA 'All PERSONS have the same rights and
liabilities under the income tax act' where is the law that states,
OR, INTERPRETS, that all men and women are 'PERSONS'?

Tony
 
S

StaR

This is true enough. The CCRA is an agency which has the responsibility
to collect taxes. It is a body corporate and has a separate legal
existance from the government.
Well if it ain't the lying sack of shit Stephen the lawyer here to
pickup where Raider left off.

A quick recap for the readers on the lies this lawyer has already been
caught in....

LIE #1

"Governments are artificial entities, but I wouldn't classify them as
persons." - Stephen Jenuth

Indeed it was established that this lawyer was LYING to the readers.

----------
"Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws." - John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary
----------
The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body
politic; thus constituted they form a moral person". "It is this
person we call a state." - Wilson’s Works 321-325: Wilson’s Works
321
----------
Arizona State Legislature

45-291. Definition of person

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, "person" means
an individual, public or private corporation, company, partnership,
firm, association, society, estate, trust, any other private
organization or enterprise, the United States, any state, territory or
country or a governmental entity, political subdivision or municipal
corporation organized under or subject to the constitution and laws of
the United States, this state or any other state.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/45/00291.htm
----------
Title 30 Texas Admin. Code, Chapter 60

Definition of "Person": "Person" means an individual, corporation,
organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency,
business trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/enforcement/compl_histories.html
----------
UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this [Act]:

(9) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation,
association, organization, government or governmental subdivision or
agency, business trust, estate, trust, or any other legal or
commercial entity.
----------
BAYTRADE

"Person" is any individual, branch, partnership, association,
associated group, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization
(whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any
government (including a foreign government, the U.S. Government, a
State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial
institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a
government sponsored agency.)
----------
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.

The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society
which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a
state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
----------


LIE #2

"The United States of America were never a corporation.." - Stephen
Jenuth

As you will see, almost every word coming out of this lawyer's mouth
is nothing but a damn LIE.

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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

CORPORATION

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by
law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members
of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same,
notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and
which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person. Browne's
Civ. Law, 99; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 418; 2 Kent's Com. 215. Mr. Kyd,
(Corpor. vol. 1, p. 13,) defines a corporation as follows: " A
corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of
many; individuals united in one body, under a special denomination,
having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by
the policy of the law, with a capacity of acting in several respects
as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property,
contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying
privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of
political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of
its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time
of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.

The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society
which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a
state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

body corporate

NOUN: See corporation (sense 2).

corporation

NOUN: 1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate
legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities
distinct from those of its members. 2. Such a body created for
purposes of government. Also called body corporate. 3. A group of
people combined into or acting as one body. 4. Informal A protruding
abdominal region; a potbelly.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=2&invol=419#ff8

"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
politic."
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.
----------
US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > Sec. 3002.

Sec. 3002. - Definitions

(15)

''United States'' means -

(A)

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

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a
government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of
attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are
necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained
and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great
powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited;
but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any
other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a
government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to
accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock.
96, 109."
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)

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

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

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

As clearly expressed in all these references, the United States of
America is a CORPORATION as with ALL "nations" or "states".


LIE #3

In a pathetic attempt to discredit the fact that in law the word
"person" is applied to a man to establish a rank with that rank
determining the rights entitled and duties imposed...

"All ranks here in Canada have been abolished" - Stephen Jenuth

----------
Lloyd Duhaime Legal Dictionary (Canadian)

Minor

A person who is legally underage. It varies between 21 and 18 years of
age. Each state sets an age threshold at which time a person is
invested with all legal rights as an adult. For many new adults, this
may mean access to places serving alcohol and the right to purchase
and consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and drive a car. But there are
many other legal rights which a minor does not have such as, in some
states, the right to own land, to sign a contract or to get married.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

MAJOR, persons. One who has attained his full age, and has acquired
all his civil rights; one who is no longer a minor; an adult.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

MINOR, persons. One under the age of twenty-one years, while in a
state of infancy; one who has not attained the age of a major. The
terms major and minor, are more particularly used in the civil law.
The common law terms are adult and infant. See Infant.

MINORITY. The state or condition of a minor; infancy. In another
sense, it signifies the lesser number of votes of a deliberative
assembly; opposed to majority. (q.v.)
----------

Anyways, to suggest that there are no "ranks" here in Canada such as
that of a "minor" or "major" is simply a BOLD FACE LIE being told by a
dirty lying lawyer.

I can go on and on listing the numerous lies this lying sack of shit
has been caught in but I think you get the picture.
There is nothing which suggests this is true. Taxes are not a commerical
operation, rather they are just the way the government collects revuenue
for its operations.
The collection of revenue (money) in EXCHANGE for beneficial services
provided is not within the commercial realm??? bwahahahaha you're
fucked asshole. Again, you're nothing but a lying sack of shit. I
wonder if your "clients" know what a pathetic liar you are? hrmmm

----------
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the
U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)" -- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

TAXES. This term in its most extended sense includes all contributions
imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the
state, by whatever name they are called or known, whether by the name
of tribute, tithe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy,
aid, supply, excise, or other name.
----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)

Commerce. Latin commercium. In its simplest signification, an exchange
of goods; but in the advancement of society, labor, transportation,
itelligence, care and various mediums of exchange, become commodities
and enter into commerce. Gibbens v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 229 (1824),
Marshall, Chief Justice. The interchange or mutual change of goods,
productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals.
People v. Raymond, 84 Cal. 497 (1868).
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

TAX, n. [L. taxo, to tax.]

