Civil Liberties

Presenting an opportunity to abolish Colonial rule.

First and foremost this means that we all stand-under one rule of law, as set-forth in the Magna Carta. Ps: This has not been the case since King Henry 8th, when England was forming colonies. The mechanisms to abolish Colonial rule, and return to Magna Carta rule is a Commonwealth Constitutional guarantee that cannot be removed from Law. But it has been very well coveted by politicians lawyers judges, who will resort to perversion to make sure this reform is not enacted, in order to preserve their control of power through arbitrary use of Authority, by orchestrating this structure of immaculate hypocrisy. Throughout history, there have been so many people who have expressed the need to abandon Colonial rule, that it fills libraries. I’m very close to doing it, and I got this far through planning and stealth; I can’t get much further without public support, which is being quashed, through a media ban

The key to abolishing Colonial rule lies with the people. I found my key in Sec-140 of the Vancouver Charter; under 0aths of Office it says that: a person taking Office on Council can take an Oath of allegiance. Ps: No one ever has done so! humm…

Ps: In law, by not signing this Oath, the Council is upholding an express colour to uphold Colonial rule. On the grounds that: the liability of upholding our Canadian Constitution’s rule of law (which is the same as in the Magna Carta) is left to ‘local political autonomy.’

Ps: If anyone Councilor ever did get elected by the people on a promise to sign this Oath, it would be the beginning of the end of ‘colonial rule’. When I take this Oath, because of the fact that I am holding the first court recognized 337-DEMAND in Canadian history on a CLAIM of RIGHT will mean the end of Colonial rule. So help me God

The Vancouver Archives will show that the only time in Vancouver’s history, when an Oath of allegiance was taken, was in 1941, during World War II, when Chief Constable MacKay swore an Oath of allegiance to serve our Sovereign Lord the King, cause the peace to be kept and preserved, prevent all offences against the persons and properties of His Majesty’s Subjects and others, according to Law.

Ps: This Chief Constable took this Oath after the war was declared as an automatic Constitutionally necessity, in order:- To limit the arbitrary use of power that is inherent during wartime, and – to prevent using built-in Colonial rule inequities to wage war on the people.

Why was it not done when we entered this World War? Can you say treason?

I did when our Chief Constable charged me with a ‘political crime of thought’ last year, and for upholding the Police Act Reform White Paper, as being legislated Law, in a time of war.

Ps: Our Canadian Parliament, as well as the rest of the ‘free world’ since September 2001 is fully subscribed and engaged in what George Bush now, in escalating rhetoric, is calling World War III, with a policy of ‘pre-emptive nuclear strike’, against an undefined enemy that simply can’t negotiate peace- Working for the Economy is a never-ending War scenario.

Lest we not forget ‘War is hell’, especially when these Americans want to wage this war on the world, which includes pillaging resources. During this War, it also means control of our people through our complacent unconstitutional back door, with malicious intent and stealth.

Our Sovereignty is worth defending, which means protecting ‘by the people, for the people’.

· The new world order of our NAFTA agreement is ‘by the people for the Economy’.

· Ps: The Economy has always been a weapon of warfare to control foreign influence.

· The reason this Oath of allegiance, by our police, was not automatically enacted during this World War is because this war is to force ever government to turn against its own people, by serving the economy before the people. Ps: Whose economy?

The USA’s vision of WW-III has a real objective of forcing every Nation in the world to enter into a de-facto civil war on its own minorities, to benefit their Economy

Ps: in Law, the only way Colonial rule can be abandoned is when the BAR violates its PUBLIC TRUST as set-forth in the Constitution Reform caste by King Henry 8th

· The intent to make this happened occurred in 1993, when the BAR abandoned their Oath of allegiance and re ’formed’ it into the new Barrister’s and Solicitor’s Oath.

· Filing a sec-8 CLAIM OF RIGHT to REDRESS normalitive order, under the disguise of calling it a Police Act Reform White Paper, irrefutably expresses malicious intent

· The liability for enforcing this illegitimate Act of charging me with a political crime of thought is shared by Municipal, Provincial, Federal and Judicial Authority.

· I shamelessly entrapped Authority for the goal of abandoning Colonial rule.

The path I’m following in Law is called CIVILIZATION, and in Law it must be a peaceful democratic process. Democracy is a platform where it only takes one citizen to stand for our beliefs through a political guarantee of freedom of expression, and beg for your support. Simply by exercising your political right, in the privacy of a voting booth, by giving me one vote of your ten choices for Council will literally make all the difference in the world

· Ps: War acts: like relinquishing citizens like Marc Emery, like taking real estate from landlords with grow-ops, like American Police on patrol in our country, etc, just stop.

Colonial rule is abandoned, when any Councilor swears an Oath of allegiance, especially during wartime, under civil ORDER to prevent all offences against the persons and properties of the Sovereign’s Subjects and interests, according to Law.

· Anyone, who wants to run for Council, and effect change in any community across Canada, can do so under a DEFENSE WITH A CLAIM OF RIGHT – Sec- 39 CCC.

Constitutionally it’s bullet proof. But I am not. I need your support. I can save the world, if we only knew what to do. So I leave it up to you.

Believe it: Democracy Works

On (April 20), 4/20, 2005, @ 4:20 PM this CLAIM of RIGHT was entered into the court RECORD in BC Supreme Court, after being properly filed with Revenue Canada and Elections Canada.

Ps: Anyone who SUBSCRIBES to the PRESCRIBED activity as outlined in my CLAIM OF RIGHT can legally sell cannabis as medicine, to members of his or her private club, in order to fund the election campaign of your local Federal Marijuana Party Electoral District Association (EDA), in order to:
Exercise our express guarantee of freedom of expression by protecting our freedom of association

Attract social and political participation, in order to benefit from the commonwealth

Raise awareness to our beliefs that the majority may consider wrong or false.

CLAIM OF RIGHT OF A MARIJUANA PARTY EDA 

We CLAIM THE RIGHT to create normalitive order under the rule of law to defend the rights of

our members in good standing by understanding a ‘necessity defense’, under sec-8 (3) CCC.  An EDA of the Marijuana Party can claim the following right:

– We can enter into an ‘arm’s length agreement’ between this EDA, a CEO /candidate / party official, and the PRIVATE CLUB membership in order to defend and serve the abused rights medical Charteright needs of these members, in this community. – We claim the right to operate a constituency office without interference from a municipal government’s arbitrary use of power to restrain our political activity, under the rule of law. – We claim the right to operate this CLUB inside the constituency offices in order to enjoy our guarantee of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION and PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY in exercising this CLAIM of RIGHT. – We CLAIM THE RIGHT of our members in good standing to enjoy the benefit of this association in the privacy of his or her own home. 
We seek recognition from this court to rule on the following right, under section-39 CCC – Members in good standing of our PRIVATE CLUB seek this court’s ruling to ‘recognize’ our CLAIM OF RIGHT to peaceful possession while trespassing on the Crown’s DOMAIN with medicine. – We consent to be governed by the laws of the land, in the event that any of these members violate this TRUST by abusing this right to peaceful possession, while on the Crown’s DOMAIN.- We accept that anyone without a CLAIM of RIGHT has no such protection, under this ruling. 

