Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-04-2011, 02:06 AM   #421
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The thing is there is no argument supporting the non-freeman movement here.
All that comes from the non-freeman movement is, talk-about-talk.
Not a single one of these clowns is willing to put their neck on the line to support their ludicrous arguments.
NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!
Just more talk-about-talk going in a circle jerk.
Put any one of these clowns in a legal arena where they must counter with a point-by-point rebuttal and all you would witness is a clown doing lip stands.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2011, 03:53 AM   #422
alisa2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 5,160
Likes: 387 (310 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
Who is arguing anything?
The post simply shows how the legalistic person came into being.
Only an idiot would show up to argue with me.
I believe the legalistic person back in 1794 was a person who owned property, otherwise what need would anyone have for a legal person? Only the courts would have had such a need, because the legislature clearly had no authority in the [U.S.] Consititution to interfere with individual rights. I don't know what Canada's constitution says, but here in America, the government has no authority in the constitution to legislate for the people.

Here in the U.S. the term "person" is connected to any person with a Social Security Number by "Executive Order 9397 Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons". Hence, anyone with an SSN is a person with a "trade or business" in the United States. The legislature has defined "person" as "individual", "corporation", "partnership," "association, etc. It even connects to the term "natural person."

In today's workplace the SSN is converted to a Taxpayer I.D. as soon as the employee completes a W-4, which allows the tax agencies to follow the "person" whereever they go. Tax agencies are not limited to their home state because they use the language "within this state," "in the state," "in the state" in their codes. Without the name of the state, they can go to any state to collect taxes... and they do.

Social Security number connects to any business or government agency which you have given your SSN to. It's more of Tax I.D. than it is a SSN. When dealing with the Social Security Administration, only then, is your SSN an SSN. It's a Tax I.D. for any other purpose.

Last edited by alisa2; 28-04-2011 at 04:06 AM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2011, 08:26 AM   #423
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
Put any one of these clowns in a legal arena where they must counter with a point-by-point rebuttal and all you would witness is a clown doing lip stands.
You've had great success in the legal arena of course. Those "clowns" must be choking on their face paint over your successes.


Last edited by micklemus; 28-04-2011 at 08:26 AM.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2011, 09:57 PM   #424
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
You've had great success in the legal arena of course. Those "clowns" must be choking on their face paint over your successes.

No,
they are slouching at the table face down in their own puke.
And there they will remain.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2011, 10:09 PM   #425
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alisa2 View Post
I believe the legalistic person back in 1794 was a person who owned property, otherwise what need would anyone have for a legal person? Only the courts would have had such a need, because the legislature clearly had no authority in the [U.S.] Consititution to interfere with individual rights. I don't know what Canada's constitution says, but here in America, the government has no authority in the constitution to legislate for the people.

Here in the U.S. the term "person" is connected to any person with a Social Security Number by "Executive Order 9397 Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons". Hence, anyone with an SSN is a person with a "trade or business" in the United States. The legislature has defined "person" as "individual", "corporation", "partnership," "association, etc. It even connects to the term "natural person."

In today's workplace the SSN is converted to a Taxpayer I.D. as soon as the employee completes a W-4, which allows the tax agencies to follow the "person" whereever they go. Tax agencies are not limited to their home state because they use the language "within this state," "in the state," "in the state" in their codes. Without the name of the state, they can go to any state to collect taxes... and they do.

Social Security number connects to any business or government agency which you have given your SSN to. It's more of Tax I.D. than it is a SSN. When dealing with the Social Security Administration, only then, is your SSN an SSN. It's a Tax I.D. for any other purpose.
You are correct.
I might add that the people gave up being a state sovereign in 1868 when the federal government made everyone citizens.
Some did not buy into it.
Some refused the offer.
Such as Jesse James.
Here in Canada we do not have a constitution, save for the Magna Carta.
The BNA Act, the Constitution Act 1982 and the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a bad joke.
When the original document (BNA Act)is void for fraud then all subsequent dispatches are of the same cut.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2011, 07:59 PM   #426
alisa2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 5,160
Likes: 387 (310 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
I might add that the people gave up being a state sovereign in 1868 when the federal government made everyone citizens.

