WHO OWNS YOU? - JOSIE THE OUTLAW (VIDEO)
government of Canada
The Corporate Charter applies to the Parliament as well as the government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament! see s32
The Government of Canada is the federal administration of Canada. In bijural Canada, the term can mean either the collective set of institutions or specifically the Queen-in-Council also known as the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. In both senses, the bijural construct was established at Confederation—through the Constitution Act, 1867—as a common law federal constitutional monarchy, wherein the Canadian Crown acts as the core. However the the Canadian Crown which acts as the core is limited by the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 and particularly the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
The elected Federal Government is different than the Government of Canada and has been for many decades. Like wise for the Provincial Government which is different than the Government of BC here in BC.
The elected Federal Government and the elected Provincial Government need the consent of the private indigenous individual as a "class of subject" to legislatively govern that individual.
It is the government of Canada and the Government of BC that has signed the international treaties that guarantee our unalienable rights and the corporate governments that are sued for damages when those rights are violated.
Canadian federalismWhat is EXECUTIVE BRANCH?
The powers of the parliaments in Canada are limited by corporate Charter, which divides legislative abilities between the federal and provincial governments; in general, the legislatures of the provinces may only pass laws relating to topics explicitly reserved for them by the BNA Act 1867 or so we are to believe. Any matter not under the exclusive authority of the provincial legislatures is claimed to be within the scope of the federal parliament's power, but the statement is not true. The constitution s91 says that any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
Mentally, voters and reporters succumb to the mistaken notion that we elect 'governments' of prime ministers and cabinets with unrestrained authority and that truly idealistic notion of 'democracy' involves precisely the kind of authoritarianism found. However in reality that unrestrained democracy according to the charter does not apply to everyone [s32] and cannot be applied to everyone [s31].
Monarchy of Canada and Public understanding
Polls have suggested Canadians generally do not have a solid understanding of civics, which has been theorised to be a result of less attention being given to the subject in provincial education curricula, beginning in the 1960s. By 2008, a poll showed only 24% of respondents could name the Queen as head of state <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Canada> Theorised? The attack was planned and organized country wide to dumb down the population so we would not see the conspiracy that is being run on us!
Operations and management arm of the Federal government. A primary branch in most democratic governments. Top executive in this branch is typically the Prime Minister, or President, as in the US. The branch includes all agencies under the direct control of this executive. Contrast and refer to the judicial branch and the legislative branch. From <http://thelawdictionary.org/executive-branch/>
Most democratic governments run elections where all the eligible inhabitants are allowed to vote! Unlike the federal and provincial elections held in Canada where discrimination is used to allow only those inhabitants’ who consent to be enumerated as classes of subjects are now allowed to vote in this fair democratic society that can and does ignore the bijural nature of the inhabitants and their rights.
What is JUDICIAL BRANCH?
Primary governmental branch. A Chief Justice with all the courts and agencies under direct control to protect citizens. From <http://thelawdictionary.org/judicial-branch/>
Protect the citizens from the legislative branch according to section s32 of the Constitution Act which can only past acts etcetera that are applicable to classes of subjects under their authority and the inhabitants are not included!
What is LEGISLATIVE?
Making or giving laws; pertaining to the function of law-making or to the process of enactment of laws. See IOvausville v. State, 118 Ind. 426, 21 N. E. 267, 4 L. R. A. 93. From <http://thelawdictionary.org/legislative/>
The legislative branch according to section s32 of the Constitution Act can only past acts etcetera that are applicable to classes of subjects under their authority and part of the undemocratic government itself and the inhabitants are not included!
CIK: 0000230098 State Location: DC
SIC: 8888 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Any place where you are dealing with the "CANADA" instead of Canada stop and think about this corporation!
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Z4 K1A 0G5
So the last federal election was the election of the president of a corporation too?
Without your consent what authority could they possibly have over you?
- a member of the Commonwealth of Nations
- is a common law jurisdiction
- a country where the Constitution Act names 4 common law courts that are not regulated by the civil federal or provincial governments in s96 and s101
- a federation
- a COUNTRY - 2. a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship
- legally and lawfully bound to protect the rights of citizens of both societies according to theCharter- 26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. Of course that depends on YOU knowing what your rights are and how to protect them!
