Common Law knowledge is spreading...

[Tower]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Isn't speeding in Alberta against section 115 of the Traffic Safety ACT of Alberta?

So we can speed all we want?!?!?!?!!? Yeah good luck with fighting that in court.

Thank you, but it wouldn't go to court.

Driving is a part of the Act. Driving is what a cab driver does as he is operating in commerce. I travel which is my right. If I speed an hurt someone, I will have to make amends. Or I could just travel safely....

[peter12]

Why do people actually engage Tower in any sort of debate? Leave these threads, stop giving him reasons to reply and we can see an end to this nonsense.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why do people actually engage Tower in any sort of debate? Leave these threads, stop giving him reasons to reply and we can see an end to this nonsense.

It gives me practice for when I have to argue with my 5 year old.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why do people actually engage Tower in any sort of debate? Leave these threads, stop giving him reasons to reply and we can see an end to this nonsense.

You too.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tower

Like I said earlier.... I don't need a toonie... And THAT feels great.

Put up or shut up. I'll meet you at any 7-11 in the city, you go take a slurpee without paying - not by sneaking it out, but by going to the clerk and explaining that you don't need to pay for it because money is a lie, then walking out.

I already know you are not going to take me up on this offer, so let me make a point here - the difference between you and I is that I would have no trouble meeting you at a 7-11, paying for a slurpee with a toonie, then walking out. That's because my theory on how money works relates directly to how money actually DOES work, whereas your theory does not.

You're not fooling anyone with your protestations about just being some kind of signpost on the way to wisdom. You are more like one of those old convicts in the Gulag who encouraged others to try to escape, and then watched in glee as they were betrayed, caught, and punished. If you don't have the stones to live what you preach, stop preaching.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Tower doesn't debate. He switches points as soon as doubt is cast on his claims.

He gets the point that the surface reality can sometimes hide a truer, more nuanced, more complicated, power infused story. Many of us would agree with him on that.

Unfortunately he isn't a critical thinker. He doesn't rigorously examine truth claims to see if there is solid evidence to support them. He seems to be lured by conspiracy, by tales of hidden power, by a belief that we've fundamentally had the wool pulled over our eyes on certain issues by hidden puppet masters. You can be skeptical about the intentions of big business, gov't, etc. I am, and probably many of the Tower bashers are. But you need to also be skeptical about the fanciful tales of conspiracy that appeal to someone like our special friend Tower.

I might have to take Peter's advice though. In the face of powerful arguments Tower has danced around issues without engaging someone in critical debate. There's no point talking if Tower isn't listening. Its like talking at a brick wall.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Tower

Thank you, but it wouldn't go to court.

Driving is a part of the Act. Driving is what a cab driver does as he is operating in commerce. I travel which is my right. If I speed an hurt someone, I will have to make amends. Or I could just travel safely....

Ok...don't show up for court than and have fun with that warrant put out for your arrest.

[onetwo_threefour]

Just wanted to thank those who earlier stepped up to answer Mikey's challenge to me. I haven't been at my computer since I posted earlier.

A couple of things I did want to mention. If you go back and read my post Mikey, you'll see that I anticipated that the argument in the case was about a failure of consideration even though I hadn't (and still haven't) read the case. Do you want to know how I knew what the argument was going to be? It's essentially the only possible defence to a mortgage foreclosure, that the lender didn't actually give you the consideration that supports the legal right you have given them to take your house away. Now here's the trick, consideration doesn't have to be 'backed' as Tower would have you believe. As long as everybody agrees to accept the 'fiat created' money as legitimate, then it is. The borrower has no right to object to how the bank chooses to meet the obligation it had to pay the seller whatever portion of the purchase price it agreed to finance as long as the seller or the seller's financial institution accepted same, which they clearly did since they weren't suing to try and get the property back.

Your credit card, your personal line of credit, even the interest in your savings account is all fiat created money, but it is collectively agreed to be valid and an individual can't opt out of that group consensus any more than they can opt out of obeying the criminal code.


As many others have said, the case is bad law, has been overruled by later common law precedents, and is inconsistent with the entire basis of the US monetary system. There was no need for me to specifically know the details of the case because it was obvious what the argument had to be.

