Where do Human Rights come into play?

I've only heard of one fella that states you can pull human rights into court at any time. Based on the above, you purchase a house through your person, then they're after you for property tax, but you cannot use human rights as you purchased it through legal person, correct?

I thought fer sure id be able to find a definition for "human" in The Ontario Human Rights Code in their interpretation/definition section, right? WRONG. No definition for "human," but, they sure do have one for "person."

Ontario Human Rights Code......which one are you, you 'human?' �person� in addition to the extended meaning given it by Part VI (Interpretation) of the Legislation Act, 2006, includes an employment agency, an employers� organization, an unincorporated association, a trade or occupational association, a trade union, a partnership, a municipality, a board of police commissioners established under the Police Act, being chapter 381 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, and a police services board established under the Police Services Act; http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm

that code is pretty funny, a human rights code that pretty much ONLY applies to "persons" lol , i depart from it at it's relation to the UDHR...and just go to the UDHR to see the "human" rights

What is that?

LOL, that code just makes me mad, what a load of shit "every person...", "every person..."...........................................

Its got "person" all over it and doesn't have "person" in the interpretation...

Waste of valuable interweb space...

You guys have no idea how many emails ive sent to the Minister of Transportation here: "Whats the definition used for person.. for traffic.. for resident.. for Quasi-Criminal.. (and another one i cant think of right now)...this all seems to be material non-disclosure, doesnt it? Non-disclosure is Concealment." I hold-off on saying- "Concealment is deemed FRAUD." ;)

"Where do Human Rights come into play?" BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! *air* hahahahahahahahaha! ...oh wait! You were SERIOUS?

I think I know the answer to this....if I can contribute...

So you can call on Human Rights if you find Lawful Excuse

As in freedom of association

I think you can call but not sure someone will answer the phone

But I guess it doesn't show the court a complete awareness to the trust and what is really going on: who is surety, which is really answer.

WHO ARE YOU? Is the MOST powerful question you can ask in court.

I know, thought that since some people seem to think those rights are the answer, it should be on here.

There are more people only reading here and not commenting... you do realize this?

It REMOVES PRESUMPTION It negates the assumption that there's "UNDERSTANDING" It makes Justice's CRINGE at the thought of being revealed as a NON PARTY WITH SURETY ;)

Yes... those would be the "lesser humans" ;)

Ah fuck- totally forgot about this one.. on Tuesday i downtown.. walkin' by 393 University, i wanna get some information on starting an action in a Court of Equity.. between the 10th floor, and the 9th floor - NOOOOOOOOBODY knew what i was talking about

It allows me to ridicule them with impunity.

I HAD to explain to them what it was- LMAO.. then i mentioned- "Inheritance Jurisdiction".. two different people asked me the same thing- "Who died?" I was just absolutely fucking GOBSMACKED. Nobody had even HEARD of this 'Court of Equity,' they were tring to correct me and tell me that i meant something else

..it was like an episode of the fucking twilight-zone

OMG Derek Moran, WHY do you think ANYONE would have a clue there? It NEVER changes: Stupid people working there for YEARS. As you enter the 10th floor, there is probably STILL a fat, black woman, with a crazed look and a "comfort wall" in her cubicle/counter. NOTHING changes there.

3 weeks later.. nobody from the A.G.'s office will return my emails on- "Well who do i speak to about this then??".. at least they give information-forms out about Small Claims at 47 Sheppard

We should have a "ramdom blather" thread... this one had a specific topic...

...which is also, now the "Superior Court of Justice".

..that was my first time up there

I sould never participate in more than one thread at a time.....completly lost now....ooouuufffff

See?

Oh I think it set the mood just fine :D

There are more people only reading here and not commenting... you do realize this? Beverly May Braaksma....wow...my ego is bleeding now,,,:(

Unorganized...

I wouldnt be shocked at this point if i mentioned 'Superior Court of Justice' and they didnt know what i was talking about either..

Human-rights are a trap.. human is a synonym for person..

what human rigths ????

No definition for human in the Ontario Human Rights Code.. but there is for PERSON ;)

If they would have NOT created PIERRE DAOUST, I would have human rigths rigth now

sorry for the ponctuation

No, BECAUSE they created PIERRE DAOUST you have human rights

Everything flows through PIERRE DAOUST, PIERRE DAOUST is NOT a human.....what rigths do I have exactly ????

