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

[bmxninja357]

i do belive that rights are being turned into privileges.

Question: Can you give an example of a right that is being turned into a privilege?

ya know i just deleted my answer as its hard to find the right words. problem is i know what i want to say but i suspect it may get ripped to shreds for the wrong reason. i will come back to this when i find the words for a proper debate forum.

peace,
ninj

okay, i think i found the can of worms we can find as a fair example of right being turned into priviledge.

i think most here myself included believe anyone charged with an offence has the right to a vigorous defense. now with the current legislation and questionably written laws with definitions of virtually anything there in coming from several distinct and separate judgements and tradition, without years of legal training and expertise how do i enjoy my right to defend myself?

and the priviledge is the legal representation. legal aid does not seem to be a right as they can deny folks for virtually anything they perceive as an ability to have a vigorous defence by other means. further legal aid can and does seize upon the bail of one who uses their service. for this reason many do not get out thus having little reasonable opportunity to study the necessary acts, statutes, codes, traditions, and other aspects required for understanding the proceeding in the modern courtroom; little own while trying to defend ones self against a highly skilled practitioner of the legal craft.

so all that being said how does the common man actually enjoy the right to be vigorously defended, by himself, if the system is crafted in a fashion making that nearly impossible?

just my thoughts on that, i look forward to others.
peace,
ninj

[LordEd]

i think most here myself included believe anyone charged with an offence has the right to a vigorous defense. now with the current legislation and questionably written laws with definitions of virtually anything there in coming from several distinct and separate judgements and tradition, without years of legal training and expertise how do i enjoy my right to defend myself?

You have the right to defend yourself. There is a distinction between "defend myself" and "have a vigorous defense".

If one had the right to food from the government, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were denied that right if they were given bread over lobster.

I recall a point on burnaby's report on the self-represented Mr. Ream where the judge attempted to give him a hint while questioning a witness against him. He didn't take it, but I put it as an example that the justice system will attempt to aid the self-defended litigant. I can track the quote later if you like.

I would also point to R v Duncan (http://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0) which is a meads cited case. In this case, its a freeman-type defendant who was actually successful. He dismissed Mr. Duncan's arguments as having "no merit". Even with him providing no viable defense, the judge found the police had acted improperly, had insufficient evidence and dismissed the case.

I can't comment on the availability of legal aid, so perhaps others can comment on its availability and eligibility.

[bmxninja357]

just to qualify the legal aid thing a little i will use this item, but a similar situation exists in most if not all of canada.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-releas ... 926862.htm

sorry for the late insert, and being a late addition is why i didn't simply edit the prior post.
peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

I would also point to R v Duncan (http://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0) which is a meads cited case. In this case, its a freeman-type defendant who was actually successful. He dismissed Mr. Duncan's arguments as having "no merit". Even with him providing no viable defense, the judge found the police had acted improperly, had insufficient evidence and dismissed the case.

this is something i have said previously in that i dont bother to remember or cite cases of perceived wins. often it has nothing to do with the working of the defendants legal magic, but the courts knowledge of an error in law that would be wrong to overlook, no matter the defendants beliefs.

peace,
ninj

[LordEd]

I point it out as an example that the defendant is not just being attacked by the law, but also defended by the law.

Edit: (whether they want it or not)

[Jeffrey]

the courts knowledge of an error in law that would be wrong to overlook, no matter the defendants beliefs

There are legitimate organizations that do this full time like the ACLU and others that are actually helping people on the street and in courts full time and that includes public defenders and other groups that work for the government.

As we've pointed out, Freemen do the opposite.

[arayder]

the freeman on the land thing can be traced back to rob, in my view, from when i began my involvement. (and to be clear i would consider rob a friend to this day, so please refrain from using this thread as an attack on rob. i believe there is already one or two of those here already.)

Try to coerce somebody else, ninja. You are not a moderator here and do not have the power to abuse conferred authority, as you have so done at the WFS forum. I will, within the bounds of the Quatloos agreement, say whatever I please, when I please.

I am struck by the irony that a "freeman" didn't realize that before he touched his keyboard.

Are you a freeman? Have you ever been one?

