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
No comments:
Post a Comment