 Ps: I strongly advise anyone who does exercise his or her enjoyment of this guaranteed freedom to follow my protocol and structure, as set out in my Therapeutic Herb Coalition. But in this party, we invite any social experiments. So, as long as your venture does not break its own rules and protocol, and stays within this CLAIM OF RIGHT’s territory, then you can express your beliefs through any other association model.  In the event that you’re still skeptical, I’ll set out in some chronological order the events leading to this situation. My website www.remarcable.ca is packed with information, documentation, and links on this subject. Last Feb 21st, I went to the Vancouver Revenue Canada Office, and filed a 1-page document called – ‘Notice of Intent and Understanding’, in order to get an ‘Urgent Request for a ruling’, As to their instructions, I paid the prescribed fee of $107. for a IC706R5 tax ruling.

The following day, I returned to file a second ‘Notice of Intent and Understanding’, and I filed this Appendix –1 (as stated above): CLAIM OF RIGHT OF A MARIJUANA PARTY EDA All of this documentation had a receiving date /stamp of April 4th, 2005

Legally, Revenue Canada and Elections Canada are bound to a contract to respond within 14 days; in practice; corporation lawyers use this form to ask really complex tax loophole rulings, by paying a set fee, you get a fast ruling. Once they accept payment they are legally bound to send you a letter estimating how much it will cost and how long it will take to get a final answer, within 14 days.

Catch-22: I was asking a simple yes or no answer to one sentence that only had a yes answer. There was no legal reason for delaying the answer Please note the ‘notice of understanding on all documents Please respectfully recognize that nonfeasance to respond in 10- working days to this notice means compliance with prima facia recognition that such a venture is possible.

Catch-22 in a catch-22: Even without my notice of understanding, under the government’s protocol, it is understood that by not responding in a timely manner means that this maxim of law: ‘what is not directly prohibited cannot be implied’ comes to play. Ps: Corporate lawyers are using this loophole all the time.

Ps: In law after April 18th, anyone who SUBSCRIBES to this CLAIM OF RIGHT can sell cannabis legally.

As anticipated, they did not respond. The reason is simple; they’re bureaucrats; in conversation I made it clear that if they answered ‘yes’ that I would be entering this document in my upcoming criminal case to show that I did no crime in the eyes of Revenue and Elections Canada, on the grounds that this sentence accurately described my activity that VPD called a crime.

Ps: By not responding, I can now take this documentation, and file it with a Judge, who really has no choice in law, but to ‘recognize’ my CLAIM of RIGHT. 

We seek an unambiguous ruling on this sentence: Our EDA’s present position /platform is that:

As long as the candidate /CEO /CFO of a recognized party, operates a lawful entity at arms length from the EDA /party, that supports the EDA’s political platform, respects the discipline of operating within well-structured PPSA agreement(s), operates within a ‘medical need private membership club’ platform and structure, recognizes the ‘rule of law’, to create normalitive order by maintaining a structured accounting system that records all transactions, reports and redeems taxes on the sales /profit, and offers a reasonable benefit to all three parties, then such an agreement may be recognized.   

On 4:20 (April 20), 2005 at 4:00, I filed these above-mentioned documents along with a whole bunch more in a BC Supreme Court, and at 4:20, I was before a Judge who started the proceedings by saying that he had been expecting me, and what had taken me so long? I told him: I had to get a few matters together before coming. He asked me what were my intentions? I told him “I am here to right the wrong of King Henry the 8th.” In the next few days, I served papers, filed all kinds of motions, including political asylum papers, in the event that they ruled against me, on the grounds that if I can’t fit in this society, then caste me off as a political refugee.  

After 4-motions and failure of VPD to deliver any paperwork on time, the Court Registrar finally called ‘my’ case frivolous and vexatious, on the grounds that I called a Judge on ‘who do you love? -His Oath to the BAR, or his Oath to the Bench. Ps: By the simple fact that the Judge did not send me to jail for contempt of court is proof in and of itself that I was correct in pressing an argument for this charge.

I was told to go to BC Supreme Court of Appeals, and later, I was served with a Court order BARring me from returning to BC Supreme Court.

Ps: In law, nothing was prohibited or implied on my CLAIM of RIGHT, it is now ‘court recognized.’  

I then took this paperwork and filed it with the British Consulate to inform them that the Queen’s interest’s was being raped, and asked a simple question from the Consular General ‘ has the Queen ever abdicated any one of Her subjects? He snapped ‘never’. I advised him that She was being called on Her TRUST.  

I then went to my ‘confirmation hearing’ on my criminal matters, where my ‘Confirmation of Denial of Consent to be Governed’ document, which had been entered into the RECORD at my arraignment hearing was finally ‘court recognized’. Ps: Anyone who subscribes to my CLAIM OF RIGHT cannot be charged with any crime, under sec-39 CCC, as long as they are within the territory of the CLAIM OF RIGHT.  

Denial of consent to be governed, when served properly, is the single most powerful legal tool devised by man.

As clearly expressed by Chief Justice Archibald Cox: One cost we pay for all civil disobedience is the heavy damage it does to the principle of government by consent of the governed – a principle which is the surest guarantee of individual liberty devised by man and also the source of the wildest opportunities men have ever enjoyed to remake society without repeated violence in contests for physical and economic power.  

Ps; those who orchestrated the politics of the BAR’s civil disobedience did so to force the Millennium. The only reason I’m not dead is because at least some of them see me as a hope for a peaceful resolution 

To the best of my knowledge, I have properly served the papers necessary to abolish ‘Colonial rule’.

Ps: Every great thinker in our history has predicted the demise of our democratic system, but this will not happen at the next court date. The only civilized answer that avoids a bloodbath is to return to the original intent of the rule of law of the Magna Carta, which provides the ultimate tool to start all over again quickly with sec-337 CCC, which has never been judicially considered in Canadian history. This process will not happen over night. But, in the mean time, anyone can proceed with what I’m about to file. 

Catch-22: Since, I am BARred from going to any court less than the Supreme Court of Appeals, then anyone who wants to SUBSCRIBE under my CLAIM OF RIGHT can do as I am doing, which is to file an injunction to prohibit and control your local police force from acting unconstitutionally, while enjoying the benefits from raising money for the upcoming election.

