Any Canadians with CRA trouble would do well to read the book titled "The truth about Canadian income tax" Beverly posted here a little while back, you might just learn something for a change... probably not... you're too stuck in your "beliefs"... you're too "busy"... you'll make some lame excuse. STOP MAKING SHIT UP and GO READ THE FUCKING BOOK, I BELIEVE it's good... heheh

Also check out our book on our website HumanRightsDefenders.ca, join our Lawsuit to put an end to taxes, etc., there is enough wealth for us all to live like KINGS, through our Resources, that our Government are giving to the corporations WHO CONTROLS THEM, HELP US TO STOP THIS, and yes read Steve's book also!!

...and when that is ignored and you come back to this thread, you might want to look at the MANY other posts I have, in this forum, and in other threads, about "appealing to your rapist", which your ilk will know as "beating them at their own game" and/or "changing the system from the inside". ;) But good luck with that! :D

I agree with Scott, with all due respect, I suspect your lawsuit will drag on and on for years to come only to be quashed by the "system/rapists" once they've taken all your "money". I'd much rather see every Canadian tell CRA to go fuck themselves and STOP GIVING them their hard earned "dollars". That's what the respective BOOK is about - is it NOT? Ask the questions they CANNOT answer: "Sure, Mr CRA agent, I'll pay your so-called tax IF - 1. That you provide me with a copy of the statute - the official Act, not a private publishers� version, since such a book could not be used in a court of law (being copyrighted and such) AND... 2. That you provide me with The signed BILL which initially enabled the income tax act to OFFICIALLY BECOME LAW... until you can show me a REAL Law - GO FUCK YOURSELF Mr CRA agent! Feel free to use your own words... (you won't...) heheh!

Steve McCall

Hey, relax folks, it's not "me" that needs to file that income tax shit, it's the person I have......

Do I have the obligation to do it for FREE, that's THE question to ask those who needs this thing to get done.....I wonder what will be their answer ? :-\

And the fun part, is by asking this question, you ESTABLISH your new ROLE in all this as "The Sole Authorized Administrator" , so that part is settled.... :-P

I wrote to the Australian branch of the mafia group, asking them what 'income' is because I cannot find a definition anywhere in their Acts... After all, there is no way I can sign a declaration on behalf of the person, indicating what income was earned, if that term is not defined... No answers, 5 months and counting... They also referred in previous correspondence to 'Your' (My) Tax File Number (Same as SIN)...I asked them if it was a mistake to refer to it as mine, because if it was truly mine, then shouldn't I be allowed to sell it or give it away? (Thanks Admiral for this bit of insight) So perhaps they had made a mistake in referring to it as mine...no response to that query either... Funny that ;-)

^^ nice one

As a Private Man, I barter for my labour. I will cut your grass and what you give me in return by Private Mutual Agreement is NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS !

A Private Man ???.....what the fuck is that ? :D

^^^ If the words were chosen badly then that was a mistake. How about I am a Man in Private Jurisdiction, will that suit you better?

I actually think you know what I meant Pete :-)

Nope.

I am a MAN.....period

My business is Private, fuck of Tax Guy !

And I "HAVE" a PERSON which has been named PIERRE DAOUST :D

In my POCKET ! :-)

Seriously, don't EVER say you are a PRIVATE Man, that dosen't make sense at all, and it's very laughable :D

I am a very Private Man, I keep myself to myself as I value my Privacy.

"My business is Private" is another very LAUGHABLE saying :P

Why is "My business is Private" is another very LAUGHABLE saying" If I contract with another man it's nothing to do with anyone else so by default is that not Private?

You can ONLY "exchange" as a man, with another man.....contract are for PERSONS, not man.....

Where the fuck were you these past 15 months ? :D

A man has only one right , THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRACT or conversely THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT . A Man can Contract with another Man but in order to deal with a Legal Fiction he must do so via another Fiction is that not the case? But surely a man can Contract with another man in a Private capacity. The Common Law says "Do No Harm and do not employ Mischief in Your Contracts" (paraphrase) Unless I've done too much Crack today.

I am with Maximus Legis on this one! The terms are defined in PRIVATE....meaning, its none of your business!

I avoid commenting on anything to do with Administration as you are the Ace Administrator Pete Daoust But I'm pretty confident when it comes to Contract Law as it's even simpler than Administration stuff. Law=Contract , Contract = Law says Scott Duncan :-)

Legal terms are for the legal world. MY terms are for MY world. Where the fuck have YOU been for the last 15 months? :-P

A man has only one right , THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRACT or conversely THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT Yes, and if he choose to CONTRACT, he has to use his PERSON, unless there is NO this NOTE is legal tender implied. And if there is NO this note is legal tender implied, it becomes an EXCHANGE, not a fucking contract. HEEELLLOOOSSSSS !!!!!!

I will exchange with you, so much dogecoin for so much bitcoin... :P I will exchange with you, so much potatoes for so much bananas :P

Are Potatoes and Bananas not the consideration exchanged as per the Contract?

Not true! A contract of a delivery of Potatoes upon receipt of a delivery of Penis Pumps IS a contract!!!

I'm always happy to be slapped down in order to learn, but are you saying Pete Daoust it is impossible for Two men to Contract?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

'Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law principally includes the terms of the agreement between the parties who are exchanging promises. This private law may override many of the rules otherwise established by state law. '

Hey....does anyone see anything weird with that quote?

Common Law = Judge Made? What the fuck?

^^ I stay away from stuff that I see as complicated due to my Mad Cow Disease, but I get Contracts. But i regard the quote as utter shite. :-)

In this fucking legal world, THERE IS NO MEN.... :P

^^^^^^^ Agreed but in reality there be Men, are you saying these men in the real world cannot contract with each other Pete Daoust ?