. . .and to say libertarian, maybe. if that definition includes good governance that interferes as little as possibly in the lives of the private individual. . .and im not sure about this whole "politically spiritually libertarian thing". that sounds a little off base. im an atheist who thinks most spiritual bs is a bigger crock than anything.

So you didn't see Menard's TV interview and thus can't comment on the stunning contradiction between freemanary, limited government and libertarianism?

Since when is ignorance an argument?

. . .and i cant speak for anyone but myself so im not sure where 'you guys' are going. but i am being quite clear i hope as to my beliefs and the beliefs of several other with whom i associate.

You were asked where you are going and you waffled. As near as one can tell you are a former freeman and Menard sycophant who upon the sad demise of the "movement" has thrown your former "friends" under the bus.

Hardly honorable, don't you think?

[davids]

I just have a few quick questions, and then I'll be done:

1. BMXninja357, do you have any formal legal training (education at a "real" law school, paralegal certificate, work in a law firm, etc.)?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, who did you learn your ideas from in the "alternate" realm of legal training (other than "rob" Menard)?

3. Have you ever conducted legal research to verify the correctness of any of your ideas?

4. Have you ever done anything to lobby the legislature to change laws more to your liking?

5. How many times have you lost in Court, to date, not counting ones that haven't been heard yet, but which you will also likely lose?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
3. Have you ever conducted legal research to verify the correctness of any of your ideas? ...

Ah, the universal problem of the alleged "study" of law by laymen.

Those who have been around here long enough may remember my oft-recommended "study" and "practice" of do-it-yourself vasectomy to those who engage in "legal research." After all, it should be the same path to truth, no?

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

and to answer your question about the security of the person i do not believe it to be a tradable, financial instrument of some type. my belief is that it is the right to have the security of the rights afforded persons, that wasn't fully afforded certain groups in 'civilized' society like canada. (think women being able to vote, freedom of or from religion, the rights of gay folks, etc.). everyone has their person and the rights and duties that come with that securely. but i must add that that is solely my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification on the “security of the person”. The ‘protected rights’ component you describe I think parallels the manner in which the Supreme Court of Canada has defined that passage in Charter, s. 7.

I was quite interested to see you mention “duties” as well, because that is not the way I am used to people expressing the effect of legal personagehood, but I don’t think it’s by any means inappropriate. That’s just a blind spot on my part – I’m used to seeing the "security" language used in a Charter context, which is where the language is ‘defensive’, rather than leading to obligation.

... i am opposed to how taxes are spent, the rates of taxation (from what i understand of them) and the ability of those with a lot of money, or large corporations, to seemingly dance around having to pay their fair share. and as usual, i would be more for laws that can punish being written in a fashion the common man could understand without having to pay someone to do it for ya. and i think i would be more supportive of a flat tax. but that could all be simply my lack of understanding of things. taxes seem to be a complex topic and i look forward to furrowing my unibrow in a vain attempt to understand the subject.

Burnaby49 is the expert (guru!) on this but I thought I’d offer a few thoughts. One of the reasons our tax system is so complex is that historically governments have tried to use taxation as a mechanism to affect social behavior. A great example are RRSPs - create a tax break for retirement savings and you can nudge people into saving for their retirement. A good idea? Sure! But sometimes ‘social engineering by taxation’ can cause issues.

One is that it brings out the special interest groups – and they all want their own little hook. On the surface, who can argue some of these. Let’s create a tax break for charitable donations. How can that go wrong?

Well, everytime you create one of these loopholes then out come the schemers trying to find ways to manipulate those for less honest results. I’ll nudge Burnaby49 to point to the appropriate threads, but one of the recent wholesale abuses of peoples’ tax obligations has been via abuse of the charity deduction. Insane abuse.

I think it would be better to cut those deductions to the bone, and then reduce tax rates as a whole, but if I were a politician trying to run on that platform I think I’d meet some pretty aggressive lobbyists on the other side.

Oddly, taxation offers probably one of the finest examples of an attempt to simplify a legal apparatus – and its tragic demise. Awhile ago the Feds enacted something called the General Anti-Avoidance Regulation, or GAAR. GAAR was great – a simple rule that would immediately undercut all those attempts by taxpayers – particularly corporations, at gaming the tax system: where a transaction or a series of transactions achieves a reduction, avoidance or deferral of tax, and those transactions or series of transactions are not conducted for any primary purpose other than to obtain a tax benefit, the tax consequences of the such may be invalidated.