Ps; no one has any rights until you claim them.
 
Ps: Going into this court without having publication bans lifted on my activity is simply unwise. Somebody has to break this story before I go in there to face those perverts again.

Presenting the Smoking Gun to the Downfall of Democracy:

Notice of acknowledgement. Throughout this text I’m using italicized text to designate direct quotes from Supreme Court Chief Justice Archibald Cox, from Direct Action, Civil Disobedience, and the Constitution, written in 1967. It’s one of the definitive legal papers on the subject matter that I’m presently undertaking.

Before beginning this presentation, I need to point out that you may find some of the findings very upsetting, on the grounds that it should. Understand a fundamental: Get over it. Fundamental evil acts have been done, and praise your God for disclosing this evil before it’s way too late. In the event that we want to carry on in peace, we all have to accept peace as the only alternative. Frankly those who conspired this plot did so with the intent to bring on the millennium, which is a legal term for a time of great social and political upheaval.

This presentation is exposing a recent change to the basic building block of Socrates’ social model that upholds the entire concept of a free and Democratic government, by the free will of the people, for the people. Democracy stands on a platform of Hope. Past generations have made a mess of things, ours no less then our fathers. The hope of mankind is always that a new generation may begin to make a new world quicker.

Orson Welles coined the expression that you cannot underestimate the power of words. Democracy is a platform to uphold peace with words, and a strategic assault of redefining a few key words has resulted in the total abandonment the basic 3000-year old concept of Democracy itself. It was done with stealth and it took well over a century to reach the initial stages of implementation. Full ‘mutual compliance’ will require a few more steps to reach ‘perfection’ (a legal term), but once in place, which without any objections will take a few more years, which will result in nothing short of fulfilling Biblical prophecy of the NEW WORLD ORDER.

We live in a Democracy, and I am certain that some will welcome the news of this change, as a positive influence in society, because it finally eliminates the hypocrisy of our administration and government system. I’m personally revolted by the truth I’m about to press. But I’m doing a lot more than writing about it.

I opened this account with the Barristers Accounting Registry (the BAR), and they can’t close the account until they answer to the charges that I’m now presenting, which I have been pressing before the courts, since last November. I have no legal representation, and by law, absolutely no lawyer could ever press this argument. In fact, what got me to the BC Supreme Court of Appeals level so quickly was challenging the fact that the standing judge at the BC Supreme Court level could not rule on my case, because he refused to declare who he loved, since he could not uphold his Oath to the Bar, and uphold his Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, in the case that I was bringing before him. For some reason I’m still under some kind of publication ban.

A major blow to the demise of Democracy can be traced to the changing of one-word’s definition: Colore Officii or in English Colour of Office. The vast majority of people will have never heard of this word, and this reality was intentional. Lawyers and politicians hide their Achilles heel well. Changing the definition of this one-word can be called the smoking gun that destroyed Democracy itself. It’s totally irrelevant whether the definition change was pro-active or re-active to the truth. It’s the willingness of Public Officials to implement this new definition that is the crime of the Millennium.

Basic Legal Premise: NAFTA established a new ORDER in law – By the PEOPLE for the ECONOMY

Socrates founded our Democratic structures in Greece, as philosophical challenges that strive for an ideal to produce a balance in society of achieving peace and harmony with words, by striving for an administration structure that functions by consent to be governed in a free society, by the people, and for the people.

This foundation was caste on just 3 maxims, in ORDER to uphold ‘by the people for the people’.

1) Justice: We are all innocent until proven guilty.

2) Freedom: What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied,

3) Order through Equity: All laws rules apply to those who govern as well as those who are governed.

To guarantee that those who govern followed all 3 maxims, all Public Officials were sworn to uphold to a concept called: Colore officii, which for about the last 4-millennium (uptil it radically changed in 1991) has meant,

In a positive slant: The burden of all Public Officials to uphold the maxim of ‘by the people, and for the people’

Black’s 5th Legal Law Dictionary’s definition, clearly presents the negative historical slant of this maxim,

Colore Officii: By color of office. Officer’s acts unauthorized by officer’s position, though done by form that purports that acts are done by reason of official duty and by virtue of office. See colour of office

Colour of Office: Pretense of right to do acts made by someone who has no such right. An act of color of office is an act of an office that claims authority to do the act by reason of his office when the office does not confer on him such authority.

To guarantee this maxim’s effectiveness, colore officii was held to the standard of ‘absolute liability’, which means: there are no excuses, not even a good reason for acting outside your authority, and no authority can violate the maxim of ‘by the people for the people’. The penalty for violating this rule has always been harsh.

It’s very difficult to argue the effectiveness of a structure that generates such vibrant civilizations. This is especially true when you consider that all Democracies failed when their society wandered from the standard of by and for the people, because it fell apart from within, by authority first not being responsive to the People.

The whole concept of Public accountability starts with this word. This word upholds the BAR’s fiduciary TRUST of: no ONE can serve two-Masters, which upholds the entire concept of Public Officials never acting out of their jurisdiction. Democratic societies function under a contract with words, and this one-word upholds the entire concept of the PUBLIC TRUST of Public Officials being accountable to the people

After over 3,000 years, the foundation of Democracy changed in the USA, in Black’ 7th Published 1991

Colore Officii: Latin ‘by color of office. See color of office

Color of Office: The authority or power that is inherent in an office especially a public office. Acts a taken under a color of an office are vested with, or appear to be vested with, the authority entrusted to that office.

There are two major components to this definition change, it no longer holds any Public Official to absolute liability; in other words- a good excuse for breaking this rule is all any Public Official need to not face liability for having made a wrong decision. But the true real change to the definition is the use of the word ‘vested’, and especially the term ’appear to be vested with’, are truly frightening. ‘Vesting’ means a coat of arms has been pressed, in other words: Someone in Authority is pressing a CLAIM of RIGHT, and, in law, until it has not gone through the steps of ‘perfection’ the definition will retain ‘appear to be vested with’ under ‘express color’.

Ps: all the historical legal ‘colorful’ terms returned in Black’s 7th (in other words they are active in law, again)

Furthermore, coincidently also in 1991, we in Canada published our first Canadian Law Dictionary, and it was hailed as a great day for Canada. We passed a law saying that if a word had a definition in our dictionary that varied from any other definition, then, only this definition applied. Sounds like a good thing. This call for a Canadian Dictionary caused some serious debate as to which definition would rule. The BAR clearly debated the change of this one-word before publishing it, as made evident in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary 5th edition, 1986.

