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.

Advertisements

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.