allcreatorsgifts
Home


Message #80      Next      Previous
Where is Canada and what is a person re: Canada Statutes
  -  Canada Lands Surveys Act


CHAPTER L-6
An Act respecting the surveys of public lands of Canada
(Where Is Canada???)
SHORT TITLE
Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Lands Surveys Act.
R.S., c. L-5, s. 1.
INTERPRETATION
Definitions 2. (1) In this Act,
"Board" [Repealed, 1998, c. 14, s. 91]
"Canada Lands Surveyor" " arpenteur des terres du Canada " "Canada Lands Surveyor" means a Canada Lands Surveyor within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada Lands Surveyors Act;







PART II
SURVEYS OF CANADA LANDS
General
Definition of "Canada Lands" 24. (1) In this Part, "Canada Lands" means
(a) any lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or of which the Government of Canada has power to dispose that are situated in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut or in any National Park of Canada and any lands that are
(i) surrendered lands or a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act,
(ii) Category IA land or Category IA-N land, as defined in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, chapter 18 of the Statutes of Canada, 1984,
(iii) Sechelt lands, as defined in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986,
(iv) settlement land, as defined in the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, and lands in which an interest is transferred or recognized under section 21 of that Act, or
(v) lands in the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base, as defined in the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, other than the lands known as Doncaster Reserve No. 17; and
(b) any lands under water belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in respect of any rights in which the Government of Canada has power to dispose.
Surveys of Canada Lands (2) Surveys of Canada Lands shall be made in accordance with the instructions of the Surveyor General.
R.S., 1985, c. L-6, s. 24; R.S., 1985, c. 20 (2nd Supp.), s. 4; 1993, c. 28, s. 78; 1994, c. 35, s. 35; 1998, c. 14, ss. 98(F), 100(F); 2000, c. 32, s. 49; 2001, c. 8, s. 24; 2002, c. 7, s. 101.
When surveys undertaken 25. The Minister shall cause surveys to be made of Canada Lands on the request of a minister of any department of the Government of Canada or a Commissioner administering the Lands and may do so in any other case in which he deems it to be expedient.
R.S., 1985, c. L-6, s. 25; 1998, c. 14, s. 100(F).
Who may survey Canada Lands 26. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person other than a Canada Lands Surveyor shall survey Canada Lands.
Who may survey Canada Lands within the boundaries of a province (2) A Canada Lands Surveyor or any other surveyor authorized by the Surveyor General may survey Canada Lands that lie within the boundaries of a province but, where surveys of those Canada Lands affect or are likely to affect the rights of landowners of adjoining lands that are not Canada Lands the surveys shall be made by a surveyor of the province in which those surveys are made.



You have just read the geographical limitations of Canada's borders. No jurisdiction extends or has sanction beyond those borders without the consent of the owners of that particular land mass.
Is Canada a corporation, and are you a person?
What is a Corporation?

CORPORATION - A fictitious legal entity/person which has rights and duties independent of the rights and duties of real persons and which is legally authorized to act in its own name through duly appointed agents. It is owned by shareholders. Usually created under the authority of state law.
An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person.
A corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of many; individuals united in one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with a capacity of acting in several respects as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, contracting obligations and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and immunities in common and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent period of its existence.
In the case of Dartmouth College against Woodward, 4 Wheat. Rep. 626, Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be 'an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,' continues the judge, 'it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that
Nations or state are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests and to deliberate and resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly.
CORPORATOR. One who is a member of a corporation.
2. In general, a corporator is entitled to enjoy all the benefits and rights which belong to any other member of the corporation as such. But in some corporations, where the rights are of a pecuniary nature, each corporator is entitles to those rights in proportion to his interest; he will therefore be entitled to vote only in proportion to the amount of his stock, and be entitled to dividends in the same proportion.
3. A corporator is not in general liable personally for any act of the corporation, unless he has been made so by the charter creating the corporation. members of trading companies, and the like.
This definition is especially interesting.
CONSTITUTOR
, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