..Pierre Daoust, was born with common law/natural law rights

You always remember pierre, that's not you at all.

so what ??

pierre is the guy who has kids, wife and midnight... well you know :D

I know, but the SURETY is there and my stuff is there as wll, and this freaking thing is BUSINESS....NOTHING ELSE

The blacks in the US in the 60's DEMANDED their rights, so the gov said sure- we'll give you your CIVIL rights..granted rights, rights and priviliges with strings attached, duties and obligations

but that name is not yours, you never say "yes that's me" or "mine" when you look at any of your govt ID anymore, OK?

whats these HUMAN rigths can do for me..???

EVERYTHING is business.....EVERYTHING

They are "nice to know" that's about it...

The difference between the film INCEPTION and real-life.. is that INCEPTION had ONLY 3 levels ;)

PFFT, Leonardo DeCrapollla is a pussy! 3 fucking levels! HA! Child! http://youtu.be/8BfMivMDOBI

God given. MY ASS

God is imaginary too...sorry :(

No tooth Fairy either

who is god..???....and where the heck he picked those rigths...???

I'm sorry, I really thought you knew. :(

WE HAVE NO FUKIN RIGTHS....

fuk that...Im out for a cigarette

oh...here's one of my precious rigth....I have the RIGHT to a fair earing in a competent tribunal.....WHERE ARE THOSE FAIR AND COMPETENT TRIBUNALS ARE ??????

Is there really an Income Tax Act? I've heard there actually isn't.

There isn't.

..well nothing anybody SIGNED anyway. No Parliamentary Bill for it either! So it's not even an ACT if that's the case.

Ok, I put a question under the "questions regarding lies" thread

oh, this is it, sorry... getting tired

I even answered it :P

is that why there's no interpretation? How can you prove it?

People just aren't interested in learning, they know every actor/actress's life story and don't even know who they are or care... bottom line. How many times I've been with a group of people who are busy talking about some movie or some Brad's Pitts smells like... wow

people pay for movie-star gossip... I never understood :(

Why would YOU prove it? CRA: You owe us money. Pay up...the INCOME TAX ACT says so! YOU: INCOME TAX ACT? Never heard of it, and I didn't sign it. If the Government did, then I guess I DO owe tax...Best check first. You ARE a GOVERNMENT worker, after all. If you were an honest man/woman you'd never be working there! So I need to see if it's true. What was the BILL number this ACT was heard under? and what year? CRA: I don't... It;s a BILL, Like "Bill C-130" or the like. Year and bill number please. I'll be able to check for myself. CRA: ...what? YOU: I see. You're inept. I get it. Please send me to your manager. They need to prove to YOU. Not the other way around. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. THEY are claiming you are obliged!

You're awesome Scott Duncan!

So you can look up a bill number for every law then?

YES! Dont you hear about "BILL C-*insert number here* on the news all the time? EVERY year. Those BILLS are PUBLIC RECORD.

My whole life, I've ignored the govt... I have never voted or listened... sorry Can't afford tv... er don't want to mostly...

never claimed income for rental property or whatever I do on the side for dough... �actual work Scott, not like blowjobs er something...

"Beverly May Braaksma: You're awesome Scott Duncan!" ...Yes.

G'Nite `Merika!

yah eh!

Where can you look up Acts or Bills online?

http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publication-types/bils-become-acts

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/Home.aspx?ParliamentSession=41-1

And CAPTAIN CASE-LAW (Derek Moran) surely has some too.

LOTS of "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act" entry...but no "Income Tax Act"! HA! That's ok. They're just STANDING BY. (The government is in fact PROROGUED)

So, I'm getting Highway Traffic Act as bill C-10

Ok

That's the scam. they will table all this shit, pass it, and call it "law". WHAT act are they amending?

No sorry, highway traffic act is bill C-2

Amendment to Income tax act is C-10

They all seem to be amendments... and there's a bunch...

1985 Bill C-1 is what it claims. SOMEBODY SHOW ME THE BILL!

my business accountant is crawling up one side and down the other to file and I told her NO FUKIN WAY... cause I've heard from people who aren't interested in what movie stars are up to or which hockey games are on... that there isn't an Income Tax Act...

There ISN'T. This is pure fraud! There's no 1985 C-1!

Well how can we bother with a "rule" if we not only can't find it, but there's no definitions on any one we can actually find? Render me retarded... or "fuck me sideways"

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html All AMENDMENTS to...NOTHING.

Re "fuck me sideways" Can we do Doggy-style first?

And so if our "person" created said incorporated business, is the "person" surety still? Business as usual?

don't matter... bend over, whatever...

If I get "income" I just pay it. I have no use for it. I work off DEPOSITS. Only EMPLOYEES have INCOME.

don't employees have wages?

