rulings - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

rulings

Law
Constitution
last revised on October 8, 2019
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse: every man or woman has the right of self-determination not any juristic unit.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 19 states : No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

If one of the people exercises his free will to carry a weapon, travel, practice law, park without depositing money in a meter, use hemp, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, vitamins, minerals or any other substance for medicinal or recreational purposes the legislators do not have the authority to impose a fine, license or make a right a crime. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." -- Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516 - Thursday, July 13, 2017

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law" (Judicial Notice )

Charter s32 makes it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to people, private individuals, businesses or other organizations who are not an enumerated class of subject of any juristic unit.

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.

"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

In these Civil Law Rulings we find the constitutionally appoint superior courts judges who the provincial court systems also use in the higher courts actually protecting private individuals in provincial courts. Charter s32 and Canadian Judicial Council.

“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
Human Rights
last revised on October 8, 2019
Legislated statutes enforced upon the people in the name of law are a FRAUD. They have no authority and are without mercy. Justice based on FRAUD is Godless and therefore repugnant to our Constitution.

R. v. Hynes, 1999
[83] Prior to the Charter's advent, the individual really had no special means of protecting against incursions upon his or her basic fundamental rights by executive or legislative arm of the state,
[84] A primary purpose of the Charter was to change this relationship of the individual with the state and its laws by endowing individuals with an effective means of challenging acts of the state in courts on the ground of violation of their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. This is accomplished through s. 24 of the Charter, in the first subsection of which anyone whose guaranteed rights or freedoms have been infringed or denied is empowered to apply to "a court of competent jurisdiction" for such remedy as is considered just and appropriate "in the circumstances". Section 24(2) goes on to specifically provide that that power extends to the exclusion of evidence if, "having regard to all the circumstances" its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
From https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii18979/1999canlii18979.html?autocompleteStr=R.%20v.%20Hynes%201999%20CanLII%2018979%20(NL%20CA)&autocompletePos=1

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.
"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
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" [Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
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]

"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore." [Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105]

"If the State converts a rights (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262]

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:,

“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.

Marbury v Madison
last revised October 6, 2019
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" [Marbury v Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803)
Statutory B.S. is not relavent to people
last revised on October 8, 2019

If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison. 5 US 137 (1803):

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec. 1. Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec. 1. Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham AL 373 US 262:(1962)
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the  license and a fee and engage the right with impunity."
Judges
last revised on October 7, 2019

Judicial Notice Definition: A doctrine which enables a judge to accept a fact without the need of a party to prove it through evidence. see http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/J/JudicialNotice.aspx for more
Give a "Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence". Black's Law 4th edition
JUDGES are Sworn to Obey Constitution Irrespective of Opinion and Consequences Constitution Rules Over Statutes - Constitutional 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:,

"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
 



Rule of Law
last revised on October 8, 2019

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/investigation-by-subpeona/boyd-v-united-states/
Boyd v. United States Case Brief - Rule of Law: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Constitution") protects against the invasion into a person's private matters and will not allow the government to compel a person to produce private papers through subpoena. .

If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison. 5 US 137 (1803):
A group of reporters that go through and keep track of all court cases that have come before the courts, especially the Supreme Court and they clarify, before the court, all the cases. All cases which have cited Marbury v. Madison case, to the Supreme Court has not ever been over turned. See Shephard's Citation of Marbury v. Madison.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:
Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:
In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.
Right to Travel
last revised October 16, 2019

State v. Johnson, 75 Mon. 240, 243 P. 1073, 1078 (1926)("...while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.

For the latter purpose no person has a vested right in the use of the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the Legislature may grant or withhold in its discretion"); Donnelly v. City of Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789, 791 (1971)

 
But beyond this constitutional right, they further have the constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U. S. Constitution; see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868)

"We are all citizens [of the United States], and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states"; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 (1958)

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment"); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 (1966)

"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 (1972)

("...since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, 'any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional'"); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)("The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom"). See also Schachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law"); Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)("The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty"); Cole v. Housing Authority of City of Newport, 435 F.2d 807, 809 (1st Cir. 1970)("...it is firmly settled that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every [American] citizen...
Right to Travel
last revised October 16, 2019
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Site Map
Back to content