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

Differences in Law – Explained.

I recently had a discussion with a group of people online about the differences in law.   The majority of people believe that law has different categories with their own rules and regulations.

ALL CIVIL LAWS ARE CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE

Here is how law works.  I’ll start off with the top level.

Criminal vs Civil.

Criminal Law deals with crimes that have victims.  Like rape, robbery, property damage or murder.   These fall under a crime with a victim because someone was always hurt or damaged by another’s actions.  And in most cases there is reparations or jail or both.

Civil cases are all contract cases.   This is where the above mentioned discussion got heated, and I understand why.   In Civil Law there are sub categories.

Family Law, Divorce Law, Personal Injury Law, Traffic Tickets, Small Claims, and more.

So I can see why many people would confuse these as being totally separate and have nothing to do with civil cases.   However all these things are contractual and fall under civil courts and that is why they handle them.

Divorce Law.     This deals with with break up of the marriage contract either due to a violation of one or both of the parties or just a mutual amicable split.

The contract was the marriage contract you signed when you got married that allowed the government to have authority over your divorce should you get divorced and as well to define your marriage with rules. (there are laws for marriage you can look up online, results vary depending on your government).

Traffic Court – These deal with fines or violations of the contract you have with the government that you signed when you got your drivers licence concerning the rules of the road.   This is also why they call any breach of the contract a “violation” and not a crime in court.  Simply because it is a violation of a contract.

Small Claims while not always dealing with contracts between parties, the parties in court at some point individually have signed a contract somewhere that gave the government authority over the situation.   For example, two neighbors having a dispute over a fence line.     Seems innocuous and doesn’t sound like it involves contracts, but each property owner signed documents with lawyers when they purchased their property and in those documents they agreed to abide by the laws governing the area concerning the property and agreed that the government would have final say.     That was part of the land deed you signed for.   A contract.

As well to note some contracts are verbal –   If you asked to borrow my car and I said only if you filled the tank of gas, and you agreed, that is considered a verbal contract.  Because this falls on the property or even public property (which the government owns) then they have jurisdiction.

Personal Injury law is also contractual in much the same way that small claims is.   It’s part of the whole land deed contract rules as well as public land rules.    The agreement was made  when you signed the deed papers for your property.  Or if you fall on public property you would take the city to court and the court would determine if the city is liable under the contract due to a violation, like not keeping a sidewalk in proper repair and it collapses under you into a sinkhole.   That would make the government in breach of the contract by virtue of the public trust and property owners who pay taxes for the repair and upkeep.

One gentlemen claimed that this simply wasn’t true that any contract isn’t valid if your “tricked” into signing it without full disclosure.   However, the government fully discloses everything and calls it Acts or Statutes or Code.    The majority of people aren’t educated in this and assume these sub categories are all different, when essentially they are all the same.  Just the terms for each contract are different.

Think about how many times you sign documents with a government agency.  Those are all contracts friends.

We live in a “Democratic” (I use the term loosely), society.   In a democracy, we are ruled by consent of the governed.  They get that consent in different ways.   One way and the most commonly known way is the voting process.  We give our consent by voting in the person who we think should govern.   What they don’t tell you is all the other ways that they gain your consent.    And that is via the contract.    They have to do it this way because then we wouldn’t be living in a “Free” country.  We would be openly be slaves.

They need you to consent to abide by their rules for the road for example.  They have to because everyone has the right to use those roads as they are paid for by taxes when you fill your tank of gas.    So you and everyone has the right.  Which is why they are called public roads.   They use the licence system to convince people that it’s for safety and it weeds out the unsafe drivers and you sign the documents, go through some rudimentary testing and sign some documents and you get a plastic card with your photo for the privilege of using the roads by their rules instead of just using them to begin with.

And when something happens, and you end up in court, it is called a violation and comes with a fine.   The fine is a penalty for violating the contract.  Refusal to pay that fine ends in jail time or your property taken.  Remember you agreed to this when you signed that contract.

Let’s look at it this way.   IF all these laws apply all the time to everyone then why do they need you to sign forms in order to get a licence ?   Why do they need you to sign a marriage licence?

If you think about it, you realize the laws don’t apply all the time and if they don’t apply all the time, then when do they apply.  They only apply during certain circumstances and only if you gave your consent.  That is the only logical answer.

If I’m walking on the sidewalk and a cop arrests me for a violation under the highway traffic act and I didn’t have a licence or even if I had a licence. would that act apply to me if I was walking on the sidewalk?

The simple answer would be no.  It would not, simply because the highway traffic act applies to people who signed the contract and the terms deal with people who are “drivers”.   Not a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk.

So in reality all civil cases are contractual.  They have different names that even lawyers who specialize in the sub categories can’t see it.   It’s no wonder the general public can’t.

Truth about the Birth Registry System.

canada_birth

(Above:Sample Birth Registry Form)

Many people assume they have rights over the government when it comes to their children.  After all, you are the parents, the ones who love your children, gave birth or raise them.

What if I told you this is only a half truth?   What If I told you that you had no real rights to your child and the rules for raising them?

You would laugh and tell me I’m a moron right?   Don’t worry, I know.  I’ve been called many names over the years for my discovery of this tidbit of information.  Doesn’t make me wrong though.  So far there is no evidence to disprove me.

