Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Acts and Statues do not need to be brought forth as they are only liable to those who gave their oath, work for the government and those who gave consent to be governed.
|
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
You can not be forced against your will in Canada or anywhere common law is the founding law.
|
Wrong, you can be coerced and you will be if you defy certain Acts or Statutes that proscribe penalties. This isn't even debatable, it happens ALL THE TIME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
So if you gave an oath like a Lawyer, Judge, Civil Servants like local MP's and City Federal and Provincial Police you have no choice until you remove your consent.
|
Probably wrong if it made any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
As for Money. LOL this one is crazy.
|
Correct and bolded for emphasis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Corporations are fictional people much like a PERSON that is created when your registered at birth.
|
Wrong, and to elaborate, this is a semantic error with vast consequences. Your whole theory relies upon a misreading of "fictional" as "false" when the correct meaning was, is, and will always be "abstract".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
A bank - a bank creates money by your signature.
|
Wrong by virtue of extreme oversimplification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Money has no value until you give it.
|
Wrong even for Monopoly money. Money, like everything else, has the value that one person will give another for it; in other words its value is not viewpoint-dependent as "you give it" implies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
You and your labor are the true currency and not the paper money you receive.
|
Wrong. Much else has value other than labour, even in a barter economy without money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Paper money is a promise to pay, or IOU.
|
Wrong, and one of the prime sources of the rest of the wrongness. IOU implies a contract, which paper money is not. Paper money is a physical expression of a measure of value, not a contract and not a promise to pay. Saying it is either of those things does not make it so.
-edit- Currency backed by precious metals like silver or gold can be thought of as an IOU, because in theory you can turn over so much currency and receive so much metal from the issuing authority. Fiat currency, on the other hand, does not qualify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
This opens up a big topic here but with that IOU/remittance/True Bill you can take it and transfer it into fiat currency because the one who created it is paying for it with his signature and promise to pay.
|
Wrong and again skirts with not even making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
I have a friend who has paid successfully with a Accept for Value and true bill approach for his utilities.
|
Wrong because you have no proof and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Most would want proof, but again I don't care.
|
Wrong if you ever want to convince anyone less gullible than a 2 year old child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Those who wish to learn will win.
|
Wrong, they will lose and think they've won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Those who wish to poke fun and remain where they are win too.
|
Yay! Correct for once!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
Because the fiat currency is so ominous the ones asking for TRUE MONEY must give you remedy as TRUE money does not exist hence the IOU or promissory notes we use today aka "Legal tender". Rocks are not back with anything of value like precious metal  . Chisel your signature in it and we are getting somewhere lol! |
Wrong, and again with the IOU nonsense.
Now get ready and think real hard now - what makes "precious metal" actually precious, and how does that differ from what makes "fiat currency" precious? Hint - think "arbitrary assignation of value" and you're getting close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
It is unlearning what you have been taught and go by what is actually written down in ACTS and Statues.
|
Wrong. You can't reinterpret the law to your own advantage unless you get the legal apparatus to go along with you. The agents of coercion - the police, the courts, the lawyers - will demonstrate the futility of such a course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
So a freeman only needs to obey common law.
|
Wrong, and again coercion is a certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower
It is a huge responsibility, but still he can bring a "legal" or, "fictional law" judgment and have it stick to one who has no choice but follow the acts that he has consented too.
|
Wrong, and once again you confuse "abstract" with "fictional", which apparently is the entire basis of your worldview. A whole philosophy built upon not understanding the difference between what is unreal, and what is false.