Rob Inthe Pagefamily - Conscious Self Governance

[Burnaby49]

Rob's decided to fight;

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 4221684087

So the unfortunate Court of Queens' Bench of Alberta is probably going to face more Freeman gibberish and squabbling. Haven't they suffered enough?

[notorial dissent]

Rob's decided to fight;

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 4221684087

So the unfortunate Court of Queens' Bench of Alberta is probably going to face more Freeman gibberish and squabbling. Haven't they suffered enough?

I don't know, maybe they didn't sufficiently and solidly smack him down as he deserved the last time. Regrettably, I sometimes think some courts encourage this type of abuse. (I can thingk of several off hand)Although this may not be the case, some litigants never seem to get a clue, even when repeatedly hit up the side of the head with large wooden implements.

[Burnaby49]

Time for an update on Rob, a fairly big one. I've been gathering material but the Poriskyites and others keep pulling me away from it. I'll do a number of posts because I have a legal analysis first and then a review of his current travails and vicissitudes.

Rob has this to say about himself on December 2nd;:

Rob Inthe Pagefamily

I had somebody tell me today "Of all of the People ransacked by that group, You're almost the only One that I find to have purely honourable intentions."

I refuse to let critics, detractors or other shills detract from my message, intent, spirit and life purpose. I know in my heart that what I am doing is what I need to do. I know I anger many and scare many more. It pains me and I will forge ahead despite the pain. It saddens me and I will keep walking with tears in my eyes because my heart says to keep going. My mind may waver, doubt and second guess. But my heart keeps telling me - DON'T STOP!!!!

I must listen to my heart. No matter what others may say. I stand on the principles I outlined in my book. Thank you for the support! I really do appreciate it!!!!

That's right, Rob wrote a book! Graduating Life With Honours: Conscious Self-Governance in God's Kingdom. You can download it here;

http://private.consciousselfgovernance. ... onours.pdf

It's appropriately priced at free and worth every cent! Even if we don't have pennies here in Canada anymore.

So as a starting point, let's see how Rob inthe Pagefamily does at understanding the law. He's awfully concerned about the word "person" and that weird kind of imaginary language called "legalese". Just like Rob Menard. Maybe it's a Rob-specific thing? So tell us Rob, what is a "person".

This is where my point really becomes clear. Now we are accessing multiple sources for word definitions. The Canadian Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c.I-21) defines a person as being a:

"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation.

Now does this describe a corporation or does it describe the human being or both? There are many researchers out there that would suggest that this legal definition of person defines the corporation only. That conclusion is based on the definition of the word 'includes'. This is a very common word where most people get it wrong. I found out a few years ago that I've been using it wrong for most of my life. The word 'includes' is not to add to but rather to shut or close in; to shut up, confine (Oxford Unabridged Dictionary 1958). There are even legal maxims and court cases to support this interpretation. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others”. What that really means is that when you use the word 'includes' to define a word it means this and nothing more. When we utilize critical thinking we are forced to conclude that the Interpretation Act has defined the word 'person' to define corporations.

"Critical thinking", eh? Let's see how "critical thinking" stacks up with that good ol' standby of people who want to actually get it right - research. Rob's probably going to court. A Canadian one. So, what do Canadian courts have to say about this section?

Let's start with R. v. AFC Soccer, 2004 MBCA 73;
http://canlii.ca/t/1h4sf

This is a copyright infringement case. AFC Soccer was sued and pled guilty. The problem was, AFC Soccer doesn't exit. It's not a human being, or a corporation. So the court had to figure out whether AFC Soccer was a person. To figure that out the Manitoba Court of Appeal used the section 35 Interpretation Act "person" definition and said:

The Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, s. 35, contains a definition of “person” as follows:

“[P]erson”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation.

Thus, the definition includes natural as well as legal persons.

WHOA! Did you just see that Rob inthe Pagefamily? "Person" means legal persons (i.e. corporations) and natural persons (i.e. old piles of flab like me)! Not just one. But BOTH!

