Sage words…

I was once given advice by someone a long time ago, that still holds true today, and I suspect will hold true until the end of the human race.

“It’s alright, to love your fellow human beings.  Just don’t trust them.”.  

You can love them, treat them with respect but never ever trust them completely if they are strangers.   There are many people in this world who will give you the shirt off their backs when you need it.  And then there is a subgroup who will steal your pants and your wallet as well.

It is a known fact, that most people will trust almost anything that is put in front of them, if of course it doesn’t set off any alarm bells in their heads.    So the trick with fooling people and not setting those alarm bells is to play to their innate sense of goodness and overwhelm the alarm bells that might go off with pure, raw emotion.

I will use the gofundme pages as an example.    It has become common place now to beg strangers for money on the internet.  This started out as an innocent concept, of people looking for funds to get their ideas off the ground, usually innovative inventions.  Then a few years after those pages were up, I started to see something else, people who needed money for medical treatments, to fund vacations for loved ones they couldn’t afford to go see on their own, and some even wanted money to pay for their extravagant weddings.

Now, they are common place.  While gofundme websites started with good intentions, the greed of people prevailed.

Once couple’s page wanted funds to have three weddings around the world.   Why?  Because they lived in two different countries, came from two different backgrounds and wanted to honor both cultures and have their family be able to attend.  So instead of the normal way of having weddings and combining things.   They decided to go to the public and beg for money to fund this.  Airfare, hotels and the costs of each wedding.   The third wedding ceremony by the way was a destination wedding / honeymoon.      Ahh, but it’s love, and who doesn’t want to fund that?

Another case, which is quite famous, is the Cassidy Stay Family “tragedy”.    Now here is one that pulls at the heart strings, a teen aged girl watches her entire family murdered by her Aunt’s crazy boyfriend.   She narrowly survives by pretending to be dead and deflecting a bullet at point blank range with her finger.    The day after that happened a gofundme page went up.  “CASSIDYSTRONG” was the catch phrase.     It pulled at everyone’s heart.  This poor girl, lost her parents and three siblings.  Oh the tragedy!   Who know is with her grandparents.

The funds were to help her for the future!  Oh poor girl.   Except, one problem.   Her dead family were wealthy already.   See this is what people chose to ignore, because it was oh so tragic.

They lived in a million dollar home, which will be sold off and Cassidy gets the money for it.  Each family member was insured, each at least $250,000 -$500,000 per person.    Cassidy being the beneficiary.  That means that little girl gets a payout of at least 2.5 million dollars.   Then she got another half million from the gofundme page.   Plus when her grandparents die, she gets money from them.   Oh the tragedy.   The horror!  Plus then this doesn’t include the “Cassidy Strong” bracelets that were sold and the tshirt sales.

Poor girl.

Then we have that soldier who was shot at the war memorial earlier this year.  A gofundme page quickly went up, but then was taken down just as quickly when people started questioning the morality of it.  Instead they had a bank account set up.   While tragic, the media circus fueled the money machine.   Photos of the crying children, the loyal dog waiting at the fence, the soldier buddy standing guard.   Plagues of photos and stories pulling at the heart.

So what happens:   The family got a life insurance payout.  Plus, the wife gets his pension, and they had a state paid for funeral.   At least count they received half a million in donations from well meaning rubes, i mean people.    Then the royals, pushed their heads in and gave the family an undisclosed sum.   Oh that doesn’t include the sales from bracelets.

Now the family is rich and all off the death of their family member.

ALS challenge.   Oh what a terrible disease!  How horrible!  Affected 1 in 100,000 people! The answer!  Lets pour ice water on our heads and challenge another to do it.  This seemed like a PR Stunt from the beginning, and it was.  Most people jumped on the ALS bandwagon and shouted at people who pointed out a few things.

Those few things are the following:

The ALS Canada company (it is a company), gets over 11 million in funds from the government.   That is more money per person who has the disease, than cancer or aids.

The ALS Canada company has a board of directors, the top members get paid $150,000 and the rest around $80,000.

