successes

Please post any successful outcomes here for all to see.

successes

Postby stevencbentley » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:57 pm

I will relate a few of the incidents I have experienced and hopefully it will help others. Because of the number of incidents which transpired I will relate them one at a time because each one has many differnt points to it.

In my search for truth in all of the theories I wanted to go to Ottawa to try to resolve some issues without really knowing how to 'bring it to them' so to speak. Last year I accompanied a friend who was in Ottawa relative to a land issue in British Columbia who is somewhat on the same page but for some different reasons. We were able to understand the the differences relative to the duties of RCMP constabulary whose only job it is(what constabulary were created for in the first place) to protect the government houses and personel only and not the other 'duties' which people distortedly accept as 'legal/lawful'.
When they became aware of the fact we were other than typical visitors to Ottawa they reacted like constabulary and tried to take authority over us which we repulsed. There were a number of episodes with that agency who upon realization that we were aware of their judicial limitations began what is called the 'Rosy Ring" an inside vernacular which refers to the judicial pressures which can be negatively exerted by various crown entities.
I will article just one of these events which was purpetrated by an RCMP officer who will remain un-named (except in the statutory declaration of assault filed with Ontario Superior Court) who made a vain attempt to gain authority over myself while an occupant of a 'mode of travel' commonly called a Camaro. We had arrived at the House of Commons to pickup some paperwork being copied by my friend's MP when several authorities arrived. While the two superior officers engaged my friend in diversional conversation another RCMP squad car pulled up and parked behind our 'mode of travel' and an officer approached us. Previous to the trip all three of us travellers agreed that we would not identify ourselves as a PERSON to these authorities that is to say contract. When this young officer approached us he began to question the friend seated in front of me (my other friend the driver being engaged at a distance from the 'mode of travel and unaware of what was transpiring) demanding a name from the friend in the front seat and was given his name to my chagrin as this was not to plan. After being satisfied with the name of the friend duly recorded in his notebook he turned his attention to me in the back. He called me passenger # 2(a legal term of subjection) and demanded me to identify myself by asking for my first name and in keeping with our original intent(not to contract) I replied emphatically 'non' a negative in the native francophone language of the young officer. He responded by writing down 'No' into his notebook. He then queried" Passenger # 2 what is your second name?" My response as terse as the first time was 'contract' in reply whereupon he wrote that into his notebook. Upon his realization of what he had just written into his notebook he stuck his whole upper body into the car(the window being down at the time) and placed his face very near mine and asked me if I had a mental defect to which I responded 'what part of no contract do you not understand?' Whilst he had his body in the window of the car my friend in the front observantly captured his name and badge number. Upon regaining composure and removing himself from the car he began to ramp his 'official-ness' and stated to passenger #2 that it was Provincial offence to not be seatbelted while a passenger in a car(another offer to contract) and since I am a native canadian I became the wooden indian(Caylaga of the popular country song) and stared straight ahead because I did not know who passenger # 2 was. He then demanded identification from me so he could ticket me for this offence. When there was no answer forthcoming he ramped up again telling me it was a criminal offence not to identify myself upon demand of a peace officer. When subsequently there was still no answer he then stated emphatically "passenger # 2 you are under arrest step out of the vehicle" I remained stoic in the back seat. After the third(and final) demand he reached down through the open window and pushed my friends knee of the handle of the door and opened it demanding for passenger # 2 to step out of the vehicle. At this juncture my other friend twigged on the action at his mode of travel and quickly returned telling the young officer belligerently to "F... off" and to my other friend "close the door" whereupon we left the young officer standing with his peers who were laughing(I think they set him up). We then immediately went and prepared a sworn statement with respect to the assault and lodged it with the Ontario Supreme Court.
Interesting to note that some of the officers were aware of their obvious limitations and others were not. Needless to say the RCMP were quite chagrined with us and began to escort our modes of travel with their squad cars lights flashing whilst we were in the vicinity of the Parliament proper and when we attended to Sussex Drive to speak with our nations leader Stephen Harper. However this is another issue and I will delve into that in another post. The major realizations here were that unless you give authority to an "officer of the courts" they have very little power over you. Do't be fooled by the fact that they are trained thugs and are 'legally' justified in what they do so tread carefully when dealing with mental midgets because the system endorses them and labels you 'agitated' or some other legal terminology which justifies their actions in the face of their superiors and the courts. More on that in the next post.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: successes

