Free Speech under attack in Canada

SilenceEqualsDeath

Today a news report came across my feed about a former MP who launched a class action lawsuit against a religious man who passed out pamphlets at the gay pride parade in Toronto.

The pamphlets being ultra religious, stated inflammatory information, like all gay people are aids carriers etc.    Much of it was disgusting, according to those who attended the parade.

However, when I asked the person who launched the Lawsuit, if the pamphlets contained calls for people to beat up gay people or to kill gay people?   He avoided answering.    Trying to deflect the question by stating that he wasn’t about to post anything what was in the pamphlets because he found it distasteful and disgusting.

I took that evasion to mean, that no, the preacher man didn’t have anything that called for the extermination of gay people or the harming of gay people.

Freedom of speech does not mean you only get to hear or read things that you like.  If that was the case, I would not be able to write my articles.  No news reporters would be able to actively report the truth.   People could be arrested for having the wrong views or opinions.  Books would be banned.  Movies, Television would be heavily censored.

Now while in Canada, we tend to be a more socialist nation than one of democracy.  In fact I have written on this numerous times.  I have also written how we don’t have free speech  in this country.  And we really don’t.  We have limits here on what we can say.

Only now I believe it’s time for everyone, in Canada , to wake up and put a stop to people trying to silence you because you might hurt their feelings, or because they are offended, or find whatever you saying distasteful.   You have every single right to voice your opinion, to speak your mind and to say what you want. As  long as you don’t call for violence against anyone.

We need to fight people who try to attack free speech.  We do this by using logic, reasoning and not be shamed or silenced by those who would silence our speech.

I sincerely hope the court system does the right thing and throws this case out with the trash, otherwise there could be serious repercussions for everyone, including those who would silence us.

Lawsuit story here:
http://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-distribution-of-anti-gay-literature-at-pride-parade-1.3026515

What happened to our homes are our castles?

Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK
Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK

What happens when your home is no longer your castle?  What does it feel like when you, get told that you have no rights on who enters your home or when?

I found out today that in Canada, we do not have any rights to our property.  At least the government believes we don’t.    In the interest of safety, they have created laws that empower their  agents to think they can tell us that they can, without any warrant, to enter our homes.

Now the reason may sound reasonable to some, but the reason does not matter to me.  It is the rights they trample over.

Today during a neighborhood association meeting, we had a representative from the fire department.   She was quite nice and I had a great respect for that branch.   Until today that is.     She had been there to represent the local fire department and with a smile, informed us that the Carbon Monoxide detectors had almost been installed in all the homes in my area, except for a few.   She then proceeded to inform us that in those homes that they were unable to gain access to, they would ticket the homeowners and basically enter the home, without a warrant to install these Carbon Monoxide detectors/inspect the home.

Of course being who I am, this raised huge red flags to me.   Our homes are supposed to be our sanctuaries and no one, should be allowed to enter except in emergency or with a warrant if suspected of a crime.

According to the fire department however, they can and will enter people’s homes if the home owners refuse them entry when they come knocking for the carbon monoxide detectors.

The legal implications for this is huge.    The first implication is that you have no say on who enters the home if they are a government agent.   The police are supposed to get a warrant to enter someone’s home, but the fire department doesn’t if there is no apparent emergency?

If the fire department can be granted these powers, with no due process, then what else has the Canadian governments created?

Needless to say this made me instantly angry.   Here was a government representative, telling us homeowners that we had no say.   No authority.     Well needless to say that I promptly informed her that no law can decide who enters my home and If they tried I will fight them in court and defend my home from intrusion, because without a warrant, I consider anyone entering my home as a home invader.  Uniform or not.     She then tried to threaten me with getting a police officer to come in to “explain” the law to me.

This kind of heavy strong arm tactic is the same type that dictatorships use and if you don’t capitulate they throw you in jail or kill you.    No cop can enter your home without your permission or a warrant, or unless there is some emergency like a 911 call from inside the home, fire, or break in.

They cannot, ever enter without a warrant.   To do so, they would be violating your rights to privacy and your home.    Think of all those people who have been victims of a home invasion and imagine the home invaders being the government.    The feelings you would feel would be no different.    Many people who have experienced this from cops or any government agency have described their feelings after as the same as those who have had a home invasion by criminals.     No difference.