The Canadian Economic Measures Act is first on our list of definitions of Corporate Canadians and entities comprising Corporate Canadians
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S-14.5/text.html
. In this Act,
"Canadian" " Canadien " "Canadian" means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a body corporate incorporated or continued by or under the laws of Canada or of a province;
"entity" " entité " "entity" means a body corporate, trust, partnership, fund, an unincorporated association or organization or a foreign state;
That takes us to the Citizenship Act, whereas citizen means
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-29/34298.html)
"citizen" "citoyen" "citizen" means a Canadian citizen;
PART VIII
STATUS OF PERSONS IN CANADA
Citizen of the Commonwealth
32. (1) Every person who, under an enactment of a Commonwealth country other than Canada, is a citizen or national of that country has in Canada the status of a citizen of the Commonwealth.
British subject (2) For the purposes of any law in force in Canada on and after February 15, 1977 that refers to the status of British subject, the status so described shall refer to the status of Canadian citizen or citizen of the Commonwealth or both as the intent of that law may require.
1974-75-76, c. 108, s. 31.


It is essential to notice this man made law below, an offer, is the initial and specific offer by the government defacto, directed specifically to "persons." This offer and it's acceptance is what gets most men and women locked into the debtor slave camp for life, so to speak.

If you fail to pre-notice these government agencies to remove any assumption that you are a person or a part of their government, by the rules of tacit consent you are a person in law and subject to their corporate rules. The "person" in their law is a legal fiction and an entity, a natural person being a fiction by their man made definition.

You who are of the kingdom of God must tell them of government status that you are of private faith and religious nature and not the legal person created by government nor of commercial corporate profit motivated quest. You must tell them you follow God's laws as defended by the Queen!

God's 1st commandment in her majesty's Bible is to do not bow to false gods. (defacto)Exodus20:3-5
It is easy to determine if a law has been added to God's law as if no one has been harmed and there is no private complaint you have not violated God's law. It is very Important that you communicate privately of your faith and beliefs to those who may be empowered defacto to assume things about you thereby taking away your freedom until you can prove his or her assumption is wrong.

Next we have the Employment Insurance Act regarding the number of SIN that is created on your behalf as a volunteered cognized person.
The Employment Insurance Act

PART VI
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Social Insurance Number

Registration 138. (1) Every person employed in insurable employment shall be registered with the Commission.
Register (2) The Commission shall maintain a register containing the names of all insured persons registered with the Commission and such other information as it determines is required to identify accurately all persons so registered.
Social Insurance Number (3) The Commission shall assign to each person registered with it a number that is suitable for use as a file number or account number or for data processing purposes and the number so assigned to a person by the Commission under this section is the person's Social Insurance Number for any purpose for which a Social Insurance Number is required.
Social Insurance Number card (4) The Commission shall issue to each person registered with it a card containing the person's name and Social Insurance Number.

(That is the proverbial strawman you are reading there. Remember the Latin persona eg.mask ?)
(Are you a mask??)

Next this published page from Canadian Governments Heritage Canada really lets us see who their Supreme law applies to

















Minister's page | Minister of State (Sport) | Minister of State (Multiculturalism)

Location: Home - Human Rights Program
2005/01/20


Subjects

A-Z Index

Arts and Culture

Citizenship and Identity

Diversity and Multiculturalism

International

Sport

Youth


The Department

About us

What's new

Proactive Disclosure

Application Forms

Funding Programs

Legislation

Organizational View

Publications

Regional Offices

Agencies and Corporations
















[ print version ]

GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Part II : The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 32
Application of Charter
This Charter applies
1. to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
a. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
2. Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.

So now we have seen the Supreme law of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms does not apply to individuals businesses and organizations but the lessor and subordinate law of the Employment Insurance Act says it does apply to persons. Are persons individuals?
Let see what the Canadian Business Incorporations Act says about individuals entities and persons.
"Entity" "entity" means a body corporate, a partnership, a trust, a joint venture or an unincorporated association or organization;
"going-private transaction" " opération de fermeture " "going-private transaction" means a going-private transaction as defined in the regulations;
"incorporator" "fondateur" "incorporator" means a person who signs articles of incorporation;
"individual" "particulier" "individual" means a natural person;
"liability" "passif" "liability" includes a debt of a corporation arising under section 40, subsection 190(25) and paragraphs 241(3)(f) and (g);a debt of a corporation arising under section 40, subsection 190(25) and paragraphs 241(3)(f) and (g);
So we see individual is a natural person and we have seen that the law does not apply to persons. Now if you have a fake dog or a real dog you still have the semblance of a dog. No matter what prefix or suffix you attach to person it is still a person of a sort, a fiction and not accurately related to a man . So we see individual is a natural person according to government law, which only applies to them, and we have seen that the law does not apply to individuals or as we have also seen referred to as natural persons No matter what prefix or suffix you attach to person it is still a person of a sort, a mask like a legal fiction and not accurately and definitively related to a man or a woman in the flesh. In fact the only law on the Canadian books that has the word man in it is 176 of the criminal code in reference to not obstructing officiating Clergymen.
Let see what the criminal code of Canada says is included in the definition of what persons are;
"every one", "person" and "owner" " quiconque ", " individu ", " personne "" propriétaire " "every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization
(Are you an organization? Only what is included is applicable)
Now lets look at the income tax act's definition of individual.
Under s. 2 of the Income Tax Act, the liability to pay income tax is imposed on resident or non-resident "persons". Under s. 248(l) of the, Act, a "person" is defined as follows:

