Contract Law?

[targa2]

Keep me posted as to your outcome.

What is the court appearance for?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

What is Freedom? Define it?

I rarely if ever invoke the Zionistic mutterings of the imbecile Jew puppet George W Bush - but here it goes -  the definition:  "Freedom isn't free"  - just joking.

If you are talking about Freedom of the arbitrary conception of "State" by men on earth then there are the multiple definitions:

Freedom:  the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d: ease , facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home> 2 a: a political right

If you believe in a Theocracy - there is no freedom. That's why the Founding Fathers of the USA didn't appoint a national religion. Eventually, all of human created governments and nations get destroyed in one way or another over time. With the bankruptcy of the USA, it should not be necessary for the government to expect people to support the Jew criminality behind the Federal Reserve system - we should live uncoerced by its demands on our time and creativity.

And of course:

The United States of America has come a long distance from the original intent, yet freedom of speech prevails, in newsletters like this and across the Internet. In my view, there is nothing as important as the Free Market of Ideas.

"Where freedom is," said Benjamin Franklin, "there is my country."
"Where freedom is not," replied his friend Paine, "there is mine."

[targa2]

If I had wanted a dictionary definition for freedom I would not have been so foolish as to ask you to get it for me.It is only a mouse click away after all.
I was actually more interested in your definition. You have followed through with this thread this far, so I care about what YOU think.

I don't necessarily believe in a theocracy per se. I understand it. Theocracy to me is voluntarily belonging to a group who follows a system of laws which they perceive as divinely inspired.

By that definition we are all involved in a theocracy of sorts. The difference between the systems is only the replacement of one god for another. The current system places money/power as god. The more money/power we have , the more we are revered. We get the car, the house, the girl, the admiration.  We are given awards and trophies and stories are written about us. Is this all there is ?  Is this freedom ?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

I find that freedom is attained through discipline.  WTF !!    Discipline = freedom ?     Are you freeking nuts!!!    Let me explain. I have found that the things which cause me pain in life are the habits I have fallen into.  Most of these habits were formed by following patterns of behavior which were either readily destructive ( evidenced by the following day hangover ) or evident over time ( getting fat from bad eating habits).  Apparently there are some reciprocity rules at work here. Hmmmm  fancy that.  Could these rules be so cast in stone as to be considered laws ?  Wow...invisible laws....just like gravity.

If we expand this out into the interactions of a society,  we get dynamics which are observable through patterns which keep on repeating, as if they are following some sort of laws. Action = reaction.  In regards to society, these patterns follow much longer reciprocal time lines than many of the person action/reaction scenarios. Look at the Kondriatev wave cycle. 224 year cycle of civilization and decay through the economics of exploitation.
The religion of money at work no doubt.

The point I am making in all this is simple. Religion is simply a way of living. We either choose it consciously or it is chosen for us by default.You don't escape it, you only choose it. To think one can escape consequence is delusional.( laws are at work here again) Therefore freedom resides in conscious choice and the discipline to follow through.
Mans laws say " do this or WE will punish you ". Jesus Christ never spoke that way.  He said " if you do this , this will happen ". It's a subtle but important difference.

Regardless of how we perceive God ( Old wise man with white beard, energy force ) I believe God is TRUTH/LAW. If we observe a foundational truth, god has placed it there as a signpost.  Multiple signposts = a roadmap/guideline/plan.   If we find enough of these signposts we have found god/law/truth.  If I find these truths by stumbling through life and learning though personal experience, I still call it God, for lack of a better definition. After we discover our own personal truths, if we find others who have discovered the same, do we still deny that truth is universal ?   If we decide that we want to be around others who agree with these observations and not around those who do not are we somehow wrong to do so? Didn't I just describe a Theocracy?  If force is involved as a condition for being part of the group, it becomes as man made law and ceases to be theocratic.  If we find a book of writings that are perfectly in harmony with that which we have discovered by trial and error, do we write it off as coincidence? Or do we embrace it?   Notice that I ask a lot of questions.  

Some misguided Christians say the " Christ was the first communist ".  Maybe the outcome of his message was the same but the means of attaining it were radically different.  After all, the concept of collective ownership is as old as time.  If we arrive at anything as a collective ,it must be done so through a process that is consensual, otherwise we skip building the foundation/truth/law to fall back on as a collective ,when we go astray.

