!WANTED! Study Buddy(s)

Hey good stuff!! A man, his dog and a water bowl A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them. After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight. When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side. When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?" "This is Heaven, sir," the man answered. "Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked. "Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up." The man gestured, and the gate began to open. "Can my friend," gesturing toward his dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked. "I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets." The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going with his dog. After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book. "Excuse me!" he called to the man. "Do you have any water?" "Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there, come on in." "How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog. "There should be a bowl by the pump." They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned >hand pump with a bowl beside it. The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then he gave some to the dog. When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree. "What do you call this place?" the traveler asked. "This is Heaven," he answered. "Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was Heaven, too." "Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell." "Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?" "No, we're just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind." Soooo... Sometimes, we wonder why friends keep forwarding jokes to us without writing a word. Maybe this will explain. When you are very busy, but still want to keep in touch, guess what you do? You forward jokes. When you have nothing to say, but still want to keep contact, you forward jokes. When you have something to say, but don't know what, and don't know how, you forward jokes. Also to let you know that you are still remembered, you are still important, you are still loved, you are still cared for, guess what you get? A forwarded joke. So, next time if you get a joke, don't think that you've been sent just another forwarded joke, but that you've been thought of today and your friend on the other end of your computer wanted to send you a smile. You are all welcome @ my water bowl anytime! This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

To get here "SUI JURIS - One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like. To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris. Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris." Y'all need to study these http://www.jusbelli.com/Bouvier/bouvier1856_c.html Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-001.htm Blackstone’s Commentary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard in order to claim Sui Juris and in my opinion the prize is worth claining The question here is (Capped for emphasis) ARE YOU NOW IN POSSESSION OF ‘THE KNOWELDGE’ TO STAKE YOUR CLAIM? If not, why not? And that’s the name of THIS game!

