The Tender For Law

Volume 1

Feb 17, 2013 8:00 AM

Scott Duncan

THE INCOME TAX ACT - A creepy Journey. The public record shows the ACT was tabled as 1985 Bill C-1 (according to the act), yet there WAS no C-1. Try find it! Try find the senate debates on the subject!

NOTHING. THIS IS NOT LAW.

Income Tax Act

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Federal laws of canada

Read Comments

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

This Act was amended by several enactments which came into force retroactively. This may cause some versions to contain changes which did not occur exactly at the dates shown. This version is not the latest.

Pete Daoust

Started working I was 17, since that age, I filed income tax returns every year, some of these years, I paid a ridiculous high amount of $$ on income tax, but I didn�t know any better, and had the idea that I HAD NO OTHER CHOICES�.

I�ve received a letter on Jan. 2010 from Agence du Revenu du QUEBEC, the letter daid: WE HAVE GOOD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT YOU DON�T DECLARE ALL YOUR REVENUES�.so I called them to know what the heck was that, the guy on the phone told me to NOT WORRY, just filled the questionnaire we sent you and the DOSSIER will close in 2 to 3 weeks� So guess what I�ve done..???...I FUKIN GAVE THEM EVERYTHING�.so according to statistic CANADA, they decided that it was impossible for me to live with 48k NET per year du to our situation. Situation is my wife does not work, we have 4 children so as per their calculation I have not declare some revenues. So they�ve sent me a bill of 40k appx, and Canada did the same�appx 40k as well, but Canada is not involve for now in the case, they say they are waiting for QUEBEC results in this. When I received this request of 40k, I litteraly felt on my knees�..I felt trapped and even raped at this point, we were now around April 2011, so more than a year after their first contact� I started to look for SPECIALIST in this and found out very fast that these SPECIALIST was crooks�soI went in what they call OPPOSITION with them. And I also started to search the internet on some rights that I could have against these kind of LEGAL MAFIA�. In November 2011 it was very dark in my head�.I started to think at very dark stuff�.I went to the hospital and they kept me for a week and gave me some pills�.so I did stuff after that and they�ve REJECTED MY OPPOSITION by March 2012, �then I had no choice to file a court request and again, GIVE EVERYTHING TO THE COURT and now QRA are the DEFENDANT on case no. 500-80-021468-120 in Cour du Quebec As I was continuing to search the net to find some help, I felt on a guy named John James Harris on youtube�.WOW..!!!..and then Robert Menard..WOW!!!!...so I started read and re-read UDHR, the Canadian Bill of Rigths, The Canadian Charter, the Quebec Charter the Covenants and all that crap�. One day, I think it was in July 2012, I�ve felt on Dean Clifford on youtube�..OMG�OMG�OMG�I knew.I had something there�.I�ve realized at about August 2012 that I was not THE NAME�.I think I�ve met Scott Duncan here in November or Maybe October 2012�..it did it again�OMG..OMG�OMG�.and that has nothing to do with Scott social skills or Scott sex appeal�.I guess I was enough open minded to shut up and learn, because Scott addresses on me these first talks was not very lovely�.But he was right and true�.anyway Dec.4th 2012 I had a meeting in court for my case, and I sent a TELEGRAM to the judge and the QRA lawyers a few days before�.I asked the judge to rebut his oath of confidentiality to be able to tell the truth about the fact that there is no LAW in Quebec about income tax, and blablablabla�. They received the TELEGRAM at 9:10:07am Friday Nov. the 30th 2012,�.10 minutes after I received a call from the lawyer saying that she could not be there on the 4th, cause she had something else to do�.. I received last week a date for next court appearance which is March the 21st 2013. January the 3rd 2013, I sent a notice to the QRA Lawyer asking for some missing information on MY NAME�.I asked: I told them I figured out that this Income Tax Act apply to employee of the government ONLY, and I was curious to know since when I hold this position of a taxpayer with them, I also asked for Date of Hiering, a COMPLETE statement account on the PERSON, proof of remuneration, Where was my office exactly and a few other question like that�.I told them I owe DUE DILLIGENCE enough to my PERSON to make sure, I�m not being robbed, or being fraud, or being kept in slavery�.

Their reponse was: Dear Mr. Daoust, these has nothing to do with the CASE in question�.???????????????????....

So I�ve sent the same Notice to the FIRST guy who caontacted me on January the 6th 2010�no answer from him so far�

I�m sure I�m doing half of the thing in the wrong way, but I�m doing instead of trying to figure out how to shoot myself�.

