This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawarely enslave themselves. --Dresden James "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis THE UGLY FACE OF TYRANNY The 13 Truths of Tyranny by: Matt Giwer (c) 1994 (9/30)
1. Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that is worse than the manner of perversion seen at the time. 2. Any law that is so difﬁcult to pass it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws. 3. Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear. 4. Any law passed in a good cause will be interperated to apply to causes against the wishes of the people. 5. Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group. 6. Everything the government says will never happen will happen. 7. What the government says it could not foresee, the government has planned for. 8. When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the loss of essential government services. 9. Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name. 10. All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed. 11. Any government that has to build safeguards into a law so that it will not be abused is providing guidelines for abusing the law without violating it. My additions: 12. Any act or statute of government is subject to alteration or to complete disregard by government (courts - judges) by its using the ever present "notwithstanding clause" of any Roman civil style legal system when it is deemed desirable to maintain the status quo - however unlawful the status quo activity may be. 13. When a man or woman make a claim of right or demand their unalienable God Given rights in a Canadian or US court, the judges invoke the methods of repression as they have learned from: The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook to deny those rights [ A must read for anyone going to court. ]
2 A Government Is A Tyranny When:
It sets itself above the will and judgement of the people and refuses to comply with the wishes of the people. It lies to the people to get what it wants. The traditional rights of the people are treated as obstacles to the objectives of government. It creates animosities among the people. It blames the people for not stopping it from acting against the wishes of the people.
A 'REAL' Declaration of Rights Virginia Declaration of Rights
I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. II That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them. III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common beneﬁt, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the ofﬁces of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary. V That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two ﬁrst may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at ﬁxed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. Read the rest of this great document of freedom here: Virginia Declaration of Rights
3 THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE When Confronted With
Disclaimer: Deadly force is NOT being advocated on this webpage - It is just shown to be "the last resort" in the sequence of methods of redress for severe violations of one's rights - rights which are supposed to be available to Canadians and Americans as free will sons of God.
It is a sobering fact that, as of January 1, 2003, ANY Canadian who has anything to do with a gun of any kind is an OUTLAW and considered a CRIMINAL and FELON, according to the Government of Canada. 1. Any "person" in Canada, meaning a subject/slave of the Roman style corporation called the Crown in right of Canada, who does NOT possess a gun ownership license, and/or who has an unregistered gun, is a "WANTED" CRIMINAL if he/she owns, or has a gun in his/her possession after January 1st, 2003. Notice that this DOES NOT include a free will man who is NOT under contract with the Crown to be a servant/slave of the Crown, and therefore, is NOT a "person resident in Canada". However, the police, judges and Crown councils will make the assumption that you are a "person resident in Canada", and will use force and the commercial courts to injure you physically if you do not comply with a statute that can ONLY apply to "servants of the Crown". 2. A "license" is a waiver of prosecution for doing something unlawful. The waiver stands providing the licensee obeys the rules which are an integral part of the license. Notice that any license is a "guilty plea entered into the public records". Therefore, if you accept a gun owner's license, you are making a guilty plea that you are committing an unlawful act. You are a "CONVICTED" CRIMINAL. Gun ownership then becomes a privilege granted by the Crown, a privilege that can be revoked at the whim of the government, or their international bankster masters. Under what circumstance would the government commit such a ﬂagrant violation of and intrusion into a man's right of self defense? Who, or what organization is the government defending from the good people of Canada?
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." - Thomas Jefferson
4 IS THERE A RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST THE FOLLOWING MEN AND WOMEN ACTING AS CORPORATE ENTITIES AND ENGAGED IN DEPRIVING THE CANADIAN PEOPLE OF THEIR COMMON LAW RIGHTS? "Government" cannot force a free will human to be a corporate member, even though they use deception to entrap people into the status of "subject/slave" natural person, they do have to make an "exit door" available. That "exit door" is found buried in some government act. In the USA, it is in the Uniform Commercial Code, and in Canada, it is in the Criminal Code. [Thanks to the research efforts of Robert Menard.] I have a suggested notice of "claim of right" which you can obtain by clicking on this link.