Postby treeman » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:08 pm

Welcome Steve, an enjoyable read.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: successes

Postby stevencbentley » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:42 am

I will iterate a part of my experience and hope that there will be useful and applicable stuff. I have been involved in exploration of the limits of legislation as applied to first nations and other deemed "other than persons under the law"CSC1868 and the fact that they were to en-franchise into Canadian society upon receiving a NAME SURNAME by which
they would be called instead of their previous name(s). Having then somewhat of a heads up about the name and corporate hoo-hoo I have approached this sorta head on. Many adventures have happened since but last year in particular was revealing but as with any learning curve acceleration seems to have it's moments. My subsequent arrest stemmed from a conspriacy of two police forces who contrived under child protection legislation(I was traveling with a family who had two young children) while in Ottawa and reconnoitering? the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament. We had discovered that the true duty of the RCMP in Ottawa is only to guard the Parliament houses and staff. All other legal duties are assumed by the Ottawa Police Service who have authority over that city. Being aware of some rights and ignorant of others we were attending to the Supreme Court depositing affidavits when my friend decided to go to see Stephen Harper canada's illustrious leader at the official residence on Sussex drive. Needles to say the local constabulary(RCMP) were somewhat intimidated because we knew of the their authoritative limts but they persisted upon stopping us and trying to take authority over us. By consistently refusing to give id and affirming the right to travel freely they were again at a loss and allowed us to leave. Needless to say and in another post I will give more details of the night but suffice it to say that we were set upon and using family legislation and business laws they were able to unwarranted enter into our room and begin to arrest us. I protested lack of warrant and was beaten and removed to a police car. I would not identify myself and any id I had was not picture and as a result they arrested me for obsruction of justice and resisting arrest and two counts of not complying with a judges contract from saskatchewan which is still being dealt with.
I refused to sign even for my belongings and when I was in front of the cameras asked them if they were recording and being apprised they were I began to give them legal notice walking up to every and there were several officers asking if they understood legal notice and that they were being given legal notice of an affidavit of truth filed with the Supreme Court of Canada. I then asked then if they would like to contract and they all politely accepted. However I would
not give up the name and they were furious about that. This was friday evening(maximum time inside ensured) and saurday afternoon they called me into an interogation room where they had a brand new fingerprint machine. About two hours later the detective shows up with of all things- A Notice to Enter Business????? Records into Court against me. I asked
to look at it and promptly put it in my pocket. Now there much more to this but for brevity over the course of two weeks starting on the next day sunday I was to court 5 times and until the last appearance never got past when queried by the court of my name was STEVENC... I have always been a supporter of we don't have to win the war tonight,
sometimes establishing the high ground is more important than winning the war that day. Having the realization that my continued incarceration (two weeks at this point) would only impinge upon my true reason for being there I resolved to exit but upon my terms. So on the last day I was in court three times and it was only in the last session of that
friday at 4:55pm when I appeared in front a judge for the second time that day that we finally were dealing the issue that they were calling a corporation into court which corporation's name was extremely similiar to mine but that it was not mine. I did however state that I had signing authority for the corporation and could resolve the matter by
pleading the corporation guilty under the law but I the natural man was not guilty. Now here is where it gets interesting because I used the legal terminology 'expedite the matter' which meant that today the court and I will agree to resolve the matter convincing the court by not requiring another appearance on my behalf. The judge was frustrated because each
time she asked if I was the NAME i would respond that they had called a corporation into court. Now here is where it all gets legal-like(I use this term as as supposed crimes that do not violate common law are legal) because the judge then threatened if I did not make a deal with court and plead guilty to a charge I would be remanded until the next week. I felt like waiting but this judge was willing to 'work' with me so I counter offered by agreeing to plea if she would address my concerns about the stylization of the name and it's implications. After asking determining what I was saying about the caps name and what it signfied and the remedy I was requesting the judge asked the crown if it was ok to alter the charge sheet by striking out the caps version and manually writing the stylization I requested. He assented and then she led the crown by having him read his file which prompted me to complain because he had no witnesses and that his evidence was hearsay. Judge got heated up at bit about that and again told me I had to plead to two charges or go to trial next week. I agreed to plead to two charges as I knew they were only seeking two weeks anyway and the crown proceeded to read the charges and details to which I protested that no warrant which caused all my problems at which point the crown threw down all his papers beaten. But once again the judge rescued him and required me to admit to two of the charges which I did do but mitigated the crown's version by explaining that resistance only appeared to be as a consequence of being tackled by several officers delivering 'distractionary strikes" so it could appear like I was resisting to an observing party. Apparently it was good enough for the judge cause I got time served with 1 day probation. I was estatic because the charge sheet was altered to reflect what my concerns were so I won that battle even if it was a draw. Subsequently I was able to obtain copies of the altered court document. I was able to articulate to the judge in my first appearance at the start of the last day of court that I hadn't received disclosure yet where upon she ordered the crown to copy the file and give it to me. This was great because the file was protected without a judges order being conceived under family court rules and was a great boon including even the notebook entries by all constabulary. A bonus was a copy of the original wet ink contract which I had put in my pocket when first id'ed so to speak by the detective. Unknown to him I countersigned the original and was able to preserve it through the incarceration process and made copies of it and other important paper and notices and delivered them to the custody of the Governor of the Bank of Canada for safekeeping. That is a whole other story that one. I will attach below the original charge sheet as per disclosure and will post again here below with the amended copy I received from the court after conviction and what they have on file.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: successes

