Raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt reports from the Mark Tijssen trial in Ottawa yesterday:
The case attracts media interest. Mark Tijssen, flanked by Michael Schmidt, talks to television reporters
Why are those who claim to protect the public such cowards?
Another court proceeding in Ottawa. Members of the Ontario Landowners came, including former President Jack McLaren. The courtroom was almost full.
CBC and several news papers showed extreme interest in this case.
The grey shadows in the room as always is our country police, the agents from the MNR. They tried to hide and escape from the radar of the press. Why would they not take the opportunity to express their concerns about food safety? They are all for sure under a gag order, which prohibits them to make any statements.
I experienced the same phenomena at our milk trial. These people are total slaves of their own creation. It is sad to see how investigators day in, day out just do their job catching farmers and others breaking their rules. What a life that must be. Certainly not an indication how we are perceived to be: free and trusting.
I think most people do not realize, that we have in fact the same tendency today here in Canada as the Germans had at the beginning of the last century. Neighbours spying on neighbours.
MNR investigator Ridley -- he sat for five days in a tree house waiting for Mark Tijssen to break a law.
Governments using undercover strong arm actions to squash free thinkers and citizens concerned about their own rights.
And most of these MNR people cannot even look straight into your eyes. It became very clear today once again that the intent is not to work with people, the intend of the MNR is to prosecute people.
A few of the Ontario Landowners is attendance at Mark's trial in Ottawa yesterday.
The Bovine 
In this issue, you have to understand the original purpose of the regulation–to protect public health from unscrupulous processors who may want to cut corners in sanitation to reduce their costs. You also have to understand that the meat industry has an interest in the strong enforcement of this law–not for safety reasons, but to protect their industry from do-it-yourselfers so that they don’t cut into their profits if it ever becomes popular to do home butchering.
The key to sharing the meat of one animal is to co-own the live animal. Just as in a herdshare for milk, two or more families may go in on a live animal to share its meat. You are entitled to the meat of the animal that you own. Only one of the families will do the actual slaughtering, and when he divies up the meat, he is not acting as a distributor–the non-slughtering pertners are merely claiming their portion of their own meat. It is not necessary that both partners hold the chopping block axe as it is swung down on the neck of the co-owned animal.
What is not allowed is for one person to first slaughter and butcher an animal and subsequently sell or give raw cuts of meat to his neighbors. However, that person could still invite his neighbor over for dinner in which the meat has been prepared at a meal. Furthermore, if the meat is hunted game (as opposed to a raised or bought live domestic animal) meat, he may give (but not sell) raw cuts to his neighbor. Why the distinction between meat derived from domestic animals and game animals? Because for game animals, there is no commercial slaughtering and butchering industry, so it is not necessary to draw a line between self-slaughtering and a professional slaughterhouse that must be licensed and inspected to assure proper sanitation guidelines. It needs to be clear by legislation or a court case, that shared ownership of the live animal means all owners have an interest in the safe processing of the meat of those animals and therefore, there is no involvement of public health officials because there is no distribution to the public.
I support Mr. Tijssen; however I do believe that he will lose his court challenge using the charter argument regarding security of the person. I do believe that he had a remedy within the Act.
Evert Act has a clause which allows a citizen to “opt out” and the FQS 2001, (Ontario) is no exception.
The remedy is to reorganize our structural relationships with one another. Allow me to explain.
When you watch a film, you will notice credits to the producers and executive producer(s). The producers do not actually make the film. The film creation is left up to the skilled craftspersons. The producers only supply the financial impetus for the creation.
The farmer/rancher is commonly considered the producer. This is reasonable as we do not contribute financially to the production of the commodity before it is ready for consumption. This is the remedy.
The Act MUST allow for the producer to consume their own product. By creating a contractual relationship with the farmer/rancher before hand, the end user BECOMES the producer and the farmer/rancher takes on the roll of the skilled craftsman which is equitable and legal.