- more coming
- a corporate front to its constitutional bijural self
- corporate elections
- a de facto house of commons
- a de jure common law Constitution Act
- two legai systems
- two distinct societies, those who are enumerated as a class of subjects and those who are not
Walter F. Kuhl letter
Spruce Grove, Alta., R.R. I,
November 23rd, 1976.
The Hon. Rene Levesque, Premier-elect, Province of Quebec, Quebec, P.Q. Dear Mr. Levesque:
Congratulations on your magnificent personal victory and that of your Parti Quebecois in the recent Quebec election.
As a student of Canadian constitutional history and of Canadian constitutional problems for some 40 years, I am tremendously interested in the constitutional implications of your recent political victory.
For 14 years, from 1935 to 1949, it was my privilege to serve as a member of the House of Commons, from the province of Alberta. The withholding of assent to some Alberta legislation in those years by the Lieutenant-Governor and the disallowance of other Alberta legislation by the people at Ottawa, set me to investigating how these things could be. I was assisted in my studies by R. Rogers Smith, who was personally acquainted with a onetime private secretary to John A. MacDonaId at the time when the B.N.A. Act was being enacted. Through this source I have become acquainted with much information concerning the history of the B.N.A. Act which is not to be found in text books.
All this information has led me to the conclusion that the existing constitutional circumstances are shocking to the point of unbelief. However, in my considered opinion, after 40 years of intensive study, these existing constitutional circumstances are of such a nature that they can be of extreme advantage to you in governing your province.
I am enclosing copies of some of the addresses which I delivered in the House of Commons on the subject, as well as copies of a pamphlet by Mr. Smith, dealing with the same subject. If you have not already been made acquainted with this material, I trust it will prove enlightening and helpful to you in the constitutional considerations in which you obviously are going to become involved.
Although the enclosed material should give you a clear outline of what I conceive to be your present standing constitutionally as a province, 1 would like to give you a brief summary of what I believe to be your present position.
So far as separation. is concerned, rather than it being necessary to seek separation rights through a referendum, THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC IS ALREADY COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONALLY SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF CANADA ! ! ! ! This is equally true of every other province in Canada and has been so since December 11, 1931, through the Statute of Westminster.
HOW CAN YOU BE DIVORCED IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN MARRIED?
In other words, ever since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, by the British Government, each of the provinces of Canada has been a completely sovereign and independent state, and because the provinces have signed nothing since then constituting a Federal Union and a Federal Government, and because no such treaty has been ratified by the people of Canada, the provinces still enjoy the status of sovereignty and are privileged to use it in any way they see fit.
As you will observe from the enclosed addresses, I quote eminent Canadian constitutional authorities as suggesting that the only and logical solution to the existing constitutional circumstances is the drafting and the adoption of a proper federal constitution in which the provinces can reserve for themselves any and all powers necessary to enable them to govern their provinces successfully.
I am sure you can appreciate that if this were done, you could solve your economic and other problems in Quebec without resorting to separation. I feel sure that having the ability to solve your problems and still remain constitutionally part of the country of Canada, would be much more satisfactory to your supporters as well as to others within your province.
The following is a summary of the reasons for the things I have just stated:
1) At the time of Confederation movement in Canada, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick desired to form a Federal Union.
2) The Quebec Resolutions of 1864 provided for a Federal Union.
3) The Bill drafted by the Canadian delegates at the London Conference in 1866 also provided for a Federal Union.
4) The Colonial Office of the Imperial Parliament was not disposed to grant the Provinces of Canada their request for a Federal Union.
5) The British North America Act enacted by the Imperial Parliament carried out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec Resolutions.
6) Canada did not become a Federal Union or a Confederation under the British North America Act, but rather a United Colony. The privilege of federation, therefore, was still a future privilege for the provinces of Canada.
7) The Parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much less a federal government; it became merely the central legislature of a United Colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding and advising the Governor-General as agent of the Imperial Parliament.
8) The British North America Act, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, was not a constitution but merely an act of the Imperial Parliament, which united four colonies in Canada into one colony, with the supreme authority still remaining in the hands of the British government.
9) The privilege of federating became realizable for the provinces of Canada, only through the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931. Through this statute, the Imperial Parliament relinquished to the people of Canada their sovereign rights, and through them to their Provincial governments as their most direct agents.