But... but... but... doesn't "inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others"? Nope. We'll get on a little later as to how you screwed that up.

Hmm... I wonder if any other OPCA types have screwed this up too.

Let's try with this one because it involves my specialty, income tax.

R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356
http://canlii.ca/t/1jkcv

"John Donald of the Family Sargent" of Aurora, Ontario did not cooperate with the CRA because he said he's not a person. Only persons pay taxes. Persons are corporations.

[33] So who is a person with the meaning of the Income Tax Act of Canada? Applying the established rules of statutory interpretation the question may be properly restated in the following fashion. What is the ordinary meaning or common or popular sense of the word person? The Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives a primary meaning of the word as an individual human being. The Nelson Canadian Dictionary of English Language gives as the primary meaning of the word, a living human being. Dictionaries are a recognized aid to the Courts in determining the ordinary meaning or common or popular sense of a word used in a statute in accordance with the general rules of statutory interpretation. Black's Law Dictionary gives as the primary meaning of the word person a human being and, as a secondary meaning, an entity such as a corporation that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary defines a person as the object of rights and duties that is capable of having rights and of being liable to duties. Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being; an artificial person is a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation. In the Dictionary of Canadian Law, a person is a natural person and that includes a body corporate or politic.

[34] The definitions taken from the Dictionaries noted above, including Dictionaries of legal terms are uniform and clear. A person in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. The primary sense of the word is a natural person, the secondary sense, an artificial person such as a corporation.

[35] The Interpretation Act of Canada is consistent with this ordinary meaning. Section 35 of that Act defines a person as follows: a person or any word or expression descriptive of a person includes a corporation. The use of the verb includes extends to the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that in it's ordinary meaning and in it's common and popular sense a person in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations. I'm also driven to this conclusion that there is nothing in the context of the Income Tax Act or the authorities that would support the interpretation that Parliament by enacting the Income Tax Act intended that the word person be used in the narrower sense of comprising only corporations or artificial persons. The statutory definition of a person contained in Section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act includes the heirs, executors, administrators of such a person. Only a natural person who has died has heirs, executors and administrators. A corporation or other artificial person does not as the English jurist Lord Chancellor Thurlow is quoted as saying, "Did you even expect a corporation to have a conscience when it has no soul to be dammed and nobody to be kicked".

[36] I find that a person as defined in Section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act includes a natural person and an artificial person. It follows that the Defendant is a person and a taxpayer. I also find that he's a resident in Canada. As a person the applicant has the same rights and obligations as other persons under the Income Tax Act.

[37] The misguided notion of law generally and the Income Tax Act specifically, only applying to corporations and not to persons to be drawn from the Defendant's interpretation of the Income Tax Act and as evidenced by exhibits "e", "f", "g", "h", "i" and "j" was an incorrect assertion of the law by the Defendant.

See? You're wrong. "Person" does not mean "corporation". Let's try this real-simple-like. Is the following true?

I went out and collected some eggs from my all-natural free-range organic chickens. I bonded with them before and after I touched their eggs. They smiled, in their beak-clacking way. The Goddess smiled on us all. Then I made an omelette with those eggs that included cheese.

But ... but ... Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius ... this is impossible! I made an omelette with eggs ... but by "including" cheese I have excluded the eggs? Conundrum!

Ok, how about we see how your interpretation of "person" did when it was argued by the Detaxer Extraordinaire himself. David Kevin Lindsay!

Kennedy v. Canada (Customs & Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1wd1t

Same argument - "person" only means "corporation".

[17] These definitions taken from dictionaries including dictionaries of legal terms are uniform and clear. A “person” in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. The primary sense of the word is a natural person; the secondary sense, an artificial person such as a corporation.

[18] The Interpretation Act (Canada) is consistent with this ordinary meaning. Section 35 of that Act defines a “person”, as follows:

“person” or any word or expression, descriptive of a person includes a corporation.

The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. In the French text of the Act, the meaning is even clearer:

« personne » Personne physique ou morale; Tune ou l’autre notions sont visées dans des formulations générales, impersonnelles ou comportant des pronoms ou adjectifs indéfinis.