The Act will still protect consumers who wish to act in commerce with large corporations; however, the individual can opt out by becoming a producer and consuming their own creation. The Act does NOT say that the product must be created at the producers home. In essence, the farmer/rancher becomes your “hired hand”, but is still fairly compensate for their labour and expenses. We just contractually change the relationship from consumer to producer.
There is no need to waste time protesting the laws as unfair as the Government has a legal right to create any law they want. What needs to be realized is that ALL statutes have to have an “opt out” provision and if you read them closely, you will find them.
The Raw milk producer is on the right track by selling shares in the cow . This should create the producer role for the end user that I believe is the remedy we seek.
Don’t let them bog us down in fighting and protesting. Let us spend time enjoying our productions with family and friends and leave the Government to regulate Monsanto and Cargyll as it has always been intended.
By “opting out” do you mean choosing to become a producer i.e. raise and slaughter your own livestock for food? Or are you talking about some sort of legislative loophole (which I can’t seem to find)?
Even if Mr. Tijssen could become a producer, in order to be exempt from the restrictions imposed by Sec 3 of the Meat Regulation he would have to comply with the conditions in Sec 7, being:
1. The animal has been slaughtered for consumption by the producer or the producer’s immediate family.
2. The slaughter was performed on the producer’s premises by the producer, or if the animal is a head of cattle or a pig, by an examiner.
3. The carcass, the part of it or the meat product is not removed from the producer’s premises and is distributed only to the producer’s immediate family on the producer’s premises.
4. The carcass, the part of it or the meat product is consumed only by the producer or the producer’s immediate family on the producer’s premises.
This seems to preclude the possibility of setting up a share system similar to what the raw milk guy is doing – the law appears to be quite specific.
Agree that Mr Tijssen will lose this case.
@Gordo W
I will read the Act in more detail before I offer a comment. you raise good points which I believe need to be addressed properly.
Gordo W,
The answer is in the definition of producer.An “act” is a regulation of a corporation.It applies to employees of that corporation.The “producer” that the act refers to is not a living, breathing person,but a “legal person” which does not live or breath.We can choose to take on the privileges and obligations of this legal person known as the producer.It is our choice.We are using the legal person in order to enter a contract with that corporation.We cannot contract with a corporation without using a legal person(a legal name).A corporation cannot enforce it’s regulations on us unless we have contracted with them.We do this when we mistakenly agree that we ARE the legal name to whom they refer.We only “USE” the legal name when we consciously choose to contract with a corporation.Most of us do choose to contract with the corporation ( which is our defacto government) for certain purposes.I would argue that each contract is a separate contract and that the terms of each contract are separate from all other contracts.As an example, having a license to “drive” does not mean that you are obligated to follow all other unrelated regulations of the corporate government.We “opt out” of a regulation by not accusing ourselves of violating the regulation.We accuse ourselves by voluntarily using the name of a legal person in our response to a corporation.That is an admission that we are it’s employee and so obligated to live by it’s regulations.We can ask “Are you alleging that I have a contractual agreement to perform the obligations of that legal name?”” Can I see the contract?” Understand that all contracts are void that are not voluntary and entered by parties that are fully informed as to all of the obligations of the contract.Contracts that are one sided where most of the benefits go to one party while most of the obligations belong to the other are also void.
Miguel,
Sounds like you’re going down the old “natural person” path – it hasn’t worked for any of those Canadian tax evaders, and I suspect it wouldn’t work in this situation either.
The FSQ Act and Meat Regulation do not specifically define “producer”, so I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that it would only apply to a corporation. In the absence of a prescribed definition, they would probably use the common meaning, which might be something like “a person engaged in the production of meat”. Case law (using those tax-evasion kooks) shows that a “person” in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. This interpretation is supported in relevant Law Dictionaries, and in federal and provincial interpretation acts.
Sorry mate, the only way you can opt out of a regulation is to choose not to engage in the regulated activity. i.e. don’t distribute your home-slaughtered meat to anyone other than your immediate family.
