Subject: Request evidence of Queen's approval of appointment
His Excellency
The Right Honourable David Johnston, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada
Dear Sir,
As an Educator and Defender of Natural and Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with approximately
20 years involvement, it is necessary for me to possess full comprehension of Canadian law and to confirm its compliance with international instruments, including those Ratified by the Canadian government. This is not an easy task and necessitates this communication.
My questions here relate to those international instruments, and in particular, the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", adopted by the U.N. General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960. For your convenience
I quote here the text of Article 1 of that Declaration:
"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights,
is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation."
This appears in direct conflict with conditions existing here in Canada, as all taxes are levied in the name of and all criminal charges are
deemed to be an offence against, the Queen of England. The fact that "income" (people's property) derived from the exchange of their
labour and skills (people's property) is taxed in the name of, and therefore, on behalf of a foreign Monarch, appears as evidence that
the people's labour and skills are being "exploited" by the one in whose name and behalf, that tax is levied. It is bad enough that the
government of Canada has clearly made a law "in relation to" "Property and Civil Rights", one of the "Exclusive Powers of Provincial
Legislatures", in spite of any Supreme Court of Canada ruling deeming their income tax "constitutionally valid", which flies in the face
of the "purpose and intent" of the B.N.A. Act, 1867, as confirmed in its 2nd Reading, by Henry Howard Molyneaux, February 19, 1867.
The fact that income, labour and skills are "property" is confirmed in Provincial Statutes, also in my possession.
All of the above also appears in direct conflict with the effects of the "Statute Laws Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.)" involving
the Repeal of Section 2 of the "British North America Act, 1867" (B.N.A. Act, 1867) the text of that Repealed section read as follows:
"The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Myself and others are of the opinion that this Repeal effectively restricted any reference to the "Queen", as found in the B.N.A. Act, 1867, to Queen Victoria only and since no Amendment has been passed to give the term "Queen" any other designation, it still only refers to Queen Victoria and of course, she died in 1901. Her death effectively removed any purpose for the continued presence of the term "Queen", as it no longer refers to anyone.
Question: So, how exactly does Elizabeth ll, "legally" and "lawfully" possess any authority in Canada and over Canadian people?
Question: If She does, where is evidence of that "legal" and "lawful" authority over otherwise free and sovereign people, to be found?
Still further, the "Statute of Westminster, 1931", signed by King George V, and which, came into force December 11, 1931, effectively
released all Colonies and their peoples from being subject to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom through that King's abdication of his sovereign power, thereby providing independence to the Colonies and their people. It also forbid any further use of the term "Colony" in any instrument passed in the U.K. Parliament, put the B.N.A. Act, 1867, on Reserve, effectively ending the Colonial Union it had created and as confirmed by the first sentence of that Act, partially quoted here: "An Act for the Union...".
All of this has also been confirmed by former M.P., Walter Kuhl, considered by Members of the House of Commons to be the constitutional law expert of Canada at the time, in his Presentation to the House, November 8th, 1945. Although the King's abdication of his sovereign power was initially deemed "not legally possible" by Canada's government of the time and based on legal "opinions" they solicited, it has since been confirmed by Peter Hogg, current constitutional law expert and Dean of Osgoode Hall, in his book: "Constitutional Law of Canada", where he states, to the effect, "...now, the more widely held belief is that he did." It seems common-sensible that one holding "the sovereign power" can legally and lawfully do with it, as they think fit. Hogg also confirms therein, that "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.", making it crystal clear that said "Queen" is without any lawful authority at all in Canada. He also confirms that the majority of Canada's constitutional laws are not "Canadian" at all, as they are found in the Statute Books of the United Kingdom. Perhaps this is part of the reason M.P.'s in the U.K.'s Parliament shouted things like: "This is a fraud on the Canadian people", when Trudeau was there in 1982. Not only that, even the people of Iraq were allowed to vote on their newly written constitution after Hussein was toppled. It seems they have greater democratic rights than we do in "Canada".
Question: So, how is it then that we remain under the "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of that "Queen" through being taxed in her name and on her behalf, every single day of our lives?