Colour: 1) Colour of Office is always taken in the worst part, and signifies an act of evil done by the countenance of an Officer, and it bears a dissembling face of the right of the Office, whereas the Office is but a veil to the falsehood, and the thing is ground in Vice, and the Office is a shadow to it.

But ‘by reason of Office, and by virtue of Office are taken always in the best part.

2) Express Colour is no longer necessary in any pleading, as to Common Law Procedure Act 1852.

Our enlightened Canadian Parliament ‘legislated’ this new definition of Colore Officii in 1991.

Colore Officii: Latin for colour of office. See DURESS

Colour of Office: Pretense of authority to carry out an act for which the actor has no such authority

Duress: Threats to another’s property, threats of physical violence or economic duress,

which includes a contract. See ECONOMY (Ps: Democracy is dead UNDER THIS NEW WORD ORDER)

By the people for the people is history. (Just connect the (.)- Colore Officii: See duress. See economy.)

Economy: The acquisition, at the lowest cost and at the appropriate time, of financial, human and physical resources in appropriate quantity and quality. (Ps: I don’t want to speculate on what this means. It’s insane)

Ps: NAFTA was implemented in 1991, and if the timing of these word transformations has any meaning at all, it’s self-evident THAT: A CLAIM of RIGHT has been enacted, in the United States, (and not so)

Coincidently: Canadian Public Officials are, since then, upholding the ECONOMY as the PUBLIC TRUST

This definition establishes THE NEW WORLD ORDER: BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE ECONOMY.

Ps: Europe is making its own economic union, and we’re expanding ours to full mutual compliance, ‘perfection’

The intent of every law and regulation changes, when you change ORDER with this one-word. With an insanely simplistic legal argument, all Public Officials now serve a fiduciary trust of upholding the ECONOMY, and since the ECONOMY is the first-word in ORDER, it becomes the last-word in any decision. We, the people, hardly notice any change at all, because it really was the implied status quo for a few generations.

Ps: I need to interject a basic premise here. When looking at these Oaths, legal definition changes, and law in general, you have to look at ‘what’s not there’, because authority is exercising their fundamental right to enjoy benefit from society by acting on ‘what is not directly prohibited cannot be implied’.

Now, I truly have to tell you it gets worse. Frankly changing a words definition is meaningless unless Public Officials were able to use them in practice. With this new order, in ORDER, the BAR was able to (A) act.

(Ps: The BAR, who enacted the change of definition, did so, in ORDER to change the Oath to the BAR)

Until April 1993, the Law Society of Upper Canada upheld this OATH OF ALLEGIANCE:

Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm) that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best of your ability execute the offices of Barrister and Solicitor, that you will not promote suits upon frivolous pretences, that you will not pervert the law to favor or prejudice anyone, but in all things conduct yourself truly and with integrity, that you will uphold the Sovereign’s interest and that of your fellow citizens

according to the laws of Canada and this Province?

As to a document provided by the BAR. “ Some benchers were against changing the oath of office. It was said that the oath taken by lawyers should only be changed if the oath taken by the judges were changed accordingly. It was also said that, while there may be good reasons to swear allegiance to the Queen, it may be inappropriate in a multicultural society of the 1990s.” Ps: The change of oath was carried by a show of hands, as ‘friendly amendments’, with only one dissenter; Mr. Trotter asked to be recorded as opposed.

The new BARRISTERS’ AND SOLICITORS’ OATH reads as follows: Ps; it’s not called an oath of allegiance anymore.

Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm) that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best of your ability execute the offices of Barrister and Solicitor, that you will not promote suits upon frivolous pretences, that you will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things conduct yourself truly and with integrity; and that you will uphold the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of all persons according to the laws of Canada, and of this Province?

Before starting, I need to point out that the full impact of the changes to one phase could fill a library. This change of the Oath could not have even been a ‘consideration’ under the old fiduciary trust, on the absolute solid grounds that the ‘good reasons’ behind ‘upholding the Sovereign’s interest’ is that it’s a lot more than this concept than serving the superficial entity called the ‘Queen’; it’s removing a Magna Carta maxim. It’s total abandonment of ‘Everything Pure and True’ . Before continuing, I need to point out that nothing had to change, with the new definition. The crime of the millennium is the extent of the changes that have been enacted by this new definition. (Ps: The implications of changing ‘citizens’ to ‘persons’ is pure perversion, no one with a conscience can justify the change of this word in any oath.)

Since then, there has been a wholesale changes of baby steps, in virtually every jurisdiction in the country, and everyone of them is necessary to reach perfection in serving ‘by the people for the economy’. In law it’s – REDRESSING liability after a CLAIM of RIGHT has been enacted. Until this is in place, the liability is great. On the absolute solid grounds THAT: Until the bureaucracy is in place to isolate every Public Official’s Office, under a new ORDER, there lies a huge potential liability of having one of these Officials being involved in a case of violating this maxim: ‘no ONE can serve two Masters’

How great is this liability? The BAR breaks a contract caste into ‘perfection’ back in King Henry 8th’s reign.

Serving two masters is as basic as looking at the definition of the rule of law. Replacing ‘Sovereign’s interest’ with ‘the rule of law’ can be called nothing less than the on-going collective act of ‘perverts’. We the people uphold the rule of law that is caste in the Magna Carta, and our Canadian Constitution (1867), in Sec 133,

RULE OF LAW: A fundamental cornerstone of our Canadian Constitution must mean two things:

First, that the law is Supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals,

and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.

Second, the rule of law requires creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws,

which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order.

Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized life.

The BAR no longer upholds the Sovereign’s interest: they uphold Black’s USA Law definition of:

RULE OF LAW: 1) A substantive legal principle

2) The supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power

Ps: Shakespeare penned it well, when the BAR caste this contract: – Kill all lawyers and politicians

Now, it truly regrets me to have to tell you, it gets a lot worse.

These lawyers and politicians truly are anticipating that maintaining ‘consent of the people to be governed’ may prove to be difficult, while implementing this new ORDER, so they are very busy implementing sweeping new POLICE REFORM. Ps: by definition this means POLICE STATE CONTROL. Ps: Police work for the BAR

Basic Legal Premise: Denial of Consent to be governed is the only civilized tool left to our disposal

The United States developed under a Roman rule of law model. The whole concept of Manifest Destiny of the United States is simply not a Democratic process, and the American Democratic model is a meld of these two concepts. The phrase ‘a substantial legal Principle’ of this rule of law definition is upheld by 3-centuries of case precedents, this history upholds values that are well penned by Archibald Cox, (1967)

‘The simple fact is that our constitutional system works and our society is free is because officials, individuals, and the community realize that the rule of law depends upon voluntary compliance. Such is the true meaning of government by consent to be governed. Voluntary compliance is essential to the rule of law.’ When authority is no longer responsive to the people, civil disobedience arises.