What you think of your “Parental Rights” is actually usage rights.  Usage rights, doesn’t really mean you have the right to use something as you see fit.   Or own something outright.  It means you can use the item, or in this case raise the child, within the confines of the rules of the government.

You scoff?   Think on this.  How does Children’s Aid societies across the country have so much power?   Why?    They can take your children without warrant or notice for the most trivial of reasons.   So how do they get this power?

This all has to do with law.  This is also why the abortion laws are the way they are.   Before I get into what makes it there.  I will explain a bit about old maritime law.

You see in the time of the big sail ships, that hauled cargo around the world there was certain agreed upon rules that every country followed with foreign cargo vessels.   These rules eventually became Maritime Law and were adopted procedures in law for other things, including registering a child’s birth.

Here is how the old maritime law works.

A ship laden with cargo in it’s hold would come to port of a nation.  The captain would register the cargo and the ship with the harbormaster.   The harbor master would take possession of the cargo into the harbor’s warehouses for safekeeping until the captain could find a buyer for the goods and sell it.  Until then it was kept in trust, and protection by the harbormaster.   So the captain did not have to worry about anyone else stealing that cargo or selling it behind his back.  It also ensured the good behavior of the captain and crew, because if they did anything wrong like break a local law they could confiscate that cargo and jail the crew or captain.

Now I’ll translate this into modern times.

A ship laden with cargo (Pregnant Mother), would come to port of a nation (Government Licensed Hospital), the captain (Father) would register the ship and it’s cargo (Mother is registered at hospital to give birth), The Harbormaster (Government Licensed Doctor), then removes cargo (Baby) from the ship (mother), and it is registered with the harbormaster (Government).  At this point the cargo (Baby) is under the control and protection (Ward) of the harbormaster (Government), until such time as the captain (Father) could find a buyer (Marriage) for the cargo (Baby).  Until that time, the cargo (Baby) remains in the care of the harbormaster (Ward of the state).   The captain (Father)has to follow the rules for trade (Rules for raising the child) within the land (in the country) and if they do something that goes against the local laws, the harbormaster (Government child protection services) then could confiscate the cargo (child) and jail the captain (father) and her crew if warranted.

Now this is 2015 and we live in a so called “Modern society” but this is still true, as it hasn’t changed in centuries.   This is also explains a few other things in our lives that most people don’t even think about.   This is also why the Queen is also known as the “Queen Mum” .  Not because she is old and has children of her own, but because technically according to the propaganda the Queen is the head of state of Canada and England and we are all her children via the registry system.

Why women are “Handed off” to a groom at a wedding.  The captain is selling his cargo and transferring ownership.   And also why fathers had a huge say in the past on who their daughter would marry.  It’s not the only reason by far but its a big one.   And why as well children are considered property or dependents until they reach the age of maturity.

England was the original country this practice was used on human beings and now to this day to the bankers influence on the world, almost everyone is registered.

This is also huge because as parents you don’t really have real rights to your property.  And yes the child is a human being, I understand this, but you created that child.  Your DNA, created it.  That means they had to find a way to trick you into giving up the rights to your property.  So the birth registry is the way.   This is also why in Canada you get a “Baby Bonus” cheque.   They tell you it is to help you pay for expenses for the child.  In reality that this a partial truth.  It is for the expenses of the child, but it is also payment for taking care of the ward of the state that you gave them.  They are paying you to take care of  the child you gave up ownership rights to.

If you hadn’t registered that child, it would be one hundred percent your child.  There have been a few rare cases where a parent did not register their child at birth and one case I read the mother had three children and one was not registered.  Children’s Aid society (child protective services) came and removed the children from the home because the mother didn’t comply with demands from the school for some legal reason.   The next day after the children had been removed, the police brought the one child who wasn’t registered back stating “This one isn’t ours, it’s yours”.   And left.

There are other cases where children are appearing at the age of 16 trying to obtain jobs and can’t because they don’t exist in the government’s eyes because they were never registered, and since people in this country think you have to hire only people with a SIN card, these people are unable to obtain work legally.

(Side note: Think of all the items you register in your life with the government.  The same applies to each one.  Your car, your boat, your home.   None of it is yours after.  It’s all theirs and they can make rules for it all because you got tricked into thinking you had to register your property with them).

Now when you realize  the above as truth, the rest of what happens makes sense.  The ability of the government to legally force you to send your child to their schools to strangers each day.   The ability of the government to decide what medical treatment options are available for children.  The rules for raising them, for feeding them, for housing them, for disciplining them, for nurturing them.

And why when one of these rules is perceived to be broken, Child Protection comes in and removes the child depending on which rule gets broken.

In some court rooms if a father makes a statement that he wants his property returned to him immediately, and has a judge that knows the history and background of the laws and understands them properly, will immediately recognize the father as the property owner and return the child to his custody.    I wouldn’t recommend trying it though, it is usually done in summary judgement otherwise known as Queen’s Bench, and you really have to be able to defend yourself and know your rights in that court.

I was taught all this in grade school and back then I never gave it a thought, because I was a child and didn’t understand the vast implications of a system like this.  The teacher at the time proudly taught us this with a smile, because in her eyes this is a great system.

I guess she didn’t see the lies in it.

(PS: If your a doctor reading this, and have ever gotten new parents to sign the registry document, or had your nurses get the parents do to it, this is exactly what you’ve been doing)

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.

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.