Now, I�m ready to go in court to file all these letters I�ve sent and ask the court that BEFORE WE CAN GO ON�.I NEED THESE ANSWERS FROM THEM SO March the 21st seems to be not a good date�.postpon the date please to whatever the date I will receive all the information I need from them part to be able to proceed�

I look weird when I enter the Quebec Court�.I know fakal�.lol�

Hopefully this THREAD will have a few answers for me�I shorted the story as much as I could �sorry for the punctuation, accent and length�.

Pete Daoust

here's how they think Ed O'Brien.......Everything is privillege conceed by the state, your car, your house, your profession and your LIFE, and what the state gives, the state can take it back at anytime if you are not a docile taxpayer....declared in the assembl� national by sous-minister Pierre-Andr� Par� on April 6th 1996....

Pete Daoust

I've seen, last time I went in court, all these SLAVES waiting in line to get their head cuts by these cocksuckers...I've seen their eyes filled with fear....Im not blind..., and if one day, I'm able to save a few of these slaves because I saved myself from these MONSTERS, I will be a very happy MAN....this is WHY I'm here.....thousands of humans go through this mess every year only here in Quebec....

Pete Daoust

I dont know about Scott being a smart dude....I think its a very low qualifier for him....these threads are PRICELESS....no smart dudes can share this informations....One day, I may find a qualifier for him...maybe I say this because my LIFE is on the line..??...who knows ?????

Scott Duncan

.COM = commercial .NET = infrastructure .ORG = organization of humans .CA = Top Level Country Domain (2 characters) .MIL = military .GOV = government

I miss ARPANET rules :( Now porn stars use ".NET" and now it's just strange "internet stuff" to people. :(

Andrew D'Aragon

Trust but verify, if the knowledge is not acquired and verified by you then true understanding can not be achieved through parroting. Connecting the dots properly is the hardest part of the learning process.

Stuart Stone

Pierre Daoust, it may be worth running this possibility by Scott for his feedback, or at least to not appear as a rebel/combatant to the 'system' until you can get your head around the whole thing... UDHR Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law... If you have that right, then you can also waive that right & notify/demand to know by what authority you are to be recognised as the person/taxpayer that they are claiming you to be. Then write telling them that you are more than willing to assist them with their inquiries, but of course you're not a lawyer or accountant & therefore not qualified to interpret the law/income tax code or any other statute. Consequently, it is unreasonable for them to expect you to carry out work for them & be held liable for any errors you may have made in the past, and of course, you don't work for free. (This is all paraphrasing Dean's de-taxing episode) Set a fee schedule for work to be done at an hourly rate (equal pay for equal work suggests you should charge whatever a qualified tax accountant would charge), estimate your hours (you're not qualified, so it could take a looooot of hours to do the work) & you need to access all your previous income documents from storage (from all of your working life), so your estimate to carry out the work they want you to do is approx $40k. Also demand a liability waiver for any errors or omissions because you're not a qualified lawyer or accountant etc...notice them that failure to receive an acceptance & up front payment within 21 days means that there is agreement between the parties that no contract exists between you the man & them, regarding the tax account (the SIN & NAME), fault & default them & swear out an affidavit attesting to the facts. Come court time, you are the one with the facts & you can challenge your opponent to prove their claim that you are a person known as a taxpayer.....Ok Scott, tear me a new one ;-)

Pete Daoust

I'll put one more: When I was 16, I APPLY for a SIN, and when the government received this APPLICATION, the sent me back the SIN, which we could call THE EMPLOYEE NUMBER, or the ACCOUNT NUMBER....and since that specific moment, the government started to PRESUME I work for them......any corrections to make on this one ????...is that a fact or a piece of shit pulled out from my ass..???....I really need to know this...really...

Stuart Stone

Question: Is it ever too late to correct the record that you're not to be recognised as the person, even though for the past however many years you have acted in that capacity and donated to the PIERRE DAOUST Trust fund???...Like Dean tells us, as it is done, so it is undone...correct the record as to who you are...and who you are not...and send Scott Duncan a promissory note for a few lapdancers so he throws you a bone on this thread mate ;-) I have used the process I mentioned in the UK, although well before any proceedings were threatened. HMCE (revenue service) called asking who I was, I told them that if they don't know, then how can they claim to have any business with me...haven't heard anything in over a year...at the very least, it has given me time to learn more ;-)