The board consists of people with back grounds in communications, sales, marketing, etc.  And if you look at the financials, the money that actually goes to research and to pay people to look for cures, is less than 27%.   Over 60% goes to advertising and the rest to pay the board.

Most so called charities work this way.   It is illegal in Canada to be paid a wage if you are running a charity.  The loophole is that, you can be paid if you are doing something charity related, like training volunteers or creating slick PR campaigns.

Really we must question everything before we let our hearts fully take over our brain functions.   We have been given brains and an ability to think.  Think first before you jump on those causes that pull at the heartstrings.   They really are just well designed PR stunts in reality, designed to pull at your wallet.

Anger .. The cause of much…

I was online earlier today and noticed a comment on a friend’s status about an article that appeared in the canadian news papers about a Canadian kid who went over to ISIS and made a video to warn Canada.

Now, please understand. I don’t like war.  I think it should be avoided at all costs.  I do know that sometimes, just sometimes it is justifyable.   I also look at these stories with a grain of salt when it comes from the mainstream, and i don’t look at it from angry eyes.

My friend’s anger was almost of a nature of fire and brimestone.  He condemned the kid in the story, called him traitor, denouncing him for joining a cause.

My friend in question was from anger, real anger derived from coming from Lebannon, a country were war is real and religious hate groups are real.  He has family that still lives there in fact.

The anger directed at ISIS and ISIL is to me, crazy and extreme in itself.   People are righteous in their hatred and anger for them without really able to express why.

I pointed out to my friend that coming from a view that I had no emotional attachment going either way I could see why and how these groups have sprung up and quite frankly, don’t blame it for happening.   I believe we Canadians would do the same if we were in their positions.   In fact, history shows we have in our early beginnings.   Not based on Religion but on a goal.

This is the same for ISIS and ISIL.   I can’t see them as some monster in the dark who will cut off my head.  I can’t, and anyone who looks at the world with an open mind, will see what caused this situation in the first place.   Plus when you have watched this all your life, in these countries then you can see the progression and know that these groups are desperate people.

Now before you go on a rant, think for a moment.

These countries used to be peaceful for the most part.  Every once in awhile one would break out in war and always,  ALWAYS, the american military would be there.   When I was younger, I would watch the news and it was always put forth that the american troops were there to stabilize the middle east.  To bring peace again to a “war torn” nation.   We don’t hear that anymore, we don’t even see the media even try to tell us that anymore.

Many of these countries are very powerful.   The reason for this is they are oil producing countries that control a huge portion of the world’s oil supply.   By destabilizing their governments and plunging those countries into wars, the american government can send troops in under the pretense of protecting the people and oh, protecting the oil as well.

I remember watching on the news, the footage of the american troops on the oil fields trying to put out fires.   Spouting flame from the ground going a mile high into the air under high pressure and extreme heat.   Yeah.   Very rarely did I see footage of a soldier saving civilians in those countries. I did happen, but now that I think back on it, it was usually when the world started to question the american involvement.  That would be when we would see footage of soldiers carrying injured children from rubble to get medical attention (allegedly).

Now here we are almost 40 years later, those middle eastern countries are in no better shape then when I was a kid.   New groups have sprung up and of course the media and the western governments condemn their actions and outrage follows from civilians who look no further than the 2 minute news story on their tv screens or the newspaper column.

This is where i have issues.   We have a means at our disposal that gives us more information, more quickly than the news media can put out.  The Internet.

I myself use this as a source.   Like all sources, it is not always reliable and sometimes it can be dead on reliable.

I look at all sides of the picture and come to my own conclusions, and I don’t assume the view that is portrayed my mainstream media.   Why?  They simply don’t check sources anymore.

I look at the videos and blogs from the people of those countries, the videos and blogs of the soldiers themselves.

Did you know there is a huge amount of videos of US soldiers who are condemning what is being done and they also testify on camera that they are being ordered to kill, rape and beat innocent civilians in those countries?   They get awarded by their superiors for their “first kills”.     One horrific story, a squad, raped a teenage girl, and forced her father to watch and then they set them on fire.   In that particular video, he showed footage from the building where it was done and you could see the blackened cement where the fire burned the bodies.

