Re The Charter and some history

Re the Charter.....Trudeau was not our friend.....Diefenbaker was..he was trying to give the provinces back their exclusive power...Look who the CHARTER applies to ( copied below ).....if you look up on the internet, you will see they removed the highlighted section but in the original version, this is how it reads.....The "notwithstanding clause " [ nws = in spite of ] allows a government to open the Charter and make amendments to the Charter and the "exclusion" of non...government employees from Charter rights is one such clause that needs to be amended...I remember Paul Martin when he was PM...near begging Harper NOT to use the NWS clause.... Liberals have fucking ruined this nation and Chretien is among the worst along with Trudeau and off course Mulroney is not but a !!!!.... He forced the gst/hst through by stacking the senate and the blending of the taxes is against the law..Alan J Mac Eachern was livid...as senate leader of the day...we will be raising a constitutional challenge in xxxxx xxxxxs rape and pillage....
all judges take an oath to the queen and if you study the history...in 1893 Revisions Act , section 2 of the BNA was repealed which was the heirs and successors of the monarch...in other words with the death of Queen Victoria [ Victoria Day ] no law was in place giving the Monarch and jurisdiction in the colonies...and was further affirmed in 1931 Statute of Westminster....all colonies were released from the British Crown to be sovereign with in their spheres...or free with in their boundaries and were to federate at a later date....it was never successfuly done as quebec never signed on....this was also an issue in 1867....and that is why they play the separatist card and why the Fed caters so...Quebec knows the truth...and they will not be fucked.....However...a federal leader from quebec is very bad for the rest of us because they operate under "french civil code " which is power down while the remainder of the nation is supposed to be under British common law type f government..ie" power in the people....and delegated to the elected.
When you really get into it, you will find that CANADA is a CORPORATION regis tered in Washington and "includes" the Yukon, the NW Territories and Nunavut  and control over the reserves...and the waters surrounding the continent BUT not the rest of the provinces...
As far as it being a great country.....I agree...however...talk to any small business owner ( the real tax collectors unpaid ] and you will hear horror stories that will curl your hair....these cocksuckers are (cra ) a collection agency for the IMF...Federal Reserve/ world bank of which Bank of CANADA is the 13 th federal reserve....
What I write is truth and as a result of 10 years of hard study...we can not afford the insane malicious tactics being used against the small business owner...labour is the true currency and we are not allowed the fruits of our own labour...
Typical of the bull shit is the "high cost of education" the teachers make 50 to 104 grand per year and in this province were told to cut 4 % from their budgets which is 6 million dollars....They are crying like the socialist sloth they are....they need no tools or equipment to do what they do other than the immersion into the communist universities...and ultimately "all things in the hands of the state"
As I said in a previous email...there are two sets of rules for two different classes...the middle class is the administrative class and the merchants and their employees are in fact the third class...Read the Hindu Holy Book called the Bagavahad Gita for confirmation.....

The Bhagavad Gita (pronounced: [ˈbʱəɡəʋəd̪ ɡiːˈt̪aː] ( listen)), also referred to as Gita, is a 700-verse Hindu scripture that is part of the ancient Sanskrit epic Mahabharata. Due to its presence in the epic, it is classified as a Smṛiti text.

You will note that PM Harper is not very excited about this Charter and made comments that Diefinbaker was the originator ( Canadian Bill of Right 1960 )of this BUT Trudeau made it a Liberal secular rag and pretty much wrote Dief off......as well as the working labour class...

Section 32 Charter

Canadian Heritage
pch.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Français
Home
Contact Us
Help
Search
canada.gc.ca
BreadcrumbHome >  Human Rights Program >  Section 32-33 : Application of Charter
Share
Section 32-33 : Application of Charter

Section 32
Section 33
Section 32

Application of Charter

This Charter applies
to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.

As mentioned earlier, section 32(2) was necessary in order to give governments a chance to amend their laws to bring them into line with the right to equality. Section 15 of the Charter did not come into force until three years after the rest of the Charter became effective on April 17,1982.

Section 33

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
Parliament or a legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Both Parliament and provincial legislatures have a limited power under section 33 to pass laws that are exempt from certain Charter provisions – those concerning fundamental freedoms and legal and equality rights. This section is sometimes referred to as the "notwithstanding clause".