Postby stevencbentley » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:29 pm

just the follow up to attach the charge sheet as amended by the judge and now on file with Ontario Superior Court. Prima Facia proof of the court's recognition between the stylization. I found it very interesting when addressing the style of the name the judge asked me how to distinguish between the corporation and to which my reply was that the all upper case style of my last(sur) name(Ontario is only a province so does not have the same stylization as the national stylization of all names all caps) was the provincial corporation. She then asked me how it should be and so I stated the me, the natural person, and not a corporation had only the first letter capitalized while the remainder were not capitalized. Her response was "So you want a large capital B and small capital E N T L E Y". I couldn't believe how underhanded the bench would be about this so I immediately said that it should be capital B and all the rest of the lettters were lower case so there could be no more mis-interpretation to the court's benefit. She then asked the crown if it was ok to amend it so and he agreed. So the whole issue of why it was changed and by whom and what reason is a matter of record. So below is the amended document as recieved by me from the court registrar after conviction.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: successes bank caught red handed part 1

Postby stevencbentley » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:09 pm

With respect to the name issue another similiar incident occured when I had occasion to sell a property at a substantial gain and had some trouble negotiating the fat cheque as per the lawyer(a requisite for land sales in Canada) who stated the cheque was a trust cheque and no bank could refuse to cash or honor it. I took the cheque to a different branch office than my bank as my home bank was in another province(s). They insisted they hold the cheque for a week in spite of me asking them to call my lawyer. I took the cheque back and put it through the instant teller knowing they only had a three day hold and would also release funds to me on the deposit. Feeling smug like I had won a partial victory I was chagrined when 10 days later I was having tires put on my truck and couldn't make payment for them through my bank account. I called up my bank and demanded to know why with a six figure bank account I couldn't purchase tires. They were apologetic and released enough funds so I could continue but wouldn't clear all the funds. I was appalled and the next morning travelled to the province where one of the two different branches of the same bank that I deal with is located and asked to speak to the manager. They tried to stonewall me so I began to discuss my personal business in a loud way so others in the bank would hear and understand I was being stonewalled so they asked me into the back room and arranged for my manager to speak to me. Not really believing what was transpiring I expressed my concern to the manager. I asked first if she knew the difference between the capitalized name being a creation of the bank and canada and which name they owned and my natural name being distinguished by only first letter capitalized. She tired to deny it but I had in my possession two letters from my bank one informing me of my balances which was addressed in the all caps name and yet whilst when soliciting me for futher indebtness they addressed the natural version of my name. She turned red in the face and tried to deny there was any issue about the name stylization. I asked her to pull my name up in their filing systems onboard their computer and show how I was entered in there. She pulled up a page and sure enough in the name box it was all caps in the worst possible configuration LAST, FIRST. I stated I had issues about that and if it is not a problem to change the name now to the way I would like it on their computers and to address me such in the future. This is when the game changed quickly. She made a call and another person showed up and this person was really nervous. Knowing that there a game afoot I played my hand first a spoke to the person and said "I know your duty here is to become offended because I am causing a scene and then you can call the authorities and have me removed. Please call the constabulary now at my request so that I may have an independent witness to verify all transpirations in this office." At that the juncture the manager waived her off and became somewhat more compliant but still not giving to much up. Her story became that the computer was the bad and she couldn't control him and what to do??? I told her I needed some proof that the monies held by them was indeed mine and not the banks as though I had deposed the funds to them. She tried to say 'I am telling you they are personal funds'. I informed her of my concern about me telling others that 'my bank manager said so' as being akin to 'my dad says so' which in my world would get me an ass kicking for being so naive and that I required something in writing. She agreed and asked what I would like so I asked her to print the screen and put her story on the bottom and sign it. She did this and below is a copy of and a couple interesting tidbits which showed up with the print of the screen. But because that is different story I will post again and the attachment can be referred to. It has to do with the two pieces of paper attached and displayed below the bank managers signature and the story of why they are there. Much happened in that office that day with respect to attempt to remove the funds from the bank along the lines of intimidation and cooperation with constabulary. Suffice it to say that the manager threaten to inform the police if I took out more than $2,000.00CDN cash which is approximately two weeks wages. I had to counter by informing her that the only time I had been robbed of cash ot was legislatively by the police who seized cash which I had on my person and in the trunk of my vehicle in the amount of $5000.00 and intimated to the court it was proceeds from crime. Interestingly, it cost me $5,000.00 in lawyers fees to resolve the matter proving that I had earned $30,000.00 in two months of the last year. Years pevious in 1998 the taxman and bank had colluded to channel my funds to the taxman over my discovery that my earnings were not taxable and they conspired that I couldn't bank my money. More on the taxman in another post. What was very interesting was how the lawyer treated me as I had no banking papers for the time period as my bank was witholding information. I only had my paystubs and receipts from cashing them. He was quite rude about how hard it was going to be to convince the court it was legitimate monies and the demanded the stubs I had. As he held up each of the 8 cheques which were approximatey $5,000.00 per week his eyes light up and suddenly I had great credibility in his eyes and you could see the envy at the earning power I had possessed. Upon further explanation of my tax grief he was most helpful to the tune of $5,000.00. Since I had required the bank to remit as a portion of my funds on deposit in cash which quite exceeded the $2,000.00 which she said she would have to inform the police I informed her if they came and illegally seized my cash again that I would seek redress from her institution as she was the one who let sensitive personal financial information out. I had no problems on my way home but later found out that she did indeed contract the police.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by stevencbentley on Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: successes bank caught red handed part 2

Postby stevencbentley » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:37 pm

More on the two pieces of paper attached to the bottom of bank printout.