A “personne physique” is a natural person; a “personne morale” is a corporation.

[19] I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that in its ordinary meaning and in its common or popular sense, the word “person” in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations.

Well, so much for that. So repeat after me ten times Rob;

The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being.

So where did you go so sadly wrong, Rob? It's the word "includes". The meaning you gave for it is not only illogical, but it's also legally wrong. The classic description of this language was defined back in 1899 by a Privy Council decision called Dilworth v. New Zealand Commissioner of Stamps:

The word "include" is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, incidentally, is the highest court in the British Commonwealth. The Supreme Court of Canada uses the same definition. Check out;

The Queen v. Loblaw Groceteria Company (Manitoba) Limited / The Queen v. Thomson, [1961] SCR 138
http://canlii.ca/t/22vrh

So there you go Rob - time to amend your book and release a new and corrected edition. No need to give me credit when you finally get it right. Although I'm guessing that there are a few other errors.......

[Philistine]

Didn't Menard go down this same path with "includes" and his peace officer nonsense?
I think it's pretty clear to most of us that it means "includes but is not limited to"...
I like your omelette analogy. Now include some mushrooms in that omelette Burnaby49 as I'm allergic to eggs. As long as you make an omelette which includes mushrooms and cheese it should be egg free.

[Burnaby49]

Didn't Menard go down this same path with "includes" and his peace officer nonsense?
I think it's pretty clear to most of us that it means "includes but is not limited to"...
I like your omelette analogy. Now include some mushrooms in that omelette Burnaby49 as I'm allergic to eggs. As long as you make an omelette which includes mushrooms and cheese it should be egg free.

I recall a decision, don't remember the name, where a judge asked one of these idiots "If a chocolate chip cookie recipe says that it includes flour does that mean the cookies only have flour in them?"

Charles Norman Holmes based his whole case on why he didn't have to pay tax on this stupidity. Since the definition of a taxable "person" in the Income Tax Act said that it included corporations then he didn't have to pay tax since he wasn't a corporation.

[Burnaby49]

Actually, thinking it over, this Freeman definition of "includes" could solve Peter of England and the WeRe bank's problems with all of those bounced cheques. Cut out all of the compexity of the WeRe gibberish and just tell your creditors that your debts include $5 you just borrowed from your wife. Then, like magic, all you owe is that fiver to the wife and, with luck, she'll even give you easy repayment terms.

[Burnaby49]

Some more updates on Rob. Keep in mind that he constantly posts on Face Book so I'm only skimming the surface. He's moving out, he's staying and fighting. He's Up! He's down! His story doesn't really make sense to me. The way he tell sit he owns half the rights to the property and some unrelated person owned the other half but didn't do anything with it until she sold it to strangers. They have moved in and are forcing him out. Why would strangers buy half of a property with a guy like Rob apparently permanently living on it? People don't buy half of a patch of rural land when the other half is owned by an unrelated guy with an almost religious attachment to it. And how can they kick him out if he's half-owner? It's hard enough booting tenants never mind a legal owner. They are running electricity and other services in? Again why would they do that before getting an agreement with the other owner who is already physically controlling the land? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me but that's the story Rob is telling. What I get from the situation, just a guess, is that he may not have a half-interest. The woman who sold owned it all and he thinks, for some reason, that he owns half on a moral rather than legal basis because he's worked so hard "improving it". In other words he's a squatter. That might explain why he was in a panic mode right from the start rather than sitting down with the other owners and working out how they were going to arrange things. So with that, on with the show.

Rob get an ally, the best he can expect, a total loser who's specialty is directing others how to screw themselves while he watches from the sidelines. Yes, none other than our own "minister" Belanger who is linking his 'educational videos' to Rob's page;

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... %22R%22%7D

The parakeet hasn't given up ... after the Volk debacle he's just been looking for a new customer. Perhaps they'll become friends...