If there is an architect of this universe, he did not build it without a plan.  If we are here only by accident, then god is not in charge.  The man with the most power is in charge.  Sounds familiar.

The title of this thread is "Contract law".  Wanna bet there is a contract at work in the world ?

[Anonymous]

The title of this thread is "Contract law". Wanna bet there is a contract at work in the world ?

You got it!

All law in Canada is commercial contract law.
The constitution is a commercial corporate charter (contract) between the provinces and Ottawa.
All law in Canada boils down to this:
No one has or can dispute this fact of truth.

TEN MAXIMS OF COMMERCE
 1. A workman is worthy of his hire
(Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II
Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: "It is against equity for freemen
not to have the free disposal of their own property.").
2. All are equal under the Law
(God's Law--Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25;
Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke
10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the
law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be
common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the
private gain of a few.").
3. In Commerce truth is sovereign
(Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.
13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind."
4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit
(Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt.
5:33; James 5:12).
5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in
Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He
who does not deny, admits.").
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment
in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court,
tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or
"duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points
remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the
matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).
7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved
(Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He
who fails to assert his rights has none.").
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by
default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who
does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.").
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
(One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear
an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial
liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is
groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or
charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim
authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who
bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.").
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through
rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by
jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal
maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the
defendant is absolved.").
All law in Canada can be reduced to the above listed ten maxims of commerce.

[Anonymous]

targa2,

What is the court appearance for?

I claim that the crown has no jurisdiction over me concerning my movement on the roads without license or permit.

Or anything else that does not contravene the law.

The crown has failed miserably in rebutting my claim of right this time around.

The crown has in fact claimed total incompetence in the matter and I have indisputable, irrefutable proof backing my claim.

I got their default in my hands.

[Anonymous]

This was on 650 News, Talk Radio this morning...
I couldn't resist in sending out this email to the media and some other concerned and affected parties.

RE: Murray Wood and Bernie Farber on David Ahenakew,

It appears the media is up to its age old trick of throwing shit out to the public and then managing the spray when it hits the fan.

I mean, the news never, ever gets to the facts, they just want to know how everyone feels about the news all the time, in a controlled presentation.

Just exactly "WHO" are you people trying to fool in your self admitted management of the news???

What if, what David Ahenakew said, was true?

No one has successfully rebutted what he said, is not true.

No one has even come close.

Why is that?

Maybe what he said is true and based on fact, therefore, that is the reason the opposing party will never, ever go there.

In Commerce truth is sovereign
(Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.
13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind."

An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in
Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He
who does not deny, admits.").

Do you think that may be it?

How can anyone be charged with stating the truth?

Truth is sovereign, is it not?........even if its ugly?

The Torah is their law...isn't it?

Have you ever heard the term; "the ugly truth?"

If someone states the ugly truth, well, so be it and if anyone doesn't want to accept it then, they better dig into the facts to prove otherwise.

Yes?....No?

That's right, can't spit it out can you...because you people never, ever get to the facts of truth.

That's not your job, is it.....oh no, we couldn't have that, now could we?

Your job is not to create the news, but to present it in a controlled manner pursuant to the Corporations Act and the Controlled Radio Truth Campaign.

The fatal mistake made by David Ahenakew was apologizing for the truth.

The truth is an ugly bitch, is she not?...and very disturbing to boot, I might add.

Regards,

Jack Harper
'iamthewitness.com'


TEN MAXIMS OF COMMERCE 1. A workman is worthy of his hire
(Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II
Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: "It is against equity for freemen
not to have the free disposal of their own property.").
2. All are equal under the Law
(God's Law--Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25;
Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke
10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the
law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be
common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the
private gain of a few.").
3. In Commerce truth is sovereign
(Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.
13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind."
4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit
(Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt.
5:33; James 5:12).
5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in
Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He
who does not deny, admits.").
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment
in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court,
tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or
"duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points
remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the
matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).
7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved
(Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He
who fails to assert his rights has none.").
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by
default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who
does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.").
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
(One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear
an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial
liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is
groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or
charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim
authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who
bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.").
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through
rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by
jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal
maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the
defendant is absolved.").
All law in Canada can be reduced to the above listed ten maxims of commerce.

