You give up rights because in the municipal act the inhabitants are incorporated into the municipality, you are "entitled" to hold property for a public purpose

You give up rights because you AGREED through the Act of SALES, that you've signed, that this house is part of THEIR inventory....

..and who do Acts-and-statutes apply to again?

motorcycle, ya "public stores" via registry. I would like to get BMW in a bind for that as they did not disclose the intent of registration before the offer

employees, trustees

Derek Moran public servant, those with oath

The PERSON Derek Moran

Peter Hogg in his The Constitutional Law of Canada-textbook: "...Government actors...Government actions...performing public-functions-of-Government..." ..and like Pierre pointed-out the other day, slavery and/or involuntary servitude is outlawed in ALL its forms...and, its been awhile since i accepted a BENEFIT from the Government-Actors ;)

slavery and/or involuntary servitude is outlawed in ALL its forms...that apply to HUMANS.....not PERSONS :)

That is WHY the SURETY of the PERSON is NOT "ME", because if it was, I would definitly be a SLAVE

that applies to bondage/handcuffs, paper work for remedy and arbitrary interference

bearing true allegiance or the presumption thereof is servitude. I have no oath to be a slave

That is WHY they will NEVER say outloud: YOU ARE SURETY MISTER.....if they do that, they admit slavery...

SURETY, is that not the public side of our security, it indemnifies trustees by way of underwriting, paid for from the consolidated revenue fund? public money. They are SURETY VIA OATH.

As opposed to...those who're supposed to be in DE JURE possession of the sovereign power?? Obedience to de facto law 15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#docCont

Scott Duncan, does THIS Bill of Rights carry/have any weight/force/effect here in Canada? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction Grants of Forfeitures. That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

No.

The 1960 Bill of rights is the ONLY LAWFUL bill regarding rights in Canada.

Crap. I liked the 'GRANTS AND FORFEITURES" part they had in there :(

..i guess ill just have to put it in my OWN CLAIM OF RIGHT/'Contract' then ;)

Claim of right has been repealed from the criminal code

Ummm.....you DO know, who the Criminal Code actually applies to?

Code-Code-Code. I don't speak in code. Come over to my jurisdiction and we'll talk People talk. Like maybe some shit like "Law" or some such thing.

servants of her majesty, persons, classes of persons

I dunno about YOU, but I'M one of the Queen's SUBJECTS... You know... those folks that got "freed" only to be labeled and packed into commerce? If you declare yourself Elizabeth Windsor's SUBJECT, you are both LEGALLY and LAWFULLY... A FREE MAN. I know, right? The law cracks me up. :D

..what if you tell her you want to be her ALLY?

Then you are committing fraud.

Is ChiefRock Sino General a SUBJECT of The Queen?

No. He has nothing to do with the queen.

when one such make such declaration do they archieve diplomatic immunity?

Yes.

The QUEEN is liable for any debt created by the subject.

sweet

So, until we declare ourselves to be a SUBJECT of Elizabeth Windsor, what then, are we considered to be a SUBJECT of the British CROWN Holding Corporation based out of the inner-City of London England?

Elizabeth Windsor has/had SUBJECTS (her property). The BRITISH CROWN is simply a title she HOLDS. That has NOTHING to do with HER PERSONAL PROPERTY. Different Jurisdiction.

SUBJECTS = HER PERSONAL PROPERTY - hmm...well thats disturbing :/

There's ONLY ONE LEGAL SOVEREIGN IN THE COMMONWEALTH. Being Corporate Property; THAT'S disturbing.

Scott Duncan TO THOSE WHO THINK PROTESTING IS VALID, and cite Egypt as an example: I hate to say "I TOLD YOU SO", but... ...wait, who am I kidding? I LOVE saying "I told you so". That's one of the benefits of not being "spiritual"... I'm not delusional, so I'm right more often. Point being; PROTESTS DON'T WORK. PROTESTS GRANT AUTHORITY. STOP PROTESTING. IT DOES NOT WORK, AND HAS NEVER WORKED. Q.E.D. ---> EGYPT.

Scott Duncan It's the United States that's a pain-in-the-ass! 400 million SOVEREIGNS = HUGE legal issues.

Scott Duncan Laws aren't ENFORCED. They're UPHELD. Scott Duncan A "Law" that needs "enforcing" means you signed away your rights somewhere.

Scott Duncan DUDE! I'm descended from a bunch of inbred assimilated hillbillies who think they have divine right to exploit their fellow man! You don't KNOW "Kooks"

Scott Duncan The 1960 Bill of rights is the ONLY LAWFUL bill regarding rights in Canada. Scott Duncan I dunno about YOU, but I'M one of the Queen's SUBJECTS... You know... those folks that got "freed" only to be labeled and packed into commerce? If you declare yourself Elizabeth Windsor's SUBJECT, you are both LEGALLY and LAWFULLY... A FREE MAN. I know, right? The law cracks me up. Scott Duncan There's ONLY ONE LEGAL SOVEREIGN IN THE COMMONWEALTH. Being Corporate Property; THAT'S disturbing.

on the subject of 'commonwealth' that word is used a lot alone in the massachusetts general laws. i would love to see a breakdown of the meanings and differences between 'commonwealth OF massachusetts' and 'massachusetts commonwealth' and or other such uses and why writings would be that way, especially within the general laws M.G.L.

Scott Duncan Don't be silly. The system is based on fraud and exploitation. It can't be fixed from the inside. What does "fixed" mean anyway? MORE fraudulent and exploitive? No, if I were to run for public office, it would be for trolling purposes, and nothing else. I'm FAR more qualified.