Having gotten home from my travel to my bank I was looking over my portfolio trying to decide what to do about the issues which I had encountered and the actions of my bank when I realized a number of interesting things in the content of the information I had received from the bank. Back in time in a few years...
Previous to this a number of years I had received an offer from my bank for a pre-approved credit line to which I responded and received a letter of confirmation and thanks. The account soon became active I was able to use It. Approximately two years later another such offer arrived and again I responded and again and the same letter of confirmation and thanks was sent.
However as time progressed I was perplexed as the credit line did not appear on my accounts sheet and after two months I phoned into my bank and enquired from the young lady on the phone-'how many credit lines do I have?'. Her response was immediate and stated to me "Yes mr bentley you have two credit lines' which is what I had thought. Suddenly another voice came on the line an stated "mr bentley this line is monitered for accuracy and we need to speak to our agent"- click and I had about two minutes of elevator music and then the young lady came back online and somewhat sheepishly stated 'mr bentley I am sorry, I was mistaken you only have one credit line". You can imagine how I felt about the banking establishment at this moment.
Now back to the time frame above when before I went into the bank for the confrontation as partially explained last post I had made sure that my accounts were where they were supposed to and had looked at the credit line and payed it down to exactly it limit of $10,000.00 there having been some interest pushing it over the limit. So I am examining the printout the bank had given me and I am scanning down looking at their accounting and I see the accounts as they shuould be and amounts they should
when I realize that the credite line exceeds the limit by an amount of $49.86 to my chagrin knowing I had paid it down last night it was pretty steep interest for one day but my eyes kept traveling down the page until I hit a scecond credit line with different account number which indeed was at the limit as I had paid it.
Now fairly seething realizing that the bank had stolen the second credit line I had applied for and were operating it themselves and for themselves infuriated me and I resolved to find out which one was mine. So I attended to a branch office of my bank
in the city and province I was now in and presented the first account number on the first piece of paper attached at the bottom which account I had evidence of being in the amount of $10,049.86. As you can see in this nice young lady's handwriting under mine the balance is $10,000.00. The fraud being so apparent now I am tremblimg with rage when I pen the second account number on the second piece of paper attached at the bottom and my handwriting reflects it. None the less I hand this paper to the young lady and she cannot do anything to locate the account number and after several minutes the bank manager comes over to the teller and asks her looking at me if there is a problem to which she iterated her dilema with finding the account. The manager took over the screen and keyed in her code and then searched. She wrote the numbers on the bottom of the second piece of paper which is the account number of the first one and she turned to me and demanded very rudely where I got the account number from. I stated I got if from the bank itself and only needed to know which account was mine having secured both pieces of paper and pointing first one to which she shook her head negative leaving me to know that they indeed were operating the other account in my name. Has anyone else caught the hand in the cookie jar so to speak. Some response would be fine as I am sure someine out there must suspect or have had similiar experinces??? You will have to refer to the above posting for the document
Last edited by stevencbentley on Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: successes