They CAN'T.....they can only EXCHANGE with each other

Pete....you have electric parts, I have tomatoes. I agree to EXCHANGE with you 20 lbs of tomatoes for a light fixture. The AGREEMENT is called a CONTRACT is it not?

No, it's called a FUCKING EXCHANGE.....what the fuck is wrong with you guys ? :(

IN WHOSE DEFINITION and WHY do I have to call it that?

So what is stopping me putting the word CONTRACT at the head of a document setting out terms between a Man commonly called Maximus and a Man called Chris and we both sign it? Would that not be a Contract Between Men?

I call my CONTRACTS in the corporation I happen to run AGREEMENTS. The fucking clients sign it in AGREEMENT with the wording and Terms and Conditions.

You two caught the freedumber virus during the night or what ?? :(

Dude...you wrote a dictionary and you use their definitions? I don't get it

I see that, that you don't get it :(

I just don't get how you can say two men can't Contract Pete :-(

I better get back to my Crack pipe and reflect on this one .

So back to electric parts for tomatoes. If it is IN WRITING as a CONTRACT with 2 signatures, that means both parties agree with the TERM. If it is under seal, one would presume that the Trustee (Corporation) has a dictionary so it doesn't need to be interpreted!

YOU NEED TO USE A PERSON TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT......how can it be a CONTRACT, if there is NO PARTIES.....what the fuck is wrong guys ???

Are the tomatoes MINE?

MEN CAN ONLY "EXCHANGE" STUFF.....that is the WHOLE FUCKING IDEA of crypto-currencies :(

Listen to Pete Daoust! He is giving gold!

HOW IN THE FUCK WILL YOU ENFORCE A CONTRACT, with MIKA the SOVERIEIGN......what will you do to him if he dosen't do his part of the contract ?

That! ^^^

Other than killing the MAN, there is nothing else to do ? :/

HE HAS NO PERSON for fuck sakes !!! :(

How in the fuck will you enforce an EXCHANGE with MIka????

Two men can contract or two fictions can contract that's why a man must use his fiction if he wants to voluntarily interact with a fiction no?

Party A person by or against whom a legal action is brought. The people who make promises to each other in a contract. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/glossary/?search=p*

When you have a contract it's implied that, if a problem arises, a third party will intervene to solve the controversy. You would need a person if using the state courts to look for "remedy". Men exchange stuff. There is no "judges" and/or third parties involved. It's man to man. The need for a contract it's UN-natural in nature.

I have to think on this......I see all points, but a PRIVATE exchange should be in a private jurisdiction.

Contract=Law law= Contract , Legal Does Not = Law .

Jurisdiction? Men can't have "jurisdiction". MEN does not EXIST in the commerce world, Chris. It's a trap. COMMERCE it's THEIR GAME, their creation. There is no "private commerce".

Oh yeah....what if you are a cop in Aquillae? Are you a man then?

I think Scott Duncan was up front about jurisdiction of men

I'll repeat the question . Are you Pete Daoust and Mackximus Minimus saying two men cannot enter into a contract ?

To me "jurisdiction" it's like "commercial zone". That's what it sounds in my head. Who has "authority" over a certain "commercial zone", and that will determine which rules will be applied to solve an accounting problem.

It's my comprehension that there are two jurisdictions 1) Private and 2) Legal or if you prefer Lawful and Legal.

Yes.

What about Trust? Can two men can have trust? Everything else would be legal land.

These two Men, will have to use their PERSON, to enter into a VALID contract.

^^^^^ Just wanted your final answer Captain Pete, cheers for that :-)

2000 Men can have TRUST in each other !!....what this have to do with this, Cara Small ? :/

I am just clarifying what men CAN do.

Very Little it seems Cara Small :-)

It seems men have a choice. Trust or legal land.

Or ANYTHING !! :D

I have no idea what you're talking about Cara Small :/

Pete Daoust: How in the fuck will you enforce an EXCHANGE with MIka????

I will NEVER have to enforce an exchange with anyone.....if he shows up with the suff, and I show up with the stuff, an exchange will occur.....

Seriously Chris Evan, have you spent the night with guitar players ?? :D

What if I need seeds NOW, and I PROMISE tomatoes later?

I don't TRUST you, so the fuck with your tomatoes later :P

Come back when the tomatoes will be ready to EXCHANGE

:-P

But even if I say yes, that is still an exchange based on TRUST :P

So, let me get this straight....YOU don't extend credit, but your PERSON does

:(

You don't TRUST ME, but YOUR PERSON does?? I don't get it....

If I use the person, we have a CONTRACT, I don't fucking need to TRUST you....

I'm just grateful no-one has threatened to shoot me on this one. Yet !

I will NEVER threat someone to shoot him/her, NEVER I will do that...

Does the contract HAVE TO use a PERSON? I think not, but there does need to be at least a third party empowered to be judge and enforcer. The problem becomes how can you choose anyone other than the government to enforce it.

Here we go again !! :(

Ok....I have signed plenty of contracts that say "disputes will be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction". In the case of a cop entering Aquillae, the courts decide carp food.

it can be any third party Phillip Prater Theprisonersix as long as both parties agree. But generally one party would sue the other for breach of contract via the Queens Bench where you would get impartial judgement as the state is not the claimant.

I agree Chris. Now, getting a third party to agree under current situations to enforce by death will be hard to do( Aquillae aside). That was my point. Unless you (the judge) can deflect the government, who will most certainly come to imply only THEY can have that responsibility, you(the judge) will be the surety. That will be the problem.