"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(l), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity's taxable income and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends; 005D7DDC
"individual" means a person other than a corporation and includes a trust or estate;
So now, here in the income tax act, we are back to the word person indicating a trust or estate with no real connection with a non commercial man name spelled in upper and lower case not attached to a number of any kind as created by God.
'Person'
I have used the term 'person' a number of times, and I believe it deserves some special attention. It derives from the Latin 'persona,' an actor's mask,
The RCMP use that mask in all of their writing style.
http://www.rcmp-learning.org/docs/ecdd1293.htm#playscr
Playscript
The RCMP uses the Playscript (fictional) writing style.(All Capital writing style) The term "Playscript" means identifying actors and actions, and listing actions in chronological order.
Actor Action
Who What, When, How
used in Greek and Roman times for two purposes…to identify the stage character-for one actor often played more than one role, so he would simply switch masks-and to project his voice by means of a megaphone-shaped mouth…per sona, by sound. Hence, our word 'personality,' that about ourselves which we project to others. In some, more than others, a presentation that indeed masks our true character or nature. In the Middle Ages it came to be used as synonymous with 'homo,' man or individual. This was not the case in ancient (and modern) Roman law. As one legal historian put it:
jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. (34 Austins Jur., 363. Emphasis added.)
The word 'person' (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subject of rights.
We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons….because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights….
We shall therefore have to discriminate between, and to study, two classes of person: physical or natural persons, for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence…; that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.
In another sense, very frequently employed, the word 'person' designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time. (Emphasis added.)
A fiction can only deal with a fiction.
'Individual'
The term of art 'individual' is also frequently employed in the codes. Which is even more sneaky, because most people believe this word to be, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with 'a human being'…what the law refers to as a 'natural person.' Roman law hardly referred to such a physical being, except the rare usage of singularis persona-which, however, still employs 'persona,' thereby preserving a juridical nexus, inapplicable to a sentient man (homo). An abstract, fictitious 'person' is needed. Recall Judge Bork, on page 11, above, saying that 90% of those in prison were there because they consented to the process? You consent when you agree to be subject to a statute dealing with persons-which we have seen to be fictional corporate constructs or entities. The code-any of the 48 titles-only applies to a human being at the point s/he agrees to take on the character, status, persona of an artificial juristic persona. Always remember that when the code says "…any person," it means "any person in the jurisdiction of this code." One obligates oneself to the civil code by an act of assumpsit…i.e., volunteering to be that 'person.' (Assumpsit: "A promise or engagement by which one person assumes or undertakes to do some act or pay something to another." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Recall the Chisholm case, above.) You will never see in any code, State or federal, the word 'man' or 'woman'…or 'people'-at least I don't recall having done so-only the juristic, statutory 'person.' (see section 176 CCC)
People are understandably confused about on what I believe to be the correct signification of a particular class of persons, namely, a 'natural person.' It is almost always used loosely to refer to the physical, sentient human being. Indeed, in statutory law this is the term of choice for a living man-but always in a qualified sense.
The term natural person means any individual, but shall not include a partnership (whether or not composed entirely of individuals), a trust, or an estate. (Emphasis added.)
Notice carefully how they see it as both possible and necessary to qualify 'individual.' If this term stood for a living man, it would be pointless and ridiculous to say that it could not be a trust or an estate! They wouldn't say that a man shall not include an estate.
So then, we see that 'person,' 'natural person,' and 'individual' are all fictitious legal creations. And, if you acquiesce to being any of them, in a legal setting, you thereby agree that the code addresses and applies to you.
Person means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, estate, trust, or other legal entity, and whenever applicable, a State or a political subdivision, or agency of a State. (Emphasis added.)
Here it is in the regulations, an individual is a 'legal entity,' not a (wo)man, a sentient human being.
Then there is the Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act of redemption below and it's definition of person, entity, and individual and notice to all that person and natural person are both individuals as per section 32 of the Charter telling us the laws of parliament and legislature does not apply to us,… if we are indeed individuals seen here below as meaning natural persons. I am no more a natural person than I am Artificial person as a person is still a legal fiction in law. The persons below in this act are owned as in bought and sold.
"entity" " entité " "entity" means a body corporate, a partnership, a trust, a joint venture or an unincorporated association or organization;
"going-private transaction" " opération de fermeture " "going-private transaction" means a going-private transaction as defined in the regulations;
"incorporator" "fondateur" "incorporator" means a person who signs articles of incorporation;
"individual" "particulier" "individual" means a natural person;
"liability" "passif" "liability" includes a debt of a corporation arising under section 40, subsection 190(25) and paragraphs 241(3)(f) and (g);
"Minister" "ministre" "Minister" means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act;
"officer" " dirigeant " "officer" means an individual appointed as an officer under section 121, the chairperson of the board of directors, the president, a vice-president, the secretary, the treasurer, the comptroller, the general counsel, the general manager, a managing director, of a corporation, or any other individual who performs functions for a corporation similar to those normally performed by an individual occupying any of those offices;
"ordinary resolution" "résolution ordinaire" "ordinary resolution" means a resolution passed by a majority of the votes cast by the shareholders who voted in respect of that resolution;
"person" " personne " "person" means an individual, partnership, association, body corporate, or personal representative;
"personal representative" " représentant personnel " "personal representative" means a person who stands in place of and represents another person including, but not limited to, a trustee, an executor, an administrator, a receiver, an agent, a liquidator of a succession, a guardian, a tutor, a curator, a mandatary or an
Notice that person can mean individual as well as Individual means natural person, yet no distinction between the two listed as person meaning individual or confusing at least!