I don't think the people had a choice in the matter. Do they ever? The Government of the United States was imposed on the people. Our culture and society was shaped by the imposters starting with the formation of the U.S. Government (Constitution 1787). Culture is always shaped by the imposters.

Eustace Mullins:

"One cannot understand the “income tax” or what sort of tax is being laid on what type of income without knowing the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient for the government expenditures of that period, but the reformers wanted a government which would exercise more direct control over the people. "


And the reformers got what they wanted: more direct control over the people via Social Security. Around the world, social security was imposed on people, so that one group of people (money changers) could have more direct control over the people.

Culture and society are planned for the people from birth. People don't have to do anything- it is pre-packaged set up ready to go. All you have to do is copy others, follow directions.

Last edited by alisa2; 30-04-2011 at 08:01 PM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 06:20 AM   #427
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alisa2 View Post
I don't think the people had a choice in the matter. Do they ever? The Government of the United States was imposed on the people. Our culture and society was shaped by the imposters starting with the formation of the U.S. Government (Constitution 1787). Culture is always shaped by the imposters.

Eustace Mullins:

"One cannot understand the “income tax” or what sort of tax is being laid on what type of income without knowing the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient for the government expenditures of that period, but the reformers wanted a government which would exercise more direct control over the people. "


And the reformers got what they wanted: more direct control over the people via Social Security. Around the world, social security was imposed on people, so that one group of people (money changers) could have more direct control over the people.

Culture and society are planned for the people from birth. People don't have to do anything- it is pre-packaged set up ready to go. All you have to do is copy others, follow directions.
A curious thing here in Canada is the fact the CRA will not nor ever has defined what INCOME is.
They simply refuse the offer to come clean.
As far as I know everyone would love to pay their taxes.
I do.
I just want to know before hand what constitutes income.
Thats it.
Where lies the dis-honour in requesting an itemized bill for services prior to tendering payment?

Last edited by jackieg; 01-05-2011 at 06:27 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 04:54 PM   #428
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
A curious thing here in Canada is the fact the CRA will not nor ever has defined what INCOME is.
They simply refuse the offer to come clean.
As far as I know everyone would love to pay their taxes.
I do.
I just want to know before hand what constitutes income.
Thats it.
Where lies the dis-honour in requesting an itemized bill for services prior to tendering payment?
This question has been addressed by the courts in Canada a number of times. As you are in Saskatchewan, this decision, reported as R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (available here: http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc...010skpc107.pdf), by Kovatch J. for the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, may be of particular interest to you:

Quote:
[139] Mr. Amell referred to Driedger on the construction of statutes and generally referred to rules for statutory interpretation. He did not apply these rules to any specific statutory provision, or suggest a specific interpretation of any specific statutory provision. He argued that there is a presumption against legislation affecting vested rights and that for this reason the provisions of the Income Tax Act should not apply to compensation paid to him under the contract of hire and he should not be taxable. He also argues that there is no definition of income in the Income Tax Act, and this payment of compensation is not income. The provisions of the Income Tax Act ought not to be stretched to bring compensation under the heading of income, and make it taxable.
...
[141] More importantly however, there is abundant case law on the interpretation of taxing provisions. Traditionally and most often, the courts have utilized the plain, clear, and ordinary interpretation of the tax provision. The Court would regularly ask whether according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the tax provision, a tax ought to be paid in a particular instance. If a plain and ordinary interpretation of the legislation did not lead to the conclusion that tax was payable, then the tax could not be imposed. The flip slide of this simple proposition however, is this: if a clear, ordinary and a plain meaning interpretation of legislation results in a determination of income and tax payable, then the taxes properly imposed must be paid. Historically, the courts would not resort to some other rule of statutory interpretation to create an exception to the rule of tax.

