Common Law knowledge is spreading...

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by peter12

You are such a troll. Go away.

You are so much more diplomatic than I would be...

Thus I won't say anything to Tower. I can't afford any more points against me.

[EDBTZ12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'd like to add a brief synopsis of a typical Tower thread:

Tower:

Did you know that if you jump off of the Calgary Tower you can fly?
I read it on this website: www.youcanjumpoffthecalgarytowerandfly.com

Seriously, knowing is the first step to being free

Response:
Really, so if I go jump off the Calgary Tower, I'll be able to fly?

Tower:
I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.
Check this out if you don't believe me: www.Seriouslyyoucanjumpoffthecalgarytowerandfly.co m

Response:
Are you're actually saying you've jumped off the Calgary Tower and flew?
Cause if what you say is true, you must have done it.

Tower:
It's not important what I do, it's what you do that's important.

lol i wish i could use this whole quote as my sig.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You are so much more diplomatic than I would be...

Thus I won't say anything to Tower. I can't afford any more points against me.

Wuss.

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by Tower

Actually that is quite a successful freeman-on-the-land approach.

They we given an offer to go to a de facto court. You do not have to oblige it. Remedy is gained though more than one approach.

Having your defence struck does not absolve you of your obligations. How is this a successful outcome?

Successful because he/she wasn't held in contempt???

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Tower

Actually that is quite a successful freeman-on-the-land approach.

They we given an offer to go to a de facto court. You do not have to oblige it. Remedy is gained though more than one approach.

Successful?

The only way it could have been less "successful" would have been if they were tried for contempt.

The defendants in taking the various positions indicated in the material they filed, clearly and overwhelmingly show wilful and deliberate ignoring of the process plus a clear and unequivocal intent to ignore the authority of the court and it’s order. As a consequence, the only conclusion one can come to is that the plaintiffs are entitled to an order striking the defence with costs set in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) payable forthwith.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

lol i wish i could use this whole quote as my sig.

You don't need to use the whole thing, just be like me and spread the word.

Imagine the damage we could do to the Airline industry with this knowledge.

[EDBTZ12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You don't need to use the whole thing, just be like me and spread the word.

Imagine the damage we could do to the Airline industry with this knowledge.

I dunno im starting to get worried about Tower...he's no longer online...you think he took a little trip to the Calgary TOWER.

[BlackArcher101]

This same topic came up on beyond.ca http://forums.beyond.ca/st/272687/no...ion-of-canada/ and it's received about the same welcome as here.

[jtfrogger]

I thought that this lunacy was largely only in the US. I suppose some US village is missing their idiot.

[EDBTZ12]

Some of those responses are classic.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The title of this thread should be...

"Idiocy is spreading...."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Does anyone else get a little bit of vertigo from reading Tower's posts? Like somebody pulled the earth out from under me for a second, and then put it right back. And now I'm the same, only just a little bit dumber...

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The title of this thread should be...

"Idiocy is speading...."

Fixed. (OP having been fixed aside).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Does anyone else get a little bit of vertigo from reading Tower's posts? Like somebody pulled the earth out from under me for a second, and then put it right back. And now I'm the same, only just a little bit dumber...

Sometimes I take it a little bit seriously for awhile. In the case of this thread, I started thinking about all I knew regarding Canada's social contract and the liberal obligations between state and government. Then I start feeling kind of sad and it all goes away.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sometimes I take it a little bit seriously for awhile. In the case of this thread, I started thinking about all I knew regarding Canada's social contract and the liberal obligations between state and government. Then I start feeling kind of sad and it all goes away.

That sadness you feel is the yoke of the state settling back onto your shoulders.... You almost got away, though!

[CaptainCrunch]

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I see troutman is reading this thread.

I wait with baited breath.

Can I play with madness?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocFxQjPeyiY

[mikey_the_redneck]

To Towers' credit..............I myself have seen article examples of people who have challenged income tax laws in the U.S. and have been successful. I don't know if it would be worth it for the average Joe however, and I don't know if that success would translate in Canada.

I think there was another example in one of the Zeitgeist movies where a guy went to court to challenge the bank wanting to forelcose his mortgage. He won the case because he was aware of our fraudulent monetary system.....he knew that the money put up for his house by the bank did not really exist....or something to that effect.

Anyways.........I dont know jack about common law really.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

...a guy went to court to challenge the bank wanting to forelcose his mortgage. He won the case because he was aware of our fraudulent monetary system.....he knew that the money put up for his house by the bank did not really exist....or something to that effect.

For any poster I respect on this site, this question doesn't need to be asked.

link?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

To Towers' credit..............I myself have seen article examples of people who have challenged income tax laws in the U.S. and have been successful. I don't know if it would be worth it for the average Joe however, and I don't know if that success would translate in Canada.

I think there was another example in one of the Zeitgeist movies where a guy went to court to challenge the bank wanting to forelcose his mortgage. He won the case because he was aware of our fraudulent monetary system.....he knew that the money put up for his house by the bank did not really exist....or something to that effect.

Anyways.........I dont know jack about common law really.

I'm not saying you're lying, and I'm sure those garbage movies do have something like this in them. but it is complete bunk. The fact is that the bank can prove that it issued a check for the amount of security claimed and that it could meet that obligation at that time. That is clearly the case because the seller would have been able to convert that cheque into hard currency with their financial institution. Therefore, the bank did give consideration for the security it was claiming and had the right to enforce its mortgage against the property.

The real reason I was responding to this thread though, was to confirm anecdotally that Tower is right about this lunacy spreading. I was at Court the other day on a couple of my real estate files and overheard a couple of other lawyers cracking jokes about a guy they had just seen in chambers that morning spouting off crap about being a freeman and not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction and the extremely direct and dismissive reply givwen by the judge or master. First time I've run into this garbage in RL.