1. A rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a
citizen by government, for the use of the nation or state. Taxes, in
free governments, are usually laid upon the property of citizens
according to their income, or the value of their estates. Tax is a
term of general import, including almost every species of imposition
on persons or property for supplying the public treasury, as tolls,
tribute, subsidy, excise, impost, or customs. But more generally, tax
is limited to the sum laid upon polls, lands, houses, horses, cattle,
professions and occupations. So we speak of a land tax, a window tax,
a tax on carriages, &c. Taxes are annual or perpetual.

2. A sum imposed on the persons and property of citizens to defray the
expenses of a corporation, society, parish or company; as a city tax,
a county tax, a parish tax, and the like. So a private association
may lay a tax on its members for the use of the association.

TAX, v.t. [L. taxo.]

1. To law, impose or assess upon citizens a certain sum of money or
amount of property, to be paid to the public treasury, or to the
treasury of a corporation or company, to defray the expenses of the
government or corporation, &c.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

tax

1: a charge usu. of money imposed by legislative or other public
authority upon persons or property for public purposes

2: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
----------


You seem to think that just because an organization is incorporated, it
is somehow commercial in nature. This seems to fly in the face of the
facts. Many organiations are incorporated and are prohibited from engaging
in profit making activities (for example, non-profit and charitable
societies and companies), and various governmental organizations which
have particular purposes. The CCRA is just such an entity: it has
the job of collecting taxes for the government. Being a separate
body corporate gives it more flexibility in hiring, etc., than it
would as a department of the government (as Revenue Canada used to
be).
Hey STUPID, we are talking about the EXCHANGE of money for beneficial
services provided between the "Government of Canada" and a "taxpayer".
lmao what a loser, you're worse than Raider hahaha

What a pathetic attempt to hide from the fact that ALL "governments"
are CORPORATE ENTITIES that is, CORPORATIONS..

----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

corporative

SYLLABICATION: cor·po·ra·tive
PRONUNCIATION: kôrpr--tv, -p-rtv

ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, or associated with a corporation. 2. Of
or relating to a government or political system in which the principal
economic functions, such as banking, industry, labor, and government,
are organized as corporate entities.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

Main Entry: cor·po·rate
Pronunciation: 'kor-p(&-)r&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin corporatus, past participle of corporare to make into
a body, from corpor-, corpus
Date: 1512

1 a : formed into an association and endowed by law with the rights
and liabilities of an individual : INCORPORATED b : of or relating to
a corporation <a plan to reorganize the corporate structure>
2 : of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals
<human law arises by the corporate action of a people -- G. H. Sabine>
3 : CORPORATIVE 2
- cor·po·rate·ly adverb
----------
"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the
same burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of
Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S.
11-60-103
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)

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

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

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

The signing of an income tax return simply certifies that the information
contained in the return is true.
Yes, and it also AUTHORIZES (signature) the COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT and
gives EVIDENCE of "person" as so defined within the Income Tax Act.

----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

SIGNATURE, pract. contr. By signature is understood the act of putting
down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its
validity. The name thus written is also called a signature.

2. It is not necessary that a party should write his name himself, to
constitute a signature; his mark is now held sufficient though he was
able to write. 8 Ad. & El. 94; 3 N. & Per. 228; 3 Curt. 752; 5 John.
144, A signature made by a party, another person guiding his band with
his consent, is sufficient. 4 Wash. C. C. 262, 269. Vide to Sign.
----------
Taxpayers may be limited liability entities, such as corporations and
other bodies corporate, and they may be normal everyday human beings.
Who or what "may" be a "taxpayer" is dependent on the definition of
"person" within the Income Tax Act. And pay attention STUPID, the
"limited liability" in discussion is the legal entity/existence known
as a "person" and NOT the body that it is APPLIED to.

There is nothing which suggests this is true anywhere in the income
tax act, or in any decision rendered by any court. There is no
reputable authority which suggests that this is in any way true.
----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

corporative, a. [As corporate + -ive; = F. corporatif.] Corporate;
having the character of a corporation.

No citizen can be taxed except as allowed by this law, by the law
regulating the provincial diets, and by the corporative guilds. - The
Nation, Dec. 1, 1870, p. 364.
----------

Of course, we need to further look at the corrections made below...

There is nothing in the income tax act which suggests that corporation
and person are equivalent.
Give us a break you lying sack of shit.

