The Statute of Westminster ended the need for existence of the "Central Legislature"

Question…..
Since the “patriation” of Canada in 1982 we were told we have a constitution.  Since it was from the united kingdom, wouldn’t “Canada” have to be a foreign power as it is their statute ?? …….de-facto government.  Isn’t that why they need us to consent to everything?? Isn’t that how they stomp on our basic rights??




From: Dave Butterfield [mailto:humanrights2010@shaw.ca]
Sent: May-12-12 4:48 PM
To: Darren Martin
Subject: Re: they stomp because we don't say "no"

There is much more to it than just the acts of fraud you listed.

1st. "Legally" the BNA Act is still on "Reserve", as one of the effects of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, so it wasn't available
        for any "Amendments" in 1982.

2nd. If the BNA Act was written and intended to be a "Constitution Act", it would have been called that from its inception.
       It wasn't, it was simply a British Statute allowing the creation of a "Colonial Union", all that was legally possible at the time
       due to the Agent (operating with delegated power from Monarchy) status held by all Colonial governments.

3rd. The Statute of Westminster ended the need for existence of the "Central Legislature" (which illegally and unlawfully calls itself the
       "federal government") and the "Office of Governor General", by its granting of independence to all British Colonies, which
       effectively and legally, dissolved the "Colonial Union". As independent nations they were no longer "Colonies" and therefore,
       could not legally continue to participate in any "Colonial Union".

4th. The above is part of the reason that the "Canada", cannot be and is not legally defined, as being comprised of geographical areas
       called "provinces" that have names such as: "British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,..." etcetera, as confirmed by Justice Canada in  
       the email exchange I had with them, which is included in my booklet "The Great Deception Exposed"

5th  The above is also part of the reason that the "Canada" does not have a legal definition for the term "Province", as used in section
      92 of the BNA Act, 1867.  They are not legally related or connected, one does not exist within the legal realm of the other, except through
      Contracts and Memorandums of Understanding that they have entered with and between each other. While some of their statutes
      do use the term "Province", it is not defined, but only used to relate to the "former Province of Canada". Which was "Upper and Lower
      Canada", the original and initial Union between Ontario and Quebec. Still though, the capital "P", indicates the term is being "used in
      the corporate sense", and therefore, no lawful authority over the land and its inhabitants could exist as a possession of a corporation.

6th  The "Canada" is an "Agent" of a foreign power, namely the money powers, otherwise referred as the "CROWN", or "The City",
      or the "One Square Mile" (in the centre of the city of London). This is why they agreed to promote their non-negotiable and
      non-redeemable "legal tender", by borrowing it into circulation and creating a national debt to financially enslave the population
      to that "CROWN". The "CROWN" is an autonomous entity, a "City State", not part of any country, just as is the "District of Columbia"
      and the "Vatican City".

7th  The status of "de facto" held by the Governor General of Canada whenever that entity acts in capacity of "Canada's Head of State"
      in either opening or closing Parliament, or in providing "Royal Assent" to any Bill that has passed through Parliament, is confirmation
      of the fact that the "Queen of England", has no lawful authority in or over the inhabitants of any geographical area commonly called
      a "province", which is also substantiated by the independent status granted them by the Statute of Westminster, 1931. Ask anyone,
      we are no longer "British Subjects", and therefore, are no longer "Subject" to the "British" Monarchy, or the laws of Britain, or the
      United Kingdom.  The people of every "province", are free of any authority over them, other than their own.

8th  While our "consent" is relied upon heavily by them in order to impose their form of slavery upon us all, that consent is normally
      received from us in the form of "tacit consent", or by our silence. Because of the fact that there is no existing evidence to establish that
      "Canada" is a real "country" with a true "government de jure", there is also no evidence that they can even speak to us with purpose
      of getting our consent, tacit or otherwise, about anything, for any reason. All that the available evidence shows, is their foreign corporate
      status. Remember too, even as a "Party" to the United Nations, "Canada" is also referred in the corporate sense as: "a Member State".

Hope that adds some clarity on the matter. I am certain there is more, perhaps in my "Challenge of Jurisdiction and Lawful Authority", but
I have something I have to get done right now and can't put it off, lest I forget about it completely.