Number 40 above indicated someone will not sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. So the question is who is that someone. England over 800 years ago it would have to be Common law, would it not?
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Apparently governments cannot sell to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
So the civil law government created statute courts can sell, deny or delay right or justice only to the government itself. Yet the court systems in place at this time can and does sell, deny or delay right or justice to everyone.
Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
Yet the civil law government created statute courts does sell, deny or delay right or justice to everyone. That can only be a Charter rights violation or a Trespass on the rights of private individuals, businesses or other organizations, right?
Unless private individuals, businesses or other organizations have no business conducting their private affairs in any statutory created court in a bijural country, which they don’t.
Which brings us back to the “someone” question. Common law will not sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Confused? The governments have spent a lot of time effort on the conspiracy making sure you are!
Questions to ask
Remembering that if you don’t know what your rights are personally, the government has no reason to protect them and doesn’t!
Last revised 2016-10-18
Questions to ask the Ministers of Justice:
It is my understanding that you willingly consented to be personally responsible as the Minister of Justice and that would include being liable for human rights violations would it not?
The State has the responsibility to take legislative, judicial, administrative or other appropriate measures to promote the understanding by all persons under its jurisdiction of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights would it not?
Is it not true that every time the affiant crosses paths with a government agent which include all corporations authorized by a juristic units and the affiant has his human rights violated, that violation costs everyone involved including the juristic units involved each time that same right is violated in the same way
How have you, both personally and professionally been protecting the affiant’s human right to access justice without interference by internal rules and regulations that only agents of the government are subject to? If you are claiming the affiant has unknowingly been an agent the affiant is owed back pay for decades at an indecent amount per year plus interest, doesn’t he?
The Ministers of Justice and you are personally liable for every trespass as well as the agents in your ministry who are actually involved personally are they not?
Do we not find under international treaties that when one of the public complains of a right being violated to his or her public servants/your juristic unit, it is you not the victim has to protect that right? When you don’t that is a rights violation in itself is it not? 1. In the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights.
2. To this end, everyone whose rights or freedoms are allegedly violated has the right, either in person or through legally authorized representation, to complain to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority established by law and to obtain from such an authority a decision, in accordance with law, providing redress, including any compensation due, where there has been a violation of that person's rights or freedoms, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay.
5. The State shall conduct a prompt and impartial investigation or ensure that an inquiry takes place whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms has occurred in any territory under its jurisdiction and when you don’t that is a rights violation that would include inaction of the Court Service of British Columbia in Nanaimo. Every complaint your juristic units did not act on delayed or denied human rights, did it not? When you did that was a rights violation in itself was it not? Every complaint your juristic units did not act on delayed or denied justice, did it not? When you did that was a rights violation in itself was it not?
Where do you get the authority to violate these international requirements and the affiants’ rights on all those previous complaints your juristic government have been made aware of previously?
Where do you get the authority to violate these international requirements and the authority to not respond to the public? Every affidavit the affiant has ever sent is a default judgement at the affiants disposal because you had to address the right, individually to know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems. Every one of those unrebutted affidavits violated the affiants human rights caused danages
Do we not find under the Magna Carta that your governments in bijural Canada cannot sell, deny or delay access to human rights of justice for remedy to the people without causing damages?
Is it not true that the Court Service of British Columbia routinely treats people as if the people are other public servants who are also subject to your internal operating procedures and your internal administrative courts in violation of your juristic unit’s international obligation not to sell, delay, deny to the people human rights and justice?
Is it not true that in violation of human rights some people in British Columbia receive free access to court services?
Order to wave all fees
Notice of Dishonour, “Order to wave all fees for the Affiant”
1.As agreed, the affiant has the human right to freedom of opinion and expression; including but not limited to court papers. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2.As agreed, the affiant has the human right of self-determination. By virtue of that right the affiant can freely determine his political status and that is not to be enumerated as a class of subject under any democratic society’s authority. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.As agreed, your juristic units cannot sell, deny or delay rights or justice to someone like the affiant who is not enumerated as a class of subject and not subject to your authority.
4.As agreed, an unrebutted affidavit is the judgment in commerce. An unrebutted affidavit in the end; stands as truth and is the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
5.As agreed, Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy.
6.As agreed, your civil law juristic units in bijural Canada cannot sell access to the common law people living anywhere in the geographical area known as Canada to common law courts.
7.As agreed, the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family would dictate that if anyone has access to the administration of justice under the rule of law without paying any fees we all are. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
8.As agreed, there are “Persons Who Are Not Required to Pay any Fees” to access the courts in British Columbia and effective October 1st 2016 the affiant became one “Not Required to Pay Fees” for any proceedings with the attorney generals’ consent, too!