Looking for a CCRA Job? Don't bother, it's a Family Affair :CCRA SOTW
StaR
<jen...@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>Fred Grosby <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Jenuth <jen...@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Fred Grosby <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>>> Stephen Jenuth <jen...@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Except that long ago, British democracy wrestled the power to govern
>>>>>away from the monarch, to Parliament.
>>>>
>>>> There's a difference between power and moral authority. I'm talking
>>>> about moral authority.
>>>
>>>And there is a differnce between formal authoity and real power.
>>>I'm talking about real power, not some fantacy.
>>
>> And therein lies the problem. The exercise of raw power without moral
>> authority is, well, Saddam Hussein comes to mind.
>
>Except that in Canada, both the moral authority and the real power are
>in the elected people. You seem to miss the point of all of this.
BULLSHIT. The "moral authority" and the "real power" is in the
"Queen", the SOVEREIGN. The "elected people" are mere PUPPETS of the
SOVEREIGN.
>> And I seriously
>> suggest that it is this disconnect between moral authority and raw
>> power that is the real source of discontent in our tax protester
>> colleagues. In my view, they're protesting a symptom, not a cause.
>
>I'm not sure they are protesting anything. Some just don't like to
>pay taxes.
I can't speak for others but I am protesting the dictatorial MONARCHY
SYSTEM along with its ROMAN MUNICIPAL LAW as so adopted that is, the
dictatorial ROMAN LAW OF PERSONS. "Taxes" is simply an "attribute" of
this CORRUPT SYSTEM. And I hate DIRTY LAWYERS such as this compulsive
liar and fraud by the name of Stephen Jenuth - an OFFICER of the
COURTS whose DUTY is to SERVE and PROTECT the CORPORATION known as
"Canada"..
>>>No. The government is responsible to Parliament. Parliament is
>>>not the government. Rather it is the legislature. The government
>>>is the executive branch, and it is responsible to Parliament.
>>
>> And who makes up "the government"? Members of Parliament!
>
>No. The executive branch. The cabinet, and the rest of the civil
>service. Parliament is bigger than the cabinet, and smaller than
>the civil service.
And who is bigger than parliament??? Eh???
"Canada is not a corporate venture, and does not belong to the Queen.
She is just the head of state, just as the President of the United
States is the head of state in the United States." - Stephen Jenuth
Not worth mentioning you dirty lying sack of shit??? hahaha yes that's
right, the QUEEN - the SOVEREIGN - a CORPORATION SOLE is bigger than
parliament. Her Majesty the Queen IN RIGHT of "Canada". And of course
only a DIRTY LAWYER who is out to deceive the readership would equate
the Queen and the President as equivalent entities just because they
happen to share a certain function.
"Canada" is what they call a constitutional monarchy.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
MON'ARCHY, n. [Gr. See Monarch.]
1. A state or government in which the supreme power is lodged in the
hands of a single person. Such a state is usually called an empire or
a kingdom; and we usually give this denomination to a large state
only. But the same name is sometimes given to a kingdom or state in
which the power of the king or supreme magistrate is limited by a
constitution, or by fundamental laws. Such is the British monarchy.
Hence we speak of absolute or despotic monarchies, and of limited
monarchies.
A free government has a great advantage over a simple monarchy.
2. A kingdom; an empire.
----------
A Law Dictionary
by John Bouvier
MONARCHY, government. That form of government in which the sovereign
power is entrusted to the hands of a single magistrate. Toull. tit.
prel. n. 30. The country governed by a monarch is also called a
monarchy.
----------
The Century Dictionary
Constitutlonal monarchy. See monarchy.
monarchy
1. Supreme power wielded by a single person; absolute personal
authority.
2. The principle of government by a monarch; the monarchical system.
3. A government in which the supreme power is either actually or
nominally lodged in the hands of a monarch or sole ruler, who holds
his posit!on for life, generally with hereditary succession.