Those are just some tiny examples of what war is.  So imagine when you live in a country that is constantly bombarded by the Americans, from afar.  Whole families are killed by gunfire in an entire apartment complex, because the Americans want to kill 1 person in that building.

Generations have lived in those conditions.  Over and over and over again.  Not one person hasn’t had a person killed by either side.

Imagine if that was your world.  Unfortunately I have a vivid imagination and can see this all to well.

Out of that anger, then springs up groups that want to take their homes back, their lands, and their country and bring peace.   So these militant groups spring up and organize and fight back.   Some are military trained some aren’t.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s the goal.  The goal to get their lands back and stop the killing from foreign troops.   They use any means at their disposal, because they are outnumbered, and outgunned.  They are desperate and want their country back and to know what peace is, because they simply never have seen peace.   Never lived in a place where they didn’t have to fear getting shot when leaving their home, or being able to go to sleep at night wondering if they would wake up at sunrise or die by a midnight bombing of their home.

That constant barrage of fear will spring hatred.  That hatred becomes driving force in many militant groups and religion will even bring that to the forefront.

So I do understand why and how these groups spring up.   I do also know where the blame lies.  It really isn’t with the religion or with militant groups.   They are fighting for their lives.

You have to look back in history to see what is happening and to the cause   And it all started with the invasions by the american forces.    If the american and Canadian troops left those areas, then peace eventually would come back to those countries.   And eventually the anger would fade.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/07/john-maguire-an-isis-fighter-from-ottawa-appears-on-video-warning-canada-of-attacks-where-it-hurts-you-the-most/

Contracts, Traffic Tickets, The Traffic Court Cases and you.

I love this topic.  I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.

They refuse to believe, what it really is.  It is a contract.  That’s it.  It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation.  A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will.  It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free.   They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card.   They use their legalese to achieve this.  To get us to sign documents.  Let me break down some words so you understand.

When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.

The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.

So let me take the drivers licence again.   You apply for the licence.  You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.

Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence.  So they trick you into believing it.  Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them.  A contract.    There are a few things that make a contract legal.

1.  Two or more parties on the contract

2.  Negotiation, Full disclosure.

3.  A benefit to both parties

4. Agreement of the parties.

This is what any licence is .   It’s a contract.  The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence.  In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act.    The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you.  The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.

Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket.  It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant.  It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.

You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it.   Most people just pay it.  98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney.  The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it.  So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.

In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor.   Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot.  Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that).   It’s also a civil matter.  Not a criminal one.  This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract.  A contract is civil and the terms can be violated.  A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved.  A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.

So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime.  I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.

It’s simply a violation of a contract.    Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped.  Then the court is in a bind.  They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law.  In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.

The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion.   In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.

Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse.   It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law.  How fair and just is that?

The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings.   At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested.  Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased.  He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement.  How fair is that?

Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings.  They will ignore case law.  If they don’t like you then your toast.  Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case.  They can and will ignore that.  They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it.  They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law.  Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.

So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.

The lower courts are also defacto courts.  Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto.   Here is what it means.

What is DE FACTO?

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means  but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company.   So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.

However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.

Now, when dealing with the police.   This is tricky.  Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge.   A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd.  Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.

If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word.  (Traffic cameras excluded).   His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes.  This is why so many wrongs happen in court.  There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion.  You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony.    Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called.  So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”.  A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it.  And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out.  Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery.  Discover is a nice thing that has force in law.   If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed.  Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt.  That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.

This is not legal advice.  Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more.   There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it.  Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him.  Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms.  And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.

Law Society

The law society is a society.  It’s member’s practice law.  They are the ones we call when we have a legal issue and need someone in court.

Remember what I said about societies in my first post?   This is a society.  It was created by and owned by, you guessed it.  The banking family.  The ownership of every company called a law society in the world in any country that was conquered, acquired or colonized by England has one.   The law society has it’s own members who pay their dues and in return they get the protection of their society and as well, they have their own language.   They don’t admit to it,  and after many conversations with lawyers who think I’m incorrect, I’ve found out they don’t even teach their new lawyers about law dictionaries anymore.  Many believe that book form law dictionaries like “Black’s Law Dictionary” is a myth or a hoax.