Now, someone at the meeting cited that police can enter with just cause, and the answer is a swift no they can’t.   They need to get a warrant to enter.  If they have “just cause” then they can bring that to a judge, while just cause is not usually enough to get an arrest warrant, it can be enough to justify a warrant to enter someone’s home, but to give any other agencies sweeping powers to enter your home with any due process is a violation of a person’s rights.

We need to stop letting these people get away with this.  We need to stop being so passive when it comes to government and law enforcement.

Maybe they are misunderstanding the law?   Maybe they have been told by their superiors they can do this and let the lawyers handle any blowback?   Who knows, but this is not what living in a free country means.

Justin Trudeau is now Prime Minister of Canada. – What does this mean?

trudeau_transparency_20140611

What exactly does this mean?   It means absolutely nothing.   Trudeau is not the leader of the Canadian government.  Neither was Harper.   They are figure heads.  Meant to persuade you that you that they are in charge, when in reality.  They are not.

Never in our history has any prime minister made any changes.   His father, was the figure head who everyone praised like a god, but never once considered the long term harm he would do, and did.

Justin, born with a silver spoon up his butt, but with the good looks like people flock to, has no value.

Will anything change?   Not in the slightest.

The government will allow the spying on it’s own people, without any oversight or warrants.
The government will continue to raise taxes.
The government will continue to have scandals.

Here are some of Trudeau’s campaign promises:

Mr. Trudeau has promised that half of a Liberal cabinet would be women.
(This can NOT be fulfilled unless women step up and are qualified.)

Promising unions $750 million for skilled trades funding.
(This can be fulfilled but where does that money come from?  From the taxpayers of course.  And since the government is in debt, then they would have to raise taxes.)

Add $515 million in funding for first nations education.
(While this is a noble promise, it ignores the fact that canada has no money to do this.  Raise taxes.)

Lower the federal income tax rate to 20.5 per cent on incomes between $44,700 and $89,401, paying for it by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent. Bring in a new, tax-free child benefit to replace the Conservative universal child benefit.

(What Justin fails to understand is the wealthy one percent couldn’t cover the cost the loss of income tax the drop would cause.   The middle class in canada is the largest class.   The top one percent, couldn’t possibly cover the loss.   The man used to be a teacher and I shudder at the thought of his math skills).

Change labour laws to ensure that employees in federally regulated industries have the right to ask their bosses for flexible work hours.
(What this means is people (women) would be able to take more time off work to be with their family.  For example: a woman who now gets a year off maternity leave, would get to take even more time off, and be able to go back to work of and off as much as they want up to 18 months of time.  Per child.  That means if a woman has 3 children during her career, she would would be able to take up to four and a half years off.  And feminists are confused about the wage gap now, but they will freak out when the numbers start showing that in Canada the gap widens because of policies like this one if implemented.  Now I know he worded it “person”, which is due to the fact, he cannot discriminate, and so it sounds like men will be able to use this time as well, however, we know from history, that only a few men will benefit.  It will be the women who will be the major beneficiaries, not men.  So really this policy is sexist against men.)

Justin Trudeau has made so many election promises and all will cost money, but the money has to come from somewhere, so here are a few predictions:

Taxes will rise to the point the middle class will shrink, and the poor will grow.
The government will become more oppressive to it’s citizens.  We can even see TSA like systems put into place.  More family units will break down due to finances.
There will be a battle of the sexes in Canada.  Men against women.  Women demanding what men have, but not wanting to work for it.
And in future elections, people will blame the non voters for not stopping Trudeau from getting into power.   Just like they did with Harper, even though many of the complainers voted him in.

Stop being stupid people.   The government is a corporation, and they don’t care about you.  They have no obligation to protect you.  And since they have no legal obligation to protect you, they will do everything to scam you.

What is Canada? – Let’s end the Confusion

crown-jewels-london-england-places-1-screensaver

I apologize if I have covered this before but there seems to be many people out in Canada who still believe that Canada is one hundred percent independent from the UK, in particular, the Queen.     Many argue she is just a figure head with no power here.  I have heard the argument over and over.   It simply isn’t true, and I am baffled at why people think otherwise.