But Rob also has enemies! He whined that somebody's not saying nice things about him:

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 1201401389

I don't see anybody else who could care less about his predicament so I assume that he's unhappy about us. At least I hope so. I'd like to think that I've made a difference.

Things get worse! Now Rob inthe Pagefamily sounds like he's getting ready to expllloooooddddde! Pray for him, please:

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 6297557546


He posted that on the mornng of December 12th. The day got a lot worse. Apparently not enough of us prayed for him because he now has more sad posts...

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 8507547325

Rob Inthe Pagefamily
22 mins ·
Everything I've learned about relationships tells me that forced relationships are not healthy and I have the right to not participate with them. Does not matter if that is with the state or with people.
I have the right to choose which relationships I will participate with. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon me without my consent.

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 8864213956

Rob Inthe Pagefamily
22 mins ·
Wow. Two 'friends' swearing at me today. What is going on? Such hostility and violence. Boundaries engaged. cry emoticon
...

Rob Inthe Pagefamily
Rob Inthe Pagefamily To be honest, I am having a really rough day today. Forced relationships don't go over well with me. Then these two guys swearing at me. I've had my fair share of crying ...

My heart is in great pain.

Who did this!? Who made Rob cry? Well, an earlier post includes this:

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... %22R%22%7D

Rob Inthe Pagefamily
Religion is yet another example of the justification of violence that I talked about in my original post above. Just because a holy book says it is okay, does it really make it okay? Of course not. Many contradictions can be found in all of them. It is amazing though how much hostility can be generated by those who hate religion and God as well.

People are violent, not ideas. Ideas are neutral. We make them violent by acting upon them. We do that. Not the book. Not the fictional construct around which we study these books but our actions to determine doctrine which ends up being dogma. People must take responsibility for their actions rather than blaming or externalizing it.

Does being spiritual, believing in the Creator, knowing that I AM that I AM and working hard to accept Christ Consciousness within myself, praying for guidance, peace and love justify hostile judgements Todd? You can swear all you want. You can pass judgement all you want. All your post did was diminish my desire to have you as a friend. I don't need nor do I desire that kind of hostility and judgement in my life - ever. There are healthy ways to confront people and unhealthy ways. That post you wrote is a demonstration of an unhealthy confrontation. I will not tolerate behaviour like that. You are welcome to delete it or modify it to reflect respect, peace and non-violence.

I pray. I believe in a Creator. I believe I AM a spiritual being in possession of a physical vessel. I believe I AM more than that and it is my job to explore the full potential of who I AM. I believe it is up to me to declare peace and be peaceful and by doing so I welcome a higher level of consciousness into my life and it will change my life. That higher level of consciousness is called Christ Consciousness. I don't worship Jesus but instead find ways to integrate his teachings in my life so that I can acquire the richness in my own life and impact others as well. Jesus is not going to 'save' me but rather I will save myself. I believe it has made me a better individual, it has already enriched my life and that I am being tested right now to see if I will reject this level of consciousness. For me, it has been a struggle and I am working hard to stand on this new level of consciousness. I even wrote a book about it. You are welcome to read it if you want. It is free.

However, if you don't like it then you are welcome to leave. If you continue your hostile rants against my beliefs, I will unfriend you. You are welcome to believe what ever you want to believe. Either way, I forgive you for your outburst. All I ask for is respect, gentleness, compassion and empathy. Peace to you.

TODD did it! TODD! Who is TODD?! Todd is Todd Pizzey,I assume the owner of the land!

