FREEDOM! CANADA by Harry James Townsend

freedomcanada

Freedom! Canada

by

Harry James Townsend

(from the Inside Cover)

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

(Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (lll) of 10 December 1948)

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Slavery and Debt Bondage

If the STATE is claiming some right, or interest in the people, it means that the STATE is treating people as property, and when people are treated as property, they are slaves. Debt bondage or peonage is a form of slavery and slavery is against the law. One must ask, are we  indebted to Revenue Canada for the payment of taxes? Does the government OWN us? Who is the ‘Real Party in Interest’ in the CCRA?

Please keep in mind that this book is not legal advice, but my observations. In an effort to understand why I seemed to be at the whim of Revenue Canada, I started studying Canada’s History and Laws. However, you might want to ask a few ‘elected officials of the STATE’ for clarification after reading it. Let’s look at Black’s Law Dictionary for a few ‘Law on yer’ terms;

Slavery:

The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another.

This certainly sounds like the way Revenue Canada Tax Collectors treat and act toward Canadians. Is it because taxes are treated as a debt that Revenue Canada claims the right to enslave us? The last unlawful ‘Requirement to Pay’ that Revenue Canada sent to my landlord, in an attempt to seize my damage deposit and have my family thrown back onto the street, labeled me as a ‘Tax Debtor’. Is there such a thing? Let’s look at Black’s Law Dictionary again.

Tax:

“A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation, or trust, as well as the value of an estate or gift. The objective in assessing the tax is to generate revenue to be used for the needs of the public.” … ” And in its essential characteristics is not a debt.

Well, well , well, TAX is NOT a DEBT. So how does Revenue Canada get away with dragging you and I into court and committing this FRAUD? The rationale for this is you may assent to fraud, even if you do not realize a fraud is being committed against you. (In law, there is a difference between ‘assent’ and ‘consent’. You may ‘assent’ to fraud, e.g. governments, by non-rebuttal. You cannot ‘consent’ to fraud, because ‘consent’ requires actual agreement – true meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and good faith, thereby eliminating the elements of concealment inherent in fraud. You CAN NOT lawfully consent by contract to do something that is unlawful.) Revenue Canada uses the artifice of ‘implied assent’, which is a ‘legal fiction’ to ‘coerce’ paying taxes using ‘moral duress’. Read on ….

P. 1

Canada

Are we the Free Nation we believe we are?

Freedoms 2(b) or not 2(b)?

that is the question 🙂

©2000 Harry James Townsend

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”

~ Thomas Jefferson

Dedication

This work is dedicated to five people who make me proud to say: “I am Canadian.” To Mr. Elmer Knutson, Mr. R. Rogers Smith and Mr. Walter Kuhl for championing the cause of democracy in Canada, for lighting the way and for producing the works from which I borrowed liberally. To Mr. Dave Peddle and Mr. Fred Schorning who scraped me off the ground when ‘my own government’ was intently stomping my face into the dirt. A simple thanks can not begin to express the gratitude I feel. I offer it, none the less. Thank you.

“Even if you are a minority of one, the Truth is still the Truth”

~ Gandhi

P. 2

INTRODUCTION:………………………………………………….5

IS CANADA A FREE NATION?:…………………………………..5

ARE CANADIANS A FREE PEOPLE?:…………………………….5

EVERYTHlNG lS PLANNED:……………………………………….5

A RESPONSE TO PAUL MARTIN:…………………………………6

IS IT FAIR PLAY WHEN?:………………………………………….9

WHO OWNS OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM?:…………………………9

FREE:……………………………………………………………………10

FREEDOM:……………………………………………………………..11

CIVIL LIBERTIES:……………………………………………………11

STATE:………………………………………………………………….11

MORAL:…………………………………………………………………12

ETHICS:…………………………………………………………………12

MORAL ACTIONS:…………………………………………………….12

LEGAL ETHICS:………………………………………………………..13

SOVEREIGN POWER OR SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE:……..13

NATURAL LAW:……………………………………………………….14

NATURAL RIGHTS:…………………………………………………..14

JUSTICE:………………………………………………………………..14

FRAUDULENT:………………………………………………………….15

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT:…………………………………….15

FRAUDULENT INTENT:……………………………………………….15

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION:…………………………..16

FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST ACT:………………………………16

FRAUDULENT PRETENSE:……………………………………………16

MORAL TURPITUDE:…………………………………………………..16

MORAL DURESS:………………………………………………………..16

MORAL LAW:…………………………………………………………….16

LAWFUL:………………………………………………………………….16

CONFEDERACY:…………………………………………………………17

FEDERATION:……………………………………………………………17

CONFEDERATION:……………………………………………………..18

NATION:………………………………………………………………….18

DOMINION:……………………………………………………………..18

CORPORATION:………………………………………………………..18

PERSON:………………………………………………………………….18

LICENSE:…………………………………………………………………18

STRAW MAN OR PARTY:……………………………………………..19

P. 3

PRINCIPAL:………………………………………………………………19

CONSPIRACY:……………………………………………………………19

COLONY:………………………………………………………………….19

FICTITIOUS:……………………………………………………………..19

LEGAL FICTION:…………………………………………………………19

ASSUMPTION:……………………………………………………………20

PRESUMPTION:………………………………………………………….20

LIE:………………………………………………………………………….20

THE MYTH OF CONFEDERATION:……………………………………20

CANADIAN HISTORY:…………………………………………………..20

LORD MONCK ON CONFEDERATION:……………………………….21

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION BY THE CROWN:……….23

ELMER KNUTSON ON CONFEDERATION:………………………….23

TWO FRAUDS FORCE CANADA:………………………………………26

TRAITOR:…………………………………………………………………..27

TREASON:………………………………………………………………….27

WALTER KUHL ON CONFEDERATION:……………………………..28

R. ROGERS SMITH ON CONFEDERATION:………………………..29

THE WIZARD OF OZ:……………………………………………………29

DIVIDE AND CONQUER:……………………………………………….30

THEY GAVE THEIR ALL:………………………………………………..31

JUSTICE IS LOCKED OUT OF COURT:………………………………31

PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU:……………………………………………33

WHAT CAN WE DO FOR OUR COUNTRY?:…………………………34

GAVE UP ON THE GREATEST EMPIRE ON EARTH?:…………….34

FOLLOW THE BUCK:…………………………………………………….35

IS VIOLENCE A SOLUTION?:…………………………………………35

THE JEWISH PEOPLE:………………………………………………….36

WHEN WILL WE BECOME VICTIMS?:………………………………37

IS THE QUEEN REALLY THIS EVIL?:……………………………….38

IS LOVE A SOLUTION?:………………………………………………..39

IS GOD THE ANSWER?:………………………………………………..39

WHAT DOESN’T BELONG IN GOVERNMENT?:……………………40

THE ROAD TO FREEDOM:………………………………………………41

POLITICS:………………………………………………………………….42

A WORKABLE FEDERAL MODEL:……………………………………..42

NAIVETE:……………………………………………………………………43

HONOR:……………………………………………………………………..43

P. 4

CODE OF ETHICS:…………………………………………………………44

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:……………………..44

LEGALESE?:…………………………………………………………………44

BOTTOM LINE? NEVER VOTE FOR A LAWYER:…………………….45

THE “PROVINCE OF ALBERTA” PARTY:……………………………..45

MANDATES:………………………………………………………………….45

CONTROL MECHANISM:………………………………………………….46

PLANKS:………………………………………………………………………46

A GREAT CANADIAN?:…………………………………………………….47

OR BRITISH CON ARTIST?:……………………………………………..47

“Money Lenders are like cockroaches. You have to keep driving them from the Temple.”

~ Weise Altmann

Now if we could just drive the Money Lenders from the Bank of Canada. Clean out our Temple of Government. Fiat Money Sucks. If Canada can print bonds, we can print debt free money based upon the present wealth of the country.

Canada needs to have a National Bank, owned by the people of Canada and not controlled by the government, to print debt free money based upon the accumulated wealth of the Nation. Get federal public employees out of our bank accounts. They should get only the taxes WE CHOOSE to give them, not what they choose to take. We should be controlling  government, not it controlling us.

The debt this country is in is simply criminal. It is usury of the most despicable sort. A debt consisting of 97% interest is nothing short of heinous. Furthermore, the banks never put up a dime to incur this debt. The Bank Act itself is Ultra Vires. As Canadians, we need to take a very close look at our government.

We really need to allow our market to control itself. Each of us needs to control our own business, not the environment in which the businesses interact. Legislation, control of our money supply and control of our monetary policies allow banks, both foreign and domestic, to economically loot the country at will.

P. 5

Introduction

I started writing a reply to Paul Martin after receiving yet another letter back from the government with him misquoting my own ‘Constitution’ to me. Instead I decided to write this pamphlet since I am explaining this situation to people over and over. This is why the pamphlet starts: To Mr. Paul Martin.

As a Canadian, I am sick of Queens and Crowns and the Utter Nonsense the Federal Government of this country keeps feeding us. Crowns and Queens are the stuff of Fairy Tales. Are you as sick as l am of Federal Government Fairy Tales that are designed to rob you?

Is Canada a Free Nation?

No. Absolutely not. Canada is not even a country. It is no more than a geographical expression. I am quite willing to listen to you if you can show me actual documents, signed by duly elected representatives of the provinces, that created this “Confederation” to prove me wrong. I would also like to see the “Constitution” that Canadians unanimously voted as the Constitution of their country. The fact of the matter is that these are nothing more than lies.

Are Canadians a Free People?

Not by any stretch of the imagination. I would suggest you look at the definition of free in this pamphlet to see if the description fits you. However, there is closer proof than that. Pull out your own Birth Certificate. Now look on the back of the document. It says: ‘Revenue Receipt’ and gives your receipt number, then says, ‘For Treasury Use Only’. This creates a legal corporate fiction called a ‘straw man’, which the ‘crown’ seizes through fraudulent misrepresentation. (It 
also registers you, but that number is on the front.) They can buy and sell your straw man at their leisure. They can even arbitrarily attach a debt to your straw man and then sucker you into paying it. Ever wonder who ‘owns’ Canada?

Everything is Planned.

Franklin Roosevelt was quoted as saying: “everything that happens, happens because it was planned that way.” What has Roosevelt to do with Canada you might ask? The same people that bankrupted the US also steal our freedom, our properties and our assets. We are all owned by the British Crown. The problem is they have not done any of this legally or with our consent.

There are three things that Canadians need in order to take back their God given freedom… a brain, a heart and courage. Sounds like what the Straw Man, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion needed? Guess what. That’s no accident.

P. 6

A response to Paul Martin.

I am in receipt of your March 14, 2001 letter. In closing you write: the province’s power to tax is limited to “Direct Taxation within the Province in order to generate the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes”.

I understand what this means perfectly well. It means ONLY the province has the right to collect a DIRECT TAX, PERlOD. The federal  government has never been given the right to collect anything but customs and excise taxes. (Assuming they were a legitimate government for a moment… first things first.)