Gordo W,
Where does the regulator get it’s authority to tell me that I am a “producer” and that I have to live by those regulations?In the U.S. the people created the local government which created the state governments who created the federal government.Authority comes from the people.Now we have a situation where international treaties are signed by federal governments without input from the people,then these international regulations are imposed on the people against their wishes.I agree that the courts will side with the government,but do they have jurisdiction over us without our consent?
@ Gordo W
You have a fundamental mis-comprehension of what I am saying.
Mr. Tijssen IS the producer as he is the one who puts in the financial support to create the product.
What I am advocating is a role reversal where the end user becomes the producer (insurance agent) who bankrolls the labor required to brining the product to completion.
When you understand that in legal terms, the producer is the insurance agent, it all becomes crystal clear.
Mr. Tijssen gets paid for his LABOR, not the PRODUCT.
In this way, Mr. Tijssen can INCREASE his income as the producer will pay MORE for the labor than big business pays him for is PRODUCT.
The producer (end user) saves by cutting out the middle men, wholesalers, retailers, and distributors; thereby paying less for his product as a producer than he would as a consumer. It is Win – Farmer / Rancher, Win – Producer / End User, Win – Government, Lose Big Business.
This movement needs to be about the re-distribution of wealth from Big-Business back into the hands of the end users, and farmers/ranchers.
Beautifully expressed
@AED939
I disagree with your comment about wild game being exepmt because there is no commercial industry for butchering live game. I know of a commercial slaughterhouse in Lethbridge Alberta which will butcher wild game and produce meat cuts and sausage.
The reason wild game is exempt is because there is no PRODUCER (Legal term). Wild game fends for itself and theirfore could never be considered to be produced; therefore, it falls outside of the FQS Act 2001 (Ontario).
The remedy is to redefine your relationship with the farmer/rancher from customer to producer. To get ahead of the curve, we need to set up cooperative production companies. You contribute into a fund to become a producer/executive producer and then you reap your product based upon your input level.
Let the Government make any Act it wants to. There is always remedy. The question is whether or not we as citizens, are willing to take the steps to act as sovereign individuals or capitulate and remain slaves to the tyranny of statutes.
The paradigm shift is in your willingness to pay up front as is required to become a producer, or to live in “fear” and wait until the commodity has been produced and then act as a purchaser. The choice is neither good nor bad, it simply is yours to make. If you want to stay a purchaser, don’t cry about the Act. If you dont like the Act, take on the role of the producer.
@ Gordo W
In the small amount of research I have done so far, here is what I have found in terms of answering your questions posed earlier (Nov 26, 2010 3:32 am)
You reliance on sections contained within the “Meat Regulation, Ontario” are no longer valid. Please go to : http://www.ontario.ca/en/information_bundle/meat/STEL02_037910.html,
There is will explain that the new FSQ, 2001 over rides the regulations contained within the “old” “Meat Regulations Act”.
So the points 1 – 4 that you referred to in your previous post are no longer applicable.
It would be my opinion that the old meat regulations were not in agreement with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CRF) as section 6 protects your right to move; therefore, it is not reasonable to restrict the producer to having to consume his product on his premises.
Allow me to explain. If the producer wanted to take his family to the lake to have a picnic and cook some steaks over a camp fire, under the meat regulation he would have been “contravening the statute”. This is not in agreement with section 6 of the CRF and likely would not have survived a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) challenge. It is also my opinion that this is a reason why the FSQ, 2001 had to be introduced.
@Carlos:
Nope, sorry but you’re wrong. Points 1-4 that I referred to previously are in the current Meat Regulation (31/05), and this regulation is in full effect. The only mistake I made is that I referenced these points as being in Sec 7 – it should be Sec 3 Subsec 7. My apologies for confusing you. Please go to: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_050031_e.htm#BK10
As for your Charter argument, I suppose we’ll only find that out if someone is charged under those circumstances. I doubt somehow that this type of thing is on enforcement officers’ radar. But who knows.