Scanning through Todd's Facebook page, though, it gets kind of tough to understand what all the fuss is about. Take this bit of wisdom from Todd;

https://www.facebook.com/todd.pizzey/po ... 7509117307

Todd Pizzey
March 27, 2012 ·
been trying to meditate and get in contact with my highter self .Inorder to do this they say u must avoid all drama ! set up to stop u (ego) its amazing the more i meditate the more i dream and the more the drama raises its head !!! enything and everything that is drama seems to piss me off ! but its now different because im aware of it ! and dont get involved in this bullshit ! hard to do because that ego is not stupid and uses everything it can to upset me and make me react .
...
You tryed to tell me this a few yeas ago didnt u nick !!! i always knew u were a smart fucker !!!!!!
March 27, 2012 at 12:54pm

And hey - Todd's not had the easiest time with The Man either. Todd too has problems with authorities!

https://www.facebook.com/todd.pizzey/po ... 5474372844

https://www.facebook.com/todd.pizzey/po ... 9807645744

Todd Pizzey
February 24, 2012 ·
Got a letter from my criminal lawyer today and all the vedios of me in cells went missing because of the fires . the vedio statement i made to them about dragon woman also is missing or as they put it non existent !!!!!! the fucking fire never touched the cop shop at all !!! what the fuck is that ??????? O BUT I STILL LOVE THEM !!!!!!!!! what a fucking bunch of legalized organized crime !!!! AND A FUCKING JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
ya Irene its all because i have enough evadence on the cops and social services to make them look like a bunch of underhanded fucking lying bastards and if i get them vedios of me in cells it can all be exposed in a public enquire !!!! whats going on here is a big picture and they know that i mean buisness !! i think ss and the cops are both trying to cover up all the fuckups they did !!! and there was lots !!! if the canadian public knew what these organization do they would shit their pants !!!!!the ministers ,MLAS ,priemier and both oposition parties know all about this shit and wont adsdresss any of it !!! and no media groups will touch it eather !!! what a story it i can get it to someplace to expose them for what they are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
didnt sleep very good last night, still pissed off about the cops saying that the vedios of me in cells dont exist ! what a fucking joke !!! does anybody else give a shit about what these organizations do ???? or am i the only one that cares about justice ?

And wait, what's this?! In Todd's Facebook interests and groups we find:

Alberta Freedom Party
People Against Poisons
The Free Thought Project
Hemp on Earth for a Reason
New Earth Nation
Angelic Vibrations - Holistic Health and Wellness Services
Temple of Balance
The Druid Compleat: Self-Initiation into the Druidic Tradition
Survivalist Dail
Homesteading / Survivalism
Wolf watcher
Linda's Herbs & Spells
Ascending into Oneness
Cannabis Culture Magazine
Activist Post
Press For Truth
Sustainable Human
Spirit Bear Adventures
Higher Balance Institute
Wholesale "New Age-Metaphysical" Crystal, Minerals, Healing Stones & Gemstones
Mountain Rose Herbs
Heart Communicators, formerly known as Whale Communicators
Pagans, Witches, Warlocks, Shamans and Sages
Truth Theory
Astral Projection
Planet B Permaculture and Gardening
Lighteworkers of ENGLAND, UK
Alberta garden tractor buy n sell
The Worldwide Truth Movement
Global Lightworkers
LIGHT WORKERS of THE WORLD
Shamanic Community
DRUID
Off the Grid Community Project
A New Dawn
Spirit Guides

A more kindred spirit of Rob's than Rob might want to admit.

Then, to bring us up to date, Rob had a rant this morning. He even said so himself. I assume it was addressed to Todd.

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 1454182697

Yesterday I had two friends swear at me because I pray, believe in a Creator, read the bible and one even accused me of not helping people because I advocating off grid living which he felt was a cop out and not helping people at all.

Whether 'belief' is real or not is irrelevant. The fact is, there are 2.2 billion Christians in the world. 1.6 billion Muslims. 7.3 billion citizens of one form of 'government' or another. All these people believe in something and they live out their lives based on what they believe. They manifest their beliefs through actions. Many believe in end time prophecies and most believe in the authority and power of the state. There are thousands of individuals (global cabal) who worship Lucifer and they have the money, power, influence and resources to make end time prophecies happen because they control and manipulate all the institutions that people believe in.

These luciferic worshipers want their god to rule as outlined in revelations. They are working towards a one world government, one world religion, one world currency and those who don't participate must be wiped out.

That's YOU! And ME! And TODD! 'Luciferic worshippers' cabal - we will not rest until Rob is WIPED OUT!