I understand that you are trying to say that the provinces can collect a direct tax for provincial purposes and the federal government can collect a direct tax for every other purpose. Bollocks. This does not bear up to the light of day.

In the John Severn case of 1878, Supreme Court Judge, J. Fournier declared:

“With the exception of agriculture and immigration, THERE IS NO SUBJECT MATTER over which there can exist concurrent powers of legislation.”

In the 1950 Lord Nelson Hotel case, Chief Justice C.J. Rinfret stated:

“No power of delegation is expressed either in Section 91, or Section 92, nor, indeed, is there to be found the power of accepting delegation from one body to the other; and I have no doubt that if it had been the intention to give such powers it would have been expressed in clear and unequivocal language.”

And

“Under the scheme of the British North America Act there were to be, in the words of Lord Atkin in the Labour Conventions Reference,  watertight compartments which are AN ESSENTIAL part of the original structure. Neither legislative bodies, federal or provincial, possess ANY PORTION of the powers respectively vested in the other and they can not receive it by delegation. In that connection the word ‘exclusively’ used in both section 91 and section 92 indicates a settlement line of demarcation and it does not belong to either Parliament, or the Legislatures, to confer powers upon the other.”

Mr. Justice J. Rand, Mr. Justice J. Estey and Mr. Justice J. Fauteux all agreed with this ruling and cited references to support it.

This issue was debated long before this however.

P. 7

On July 2, 1894, Britain wanted to impose a “Death Tax” on the colonies. Lord Baden Powell protested and is recorded in the Hansard of the day as saying:

“But the government has conceded in this amendment a very important point but one which he did not think needed conceding – namely, that they could not pay twice over the same Queen’s taxes on the same property. That, he understood, had been illegal all along.”

Then he said:

“He wishes now to allude to what he would venture to call the rights of our colonies. This House, without doubt, had conceded to our self-governing colonies independent and executive sovereignty so far as matters of taxation were concerned. He thought there was no one could doubt that had been done, and he thought it would also be conceded when they had delegated the power which they had the right to exercise or to delegate, they could not both delegate and exercise this power. Without doubt they had done this, and he might bring forth one instance which, he thought, must have escaped the observation of the authorities who drafted this Bill. It was an instance of legislation by the Imperial Parliament. In the Imperial Act, by which they enabled the Provinces of North America to federate into one Dominion in 1867, the Dominion Government by the Imperial Act was expressly forbidden levying any direct taxes, and that prerogative of taxation and of legislative and executive sovereignty was expressly reserved to the Provincial Governments. How therefore, this Parliament was to take the double step of not only levying direct taxes in the Canadian Dominion, but levying them in spite of this particular clause and gift of power to the Provincial Governments he could not see.”

This is consistent with Canada’s response to this situation. Sir John Thompson, then Prime Minister of Canada, dispatched Sir Charles Tupper, the British High Commissioner to Britain with the following protest:

“So far as Canada is concerned, the case is even stronger than in other colonies, as under the Confederation Act passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1867, the power of imposing taxation of this description (a direct tax) was exclusively assigned to the local governments and legislatures of the Provinces of the Dominion, for the purpose of enabling them to provide revenue required to carry on the administration of local affairs. In many of the provinces considerable difficulty has been experienced in providing the necessary amount of revenue for the purpose and this invasion of a field of taxation thus exclusively assigned to them would result in a very serious inconvenience.”

P. 8

It has to be conceded that two former Prime Ministers of our Nation, that actually participated in drafting the original BNA Act, surely knew the intention of their own words. However, if you are still in doubt, let’s just look at common sense for a moment. Our federal government sucks the life out of everything, so you have to know that if the British North America Act had given them the authority to collect an income tax, THEY WOULD HAVE STARTED COLLECTING FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN 1867. Is that how Income Taxation started in Canada Mr. Finance Minister? No! The federal government never started collecting an income tax until 1917. Since direct taxation was exclusively allocated to the provinces by the BNA Act, any subsequent Act reversing this position is Ultra Vires. So stop misquoting the BNA Act as giving you an authority you never had. (However, thank you for providing the Written Proof that you do indeed misrepresent this Myth as a Fact.)

The fact of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right to tax the Canadian people. For that matter, I would like to ask exactly where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate anything at all to the Canadian People?

Read the entire BNA Act, since it must be read in its entirety to be properly construed. What are the powers allocated to the ‘federal government’? All of the powers granted to the federal government in the BNA Act are extra-territorial. This is consistent with the taxation  powers that are accorded to them. Since the federal government’s power is extra-territorial, so is their tax collecting power. This is why the BNA Act restricts the federal government to customs and excise taxes. Is this consistent with the Statute of Westminster? Absolutely!

As a consequence of this division of powers that has always existed, Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster only gives the federal government the power to create laws extra-territorially. This was an interim measure. From where does the federal government derive its authority to interfere in provincial matters?

Until 1931, a Governor General ruled Canada in the name of the British Crown. He was issued letters patent by the ‘Crown’ in Chancery  in the name of the King, who signed the document. Since 1931, no letters patent have been issued by the Crown in the name of a Monarch authorizing the office of Governor General. To make up for this deficiency, R.B. Bennett made a copy of earlier letters patent and authorized the appointment of the Governor General. Under what authority did he do this? The BNA Act certainly never gave the federal government any authority to do so and neither did the people of Canada.

The federal government keeps claiming they are duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. The Canadian Court System seems  to think they are not. The constituents of MP Littlechild thought that he represented them and took him to court for not representing them. On December 10, 1990 the Court

P. 9

decided that MP Littlechild was answerable only to parliament. It is obvious from this ruling that the federal government MP does not represent the people of Canada; ergo, MP’s are not duly elected representatives of the people of Canada.

The only possible conclusions one can draw from this are: the office of Governor General in Canada is unauthorized and the federal government is not a legitimate authority in Canada. It seems our ‘Great Nation’ has some very shaky foundations here. Perhaps this is why the people of Canada always seem to get the short end of the stick with the federal government.

Many Canadians feel that Justice is blind. I do not feel like this however. It is my belief that Justice never makes it inside a court in Canada. Justice is left sitting on the steps and the courts instead defer to the ‘letter of the law’. Funny that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would defer to a persons sense of ‘fair play’ in their unlawful efforts to collect an income tax from Canadians.

Is it Fair Play when:

The Federal Law Enforcement Agency is pledged to the Crown.
The Plaintive is the Crown.
The Judge represents the Crown.
The Crown Council speaks for the Crown.
The Court Clerk is an employee of the Crown.
If you can afford a Lawyer, he owes his allegiance to the Crown.
Or, the Public Defender (Legal Aid) owes his allegiance to the Crown.
The Witness is a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency agent and is paid by the Crown to accuse You.
The Jury, (if one is permitted by the Crown), is sworn on oath not to question the Statutes of the Crown.

Who owns our Judicial System?

How exactly is a person to get Justice in a Canadian Court under these circumstances? Our entire Canadian government and judicial system is ‘owned by the Crown’, a foreign power.

Is it acceptable that the Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in Canada? The Supreme Court that is appointed and paid by the illegitimate federal government? Is it any wonder the provinces can’t get Justice?

All lawyers owe their allegiance to the Crown. All Bar Associations are signatory to the Bar Association at the Inns of Court on Fleet Street. Judges represent the Banks. Banking Law is Admiralty Law. When they drag your straw man to court, you are entering an Admiralty Court. Admiralty Law applies to the high seas. Why would Canada have Admiralty Courts? The ‘Crown ‘ makes our laws with no basis in Natural Law. Is Canada at war with the Crown? A State of War is the only thing that explains this behaviour toward Canadians.

P. 10

Is this what Black’s Law Dictionary defines as a ‘Fraud on Court’? Is this a scheme to interfere with judicial machinery performing tasks of impartial adjudication, as by preventing an opposing party from fairly representing his case or defense? It certainly seems as if the ‘Crown’ has all the odds in their court in this game.

The ‘Crown’ is clearly in a conflict of interest situation in Canada. It is my belief that the Inns of Court at Temple Bar use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London, and the ‘letter of the law’ to defraud, coerce and manipulate the Canadian People. These Fleet Street Bankers and Lawyers are committing crimes in our country under the guise of law and as such are committing a fraud on court. Indeed, these people known as the ‘Crown’ commit crimes against humanity on a global scale.

Canada is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells the Canadian people that it is. If it were, we would not be dictated to by the ‘Crown’. Canada is controlled and manipulated by a foreign power and our federal government is the illegitimate pawn of that foreign power. The ‘Crown’ in Canada is the ‘Crown in Chancery’, a manipulative body of bankers and lawyers from the City of London who violate the Civil Law of our country by imposing fraudulent contracts on the Canadian people.

By what authority has the ‘Crown’ usurped the natural sovereignty of the Canadian people? We are reminded every November 11 of the generations of Canadians who gave their lives to ‘fight tyranny and ensure freedom’ for all Canadians. Now that is really wonderful, but is  Canada the free and sovereign nation we all believe it to be? Let’s examine this idea of freedom and sovereignty.

First of all let’s go to Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of Free and Freedom.

Free:

Not subject to legal constraint of another.

Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude; used in this sense as opposed to “slave”.

Not despotic; assuring liberty; defending individual rights against encroachment by any person or class; instituted by a free people, said of governments, institutions, etc.

P. 11

Freedom:

The state of being free: liberty, self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery.

The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life.

The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual.

Civil liberties:

Personal, natural rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution; e.g. freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. Body of law dealing with natural liberties, shorn of excesses which invade equal rights of others. Constitutionally they are restraints on government.

Now if civil liberties are constitutional restraints on governments, why is it that our ‘Government’ has been changing our ‘Constitution’? It  is obviously a conflict of interest situation for the government to be involved in changing the very constitution which enumerates the laws  which the government must abide by.

In a free and sovereign nation, sovereignty is derived from the free people of the nation. This makes sense, since Freedom is a state that can only be applied to living beings. From whence comes this concept of being free? The concept of Freedom extends from what is termed ‘Natural Law’. Note that a state is not an inanimate piece of land. A state consists of, and refers to, the people who occupy a fixed territory.

State:

A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound by together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent and sovereign control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.

The Absolute Rights of Man are those that they would have in Nature without Society. We are all born Free and Sovereign. It is this Natural State of Being that creates Sovereignty. From this Natural Sovereignty of the Free Man, the State (or government, which is a demo-cracy [people rule]) derives its Authority.

P. 12

If the State derives its Authority from our Natural Condition of being Born Free, who or what is violating our natural rights by imposing taxes and licenses on us? Why are our children being born into debt to a corporate authority? To my knowledge, I have never given up my freedom to another authority. Is my knowledge a requisite component for me to  enter into a contract which would require me to pay taxes and licenses? Is full disclosure of the facts required?

