Canadians, assessment, invoice, fine ? Read this

VERRRY INTERESTING BIT OF KNOWLEDGE
NOTICE
If you receive any assessment, invoice,
fine or statement of account from Government,

Please be aware, such documents DO NOT constitute BILLs.
Return a copy of such document to the sender with a request for a
True Bill signed in blue ink by an official of the
agency or department of origin.
State that you will comply with their request and settle the account
upon your receipt of their bill.
If they do send you such a "Bill", [which they likely will not do],
just write on the Bill the phrase "Consumer Purchase"
and sign it with your cheque signing signature, putting 'for' or 'per'
before the signature, and send it to the billing party. The for or per
means you are acting as an authorized scribe for the 'legal identity'
and not assuming the debt responsibilities of it. The Bill is paid!
This, according to Section 57(1) and Section 190
of the Bills Of Exchange Act Canada
Presumption of value
57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed
to have become a party thereto for value.
Consumer bill or note to be marked
190. (1) Every consumer bill or consumer note shall be prominently and
legibly marked on its face with the words “Consumer Purchase” before
or at the time when the instrument is signed by the purchaser
or by any person signing to accommodate the purchaser.


www.detaxcanada.org...

Have you actually gotten a bill in the mail from the government that was missing those words? Perhaps its because it falls under another act like the highway traffic act or Canada Student Loans Act etc..

I also have a huge problem with that link you provided as it seems to be nothing more than another conspiracy site without much facts. If you want to be more credible, just link to the act itself rather than a website that uses the movie "Zeitgeist" as a backup for its claims.

It also claims Source

This is very easily disproven here
They have it html and also flash format to easily explain where our tax dollars go and where the tax dollars come from.

Now I can wish all day that I wouldn't have to pay taxes but as they say, there are only two absolutes in life; death and taxes and I'm not exactly sure on the former

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke

---

This is the statute that deals with this issue. I'm afraid you either don't understand whats being said here or you didn't read the pertinent section.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by Swingarm

---

Your link doesn't work,
This is not a one line post

Thanks , Try it now................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................Ok?

reply to post by Swingarm

---

Thanks but I read the parts of the act that you quoted and also read a few more. My question was to you what bills have you gotten from the government that haven't had the correct legal conditions to warrant you to use section 192 of that act?

Also
Source
So your idea is that a "person" is a fictional entity so therefore when you use sign you "real name", the act does not apply to you?


[edit on 25-7-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

Article 3

1. A bill of exchange is a written instrument which:

(a) Contains an unconditional order whereby the drawer directs the drawee to pay a definite sum of money to the payee or to his order;
(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time;
(c) Is dated;
(d) Is signed by the drawer.

UNCITRAL Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes, 1988

Explaining bills of sale This explains further what I'm saying. I'm not saying I'd do this but it appears things are not how they appear.

Wow, this is one of the biggest pieces of trash I have ever read.
Source
This guy is advocating stealing. He claims that if you walk into a store and take something off the shelf and bring to the till, you shouldn't have to pay for it because the cashier did not present a bill. This is the studipest thing I have ever read!!

When you are wanting to buy an item you have to trade something for it. Now in the old days, you would trade furs, crops, meat etc. But in todays society we have this technology called money or credit so we don't have to carry around bushels of crops in order to pay for an ipod.

This guy wants to contribute nothing to society and lives in a dreamland. My God, there is so much crap on that site that I don't whether to laugh or cry that people actually believe this.

This guy hates the government so much he made this statement
Source

This guy has an agenda and that agenda has skewed his view of the world forever. Feel sorry for the guy if that story is true but still that does not make his claims right.

Here is a good site that debunks these guys very very easily.

For a guy that says he has "researched" this stuff for over a decade, it appears he has not researched very much at all including the legal definition of a person

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

SwingArm..I know of which you speak. My ex is following this path with the same info you have.
No paying taxes, no drivers license renewal..yadda yadda yadda.
If you are going to post just a wee bit of the info on this..you need to post it all.
The guy who did this originally has put up with a lot of crap, and been to court over it dozens of times.
Is it worth it?
Personally, I think one slip up, and my ex will be in jail over this.
Highly an UNRECOMMENDED system.
My 2 pennies.

reply to post by AccessDenied

---

I agree I not telling everyone to go out and do this. I suspect the statute is not written for us but for banks and the currency. It's a fraudulent scheme they play. Someone has figured it out and using it to their advantage. Like you say , and like most things on the road to freedom, it
takes work. Freedom is not free.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke

---

You think thats a good site that debunks the whole issue ? I suspect that is someone linked to the system. If you'd like to learn about the fraud that is income tax, and how you've been manipulated through statutes and the definitions within them watch this video YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ILLUSION It will take you step by step through the whole issue of income tax, why your social insurance number was created etc. It comes down to enslavement through statutes, by dangling a benefit for your signature of servitude. Then using it against you through tacit agreement.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Their whole basis for their claims is that you are not a "person" which is utterly false. Did you read the court case where the judge explained the definition of a person in regards to the income tax act? Here it is: Court File No.:00-CV-14232 Please do.