Stuart Stone

If you waive the right to be recognised as the person, then how can they claim that you are the PERSON they are calling a TAXPAYER with a SIN (of whatever the number is) that is linked to the PIERRE DAOUST account? You aren't that PERSON, even if, for some crazy reason you have been donating funds to the account for that PERSON, with that SIN for a number of years...and if you are not that PERSON, how can you possibly know firsthand, whether that PERSON was working for the government, or what that PERSON was earning...and how can you, the man, be held liable?...bedtime for me mate ;-)

Stuart Stone

SIN identifies your person as a government employee...YES. Were you ever on duty? Only you & they can answer that one, by providing evidence of employment contracts, payslips & timesheets...If you can swear an affidavit that you have seen no evidence to suggest that you were ever acting in that capacity and believe that none exists, then they need to be able to rebut that...that's all I've got mate

Andrew D'Aragon

The SIN is your government employee number if that is what you are asking. With the government acting as an employment agency when you use it on an employment application, which serves as a recognition that the government is a party to your employment, and therefore any "taxes" levied are "their cut" for the privilege of being employed or the agency fee for making the employment available to you, and since most corporate charters come into existence through and with the government you are acting as an agent under that SIN number. Insofar as I understand it to date, all subject to correction upon further review and correction by Scott Duncan if he would be so kind.

Derek Moran

Privatis.Me Also see this attachment -- Internal Revenue laws Repealed in their entirety in 1939-- here is proof on this Link. read page 4 nd 5 -- More irrevocable Proof all have been duped by consent-- All you have to do is UN_CONSENT with our one page rescission document.. https://privatis.me/images/doc/theinformer/InternalRevenueLawsWereRepealed.pdf Please send this TRUTH far and wide... Everyone has the right to terminate and rescind when they are sick and tired of being a Slave by Consent-- TIME FOR ALL TO UN-CONSENT--- AS THE LIVE MAN OR WOMAN

Derek Moran

See the Real meaning of Federal... it is not what you think..... you gave over by adhesion contract with the Private Corporation when you signed your first 1040 with an UN-emcumbered signature with no reservation of Rights... However, with that being said... All can terminate the presumption of this mistake with our Simple one page document to rescind the mistake and Power of attorney of this presumption by being a Full member at privatis.me. No need to Contract with them.. THIS IS A MUST READ DOCUMENT--- Send this far and wide to all who have been lied too and now have capacitiy to terrminate these contracts forever. JOIN PRIVATIS.ME & SIGN IN TO VIEW THIS LINK! :) http://privatis.me/images/doc/theinformer/What.Does.Federal.Really.Mean.pdf

Cory Black

Anything that has been given "royal assent" can be found at queens printer. The income tax act does not exist there. It cannot exist as it would conflict with your claim to your intrinsic rights as human being and your subsistence.

John Greco

I'm yet unable to retrieve the online page that I saw three years ago showing a legible photograph of a Canadian federal document (letterhead) alleged to be the final document required to make the collection of tax a "law". The site presented the case that there was no tax "law" at least because this document had not been signed. Has anyone any recollection or insight into this?

John Greco

"I conditionally accept your offer that I pay $80,000 to you Revenue Canada. My condition is that you pay me my fee of $100,000 in advance as consideration for my services rendered as per your demands and instructions." . . . . Invoke contract law . . and move the contract.

Rick Hiltz

a number of reasons number one The income tax Act and the fact Scott pointed out in the original post .2) I am not a revenue collection agent for the government .number 3) if they assume i am then i don`t do it for free 4) shown me the pay stubs to prove it

Dan Wilson

"give me a certified copy of the income tax act from the queens printer" -- You can't get this because the "current version in force" is not certifiable in its entirety. The current version is a compilation of the original enactment, which could be 100 years ago, plus all the amendments since then. Only the original and each individual amendment are "officially" signed, enacted and certifiable. That said, if you want a copy of the original Income Tax Act or amendments you can ask for them at http://www.parl.gc.ca/. They don't publish or enforce laws that aren't lawfully enacted... that's a myth. Anyone doing such a thing would be wide open to a claim for damages, and if it was common or permitted people would figure it out and the entire legal system would fail very quickly.

Dan Wilson

I'm not saying they wouldn't lie, but that there are certain limits to what they can lie about. The unlawful enactment of entire Acts or amendments is not something they can get away with. Neither the courts nor the people would tolerate it. There is a very specific process that must be followed for a binding law to be created: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISinfo/Faq.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1#ID0E6 I'll let you know when I get a copy of the original Income Tax Act with Royal Assent. I've been able to acquire the same for legislation in other countries, states and provinces.