Disobeying a statute Sec. 126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).
Disobeying order of court Sec. 127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Rob points out that in some jurisdictions, as in New Zealand, the phrase "without lawful excuse" is replaced with the phrase "without claim of right".
This then explains the use of Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada which says: "Defence with claim of right"
(1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence 'without' claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justiﬁed or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39. This also suggests that there are no true 'judicial' courts for the 'free will people' of Canada [and the USA]. All courts are 'administrative' ( All 'judges' are ofﬁcers of the make-believe ship called a Province, State, Canada or of the UNITED STATES executive branch of government) for 'slave administration and slave disciplining' in the administrative courts of the corporate Crown, the administrative body of the City of London. This is explained in my "name game" blog which you can download from this link.
This means that the summons or arrest warrant and trial are by the claimed property rights of the Crown [or State of the USA]. And, the accused disobedient slave can be, and usually is stripped of all rights of due process by way of the doctrine of 'homo sacer' (nonperson) out of the Roman Law system
Interestingly, the Criminal Code of Canada, a Roman civil law document pretaining only to the commercial corporation called the Crown in right of Canada or of a province, but reﬂecting much of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law relative to torts [wrong acts against people or against their unalienable rights]. Unfortunately, tort law is used against free will individual men by a claim within the claimed to exist property right by the corporate Crown or State - the claim of a slave owner to administer and discipline its slave property.
The question has to be asked is "How much force is necessary to defend property or oneself from unlawful arrest or conﬁscation of possessions by police ofﬁcers carrying loaded ﬁrearms and who are also trained in martial arts, and will frequently, and without hesitation, use both?"
Further, Section 41(1) of the CCC states:
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justiﬁed in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary. As is commonly the occurance, police invade homes and real property without proper, or no warrants when there is no emergency reason to do so.
Remember these points of law when the police invade a home to seize guns, held peaceably, or such things as computers, and papers:
An arrest or search made with a:-
• • • •
defective warrant; or, issued without afﬁdavit; or, fails to allege a crime or, is without jurisdiction
is a criminal act by police, subject to the right of self defense. Any ofﬁcer of the government, such as a judge, a justice of the peace(JP), a clerk of the court, a Crown council, police, and other agents of the Crown, including Canada Customs and Revenue agents, who unlawfully deprive you of your Common Law RIGHTS of life, liberty and property are depriving you of your LIFE. They claim that right of administration over you by the false and fraudulent claim upon you as a concocted legal ﬁction attached to your God Created body - the name found on the copy of the birth certiﬁcate you may have in your possession where the family name has been converted into a primary name or surname. This is an evil game of play-acting as make-believe ofﬁcers of a make-believe ship called a Roman style corporation - the Crown, upon which you are assumed to be a lowly crewmember. Their game is totally make-believe - a fantasy; however, the results of their dispicable games are very real to you in the deprivation of your God Given RIGHTS, especially your LIFE. Remember, LIFE is TIME. We have a limited amount of time to spend on this planet, and government thugs have no claim on any of it, be it any time out of your physical presence, or your time spent earning a living wage. And so, where there is no available justice system, or where the justice system is actually perpetrating the crime against you, you have a right to use deadly force on the perpetrator, or upon those who have usurped authority to direct deadly force against you, and have a history of doing so, as is the case with judges, JP's and CCRA agents acting unlawfully under the assumption that you are a "limited liability person" - a servant/subject of the Crown. There is absolutely no excuse for a judge or JP being ignorant of the Magna Carta, especially Section 39, and, there are many recent acknowledgments by Canadian courts that the Magna Carta is a viable part of the Canadian Constitution (and, not in reference to the Trudeau piece of toilet paper called the Constitution Act 1982): 5 39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
All judges and jp's know that you are not subject to income tax or any administrative procedures arising out of the income tax where the complaint is relative to your not complying with the income tax act. They have absolutely no excuse for such unlawful activity.