For ACCOUNTING, yes. But once it becomes something you can SPEND, it becomes MONEY OF EXCHANGE, and therefore INCOME.

...oh, Beverly May Braaksma, a blowjob IS in fact "actual work". In fact...it's your JOB! BLOW...JOB... It's pretty clear that if it's your JOB, then it's WORK... ...I'll be the judge of whether you are any good at your JOB, or not (And therefore the VALUE), ad put the value on the books. ;) Blow ...JOB! IT'S A woman's JOB! It's a GOOD thing :D

Scott Duncan: The tender for law may or may not have tax implications. The onus is on you to know your obligations under that tender. Every currency is different. Your obligations with a DEBIT card are not the same with CASH for example.

Cash in PRIVATE is the best !!!!!.. :D , on the other end, I can't afford the privilege of having a debit card :(

Scott Duncan: WHO ARE YOU? Is the MOST powerful question you can ask in court. Scott Duncan: It REMOVES PRESUMPTION It negates the assumption that there's "UNDERSTANDING" It makes Justice's CRINGE at the thought of being revealed as a NON PARTY WITH SURETY

"It makes Justice's CRINGE at the thought of being revealed as a NON PARTY WITH SURETY" Hmmmmmmm.....how is the Justice "SURETY" again, as Scott mentioned? :/

Unauthorized Administrator

YESSS- that is why Scott said its so important to say, "I RESERVE ALL RIGHTS" right off the bat, or else, its just PRESUMED that you are consenting to him being an AUTHORIZED Administrator

If he keeps ADMINISTRATING, without AUTHORIZATION, he is SURETY

Chris Evan

What if a guy was to keep it in private: by reminding these fuckers by registered mail = PRIVATE I saw somewhere that the dude, in the dress, behind the desk said something about public? Chris Evan Along with the Public Notice about Private Property. Belonging to some one you trust?, Offer declined and you can actually SAY OUT LOUD: NO , AS OFFICER OF THE DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE CORPORATION,Who has a secured copyhold on the name. WE ARE COMPELLED TO DECLINE YOUR OFFER. Then get the fuck out.

Ask to see any papers as officer and pull your void stamp out�

YOU ARE THE LAWYER FOR YOUR TRUST� HELLLOSSSS?

AND IT IS NOT A PERSON�

Chris Evan

or move to Quebec :-D

Since they DON'T CARE

AND DO YOUR BEST TO STAY OUT OF THE FUCKING CLUBHOUSE�. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN NOW. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE THING THEY CREATE EACH TIME FOR A NEW CHARGE, ACT AS OFFICER SEEING TO THE NEEDS OF THE CORPORATION = YOUR OWN PERSON YOU TRUST, IF THEY WANT TO BEAT AND TAZER YOU THEY WILL.

check, test- is this thing on?

Keep yourself safe at third base.

THE CORPORATION HAS SURETY FOR THE NAME, THIS IS A GOOD THING, THINK ABOUT IT.

yeah....ummmmm...THEY DONT FUCKING CARE.

shit

get the fuck out.

Did that once....don't you remember what happened next? These people have a FUCKING ARMY who will obey their every fucking command.

You did go to a conference, something about a train�

is what I recall�

Scott, as I look through the divorce papers, it appears to me there are four different things in these divorce papers. The fourth is an AFFIDAVIT FOR JUDGEMENT with me and ex-wife and signed by only me, The third is ME and EX-WIFE stipulation and agreement, the first is me and ex-wife and has FAMILY COURT JUDGEMENT on it and requires a parenting plan contract marked exhibit A and is me vs. ex-wife,. I wish to end this or at the minimum, change some things in it to correct some things that have changed. I am stuck and REALLY do not want to get left behind in this group but I think wrong and can not make it work out In order to cut the tie here.

what confuses me is the section that orders me to pay is the judgment paper with the Phillip name and the child support paperwork that comes every month is the PHILLIP name. If I use the void stamp it appears that I would be voiding the divorce which leads me to still being married to the ex-wife. To fix this, void the marriage license? Or a letter to rescind the signature for the whole court file? WHERE am I thinking wrong here?

Or is it that since the FAMILY COURT JUDGMENT paperwork has me and ex-wife on it, it actually means us as a party and the state is the other party?

The government is not a PERSON. It's a TRUST.

Just detach yourself from the name, and move on.

Scott...thank you Now a question....if the government is really a trust and not a person... could one really threaten death or bodily harm to a trust?

No. That's why there are specific "laws" about "sedition" etc. Also "assault police", etc.