October 18, 2021

THE LINE IN THE SAND - VATICAN CLAIMS THEY OWN PEOPLE - A Warrior Calls

 
 
BROADCAST TO OUR WORLD | Christopher James
Mon/Thurs 8pm ET
 
Monday, October 18 2021
8:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) GMT -4
The Vatican and your Birth Certificate

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of tyranny and oppression. Because of the desire to control through their inquisitions, they decided they would create the first express trust, called unum sanctum which was written on a papal bull and placed in their vault. On the papal bull, it says that all of the souls in the world belong to the Roman Catholic Church and they do because no one has challenged their claim. Your birth certificate is the title of the soul that they own in their registries. They have registered you and that is the title to your soul. - Christopher James
 
Recent Videos
 
  
All the evidence in the form of pdf's and videos to understand the COVID19 SARS-CoV-2 LIE:
 
"Christopher’s insights have been activated to the point of him realizing ; “The Bar” to which our legal professionals are called to, may not be set as high as we think and that wizards are not the only mythical characters wearing robes. The deck is indeed stacked. Our very own courtrooms themselves are operating as a house of Bar cards dealt from the bottom of the deck… all to merely enable the greatest “card trick” since the dawn of mankind." 
 - Gabriel Proulx

Powerful turnouts happen from sharing this link:

https://event.webinarjam.com/channel/awarriorcalls

 Website: https://www.awarriorcalls.com

39 comments:

Ca-Nada said...

I think some of the best explanations of WTF is going on can be gleaned from books like this.

Disclosure 101: What You Need To Know
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1500352012/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

As evil as the Vatican is it's been doing some interesting things in our favor in recent years.

Ca-Nada said...


An Interview with Judge Anna Von Reitz About Our History

http://annavonreitz.com/judgeannainterview.pdf

😀😀😀😀 said...

bullshit. the inquisition was to discover marranos.

rex123 said...

This is stupid Sovereign Citizen garbage. The Catholic church has always strongly opposed Judeo-freemasonry which is why its targeted 24/7.

Signifier said...

"Judge" Anna Von Reitz Exposed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMM2JznJHY

Anna Von Reitz: Liar
https://trohshow.com/2021/04/28/exposed-anna-von-reitz-more-fraud/

Anna Von Reitz: Ripoff Report
https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/anna-von-reitz-american/big-lake-alaska-maria-h-james-1499509

Amanda said...

Ca-Nada- Thanks for the links. I've had others mention Anna Von Reitz too.
Back in July 2020, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Amandha Vollmer did a video where Dr. K mentioned he was doing "status correction" with Gemstone University (not sure what has happened since then). Is this the same thing?
And I listened to the guest here https://www.crrow777radio.com/256-a-path-to-freedom-for-those-fictitiously-lost-at-sea-free/ and he says the US govt never paid down the debt from the Revolutionary War and kept getting further into debt. Apparently, unkown to us, there have been other "resets" during key historical events to restructure the debt and the govt kept putting up more and more as collateral, including us with the birth certificates(I think Dr. Ron Paul's brother Wayne said the same thing--US went bankrupt in 1933 and put us up as collateral, so maybe that's why the psychopathic bankers think we're their property.
And I also read a comment from someone that they read the treaty from the end of the Revolutionary war and it didn't even sound like we won.
I honestly don't know what the truth is or how to get out of this horrific mess.

Ca-Nada said...

Both Rex123 and Signifier, have done little research into who she is or the legitimacy of her claims. No, you would both rather believe real lawful legitimacy revolves around having a Bar card/licence! Your typical ignorant statements and links prove how little you know about the subject. Have you ever tried to "debunk" her research yourself? No, I didn't think so.

I first thought her claims sounded like claims coming from "Q" . I have since changed my mind. Do your own research and you might just change your mind. This is fringe material, because most people love to fly their flags and get out and vote like the cattle they are. If you don't understand some of the basic notions surrounding the "person" then your statements make you an undeniably foolish tool.