Now to the interpretations act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-21/78929.html
Application of Interpretation Provisions
Application of definitions and interpretation rules
15. (1) Definitions or rules of interpretation in an enactment apply to all the provisions of the enactment, including the provisions that contain those definitions or rules of interpretation.
Interpretation sections subject to exceptions (2) Where an enactment contains an interpretation section or provision, it shall be read and construed
(a) as being applicable only if a contrary intention does not appear; and
(b) as being applicable to all other enactments relating to the same subject-matter unless a contrary intention appears.
R.S., c. I-23, s. 14.
DEFINITIONS
General definitions
35. (1) In every enactment,
"Act" " loi provinciale " "Act", as meaning an Act of a legislature, includes an ordinance of the Northwest Territories and a law of the Legislature of Yukon or of the Legislature for Nunavut;
The word "includes", means for the purposes of that enactment only what is listed as included nothing more or less.
You will notice the so called provinces, just like in the Canada Land Surveys Act, are not included in acts of the federal government as they have no jurisdiction in areas outside of Canada as declared in the boundaries described within the Surveys enactment. To be repetitive but to be clear, the jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada according to their own enactments is only upon Canada lands and owned territories as per the surveys acts clear definition and only applicable to government controlled entities.
It is only by an unlawful/de facto memorandum of agreements between the provinces and the federal government in league with the World Bank, who's soul motivation is profit , that the debt ridden Canadian corporate structure using the souls of men and women as sureties bonded for millions of dollars can float the paper issued as money. Every dollar struck by the Canadian mint is backed by a birth value of each and every child that was registered with the provincial and federal governments since 1933. Each one was bonded and listed as a security value with the treasury board of Canada and assigned a number . Each certificate was issued on banknote paper which is listed to only be used for as security items of value such as a certificate of listed value as an evidence of a bonded debt to the world bank.
We use the unlawful money of the man made god of government so the slaves in the camp can exchange goods. The world bank forces our servitude with intimidation of guns if we fail to file and bow to it's ungodly law. Canada Revenue Agency, and the de facto provincial agencies are allowed to ignore the laws put in place to protect you from this commercial man made law.of servitude