----------
"I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same
rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.
His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

en·ti·ty

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons
and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. 2. The fact of
existence; being. 3. The existence of something considered apart from
its properties.
----------
While all corporations are persons, not
all persons are corporatations.
Having character of a corporation. - The DEFINITION of the word
"person" within the Income Tax Act INCLUDES corporations and thus to
fall within the definition of "person" within the Income Tax Act is to
have the CHARACTER of a CORPORATION and will be TREATED the same as a
CORPORATION under the ACT.
All persons have the same rights and
liabilities under the income tax act
Hahaha which makes "persons" and "corporations" EQUIVALENT ENTITIES
under the ACT.
--- although the taxation rates
and some of the rules for corporations are different than for other
types of persons.
See above references simpleton.
No. This was once partially true in the development of joint stock
companies and the law of clubs in the 1800s. But even then, limited
liability corporations were created (by statute or by letters patent).

The creation of limited liability by contract largely disappeared following
the passing of the Companies Act, which allowed people to incorporate
companies.

Man are you full of crap buddy and how sad to see how desperate you
are getting. You are testimony to just how CORRUPT the system is.

Surely, when you put on a "person" within the body corporate, your
capacity to act is limited as you are bound, as a "member", to follow
the instruction of the "head". Any "person" within an ACT is a
"limited liability" in that "a person shall...OR ELSE !!!"

A "person" as defined in the Income Tax Act signifies a limited
liability with "rights and obligations". Indeed such is the case when
the law applies the word "person" to a man to establish a "rank" with
that RANK determining the rights entitled and duties imposed.

----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

LIM'ITED, pp.

1. Bounded; circumscribed; restrained.

LIABIL'ITY, n.

1. The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice;
responsibility. The officer wishes to discharge himself from his
liability.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

LIABILITY. Responsibility; the state of one who is bound in law and
justice to do something which may be enforced by action. This
liability may arise from contracts either express or implied, or in
consequence of torts committed.
----------
P.G Osborn, The Concise Law Dictionary 4th Edition, London, U.K.,
Sweet and Maxwell, 1954

Obligation "A duty: the bond of legal necessity which binds together
two or more determinate individuals. It is limited to legal duties
arising out of a special personal relationship existing, whether by
reason of a contract or a tort, or otherwise between two or more
individual persons; e.g. debtor and creditor."
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Liability (Page: 847)
Li`a*bil"i*ty (?), n.; pl. Liabilities ().

1. The state of being liable; as, the liability of an insurer;
liability to accidents; liability to the law.

2. That which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is
liable. Specifically, in the pl., the sum of one's pecuniary
obligations; -- opposed to assets. Limited liability.
----------
Income Tax Act

PART I
INCOME TAX

DIVISION A

LIABILITY FOR TAX
----------
"A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and
duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or
substance of which the rights and duties are attributes." - Pollack,
First Treatise on Jurisprudence, quoted in Black's Law Dictionary
(4th Rev. Ed., 1968), p. 1300.
----------
Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
Bouvier. 1854.

137. Men, women and children, who are called natural persons: but in
another sense, a person is meant the part which a man plays in
society. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. (a)
Any human being is a man, (b) whether he be a member of society or
not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age,
sex, etc. 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." --- Institutes of American Law,
Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John Bouvier. 1854."
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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.
----------
"I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same
rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.
His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------
This is garbage.
And you're a lying sack of shit.
There is no such contact.
Then why the need for your "signature" evidencing a "party" to a
commercial instrument? LOL Why then the need to "create" a "LEGAL
IDENTITY" which is NEEDED to OBTAIN beneficial services from the
corporate body which in turn creates LIABILITY / OBLIGATION to taxes?
LOL

----------
Ontario Government Birth Certificate info page
http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/births.htm

"Registering your child's birth is the first step to giving your baby
a legal identity. Once your baby’s birth is registered, you will be
able to apply for a birth certificate.

A birth certificate is a legal document needed to establish legal
identity and will be used throughout your child’s life to obtain
health services, a passport, old age pension and many other beneficial
services."
----------

The correct response is that there isn't a VALID contract of limited
liability in place. It is by EVIDENCE OF PERSON (as so defined in the
ITA) that the unwary (and largely uninformed) are submitted to
excessive financial obligations under LIMITED LIABILITY.

No. The Income Tax Act is a public statute. It is not private commercial
law.
**** you.

The Income Tax Act REGULATES the PERFORMANCE of PERSON that is, it
REGULATES the RIGHTS, CONDUCT, and AFFAIRS of PERSONS.

----------
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th edition

JUS PRIVATUM

Private law; the law regulating the rights, conduct, and affairs of
individuals, as distinguished from "public" law, which relates to the
constitution and functions of government and the administration of
criminal justice.

See also Private Law; Jus Publicum
----------
There is no contact of limited liabiilty.
Correct. One is FRAUDULANTLY implied when evidence of "person" as so
defined within the Income Tax Act is established. Certainly simply
"appearing" in "person" within its "jurisdiction" puts the argument to
rest.
In fact, your liability is
not limited at all.

----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Liability (Page: 847)
Li`a*bil"i*ty (?), n.; pl. Liabilities ().

1. The state of being liable; as, the liability of an insurer;
liability to accidents; liability to the law.

2. That which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is
liable. Specifically, in the pl., the sum of one's pecuniary
obligations; -- opposed to assets. Limited liability.
----------
Income Tax Act

PART I
INCOME TAX

DIVISION A

LIABILITY FOR TAX
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

LIM'ITED, pp.

1. Bounded; circumscribed; restrained.

LIABIL'ITY, n.