In order to rely on this section, Parliament or a legislature must state specifically that a particular law is exempt from the Charter. It must also state which sections of the Charter do not apply. An exemption from the Charter lasts a maximum of five years. After that, if Parliament or the legislature concerned wishes it to continue to be exempt from the Charter, it must make a new declaration under this section.

The purpose of this section is to require a government that wishes to limit Charter rights to say clearly what it is doing and accept the political consequences of it.

It also ensures that Parliament and the legislatures, not the courts, have the final say on important matters of public policy. If, at a certain point, the rights in the Charter no longer reflect Canadian values, then democratically elected bodies like Parliament and the legislatures can make laws that are not bound by the Charter.

To date, provincial legislatures have used this section rarely. It has never been used by the federal Parliament.

Back to Index

What does “Queen”, “The Queen in the right if Canada”, “Her majesty the Queen”, etc really signify?? Who is taking me to court??

Mass email sent to all MPs in pseudo CANADA and the BCM ...thanks to d & d for the great question and answer...also posted on the bluecollarmovement.blogspot.ca blog...

Subject: Re: re there is no queen of canada

Question: What does “Queen”, “The Queen in the right if Canada”, “Her majesty the Queen”, etc really signify? I know I did not do anything to the “Queen” so who is taking me to court???

Answer:

What it really signifies is the fraud perpetrated against us all. There is no simple answer to your question. But if they cannot prove beyond

doubt, the existence of lawful authority held by the foreign Queen, then they have prosecuted you out of malice. BTW all former Colonies

of Britain are in exactly the same boat as we. People in Australia have attempted to get confirmation from the Queen that she delegated

her sovereign power to the government of Australia and were informed that it has never happened. Same as here.

Here is an attempt to explain.

Do you recall my mention of the 3 "City States"?

We all pay taxes to the "CROWN", which relates to "The City", one square mile in the centre of the city of London(google it), that is NOT a part of England. This is where the Central Bank of England, the World Bank & the IMF are Headquartered. 93% of all revenue collected

by the corporation Canada goes directly to the IMF to pay interest on the fraudulent debt created by borrowing legal tender from it.

Other than the maintenance of the existing global slave ring, there is no valid & logical reason for Canada to have to borrow legal tender at all, unless Canada is not a true Federal Government. And all the evidence shows that its not. All of this gets really deep into the rabbit hole and is part of the reason my Presentations were a minimum of 3 hours long. There is no easy way to learn all of it. I have already forgotten more factual truths about all this than the majority of the population would ever know in their life times. Remember, it took me just over 8 years to accumulate enough evidence to prove their corporate status and that was when I was totally involved and still conducting research daily throughout that entire time. 10,000 needles hidden in 100,000 haystacks.

Anything they do must be founded in some form of "legal" instrument that has clear application and jurisdiction in all of the "provinces", and if its not written on paper, then it simply does not exist in their paper realm. As part of your Right to Due Process and to make answer in defence, you must force the issue discussed in the email exchange I had with the Justice Canada, which finally resulted in their admission that "legally" (based on whats written in their papers) Canada is not comprised of any geographical areas called "provinces" that have names such as: "British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,..." etcetera. This was established by their response to my request to direct me to a legislative instrument defining "Canada" as including all of the commonly known "provinces". They admitted: "There does not appear to be such a thing." It doesn't matter how absurd or ridiculous that may sound to anyone, it remains as being an irrefutable "legal" fact.

By that response, they also confirmed my proper usage of the term "includes" when interpreting the various "Statutes/Acts". Neither do the "Feds" have a "legal" definition for the term "Province", confirming that "legally" those entities are also, not "a part of Canada" and this is the reason why all dealings between the two corporations must be done through either "Contract" (like rental of the RCMP) or "Memorandum of Understanding" (another form of Contract). Otherwise, in all "Federal" and/or "Provincial", copyright protected, private, corporate documents called "Statutes/Acts", the term "province" only relates to the 3 Territories. I would serve the "CROWN" a "Request for Disclosure" asking them to prove that "legally", you are an inhabitant of a geographical area included in any "legal" definitions identifying the geographical boundaries of "Canada"(which don't exist), so to make you subject to the "Canada's Income Tax Act" and the current "legal action". If they fail to do so, then ask them how their action against you is NOT a blatant violation of everyone's Human Rights. Also, remember to avoid like the plague, any attempt by them to draw you into discussing "subject matter" relative to their "charges", they cannot force you to do anything at all, until they have proven beyond doubt, their "legal" and "lawful" jurisdiction over the geographical areas commonly called "provinces"