Basically, you engage in business or other dealings for no other purpose than to reduce tax? It’s undone – pay your tax.

What a beautiful dream… needless to say, when GAAR got to the Supreme Court of Canada they gutted it. GAAR still exists … but it’s basically toothless. A sad tale.

I hope the Feds try something like that again but realistically the best way to avoid misuse of tax processes is to add yet more provisions to the Income Tax Act to nullify the sneaky trick. And the Income Tax Act gets thicker...

I actually disagree with a flat tax structure. I’m in one of the higher tax brackets, and I’m fine paying more. There’s a substantial part of the population for whom a few hundred bucks means a big difference. I’d rather that come from me – I can afford it. Happy about it? No, but I’d rather the load fall on those better able to absorb the hit.

One last point on tax - I prefer a sales tax over income tax. You observed there’s a problem with corporations and taxation. Sales taxes address that – it’s the corporations economic activity that will cause sales tax and government income. Not something that can be sequestered, cancelled out, and so on. I believe most economists agree that is a better structure to generate income, but for some reason it bothers many in the public. Unfortunate.

i think most here myself included believe anyone charged with an offence has the right to a vigorous defense. now with the current legislation and questionably written laws with definitions of virtually anything there in coming from several distinct and separate judgements and tradition, without years of legal training and expertise how do i enjoy my right to defend myself?

and the priviledge is the legal representation. legal aid does not seem to be a right as they can deny folks for virtually anything they perceive as an ability to have a vigorous defence by other means. further legal aid can and does seize upon the bail of one who uses their service. for this reason many do not get out thus having little reasonable opportunity to study the necessary acts, statutes, codes, traditions, and other aspects required for understanding the proceeding in the modern courtroom; little own while trying to defend ones self against a highly skilled practitioner of the legal craft.

so all that being said how does the common man actually enjoy the right to be vigorously defended, by himself, if the system is crafted in a fashion making that nearly impossible?

The language usually used in by the Supreme Court of Canada is “full answer and defence”. It’s a combination of knowing the case you face, knowing your options, and knowing enough about the law that you can make a viable, informed decision on how to proceed.

Your concern is well placed, because the presumption is that if you are a person accused of a criminal offence you will get legal advice from a lawyer in some manner or another. Is Legal Aid adequate? No. It helps but it has been crippled by limited funding, and resources are channeled into ‘priority cases’.

One emerging alternative are duty counsel. A number of Canadian Courts now have government funded defence lawyers who are not retained by an accused person but who hang around in typical scenarios where an unrepresented accused comes before the court – for example in bail hearings or provincial court proceedings. They offer a crash course and advice on simple stuff. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it a superior answer? No, but it certainly helps to have those lawyers there and available when push comes to shove.

So how do we help make that right to full answer and defence a reality. One way is to make law accessible. I don’t often sing the praises of Canada’s Law Societies, but when CanLII was set up they did it right. It’s an amazingly good resource if one has the time, a bit of background, and can drill through the material. We have had another big win in making law accessible and that is that the Supreme Court of Canada is now writing a lot less like pompous British Law Lords and more to an audience that includes anybody. Are they there yet? No, but a lot of modern Supreme Court of Canada decisions are a primer that many people can read on a subject and understand a lot about the rules.

If I actually had some authority (ha!) one thing I would do is make certain that CanLII is pumped into prisons and remand centres for prisoner/detainee access. Those facilities have little, if any, legal research resources, and we now have an excellent, searchable, authorative place for people who need to know about the law to find out what the law is. Hey, maybe someone should do a Charter challenge …

Is it a fix? Nope, but it’s step closer to right place.

But the quiet irony is that the really messy complexity in criminal law is the fallout of the Charter, and how it applies to fairness. Not whether a person is guilty or innocent, but whether or not something is fair or procedurally correct. I’ll keep my burgeoning rant under control, but take the question of whether a search is or is not lawful. We used to have rules. Now we have context. I feel sorry for the cops, the accused persons, lawyers, and judges. It’s not quite guesswork – but it’s close.