It seems what we are in search for here is TRUTH. Let us then find out: What is the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth. It  seems that Justice gets tripped up on the steps of the court house only because lawyers are only concerned with the ‘Letter of the Law’ and  could care less about Truth, Justice or Fair Play. Truth, Justice and Fair Play. These seem to be moral judgement calls, so the deference to  ‘the letter of the law’ in our judicial system seems a trifle oxymoronic wouldn’t you say? From Black’s Law Dictionary:

Moral:

Pertains to character, conduct, intention, social relations, etc.

1. Pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct.

2. Cognizable or enforceable only by the conscience or by the principles of right conduct, as distinguished from positive law. 3. Depending upon or resulting from probability; raising a belief or conviction in the mind independent of strict or logical proof. 4. Involving or affecting the moral sense; as in the phrase “moral insanity”.

Ethics:

Of or relating to moral action, conduct, motive or character; as, ethical emotion; also, treating of moral feelings, duties or conduct; containing precepts of morality; moral. Professionally right or befitting; conforming to professional standards of conduct.

It seems then that morality is not precisely defined, but does that mean that morality is simply that which the law designates as such? Obviously this is not the case, since Black’s definition for ‘moral’ says as distinguished from positive law. One has to ask then; “What are considered Moral Actions?” First, let’s look to Black’s Law Dictionary to see if there is a definition.

Moral Actions:

Those only in which men have knowledge to guide them, and a will to choose for themselves.

It seems then that moral actions are dependent both on knowledge and freedom. So how is it then that Canadians are not free to choose whether or not they want

P. 13

to pay taxes? How is it that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ if moral action is itself predicated upon knowledge and freedom of choice?  It would certainly seem fair to ask if the legal profession is restricted by moral obligations. Is a deference to the letter of the law an acceptable alternative to moral authority? Well, not according to Black’s Law Dictionary.

Legal Ethics:

Usages and customs among members of the legal profession, involving their moral and professional duties toward one another, toward clients and toward the courts. That branch of moral science which treats of the duties which a member of the legal profession owes to the  public, to the court, to his professional brethren and to his client.

Now isn’t that interesting. It seems a lawyer’s duties are indeed predicated upon morality and ethics, not the strict ‘letter of the law’. Is the ‘letter of the law’ and ‘precedence’ sufficient to abrogate the moral and ethical responsibilities of the legal profession? Let us examine our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since the Department of the Justice of Canada posts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on their home page, one can assume that this document contains the official position of the ‘government of Canada’. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms starts with:

Whereas Canadian is founded upon the principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of Law:

Let us look now once again to Black’s Law Dictionary.

Sovereign power or sovereign prerogative:

That power in a state to which none other is superior or equal, and which includes all the specific powers necessary to accomplish the legitimate ends and purposes of government.

Note that the definition says “legitimate” ends and purposes of government. It does not say anything that simply pops into the head of a government official is the law. Note that Sovereign Power is determined by ‘that power in a state to which none other is superior or equal’. In deference to the Supremacy of God, it is obvious that our government recognizes Natural Law before the Rule of Law. Since one must swear an oath to tell ‘the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth’ on a Bible whenever they enter a Court of Law, it is obvious that this is a deference to the Supremacy of God.

P. 14

Natural Law:

…. In ethics, it consists on practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.

Natural Rights:

Those which grow out of nature of man and depend upon his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by a duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society.

As children of God, we all are born Free and Sovereign men. The Bible says we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. I am not going to debate with you as to whether or not God exists. Black’s Law Dictionary predicates Natural Law on the presumption that God exists and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically defers to God’s Supremacy.

The rights of personal security, personal property and private property do not depend on the existence of a Constitution for their existence. They existed before the constitution was made or the government was organized. These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.

It should be noted that constitutionally, civil liberties are by definition a restraint on governments. The first Section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This does not mean that you are limited to the freedoms which your government dictates to you, but that the government is limited to the liberties that you dictate to the government.  Exercise your right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Start asking questions and demanding answers!

Justice:

Proper administration of laws. In jurisprudence, the constant and perpetual disposition of legal matters or disputes to render every man his due.

Is this what our Justice Department does? Are decisions in our Courts concluded with a moral and ethical deference to Truth and Fairness that render every man

P. 15

his due according to the ‘Laws of the Land’ in our free and democratic society or are they dictated by the arbitrary judgments of a representative of a Foreign Power?

There are a few oxymorons to deal with here now aren’t there? How is it possible for Canada to be a Sovereign Nation and still be dictated to by the Crown? Has this Crown been perpetuating a Fraud on the Canadian People? Well, let’s take a look at the meaning of Fraudulent in Black’s Law Dictionary. While we are at it, we might as well look at a few meanings as they pertain to fraud.

Fraudulent:

Based on fraud, proceeding from or characterized by fraud; tainted by fraud; done, made or effected with a purpose or design to carry out a fraud.

A statement, or claim, or document, is “fraudulent” if it was made, or caused to be made,with the intent to deceive.

To act with ”intent to defraud” means to act willfully, and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat; ordinarily for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to oneself.

Fraudulent concealment:

The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose. The employment of artifice planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and to mislead or hinder the acquisition of information disclosing a right of action; acts relied on must be of an affirmative nature and fraudulent…. The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties; failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual “fraudulent concealment.” Fraudulent concealment justifying a rescission of a contract is the intentional concealment of some fact known to the party injured, which is material for the party injured to know to prevent being defrauded; the concealment of a fact which one is bound to disclose being the equivalent of an indirect representation that such fact does not exist.

Fraudulent intent:

Such intent exists where one, either with a view of benefiting oneself or misleading another into a course of action, makes a representation which one knows to be false or which one does not believe to be true.

P. 16

Fraudulent misrepresentation:

A false statement as to material fact, made with intent that another rely thereon, which is believed by the other party and on which he relies and by which he is induced to act and does act to his injury, and statement is fraudulent if speaker knows statement to be false or if  it is made with utter disregard of its truth or falsity.

Fraudulent or dishonest act:

One which involves bad faith, a breach of honesty, a want of integrity, or moral turpitude.

Fraudulent pretense:

Crime which consists of a false pretense, obtaining property of value thereby, and an intent to cheat and defraud.

Now isn’t it interesting that when we look at fraud we are told that it involves moral turpitude? Again there is this deference to morality. So what does ‘moral turpitude’ mean? Let us look at a few more meanings from Black’s Law Dictionary.

Moral turpitude:

The act of baseness, vileness or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.

Moral duress:

Consists in imposition, oppression, undue influence, or the taking of undue advantage of the business or financial stress or extreme necessity or weakness of another.

Moral law:

The law of conscience; the aggregate of those rules and principles of ethics which relate to right and wrong conduct and prescribe the standards to which the actions of men should conform in their dealings with each other.

While we are at it here, why don’t we look at a couple more definitions. There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes Lawful and what constitutes Legal.

Lawful:

Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law; not illegal.

P. 17

The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and ”legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of the law.

It is very clear from the prior definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary that the ‘substance of the law’ must dictate the ‘form of the law’. If the ‘letter of the law’ contradicts the ‘essence of the law’, there is no logical consistency within the system and our entire judicial system is rendered invalid. Along the same line of logical reasoning, it follows that if you have lost your Freedom to the State, then the condition from which the State derives its authority no longer exists.

The intention of the law is to provide a forum where in all men can seek moral and ethical consideration based upon the merits of their case. How is it possible to get justice from our judicial system when our entire judicial system is in the hands of foreign corporations?

We have been taught in Canada that Canada is a Confederation. Just so we are certain we are talking about the same thing, let us look up the meaning of Confederacy in Black’s Law Dictionary.

Confederacy:

The association or banding together of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an act or furthering an enterprise which is forbidden by law, or which, though lawful in itself, becomes unlawful when made the object of the confederacy. More commonly called a “conspiracy”.

A league or agreement between two or more independent states whereby they unite for their mutual welfare and the furtherance of their common aims. The term may apply to a union so formed for a temporary or limited purpose, as in the case of an offensive and defensive alliance; but it is more commonly used to denote that species of political connection between two or more independent states by which a central government is created, invested with certain powers of sovereignty (mostly external), and acting upon the several component states as its units, which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some others.

Federation:

A joining together of states or nations in a league or association; the league itself.

An unincorporated association of persons for a common purpose.

The definition of a federation is kind of a funny one. Note that it says an unincorporated association of persons for a common purpose. What is the deference to an ‘unincorporated association of persons’? One must then recall that a State is a collection of independent and sovereign people. Ah, now we see

P. 18

the reason for a distinction here. While a person may indeed be a natural person, it is obvious from the context that the definition of a state specifically excludes corporate or artificial entities.

Confederation:

A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations, or states.

Nation:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historical continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily living under the same government and sovereignty.

Dominion:

Generally accepted definition of ‘dominion’ is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Title to an article of property which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it.

Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.

Corporation:

An artificial person or legal entity created by or under authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity. The law treats the corporation itself as a person which can sue and be sued.

Person:

In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

License:

A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable.

A personal privilege? The Magna Carta guaranteed free access to all roads for all men. No one has any more of a right to use the roads than you do, so why are you paying for a license to a foreign power to use the road that your own money paid for? There are many things we get charged for that governments have no right to collect from us. You don’t need a license to exercise a fundamental right or freedom. It’s not ‘free’ if you have to pay for it.

P. 19

Straw man or party:

A “front”; a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose not allowed.

Principal:

The source of authority or right.

Note that by the definition of a State, in a free and democratic society, the principal is a free and sovereign man from whom the ‘State’ derives its authority and rights. Logical reasoning precludes the principal from being a corporate entity in a democratic society. Note that the State is not the source of authority. The State is the conceptual entity which represents the source of that authority.

Conspiracy:

A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself but becomes unlawful when done by concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal and unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.

Colony:

A dependent political community, consisting of a number o f citizens of the same country who have emigrated therefrom to people another, and remain subject to the mother country. Territory attached to another nation, known as the mother country, with political and economic ties, e.g. possessions or dependencies of the British Crown.

Fictitious:

Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior objective.

Legal Fiction:

Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question. A situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter, though it need not be created improperly; e.g. fiction of lost grant as basis for title by adverse possession.

We certainly have some interesting definitions here don’t we? Note that a ‘legal fiction’ is not just any outright  lie, presumption or assumption. It seems that

P. 20

even a ‘legal fiction’ must have a moral and ethical basis. Thus, even an assumption or presumption must have an ethical and moral basis. It certainly seems ethical that a person entering into a contract, or beholden to the terms of a contract, should have FULL DISCLOSURE as to what the terms and conditions of that contract may e. If they do not have full disclosure of all the terms and conditions of any contract they enter into, then it logically follows that the contract itself has been fraudulently misrepresented to them.

Assumption:

The act of conceding or taking for granted. Laying claim to or taking possession of.

Presumption:

An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted.

A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence.

Lie:

A falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception, an intentional statement of an untruth designed to mislead another; anything which misleads or deceives, it means an untruth deliberately told; the uttering or acting of that which is false for the purpose of deceiving; intentional misstatement.