To truly do something about our situation we need some real action by even a small percentage of the populous asking the right questions and taking lawful action like people in the AVR camp have been doing. It is my opinion that there is indeed a small group of people doing just that and making a difference. The media is not going to report on their successes or pending or active lawful processes. It does not really matter what people like Rex123 and Signifier think, mainly because they don't think! LOL

Do your own research folks. There are lots of pissed on bread crumbs out there no doubt about it. Capitalization matters that is your first lesson and one that most dumb asses (damasses) just can't seem to understand. Understand that basic fact and start slowly understanding where we current sit with the corporate control that hasgrown up around our pathetic ignorance.

Ca-Nada said...

Amanda I have followed Gemstone briefly and I'm not sure what to think about Ken Cousins. I listened to a few of his interviews on Crrow777 and they were interesting.


Kurt Kallenbach has also done some interesting research surrounding the zygote the baby (when born) and the after birth. In particular how each is weighed. Apparently The international definition of a live birth is among and may be limited to, a pulsating umbilical cord.

Kurt makes the claim that in the USA the child is measured in pounds and ounces and the afterbirth is measured in kilograms/grams. I have not done a great deal of research into this particular claim. He further claims that when the afterbirth dies a death certificate is issued and the trust is created. I encourage everyone to research this on their own.

It is curious the the metric system is the international measurement system.

Here is Anna commenting on Kurt's research.

https://www.newhumannewearthcommunities.com/withdraw-consent-to-be-governed/paramount-claim-kurt-kallenbach-is-right-protect-your-dna-and-the-rv

Ca-Nada said...

I recommend the YT channel "State Nationals United" If you would like to listen to Anna on a fairly regular basis.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUgljp2YQjq7zMmwB4fv6gw

rex123 said...

Ca-Nada, I graduated from an ABA accredited law school and practiced for over ten years. I'm an inactive member of two state Bars and I am in good standing in both states. I am open-minded, but this is kooky shit not worth my time.

AdolfRichtar@gmail.com said...

Vatican is dead cow and what's left there is jew swines deceiving the brain dead goyim. So just call fucking jew a jew and not some eskimo or any other exotic name;
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qdePIuYWfBfL/
https://rense.com/general96/kill-shot.php

Amanda said...

Ca-Nada-Yes, I've listened to Ken Cousins in a number of interviews too (Crrow777 and Dr. Amandha Vollmer)-not sure what to think of him either. I've also listened to "KL" on crrow777 and Observation_Deck (bitchute) and what he says makes a lot of sense. Years ago, I used to listen to RBN with John Stadtmiller, who had an on-going series of radio shows with the authors of They Own It All (Including You)-By Means of Toxic Currency, and I think that info fits with everything else.

KL talked with Crrow777 about "trusts" and recommended this article by Alfred Adask:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/trust%20fever.pdf

Thanks for the additional links. I'm going to keep looking into Anna's info and that book you recommended.

Ca-Nada said...

On the corporate plantation here in Canada, so called Canadians are every bit as ignorant as the rest of the world concerning their status. Here are afew examples

To start the BNA act's ennacting clause was repealed in with the passing of the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act, 1893

http://www.nephalemfilms.com/pdfs/Statute.Law.Revision.Act.1893.pdf

Some interesting bits of info from Walter F. Kuhl
[Member of Parliament for Jasper-Edson, 1935-1949]


http://www.nephalemfilms.com/pdfs/kuhl.pdf

http://www.nephalemfilms.com/pdfs/house.pdf

Seems we live on a corporate federal plantation and always have...

"Ten political units (provinces) without a political superior"

There is no Canada period!!!!

The closest we come to having a any kind of charter comes from the creation of the Hudson's Bay "Royal" Charter going back to May 2nd 1670.

https://www.hbcheritage.ca/things/artifacts/the-charter-and-text



Canada a country without a constitution

http://www.aberhartfoundation.ca/PDF%20Documents/Premier%20PDF%27s/Social%20Credit%20of%20Canada%20Docs/CanWithoutConst_Kuhl1977.pdf


Some other interesting links featuring Cal Washington

"Cal Washington: the Lost Interview on Law Merchant (Maritime Law)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7B_o85Wtlk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax43_JkVP1A

Ca-Nada said...

"Ca-Nada, I graduated from an ABA accredited law school and practiced for over ten years. I'm an inactive member of two state Bars and I am in good standing in both states. I am open-minded, but this is kooky shit not worth my time."