And that doesn't really help anyone. The law is supposed to be knowable - a predictable apparatus. When it's not, we all have a problem.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

... i am opposed to how taxes are spent, the rates of taxation (from what i understand of them) and the ability of those with a lot of money, or large corporations, to seemingly dance around having to pay their fair share. and as usual, i would be more for laws that can punish being written in a fashion the common man could understand without having to pay someone to do it for ya. and i think i would be more supportive of a flat tax. but that could all be simply my lack of understanding of things. taxes seem to be a complex topic and i look forward to furrowing my unibrow in a vain attempt to understand the subject.

Burnaby49 is the expert (guru!) on this but I thought I’d offer a few thoughts. One of the reasons our tax system is so complex is that historically governments have tried to use taxation as a mechanism to affect social behavior. A great example are RRSPs - create a tax break for retirement savings and you can nudge people into saving for their retirement. A good idea? Sure! But sometimes ‘social engineering by taxation’ can cause issues.

One is that it brings out the special interest groups – and they all want their own little hook. On the surface, who can argue some of these. Let’s create a tax break for charitable donations. How can that go wrong?

Well, everytime you create one of these loopholes then out come the schemers trying to find ways to manipulate those for less honest results. I’ll nudge Burnaby49 to point to the appropriate threads, but one of the recent wholesale abuses of peoples’ tax obligations has been via abuse of the charity deduction. Insane abuse.

I think it would be better to cut those deductions to the bone, and then reduce tax rates as a whole, but if I were a politician trying to run on that platform I think I’d meet some pretty aggressive lobbyists on the other side.

Oddly, taxation offers probably one of the finest examples of an attempt to simplify a legal apparatus – and its tragic demise. Awhile ago the Feds enacted something called the General Anti-Avoidance Regulation, or GAAR. GAAR was great – a simple rule that would immediately undercut all those attempts by taxpayers – particularly corporations, at gaming the tax system: where a transaction or a series of transactions achieves a reduction, avoidance or deferral of tax, and those transactions or series of transactions are not conducted for any primary purpose other than to obtain a tax benefit, the tax consequences of the such may be invalidated.

Basically, you engage in business or other dealings for no other purpose than to reduce tax? It’s undone – pay your tax.

What a beautiful dream… needless to say, when GAAR got to the Supreme Court of Canada they gutted it. GAAR still exists … but it’s basically toothless. A sad tale.

I hope the Feds try something like that again but realistically the best way to avoid misuse of tax processes is to add yet more provisions to the Income Tax Act to nullify the sneaky trick. And the Income Tax Act gets thicker...

I actually disagree with a flat tax structure. I’m in one of the higher tax brackets, and I’m fine paying more. There’s a substantial part of the population for whom a few hundred bucks means a big difference. I’d rather that come from me – I can afford it. Happy about it? No, but I’d rather the load fall on those better able to absorb the hit.

One last point on tax - I prefer a sales tax over income tax. You observed there’s a problem with corporations and taxation. Sales taxes address that – it’s the corporations economic activity that will cause sales tax and government income. Not something that can be sequestered, cancelled out, and so on. I believe most economists agree that is a better structure to generate income, but for some reason it bothers many in the public. Unfortunate.

SMS Möwe

I didn't comment on ninja's position on taxes because it is one of those areas I could go on about forever and I wanted to stay focused on his Tax Court comments. In brief I agree with him and you. Your position that the tax system got totally perverted by social and economic goals instead of just collecting revenue for the government is a position I've had for decades.

One is that it brings out the special interest groups – and they all want their own little hook. On the surface, who can argue some of these. Let’s create a tax break for charitable donations. How can that go wrong?

Well, every time you create one of these loopholes then out come the schemers trying to find ways to manipulate those for less honest results.