From the given definition it certainly appears that a lie qualifies as a fraudulent misrepresentation. If the state is the people that live within the boundaries of a geographically defined area and derives its authority from our natural condition of being born free; who or what is violating our natural rights by IMPOSING taxes and licenses on us without our consent? Precedence by the way, does not enter into the discussion. It is a fundamental tenet of law that an illegal act is not rendered legitimate by the mere passage of time. A fraud, once a fraud,  is always a fraud. An ‘illegal precedent’, is an error in judgement.

The Myth of Confederation.

Has the Crown fraudulently misrepresented themselves to the Canadian people? Has the Crown been lying to the Canadian people? Let us deal first with this Myth of Confederation.

Canadian History.

At the time of ‘Canadian Confederation’, Canada did not consist of nations or states. Canada was a collection of colonies. Since Canada supposedly consisted of Colonies or ‘dependent political communities’, it was impossible

P. 21

for Canada to ‘confederate’ in 1867.  By the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, in order to confederate, Canada needed to be composed of independent free states.

Is it then the position of the Crown that the definition of ‘confederation’, as applied to Canada, is a ‘conspiracy’?  By definition a ‘conspiracy’ involves criminal actions. If the meaning of ‘confederation’ in the Canadian context is a ‘conspiracy’, then there is obviously an ethical and moral question here since a conspiracy itself is predicated on criminal acts or intent.

Did the Crown lie in the presentation of confederation to the Canadian people? Was there ‘fraudulent intent’ on the part of the Crown? Was there ‘fraudulent misrepresentation’ by the Crown? Was there a ‘fraudulent or dishonest act’ committed by the Crown? Was there a ‘fraudulent pretense’  presented to the Canadian  people by the Crown?

First of all, let us look at the British North America Act. Is the BNA Act, Canada’s Constitution?

Lord Monck on Confederation.

Lord Monck was the governor of Quebec,  and he also became the first Governor General of Canada. He sat in on all the discussions during the Quebec Conference of 1864, he knew what the drafters of the Quebec resolutions intended and wanted, and as such was intimately acquainted with the thoughts and wishes of the  delegation which went to London in December 1866. He reported in the first six pages of his dispatch his personal observations of the “scheme” to his superior the Right Honorable Edward Cardwell M.P. in charge of the Colonial department, the eventual author of the  B.N.A. Act. Lord Monck’s dispatch follows:

Confidential

Government House Quebec

25 Nov  1864

The Right Honourable

Edward Cardwell M .P.

Sir:

In another dispatch of this date I have had the honor of transmitting to you the resolutions adopted by the representatives of the different colonies of British North America at their late meeting place at Quebec in reference to the proposed Union of the Provinces.

P. 22

I propose in this this dispatch to lay before you some observations of my own on the proposed scheme which I think it would be judicious for the present at least, to treat as confidential.

I must in the first place express my regret that the term “Confederation” was ever used in connection with the proposed Union of the British North American Provinces both because I think it an entire misapplication of the term and still more I think the word is calculated to give a false notion of the sort of union which is desired. I might also say which is possible, between the provinces.

A Confederation or Federal Union as I understand it, means a union of Independent Communities bound together for certain defined purposes by a treaty or agreement entered into in their quality of sovereign states, by which they give up to the central or federal authority for those purposes a certain portion of their sovereign rights retaining all other powers not expressly delegated in as ample a manner as if the Federation had never been formed.

If this be a fair definition of the term Federation and I think it is applicable to all those Federal Unions of which history gives us examples, it is plain that a Union of this sort could not take place between the provinces of British North America, because they do not possess the qualities which are essential to the basis of such a union.

They are in no sense sovereign or independent communities.

They possess no constitutional rights except those which are expressly conferred upon them by an Imperial Act of Parliament and the power of making treaties of any sort between themselves is not one of those rights.

The only manner in which a Union between them could be effected would be by means of an act of the Imperial Parliament which would accurately define the nature of the connection, and the extent of the respective powers of the central and local authorities, should any sort of union short of an absolute Legislative Consolidation be decided on. (Note: the BNA Act was just that.)

The Sovereignty would still reside in the British Crown and Imperial Legislature, and in the event of any collision of authority between central and local bodies there would be the power of appeal to the supreme tribunal from which all the colonial franchises were originally  derived and which would possess the right to receive the appeal, the authority to decide, and the power to enforce the decision.

P. 23

Fraudulent Misrepresentation by the Crown.

Note what Lord Monck said about the term ‘confederation’: “I think the word is calculated to give a false notion of the sort of  union which is desired”. The evidence here certainly seems to indicate that Lord Monck was pointedly telling the Crown that they were making a fraudulent misrepresentation to the Canadian people. Has this issue been raised before by the Canadian people? Oh yes, time and again. In his book “A Confederation or Western Independence?”, Elmer Knutson relates the following:

Elmer Knutson on Confederation.

There is not now nor has there ever been a Confederation of the Provinces of Canada.

The Right Honourable Sir John A. MacDonald confirms this in a letter he wrote to the Governor General. This is a reply to his query as to whether or not John had a list of those who should receive honors on Her Majesty’s birthday.

He wrote: “Honors should be granted only for a service performed for the Imperial Government…” Considerable feeling was aroused in Lower Canada among the French Canadians at what they looked upon as a slight to the representative man of their race, and a motion on the subject was made in Parliament. Lord Monck refused to give any information on this question as being one of Imperial concern only; but in order to allay this feeling obtained permission from Her Majesty’s government to offer Mr. Cartier a baronetcy if he did not object to it. I at once stated I should be only too pleased to see my colleague receive this honor. Mr. Galt was made a K.C.M.G. All these honors were conferred upon myself and the other gentlemen on account of the prominent part we had taken in carrying out the Imperial Policy. (Dominion Archives)

Why did John sell out? One of the reasons was to prevent the United States from annexing Canada. It is a matter of common knowledge that Great Britain assisted the Southern States during the Civil War and was prevented from a declaration of war on the United States only by the prompt action of the Czar of Russia.

It will be remembered that Russia had defeated the combined forces of Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey in the Crimean War – 854 – 1856.

Great  Britain now threatened to declare war upon the United States unless an apology was forth coming within 24 hours, for the action which Captain Tom Wilkes had taken in the Trent Affair.

Page 24

The Czar immediately dispatched his Baltic squadron under the command  of Admiral Livofsky to New York City and his Pacific squadron under Admiral Popov from Vladivostok to San Francisco.

The Czar, who had freed the serfs of Russia in 1861, was in sympathy with Lincoln and not only this, but he was protecting Russia’s interest in Alaska. It was upon advice from the Russian Ambassador that Lincoln issued his “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. The seven million two hundred thousand dollars paid to Russia by Seward for the purchase of Russia’s interest in Alaska in March 30, 1867, was not because Seward thought Alaska was worth anything, but to repay the Czar for the expenses incurred by the fleets which he had sent and maintained in New York and San Francisco until victory was obtained by Federal forces ending the Civil War in 1865.

When Federal troops were mustered out and paid by “Greenbacks”,  they were permitted to keep their firearms and knapsacks. They were then enrolled in a force of 180,000 set to invade Canada. Ten thousand were encamped in Buffalo, New York and 1,500 under Colonel John O’Neil invaded Ontario. Representative Banks introduced a “Bill” in Washington to annex Canada.

The War Office in London sent Colonel Jarvis to Canada to investigate. He reported: “You have only 10,000 troops there, veterans of the Crimean War and scions of the British nobility and you cannot count on more than 20,000 volunteers. You would be facing a force of 300,000 at the frontier.  You cannot hope to defend Canada, nor can Canada be expected to defend herself. ”

Great Britain now agreed to negotiate. Previously the Imperial Government had refused to consider the demands made by the United States that Britain was responsible for 226 ships sunk by privateers, which had been built in Britain for the Southern States by Laird and Son in Birkenhead. The United States claimed these ships were British from keel to masthead, armed by British guns, manned by British crews and the pay office was in Liverpool. Further Britain had forts at Nassau to supply Confederates with small arms and ammunition as well as mines for their harbors.

Britain’s only defense  was that she  had not declared war. The United States replied, “This is a game two can play at.”  Such was the situation when our delegates from Canada with the Quebec Resolutions were convened in the Westminster Palace Hotel in London, 1866. They sat until the Christmas holidays and were elaborately wined and dined by members of the British government.

Colonel Montague Bernard, Member of Her Majesty’s Imperial Privy Council, introduced John A. MacDonald to his sister,  the Hon.  Susan Agnes. John A. MacDonald was 54 and a widower. Of course the Hon. Susan Agnes fell in love

Page 25

with John and they were married Feb. 16, 1867. It was explained to the groom that Britain was not adverse to a Federation of the Provinces of Canada (but this could not be accomplished until  a settlement had been made with the government of the United States).

If John would consent to become a Member of the Commission to be sent to Washington he would first be appointed and sworn as a member of Her Majesty’s Imperial Privy Council. (The minimum salary of a member was 2,000 pounds per annum.)

Further, if the commission were successful he would undoubtedly be granted the title of Sir. John knew a “Bill” was pending in Washington and if Canada were annexed he would be only a very little frog in a very large puddle.

John A. MacDonald and his brother in law, the Rt. Hon. Col. Montague Bernard, were both accredited and created Minister of Plenipotentiary, and and when the Commission was convened in the Arlington Hotel in Washington, it was agreed that Emperor William of Germany be appointed arbitrator.

The agreement consummated is embodied in the Treaty of Washington, May 8, 1871. This stipulates that Great Britain shall grant the government of the United States an apology; pay a direct indemnity of $37,500,000.00; pay for the shipping sunk as would be decided by an Admiralty Court in New York City; grant to the United States equal right in perpetuity of the navigation of the St. Lawrence River through Quebec; the disputed boundaries – Lake of the Woods and Point Roberts, B.C. to be granted to the United States. If we had confederated and become a nation four years earlier, how could Britain agree to this?

The question of the ownership of the San Juan Islands to be left to an arbitrator. Emperor William of Germany decided Oct. 25, 1872, that  the San Juan Islands should belong to the United States and $15,000,000.00 more to pay for the expenses incurred by Federal Cruisers in chasing the privateers.

Viscount Bury said of the apology:

“A national expression of regret is an act of the gravest importance. If England had been clearly in the wrong an expression of regret would be consistent with her dignity, but it has hitherto not been usual for nations of the highest rank to apologize for acts which they never committed. The same Englishmen who offered the apology framed the British case. The case is an elaborate statement that Britain is in the right. It is hard to escape from this dilemma. Either the apology was unnecessary or the English case is a tissue of mis-statements.”

Delegates from Canada had no part in drafting the British North America Act, March 29, 1867, and no certified copy of this act was brought to Canada.

Page 26

The act was drafted by Lord Thring. Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

It is not a Constitution for it constitutes nothing. It simply emphasizes the power of the Governor General to appoint and remove a Privy Council to “aid and advise” him and to state that the Governor General has the power to pass an “order in council” by himself individually as the case requires. (An “order in council” is equal to an Act of Parliament).