Postby treeman » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:14 pm

Where does your knowledge evolve from Steven. :shake: :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: successes

Postby stevencbentley » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:13 pm

disclaimer- my knowledge is not from mankind and there is no attempt at plagerizm and will mirror other heart thinkers.
My knowledge comes from experience and study with I believe a gift of being able to unschool my thought processes to look at things properly. I began to study computers and some programming langauges and was struck by the logic involved in creating a program which can operate as semi indepndent function requiring certain inputs. I was also interested in the physics of sight and vision and how our brain processes certain things automatically in order for us to relate to the visual and auditory information we absorb. For instance the brain has to take imagery which has been inverted and symetrically reversed by the lense of one eyeball and this information is stored in the opposite brain lobe while simultaneously the same but symetrically reverved actions are accomplished by the other eyeball. The brain then must recall the two images and properly invert and reassemble the image just to see some thing created. Now mankind has come along and added this form of communication with symbols to represent lanaguage which unfortunately very often get co-opted by the automated brain proccesses required for recall of visual images and becomes faulted. This is demonstrated by the routine of asking a person to spell pots and then ask them what to do at a green light and very many will state stop because of the suggestive implant of the spelling of the word pots which is the reverse order of spelling of stop. Having said all of this it brings us to the point where if the entity which made us wanted us to use writing/symbology for our real laws then you would find things written on the trees and other natural occuring things expiry dates and warnings etc. Writing is a creation of man to record numbers for commerce not to make rulings on mankind. You have an internal heart orientated conscience which is independent of your head knowledge which will witness to the truth of a matter in spite of your mind recoilng. Moses used that against his people by showing them a written version of laws which their internal conscience would recognise as truth and not be able to recognise that the law was now in their minds and in a corruptable place and therefore they were enslaved by their eyes and so begins the error. Now to me that is important because our constitution begins with this phrase- And whereas Canada is founded on the principles which recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.... For me I recognized immediately that there were two systems mentioned in that part of the statement and the word and did not make a joinder any more than Jack and Jill two totally separate entities. This realization sparked the truth that the entity challenged to be God(this term has been co-opted and has adroitly interchanged with state and various other religious and authoritative fictions) was the most real being in the first system and since he(I lack a better term- a limitation of language) gave us that a nagging knowing chest knowledge which is his spirit of life and as such then we are the second most real being. This resulting from the spirit which inhabits the vessel you presently occupy and is commonly called Name. They however are not the same as if you sever the spirit from the body the body returns to dust giving rise to the legal premise of having a title of ownership of moving piles of dust or dirt and therefore not live via the instrument called a birth certificate created in your image by your all caring corporation sorry country. The best way to picture this is with a picture how ever I cant post anymore so I can describe it-
1st system mentioned and therefore pre-emiment over the second

