Being that there are probably as many religions as there are taxes, I do not desire or even attempt to discuss theology. However, in an attempt to look at this question from a spiritual point of view, I highly doubt Jesus said, «You have to pay taxes.

I believe he said,

«Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.»

So the real question is, what is Caesar’s?

If the government is Caesar and this country is built on the principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, then rightfully so we should render to the government what is the government’s.

If the government has an internal income tax system to tax the income of the officer it creates and if you work as the representative of the officer, then all things being equal, you need to pay any tax due by the officer unto Caesar, out of the income of the officer.

However, in the alternative, if you work in your own capacity for your own benefit and the government, federal or provincial, recognizes the fact that they can’t tax your private property, like your labour, without violating your God-given human rights then are you violating any spiritual or legal principle if you keep all of your compensation, except what you give unto God?

I think if you contemplate your creator, it aught to become clear that no government has any divine authority to steal our property, as that would contradict other spiritual laws like,

«Thou shall not steal»

«You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments;
rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe».
~ John Adams

4. What if CRA (Skattedirektoratet) just says No!

First off, good luck trying to get them to say anything in clear and unequivocal language about a natural person, especially about a natural person acting in their own capacity.

Anyways, with all due respect, who cares if an agent of CCRA says, «No you can’t work in your natural capacity, for your own benefit», any one can say, «No» to anything. Talk is cheap and doesn’t mean it’s true.

Anyways, that’s not the point, the point is what do you say?… «Okay» and return to work for the benefit of an officer, or do you say, «Show me.»… If you say, «Okay», then they must be right because both of you agree.

So who’s to blame?

http://www.naturalperson.com/New%20Website/5%20Advance/Advance%204%20Final%2007.htm

Blackstone’s Commentaries
Book 1, Commentaries on the Laws of England,
Chapter 1, The Rights of Persons, at page 119

«Persons also are 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.»

————————-

Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
John A. Yogis, Q. C. Associate Dean and Professor of Law,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Natural Person:
“A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for right or duties.”

Artificial Person:
«A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach. »

«We discussed what income tax really is on the Introductory page. However, to refresh your memory… it is nothing more than an internal federal excise tax which is only mandatory for those who choose to work in the capacity of «legal representative» for the benefit of a federally created artificial person under an implied contract of service, known as an a «officer”, AKA «taxpayer»

«With the creation of the Legal World came the creation of the Legal You. This, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. What can make it good or bad is if you have forgotten the Real You and the Real World, and now only act in the capacity of a Legal Person without understanding the implications.»

1950 Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Attorney General of Nova Scotia verses.
Attorney General of Canada and Lord Nelson Hotel

RINFRET C. J.:
«The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled.»

«No power of delegation is expressed either in section 91 or in section 92, nor, indeed, is there to be found the power of accepting delegation from one body to the other; and I have no doubt that if it had been the intention to give such powers it would have been expressed in clear and unequivocal language.»

Og slik er det nok for den norske parlamentarismen også. Politikere kan ikke kan ikke gi lover utenfor de områder de er tillatt å gjøre det, og innenfor hvilken autoritet deres representative rolle strekker seg, og som forøvrig er i overensstemmelse med Grunnlovens ånd. DE kan ikke under noen omstendigheter forandre Grunnlovens ånd.

———————-

«Knowing that we are natural persons, human beings, in a legal system that is so limited in its operation that it cannot pass a law that would abrogate, abridge or infringe upon on our human rights, but rather must recognize and protect them, we still have the freewill option to discard it all. We can do as they have taught us and continue fighting the system, and each other, keeping us distracted, or we can continue down this path of inquiry to see how we have been manipulated to accept what they have been implying as the truth. »

«The Illusion itself needed to be interwoven into the real world in such away that we would not notice. To do this they came in though statute laws and manipulated them in such a way that we would read one thing when in reality they said another. They did this with the understanding of the rules of construction and principles of interpretation required to create a statute, while at the same time being cautious not to violate our rights or they themselves would be guilty of a crime.»

«The art of interpretation of statutes is called Hermeneutics. It is a science unto itself and is based on the principle that,»

«Interpretation is not arbitrary…
it must follow a define set of rules.»
~ Francis Lieber
——————-

Construction of Statutes
2nd. Edition. 1983. E. A. Driedger

“There are different reasons for having definitions. In some cases it is intended to subtract from or add to the normal meaning; in some cases it is intended that a word or expression should have a secondary rather than its primary meaning.”

The definition of words is a very important concept to consider, if they have the ability to use one word and redefine it to mean something totally different, then how could you be certain you understood what you have read?