[Anonymous]

Targa2, wrote...
I have read lots of The Informers stuff. He is very correct but I have yet to see him bring forth a solution. If he has a solution or partial solution, please point it out to me.

The Informer has written some very good material consisting of verifiable facts.

He points out the solution in a subtle way but, only to those who are paying attention.

I think the best one he ever wrote was titled "PERSON" where he reveals how the government claims jurisdiction over its citizens as slaves.

[targa2]

You may want to consider renaming the " use of the roads " to  " moving about the common ways ". as you know, language is everything.

Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

I found that when ever one gets into a conflict with a government agent, employee and they start making unsubstantiated claims, I ask them if they are a lawyer....if they have a license to practice law....because only lawyers are licensed to make legal determinations.
Puts them on the spot.
Either show me the law or get someone who can.
And if a lawyer shows up making unsubstantiated claims then, I ask him to sign his claim and put his bar card # on it.
I've done it and all I ever see is "heels and elbows" headed for the door.

[Anonymous]

SHOW ME THE BILL!!


Date: February 24, 2009


From: Jackie Grant Veloice: Harper
c/o 1040B 20th, Street West
Saskatoon, Sask.

To: The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan
220-19th Street East
Saskatoon, Sask.
S7K 2H6

Re: Charges attached
to the name Harper, Jackie G.
including, but not limited to:

Ticket numbers: 6827797, 6880932, 6880933

To Whom it may concern:

Please regard this as my offer to pay under protest, the above referenced matter.
Please provide me with your statement of the amount owing as of this day, together with your assurance that you will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.


Thank you very much.



X__________________________________________________
by: authorized party

The end result was hilarious!!
Me and a tall sharp suited blond playing tugg-of-war over the bill.
She lost.
I had to get her to read the offer over and over and over until it sunk in and when she finally got the picture, she slammed the wicket in my face.

[targa2]

That is the key.  Get them to make and substantiate a claim in writing or buzz off.  I've used it too and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Hey...this thread is gettin' to be a long one.

[Anonymous]

There were no notaries in provincial court today...

February 25, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

I stood at the third and last counter in the provincial court building today and was told foursquare, that there were no notary publics in the court house, (of all places), available to notarize a document.

Go over to Spadina court of Queens Bench she said.

I'M THINKING: "THERE'S SOMETHING FISHY HERE."

Then a man appeared beside me at the prosecutors counter who, obviously overheard the ensuing conversation, who then stepped forward and announced he was a 'lawyer' who would perform the requested service.

That's when I noted he had just stepped up and volunteered to engage in the un-requested service of an attorney, a solicitor and member of the BAR.

My witness, who was with me asked the lawyer who was now standing off to the side, "were the roads poor coming into the city?"......I didn't catch his reply.

We then proceeded to the chairs and I produced the document I wished to get sealed and upon a brief perusal of the document asking if I wrote it, then, quickly stated he wouldn't touch this, immediately got up, took off so fast all I seen was, heels and elbows.

He never once, looked back.

I couldn't have witnessed a departure from the scene of a crime faster if I lived to be 2000 years old.

A real honest to God out of town roadrunner lawyer, out to make a quick $50 bucks acting as a "Notary Public."

An imposter!!!

And appearing under false pretences to boot!!!!

It's absolutely incredible how fast they can twist, attorn and run.

Personally, I think it's known as: "shit the bed hard" in Canadian Forces language.

You know....when the Officer (of the court) turns and runs under fire.

Normally the next in command is authorized to shoot the cowardly bastard......Isn't he??

If he doesn't then, that gives rise to the question, as to who's really in charge and is the enlisted man entitled to shoot any and all deserters....or not?

Hey! Their all professionals, full fledged members of the Law Society,...are they not?

They claim I too, are a member of their society and it says so right in their Legal Professions Act 1990.

I was under the impression only officers of the court were "members".

I have been told twice, in no uncertain terms that Notary Publics ARE NOT officers of the court.

This, coming from one notary I know who received a letter from the Minister of Justice making the claim that "notaries are not officers of the court."

Then.....that must mean what?

Are Notary Publics members of a different and distinct society, the Notary Society?

Are they too....a protected, "species".....like the solicitor's claim they are???

That's akin to the nut being at war with the shell......isn't it?

Anyway......back on point.