I call these so called lawyers, ill informed.   And what’s worse, is they won’t believe you, even if you show them the truth.  I had a few months long discussion with one, and I kept citing the law dictionary and he refused to believe it because according to him, the law dictionaries have no basis in law.  Even though they define the words he uses in law everyday.

The law society is a twisted concept, that on it’s face seems noble and honorable.  It is, the arm that holds society back.   It enforces it’s will on all who come within it’s walls and it’s not for the benefit of the people but the crown corporation.

The words they use are a twisted form of English to make people think they are speaking English.  They have redefined simple common place words, to have a slightly different meaning so they can have an advantage.

Driver is my favorite.  As they keep changing it’s definition to try to gain the advantage in court.   Every new edition of a law dictionary has a new definition of this word because people keep fighting this in court.   For my example I will use the original definition and I will go on to explain why this is important.

The original definition said

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

Law Dictionary: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Now, the key words here is employed to conduct.   Employed (Hired or working) to conduct .. meaning to transport either goods or people.

This makes sense since the government by it’s own words is supposed to manage the resources of the lands and manage trade within and without the lands.   A driver then under that definition would be a commercial driver.  One who is using the roads (public roads) for personal gain.  So it makes sense to me that a “Driver” should be licensed and taxed for the money they make using the public roads that I as a non driver pay for via the gas tax.

So anyone really who makes a living transporting goods or people using the roads is a driver. At least under that legal definition.   This definition comes directly from the law society.

Yet we are forced to pay for driver licenses and taxed on it every year on our birthdays.   Many people don’t think of this that way and that is due to the twisting of the language.   Another thing in law they don’t tell you is the word MAY is synonymous with the word MUST.   Basically in law you can switch the one word for the other.   So when you read on the provincial government websites for drivers licenses you will see it say you MUST get a drivers license.   This is legalese again.  They use this to trick you into believing that you have to get a commercial license to use the roads you already pay for.

The public misconception is that a drivers licence magically makes you safe on the roads and competent to drive a vehicle.  Despite the fact there are thousands of accidents every day, by allegedly “competent drivers”.    Despite the fact that, up until the early sixties, people didn’t need a licence to drive a car on the roads for personal use.   It wasn’t until they used legalese in their wording on the documents that people began to believe the myth that a plastic card made you safe on the roads.    By that simple legalese trickery by substituting the word MAY with MUST, they ensured a billion plus dollars every year, plus fines from tickets, because tickets by the way are commercial bills in their nature.  I will get into that in another post.

The law society dictates what the words mean in their legalese.  Seemingly common words we take for granted have vastly different meanings or multiple meanings they use at will without our knowledge.    Look at it this way, in Quebec they speak a more guttural and slang version of french.  In Paris they speak a true form of french.   We speak English and the law society speaks a bastardized version of it.

Due to the fact the law society is a registered corporation and is also owned by the same people who own the government, they use that advantage to manipulate the people that they get true justice in all levels of court.  The lower court system isn’t about fairness or justice.  It’s about making money.  That branch brings in money in fines, fees and judgement’s in favor of the crown.  Not the Queen, the crown corporation.   They are a court of contracts.  This is why all lower court judges won’t answer the question if they are working for the crown corporation or the queen.  The can’t because then no one would listen to them anymore.

Another thing many people don’t realize about the law society, or rather they are beginning to suspect, is that they protect their own.  A judge is just a lawyer in a black dress.  He oversees cases and makes judgement on them in lower courts.   The usual penalty is a fine.  Which goes to the crown corporation.   That’s his job.  It’s not to ensure justice. It’s making money.  The judge, the crown prosecutor and the lawyer you hire, are all members of the same society.  They work together.   In many circumstances, judges are also chosen from the city attorney pool, usually a crown prosecutor will get promoted to judge.  And that is based on how many convictions he has gotten in his favor.  That means the more he wins and the more fines the crown makes, the better his chances at a promotion.   The judge, because they usually come from the prosecution side of the equation, are biased and tend to judge in favor of the crown.  This way he gets his bonus’s and raises.  They both get paid from the same source as well.