It does not take someone "working for the system" to debunk these guys. All you have to do is actually open up a law dictionary. Oh no, someone is using facts and has comprehension skills; they must be working for the enemy.



I've watched a couple of these types of videos before. It all sounds good and great and these guys make you believe they know what they're talking about. But all they do is intrepret the acts, statutes as they see fit. They can interpret words they way they want all day, but in court or in any legal institution, their interpretation is utterly wrong. See Court File No.:00-CV-14232

One question for you, how successful have these guys been interpreting the legal terms the way they do?



It takes you step by step through their interpretation of the law. In which they are wrong.

Income tax started because they needed a way to pay for WW1. After the war, they decided that they needed to keep it in place in order to pay for national defence, social services and so forth. Nothing nefarious here.

The purpose of a SIN is to be able to discern you from other people. In my hometown alone there were 4 people with the exact same name as me.
Wikipedia

Once again nothing nefarious here.

As far as calling following laws as "enslavement", well there's nothing I can do for you if you honestly believe that.

Look I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but that money goes to social programs, health care, infrastucture, penal system, keeping the rule of law...etc

While I don't like that we pay for so many useless social programs, their is a way to get rid of them. Elect officials that promise to lower taxes, get rid of social programs and all in all just cut out red tape.

Once again, ask yourself this question, how successful have these people been? And if they have been successful, then why are people still being locked up in jail? There is a reason why we have laws.

And don't give me that crap that these people are some how more enlightened because all these guys want to contribute nothing to society and want a free ride in life.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

reply to post by Swingarm

---

All I can say is that you better be ready for a lot of visits to the court room, a lot of legal bills( lawyers will know how to charge you) and a lot of other problems in the foreseeable future if you chose this path. It sounds good on paper but in the real world, most of this stuff won't stand up in a court of law.

Good luck and let us know how it goes for you.

My ex tried to use this method as a means to get out of paying parking tickets.
Court case pending for that.
He's also trying to use it to get out of paying back thousands in student loans.
Pffft.
He claims that at birth, when you are registered, the government takes out a bond worth I believe he said a million dollars or some silly number..(can't you tell I was rolling my eyes and half listening) and that he plans to go after the government for this money that is rightfully his.
Sounds nuts??
Correct.
If memory serves me right, the man that came up with this system is a lawyer who was dis-barred for doing all this.
He has knowledge of the law and system yes..
the average Joe does not.
Far too much effort for such a small payoff.
IAM a person, no matter what their little books say.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by AccessDenied]

reply to post by GAOTU789

---

I'm not suggesting that I'm going to do this. What is clear, is the the income tax is directly related to the federal reserve system and I suspect
The bill of exchange act is designed for the banks. I'm not suggesting anyone jump in and challenge the Government. I'm simply stating this is worth looking into. On the natural person front you would not get a lawyer to RE-present you. You would have to go it alone. Irene Gravenhorst appears to have successfully done this, check out the video HERE This is not a simple matter, but should not be rejected as BS either.

Yeah I got what looked like a bill from the IRS and they were asking me to sign it in which I told them to go fly a kite. Come to find out it was not a bill and I sent all the paperwork I needed to get out of it. If I would of signed it though I would of had to pay. Scam artists. Dont trust anyone.

I wasn't suggesting that you were. Your initial post made it sound like you had thoughts of doing this, that's all. Not saying it's BS, just that you better be prepared for alot of litigation of you chose this path. Maybe you win, maybe you don't, just keep in mind that if you do, the social safety net no longer applies to you. Health Care, CPP, EI and the rest of it goes out the window.

reply to post by mybigunit

---

Interesting MBU, thanks for sharing your experience.

The Bill of sale document I provided was meant to illustrate how the law works if you'd like to take it to the letter. IS anyone is going to pull that at the grocery store or the restaurant ? not me.

As for benefits lost thats right you would lose your benefits within the system. However the savings from a tax stand point more than makes up for it if your in a higher tax bracket.

CPP is a joke , CPP was joined to the income tax in 1967 (3 years after they brought the cpp in). In the the income tax act 248(1) you will see the definitions only apply in the act. Some worth analyzing are Business, corporation, Employed, Employee, Employer,Employment, Office, Officer, person,legal Representative, individual, taxpayer,salary or wages, After you really understand these definitions, and how they change you from a natural person into one of these fictitious legal creatures like officer, it will become clear to you.