He volunteered and I accepted, so isn't that a contract?

Are we not both in agreement to do something?

I was seeking the services of a notary public, wasn't I?

Then what's a lawyer volunteering for?

To give me legal advice?

Who authorized that service??

Maybe he should have carefully considered before volunteering or issued me one of these first before pulling a disappearing act.

APPENDIX TO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 217
Rel. No. 12 – Jan. 2008
APPENDIX
FORMS
____________________________
No. 1 (R. 12)
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF LAWYER
TAKE NOTICE that I intend to cease to act for you in this action from this date.
TAKE NOTICE that on the expiry of 10 days from the filing in the office of the local
registrar of a copy of this notice and proof of service thereof on you and on all other parties to
this action, except parties who have not defended, no documents relating to this proceeding
may be served on me on your behalf, and I will not accept service on your behalf of any such
documents.
TAKE NOTICE that on the expiry of the 10 days, any document in the proceeding
required to be served on you may be served by mailing a copy addressed to you at your last
known address as stated below, unless and until you serve a notice appointing another
lawyer, or a notice electing to represent yourself, on me and on every other party to the
proceeding, and file such notice with proof of service in the office of the local registrar.
TAKE NOTICE that such notice must contain address information as required by the
Rules of Court, including an address for service.
DATED at________________________________________ , Saskatchewan, this _______ day
of __________________________ , 2 _____ .
_______________________________________
(Signature)
TO: _____________________________________________________
WHOSE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS IS:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
 

I mean....that would have been more appropriate,.... NOT???

I mean really......shouldn't these protected 'species' have their act together before entering into a binding agreement?

O' well.....shit happens.

From here on in it got real intense....and downright nasty!

Jack entered the battle field in full battle dress and ammo'd right to the hilt.

The opening shot was immediately fired by the prosecutor, by just the very fact of him appearing when, we were already in complete, signed and sealed agreement, that he had abandoned his cause of action for want of being a competent party to contract with.

Over 15 Canada Post registered mail services, signed for, [unrebutted, undisputed, no counterclaim], sworn affidavits, some of which were notarized, some witnessed by a commissioner of oaths and a couple signed by the plaintiff.

I am now standing there with over 15 judgements in hand confirming the prosecutor and his witnesses in this action of his are irrefutably, indisputably, undeniably 100% admitted and self confirmed as being , 'totally incompetent.'

How much better does it get than that?

Then the shit really hit the fucking fan.

This idiot "BERT" the prosecutor, then introduced forgeries as evidence to adjudicate, along with the forgery expert named "ERNIE" the cop, in court.

Unsigned, unendorsed, tickets forced upon the defendant 2.5 years prior were brought on stage as being; "outstanding charges."

I told the justice in no uncertain terms that the man over there acting as prosecutor failed to give rise to a court of competent jurisdiction.

Shit was now seen flowing from the prosecutors pant cuffs.

All this, when Jack has the culprits own admission in hand in court, from 2.5 years earlier that he was guilty as charged in the affidavit served upon him by Jacks good friend,.... the postman.

This slimy prick was now seated not six feet away from me just fucking giving me the gunn-off.

Then it went nuclear..

IT NOW APPEARED TO JACK THAT THE "HMS LAW SOCIETY OF SASKATCHEWAN" WAS HEADED STRAIGHT FOR THE ROCKS AT BREAKNECK SPEED AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOW A FORGONE CONCLUSION IN LAW THAT, SHE WOULD SOON ARRIVE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE ATLANTIC!

I ANNOUNCED TO THE JUSTICE I WAS PREPARED TO SETTLE THE CHARGES RIGHT HERE AND NOW BY MAKING FULL PAYMENT IN MONEY.
SHE POUNCED ON THE OFFER, AGREED AND INSTRUCTED THAT I SHOULD GO WITH THE CROWN PROSECUTOR TO THE FINE PAYMENT COUNTER AND DO THIS ACT.

HE WENT FIRST, AS I GATHERED WHAT I NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROCEED AND FOLLOWED HIM TO THE COUNTER.

I AM NOW STANDING BEFORE THE YOUNG LADY (WHO WAS ALSO IN COURT) WHEN I SIGN AND SLIDE THIS ACROSS TO HER, (THIS BEING THE FOURTH TIME.)