I don't givea fuck about you or your time. I wouldn't pay a dime for any of your time. LOL

Ca-Nada said...

Keep on digging Amanda! :)

Ca-Nada said...

Interpretation Act, 1985. This Interpretation Act, under the definitions section, states clearly what “Canada” is (page 21): Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; And again the definition that follows it is “Canadian Waters” and it is defined as: Canadian waters, includes the territorial sea of Canada and the internal waters of Canada; The key word here in identifying a grand deception is the word “includes”. Every law dictionary (and others) define includes as “to contain” and one of the universal common law maxims (principles of law) that Canada was founded upon states, for further clarity, “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others.” It is clear, with the definition of “includes” above, what The Interpretation Act defines Canada as. And it is even clearer when Canada is described as the exact same thing as “Canadian Waters”. So… What is Canada? A slave plantation, that's what.

http://www.nephalemfilms.com/pdfs/InterpretationsAct1985.pdf

Have a look, and tell me,as kooky as it is Mister rex123, where is the lie in the lie that is Canada? Same corporate legal bullcrap in most every Commonwealth country. The USA has much the same problems except they have a little more legitimacy in their constitutional framework that has been deeply perverted by card carrying members of the inner temple and their banker overlords. Lawyers are scum of the earth.

rex123 said...

Ca-Nada, Are you in this video by any chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82JqvIozLk4

inthemix16 said...

On the Tuesday Austin and Ted Broer show Austin Mentioned that we have , i could swear 102 dual citizens on CONgress.! And yet we spend hour on end here talking about what the problem is and how to solve it.? Time to grow a pair US Military . Its not like the algorithm is that difficult to solve. What sucks, is if La Palma were in Israel CONgress would have earmarked/printed Billions weeks ago,in 'Aid' as they call it. I mean its not like they would need billions in Iron Dome $$ right? If they make it maybe few hundred CAT D9s ships of lumber , material, they be happy i bet. Good people help themselves. You on your own you nice sweat gentile folks from there. But, ya never know, you might get the last laugh
Great Stuff up there. Ive been to Quebec City, Montreal.. I know yall happy for me. Loved it ! Words cant explain getting to experience Le Collisee and Centre Belle. Such nice people ! Why fly to France when you have Quebec City? But damn yall, i said it was gone they day they Fucked over Don Cherry. That may sound crazy but think about it. Dressden Bombings. You destroy the symbols, the icons , what the identify with. Maybe im wrong and you always think hes a boob, but i always thought you had to see Coaches Corner. Usually it , is a trip to the rink, or Hockey Night in Canada on a frigid Sat night. But it was always with family no matter what.If anyone is from Canada here can you answer me something ? Why is it that when the Canucks lost in the Finals you all bashed buildings and burn fires but now your under tyranny its crickets? just askin

Ca-Nada said...

Inthemix, the reason is, sports-fans have low IQ's. LOL

Albert said...

"The Event" was pretty Good! :-)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/8Z5D849H5iRz/

inthemix16 said...

@Albert. You got some Harry Voxx Links ? Always depended on you for that. . Hey Any yall check this out. ... Max Igan Bolted to Berwick's crib ? Oh come on now.. For real? You mean to tell me he left those half dead pooches , chickens and peacocks? Somepin aint right there ? So im gonna see Max, Berwick , and Lucy talkin Oilers along the sea shore ? GTF outta here
@Ca-Nada.. What i saw up there id thought i wouldnt see such such a childish blanked generality but hey, your entitled to your viewpoint . I mean if you think they are low IQ you only put yourself in the same group , eh ? You sure you arent the Francophone version of @Unknown? ? Like i said , Hockey has been an awesome metaphor of Canadian culture, because no matter what, its always with family. So someone like Harnarayan Singh doesnt represent a fantastic symbol of perseverance and never giving up? A person Canadians and Hockey should be so proud of ? But just "low iq" ? Its your call. Your entitled to how you feel. Its your country . You sure waste lots of time i see up above Maybe you should not waste so much your time , thinking anyone should give a rats ass what happens up there now, with childish statements like that . You reap what you sow. I just found its /was an awesome country , awesome people , awesome memories. Being in person for Serge Savard's number raised to the rafters i realized how passionate Canadian's are about what is a large part of their culture. So why cant you answer why Canuck fans half burn a city down when they loose in the finals, and yet sit in the corner and play with themselves when facing tyranny ?? Pussies? Ill hang up and listen for my answer. And dont give me that "Low IQ" shit cause you only proved your the ringleader , court jester with that answer ...Eh ?

inthemix16 said...