I have a theory that fifty percent of the population has been dumb down by drugs, media, and the chemicals in the water.   That is the only explanation of the mass upsurge in ignorance and idiocy in the general public.   I heard once that if you see a really dumb person, that half the population is dumber than that, and I am beginning to believe that theory.

However, let me get back on to the subject.   What is Canada?  Is it really independent?   The answer is no.  We are part of the commonwealth, and the Queen does have authority.  She however, shares her authority. This doesn’t mean she is a figurehead, it means she has chosen to give authority to others to act on her behalf.  That is an entirely different thing than not having any authority at all.

Let me put this into context.    The Crown Corporation (Government of Canada) was created by her ancestors, and yes it is a corporation.   It’s actually listed as a Corporation Sole for those willing to look that up.   The ruling monarch owns it.   Now, when you own a corporation and it is a corporation sole, and want to leave the day to day operations to leave you free to pursue other interests or oversee other corporations that you or your family started, you hire a CEO.   That person is given almost the same authority as the founder/owner of the company.  They can make the big decisions as the representative of the owner.   This doesn’t mean the owner doesn’t have any say.  They can at any time come in and tell that CEO what direction or even approve or disapprove of any rules the company makes for it’s people.

This is what is happening with Canada.  The queen has appointed a CEO who’s public title is Governor General.   The other reason the title is named this way is because the Queen has authority over some parts of the military and has full authority over the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).   If the governor general chooses, they can dispatch the Mounties anywhere to uphold any laws.

If you need proof of the governor general’s role, or title, all you have to do is read the Governor General Act (Canada) found here:   http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-9/page-1.html

Under line 2 of the act it states:

Corporation sole

 The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.

This means the office as well as the title is also a corporation sole, but it names him/her as the CEO of the government.

Anyone who has run a business, studied business, knows the basics and knows that a corporation sole is owned by one person.   That person in this case is always the queen.   They have that authority.

Now something that some have said to me is she has zero authority to sign any laws into effect.   Again  this is not true. It seems, like she doesn’t, because in or commoner ways, we don’t see her do this, and with many stupid people out there, if they don’t see the evidence with their own eyes then it isn’t true.

Here is the evidence:  Constitution Act of 1982

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#docCont

Section 41:

Amendment by unanimous consent

 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

  • (athe office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

  • (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

  • (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

  • (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

  • (e) an amendment to this Part.

This means the queen has to be part of the approval process to the Constitution act.  She can veto it, if she doesn’t want it.

There are other previous versions, during my research I found many that have been changed, since the foundation of the Dominion.    They have removed some chartered rights, such as the right not to have arbitrary search and seizure.  The current charter is a pale comparison to what was there before.

All these have been approved by the Queen or her representative.   When an act is created from scratch, it must go through several steps in order for it to be approved into existence.   The final approval comes from the Governor General.  He acting as the Queen’s agent signs that the new act into law.    He also approves any changes to existing acts.

So to summerize, the Queen is the head of Canada.  Canada being the Government, or rather to be more precise, the Crown Corporation of Canada.   A corporation sole.    She has the authority over some of the military, the RCMP.   The government sends her tithe money, and holds the lands in trust, managing them for her.

This is something many people have forgotten.    Please share and don’t forget.

Zuckerburg is a criminal. Facebook is now Censoring more.

Today I found on my news feed on Facebook, that it had changed it’s rules and guidelines, basically telling us what we can and cannot post.   With very little detail and very ambiguous, it can now ban pretty much ban you for anything.  That is, anything they feel, they don’t like.    Like for example:

Articles about:

Any group the government targets … like terrorist groups.

However, what the government considers terrorist groups is not the same as what the average person does.

Here are some listed terrorist groups:

Environmentalists

Freedom of Speech Groups

Anti Abortion Groups

Human Rights Groups (yes that’s right).

Pro Freedom Groups

Anti Government or Smaller Government Groups

Facebook and Zuckerburg feel that it is okay to censor people’s voices.  That anything that doesn’t follow the american government’s ideas, is against them and therefor a target.