GOD (real being)
us (real being) I believe myself to be here
natural person image or Name1 Name2(corporate fiction made for inclusion in commerce) commerce)
citizen corporation (corporate for benefits purpose) allows for a federal account to be generated which would have the funds borrowed on your image for your benefit)
government (corporate fiction to control public corporations and utilities from becoming sharks and devouring our little corporations)
private and public corporations (fictions created to provide basic utilities and such infrastructure to deliver it)

The above shows how the system was designed to operate with the authority level in a hierarchy. You will note that no artificial person is above a real person. Each level was created to control the next lower level. When the system is administrated thusly it works for all and restores a balance to legislation being able to injure no real being.

2nd system of fiction however present everywhere as de facto

RULE OF LAW (corporate fiction)
Private and Public (corporate fictions)
government (corporate fiction now used to legislate against our corporate fictions in favor of total fictions)
citizen (corporate fiction a hostage of the above to rule of law and used as a voodoo doll against us)
natural person (enumeration as corporation fiction and now defenseless against the tyrannical corporate structure)
them(I don`t include myself in this group)
god as they know him possibly rip

Now in this system(inverted by reason of being rendered to words) you see what transpires when we allow fictions to rule over real persons. It isnt very pretty as a corporation has no conscience other than a bottom line (it`s life blood- money) and no terminus while we will all meet our maker.

