hi guys! im commonly known as bmxninja357....

[bmxninja357]

ok i will agree. but really if i use only half a brain i do realise that at no point should a corporation be a person, unless there is a human who will shoulder its burdens.

a corp without a responsible human is kinda like a dog shitting wherever and no one can tell it to clean up.

basically the corp person thingy comes down to the right to sue and be sued without having to assume any responsibility as a non douchebag human.

i would far sooner accept a person could be a corporation than a corporation could be a human.

but whatever floats yer boat right?
next question.
ninj

[arayder]

bmxninja, I think the first flaw in your argument is the unstated, false premise that "the people", a body politic, is made up of individuals each of whom has the same authority as the whole, "the people".

If you have the same rights and authority as "the people" you'll have to explain how it is you can't act, on your own, with the same authority as "the people", or their elected representatives.

Secondly, by avoiding the direct question of what "ownership" of a birth certificate and citizenship means you have avoided the argument killing conclusion that one might sell his or her citizenship to another individual in direct violation of "the people's" law. "The people" who after all you say "own" Canada.

This conundrum again raises the question of how an individual can have all the same authority of the "the people", who you say "own" the country.

Please excuse me if in an absence of an answer to my question, I have misstated your positions.

[bmxninja357]

well your very wrong on what i belive.

since im not an actual retard i thought you might assume(my mistake) that i know that a person is only people if theres more than one.

and fancy words change not the fact that canada et al is in fact owned by the people. im not seeing anything to the contrary but for clarity,

like eddy berenays i think most people are stupid. so excuse my tartness.

do you have or can you present evidence that canada is owned by anyone but the people of canada?

and unless your functionally sub literate you can probably google two words like 'own, definition'. perhaps the comma is confusing.....

dude, you know why i dont like you and barely care to entertain your trick stupid questions.

so please dude come straight or sacrifice what im willing to share with the others who aren't being mary mary ms contrary.

as i said, i do not care for you.
your nothing but a parrot riding on a bug.
most i hope they feel good at the end of things as i mean no harm.
as for you, i hope you die choking on a hot dog so i might make jokes all week.
ninj

[arayder]

. . .fancy words change not the fact that canada et al is in fact owned by the people. im not seeing anything to the contrary but for clarity,

But you still haven't explained how it is "the people" can control what they own while at the same time allowing you, and every other individual, to claim the same authority as their body politic.

. . .as for you, i hope you die choking on a hot dog so i might make jokes all week.
ninj

Well, some of us do have a gag reflexes.

[Kestrel]

You can tell some folk have extra time this weekend.

A hungry troll pops up and people start feeding it. Kinda like at a park.

[AndyK]

You can tell some folk have extra time this weekend.

A hungry, testy, impolite, uninformed, opinionated troll pops up and people start feeding it. Kinda like at a park.

FIFY

Just like Whack-A-Mole. Keeps popping up even after getting slammed down.

Unfortunately, there aren't any neat stuffed animal prizes.

[bmxninja357]

i hear a lot of chirping for folks who want to say canada is not owned by the people of canada.....

ok, your right. who owns canada?

ninj

[Jeffrey]

Maybe we're getting too hung up on the term "own".

It's probably more accurate to say that Canada IS the people of Canada, rather than Canada is owned by the people of Canada.

[Judge Roy Bean]

i hear a lot of chirping for folks who want to say canada is not owned by the people of canada.....

ok, your right. who owns canada?

ninj

At the risk of being redundant, Canada is owned in part by people who have acquired the property via purchase or as the recipient of a gift or grant, and/or the government(s) of Canada.

The idea that everyone ("the people of Canada") could collectively own something that is already owned by specific, recorded parties is specious.

[arayder]

i hear a lot of chirping for folks who want to say canada is not owned by the people of canada.....

ok, your right. who owns canada?

ninj

At the risk of being redundant, Canada is owned in part by people who have acquired the property via purchase or as the recipient of a gift or grant, and/or the government(s) of Canada.

The idea that everyone ("the people of Canada") could collectively own something that is already owned by specific, recorded parties is specious.

Exactly. Examples of folly to the contrary are the times freemen have attempted to squat on, claim rights over and ownership of publicly owned lands.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Fellow Quatloosians - if I might make a brief interjection.

I do not think bmxninja357 is here to 'troll' the forum, quite the opposite. I have read communications and discussions by this person on other forums, and, as I have commented elsewhere, I think he is a 'straight shooter'. I would suggest his inquiries are genuine.

For what it's worth.

bmxninja357: welcome to Quatloos!

I have some thoughts and observations on your questions and comments, but unfortunately I do not believe I will have an opportunity to respond today as I have an evening pub and grub commitment coming up very soon, and it appears I squandered much of the day documenting the antics of a certain Mary Elizabeth Croft. I will try to respond later this weekend with what I hope will be of interest.