Max Igan has left Australia

https://www.brighteon.com/88c61a4b-5c34-447a-9b63-3812db1761f6

WhatchutalkinaboutWillis ?

Ca-Nada said...

Inthemix It's Chainsawmillerman!


















0

Signifier said...

@Ca-Nada

You apparently aren't bothered by real facts -- that Anna is NOT a judge, that she's a liar, and that her husband is a rapist. Why would someone with this character be capable of telling the truth? You don't ask yourself this question. You choose to believe the unsupported blarney she spews.

You are wrong that I've done no investigation. I've bought and read all her books and have been following her Webinars and state assembly meetings for months. Her books are full of claims but offer little historical evidence or proof.

It doesn't matter to me that you want to BS your way into an argument against the links I provided. You can NEVER disprove what the links are saying. The links are for those who want to be sure they're not joining a cult.

Ca-Nada said...

Signifier you area liar. Your "links" are laughable. You have not followed her as you say. In fact I think you are a sock puppet.

I have been following her too but unlike you, I do find corroborating facts that back up her claims.

You say you have been following her yet your links are kinda shitty. I would expect better for such a discerning follower of lawful truth.In fact I have seen many people try to "debunk" her.

Tell me are there several United states and federal reserves? Is that bullcrap? What about the person? Is that a corporate entity?How about admiralty/law merchant ? Is that bullcrap too? How about you lay it all out for all so we clearly know what it is you are saying. So far, all I see are fallacious and basically non sequitors. Bringing up a rape charge that we (including you) know nothing about, makes me think you are motivated by other things. It's funny how I post a link to a channel where her webinars are posted and you say you have been following them for years. If that's the case, did you know she was full of crap from the get go and tuned in anyway? Or was this just recently that you realized she was full of crap? If it was just recent did you ever corroborate any of the info she shared as true? If no why did you follow her for years? I find, if I come across someone who is full of shit I just let them go by. You seem to want to give them more of your attention. That is truly interesting.

Albert said...

@inthemix16

this is harry's bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/qiSSqbll667s/

he is off-and-on ... he's an "artist" ... afterall! ;-)


I SAY and put-the-link .... WHEN I think that HE has done a Must-Listen Talk,
or when it is ENTERTAINING-enough to be a nice BREAK from the more GRIM Covid-Hoax-content! ;-)

Signifier said...

@Ca-Nada,

I am a liar? Your accusation is stupid and silly. You're not a thinker. You're not even intelligent. You're just a BELIEVER. You say the links I sent are crappy but you don't say why. The reason you can't say why is because you can't argue with the facts displayed there. See, you have a problem with facts. You know that Anna Von Reitz's books only offer claims, unsupported claims, and when I tell you - and everyone -- that she does not offer evidence for her claims, you claim you "find corroborating facts." You may find them from conspiracy theorist books but you don't find them in Anna Von Reitz's books because they're not there.

Some advice: don't fling the word "non sequitur" around when your entire rant is full of it. Plus, I never said I followed Anna Von Reitz for "years." You don't read very well. Honestly, just keep your brain brainwashed as you like it. Your arguments are valueless.

You are a cultist and belong to a cult. The evidence is in everything you have posted here.

Ca-Nada said...

Signifier, I never claimed to be intelligent LOL I'm just an average guy. How about yourself?

If you participate in the status quo you are a cultist. I was terminated from my job of 12 years for not participating in the current cult of the desperate. I took a 30 percent pay decrease in a new job, that is physically demanding and meant for young guys. I am happy to have a job though. I'm not materialistic and try to follow the truth the best I can.

You offer nothing in your posts. You seem new here, no? Tell us what you think about the world of occult commerce. You attack well but give us nothing. Who are you?

Signifier said...