There is no valid existing legislation to enforce federal law in the provinces and the Bruno decision in BC federal tax court in 2002 settled that. The crown never appealed as through the difference between "province" and "Province" which was key in the defense and the Judge remarked he did not like his own decision but the law was before him. Only the federal attorney general has jurisdiction over criminal code prosecutions and then only on Canada lands. This phenomenol decision seems to have been forgotten by tax freedom advocates with no explanation as to why. Perhaps this Judge put it best, H.C.Stansfield in Regina Vs. Ed Dick
[49] "I remain bemused as to why CCRA and the Department of Justice would not perceive a benefit to welcoming the adjudication of every issue being raised by members of the Freedom Movement sooner rather than later, and in as few proceedings as possible. Whatever the result, the appeals process can be pursued by one side or the other until there are definitive rulings of superior courts. If the defence arguments carry the day, then Parliament and CCRA can deal with that reality in whatever manner they determine to be appropriate. If the defence arguments are determined to have no merit, then that is the end of the matter, and no future defendants can raise similar arguments."
"no future defendants can raise similar arguments"

Do you see who is being helped by the cases of non recognized representation? Each case is a bullet in the back of the next helpless victim of the lawless endeavours of the sharks of world debt collections.

There is only only shark repellent that knocks the teeth off those vicious man eaters. You can argue court battles for ever as if you think you know law but only one defense has any hope. As long as the Queen sits upon the throne we are protected from the avarice of the commercial slave drivers. That Rule for the government of Christian princes is her majesty's Bible and if we are to have it remain we must stand for it. There is no excuse to not for if you bow to mans law you lose your only hope of being saved. You cannot serve the laws of man and serve God. You can not be intimidated for serving God and following his law but you must be overly diligent in informing the so called officials in power in their private capacity about your faith beliefs and duty to God as his minister..
The question of their oath's honor to determine honor and trustworthness is not insulting nor threatening but rather is duty bound by your ministerial calling to defend the laws of God. The united nations have it in law like this..

Now lets look at international law so see if they have persons included!



(This is the world court law and has absolute and final jurisdiction over those who by ignorance volunteer themselves to it. Let's see what it says about natural persons)
[as corrected by the procés-verbaux of 10 November 1998 and 12 July 1999]


PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility
The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.


Do you know the meaning of the word persona? It means an actor wearing a mask, a fiction.
Words will enslave you if you do not know what they mean.
Men and women of faith in God's word over mans know it says to not respect persons lest you commit sin.
God YHWH says in the King James Bible that he has no respect for persons in Deuteronomy 10:17;Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; James 2:9, to quote some ,and if we show respect for persons we commit sin and shall be convinced of the law as transgressors. We are urged over and over in God's word to follow his law and word and not to be led astray with the deceptive words of men or be deemed as persons being owned commodities and registered as sureties for assumed debts, we are to avoid them.
Roman 16:17-20 tells us clearly that any law not in line with God's law is invalid against men and women of faith in YHWH and his son Yahushua and the law of loving your brother. It tells us as followers and believers in his word that we are to avoid those with doctrine and law contrary to or in addition to God's law. The Romans 13 interpretation of some misleading others for private gain is of course never intended to impose laws in addition to God's law upon his creation. It is upon our duty to defend the law of our God not his and to know the difference between his law and mans.
If we do not complain and therby allow the decimation of God's law right in front of our eyes then it is accepted by those doing it that we approve of such immoral tactics and commercially motivated quest.
This defense to be effective can only be by standing in God's law recognizing and publishing that you are defended by the Queen's duty and her officers oath to not harm you for doing so.
The only effective method of having that take place is to provably educate all of those men and women acting as officers sworn allegiant to her majesty in their private capacity via registered mail so that assumptions about your religious position or lack of one cannot take place.
Once notified privately those men and women have private knowledge about you and your faith. They have no public authority to intimidate you to violate your faith and you have a duty being aware of this to bring them into private awareness so that they cannot allow via your tacit consent the courts to decide.
If you say nothing in your religious defense it is deemed you have none and tacitly you agree you are a taxpayer.
This is the same for one accused of being a delinquent taxpayer who shows up to argue. If you are not a taxpayer you will have filed your abatement removing all assumption from the taxation employee's mind thereby destroying that assumption and nullifying the proceedings.
The assumption of those who work for the taxation departments is always the most powerful tool they have to work against you.
If you having the ability to send private notices of harm being done to you, to the ones invoking the discomfort upon you about the unlawful intimidation that is done to you as a private man and that you cannot violate your faith and that their oath is to aid her majesty to defend the word of God, and you do not their assumption stands and you have given up God's la. You are now a commercially owned commodity in the eyes of the court and you volunteered yourself there by not abating the process ahead of time.