One score and two years later the Interpretations 1889 Act was passed, stating that Canada is a Colony. This gives lie to the story of Confederation and brands it as a reductio ad absurdum. Another absurdity is that a House and Senate of British subjects are debating the adoption of a National Flag for the Canadian people. Give Canadians the right to vote and it would not be long before they adopted a National Flag and Anthem.

You say you never heard of this before? You are not alone in this.

Since 1931, Canadian citizens are not subject to laws enacted by British Government and are not recognized by Great Britain as British subjects.

To sum up: Canada lost everything gained politically in the previous 100 years and reverted back to the Constitution granted in 1763 to Governor James Murray by the Board of Trade (Sessional Papers 18). Lord Monck came back to Canada as a “Corporate Sole” and his first act upon opening Parliament was to announce that John A. MacDonald had been  granted the title of Sir.

John did very well for himself; he obtained a titled lady as a bride, an annual stipend as a member of the Imperial Privy Council, and was now the Right Honourable Sir John A. MacDonald. But at what cost to Canada!

Note once again, the San Juan Islands, Point Roberts in British Columbia and half of the Great Lakes were given to the United States in 1871. How was this possible if Canada had become a Free and Sovereign Federal Nation in 1867?

Two Frauds Forge Canada.

Sir John A. MacDonald was not a great Canadian . See the British Title of Sir? He worked for Britain, as you now know. H e was the first great Canadian  Fraud and Forger.

The BNA Act that was passed in Britain is not the same act that came to Canada. The preamble is the raison d ‘etre for the Act. Sir John simply took it upon himself to rewrite it. The front page of this document is not what arrived in Canada. Don’t get mad. Sir John was working for his country and he was a loyal subject. He was not a Canadian. He forged the Act for his country and was

Page 27

rewarded handsomely. Father of Confederation ? It never ceases to amaze me that Canadians believe that nonsense.

The second great Fraud and Forger was R.B. Bennett. In 1931, the Hudson’s Bay lease ran out. Canada was given her freedom with the Statute of Westminster. Sovereignty was ceded to the provinces and attached to free Canadian people at that time. Since we were given our freedom in 1931, the provinces have neither agreed to form a federal nation, nor have we adopted a Constitution. (If you believe we have, kindly show me the legitimate documentation.)

After 193I, the British Crown no longer issued Letters Patent to the Governor General. This did not pose much of a problem for old R. B.  Bennett. He simply put pen to paper and produced a forgery. He made an exact copy of a prior set of Letters Patent and then signed it. From whence did he get this authority? He was not duly elected by the people of Canada. So what was he doing? It’s simple. He was saving his cushy job. The big difference between him and Sir John was that Bennett actually was a Canadian.

Oh Bennett worked for the enemy all right. His connection to the Crown ? He was their lapdog. He was a member of the Bar. He was born in Canada, but at least he died in England in the arms of those he served. Was he amply rewarded for selling us out? He should have been happy. They gave him the British Title of Viscount. Here in Calgary we loved him so much for usurping our freedom we actually named a school after him. It’s a small wonder we didn’t just call the country Bennettl and.

So what do you call a person like this? Here are a couple more legal definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary. Does this definition fit? Does it fit any other Prime Ministers?

Traitor:

One who, being trusted, betrays; one guilty of Treason.

Treason:

A breach of allegiance to one’s government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort.

We know the Crown used R.B. Bennett to usurp the power granted to the Canadian people by the Statute of Westminster. Sec (3) of the Statute gives the federal government the power to ‘make laws having extra-territorial  operation.’ This was meant to be an interim measure  for doing business with other countries

P. 28

until we got together and voted for a legitimate government. Consistent with the BNA Act however, they we re given no powers to operate in Canada. The federal government is not a legitimate authority in Canada and has not been since 1931.

Who else has investigated this situation? Walter Kuhl, an MP from Jasper also raised this issue in the House of Commons and there is a record of the ensuing debate in Hansard. The reception he received from the other members of the house is despicable. This is the way duly elected representatives of the people of Canada would react when posed with a question concerning their own freedom? I think not.

It should be obvious from this text that all MP’s and most MLA’s in Canada know what the score is. They know they are not the legitimate government in Canada. Too few of them champion the cause of Canadians. What does that tell you about them?

Walter Kuhl on Confederation.

Walter Kuhl was the MP for Jasper – Edson from 1935 to 1949. Many times he championed the cause of Canadians. The following is from his paper called “Canada, A country without a Constitution”.

He wrote this back in 1977, but look at the date he was in parliament fighting for our freedom. Half a century ago. None of this should be  anything new by now.

Forward

There is probably no political issue in Canada on which there is more lack of information and more misinformation than on the constitutional question. The stalemate and impasse which the governing authorities in Canada have reached on this question seem to indicate that there is and has been something very fundamentally awry in Canada’s constitutional history.

For almost half a century this controversy has been raging without a satisfactory solution having  been  arrived at. Many Canadians, myself included, have had enough of this bickering between politicians and are determined to bring this internecine strife to an end.

The purpose of this booklet is to indicate in some measure what I as a member of the House of Commons and as a private citizen have attempted to do to bring order out of the constitutional chaos in which Canada finds herself. Democracy is successful only in proportion to the  knowledge which people have with respect to their rights and privileges. It is my hope that the information contained in this brochure will assist Canadians to that end.

P. 29

Immediately following the recent Quebec election, I sent Mr. Rene Levesque a personal letter in which I indicated my conception of the constitutional rights which the provinces of Canada enjoy at the moment. A copy of my letter to Mr. Levesque, along with additional material, was subsequently mailed to each of the premiers of the provinces of Canada.

I desire to express my gratitude to Mr. R. Rogers Smith, who as my private tutor for almost the entire fourteen years during which I served as a member of the House of Commons, brought to my attention facts from the statutes at large, from the Archives and from original sources, the material upon which this brochure is based.

Walter F. Kuhl

Look up the pamphlet if you can find it. I can assure you it is well worth reading.

R. Rogers Smith on Confederation.

Another person who made an exhaustive examination of the issue of Canada ‘s supposed Confederation and Constitution was R. Rogers Smith. Walter Kuhl mentions him above.

R. Rogers Smith spent a good many years of his life researching this problem. He wrote a short book entitled “Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its own Credit”. (A factual examination of the Constitutional Problem). The information contained in this booklet was placed before Premier Aberhart and members of his Cabinet by R. Rogers Smith in the MacDonald Hotel, Edmonton, in October, 1935.

I highly recommend you read this book and the paper above that was presented by Walter F. Kuhl. You can find Mr. Kuhl’s  paper in the  Hansard for November 8, 1945.

Here is another bit of interesting reading if the rest of it gets too dry for you.

The Wizard of Oz.

This child’s story is not a child’s story at all. It is an allegory written by L. Frank Baum. Consider, what is oz. short for? Ounces. What is measured in ounces? Gold. What is the yellow brick road? Come on, take a guess.

The straw man is that fictitious character the Treasury department created and gave your name to. Remember what the Straw Man wanted? A brain. What did he get? A certificate. Now that is interesting.

What about the Tin man? ‘Taxpayer Identification Number’ man anyone? (Remember, this was written in the US.) He just stood there mindlessly doing his job until his body froze up.

P. 30

The cowardly lion? He was too scared to stick up for himself. Of course he was all bluster and bravado when it came to picking on people smaller than him self. Most bullies are real cowards. But when push came to shove he always folded.

What about the trip through the field of poppies? Notice how it never affected the straw man and the tin woodsman? They weren’t real people though so it had no effect on them. But the Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century. How could L. Frank Baum have known America was going to be drugged? Well, the British Crown has been playing this game for centuries. Opium Wars anyone? They already had experience conquering China with drugs.

Watch the movie again and tell me what you see. What about the professor’s caravan?)  See any interesting  symbolism in there? (Symbolism figures very deeply for these people. They think they are oh so smart and we are so stupid. They are just going to flaunt it in your face right before your eyes and laugh at how really dumb they truly think we are. To realize this, just look at the American Dollar Bill. Everyone  always wonders about  the pyramid and all-seeing eye. This symbol is thousands of years old. Note that the symbol has a date of 1776, so it has been around for at least that long. What does “Novus Ordo Seclorum” mean ? “New World Order”.  Sound familiar? If this is a new concept, why has the term been around so long?)

Who finally exposed the Wizard as a charlatan? Toto. Now that is an interesting legal term.  It means in total , all together. Notice how he  was not scared of the theatrics. It was meant to frighten humans. He simply went over and looked behind the curtain. Who was behind it? Just an ordinary person playing games and all it took to stop him was to call his bluff.

So what is it going to take to expose the Wizard for what he really is and regain our freedom and the God given rights we are born with? Each of us needs only three things; a Brain, a heart, and Courage. Then we all need to learn how to work together.  In Toto, we can be free.

Divide and Conquer.

It is on purpose that our government plays us off against each other. We are kept going at each others throats so that we don’t stop to see we are being robbed blind by the British Crown.

We are kept fighting over regionalism and we don’t even have a country. The Crown must get a real cackle at our utter stupidity.  But don’t think they aren’t scared. They know Canadians are starting to wake up and shake their bushy heads. There is a reason they are disarming peaceful Canadians.

P. 31

This is  the same reason that our Armed Forces have been decimated and there are now four standing police forces operating on Canadian soil and spying on the Canadian people. The really funny thing is, that only the people running the show know what the game is. Don’t look now but, we are a police state.

The police forces are populated with kind and caring Canadians who think they are protecting our society against the radicals from within. What they are really doing is suppressing the people in this country who have finally wised up and are trying to fight for their freedom.

Look in your newspaper. Seen the pictures of cops carrying sub machine guns with masks over their faces?  Masks over their faces?  For what? To bust a few kids growing marijuana in their basement so they can make ends meet? It’s time we woke up to this scam and realized what is going on.

It is pretty old news that the CIA, US Navy, et al have been supplying America with drugs for years. Yes they shoot the petty drug dealers and anyone else that doesn’t play their game with them, but they don’t make any inroads because there are two sides of the coin the government is playing.

The combined forces of the Allies won two World Wars. Why is it that our police forces can’t win the war on drugs? The answer is; it’s big money just like it is. Are most police actually trying to fix the problem? In my heart of hearts I believe that most  police do their job because they believe they are serving the public. They truly don’t realize they are not enforcing the laws of our land , but the mandate of the British Banking and Law System.

They Gave Their All.

Ever wonder why all the young men get sent off to war every couple of years? There is a reason for it. Young men will fight for their freedom. This is evidenced all across Canada where we have many statues honoring our war dead. They are Heroes to a man, these young men who fought to make Canada a ‘free country’.  Unfortunately in reality they were only fighting to make money for our enemies.

What did we win with their lives? What is this victory we cherish? We have no country, no constitution , nothing but a big bag of lies from the very people that sacrificed our children’s lives on the altar of their deceit. We have let these people down who gave their lives big  time. We missed the torch they threw.