Date: February 25, 2009


From: Jackie Grant Veloice: Harper
           c/o 1040B 20th, Street West
           Saskatoon, Sask.

To: The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan
       220-19th Street East
       Saskatoon, Sask.
       S7K 2H6

Re: Charges attached
       to the name Harper, Jackie G.
       including, but not limited to:

Ticket numbers: 6827797, 6880932, 6880933

To Whom it may concern:

Please regard this as my offer to pay under protest, the above referenced matter.
Please provide me with your statement of the amount owing as of this day, together with your assurance that you will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.


Thank you very much.



X__________________________________________________
by: authorized party




SHE PUSHED IT ASIDE AND STATED YOU GAVE US ONE OF THESE YESTERDAY.

I REMARKED "THAT'S CORRECT AND TODAY IS A NEW DAY AND HERE IS ANOTHER"

SHE ASKED WHICH ONES I WANTED TO PAY.

I SAID, "ALL OF THEM."

THE COPS AND SHERRIFFS WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND THE SLIMY ONE, HE WAS BREATHING DOWN MY NECK.

THE PROSECUTOR?....HE WAS DOING THE BIRD, WHILE  HIDING BEHIND THE YOUNG LADIE STANDING BEHIND THE COUNTER!

HE WAS LITERALLY...HAVING A FIT!

HE IS STANDING BACK THERE, A NON ATTORNEY, A NON MEMBER OF ANY BAR ASSOCIATION, TELLING ME, THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM IN DIRECT EXCHANGE FOR MY MONEY!!!

HE IS SPITTING OUT ALL KINDS OF LEGAL DETERMINATIONS WHEN HE HAS NO LICENSE OR JURISDICTION TO PRACTICE LAW ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM AND I INFORM HIM AS SUCH!!!

THEY THEN STATE THEY WILL GIVE ME A COPY, EVEN A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ALONG WITH A RECEIPT.....ANYTHING!!, BUT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENT, JUST TO GET MY MONEY.

I PIPE UP AND SAY; "IF I FAIL TO RECEIVE THEM, IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM UPON PAYING THEN, I WILL LEAVE WITH NO EVIDENCE I HAVE EVER PAID YOUR BILLS."

AND THEY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST ME AT A LATER DATE....IF I DON'T RECEIVE THEM, SO,

I COUNTER: "ARE YOU REFUSING TO ACCEPT PAYMENT MADAM?", AS I SHOVED A FIST FULL OF $100 DOLLARS BILLS TOWARD HER THAT WOULD CHOKE A STARVING GOAT.

SHE REPLYED, "NO!' AS SHE REACHED FOR THE MONEY.

I SAID, "HOLD ON HERE!".....I NEED YOU TO SLIDE THOSE ORIGINAL INSTRUMENTS OF INDEBTEDNESS IN FRONT OF YOU ON DISPLAY OVER HERE BEFORE YOU ACCEPT PAYMENT AS PER: AGREEMENT IN WRITING.

AGAIN, I SAID..... "ARE YOU REFUSING TO ACCEPT PAYMENT MADAM?"

AGAIN....SHE REPLIED..."NO!"

I STATED LOUD AND CLEAR FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR: "MADAM, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST!"