and its inhabitants, such as the area of which, you are an inhabitant. Do you know what a "Legal Maxim" is? Look it up. Then rely on this one: "Jurisdiction once challenged must be proved." Also, do NOT use the term "resident", "occupant", or "citizen" in any document when relating to yourself. res-ident is a "thing that sits" much like res-idue is some thing left sitting on some other thing a "citizen" is defined

by legal dictionaries as: "One who owes allegiance to the State and is guaranteed certain rights." Aside from the fact that you don't have

a piece of paper identifying you as a "Canadian citizen" (only immigrants who have written the "Citizenship Exam" have such a document)

always identify yourself as a "man" in possession of "Human" Rights, not just "certain rights". Those "certain rights" also restrict you to

access of only the ones enumerated in their bogus United Kingdom Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they call the "Canadian Charter",

and which, excludes everyone's 3rd Natural Right to "one's own property". As soon as you lose your Right to property, you have also

lost your Right to Freedom, simply because you are not "free" to "own property". So the only Natural Right you have left is to "life" and

only as one of their slaves. Slaves are not allowed to "own property" of any kind and to only receive adequate levels of food, shelter and clothing, so to allow them to subsist and continue working the master's plantation. Sound familiar?

The reason behind my stating all this and your need to be tutored, is because "Law" IS "The masterful use of the language." They have deceived the population with our own language. Including their own lawyers and judges. It is so important that you gain and maintain the mindset that they do NOT have any "legal" or "lawful" jurisdiction over you or your property (income/wages/skills/labour etc). Its the only way you will overcome any deep seated fears you may be harbouring. If you are in fear, then much of what you do will be a "reaction" (knee jerk) rather than a thought out "response". If they try to say you conceded their jurisdiction by your involvement in their GST/HST, Prov Sales Tax, or any other of their alleged requirements of any of their schemes (including what they call "benefits") that most businesses are FORCED to perform as "unpaid tax collectors under threat of punishment", you tell them just that, that you were forced by threat of punishment to perform the "Forced Labour" or any other action they demanded, that you did nothing for them on a "voluntary basis". All of which, constitutes Human Rights violations against you. Also, everyone has the Human Right "to live in a lawful system of social order", not merely a "legal" one. If they can't prove the "lawfulness" of their system, then they have no jurisdiction over anyone but themselves. Which just happens

to be the case anyways.

Also, according to "Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes" (recognized legal authority) "Any statute that imposes a pecuniary burden on the

subject must be written in clear and unambiguous language." This means that any taxing Statute must be easy to understand by those who

are being made "subject" to it. I have transcripts from Finance Committee Hearings where they admit that even the MP's who passed the Income Tax Act and Amendments to it, do NOT understand the Act and indeed, neither do many of the accounting professionals dealing with it daily. So, if they are not able to understand it, how then is the average individual supposed to? Their "laws" at very best, are ambiguous. Mainly because they can be legitimately read to have completely different meaning and application, if they can be understood, at all. There are just too many cloudy and grey areas. Things like the CRA Act identifying "internal taxes, including income taxes" If "income tax" is an "internal tax", then how does it apply in geographical areas that "legally" are not even "a part of Canada"? That is just one of the dozens of examples of the ambiguity.

In relation to Human Rights, if they show any ignorance in this regard, ask them how then, are they complying with them the "Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". Further, the Canada has a duty as a Charter Member of the United Nations, to disseminate and provide

training in relation to all such Human Rights, to everyone involved in the Administration of Justice. So, if they are ignorant of the content or

even the existence of any of these international Human Rights laws, then "Canada" is guilty of persistent violations of the Charter of the UN

and is subject to expulsion. Ask them if they want to be the one's responsible for that.

Wish I was healthy so I could come there and stand in defence of Human Rights in your case and on your behalf. I have a tendency to

cause many cranial muscles to be pulled in their tiny brains along with the ability to kick them when they're down. Judges don't like it

much when an individual off the street walks in and starts pointing their finger at him while accusing him of Human Rights violations.