The recent past few months with the debate on vaccinations will be a thing of the past with these new rules.   They will allow Czar Zuckerburg to ban anyone who joins an anti-vaccination group, any group that is against the american government, who are against any government agenda.

The reason is simply, they don’t want the people to have freedoms.   Zuckerburg has created a social media culture where it’s okay to censor people.   I know, I see it all the time when I comment on friend’s posts.

One in particular claims he loves our discussions, but will delete my comments almost every time, because we tend to disagree on the topic he posts.   No real discussion can be had under that type of environment.   No opposing views allowed.  I’ve had friends that I’ve known personally in real life for years, all of a sudden delete and block me for a simple status message or an article that was posted.

The idea you can just delete a person whenever you wish is the kind of idea that leads to censorship and today facebook just added another way people can censor another, and more importantly, facebook themselves.

Now all the groups we see on facebook, that are against vaccinations, abortions, that are for environmental protections, clean energy, clean drinking water, raw milk, GMO labeling, Medical Pot, and more are all, at risk.   No more do we have true freedom of speech.   No more are the days when you can speak your mind about your views or opinions or even actually back your views with links to proof and real facts.  Instead, facebook can delete and block you if they don’t like your view.

In fact, you can say Zuckerburg has committed treason to the human race.

Here are the crimes he has committed against the human global race.

Censorship of Freedom of Speech

Selling our private information for profit.

Partnering with a  government spy agency to spy on it’s own people and others around the world.

Giving unrestricted access to government agencies to mine and collect our data to create profiles of each and every one of us.

Adding hidden programming in the phone apps that allow them to track where you are at all times via your phone’s GPS and through the cell towers.

Sharing your private communications with governments and using the contents to create advertisements targeting you specifically.

I had a conversation with someone about this and they laughed saying the american government doesn’t do these things.   When the person said that I couldn’t believe what I heard.   How could anyone in this day and age believe that?   The american government, Canadian governments both admit to it.  They admit to watching us, gathering information.  Obama has bragged on record for being able to kidnap american citizens without trial or warrant and execute them on a whim.   And yet he laughed and said it can’t happen.

When our freedoms are eroded so much, all you have to do is look at the people.  The people, the so called majority have become apathetic zombies.  Stuck on their reality shows, Facebook, and superficial lives.   Our society has been molded into an unthinking society of sheep, who refuse to question perceived authority.

This has to stop.  Before we are herded off into cattle cars and are marched naked into ovens en masse.

Sources:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0
http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/03/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

Vaccines vs No Vaccines

Let me start off by saying I’m for a healthy society.   I don’t want children to die or get sick, but the fact is I know how the immune system works and how are bodies work.  So the truth is, we need to get sick.

Our bodies are created with an immune system for a reason.  We live in a  world with disease, germs, virus’ and bacteria.   Life started on this planet due to bacteria.

We also know from science that these things can disappear for hundreds even millions of years and then come back in outbreaks.

Right there, mainly due to the mass hysteria brought on by overprotective parents in the United States and Canada, around the recent measles cases in both countries.   What they are calling an outbreak, I would call a few sick kids, by that is besides the point.

Let me talk about measles for a moment.

Measles isn’t that scary.  I have mom’s on my facebook lists who scream and shout that anti vaxxers are child abusers etc.   I find this behavior reactionary, and fear based.  When discussing the issue with them they claim to have “done their research” but when you question or discuss the issue you will find their research consists of getting five minutes worth of info from their doctor, memes from their mommy and me facebook group and an article written in a pop culture magazine.

Here is a tiny bit of history which will give you an idea of what measles was like back in history.

1800s:   During this era the chance of death was approximately 48% for people who contracted measles.
In those years they didn’t have sanitation infrastructure, they went to the bathroom in a pail and dumped it’s contents out onto the street.   You also wiped your buttocks with a rag or your hand.
They would bath at most once a month and at the very least once a year.
Hand-washing was rare, and food cross contamination was an every day occurrence as well as under cooked foods and unwashed vegetables.
People wore the same clothes for months at a time.  In wealthy house holds they would have 4 sets of clothing for each season and would change their clothes per season, not each day.

Due to all of the above, disease would be rampant and many would die.