"There have been elective monarchies, in which the successor to a
deceased sovereign was chosen without obligatory regard to the
hereditary principle; but this principle has finally prevailed, to the
exclusion of choice, in all existing civilized monarchies. The former
kingdom of Poland was a purely elective monarchy. The German-Roman
empire was originally, and always nominally, elective; but for many
centuries the chosen successor was almost invariably the heir of the
former emperor. An absolute or despotic monarchy is one in which the
will of the monarch or sovereign is supreme over all other authority
or powers of government; a limited or constitutional monarchy, one in
which the sovereign is limited to the exercise of particular powers or
functions by the laws or constitution of the realm. More or less
limited monarchies have nearly always existed. About the fifteenth
century a noteworthy increase of the power of the sovereign took place
(as in England under Edward IV., in France under Louis XI., in ,spain
under Ferdinand the Catholic and Charles V.). Till the close of the
eighteenth century the prevalent theory and practice on the continent
constituted nearly unrestricted absolutism; this has now almost
disappeared from Europe, while still maintaining a foothold in Asia.
But whether absolute or limited, the monarch is theoretically regarded
as the source of all power, and all acts of government are done in his
name. The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state
in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished,
is intrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the
revenue, and the command of the army. But, unless public liberty is
protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so
formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism." -
Gibbon.
----------
Yes indeed, a "monarchy" is a body politic and corporate whose
"government" denotes a SINGLE "person" (monarch) who is intrusted with
the EXECUTION of the LAWS, the management of its REVENUE, and the
COMMAND of its ARMY. This "person" which denotes the "government" is a
CORPORATION sole also known as the "Queen"- the SOVEREIGN of the body
politic and corporate who holds the EXECUTIVE POWER.
----------
A Law Dictionary
by John Bouvier
QUEEN. There are several kinds of queens in some countries. 1. Queen
regnant, is a woman who possesses in her own right the executive power
of the country.
2. Queen consort, is the wife of a king.
3. Queen dowager is the widow of a king. In the United States there is
no one with this title.
----------
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act -- CHAPTER C-2.7
ESTABLISHMENT AND MANDATE OF THE AGENCY
Establishment
4. (1) There is hereby established a body corporate to be called the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Agent of Her Majesty
(2) The Agency is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of
Canada.
----------
Criminal Code -- CHAPTER C-46
"Canadian Forces" means the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by
Canada;
"Her Majesty's Forces" means the naval, army and air forces of Her
Majesty wherever raised, and includes the Canadian Forces;
----------
The monarch (Queen) of this body politic and corporate (Canada) is the
SUPREME GOVERNOR and CHIEF EXECUTIVE CIVIL OFFICER - the HIGHEST or
FIRST MAGISTRATE.
----------
The Century Dictionary
monarch (mon'ark), n. [Early mod. E. monarke; < OF. (and F.) monarque
= Sp. monarca = Pg. monarcha = It. monarca, < LL. monarcha, < Gr.
uovapxnc, uovapxoc, ruling alone, a monarch, dictator, a sovereign
(of.uovapxeiv , rule alone), < uovoc, alone, + upxeiv, rule.] 1. The
chief of a monarchy; a supreme governor for life, entitled variously
emperor (or empress), king (or queen), czar (or czarina), sultan,
shah, etc.; primarily, a sole or. autocratic ruler of a state, but in
modern times generally a hereditary sovereign with more or less
limited powers. See monarchy.
The Sovereign, if a single person, is or should be called a Monarch.
Maine, Early Hist. of Institutions, p. 350.
2. Any possessor of absolute power or superiority; one who or that
which holds a dominating or preeminent position, literally or
figuratively: as, the oak is the monarch of the forest.
Come, thou monarch of the vine, Plumpy Bacchus with pink eyne !
Shak., A. and C., ii. 7 (song).
I am monarch of all I survey, My right there is none to dispute.
Couper, Alexander Selkirk.
=Syn. 1. King, etc. (see prince), potentate, autocrat, despot.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major,
and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the
principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the
executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is
the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United
States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate
officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the
peace, and the like.
The magistrate must have his reverence; the laws their authority.
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913
Magistrate (Page: 881)
Mag"is*trate (?), n. [L. magistratus, fr. magister master: cf. F.
magistrat. See Master.] A person clothed with power as a public civil
officer; a public civil officer invested with the executive
government, or some branch of it. All Christian rulers and
magistrates." Book of Com. Prayer.