Ca-Nada,

You never claimed to be intelligent? Well, I said you weren't intelligent and you provide the evidence and affirm my claim. I offer nothing but correction and fact. Nothing more needs be said or done. You are the one who is "new here." I don't post often -- just when rank stupidity and misinformation is so dangerous and barefaced, like your output, it needs to be trounced. I have posted here now and then for over 11 years. My posts do offer something: correction as to falsehoods and facts -- something that doesn't bode well for people who'd rather believe and bloviate emotionally. Your posts only offer hearsay and emotional woo: "occult commerce," indeed. You specialize in it. A large part of being a truther is being discerning and figuring out facts from fiction. Discernment comes from intelligence. You've already excluded yourself from that group. Participating in the status quo is being a cultist but being a cultist does not mean you're participating in the status quo -- sometimes these cultist people are just nuts and group-minded and cannot think for themselves.

Ca-Nada said...

More ad hominem fallacious arguments. You carry on like a woman that's all emotional LOL, I'm not interested how you feel about nor am I interested in you. Just the facts ma'am.

In Roman Law there were well known levels of status

John Doe - Capitis Diminutio Minima

The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.

It happened upon the arrogation (pride) of a person who had been his own master (surjuris) ( of his own right, not under any legal disability)

It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

_____________________________________________________________

You are a sovereign a country of your own under CD minima until you "plug in" to the legal system or social contract ie Bill of rights (Canada)
_____________________________________________________________

John DOE - Capitis Diminutio Media

A lesser or medium loss of status this occured where a man loses his rightsof citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

_____________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE - Capitis Diminutio Maxima

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occured when a man's conditionwas changed from one of freedom to one of bondage,
when he became a slave . It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Rules are made to be boken however,

Federal interpretations act common names,

#38. The name commonly applied to any country , place , body, corporation, society, officer functionary, person, party or thing means the country..(same as former list)..party or thing to which the name is not the formalor extended designation thereof.

So.. the formal name formation dos'nt matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if it's a natural or artificial person you must find the source of creation of the name.
_____________________________________________________________

Joinder of a natural and artificial person

What is a Joinder?

Joinder - Joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.

How must occur?

Voluntary , Unconstrained by interferance unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on ones self. Proceeding from the free and unrestricted will of the person.

Ca-Nada said...

Why must it be Voluntary?

Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all there forms.

How can it occur?

TACIT

Tacit consent is consent iferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an oppurtunity to forbid or refuse.

or if you did'nt say no you said yes.

Tacit Acceptance - In cival law a tacit acceptance of an inheritance (position) takes place when some act is done by the heir which nessesarily supposes his intention to accept and which he would have no right to do, but in his capacity as heir (person)

Anyone who tries to tell capitalization in insignificant is either a liar or just dos'nt know any better.

You have accepted default benefits within statutes and in so doing have given up many of your rights within the bill of rights with your signature or by tacit agreement. You can however reclaim your rights, and through the right of contract decide which you want to participate in. Example, do you want to be the artificial person - Driver(motor vehicle act), Officer (cpp act), Worker(workers compensation act) etc ? These statutes redefine who you are.
From the Canadian law dictionary 5th ed, the definition of Individual.
Under the Canadian bill of rights r.s.c 1985,c 44 ,"the right of the Iindividual extends to natural persons only, and not to corporations." So signifier are you saying that within statutes corporate entities are not created by the draftsmen of these statues? By corporate entities I mean “drivers” “officers” “workers” “employers” “owners” etc.
You will never see “ Individual “ in Canadian statutes unless they are talikg about the man or if the term was redefined within the particular statute and so holds a different meaning that changes you into a corporate entity. Start becoming aware of how statutes work and are constructed to trick you into a being and accepting through tacit agreement a corporate entity.



Then there are those who have become free-men-on-the-land through Section 39, 126 & 127 of the criminal code of Canada who use a Notice of Intent & Understanding followed by a Claim of Right who exist FREE of all gov't statues, by-laws, & codes provided they keep the peace and do not break the basic 10 commandments."
Disobeying a statute

126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Disobeying order of court

127 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Ca-Nada said...

And Remember...

A natural person has the right to contract because , upon our birth we are endowed with the gift of freewill, and the natural right to self determination. This natural right can be exercised with or without knowledge to enter into legally binding contracts, the responsibility and choice is ours.