No kidding! Governments think they can nudge the economy and people's behavior through tax breaks, all they get is tax avoidance, economic inefficiency, and a Byzantine Income Tax Act nobody can comprehend. We want more of X industry so let's give it tax breaks. In one decade X might be farming, in another manufacturing, in another high tech, in another solar and wind power. So each get special breaks that linger forever because of the pernicious effects of special interest groups and lobbies. Even when the government doesn't try and manipulate the economy through income tax breaks they are always willing to listen to their friends the lobbyists. Governments, all federal governments of whatever party, just can't resist tinkering with the Income Tax Act.

The sharpest legal minds in the country are income tax lawyers. I dealt with them for most of my career and many of them are near genius in their abilities to comprehend the incomprehensible. And they are all focused on how to work the insane complexities of the Income Tax Act to their client's advantage. When you match an insanely complex Income Tax Act with extremely astute tax lawyers you get court cases like this one, Husky Oil;

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/fca-caf/d ... 7/index.do

I was peripherally involved in the case. Essentially the parties to the arm's length sale of a large energy company managed to defer capital gains on the sale for 25 years through extremely complex maneuvers which fit within the wording of the Act. Try and read it. See if you can even begin to comprehend it. I won't fault you for failing miserably. Ed Kroft, the lawyer who represented the taxpayer at the Federal Court of Appeals is brilliant, one of the sharpest minds I've ever met. When I sat down and put a big chunk of my time into analyzing the Tax Court and Federal Court of Appeals decisions in this case I managed to put it into some kind of sense in my own mind but how did someone think up a scheme like this in the first place? This type of situation, and the distortions of economic activities necessary to make these schemes work are distressingly commonplace.

The pandering to special interests and the use of the income tax system for reasons other than revenue collection is an invitation to corruption and inefficiency. And the Act just keeps getting bigger. As Mowe commented GAAR was supposed to cut though the Gordian knot and allow reassessments when taxpayers manipulated the law to their advantage but the Supreme Court gutted it.

Again, as Mowe said, the poster boy for tax abuse was the charitable donation scams. I spent perhaps the last five years of my career dealing with them. Lawyers and accountants found, or thought they found, a way to actually profit by making charitable donations. Donate a dollar and get a three dollar tax credit. Sleazy promoters and con men picked up on the schemes and started huge programs taxpayers could buy into to screw the CRA and other taxpayers. By the time the CRA got a handle on it taxpayers were claiming literally billions of dollars of credits in these toxic schemes. We reassessed every one, or at least every one we could find in time (a lot slipped through due to statute-barred situations) but it was an enormous and very costly effort. I have written extensively on these schemes in Quatloos and elsewhere, and the scale of them still amazes me. Check out my analysis of them in my August 24th, 2013 posting in this Quatloos discussion thread;

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1201&hilit=humanitarian+trust

Mowe was so offended by the obvious gross abuses in these schemes that he questioned whether the parties running them or the taxpayers participating in them had ended up in jail. Well no, the schemes fell apart but the promoters were protected because they could claim to be acting within the Income Tax Act. Just a matter of legal interpretation, not criminal activity.

I may not agree with ninja on much and I've has a few (very few) disagreements with Mowe but I'm right onside on just about any criticism they have of the Income Tax Act and the needless complexities of our tax system.

And I could go on with this rant for a lot, lot, longer so you can see why I hesitated to respond to ninja.

[grixit]

Bob Free2Bme
sovs isnt a 'switch' or get out of jail free card.. its different things to different folks.. to me its realising i am just a man.. thats all.. jsut a man

I don't buy the whole 'I'm just a man who wants to be free'. It seems to translate in practice to wanting to be free from paying taxes and fines but having unlimited access to free money from the government and banks. bmxninja may be the exception but that is my impression of freemanry in general.

I'm just a man who proclaims that he's free
Oh Lord, please don't make me face reality!