http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm

from my mailbox and one of the reasons I sought study buddy(s) also an introduction into how law works in BC To all the people, What Happened at the Hearing on January 19, 2007? I would like to offer my greatest appreciation to those who came to the hearing, the courtroom was full, many were not able to sit inside the courtroom and had to wait outside. We also thank all of you who in one form or another expressed God speed to us and wished us luck and prayed for us and assured us that the Creator is with us and therefore our mission will be accomplished in accordance to His will. The ambience in the courtroom was full of positive spirit. As always, there’s the good news and the bad news, this is the law of positives and negatives. Depending on which side of the fence you are in, we either won or lost so first, let us tell you about the bad news so that we can better appreciate the good news when it comes. So, the bad news is that we lost, our claim against HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, the corporation which masquerades as the woman queen of England, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, was dismissed by the judge and agent of the Crown who rents his heart body and soul including his brains to the corporation. These men and women (judges) are well paid debt collectors and slave masters. Well, we expected that, didn’t we? We know our case will be dismissed by the lower court, that is their function, to act like a screen. The decision made by the judge (Harvey Groberman) is what we call a pro forma decree, which is basically a decree designed to be appealed and decided by the higher courts. Our design is more than that, we want to take this case before the international tribunals so that our case might be judged, based on truth, by sovereign, indigenous nations, not by the de facto corporate government of “Canada” whose only claim to power is founded on lies, fraud and deception. That’s affirmative, we lost, I came in with that expectation; I went into the battle knowing I will be bruised, in front of many people. But as far as the truth is concerned, we won the day. How can we lose the battle and still win? Well, firstly, we did not lose the battle. If you happen to be in courtroom that day, you know that the “government” failed to produce any copy of the non-existent Income Tax Act 1948 which is the root of our entire claim. Our challenge is simple: show us the law. We won because we established a lot of truth on public record, that the Income Tax Act we have now is founded on fraud. We have established the truth that the income tax act was enacted improperly and therefore void. The examples I gave on record, such as when I described the so-called Income Tax Act was like a still born baby, dead on arrival, it cannot be revived and the truth and historical record is our witness, that it was never revived. The lawyers who represented the Justice Department and the law society were totally immobilized, they did not make a lot of arguments, the hearing was rigged, it was judge Groberman who saved the day for the de facto government of “Canada” by practicing law without a license because Groberman quit playing judge when the opposing lawyers had no answer to the truth that we presented before them? How can one argue with the truth? The scripture says, “For we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth.” 2 Cor. 13:8 One way to argue against the truth is to turn the truth into an argument. That was what Groberman did, he tried to argue with me. I did not argue, I told him, I was there to bear witness to the truth and therefore everything that I submitted to the court was the truth. I cannot argue with the truth. The judge disagreed with me. His job to make sure that we lose and he accomplished his mission. We also accomplished the mission because we were able to place on public record, a whole mountain of truth that the de facto corporate “governments” set up by the British in this part of the planet have all been founded on lies fraud and deception. The judge dismissed our claim based only on his distorted view that he is bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act of British Columbia (at section 24) that every judge must take “Judicial Notice” of all “Acts” of: (a) the Imperial Parliament; (b) the Parliament of Canada; (c) ordinances made by the Governor in Council of Canada; (d) ordinances made by the Governor in Council, Lieutenant Governor in Council or Commissioner in Council of any province, colony or territory which, or some portion of which, forms part of Canada, and all Acts and ordinances of the Legislature of, or other legislative body or authority competent to make laws for, the province, colony or territory; (e) Acts and ordinances of the Legislature of, or other legislative body or authority competent to make laws for, any dominion, empire, commonwealth, state, province, colony, territory, possession or protectorate of Her Majesty; (f) regulations published in the Gazette (which will be the British Columbia Gazette). Judicial Notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted. Matters admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and even if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary. Thus by the looks of it, judge Groberman applied his “judicial notice” the wrong way. Because the truth is, the Income Tax Act 1948 was not an “Act” of the Imperial Parliament, nor was it an “Act” of the Parliament (the bill was not passed). Neither was that “Act” an ordinance made by the Governor in Council of Canada, the Governor in Council, Lieutenant Governor in Council or Commissioner in Council. There is no record that the dead Income Tax Act of 1948 and its derivatives which include (in truth) the Income Tax Act of 1985 was ever enacted or commissioned properly by any of the above-named functionaries. Therefore it is obvious that the judge is not interested in the truth, he is only interested to torpedoing our case in the best interest of his principal – The Crown. The judge also cited erroneously that the problems of the said Income Tax Act had been “corrected” by the Statute Revision Act 1985 which argument is totally unfounded. There is no record that the Income Tax Act and its derivatives had been “corrected” if at all under the provisions of this Statute Revision Act. Moreover, how can an “Act” that is dead and never enacted at all could possibly be corrected by the Statute Revision Act? Sounds like another total fraud to me which the judge suggested happened with the Income Tax Act. This is only the beginning. Our case does not end here. The question of whether or not the Income Tax Act did not exist was decided on January 19, 2007 in our favour. We have proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the “government’s” non-response, such a law does not exist. The proceeding had been recorded on tape and we will soon have the transcript of the proceeding available to us. This will give the people the opportunity to review the transcript and be your own judge and from there, we shall take the case to the next higher level to prove that we have the truth. Truth is the only thing that matters here. We have the truth that not only the Income Tax Act did not exist, we also have the truth that those who tried to pass it and subsequently ‘smuggled’ by the crooks and made part of the Revised Statutes of Canada, are themselves not lawful or de jure governments. We have now broken the code, and that gave us the truth that there is no lawful government in “Canada” because “Canada” does not even exist as a sovereign nation. If there is no “Canada” then it follows that there cannot exist any lawful government in a “Canada” that is not in this planet called Earth. Those who run “Canada” are nothing but criminals who are in possession of stolen property which is the land and the rights of all people whose rights have been stolen by them. Our next foray into their court system will come when we expose more truths that “Canada” is not a sovereign nation. “Canada” was created by fiat decree or royal prerogative made by Queen Victoria in total violation of international law and their own British Parliament. It is a nation created on paper when Queen Victoria said: “let there be Canada” and it was so. “Let there be British Columbia”, and it was so. Let there be Ontario, let there be Alberta, let there be Saskatchewan, etc., and it was so. “Only God can create anything out of nothing” per Judge Mahoney, First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daily, [1968 Minnesota]. Queen Victoria and all other British Monarchs like her are not God and therefore they cannot create anything out of nothing which is the fundamental modus operandi of the British mafia who came into this part of the planet to colonize, steal, enslave and plunder the entire wealth of the people to whom all things belong. The transcript of the proceeding is on order, that will be published for all too see and judge for themselves whether we won or lost. How could we have lost? We have the truth, we are not in dishonor. Our fight is not a fight for the weak. This is a fight where honor truth and justice and integrity as well as the rights and freedoms of our future generation are at stake. I also write this letter to silence those who are critical of what we do. Even now, the naysayers, the bullshitters, and those who think they know better are already hard at work spreading discord and casting aspersions with what we do even though I have never met them or they were not even there at the courtroom that day. I feel sorry for those people. But I forgive them for they know not what they do. My apologies for not completing this message sooner. I started this message as soon as I returned from court, but there are only 24 hours in a day and I have to do other things. There will be more reports and messages to follow this one I’m sure. In the final analysis, this is not about winning or losing, this is about setting ourselves free. Win or lose, we were there, we did not flinch. We stood our ground and delivered nothing but the truth, not merely legal arguments. God is our witness and if God be for us, who can be against us? God bless us all. John-Ruiz: Dempsey A Child of the Living God

