Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

[Jeffrey]

compel religious practice

Takes third grade reading comprehension to understand that paying taxes does not mean compelling a religious practice.

[The Observer]

What is a "non-statutory proceeding"?

You know - like those sovrun trials that are held at Denny's.

[Burnaby49]

I question whether Belanger and/or Peterson are taking the position that Her Majesty, her Ministers, her statutes, etc. constitutes a religion in and of itself. Furthermore, that any law forcing them to participate in that system constitutes compelling religious practice by force of law in a prohibited manner as enunciated above.

As I understand it they are not calling the government a religion. Their point is that their religion, or at least the very advantageous interpretation they place on Christianity, prohibits them from paying taxes. The way they claim to see it is that God's Laws, whatever they may be, are the only laws they are allowed to follow and the Canadian Income Tax Act is not included in God's Laws. Nor are any other laws of Canada for that matter since none can be found written down in a statutory manner in the King James bible. As I understand their claimed beliefs (I say "claimed" because I'm skeptical of any professed beliefs that are so manifestly self-serving) governments can't be respected because they are totally devoid of religion. So by assessing taxes the government is forcing them to participate in a non-religiously approved practice.

However I suspect that Peterson's views on government don't preclude him from using government services, like free health care, that he expects other people to pay for.

[kirk james kirk]

A non-statutory proceeding is one such as breach of contract. That is a common law action. With the exception of some codification in statute, breach of trust is an action at equity. On the other hand, tax evasion under the Income Tax Act is a statutory proceeding. Family matters and divorce are generally statutory proceedings pursuant to the Divorce Act and similar legislation. For example, Meads v. Meads was a statutory proceeding.

Hope this helps

KJK

[wserra]

Hope this helps

It doesn't.

Take your "common law action [for] breach of contract". Where again were you bringing the action? A court, right? What do you think created the court? A statute. The rules that apply in the court - what created them? More statutes. And there are literally hundreds of statutes that affect whether your facts constitute a cause of action, who if anyone is responsible, and what your remedies are. And, if any of those statutes conflict with the common law, guess what controls? Right, the statute.

So no, your explanation doesn't make much sense.

[kirk james kirk]

Respectfully, here in Canada courts of inherent jurisdiction are not courts created by statute. Constitutionally, they possess all powers and jurisdiction in equity and common law historically exercised by the court of England. As far as actions in common law and equity are concerned, statute does not establish remedy nor what constitutes a cause of action respecting same. And whether statute or common law is paramount is dependant upon the party(s) having standing in the matter.

Wserra, perhaps we may just have to agree to disagree.

KJK

[arayder]

"To compel religious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose [my bold] his or her mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes and proportionality will not need to be considered." -Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony. . .

Yes, Belanger chose his religion, rather than having had it divinely revealed it him.

That's exactly my point. He isn't heeding God's Word. He's just making theology up as he goes along.

What else can we expect from a toker, who just a few years ago claimed to be a Druid priest, or some such thing?

[arayder]

Take your "common law action [for] breach of contract". Where again were you bringing the action? A court, right? What do you think created the court? A statute. The rules that apply in the court - what created them? More statutes. And there are literally hundreds of statutes that affect whether your facts constitute a cause of action, who if anyone is responsible, and what your remedies are. And, if any of those statutes conflict with the common law, guess what controls? Right, the statute.

Respectfully, here in Canada courts of inherent jurisdiction are not courts created by statute. Constitutionally, they possess all powers and jurisdiction in equity and common law historically exercised by the court of England. . .

I am no expert in Canadian law, but it seems to me you just admitted that Canada's courts ultimately receive their authority from the Canadian Constitution.

[kirk james kirk]

No, not all Canadian courts are as a direct result of the Constitution. The Superior Courts, which have inherent jurisdiction, are recognized through the Constitution. Other courts, such as the provincial courts and the tax courts, are creatures of statute.

KJK

[JamesVincent]

Something that continues to amaze me with groups and fanatics such as this is that they continually ignore their own arguments. Even if there was somewhere that you could find a Biblical reference to not paying taxes (which you can't that I recall) there are tons of references to paying taxes. Even Jesus paid taxes and he wasn't even a resident of where he paid them.

Matthew 17:24-27

When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” 25 He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” 26 And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.7 Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

In Romans Paul clarified that God was the authority that granted governments power over the peoples.

Romans 13:1-7

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

And, of course, the most famous of the references to taxes, where the phrase "Render unto Ceaser" comes from.

Matthew 22:15-22

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

No matter what you could cobble together, legal, psuedo-legal, goobletygook, if you claim to do so because of religion it's pretty plain you must pay any taxes owed. The only real blasphemy would be trying to deny the words of Jesus.

[arayder]

No, not all Canadian courts are as a direct result of the Constitution. The Superior Courts, which have inherent jurisdiction, are recognized through the Constitution. Other courts, such as the provincial courts and the tax courts, are creatures of statute.