‘The core evil to civil disobedience is that it weakens the bonds of law and compels the state to resort to power. Law is a human instrument, constructed by men to meet men’s needs; it must justify itself by what it does for men in meeting their needs, including their ethical judgments and moral aspirations of law. Our Constitution is founded upon seven or eight centuries of continuous concern for the institutions and aspirations – for the processes, standards, ideals, and sense of right and justice –

that make for our free and civilized society organized with a minimum of force and a maximum of reason. Ours is a free society because the law that binds all men equally, the governed as well as the governed, the judges as well as the litigants.

This is the cornerstone of the PUBLIC TRUST of all nations. It clearly is still, in practice, just an ideal.

Our BAR only adopted Black’s rule of law definition, in other words, there is no case law to uphold the things’ interpretation, which paved the way to ‘total abuse of process’ that 2 rules of law are generating.

Total abandonment of normalitive order is occurring. Exhibit A:

In 1998 The BC Police Act was enacted by Legislation, (with a caveat to authorize implementation of an alternate Part-9 (namely): The BC Police Act Reform White Paper & Draft Police Complaints Act,

(If you don’t believe what I’m writing check it out yourself. The whole report will make you sick)

Ever since the 2003 Report, The Commissioner is calling for urgent reform of ‘what’s now called Part-9’ of the Police Act. Ps; the urgent reform is passing the Legislation to make it officially legal

“He ‘recognizes’ -The legislature wisely contemplated the excellent work of Judge Oppal on the new Part-9 could not be ‘frozen in time’, so under s-50 the power to ‘engage in research’ was conferred onto this Commissioner, by a special committee of the Legislature, for a 3-year trial period, “

The Special Committee’s recommendations were tabled (within the 3- year mandate) and

these recommendations are based on the 2-1/2 years of experience in applying Part-9.

In other words this unlegislated section of the Police Act is operating as if it is legislated law, base on the forecast that the Legislation necessary to actually support this Act would be enacted.

The 3-year mandate fully expired in 2002, and the necessary legislation has never been passed. (Oops)

Ps: The reason the order died on the table is the Commissioner of Police Complaints was denied his removal from his oath, because of a ruling by Judge Oppal, who reiterated before the ‘Special Committee’ May 10, 2002:

“His position is that: the ‘Officer of Legislature status’ was necessary given the nature of his Office.”

Ps: BC law states THAT: An officer of the legislature cannot be removed, from liability of his Oath to the Sovereign’s interest, except by a public process, through a public vote within the Legislative Assembly

Ps: (quote) “Even the best administration cannot transcend the problems of inadequate Legislation”

“What is at fault is the legislation itself. It’s unclear, ambiguous and does not provide adequate remedies to the Office of the Police Complaint Commission to ensure effective ‘civilian oversight’.

PLEASE NOTE: The first fundamental Principle of Part-9 – is ‘Civilian Oversight’:

“There is an inextricable link between Democracy, the rule of law and police accountability.”

“Police must be authorized to do things that would be illegal for ordinary citizens,” and

“Police must not be unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.”

Ps: ‘Civilian Oversight’ has nothing to do with the people being able to ‘oversee’ the police

Until now, the express colour of police was: Police can break the law under exceptional circumstances

Changing can to must is in law: VESTING a CLAIM of RIGHT to totally re-write Section–8 CCC

Ps: sec-8 (3) is where all the maxims that protect the PEOPLE from AUTHORITY exist

All common law defenses and excuses of we the people are affected. Ps: Which side are you on?

Ps: Without legislation, after 2002, the legislature is not ‘accountable’ for the Commissioner’s mandate

‘Ignorance is no excuse’ Sec-8 (3). Especially when it comes to upholding the Canadian Constitution

The Legislature is upholding a Commissioner who is enforcing Civilian Oversight without legislation

Ps: Anyone after 2002, who fails to get remedy from this Commissioner after charging a police officer with committing crimes, is placing this Commissioner in a liability of serving two Masters. Ps: that’s me.

To my knowledge, He is accountable for upholding both the rule of law of the Magna Carta, and Black’s Law.

Under both rules of law, He is accountable for all the wrongs of those below him, and to the PEOPLE. Or is it transferred to our new Attorney General Wally Oppal, who crafted Part-9, who is accountable?

Ps: All they need now is to create a crisis and invoke a ‘temporary order in council’ to finalize Part-9

Frankly it’s totally irrelevant who is responsible for it. I have lots of open accounts with the BAR,

I shamelessly entrapped THIS POLICE STATE, and more than once, I might add, to have to answer to charges of committing a wide variety of crimes, just to make sure that I was able to effect genuine socioeconomic change, in ORDER to stop this perversion before it’s too late. The BAR cannot close an account without addressing the properly filed, and ‘recognized’ documentation that I have inserted in my case files.

I’m shamelessly PRESSING with the ultimate tool of civil obedience: Section 337 CCC, and combining it with the ultimate tool of civil disobedience, which is ‘Denial of Consent to be Governed’, and taking my chances on: DEMANDING the Queen of England’s representative to return my PERSON with dignity.

One cost we pay for all civil disobedience is the heavy damage it does to the principle of government by consent of the governed – a principle which is the surest guarantee of individual liberty devised by man and also the source of the wildest opportunities men have ever enjoyed to remake society without repeated violence in contests for physical and economic power.

Possibly there are a few rare occasions on which the goal would be so important as to outweigh the price which a challenge to the rule of law extracts from a community. The argument is probably strongest where one refuses to do what he believes is a direct moral wrong to others.

Social protest and even civil disobedience serve the law’s need for growth.

Short of the millennium sharp changes in the law depend partially on the stimulus of protest.

Ps: Sharp changes in the law occurred by changing the definition of a few words to precipitate the millennium

In a case where a man is willing to repair the damage to the process of constitutionalism,

in order to guarantee liberty, and a chance of repeated change without force, by imposing his views upon society, then this man must be either peculiarly self-confident or extremely shortsighted.

I want to do a lot of damage to the BAR’s civil disobedience, in the most civilized way possible,

Ps: The Queen of England has never vanquished a subject. All ‘benchers’ of the Supreme Courts of Appeals, swears an Oath to uphold the Queen of England’s interests, therefore to my knowledge,

This Judge has no choice but to comply with this 337-DEMAND on the absolute solid grounds THAT

The reason for sec-337 CCC is in the law is for exactly the function of abandoning Colonial rule

My DEMAND in law is to abandon Colonial rule, in ORDER to return to civilized life under one definition of the

RULE OF LAW: A fundamental cornerstone of our Canadian Constitution must mean two things:

First, that the law is Supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals,

and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.