----------
The Online Plain Text English Dictionary
Magistrate
(n.) A person clothed with power as a public civil officer; a public
civil officer invested with the executive government, or some branch
of it.
----------
Next on the CORPORATE ladder of this body politic and corporate is the
GOVERNOR GENERAL (a CORPORATION sole) who carries on the "Government
of Canada" on BEHALF and in the NAME of the SOVEREIGN (monarch) and
hence the de facto CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. As such, the GOVERNOR
GENERAL has the POWER to SUSPEND or DISSOLVE "parliament". Remember,
this POWER exists REGARDLESS of who the "citizens" elect to hold
OFFICES within "parliament", an important FACT that our resident DIRTY
LAWYER failed to mention. And make no mistake, the Commons House of
Parliament IS OF the United Kingdom.
----------
Governor General's Act -- CHAPTER G-9
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL
Corporation sole
2. The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or
administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in
the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a
corporation sole.
----------
Parliament of Canada Act -- CHAPTER P-1
Prerogative saved
3. Nothing in section 2 alters or abridges the power of the Crown to
prorogue or dissolve Parliament.
----------
And of course next on the CORPORATE ladder is the OFFICER with the
title of "prime minister"
----------
A Law Dictionary
by John Bouvier
MINISTER, government. An officer who is placed near the sovereign, and
is invested with the administration of some one of the principal
branches of the government.
----------
And way down on the CORPORATE ladder is the poor old "citizen" who
MUST give its ALLEGIANCE to the SOVEREIGN - the SUPREME GOVERNOR and
CHIEF EXECUTIVE CIVIL OFFICER - the HIGHEST or FIRST MAGISTRATE of the
body politic and corporate - a CORPORATION.
----------
The Century Dictionary
sovereign
I a 1. Supreme; paramount; commanding; excellent.
2. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; not subject to any
other; hence, royal; princely.
Sovereign state, a state possessing sovereign power, or sovereignty.
See sovereignty, I (d).
A State is called a sovereign State when this supreme power resides
within itself, whether resting in a single individual, or in a number
of individuals, or in the whole body of the people. Cooley, Const.
Lim. (4th ed.), i.
II. n. 1. One who exercises supreme control or dominion; a ruler,
governor, chief, or master; one to whom allegiance is due.
Specifically
(c) A monarch; an emperor or empress; a king or queen.
----------
Citizenship Act - CHAPTER C-29
OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF CITIZENSHIP
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs
and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada
and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
----------
And of course, the Queen is just one more "part" or "character" that
is, a "person" that is played out within the ACTS of "Government".
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913
Queen (Page: 1176)
Queen, v. i. To act the part of a queen. Shak.
----------
The Century Dictionary
sovereignty
1. The state or character of being sovereign or a sovereign.
----------
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.
The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society
which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a
state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word 善erson, in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he
was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission
of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1 Bouvier痴
Institutes, note 1.
----------
>> Specifically, a majority of the members of Parliament, who can, and
>> do, exercise raw power without let or hinderance, particularly in the
>> area of budget and ... taxes!
>
>The government is subject to Parliament.
Parliament being subject to the GOVERNOR GENERAL who is subject to the
SOVEREIGN - the Queen.
>> And what of the Governor General? She/he is part of the government,
>> too. Says so in the Constitution Act, 1867.
>
>Clearly. But you have to know the difference between the formality
>and the real power.
The "Government of Canada" is carried out under the OFFICE of the
GOVERNOR GENERAL which has the POWER to SUSPEND or DISSOLVE
"parliament". Remember, this POWER exists REGARDLESS of who the
"citizens" elect to hold OFFICES within "parliament".
>>>True. But since the oppostion have vastly different policy, some to
>>>one side and some to other sides of the government, it makes some sence
>>>for the government to be be made up of people in between. Compromise
>>>is what democracy is about.
>>
>> True enough, as far as it goes. But a one-party government that can,
>> and frequently does, exercise raw power without input of other points
>> of view cannot be said to constitute compromise of any sort. And
>> that, stephen, is whaty'all have.
>
>But we don't one party government. Its hardly raw power.
The RAW POWER is inhibited within the CHIEF EXECUTIVE CIVIL OFFICER
and its DICTATORIAL ROMAN MUNICIPAL/CIVIL LAW as so adopted, the ROMAN
LAW OF PERSONS.