Agent provocateurs will and have always been around secretly protecting those who are at the top of this foul system of human bondage. They are easily spotted by asking them if they honor and respect God's rule of law as supreme and defend the right to faith in the common principle of loving you brother as a maxim of application in all law.
They will not wish to do that if they are agents of darkness,

This law below is still in force and is regarding what all those who wish to be servants of her majesty must know in law about what their oaths of allegiance mean.
Chapter 22 from 1646 Westminster confession of faith an enactment of the British Parliament.
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
SECTION I: A lawful oath is a part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.[2]
1. Deut. 10:20; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10-11
2. Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Rom. 1:9; II Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Gal. 1:20; II Chr. 6:22-23
"I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates. And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God."
British Privy councillor's oath

Canada's standard for oaths
1. Oaths of Allegiance Act
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Oath of allegiance 2. (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
Demise of the Crown (2) Where there is a demise of the Crown, there shall be substituted in the oath of allegiance the name of the Sovereign for the time being.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 2; 1974-75-76, c. 108, s. 39.
THE NATURE OF AN OATH
A Sacred Act of Worship
________________________________________
Throughout the history of Western Civilization, oaths have been understood to be solemn declarations made in the presence of God, to Whom we are accountable.[1]
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) devotes an entire chapter (ch. xxii) to "Lawful Oaths and Vows." An oath is said to be "a part of religious worship" (§ I; cf. The Larger Catechism Q. 108.), which can only be done in the Name of God (§§ II, VI), and must be subordinated to "the Word of God" (§ VII). See also Larger Catechism Q. 108. (one of "the duties required in the second commandment," citing "Deut. vi. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." [Emphasis in Catechism]).
The Bible says that an oath is made in the presence of God. It is therefore sacred, an act of worship.
The Bible says it's OK to take an oath. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith says "it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority."[2] Here's are some things the Bible says about oaths:
1. God swears oaths. In fact, we could speak of the Bible itself as divided into the "Old Oath" and the "New Oath." A "Testament" is a promise to transfer property. The Bible says God made these promises under a solemn oath. No oath, no salvation.[3]
o Hebrews 7:20-22 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath {21} (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The LORD has sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek'"), {22} by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
2. As God is holy, we are to be holy. So the Bible has numerous provisions regarding our oath-taking.
o The most obvious is the Third Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain." "Taking the Lord's Name" means making an oath. The commandment is not that it should never be done, but that it not be done in vain, or falsely. In fact, God wants us to take His Name. It's a way of praising Him:
o Deuteronomy 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His Name.
o Deuteronomy 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; Him shalt thou serve, and to Him shalt thou cleave, and swear by His Name.
Coronation oath

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? Queen: I will.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of
[The Bible to be brought.]
all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.

How the defense of the Christian faith and Bible got it's beginnings in Britain.
Alfred the Great--Legend and Leader
Alfred lived and ruled over 1,000 years ago. Yet his historic vision for his people, personal courage, spiritual devotion, and treatment of his enemies, offer profound wisdom for political leaders of any age -- including our own. Winston Churchill noted when looking back over the centuries at Alfred's life that, "we are witnessing the birth of a nation." It is an exhilarating story.
But first, some necessary background. Christianity came to Britain in the first century, probably brought by Roman soldiers -- possibly even by one of the soldiers who guarded Paul during his Roman imprisonment. Slowly the gospel of Christ spread and a strong Celtic church was established in Britain. The Celtic Christians even sent out missionaries to Ireland (St. Patrick!) and the European Continent.
When the Angle and Saxon barbarians attacked Britain in the fourth century, the British Christians began to be pushed back until they finally were mostly in Cornwall and Wales. In spite of their missionary zeal elsewhere, the British Christians did little to evangelize their Angle and Saxon invaders and conquerors. Not until Pope Gregory sent Augustine to England in 597 did the Angles and Saxons begin to embrace Christianity. Ethelbert was the first Anglo-Saxon monarch to become a Christian, and he encouraged his people to follow the Christian religion.
The Ten Commandments His Foundation
Alfred's law code began with an introduction containing a translation of the Ten Commandments into English. God's law was to be the basis of the law for Alfred's Christian nation if it wished to be blessed by God. Following the Ten Commandments, Alfred included the Law of Moses (Exodus 21:1-23:19), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), and a brief account of apostolic history and the growth of Christian law among the Christian nations. Christian principles formed Alfred's concept of justice as he chose the laws which were to be included from the Saxon tradition. In establishing justice in his kingdom, Alfred was especially concerned with protecting the weaker members of society, limiting blood feud, and reinforcing the duty of men to their lords. Heathen practices were forbidden, and the church was protected by law and granted immunity from taxation. The clergy became part of the king's council.