In this video, a member of the jury speaks of an interesting tax case in the USA where the accused was found not guilty. Had this been a trial before a judge only, the accused would have been found guilty for certain. <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234">Where's the law?</a>

Thank you very, very much for presenting this reargauard! The timing is exquisite

With my usual brilliance, I seem to have inadvertently created a separate thread for my post (can't tell the difference between the 'start new topic' and 'reply' buttons after being away from forums for awhile...what a maroon). So, reposted in correct thread. --------------------------------------------------- It's been years and many University pubs gone by since I've come across a discussion of 'natural law', so I've found this thread informative and interesting. Still, I've noticed through the years that references to 'natural persons' and the 'rights' of the same show a tendancy to flow into a tax related discussion. I went looking for Mr. Dempsey's court case on the BC court site. Couldn't find it however, found a couple of earlier decisions involving him, this one being the most interesting: <a href="http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/12/2005bcsc1277.htm">I am that I am</a> Here's an interesting U.S. related link on the subject: <a href="http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html">I don't need to pay no stinkin' tax FAQ</a> The quote below is from the above link: [QUOTE]In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges. Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time. That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for "absurd." The frustration of judges is well described in the following opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal raising some of the ridiculous constitutional claims described in this FAQ: "We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and leglistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984). [/quote] There's no transcript I can find of the decision from the case mentioned by rearguard so it's impossible to determine the basis on which the jury acquitted Mr. Harrell on the tax charges pertaining to his Illinois state tax. However, it's an anomaly. Not that this changes anything for for Mr. Dempsey and his peers because regardless of the number of times their views are demonstrated to be absurd, they'll keep coming right back portraying themselves as victims of a conspiracy and misunderstood by us mindless zombie types who mindlessly shuffle through life in the Matrix. After all, who can prove the earth revolves around the sun, or evolution for that matter. However, let's say the Canadian Income Tax Act, or any other Act, doesn't exist and for years nobody in Parliament, some of whom aren't big tax fans, has noticed this and year after year they and the Senate keep mindlessly passing amendment after amendment to these non-existant Acts with the GG signing off on them before these come into law being none the wiser. Even if this turned out to be the case, there'd be no reason for the government or courts to conspire to hide anything because Parliament could simply pass whatever Act they chose into law with retroactive application and that would be the end of that story. And if the legal system is part of the 'cover-up', why would they ever be allowed their day in court? Oh, but of course there's no legal entity 'Canada', so how could any 'legitimate' law ever be passed, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so the circular argument goes. It's sometimes difficult to separate the rather few true visionaries society sees from time to time from the rather more numerous lunatic fringe, the latter of which may often portray themselves as misunderstood Galileo types rather than hapless cranks they happen to be. Anyway, getting back to 'natural law', the quote below is from this article: <a href="http://http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=900579">Link</a> [quote]The demand for equity and equal treatment is so natural we often take it for granted. C. S. Lewis, a theologian known best for his children's tales, once suggested that, as a matter of natural law, we humans always appeal to some standard of behavior. We justify our behavior, whatever it is, so we can live with our consciences. In dealings between individuals, Lewis asserts, "It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play." In effect,we justify even our worst behavior as a matter of equity (Lewis 1943, 17).1 Similarly, individuals reject arbitrarily being treated differently, whether by a family member, stranger, or an elected representative.[/quote] As Lewis indicates, the notion of 'fair play' doesn't always have a positive aspect and as a 'natural law' is not always desirable in human society. For example, if someone accidentally chipped my car door by opening and banging their's against it in a parking lot, I might think an 'equity' could be achieved by keying their door and, as Lewis noted, salve my own conscience by justifying this as only being 'fair'. However, knowing that 'man's law' offered me both alternatives and consequences, I'm not likely to seek 'equity' in the most obvious way. I'll note the article commentary re: the legal system, tax and fairness are quite germaine to a few comments in this thread and give some idea of the complexity inmvolved in applying what seem simple enough concepts in a society composed of many differing viewpoints and interests. Falling back on the old 'pull out a historic figure's quote when it suits you' strategy, Oliver Wendell Holmes stated "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.". Like most, I'd prefer not having to pay taxes, and I'd also like companies to give me their product for free. But, that's not the way of the world and so if I want a societal infrastructure, e.g., roads, water treatment plants, medical treatment, I'm willing to bite the bullet and pay. So as concerns the notion of 'fairness', I have a hard-time with some right wing libertarian types (which tax protesters often seem to be) who seem to think that while having the benefits of society they should get to choose whether to pay into the pot and how much and what rules should or should not apply to them. And, as there are a number of countries that offer low or no income taxation, I don't, as I've said before, understand why they don't simply relocate or find some hidden valley where they, John Galt and the gang can set up whatever litle society they want and leave the rest of us parasites to wallow in our misery, rather than whine endlessly about how the fruits of their labour are stripped from them and/or wasting society's time and money on frivolous lawsuits that for some reason the 'corrupt' legal system allows them file. (quote) The social contract's terms, when they are well understood, can be reduced to a single stipulation: the individual member alienates himself totally to the whole community together with all his rights. This is first because conditions will be the same for everyone when each individual gives himself totally, and secondly, because no one will be tempted to make that condition of shared equality worse for other men.... Once this multitude is united this way into a body, an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic. It would be even less possible to injure the body without its members feeling it. Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties to aid each other mutually. The individual people should be motivated from their double roles as individuals and members of the body, to combine all the advantages which mutual aid offers them....(end quote) The way I see it, if a person wants out of the social contract, they should just piss off and see how well they do on their own. But, there's the rub because most who don't want society telling them what to do or 'stealing' from them, while often at the same time seeking societal legal mechanisms to protect their 'property', etc., generally only have what they have because they were part of that society to begin with and would be nothing without it, outside of their own little fantasy worlds. Don't get me wrong. I think people should be thinking about and questioning the basis of their governmental, legal and economic systems because in a democratic society all of these, under the social contract, should be serving the interests of most citizens rather than a chosen few and in our society there are, or should be, legitimate concerns that all three to a greater or lesser extent are not doing so or never have done so. However, as Diogenes has points out, this should come from a basis of knowledge rather than a hodge-podge of self-serving legal references cobbled together to support patently ludicrous arguments. With this in mind, for those who don't already have these bookmarked as 'favourites", here's what runs Canada (outside of Bay St.): <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/BrowseTitle">Federal Legislation (some in pretty much layman terms)</a> And here's where you can find some interesting court cases that get you into the Canadian 'legal' way of thinking, provide some rather amusing 'tax protester' cases and explain why 'includes' shouldn't be read as 'excludes' (a common pitfall for some.). <a href="http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/index.html">Tax Court of Canada</a> <a href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html">Supreme Court of Canada</a> And another favorite: <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills.asp?Language=E">Parliament</a> As boring as it may be going through some of this stuff, if you don't understand how something works it's hard to fix it.

"So, reposted in correct thread." No maroon, macaroon or howl at the... Let it be! ( The Beatles)