1. The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice;
responsibility. The officer wishes to discharge himself from his
liability.
----------


And of course, all of this IDIOT's LIES are propagated on the backs of
the peoples IGNORANCE as to what a PERSON is in LAW.

StaR

----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he
was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission
of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1

Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

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.
----------
"The word `person' (persona) does not in the language of the law, as
in ordinary language, designate the physical man." "In fact, law, by
its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it
creates things, which do not exist in nature." "A moment's reflection
enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there
cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus
the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an
entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an
artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with
artificial attributes; this is his personality, which we see and by
which we are affected." - American Law and Procedure Vol. XIII,
Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, LaSalle Extension University,
authored by Professor James Dewit Andrews of Albany Law School and
Ruskin University
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either
side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition,
PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the
legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or
only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically
ignorant of the biological status of its subjects." - Peter
French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical
Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

person (per'son or per'sn), n. [( ME. Person, persun, persone,
persoun, Parson, a person or parson, ( OF. petsone, person, parson,
F. personne, person, = Sp. persona = Pg. pessoa = It. persona, a
person, character, = OFries. persona, perseuna, persina, person,
parson, = NID. persoon, D. persoon, person, character, -- MLG.
persone, person, character, parson, -- NIHG. persone, person, G.
person, person, ---- Icel. persona, personi, person, parson, = Sw.
Dan. person, person, personage, character, < L. persona, a mask for
actors, hence a personage, character, or a part represented by an
actor, a part which one sustains in the world, a person or personage,
ML. also a parson; said to be derived, with lengthening of the radical
vowel, < personare, sound through, resound, make a sound on a musical
instrument, play, call out, etc., ( per, through, + sSaare, sound, <
sonus, sound: see so,ant, soundS. The orig. sense 'mask' is late in
E., and is a mere Latinism.]

1. A mask anciently worn by actors, covering the whole head, and
varying according to the character to be represented; hence, a mask
or disguise.

Certain it is that no man can long put on a person and act a part but
his evil manners will peep through the corners of the white robe.
Jer. Taylor, Apples of Sodom, iii.

2. The character represented by such a mask or by the player who wore
it; hence, character; role; the part which one assumes or sustains on
the stage or in life.

From his first appearance upon the stage, in his new person of a
sycophant or juggler, instead of his former person of a prince, he
[Perkin Warbeck] was exposed to the derision not only of the
courtiers, but also of the common people. Bacon, Hist. Hen. VII., p.
186.

I then did use the person of your father; The image of his power lay
in me. Shak., 2 Hen. IV., v. 2. 74.

I must take upon me the person of a philosopher, and make them a
present of my advice. Steele, Guardian, No. 141.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

FICTI'TIOUS, a. [L. fictifius, from fingo, to feign.]

1. Feigned; imaginary; not real.

The human persons are as fictitious as the airy ones.
----------
 
N

Nemesis

In essence that may be true, but the ITA do not outline the terms of a
contract and a tax return can not be classified a an agreement, unless
you would like to provide evidence to the contrary.

I susspect that such evidence exists but to date I have unfortunately
not seen any.

Nemesis.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Nemesis

Well male and females turtles are by no means persons under the act
and therefore not bound under the ITA. They are for all intents and
purposes tax exempt.

The strawman issue is related to a jurisdiction of law argument and it
lacks evidentiary support. Concentrate on bringing on the evidence
please, otherwise you're stuck in the mud.

Nemesis.
 
N

Nemesis

How does this relate to the strawman issue and the crown's obligation
to turn you into one before they can tax it (the strawman).

Try to stay focused on the issues, this is complicated enough without
you stagging all over the judicial map like some drunk.

The movement can not afford incompetent and confused posturing. I
hate to tell you this star but you're not effective.

Try to become effective.

Nemesis.




This is true enough. The CCRA is an agency which has the responsibility
to collect taxes. It is a body corporate and has a separate legal
existance from the government.
Well if it ain't the lying sack of shit Stephen the lawyer here to
pickup where Raider left off.

A quick recap for the readers on the lies this lawyer has already been
caught in....

LIE #1

"Governments are artificial entities, but I wouldn't classify them as
persons." - Stephen Jenuth

Indeed it was established that this lawyer was LYING to the readers.

----------
"Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws." - John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary
----------
The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body
politic; thus constituted they form a moral person". "It is this
person we call a state." - Wilson’s Works 321-325: Wilson’s Works
321
----------
Arizona State Legislature

45-291. Definition of person

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, "person" means
an individual, public or private corporation, company, partnership,
firm, association, society, estate, trust, any other private
organization or enterprise, the United States, any state, territory or
country or a governmental entity, political subdivision or municipal
corporation organized under or subject to the constitution and laws of
the United States, this state or any other state.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/45/00291.htm
----------
Title 30 Texas Admin. Code, Chapter 60

Definition of "Person": "Person" means an individual, corporation,
organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency,
business trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/enforcement/compl_histories.html
----------
UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this [Act]:

(9) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation,
association, organization, government or governmental subdivision or
agency, business trust, estate, trust, or any other legal or
commercial entity.
----------
BAYTRADE

"Person" is any individual, branch, partnership, association,
associated group, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization
(whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any
government (including a foreign government, the U.S. Government, a
State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial
institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a
government sponsored agency.)
----------
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.