This is the system the law society set up.    Next blog post will be on the court rooms and the scams they do there.

Some words to look up are

Person

Driver

Monster

Some dictionaries you can find online are Black’s Law dictionary, Canadian Law dictionary.    You can also find these law dictionaries in ebook form and to buy in book stores.   Be aware, according to the current crop of lawyers out there, these books are a myth, hoax or don’t mean anything.

Canada is not a true democracy.

Canada is not a true democracy.  A true democracy includes those who don’t vote.   One of the fundamental cornerstones or truths in democracy is:

Consent of the governed.

We give our consent to be governed by participating in voting and voting for the person we wish to govern on our behalf.

This is a fundamental truth that the government of Canada will even agree on.  (I called and asked them).

Now here is the simple way to prove we are not a democracy.  The people who do not vote in Canada do not count.  If you speak with elections Canada and ask them what happens when the majority of the population don’t vote, they will tell you that it doesn’t matter, that even if only a thousand people voted then whoever got the most votes wins.

If we are truly giving our consent to be governed, we are removing that consent by not voting.   It doesn’t matter the reason either.   Once we remove that consent that should be it.  The government should dissolve and a new system should take it’s place.   However, according to the government, that isn’t the case.   The government goes one, without the consent.   Therefor, it is not a democracy.  It is a tyranny.  When a small group of people get to decide for the rest and use force to push their rules on them, then that is a tyranny.

In the city were I live, we had our local elections this year.   Only 35% of the population voted.  That means 65% removed their consent.   If this was a democracy, our city government would have disbanded and a new one should have replaced it. Instead we have the people that a small group decided on.    That is tyranny.   You can claim it isn’t all you want but when the majority say no by removing their consent and the government continues then that isn’t a true democracy.

Canada – What it really is.

I decided to start off my second blog, with information about the government of Canada.  In my searching I found some very eye opening information.   I, like many people, used to think that the government was some mass organization that is for the benefit of the people.  As the propaganda states, it is there for the protection of the people and it’s lands.  This is a half truth.

In order to understand what the government is, you have to go back before it was even created.  Back in the time when the first explorers came to the lands and interacted with the natives.    They created that famous first trading post in Hudson’s bay to exchange furs and such.

We all know the story and it’s very serene, sounds nice and is taught to everyone.   Have you ever wondered who financed that expedition?  Where the money came from?   Everyone assumes it’s the monarchy.   The English monarch definitely did approve of the expedition but she didn’t negotiate any deals herself.  She sent her envoys, who in return got sole rights to the management of the lands in the treaties.  This is what they don’t teach you in School.

They used to teach us that the Hudson’s bay company formed from that trading post and after more treaties were signed for the management of the land and approval of the people to colonize, that the government arose from the Hudson’s bay company.  Hudson’s bay dealt with trade between the natives and England and the government managed the lands and resources on behalf of the people and conducted trade with other countries.   After speaking with some teens and checking some current history books they don’t teach this anymore.  Apparently history changed.

So continuing on, the people who negotiated the treaties and created the government, worked for the banking family of the day in England, who happened to own the Crown Corporation of England and the City of London which is a small patch of land in the center of the larger city of England. A hidden inner city so to speak.   In this city because of it’s strange history, none of the reigning monarchs in England can set foot on that land without permission from the mayor.  It’s been that way for hundreds of years, and to this day the queen must ask permission to enter the inner city.

When I found out this information I did some research on the bankers themselves.  Back then there was about 9 banking families, all fighting for dominance.    The Rothchilds were the predominant and still are to this day.   They sent their people to negotiate the treaties with the natives and that included the rights to manage the lands, and it’s people.  So after the ink was dry on that treaty they created the government.  Which was and still is to this day owned by the Crown Corporation of London.   In Canada, our government is called the Crown Corporation of Canada.   We have the Bank of Canada, and they have the Bank of England.   (Do you see resemblances?).