Next we have her Majesty's so called first in Command telling us she is De facto









Role and Responsibilities of the Governor General
The Office of the Governor General, Canada's oldest continuing institution, is a thread that ties Canadians together. From Samuel de Champlain in 1608 to Viscount Monck in 1867 to Vincent Massey in 1952 to Adrienne Clarkson today, the role of the Governor General dates back nearly 400 years.
Today, we celebrate excellence through the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup, the Governor General's Literary Awards and the Governor General's Academic Medal. These trophies and awards were created by Governors General and are a part of Canada that everyone celebrates.
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's 26th Governor General, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.





Just so were sure let see what Canada's creditor in law has to says about that word as it's definition is prime.

OP 7.30
July 2001
These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete treatment of the subject.
Dealings with De Facto Governments

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
2. A decision to make a loan1 to, or to have a loan guaranteed by, a country with a de facto government, or to continue disbursing under existing loans to or guaranteed by such country, or to provide a guarantee in respect of a project in the territories of such country,2 does not in any sense constitute Bank "approval" of the government, nor does refusal indicate "disapproval". The Bank under its Articles is required to refrain from interfering in the political affairs of any member; moreover, its decisions may not be influenced by the political character of the member country concerned.3

3. In many cases, a de facto government either suspends the constitution or abrogates it. In other instances, the constitution and other basic laws remain partially or wholly in force.














Law dictionary definitions
De Facto
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.

DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.

de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.

De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.

de facto (dë fak'tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognition, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/usurp.html



Usurpation & Usurp
USURP', v. t. s. as z. [Fr. usurper ; L. usurpo.]
To seize and hold in possession by force or without right; as usurp a throne; to usurp the prerogative of the crown; to usurp power. To usurp the right of a patron, is to oust or dispossess him.
Vice sometimes usurps the place of virtue. Denham.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURPA'TION, n. [supra.]
The act of seizing or occupying and enjoying the property of another, without right; as the usurpation of a throne; the usurpation of supreme power. Usurpation, in a peculiar sense, denotes the absolute ouster and dispossession of the patron of a church, by presenting a clerk to a vacant benefice, who is thereupon admitted and instituted. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURP'ER, n.
One who seizes or occupies the property of another, without right; as the usurper of a throne; of power; or of rights of a patron. Shak. Dryden. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomi.
There are two kinds of usurpation: first, when a stranger, without right, presents to a church and his clerk is admitted; and, second, when a subject uses a franchise of the king without lawful authority. Co. Litt. 277 b.
In Governmental Law. The tyrannical assumption of the government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.









[as corrected by the procés-verbaux of 10 November 1998 and 12 July 1999]


PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
Are you a person? Are you an individual?
God YHWH says in the King James Bible that he has no respect for persons in Deuteronomy 10:17;Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; and James 2:9, to quote some ,and if we show respect for persons we commit sin and shall be convinced of the law as transgressors. We are urged over and over in God's word to follow his law and word and not to be led astray with the words of men or be deemed as persons and owned commodities, we are to avoid them.
Roman 16:17-20 tells us clearly we are to avoid offences contrary to the doctrine. Those of faith in the word of God as defended by her majesty the Queen being the high priestess of the Anglican Church of Christ, any law not in line with God's law is invalid against men and women of faith in YHWH and his son Yahushua, in following the law of loving your brother. It tell us as followers and believers in his word that we are to avoid those with doctrine and law contrary to or in addition to God's law. The Romans 13 interpretation is of course never intended to impose laws in addition to God's law upon his creation. It upon our duty to defend the law of God not his. Acts5:29 If we do not complain and thereby allow the decimation of God's law right in front of our eyes then it is accepted by those doing it that we approve of such immoral tactics and commercially motivated quest.
It is only by standing in God's law that you are defended by the Queen's duty and her officers oath to not harm you for doing so.
The only effective method of having that take place is to provably educate all of those men and women acting as officers sworn allegiant to her majesty in their private capacity so that assumptions about your religious position or lack of one cannot take place.
Once notified privately those men and women have private knowledge about you and your faith. They have no public authority to intimidate you to violate your faith and you have a duty being aware of this to bring them into private awareness so that they cannot allow, via your tacit consent, the courts to decide.
If you say nothing in your religious defense it is deemed you have none and tacitly you agree you are a taxpayer.
This is the same for one accused of being a delinquent taxpayer who shows up to argue. If you are not a taxpayer you will have filed your abatement removing all assumption from the taxation employee's mind thereby destroying that assumption and nullifying the proceedings. The assumption of those who work for the taxation departments is always the most powerful tool they have to work against you.
If you having the ability to send private notices of harm to the ones invoking the discomfort upon you about the unlawful intimidation that is done to you as a private man and that you cannot violate your faith and that their oath is to aid her majesty to defend the word of God, and you do not I their assumption stands and you have given up God's law. you are now a commercially owned commodity in the eyes of the court and you volunteered yourself there by not abating the process ahead of time.

Agent provocateurs will and have always been around secretly protecting those who are at the top of this foul system of human bondage. They are easily spotted by asking them if they honor and respect God's rule of law as supreme and defend the right to faith in and to practice in that law by the common principle of loving your brother as a maxim of application in all law.
They will not wish to comply with that if they are agents of darkness,

Did Christ approve of paying taxes??
If the earth is YHWH's and the fullness thereof, which it is! the metal in that coin belonged to YHWH. It was only the graven image that belonged to Caesar. And we know that a graven image amounts to NOTHING! ZERO! Which is exactly what is left if you take the metal out of a coin, or the paper and ink out of a hundred dollar bill!
These wicked men were trying to entrap Ha-MaShIaCh in His words, they were cunning and shrewd. They knew Yeshua taught YHWH's Law Rightly and Truly. Which Law explicitly forbids the worship of "mighty ones". They even revealed that they knew that it was transgression to submit to, serve, be afraid of or to otherwise worship Caesar "neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men".
These men knew that either way He answered, they would "have Him", helplessly trapped. If He said yes, He would be disobeying YHWH, in transgressing The Commandments.
If He said no, they would be able to turn Him in to the Roman authorities. They were amazed at His answer because they knew that what He said was "give nothing to Caesar" for He surely did not mean that whatever Caesar happened put his image on was therefore his. Of course they could not point that out in front of the people; for by doing so they would have fallen into their very own trap!
________________________________________
But He perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye Me?
Shew Me a coin. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
And He said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto YHWH the things which be YHWH's.
And they could not take hold of His words before the people: and they marvelled at His answer, and held their peace.
________________________________________
render , v. Also 4_8 rendre, 6_7 Sc. rendir, ran(n)der.
[a. OF. rendre:---pop. Lat. *rendere (also found in med.L.) an alteration, on anal. of prendere, of class.L. reddere to give back, f. red- re- + dare to give.]
IV. 17. techn.
a. To melt (fat, metal etc.); to obtain or extract by melting; to clarify. Cf. rend v.2
________________________________________
Of course Yeshua knew the Law! these Words were the Words of His Father! YHWH! The Words He Himself spoke. He knew the importance of these Words and how they really apply. It was common knowledge in that time in Judea, that it was a transgression of the first Commandment to give loyal obedience to Caesar or any other worldly authority.
Yeshua Himself testified…
________________________________________
Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:13-17 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve Yahweh and mammon. Matthew 6:24

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him.
And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but YHWH knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of YHWH.

We are not telling you something new, but the same Word which was with you from the beginning; Love YHWH, obey His Commandments, and believe on the Name of His Son Yeshua the messiah, who Loved you so much He died for your Transgressions. If you Love Him, you will follow His instructions, which are the same Words YHWH spoke to Moses and all of His Prophets, before or since.
This Word does not change!!! Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32

Good links for consideration
http://www.embassyofheaven.com/newslett/news9304/news9304.htm
http://www.healthfreedom.info/100%25%20Silver%20Dollar%20Network.htm




allcreatorsgifts
Home