Consider a judge or jp who issues an arrest warrant against you for your failure to appear for a summons on an income tax issue. They have unlawfully sent armed men (police or sheriff) who will kill or severely injure you if you resist arrest. Therefore, they are just as guilty of taking your life as would be the policeman or sheriff who attempts to arrest you for such a falsely issued warrant.
Any CRA agent who comes to your door to serve notices and demands upon you KNOW that you are not subject to their administrative procedures. They use such visitations to "produce evidence" that you somehow give assent to being a "person" subject to the income tax act. This is fraud for the purposes of taking that part of your life that makes up the wages they wish to deprive you of as income tax. Do you have a right to take their life? You bet! They have the government justice system supporting their fraud and extortion game - and the intent to take your life.
Lord Blackstone says that the ﬁfth auxiliary right is the use of arms where no justice system will defend your rights. The ﬁrst four auxiliary rights are the forms of redress where some level of government will intercede for you. Canada is completely devoid of these ﬁrst four relative to income tax and the activities of CRA
Simply, what this means that if a judge convicts you of income tax evasion, failure to ﬁle, or other charge out of the income tax act, he/she is taking your life. If the judge or JP does other than to ask you if you have made a contract with the Crown to be a corporate part of the Crown as a limited liability entity, unless such a written and signed contract between you and an agent of the Crown is part of the afﬁdavit that issued with the summons or warrant, that judge or JP is committing high treason against you, the sovereign. And if your answer is "NO!", the judge or JP has no other choice than to immediately quash the issue, and issue reprimand against the CRA agent(s) and Crown Council who caused the charge to be issued.
The RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE, especially against tyranny perpetrated by those who represent ofﬁcers of the government, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Common Law Principle called the "Rule of NECESSITY". The ultimate "rule of Necessity" is the right to kill to protect your own life.
This fact could easily be mitigated by the Canadian Judiciary making a public declaration that they will uphold their oaths to the Queen, and to protect the God Given RIGHTS of Canadians, including the right to not submit to the government extortion racket called the Income Tax and GST.
"A VOICE OF OPPOSITION TO TYRANNY" "It is the duty of government to prevent injustice - not promote it!" Vol 12 – Issue 9, September 1993 Sentinel, Rochester', Ind. Tuesday, June 1, 1983 HOLD OFF COPS, IS CLEARED.
MUNCIE, Ind. (AP) A Muncie man accused of holding police at bay with a shotgun and Molotov cocktails for three hours has been acquitted of criminal recklessness and disorderly conduct ... The judge ruled police had no business on the man's property. Judge Robert E. Robinson of Delaware County Court absolved Robert L. Murphy, 63 of any wrongdoing after defense attorney Marion W. Withers of Anderson argued police had no right to go into Murphy's property because they had no court order calling for a cleanup. City ofﬁcials had labeled Murphy's property a junkyard and eyesore and wanted to clean it up. The land is next to a closed sanitary landﬁll. When the cleanup crew arrived May 20, 1982, Murphy was waiting. For three hours he prevented police and heavy bulldozing equipment from entering his yard, ofﬁcials said. The incident ended when ofﬁcials agreed to remove the bulldozer and promised him his property would not be disturbed.
RIGHT TO REPEL FORCE BY FORCE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting ofﬁcer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State. 135 Ind. 308 (1893).
This fundamental premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900) when the court stated: "... where the ofﬁcer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the ofﬁcer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the ofﬁcer had no right. What might be murder in the ﬁrst case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." "An arrest made with a defective warrant; or one Issued without afﬁdavit; or one that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction; and, the one who is being arrested may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting ofﬁcer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more that an involuntary manslaughter." 7
Housh v. People, 75 Ill. 491; reafﬁrmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 340; State v. Rousseau, 241 P.2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361.
