Courts - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content


Government > Canadian Democratic Society
Saturday, August 26, 2017 Affidavit of truth – court!

1.  The court belongs to the sovereign, plaintiff (people). Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318 defines the court as “The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be”. In the US Supreme Court case Isbill v. Stovall the court was defined as "An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority".
2.   A "Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence". Black's Law 4th edition Take Judicial notice of American Jurisprudence book 16: constitution law section which a judge is bound by oath to obey.
3.   JUDGES are Sworn to Obey Constitution Irrespective of Opinion and Consequences Constitution Rules Over Statutes - Supremacy Clause s52 - "Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.” -- 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:,
4.   “If any statement, within any law, which is passed, § unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.” -- Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803): Therefore no legislation … that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. -- Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15,25 AM Dec 677.
5.   Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." --16Am Jur 2d: 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97; Bary v. United States - 273 US 128
6.   It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood." -- 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114 - CONSTITUTIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REFERENCE THE COMMON LAW SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL & VOID
7.   "Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written 16 and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument." -- 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117
8.   SUPREME LAW IS THE BASES OF ALL LAW ALL FICTION OF LAW IS NULL Statutes are fiction of law that seeks to control the behavior of the sovereign people, who are under common law, not statutes, and who ordained and established the law? Therefore legislators cannot legislate the behavior of the people.
9.   "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" -- Rodriques v. Ray Donavan
10.              "The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law”, -- Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261
11.              NO ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO ENFORCE IT.? Government cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution"
15.              "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon" -- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
16.              Any court that ignores due process, all statutory courts ignore due process, is not a common law court, common law courts are “courts of record” in all courts of record the tribunal is the sovereign plaintiff(s) of the court or the Jury. The Justice is the administrator and reflects the wish of the sovereign, or jury, because the people rule not government servants. The following “Law of the Land” proves this point.
17.              JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Judges are under the illusion that they have absolute immunity? Only the people are sovereign, all servants are under statutes and therefore liable
18.              The constitution grants no authority over the people to any government! The Canadian Bill of Rights talks about a society of free men and free institutions. The constitution/ Charter s 52 declares and anything government made that denies these facts null and void from the get go. Our founders have made it clear that the power belongs to the people and the government is not to violate it. It is the “ultimate power” of the people which allows them to consent or not to the actions of their servant government. It also prevents government from unrighteous prosecutions by forcing the government to seek permission from the people before criminal charges can be filed, if the people refuse it cannot go forward. By understanding this principle it becomes clear that the government has no authority to control our behavior and therefore neither do legislators without our consent.
19.              When we read in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Any authority our servants have is by our consent, if they act outside their authority they are liable for damages for violating the Charter and common law.
20.              ALL MEN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether they want to participate in the institutions of men or not. Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." -- Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796.
21.              Here in is Liberty if “YOU” do not give a court consent, they have no “JURISDICTION” over “YOU”!
22.              Judges (servant) have no authority to make a ruling or a judgment on people (master) without our consent? In legal terms when the judge asks you do you understand, he means do you stand under the authority of this court? So when you say yes, you just gave him/her jurisdiction over you!
23.              Our Constitution only authorizes “common law courts” aka “courts of record” that are found in s96 and s101. A court of record removes the power of the Judge to make a ruling, his role is that of the “administrator of the court”. The final determinator is the “tribunal” who is either the “sovereign plaintiff” or a “jury”. The “sovereign plaintiff” can choose to do the whole process using affidavits leaving an administrator of the court to issue the orders.
24.              When you are detained, without your consent, for violating a statute, you have just been kidna Is it not true that pped and if the Judge sets a bail he just set a ransom and when the prosecutor confirms the charges they are all part of a conspiracy and “YOU” can put them in jail and sue them for damages? It’s all about Consent and Jurisdiction
25.              A government administrative provision does not override common law rules or human rights? That statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land”. [Hoke vs. Henderson, 15, N.C.15,25 AM Dec 677].
26.              “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, -- Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261 Legislated statutes enforced upon the people in the name of law is a fraud. It has no authority and is without mercy. Justice without mercy is Godless and therefore repugnant to our Constitution.
27.              Lawmakers were given authority by the people to legislate codes, rules, regulations, and statutes which are policies, procedures, and “law” to control the behavior of bureaucrats, elected and appointed officials, municipalities and agencies but were never given authority to control the behavior of the people as we read in a US Supreme court decision "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" -- Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). and again "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" [Marbury -vMadison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803).
28.              Legislators simply don’t have the authority to rule make "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]
29.              Only people are sovereign and have rights? Bureaucrats, in their capacity, are not sovereign and have no rights. They have authority given by the people and are subject to the statutes. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." -- Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516
30.              “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;” -- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370
31.              There is REMEDY FOR EVERY INJURY William Blackstone - a legal maxim – Every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury it’s proper redress “...In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. "In all other cases," he says, it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, 12 there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded. And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress" [5 U.S. 137, Marbury v. Madison]
32.              The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men? To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the charter. [Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)
33.              As someone with the right to self-determination including political association in a bijural country the “PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA” or “CANADA” are not my government!  
34.             There can be no rule making or legislation including the criminal code by the “PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA” or “CANADA” which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. Any attempt by anyone even Sheriffs will be a trespass on rights causing damages.
35.              Not all of the people entering the court house are a person subject to statute authority?
36.              This Sovereign has access to free institutions including court houses. Canadian Bill of Rights, Magna Carta
37.              The reason that there are Sheriffs in courthouses and not the policy enforcement officers like the RCMP for example have no authority in Common Law.
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Site Map
Back to content