The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society
which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a
state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
----------


LIE #2

"The United States of America were never a corporation.." - Stephen
Jenuth

As you will see, almost every word coming out of this lawyer's mouth
is nothing but a damn LIE.

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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

CORPORATION

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by
law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members
of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same,
notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and
which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person. Browne's
Civ. Law, 99; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 418; 2 Kent's Com. 215. Mr. Kyd,
(Corpor. vol. 1, p. 13,) defines a corporation as follows: " A
corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of
many; individuals united in one body, under a special denomination,
having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by
the policy of the law, with a capacity of acting in several respects
as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property,
contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying
privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of
political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of
its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time
of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.

The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society
which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a
state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

body corporate

NOUN: See corporation (sense 2).

corporation

NOUN: 1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate
legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities
distinct from those of its members. 2. Such a body created for
purposes of government. Also called body corporate. 3. A group of
people combined into or acting as one body. 4. Informal A protruding
abdominal region; a potbelly.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=2&invol=419#ff8

"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
politic."
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.
----------
US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > Sec. 3002.

Sec. 3002. - Definitions

(15)

''United States'' means -

(A)

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

"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a
government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of
attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are
necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained
and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great
powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited;
but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any
other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a
government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to
accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock.
96, 109."
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)

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

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

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

As clearly expressed in all these references, the United States of
America is a CORPORATION as with ALL "nations" or "states".


LIE #3

In a pathetic attempt to discredit the fact that in law the word
"person" is applied to a man to establish a rank with that rank
determining the rights entitled and duties imposed...

"All ranks here in Canada have been abolished" - Stephen Jenuth

----------
Lloyd Duhaime Legal Dictionary (Canadian)

Minor

A person who is legally underage. It varies between 21 and 18 years of
age. Each state sets an age threshold at which time a person is
invested with all legal rights as an adult. For many new adults, this
may mean access to places serving alcohol and the right to purchase
and consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and drive a car. But there are
many other legal rights which a minor does not have such as, in some
states, the right to own land, to sign a contract or to get married.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

MAJOR, persons. One who has attained his full age, and has acquired
all his civil rights; one who is no longer a minor; an adult.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

MINOR, persons. One under the age of twenty-one years, while in a
state of infancy; one who has not attained the age of a major. The
terms major and minor, are more particularly used in the civil law.
The common law terms are adult and infant. See Infant.

MINORITY. The state or condition of a minor; infancy. In another
sense, it signifies the lesser number of votes of a deliberative
assembly; opposed to majority. (q.v.)
----------

Anyways, to suggest that there are no "ranks" here in Canada such as
that of a "minor" or "major" is simply a BOLD FACE LIE being told by a
dirty lying lawyer.

I can go on and on listing the numerous lies this lying sack of shit
has been caught in but I think you get the picture.
There is nothing which suggests this is true. Taxes are not a commerical
operation, rather they are just the way the government collects revuenue
for its operations.
The collection of revenue (money) in EXCHANGE for beneficial services
provided is not within the commercial realm??? bwahahahaha you're
fucked asshole. Again, you're nothing but a lying sack of shit. I
wonder if your "clients" know what a pathetic liar you are? hrmmm

----------
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the
U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)" -- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

TAXES. This term in its most extended sense includes all contributions
imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the
state, by whatever name they are called or known, whether by the name
of tribute, tithe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy,
aid, supply, excise, or other name.
----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)

Commerce. Latin commercium. In its simplest signification, an exchange
of goods; but in the advancement of society, labor, transportation,
itelligence, care and various mediums of exchange, become commodities
and enter into commerce. Gibbens v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 229 (1824),
Marshall, Chief Justice. The interchange or mutual change of goods,
productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals.
People v. Raymond, 84 Cal. 497 (1868).
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

TAX, n. [L. taxo, to tax.]

1. A rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a
citizen by government, for the use of the nation or state. Taxes, in
free governments, are usually laid upon the property of citizens
according to their income, or the value of their estates. Tax is a
term of general import, including almost every species of imposition
on persons or property for supplying the public treasury, as tolls,
tribute, subsidy, excise, impost, or customs. But more generally, tax
is limited to the sum laid upon polls, lands, houses, horses, cattle,
professions and occupations. So we speak of a land tax, a window tax,
a tax on carriages, &c. Taxes are annual or perpetual.

2. A sum imposed on the persons and property of citizens to defray the
expenses of a corporation, society, parish or company; as a city tax,
a county tax, a parish tax, and the like. So a private association
may lay a tax on its members for the use of the association.

TAX, v.t. [L. taxo.]