But there is nothing he can do about it. Any threat of removal by a Sheriff is also a Human Rights violation.

db

EXCISE TAX must be indirect and exclusive to the Federal Government..they are prohibited from invading a Provincial Jurisdiction

EXCISE TAX

Excise Tax must be indirect and exclusive to the Federal government, currently it is ultra vires...(non constitutional)

Excise tax was initally set up to be a tax on commodities ..ie: non essentials= Tobacco, alcohol, cosmetics and belive it or not Gasoline..a great cash cow....The Federal government if operating with in its mandate, has no need to tax the goyum but can raise revenue as required via the exclusive power given to it under Section 91 of the BNA.....iT IS TIME TO FORCE THE ELECT to abide by the law and release the people from this 250 year hideous bondage.....

Excise tax is indirect taxation and is exclusive to the de jure federal government ( and not a Corporation acting as a de jure [ in law ] but indeed a de facto [ in fact only ] and in fact a Corporation with a Business address in Washington DC )

This exclusive power is in section 91 of the Constitution Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in 1950 know as the Lord Nelson Hotel Case...

The justices ruled that the delegation of powers are exclusive and could not be delegated one to the other...There fore the blending of the taxes is also ultra vires...There fore it does not apply.

Further, the justices ruled in 1950 that the Provinces ( of course we both know they are corporations as well ) must set up THEIR OWN tax collection system....They had until 1962 to do this, but they defied the Supreme Court and gave the collection business to the Corporation CANADA which is ultra vires as well.

If you can find a "constitutional amendment" to the contrary, then I demand that you produce it as part of the required disclosure.

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 Are You dead? See how it was done..slavery..without consent..

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=4029

Are You dead?

by Free... well almost » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:23 pm

Oh Yes! You are most definitely - Dead!

What, don't believe me? I can prove it... try this on for size....

If you are alive then......... stick your finger in your ear-NOW!

I knew it! Your all dead, the lot of you. I didn't see one person, anywhere in the world, stick their finger in their ear, Is that proof or is that proof!

Sorry, even dead people gotta have some fun once in a while!

Anyway... in 1666, Government passed an Act called The Cestui que vie Act which declared everyone legally missing or dead. And if after 7 years from their registered birth date they still haven't told the government they are not missing or dead, the government will just consider them dead and no longer missing.

Oh and by the way, although it was written over 343 years ago, the Cestui que vie Act is still in full force today! Don't believe me? Take a look at the OPSI statute database below. If it doesn't say repealed on the Act then it stands with as much legal weight as any recent Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1666/caep_16660011_en_1

What's this got to do with me?

OK, did you ever consider walking into a government office and declaring yourself un-dead? ...I didn't think so. What the government did with this Act was very cleaver, They said that if you don't come and tell us your not dead then you must be dead so we're going to have to legally look after all your property until it is either claimed or sold. In other words, it's the legislation that allowed government to create legal title over the publics' property by a swish of their feathered pens. Imagine that! You can give yourself the wealth of a hole nation by writting!!

1666 was the Great Fire Of london wasn't it?

Yeah that's right, literally, as London was burning to the ground, parliament decided it was a good time to pass some legislation that stated everyone in the country was considered either missing or dead. NICE!! Just coincidence? Possibly... however, it's also possible that all those poor suckers who did actually die in the fire would be unable to claim they weren't dead and thus the government gets many, many great pieces of charred land by defaulted legal title.

So they did the following things with this Act.

1. They brought in a very controversial piece of legislation at a time when it would go unnoticed.

2. They gave themselves legal title to everything in the UK, including people. Yeah that's right, they have your birth certificate with your name on it.

That's legal title!

3. They Didn't tell people that they had to reclaim their property.

4. Your proof of birth (birth certificate) became you. Legally speaking

I know I know, this all sounds a bit silly, and you'd be right in most respects. The fact is however, in sentiment at least, the legislation is possibly well intentioned. The government are saying that they will look after your property until a rightful claimant comes forward, weather it is you back from the dead or someone with inheritance rights. It isn't wrong that the government look after your property if you aren't actually breathing any more is it? Not really, someone has to do it.

The trouble is, some government officials aren't well intentioned and its turned out that this legislation has been taken advantage of. The government never told us we had to declare ourselves un-dead in order to reclaim our property/legal title back (typical). So from the moment our births were registered, all of the property we own (Inc. our bodies and anything in your registered birth name) is not legally owned by us but by the government who now has legal title. I'm NOT joking!