10) Since December 11, 1931, the Provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status in the forming of a Federal Union, nor have the people of Canada ratified a constitution. Therefore, the original proposition, namely: that all power to govern in Canada resides at the moment, with the Provinces of Canada; and, that all power legally remains there until such time as the Provinces sign an agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they may delegate such powers as they wish to a central government of their own creation. In the meantime, Canada exists as ten political units without a political superior.
Should you consider that there is merit in the information, which I have given you, I would be very happy to meet with you personally to discuss in greater depth the implications of the unprecedented constitutional circumstances prevailing in Canada.
Yours for a better Canada, Walter F. Kuhl [Member of Parliament for Jasper-Edson, 1935-1949]
Walter Kuhl wrote this letter in 1976 to Rene Levesque, Premier of Quebec, Leader of the Party Quebecois, when Levesque was stirring Quebec with its referendum for separation. So profound was this letter that Levesque went to Ottawa to meet with Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau to ask Trudeau if the Kuhl Letter was factual. And nothing we heard about happened!
All provincial governments and all the authority they have comes from section 92 of the Constitution Act.
All provincial governments are using the same conspiracy to commit fraud to gain control over you, sort of!
You are protected from their nonsense, which it all is. Unless you are a government employee, agent etc. who is receiving renumeration from them for the work you do.
The webmaster is from British Columbia and will be addressing the Province of British Columbia Government. It is a good thing that they all do the same thing in the same way so by describing what is happening here in this province it is happening in your province also.
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (0000836136)
Any place where you are dealing with the "PROVINCE OF ____________" instead of just the province name stop and think about this corporation!
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
VICTORIA, A1 V8V 1X4
(250) 387 7125
without your consent what authority could they possibly have over you?
INTERPRETATION ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238
"corporation" means an incorporated association, company, society, municipality or other incorporated body, where and however incorporated, and includes a corporation sole other than Her Majesty or the Lieutenant Governor;
Last revised October 2, 2019
CANADA is a corporation and we are treated as it’s employees
Any government agent or representative who has any problems with any of the points listed, bring them forward under your full commercial liability and complete contact information and we can discuss the issue here and if needed in a common law court.
- CANADA (0000230098) and the PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (0000836136) or any of their actors, have a prime duty and responsibility to promote and protect all substantive human rights and fundamental freedoms in particular the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
- The Province of British Columbia has the constitutional requirement to make available the courts for the BNA Acts’ attorney general to exercise the administration of justice and the rule of law for the common law people in;
- Inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms must themselves be protected by the administration of justice and the rule of law;
- The claimant is not enumerated as a "class of subject" of CANADA (0000230098) and the PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (0000836136) or any of their actors,
- The claimant is not a person under any non bijural enactment;
- The claimant is residing lawfully in Canada but not as a civil law resident or citizen;
- The claimant owes no duty to any juristic unit or government. An individual has freedom as a self-governing being as long as his/her actions do not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others;
- The claimants human rights and fundamental freedoms are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of your State, and have not been taken away from the claimant by due process of the rule of law;
- The claimant as a human being has common law responsibilities but has no need to conform to any juristic unit or non bijural government enactments such as the income tax act.
- The individual - state relationship is known as the ‘vertical effect’ of human rights;
- Court documents must meet the standard "AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND" and that is all! A "REASONABLE PERSON" does not speak or understand legal jargon.
- Common law people cannot have a guilty mind for violating statutes that are hidden from public view.
BRITISH COLUMBIA (0000836136)
Last revised October 2, 2019
BRITISH COLUMBIA is a corporation and we are treated as it’s employees
“Public Notice on communications”
Documents must meet the standard "AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND" and that is all! A "REASONABLE PERSON" does not speak or understand legal jargon! The fraudulent use of the all caps name and the meaning behind it is not understood by ANY REASONABLE PERSON.
firstname.lastname@example.org; suzanne.anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca; Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Jerymy.Brownridge@gov.bc.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Notice regarding all future communications from CANADA (0000230098) or PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (0000836136) or any of their actors!
- All correspondence/offers to contract dated on or after October 1st 2016 addressed to a government created fictional class of subject that the claimant has to deal with are officially refused and will receive no other response! Silence is not agreement on the part of the recipient.
- All correspondence/offers to contract dated on or after October 1st 2016 addressed to a government created fictional class of subject will be trespasses causing damages for which remedy will be expected from all actors who should have and could have prevented the trespass on human rights!
- All actors have a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms but choose not to will have trespassed on the claimant’s human rights and will be held accountable
claimant, human being