Second, the rule of law requires creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws,

which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order.

Law and order are indispensable elements of civilized life.

My DEMAND in order is to recognize my CLAIM of RIGHT to form an Association that upholds this Principle:

Canada as a Sovereign Nation founded on recognizing the Supremacy of Creation and the rule of law

In ORDER to benefit the Economy: Through the acquisition, at the lowest cost and at the appropriate time, of financial, human and physical resources in appropriate quantity and quality, by uniting under a CLAIM of RIGHT to maintain the PUBLIC TRUST to uphold the perfection of CREATION to better Mankind,

To settle for anything more or for anything less is just plain uncivilized.

I’ll take my chances that more than one person just might want to join this sociopolitical Association

Every theologian and every historian has predicted that the demise of our democratic system as inevitable,

I’m not the cause of the demise; I’m just a messenger with a solution to start over quickly.

The only civilized solution is to return to the original intent of the Magna Carta

Democracy stands on a platform of Hope. Past generations have made a mess of things, ours no less then our fathers. The hope of mankind is always that a new generation may begin to make a new world quicker.

Presentation for understanding how we can VOTE Gastown into Grasstown

To begin with this subject, let’s go to Amsterdam, and explain how they were able to have the ‘liberal’ laws that they were able to carry on a PUBLIC INITIATIVE, in their city.

a) The primary reason they are able to do it ‘legally’ has something to do with the Crown Registry of the ‘City of Amsterdam’ being older than the country’s Crown Registry. b) The reason it’s only done in the oldest section of Amsterdam is because it’s that section of town that was actually in the old ‘city /fiefdom’ before the Holland’s Crown Registry was ‘enacted’.

The PEOPLE approved the INITIATIVE and ‘creative application of the rule of law’ allowed it to happen.

Now lets come back home. May I point out a basic FACT: The ‘original’ Crown Registry for the ‘City of Vancouver’ is in Queen Victoria’s Crown Registry, and was placed in Her RECORD in 1885.

1) To point out some history: The DOMINION of Canada was placed in the Crown’s Registry in 1867

2) And, not one of the British acquisitions, on the west coast of America made it into the DOMINION of Canada’s Registry, until after the last spike of the railroad was set, some 25 years later, in 1910

3) In fact all these territories, like the Endowment Lands, Stanley Park, Guinness Properties were independent Registries, and were in law little semi-autonomous fiefdoms, under the Queen’s DOMAIN

We have exactly the same historical case law argument, as Amsterdam:
A City REFERENDUM can ‘legally’ allow Vancouver to emulate the Amsterdam model on Vancouver

But to do it ‘legally’ here; means we can’t be as liberal as their social experiment. We realistically can’t do the quasi-legal status of the Vansterdam model, and maintain order

We’re promoting a – Made in Canada Solution: Grasstown

a) With compassion and tolerance through fair (not fare) regulations b) ‘Recognizing’ the responsible use of cannabis, for therapeutic benefit By licensing ‘coffee shops’, in old Gastown and old Kits and on the Drive In order to understand a need to administer the ‘community’s needs’ properly With regulations to keep it from becoming street contraband,
VOTE: Marc Boyer, As your ALDERMAN, We’ll make it happen

‘The criminality of this drug is far more dangerous then the drug itself’ Judge Ledain

Believe it: Democracy Works.
Last September the Vancouver Police, violated the PUBLIC TRUST by PRESSING criminal CHARGES on a candidate of an official opposition party for exercising ‘a crime of thought’

THIS IS MY MUG SHOT taken at the time of my arrest. One might say, THAT I look determined. Court RECORD will show There are no grounds to proceed; THEY screwed up big time I filed to seek REMEDY in BC Supreme Court, by filing CIVILIZATION Ps.. Civilization: (it’s a legal term): to taking a criminal case to civil court

Chief Graham is facing lots of criminal charges, for charging me. Ps. Lots of Public Officials are being charged with crimes, it’s a big scandal.

They sent me packing to the BC Supreme Court of Appeals without a hearing
Ps. I have a ‘court recognized’ legal right to sell ‘cannabis as medicine’
Ps: the case isn’t going like the Persecutor intended, they might be feeling a little entrapped

I have filed the 1st Official CLAIM of RIGHT, in Canadian history. Medical access to the medicine of your choice is a Constitutionally GUARANTEED right to any member of our ASSOCIATION, in order to uphold & defend the perfection of CREATION as our PUBLIC TRUST

I’m running as an ALDERMAN in this civic election to make sure that I get ‘voter participation‘ to guarantee the Democratic process of seeking approval from the court of PUBLIC OPINION

I’m presently under some kind of publication ban THE TRUTH HURTS THOSE IN POWER

The reason city officials are saying they now should legalize cannabis -is because it’s a fact

The DaKine ‘social experiment’ showed one thing that’s really scaring public officials, – 17,000 PEOPLE came there in a month, once they got ‘public awareness’ of their café.

Under the law, I can open Compassion club service centres – without any city approval, and when I do, it would be swamped because of the huge need for this service, The only way to ‘handle ‘ the need’ is by opening at least a few locations, and to do this in a spirit of co-operation is by running for COUNCIL. Then they have to deal with me.

– I’m presently on a ‘court ordered’ ban from entering City Hall. They don’t like me.

I GUARANTEE YOU: I WILL CHANGE THE STATUS QUO OF CORRUPTION IN OFFICE

The biggest problem is the ‘permanent’ upper staff of the city. They truly believe, & act like the Elected officials are the part time staff. Nothing is going to get better until we fire these bastards.

Ps. The biggest reason voters are unhappy with city hall is the corruption and delays of virtually every layer of city administration. They are supposed to serve us, ehhhh Grasstown is an answer to the civilized process of providing a genuine need

With a solid vote on a referendum, the message will be loud & clear

Recognizing the responsible use of cannabis, for therapeutic benefit will heal a nation I GUARANTEE: We’ll get it through the bullshit of bureaucracy, like no one else can.

Q and A format for the understanding how cannabis can be sold bought and grown legally.

I’m the first to admit that if I sold cannabis through any other method other than raising awareness and funds for the Parti Marijuana Party that I would be doing criminal activity.