1. To law, impose or assess upon citizens a certain sum of money or
amount of property, to be paid to the public treasury, or to the
treasury of a corporation or company, to defray the expenses of the
government or corporation, &c.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

tax

1: a charge usu. of money imposed by legislative or other public
authority upon persons or property for public purposes

2: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
----------


You seem to think that just because an organization is incorporated, it
is somehow commercial in nature. This seems to fly in the face of the
facts. Many organiations are incorporated and are prohibited from engaging
in profit making activities (for example, non-profit and charitable
societies and companies), and various governmental organizations which
have particular purposes. The CCRA is just such an entity: it has
the job of collecting taxes for the government. Being a separate
body corporate gives it more flexibility in hiring, etc., than it
would as a department of the government (as Revenue Canada used to
be).
Hey STUPID, we are talking about the EXCHANGE of money for beneficial
services provided between the "Government of Canada" and a "taxpayer".
lmao what a loser, you're worse than Raider hahaha

What a pathetic attempt to hide from the fact that ALL "governments"
are CORPORATE ENTITIES that is, CORPORATIONS..

----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

corporative

SYLLABICATION: cor·po·ra·tive
PRONUNCIATION: kôrpr--tv, -p-rtv

ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, or associated with a corporation. 2. Of
or relating to a government or political system in which the principal
economic functions, such as banking, industry, labor, and government,
are organized as corporate entities.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

Main Entry: cor·po·rate
Pronunciation: 'kor-p(&-)r&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin corporatus, past participle of corporare to make into
a body, from corpor-, corpus
Date: 1512

1 a : formed into an association and endowed by law with the rights
and liabilities of an individual : INCORPORATED b : of or relating to
a corporation <a plan to reorganize the corporate structure>
2 : of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals
<human law arises by the corporate action of a people -- G. H. Sabine>
3 : CORPORATIVE 2
- cor·po·rate·ly adverb
----------
"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the
same burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of
Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S.
11-60-103
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)

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

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

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

The signing of an income tax return simply certifies that the information
contained in the return is true.
Yes, and it also AUTHORIZES (signature) the COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT and
gives EVIDENCE of "person" as so defined within the Income Tax Act.

----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

SIGNATURE, pract. contr. By signature is understood the act of putting
down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its
validity. The name thus written is also called a signature.

2. It is not necessary that a party should write his name himself, to
constitute a signature; his mark is now held sufficient though he was
able to write. 8 Ad. & El. 94; 3 N. & Per. 228; 3 Curt. 752; 5 John.
144, A signature made by a party, another person guiding his band with
his consent, is sufficient. 4 Wash. C. C. 262, 269. Vide to Sign.
----------
Taxpayers may be limited liability entities, such as corporations and
other bodies corporate, and they may be normal everyday human beings.
Who or what "may" be a "taxpayer" is dependent on the definition of
"person" within the Income Tax Act. And pay attention STUPID, the
"limited liability" in discussion is the legal entity/existence known
as a "person" and NOT the body that it is APPLIED to.

There is nothing which suggests this is true anywhere in the income
tax act, or in any decision rendered by any court. There is no
reputable authority which suggests that this is in any way true.
----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

corporative, a. [As corporate + -ive; = F. corporatif.] Corporate;
having the character of a corporation.

No citizen can be taxed except as allowed by this law, by the law
regulating the provincial diets, and by the corporative guilds. - The
Nation, Dec. 1, 1870, p. 364.
----------

Of course, we need to further look at the corrections made below...

There is nothing in the income tax act which suggests that corporation
and person are equivalent.
Give us a break you lying sack of shit.

----------
"I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same
rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.
His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

en·ti·ty

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons
and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. 2. The fact of
existence; being. 3. The existence of something considered apart from
its properties.
----------
While all corporations are persons, not
all persons are corporatations.
Having character of a corporation. - The DEFINITION of the word
"person" within the Income Tax Act INCLUDES corporations and thus to
fall within the definition of "person" within the Income Tax Act is to
have the CHARACTER of a CORPORATION and will be TREATED the same as a
CORPORATION under the ACT.
All persons have the same rights and
liabilities under the income tax act
Hahaha which makes "persons" and "corporations" EQUIVALENT ENTITIES
under the ACT.
--- although the taxation rates
and some of the rules for corporations are different than for other
types of persons.
See above references simpleton.
No. This was once partially true in the development of joint stock
companies and the law of clubs in the 1800s. But even then, limited
liability corporations were created (by statute or by letters patent).

The creation of limited liability by contract largely disappeared following
the passing of the Companies Act, which allowed people to incorporate
companies.

Man are you full of crap buddy and how sad to see how desperate you
are getting. You are testimony to just how CORRUPT the system is.

Surely, when you put on a "person" within the body corporate, your
capacity to act is limited as you are bound, as a "member", to follow
the instruction of the "head". Any "person" within an ACT is a
"limited liability" in that "a person shall...OR ELSE !!!"

A "person" as defined in the Income Tax Act signifies a limited
liability with "rights and obligations". Indeed such is the case when
the law applies the word "person" to a man to establish a "rank" with
that RANK determining the rights entitled and duties imposed.

----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

LIM'ITED, pp.

1. Bounded; circumscribed; restrained.

LIABIL'ITY, n.