>>>I guess. But then the alternatives are worse. You could have proportional
>>>representation which would give more power to even smaller minorities and
>>>would tend to fragment national consensus and compromise.
>>
>> Given the current situation, in which there couldn't be *less*
>> consensus and compromise, your position is simply invalid. And in any
>> case, there are proportional representation systems that impose a
>> "floor" under which a party is not entitled to representation.
>
>Sure, but the floor is so low as to be almost meaningless. If the
>floor was reasonable, say 25%, the Liberals would be the only party
>to get any seats.
>
>Otherwise, you tend to get very small parties, fragmentation and
>parties which do not work toward compromise.
>
>> It's very do-able, Stephen, if one has the will to do so. And I note
>> that some seventy-five democracies have done so, in one form or
>> another. See www.freevotecanada.org; you might find some
>> enlightenment on the subject.
>
>Sure, its doable. But whether we should do it is a question.
The only thing that is democratic is the election of the CIVIL
OFFICERS within "parliament" which is in itself subjected to the RAW
POWER of the GOVERNOR GENERAL who has the POWER to SUSPEND or DISSOLVE
"parliament" and who ACTS on BEHALF and in the NAME of the SOVEREIGN
(monarch) - her majesty the Queen in RIGHT of "Canada".
>>>Or you could have run off elections, or transferable ballots which essentially force
>>>people to vote for people they don't reallly support in order to create
>>>artificial majorities.
>>
>> I've voted in a club election where a transferrable ballot was used,
>> and while I got the result I was hoping for, I can understand why it
>> might have problems of its own. Still, as I recall, Australia uses it
>> for some the seats in its Parliament, so there's a real-world caes to
>> be examined, if one wishes to do so.
>
>There are lots of real world examples. But why should we try it.
>
>> In any event, if one describes Canada's current electoral system as
>> anti-democratic, as do you, one should, in my view, be open to
>> improvement. Once again, I suggest www.freevotecanada.org.
>
>There is nothing antidemocratic about it. There are other options, but
>IMO they do not have much to commend themselves. In the real world, that
>is.
Stephen Jenuth the dirty lawyer, a compulsive LIAR and a FRAUD here to
serve and protect the taxslave plantation that is, the Queen's
CORPORATE venture held under ROMAN LEGATE and financed by the
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIERS.
StaR
StaR
wrote:
>StaR <starw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9a7uuvcqeb2p7f36f...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:06:45 GMT, Stephen Jenuth
>> <jen...@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Fred Grosby <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> >> Stephen Jenuth <jen...@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Except that in Canada, both the moral authority and the real power are
>> >>>in the elected people. You seem to miss the point of all of this.
>> >>
>> >> Where in Canadian constitutional documents does it say this. Those
>> >> which I have read don't say anything about the people having any power
>> >> or granting any authority.
>> >
>> >Start reading at the beginning of the Constitution Act, 1867. You will
>> >find that the preamble talks about a constitution similar in principle
>> >to that of the UK.
>> >
>> >From that you might just discover that large portions of Canada's constitution
>> >are not written.
>> >
>> >Its not a corporation, you know.
>>
>> BULLSHIT. Canada is a BODY POLITIC and CORPORATE which makes it a
>> CORPORATION. It has been well established and substantiated that all
>> "states" or "nations" are CORPORATIONS. You are a LYING PIECE OF SHIT.
>>
>> StaR
>
>Q) StaR, your sad rant denies the reality that nations and their
>governments have authority far beyond that of mere corporations,
>including the power to tax citizens, residents and even "flesh and
>blood men".
>
>This fact makes your rant, as well as your 10 years of so called
>scholarship, a complete waste.
>
>Not that you actually follow your own "teachings".
"Nations" or "States" are CORPORATIONS.
----------
As quoted in NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)...
See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) ("All corporations
were originally modeled upon a state or nation");
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
You are dismissed.
StaR
Quantrell
Q 2) You wish.
StaR, you just played out your flawed thought process for all to see.
According to you the United States can have no authority other than
that of a corporation.
Above we see you use the logical fallacy of composition in which
because a part of a whole has a certain property, you argue that the
whole has that property. The truth is that whole may be composed of
different parts.