Fast forward to the invention of sanitation sewer systems and we saw a decline in disease, and illness.  Modern water pipes brought in water into the homes, and allowed people to bathe more frequently, not every day but once a week or so.   Washing our vegetables became routine and washing clothes was done more often.

1960s:  This was the era when vaccines were introduced.   Measles was almost gone at this time.  Less than a percent of the people in the united states had measles less than a percent of a percent of a percent died from it.   We had daily bathes, wore clean clothes everyday, cooked our foods properly and had modern sanitation and sewage infrastructure in all the major cities, small towns.

Now:   We have very tiny outbreaks of measles, in pocket areas.  In all cases, in the past 10 years it was found that an adult who was vaccinated was the patient zero and caused the outbreaks.    Zero infant deaths in the past 10-15 years have happened due to measles.
us-measles
Most doctors don’t know what is in the measles vaccines.  They couldn’t tell you the individual ingredients, they don’t even read the insert the Pharma companies include in the box.   And the things that insert tells you, should be enough to make you pause and look deeper.  Most don’t.

The CDC has written documents, that say after a vaccine your child is very infectious and should not be around any other children for a period of time.  The Pharma companies put inserts for these vaccines have really strong warnings.   Here is the MMR2 vaccine insert (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf)

This says right on the warning that anyone who is allergic to eggs, has any fever based illness,  Under the adverse reactions on page six, it gets interesting where it states you can get “Diabetes”   (  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus )

Some other “adverse effects are:”

Anaphylaxis – Severe allergic reaction which can cause death.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylaxis)

Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia – Severe Joint, and muscle pain.   Less so with children and as the age of the person increases so does the chances of acquiring it along with the pain levels increasing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthralgia  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myalgia

Encephalitis – Brain swelling which can cause seizures, febrile convulsions, afebrile
convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia

At this point you should be getting a picture of what dangers lie within the vaccine itself.

There is much more in there.  Read for yourself.  Use google to figure out some of the reactions and you will find what is listed as reactions are not reactions but illness and even death.  Some are lifetime illness’.  And that is right on the insert that comes with the measles vaccine.   That should scare anyone.  It does me.  And yet many parents would rather risk their child’s health on these “adverse reactions” than a 1-1000-3000 chance of death (which hasn’t happened in decades).

In other words, fear.   Fear of death,,  That looming word, brings images of a small coffin and no one wants that.  Instead they inject their baby with a toxin that can cause all sorts of “adverse effects” that will last a lifetime.   And then they scratch their heads and wonder what happened and blame un-vaccinated children or parents of said children.

Now I have to ask anyone out there, is it really worth is to risk a child health like this knowing this information?

Here is what it boils down to:

No Vaccine:  Child gets sick for a week or so, has rash and fever.   Recovers and has a lifetime of antibodies and in women can pass those down to her children for the first 15 months of their lives.

Vaccine:  Adverse side effects, chance of lifetime illness’, like diabetes, muscle issues, autoimmune issues etc, seizures.   For a period of maximum 10 years cloned antibodies that are not guaranteed to stop the disease and can be shed from the body and be highly contagious if the vaccine is a live virus vaccine.

To me the answer is clear.  Not to get or give the vaccine to anyone.

The other point I would like to touch on, is about freedom.  I believe if we are truly free then we have the freedom to say no to our government.  That should be a huge concern for everyone.    This is why we have the judicial system were we have a jury of our peers to decide to remove those freedoms if a crime has been committed.  Personal freedoms or individual freedoms for myself is untouchable.   A government does not decide what my rights are.   They can’t.  A right is inherent.  A privileged is given.  A right can only be violated.  A privileged can only be taken away.

Forcing a medical procedure against my will or consent is tantamount to assault, rape and an attack on myself or my family.  No one has the right to choose for me or my family.  None.  If you don’t have that choice then you are not free.   If your government, mandates that vaccines are mandatory, then I think everyone should take up arms and start a rebellion.   A vaccine for me is the same as trying to inject HIV directly into my body.   And I will never agree to that.     You can choose to get these vaccines, I will even defend that right, but don’t ever try to take away my right to choose.

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.

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.