By the way, I'd like Tower and Mikey to answer this for me... How is it just and equitable for me to lead the bank to believe that I accept the terms of the mortgage agreement and start living in a property with no intention of honouring my word to the bank that I would pay them a certain amount of money in return for standing behind my name by granting me credit that the seller recognizes as having value. If I truly disagreed with the concept of bank created credit, shouldn't I refuse to be involved with the bank at the outset instead of taking advantage of them? Where is the justice in the case on that basis.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tower

Ha ha ha ha.... What IS that Toonie?

What is it backed buy? If a bank can create money out of thin air then why can't anyone? What is the difference? Both has a corporation and one is a corporation. I have not defined anything. It is defined in the bills and exchange act. Just becuse YOU choose to abide with what YOU are told does not mean anyone else does. The PPSA info I stated earlier in another thread is a great example. The fact that it IS gibberish outside Law Society is what IS wrong with this world. Common Law uses Common Tounge and eveyone can Stand Under it.

Like I said earlier.... I don't need a toonie... And THAT feels great.

Once more people understand the BS that most have chosen to accept the better. We are in a spiral fall paying debt notes with debt notes. It's not our doing that created this... But I sure don't feel like paying 400 a month to heat a small house in a few years after Uber Inflation kicks in... We have our wonderful "PTB" to thank for this. I'm not fixing their mess. I'm leaving it for them to swim in.

You have an absolute right not to pay your inflated power bill, however when you entered in a contract with the company that supplies your gas or electricity that you've agreed to pay money in accepted forms which is cash, electronic, check (which is a legally binding contract) in exchange for their service.

At any point its your right to walk away from the contract, but at that moment its the electric companies or gas companies right to cut off your service. Which means that you freeze.

By law you can't define your own system of currency which means an exchanger bill or whatever you call it is not considered to be valid exchange which means that you can't walk into 7-11 and buy a slurpee and pay for it with a graham cracker because your cracker is not accepted currency.

Its irrelevant if money is created from thin air by the banking institutions because that money that's created out of thin air is backed and validated and seen as real and accepted currency.

On the speeding issue because its considered the law of the land when using a governmental funded road way you assent to follow the rules simply by using the road so you don't have the right to ignore the laws that are put in place to use that conveyance.

You don't have the right to not pay income tax in this country unless your not generating income, that's implied consent when you accept citizenship in this country. You don't have the right to deny or withdraw income tax as long as your an implied citizen of this country.

As an example, if you live in Canada but claim that you are not a citizen of any nation and outside of the law which means that your not going to pay income tax it becomes an irrelevant argument as long as your living in a Canadian community and partaking in any service (education, health, roads, fire and police protection as examples) The only way around this is if your a citizen of another company and paying income tax to that country.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tower

Thank you, but it wouldn't go to court.

Driving is a part of the Act. Driving is what a cab driver does as he is operating in commerce. I travel which is my right. If I speed an hurt someone, I will have to make amends. Or I could just travel safely....

Wrong in both examples your considered to be an operator of a motor vehicle. There is no distinction between driving for personal use or driving for commerce.

The minute that you get into your car and turn onto a roadway you consent to the conditions of any laws that govern the road. Which also means that you must have a valid drivers license and valid insurance. If you don't have either the government has the right to remove you from the road and fine you based on the provisions of the act, and they have the right to hold you off of the road until you live up to your implied obligations.

If you get into an accident without insurance, you become both personally and criminally responsible for using the roads without the required insurance.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Just wanted to thank those who earlier stepped up to answer Mikey's challenge to me. I haven't been at my computer since I posted earlier.

A couple of things I did want to mention. If you go back and read my post Mikey, you'll see that I anticipated that the argument in the case was about a failure of consideration even though I hadn't (and still haven't) read the case. Do you want to know how I knew what the argument was going to be? It's essentially the only possible defence to a mortgage foreclosure, that the lender didn't actually give you the consideration that supports the legal right you have given them to take your house away. Now here's the trick, consideration doesn't have to be 'backed' as Tower would have you believe. As long as everybody agrees to accept the 'fiat created' money as legitimate, then it is. The borrower has no right to object to how the bank chooses to meet the obligation it had to pay the seller whatever portion of the purchase price it agreed to finance as long as the seller or the seller's financial institution accepted same, which they clearly did since they weren't suing to try and get the property back.