The rest that follows articulates some more of how the learning curve evolved into my current path.
Although not a freeman as such I am in concert with much of what is recognized by freemen but also know that many things which are recognized by freemen as universal truths which existed before the term freeman came into existence. Like many people the road to truth was my own personal journey which was very revealing as it was unique and began with accepting things which were contrary to current government policy but were plainly evident to me. In Canada the class system was introduced in legislation in 1867 with the passing of 'An Act Respecting the Statutes of Canada' which is very interesting as it is a guide to the methodology of constructing and construing legislation which was existent from Great Britain and sent over in a box of Statutes in books for Canada's legislative body to alter for expediency in Canada. These had to be made operative for the Canadian Legislature so alot of it is purely mechanical or functional such as replacing the Imperial Crown with the Canadian Crown etc. So the language and tenor of the 'Act' is quite exacting in that it spells out thusly- "3. This section and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth sections of this Act, and each provision thereof, shall extend and apply to every Act passed in this[b] thirtieth year of her Majesty's Reign, and in [b]any future session of the Parliament of Canada...". Now the really interesting thing is that under the sixth provision and section 3 the wordshall is to be construed as imperative and the word may as permissive. Upon researching imperative it would be that there is no discussion as the order or statute stands as is un-interpreted and not needing a judicial rendering, while the word may intones that one would require consent or assent or a rendering of a descision.
Under seventh section 10 reads thusly-"Words importing the single number or the masculine gender only, shall include more persons parties or things of the same kind, and females as well as males and the converse.
The effect of this portion of the this Act specifies that Canada could and cannot make an Act which is gender specific as all persons are equal under the law. It is construed thusly as words inporting the single number or maculine gender only-(he, him, man, male) are by legislation which always current as per sixth section that the law is considered always speaking(present tense) and includes the opposite gender as well.
In 1868 however Canada when enacting "An Act providing for the establishment of the Department of the Interior and management of Indian and Ordnance Lands.(22May1868)" intentionally used a genderized term to exclude individuals from inclusion in their home band or initial society as many mixed blood peoples lived only a native existence and were for all intents and purposes considered by Canada as the same until these legislative acts began. The terminology was correct until the very last part of the description of those "entitled to registered as Indians" as per S. C. 1868 42 section 15
thirdly- " All women lawfuly married to any one of the persons(note indians are persons) included in the several classes(there is that word encapsulated into law)here-in-before designated" and includes the children and subsequent descendents. The word women by definition of the sixth provision section 10 can be construed as man, men, woman, women as it included single or plural of any gender.
Now right here exist an obstruction of justice as the legislation was contrued differently to benefit the crown(leverage adavantage meaning he who writes the contract is the major beneficiary of the instrument) than what the actual legislation allows for. In this case the term women can be replaced with men and still be legal however in subsequent Acts Canada legislated away the status of person from Indians and Great Britain did not intervene to stop such activities by way of repealing any laws which were not proper within a two year moratorium retained by Great Britain over the legislative acts of Canada.
The beauty of obstruction of justice is that there is no time limit on an obstruction and once proven returns the state to the time and place and state where is was previous to the obstruction. This is a beautiful provision within law which is often obscured or conveniently over-looked by many in their haste to try to use such legislations to extricate themselves from the mitigations and benefits with such legislations.
What I am trying to allude to is that in Canada and Great Britain's haste to deal with the problem the forgot somehow that people would remember or perhaps the hope was that they would forget how all this came to be and thus it would become as dead issue. When they construed the legislative acts of Canada when viewed historically and sequencially are prima facia proof of the nature and intent of the various crowns to grab land through the escheatment and other lack of awareness methodologies employed by the courts on imcompetent persons.
I am not posting to rail on this or that government as they are all the same pretty much with a few fear driven individuals in power who react predictably to stress factors which have been conceieved and implemented as the third world war.(this is the war with economic bullets and bombs but which never the less have the same devastation as the real ones which also is a world stage forum rather than just localized areas). What I am pointing toward is that there is always the out in the current legislation but one must look through lots in order to find it(incompetent of you don't) and then to be able to understand what is being said or not said via the legislation. In this case all subsequent Acts of Parliament of Canada have no authority other than de facto over those who can prove descendency from someone who was resident upon the land prior to Canadian possesion as Britain was only an interloper and never did conquer the natives of what is western Canada. Certainly Canada cannot claim sovereignty as they are trying to do as they exist only in Admiralty Law being: CORPORATE CANADA registered by the UK and traded on the USA stock exchange and headquartered in Washington DC to wit- 0000230098 CANADA DC SIC: 8880 American Depository Receipt conducting business at Embassy 1746 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Since they exist in Admiralty Canada's authority extends over water only and includes(means precludes all else)the ocean front from the high tide mark out to 15(?) miles of the coastal areas of Canada and the navigable waterways contained therein. That is why Canadians have to travel around in citizen'ship's and only exist in admiralty not common law.
This being the case for Canada it must be the same for any other "State" as "e-States' only recognize "e-States". I have purposefully capitalized on the state only to show that a STATE considers itself SOVEREIGN by becoming God through the use of legislation to give all of it's good citizens a new conscience to replace your God given one.
So my thinking is that there must be a paper trail such as exists in Canada which if perused through in a time generated but reverse mode will spell out the governments slowly changing and encompassing legislative acts which will show how they abrogate or derogate to the according to the will of the ruling class.
I am sure there will be questions and probably negative concerns which I will try address.
stevencbentley
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm


Return to Success Stories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests