This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
check out some references and was shocked with what i found. I then saw a Larken Rose video called Offending Activists htt !""www.youtube.com"watch#v$%iA&h'()*)g and i started using this new ers ective to our resent Canadian case law rulings+ and a lying it to our resent ,created-conflict, under s-.. of the C/SA - A0/ in defence of needing to ress bad news 1 i,m as guilty as every other activist+ because we are all victims of what i call this ,corruct, system+ 2which i address later] - &he end result is that they staged events+ where the outcome was always rigged + which i e' lain in this article htt !""www.scribd.com"doc"345356789"S:C-3;5-CCC-the-ele hant-in-the-corner !OTTO" #INE on th$s! <hen we are fighting a rigged deck+ means when 2not if] we loose a , ositive law, case results where it revents anyone from challenging that recedent+ therefore everyone is harmed by this decision. &he ,crime, e'am le of this screwing is R v )almo Levine that has sto ed every other case with a better defence from roceeding. !% &e e's an e(ample to show how we s) ew ou sel*es by empowe $ng them to do +ust that: CASE IN ,OINT: =rankly voters ask for this abuse of power BECAUSE we'll only elect politicians who promise &>A & ! “They will make those tough economic decisions on your behalf.” - I0 LA<! ,those tough economic decisions, means that olitician is romising to screw you of rights+ in order create %obs 2for e'am le] because of Cor orate economic ressures+ being enforced as law under the guise of ,foreign obligations, 2note! not agreements] by I)= ?anksters that subvert our Constitution. - IN T&IS .A/: :very olitician has a lawful e'cuse that he is only delivering on what he romised to do if they were voted in. (nder what Canadian Law calls ,colore officii, or commonly known as ,O==ICIAL @OLICA, is actually defined as 'by the people, for the economy, under duress of a bad contract called NAFTA - 2/CL -3998] C% !e)ause o0 th$s Cont$nu$ty o0 Go*e nment Ag eement 12334% Ottawa 5eg$on be)ame a D$st $)t6 +ust l$ke .ash$ngton DC6 77 &his resulted where the Coat of Arms on the ?AR+ the SCC+ and the =ederal Court of A eals changed from being the ,Order of the Barter, to being the Coat of Arms of @arliament CC therefore these >igh Courts now directly answer to Ding >ar ster 2not the ?AR] 2not under the Su remacy of the law.] Our archety al form fell back a form and we are now sEuarely under full feudal law+ %ust like Ding >enry 6th had. @roof of this is ,>ighway Robbery, that,s now called 'seizing the assets of the proceeds of crime' - A0/ the return of Contravention Courts+ which in feudal times were slave courts+ under the Contraventions Act+ which is where the >ar ster controls its criminal courts+ which are under rovincial %urisdiction+ which are still under the Order of the Barter Coat of Arms 2Su remacy of the Law]. /] NO.6 $ get to the FEDE5A# CO85T6 where in ;449 their Coat of Arms changed to being this I)= "0A=&A court that 2back when i filed in it] was there for strictly @arliamentary matters and issues. &his transfer resulted where the >ar ster converted our archety al form+ within the 3st-344 days in Office 2with a minority government] by giving all )aritime %urisdiction, from sea to sea to sea, to 0A&O %urisdiction 1 and in this way com ly with ,the Sunset @rovisions, of the396. ?ank Act+ which is where this original cor orate take-over originated. 20O&IC:! the fish tails with wings on a checkered floor 1 Admiralty %urisdiction ] SIDE !A5: <hen you a ly for remedy in a rovincial court+ you fall under the CC 2%ust like )artin,s Criminal Code outlines] ?ut when you go to this new =:/:RAL CO(R&+ you are actually a lying for remedy under a I)= "0A=&A court that actually is mandated to first rotect those foreign obligations 2like in our case] to never give an 3-inch on the rohibition of marihuana. CASE IN ,OINT: &his new s-.. of the C/SA+ is a @arliamentary issue+ because as to s-.. htt !""www.scribd.com"doc";45F;8;F6";a-s-..-of-the-C/SA-re ort it,s where ,ad%udicators, can create laws 2from new case law brought to them]+ and start to , rescribe by law, under rovisions (v)(w)( ) of s!"" ! #ec $ then says that after this case law is established% this court will be empowered to change these rules% by ordering the government to do so
E% Th$s b $ngs up th$s wo d 'CO558CT' 2created by combining , olitically correct, with ,corru t,,]. @olitically it,s called! 'problem /solution management', where authority creates a roblem 2like s.. of the C/SA]+ in order to dro their solution to the mess + which makes it worseG which is what ,Offending Activists, ro%ects as being very bad. I agree with his ers ective+ because when we fail+ in winning with a ,creative ositive law defence, you create bad case law recedent. &his , olitically correct solution is actually the worst thing we can do - $t's 0all$ng 0o a t ap that s) ews us all6 !ECA8SE6 we a e ask$ng to ha*e ou So*e e$gnty st $pped6 by ask$ng 'th$s 0o e$gn +u $sd$)t$on )ou t' to ule9 F% The e's now these 2 )annab$s ""A5 test )ases be$ng b ought to th$s FEDE5A# CO85T+ ?(& what must be understood is that by sim ly asking this ?O/A to rule on giving human rights for ,those classes of ersons+, means ,we, the victims of the old ))AR are actually em owering this new =:/:RAL CO(R& to ?:CO): the >armaceutical Industry /rug Cartel Courts of Canada.2of s-..] - It,s im ossible for the ))AR Coalition to win+ when their courts mandate is to rotect foreign cor oration obligations. A0/ what,s going down is this ,creating of a roblem, in order to offer ,a solution that only makes it worse,. AND by apply$ng 0o emedy &E5E6 we the *$)t$ms a)tually ) eate the )ase law p e)edent that s) ew us all9 G% AS I SEE IT: E*e yone who $s apply$ng 0o a emedy $n th$s FEDE5A# CO85T must w$thd aw th$s Appl$)at$on to ha*e those ad+ud$)ato s ule6 because those ad%udicators must make rules that force us to com ly with foreign obligations 1 after all we want this 0:< <ORL/ OR/:R im lemented. A0/ by withdrawing these case files+ we take away this ower-grab that s-.. wants to seiHe. As $ see $t: if we don,t ask this court to rule+ means we deny consent to be governed under them. &he very nature of this new =:/:RAL CO(R& intervention is re ugnant and a tra to enslave us all. !OTTO" l$ne on th$s: it,s incredibly stu id to believe that anything the feds romote as being the new olitically correct way to address our roblems actually deserves the abuse+ because you literally asked for it.. It's not the solut$on - $t's the t ap to the mess they ) eated6 by $mplement$ng s:;; o0 the CDSA $n the <st pla)e9 &% In all 0a$ ness 1be0o e th$s a t$)le% 0o one could blame anyone for not seeing behind the smoke screen 2which in law is called the veil of the Office] ?(& frankly now that it,s ressed+ means if a lawyer refuses to withdraw a =:/:RAL CO(R& filing+ means this lawyer is cons iring against his client,IsJ !/ DEFINITION! in 3998+ &he ?AR,s new oath was enacted to serve the 0:< <ORL/ OR/:R. A n ,ethical lawyer, can choose to %ust refuse to take your case 2which is what i,m finding a lot of] !8T at 0a)e *alue6 any lawye that takes a ""A5 )ase to th$s FEDE5A# CO85T $s the p oblem - &hey no longer have the e'cuse that they didn,t know that they were falling for a tra that is being construed in order to get screwedG !y 0$l$ng $n those )ou ts6 we ag ee to abandon ou So*e e$gnty9 ON T&IS ,OINT: >ow can we rotect ourselves from this abuse# &hat,s sim le! ?y watching who files in this registry+ means anyone can then+ contact those who filed+ so that they can make an informed choice that com els them to withdraw this filing+ before it,s ruled on. in order to not create that 0ew <orld Order solution. .e a e not +ust wh$n$ng he e6 !ECA8SE ou =uad a EDA $s a)tually o00e $ng a solut$on+ where 2as it,s ground motives] we are ressing to convert that every one who was covered under the old ))AR+ can now be rotected by undertaking our creative a lication of , ositive law, that enables the ?C Su reme Court 2in our case] to return to its, lawful duty under our Constitution+ to administer the medical issues of it,s residents that were rotected by ?C case law recedent+ in order to enforce com liance to that old ))AR rogram =RA0DLA! Anything less is an abandonment of the rule of law+ 8NDE5 th$s NE. .O5#D O5DE56 that FEDE5A# CO85T )annot negat$*ely a00e)t the e)onomy o0 any Co po at$on do$ng bus$ness $n Canada+ because under 0A=&A 2foreign obligations ] this Cor oration can sue the government in any Admiralty Court+ for lost income+ and win T&E5EFO5E in law the AB must eventually over-ride any law that rotects ,by the eo le for the eo le, due to foreign contractual obligations+ even tho+ doing so literally ra es the rights of us all+ In our case+ by omitting ?C case law+ means the courts are obeying to the subversion of the rule of law ?(& then that,s e'actly what the >ar ster said he would do when they gave themselves the ma%ority last election. The &a pste a)tually )an say: he's do$ng e(a)tly what he p om$sed to do6 $0 ele)ted. FO5 "O5E on ou solut$on watch this video! htt !""www.youtube.com"watch#v$EEiSAIhOei4Kfeature$youtu.be =or a @eaceful way to act+ click here htt !""www.scribd.com"doc";499F4888"0o-?O/A-is-Above-the-Law-@:&I&IO0
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.