1. The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice;
responsibility. The officer wishes to discharge himself from his
liability.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

LIABILITY. Responsibility; the state of one who is bound in law and
justice to do something which may be enforced by action. This
liability may arise from contracts either express or implied, or in
consequence of torts committed.
----------
P.G Osborn, The Concise Law Dictionary 4th Edition, London, U.K.,
Sweet and Maxwell, 1954

Obligation "A duty: the bond of legal necessity which binds together
two or more determinate individuals. It is limited to legal duties
arising out of a special personal relationship existing, whether by
reason of a contract or a tort, or otherwise between two or more
individual persons; e.g. debtor and creditor."
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Liability (Page: 847)
Li`a*bil"i*ty (?), n.; pl. Liabilities ().

1. The state of being liable; as, the liability of an insurer;
liability to accidents; liability to the law.

2. That which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is
liable. Specifically, in the pl., the sum of one's pecuniary
obligations; -- opposed to assets. Limited liability.
----------
Income Tax Act

PART I
INCOME TAX

DIVISION A

LIABILITY FOR TAX
----------
"A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and
duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or
substance of which the rights and duties are attributes." - Pollack,
First Treatise on Jurisprudence, quoted in Black's Law Dictionary
(4th Rev. Ed., 1968), p. 1300.
----------
Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
Bouvier. 1854.

137. Men, women and children, who are called natural persons: but in
another sense, a person is meant the part which a man plays in
society. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. (a)
Any human being is a man, (b) whether he be a member of society or
not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age,
sex, etc. 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." --- Institutes of American Law,
Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John Bouvier. 1854."
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

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.
----------
"I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same
rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.
His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------
This is garbage.
And you're a lying sack of shit.
There is no such contact.
Then why the need for your "signature" evidencing a "party" to a
commercial instrument? LOL Why then the need to "create" a "LEGAL
IDENTITY" which is NEEDED to OBTAIN beneficial services from the
corporate body which in turn creates LIABILITY / OBLIGATION to taxes?
LOL

----------
Ontario Government Birth Certificate info page
http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/births.htm

"Registering your child's birth is the first step to giving your baby
a legal identity. Once your baby’s birth is registered, you will be
able to apply for a birth certificate.

A birth certificate is a legal document needed to establish legal
identity and will be used throughout your child’s life to obtain
health services, a passport, old age pension and many other beneficial
services."
----------

The correct response is that there isn't a VALID contract of limited
liability in place. It is by EVIDENCE OF PERSON (as so defined in the
ITA) that the unwary (and largely uninformed) are submitted to
excessive financial obligations under LIMITED LIABILITY.

No. The Income Tax Act is a public statute. It is not private commercial
law.
**** you.

The Income Tax Act REGULATES the PERFORMANCE of PERSON that is, it
REGULATES the RIGHTS, CONDUCT, and AFFAIRS of PERSONS.

----------
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th edition

JUS PRIVATUM

Private law; the law regulating the rights, conduct, and affairs of
individuals, as distinguished from "public" law, which relates to the
constitution and functions of government and the administration of
criminal justice.

See also Private Law; Jus Publicum
----------
There is no contact of limited liabiilty.
Correct. One is FRAUDULANTLY implied when evidence of "person" as so
defined within the Income Tax Act is established. Certainly simply
"appearing" in "person" within its "jurisdiction" puts the argument to
rest.
In fact, your liability is
not limited at all.

----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Liability (Page: 847)
Li`a*bil"i*ty (?), n.; pl. Liabilities ().

1. The state of being liable; as, the liability of an insurer;
liability to accidents; liability to the law.

2. That which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is
liable. Specifically, in the pl., the sum of one's pecuniary
obligations; -- opposed to assets. Limited liability.
----------
Income Tax Act

PART I
INCOME TAX

DIVISION A

LIABILITY FOR TAX
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

LIM'ITED, pp.

1. Bounded; circumscribed; restrained.

LIABIL'ITY, n.

1. The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice;
responsibility. The officer wishes to discharge himself from his
liability.
----------


And of course, all of this IDIOT's LIES are propagated on the backs of
the peoples IGNORANCE as to what a PERSON is in LAW.

StaR

----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he
was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission
of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1

Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

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

by John Bouvier

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.
----------
"The word `person' (persona) does not in the language of the law, as
in ordinary language, designate the physical man." "In fact, law, by
its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it
creates things, which do not exist in nature." "A moment's reflection
enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there
cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus
the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an
entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an
artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with
artificial attributes; this is his personality, which we see and by
which we are affected." - American Law and Procedure Vol. XIII,
Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, LaSalle Extension University,
authored by Professor James Dewit Andrews of Albany Law School and
Ruskin University
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either
side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition,
PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the
legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or
only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically
ignorant of the biological status of its subjects." - Peter
French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical
Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

person (per'son or per'sn), n. [( ME. Person, persun, persone,
persoun, Parson, a person or parson, ( OF. petsone, person, parson,
F. personne, person, = Sp. persona = Pg. pessoa = It. persona, a
person, character, = OFries. persona, perseuna, persina, person,
parson, = NID. persoon, D. persoon, person, character, -- MLG.
persone, person, character, parson, -- NIHG. persone, person, G.
person, person, ---- Icel. persona, personi, person, parson, = Sw.
Dan. person, person, personage, character, < L. persona, a mask for
actors, hence a personage, character, or a part represented by an
actor, a part which one sustains in the world, a person or personage,
ML. also a parson; said to be derived, with lengthening of the radical
vowel, < personare, sound through, resound, make a sound on a musical
instrument, play, call out, etc., ( per, through, + sSaare, sound, <
sonus, sound: see so,ant, soundS. The orig. sense 'mask' is late in
E., and is a mere Latinism.]