On a side note, would you object to my communicating with you via private message on this forum? I have some data on a person of mutual interest that I think you may be better positioned to investigate or exploit.

All the best!

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

Fellow Quatloosians - if I might make a brief interjection.

I do not think bmxninja357 is here to 'troll' the forum, quite the opposite. I have read communications and discussions by this person on other forums, and, as I have commented elsewhere, I think he is a 'straight shooter'. . .

The guy who just spent the last few months explaining the grim realities of Dean Clifford's arrest and trial to the folks at WFS forum grasps the 8th grade fundamentals of the relationship between natural persons, "the people", government and country.

As others before us, we are being played, gentlemen.

[bmxninja357]

For what it's worth.

bmxninja357: welcome to Quatloos!

I have some thoughts and observations on your questions and comments, but unfortunately I do not believe I will have an opportunity to respond today as I have an evening pub and grub commitment coming up very soon

thank you. and yes you are correct. pub and grub is actually way more fun than playing interweb with me. and i am not here to troll.

if you assumed there is lines i will not cross you are probably correct. i have those i consider friends and allies. these are in fact lines i will not cross. i am here on my own behalf.

that being said i am willing to answer questions on my behalf. publicly and privately.

i am not actually your enemy. all im seeking as a freeman on the land is actually peace, prosperity, and good governance.

i am not anti tax. im against how they are being spent. any canadian should be. as a canadian i would very much like to keep the arctic and the north west passage a part of canada. so why is a canadian soldier being trained to defend the desert? doesn't make sense to me.

the only foreign force i could condone would be in the case of genocide. to clear that up im willing to spend actual dollars. am i ok so far? nothing to radical?

im not a 80's detax moron. i understand that being pro good government also means someone has to pay for it. can we agree?

next my wacky crazy theories on law....

to be short i have defended myself dozens of times. no really. at least one of you is a lawyer. i will use priviledge via pm to confirm. i have used a lawyer more often than not. and i must say, yes there are in fact wins in the freeman world. many are an anomaly. judge hates the crown, use it. it does not mean your theory works. it means the judge was sick of the prosecutors shit and he was prepared to prove that. those court days kick ass! you get a win no matter how your hanging it out there.

im pro se, not pro stupid.

when one defends himself i prefer facts. i have had very, very good representation. i have walked on what gets other years; repeatedly. again, a/c priviledge. if one asks and im confident in it i will provide info.

and i must say, debunking is fine. its cool. but really do you belive its all ok? are we all alright?

im not mr conspiracy guy. i am sympathetic to many theories. some are actually real. some are horse puckey. im not really going to entertain that here, or really elsewhere.

but what i do belive, as a freeman on the land, is that our tax dollars are being wasted. i belive we are being robbed by our retarded cousin to the south on a daily basis. i do belive that rights are being turned into privileges.

so to save ya the trouble i drive for a living. i assure you i can drive nearly anything. and i belive you should be certified to be on the road. and i think renewing your operators permit is a huge rip off. do they retest folks to see if they are competent? no right. pay and go fudge yerself. really is that fair? is it some kinda make work programme? personally im willing to take the test any day. the dmv needs to go get a job or at least do the one they have.

on another note, yes i do in fact live in my motorhome. i could pay for almost any place i like. but i got screwed on the deal before rent caps(which alberta has now abandoned) and i bought a van. made more real world sense. im a firm advocate of tiny houses. how much space does one need? your half million dollar shack is way less fun than my house. and im always home.

im sure i will be afforded occasion to continue. choose your words wisely.

i have no obligation to answer idiocy here or other places. but i am pretty good at understanding the theory of others even when i dont agree with it.

back to you cats.
hope your day is good.
ninj

[wserra]

ok, your right. who owns canada?

In the sense you'd like it to have, no one.

unless your functionally sub literate

Twice was too much for that irony meter.

you can probably google two words like 'own, definition'.

Alternatively, I could look up the word "own" in a dictionary.

Per Merriam-Webster: "to have (something) as property : to legally possess (something)". So who has Canada as property? No one. Who legally possesses Canada? No one. Lots of folks, of course, own pieces of Canada, but no one owns Canada. I think one can reliably say that the govt publications to which you refer were speaking figuratively.

So a birth certificate is just what others have told you: if in proper form, a self-authenticating document which proves its owner's date and place of birth, and perhaps parentage. Anything more is myth.

[The_Nidhogg]

Mr Ninj,

Perhaps I am being a little slow, but which fmotl/SC beliefs do you subscribe to?

Correct me if I'm wrong but here is how i am understanding your views:

1. Birth certificates do not access bonds but do represent the right to have a say in how a country is governed.

2. A common law right to travel does not mean one can drive without a licence.

3. Taxes cannot be unconsented to.

4. public property cannot be taken by individuals as their own on the basis of their citizenship of canada.

