human rights rulings - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

human rights rulings

Law
Traffic
Last revised October 3, 2019

R v Duncan was heard by Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice.
The Ontario Court of Justice is a provincial court of record for the Canadian province of Ontario.
A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence — an unsignalled turn — led to an altercation with a police officer in the parking lot of Duncan’s apartment building. A request that Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal to do so, an attempt to arrest him, a struggle, and the arrest of Duncan for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Justice O’Donnell acquitted Duncan of the charge because there was no lawful basis for the stop and thus no lawful basis for the demand for identification and thus no lawful basis for the arrest for failing to produce identification. As the arrest was unlawful, even if Duncan resisted, he was entitled to do so. The acquittal was entered as the result of something equivalent to a motion for non-suit that was made at the conclusion of the Crown’s case by the Court on Duncan’s behalf. It was a happy outcome for Duncan, but it came at a large cost to his dignity.
There is no doubt these Highway Traffic Act proceedings did include a number of the indicia of OPCA litigation that were listed by Justice Rooke in Meads. Duncan talked about being a split person, with both natural person and administrator aspects (footnote 1); he provided an “affidavit of truthobjecting to the court’s jurisdiction over him and denying he was a citizen of the country or province, a “person,” or someone with a contract with the court (at para 9); he produced a “fee schedule” just before his altercation with the police (at para 12); etc. In Meads Justice Rooke describes the uses of these concepts and tactics (and more) in other cases (at paras 199-253).
Mr. Duncan proclaimed that he had no obligation to produce identification to the police officers. In that moment Mr. Duncan momentarily hit upon the concept that would ultimately lead to his acquittal!

What really happened:
An unrebutted “affidavit of truth” is the law!
No consent to this statutory courts jurisdiction
No contract
not an enumerated class of subject of the province
Privacy
Last revised October 8, 2019

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.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. V. Canada (Director of investigations and research, restrictive trade practices commission]
 
While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authority.
Miller v. U.S. it was established that: 'The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.' (Miller v. U.S. 230 F, 2d 286, 489)
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Site Map
Back to content