Your credit card, your personal line of credit, even the interest in your savings account is all fiat created money, but it is collectively agreed to be valid and an individual can't opt out of that group consensus any more than they can opt out of obeying the criminal code.


As many others have said, the case is bad law, has been overruled by later common law precedents, and is inconsistent with the entire basis of the US monetary system. There was no need for me to specifically know the details of the case because it was obvious what the argument had to be.

By the way, I'd like Tower and Mikey to answer this for me... How is it just and equitable for me to lead the bank to believe that I accept the terms of the mortgage agreement and start living in a property with no intention of honouring my word to the bank that I would pay them a certain amount of money in return for standing behind my name by granting me credit that the seller recognizes as having value. If I truly disagreed with the concept of bank created credit, shouldn't I refuse to be involved with the bank at the outset instead of taking advantage of them? Where is the justice in the case on that basis.

And this is why Lawyers are not liked... Lawyer - You have no choice but to follow OUR rules. You do not need to give consent. You are a slave.
HA! See you bring up your Legal mumbo jumbo inside that box that the society you belong to has created. You have no choice due to your oath but to follow. You arguments IMO will soon be obsolete, and those not part of the Law Society will be free from it's BULL. (I have better names for it but I won't use them here.)

Making this monetary system obsolete is also a great thing. Perpetual self-creating debt does nothing but create slaves.

[Bobblehead]

Sounding more and more like a cult leader all the time (sans the charisma)

[ResAlien]

I'm almost convinced Tower's a Bot. Not even human being. Just a Bot that has a program to randomly post incoherent nouns and verbs together. I go from laughing, to being irritated, to being pissed, to laughing again, to feeling truly sorry for him (her) in a single thread.

[Charcot]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Sounding more and more like a cult leader all the time (sans the charisma)

But without the charisma.

Edit Doohhh either you reedited your post or I completely missed the brackets.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I'm almost convinced Tower's a Bot. Not even human being. Just a Bot that has a program to randomly post incoherent nouns and verbs together. I go from laughing, to being irritated, to being pissed, to laughing again, to feeling truly sorry for him (her) in a single thread.

A couple of us on the board have met him. I thought he was a nice guy when I met him about 3 years ago.

Of course, he didn't do this song and dance back then either to the best of my knowledge.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wrong in both examples your considered to be an operator of a motor vehicle. There is no distinction between driving for personal use or driving for commerce.

The minute that you get into your car and turn onto a roadway you consent to the conditions of any laws that govern the road. Which also means that you must have a valid drivers license and valid insurance. If you don't have either the government has the right to remove you from the road and fine you based on the provisions of the act, and they have the right to hold you off of the road until you live up to your implied obligations.

If you get into an accident without insurance, you become both personally and criminally responsible for using the roads without the required insurance.

You are basing this ALL on assumption. Grab the Motor Vehicle act... PROVE it. lol

Point out these matters for me.

This is where what I believe vs you believe comes in. I believe driving is a right and not a privilege. I may be a minority but I certainly am not alone.

Law dictionary will be a good idea. Those words are a bit deceptive.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

A couple of us on the board have met him. I thought he was a nice guy when I met him about 3 years ago.

Of course, he didn't do this song and dance back then either to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks for that.

No I did not talk about this then. Not many new about this movement even 3 years ago. I don't mind being called a nutter/bot or whatever is being used. I'm the same guy. I know who I am and I'm proud of me. I'm not taking the popular just follow approach because the just follow does not seem to work for me anymore. I'm VERY Passionate about this... But I thank you again for the kind words.

Anytime your up for a brew again feel free to PM me. I won't bring this up if you wont... lol

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tower

You are basing this ALL on assumption. Grab the Motor Vehicle act... PROVE it. lol

Point out these matters for me.

This is where what I believe vs you believe comes in. I believe driving is a right and not a privilege. I may be a minority but I certainly am not alone.

Law dictionary will be a good idea. Those words are a bit deceptive.

Honestly, what you believe is completely irrelevant.

You give complied consent when you participate in a society governed by law.

I almost think that you need to buy an abandoned oil rig in the middle of the ocean.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You give complied consent when you participate in a society governed by law.

Where is this written?

[Bobblehead]

Anyone can drive. It is your right.

Should you actually wish to use a publicly funded road, THAT is a privilege. You don't want to get a license or insurance, buy yourself a parcel of land and go nuts.