@ Gordo W
Well you have spoken a 1/2 truth. Allow me to illuminate the whole truth.
Sec 3 (7) clearly states that 3(7)1 to 3(7)4 are the conditions mentioned in Section 6
Section 6 ONLY applies to products raised on the producers premises.
Where in the Act does it restrict the production to the producers premises?
Hint: It cannot and does not.
As I said, the product is created at the farm/ranch which is not the premise of the producer; therefore, the section of the Act does NOT apply in my instance. It is the contractual relationship between the end user (producer) and the farmer/rancher (employee) which, when properly executed, creates remedy from the statute.
Thank you for allowing me to use your examples as further evidence to support my case.
@Carlos,
Sorry my friend, you are talking out of your arse.
First of all, my initial reply to you was a query as to whether “opting out” meant choosing to become a producer i.e. raise and slaughter your own livestock for food. Hence, my supposed “1/2 truth” is actually 100% correct within the context of what I was asking you about.
Second of all, if the animal is raised by someone else on their farm, it would seem that the farmer is the producer. They would be bound by these same rules.
Even is you could be considered the producer (which I think is a tenuous argument at best) and you have the farmer/rancher (employee) slaughter and ready the meat for you, they would be in violation of Sec 3(1). Not a nice position for you to put them in…
Anyway, it’s clear that neither one of us are lawyers, so perhaps its best we let the professionals handle it. If you decide to put your ideas to the test, I wish you the best of luck. I’ll enjoy reading about it.
@ Gordo W
Who wrote:
“First of all, my initial reply to you was a query as to whether “opting out” meant choosing to become a producer i.e. raise and slaughter your own livestock for food. Hence, my supposed “1/2 truth” is actually 100% correct within the context of what I was asking you about.”
your understanding that ONLY the producer can raise and slaughter their own livestock is incorrect. This is true if the farmer/rancher plays a dual role of producer AND laborer. If someone else steps in to provide the input costs (pre paid) for the farmer/rancher, then that person takes on the role of the producer and the farmer/rancher now only has one role to play, that of laborer.
The producer is NOT required to do ANY of the work. The producer can contract out ALL of the work to another party (farmer/rancher) to do for him/her.
(In my example) Section 3(1) does not apply as the producer has not sold, transported, delivered or distributed anything (A good position to be in). The producer (in my example) merely takes possession of his product for consumption. There is no commercial transaction for the product so 3(1) does not apply. Transport, Delivery and Distribution are ALL commercial activities ( See BLD for definitions) and if no money is exchanged, as evidenced by a Bill of Lading, then transportation, delivery or distribution cannot be proven.
The commercial transaction is for the labor and input costs to create the product, NOT the product itself. It may be difficult for you to grasp this concept but don’t give up, I believe that you can get it.
If you cannot grasp the concept then I at least hope that you can enjoy your self imposed bondage under statute tyranny, because you are willing to hand over your sovereignty to “professionals” to administer for you.
@ Gordo W re: response to miguel
The reason that producer is not defined in the Act is as follows. If a word is defined within an act, then that definition is the one which applies.
This “common” definition of producer that you speak of would NEVER be used by the courts. The courts will rely on the legal definition of producer.
in Blacks Law Dictionary Producer has NO definition other than : “See insurance Agent”. What this means is that in the courts view, a producer is defined as an “Insurance Agent”.
Then why would the Act NOT include this interpretation in it? It is because they want to confuse you with having the “common” definition of producer front and center in your mind. This will keep you “barking up the wrong tree” so to speak.
The remedy lies in creating “Food Insurance Companies” where we become “Insurance Agents” ie. producers, in the view of the court, and create insurance contracts with the farmer/rancher to create products for us.
If you want to continue to live as a slave under the tyranny of statute law, then be my guest. It is my hope that you will start to see the “invisible” chains that bind you. To see the chain is to break it.