Canadian Law dictionary Th ed pg 163

Contract- A contract is a legally recognized agreement between two or more persons, giving rise to obligations that may be enforced in the courts. By such agreements the parties not only restrict their present or future freedom to act , by the limitations imposed upon themselves by the agreement , they are creating a set of legal rules , binding as regards to themselves and only themselves

So .. the power you have is you can literally take control and deal under these private contracts., but if your unaware of your power you'll fall into the default benefit systems the Government has created.

Freedom of Contract Canadian Law Dictionary 5th ed pg 115

The ability of parties to agree to the most advantageous bargain between them without interference from the courts. In the eighteenth century there was little restriction placed on this freedom, the philosophy being that men could pursue their interests in the way they saw fit and that the duty of the law was merely to give effect to the intentions of the parties. This position is still applicable today.

So .. we have a powerful right to structure our life and our work relationships the way that we want. From an Income tax perspective we have been tricked in the same way. I admit that fighting against this is like strolling into the Gambino’s clubhouse and telling them you are not going to pay the debt they say you owe them due to criminal extortion. It really is no different.

Privity of Contract Canadian law dictionary 5th ed Page 220

The doctrine where by one can enforce contractual rights against another only if one was party to the contract. Under the general doctrine of privity of contract, no one who is not an original party to a contract is entitled to seek to enforce the terms of the contract or is bound by any of it provisions.

Some ways to exercise your rights - THE COMMON OPTION

- If you want you can voluntarily represent the taxpayer.

-Work for the taxpayer for the benefits of CPP (although there are many private pension plans that perform better).

-File an Income Tax Return for the taxpayer you represent.

-Learn the limited rights of the taxpayer.

-Obey every law applicable to the taxpayer.

-Just remember the taxpayer is an artificial person.

-It can't be hurt and has no feelings

-It's creator leaves it with only enough to survive.

-It's creator is more concerned about it's OWN survival

REMEMBER Your human rights don't apply to the taxpayer


The Forgotten Option

-To earn a living to sustain your life

-Exercises your "liberty" and present yourself as a natural person.

-Exchange your physical and intellectual "property" for compensation.

-Only choose benefits you are willing to pay the price for.

-Don't remain disadvantaged and let others choose for you.

-Become personally responsible and learn to exercise your rights.

-Never again let deception of man destroy your gift of freedom

Learn to live with respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law, so you can become healthy wealthy and wise.



Default Contract of service

Relationship = Government servant (like Ronald Reagan once said" The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination")

ID required = Social insurance number

Payment = Taxable remuneration

Mandatory Benefit

Canadian pension plan = Officer (artificial person)

Employment insurance = Insured Person (artificial person)

Workers Compensation = Worker (artificial person)

You are one of two things,

Slaves living in the Illusion of freedom

OR

Free living in an Illusion of slavery

Ca-Nada said...

Here are a few definitions from the Canada Interpretation Act chapter 1-21

Act, in respect of an Act of a legislature, includes a law of the Legislature of Yukon, of the Northwest Territories or for Nunavut;

Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; (Canada)

First off, from the feds Interpretation act we see that interesting definition that Volt reposted in his most recent post. Apparently Canada, for greater certainty , is only the the internal waters and the territorial sea of Canada.Unless of course the use of word includes was meant to be expansive, but it that was the case then why didn't the draftsperson use the word "including"as it is less ambiguous. We also see that in federal statutes whenever the word "province", with a lower case "p", it is only a reference to Yukon territory, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This is the same curious situation the Anna Von R speaks of with united States and United States.

As for the British Columbia Interpretation Act wesee the exact same definition for the word "province" with a lower case "p". However, whats even more interesting is that in the BC act we see two definitions for the word "Province",with an upper-case "P". I guess whenever we hear a federal or provincial bureaucrat say the word province we now have to figure out which one they are referring to.

Could it be this is how the feds have been able to enter into agreements with the "provinces". Knowing they can't enter into agreements with the "Provinces" because their jurisdictions are like water tight compartments so they simply enter into agreements with the "province" which in all reality are only the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut.