KJK

My understanding is that the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction holds that that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority.

Consistent with that doctrine case law in Canada restricts the application of inherent jurisdiction such that the doctrine cannot be used to override an existing statute.

So isn't it the case that thus the Canadian Constitution and statutes maintain their supremacy over common law?

[arayder]

. . .The only real blasphemy would be trying to deny the words of Jesus.

That's why I call him "Belanger the Blasphemer".

[The Observer]

The Superior Courts, which have inherent jurisdiction, are recognized through the Constitution.

And if the courts were not recognized by the Constitution? Where would they get their authority to render decisions? And who would enforce such decisions for these courts? I think this would suggest that ultimately, whether "recognized" or "created" by a statutory document, all court proceedings are statutory in nature.

The term "distinction without a difference" comes to mind here.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I think that Kirk was just pondering an obscure legal point, and somehow that got interpreted as an OPCA attack on reality as we know it. The same Thing happened to me on JREF regarding the applicability of provincial traffic laws (only on punlic "highways" versus the Criminal Code including its traffic offences (everywhere in Canada and even beyond in a few cases) Good to have you on board, Captain! I take it you're a fellow Canuckian?

[kirk james kirk]

With respect to statutory proceedings and statutorily created courts, Reed v. Reed, 1991 CanLII 4520 (ON CJ) serves to affirm that a distinction is acknowledged wherein it provides at para. 5:

[5] As a result of submissions from counsel, I was able to isolate at least three — perhaps four — schools of thought on the jurisdictional issue of interim variation of support:

1. The first group, and perhaps the most logical, focuses on the language of the relevant legislation. The Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) is a creature of statute and it is therefore essential that almost all of its proceedings come within the four corners of a statute.

The case also helps to provide clarification and distinction respecting jurisdictions of the courts of Canada.

http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/1991/19 ... i4520.html

KJK

[arayder]

I think that Kirk was just pondering an obscure legal point, and somehow that got interpreted as an OPCA attack on reality as we know it.

I agree.

Welcome, James.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... I question whether Belanger and/or Peterson are taking the position that Her Majesty, her Ministers, her statutes, etc. constitutes a religion in and of itself. Furthermore, that any law forcing them to participate in that system constitutes compelling religious practice by force of law in a prohibited manner as enunciated above. ...

My understanding of the theory behind CERI's scheme is that the Canadian government and law is actually based in religion - specifically the King James Bible - and that is the true law of Canada. This flows from the use of the King James Bible in court, and because the monarch Liz 2 swore an oath to uphold the Bible, on the King James Bible.

So the scheme is, essentially, that one needs to indicate to government officials that you, the CERI minister, are aware that the only real law is religious law, flowing from the King James Bible, and once you do that you 'unmask' Canada's real law and are subject only to that. So it isn't really a 'your religion is impinging on my religion' argument, but a 'your religion and my religion is the same - and so are our rules.'

At least that's my take on it. Probably the clearest explanation of Belanger's beliefs (at least of which I am aware) is in these three videos:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEF_cvI1CPo
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5UCQWEjDnQ
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNB4ymbLE8

If you come to a different conclusion I would be very interested in your observations.

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

The disingenuous Belanger repeats throughout his Youtubes the claim that by rejecting his theories, the courts and Judge Rooke are trying to destroy anyone who believes in Jesus.

That's just not the case and Belanger knows it.

The ruse should be considered an insult to the members of Belanger's phony ministry.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

"minister" Thomas continues to update his blog. He also has a general introduction video that is not listed on his Youtube website, but which still can be viewed at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2nSzrljuKA

The description is CERI to its core:

I forgot to mention that we who believe in the Bible are also not a threat to the system because probably 99% of the people who get themselves into trouble, will not have a belief in God and so the number of people who might be helped to unentangle themselves with the ecclesiastic approach are miniscule. Also, my self and my friends advise people of faith to gain their agreements in advance (per Matthew 5:25). In addition I want to Stress the fact that I/we wholeheartedly believe we are accountable for any harm we cause. So efforts by the legal profession to paint believers in the Bible as a bunch of lawless kooks is erroneous and worthless opinion based on demonstrably false and self-serving assumptions by the legal profession and their allies, who in fact are the ones willfully blind and causing harm with their aggressive tactics. The government has no lawful authority to force their "benefits" upon lawful men and women at the point of a gun. If they had that authority they would not have been silent to every request for proof of that authority.

The most recent blog entry "THE WORD GAME, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, THE ILLUSION" (http://ecclesiasticsalvation.wordpress. ... -illusion/), continues the familiar themes.

Likewise, what if you are somehow summoned to appear to deal with a charge, let’s say it is “income tax evasion”. A reasonable man might attend the court, under threat and duress, because he might fear the so-called judge would send out an arrest warrant if he failed to appear. Others might prefer to be dragged there in handcuffs to prove there is lack of unintimidated consent.

They want you to fight, it is an adversarial system. But if you fight you are agreeing to grant them SMJ. For example, if there is an alleged matter of “income tax evasion”, if you appear to face the charge, and or you fight it, you have granted them SMJ; you have identified yourself as a “taxpayer” because a living man/woman knows such a matter has nothing to do with them. You cannot participate. And you can overturn any decision made by the faux judge in the faux court through various notices after the fact (listen to Bill Thornton for example, at https://www.1215.org/ ).

Maxim: “The created cannot be greater than the Creator”. Governments, codes, statutes and regulations were all created by men. But man was created by the Creator. As a living man or woman standing in the kingdom of God there is no higher standing. If you appear in a courtroom, it is you who brings the court; and it is you who brings the law, unless you let them hoodwink you into thinking their “laws” apply. Thus you have the power to issue your own court orders overturning any orders issued by the faux court. You can bring peace through resolution.

Though the 'metaphysical' aspect of CERI's concepts is increasingly apparent, here in a statement that documentation and organizational symbols are literally magical:

A thought once spoken gives power towards its actual manifestation. The living energy behind it (the emotional energy) is needed to make it “law”. So in principle it is the emotional resonance that gives that word power. Those who impose power upon people through the word they themselves write know that. Look at all the Illuminati logos etc. People have different understanding and interpretation of them, but the pure energy of people who use these logos and words gives needed emotional (living) energy to the originators of these logos and words,and not to the people who read and interpret them on their own. Corporate documents and logos ( seals) need people’s energy to impose corporate intent upon them. If those in “power” weren’t aware of this,we wouldn’t have this planet flooded with these symbols (logo). Our intent and understanding is overridden by the original intent of the maker of that symbol. So whose thought is power? Is it the one who writes the word and seals its intent (thumbprint is the most potent seal) or the one who reads it and interprets it in any personal way but gives it its much needed emotional energy? Also, this of course explains why oral testimony is the highest form of evidence, thoughts and written words must be vocalized. Those who treat testimony lightly may find themselves in a heap of trouble (look up the origins of the word). But note however, that any testimony given by someone who has no firsthand knowledge is only hearsay, but unless one objects it can be given the weight to appear “as” evidence. But remember too that unless one is in a court of original jurisdiction one should not participate in court proceedings unless you realize the potential peril.

But as it so often happens, once again we see familiar subjects being recycled. Old OPCA concepts never die, but they do become increasingly clearly refuted:

If you are threatening me and intimidating me that you are going to charge me with a so-called “offense” then please produce the law you are charging me under. If you can’t produce an original copy of the Income Tax Act printed by the Queen’s Printer then you have no authority for any charges, you are just making it up.

R. v. Gibbs, 2006 BCPC 215 at para 12: http://canlii.ca/t/1ng7t

Ms. Gibbs quite correctly points out that the offence on which she is charged under the Income Tax Act is “In the Nature of Strict Liability” and recognizes that the defence of due diligence is opened to her. Ms. Gibbs argues that her defence of due diligence is being made out, as she could not find a true copy of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, could not be satisfied as to her legal obligations. This argument has no merit. The Income Tax Act is readily available both by a computer on-line, at the public library, and through the Government of Canada. ...

Iwanow v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 22 at paras. 18-19: http://canlii.ca/t/1vhdc

It seems to me very clear that there is no merit to the argument that a taxpayer who cannot find a certified copy of the Income Tax Act cannot meet his/her legal obligations. ...

Furthermore, it has been decided in many cases, that CRA has no duty to produce an original or a certified copy of the Income Tax Act to a taxpayer. ...

R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 34 at para. 7: http://canlii.ca/t/5k79

... Justice Tysoe decided that the laws of the country, and that would include the Income Tax Act, are contained in the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada as amended from time to time. Those statutes are generally available to the public. Ms. Bruno's application for leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Justice Tysoe was denied. Although that does not stand as a decision of this Court on the issue, it is my view that there is no merit to the contention that Mr. Bruno does not have access to the laws of Canada or the failure of the Crown to produce a version of the Income Tax Act different from that generally available to the public, including Mr. Bruno, amounts to a failure of disclosure. ...

There are, of course, other judgments that say the same thing.

And because I prefer to assist, where I can, "minister" Peterson will be pleased to know that an up-to-date, fully amended version of the Income Tax Act of Canada may be viewed at any time by clicking this link: http://canlii.ca/t/7vb7

"minister" Peterson, you're welcome! It is indeed important to know the law, when one chooses to challenge its operation.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

"minister" Thomas continues to update his blog. He also has a general introduction video that is not listed on his Youtube website, but which still can be viewed at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2nSzrljuKA

Those who treat testimony lightly may find themselves in a heap of trouble (look up the origins of the word).

The origin of the word "testimony" is literal. It's two men groping each other while swearing to an agreement. This is symbolically calling the next generation to witness.

But that usage hasn't been official for many centuries.