I'm pretty sure I know what your all thinking because I went through the same questions you probably are. for instance, How can the government possibly suggest that they own my body? that's LUDICROUS!! Well I agree, IT IS! but that doesn't change the fact that they do! It's in black and white right in front of your eyes. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1666/caep_16660011_en_1) Think about it, what gives the government the right to tell you by way of legislation what you can and can't put inside your body? Does a badger get told what it can and can't eat? NO, because it's not owned by anyone! Go badger!!

The only thing we have a legal right to is possessory title. Thats to say, the government allows you to use/possess/look after things like your body, as long as you do it the way they say you can. Don't believe me, OK, some homework for you. Try to find out who has legal title to your house. I dare you! I think your deed/title is probably registered at your local Land Registry Office. Catch my drift?

Free... well almost

Posts: 16

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

legislation.gov.ukThe National ArchivesHelpSite MapAccessibilityContact Us

HomeAbout UsBrowse LegislationNew LegislationChanges to LegislationSearch Legislation Hide

Search LegislationTitle: Year:Number:Type:Search

Advanced Search

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

You are here:

1666 c. 11 (Regnal. 18_and_19_Cha_2)Whole Act

Table of ContentsContentMore Resources

Previous

Next

Plain ViewPrint Options What Version

Latest available (Revised)

Original (As enacted)

Advanced Features

Show Geographical Extent

(e.g. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)

Show Timeline of Changes

Opening OptionsExpand opening options

Changes to legislation:There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

X1Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.

Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.

Annotations:

Editorial Information

X1

Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below.

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1

Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1666” given by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 2

C2

Preamble omitted in part under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

C3

Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 3) and remainder omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3

[I.] Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.

If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.

II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1

S. II repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F2

S. III repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125)

IV If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.

[X2Provided alwayes That if any person or [X3person or] persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [to] be made appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.]

Annotations:

Editorial Information

X2

annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule

X3

Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: O. omits [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]

There is no Queen of Canada...so who is taking you to court...

A nation founded under the "Supremacy of God and His rule of Law " [ note not rule of legal ] are forbidden to bow to strange gods...What is stranger than the queen?? The Baal goddess of justice [ just us ] Themes... She is the lady with the blind fold and the scales weighing out the punishment for the proletariat goyum....and the spoils for the vermin with there letters of Marque.....

There is a brilliant man asking and a brilliant man answering these questions....The truth shall set you free

Subject: re there is no queen of canada

On 12/04/2012 4:51 PM, xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hey,

Sorry to keep bugging you, just got another question and thought I would fire it off. I had a meeting with a lawyer and discussed with him the existence of a queen in Canada. I told him there is none, he said there is and she is the head of the commonwealth. As Walter Kauhl had already stated, that is a informal role of an old British Empire. How can I prove absolutely that the queen has nothing to do with Canada? I read all your stuff and understand the Statute of Westminster. But I need to show these morons the truth.

The question actually should be: "What lawful authority does the Queen of England have in Canada and from where does she get it?"

As you know, "governments" do everything "legally"(through paper), on behalf of and in the name of the Queen. Every tax is levied in her name and every criminal code offence is considered to be an "offence against the Queen". It does not mean that doing all this is "lawful", especially when the one giving "Royal Assent" is doing so, outside of the law ("de facto Head of State"). Part of the reason for that de facto status is that the Queen cannot, either legally or lawfully, delegate her authority to anyone. Why? because she does not even have any in England, so how could she have it here? There and here, Parliament is Supreme, not the Queen. She cannot be involved in the creation of Legislation (law). I believe that is right in her Coronation Oath.

It was not Kuhl who said that about head of the commonwealth, it was Peter Hogg, in his book "Constitutional Law of Canada".

He is Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University and is considered by the House of Commons to be the constitutional law

expert in Canada today.

He said: "For practical purposes, however, the Queen's role for Canada is primarily as a ceremonial head of the Commonwealth,

the Commonwealth being an informal association of countries that were formerly , members of the old British Empire."

So what do we have then, ceremonial, informal, formerly and old, doesn't sound like too much lawful authority identified there, does it?