[bmxninja357]

@Hilfskreuzer Möwe and burnaby49,

thank you guys for your replies. its good to see that although we hold extremely different beliefs there is points we can agree on.
---------------------------
to answer some of the other questions posed im no stranger to a council meeting or protest. and im trying hard to gain a full grasp on roberts rules of order to assist in making further progress or at least trying to in the political realm. i keep a paperback version handy at home and read through it when im bored. and my family was extremely political so i have actually been to conventions and meetings and such. heck, i remember the tears in my house when grant notley died.

and no i have no legal training at all. but i have had many, many, many occasions to see court in action as both a self represented defendant and with a lawyer. on most occasions when i have used a lawyer i have also made sure he knew i want opportunity to speak. at first my lawyer i generally used to use in ab, as well as the one i used in bc were unsure i should speak until i actually did. as a shady young man i can say showing the judge your not a standard idiot helps get reduced sentences. and back in those days you often spent all day in the courtroom, depending on the town; so one became very familiar with the goings on. and back then i was often a captive audience.

and no, i have no pending court dates wants or warrants. im not on probation or parole. in fact i have a 10 year clean commercial driving record. and to be quite certain i have not been charged with any offence of any type since i have identified as a freeman on the land. if anything it has calmed me down and forced me to think things through with a much more critical eye and a greater amount of compassion. the freeman on the land movement has actually made me rethink racism, sexism, homophobia, and several other forms of intolerance. i find such things have no hold on me and i can thank the freeman on the land movement for that. and i must add i believe im only as free as my neighbor and will not have any special rights or privileges others are not afforded. in short, to get more freedoms others must enjoy them commonly also.

well, im getting a bit tired and i have a few things to do before i sleep so i shall add more later. hope i clarified a few things. and im glad there is some points a few of us can agree on.

peace,
ninj

[Fussygus]

Good to hear from you ninj. I know were you are coming from (i have my own discussion here). You are on the right path in making honest inquiry about things here and I'm sure elseware. There is no quick answer and trust me when I say allot of what is know is not necessarily understood. But that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means we have forgotten to pass down the knowledge. Your inquiry helps to bring forth the dialog that may help to bring the knowledge back to where it needs to be for the good of our society.

Now I sorry but I haven't read all the posts (seemed to exponentially multiply since yesterday) but I do have a comment on your initial questions about ownership of Canada.

As far as I see it Canada is like (don't jump on me about freeman claims etc, I'm just trying to explain) a corporation, and it's citizens are the shareholders of Canada. That shareholding affords them the dividends of being a shareholder. It is not substantially different than the structure of Bombardier or Microsoft, there are statutes (articles) that articulate how the country (business) is to be run and who is responsible for what. In a way we are all officers in some capacity for the country (business) and as such have duties same. Now I know this will may stir some people as being freemanish but this is how I see the structure of what Canada is and how it is run.

Can you sell your shares? No. Just like a corporation the shares can be non-transferable. Who is given shares? Just like a corporation you can issue shares to anyone, but in this case everyone who is born in Canada is given a share. Then there is a process for those not born in Canada to get a share (citizenship). This structure has been the same for thousands of years, but at least back to Roman times.

What does being a shareholder afford you? A right to vote who the directors of the corporation are (member of parliament). Those elected members of parliament work with the staff of the corporation (public sector) to bring the fruition to the desires of the shareholders. If the shareholders feel the directors aren't doing a good job and are leading the company down the tubes then they replace them.

This is how I see any democracy being operated. All the statute laws are simply the rules that the corporation has adopted for the good of Canada (the company) to prosper and function.

So I repeat it's good to see you opening yourself up to dialog on your beliefs. I will agree with your statement going down the road has certainly made me much more aware of how I affect others and I am at a much better place having traveled the road.

Any time you want to drop me a PM go ahead, I'm a wide open book. I to have extensive knowledge of the courts and law, just maybe in regards to different things, but definitely some the same.

Good luck Ninji

Fuzzy

"Honour isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with the consequences."

[Fussygus]

One other point I'd like to add, seeing the issue of taxes above.

Taxes mean nothing!

If we stopped considering the amount we get paid and started considering the amount we receive (after tax) then we would be far better off. But the number we are told is how much we get paid, then we see how much is taken off.

Think of prior to the GST coming in. We didn't know the 13% retail tax because it was buried in the price. We were none the wise and just went about our day thinking that was the cost of the goods. The way the taxes are is the same as GST, we know how much it is.

We need to stop worrying about how much the government gets and only worry about whether we get enough. Plus it is all relative as everyone (spare me the puns) pays approximately the same share, or at least it is a share that has been reviewed by our directors to be reasonably equitable to for the good of the corporation (country).