Many people in Canada, believe and are taught without any kind of proof but a history book that the lands are held in trust by the Queen on behalf of the natives.   This is again a half truth.  The queen in this case is a figure head.  She approved the deal because the people she hired created the treaties.  In return for her support and her family, they get a continuous stream of wealth.   The real creators of the government is the bankers.   The Crown Corporation of Canada is listed as a corporation SOLE.  This can be verified by doing a simple credit report search on them, you can do it from TransUnion, Equafax, or Dun and Bradstreet.

For those that don’t know, a corporation sole is a company that is owned by a single individual or company.    In the Crown Corporation’s case, it is owned by the Crown Corporation of London.

Many people have gotten angry when I pointed this out. That the government is in reality a corporation.  That simple statement has caused people to go into a frenzy of trying to disprove me with regurgitation of the history books (which don’t tell us everything), down to name calling in an attempt to discredit me.   Please if you don’t believe what I said just go do some research and dig into this.  It took me about six months of digging to find out a fraction of this information.

The other thing that makes people believe the government was created by the queen was the name.  The Crown Corporation of Canada.  The government pushes this perception easily because let’s face it, when we think of the word “Crown” we think the queen.  So the government has created this image that the queen owns the Crown Corporation.  She doesn’t.   The name was chosen precisely to fool the people into thinking this.  Same reason the FED in the united states was called what it was.   The Bank of Canada, the same. It is a privately owned company.  All owned by the same people.

The title of the business fools the reader into believing that there is something noble and good about the government.  After all the crown created it so it must be good.   This isn’t the case.   The system was created a very long time ago to fool people they had freedom. And to instill the belief that the government was working on it’s behalf for the greater good.

The Crown Corporation is a corporation.  Owned by bankers and run by idiots.   I would estimate that maybe, three maybe four people in the entire high branches of the government are even aware who their real bosses are.   It is definitely not the people.

If you don’t believe this, then ask a judge this.  Do you work for the “Crown, her Majesty in Right of Canada” or do you work for the “Crown Corporation of Canada”.   A judge will NEVER answer this.  They cannot because the answer would bring out the lie.   In the thousands of hours of videos of court cases, and in all the times that question has been asked, the judge has always, always had a response that makes you blink.   In one video I watched a judge flee the room, in another, he flew into a fit of rage, in another he dismissed a case without going through the case.

There is a major difference between the Crown Corporation and the Crown.  One represents the Queen and one Represents the Bankers.

The other perception put forth by the Government is that your vote counts.  That it means something.  And that the leader you vote in is the one running the country.  This is an outright lie.

If you go look at the governor general’s act of Canada on line 2 it specifies the Governor General is the CEO of the crown corporation.   Not the PM.   The prime minister is then just a figurehead or rather, a sales person.   He is there to sell the people the perception that he’s in charge.   He makes the appearances, talks to other heads of state and manages the members of parliament.   He is the front-man.  Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have any authority, he has to if the act is to be authentic.  If he didn’t then, people would have figured this out a very long time ago.  No, he has the authority in Parliament and with his cabinet.    I would put him as the CEO’s top sales person.  Or assistant.   The people elect him.  The Governor General does not get elected by the people.  That is just one reason why your vote doesn’t count.

Now at this time I have been unable to find alternate information on the governor general, specifically if the queen really appoints him/her to the position or if it is the head office (crown corp of London.) .   This bothers me.  There is no historical information on this. I have doubts that the queen appoints the person but if it is true then it can mean that they run things on behalf of the queen in partnership with the bankers.  Sort of a partner in the business.   This makes sense to me, because it’s the royal family’s name at stake and if more people found out in the general public, there would be a lynching.  At least that is a personal belief and at this time I cannot find any evidence to prove otherwise either.

World of Lies and Misinformation – First Blog

I decided to start my word press blog with my view on the world.    The reason I do this is to set the theme of the blog and to help people understand my world.   The following is how I got here.