Then he says a bunch of New Age stuff nobody gives a crap about. But soon, we're back to Rob's Feelings...

One thing I will not tolerate is people abusing me, swearing at me, calling me names or forcing me into relationships that does not serve my spirit. I have decided to take a zero tolerance to covert aggression and violence. I will no longer tolerate peoples emotional plague reaction to my work. I will forgive you and I will welcome you back should you decide to behave like an adult and act with honour, respect and peace. Until then, I say good bye as I would rather spend my time with those who really do want my help.

I have given almost everything away. We live on less than $400 a month because we dedicate our lives to serving others. I gave my book away even when friends and family protested at the idea. I spend hours each day writing and helping people. I don't get paid for that work either. Every now and again, somebody will donate 20 or 30 dollars. It helps pay the phone bill. I chose to live off grid because it freed up my time to serve. I share my life because I know it influences people. I risk ridicule and judgement. I've been called a fraud.

It brings great sadness to my heart but I continue anyway. I will not be bullied or intimidated. I will write even if tears are streaming down my face. This is too important to walk away from. This is about the salvation of man kind and the only way we are going to get through this is to respect one another, find ways to have healthy relationships, be tolerant to the beliefs of others and stop the violence. This is not negotiable. The violence MUST STOP!!!!

We must find ways to stop justifying that shit that we do to one another. The only way I can do that is to live my life as I believe it should be lived ... no matter what others may say, think or do.

End of Rant.

Ok Rob, you may not want a relationship with Canada, but you're stuck with us even if you think you have your own little country in the land you don't actually own. You gave your book away for free because that was the highest price you could get for it. If you're helping people learn how to live 'off the grid' in a physical and logistical sense then good for you - it actually would be better if more people grew their own food, for example. If you're telling them how to 'opt out' of society then you're as much of a plague as Menard, Clifford, Lentz, and so many other worthless parasites. The fact you don't charge for it means nothing. Nobody would pay for it and you crave the attention.

[notorial dissent]

Wow. Hippie dippy FOOTL's, what a concept. I can't feel even a twinge of concern for either of them.

[Burnaby49]

I thought, after my last posting on Rob, that he seemed to be on the train to crazytown. Well the train has pulled into the station and he's come home.

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 8064123036

In the morning, my meditation gave me some insight into what is going on in my life. When I was in ceremony receiving my feather and spirit name, Elder Jimmy said something that I thought I comprehended. He told me that I am the land. However, the truth is, I completely misunderstood what he was saying ... until today.

I realized that the essence of who I AM, my Spiritual Body, has reached out beyond my physical body. I've been on this small piece of land for nearly 10 years, working with it, living off of it, harvesting plants and animals, breathing its air, drinking its water, learning, growing and stewarding. Every cell in my body has been replaced in that time and the vast majority of the nutrients in my body now comes from the very ground upon which I walk and live. My Spirit has grown and reached out to all the birds, bees, flowers and trees because of my work to build a strong relationship with them. My Spirit has made this land a part of my physical body because that is where my body came from. My physical body is more than just the flesh that I am using to type this message. I AM literally the land too. The size, scope and influence of my body has grown by leaps and bounds ... without me even realizing it.

The trees are my lungs. The tomatoes we grow is my heart. The carrots are my eyes. The wind is my breath and the water is my blood. I can feel the beasts rhythm. The stones are my bones.

I've realized that when somebody comes onto this land without respect, honour or permission, they literally violate my body. They trespass upon my bones with every step they take and it is no different than somebody raping me or trespassing against my flesh.

By the way, new photo of Rob;

[ArthurWankspittle]

In the morning, my meditation gave me some insight into what is going on in my life. When I was in ceremony receiving my feather and spirit name, .....

There was a stand-up comic some time back whose routine was based on him being a "management consultant" character and one joke was that he had spent time with Native Americans and believed he had been accepted into their culture because they had given him a tribal name. He was referred to by the tribe as "Talking Bull".