[QUOTE]As boring as it may be going through some of this stuff, if you don't understand how something works it's hard to fix it." and that, thank you is the essence of what I have been bringing here I am only entering into this area of study, (quite late in life - post retirement age.) What will I find? I don't know for certain I do though know, and from personal experience, that most of what we "see" of how it all works id bogus. Ask any of the lawyers I have spoken of here, although I doubt they will talk to you, Hell! they won't speak of it to me any longer. All they want to do, the ones still alive, is forget the betrayal. Thanks for your views [/QUOTE] Hi, Dio. I screwed up the thread, so I've taken the liberty of transplanting your response to the correct thread. I appreciate the efforts you're making. We live in interesting times. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that western societies of the past fifty years have consumed more of our world's resources than our ancestors did throughout our prior history. As we live in a finite environment and I'm not aware of anyone with a warp drive up their sleeve that could wisk us off to ant resource laden planet in the nick of time (not that any of us would be invited along for the ride anyway) when the resources are exhausted, I'm still don't get how any sane person could see our current 'based on constantly expanding growth' economic system to be sustainable beyond the very short term. I've asked this on a number of occasions however, never received an answer. I sort of get an answer from various articles discussing the near future wars for oil, water, etc., however, never get anything from the pro status quo crowd. And our various governments continue to advance plans based on increased productivity and economic expansion (see 'Advantage Canada' for details.). So, are these people sane, or are most Star Trek fans who figure 'what the hell, we'll find a solution in the last five minutes of the show" and the ice caps be damned? Anyway. maybe I'm just dense however, it seems to me that we're quickly approaching a 'not with a bang, but with a whimper' exit as a species due to our own actions without anyone ever having to push the dreaded 'release the bombs' button of the fifties and sixties. And, if we can't as a species find our way, which to date we haven't done, where's the way out? So, after all is said and done, what can you say? It's really kind of funny because the technology our little brains have allowed us to achieve has long, in relative terms, provided the ability to sustain everyone on the planet in a manner most would deem satisfactory without any need for any of us to be putting in 40 or more hours in generally meaningless work activities. However, 3/4 or more of the world has to scrabble to survive while 1/4 or less struggles with weight, depression, heart, etc., 'health issues' while madly consuming crap no one really needs and polluting the environment to create it; driving our various vehicles to work to do and consuming cheap products from third world countries with less stringent environmental laws that we might accept, then turning around and pointing the finger at them for the inevitable results. But, for many this is somehow 'okay' and the notion that some should have more than they ever 'need' while others have far less is somehow divinely decreed. And regardless of all the brilliant minds and sparkling philosophical thought through the centuries, a lot of us continue to accept this, if only because, in modern times at least, in the back of our minds we think we might hit the jackpot if we play our cards right and win the game. It's all nonsense but, a lot of people continue to buy into it and as is true throughout history anyone questioning the status quo gets branded the particular pejorative of the time, whether this be 'heretic', 'socialist' or what have you. Brings to mind the end of the old Monty Python song "Yes, "pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space/because there's bugger all down here on Earth.". So, if you want to get people thinking about the paradigms they've bought, or been forced, into before the various spirits of Christmas have to visit them late in life, more power to you. I provided the links simply because based on my experiences with Vive and other Canadian forums, a lot of people who want to spout off about how Canada should be clearly have no idea of how the country operates and therefore have no realistic chance of changing or fixing anything. I don't mean this in a critical sense because prior to the advent of the web it wasn't easy for most, or cheap, to obtain copies of legislation or have obtain any insight into the legal system. With the web, all is there for everyone to view. And in all honesty, why would most people bother? We are what the movers and shakers of society have shaped us to be and most who 'wake up' only do so by dint of personal experience, whether unpleasant or eye-opening. Trusting that government should be operate in the best interests and beliefs of most citizens isn't unreasonable, given that they're in reality simply administrators paid to do so however, that trust is often betrayed or, in a system where a party can govern based on receiving 30% of the votes from those who bother to visit the polls, simply not realistic for the majority. Geez, I'd have no knowledge of anything to do with any of this stuff if it weren't for my own, by chance, particular circumstances and no real understanding of why I should. So, I'm not in any position to preach to anyone on the subject. Anyway, I applaud your efforts. I'm not sure all are optimally directed but, who am I to say? At the least got me to spout off and astound and amaze with my incredible gift of boring verbosity, if nothing else.

