This reveals that I am the biggest threat.
Sino comes in a VERY close second (One could argue that I'M in second place when contract law is applied) but they try to lump us in with the "failures".
They do NOT want people looking at my work, or Sino's work, but they can't draw ATTENTION to it. (Google "Streisand Effect") They can only lump us in with the freedumbers.
...except I'm right. Sino is right. Reality doesn't care.
For starters....lets take the "I am a MAN, I have a PERSON" theory...
There are multiple points in this article which show that the Kourts are not accepting this.
Ask them to DEFINE "person".
Ask where the PERSON comes from!
And ABOVE ALL: BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ATTACH SURETY DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT TO ME?
some back up where the courts have acknowledged the existence of a person being separate from the petitioner ....am I comprehending this correctly?
"...It cannot be bought, sold or alienated. It creates a record, not a property interest. No proprietary right having been created, such an entry neither expands nor diminishes the bundle of rights and responsibilities which inhere in the PERSON OF THE PETITIONER"
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc648/2008bcsc648.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmQ2VzdHVpIHF1ZSB0cnVzdCByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gb2YgYmlydGgAAAAAAQ
"Note: Though Martin appears to have abandoned OPCA strategies, a third party from Alberta has entered the fray and unilaterally offered to discharge Martin�s obligations via his OPCA �birth bond� secret bank account:"
ummm....what?
Massachussetts (which is what I used to call boogers that are sneezed out. It's from the Meaning of LIFF by Douglas Adams. It's a dictionary that defines undefined things using city/state names) is the PROVING GROUND. This is where they try their shit to see what they can get away with.
Ireland is Britain's proving grounds.
The only identification you need is SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR.
JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN has SEVERAL administrators. That PERSON is trust property. TRUSTEES have AUTHORITY to ADMINISTER.
A court cannot ignore MISTAKE or FRAUD. If they do, they are committing FRAUD BY DEFAULT. You then have to power to demand, the court PROVE they are NOT acting under fraud.
"You then have to power to demand, the court PROVE they are NOT acting under fraud." I think this would have to be very planned and thought out. I don't see them allowing ANYONE to come into their house & beat them.
I KNEW it! I always said to myself "Names are for LEGAL PERSONS! How can a Man "have" a name? I know in COMMERCE, NAMES are ACCOUNTS. If I MUST say/have a "name," then that is slavery. I am ME, a Man. The Man has NOTHING to do with this LEGAL/COMMERCE stuff. I can only administrate for the person. And all this, it is not my fault."
Is ultimately Scott the 'security of the person' as Mary Croft alluded to, the PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY for the Government to be able to say- "Oh no- we havent had you performing in slavery/servitude this whole time, we've been holding these SECURED FUNDS for you 'in trust' all along- we even GAVE you a Birth Certificate, you've just decided this whole time not to do anything with it...besides- YOU'RE the one who decided to go out, get a SIN-number and go get a JOB/WORK instead"
?
Its funny if you read through some of these you can see exactly why there was a problem.
For instance, "R. v. Tyskerud, 2013" regarding evasion of taxes. He tried to use �Statutory Declaration Truth of Identification�, to avoid SURETY.
Think about it... a STATUTORY DECLARATION?? ok then...
These are actually kind of funny but a good read to see how "free-dumbing it" goes wrong...
Seriously Chris Evan, you should definitely get a white T-shirt with:
I AM NOT SURETY printed in RED, on the front, and the back of the t-shirt.....you should get 7 of those suckers, and WEAR them :)
It was for "entertainment purposes". It would be interesting if you cloud make the T-shirt enforceable in court. I am sure you could word the disclaimer however you choose.
So in all the cases where folks are asking questions about CRA tax agents requiring an oath of office or similar questions..... Are they being ignored due to joinder having been established? Or are they just steam rolling through because as Chris says they are not following due process ? Slaves?
***POST DELETED***
Zerox Mi, I have FORGOTTEN more about OPEN SOURCE than you will EVER know.
Keep your ideas to yourself. This is not a forum for ideas. This is a forum for SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ.
The fact that you think you have ANY ideas I haven't means you did not bother to participate in the aforementioned SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ, policy.
This forum exists for one thing: MY AGENDA.
It is not your own little recruitment centre for your ad-hoc ideas. I actually have the answer. I don't want yours. You aren't qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
You WILL be qualified, if you SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ!