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

[bmxninja357]

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.

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?

hardly seems fair. i know i have appeared hear a few times, in others words. some of those words are in fact true. such as my 'normalish' belifes...

first im going to deal with one thing. does the gov or whatever owe you a dime? yes and no is my answer.

ok; here is my reasoning before some go all hee haw on me....

lets say canada has 37 million folks. and since we can agree more less on that lets also say canada is owned by the people of canada. its on at least a half dozen gov sites right? ok.

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.

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...

if i was born here, and canada is in fact owned by the people, each being equal, am i or am i not in possession of a valuable document worth exactly 1/37 millionth of a 'canada'?

now im not trying to monetize that. i thank that dirty socialist tommy douglas for universal health care. off the record i always get better service when i pay the medi center cash....

but more to the point; what exactly do i benefit from keeping this glorified stock option against not having one at all? im not looking for the dumb answers like anyone can kill you cuz ya got no person. even if i had no person this would not absolve you from the criminal code my friend.

i will start there. i hope you cats remain respectful. i will also. first asshole and im audi. ok?

ask what you want but know, i do not speak for anyone but myself. and i dont think we are so different. im here to see if im right.

shoot your questions; not your mouth. you do not get to tell me what i belive.

peace,
ninj

[Pottapaug1938]

First of all: your birth certificate serves one -- and only one -- function: that of certifying that you were born on such-and-such a date, to the named parents, at the named location. Nothing more. The "value" of the birth certificate is that it will enable you to receive certain things. It DOES NOT entitle you to "1/37 millionth ownership in Canada".

As for your "rights and duties": you get them NOT via your birth certificate, but by virtue of the fact that you were born in Canada and thus, under Canadian law, are a Canadian citizen. Your birth certificate is evidence that you are entitled to those things, but it DOES NOT grant you anything in and of itself.

[bmxninja357]

okay. maybe. but who owns canada? and by what mechanism am i obliged to agree to certain things?

im not being a dick dude. by all means produce how im obligated to do things without a piece of the pie?

im only using a square fact that we are equal. that means in good economy and bad. and if canada is owned by the people why then am i not in possession of an equal share?

remember im not here to say my birth certificate is a million dollar credit or some shit.

its simple.

canada is owned by the people of canada.
the only way to know you are the people of canada is by way of some official document saying some such.

the birth certificate is not identification(on the website my friend). so what is it?

im purposing it proves a couple things. one, im from canada. two i own at least 1\37 millionth of canada. this does not mean i can withdraw it or sell it or some such. it simply means im entitled all the rights and privileges and duties that come with being in possesion of a document of this type. can we agree or is there a point of contention thus far?

peace,
ninj

[AndyK]

Ninja:

Irrespective of your standing (as in status) in Canada, let's pose a situation.

It's December and you are totally fed up with the cold and the snow.

You decide to take a vacation to a nice warm place such as Orlando, Florida.

First, you can't do it without a passport -- the United States has become really picky about that.

However, let's assume you made it to Orlando.

NOW we can look at the issues of (in your words) "rights and privileges and duties".

What are your rights, privileges and duties while visiting the United States? Do they differ, in any way, from those of a United States citizen?

Now flip the coin. It's summer and I decide to head to Toronto, Quebec, etc to escape the heat down here. What are my rights, privileges and duties while visiting Canada? Do they differ, in any way, from yours?

Let's now throw into the mix a naturalized American citizen with a birth certificate issued in, say, Australia and have him make the same trip to Canada.

(Drum roll please) Is there ANY relationship --ANY -- to either of the birth certificates? Canadian, United States, or Austrailian -- does it have any impact whatsoever on anything (except possibly purchasing alcohol)?

[bmxninja357]

strangely i think im being drug into some cross border issue im not willing to speak on at present. im not worried about the states. im talking right now about the birth certificate and what does or does not come with it.

i will address crossing the worlds longest undefended border at a later occasion. all i can really say is i can walk or drive across it at will. many in the farm community do. there's way less fences and drones than the conspiracy types want you to belive.

peace,
ninj

[Pottapaug1938]

okay. maybe. but who owns canada? and by what mechanism am i obliged to agree to certain things?

"Who owns Canada?" Who knows; but the very fact that you were born in Canada carries with it the rights and duties of Canadian citizenship, whether you like it or not. There is nothing in the law of any nation which says that its citizens must affirmatively elect to "agree to certain things" before those rights and duties attach to them.

im not being a dick dude. by all means produce how im obligated to do things without a piece of the pie?

You are a Canadian citizen, and a citizen of the province and community in which you reside.

im only using a square fact that we are equal. that means in good economy and bad. and if canada is owned by the people why then am i not in possession of an equal share?

There is no provision, in Canadian law, entitling you to "an equal share" as if Canada were a private corporation with stock issues.

remember im not here to say my birth certificate is a million dollar credit or some shit.

its simple.

canada is owned by the people of canada.
the only way to know you are the people of canada is by way of some official document saying some such.

the birth certificate is not identification(on the website my friend). so what is it?

im purposing it proves a couple things. one, im from canada. two i own at least 1\37 millionth of canada. this does not mean i can withdraw it or sell it or some such. it simply means im entitled all the rights and privileges and duties that come with being in possesion of a document of this type. can we agree or is there a point of contention thus far?

Again, your birth certificate provides you with NO ownership rights of anything. It certifies to the fact of your birth within Canada and entitles you to Canadian citizenship, but nothing more. Those "rights and duties" come from Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution, not your birth certificate.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

Again, your birth certificate provides you with NO ownership rights of anything. It certifies to the fact of your birth within Canada and entitles you to Canadian citizenship, but nothing more. Those "rights and duties" come from Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution, not your birth certificate.

even if i was to agree with you im still thinking im in possession of citizenship of canada. what do you purpose is the document that belief is founded on? do i own my citizenship? i was born here. can you take it from me? in fact is there a mechanism to take it from me, being born in the lands of canada?

and the canadian constitution is little more than a finely bastardized version of the bna act. the only thing that pierre did right was mess up succession.

you see in the changes in the bna to the constitution act in 1982 there was no right of succession afforded. since your most likely predisposed to think im a no nothing i will show some work.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-que ... ish-queen/

the queen of canada is not the queen of england, in that capacity.

peace,
ninj

[Arthur Rubin]

you see in the changes in the bna to the constitution act in 1982 there was no right of succession afforded. since your most likely predisposed to think im a no nothing i will show some work.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-que ... ish-queen/

the queen of canada is not the queen of england, in that capacity.

peace,
ninj

Corporation sole? Another fiction?

[edited] OK, that is a valid concept in the UK, and valid under religious law in the US, so that is correct. How the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England could be different persons and the same "corporation sole" is a liitle beyond my pay grade.

[arayder]

. . . im still thinking im in possession of citizenship of canada. what do you purpose is the document that belief is founded on? do i own my citizenship?. . .

Welcome, bmxninja357!

In what sense do you use the word "own"?

-arayder

[bmxninja357]

um, why are you so bent up on corporations and fiction?

is it im not what you think so you must project beliefs upon me?

really if you want to know something just ask. no need for bs.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

um , what do you think own means? no really without making shit up....

firstly can you pull my ownership of being a citizen as expressed via gov doc by any mechanism, at any time, unilaterally, ever?

remember i know both who and where i am my friend. actually thats not true. i dont like you at all arayder. but i will play only for the clarity of others. if you choose to be a ass i will close my account and be gone. im not here to fight. ask and i answer with honesty. dont be a ass and i will return the courtesy. ok?

ninj

[arayder]

um , what do you think own means? no really without making shit up....

firstly can you pull my ownership of being a citizen as expressed via gov doc by any mechanism, at any time, unilaterally, ever?

remember i know both who and where i am my friend. actually thats not true. i dont like you at all arayder. but i will play only for the clarity of others. if you choose to be a ass i will close my account and be gone. im not here to fight. ask and i answer with honesty. dont be a ass and i will return the courtesy. ok?

ninj

Ok. You have my assurance that your response to my question will not receive a rude response from me.

Again, I ask in what sense do you use the word "own"?

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, your birth certificate provides you with NO ownership rights of anything. It certifies to the fact of your birth within Canada and entitles you to Canadian citizenship, but nothing more. Those "rights and duties" come from Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution, not your birth certificate.

even if i was to agree with you im still thinking im in possession of citizenship of canada. what do you purpose is the document that belief is founded on? do i own my citizenship? i was born here. can you take it from me? in fact is there a mechanism to take it from me, being born in the lands of canada?

and the canadian constitution is little more than a finely bastardized version of the bna act. the only thing that pierre did right was mess up succession.

you see in the changes in the bna to the constitution act in 1982 there was no right of succession afforded. since your most likely predisposed to think im a no nothing i will show some work.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-que ... ish-queen/

the queen of canada is not the queen of england, in that capacity.

peace,
ninj

I have answered your questions twice; and I do not propose to do so again.I also do not propose to answer irrelevant (and barely intelligible) questions about the Canadian constitution and the Queen's relationship to Canada.

The bottom line: you are a Canadian citizen; and your birth certificate is proof of that status.

[Judge Roy Bean]

bmxninja - why do you believe Canada is "owned" by the people of Canada?

I'm not Canadian but I know enough people from your side of the border to know that the property laws are such that Canadian citizens, organizations and corporations can own private property and that the Canadian government(s) own substantial portions of the land.

Hence, you do not own, nor do you have any "rights" to any portion of anything you haven't acquired by purchase or other legal transfer to you, and birth certificates have nothing to do with property.

[bmxninja357]

without using a dictionary i shall say own means its mine. i possess it. its with me in perpetuity on this occasion. unless one renounces citizenship; and a third party accepts it im both enjoying ownership of documents that form a citizen, at law, and i posses a person that owns said citizenship at law.

it would be fun to say i cant separate the "man" from the "person" but you sure can! now as you may or may not have noticed that is nothing i would try in court. but one needs look no further than the last generation 50 buck bill to know the day women became persons. before that, what didn't they do? allow me to help ya. they didn't pay taxes or vote. so that is not a human right is it? its a right of the person.

further in third world countries the assorted ngo's are trying to get the people birth certificates. know why? everyone has a right to a person. and a right to security of that person.

now theres the point your driving at right?

just what do i mean, or interpret to mean "security of the person"

let me ask you,
what is the security of the person?

just tell me to answer that if your unsure what us folks like me think.....

ninj

[Pottapaug1938]

What a bunch of gibberish. You are still trying to make a simple birth certificate into something much more.

I don't know where you found that bit abou "NGOs" supposedly trying to get birth certificates for people; but even if that's so, it's not hard to figure out why -- someone who can prove when and where they were born, and to whom, will have an easier time in life than someone who does not have such a document.

[bmxninja357]

hi Judge Roy Bean,

sorry if im a might testy but im a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.


the reason i belive canada is owned by the people of canada is the repetitive nature of those in gov saying that very thing.

in fact i will go further. the crown represents the people. and the crown is in fact directed(or supposed to be) by the people. thats me. and every other canadian. im not special.

but as to offer a volley, if the people of canada do not own canada(im not purposing the whole do whatcha like thing) who does?

can you show me where canada is not owned by the citizens of canada?

peace,
ninj

[JamesVincent]

I'm sitting at a Wendys in West by God Virginia waiting for my ex to drop off my kids but I wanted to drop a different spoon in the batter.

I don't know how it is where you are but in these parts it is no a "birth certificate", it is a "certificate of live birth" (and yes there is a separate one for a child that is stillborn, different from a certificate of death). All that piece of paper does is prove you were born, period.

[bmxninja357]

What a bunch of gibberish.....
.... someone who can prove when and where they were born, and to whom, will have an easier time in life than someone who does not have such a document.

"We're doing our best to get birth certificates for those born as refugees," said Mason. "But if you can't get documents to indicate where they were born, not only could this cause problems if they stay [in these host countries] but that could cause documentation problems when they go home as well."
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 98566.html

and...

"Afghanistan’s government says that less than 1 percent of its citizens have birth certificates, which makes it difficult to provide children with medical care and properly funded schooling.

Beginning in Kabul, the nation’s capital, the United Nations will be assisting the Afghani government’s push to register all of the country’s newborns before the end of 2009.

But the birth certificate drive is not merely about health care and education. “Having identity, proper identity, is everyone’s human right,” says Najibullah Hameem, a UNICEF child protection specialist in Kabul."
source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Mid ... Drive.html

but hey what the hell do i know right? get the foil toque, going to canada!

"The Famous Five or The Valiant Five[1] were five Canadian women who asked the Supreme Court of Canada to answer the question, "Does the word 'Persons' in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?" in the case Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General).[2] The five women created a petition to ask this question. They sought to have women legally considered persons so that women could be appointed to the Senate. The petition was filed on August 27, 1927,[3] and on 24 April 1928, Canada's Supreme Court summarized its unanimous decision that women are not such "persons".
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Five_(Canada)

is it safe to assume that the person is in fact inseparable from the man? sure. is it also a point of law that the human and the person are separate? yup they are. modern law does not allow for the separation. its easy to see why. it could lead to inequality between sexes or races or social classes.

but person and man are actually two different things.
im not here to argue how others think they can separate them.
i speak only for myself.
ninj

[Arthur Rubin]

is it safe to assume that the person is in fact inseparable from the man? sure. is it also a point of law that the human and the person are separate?

No. As you point out, not all humans are recognized as "persons", and not all "persons" are human (some are corporations), but when a human is a "person", the concepts are identical. There is no separation.