Thanks for your input. I will have to carefully read and digest your post, Calumny. What follows is my attempt to bring clarity to the topic and not to create the friction I am told I’m known for. At this point it is time to make a couple of corrections with respect to Sovereignty and Natural Law as well as introduce to some and re-introduce to others ideas long forgotten The fist of which is Honour, I have capitalised the first letter of Honour because in my mind it is a proper noun and deserving of respect. Now if I could only get my fingers to fly over the keyboard as fast as my mind flies over the topic, and grasps it… But I digress. The one who introduced me to Sovereignty of men also carefully explained that long forgotten concept of Honour and how once Sovereignty is regained it can only be held through Honour. Anyone looking to not make his contribution to the social contract has the same mentality as those who are now in positions of power and renege on their and the citizen company’s fair share of taxes. Further, anyone expecting a free automobile or any other product of a mans labour without compensation falls in the same category of selfishness and has no idea of which he speaks. One of the basic principles of Sovereignty is to act in Honour and in Grace. To-days man, and woman too, for that matter reject Honour even when they know better, instead they act out of selfishness and self inertest. It is with respect to the detractors of Sovereign behaviour I pen this correction of thoughts in greed and misunderstanding. Those who cleave to the mentality of “Gimme, gimme where’s mine?” are in service of those who hijacked the Honour of all me and replaced it with the following observation. “The Bar, the Pulpit and Press Nefariously combine To Cry up an usurpt Pow'r And stamp it Right Devine. 1695” “Usurpt” and “Nefarious” ought to be enough clues to what continues to this day. An old friend having spent time in the Emilio-Romagna area Italy with a study group from The Vancity Credit Union gave me a two hour telephone report on what he observed there. Business is done on a hand shake! Can you imagine that here? The lawyers would tear their hair out! Handshakes and a man’s word is still his bond there. Unfortunately I can not quickly locate the definition I do believe Bound to ones word is the reference I seek. These folks who keep returning to the courts to seek redress are doing so BECAUSE of the Rules of law. Law is meant to offer Recourse and Remedy for wrongs done, otherwise law becomes what it is to-day justice for those who can afford it and a game of chance for those who cannot. Diogenes

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] And if the legal system is part of the 'cover-up', why would they ever be allowed their day in court?[/QUOTE] Why to show us who's the boss, what else for? [QUOTE]Like most, I'd prefer not having to pay taxes, and I'd also like companies to give me their product for free.[/QUOTE] Yes but who was asking for something for nothing? See what I wrote below. <blockquote>But, that's not the way of the world and so if I want a societal infrastructure, e.g., roads, water treatment plants, medical treatment, I'm willing to bite the bullet and pay.</blockquote> If only the main reason for todays taxation system were for such a noble cause, I'd actually be happy to pay. I'd like to point out a few key items: You are forced into paying taxes with no option to "opt out", which is something a free person ought to be able to do. Taxes are not at all the issue, the lack of freedom is. A free person has the ability to choose to pay taxes or not, slaves are forced to pay, it's really as simple as that. Taxation comes up not because people hate paying taxes, but because it is the primary example of how well we've all been enslaved into servitude. Way back a few centuries, major wars were fought over the freedom to pay taxes vs being forced to pay. These were hard working people who did not freeload off of anyone else's back. The suggestion that people who wish to not pay taxes are somehow insane or freeloaders has nothing to stand on and is therefore a straw man argument. You are supposed to pay taxes not because you are forced into it, but because you get something of value in return. When you are forced into paying for something that is robbery. The reality is that most of the money is pilfered away rather than being used for roads and the like. For example, how many of us are driving on those new roads being built in Afghanistan? How many of us plan on sending our children to a new school in Haiti? How many of us agreed to take out huge loans and agreed to pay the high interest rates on those loans? The list of taxation corruption is bottomless. Who in reality is freeloading off of the hard working taxpayer? You say there is a social contract, but where is it? What does it look like? Can I get a copy sent to my home? Is there a copy at my local library? How does one agree to be bound by its terms? Having never seen the social contract, I'm left dreaming over the termination clause, assuming there is one. Sure there's a document entitled <a href="http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-3.3/">Income Tax Act</a>. Have you read through it? It is an amazing document to read, and please at least give it a look over if you have not already done so. To understand the document, you must pay careful attention to the redefinition of common words, else you'll get twisted upside down with misunderstandings. Being of this generation, it is hard to understand how much freedom we've lost when compared to past generations. Past generations were many times more self reliant than todays generation. For example, do you farm your own food? Do you work mostly for yourself or for someone else? How much land do you own? Do you need money for absolutely everything? The fact is that many years ago it was much harder for governments to force people to do their bidding. It was even difficult for the government to know who lived on the land. You could not easily pass an Income Tax Act as it currently sits without raising a major row with the people. This latest form of slavery took decades to put in place, and that's why the wording is such a fun read if you actually take the time to try and understand what it is saying. As for the "law", I think what we're talking about is a belief system that opposes the current ruling establishment. Natural law is more like a religion, so don't expect to find the Law written down in some centuries old legal text book, but then again there is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta">Magna Carta</a>. As for libertarianism which you mentioned, many of its concepts I find quite reasonable, but if you think libertarianism is unreasonable or unworkable in some ways then we should have a chat about it in a thread dedicated to such a discussion - but please don't assume that the various libertarian political parties such as <a href="http://www.libertarian.ca/">The Libertarian Party of Canada</a> has any more to do with libertairanism as the Conservative Party of Canada has to do with conservatism, or the Liberal Party of Canada has to do with liberalism, or the New Democratic Party of Canada has to with socialism. Political parties are about establishing control through government, they are not about whatever ideology they so happen to ride on.