When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he Is justiﬁable." • Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. "These principles apply as well to an ofﬁcer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." • • Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. 1; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 175; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93. #903
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery." • State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950). "The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense." • State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954). Every individual has a right to resist an unlawful arrest, even up to the point of using deadly force, if necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court - John Bad Elk v. United States (177 U.S. 529 (1900)).
The 'RULE of NECESSITY'
When we hear the expression 'Rule of Necessity', we usually think 'Self Defense', where an action, including deadly force, is the only available option to defend one's, or another's, physical body from impending harm by a belligerent assaulting party. But. it is also a claim to be delt with in a hearing of jurisdiction by courts, before a court can proceed to try a party who has used an action for self defense, and was charged with a crime for doing so. In such a case, the onus is on the Crown or State to prove that the party committed the act voluntarily, and not under duress, that other options of defense or actions were available, and that there was 'mens rea' - criminal intent by the accused party. Remember, evidence 'suggests', proof 'shows'. However, as a slave owned by the Crown or State, as you are, if you accept or acknowledge that you are 'one and the same' as the 'legal identity' - as the name shown on a birth certiﬁcate, you have no right of defense against the 'ofﬁcers' of the slave owner, the Crown or State. The above American cases were decided when the State was concealing the fact that citizens were considered slaves, and now have States prosecuting those who defend themselves by using force against police committing unlawful actions against them. It now seems that the veil of deceit has been removed by one's observation of recent State's (or Crown's) orders to use whatever force is desirable or necessary to discipline or even exterminate disobedient slaves, as all 'persons' were declared 'disobedient slaves' in the early 1930s. All statutes, including Police Acts, deal only with 'persons' - people in the role of 'slave', and police in the role of slave discipline and the enforcement of slave owner's rules. Police have no authority over 'free will adult humans, except as 'posse comitatus' - men of the county, the same authority as any other moral adult human has obligations to defend people and property from malicious theft, threat or damage. Clariﬁcation: The State or Crown takes the given and family name, registered by the parents of a newborn child, and converts the family name into a 'surname' [primary name], and converts the given names to 'referential names', this is opposite to reality, and is thus a ﬁction. However, upon doing that, the State or Crown claims the name under copyright as created intellectual property. When that child becomes an adult, the State or Crown assumes [by their use of false and fraudulent education to deceive people into believing that the 'legal identity name' is their name] that that human has enveloped him/herself in that name, the name as found on the birth certiﬁcate. However, there are vague clauses in statutes dealing with names, name changes and/or vital statistics which shows that is 'offered' as a contract, and thus need not be accepted by the adult human. To 'offer' in contract means that the 'offerer' owns that which is being offered. Of course, any contract is void if not 'accepted' knowingly and voluntarily. The acceptance of that 'legal identity' name carries with it the status of 'slave' owned by the State or Crown. The State/Crown applies the legal maxim: accessio cedit principali - an accessory [the human free will adult you] attached to a principal [the legal identity name] becomes the property of the owner [State/Crown] of the principal. Recent research shows that the actual acceptance of the Crown or State owned 'legal identity' name is voluntary, and thus, you don't have to acknowledge or accept that name. But, we do have to use that name in commerce, banking, obtaining a passport, and dealing with government and other corporate bodies. And, the key term here is 'have to' - no choice, not a voluntary issue. The "have to's" is that which our lives depend - food, shelter, clothing, economics, travel, and so forth. Therefore, the use of the legal identity in collecting our wages, banking, in government programs, driver's license, etc. is not really a voluntary issue. IF it is not used in a voluntary way, it is under 'PRIVATE NECESSITY', a version of the Rule of Necessity. Under that rule, no contract is implied or can be assumed by the Crown or State - unless we remain silent regarding our claim of Private Necessity. GOOGLE "Private Necessity" And regarding a signature, when the word 'for' or 'per' is placed in front of your normal 'cheque signing' signature, you, the free will human, do not assume any obligations or debt associated with the signed document.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.