Justice is Locked Out of Court.

As I said earlier, Justice is locked out of the court room and is sitting on the steps of the court house. Have you ever wondered about the utter stupidity of the decisions some of these judges and parole boards are making? That is because you don’t see it from their perspective.

P. 32

Couldn’t quite see the sense in the government seizing the arms of ordinary law abiding citizens, but letting criminals run rampant? Well, now that you know the federal government is totally illegitimate and our country is being illegally run into the ground by a group of foreign bankers and lawyers, it all kind of makes sense doesn’t it? The truth always has a logical consistency, even if it is perverse.

Judges and lawyers like to keep the court doors spinning. It makes money for them and it makes money for their master – The Crown. It is as simple as that. Your fellow Canadians sell you out to their foreign masters for money. Apparently 40 pieces of silver has the same attraction today as it did 2000 years ago.

Ever wonder why they take a young fellow and make an example of him, but let the real criminals out the door nearly as soon as they get in there? The Crown wants as much crime as they can have. It is big money for them. They could give a damn about the effects of the crime on our society. It is exactly what they want.

They want as many young men in jail as they can so they can spiritually bankrupt them.  A criminal record is also financially devastating. It guarantees that the victim of the courts will never amount to anything. It’s part of the agenda.

Keep people broke, fighting with each other over scraps to survive and they are never going to look up and see what is going on.  Break up the family unit so each of us learns to go it alone and never learn to work together for our common good. Keep people enraged by creating ‘problems’ and then coming up with ‘solutions’. And with every solution, you steal another right.

Why do we jail young people for smoking pot, stealing, etc …? These are not crimes that cause bodily harm to  people.  There is no need to segregate them from society. Yet we take hardened criminals that will do bodily harm and put them in halfway houses or give them electronic ankle straps.

“Those that would give up their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither.”

~ Benjamin Franklin

Ever wonder why he said that? Pretty obvious now isn’t  it?

Most crimes are committed for a simple reason. No money. Anyone that thinks that is not a reason to commit a crime has never had their belly button meet their back bone. Take these people and lock them up and abuse them. Ever wonder

P. 33

why criminals start out small and progress?  It is  because inside they are not criminals, they just want to eat. Abuse him enough though and he is going to do the same to everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, there simply aren’t that many crazy people in our society. Less than 1% of our population are murderers or ‘real criminals’. In fact, well over 80% of violent crimes are committed by recidivists. So why did Pierre Elliot Trudeau say that death is no deterrent? Of course it is. But Pierre, like all the puppets before him, worked for the Crown, not for Canada.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

A great  Canadian hero? l guess if Judas goats are heroes, he is resting on his laurels. Trudeau worked for the Crown.  Keep in mind that our federal government assumed power in 1931. They were never duly elected. Is it likely that Trudeau knew this? Absolutely.

You can’t be that brilliant and that connected and not know it. So what do I mean that he worked for the Crown? What service did he do them? A very great one as it turns out.

In his book  ‘Federalism and the French Canadians’, Trudeau wrote: “Men do not exist for states: states are created for men to attain some  of their common objective.”  And “It is time people realized that in a democratic country the constitution is the shield protecting the weak from the arbitrary intervention of power.”

Canadians have been trying to form a country and get a constitution for 130 years now. This is nothing new, as you saw from reading about Walter Kuhl and Elmer Knutson.  So how do you keep a people from clammering for their freedom and demanding their own constitution?

Why you ‘patriate’ it of course. What a laugh. The British North America Act was nothing more than the standing orders for a British Governor General. Standard orders for a dictator and we wanted to enshrine them as a constitution? No wonder the people in Quebec think we are all retards out here. It appears they have good reason to think so.

You can’t ‘patriate’ a constitution. A state is not a piece of land. A state exists only because free men exist. It is we the people that give sovereignty to the state. A Constitution is an agreement that we all reach together in order to work together. The only way to adopt a Constitution is by all of us unanimously agreeing on it. The Constitution is the body of law that a duly elected government has to follow. It is a restraint on government, not on the people that make up the state. It should be pretty straight forward to anyone that thinks about it for one moment that it is up to us to draft a Constitution, it is not up to

P. 34

the government. It certainly isn’t up to a federal government that isn’t  even a legitimate representative body of the people of Canada.

Now to the reason that Trudeau sold out Canada. Are you going to fight for freedom if you already believe you are free? Of course not. Are you going to fight for a Constitution if you already believe you have one? Of course not. Was there such a kafuffle over the Constitution that everyone got sick of even talking about it? If that was his purpose, he achieved it admirably.

What was Trudeau’s connection to England?  Well, guess where he was educated. Was he a lawyer?  Who did he owe his allegiance to? What was his motivation?  Well, anyone that has to ask that, really doesn’t understand how many perks are available to a politician.

What can we do for our country?

The best thing we can do for our country is to do for ourselves. Governments  do not work very well at the best of times. Am I suggesting  Anarchy?  Well, you do not have a legitimately elected government in Ottawa. What do we have now?

Incidentally, Anarchy does not mean havoc, it simply means an absence of government. This absence of a legitimate federal government we have now is not anarchy though. When you have an illegitimate government commanding you what to do, it is called a fascist dictatorship.  How do we get rid of these people? Easy. Shine the light of day on what they are doing. Get informed!

Gave up on the Greatest Empire on Earth?

Anyone with any sense of history at all knows how the British Crown acts. Is it likely that they gave up on the greatest Empire the World  has ever seen and just walked away on it? Everyone and everything is expendable to the Crown.  Is it likely these Imperialists just got up and walked away?

That is not at all what happened. The Crown simply took over all of our banking and controls us by the “wallet. It is much more profitable if you don’t have to supply troops to force your slaves to work for you.

Well, like Rothschild said, and I paraphrase: “when you own the banks and the money supply, it doesn’t  matter who runs the country.”  Do the banks run our country?  Absolutely they do. The  Politicians in control of Canada are just smarmy little lawyers like the little cretin from Shawinigate.

Hey I am not saying all MP’s are in on this game. I’m the first to admit that half of them haven’t got a clue. I will bet my bottom dollar that every Senator is well aware of how the game works though.

P. 35

Follow the Buck.

My education is in Economics and Political Science. My training tells me to follow the buck to find the answer. Money is only a medium of exchange when your own country prints it debt free. This is what our country is supposed to do, according to the BNA Act. The Banks changed that with the Bank Act. The Bank Act is ultra vires. It violates the BNA Act. Not only that, but the money the bank creates is debt money. By the wsay, you still pay for the creation of it, the bank just collects the interest.

Our present currency is not a simple medium of exchange. It represents a debt to our country. Further, it is a debt than can never be paid down. Compound interest will make sure of that. Speaking of compound interest, isn’t the fact that our debt is 97% interest alarming to anyone? 97% interest? Isn’t that usury? Why are these bankers not in jail?

Speaking of our money, whose flag is flying over the parliament buildings on our ten dollar bill? Shades of Batman! Are our masters flaunting our stupidity in our faces like they do the Americans? Is this a symbol of things to come?

Doing something they were not authorized to do has never stopped our government before. In the same manner, they pushed through income tax with a temporary war measures act, which was also ultra vires.

Does it come as any surprise to anyone that while large businesses are constantly restructuring and laying off, government services are constantly being downsized and small businesses are going bankrupt left, right and center, that our five chartered banks are making record  profits every year?

I won’t get into explaining Canada’s Banking system to you and how it milks everyone dry. There are already some really good books written on the subject that lay out exactly how this is done. I highly recommend reading ‘Bank Heist’ by Walter Stewart for an in depth explanation of how the game works.

If you wish to read a shorter synopsis of the same thing, or verify what is written in Bank Heist, I highly recommend ‘The Evil Empire’ by  Paul Hellyer. Paul was an MP for many years and was Trudeau’s Deputy Prime Minister. You really should read his book if you can find it around.

Is Violence a Solution?

NO, Never and Absolutely Not! First of all, you are never going to meet your enemy. All you will ever meet are the poor suckers that believe they are over here fighting to free you of yourself. Once you have lost, the Crown is going to have you under tighter control and restriction.

P. 36

Go ahead, read a little British history. These people have been doing this for hundreds of years, and are pros at it. They will supply both sides of the conflict with arms, as they have always done. They will make sure both sides get painted as racist and intolerant. There is a reason Ottawa likes to paint anyone that disagrees with them as a racist or a religious fanatic.

The Jewish People.

If you really want to know if the system works like I have said, just ask a Jewish person. (Or as a Canadian Native Indian what the ‘Crown’ has done to them.) They have been persecuted to the ends of the earth and back by these banking authorities. They have been caught in the middle of this Merchant banking and judicial system forever.

Jewish people have been used as scapegoats for millennia. Read the story of their ancient past sometime. It is documented as “The Greatest Story Ever Told”. You guessed it, the Holy Bible. Like the Wizard of Oz, it is an allegory. If you read it literally, it is going to make about as much sense and be about as believable. What is going on now is not anything new. Everybody and their dog has been pitted against the Jewish people at one time or another. When are we going to wake up and refuse to victimize them anymore?

The Jewish people are not a race of people. The Jewish people are made up of all races of people. What they have in common is their religion, Judaism. Israel never was their homeland in in antiquity, though of a certainty some Jewish people did come from there. Like I said, they are made up of all races and come from all over the world. So what was the British government doing making a space for them in Palestine?

The answer to that is easy. They were put there to purposely upset the Arab people who lived there. Is it working? Seems to be doing very well thank you. Try to remember that the US went bankrupt in 1933 and has been operated by the Inns of Temple Court for many years. They did the same to the Russians. It doesn’t matter who sells arms to whom, the money still ends up in the same bank accounts.

What happened to the Jewish people in Germany happened to the Jewish people in Britain hundreds of years before. Is it likely then that the Crown was at all interested in them as a people? Highly unlikely. The Second World War was very lucrative for the Bankers. They love wars because they make money. So what did Hitler do that set the Crown off?

Hitler did the same thing that Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy did. He printed debt free money for his country. I am not going to argue whether or not he was an evil person. But what got him targeted was hitting the banks in the pocket.

P. 37

Worse, he bombed the Inns of Court. Get on their web page at http://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk and take a look at their history for yourself. They have pictures showing where the German bombs landed during the war. Now why would Hitler target these nice little bankers with all their little law books? Indiscriminate targeting?

You can even find copies of the laws they make for all the countries in the world, including the US, that great bulwark of freedom. Yeah right. Like us, they are only fooling themselves and just like us, they are just as enslaved to the same masters.

When will we become Victims?

The answer to that is easy. As soon as they have pushed us far enough and we start going for each others’ throats. Don’t worry. They will be there egging on each side, helping each side and arming each side. It is how they make their money.

Ever wonder why the Crown has decimated our Armed Forces, yet keeps thousands of British troops in our province at our expense? Why are we letting a foreign power’s troops on our soil? To show you how much they care about you think about the current agricultural ‘problem’ that the world is facing.