I note 6 pages so far on this most interesting thread. I wonder if you can get to this 30some pager separatism Guiness record thread. I have been told that a system can only be changed from "within". Can you imagine the number of lawyers, beancounters and other pseudo-productive people that would be displaced by what this thread is overall eluding to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social ... ical_Right The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole... Oh, Where it only so! Havening seen reference to Social Contract spoken of here for me raises many questions. Thankfully I like so many other have a connection to the internet where I may go in search of information. Google supplies 10,800,000 references for “Role of the state in the social contract” (quotation marks mine) Wiki is the second in the ten million plus references. Also from the wiki source, “ Overview The stated aim of the Social Contract is to determine whether there can be a legitimate political authority. "Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains." In order to accomplish more and remove himself from the state of nature, a man must enter into a Social Contract with others. In this social contract, everyone will be free because all forfeit the same amount of freedom and impose the same duties on all. Rousseau also argues that it is illogical for a man to surrender his freedom for slavery, and so, the participants must be free. Furthermore, although the contract imposes new law, especially on property, a person can exit it at any time (except in a time of need, for this is desertion), and is again as free as when he was born.” My friend whose name shall remain with me believes, and I agree that the state , by subterfuge, hoodwinkery and shear bullying has returned to the divine power of kings in its present day role and with the aid of man made law enslaves all through legislation. Banking also figure prominently in the present day actions of those we elect and govern us where for the most part we could do us as well, or better, without them. The idea that man will run amok without some force to govern over us all is the false boogeyman held over our heads, and the one unthinking fools ascribe to.. Claiming or in actuality reclaiming our Personal Sovereignty although it may not sit well with the likes of my detractors is, in my opinion, the highest calling men can make. There are few pure evil people, save those governments create and so name, such as was/is the case of a Hitler or Sadam Hussein that cannot be dealt with those of us who are able to determine who the real perpetrators are. I must re express my earlier assertion with regard to the return of Honour, it is time we do! Dio

[QUOTE BY= Diogenes] The idea that man will run amok without some force to govern over us all is the false boogeyman held over our heads, and the one unthinking fools ascribe to. [/QUOTE] Imagine the chaos with people no longer being herded about like cattle. OMG, the horror! Man, along with a more or less equal count of women, have beem running amok since the beginning of time, and that's how we ended up with the enormous mess that makes up our current reality. What I think is needed, is some serious rethinking of priorities so as to move forward in a different direction and correct for the huge mistakes that were made. Running amok may be the natural order of things, so if we can toss the yoke and keep doing it as usual but while looking for healthier alternatives to the norm, that'll be a very good thing. [QUOTE]Claiming or in actuality reclaiming our Personal Sovereignty although it may not sit well with the likes of my detractors is, in my opinion, the highest calling men can make. [/QUOTE] A major part of the process on a journey towards freedom is to become as independant and disconnected from the system that enslaves as is possible. The system of slavery is like an enticing addictive drug, it depends on your dependence to stay on it, and it does whatever it can to make sure that you don't want to leave in the first place, and if you want to leave, it does its best to make it as difficult as possible if not seemingly impossible to do so. To be free (or more likely just a little freeer), one has to become disconnected, but to do that, you have to take on a drastically different view of your priorities and direction in life. No, you do not have to go hard core and live in a tent, but believe it or not some really do prefer it that way. You may choose to remain plugged in, but not fully so, because there are definite advantages worth the cost of remaining connected to a point. I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about freeloading off the system, guite the opposite in fact. I'm talking about feeding from the system a little less, and also feeding the leaching system a little less wherever you can get away with it. A good start is to figure out how to earn a living without being designated as an "employee". Extreme examples of disconnections are the Amish (although each enslaved within their own system), and some so-called "homeless people" prefer the way they live, who are very free but have to deal with the elements more so than most.