@Carlos
Unfortunately I don’t have the benefit of a Blacks Law Dictionary in my bookcase, but even if it does define producer in this manner I can’t see the judge agreeing that the spirit and intent of the legislation is to regulate meat “insurance agents”. It doesn’t make any sense.
And my “common” definition for a producer is not as far-fetched as you suggest.
The Egg and Processed Egg Regulation, which (like the Meat Regulation) is also enacted under the FSQ Act, defines “producer” as a person engaged in the production of eggs. Not a huge stretch to consider a producer under the Meat Reg to be a person engaged in the production of meat.
Also, although not related to this particular Act, there are other Ontario Acts that define producers in a similar fashion.
-Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 402: “producer” means a person engaged in the production of chickens.
-Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 419: “producer” means a producer engaged in the production of hogs
-Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 429: “producer” means a person engaged in the production of sheep or wool;
-Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 437: “producer” means a person engaged in the production of turkeys
Obviously definitions defined only in one Regulation can’t be applied to the other (I think the term is “ultra vires”), but I think the court would look to other references for a definition that is more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the FSQ Act Meat Reg. If not Blacks, then perhaps the Canadian Law Dictionary, or perhaps previous case law.
Courts are not without some degree of common sense (although that may be hard to see sometimes) – so I think you might be the one who is barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, best of luck with your “Food Insurance Company”.
Gordo W,
Are you saying that a person(legal person) referred to in these acts is the same thing as a human being?Would the act mean that a human being engaged in the production of meat is necessarily a meat producer?Can an act remove inalienable god given rights from a human being? I can understand that an act can take rights away from a legal person because the legal person is a creation of the state,but a human being is created by God.God created human beings ,then human beings created the state.The word “person” can refer to a human being once the human being has given it’s consent to being regarded for legal purposes as a legal person ,otherwise a human being is not the same as a legal person.
In a legal context reference to persons must always be reference to legal persons. If an act seems to remove life,liberty or the pursuit of happiness from a human being, without consent, it is “no law at all”.
@ Gordo W
Since you have no Black’s Law Dictionary, you are at a bit of a disadvantage; however, allow me to assist you in this comprehension.
you wrote: -Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 402: “producer” means a person engaged in the production of chickens. etc.
Production is not defined within BLD however I have found one which I feel is sufficient.
Production:
Processes and methods employed in transformation of tangible inputs (raw materials, semi-finished goods, or subassemblies) and intangible inputs (ideas, information, know how) into goods or services.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/production.html#ixzz16XOq7wRa
Note the phrase “employed in”. this is consistent with my concept of the role reversal. The farmer/rancher becomes the “employee” of the producer under an “Insurance Policy”, responsible for the tangible inputs to facilitate the creation of product.
By providing the financial input to the farmer in advance, a contract is formed which makes the farmer/rancher my employee and I become the producer. If the farmer puts up the money to grow the crop, he becomes the producer/insurance agent, and I become the consumer. In this scenario, the Acts apply. In my proposed scenario, the Acts do not apply as the Acts have an exemption for the producer to consume their own product.
It’s OK if you don’t “get it”, there are more and more of us that do. We are starting to work on the logistics of brining this to fruition.
And who are you to determine “the spirit and intent” of the legislation.
The judge is bound to make decisions on facts placed before him/her, not on their personal interpretation.
If you bring evidence of the definition of words into the court room, the judge has to consider them. Legal definitions carry more weight than common dictionaries and common dictionaries carry more weight than vernacular (common usage).
Vernacular is ONLY acceptable in the ABSENCE of legal or common definitions.
The fact that it “doesn’t make any sense” to you is irrelevant in legal terms. Evidence rules the day in court.
@Miguel
Respectfully, matters of faith should be kept separate from matters of state (and law).