In other words you can't think, StaR.
When Bouvier states that the United States government has the powers
of a sovereign nation granted it by the Constitution, you simply
pretend that those powers don't exist. Hence you never quote the
meanings and usages of the terms "United States" and "nation" which
sustain functions of U. S. government.
You never quote the rest of what Bouvier has to say because you know
it doesn't back you up.
One has to wonder if your deceptions are willful or just the result a
profound ignorance.
This mindless trait of your was first evidenced On David-Wynn:Miller's
wall when you attempted to tell us that Miller's cherry picked
definitions of words were the only acceptable ones merely because the
"great language guru", Miller, had said so.
You are aping that nut case by telling us that governments are only
what YOU tell us they are, not what the law says they are.
And any debunker who calls you on your gambit is subjected to the
argument by ridicule, no as a sane line of reasoning, but for the for
the purpose of reinforcing the core values of the detax subculture.
StaR
wrote:
Yawn...If you insist.
>StaR, you just played out your flawed thought process for all to see.
>
>According to you the United States can have no authority other than
>that of a corporation.
The United States of America is a CORPORATION with its powers defined
within its constitution. Learn how to read, the above states that it
can be considered a CORPORATION in the extensive sense in that it is a
BODY POLITIC and that it is SUSCEPTIBLE OF OBLIGATIONS AND LAWS
>Above we see you use the logical fallacy of composition in which
>because a part of a whole has a certain property, you argue that the
>whole has that property. The truth is that whole may be composed of
>different parts.
The above states that it can be considered a CORPORATION in the
extensive sense in that it is a BODY POLITIC and that it is
SUSCEPTIBLE OF OBLIGATIONS AND LAWS. This is TRUE for any CORPORATION
created by LAW. The POWERS conferred by their INSTRUMENTS is DEPENDENT
on the INSTRUMENT itself.
So, when the United States of America is considered as a BODY POLITIC,
it is a CORPORATION (artificial person).
When the United States of America is considered as being SUSCEPTIBLE
of OBLIGATIONS (contracts), it is a CORPORATION (artificial person).
When the United States of America is considered as being SUSCEPTIBLE
of LAWS (anything vs USA), it is a CORPORATION (artificial person).
When you are considered as having a brain, you are an IDIOT and you
know jack shit.
That pretty well covers everything.
StaR
Quantrell
Q 3) So the United States is artificial!
Hells bells, boy, did it take you ten years of study to figure that
out?
Shit fire, you dumb ass, every grade school child knows the Founding
Fathers made the United States up out of thin air.
DUH?
The point is the United States, like every other sovereign nation, has
the authority to make binding law.
You just admitted as much when you tripped up and said the United
States government has it powers defined by the Constitution and NOT
from your twisted interpretations of Bouvier and case law.
That's why you never quote the Constitution . . .it doesn't back you
up!
The authority to tax is granted in Section 8, which says:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises. . ."
The authority to tax incomes comes from the 16th amendment, which
says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Your warmed over Warman argument that one may simply break some sort
of contract has been rejected by U.S. courts countless times.
You can peddle your theory all you want but the plain fact is it has
already been shot down in open court and here on this wall.
Now you will, we can be sure, say that the Constitution does not apply
to "flesh and blood men".
So please tell us the basis in constitutional law for that claim.
Substance is required.
Quantrell
Q 4) StaR's avoidance has become boooooooring.
He avoids definitions he doesn't like.
He avoids law he doesn't like.
He even avoids his own theories when he needs governmental services to
get his health care needs met or his trade licensed.
Booooooooooooring.....................
Stephen Jenuth
> "Nations" or "States" are CORPORATIONS.
As you will see even from your own quotations, nations have been
considered corporations in the US only in a very broad definition
of the word. Its not the ordinary defintion of the word.
But it really makes no difference for tax law.
...
> A LAW DICTIONARY
>
> by John Bouvier
>
> ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
>
> CORPORATION
>
> 6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
> and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
> and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
> understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
> obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
> States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
> Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
> ----------
>
> You are dismissed.
You will note that only in the very extensive sense does even Bouvier,
writing about 150 years ago, think that states and countries are
corporations.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net