Also, I admit that if the Marijuana Party were not an Officially recognized party, that my fund raising activity would be illegal. Furthermore, in law and in fact, if this venture weren’t making a profit, than it would be illegal. There’s so many ways to show this status that it’s hard to know where to start, but it all has to begin with taking your head out of the box. I need to present ideas that the government does not want you to know, because it might inspire you to be free, as well. So I will proceed on different themes to show you how they ‘all’ get to the same point of legality.
Ps. – In criminal law cases, all you need is one argument to stick to win
The argument of benefiting from of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Under Section-11 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, And, the state must bear the burden of proof.

1) Everything I’m doing can be said in a way that makes these activities look criminal, and equally so, can be said in a way that is my duty to defend our abused Constitution through an official party.

2) If these activities were being done by anyone, it is fair to admit that an impartial judge should arbitrate with his opinion, on whose slant is sustained or dismissed. But, when a candidate, like me, is upholding the platform of an official party, this decision becomes a point of law ruling, therefore now,

3) It’s the burden of the Crown of proving that our slant /presentation of the platform is illegal.

4) In other words, since it’s my duty to PRESS and support beliefs and activities that oppose the status quo, and authority, then it’s totally irrelevant that a police officer or a Judge might think that what I’m doing is promoting a ‘wrongdoing’, On the grounds THAT they need to prove it’s a crime

a) A ‘wrongdoing’ may not necessarily be a crime under the Law and Equity Act, and especially under the Elections Act, since any Official Party representative, elected or not, has an EXPRESS GUARANATEE to form an ASSOCIATION that supports our beliefs. Our Freedom of Association clearly states we can support and ‘protect minority beliefs that the majority regard as wrong or false’. b) Just because my activity is not the views of the Judge or the police, simply means they don’t have to vote for me. Just because they won’t vote for me, does not make me a criminal.

5) If AUTHORITY doesn’t like what this opposing party does to get voter participation, then that’s Democracy in action. I stand proudly to defend the abused Charterights of the PEOPLE.

My defense is based on Sec-8 (3) CCC. ‘Obedience to existing laws’, and ‘a necessity defense’ As an Official party representative; it’s my duty to uphold OUR rule of law as Supreme,

To further this point: Under Section-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section 15 is to protect those groups who suffer social, political, and legal disadvantages in society. Furthermore it states: Discrimination occurs where a person, because of personal characteristics, suffers disadvantages.

It’s this Charteright that is being TRESPASSED by a never-ending string of ORDERS IN COUNCIL

As outlined in case law, the ‘necessity defense’ to uphold section-15 Charterights was what ‘recognized’ the activity of Dr. Morgantilier; it is also, the defense of the gay rights, which to the vast majority of religions call a ‘cardinal sin’. But it’s necessary to protect everyone’s Charterights by ‘recognizing’ them, in order to respect tolerance for the frailty of humanity. Both of these groups have rights to operate freely in society, in spite of livid objections from a much larger segment of society.

Under sec-11 of our Charter, we have an EXPRESS right to seek remedy through any lawful means, and, as an Official party representative, it’s my interpretation of the law that must be proven Illegal
Seeking relief from pain and suffering from the fruit of a seed bearing plant is not a sin in any religion; 6) In fact, it is ‘not an offense known to man’, which is another sec-8 (3) provision of defense.

a) Whereas, we cannot promote that the CDSA needs to be thrown out, like other protesters say, b) Furthermore, as an Official party, we cannot pursue a path of abandoning the CDSA, because this law protects the entire population from all predator drugs, which are truly destroying society. c) In law and in fact, we cannot promote or support the criminal activity of cannabis abuse, and i) We cannot even protect anyone’s sec-7 Charterights, because they have been denied. d) In EQUITY, ORDER must GRACE a limited right to access the medicine of our choice, by forming a PRIVATE CLUB with rules that protect society, & also protect our members’ Charterights under our GUARANTEE of FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION of an Official party, to uphold our sec-15 Charterights 7) Under no circumstances can an Official party assume that the law, or an ORDER IN COUNCIL can be ignored, simply because we don’t believe it. But, because of this abuse of the rule of law, we can form a private club that protects our ‘members in good standing’, and protect this ‘association’ under a CLAIM of RIGHT, and once the police trespassed our rights, we then can defend it under sec 337 CCC

CATCH-22: Sec-337CCC has never been judicially considered in Canada, because there has never been such a driving need to uphold our Constitution and the rule of law. Nothing less than a CLAIM of RIGHT, would have any effect on this overRULING party’s abuse of AUTHORITY. It doesn’t matter what’s legislated or what the courts say. AUTHORITY rules with CONTROL under ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Sec-337 is specifically there to enforce a CLAIM of RIGHT. The law is there to protect Democracy.

History will show THAT absolutely no AUTHORITY has ever wanted this law to be enacted, It’s a DEMAND process to REDRESS the ‘vested’ abuse of AUTHORITY to protect the PEOPLE You can bet your last dollar THAT: if ‘they’ could have taken out this law, they would have. It’s the cornerstone that protects EQUITY in law, for the PEOPLE, under the MAGNA CARTA 8) Since, there is no case law in Canada, under sec-8 (2) CCC, it falls on English case law, and there is so much history of CLAIMS of RIGHT in their case law THAT it’s impossible to say anything that I’m doing is criminal, or frivolous. My political activity furthers the PEOPLE’s need to benefit from society.

(catch-22, in a catch-22) ‘They’ can legitimately fear ‘vexatious’ because there is no protection in our rule of law to protect AUTHORITY from the inherent power ‘vested’ in a 337-DEMAND process. Our Constitution doesn’t ‘yet recognize’ FAIRNESS or COMPASSION; this ‘case law’ will change that

Respect a fundamental: As long as I’m under a publication ban nothing is going to change, because without the court of PUBLIC OPINION, no AUTHORITY in power will want to GRACE the PEOPLE from the arbitrary use of AUTHORITY to impose the ‘controlled market Democracy’ of our Tyrant neighbors

Recognizing ‘compassion’ and ‘fairness’, for the plight of those who suffer, will heal a nation.

The impact on society of just introducing FAIRNESS and COMPASSION to the rule of law will be TREMENDOUS. CREATION is a concept that drove me here. It’s a solution to peace on earth. So I’m a hopeless romantic, so was Tommy Douglas; we ended up CHARGING him with being the greatest Canadian of all time, for upholding the dignity of the PEOPLE, when we needed someone to stand against the faceless industrialists’ machine, that was ruled by the father’s of today’s bastards.

I keep wandering out of the ‘cannabis issue’ to a much bigger picture. That’s because, my goal was never just about legalizing cannabis. The 1st goal is ‘recognizing’ a CLAIM of RIGHT.