Did you notice how Canada told British troops they could not bring their trucks into our country as they had dirt on their tires? These are people who have your best interests at heart? As for this latest ‘outbreak’, there really seems to be a lot of difference of opinion as to how devastating hoof and mouth disease really is. There seems to be consensus on both sides of the issue that it is not harmful to humans. Why are we in such a hurry to destroy these farmers’ lives then?

One can’t really believe that they are worried about it crossing a species boundary as they claim. If we are worried about cross species contamination, we should maybe be standing up and protesting genetically engineered foods, drugs and body parts.

Would the Crown like to see Canada decimated by disease and starvation? Absolutely. Look at what they have done to so many countries  in Africa. For that matter, look at how the British Crown have traditionally treated their neighbours. Anyone remember the Great Potato Famine? Of course not. That was 150 years ago. Maybe try asking an Irish person about An Gorta Mor.

“The Almighty Indeed send the Potato Blight but the English Created the Famine.”

~ John Mitchel

P. 38

Cecil Woodham-Smith, considered the preeminent authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in “The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845 – 1849 that, “…no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation.”

Just Google Irish Potato Famine and read about the attempted genocide of the Irish people. You really need to read this. you might also consider that the same Crown that did this is the same Crown that is in Ireland right now and the same Crown keeping you from being a free person in your own country.

There is an old adage: “history repeats itself”. The only reason this happens is because people don’t pay attention tow hat is right there in front of their face.

Is the Queen really this Evil?

Well, that is a question you will have to answer for yourself. I encourage you to look at her very closely. It might help you to know that the Queen Mother and the Queen are members of the Inner Temple. It might also help you to know that the Queen Mother, the Queen and Prince Phillip are all members of the Middle Temple of the Inns of Court.

Are organizations run by the people at the top? I gave you the URL to their website. Go look for yourself. Do I think the Queen is evil? I  really don’t think she harbours any particular animosity toward us. I don’t think she harbours any more feelings toward us than one would a banana. If we are on her mind, it may be for only a brief moment while she takes a bite. But no one worries about what happened to the banana peel or what became of the consumed product. At least not until the step in it.

I am not saying the people of Britain are our enemies. Far from it. They have suffered as much and more at the hands of the Crown as we  already have. My grandparents came from Britain, Scotland and Ireland. They had as many horror stories of their maltreatment at the hands of the Crown as Canadians have horror stories of the maltreatment at the hands of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The Crown by the way, refers to the ‘Crown of Chancery’, the legislative authority over the North American Waste Lands. Yes, you read  right. Waste Lands. That is how they view us and that is how they treat us.

That is what we were called and that is exactly how they treat this country. Did you know that the indigenous peoples of our country were hunted for sport when

P. 39

the British first arrived here? The natives were beneath contempt and consideration.

The Crown tried as hard as they could to decimate their populations and then inked agreements that they did not live up to. Ask any of the  Aboriginal Peoples of our country how the Crown treats them. Why would you expect anything different? Remember, we are all equals.

Is Love a Solution?

Oh you bet it is. We all have to realize that these people who have seized our country are very sick people. Read some of their history sometime. It’s despicable. They are human carrion eaters. They live off violence. War pays big time for them. Remember that if you decide to matters into your own hands.

You are never going to win against them, because you are never going to get close enough to fight them. All you will ever fight will be other victims. There is a darkness and all of us must face it together. Violence only begets violence. We should all know how asinine it is by now to believe you can force peace.

There is only one thing that brings peace and that is love. Well, love and civil disobedience. Ghandi taught us the power of civil disobedience. Who would we be disobeying anyway? …a legitimately elected government or a puppet government controlled by a foreign power? A Legitimate Justice System…?

What is the effect of not paying your taxes? Is the tax department going to come after you if they have no money to do so? Are the CCRA masters going to support them if they aren’t bringing in any money? Hardly. They are going to be free to starve if they don’t work. Just like the rest of us do even if we do work. They are going to have to declare bankruptcy.

Is God the Answer?

The answer to that is a most emphatic Yes! Oh boy. You are probably thinking, another religious fanatic? Hardly. I don’t really care for organized religions any more than I do for disorganized government. I think they attract too many people for the wrong reason. Why then do I say that God is the answer?

The reason is quite simple. Have you read the BNA Act or the Statute of Westminster? Have you seen the part that reads, “founded upon  principles that recognize the Supremacy of God?”? Ever wonder why you swear on the Bible when you go to court? You may not realize it but this deference to God is the only thing that makes the Crown move cautiously. Here they are admitting to a higher authority. Ever think to stop and ask them why they are usurping it?

Remember that all our laws are predicated on Natural Law. Go back and read the definition again if you can’t remember it. Is the the Crown’s government slowly

P. 40

trying to wean us away from religion? Absolutely. Funny thing is, more than 75% of the population admit to holding religious convictions, yet our government talks about religious people like all of them are fanatics.

Spirituality is not something anyone can control in another. We all find our way to God on our own, or we don’t find God at all. It’s as simple as that. You can have preconceived notions about how the universe works, and you can listen to other people’s ideas. You cannot experience another person’s reality. Only God can share your reality. Indeed, that is our purpose. But we each choose our own.

There is a single experience that will turn your faith that you have a soul to a certain knowledge that you do. Only those who have had this experience will understand what you are talking about. Similarly, a single experience will tell you God is real and does exist. If you haven’t had it, the most you can possess is faith or doubt.

I think most would agree that a lack of morals and ethics is a pretty good indication of spiritual bankruptcy. Isn’t it funny that the very basis for our system of laws is ethics and morality, yet lawyers defer only to the letter of the law? Perhaps we should be wondering about the efficacy of creating the society we would like by electing spiritually bankrupt lawyers instead of people who believe they are equal to, not above, everyone else. I rather like the fact that if I elect a person with deep spiritual convictions, at least they are not going to believe themselves to be the Supreme Authority.

What doesn’t belong in Government?

Of course the Church doesn’t belong in the government of the nation anymore than the government belongs in the bedrooms of the nation. Does that mean we are not going to have an opinion about religion or spirituality? No.

Here is another interesting statistic. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet the government goes to great lengths to support homosexuality. Ever wonder why? I know of only one MP of 301 that admits to being gay. Seems to me that there should be at least 9 of them to be ‘fairly’ represented.

Trudeau said it best when he said: “the government of the nation has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” He was quite right. The public has no right to impose on something that harms no one and does not concern them. It is none of our business if someone is homosexual. As anyone else, they should never be persecuted simply because of who they are.

But let’s think about this for a moment. Is anyone upset with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? No. What people get upset about is the bedrooms of the nation getting paraded down main street in public. Would you like to know my personal feelings on the subject?

P. 41

Well, I spent enough time on the street as a kid to know exactly what homosexuals are like. Perhaps many of them find genuine love but that was never my observation. I could never figure out why people called them gays. They seemed to be some of the unhappiest people I have ever met. How can a rational person feel anything beyond pity in their heart  for them?

Jews and Gentiles, Homosexuals and the Moral Majority, Abortionists and Anti-Abortionists, Farmers and Agricultural Boards, Police and Free Men, Black and White, Red and Yellow, it simply doesn’t matter. The Crown is willing to play one group off against the other at a moment’s notice. As long as you aren’t watching what they are doing with your money they don’t care.

Anything to keep you looking the other way so you don’t notice you are being robbed is fair game. Hey, maybe there is something to this  love and tolerance stuff after all. If we are all looking out for each other we are going to be pretty hard to divide and conquer aren’t we? Pretty hard for someone to rob your neighbour if you are keeping an eye out for him isn’t it? It looks like if we are helping each other we are really helping ourselves.

The simple fact of the matter is most of what the government contends with is simply no business of the government and has no business on the government forum. Some things we just have to work out for ourselves. Remember, every time you write a law to impose your will on someone else, that law applies to you as well.

The Road to Freedom.

Well, what I have been telling all of you isn’t very positive. I know that doesn’t sit well with Canadians. We like our false sense of security. As a people we like to be lied to. Look at the last election. Even the liars were calling each other liars. And yet the biggest liar won the election.

Why did he win? Two reasons: because he is a greedy little pig and he knows how to appeal to other greedy little pigs and because so many of us have given up that we don’t even bother voting any more. Like Rick Mercer says, “he could pick his nose in public and drool on himself and he would still be there for four more years.” Why? Because that is where  the people who run your country want him to be.

The first thing we need to do as a people is wake up and smell the coffee. We need to realize that government is a necessary evil that should only be used as little as possible. There are very few things that your government can do for you that you can’t do better for yourself and you can take it to the Bank that it will always cost you more.

P. 42

The key to redemption is realizing that we should limit our government to the bare minimum we need to perform the job. I know we need government and I know we need taxes. I also know we need to be free or life isn’t worth living.

Politics.

Like I said: Government is a necessary evil and I am sure most of us would agree with that. However, you never want evil to grow so big that it swallows you. We all contribute to that process though and the government encourages it.  They want you broke. They want you begging to them for some of your own money back. It gives them control over everything that you you do.

The problem is primarily one of mindset. I do not vote for a leader when I vote. I vote for a public employee. I am not looking for anyone  to lead me. I am a free and sovereign man born equal in the eyes of God. No man is greater than me and no man is less. I want to vote only for a democratic representative.

The key then is to design a system where we have control over the government employees. For any of you that are business owners, do your employees tell you how to run the show? Why? Because you pay their wages right? So it is only right that they follow your orders. They work for you. All three levels of government in Canada need to realize they are way out of line. Unless we tell them so in no uncertain terms, they are just going to ignore us.

A Workable Federal Model.

First of all we need to understand the division of government powers and how a democracy works. We need essentially three levels of government.

1)   Municipal Government – municipal only.

2)   Provincial Government – inter/intra provincial.

3)   Federal Government – extra territorial only.

We need a local municipal government that controls the local municipal works department under our direction. It is up to us as individuals to maintain this level by ourselves in our own communities. We can democratically elect these representatives to govern our municipal employees. Municipal authorities should only concern themselves with their own municipality.

We need a provincial authority that governs the provincial employees in our province. If each of us gets a vote then democracy has served us well. We elect the person to represent us in our riding. We have then democratically elected a government to represent us in our province. If we were a single state, that is all

P. 43

the government representatives we would need. I am sure Ralph Klein or Joe Clark would make a wonderful Prime Minister of Alberta. We have the talent.

But what if our desire is to create a Federation…a formal collection of autonomous states? Then we need to create a federal government and authorize it to represent us as a nation. Their job is to govern federal employees only. Should this federal government have a say about anything that goes on in the provinces? Absolutely not. It’s none of their business.

The province already has a duly elected representative. The idea of electing a federal representative for a region goes against everything  democracy stands for. Remember what the purpose of the Federal Union is. It is to present a united nation to the world. The purpose of the federal government is to represent our collective provinces to the world.