1. A mask anciently worn by actors, covering the whole head, and
varying according to the character to be represented; hence, a mask
or disguise.

Certain it is that no man can long put on a person and act a part but
his evil manners will peep through the corners of the white robe.
Jer. Taylor, Apples of Sodom, iii.

2. The character represented by such a mask or by the player who wore
it; hence, character; role; the part which one assumes or sustains on
the stage or in life.

From his first appearance upon the stage, in his new person of a
sycophant or juggler, instead of his former person of a prince, he
[Perkin Warbeck] was exposed to the derision not only of the
courtiers, but also of the common people. Bacon, Hist. Hen. VII., p.
186.

I then did use the person of your father; The image of his power lay
in me. Shak., 2 Hen. IV., v. 2. 74.

I must take upon me the person of a philosopher, and make them a
present of my advice. Steele, Guardian, No. 141.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

FICTI'TIOUS, a. [L. fictifius, from fingo, to feign.]

1. Feigned; imaginary; not real.

The human persons are as fictitious as the airy ones.
----------
 
S

StaR

Based on your argument then, the state has no power to pass any form
of statute at all, unless it falls within the criminal or civil
jurisdiction of law.
Huh??? You must be hung up on the fact that common law is simply a
"subset" of municipal law.

----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)

A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence

Compiled and written by attorney William C. Anderson and published in
Chicago by T. H. Flood and Company, Law Publishers, in 1893.

Civil law. The law of citizens: the law which the people of a state
ordain for their own government. By "the civil law", absolutely
taken, is understood the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire,
as comprised in the institute, code, and digest of the emperor
Justinian, and the novel constitutions of himself and predecessors. 1
Bl. Com. 80, 14.

Municipal law. The rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme
power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is
wrong; also, the laws of a locality. 1 Bl. Com. 44; 15 Barb. 114.
Defines the just and necessary limits of natural liberty. 1 Shars. Bl.
Com. 127. A city ordinance is not a law in this sense.

Unwritten law. The municipal laws of England are: (1) the unwritten
or common law, which includes customs, general and particular, and
particular laws. General customs, or the common law properly so
called, are founded on immemorial universal usage, whereof judicial
decisions are the evidence. Particular laws are such as, by special
custom, are adopted and used only in particular courts, and under the
control of the common and statute laws; namely, the Roman civil and
Canon [church] laws.

Written or statute law. The municipal laws of England are: (2) the
written or statute law; being acts of legislative bodies, to only
supply what is defective, or to amend only what is amiss, in the
unwritten laws. 1 Bl. Com. 63-91, xxiv. See Statute.
----------
The ITA is but a miniscule spec on the tip of the statutory iceberg.
How true.
You are saying the state historically lacks the power to pass statutes
under the British Common Law.
I have NO IDEA where this is coming from and the statement is so "out
there", how in the hell does one respond?
The Common law is reasonably well documented yet you keep skirting the
key issue. How under the law is the government barred from passing
statutes such as the ITA
Who said anything of the sort? It certainly wasn't I.
and why does the government require your
commercial contractual consent to extract income tax?
You tell me, why is your "signature" required on the commercial
instrument and what does it signify?
There is an argument that can be made to show that he or she is deemed
to be a strawman.
Your statement makes the false argument that "man" and "person" are
synonymous terms in law. A man cannot be a strawman but he can
certainly have one. This strawman you speak of is your "person", your
legal identity, your legal existence, a legal entity with "rights and
obligations", a limited liability, a thing (res) that has NO EXISTENCE
outside of the legal sphere. The "persons" of men. You failed to
recognize the separation.
I have already pointed out the major holes in Eldon's material by
demonstrating that he can not prove his strawman argument.
???? There's NOTHING to prove. This is simply the REALITY of what this
system is and as I have demonstrated over and over again, it is well
documented. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Why does
the government have to turn you into a strawman in the first place to
get you roped into taxation? That's the key issue.
You fail to understand the roman municipal / civil law as so adopted
by the corporate body and the application of the word "person" in law.
(See my latest response to Jenuth)
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

StaR

In essence that may be true, but the ITA do not outline the terms of a
contract and a tax return can not be classified a an agreement, unless
you would like to provide evidence to the contrary.

I susspect that such evidence exists but to date I have unfortunately
not seen any.

Nemesis.
The Income Tax Act is PRIVATE LAW and it REGULATES the PERFORMANCE of
PERSON that is, it REGULATES the RIGHTS, CONDUCT, and AFFAIRS of
PERSONS. Of course these are TERMS of LIMITED LIABILITY within the
realm of revenue collection in EXCHANGE for beneficial services
provided (commerce).

----------
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th edition

JUS PRIVATUM

Private law; the law regulating the rights, conduct, and affairs of
individuals, as distinguished from "public" law, which relates to the
constitution and functions of government and the administration of
criminal justice.

See also Private Law; Jus Publicum
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top