See the "Recent Activity" page for a complete list of changes
Remembering that if you don’t know what your rights are personally, the government has no reason to protect them and doesn’t!
Divorce fraud BC style Last revised 2016-10-17
Divorce fraud Province of British Columbia style
Divorce in any Province of British Columbia statutory court and all those court orders from such a court that involve the people of British Columbia have absolutely no standing.
The Province of British Columbia, according to section 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 has absolutely no authority regarding divorces. The whole process is a conspiracy to defraud the people of British Columbia and was done by becoming an illegal third party interloper in a private contract that did not involve The Province of British Columbia.
On Monday, February 22, 2016 a consent order/court order and a supporting affidavit was submitted to and recorded by the Attorney General and the BC Court services in the County of Nanaimo, Nanaimo British Columbia. The included affidavit went unrebutted and now has standing!
An agreement had been reached in the private that was the basis of the consent order. Apparently in 2010 a Supreme Court of Canada stated in Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27,  2 S.C.R. 28 “We have been informed of a pre-existing agreement between Mr. Ward and the Province…”? Any unrebutted affidavit becomes an agreement between the parties and the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or "duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).
All matters related to this issue were resolved in the private and there was no reason to take up any court time. The only issue that remained was to have the private agreement involving damages and Court order registered in the Nanaimo County Court House, which was completed on February 22, 2016.
BC government simply ignored this lawful process as expected
Notice of FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Request regarding divorce
All people have the right 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.
Notice of a default judgement
1. As agreed any restrictions found in the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT on the access to information would be a trespass on the rights of someone who is not enumerated as a class of subject under your authority:
a. the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,b. the right to freedom of opinion and expression; 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,c. 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, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
2. 2. As agreed, the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State. How were those rights and freedoms given effect in domestic legislative, judicial and administrative systems regarding Divorce and the assets of that private lawful contract was not revealed.
3. i: man; demandent states the juristic unit in British Columbia failed to respond with the required information on:
a. where the authority comes from in a common law area like British Columbia that your juristic unit could assume and presume as well as use a conspiracy to defraud the public using every actor working in your juristic unit with that prime responsibility to see everyone as being a class of subject under your authority;
b. where the authority to have and hold “divorce court” in any British Columbia civil court is found when it appears to be an exclusive class of subject that belongs to the federal juristic unit,
c. where the authority comes from that allows any person working for your juristic unit to be a third party interloper in a private contract,
d. where the authority comes from that allows any person working for your civil law juristic unit to dissolve a common law marriage contract that was mutually agreed to in front of numerous witnesses to be a life time commitment,
e. where the authority comes from that allows any person working for your civil law juristic unit to divide the property involved in such a private contract,
f. where the authority comes from that allows any person working for your civil law juristic unit to violate your primary duty and to trespass;
The affiant claims that no such authority exist and fraud and rights violations were in play and the government and all government actors involved are accountable for damages claimed.
4. As agreed, everything that your juristic unit did in violations of your primary duty was to be reversed, but wasn’t. For what was not reversed redacted tax free is due now, as is redacted tax free for each of the children involved.
5. As agreed, the head of a public body was to respond within 30 days after receiving a request, but did not and that is another rights violation for the heads of the public body named.
6. As agreed, Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy;
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage and Divorce Canadian Government Conspiracy Style
In the whole Constitution Act 1867 to 1982 the term "divorce" appears once and "marriage" twice!
Both are addressing classes of subjects under the authority of parliament or legislature not private individuals.
Constitution Act s91 26, has Marriage and Divorce under federal jurisdiction.
Constitution Act s91 12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Divorces do not fall under provincial jurisdiction.
For Solemnization see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemnization>
Supremacy of God
The wedding vows as practised in most English-speaking countries derive ultimately from the Sarum rite of mediaeval England.
Lawfully wedded wife/husband. [lawful 1250-1300; Middle English laghful. adj. c.1300, laghful ; cf. Old Norse logfullr (see law ). Related: Lawfully ;lawfulness. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lawfully]
The term of the agreement runs until - till death us do part, until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us, so long as we both on earth shall live.
The marriage vows are a spoken private contract between private individuals!
In courts with inherent jurisdiction for private individuals, adhering to the “rule of law” no one can interfere with a private contract which is called privity of contract. For any court to become involved in a private contract a common law trespass tort has happen as well as a Charter s31 violation unless the government can prove you have submitted to and are in servitude to the government 100% but you were born free with the right to self-determination!
Therefore for the provincial governments’ courts and legislation to be legal, those courts can only act on those who voluntarily and knowingly consent to be enumerated as a class of subject under its authority. To not give the “Exchange of consents” they need, requires that you actual stand up and rebut their assumption that you have voluntarily and knowingly consent to be enumerated as a class of subject under its authority in this matter.
How? According to your inalienable rights how you do that is up to you! But you are the only one that can defend your rights! Hiring a lawyer and you have according to government legislation submitted to their courts authority.
Slick conspiracy isn’t it, when the first thing you have trained and told to do is hire someone in their system to defend you and by doing so you have just given up your inalienable rights!
It would stand to reason though that the consent of two private individuals to be the spouse of each other under the marriage contract have to both agree to break the contract or one party could be held in breach of contract in a court of inherent jurisdiction by the other.
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 282 #6 Subject to this Act and any Act of Canada in force in British Columbia, the law of England as it existed on November 19, 1858 prevails
(d) the consent of guardians or parents, or any person whose consent is necessary to the validity of a marriage.
Civil Marriage Act
S.C. 2005, c. 33 Consent required
2.1 Marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of two persons to be the spouse of each other. From <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.5/page-1.html>