There is also the question involving the Governor General of Canada's time to time status held, as "Canada's de facto Head of State", notwithstanding the admission of that fact having been removed from the G.G.'s Official Website, that status remains. Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary defines "de facto" as meaning "not founded on law" and that is most troubling. Based on all of the facts stated above (and many not stated here), it appears that "de facto" status held while acting in capacity of "Canada's Head of State", is well founded, both in law and
in fact. To complicate matters even more, there is also section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada entitled: "Obedience to de facto law".
Question: As result of all the above, I am compelled to request a Certified True Copy of the document(s) bearing the autograph of Queen Elizabeth ll, whereby the approval of your appointment, let alone the existence of your Office, has been legally and lawfully approved by
that Queen.
I thank you in advance for your time spent reading and providing appropriate response to the questions presented in this communication.
Please be assured, I have no ill intentions toward you personally and no desire to create any form of confrontation with you, I only seek
factual truths to the purpose of assuring true justice for all people, through their being allowed full realization of all of their Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms.
Thank you again,
David Butterfield
Educator and Defender of Natural and Universally Recognized Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms
Authorized by Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor General's pass the buck response ...
On 15/05/2012 7:34 AM, Info wrote:
Dear Mr. Butterfield,
On behalf of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, I am responding to your email below. I apologize for the delayed reply.
While we appreciate your inquiries, this matter would be best addressed to Library and Archives Canada, at the following address:
Library and Archives Canada
395 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4
Tel: 1-866-578-7777 (toll-free in Canada)
Fax: 613-995-6274
Website: www.collectionscanada.gc.ca
I hope this will be helpful to you.
Please accept my best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Antoine Morin - INFO
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive / 1, promenade Sussex
Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A1
info@gg.ca
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter | Suivez-nous sur Facebook et Twitter
GGDavidJohnston | RideauHall
From: Dave Butterfield [mailto:humanrights2010@shaw.ca]
Sent: February 24, 2012 5:55 PM
To: Info
Subject: evidence of Queen's approval of appointment
His Excellency
The Right Honourable David Johnston, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Governor General.....by Dave Butterfield....
Dave Butterfield humanrights2010@shaw.ca
4:29 PM (58 minutes ago)
to Info
To Antoine and his corporate de facto master,
I am appalled by your suggestion, it is little more than another version of every politician's favourite dance, the "Political Sidestep".
The Library and Archives cannot and will not answer all of these questions appropriately, but now, they really don't need to.
It is clear that your "Office" is trying to hide something. Something that many of us "out here" already know all about.
Something that has already been established through other processes and which, resulted in an International Notary's issuance and
service of a "Certificate of Dishonour" and "Administrative Judgment by Estoppel" on the de facto Attorney's General of the "Canada"
and of the corporate government de facto of "the Province of British Columbia".
You and yours have had your opportunity to address the issues presented, but you failed to do so and chose to "pass the buck".
Legal Maxim: "He who is silent is understood to agree." Passing the buck is not an appropriate response, especially not from a highly
educated an extremely knowledgeable individual such as your corporate de facto master. This is the same method used by the corporate governments de facto in getting people to voluntarily be "in the service of" their corporate structures. People who don't say "no", are
deemed to have said "yes".
The evidence presented below is enough to convince any Jury of the fraud to which, we have and are all being made victims.
Without a denial, supported by evidence contrary to that provided, and coming directly from your "de facto Head of State",
he is then seen to agree with the evidence reported to him. Estoppel in pais will be applied.
In my highly educated opinion, it is clear that the "de facto Head of State" is just another self-serving politician, he is definitely not a "lawful" representative, or acting on behalf of anyone, especially not some foreign and bogus "Queen" who violated her Coronation Oath almost immediately after swearing to uphold it. The World Book Dictionary defines "politician" as: "a person who takes public office for short term interest or personal gain."
The old adage "Lies go around the world while truth is still putting its boots on." is on its last legs already.
The "cat is out of the bag" now, good luck trying to catch it to put it back in it.
Giving respect only where due,
David Butterfield
No comments:
Post a Comment