Like it or not, all laws are designed to restrict the activities of the person (natural, legal, or corporate). And you don’t have to opt into the “system” in order for society to apply them to you. Miguel, are you saying that you can drive drunk in a stolen vehicle without a seatbelt backwards on the wrong side of the highway with 50lbs of heroin that you’re planning to sell to teenagers at the local Christian school, and that the cops are going to forget about it because you say you are not a legal person and it is your inalienable god-given right to do what you want? Wow. Hope you’ve been fitted for a straight-jacket…
All kidding aside, if it was a free-for-all for the individual to decide what they considered their inalienable god (or Allah, or Brahma, or Yahweh, or Pangu, or Atum, or Coatlique, or Mbombo, or Nanabozho, or whichever other creation deity you prefer)-given rights and pursue liberty and happiness in whatever ways they saw fit , I think we’d be in a right mess. There are a lot of nut-jobs out there who would take advantage of this (and everyone else be damned!). That’s why we have laws, and that’s why the laws apply to each of us, irregardless of whether the individual consents to it.
That’s not to say that all laws are just and necessary. I think we can all agree on that.
@ Gordo W
Who wrote:
-Ontario Farm Products Act Reg 402: “producer” means a person engaged in the production of chickens.
Again, you really need to comprehend the words you are reading.
Engage: Vb, To employ OR involve oneself; to take part in; to embark on. (BLD 8th Ed.)
Employ: Vb, 1.To make use of. 2. To Hire. 3. To use as an agent or substitute in transacting business. 4. To commission and entrust with the performance of certain acts or functions or with the management of one’s affairs. (BLD 8th Ed.)
Note the word employ in the definition of engage. Means that you can hire the work out OR involve yourself. The option is available. You are NOT bound to involve yourself; however, you are not excluded from involving yourself either.
It is clear that the option is available under the FSQA, 2001 to hire a farmer/rancher to do the work for you as they have used the word engage.
These words are NOT chosen by accident. If you do not take the time to at LEAST learn their legal meanings, then you can easily be coerced into believing that a statute applies to you, however, by it’s own wording, it clearly may not.
@Carlos (November 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm and November 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm)
Hate to disappoint you old boy, but your further clarification was not necessary. The basis of your argument is simplistic enough – the only difficult part to understand is that you actually believe this will work. I’m glad that you have other people working with you on this, hopefully one of them is a decent lawyer.
And by the way, it is not me that has anything to do with determining the “spirit and intent” of the legislation. That will be the judge who reviews your case. And if you think this doesn’t factor into the judge’s decision, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about (like we needed more evidence of that…).
This will be my last reply on this thread, but I do look forward to reading about your progress on establishing the Food Insurance Company. Maybe you can post updates with The Bovine. Again, best of luck to you.
@Gordo W
You are confusing common law with corporate rules.For example:If you want to work at Walmart you have an obligation to follow their rules.They may tell you what type of clothes are appropriate,etc..These rules don’t apply to you when you are not working at Walmart.They don’t apply to you when you are shopping at Walmart,they only apply when you are working at walmart.These rules are designed to keep the corporation running efficiently.Common law applies to all of us all of the time.It’s purpose is to provide peace in our society.If two friends work together to raise or purchase a pig and then butcher it for themselves,they do this as private people,not as employees of any corporation.The meat regulations only apply to people when they are acting in their capacity as “persons”(employees of the government).If I am only shopping at Walmart but I mistakenly identify myself as a Walmart employee,then I have to answer to the corporate rules.If you want to avoid the meat regulations,don’t identify yourself as a government employee.Legal names and social insurance numbers(SIN) are evidence that you are a government employee .If you are not doing work using the legal name or SIN then you are not at that time subject to the rules binding government employees .The meat regulations do not apply to all of us all of the time like common law does.
This is extremely interesting and useful.
This is what I would call a constructive debate.
This in fact could provide more help to an intelligent resolve than what I heard from any agency.
Hi Michael
I am glad that you have enjoyed this debate. Excluding some minor Ad-hominem arguments (personal attacks), it was a fairly civilized discourse.
I do understand miquel’s arguments; however, I feel that they are at a level which requires a higher level of understanding than most citizens are ready for. I hope someday that we all have this level of comprehension. I believe that we need to walk before we start to run.