I’m the 1st Canadian CLAIM of RIGHT, and I will ENJOY the most REMEDY from one small issue, Catch-22- A CLAIM of RIGHT must be based on legally SOUND GROUNDS of BELIEF,

1) Cannabis seeds are sold legally because our courts have ‘recognized’ that ‘it’s a crime unknown to man’ sec 8 (3) CCC. Because selling any seed, in law, is transferring life, and that is in the territory of God, or in law, in the CREATOR’s DOMAIN. I’m taking this legal argument one step further;

2) I’m stating that all food and medicinal plants that are born from that seed of life contains essential oils, which is ESSENCE, which in law is a SPIRIT, which lies in CREATION’s DOMAIN. Science will show

a) THAT No pharmaceutical can duplicate any essential oil; their imitations are called DRUGS.

3) Furthermore, Substance has a very clear legal definition: ‘form without essence’, and 1-of our legal definitions of Medicine is ‘essence without form’. Ps.- If these legal words have any meaning, then

4) The CDSA (Controlled Drugs and Substance Act) has no TERRITORIAL jurisdiction to control or prohibit what is in CREATION’s DOMAIN, in ORDER to uphold the clear separation of CHURCH and STATE.

5) ORDERS IN COUNCIL have no TERRITORIAL RIGHT to interfere with what’s in CREATION’s DOMAIN.

6) The CDSA has jurisdiction in protecting the PEOPLE from the drugs and chemicals that are on the food, and protect us from the imitations of essential oils, in other words protect the PEOPLE from drugs being called medicine, and chemical in manufactured food, and in ORDER to make this happen and, until this overRULING party returns to its senses, to uphold OUR rule of law, I hereby CLAIM the RIGHT to form an ASSOCIATION that upholds the PLATFORM of defending CREATION

In law and in fact, under the Elections Act, this club must be open to anyone, who will PRESCRIBE to his or her FREEDOM of EXPRESSION in ORDER to benefit from my EDA (Electoral District Association)
Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to this association to benefit from a guarantee of FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION
Members can benefit from a law that’s been on the books since before the Magna Carta was formed

Sec-39 (1) CCC: DEFENSE WITH CLAIM OF RIGHT reads as follows: Everyone who in peaceful possession of personal property under a claim of right, and everyone acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending this possession,

Sec-39 (2): Anyone without a claim of right has no such right or protection from criminal liability

History will show that the right to clean water /air, a safe environment, and the Rights of Man can all be much easier and more vigorously defended in the courts, when the defendant is upholding a ‘recognized’ CLAIM of RIGHT to benefit from society, in order to protect this ENJOYMENT, in peace.

7) Everyone with a ‘just cause’, like environment groups, civil rights protester, peace movement, etc, (at least in Canada), can benefit from our political FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION GUARANTEE, in order to defend your little piece of CREATION much more effectively, with far less criminal or civil liability

8) Our Courts defend their nonfeasance to act, by not interfering with what needs a ‘political solution’.
By definition, this excuse is no longer admissible, when the defendant is upholding OUR claim of right.

In the event that your cause might further benefit from this ASSOCIATION, then join the CLUB

Under the Elections Act, our EDA (political association) must be open to any voter

But the compassion club must be a SUBSCRIBED membership to a PRIVATE CLUB, and this can only really be done under an ‘at arm’s length’ agreement, with our EDA, under a creative application of the PPSA. (Private Property Securities Act) upholds everyone’s right to profit, from the COMMON-’WEALTH’

1) The Elections Act empowers a candidate to raise money for his or her election by supporting any

lawful activity that is endorsed in a platform of a recognized party, or an EDA of a recognized party.

2) We operate under a series of well-written 3-party fiduciary agreements that recognizes the PPSA’s

liability protection, with structured contracts that understands (stands-under) – section 73 of the PPSA
Conflict with legislation in general: If there is a conflict between this Act & another Act, this Act prevails
Under the PPSA and the Elections Act, we can exercise real freedom to make a mutual profit under a

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT: The parties to a contract are left by the court to use their own discretion and to make their own agreements. (Ps.This is another cool Canadian law definition that we all enjoy)

A 3-part fiduciary agreement is such a recognized structure. The fiduciary is the arbitrator of disputes between the other 2-parties, of the agreement. By properly structuring our PRIVATE CLUB under these agreements, we can operate without court or police interference. That’s the law, and in fact, we must show a benefit to all 3-parties in the PRIVATE CLUB, or this agreement would be illegal, because a contract is not valid without a mutual benefit of all who SUBSCRIBE to our shared-profit CLUB.

– 1/3rd of the net profit goes to the party, 1/3rd goes to management, and 1/3rd goes back to members

3) In law nobody ‘joins the club’: we SUBCRIBE to a PRESCRIBED activity, to benefit from access to our own medicine, and we agree to CONSIGN our TRUST to grow organic plants to farmers, under a separate 3-part agricultural fiduciary agreement. As long as, our farmers SUBSCRIBE to the stringent requirements of our PRESCRIPTION, and pays taxes on the profit of the farm, then the law can’t touch him, on the grounds that some may think we’re doing a wrongdoing, but under the PPSA and Revenue Canada that as long as we pay taxes on a ‘recognized activity, it’s ‘a crime unknown to man’ s- 8 (3)

Ps.- the EDA’s share of the profit, is not taxed, but it must be all spent on advertising (political activity)

In the event that this looks too good to be true, then you must be one of the disenfranchised. The single largest reason we can do this ‘venture’ under the Elections Act is that it just might get PEOPLE to vote again. Without any doubt, the single largest threat to society is apathy of the PEOPLE.

4) The Marijuana Party represents the single largest group of apathetic voters in the country, because we represent those who see no benefit from participating in society. We have denied CHARTERIGHTS

5) Coercing people through the judicial system to participate in society by forcing the virtue of abstinence of the CDSA is psychopathic, which is legally defined as ‘void of love’. Love is simply not defined or used anywhere in any statute rule or regulation, and this status is destroying society.

The whole world has the same core belief that ‘what goes around comes around’.

6) This is exactly what’s happening to society with authority’s obsession with psychopathic behavior.

7) Arbitrarily criminalizing a medical issue is a failed social experiment that plagued the 20th century. The criminality of this drug is far more dangerous to society, than the drug itself. Judge Ledain

8)The total abuse of ORDERS IN COUNCIL to pacify a tyrant neighbor’s economy is total abandonment

of the function of GOVERNANCE, which is to protect the NATION from HARM from foreign aggression

9) ECONOMY is a tool of warfare, our ECONOMY is occupied by a foreign government though NAFTA

The only way NAFTA can function is with total abandonment of OUR rule of law, and the only way anyone can protect themselves from this abuse, and actually have a chance to win back our FREEDOM is this ASSOCIATION under my CLAIM of RIGHT to protect CREATION. So be it.