Now i am less clear on what you think on these points:

1. do you think corporations should not have legal personality or that they do not have legal personality?

2. do you believe in strawman theory?

None of the above are meant as leading questions i am just trying to understand you, if you would rather pm your answers that is fine .

you did well in exposing Dean Cliffords lies over on WFS.

I am unclear as to why you identify as a fotl. Where you one of the origional wave brought in more on the idealogical idea of small government/ more direct government before the legal woo began to drown the movement in failed attempts to avoid debt?

yours,

The Nidhogg

[Jeffrey]

why is a canadian soldier being trained to defend the desert? doesn't make sense to me.

our tax dollars are being wasted

i think renewing your operators permit is a huge rip off

i got screwed on the deal before rent caps

i do realise that at no point should a corporation be a person

BMX, I think this is why you confuse me. Everything you've said is mainstream non-controversial views. What's the point of the FMOTL stuff then?

You've seen the stories, Dean Clifford, Bonacci, Porisky, Fearn, Warman, Menard. These theories don't benefit you in any way. If you're already in some sort of financial or legal trouble, their theories will just make things worse. And if you're not in some sort of trouble, they'll lead you to get into trouble.

I think we all sympathize with the frustrations you and other Freemen express. The job market is shit, cost of living is way too high, there are problems with the government, the actual mechanisms that exist for changing things simply don't seem effective. Just as an example, our Mayor recently went ahead with a construction project which the people who lived in the area were opposed to, (very likely just to give the contractor work). Even with a petition signed by most people living in the area and a protest at the site, the Mayor went ahead with the project. Of course there's the option of voting him out, but of course since his political party has a majority in the area it's impossible to vote him out. So millions were wasted turning a 4 lane street into a two lane street just to give his contractor buddies extra cash.

Of course there's a lot of bullshit that goes on, but if I were to go around driving without a license or stop paying taxes, it won't improve things either.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sorry -- I just ran out of troll food.

[LordEd]

hi good guys, bad guys and all others.

first off let me say im not here to argue. im not here to fight. im not here to apologise for others and their crap.

to be clear im not hear for trouble and i would just as soon delete my account as have to be here. we on the same page?

good.

Hello, and welcome to Quatloos. Looks like I'm joining this party late, but I wanted to start at the beginning.

so im going to start by saying when you say 'freemen on the land belive' or some such why do you belive that? is it true? am i painted with that brush?

In general, the term 'freeman' here is used to denote a person who exhibits set of behaviours or beliefs. Its like referring to somebody as a Christian. You can be fairly certain they have some beliefs involving a birthday and a cross, but the religion is so vast that different people will focus on different aspects.

Referring to somebody as a freeman here simply indicates a general set of beliefs that a person may hold, not to be a final categorization of beliefs.

If you see me pop in, I'm likely going to question an assertion for support. If it doesn't seem true to me, I will research it, and/or question it. I have 'done my own research'.

so how do i prove that i am a "people of canada"? by the valuable instrument provided me by the folks in charge of canada. it clearly states that the birth certificate is not i.d. go to the gov site and check.

First issue. The bolded statement is wrong:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/subj ... cate.shtml

The Birth Certificate is issued by the provincial or territorial government and is required as identification to apply for other important personal documents.

so via the birth certificate i am given rights and duties. from young on. i know your tripping over each other to tell me what i think.... but um here it is...

The birth certificate doesn't give you rights. It says you were born in this country. Other things say that if you are born in this country that you have rights.

You can use it as proof of this fact too apply for other documents. For example a SIN. You don't actually need a birth certificate to get one of those, in certain circumstances.

For example, you can also provide a citizenship card if you were born in another country.
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sin/ ... roof.shtml

So, if you have the right to one by being a citizen (by birth or by immigration), and can prove that you were born here or have legally immigrated, then you can get the card and use it for whatever service you are getting it for.

One of the things about being born in this country is you have an automatic right to work here. If you were not born here, you are partly protected in that foreign workers are not allowed to work here without permission. (Yes there's current government policy issues here, but lets not muddy with that).

It is not the birth certificate giving you any rights. Its just being used as evidence that you were born here and have rights as a result.

So for my part, the conversation crashes. One of your first assertions doesn't fact-check, and you are making assertions about the 'card' giving rights without support. So if you have some additional evidence, I'll be happy to read it.

[bmxninja357]

"First issue. The bolded statement is wrong:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/subj ... cate.shtml"

good find. it did used to say the bc was not identification. if i remember right i think it said foundation document or some such. at any rate thanks for the correction.

ninj

[LordEd]

So with that out of the way, does your position change, or was the birth certificate 'not being id' inconsequential information?