Dan Wilson

Pete Daoust I said that because you seem to be implying the same thing the freeman Robert Menard says, "you're not a person you have a person", as seen in the video link at 0:33.. and I already answered your question.. Everyone who is not stateless has a person.. so yes, I have a US person, but what does that have to do with the topic of the Income Tax Act being enacted properly?

Scott Duncan

EVERYTHING that Menard says about LEGAL MATTERS is true. He LIES THROUGH OMISSION.

People PAY to hear his lies of ommission, and the people who listen to him become 2 year-olds saying "2+2=4" and pretending they understand how to add. The ANSWER IS RIGHT but there is NO UNDERSTANDING.

Pete Daoust

Yes, and if Robert Menard says that the sky is blue, you might see me saying the same thing as well.....

Next time you TAG me with anything else than Pete, and/or Administrator, I will ban you from this group, Dan Wilson

Dan Wilson

parl.gc.ca told me to ask bac-lac.gc.ca. "Your reference number is: QMS-68XX Please be assured that your question will be processed as soon as our capacity permits. Please note that there can be a delay of up to 6 weeks for a response. We would be pleased to provide an update if your request is overdue or your request is urgent. Please contact us by email at: refer@bac-lac.gc.ca We thank you for your interest in Library and Archives Canada."

Dan Wilson

Yeah you have to ask Parliament or, as they referred me to, Library and Archives Canada, i.e. the ones who wrote and store the law... They can't certify the "current version" because it is a compilation of the original enactment (1948?) plus any amendments since then. Each of those individually is certifiable, but the "current version" is not, because it was never enacted as a whole. You don't need registered mail - email, fax or regular mail works fine - it's their job to store and share (or sell) the laws.

Dan Wilson

Citizens are creations of government and are already contracted into the government's laws as they are enacted... the government doesn't need to provide any more proof to bind them. They don't talk to so-called "administrators", except for a lucky chosen few they have deemed worthy and GIVEN the power to... it cannot be taken. That's the ego-killing secret. ;)

Gerry Odonothing

Dan You still haven't provided me with a solution on John Dreco's thread and here you turn up on this thread talking at me again, telling me stuff that even I know. Dan dan the funny old man washed his face in a frying pan, what are you up to?

Gerry Odonothing

No No Dan, I'm only a novice on here and I've been waiting for two whole hours now and a large chunk of another hour for your solutions and all you are giving me is replies. If i asked the captain a question i would get a straight in the face answer but all you are doing is telling me stuff i already know; I'm disappointed.

Gerry Odonothing

You seem to be just a penny away from change dan; you recognise the royalty but then you collapse because you can't answer the fundamental questions but prefer to quote clubhouse rules, are you a cop dan?

Michael Atkins

"THE INCOME TAX ACT - A creepy Journey. The public record shows the ACT was tabled as 1985 Bill C-1 (according to the act), yet there WAS no C-1. Try find it! Try find the senate debates on the subject!

NOTHING. THIS IS NOT LAW"

Gerry Odonothing

Dan dan the funny old man washed his face in a frying pan, what are you? a person, a priest, an alien, a coal miner, a fitter, an electrician, a builder, a lawyer, a barsterward, a gonad, a woman, a man, a judge, a cover, a whatever you want to tell TTFl; I don't think anyone will hold it against you.

Scott Duncan

THAT money is NOT YOURS. I'm showing EVERYONE how to MAKE THEIR OWN. You don't seem to want to do that. You seem to want to propagate lies, and you brought BELIEF into it.

DON'T BELIEVE. VERIFY.

ACTUALLY verify, not the pretend "verify" your "belief" allows.

You'd best read a bit more here, because unlike the Free-Dumbers, I actually provide the places to look, and EVERYONE here from the first wave has already done the legwork. LOTS of people want to "prove me wrong" and they fail every time.

It gets tiresome after a while so now we just ban your ilk.

Scott Duncan

And it's ALWAYS the same fucking story...

...YES, I TELL THE ACTUAL TRUTH.

...YES, I DO NOT, NOR WILL I EVER CHARGE MONEY.

...YES, THERE IS NO CATCH. ALL FREE.

...YES, IT SERVES MY LARGER AGENDA TO HAVE PEOPLE AWAKE/AWARE and SELF SUFFICIENT.

...YES, I AN COLLAPSING THE BANKING SYSTEM AND STARTING A WAR. ...YES, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS CRAZY, BUT IT'ST STILL TRUE, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN STOP IT NOW.