[142] More recently, in Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 20 (S.C.C.), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536, the Court adopted “the modern approach” to interpretation of taxation statutes. It looked at the purpose of the statute and the entire context of the passage to determine the intent of Parliament. This caused some confusion. In the case of Placer Dome Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (The Minister of Finance),2006 SCC 20 (CanLII), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 715, the Court again revisited these interpretative rules. At paragraph twenty-three, the Court attempted to resolve the conflict and put these two interpretive approaches together as follows:
The interpretive approach (the modern approach) is thus informed by the level of precision and clarity with which a taxing provision is drafted. Where such a provision admits of no ambiguity in its meaning or in its application to the facts, it must simply be applied. Reference to the purpose of the provision cannot be used to create an unexpressed exception to clear language...where, as in this case, the provision admits of more than one reasonable interpretation, greater emphasis must be placed on the context, scheme and purpose of the Act. Thus, legislative purpose may not be used to supplant clear statutory language, but to arrive at the most plausible interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision.
...
[144] Mr. Amell places a great deal of emphasis upon the fact that there is no one all-encompassing definition of income, and the fact that he has designated funds received as compensation, and not income. In my view, his designation of these funds as “compensation” is irrelevant.

[145] Mr. Dahlem refers firstly to a number of general sections at the beginning of the Act. Section 2(1) requires that income tax be paid by every person residing in Canada on the taxable income earned during the year. The taxable income is the income of the taxpayer plus appropriate additions and minus appropriate deductions permitted by Division C.

[146] Section 3 provides that income includes “without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the taxpayer’s income for the year from each office, employment, business and property”. Section 5(1) provides: “Subject to this part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year.” I note that nothing in these sections indicate that funds are only “income” or “taxable” if received in a particular capacity.

[147] On the basis of these provisions, I conclude that it is simply irrelevant whether Mr. Amell calls the funds he received “compensation” or refers to them by any other term. It is a form of remuneration received during the taxation year, and hence meets this definition of income.

[148] However, the issue of income is even more specifically and conclusively dealt with in s. 15 of the Act. Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act provides:
Where, at any time in a taxation year, a benefit is conferred on a shareholder,...by a corporation otherwise than by ... (certain benefits such as redemption of shares are exempted. No such exemptions apply in this case.)...the amount or value thereof shall, except to the extent that it is deemed by s. 84 to be a dividend, be included in computing the income of the shareholder for the year.
A benefit to a shareholder is very broadly defined. It is any payment to, or on behalf of, a shareholder. Any type of benefit, regardless of the name attached to it, must be included in the income under this section.

Last edited by solzhenitsyn; 02-05-2011 at 05:00 AM.
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 05:18 PM   #429
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

[144] Mr. Amell places a great deal of emphasis upon the fact that there is no one all-encompassing definition of income, and the fact that he has designated funds received as compensation, and not income. In my view, his designation of these funds as “compensation” is irrelevant.

Under what law? What he goes on to say under here?

[145] Mr. Dahlem refers firstly to a number of general sections at the beginning of the Act. Section 2(1) requires that income tax be paid by every person residing in Canada on the taxable income earned during the year. The taxable income is the income of the taxpayer plus appropriate additions and minus appropriate deductions permitted by Division C
.

Yes the Act requires that a person who is residing ie living at an address owned by the Crown (rapists) pay and pay and pay and pay. However, where was his question addressed?


[146] Section 3 provides that income includes “without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the taxpayer’s income for the year from each office, employment, business and property”. Section 5(1) provides: “Subject to this part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year.” I note that nothing in these sections indicate that funds are only “income” or “taxable” if received in a particular capacity.

Well it would seem to me that when one receives a 'salary' whatever that term legally implies and it certainly DOES LEGALLY IMPLY SOMETHING. As this case is over the pond. Let's look at one of your legal definitions on what SALARY means.

However, salaries of public employees are usually defined by statute. There are also various federal and state laws, which vary by state, which prohibit discriminatory practices in salary offers, such as offering lower salaries to employees based on their sex, race or religion.

Ah that word again. PUBLIC. Property of the STATE. OWNED by the STATE.

Quote:
PUBLIC. By the term the public, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public

Last edited by girlgye; 01-05-2011 at 05:40 PM.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.