I still believe that remedy exists in ALL statutes, and that by reorganizing our relationships to one another is the way to opt out of statute regulations.
We don’t ask them (govt)for “permission”, we just explain what we intend to do and then demonstrate how we intend to do it. They are the ones who must prove that we have have done so in contravention of the statutes. If we organize correctly, the government will be unable to provide evidence to the contrary.
If you are Michael Schmidt, I wish you the best in all your endeavours. You are an inspiration to me and many others who believe in our hearts that we are each capable of acting honorably without the oversight of “big brother”.
If we are just people working together to feed ourselves,we need to be very careful to avoid using any labels that have legal meanings such as citizen,producer,person,agent etc..If anyone accuses us of being anything other than people,we should ask for the evidence that leads them to believe that we have earned that label.What does that label mean to them?Why do they want to attach a label to us?Regulations are just words that are being used against us.It is up to the regulators to show evidence that we are producers or whatever.They need to define their labels and show that we fit their definition.They need to attach one of those legal labels to us in order to gain control of us.Let’s not do it for them.It is their job.All we have to do is ask questions.They are used to people who accuse themselves and don’t ask questions.
@ Gordo W
“He who withdraws from the field of battle first, concedes defeat”.
I accept your withdrawal as tacit admission that you have been unable to refute my points with any facts, and as such feel inclined to recuse yourself rather than suffer further humiliations evidenced by your lack of understanding of statute law.
You inability to understand that I believe that this will work is irrelevant. The remedy has always existed. These are not my ideas, I am merely pointing out the remedy which has always existed, hidden in plain sight (camouflaged).
Thanks for your best wishes in our endeavours.
“When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence”.
@ Gordo W
I see that you are not a man of your word as you had previously said, “This will be my last reply on this thread” on November 28, 2010 at 5:20 am.
You have in essence, described yourself to be a fool with your own words. By posting the response, a “wise” man, in your interpretation of wise, would have remained silent and not posted anything further, thus you have demonstrated yourself to be a fool.
If you have any logical or rational reasonings beyond your speculations of what a judge may think of my ideas, I would be most happy to hear them and debate them further.
If you have no logical or rational rebuttals to my points, please feel free to “wallow in the wisdom of silence”.
“When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence”.
@Gordo W
Come on Gordo,I don’t see it as an argument,it was an interesting discussion.You just can’t think of anything further to contribute to it.I hope you are not quite so sure of your position.In a “free” country,it is hard to understand how “laws” can restrict every aspect of that freedom even when no harm to any other member of the society can be shown.
@Carlos
When we get dragged up in front of a corporate judge,he has two decisions to make before we can be found guilty.The first question is “Is this an employee of the corporation?”.The second question is “Was a regulation broken?”.If the answer to the first question is “no”,then the regulations do not apply.If the answer is “yes”,then we need to look at the meaning of the words in the regulation.I think we should be sure we understand what the answer to the employee question is before we worry about how to interpret the regulation.It may be that the regulation does not apply to us.
@ miguel
I do comprehend your point but this is at the point where our ideas diverge somewhat. As I have a S.I.N., it is my comprehension that I am an employee of the corporation (CANADA), which is listed on the US SEC.
I am not prepared at this time to relinquish my S.I.N. to no longer be considered an employee of the corporation, and I believe that most, but not all citizens, may feel the same way.
At some future date when more education has taken place, citizens may have the ability to make an informed choice once they reach the age of consent, to either maintain their birth registration or to reclaim it, and not enter into contract to obtain a S.I.N.
In the mean time, what I am proposing is that citizens become aware of their right to consent to, or opt out of statute laws, as the citizen sees fit. This endeavour in and of itself will be difficult enough to accomplish. Removing ones self from employee status is another layer of complexity, which I believe will just “bog down” the process at this time.