Then we have the word "primarily" which means:

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Adv. 1. primarily - for the most part; "he is mainly interested in butterflies"

chiefly, in the main, mainly, principally

2. primarily - of primary import; "this is primarily a question of economics"; "it was in the first place a local matter"

in the first place

secondarily - of secondary import; "secondarily affected"

So, obviously, levying taxes and being victim of criminal offences is not her "main" purpose. But we still don't know where she gets

lawful authority to have those taxes and criminal charges brought on her behalf and/or in her name. I mean they could just as well

levy taxes and make CCC offences be seen as an offence against the Easter Bunny, the Queen has the same amount of "lawful"

authority. Remember, we are speaking about what is "lawful", not what is merely "legal". To give hint of difference, "A legal action

is not necessarily lawful." "Legal" only pertains to what is written on their copyright protected pieces of paper and the procedures

in place to implement those things. It does not have anything to do with what is "lawful".

And do not forget about the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", it declares that the

current situation we are all in is a gross violation of Human Rights. Please re-read the Motion for Dismissal and accompanying

Affidavit that I filed in Supreme Court of BC and which, resulted in the charges being Stayed. You should file a similar Motion for

Dismissal and use the same grounds as identified in my Affidavit. You must have copies of everything to attach as Exhibits.

If they do not refute your Affidavit with one of there own, accompanied by valid evidence in Exhibits that prove contrary to what you

say in your Affidavit, then your Affidavit stands as the truth. You could even attach and make reference to my Affidavit, as an Exhibit

to yours.

db

Official Languages Act..re CAPITALIZATION OF NAME for extortion purposes...MAN is free, person is not

This is a great overview by a very learned man...A human rights activist...and a victim of the dreadful system of slavery going on for 250 years .....Paul Hellyer speaks of this in an interview at age 86..he was a defence minister in the old days... http://the2012scenario.com/2012/03/former-canadian-defense-minister-paul-hellyer-2012-ufo-congress-ufos-clean-energy-banking-and-more/

Be sure to read this info below.....when they are trying to close libraries and hide information, there is remedy....

On 12/04/2012 10:33 AM, xxxxxxx wrote:

Do you have a copy of the languages act? I thought you may have sent it to xxxxx. How does this act help??

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: April-12-12 6:39 PM

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: Languages Act

Somewhere in one of my many document boxes. Find it here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-3.01/

note:

"Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Official Languages Act.

PURPOSE OF ACT < < < this is a contravention of the Act itself - "words" spelled with all capital letters

2. The purpose of this Act is to (a) ensure respect for English..." As I said, how can one show "respect for English" if the Rules of Grammar of English are disrespected? The Rules of Grammar of English do not allow any word to be written entirely in upper-case,

such as used here(and above): "NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty..." The same goes for the manner in which they spell "names" entirely in

upper-case lettering. Not only disrespectful of English, but denies them being identified as "proper nouns", which have only the first letter

capitalized. All capital letter spelling of a "name", indicates that it is not the "name of a person, place or thing", as the definition of "proper noun" dictates. See the following copied and pasted from an Online dictionary:

"What is a proper noun?

Definition A proper noun is a noun that is the name of a specific individual, place, or object."

So do you see what I am getting at? None of their documents are in compliance with the "Purpose" of the Official Languages Act

and makes them guilty of an offence under section 126(1) of the CCC, which reads: "Disobeying a statute - Every one who, without lawful

excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Here is what I found on "how to identify a proper noun" remember, the term "capitalize", as used below, refers only to the first letter, otherwise it would say to the effect, "entirely in upper-case"

"How do you identify proper noun in a sentence?

A proper noun should be capitalized. A proper noun is the name of a specific person, place, thing, or a title. For example, a person (common noun) may be a teacher (common noun), but the teacher's name Mr. Smith is a proper noun. A place (common noun) may be a city (common noun), but Montreal is a proper noun because it's the name of a specific city. The noun principal (common noun) becomes a proper noun when it is a title, Principal Brown. Another example are common nouns like war or peace when used as the title War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, become proper nouns."

They have "wilfully" omitted to do what that Act requires them to do, namely, show "respect for English" and are subject to 2 years in jail.

If you or I did something of this nature, disobey a statute, (I think you are dealing with that now) they would have our asses in court.

So, if everyone truly is "equal before the law", well....

Also note, they use the term "Every one", spelled as two separate words, which is a reference to "things", whereas the term "Everyone",

as one word, always refers to "people".

Hope this helps you just remember, it is always better to have too much ammunition, than not enough.

db

On 12/04/2012 10:33 AM, Darren Martin wrote:

Hi Dave.

Do you have a copy of the languages act? I thought you may have sent it to Brian. How does this act help??