Did you know this about property taxes ??

Quote:

---

Basics

Most jurisdictions below the state level in the United States impose a tax on interests in real property (land, buildings, and permanent improvements) that are considered under state law to be ownership interests.[3] Rules vary widely by jurisdiction.[4] However, certain features are nearly universal. Some jurisdictions also tax some types of business personal property, particularly inventory and equipment.[5] States generally do not impose property taxes.[6]

Many overlapping jurisdictions may have authority to tax the same property.[7] These include counties or parishes, cities and/or towns, school districts, utility districts, and special taxing authorities, and vary by state. Few states impose a tax on the value of property. The tax is based on fair market value of the subject property, and generally attaches to the property on a specific date. The owner of the property on that date is liable for the tax.[8]

---

Source: Wikipedia

This raises more questions in my mind ....

that's dead on,
three stages of government,
municipal (county), provincial (state), federal,

when a birth is registered it is first registered in the municipal, even has a separate number,
same with land,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

that's dead on,
three stages of government,
municipal (county), provincial (state), federal,

when a birth is registered it is first registered in the municipal, even has a separate number,
same with land,

---

Don't forget districts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Don't forget districts.

---

that's right, first there is the district then a municipality breaks of from the district. if so desired and allowed,
the district has the benefit of collection of the land tax's,


Land Act
Transfers to Canada
31* (1)*Subject to the terms, reservations and restrictions the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may transfer the administration, control and benefit of Crown land to the government of Canada either in perpetuity or for a specified period, and with or without consideration.

the land Act proves that Crown land and Canada land are not the same,

According to the Surveyor General the lands of Canada are “Territorial Land, Offshore Area, National Park, Indian Reserve and Office of the Survey General.
No where does it state Crown land is Lands of Canada.

Attachment 998

Look at the legend, what does the legend say the white sections on the map are?
They don't, what the heck is going on here?
Is that why when a Canadian court gets a jurisdiction challenge they have to prove jurisdiction before they can commence?
How can they prove jurisdiction unless you consent to it?
That map is a jurisdiction crippler.

Canada can not tax your property, because where people live is not Canada.
The people live on Crown land.

The land titles are held in the regional district registers. not Canada's register.

back to the map,
lands of canada are tax exempt, that's why Indian reservations don't pay tax.
that's why you can't log or mine in a park.
They are not for sale and no exploitation to corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

back to the map,
lands of canada are tax exempt, that's why Indian reservations don't pay tax.
that's why you can't log or mine in a park.
They are not for sale and no exploitation to corporations.

---

You may want to review Forest Law as developed by the Norman Kings of England.

Look into the Interpretation act. It defines Canada. Quite interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amosfella

Look into the Interpretation act. It defines Canada. Quite interesting...

---

On paper,they make homes look like individual Business Units with profit (income) coming in.
Then they can tax everyone just like they tax all other Business units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

Is that why when a Canadian court gets a jurisdiction challenge they have to prove jurisdiction before they can commence?
How can they prove jurisdiction unless you consent to it?
That map is a jurisdiction crippler.

---

Like I've mentioned who knows how many times, you have to study the formation of the Federation. The Federation could be said to be a creature of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, etc. This is why so many Freeman on the Landers in Canada piss people off because they are evidencing they aren't going deeper into the knowledge than past their elbow. The Canadian Federation (Canada) is on par with the Federal State known as the United States. The U.S. Constitution would probably never have happened if not for the Land Ordinances and territorial cessions to the Federal State (the Joint Venture) called the United States by the states of America or former-British-Colonies which United for various purposes at some point around 1776 for various purposes.

Compare the government system of Alberta to that of Ontario. Alberta was a territory (part of Rupert's Land before that--part that was considered to be part of the Louisiana Purchase until the lower part of what is know Province of Alberta was ceded) before it became a "Province" (from what I recall it has more of the nature of a "district state"--and is different in structure than Quebec, Ontario or Nova Scotia). The provinces of Nova Scotia was chartered by under British King James. Ontario used to be part of Quebec which was chartered in 1763 (see Royal Proclamation of 1763).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

.....called the United States by the states of America or former-British-Colonies which United for various purposes at some point around 1776 for various purposes.

---

Was the United States created in 1774?

The Articles of Association of 1774

While in the other provinces and stateside
common law governs the relationship between PRIVATE PERSONS within each province,or state
in Quebec Louisiana the Civil Code inspired by the law of France, applies. This major
difference has consequences, inter alia, with respect to the laws governing
contracts, torts and property.PRIVATE persons
Civil Code of the Louisiana and Quebec a trademark is considered
as an incorporeal moveable property. Unless otherwise provided for by
agreement between the parties, such property is governed by the law of the
domicile of its owner. But the law Quebec is applicable
whenever the question involved relates to the nature of the property and to
the jurisdiction of the courts and While it is possible for parties to a license agreement to elect domicile in a
foreign jurisdiction and to determine the law under which the agreement
will be governed, it must be remembered that the courts of the defendant
party are often the only courts able to issue effective injunctive orders against
the defendant and to award damages to the plaintiff. For instance, a
judgment rendered in California cannot be enforced in Quebec unless
confirmed by a decision of a Quebec court recognizing the foreign
judgment.also Louisiana and Quebec still a french territory linguistically and legalistically speaking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Was the United States created in 1774?

The Articles of Association of 1774

---

Ah you have followed the trail. In a sense yes. There was a case: Respublica v Sweers that suggests that the former British Colonies had formed (established) a body corporate upon their association (say 1774) (aka the United Colonies)--note that "formed a body corporate" does not necessarily mean "became a body corporate". There is actual a Congressional discussion of "United" vs "united" --"United" being limited and "united" being more "actual" uniting. It is best grasped in the sense of joint venture. In that if you and nine other people got together to mine gold, that joint venture called "United Gold Miners" is kind of a management company for the joint venture. Anything and everything (by contract) that you ten do jointly or "United" together would be a "United Gold Miners" matter. "United Gold Miners" could be in one sense a reference to you ten, it could also be a singularity in and of itself. Anything you do separately (or severally--think sever) is not. So if something involves the United States--then it involves all of them or the joint venture (a singularity--the union itself)--the joint venture is in a sense "all of them" and is always an "interstate matter" because the joint venture is from its inception between-the-states. The other aspect is that the joint venture has its own "states". That is too deep thinking for some, it has seemed.

One way of looking at it too is that the court was reaching a bit, because they are kind've forcing continuity when there could have been a technical break upon the onset of the American Revolutionary War.

Quote:

---

Attachment 2614

---

Taking a looking at the U.S. Army Great Seal (or is it the Department of the Army coat of arms?) might be insightful ("1775"). Note: 12 stars rather than 13.

Re: "United Colonies" It gets even more interesting. The United Colonies of New England was established in the 1600s.