I WONDER IF SHE KNOWS SHE JUST CONTRAVENED THEIR OWN LAW, A FEDERAL STATUTE, AND AN ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA, TO WIT:
The Bills of Exchange Act section 152 subsection 3
Refusal to receive payment
(3) Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment under protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by that payment.
THE GAME WAS OVER RIGHT THERE.....FINNITTO...DONE....KAPUT!
THE PROSECUTOR HEADS BACK TO COURT ALONG WITH ALL THE COPS, SHERRIFFS AND LADIES, IN TOW BEHIND HIM.
THESE ASSHOLES ARE REALLY PISSING ME OFF NOW..."WHAT!...HIDING BEHIND WOMEN??"
I HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD IT WITH THIS PRICK AND HIS GANG OF THIEVES AND SCOUNDRELS!!!
BACK INTO COURT, THE PROSECUTOR STATES TO THE JUSTICE THAT: "I HAVE REFUSED TO PAY"
I REPLIED, "THAT'S NOT TRUE."
THE J-P PIPES UP AND SHE SAYS, "I WILL ENTER A GUILTY PLEA ON YOUR BEHALF"
I SAID, "NO YOU WON'T."
THE PROSECUTOR THEN MADE HIS FINAL AND FATAL MOVE, HE SAYS, "THE DEFENDANT IS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!!"
I ALMOST SHIT MYSELF AND BURST OUT LAUGHING AS THIS FOOL, HAS NOW HIJACKED THE JUDGES POSITION!!
THE COPS MOVED IN AND ARRESTED ME RIGHT AT THE DEFENDANT'S DESK, HANDCUFFED AND HAULED ME RIGHT OUT OF THE COURT!
I WENT WILLINGLY AS THERE IS NO POINT IN RESISTING, AS THAT WOULD ONLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE.
I WENT TO JAIL AND SIGNED IN AS "AGENT FOR THE ACCUSED"
I PROCEEDED TO RATTLE A COUPLE OF AGENTS FOR THE CROWN WITH THE PRESENTATION OF BILLS FOR UNAUTHORIZED SERVICES DOWN AT POLICE HEADQUARTERS.
NEXT MORNING I AM PUT BEFORE A JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT AND TOLD I WAS CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT....AND DID I UNDERSTAND THE CHARGE?
NO MADAM, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.
SHE ASKED CROWN COUNSEL HOW HE WAS PROCEEDING AND IF HE OBJECTED TO MY RELEASE.
HE REPLIED, "BY INDICTMENT YOUR HONOR AND NO, I DON'T OBJECT TO RELEASING HIM."
THE JUDGE STATED A TIME TO REAPPEAR AND SAID, "JUST SIMPLY SIGN YOURSELF OUT."
A COUPLE OF HOURS LATER I WAS CONFRONTED BY A GOOD LOOKING BLOND IN A SUIT SAYING, "SIGN HERE"
I ASKED HER IF BY SIGNING THIS, "IF I WAS WAIVING ANY RIGHTS TO REMEDY AND PROCEDURE IN LAW"?
SHE SAID, "NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF."
I SAID, "GOOD...WE HAVE A CONTRACT"
IT MATTERS LITTLE ANYWAY, AS I HAVE ENTRENCHED AND RESERVED ALL MY RIGHTS TO REMEDY AND PROCEDURE IN LAW JUST OVER TWO YEARS EARLIER WHERE, ALL CONCERNED AND AFFECTED PARTIES ARE SEEN IN FULL AND COMPLETE AGREEMENT, ATTESTED TO AND WITNESSED UNDER OATH, AS THE TRUTH.
And where I come from: "Truth is Sovereign" BECAUSE TO LIE, IS TO GO AGAINST THE MIND.
SINCE FEBRUARY 16, 2007, THE CROWN NEEDS MY EXPRESS WRITTEN AND NOTARIZED CONSENT TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT WITH ME AND THEY AGREED IN WRITING TO THE CLAIM.
NOW...TO PROCEED AND RETRIEVE MY PROPERTY AT THE SHERRIFFS STATION.
I AM HANDED MY PLASTIC BAG OF PERSONAL BELONGINGS, ALONG WITH MY BRIEF AND TOLD TO GO THROUGH THE FIRST DOOR TO THE VESTIBULE WHERE I TOOK MY WALLET, BELT, ETC. OUT OF THE BAG AND THEN REACHED FOR MY CASE.....
WITH A STERN LOOK UPON THE SHERRIFF DEPUTY'S FACE HE STATED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS:
" DO NOT OPEN THAT CASE BEFORE YOU GO THROUGH THE NEXT DOOR."
I TURNED AND LEFT.
HE KNEW FULL WELL, THAT JACK HAD A BILL BOOK IN THERE, RIGHT FULL OF BLANK TICKETS...BILLS OF EXCHANGE FOR ISSUE......
TO ANYONE PROVIDING UNAUTHORIZED SERVICES.
LAW IS WAR....Isn't it?
Then, what are women doing on the front lines?
To be continued.....
Regards,

Jackie-Grant-Vel'oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th Street West,                                                                                                                                                                               Saskatoon city, Saskatchewan province.
Free-man-on-the-Land, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.