...Yes, dipshits like you were saying "he's crazy" when I said I'd teach you ACTUAL LAW, BUILD DEBT FREE CURRENCY THAT NOBODY COULD SEIZE FROM YOU, AND HOW TO CREATE YOUR OWN BANK... and YET. Here we are.. :D

ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. ALL OF IT. If you BELIEVE me, you are EVIL, because you are stupid for relying on BELIEF. Stupid=Servant of evil, as only the evil would exploit the ignorant.THE WORD LIE IS RIGHT IN THE FUCKING WORD!

So, to be clear; We've covered all the bullshit "points" you made here LONG ago. The readers here have a LOT to learn, and only a short time to do it. So heed my advice; Shut up and read. When you have a question that I haven't answered already, ask away, but you don't get to speak here on this subject again.

Shut up, or be banned. It's that simple.

Dan Wilson

This looks promising.... "Crown counsel has produced evidence of taxation statutes, including the Income Tax Act of 11-12 George VI, assented to 30 June 1948" http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc802/2005fc802.html

Scott Duncan

NOTHING "LEGAL" APPLIES BEFORE 1982! ANYTHING CARRIED OVER HAD TO BE REINSTATED BY STATUTE. THAT'S WHY "RIGHTS" HAD TO BE REPEATED FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

IF IT'S NOT UNDER THE CHARTER, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY. PERIOD.

Michael Atkins

Legal Rights Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Scott Duncan

Do you even read the articles you cite?

LOOK at the NON STATEMENT that is the "conclusion":

"Here the key proposition is, as set out by Mr. Justice Audette, above, that "It is a matter of elementary law that when a statute appears on its face to have been duly passed by a competent legislature, the Courts must assume that all things have rightly done in respect of its passage through the legislature, and cannot entertain any argument that there is a defect of Parliamentary procedure lying behind the Act as a matter of fact.". Given all of this, the Income Tax Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Canada, referred to above, cannot be impeached by the Courts. Thus the case of the Plaintiff, as to the existence of a valid and enforceable Income Tax Act, is one which plainly, obviously and beyond doubt cannot succeed."

It APPEARS that it's SOMETHING FROM THE QUEEN'S PRINTER and then it's nothing but BELIEF and PRESUMPTION.

Seriously dude, can you even read? Are you THAT easily bullshited?

Dan Wilson

What you posted just goes to show that I shouldn't actually have cared what the court said, so what benefit would there be to me reading the rest? I was on the right track thinking to look it up and verify it myself.

Scott Duncan

Did you even read the "about" section of this group, or are you just doing these asinine posts what your sergeant tells you to?

When you see HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DIPSHITS LIKE YOU SAY/DO THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THINGS, AND YOU BEG MY FORGIVENESS FOR BEING SUCH A STUPID FUCKWIT, ONLY THEN WILL I ACCEPT THAT YOU HAVE READ ANYTHING HERE.

Scott Duncan

BTW, the reason people suspect you of being a cop is because ONLY the cops and shills do what you did today. You will always get the RIGHT ANSWER here. There are a lot of them, and collectively you are all dumber than I anticipated, so it's taking longer than I'd planned for.

I don't have the time to clean up the shit-stains you leave here. When This article was written, it was IN RESPONSE TO A THREAD THAT COVERED THE SUBJECT TO DEATH.

You just want to be lazy and demand everything be handed to you. I DON'T CARE what you "BELIEVE" or even if you "BELIEVE" me!

...NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE.

Scott Duncan

The CHARTER eliminated ACTUAL Judges, but to comply with the Dominion's RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACT, they APPOINT THE OLDEST TO BE "SUPERNUMERARY JUDGES". :D

For a quick path to supporting PROOF, simply google "Prothonotary". Follow anything "Canadian".

Yes. You have to look for yourself.

You will see examples like that EVERYWHERE IN THE TENDER FOR LAW.

So now that I have given one of my "gold nuggets" to the collective readership for having to endure your shit-stains that you think are posts, I shall now deal with the problem that is YOU Dan Wilson: Answer or be banned:

WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THIS GROUP? I know I didn't invite your dumb ass here, so spill it! Where are dipshits like you getting the idea that this group might be for you?

Dan Wilson

All aside, right or wrong, if you can't get the courts to recognize that the ITA is invalid, it's useless and a waste of time to even entertain the idea... There is no benefit whatsoever to such an "understanding." ?

Beverly Berta Braakschmack

Holy shit Scott, I can't believe someone here, even after the group required reading would go on about such crap.

Fuck sakes people, read first. There is HUGE value here. Even this thread completely spells it out.