———————–

«One effect of the Bill of Rights is to prescribe a firm rule for the resolution of conflict between the Bill of Rights and another statute. If the conflict is between the Bill of Rights and another statute, the Bill of Rights must in all cases prevail over a conflicting statute.»

Akkurat som hos oss. Se kommentar over. Sensoroppgave, og Høyestretts ansvar og plikt til å prøve de lover som kommer fra Løvebakken.

—————–

The importance of learning at least this one permissible presumption for the interpretation of statutes is that whether or not you can understand what the true intent of a statute is or not, you can always safely presume that nothing in the statute was intended to violate your human rights unless clear and unequivocal words have been used stating such.

This one point alone, is all a person, natural or otherwise, really needs to feel confident that the Income Tax Act was never written with the intention to apply directly to a natural person, as there is no expressed declaration, in prescribed form, anywhere within it’s contents.

——————

I guess the question that is needed to be asked at this point is, did the federal government create you?

If you answered, «No, you weren’t created by the federal government», then the only way income tax could directly apply to you would be through some type of voluntary joinder to a creation of the federal government, be it a job or an artificial person. This is accomplished though an application for a Social Insurance Number. This will get you a card with an account number on it to keep track of all you do for the benefit of an artificial person you can now represent.

This relationship is neither good or bad, what makes it good or bad is the level of knowledge you have when you use it. If you act in the capacity of representative of this artificial person without knowledge you may feel you’re being forced to perform obligations that seem to violate your human rights and make you feel enslaved. However, if you have foreknowledge of what is entailed if you act in this capacity and then voluntarily do so, then there is no concept of slavery because of your understanding of your freewill actions.

The artificial person that is created for you to represent is called an «officer», it is not you but a figment of man’s imagination that does not exist in the real world, yet is very real in the legal world. Adhering to the the Law of Creation, this artificial person is a creation of the federal government and as such is subservient to its master. It needs to be understood that this entity has no natural inalienable rights but may be given certain rights by its creator as our creator gave unto us.

One distinct difference between you and this entity is, you have the right to an unmolested pursuit of a trade or occupation, whereas this officer can only work under the conditions set out by its creator. The Canada Pension Plan Act is the legislation that creates this joinder between you and this entity, and establishes the limited conditions that the entity can work under.

Canada Pension Plan
CHAPTER C-8

«employee» includes an officer;

What is an officer? Release your mind of all the natural and ordinary meanings of the word officer, like police officer, corporate officer, etc. Apply principles of interpretation to the word includes and you will see that whenever this act uses the word employee it means, only an «officer». This is nothing more than a name given to the entity created by this Act. You as a natural person cannot pay into CPP as it is a special pension plan specifically designed for an officer.

«employer» means a person liable to pay salary, wages or other remuneration for services performed in employment, and in relation to an officer includes the person from whom the officer receives his remuneration;

The only employer who must make deductions and pay the employers share of the CPP contributions is limited to an employer who has established a relationship with officer to pay it.

«employment» means the performance of services under an express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, and includes the tenure of an office.

The only way this officer can work is under a contract of service, for the holding of an office. The word office does not refer to a real place but an illusionary position held by the officer.

If you use your Social Insurance Number to work you have voluntarily agreed to work as the representative of an officer (employee) in an office (position) under a contract of service whether you knew it or not. If you have been doing this without knowledge it may feel bad as you’ll be forced to pay income tax, C.P.P. and E.I. on the amounts you receive for the benefit of the officer.

Therefore, even though you are the one doing the work and receiving the amounts, it is not your private property that is being taxed because you are not working in your private capacity for your own benefit, you are merely working in a representative capacity and receiving amounts for the benefit of the federal government’s creation.»

—————

Dette er interessant. Statene har skapt, Norge inkludert, en virtuell person, en juridisk person som er meg ved å gi oss enten personnummer eller organisasjonsnummer, og som er pålagt å betale skatter. Disse to er gjort likeverdige i rettigheter, men ikke i plikter (skattesatser bl.a.). Og så er det min naturlige person, som har sine retter beskyttet av Grunnloven og menneskerettighetene, hvor de ikke kan en pålegge en slike ting. Min naturlige person (skapt av Gud) har godtatt å være denne statens opprettede virtuelle person’s representant, ved at jeg har godtatt ‘merket’ som de har gitt denne virtuelle person; et personnummer. Et selskap er en slik virtuell person med sitt egen organisasjonsnummer, som jeg som naturlig person selvfølgelig også suverent kan velge å være representant for.