Years ago, I used to be proud of my country.   I would celebrate on it’s birthday, go to parades, salute our soldiers and feel pride.   I would be the first to shout the propaganda that everyone else shouts out about their country.  “It’s the greatest country on the planet!” or “We are in a free country!”  I’d say.    Unfortunately now,  I know these are lies.  Lies stemming from misconceptions about the world we live in.

Have you ever watched the news and seen a politician make a speech and think to yourself, “something is off”?   Have you ever read a newspaper and thought, “no that information is wrong.”?

You were right.  Deep down inside there was something wrong.  The information in today’s media is at best uninformed, at worst, an outright lie.

I didn’t come to full realization however, until began my studies in contract law.  I run a business, and thought it prudent to learn about contracts and what makes a legal contract and what doesn’t etc.  This was so I could write up a contract between myself and my clients that would be fair and protect both parties.   After learning basic contract law, I saw something.   And I started to delve more into law, and courts and Acts of parliament.

Something dawned on me in that sort of “AHA!” moment.  The type of moment when a light flicks on and a new understanding comes over you and you feel energized.   I looked into court room procedures and watched, thousands of hours of lower court cases.   I read numerous books on law from both the legal profession and the non legal profession.   I then went and researched government, and how it came about.  Going back before the English settled on Canada’s shores.  Delved into how the expedition was financed and how the treaties were signed between England and the Natives.

After spending years reading and researching, I started sharing my findings.  Of course predictably, I have been called names and people have tried to shout me down.  I have even lost friends over my findings and my views.    This doesn’t bother me, it doesn’t bother me to lose a friend over a view.  It doesn’t bother me that people get angry. I understand why they are getting angry and why they disassociate themselves from me.

Truth is blunt and it’s honest.  It’s seldom nice and flowery and it definitely will get people angry.   The truths I have found and tried to share and will share on this blog are an affront to the core of people’s understanding of the world we live in.   They believe many things, all taught in the schools and passed on generation after generation until it becomes part of our very core being.   So when I get angry comments, I do not get offended.  When people try to call me names, I always remember that is the anger from the “programming” we have all been through.

My blog will anger you, if you already do not know what I will tell you.  It will cause you to call me radical or conspiracy nut or even a tin foil hat wearying nut.   I’ve heard them all.  I don’t care if you get angry.  That is a natural response.   I only care that you promise, not me, but yourself that you will have an open mind, and that once your anger has gone, to come back with an open mind.

I will always try to add links for sources on my blogs but this will not always be possible. Many websites that I have found information on have changed or disappeared.  That doesn’t mean I am wrong. It just means the info has been removed by sources beyond my control.   The information I provide can be found in many places.   And like the parts of a computer network, they are not in just one place.

The other thing I would like to point out, is the definition of words.  I’m a stickler on keeping to the definition of words and try to keep to their original meanings.  There is a huge reason for this.

Words are sounds.  We create sounds to identify things and each other.   Without meaning to the sounds we call words then they can mean anything and are useless.  So we give them meaning so we can all understand what we are saying with those sounds.   When we start ignoring the meanings that have been assigned to the sounds then we lose the ability to effectively communicate.    For example the word apple.   When we use that sound, we think of the red fruit from the tree.  We all know an apple and see the image of an apple in our minds.   If we ignore the definition of the word apple, then we try to have a conversation, and I say “the apple rolls down the road smoothly.”, and you wouldn’t understand what I meant because I changed the definition or meaning, and all communication breaks down.

The other thing I would like to point out is societies.   Every society on the planet has it’s own rules, it’s own language and it’s own membership.  In Canada for example we are Canadians, we have English and french and our citizens are the ones allowed to vote and get into the high offices of government.   This is just one example.  I will delving, into another one, hidden in plain sight that many people don’t even think of as a society, not even it’s own members.

Media, government, societies, courts and law will all be deconstructed and explained.  I will point out the major and minor flaws in all and show you were and how we are being manipulated, deceived and most of all, controlled.   And, believe me.  We are being controlled.   In every aspect of our lives, including in many cases our thought processes.

I hope you will continue to read as I post.  I won’t be responding to comments but feel free to keep discussions civil. Any nasty name calling comments or comments that don’t add to a civil discourse will be removed.