These are the same games AVR talks about that are being played in America. It's an interesting theory and the style is being used in two neighboring countries. These kinds of sneaky word games keep everything "legal". Further,considering that most people are never going to to even think of questioning such a matrix like illusion,who would be the wiser. I guess the only downside to having the federal government use these illusionary provinces to invade provincial jurisdictions is that the real provinces and it's people would have to be willing to live under the authority of an all powerful central government controlled by the usual banker scum.

I encourage anyone to look up the BC interpretations act and see for yourself

Here is the link https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96238_01

"Province" means the Province of British Columbia or Her Majesty in right of British Columbia as the context requires;

"province", when used as meaning a part of Canada, includes the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut;

Then look at the Canadian interpretation act

province means a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; (province)

note the small p and how it says includes again. This means that province is only Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
There is no capital "P" province defined in the interpretation act. That is very convenient for the snakes running this scam.

Ca-Nada said...

I'm going to repeat sec 126, 127 again from the criminal code and pay particular attention to "Every one who, without lawful excuse" Normally they would say every "person". In this case they say "Every one" here is the link,

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-127.html

Then there are those who have become free-men-on-the-land through Section 39, 126 & 127 of the criminal code of Canada who use a Notice of Intent & Understanding followed by a Claim of Right who exist FREE of all gov't statues, by-laws, & codes provided they keep the peace and do not break the basic 10 commandments."
Disobeying a statute

126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Disobeying order of court

127 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Ca-Nada said...

Signifier, I don't expect you to respond in any meaningful way and am done with your nonsense.

I'm going to leave you all with some more definitions from several statutes to give you a feel for the deceptive practices being imposed on the unsuspecting populous.


here is the definition of Artificial from Blacck's Law Dictionary.

Artificial. Isin opposition to the word "natural", Created by art, or by law.

Blackstone's Commentaries
Page 119, The rights of the Person Book 1

Persons are also divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial.
Natural persons are such as God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government,which are called corporations or bodies politic.

Canada Business corporations Act chapter C-44

individual. Means a natural person

Person. includes an individual partnership, association, body corporate, trustee,executor, administrator or legal representative.

It's interesting in this act that individual is clearly defined to mean a natural person, and instead of using the word natural person within the definition of "person" the word individual is used. Now this drafting method is quite interesting considering that the word "individual" generally means a natural person in statutes anyways, unless it is redefined to mean something else in an Act. Regardless of the reason for the application of this drafting style , what is apparent is the fact that in statutes the word "person" is incapable of carrying it's natural ordinary meaning of a man, without it being clearly expressed.

Here is another example from the Canada Cooperatives Act 1998 c,1

Individual. Means a natural person

person. Means an individual or an entity and includes a legal representative.

entity. means a body corporate, a trust, a partnership, a fund or an unincorporated organization.

The Canadian interpretation Act (which is the default definition Act for Canadian statues unless redefined in the particular relevant statute) defines a person as

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

Bank act 1991, c.46

Person. Means a natural person.an entity or a personal representative.

15.(1) Abank has the capacity of a natural person and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers andprivileges of a natural person.

How i would interpret this is that because the bankis a statutory entity ithas no capacity unless the statute grants it, which in this case a bank has been granted the capacity of a natural person. 15 (1) goeson to state "subject to this Act" Interestingwhen you think who has more capacity,a natural person or a bank. Well considering that a natural person in not subject to the restrictions of the Bank Act andabank is, then obviously we have more capacity than banks. Is this why "they" try so hard to prevent us from learning who we really are and the unlimited capacity we all have?



Signifier said...

@Ca-Nada,

You're good at copying and pasting. Interpreting the stuff you copied and pasted requires something you don't have.

Ca-Nada said...

Shit stain, I'm using statutes available to all. Go away. I'm done talking to you. You're a weakling.

Ca-Nada said...

If anyone else is interested, you can download statutes in pdf and simply search for the word includes. Just that simple search will often reveal some interesting perversions within government statutes of your choice.

Ca-Nada said...

I would also encourage everyone to read the Attorney General of Nova Scotia vs Attorney General of Canada and Lord Nelson Hotel Company Ltd. It is in that case that Water tight compartments are mentioned.

Here is the link.

http://www.ownlife.com/tax/lordne1.htm