[targa2]

Awe yes....the Pharisses ( separated out ones )  of Canada.  I got the CRA Director so mad cause I kept saying " why are you asking me what my address is...if you don't know by now, I guess there's no chance of you catching up to me for any tax I supposedly owe....is there now ? ".  He finally snapped after about 10 minutes of me jerking his chain and called me a fucking asshole.     Very professional !

He didn't like me calling him by his first name either, so I called him by an abbreviated version   ( Bob vs Robert ) just to really aggravate him.
Everything was  " well Bob " this and " well Bob " that.

When he finally lost it and called me a fucking asshole I started to laugh uncontrollably.  I couldn't help it , it was just so funny to see this guy lose his cool like that.  So I got up and walked out.  As I was walking away he comes out and chases me a ways down the hall and says " fuck you,  asshole ".  I turned and started laughing again and said ,  " holy shit man, calm down before you have a heart attack ".  I was ecstatic .
I said to him  " here's the real fun part, the $230,000 I supposedly owe you.....I am going to see my trustee and make it go away, so.....you lose !!!  "

It was the most fun I had in years.
It's just a god damned game.

[Anonymous]

BANG ON!!

You hit it square on the head.
These people are really just a joke....a fucking "smoke and mirrors" illusion.
And thats all they are..... Oh yea' and thieves and scoundrels to boot.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

This news is worth paying attention to:
-------

IRS dumps private debt collectors, shifts pendulum
Saturday March 7, 6:53 am ET
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
IRS's dumping of private tax collectors seen as shift away from government privatization

WASHINGTON (AP) -- So much for privatizing the federal government.

The Internal Revenue Service's decision this week to quit using debt collectors to dun delinquent taxpayers was celebrated by public employee unions as a pendulum shift after watching the Bush administration often opt for private contractors over federal workers to deliver government services.

The IRS program was a small one, bringing in a little more than $80 million since its inception in 2006. But it represented an ideological toehold for conservatives who believe that private companies are more efficient than government agencies.

It was an ideology embraced by former President George W. Bush, who famously -- and unsuccessfully -- toyed with the idea of partially privatizing Social Security.

Privatization won't disappear. It's too widespread in a federal government that relies on private contractors for work as diverse as computer programming and providing security in Iraq. But with a new Democratic administration in charge, experts don't expect to hear much about privatizing government functions from President Barack Obama.

"I think we're going to see a reversal of privatization," said Harvey B. Feigenbaum, a political science professor at George Washington University. "When contracts come up for renewal, they will see if it would be better for the public sector to do the work."

IRS contracts with private debt collection agencies to go after delinquent taxpayers expired Friday. In deciding not to renew them, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said he concluded after a monthlong review that tax collection could best be done by government workers.

The agency had been turning over to private debt collectors some delinquency cases, often in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, that the IRS lacked the manpower to pursue. The program cost about $7.6 million a year to administer, and private contractors were allowed to keep about a quarter of the taxes they collected.

The program brought in more money than it cost to operate, but it had become a political headache for the IRS. The union representing IRS workers and the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent ombudsman within the agency, opposed the program, as did some Democrats in Congress. Other powerful lawmakers from both political parties supported it.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said the decision to end the program "reaffirms" that "no one can perform the work of the federal government better than federal employees."

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, disagreed. He said the IRS used flawed methods to review the program and succumbed to public employee unions and their allies.

"It seems the IRS and Treasury Department went out of their way to knock out an emerging, effective and evenhanded way to collect tax debt that the IRS will otherwise never collect," Grassley said. "It's discouraging when commonsense efforts to make things fair for honest taxpayers in a way that's decent and logical all around get beat down by vested, powerful interests in Washington."

Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University, said he expects the Obama administration to de-emphasize the use of private contractors for government work. But, he said, that probably means hiring more government workers, which comes with the political baggage of enlarging the federal government.

"If you aren't going to contract out services, how are you going to provide them?" Light asked. "I'm fairly certain there will be an increase in the number of federal government workers."

At the IRS, Schulman said he expects to hire more than 1,000 workers this year to increase collections. He encouraged workers from private collection agencies to apply.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090307/irs_debt_collectors.html

[EireWarrior]

You guys might find this guy interesting?
Check him out: Link to Mark Pytellek

Sounds stoned but he's got information, so worth a listen/watch.

[mobes]

I think those cops are going to love your fee schedule