We only need to send a single representative from each of the provinces to the federal government. A single person is all we need to tell the federal government what our position is in the global forum. Again, if each province has a single vote federally, we are equally represented. Keep in mind that the federal government was created for the express purpose of representing you to the world. They have nothing to do with running the country. We already have the mechanism in place to govern ourselves with the provincial governments.

If the federal government gets involved in provincial politics they are usurping the democratic authority of the government we have elected to represent us in our own home province. What is the effect of this? Disarray. Confusion. Constant bickering. Is this what the Crown wants? Absolutely. But why? Well, it might be a good time to reflect that the Crown has no legitimate authority in Canada. Look at their history. The ‘Crown’ is not a nice person.

Naivete.

Some people think the system I suggest is naive. They say that it is great but there are those who will cheat. I say fine. Let them cheat. Just don’t do business with them. People will come around. Let’s give it a try. It costs too much in lost productivity to have half the population standing around to make sure the other half doesn’t cheat. The ones that are standing around watching now are helping those that are doing all the cheating (our illegitimate federal government).

Perhaps we need a little honour in our lives. I think we all have a good understanding of what honour is. Well, all of us except lawyers at  any rate. Let’s look at Black’s Law Dictionary to see exactly what honour is.

Honor.

To accept a bill of exchange, or to pay a note, check or accepted bill, at maturity and according to its tenor.

P. 44

Hmmm. Nope, that’s not quite the definition I had in mind. But it does go a little way to understanding why lawyers do not seem to understand the concept. Now I see why they give each other the titles “Honourable” and “Right Honourable”. They got no idea what the word means in ordinary English. Kind of explains how the little cretin form Shawinigate ended up with that moniker don’t it?

Let’s see if there is one in a dictionary that the rest of us use. Here is the definition from Webster’s Dictionary:

a) a keen sense of ethical conduct: INTEGRITY b) one’s own word given as a guarantee of performance.

Ethical conduct? Funny that a profession that relies upon ethics and morals to dictate fairness wouldn’t have a code of ethics based upon honour. Don’t think they don’t have a code of ethics though. I did look that up.

Code of Ethics.

See Code of Professional Responsibility.

Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Model Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association consists of basic Canons of Professional conduct for attorneys together with Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules for each Canon covering specific attorney conduct.

Ah, see now, there is the problem. The poor little buggers are getting all arsed up because of the dictionary they are using. No wonder we don’t understand them and they don’t understand us. They haven’t got a clue what honour is. Actually that is understandable. Black’s Law  Dictionary is a dictionary of Legalese, not English.

Legalese?

The official language of the court room. As it turns out it isn’t them that are at a disadvantage when we don’t understand them. It is us. When the speak legalese to us we sometimes think we understand what they are saying because it sounds like English. As long as we are not in court and don’t understand them it doesn’t hurt. Or does it?

You can bet your bottom dollar it doesn’t work the other way around. You are at a decided disadvantage in the court room if you make the mistake of thinking they are talking English. Just look at Black’s Law Dictionary and then a Webster’s Dictionary to see just how far off you can be regarding a legal meaning.

P. 45

Unfortunately in this instance ignorance isn’t bliss and what you don’t know can hurt you very deeply.

Just ask anyone that has ever been delivered that little piece of paper with the “Queen vs. Next Victim” written on it. Ask them if they got Justice or the ‘Letter of the Law’ stretching as far as the Crown could reach into their pocket. You think the simple meaning of a word can’t make a difference? I guess you didn’t catch Bill Clinton waffling for hours over what exactly the word ‘is’ meant.

Bottom Line? Never vote for a Lawyer.

The bottom line is this: if you don’t want to be sold out to the Crown, never vote for a lawyer. All lawyers owe their allegiance to the Inns of Court on Fleet Street. Their allegiance is to a foreign power. They make a good living giving their allegiance to a foreign power. Is it likely they are going to turn around and represent you to the same people that have always been their masters?

How many of our Prime Ministers have been lawyers? Chretien? Mulroney? Trudeau? Bennett? MacDonald? Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Seems like every time we get sold out there was a lawyer at the helm. Hey Canada! Everyone getting the picture here yet? Is there a logical alternative? I think so.

The “Province of Alberta” Party.

The “Province of Alberta” Party has been doing a lot of focusing on where we are going. There are any number of parties and politicians out there that will tell you anything you want to hear to get your vote. If you are looking to us to tell you what is in it for you you have come to the wrong party.

We would like to promise you nothing, but we all recognize that we need government so in lieu of that, we would like to offer you as little as possible. Unless it applies equally to all Albertans, don’t even ask us to consider a policy. Our plan is to dismantle this mess we call a government.  Let me first introduce our mandate, a control mechanism and our platform.

Mandates.

1) A vote for the “Province of Alberta” Party is a vote for Alberta’s Sovereignty.

What this means is that a vote for the “Province of Alberta” Party is a vote to send the Lieutenant Governor home. Knowing this is our stated intention a majority vote will be sufficient to declare our rightful sovereignty. We are not Separatists. You cannot separate that which has never been joined.

P. 46

2)   After declaring our own Sovereignty we will ask the other provinces to sit down at the table with us for the purpose of creating a Sovereign Federal Nation and drafting a formal Constitution for our Country.

We love our country from the bottom of our hearts. It is why we devote so much of our time that could be used elsewhere. Our intention is to release our country from the evil which has usurped our authority over our own lives. Our intention is to form a legitimate Federal Nation.

Control Mechanism.

The “Province of Alberta” Party has drafted an Employment and Recall agreement for our Candidates. No candidate will run without first  submitting a signed Resignation to their constituents.

The reason for this one is obvious. We are sick of thinking we are electing a representative only to have them turn around and try to rule our lives. We want to ensure the constituents are listened to by the representative.

Planks.

1)   Legal Taxes Only

No more arbitrarily determined taxes. No more collecting taxes where there is no legitimate authority to do so.

2)   Enforced Property Rights

You are a free person. If you own your own property you should never have to give it up in order to pay taxes. You should never have to  register your own property either.

3)   Elected Judiciary

This one here is pretty obvious. Elect the judges. Judges should never be lawyers. We need people who understand what morals and ethics are so they can administer Justice instead of the ‘letter of the law’.

4)   Family Focus

Families are what people are all about. What means the most to you? The job that you don’t even know if you are going to be working at next week? Or your family that is going to be with you all your life?

5) Direct Democracy

We live in an electronic age. Your government knows exactly where you are every time you make a purchase with your credit card. With most new cars they even know where you are at the moment and can watch you from satellite. Don’t you think we could set up a voting system where everyone could vote instantly?

P. 47

A Great Canadian or British Con Artist?

Many people believe John A. MacDonald was a Great Canadian. We call him the “Father of Confederation”. How many ‘fathers’ sell their children into slavery and servitude to a foreign power? Why is the Crown rewriting Canadian History and presenting a pack of lies, deceit and corruption as Canadian History in our schools? By his own admission John A. MacDonald was not a Canadian. The following is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

MacDonald, Sir John (Alexander) (b. January 11, 1815, Glascow – d. June 6, 1891, Ottawa) the first prime minister of the Dominion of Canada (1867-73, 1878-91), who led Canada through its period of early growth. Though accused of devious and unscrupulous methods, he is remembered for his achievements.

He became prime minister of the Province of Canada in 1857. In June 1864 MacDonald and Cartier joined with their chief opponent, George Brown, in order to further the scheme of confederation of British North America. After conferences in Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Quebec; and London, the British North America Act was passed (1867), creating the Dominion of Canada, and MacDonald became its first leader. He was created Knight Commander of the Bath in that year in recognition of his services to the British Empire.

Under MacDonald’s leadership the dominion quickly expanded to include the provinces of Manitoba (1870), British Columbia (1871), and Prince Edward Island (1873). The Pacific Scandal of 1873, in which the government was accused of taking bribes in regard to the Pacific railway contract, forced MacDonald to resign; but he returned as prime minister five years later and served until his death.

During his final years he dealt with challenges to Canadian unity, including a rebellion in the northwest. His guiding principle was always  loyalty to the Commonwealth and independence from the United States; he remained true to his declaration, “A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die.

Now I ask you: Was the great Sir John A. MacDonald a great Canadian Father of Confederation or a sneaking, conniving, scheming little  British con artist given to fraud, forgery and bribery int he service of London Bankers and Lawyers? Let the facts speak for themselves.

In closing, here are a few quotes from a few Famous Americans concerning the banking system that operates in their country. We have the same system here.

P. 48

“The Federal Reserve System (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.”

~ Senator Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the U.S. Banking & Currency Commission

“If two parties, instead of being a bank and an individual, were an individual and an individual, they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction, for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn’t have, as banks can do…. Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money which they manufacture by lending it.”

~ Professor Irving Fisher – Yale University in his book, “100% Money”

“The people can and will furnish with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be Master and become the Servant of Humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.”

~ Abraham Lincoln

“The Colonies would have gladly paid a little tax on tea had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

~ Benjamin Franklin

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.”

~Mayer Anselm Rothschild

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.”

~ President Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”

~ President James A. Garfield

“The few who can understand the system (check money and credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

~ Rothschild Brothers of London

(Inside back cover)

Contract:

An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.

Court of Star Chamber:

The jurisdiction extended legally over riots, perjury, misbehavior of sheriffs, and other misdemeanors contrary to the law of the land; yet it was afterwards stretched to the asserting of all proclamations and orders of state, to the vindicating of illegal commissions and grants of monopolies; holding for honourable that which it pleased, and for just that which it profited, and becoming a court of law to determine civil rights and a court of revenue to enrich the treasury. It was finally abolished by Car. I, c. 10, to the general satisfaction of the Habeus Corpus Act. (This Act is regarded as the Great Constitutional Guaranty of Personal Liberty.)

Admiralty Courts and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

One has to ask why Admiralty Courts are on the land in Canada when they do not have jurisdiction in countries, or on bodies of water that are land locked in a country. it is never too late to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after a trial. The judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void. Revenue Canada is part of the Justice Department. Do the courts work to enrich the Treasury? What is their jurisdiction?

Interest:

The most general term that can be employed to denote a right, claim, title, or legal share in something. More particularly, it means a right to have the advantages accruing from anything; any right in the nature of property, but less than title. “Interest” which may disqualify a judge from hearing a suit is a personal proprietary or pecuniary interest or one affecting individual rights of the judge., and liability, gain or relief to judge must turn on outcome of suit. Is it fair play when…

Barratry:

The offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise. (Does this sound like the CCRA and the Crown?)

Champerty:

A bargain between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit by which the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part of any judgment proceeds; it is one type of “maintenance,” the more general term which refers to maintaining, supporting, or promoting another persons litigation. (Is this what police do when they pull you over and coerce you into signing their contract? A citation is a contract to compel specific performance under threat of jail if you don’t sign it. It is unconscionable to force someone to contract under  threat, coercion or duress.)

Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequential:

A conclusion as to the use of a thing from its abuse is invalid.

The End.