I Kanada kalles skattebetaleren en ‘offiser’ i deres skattelov. I Norge er den virtuelle personen i skatteloven kalt «Skatteyteren». Dette er ikke MEG. Jeg har tiltrådt å være hans representant, så lenge samfunnskontrakten ble overholdt, men som naturlig person er jeg i min fulle rett til å trekke tilbake denne representasjon for den statsskapte virtuelleentitet kalt ‘skattyteren’

«What this means is, that the real motive behind the S.I.N. is not only to indirectly attach an income tax system to you, to keep a constant drain on your energy and steal your property, but also to keep track of you. So even though the officer is «legally» not the real you, what does that matter to them, as long as you don’t know the difference.

Using the same principles of interpretations you’ll be able to see that the income tax is only payable from the income of this «officer» and not from the amounts you receive in exchange for your private property, your labour. «

http://www.naturalperson.com/New%20Website/4%20Intermidiate/Intermediate%20Final%2007.htm

«Introduction to your human rights» (youtube, 22 deler à 10 minutter)
og
«Solutions in commerce» (googlevideo 6-7 deler à 1 times tid)
er også VEL VERDT å se.

Det meste av Robert Anton Wilson sitt materiale også (forklarer en del av bakgrunnen for «suppa» 🙂 (googlevideo/youtube).

.the o.

Military professionals in the Pentagon recognize US troops, equipment and budgets are absolutely strained by two wars that will not end, but because the Administration works for «the City» rather than «we the people,» they are already arguing about the next war. And if the next war eventuates whilst George II is in office, Brother Branham’s vision of the strange caribou
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl117.htm
with a forty-two-inch rack
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl430.htm
will come to pass and the USA will Roman dominion.

The nations symbolised by these beasts, the strange caribou and the «nine-foot silver-tipped grizzly» will be «shot» in quick succession. First, after earthquakes sinks Los Angeles and much of California, Russia will invade the United States, while her exhausted military is destitute in the countries of her victims, her dollar worthless, and most of her economy beneath the Pacific. Secondly, with the world’s religions federated under Rome, the Pope will command Russia’s troops to withdraw to their homeland.

Once he has restored peace (I Thessalonians 5:3; Revelation 13:1-10) the world will implore the Pope, now incarnate by Satan (Revelation 12:7-13; 17:11), to accept the presidency of the world government Jesus refused (Matthew 4:8-9). This will ensure there are no more presidents of a purportedly independent USA, George II being number 42 according to the vision. Seven years earlier Brother Branham prophesied, «When this united confederation of church goes together, and the new pope is brought out of the [United Nations in the] United States and put over there [Jerusalem whence Rome will rule] according to prophecy» (Acts of the Holy Spirit, p. 12:87; Isaiah 14:12-15; Daniel 11:45).

The non-Semitic thugs ruling Israel serve the interests of «the City,» Rothschilds and the Vatican NWO scam, with their citizens as expendable pawns—just like the thugs who rule our nations. Arrangements have been made to segregate Jerusalem as an international city under Vatican control (Zechariah 14:1-2; Revelation 16:19).

Before these things transpire, Christ will gather His Bride of all Ages Home to the Wedding Supper in the Sky. His end-time Bride will be so few in number, she will not be missed with the worldwide catastrophes of that time.

Rome will make a seven-year agreement with the self-styled Jewish banksters of «the City of London» to refinance the US dollar with gold backing and restore the World economy (Daniel 9:27). Three and a half years after the first resurrection and translation have taken place, and with world prosperity restored, Rome will break her agreement with the banksters, usurp the place of God in a rebuilt temple, and force the mark of the Beast.

It should be noted that these two latest World leader converts to Catholicism follows that of the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who upon his resignation as the Leader of the United Kingdom, and head of the English Church, flew to Rome and also knelt before Pope Benedict XVI swearing his allegiance to the Pontiff and the New Holy Roman Empire.

These latest events are particularly ominous as Tony Blair is slated to become the first President of the European Union, and which upon his taking this office, and as reported by Britain’s Telegraph News Service, will receive:

“The proposed full-time president of the European Union is to be given a personal jet, a palatial official residence and a personal staff of up to 22, under plans being considered in Brussels.

The prospect of a private aircraft raises the possibility that Tony Blair, the current frontrunner for the new post, which comes into effect next year, could get the «Blair Force One» he was denied as prime minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/11/weu111.xml

The terms of the new president were discussed at a secret «working dinner» held on Tuesday between José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, and EU ambassadors.”

Les hele her:
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1094.htm