Nowhere in the the 2452 pages of the income tax can you find , in prescribed form any expressed declaration that the income tax can operate not withstanding (in spite of) the Canadian bill of rights. So if someone says you have to pay income tax and you know who you are, and you know sec 2 of the Canadian bill of rights you say "fine" I'll pay just show me where in the act it says the income tax is allowed to operate in spite of the bill of rights and that it's allowed to infringe on you human rights.

You will see the only way is if you are tricked by forgetting who you are and replacing your natural person with officer etc. how is this done? Through a joinder (joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.) How must it occur? It must be voluntary by unconstrained by interference unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on oneself. Proceeding from free and unrestricted will of person. These are the benefits mentioned by the previous poster that would have to given up. This is the trick, It's like the guy in the Van trying to get the kiddies to come with him with a lolli pop.If you don't take the loli pop you don't get to go for the ride. Do you really want to?

Why must it be voluntary? Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948 article 4 - No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Through Tacit consent this can occur. It means if you didn't say no to it, then you agree to it.

I suggest people also study and understand the word includes, It's not what you think it means. It's linked to the legal maxim Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius which means The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation one one person is an absolute exclusion of ALL others.

Canadian Interpretation ACT
Person - Or any word of expression descriptive of a person INCLUDES a corporation.

The word Person in law comprises Natural persons and artificial persons. The parts of the whole for example are Citizen, Driver, Voter, Human,. Taxpayer, Director, Officer, Owner and many more. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
Some more examples of the use of includes in Canadian statutes.

Assessment Act- "Land" - includes (a) land covered by water

Land Act - "Construction purpose" includes without limitation

Canada Elections act - "Person" - includes elector voter and candidate.

Motor Vehicle Act- "Accident" - includes an intentional collision, Wow, when people go to court to deal with an accident the courts are only dealing with guilty parties, By holding a license the have admitted it was intentional. The use of includes for legal purposes is very tricky indeed.

Back to the Income tax,
Is income tax voluntary? It depends...

Are you working in your own capacity for your own benefit? if yes then it's voluntary.

OR

Are you working in the capacity of a legal Representative of a federally created artificial person, for it's benefit ? If yes then it's not voluntary because you are receiving a benefit.

Canadian Law Dictionary 5th edition pg 134

Individual- A person. Under the bill of rights RSC 1985 c44 , "the right of the individual" extends to natural persons only, and not to corporations RV Colgate - Palmolive ltd (1972)

Why is it within the income tax act your refereed to as an Officer, taxpayer, person, Client etc?








[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke






Canada Customs an Revenue Agency c17 act 1999

1) The powers duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include All matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction(parliament has jurisdiction over indirect taxes not direct taxes) , not by law assigned to any department, board or agency of the Government of Canada other than the agency, relating to

A) Duties of customs and matters incident thereto

B) Duties of Excise

C) Stamp duties and the preparation and issue of stamps and stamped paper.

d)INTERNAL TAXES, unless otherwise provided , including income taxes and

E) such other subjects as may be assigned to the Minister by Parliament or the Governor in Council

So we see Parliament has jurisdiction over indirect taxes, they go on to call income tax an internal federal tax within the Parliaments jurisdiction. So somehow within this box is the only place income tax exists.

To me me income tax is not an internal tax at all it's a direct tax and the Parliament has no jurisdiction here. more games with in the statute to enslave.

Is the income tax a fraud? It appears not.

"Juries ignorant est cum jus nostrum ignoramus " - translation -It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights.

Is Income tax unconstitutional ? Appears, No

Income tax is a federal INTERNAL tax making it an indirect tax, which is only applicable to a federal created artificial person know as an "OFFICER"

Was Income tax supposed to be temporary? No.....

Committee of the Whole July Th 1917 Sir Thomas White Min of Finance

" I have placed no time limit upon this measure but merely have placed upon hansard the suggestion that a year or two after the war is over , the measure should be REVIEWED by the minister of finance of the day, with a view of judging whether it is suitable to the conditions which prevail"

Is Income Tax Illegal ? No....
The original Income War tax act has the required enacting clause. Today's version is just an amended version of the original. The biggest difference being the original was only 39 pages in length



In regard to GAOTU789 saying you will be stripped of all benefits the system offers, thats not necessarily true.

A natural person has the right to contract because , upon our birth we are endowed with the gift of freewill, and the natural right to self determination. This natural right can be exercised with or without knowledge to enter into legally binding contracts, the responsibility and choice is yours.

Canadian Law dictionary Th ed pg 163

Contract- A contract is a legally recognized agreement between two or more persons, giving rise to obligations that may be enforced in the courts. By such agreements the parties not only restrict their present or future freedom to act , by the limitations imposed upon themselves by the agreement , they are creating a set of legal rules , binding as regards to themselves and only themselves

So .. the power you have is you can literally take control and deal under these private contracts., but if your unaware of your power you'll fall into the default benefit systems the Government has created.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Swingarm]