Would people feel better if they negotiated their rate as being $18/hr after tax versus $25/hr before tax? Would there be a psychological difference?

Think of the other side of things if you were paid the full $25/hr, what other costs would you be born with, because there was no corporation? When your house burned there would be no standing army (firefighters) to put it out unless you paid them directly. Likewise how much would insurance cost if there were no firefighters that could put out the fire at your house (ask someone who lives in the bush)?

Having gone through the process as it applies to taxes I have come to the realization that If I intimately knew the why, what and how of the law, I might not come to a different solution as exists now. Frankly, if 200 plus of my friends thought it was reasonable, am I to presume they are ALL idiots? Or are more than 50% idiots? I guess the media doesn't help them in that way, but I seriously doubt that is truly the case.

So with taxes, don't blow a gasket worrying about that number, simply worry about how much you get and think of how you are providing for those less fortunate. Then let your voice be heard when you do hear of injustice or waste. Hold those we have honoured accountable to their positions.

Stop worrying so much about the number and look at what kind of life you have. Money isn't the only thing, and frankly the most charitable people are the ones that give their time, not money.

Sincerely,

Fuzzy

[bmxninja357]

sorry mods. i made the mistake of reply elsewhere on the forum. i did not intend that and instead of a cheap shot edit, i shall apologize.

point is im willing to discuss right and wrong. both morally and legally/lawfully.

i appeared here by name long before i came to answer for it.

i am here to learn; including but not limited to the things i like.

i believe i have been open. and i do take a degree of offence to you telling me what i believe.

lets be respectful and discuss what it is and what isn't right about freeman on the land.

this isnt so hard. many points we may actually agree on if we lose the attitudes.

peace,
ninj

[wserra]

i do take a degree of offence to you telling me what i believe.

Perhaps that happens because you don't say what you believe.

Another new member here (The_Nidhogg) asked you the key question: "which fmotl/SC beliefs do you subscribe to?" While you did answer the post, your answer consists far more of what you don't believe than what you do believe. My response to the little you say is below.

and to answer why im a freeman on the land would take half the night.

If you can't shorten it to reasonable length, then your beliefs are not fully formed.

so to shorten it down i will say i think the legal system is a sham that perpetuates its own business.

I have never had personal experience with the Canadian "legal system". From everything I read, however, it is not that different from the U.S. I am very familiar with the U.S. legal system, and this post is perforce written with the U.S. in mind. I don't disagree that there is an element of self-perpetuation, but I don't think lawyers are any worse in that regard than, say, doctors or accountants. You'll have to explain what you mean by "sham".

i think laws should be simplified and written in plain english.

I generally agree. While it gets a little more complicated, that belief hardly make you a freeman. Unless, of course, I am too.

if ignorance of the law is no excuse then it is every mans duty to know it. the law should be so plainly written as to not require excess interpretation by someone charging by the hour.

In everyday situations, I agree, and it generally is. "Don't steal", "stop at the sign" and "don't hurt people unless you're defending yourself" are not difficult to understand - unless, of course, you're determined not to understand them. More complicated situations require more complicated laws, and the people who interpret them.

None of this makes you a "freeman". Are you?

[Jeffrey]

Since you're here. Who made the call to ban me until December 2030?

[arayder]

Since you're here. Who made the call to ban me until December 2030?

It's the only way our favorite WFS moderator can control the discussion. Even meta got put in time out a while back. Heck, ole son even tries to tell people what to say around here.

The irony of a so-called freeman acting like a drunk with power third grade hall monitor is not lost on those paying attention.

It's just one more example of the wheels are coming off freemanary.

[webhick]

Since you're here. Who made the call to ban me until December 2030?

Forum jail for sixteen years? If you're going to ban someone for longer than most forums last, you should just perma-ban them.

Unless of course a "temporary" ban makes it look like the user simply stopped posting (VICTORY!) while a perma-ban clearly looks like the user has been permanently banned (SILENCED!). I'm not familiar enough with Kunena to say.

bmx, do you realize that WFS is violating the Kunena terms of use by removing the backlink? The developers don't get paid for their hard work and denying them credit for their work is like pirating software. Please implore the powers that be restore the backlink.