So in my case, the answer to question 1 will always be yes, and the answer to question 2 will be yes or no depending upon my consent/intent. As long as there remains opt out provisions in statute law, I see no real advantage for me to “quit” the corporation as I have already invented far too much into the benefits programs. (Unless I find that upon quitting, all of my contributions would be refunded to me)
Are you a Robert Aurthur Menard fan? No judgement, just wondering.
@Carlos,
I am wondering if being an employee of the state is a 24/7 job or are there times when you are not an employee.I mean circumstances when the answer to the first question would be “no”.Like when you are just shopping at Walmart even though you may work there at times.When you are there but not actually working there. In this case the regulations would not apply to you as long as you did not identify yourself as an employee of Walmart.
Of course if you identify yourself by showing your Walmart I.D.,you will be treated as if you are an employee.Just because you have a S.I.N. does not mean everything you do is as an employee of the state.Private interactions between friends do not involve exchange of legal names and S.I.N.s ,and there are no requirements to collect this information and report it to the state.
@ miguel
This is a bit off topic for this thread but the way I comprehend it is that you are not so much an employee of the state 24/7 but rather a customer who has entered into a contract with the corporation (CANADA), evidenced by your S.I.N.
Submit means: bend to the will of another.
Apply means: To beg
Registration means: To transfer ownership to another party.
So any time you submit an application for registration, you have begged another to take ownership of your property.
Or anytime you just submit an application, you have begged to submit to the will of another.
You have asked for a benefit.
The state acts upon your corporate fiction (strawman) when ever the strawman wants to act in commerce. The state is in some ways like an employment agency who takes a “cut” of your employment earnings in the form of taxes and in return provides it’s customer with services such as health care, education and infrastructure.
I don’t judge this as good or bad, it just is what it is.
That is why I do not recommend that the citizen extract themselves from the matrix unless they are capable of COMPLETE self sufficiency. This is much more difficult than most could ever imagine and I personally would not undertake that path at this time in my life.
I promote equitable consent, where citizens are aware of the legal relationships that exist and have the capacity to chose which relationships they want to partake in and which ones they want to avoid while staying within the “matrix” of the existing social structure.
What I do not believe in is the citizen being treated like “livestock on a farm”. This is not meant to diminish the treatment of livestock by farmers/ranchers as many strive for humane treatment of their livestock. I just believe that humans have a greater capacity to create and that spark should be nourished, not extinguished.
I have written a book called “The Motorists Remedy”, which you might find interesting. It speaks to operating an automobile without need of an operators license, registration or a licence plate. If you can give me your email address, I can send the PDF copy to you for no charge. It is for study and educational purposes.
@Carlos
Who does the legal name that we use in the world of commerce belong to?Is it my name?Why do I have to get permission to change it?If it isn’t my name ,then who does all those things registered in that name really belong to?Do I have an existence outside of the world of commerce?
But ,back to the pig,if I slaughter a pig with the help of a friend and share the meat,why is that activity part of the world of commerce?I think it is because we mistakenly identify ourselves with that legal name which only exists for us to use in the world of commerce.This is where we have the opportunity to use our real name rather than our legal name.By using our real name,we indicate that we are not engaging in commercial activity in this specific instance.We have to make the connection between ourselves and that legal name voluntarily.You are right,we are not like livestock.We carry our numbers inside our minds rather than in our ears.We control access to that information and we can use that to our advantage.
It is a relieve to come across grown ups. As most of the time this subject matter seems to turn into “finger pointing” “shouting matches”. After all every one is entitled to their opinion. However it is essential that we keep an open mind. Having said that I agree with Carlos in that as the creators , we should be able (with the knowledge taught to us by the time we reach the age of majority) to step “in” and “out” of the fiction that we are born into. I for one would be very appreciative in receiving your book so unselfishly offered.
Monsanto and Cargyll are the government so good luck. When I was young Grew up on a hobby farm we and we killed approx. six pigs every year…the butcher took 1/4 and some of the saugeages for his work and small po rtions were either given as gifts or sold. No one ever got sick.and I so miss those days.th miss those days…that was ala